Town Board - Regular Meeting

Please join me. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. We'll start with correspondence. There are some.

Okay. Easy. Um, next we'll open up to the public if they have any questions on resolutions that are on today's agenda that weren't subject to a public hearing. Mastro, I see that you've lit up your screen. Does that mean you wish to speak? Oh, you just you you're muted again. Um, Bill, you're muted. Um, Bill, did you have something to say about one of the resolutions?

No, no, no. Um, I will be coming to the meeting later for to speak on something on one of the public hearing things. Okay. All right. Okay. I just signed on. Oh, okay. We'll be turning your video off then until then. Okay. Um if there's no one else then Liz if you want to get us started with resolutions.

Yeah. Whereas Julia Hubard 23 Smith Street has petition the town of Shelter Island for permission to install a stake moing and pulley system at the location designated at latitude 41.05881 north and longitude 72.341018 west. Now, therefore, it be resolved that pursuant to section 90-5 of the town code of the town of Shelter Island, a public hearing will be held at 6 p.m. or as soon thereafter, prevailing time on the 18th day of May, 2026, and the Shelter Island Town Hall, Shelter Island, New York, for all interested persons to be heard in favor or in opposition to the proposed installation. So moved. Second. All in favor?

I.

Motion carried. Whereas pursuant to Felter Island Town Code section 109, the Felter Island History Museum of 16 South Prairie Road tax number 700-19-2-88 has submitted a site plan review application to expand their existing commercial use on the property by renovating and upgrading the existing accessory storage barn, adding a sprinkler and fire alarm system, and converting the building to habitable space. Now therefore, be it resolved that the town town board hereby calls for a public hearing to be held 6 p.m. or soon thereafter prevailing time on the 18th day of May, 2026 in the Shelter Island Town Hall, Shelter Island, New York for all interested persons to be heard in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. So moved. Second. All in favor?

I. Motion carried. Whereas Ian Thompson and Jennifer Coughlin, one landing lane, Suffach County Tax Map number 700-18-4-13 has petitioned the town of Shelter Island for permission to remove an existing 13t x 16 ft ramp, a 3ft x 10 ft upland ramp, a 4t x6 ft dock and a 6' 20 ft float, and to construct a 4t x 12t ramp, and a 4tx 120 ft fixed pier dock with a 400 ft by 20 foot L at the end at the end with through flow decking and to provide water and electric on the dock and to remove invasive bamboo within the property boundary as per plan submitted by Coal Environmental Services dated March 7th, 2024 and revised July 25th, 2025. Now therefore, be it resolved that pursuant to section 53-7J of the code of the town of Shelter Island, a public hearing will be held at 6 PM or soon thereafter prevailing time on the 8th day of June 2026 in the Shelter Island Town Hall. Shelter Island, New York. Interest person to be heard in favor of or in opposition to the proposed application. So moved.

Second. All in favor? I.

Motion carried. Whereas Ingred and Robert Fagan, one Tar Kettle Road, Suffach County Tax Map 700-23-1-28.3 have petitioned the town of Shelter Island for a permit to construct a staircase leading up to a 4x 20 ft fixed catwalk leading to a 4x50 ft ramp down to a 4x 26 ft kayak launch and installed two ladders as per plan submitted by Costello Marine last revised December 3rd, 2025 and approved by the New York State DEEC on January 16, 2026. And whereas on April 6th, 2026, a public hearing was held on the subject application where public comments were received and taken under consideration. And whereas the subject application was referred to the waterways management advisory council and the report was taken into consideration. Now therefore, be it resolved that pursuant to NYCRR 617.5C section 9 of the state environmental quality review act, this application is deemed a type 2 action and be it further resolved that town clerk is hereby authorized to issue a permit for the aforementioned construction as per plans prepared by Castella Marine dated December 3, 2025 subject to the following conditions. Number one, after set applicant has filed with the town clerk certificate that the owner has at least $300,000 liability insurance on the location and operations covered by set permit, a copy of the contractor's current home improvement license, and a certificate from the contractor performing the operations covered by said permit. that said contractor has an owner's contractor's policy issued in favor of the town of Shelter Island with the liability limits of at least $500,000 covering operation of the contractor

pursuant to said permit and that this kayak launch is to be used for nonmotorized vessels catwalk access only as approved by the New York State DEEC on January 16, 2026. Bear with me. Be it further resolved that set operation shall be completed within 2 years from the date of issuance of this permit and said permit is subject to the recommended limitations and any requirements that may be necessary under the New York State DEEC, the Army Corps of Engineers, and any other agencies having jurisdiction. So moved.

Second. I'll do a roll call vote on this one. Amber Brock Williams, yes. Margaret Larson, I Benjamin's not here. Um, Albert Dixon,

opposed. On the grounds that I have stated many times, but I wish to repeat them. Um, there's only one other dock other than the town dock in Dickerson Creek. And I think this is a bucolic setting that doesn't need a dock right up against Midway Road on the property adjacent to it. Um there's Turkham's Rest CPF property across the street that abuts Fresh Pond. It has a marine estuary in it with a pipe that runs under Midway Road. Tuttle Needm property is on the east bank. This is not a place I shouldn't call it a dock. It's a kayak launch. It's a kayak launch. It's not a place for a kayak launch. So I remain opposed. I motion carried.

Whereas the town of Shelter Island Town Board is considering the acquisition of real property at two school street subject property. Whereas the town board has not identified any specific plans for future use, redevelopment or improvement of subject property and thus no physical changes to the site are proposed. And whereas pursuant to six NYCRR uh 617.4 4 6 NYCRR 617.5 and 60-12B of the town code of the town of Shelter Island Town Code and the town board reviewed the proposed action as preliminarily determined that the same is an unlisted action and whereas the town board has determined that it is the only involved agency and now therefore be it resolved that the town board hereby designates itself as the lead agency pursued pursuant to the implementing regulations of the state environmental quality review act specifically 6NYCRR 617 6B1 with respect to the above described proposed action so moved second all in favor

I motion carried

whereas the town of Shelter Island town board is considering the acquisition of the real property property at two school street in the town of Shelter Island subject property and whereas the town board has not identified any specific plans for the future use development or improvement of the subject property and thus no physical changes to the site are proposed whereas the town board declared itself lead agency for the proposed action pursuant to the implementing regulations of the state environmental quality review act specifically 6 NYC own 1786b1 and whereas the environmental review has included preparations of part one 2 and three of the short environmental assessment form sea A now therefore be it resolved that the town board as lead agency for the action uh contemplated here in after review of the proposed action in 6NYCRR.6 6 part 617 hereby determines that the above described project is an understood action just

okay and be it further resolve that based upon the information contained in the sea and other relevant information the town board as agency for the action contemplated herein and after due deliberation review and analysis hereby determined that the pros action will not result in significant adverse impact to the environment and hereby adopts the annexed negative declaration so moved second all in favor I. Motion carried. I think I'm reading the same.

Where is the town board placed a winning bid at the foreclosure auction for two school street shelter islands, Suffach County tax map number 700-15-3-47. And where is the proposed purchase price for fe simple acquisition of the subject property of $791,000 plus survey title prrated tax and recording charges. And whereas the town board finds pursuant to section 642 of the town law that acquisition of the subject property is in the best interest of the town of Shelter Island. Now therefore be it result that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute any documents on behalf of the town of Shelter Island for the purpose of acquiring the property at a cost not to exceed $791,000 plus reasonable survey title prrated tax and recording charges. And be it further resolved that all monies to be expended for the foregoing property shall be funded by the A8660.2 acquisition of real property expenditure code. So moved.

Second discussion. Yeah. Um acquisition of real property expenditure code. Um, just for myself, I've made it abundantly clear that I think the purchase of this property should come out of the community housing fund and I don't approve of any other way to purchase this property. Um, is there any

um I we're um I I personally would like to see us proceed down this route. Um, so we're pulling it from general fund for the moment and then once we go through the facilities master plan and we consider all town properties and how they're being used, we can then make a determination whether to proceed with keeping it for um general municipal purposes or kick it over to the community preservation fund and then reimburse the a fund for that.

Okay. So, and I want to make sure that we do that um by the um early fall, September, because we're pulling it out of fund balance for the moment. And then um by early fall, we can make the decision if we're going to use it for general municipal purposes and we'd want to um take advantage of the bond anticipation note that we had authorized um earlier this year um so that we could get that executed by the end of the year or by fall make the decision to move it to a CPF. um and a community housing asset.

I I understand what you're saying. I'm not in agreement. I think we should right now take it out of the community housing fund. I don't see how it possibly could be usable for anything else than housing. Um all right. Um I'm in favor of continuing as is. Um so if there's no further discussion, I'll do a roll call vote. Um myself, yes. Margaret Larson. Um, yes. Is absent. Albert Dixon opposed. Elizabeth Hanley. Yes. Motion carried with clarification.

Um, Federico, can you make sure that we're live streaming? It says that we are. Okay. Um, Albert, you have the next resolution. Whereas the town of Shelter Islands considering the acquisition of approximately 6.2 acres of vacant land located Cobbitz Lane, Shelter Island Heights 700-3-1-7.1, let me interrupt. I think we have to pull this resolution. As of this afternoon, we didn't have a signed contract back. Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry, I waited till to see if Gail got us contracted.

Okay. Okay. So, move on to the next one. Okay. Okay. Um, I think we Well, let's switch over to Liz because I've already written down which ones I'm reading and okay, I go through ahead of the meeting and you get a freebie helper get a pass if that's okay with you. Okay. Yeah.

Whereas the town of Shelter Island here and after the town believes that the lack of housing for New York residents of all ages and income levels negatively impacts the future of New York State's economic growth and community well-being. And whereas the housing crisis has negative effects at regional and local levels, we believe that every community must do their part to contribute to housing growth and benefit from the positive impacts a healthy housing market brings to communities. And whereas we believe that supporting housing production of all kinds in our community will bring multiple benefits, including increasing housing access and choices for current and future residents, providing integrated accessible housing options that meet the needs of people with sensory and mobility disabilities. bringing economic opportunities and vitality to our communities and allowing workers at all levels to improve their quality of life through living closer to their employment opportunities. And whereas we believe that evidence showing that infill development that reduces sprawl and supports walkable walkable communities has significant environmental and public health benefits. And whereas we believe that affirmatively fir furthering fair housing and reducing segregation is not only required by law but is essential for keeping our community strong and vibrant. Now therefore be it resolved that the town of Shelter Island in order to take positive steps to alleviate the housing crisis adopts the proousing communities pledge which will have its endeavor to take the following important steps. Number one, streamlining permitting for multif family housing, affordable housing, accessible housing, accessory dwelling units, and supportive housing. Number two, adopting policies that affirmatively further fair housing. Three, incorporating regional housing needs into planning decisions.

Four, increasing development capacity for residential uses. Number five, enacting policies that encourage a broad range of housing development, including multif family housing, affordable housing, accessible housing, accessory dwelling units, and supportive housing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Discussion. Okay. Um Thomas, there's a question for you. Shouldn't this be subject to a public hearing? I mean, we're modifying zoning conditions and town codes that we have. Shouldn't this be a public hearing? I don't believe for New York State.

This I don't believe this modifies any part of the town code like I don't there's no it's aspirational. Yeah. There's no section of the town code that's impacted by this. Okay. All right. I I I we have an application in front of the ZBA for an accessory dwelling unit in the nearshore overlay right now. That kind of flies in the face of town code. This isn't impacting that. They have nothing to do with each other. Okay. Well, all right. Isn't Isn't it prudent to have a public hearing?

Wouldn't that be prudent to be transparent and have people comment? We've been talking about this for we do public hearings for legislative changes. This isn't a legislation change. It's just a resolution. I understand. But wouldn't it be the prudent thing to do to have a public hearing for this? But we have it affects the island community. We have allowed public comment at work sessions when we brought this topic up. Okay. All right. Okay. I I don't agree, but Okay. Should I do a roll call? Sure.

Okay. All right. We'll start. Um I'll start with you first, Liz. I I am an I. Absent. And Albert. Motion carried.

Okay. Whereas Jenny Lindy Productions at 207 3M Harbor HC Road, East Hampton, New York, has requested a filming permit for May 11th, 121 13th, 2026 at 8 Chiwit Avenue from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. And whereas the $500 minor filming application fee has been received. And whereas the filming crew consists of 15 persons, two sprinter vans, and four cars. And whereas said application has been reviewed by the police department, the highway department and highway department and the police department has recommended that all vehicles be parked on the location property at 8 Chiquit and that no vehicle should be parked on the shoulder of the road and the highway department recommends that there must not be any obstructions on the roadways and all garbage must be picked up in the area. And now therefore, be it resolved that the town clerk is hereby authorized and directed to issue the affformentioned filming permit upon receipt of these following fees. 3 days minor filming fee $3,000 and refundable cleanup deposit $1,000. So moved.

Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried.

Whereas pursuant to section 31H of the public officer's law, a town officer must sign and file constitutional oath of office within 30 days after the term of office begins. And whereas the below persons have not yet signed and filed said constitutional oath of office. And whereas the town board desires to have the below person serve the town of Shelter Island in their designated capacities. Now therefore be it resolved that the town board hereby appoints the following the below persons to their designated positions. Brigham Katherine, recreational specialist instructure instructor. Null Cunningham, board of assessment review. Edward Kata, volunteer and recreation department. Sarah Lewis, planning board. Naen Mi Community Housing Board. Bo Payne, detention attendant. Katherine Rasm, detention attendant, and Gerard Siller, enhanced mobility driver. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried. Whereas the chairman Scott Campbell is a member of the deer and committee will expire on June 24th, 2026. And whereas Mr. Campbell has expressed Dr. Campbell has expressed willingness to continue to serve in said capacity. Now therefore, be it resolved that Scott Campbell is hereby reappointed to serve as a member of the Darren Committee for a term to expire on June 24th, 2029. So moved.

Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried. Whereas the term of Julia Weisenberg as a member of the deer and tick committee will expire on June 24, 2026. And whereas Miss Weisenberg has expressed willingness to continue to serve in set capacity. Now therefore be it resolved that Julia Weisenberg is hereby appointed to serve as a member of the dear and tick committee for a term to expire on June 24, 2029. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried.

Where is the term of Jim Ecklund is a member of the water waste management advisory council expired on February 1st 2025. And whereas Mr. Ecklund has expressed willingness to continue to serve in and in said capacity. Now therefore, it be resolved that James Ecklland is hereby reappointed to serve as a member of the waterways management advisory council for a terms to expire on February 1st, 2028. So move second. All in favor?

I. Motion carried. Where is the term of James Ecklan as a member of the chairman of the water quality improvement advisory board expired on February 1st, 2025 and whereas Mr. Ecklund has expressed willingness to continue to serve in sight capacity. Now therefore be resolved that Jigs Ecklund is hereby reappointed to serve as a member and chairman of the water quality improvement advisory board for a term to expire on February 1st of 2028. So moved. Second. All in favor? I motion carried.

Whereas the term of Tom Field is a member on the water waste management advisory council expired on February 1st 2025. And whereas Mr. Field has expressed willingness to continue to serve in said capacity. Now therefore be it resolved that Tomfield is hereby reappointed to serve as a member of the waterways management advisory council for a term to expire on February 1st 2028. So moved. Second. All in favor? I motion carried.

Whereas the term of Kathy Gooding as a member of the Taylor's Island Preservation and Management Committee expired on February 2nd, 2026. And whereas Miss Gooding has expressed willingness to continue to serve in set capacity. Now therefore, be it resolved that Kathy Gooding is hereby reappointed to serve as a member of the Taylor's Island Preservation and Management Committee for a term to expire on December 13th, 2028. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried. Resolve that Julia Wisenberg is hereby appointed to serve as a part-time justice court clerk for a 15 hour per week 15 hours per week at the hourly rate of $27 as of April 30th, 2026. So moved. Second.

All in favor? I motion carries. Whereas the town board established the Taylor's Island Preservation and Management Committee in 2005. And whereas no prior resolution established the number of meetings serve members serving on the committee. And whereas the town board finds it necessary to define the committee's membership in order to establish a forum. Now therefore, it be it resolved that the town board of the town of Shelter Island hereby establishes that the Taylor Island preservation and management committee shall consist of seven members for the purposes of determining a quorum. So moved. Second. All in favor?

I. Motion carried. Whereas the town board of the town of Shelter Island seeks to establish an internal working public safety task force. Its purpose is to review proposed legislation to promote public safety, peace, and good order associated with federal immigration policy for the purpose of advising the town board and where a said task force shall convene as necessary and be disbanded when such legislation is adopted or rejected. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the public safety task force is hereby established and shall consist of the following members to be appointed. Town Supervisor Amber Brock Williams, Town Board Member Elizabeth Hanley, Chief of Police James Reed or his designate, Health and Wellness Committee member Gina Krauss, Health and Wellness Committee member Victoria Shields. So move second.

All in favor discussion. What I I don't We currently have legislation and police policy in place that we've heard and reviewed with the chief repeatedly. Um, and as a town board, we are the police commissioners. So, what what is the need for this? And what is this group tasked with?

This group is tasked with just looking at the legislation that's um been proposed um the OLA legislation that's being called um amongst the five eastern towns. So, um that committee will um that task force will look at the legislation and see whether or not it suit you know fits the needs of our community and if we want to make modifications if we want to adopt it um and then and that's something that we do it will come to the town board. So that's the limit of the task force involvement is looking at the proposed OLA legislation nothing else.

Yes. because within the legislation there's the creation of a continuing task force. So this this would be just to look at the legislation and then we you know if we adopt future legislation there would be a different task force established that would probably incorporate community members as well and what will they be tasked with that remains to be seen. We'd have to come up with a mission statement for that. So we're going to adopt another a new task force. This one is just looking at the OLA legislation. Looking at the OLA legislation. That's it. Okay. And they're advising us on bringing in community members and just kind of

and because this is proposed legislation, it will be subject to a public hearing. Yeah. All right. There's no further discussion. All in favor?

I motion carried. Whereas Michael Wenszel has applied for a rebate from the town of Shelter Island under chapter 88 of the Shelter Island Town Code to install a low nitrogen sanitary system for property located at 46 North Manantic Road, Shelter Island, New York. And whereas the Water Quality Improvement Advisory Board, WQIAB, has reviewed the project and recommended a conditional rebate of up to $16,000 be awarded. Now therefore be a result that the town board hereby adopts the findings of the WQIAB and approves the applicant for a conditional rebate of up to $16,000 in eligible costs upon completion of the project and subject to the applicant's compliance with and completion of all terms and conditions of the conditional rebate agreement and be further resolved that a copy of this resolution shall be given to the WQIB and the building department. So move

second. All in favor? I say extensions. Motion carried. Resolve that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to issue a refund in the amount of $500 to JBH of Pakonic from the 2026 A 2089 commercial activity revenue code for the return of a business on town property application fee. So moved. Second. All in favor? I motion carried be resolved that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the agreement between the town of Shelter Island and East and Pest Control in connection to services for the Taylor's Island cabin. So moved. Second. All in favor?

Motion carried. Resolved. The supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract between Town Shelter Island and Suffach County for the AAA transportation program for a term of January 1st, 2026 to December 31st, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I. Motion carried. Resolve that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract between the town of Shelter Allen and Seph County for the nutrition program for a term of January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? I I

resolved that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract between the town of Shelter Island and Suffach County and Suffach County for the shop for the shopping assistance program for the elderly with the term of January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried. be resolved that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract between the town of Shelter and Suffach County for the youth sports and education summer contract for the term of October 1st, 2025 to September 30th, 2026. So move second. All in favor? I

motion carried resolved that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract between the town of Shel Island and Suffach County for the youth state aid contract with the term of January 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2026. So moved. Second. All in favor? Motion carries. Resolve that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the letter of engagement between the town of Shelter Island and Craig Fitz Simmons and Meyer LLP for the preparation of the financial statements for the community preservation fund as of and for the year ended December 31, 2025 and for the related financial statement disclosures. So move. Second. All in favor? I I

motion carried.

Whereas Ken Lewis, the superintendent of highways commissioner of public work, has deemed the following equipment as surplus and requested permission to dispose of certain equipment by auction. Now therefore, it be resolved that the town that the town board does hereby declare the following equipment to be surplus. 207 BM 450 Brian Master 2028 Denko 40 45T steel walking floor trailer 2018 Vorcuk A tuner light sign trailer 2001 New Holland tractor with tiger boom brush mower attachment. We therefore resolve that the supervisor of highways commissioner of public works is hereby authorized and directed to dispose of affformentioned equipment by auction. So moved.

Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried. Whereas James Reed, police chief has deemed the following vehicle as surplus and requested permission to dispose of certain vehicle by auction. Now therefore, be it resolved that the town board does hereby declare the following vehicle to be surplus. 2017 Ford Expedition. Be it further resolved that the police chief is hereby authorized and directed to dispose of the affformentioned vehicle by auction. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried.

Result that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to deposit the sum of $174 from Renu Contracting and Restoration Inc. to the 2026 A1490.414 414 public works town hall and other buildings account for the reimbursement of a broken window at the community center. So moved. Second. All in favor? I motion carries. Resolved that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to deposit the sum of $285 from Ronald Jernick to the 2026 A5010.440 440 highway department training expense account for the reimbursement for the Swana conference guest fee. So moved. Second. All in favor?

I. Motion carries. Resolved that the following 2026 budget transfers are hereby approved. $10 from the B3620.492 building department education and training to B3622.400 400 fire marshall education materials and $10 from B810.400 zoning department education and training to B3622.400 fire marshall education materials to cover the overage and cost from the NFPA fire code books. So moved.

Second. All in favor? I motion carries. We resolve the 2026 general claims numbered 555-78 in the amount of $154,37746. 2026 highway claims numbered 62-68 in the amount of $1,46942 and 2026 Community Preservation Fund claims number 3 through 4 in the amount of $10,000 are hereby approved for payment as audited. And the supervisor and or any town board member is hereby authorized and directed to sign the approval for payment of the sale. So move second. All in favor? I. Motion carried.

Right. We will adjourn the town board meeting and go into public hearings and then open the first public hearing 16 Avenue over Brookal Property V. Thank you. On the 27th day of April, 2026, Allan Town Hall at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter prevailing time on the application of Over Over Over Over Over Over Over Over Over Over Overbrook Real Property LLC, 16 Clinton Avenue for permission to remove and dispose of 128' 6 in of existing bulkhead and a 12T north return in place for a total of 140t 6 in and provide a 10-ft wide vegetative non-turf buffer with a 4ft wide walking path as per plans prepared by Cassello Marine Contracting dated 116 2026. 6 and approved by the New York State DEEC on 203 2026. We have a WAC report.

Yes. Oh, WAC confirmed that the use of a barge in crane will be unlikely and majority of the materials will be brought in by land. WAC unanimously approved the act application 6. And we have Jack Castell here to present on behalf of the acquisite.

It's here to answer any questions. I didn't think I'd be up here this long. I know. I'm just like double checking the notes to see if I wrote anything down.

I did not have any questions for you. No, neither did I. Just making sure I didn't have any questions. Pretty straightforward. Yeah. It's not a big project. Yeah. Kind and in place. I didn't have anything.

Yeah. So, we'll open it up to the public and see if the public has any questions or um anyone in the Zoom audience. All right. Um being none, we will close that public hearing and we will reopen the public hearing for the PIP doc. There's nothing to read there. And so I I did just get an email from that wants me to read.

Okay. All right. And we had um I think we were waiting on this one for the WAC report on this one because we didn't have it last meeting. Okay. Which you have here.

Yes. After discussing discrepancies in the plans, the length of the dock compared to the mean low water depth, the design of the dock, and the lack of a primary structure on the property, WAC members generally agreed that the location is very challenging and not suitable for a dock. Members also discussed and had sub substantial disagreement over repairing rights and reasonable access to the water compliance with the code and safety concerns raised by the community as reflected in the vote. Members agreed to submit split vote reports to explain the yay nay positions for the town board. WMAC voted 331. Member Ween was not present and did not vote. Please note, additional correspondence have been submitted by WAC members in regards to the Pike application.

Shelby correspondence or this will be my first I literally just got it. So um okay, it's from Matt Williamson uh in his personal capacity. He says, "Dear members of the town board, I've shared my views on this application in my role as a member of the WMAC, but I would like to add comments in my personal capacity as a member of the Shelter Island community. I would summarize my formal points as follows. This application violates section 5311 C3 of the code regard regarding total linear length. The code in section 5311B relies on a dock being built on a lot with a principal dwelling while this lot is vacant. Accessory structures should not be built on vacant lots. The applicants riparian rights are satisfied with the riparian moing they currently have. Just to be clear, the definition of riparian rights reads as follows in the code. quote, "The entitlement of the owner of upland property fronting on a body of water to reasonable access to and use of such water." Note that it doesn't say right to build a dock or anything close. This permanent private structure comes at significant direct cost to the counterveailing safe access rights of the public and neighbors. Again, speaking personally, I am very troubled by this application and hope you will reject it. During our last meeting with this doc on the agenda, one of my colleagues on the WAC made a statement about how we should handle this application and others. He said neighbors need to share in itself. That's a statement that I agree with. However, his understanding of the word sharing and mine are diametrically opposed and get to the heart of why this dock and others like it is so problematic. To him, sharing means the Pikees neighbors and the community would should stay quiet and just let these applicants jam their dock in where it's not wanted. When I recognized that that

is what he meant by share, I was gobsmacked. Permanently driving pilings into the public area is not sharing. Once driven in, these pilings never come out. Their neighbors and the public will have to deal with them forever. Putting a permanent structure in public waters that takes up space regardless of whether it is in use is not sharing. Creating a private protected basin that severely limits visibility and usability for others is not sharing. Forcing other waterfront users to detour out and around the hazard is not sharing. The use is exclusionary. Neither simultaneous nor sequential use of this space by others as possible. Other people aren't allowed onto these private docks and are wise to stay clear, especially with the splash boards proposed. Even when the applicant is gone or their safe or their yacht safely stored for the season, other people can't make use of that space. It's not even a time share. This particular design creates a literal protected private basin in public waters. A use that is so far from the access to the waterways allowed under the riparian rights concept as to be absurd. People can't build covered garages in the middle of town roads. This applicant says, "You let my neighbor Sapen down the beach do this to the community, so you have to let me too." They say this despite the ensuing anger, upset, and initiative to change the code. That's audacious to put it mildly. With Morrens at this location, the case is very different. People can swim or paddle past a morg boat on either side. They can do laps if they want. If circumstances change, the boat gets sold. The location is a problem, etc. Moing can be pulled. When a mored boat isn't there, the spaces available for others. The float and stick remain behind but are minimal. That is sharing. People in the community lament how it is changing. Just in the last couple of years, people with vast resources swept in and took over several local businesses. Then they got bored and dumped them unceremoniously, leaving our community the poorer for it. Meanwhile, this applicant rolled five people deep into our last WMAC meeting, snowing us with yet more bound and index packets packets in yet another document

submission. In addition to the lawyer and contractor there in person, every time I called on a community member from the Zoom, it was actually another one of their retainers, consultant, non-consultant two, and property manager. They were probably here again tonight. You know who didn't show or call in the applicants. We will get rolled like this again and again unless we as a community stand up for ourselves and assert what is best for the community. This application doesn't meet provisions of the code and it is not in the best interests of the public. Please reject it. Sincerely, Matt Williamson. I see we have John Armano here for the applicant. Yes. You have anything you want to present or just answer questions?

I do have quite a bit to present obviously with that introduction. I think there's something I need to say and we'll get to this with some length. So again, Jontown final threats represent the applicant. You've been here several times over the seasons and I can say honestly this is the prettiest season you have had so far. I hope I'm not here again. No offense. Um I did want to hand out some information. I know you're familiar with the project and I think it'll help kind of reorient the uh the board to this project. Is this new information?

It's not really technical information. It's more uh diagrams, things that you've seen before, but we're trying to package it to just bring you again to remind you where we've been to respond to the waterways. I'll take it. Sorry. Sorry about that. So again, as you're familiar, we have modified this stock um several times. The owner of the property is at 6 Bluff Avenue in connection with the residential dock permit. It was originally at um 110T main pier with a 5x 27 L section. That was the Seawward terminus with the dolphin pile located to the east. For reference, we have uh exhibit one gives you an orientation of where the proposed dock is. This is to scale. It does show again the safe and dock, the height stock. The distances are calculated from the groin at 354. It is a significant distance from the existing dock to the called the northeast. That is the the beach club dock. That's approximately 600 ft. Again, just re orientation, as I'm sure you're aware, exhibit two, as you've seen, shows the distances and effects that the stock has to withstand in this proposed location. And we can address some of my experts so I can address the technical aspects of that. And just for a reference point, exhibit three was the original dock that was proposed

which is 100 ft extends 100 ft from me high water. This is actually um thought by the water committee to be a better dock. The length of dock they said and I have their reports. It's in the second hand out of yours, but there was a it's a three-3 split. You had three in favor, three opposed. The the three in favor, and I believe it's on the record, there were members of the public that indicated a support for a the dock in its original configuration in that it would extend further out. Jack Castella can speak to the technical aspects of that, but it seems to me the concept was getting the the boat to birth further off the shoreline was a safety concern that was um satisfied or at least better served with the 100 foot dock. And then you have exhibit four which is the revised dock which is at 88.5 ft from the mean high water with a 27 foot float and a morning pile to the south. And that that is code compliant to the extent that at least the where the dock must stop when it reaches 4 ft of depth. And you know we reach 4t of depth at 88.5 ft

and according to your code that's where the dock shall end. And that and that is what has been proposed. That is what has been resubmitted to this board for its consideration. It was also before the waterways committee. But if you consider the argument of the that was raised and was raised also at the waterways committee, there's another code section that speaks to the linear configuration which is sort of a unique code section. I've never can't say I've run across that in my travels, but it's an interesting provision which seems to suggest there's it's almost like the circumference or you're measuring down to the moring pile. That's where there seems to be an exceedence of the code, but we can discuss that in a little more depth in a few minutes. In addition, and I believe you've seen this before, exhibit 5 is a letter dated January 9th, 2026 from Castella Marine Contracting that Representative Jack is here tonight and it discusses the reasons why there should be a waiver or a variance of the length of dock because of the need to get to a 100 ft is a safer configuration. I know safety has been a main concern that has been raised by the community at several of these hearings, but it does go past the 4T depth of the water, but the rationale as Jack will discuss with you is that it is a a safer configuration. So, you basically are faced with a choice of two docks. We're proposing either one's in the alternative, one is code compliant with the exception of the linear calculation. We'll discuss that also during this meeting. And then for exhibit six, we have presented to you the safe and dock and how that was configured. Its length is also 100 ft from mean high water, actually 100 ft from high water. It extends out uh into the appropriate

location and has the splashboards that we're also seeking tonight. By way of example, I think it's illustrative. Exhibit 7, there were statements made that the splashboards would somehow be impeding the literal transport of sediment. The splashboards as these are depicted showing the Sapen dock in 2025. And then well in 2022 where you can see the shoreline and then in 2025 you can see that that shoreline remains relatively unscathed and does not have the concern of the scouring which would be the stopping of the transport of sediment from the literal drift. And again the configuration gives of the sapen dot gives you an understanding at least what would the pike dot look like. This is the type of configuration that is proposed. Not identical but illustrated. Again, as you're aware, we have DEC approvals, Army Corps. They have a death order requirement that we're also meeting with either DOT. So, I want to just place it to the board. We're here for an approval, we hope, of one or the other. you've been given alternatives. The issue of code compliance I think comes into play from uh legal perspectives and again for the record and as council has indicated we are subject to the I'll call it the old dock which is relatively the same but there were certain changes that were made to the new doc but we are bound to the old doc so the citations that were made by the gentleman there are incorrect I think the correct citation to the linear um description

is 5311 C sub3 and that discusses the total linear measurement that was that issue and seemed to be a concern of hey as an individual and as a board member. And one of the other issues that that came up last time we were here and I will and I submitted this previously to the board but I have copies for you was the question. These are these are hard copies. I know we give you a

bring a lot of paper weight. So you hold the door open. We have paper weights. This was previously submitted to the board and I hope you had a chance to review it. I think it goes to one of the other questions that was raised and has been raised by the shelter heights community and I believe it became an issue for one of the board members as well and this turns on the issue of an accessory structure on a vacant lot and I know there's also been correspondence submitted by uh Mr. Jack Bragman on behalf of the Shelter Island Heights community, but just to take you through this and I know your council will make a determination because this is more of a legal determination than a board determination, but I think part of what is should be considered is the reality of the code and the reality of what has been what has been done in the past. So again, this issue was raised uh this is exhibit one. It was raised on March 16th of 2026 by the Shelter Island Heights Property Owners Corporation. They raised two basic points. One is safety, the other is can an accessory structure, I guess the question is, is a dock an accessory structure? And then from that question, can it be located on a vacant dock? That's the genesis of the question. There are issues in your code that that make reference to what is an accessory structure. But just to be clear for the record because I believe this this came up at a prior meeting. I believe it was discussed waterways committee. Exhibit 2 is the deed into the pike trust. And I think it bears weight that these were not sold separately. This was a transfer from the pikes into their property owners and they were subsequently purchased from a prior owner into the pike trust. And if you I don't want to bore you with the details

of a deed, but the deed transfers both parcels. Parcel A, which is lot nine, and you also have which is considered that's the landward property. And then you have also B which is lot one and that is the separate lot the road the property is separated by Bluff Road but it is held in the same ownership. So the property has appears to always been transferred because they are complimentary to each other as I'm sure you're aware. I mean you are on the island. There are several properties that are design that have these unique situations and I would say because of the number it's not that unique. We're not a one special case. There are several and I believe there is a letter exhibit three. It is from a shelter that's dated April 9th and it is from your principal building inspector Reed Karen and he states very succinctly in the paragraphs that are before you that doc and in in his letter second paragraph he says docs have never this has the primary structure argument has never applied to docs meaning that you do not need to have a primary structure on a property to avail yourself of the accessory structure concept meaning accessory structures have to have a primary that is never applied and he used the word never and I take him at his word it appears he's done extensive research in this matter and there are approximately 55 docks with no residents that's not insignificant he also goes on to state in summary that

the town board has approved 25 dots on undeveloped blocks since 1998, which was the year that the original doc code was created. And you're So I think that speaks volumes as to the argument. I think it defeats the argument that you cannot construct a dock on a vacant lot. This vacant lot is subservient to the main lot. It is just disconnected by the road. There is a staircase that provides access only for the home to the dock. Though know from your expert which is the building inspector, he does not consider this to be an anomaly that cannot be approved by this board. In fact, there have been several docks on vacant lands that are known to have been approved by the board. I' I've provided with you six of them. There are more. I'm sure Jack can speak to them off the top of his head, but you have several approvals. You have a 2001 approval of the Malamus or Dalamus and again reading through I think the operative there's an approval by Shelter Island for this use is a dock of 100 ft. The diagrams in the DC application clearly show that this is on Windbrook and it shows you that this dock is constructed on a vacant lot. So has been approved for the very purpose that we are seeking the same approval in 2003 has been approved by aio similar circumstances in that he is on a shore road. Again this was brought by and approved by this board and it was also constructed and applied for by Castella Marine. And again, it shows you as you parse through the DEC approval

and again there's an accompany shelter island approval again shore road there's a separation from the structure by a road that's a public road again that was approved by this board in 2003. If we turn to exhibit six, the approval of Sharon Ward in November of 2011. Again, I don't mean to be repetitive, but we are making a record here for obvious reasons. Again, similar situation town of Shelter Island approval is contained with this approval. And it again has a separation of dock from structure by a road. There is exhibit 7 approved by this board and then you can see in 2018 again same circumstances we find ourselves in today where you had a separation of primary residents and vacant land by a road which is a feature of Shel Island and in other places as well I've handled situations like this uh and many other jurisdictions. But again, this is a approval for a dock and pier on a vacant lot. And finally, exhibit 8 is again an approval that was granted for Oscar Lerbeck. Again, this was in 2022. The same situations are present. to have the separation of doc and primary residence. So I think that that speaks to the point that was raised. I know you're at your you're the village attorney, the town attorney, I'm sorry, will have his own opinion on this, but in our interpretation and from a legal perspective and from a zoning

perspective, the concept of having a dock on a vacant lot that is linked to a primary residence, but for the separation of a road does not rise to the level of not being permitted under your zoning code. Your zoning code does have a definition of accessory structures. Docs are listed in there, but there's also your dot code, which is the code that's applicable to our application. Your dot code does not speak to the requirement that there be a primary structure is actually silent on that. And again, the process that's been the town's historical and precedent setting has been allowing for docks on vacant land. They will not allow for sheds or other structures such as pools which are more indicative of a use like a primary or an accessory use. Again, an accessory use is defined in your code by as a doc, but it is in your zoning code. And this goes to more of a legal argument. And again, I don't want to bore you with the concept, although it is important for you and for the record to understand that when you have two code sections that are written there, they should be read in harmony with each other. When you harmonize these two sections, the obvious default is the concept of a dock is not foreign to vacant land. If it is connected or separate, I guess I should say differently. If it is separated merely by your road held in the same ownership, that is not breaching your zoning code. nor is that question before you. I understand the question has been raised several times. We wanted to answer that question. I know there have been there was another submission that was made by Mr. Jeff Bragman who spoke to that point as others and again he focuses as an attorney would on the alternative arguments. And I believe

that your code, your building inspector, and your practices clearly set forth the precedent that you are bound by and I think make good sense, good planning sense because the concept that you're being asked is is this dock being placed in the right location. Is it does it meet the code? Meaning the dock code, not the zoning code. Your building inspector has taken the position that it does not apply to doc. So I think we've kind of closed the loop. I don't want to go into great detail with Mr. Braggman's letter he makes arguments to the contrary but again the fact that this is again there's a concept of zoning and village law that if there is even any ambiguity the ambiguity should be construed in favor of the property owner. So even if there could be the argument there's an ambiguity which I say there isn't there is no ambiguity because your code does not make a distinction to require that docs be on properties with primary structures. Now, I'm sure we'll be told that that is an incorrect summary, but I think the case law still bears that out. And again, the arguments as to riparian rights that were raised. There was a case that was referenced by Mr. Bragman about it's a village of Ashoken case. I believe you've discussed this. I've been here several times on this matter. Uh that Ashoken case is very distinctly different from this this application. disruparian rights. The village of Ashoken case dealt with and I I tracked this case very closely. There was p there was land that was owned by the village of Ashoken and the code itself said there shall not be docks in this specific location. It was it was granted underwater land from a from a wealthy benefactor and they didn't want docks there. That's not the case here. So that case is clearly distinguishable. And again the the concept that um that the linear measurement I believe Jack uh

uh Stella will speak to this can be remedied to be completely code compliant by removing the um the dolphin pile. So then that measurement falls away because the argument is that when we I'll do a little math quickly. If we have an 88.5 length of dock and you're allowed a linear circumference for lack of a better word or or linear distance 1 and 12 that time it's 132.6 ft. So if you take that dimension you can clearly make the dock at the 885 and you can bring out the length of the the float. So we're clearly within that dimension. But when you come down to the measurement of the dolphin, that's when you exceed the the code. So, we're here tonight to present a final revision, and Jack will speak to that uh to make this code compliant with the removal of the Dolphin file, which then makes us code compliant for that section. But the question we're really here before the board, and this is for you to make the determination, is is which dock would you prefer? There's the 100 foot dock for lack of a better word and there's the 88.5. The 88.5 with the removal of the dolphin pile can become completely code compliant which I think is the objective of this board. The board is inclined to have the extension of the dock into the 100 foot length. That is also your prerogative. I believe the waterways commu uh committee recommended that by three and just and also for the record the one individual for of the three nos indicated and I did include that in the um as exhibit 9 we have both of their reports their favorable report and their they call it the no report which would be the negative report there is a

discussion about the linear measurements um and Jack can speak to this he was at the meeting, one of the individuals that I I'm unclear as to what his name was, indicated that he was okay with it, but for the issue of the accessory structure question. So, if the accessory structure question falls away, I you would be left with a a 32. If you if you give me that uh if his only reason for no was the accessory question or the accessory structure question then that vote becomes a null leaving a 32. Again it's an advisory to this board. You'll make the final determination. I think we've been here and you have quite a bit of information. I'm not giving you a lot of new information. I believe the only real new information was the analysis of the accessory structure. I'm obviously here to answer any questions that you may have. I also have Jack would like to call up to speak to the the dock in its construction phase and what can be done and how it complies with the code.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Why don't you come on up?

All right. Back here again. So just John and Kelly did a very thorough job of doing the presentation for you guys. Uh so basically the shorter doc with the removal of the moring file meets the linear footage equation which the board really has to take a look at that chapter in the code because it's foolish. Um doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense but anyway so the shorter doc would completely decode completely if that one pile were removed from the equation. Um, so there is a permissible doc within your code right here in front of you. If we take that pile out, the pile makes it a little bit easier to tie off the boat. So in that particular case of the shorter dock, we'd be looking for convenency just to have that one mile to tie at the stern of the boat. In this particular situation, if we have the ability to put a dock there, why not make it a little bit longer, but as we've done with almost every dock on outside waters out to at least that 100 foot measurement, um it would make more sense to increase the size of that birthing area just to make it a better spot for the boat. this if we take that one mooring pile um you know on the northeast side and move it 4 feet seaworth it now becomes compliant to the linear footage equation. The only thing with the longer dock we'd be looking for u a little bit of leniency from is that fourpoint contour which basically we're making the dock with 12 ft longer. So we're only looking for lean to that 4T contour cuz dock is supposed to end at a 4 foot or 100 foot.

And generally speaking, we've gone to 125, 132, 128, even in, you know, as you're going into Westlake Harbor, even up to 150 ft long. Um, so basically in this particular case, we can put a compliant dock on this property. But what I am saying is I think it'd be better to put a better dock with a little bit longer of a birthing area. And that's the way three three gentlemen on the waterways committee felt. Um that it would be better to have a little bit of a larger birthing area making the dock 12 ft longer. So, it's either we're going to come here and say we're going to do a completely compliant dock, remove the pile, and if that's what this board wants, or you go with a logical thing, make the dock a little bit longer, make the birthing area a little bit longer, and have a dock that's just just better. So, if we're going to allow a dock, why don't we allow a dock that's makes a little bit more sense to increase the size of a birthing area? So, I mean, I'm here to answer any questions, but like I out of respect for John and Kelly and all the research they've done. Um, and the linear this big thing with this linear footage equation, which I really think you got to take a look at, um, we can come here before you with a completely compliant doc.

I have a question regarding the safety of not having the pylons to tie up. I feel like that would be a challenge when it comes to securing the boat and not have the violence.

It would certainly be better. Um, as far as the safety issue goes, we could get we could we could figure it out. It would just diminish the size of the boat. It would be nice to keep that pile. Um, like I said, you put a a pulley on it with a rope and you can kind of hold the boat off, but it's, you know, it's not a deal breaker. It would certainly make the situation better. And like I said, as far as making a dock 12 ft longer, I mean, 12 ft longer is the length of your We're talking about the length of your table. That's probably 12 ft. Um, I mean, in real terms, we're not out in the open bay. We're in a little room. Um, so certainly the piling helps. Certainly the size of your desk helps. It's just 12 feet more for, you know, a better birthing area. But like I said, we have the ability to come in front of you with a completely compliant dot due to the linear footage equation and the water depth equation. So, you know, but like I said, certainly having that pile there makes will make it easier for the boat to stay there. But like I said, it's not it's not a dealbreaker on price. But like I said, I'm I'm the guy building a dock. I I would go for the 100 foot dock with the die off pile. We can slide that uh forward 4T. We can become compliant compliant with the linear footage equation. We just he can lean and see the 4 foot contour.

Thank you, Jack.

I'll be sitting over there. Have more questions. I don't know if you had any questions for Kelly. She has the environmental expertise. If there were any questions, I know you've had her here several times. Something that you need to ask her. She's here. I don't know if she needs to go through her presentation again just for brevity. I think they're shorter doc, you know, we've spoken about that and I think she attested to the issues associated with the seven transportation in terms of the ecology of the area. Her opinion is that there is uh no negative impacts and nor have we heard from any other experts in the field. She is obviously an expert in this field. We have heard conjecture from residents but I believe you have the expert opinions which have been that this will not cause an adverse impact on the environment nor the little transportation of sediment. So I just wanted to add that if you have questions she's here to answer those questions.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? I don't have any. I don't have unanswered questions. And I will open it up to the public. I'll start with the inperson audience.

Record. My name is Rebecca Nory. I'm a shelter resident also. for the Lord. I'm just going to read a letter to um tired. I'm not going to do it without being um

so but even before I get to this, let me just say it seems that there is no proposal for a safe and compliant dock here. Um, everybody disagrees about what would be the best doc, the compliant doc. What is a safe and compliant talk? We haven't heard there is one. Um, but anyway, I write on a different I write to counter briefly two arguments made in support of the bike application. This is basically from Sarah Fritz's recent

comments should be directed to us. Yes. Um, applicants council states chapter 53 of the prior doc code contains no provisions or criteria that relate to public safety, which has been repeatedly raised by opponents with no supporting information or evidence. That's hidden in footnote two or footnote one on page two of council's April 23 submission. hidden presumably because applicant hoped opponents wouldn't notice and point out its obvious flaws. Protecting public safety is the primary duty of government and the justifications for most regulations including the doc regulations here. That does not have to be repeated in every regulation. And in fact, code 5313A, I think this is of the prior doc code, refers explicitly to public safety, stating that quote, "It shall be the owner's responsibility to maintain the dock in the interests of public safety. It also states 5313 C uh authorizing the town to repair or seek an order to remove a dock at the owner's expense if it is quote a threat to life or property or a menace to navigation. It's absurd to suggest that the town should consider public safety only after a dock is constructed, but not when deciding whether a dock should be constructed in the first place. If a dock would be unsafe as located, designed or built, it would be impossible to maintain in the interests of public safety. The suggestion that there is quote no supporting information or evidence of risk to public safety is equally unfounded. The Shelter Island Heist Property Owners Corporation has established that the proposed dock would be less than 100 ft from a historic swimming beach. The

members of the WAC agree that this is quote a challenging invocation for a dock and the WAC chairman's memo on behalf of the members voting against uh would uh details hazards that the dock would create for voters and swimmers. Furthermore, you are entitled to rely on your personal experience as long as you disclose that you're doing so. Some of you are motors, no doubt aware of the strong currents and back edies along that shoreline. And at least one of you swam in those waters as a child, others perhaps more recently. Clearly, there's evidence of significant risks to public safety. Uh I also want to address uh the argument that applicant relies on that the fact that the town board recently granted the Sapen's application to construct a dock on this previously pristine shoreline requires uh the board to grant their application. Um but there is a very obvious difference between this application and the savings that you must take into account. The effects of a single dock are not equivalent to the effects of two docks. A second dock on this stretch of beach with more and possibly larger boats docking even closer to a well-used beach would double the impediments to public access as well as the public safety risks to boers and swimmers. A second dock would also motivate dock applications by other owners along the bluff. If allowing one dock requires the board to allow a second dock, what about a third dock and a fourth? The public own public owns the waterfront, not the land owner and not the applicant here. The applicant is

entitled to no more than reasonable access. And in deciding whether the stock proposal is reasonable, you must weigh the applicant's interest in having the stock against the public interest in preserving safe access to the water. Plainly, each additional dock compounds the problems. The balance shifts. You should draw the line now, recognizing that the negative impacts of a second dot far outweigh this applicant's interest in expanding his already reasonable access to the water beyond his existing warrants. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, Stellina Gutis and I'm representing the board of directors of the Shelter Island Heights Property. And I know we're all tired. So I can say um so um this morning um as was pointed out um our attorney sent a letter to you all. Um number one I have copies but do you all have copies? Yes. Okay. And does anybody want me to read this into the record?

We have it as part of the record already. So everyone's fine.

It was provided to the applicant. So they have Perfect. Perfect. So um then I have very quick comments, two comments actually. One, um I really respect Reed Karen for everything he does, but the first paragraph of his letter was very clear that the building department has nothing to do with the application and approval process for a dock. And in his second paragraph where he did describe um other doc situations, first sentence says it's his understanding that so someone who's not in the position to go through the application process. Um I just question that. The other comment uh that I have is that I think it's very important that the the deeds yes should be considered the deeds for one and six the one deed for one and six bluff um they are in the same deed separate tax maps there are no covenants no restrictions and no easements that are there that tether those two pieces together. So, they can be sold separately even though they've traveled in the same deed. And we should before we make any opinions or this this board makes any decisions, perhaps you can also check the other deeds of some of these lots, these uh small lots that have been approved. um because those can be either there could be underwater rights that have been assigned, they could be tethered, there could be easements. Um so I would say go through that list pretty

thoroughly. We have tried to but we have not done any deed reviews. Um the last comment that I'd like to make on behalf of the board is uh the dot code is not silent on the concept of a primary structure. And if you look at section 5311B, it says the location of a dock shall cross water frontage of a lot with the same setback requirements from the extremes of that water frontage as applied to the principal dwelling on that lot. And words matter. So, this code, the DOC code, is in harmony with the zoning code. And um I just want to leave you with that. We would encourage, as I'm sure the applicant would close the hearing, hopefully you have enough information to do what you need to do, get advice from um Thomas, and um thank you for letting us speak.

Thank you, S. Thank you, SH. Anyone

else in the physical audience? Don't know the woman's name. Can't remember it from last. I'm sorry. Hi. My name is Lauren Walker and I live in the house on Bluff Avenue above the beach club. Um, as you've been talked about, it's approximately 100 ft from the easterly property line to the westerly property line of the community beach swim and recreation area. That's a recipe for disaster. Um out of the powerful current you've all heard saw thrilling wind and close mooring at three beon place. We think this is really untenable for the safety of everybody um that's looking at navigation and swimming and enjoyment. Last year and this is really why I wanted to go up. Um, a petition was created and signed by 138 people in the community and on the island asking the board not to improve this stop based on the fact that it's a historic swim area. It's a community area and it's more importantly it's the safety of the people who enjoy that swimmers, paddle boarders, kayakers. And I have a list if anybody want to see it of all the people that took it upon themselves to sign a petition to the board. Um the other thing that's important and again I think you might have seen photos but I just want to remind everybody because we go by that whole thing of a picture is worth a thousand words. And this is what this looks like as an area that they're asking by asking the trust back of success as an area that is being considered as a dock. Those are people at the swimming club, beach club, community area trying to enjoy

their time there. And you can see currently the situation with just more up there. Those boats are very, very close to the swimmers, the kids swimming area, the adult swimming area, and everybody else that if you add a dog, it's going to make it even more difficult to navigate. There'll be more boats that are out there, longer situations out there. There's also worrying that we next door, which complicates it because it sits between the beach club and the proposed dock. So, we ask you to really take this into consideration and we really ask you to um not approve this dock. We think it's a harmful location. The waterway manager advisory council both content whether it was 100 ft or or 85 ft. They all said it would be a place for a dog and so we ask you to keep that in mind. Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Jim, you had your hand up next. Come on, don't mind me. I'm just plugging in my computer which I forgot. So, you can get started. Okay.

My name is Tim Pertell and I live at Five Bluff Avenue. My name is Sharon Edwards and I co-own property at Gate Bluff Avenue. Um, so we have actually adjacent property next door to the Pike property, the beach. Um actually have a couple questions actually while you're here and I know I have to address here but um a little confused about the length of the boat that's being considered for the dock. Um at one point there was discussion of this 36T boat and I was told it's not 36 but then at the WAC meeting the other night um that length came up again. So I'm just curious how large a boat are we talking about? the board. Well, I ask you that, but we're not supposed to address it.

Yes. Yes. Um, I'm not sure if it's being here. I got that right. We don't need the full length. Do we have an idea? It wasn't a hard number. The question is asking me. Yeah. What's the length of the telephone? I think I can speak to the question again as to riparian rights. The dock dictates the size of the boat. We are limited by the dock as to the size of the boat. You can't park a larger boat there. I don't know answer that.

Plus the plus the depth is going to allow a large boat. So it's not really relevant to whether there's a dock or not. My name is Brian Morhead and we want to make sure we're you so you if you're trying to dictate how big a boat we can actually then

I would think that would that would apply to all you know what size boat are you going to find you ask that question to everyone that's going to be building a dock the answer to the question is it's it's not relevant the question is not relevant for the dock, right? The dock will dictate the size of the boat. We will have to conform the boat to whatever dock is approved. That's the real answer. The question has been asked, but I don't know if they have an answer to the actual question. Well, the the actual question is, you know, but it depends upon, you know, what dock is actually approved. So, I can't give you the length of a dot, but but uh how you know what boatsiz boats did my my boss, the owner of that property owned. Um you know, everything from 75, which is down in the Keys, to what we normally use here, which is 27 and a 21T zodiac. And we have had the uh 36 inflatable also on the morning. But, you know, if if it if it has the if it does if it draws more than the dock's going to allow, then of course it's not going to be on the dock.

It will be there for pickups, you know, and that's at the end. Hope that answer the question.

Thank you. I guess my question is and this was something about why they um so this is a diagram that um was handed out to everybody which I think you're all familiar with and the question is that you've got a moing and a neighboring property here you've got the dock here and this is the that shows um the direction that the neighboring boat can go depending on sides. So, if you have a 36 boat going in here, although you're saying it might go at the end of the dock, I'm just questioning and concerned about how much leeway you have to actually the flexibility of moving a dock here depending on what direction this neighboring board is actually at the moment. So, I'm concerned about maneuverability. Um, and I have to say that when we were at the WMAC, meaning I'm not jumping on them. I'm also on committees, um, but they seem to be unaware of the position of the moorings in that area. Um, so I just want to bring that up. Um, also, I'm not really sure that, and I've been a boater my entire life, mostly sailing, um, that a dock actually allows you more maneuverability, particularly an L at the end, uh more flexibility than a moing does, depending again on the wind, the tides, and the current in that area, which are very variable. You can go out at noon and it's all flat. You can come back at 400 p.m. and you've got a strong tide, you've got a strong wind, you got strong wave action. Um, so you're really stuck going in one particular position to get to that dock versus a moing which allows you more leeway. Um, another question is that's never been cleared to me is how many moorings,

if they do have a dock, will they keep a moing or not have any moings? So, that's a question I have for them and talk at one point of keeping one more in case of a storm. So, again, I don't know if you want to ask the question. Yeah. one of the board members. Um I'm not ask question. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just I'm just looking because I'm like existing site markings and part of part of the reason why I asked Yeah. because that's the neighbors.

Yeah. So I mean that one no longer works and this one would have. So yeah. Okay. So we we'll ask that question. Do you have any other questions? So we

Well, it's connected to that question. So if they decide to keep a mooring, um I would presume that that mooring is going to be between the dock and our property because it allows more again more flexibility to get to the dock. So currently one of the moorings already floats into sort of our view. Um, I don't know how you determine a property that's actually public waters, but so if they keep a moing here, I'm interested in where that moring is going to go and because it does affect our view from our beach. Um and um and I'm just going to say again this comes up many many times in comments I've made in other comments but is that the WMAC the unsuitability of this location. It's just I I find it very problematic that even those who vote for this dock will cite the unsuitability of the location. I find that really problematic. Um, and I know that it to offset these unsuitability of the location that they ask for splashboards and other means to make the dark more secure. But that in my mind just means it's an unsuitable location. They have to do all this reinforcement. So, I just think again I know they're advisory committee um but I just think in general

or a committee to vote for something and then say it's unsuitable is I don't understand that. And it's the second time that this has come up with a dock in that location. my property rights. There's a lot of talk about repairarian rights and the right for people to have docks, but my niece and I have been paying taxes for almost 25 years in that piece of property. So, I just feel there's no sort of support or comment on the property rights of those who actually don't want to dock and have no intention to build the dock on their property and yet they will be affected by the docks by their surrounding neighbors. Particularly if, as Becky pointed out and I pointed out previously, if you have this dock, there will be two docks and there's the potential having two more docks. So, you will have four docks total on that stretch of beach, which means if you have paddle boards, sailboats, kayaks, swimming, uh it just makes it more problematic for us to enjoy those activities with boating activities. And yes, current owners may be have taken safety courses, etc. to um to drive their boats carefully, but we have no control over the future as people come in jet skiis or other kinds of motorboats and they're not as careful. So, I just think there's a real potential safety hazard down the road with having if you do a build a full buildout of docks in that area. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. So, John, I have a question for you.

Yeah. If if you are issued permission to build the dock, would you try to keep the two moorings? Would you get rid of a moing? Would you get rid of both moorings? I was just speaking to uh Brian and he indicated that and this I believe it's the board's description but if the longer dock at 100 ft was allowed to be constructed they would remove and that's one of the moorings uh they will remove I can show this this is the moing here so that right so that so yes we would be willing to enter into that So that would be one more.

Yes. And you keep coming. Do we have um others in the audience who wish to speak? B. Yeah.

Yeah. Hi. B Wave 9 North Terry Road. So, I always remember what Helen Rosen Bloom said about docks and she said that um uh they're not a right, they're a privilege, you know, and um so, uh but you know, the owner and I feel really strongly about repairarian rights that somebody wants from property has a right to access the water. And so, how do you balance this out here? And I don't buy the argument that separated by the road, you know, uh, means that you can't build a dock because I see it all over the island. You got it in Cogles Harbor. You got it in here in Harvard. But you got the town needs to know a little more about town board about some of the things in the code and how it's developed and what is going on here. And I just took the ferry coming over from Greenport and I was looking right at the spot and number one the beach club even though it's like a private club you know I couldn't I don't you got to be a member there is some kind of community use there and so you got to I think that has to weigh in your decision just like if Sunset Beach wants to put a dock in you're going to have to answer the same question because they have rights. right in the middle of Crescent Beach and the houses above and I'll talk about Steuart Parr's house had rights right in front of Crescent Beach and the town gave him a dock like 800 ft down the beach over by um uh on the other side of uh Pearland and they put in a dock there. So

the town I believe has a right to say no specifically to adopt because of a community need and it's a hard part. Now I'm in I'm in the mooring I mean I'm in the moing business. I'm I'm on the water. I I'm a captain of boats. I got my 100 ton license and yes, the code and the guy and and and Al Lorettto said we should we should we got to pass this because the guy's going to sue us and the guy's got a lot of money and he can sue this town for and you're going to pay hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars to to defend this and because the guy wants it. But you got to if you're going to say no and you've got to be clear about the reasons and giving the guy an alternative. Um and and you and you also have the the idea in the dot code is all about length and you might have to give them the length, but you don't have to give the L and you don't have to give the splashboards. And and that wasn't made clear to you, I think, in the report from the WMAC. And the other points is that when you're running a boat, you know, repairarian right might mean access to the water, but it doesn't mean access to your 200t yacht. It means access to the water, maybe your dinghy to your yacht. So when you're running if there and a gentleman talked about the size of a boat coming in, you know, when you're in around a swim area, you know, when you're looking over the

bow of a boat, depending on the size of it, you have a blind spot. You know, you can't see. I don't care how fast or slow you're going. You know, there's something that you can't see in front of you unless you're in a dinghy. If you're in a dinghy, the smaller the boat, the safer it's going to be, right? because you're down low and you're going to see everything that's going around you. So, I don't want to see anybody get hurt and I don't want to see this guy not have his repairarian rights, but you got to make a decision based on and give the guy an alternative if you say no. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Um, anyone in the physical audience that hasn't had a chance to speak yet? Yes. Come on up. Get your name for the record.

Lewis Avenue. The other day I was walking on the beach and I walk often walk the beach and I was thinking of the pier that the pikes want to make. Uh so I stood in front of the on the beach in front of that area that they're going to be building the pier and they say that it's going when they build the pier that's going to have some steps going up and there's going to be plenty of room for people who want to walk along the beach. without going anywhere near that pier. Well, they should go and do some measuring because at high tide there's only about a foot a foot and a half of beach before I, for example, would be trespassing on their land. It's very narrow at high tide. There is absolutely no room. If they want to get onto that pier with dry feet, there's going to be no room for anybody to go along the beach without trespassing. And I have a picture here if anybody wants to have it.

I was going to say, can you leave that with Shelby? Kirsten, sorry.

Can you leave that with Shelby? Do you mind leaving that picture with you? Anyone else in the fiscal audience who wishes to speak? I think there may be some people on Zoom. Okay. Um, anyone on Zoom? Um, if you don't know how to raise your hand, if you just want to turn your video back on so that I know that you'd like to speak. Okay, looks like we've gotten to the end of public comments. Goodness.

So, I just want a chance to respond to some of the comments that were made. I would like Jack to respond as well. One comment. And I know we're hearing a lot from the board of directors from the Shelter Island Heights. Uh my client is also a member of the Shelter Island Heights. So it's a little unourred that they are continuing to object to one of their shareholders. So we'll be taking that up separately, but I wanted to make sure the board and to Stella that they're aware that they are treading in waters they should not tread and affecting our property rights is a place they should not go. That being said, it was for the record. I wanted to make another point that there has been some comments about Cenars with the deeds. We are perfectly willing to enter into a covenant that would bind the properties together. There's there's no question. I don't think one can live without the other. I don't think it's a buildable lot that waterfront lot. It's cliff. So, there is no issue that we would take. And if that is a suggestion, as that is a recommendation or a condition of approval, we're perfectly happy to answer into that. I I see no issue with that and I think it will solve a problem and maybe something to going forward when these situations which I'm sure will come up again. So we have no issue with respect to the covenants again as the board is aware and I'm sure the town attorney is just the number of community opponents does not in any way should be taken into account by the board. The board is to weigh the facts of the case. The board is to weigh the experts. The board is to consider the public comment. And I know public safety has been raised as a thing. It can be easily said just like there is traffic. There is traffic and there is concern for public safety. There would be no reason that my client would construct a dock to have a boat to then strike a swimmer or another boat. I don't think that's but that's something that we you know there's no rationale that's been provided to say if this dock is built there will be public safety

concerns. I mean the board is very well aware of the location. You can look at how close the beach club is very close to the north ferry. The north ferry has a lot of boat activity. The barge I mean the um the ferry constantly passes by. If the concern is, and I don't think a swimmer would swim in those waters, but I've been hearing many comments that sailboats and kayaks and all other types of watercraft will be impacted by a fixed structure. They will be as easily impacted by a moving ferry if they decide to go into that section of the water. We are a less of a public concern. And I find it remarkable that the comments are being lodged that our single dock with a boat is more of a public safety hazard than an active ferris system. I mean it doesn't stand to reason that that amount of activity in that close proximity. If they were not so close, I don't think that argument would work. They are adjoining that location. So I think there's the argument of public safety again has not been proven. I don't think it stands up and there have been no experts to attest except I will have Jack speak to that issue in a few minutes. The comments were also raised about the setbacks. Your quote speaks to the setbacks and the reason for the setbacks is to keep it as we're all aware or come to learn riparian rights generally run perpendicular from the shoreline. concept and it is a good one and is used in many municipalities is you cannot put your dock at the edge because then you could possibly impact your neighbor. The reason for the setback is to bring it in so that you're within your property or your riparian zone so you will not be adversely affecting your neighbor. So the setbacks we are meeting clearly there have been comments about property rights of neighbors being adversely

impacted by a dock. I don't that has to be proven. You can claim I will lose property rights. I don't think nor has it been proven that someone's property rights will be devalued by a dock. If anything, it may improve the value, but it in no way diminishes the value, which is the only argument that can be made and has not been proven. There has been no proof by an appraiser or anyone else to say that there will be a loss of value to a neighbor property. It just doesn't stand up. nor has it been proven. The concepts of homes next to each other with docks is what a riparian right owner has a right to. They have a right to their zone. They don't have a right to their neighbor's zone. No one can extend a dock that crosses their riparian zone or in any way interferes with their riparian rights. Riparian rights are the right to construct a dock to facilitate access. And again, you've been here many times. I know we've been here many times. and the ownership has children, an elderly family member. The concept here is to get from the shoreline to a boat which will be of a smaller size to then enjoy the waterways or get to the larger boat. The concept of having a dock is something that that my client is would like to have because he has a right to have it and he meets your code sections. And I think that's the fine point that you all should understand is that you have crafted this code. We are subject to the old code but they're almost interchangeable. So you have decided that docs if they meet these requirements and we are proposing a completely compliant dock with the removal of the dolphin that we have met the requirements of this town code. The concept of safety that were raised and I didn't put in a footnote to hide it. I put it in a footnote because it wasn't the purpose of that letter. We've

talked about safety many times. So, I wasn't hiding the comment. But the issue that was referenced with regard to safety, I believe is in a different section. It was pointed out and it really speaks to I don't have the exact section u but it speaks to the point that the dock has to be safe. Not that it is a safety issue. The dock has to be secure. It cannot fall apart. If the dock falls apart, the the um the town will tell you to fix it or they will fix it themselves. I've heard the case that was out here in the town where they had to correct a dock that was falling into disrepair. So the concept of safety from that section is not related to the location of the dock is related to the fact that you must keep the dock in a safe condition not to cause harm to others. This dock is not being constructed to fall apart and if it does it will be repaired. So the argument of safety fits into that section not into the section that we're talking about and there were again I appreciate the gentleman's comments before that the right of a right parent owner and he is a a captain is to have right of access and the dock is something that I believe he was suggesting we might should have I'm trying to understand the line here but the comments were made then that there should be no splashboard boards and it's I find this to be remarkable that it's always some type of horse trade. We always have to give up something because we cannot have or we should as of right so we need to trade those things. The splashboard is in the code that is permitted. The idea of the splashboard is a safety issue that you hear the safety argument and then you say don't put in the safety mechanism. It doesn't make any sense. It's just no for the sake of no which I know I've been in many of these meetings and I know you all have experienced this. No for the sake of no is really not an answer, especially if we are complaining. But again, we want to be respectful of our

neighbors. We've been here many times and I hope to come to be. My client has friendly neighbors. The idea here is we we're all going to try to, as was mentioned before, share. We have a right to all share in the rights of the waterways. We're not taking any rights away from anyone. The location of a dock is not taking someone's right of passage. If the concern was someone cannot pass along the shoreline, this dock can be passable along the public access points. That has been clear. I don't even think there'll be a problem if a private individual were to walk on the private property to get along the high high water mark. We're not going to sit here and fight with a trespasser, quote unquote, right? So, the idea that this cannot be passed is not really the argument. This is a passable section of the beach. Um, I did want to say that I wanted to have Jack to speak a little bit to the concept of the safety issue because I think he can speak to it better than I can. He may be able to articulate something about the marina. It's the um the ferry line itself. So maybe Jack,

before Jack speaks, I just I did see that John Evans had unmuted himself and so I asked him to turn his video back on. So, I'm going to call on him first. Um, and then back to Jack and someone else. Um, just on Zoom, just as a reminder for people, if you um aren't able to turn your video back on, um, I am watching to see if you unmute yourself and so I will um, reach out to you then as well. So, John,

yeah, thanks for uh, hearing me. I think the uh, I think the safety issue has been articulated very clearly and um, and should be paramount. The threat of litigation should not control your vote at all. And as you know, as you're well aware, these article 78 proceedings are a bridge. They're like motions. So, uh, and they're they're meant to not it's not a full lawsuit. So basically their motions and the standard for challenging them is that uh this board acted arbitrarily and capriciously and with the safety issue that that has been uh explained and uh articulated clearly. I think it's going to be very very hard for them to su successfully litigate. The last thing I wanted to say was they talk about an elderly person getting on the boat to have a good time. Well, you know, this is a a very wealthy family that are members of the yach club or they can go down there and drive the elderly person to the dock at the yach club, pull up to the yach club dock and get them on the uh on the boat very easily or probably use a number of other docks uh you know on the island. So, I mean, that's what I really wanted to say. The threat of litigation should not influence your vote at all because I personally think it's not going to be successful. But beyond that, you've got to do what's right. And I think the safety uh issues here have been articulated between the tides. They're closest to the beach club. I mean the furry is a totally different that's a I mean that's a that's a different vessel uh totally than what they're proposing and putting in here. Thank you.

Thank you, John. And I did see that we had a couple of um newcomers. Um if you can use the raise your hand feature if you wish to speak or um you can um unmute yourself if you can't turn on your video and I'll recognize you. says something new. I guess it's new. Um, all right then. Um, I don't see anyone unmuting or turning the video on or raising their hand. So, Jack,

so first of all, you're like 354 ft away from the park swim area. Um, as far as the egress goes, we could add stairs at the high tide line, bing the high tide line to allow steps to go across. be able to walk around this dock. You know, there's an issue where they feel they're going to be intruding on property rights. We could build, you know, a little set of egress stairs over the ramp part of the dock at the high tide line. Um, like I said, this dock is you're going to be able to walk around this dock, but at that tide line, we could build a set of steps on either side of the dock. So, if it did become an issue, there'd be stairs there to go over the dock. Um, the other thing is, so that was two points. The other point is you guys have this picture handy from the cat

and this is just this the big picture of the whole thing includes the ferry terminal and this is just to quickly discuss the loral drift in the area and if you're talking about safety issues lateral drift is where the tide runs hard longer during the day and that would deposit the sand on one side of the jetty to the other. afraid that Bert might be the only person that understands what I'm saying. But during the day,

the tide will be running harder longer and that's the side of the jetty the sand will deposit. So you can see in this in this picture you see so the the sand is depositing on the southwest side of the jetties here and here. That means that the latoral drift is running towards the ferry terminal not towards this dock. So this as far as the general overall current of of where the sand is being deposited with these jetties. You see what I'm saying now? The the the sand is building up on this side. So the latoral drift is moving from southwest to northeast. So there's more sand built up on this side of this jetty and and more you can see it here too down by the jetty. And this jetty is not in very good shape. But this jetty's you can see quite clearly that the tide is actually running stronger towards

towards the you can see here this is southwest this is northeast and you can see here with this groin this groin is functioning in a way that more sand is building up on the southwest side

and all of them the same way. So all that means is that the prevailing tide is running from southwest to northeast in this area. So that the ferry turtle is more of a danger dock because the the general current is running the opposite direction. So, those are just the three quick points I want to make. And, you know, and as far as the discussion of the splashboard, the splashboard's a standard. Um, it it makes the birthing area a calmer. And like I said, we can we can propose a conforming die and that'll just dictate the size of the boat. You know, Brian was put on the spot to go, what size is the boat going to be? Well, it's going to be dictated by the size of the dot. Like I said, we can present to you a dock that completely conforms to your code. we can show that this is not really a safety issue because a diet is generally running stronger the other direction towards the very um and like I said that the vot dictated by and I just felt that the 100% doc was reasonable and the only lenency we'd be seeking is what we're talking to the same thing over and over again but if you guys have any other questions thank you Kirsten I a second time people see

being forced into grass in order to go for a walk on the beach grass where the deer are and ticks and this that and the other. It's not fair to push everybody into the into somebody else's property to get around this pier. It's just not right. It's all this grass and yucky stuff. It's just not

you're gonna want the last word. So that's why I'm I'm pausing because I know um I saw Bert and then Stella did. Okay. So Bert, come on up.

Wait, since I was referenced twice, you know, once by Jack there, I thought I'd, you know, just go for my own uh interpretation. So, uh, personally, uh, 354 ft, um, you know, that's better than, uh, 10 ft. Okay. But, uh, as far as the, you know, the the lawyer didn't address the L. He did say something about the the, you know, the splash boards. Personally, I think um if you're to me a safer situation would be to allow moorings there and have a dock that you would have um a small inflatable on a pulley line and pull that in and get on that and go out to your bigger boat on a moing. That's to me that would be a safer situation than um you know having a larger dock where you're actually creating a birthing situation with the L and the splash board. That that's just my personal opinion. Um I think a lot of it has to do with you know the operator. I'm sure he's going to have you know this guy can afford you know professional operators. So, um I I don't think, you know, I think that should be in consideration as well. Maybe the town puts in some regulatory movies, you know, more of them. Uh but you do have flexibility to design something that you want. Okay.

Thanks. Um, two things. One, we keep talking about the 354 feet just that's from the swim room. People swim all the way up to the property lines. That's where cabanas are. So, it's less than 100 ft property line to property line. The second thing is it's probably not fair to compare the ferry. They're licensed captains. They have vessels that have dual propulsion. So some, you know, it would happen this past summer and we submitted a letter from our lifeguard where um it was not the applicant's boat, but it was another moing and that boat on that mooring lost propulsion and they were taken by the current and they almost hit the um our swimming dock. So, um, it's I I don't think it's fair to compare a professional company that has a boat with the propulsion. If they've lost it one way, they can go the other way.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

I can repeat this to death to death. So, I will be very brief again. You know, we have presented alternatives to this board. I believe we are willing to enter into certain conditions which can be part of your approval. Again, I think the conditions that we have offered are the removal of a moing if the dock reaches 100 ft in length, the um covenant to combine the parcels and the removal actually it's for the removal of the dolphin pile if we're going to consider the shorter dot to make it code compliant. Again, these are conditions that you can make if you're inclined to approve the project with conditions. And I believe the other concept was staircases that will be um placed at the landward side of the dock so the p the public can traverse because we, you know, again, we will accommodate the public to traverse as they have the right to. And again, you know, we appreciate the board's time. We would also request that the board close its hearing and render a decision. Again, we're not threatening litigation as was alluded to. We're here making a record for both sides, right? That's the bill. Appreciate your time again and everything in the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to suggest to the board that we close this. I second in favor of that favor. I

we still have two more public hearings for those of you who are going to exit. um we could do so by is that we could continue our business. All right. The next public hearing is for local law amending chapter 115 taxation. uh at 6:00 p.m. or assume thereafter prevailing time on the proposed local law entitled a local law amending chapter 115 taxation, article 8 exemption for accessory dwelling units and article 9 bill enclosures and I believe did we get 500s on this one? Um yeah, I was just going to read the Bob Frederick yes that he wanted read into the record. Okay. Um, he sent an email. He said, "Uh, dear town board, again, I read in the reporter that the town board is considering new tax breaks for certain categories of taxpayers on Shelter Island. When do the actual taxpayers get to have input on such proposals? Or are we left to understand that five people know better than us that we what we want?" Here's my input. even if you do not want to hear at least one taxpayers's input. First, I remind you that you have been raising our taxes in excess of any 2% adjusted cap every year recently. Second, I remind you that you have been drawing down on the reserve fund. So, that is that it is almost negligible at this point and we will not and it will not be available in the future to lower our excessive tax rate. Third, regarding the proposed new tax breaks. I agree with lowering the tax rate for seniors below a certain realistic income. I also agree with tax breaks for those freely giving service to the town through the fire departments and EMS. But again, this should only be available to those who need it whose incomes are below a certain defined income. However, I'm adamantly against additional tax money

going to those having ADUs on their property. They already have gotten town and/or county subsidies subsidies to build these ADUs. They will garner serious income from these property ADUs through rent. They already decided that these ADUs were worth building before any consideration of additional tax breaks and this will really allow the rich to get richer at taxpayer expense. Finally, you do remember that there is a water shortage growing more and more serious every year. Yet, you want additional structures to use even more of our fragile and limited aquifer at the cost to all of all of the rest of us who are striving to maintain our ecology as it is. I believe it is time that the town board realize that you are elected to represent all of us, not just special interests. If you do not realize that, you are in for a great surprise in the next election when we find a fiscally conserv conservative town board that actually represents their constituents. Bob Frederick, Shelter Island Heights.

Thank you. Um just to um reiterate since we don't have since this is our legislation. So what was being proposed here just for the public is um and it's something that um New York State put into their law so that towns could adopt or not. And so we were considering adopt we are considering adopting um the amount that is going to be exempt is um an increase in assess increase in excess value up to $200,000. So if it costs less than $200,000 to um there if it's increasing CSS value less than $200,000 that would be the only amount that is exempted under this. It is also only for a period of um 5 years or 100% and then it decreases um over the next 5 years and after 10 years there's no exemption that continues on. Um, we also added in that it had to be registered as an accessory apartment with the building department. It has to be the owner's primary residence. The yearly rent charged to tenants and it must be a year- round um rental. Um, and it the amount charged has to qualify um at or below the New York HUD fair market value rents from the Nassau Suffach and that the owner must qualify for the star exemption. Um, so that's I think set at 250,000 or maybe 5,000 500,000 for um a married couple. So yes, it is a high amount of income, but it's not for everyone. And then we had done a spreadsheet at one point that had um looked at how many we have got, how many ADUs um have been accessory apartments have been built over the past few years.

And it was a nominal amount. Let me just look and see what the spreadsheet was. We and considering what's um you know what's going on with the ADU plus one program maximum you know anticipated would be about seven per year ADUs that would be eligible for this that would equate to just see here I know it's I haven't looked at this in a few weeks so the additional exemption um if you've got seven of them at the match 200,000 um would be an additional exempt. Yeah, exemption of 1.4 million. So that tax that would be redistributed would be $2,896. Um which if you divide that over seven properties is the math here. My brain is fried. $400 in tax savings. Um which for an average median home price of 1.6 million, it would cost 69. um in the first year of this program layering in over the 10 years um the maximum savings would be a m maximum cost would be $465 for that 1.6 assessed value home and it doesn't go higher than that other than normal tax increases but because you have properties rolling off at the 10th year. So that's kind of an overview of the program and some of the guardrails we've put on it. So do we have anyone in the public who wishes to speak? Bill Master um going to speak in favor of this and I think there are a few points that really need to be reiterated especially after hearing Bob's letter

and I think Bob is really good and usually makes some good points but one of the first things you got to recognize is this is only for new construction. When you look at this, it's a carrot, a small carrot, a baby carrot. Really, when you think about it, it's not um it's not a program that is necessarily going to have people flooding to do this. But I'll disagree a little with you on one thing, Amber. I think it's a plus to the tax roles, not a negative. Because what happens is there is nothing in the current tax world that is being diminished. There is only a delay in collecting certain new tax revenues.

So you're not hurting the current people who are paying taxes. You're giving this baby carrot in the meantime to people who may be willing to have an ADU. And if at the margins it creates more housing on the island, that is a big plus. So I know I've heard and I've had conversations with a number of friends who kind of instinctively are opposed to this, but it's not something to be concerned with. It's negligible and it's in the long run positive. Also, in the short run, if you're going to create an ADU, it may be more than $200,000 in increased valuation. So, you may even get a little boost to the tax role in the short run. Um, I'll if other people speak, I may come back. There are two little points I'd like to make for the legislation and I know that it's clear that it's supposed to be for one year. I sometimes get a little bit nervous and I just would like to potentially say that there should be a section that just says in order to be eligible for a qualifying accessory dwelling unit, it must be rented on no less than a yearly basis. And then importantly that subleas leases because you don't want anyone game in the system or short-term rentals by that lesser are strictly pro prohibited and will result in the loss of the exemption.

The second thing would be that and this is kind of picky. In order to be eligible for this exemption, a qualifying accessory dwelling unit must not be in violation of any local law or be delinquent in their payments. So, you don't want that to happen. And going back to one thing you had said earlier, this is something New York State put in and other places are doing it. Albany County, Olter County, the city of Kingston there. If you go on the line, you can find this app. So, I reserve to come back up.

Thanks. That's a great that's a great um um anyone else who wishes to speak on this um from the Zoom audience. Okay. Then I will I'm not going to come back. All right. Going to make a motion that we close this public hearing. Second. All in favor? I.

Okay. And last on the agenda is um the local law amending chapter 36 beaches and parks. At 6:00 p.m. or student or app, they're on the proposed local law entitled a local law amending chapter 36 beaches and parks. Um, as we once we posted this, there was just a couple of things that um, we realized that didn't get included. This was 3 weeks ago as posted. Um, we have um, under the section be it acted um, by the town board of the town of Shelter Island as follows. And then it talks about this local laws adopted pursuant to the authority granted by municipal home rule law section. Um usually that um section is put down at the bottom of the um the resolution. And then the other thing is is just um a section adding the word section 36-3 of the shel code is hereby amended to by deleting the stricken words and adding the underlined words as follows. So what we had added was um so it's they were already there. Um it just clarifies it for people reading this. Um, but Thomas, this is this a big enough change that we have to renotice this or

and if you want I can show you the saw. I mean, I don't the text of the of the local law that's changing is not Yeah. is not changing. So, I think that's Yeah, I felt like it was just clarifying explaining the deleting stricken words and moving one section just down to a different part. Yeah, I feel like that's Yeah, I feel like we're okay there. Um, so I just wanted to put that out there. Yeah. But again, because we're the ones um presenting this public hearing, it's just adding um

the way the um original law was, it didn't read correctly. It said a sticker issued by the office of the town clerk to residents and it's actually to those who are not residents that this applies to

Yes, exactly. for um daily passes, 7-day passes, one month pass, or seasonal passes. And it just redefineses the period of season from the Friday preceding the observance of Memorial Day through Labor Day to May 15th through September 15th, which coincides with all of our signage and enforcement and how we actually operate our seasonal permits. So, anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this? Pam.

Yeah. Hi there. Good evening. I just have a quick question. This seems to be adding a definition of a resident to this uh chapter and I just wondered has the town board conferred that definition of resident to resident elsewhere in the town code? I know you some of you are aware of the definitions that we've had trouble with and I I just wanted to make sure that you've conferred that. I I I don't even recall seeing this actually being uh in a public notice, but I that's that's my comment about it. I'm just concerned that it's consistent with the rest of the code on that definition and wondered where that definition came from.

This um Yeah, and thank you for pointing that out because I forgot that that was a new added section. This definition strictly applies to chapter 36. Um, and yes, there are various places in our town code where the definition of residence is different from code part code section to code section. That is something that the town board has discussed um over the years and it's been kept that way. we need to do a a total code overhaul, but there are times where this definition wouldn't be useful in another code section. Um, so the decision has always been to define resident in the code sections with the definition that most makes sense for whatever the goal of the legislation is. Um,

then you're losing consistency with the definition of resident in the town code. Yes. Yeah. And I think um ideally in my perfect world, I would like us to finish up the comprehensive plan and then look to get um a grant which is there are grants out there for an total hiring a law firm to do a total code um overhaul so that we're not peacemealing it as we have done through the decades. So, it is something that we need to do, but um it's a bigger task than we can prioritize right now.

Yeah. I wasn't really looking for that. Just to just wondering how you came up with this particular definition of a resident and and just just, you know, I'm sure you'll close this hearing, but perhaps in your work session, you'll maybe take that up and and and really feel that you're comfortable with this definition, you know, going forward. That's all. Thanks very much. All right. Thank you. Um, is there anyone else who has any questions? I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. All in favor? I I

um is there anyone in the um well actually we'll close the that we disclosed public hearing. We're going back into the town board meeting. Is there anyone from the public who has any um public comments that they wish to make? There being none, I'll entertain a motion to close the town board meeting for tonight. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you, everyone.