Full Transcript

Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. This is the advertised time and place for the November 21, 2024 Planning Board meeting. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. Okay, thank you. Welcome, everybody. Welcome, everybody. Member Baer is under the weather. He's not going to be able to join us today. We hope he feels better. We're going to start with public hearings. I would just like to remind all the speakers that for a public hearing, you have to speak at the microphone for the record. Thank you. The very first one, Malice Property, Minor Subdivision, with Matt Charter. Okay, I'll start by reading the public. What's up? No, I know the article. Yeah, that's great. Yeah. Just, I'll start by reading the public notice. Please take notice that a public hearing will be held before the Planning Board of the Town of Riverhead at the Riverhead Town Hall, 4 West 2nd Street, Riverhead, New York, on Thursday, the 21st day of November, 2024, at 3 o'clock p.m., to consider the minor subdivision application entitled Malice Property, which proposes to subdivide a 1.087 parcel into two lots, where proposed lot 1 is to contain 21,776 square feet and is to retain an existing two-story single-family residence and accessory structures, and where proposed lot 2 will contain 25,567 square feet where an existing frame garage and frame shed are to be demolished. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, situated at 86 2nd Street, Hamlet of South James Fort, more particularly identified as Suffolk County Tax Map No. 600-92-2, and is to be used as a public building. The zoning board of the town of Riverhead, which is located at the 1st Street, will be held on Thursday, June 4th, 2024, at 3 o'clock p.m., to consider the minor subdivision application entitled Malice Property, which proposes to subdivide a 1.087 parcel into two lots, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet and is to contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. The zoning board of the town of Riverhead, which is located at 86 2nd Street, Hamlet of South James Fort, will be held on Thursday, June 4th, 2024, to consider the minor subdivision application entitled Malice Property, which proposes to subdivide a 1.087 parcel into two lots, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. Located within the residential B40, RB40 zoning use district, where proposed lot 2 will contain 21,776 square feet. lot subdivision of the premises located at 86 second street in jamesport tax map number 0600 92 block 2 lot 38 property is zoned residence b40 proposed lot 1 will contain the existing residential home on the premises lot 1 is proposed at 21 700 square feet the shed and garage as noted will be demoed on the law 2. lot 2 is proposed at 25 567 square feet i think here the exhibits kind of tell the story and i'm going to be very brief we've given you a map of the subject property an aerial photo photos of the subject property as well as photos of the surrounding property we've submitted of course the proposed subdivision map as well as a color-coded map showing the subject property in blue and then the surrounding lots and the the sizes of the lots in the surrounding community. We've also attached the planning staff report from July 11th by Matt Charters, which notes that the surrounding area consisted of developed single family residences, all within similar scale, similar lot size, as the lots that are being proposed herein. He noted that the negative declaration was adopted by this board on July 18th, and that was by resolution 2024-48. And then the newest bit of information is the zoning board's approval, right? That was in October of 2024. Variances were approved for lot area, lot width for both of the lots, and lot one needed an additional variance for maximum impervious surface from 15% to 21.1%. That is really all I have on direct, Mr. Chairman, and members of the board, and I would yield the floor to Mr. Chair. I would also like to appeal to any questions that you may have of me or my client. Okay, thank you. We're gonna just go through this for a couple minutes, so maybe just stand by in case we do have questions. Absolutely. Your presentation is very professional, I have to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. [transcription gap] I guess why the board's perusing this we can ask anybody from the audience if they'd like to speak

heather do we have anybody on zoom you have a question from uh members of the licky the horseshoe driveway will one be uh for one lot and one be for the lot or is it going to remain that is an excellent excellent question because i had the same question when i looked at the map the existing did you call it a horseshoe driveway will be abandoned and there will be one new standard driveway proposed for each lot yes so one driveway for each lot one driveway will service both lots no one driveway for each lot okay if it would be helpful i could approach and show it to you because it's a little confusing on the map if you want to do it it's up to you okay sure

so i'm filling in for my partner today and this is the exact question i had so the surveyor showed the existing horseshoe as you say right right here but if you look closely you can see where the proposed new standard of clinic quality standard driveway is right standard traditional driveway is proposed for each lot so that's going to be abandoned and each will have like a more typical drive okay thank you very much you're welcome

anything else board members okay if somebody wants to close i'll close the public hearing on malice property minus subdivision so moved second just add with the keep it open for 10 days 10 days for written yes okay as amended uh moved in sector mr zelnicki yes mr hogan yes mr de niro aye and i vote aye the motion carries thank you very much appreciate it just a question about the record being open is that because the zoom link wasn't functioning okay we'll keep it open for the submission for a written comment for 10 days which puts us to december 2nd at 4 30 p.m and would you let us know if anything was received by the department so head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head [transcription gap] head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head head SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE RIVER RIDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I WILL JUST CONFIRM I RECEIVED THE AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND MAILINGS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SO WE ARE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 230 WEST MAIN STREET, SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX VAP NUMBER 600-128-3-31. THIS IS AN APPLICATION SEEKING TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 14,557 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL OF LAND WHICH IS CURRENTLY IMPROVED BY THE STATE OF MIAMI-DADE. THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT IS SUBDIVIDED WITH A TWO-STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. THE SUBDIVISION WOULD RESULT IN TWO LOTS WITH LOT ONE HAVING A PROPOSED SIZE OF 7,153 SQUARE FEET AND LOT TWO HAVING A SIZE OF 7,404 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DC-3 ZONING USE DISTRICT. AS THE BOARD WILL RECALL, THIS APPLICATION REQUIRED RELIEF FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AT THE STREET FRONTAGE. THE PROPERTY REQUIRES A 50-FOOT LOT WIDTH. BOTH OF THE LOTS ARE PROPOSED TO HAVE A WIDTH OF 45.11 FEET. THE APPLICATION WAS REVIEWED BY THE RIVERHEAD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND THEY RECEIVED THE NECESSARY RELIEF BY APPEAL NUMBER 2024-023 DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2024. THIS ONE IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I DID DURING THE INITIAL REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION WE WERE HAVING SOME PROBLEMS WITH OUR GIS. I INITIALLY IDENTIFIED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT IN THE PARKING DISTRICT. THAT WAS INCORRECT. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RIVERHEAD DOWNTOWN PARKING DISTRICT AND AS SUCH THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON-SITE PARKING WHEN THESE SITES COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS OR REDEVELOPMENT. SO I JUST WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON THAT. BEYOND THAT, WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THE APPLICANT IF HE WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING OR IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU, GREG. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR THE APPLICANT, MATTHEW INGBER FROM THE LAW FIRM OF BROWN, ALTMAN AND DELIO, 538 RODE HOLLOW ROAD, SUITE 301 MELVILLE, NEW YORK. SO I REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD FROM GREG'S PRESENTATION. I'M HERE AS WELL AS THE PROJECT ENGINEER, TOM WALPURT, FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD OR PUBLIC MAY HAVE. ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC? ANYBODY ON ZOOM? ANY QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBERS? THAT WAS EASY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CAN WE GET A MOTION? WELL, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 230 WEST MAIN STREET, A MINOR SUBDIVISION. SO MOVED. SECOND. MOVED AND SECONDED. MR. ZELYNICKI. YES. MR. HOGAN. YES. MR. NANARO. AYE. AND I VOTE YES. THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE DISCUSSION ITEMS. WE ONLY HAVE, I'M SORRY. JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THAT PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE OF THE ZOOM PROBLEMS, I WOULD RECOMMEND JUST KEEPING IT OPEN FOR THE SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENT FOR DECEMBER 12TH, DECEMBER 2ND. OKAY. WE CAN DO THAT. OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM IS WHISBOWER RESIDENCE CHAPTER 19. HEATHER, WHAT'S GOING ON? ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE ROB STROMSKI HERE. OKAY. SO, THE BOARD HAS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED. OKAY. SO, THIS IS A CHAPTER 219 COASTAL EROSION HAZARD PERMIT APPLICATION SEEKING TO RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING SEASONAL COTTAGE FROM THE FOUNDATION UP AND ADD A SECOND STORY ADDITION. SO, THE COTTAGE WOULD BE REFRAMED FROM THE FOUNDATION UP. AND THE EXISTING REAR DECKS THAT ARE ATTACHED NEED TO BE COMPLETELY REDECKED, NEW RAILINGS. THE EXISTING DECK PEERS WILL REMAIN. SOME OF THE FRAMING MEMBERS MAY BE REPLACED AS NECESSARY. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED AT 32 BEACH HILL DRIVE IN CALVERTON IN THE WOODCLIFF PARK SEASONAL COMMUNITY. MORE PARTICULARLY IDENTIFIED AS SUFFOLK COUNTY TAXNUMBER 600-40.2-1-17.1. THIS IS WITHIN THE RESIDENCE A40 ZONING USE DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY IMPROVED WITH A ONE STORY SEASONAL SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ATTACHED ROOF DECKS AND ATTACHED FRAMED SHED. THERE'S ALSO WOODEN BULK HEADING AT THE TOE OF THE BLOCK. SO, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2-19, THIS IS A RECONSTRUCTION OR I GUESS A RENOVATION OF EXISTING FUNCTIONAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER HAS RECEIVED A NEW YORK STATE DEC TITLE WETLANDS PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS A PROPOSED WORK. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DID REFER THIS TO OUR CONSULTING ENGINEER, BINNY GORIELO. AND HE IN A MEMO DATED NOVEMBER 14, 2024, HE SAID, AT THIS TIME NO OBJECTION IS TAKEN TO THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, BEFORE WE RECOMMEND ENGINEERING APPROVAL, THE CONDITION AND STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING BLOCK FOUNDATION FOR THE BUILDING SHOULD BE EVALUATED BY THE APPLICANT'S DESIGN PROFESSIONAL FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER THE FOUNDATION WOULD REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION. SO, YOU KNOW, SELECTIVE SHORING UP OF THE FOUNDATION OR REINFORCEMENT ISN'T AS BIG OF A PROJECT AS HAVING TO COMPLETELY REPLACE THE FOUNDATION. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON. SO I DO HAVE A RESOLUTION ON TO APPROVE THIS SUBJECT, THAT CONDITION, AND A COUPLE OF OTHER PLAN REVISIONS THAT I WANTED ADDED. I KNOW THAT MEMBER ZILNICKI, HE CAN'T REALLY SPEAK RIGHT NOW, BUT HE CAME IN AND HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SITE. SO, HE SAID, NO. I DON'T KNOW IF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS GOING TO STAY SEASONAL OR IF THEY'RE LOOKING TO FULLY, I GUESS, MAKE IT YEAR ROUND. I KNOW IT'S A SEASONAL COMMUNITY AND THEY DO ACTUALLY CLOSE IN THE WINTERTIME. I BELIEVE IT HAS TO STAY SEASONAL RESIDENCE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY EVEN SHUT THE WATER TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN EVEN STAY IN. SO NO INSOLATION, NO HEAT? NO, NO, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING LIKE THAT, NO. AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE NOT ADDING ANY BEDROOMS, YOU'RE JUST RELOCATING ONE. SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. CORRECT. BUT MEMBER ZELNICKIE WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SANITARY SYSTEM. I COULDN'T FIND IT ON ANY PRIOR SURVEYS. I DID PULL THE OTHER BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILES FOR THE PROPERTY. FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, THE SANITARY SYSTEM IS UNDERNEATH WHAT THE EXISTING DECK OR WALKWAY. THAT WOULD BE TO THE EAST OF THE RESIDENCE. RIGHT. ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THIS PARCEL IS THIS IS, THIS IS A UNIQUE COTTAGE IN THAT COMPUTERITY IN THE FACT THAT IT ACTUALLY HAS ITS OWN SINGLE AND SEPARATE LOT. SO I GUESS WHENEVER THAT WAS CREATED, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH ROOM FOR A SANITARY SYSTEM TO SERVICE THAT. SO I BELIEVE IT'S, FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, IT'S SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE VACINITY OF THIS WALKWAY TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY. SO ONE OF THE THINGS IS, UH, BARRING ANY WORK TO THE FOUNDATION, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING TO PROPOSE, IF WE HAD TO DO ANY SORT OF SHORING UP TO THE FOUNDATION, IS USING, UM, HELLICAL PILES OR HELLICAL PEERS. BASICALLY IT'S A, IT'S PUT IN WITH MACHINERY, BUT IT'S BASICALLY JUST AN AUGUR, STEEL AUGUR THAT WOULD BE DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY EXCAVATION. AND, WE COULD UTILIZE THOSE, THAT SYSTEM TO EITHER SHORE UP AN EXISTING FOOTING, IF WE FELT THAT IT WAS COMPROMISED, OR IF WE HAVE TO ADD ANY ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD, UM, RECOMMEND, IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF, UM, MODIFICATION OR ENHANCEMENTS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN TO THAT FOUNDATION. ONE OF THE ISSUES IS, UM, JUST BECAUSE OF THE ACCESS TO THE SITE, GETTING UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE, IT'S KINDA DIFFICULT, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE, UH, GETTING FAVORABLE REVIEW FROM THE DEC, FROM THIS BOARD, BEFORE I REALLY STARTED TO EXPAND, UH, ANY OF MY CLIENT'S COST IN DOING A FULL-FLEDGE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS. BUT WE DID DO A FIELD MEASUREMENT OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND WHILE DOING THE FIELD MEASUREMENT OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY ROOF WRAPTERS, WE FELT THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS IN PRETTY GOOD CONDITION, AND WE RECOMMENDED TO OUR CLIENT THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU KNOW, BASED ON OUR ASSESSMENT BEING ON SITE. SO WE, WE HAVE BEEN ON SITE, UM, DOING AN EXHAUSTIVE FIELD MEASUREMENT, SO WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. UM, JUST LIKE, AS IF WITH ANYTHING, UNTIL YOU START WORKING WITH IT, YOU KNOW HOW THINGS ARE AT A LEVEL AND SO FORTH, BUT WE HAVE PUT SOME THOUGHT TO IT THAT IF WE DID HAVE TO DO ANY SORT OF WORK TO ANY OF THE SUPPORTS, THAT WE COULD UTILIZE A SYSTEM THAT WOULD MINIMIZE ANY EXCAVATION, UM, AND ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE, WOULD BE DONE WOULD BE BY HAND. JUST, I MEAN, YOU COULDN'T EVEN GET A MACHINE ON IT, YOU COULDN'T EVEN GET A MACHINE ON THERE IF YOU WANTED TO. WOULD THAT INCLUDE RAISING THE HOUSE IF IT NEEDED TO BE? UH, ONE OF THE THINGS IS, IS BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING A SECOND STORY, THE ROOF WOULD BE COMING OFF AND THERE'S ONE SECTION OF THE FIRST FLOOR THAT'S ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THE REST AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO RAISE THAT SECTION. SO IT'S ONLY THE ORIGINAL MAIN COTTAGE, UM, FRAMING THAT WOULD STAY. SO ONCE THAT DEMO IS DONE, WE DEFINITELY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A MUCH BETTER LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION AND BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE ASSESSMENTS AND MAKE THOSE CALLS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT THERE AND THEN. BUT WE DO PREPARE AT THIS POINT TO KIND OF GO IN, REVIEW THE FOUNDATION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSED FOUNDATION PLAN AS PART OF THE WORKING DRAWINGS THAT WE WOULD NEED ANYWAY. UM, AND IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD PUT THAT DESIGN AND PRESENT IT TO THE BOARD HERE TO AT LEAST HAVE, YOU KNOW, OUR FIRST UNDERSTANDING. I WOULD REQUIRE THAT PROBABLY AS SOME OF THE REVISIONS. UM, SO IN ADDITION TO, UM, A COUPLE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAD LISTED UNDER THE PLANNING, I THINK I HAD SOME OF THE PLAN REVISIONS. UM, I THINK I HAD PUT ELEVATION OR CROSS-SECTION OF EXISTING FOUNDATION AND ANY STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENTS IF REQUIRED. UM, SO I KNOW THAT'S TYPICALLY A FUNCTION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE THIS BOARD TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. UM, SO ESSENTIALLY, LIKE, IF SOMEONE WERE TO GET A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT PLANS BE REVISED BEFORE SIGNATURE, I FEEL LIKE HAVING THE REQUIRED REVISIONS DONE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS WOULD, UM, WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW THAT THIS BOARD IS LOOKING AT. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. ISN'T THE SANITARY SYSTEM, UH, ISN'T IT MANDATED THAT IT HAS TO BE UPDATED? SO IT ONLY HAS TO BE UPDATED IF, UM, THEY REQUIRE HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL, AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL IS ONLY REQUIRED IF YOU'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM. OKAY. SO IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE, IT'S AN EXISTING TWO-BEDROOM PER, UM, THE RECORDS, AND THEY'RE RELOCATING THE BEDROOM. IF THEY WERE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WOULD NECESSARILY HANDLE THIS SITUATION JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT AND THE PROXIMITY TO THE ROAD AND OTHER PROPERTIES. UM, BUT I'M, I SUSPECT THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT ADDING AN ADDITIONAL BEDROOM... OKAY. ...AS TO AVOID THE REQUIREMENT FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPROVAL. ARE THERE ANY PROBLEMS WITH EROSION OVER THERE?

THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. UM, I PULLED THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILES. THEY HAVE AN LPU. I MEAN, THAT REAR DECK WAS CONSTRUCTED, I THINK, IN... I HAD IT LISTED IN MY STAFF REPORT. UM, THEY DID AN ADDITION TO THE RESIDENTS IN 79, AND THEN THEY ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED THE DECK IN 82 AND RE-REBUILT, I GUESS, A PORTION OF IT IN 84. SO IT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED SIMILARLY. UM, AND THEY'RE NOT EXPANDING THE FOOTPRINT OF ANYTHING. THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY DEMOLISHING AND RECONSTRUCTING THE ENTIRE SITE. SO, YOU KNOW, PURSUANT TO OUR CODE, THEY ARE PERMITTED TO DO THAT. BUT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT EROSION ON THE BLUFF AFTER, YOU KNOW, SO MANY YEARS OF STORMS. THE BULK HEADING, UM, HAS BEEN THERE. I KNOW THEY DID SOME WORK TO THE BULK HEADING, I THINK, IN 2011 FOR THIS PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES. BUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE, THIS PARCEL AND OTHER COTTAGES IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE ON THE BLUFF SIDE WILL BE THERE. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE WHERE THEY WOULD BE IF THEY WANTED TO COMPLETELY RECONSTRUCT OR EXPAND JUST DUE TO THE... THERE'S NO WORK BEING CONSTRUCTED ON THE BLUFF ITSELF? NO. NOT AT ALL. NO. SO IT'S FUNNY, THE EXISTING DECK DOES HANG OVER WHERE THE BLUFF BEGINS TO CREST, BUT THEY'RE NOT TOUCHING ANY OF THE DECK PEERS OR VERTICAL FRAMING MEMBERS. I THINK THEY SAID SELECTIVE, LIKE, CROSS MEMBERS WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED IF REQUIRED. JUST FRAMING MEMBERS IF REQUIRED. BUT THEY'RE JUST REDECKING THE TOP BOARDS AND THE RAILING, WHICH ACTUALLY DOESN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT, BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT THEY INCLUDED IT IN THE SCOPE OF WORK JUST BECAUSE IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA. AND WE DID THAT ALSO FOR THE DEC, BECAUSE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE THE WORK, AND, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO LIST EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING, SO THE DEC KNEW, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WOULD BE WORKING ON THAT DECK BEING AT THE PROXIMITY TO THE BLUFF. SO WE DID EXPLAIN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE WORK. WHEN WAS THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE BUILT? WHAT YEAR? I THINK IT WAS BUILT IN THE 50s. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A LETTER OF PREEXISTING USE, WHICH IS INDICATIVE OF BEING CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO 1965. THAT'S WHEN BUILDING PERMITS AND SUBSEQUENTIALS WERE ISSUED. SO I'M ASSUMING PROBABLY... WELL, I WOULD ASSUME THEN YOU'LL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO DO ON THE FOUNDATION. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE FOUNDATION THAT WOULD BE 75 YEARS OLD. THERE'S SEEMINGLY A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE FOUNDATION. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE CMEU, I MEAN, FROM WHAT I COULD SEE, LIKE, I'M NOT A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. SOME OF IT WAS QUESTIONABLE. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING FOR THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS JUST SO THAT WE CAN BE SURE. BECAUSE IF THE ENTIRE THING NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, I WOULD SUGGEST COMING BACK, YOU KNOW, FOR AN AMENDED 219 JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION IS UP TO DATE. WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE SCOPE IS. I MYSELF LIVE IN A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT IN 1952. AND I HAVE A FULL BASEMENT THAT'S CONSTRUCTED OUT OF CMEUs. AND IT'S IN VERY GOOD CONDITION. SO... OKAY. OKAY. I'M NOT CONCERNED FOR MY SAFETY. ANYTHING ELSE? AND IF IT NEEDS SOMETHING, YOU'LL FIX IT. AGAIN, I MEAN, IN OUR EXPERIENCE, TOO. I MEAN, THE CONCRETE BLOCK THAT YOU WERE DEALING WITH IN THE 50s IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE BUYING TODAY IN THE STORES. EXACTLY. THE SIDEWALL AND THE... AND THE THICKNESS OF THAT BLOCK IS A LOT THICKER THAN WHAT YOU'RE GETTING NOW. BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD DO IS, YOU KNOW, AS WE EXPOSE SOME OF IT, WE MAY LEVEL OUT THE FOUNDATION IN THE SECTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING... ANY VOIDS. I'M SURE YOU'LL DEAL WITH THE VOIDS. THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING TO ENHANCE WHAT'S THERE. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO REBUILD IT. OKAY. AND I WILL NOTE THAT BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY IS CLOSED FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, THAT'S WHEN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS PERMITTED. BECAUSE I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE ROADWAYS BEING NARROW AND ACCESS BEING BLOCKED FOR OTHER PEOPLE. BUT IF NO ONE ELSE IS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT'S SHUT DOWN, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT WITH DEMOLITION DEGREES AND MATERIALS. THERE WON'T BE ANY SORT OF STOCKPILING. THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ASK COUNCIL, WOULD YOU SUGGEST HAVING THEM SEPARATE DOING A DEMOLITION PERMIT WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THEN WITHHOLDING A NEW CONSTRUCTION PERMIT UNTIL THEY GET THE FULL STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DONE? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'D WANT TO... I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY, BECAUSE ONCE I FILE FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, IT'S GOING TO BE WITH A FULL SET OF WORKING DRAWINGS. SO I WOULDN'T... GENERALLY IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHEN WE FILE FOR BUILDING PERMITS, WE FILE FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE DEMO IS PART OF THAT WORK. SO YOU WOULD HAVE A DEMOLITION PLAN AND THE FULL WORKING DRAWINGS OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE PROPOSED. SO THERE'S INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR THE FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AT THAT POINT. CORRECT. BASICALLY AFTER THIS MEETING, YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD FEELS COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD AND AGREES WITH THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO HERE, WE'RE PREPARED TO START DOING THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS IMMEDIATELY. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ACTIVELY PUTTING TOGETHER AND GETTING DONE. SO ONCE WE ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD, WE'LL HAVE A FULL SET OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITH ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ON FOUNDATIONS AND SECTIONS AND SO FORTH. OKAY. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT A COPY OF THAT BE SUBMITTED TO ME ALONG WITH THE REVISIONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION JUST SO WE CAN KEEP OUR RECORD CONSISTENT. AND WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL PROVIDE A COPY OF THAT REVISED 219 PLAN AND THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WITH THE RESOLUTION TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THAT WAY EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE. SURE. HOW LONG IS THE COMMUNITY SHUT DOWN FOR IN THE WINTER TIME? IT'S FROM AUCTION TO SEPTEMBER TO APRIL? I BELIEVE SO. SO THAT'S YEAH, OUR INTENTION IS TO DEFINITELY HAVE THE MAJOR CONSTRUCTION DONE, THE SHELL WATER TIGHT AND SO FORTH. THE ONLY THING THAT MAY HAPPEN, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW, I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT THE PARTICULARS, BUT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN SEASON, IT MIGHT BE INSTALLING OF APPLIANCES OR, YOU KNOW, PUTTING IN WOOD FLOORING OR SOMETHING IN A ROOM. RIGHT. AT THAT POINT, ONCE THE COMMUNITY'S OPEN, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY STOCKPILING OF MATERIAL OR LARGE AMOUNTS OF TRUCKS. YOU'RE PROBABLY TALKING A ONE- OR A TWO-MAN CREW THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO INSTALL APPLIANCES OR A COUNTER TOP, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT WOULD JUST BE FINISH WORK AT THAT POINT. BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S EVEN ALLOWED. SO I HAVEN'T GONE TOO FAR INTO THOSE PARTICULARS. BUT WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE MAJOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHELL AND GETTING EVERYTHING WEATHER TIGHT, SHEET ROCKED AND SO FORTH, ALL OF THAT WORK WOULD BE DONE. PRIOR TO THE COMMUNITY OPENING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD NEED LARGE DELIVERIES. RIGHT. AND IT JUST WOULDN'T BE FEASIBLE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. IT'S SIMILAR TO OAKWOOD ON THE SOUND IN WAITING RIVER, WHERE THEY SHUT DOWN AND THEY SHUT OFF THE WATER, LIKE, AT THE STREET. IT'S NOT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. AND THEY HAVE AN HOA THERE THAT HAS TO APPROVE THEIR PERMITS. THIS BEING A SEPARATE LOCK, THEY HAVE TO APPROVE THEIR PERMITS. SO, IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DO. BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT COMES INTO PLAY, BUT AS LONG AS THE MAJOR CONSTRUCTION IS HAPPENING OFF-SEASON, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ISSUES OF PEOPLE GETTING IN AND OUT OR TO THEIR SEASONAL RESIDENCES. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE, GUYS? NO. NO. GOOD. WE'LL HAVE A VOTE IN A LITTLE WHILE. ALL RIGHT. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENTS? I DON'T SEE TOO MANY TAKERS. LET'S MOVE INTO RESOLUTIONS, GENTLEMEN. I MOVE LEARNING. OKAY.

RESOLUTION 2024-089 FOR THE WISCONSIN BARREL RESIDENTS FOR THE GRANTING CHAPTER 11, SHOULD BE CHAPTER 219, SORRY, CHAPTER 219 WITH THE CHANGES. YOU'RE GOING TO PUT SOME CHANGES IN HERE? I THINK WE WERE GOING TO. THEY'RE ALREADY IN. THEY'RE ALREADY IN? THE REVISIONS ARE IN THERE. OKAY. CONDITION NUMBER ONE DETAILS EVERYTHING, AND THEN NUMBER TWO IS THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO THENESCAL. SO MOVED. SECOND. WAS THAT A FRAUDEAN SLIP THAT YOU SAID? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MOVED AND SECOND. MR. ZELNICKI. YES. MR. HOGAN. YES. MR. NANERO. AYE. AND I VOTE AYE. MOTION CARRIES. GOOD LUCK. OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ALL MATTERS. ONCE AGAIN, NOT SEEING A BUNCH OF TAKERS. SO WE HAVE A SEEKER ACTION. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A SEEKER ACTION. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A SEEKER ACTION. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A SEEKER ACTION. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A SEEKER ACTION. OKAY. SO AS THE BOARD WILL RECALL, A FEW MEETINGS BACK WE ADOPTED A NEW POLICY TO SORT OF HELP STREAMLINE ACTIONS, SORT OF ELIMINATE A LITTLE BIT OF REDUNDANCY AND KIND OF REDUCE SOME DELAYS IN REVIEW. SO FOR THE 940 AND THE 946 WEST MAIN STREET APPLICATION, WHICH IS THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE OLD BLACKMAN SITE, IT IS A TYPE I ACTION. SO I DISTRIBUTED. WE NOW HAVE A COMPLETE APPLICATION. THEY PAID THEIR TWO YEAR site plan fees for the illegal work that was done without any kind of approvals. I've received revised plans as well as amended EAF. So I distributed the Type 1 secret coordination materials to involved agencies on November 13th. Again, rather than have to wait for a planning board action, this is just to keep the public informed of when we are reviewing applications. So this is just a notice to the board as well as any members of the public that we have distributed those to involved agencies. So the next time that application comes before the board, you would be in a position to be able to assume lead agency and issue a determination of significance. So that's it. Are we taking any action here? No, again, so this is, you know, we've already distributed it. This is really more just a public notice both for the board as well as members of the public that, you know, we are reviewing these applications. They've been sent out, but there is no action right now. Thanks, Greg. Any other business, gentlemen, staff? Okay. I wanted to bring up one thing, Greg. The clearing on Cromer Avenue, did they have a permit or anything for that? They did not. I did reach out to the senior code enforcement officer. There's a little, there's some discrepancy. There was a zoning board of appeals determination for a use variance that was issued, and then there was a use permit that was issued. So I don't want to discuss it. I haven't gone over it with counsel yet. It's something we're trying to figure out how to address. Okay. But, yes, there was no site plan. There were no land clearing permits that were issued by the planning board or by the building department. Okay. Very good. Thank you, staff. Good job as usual. The board would like to wish everybody a happy Thanksgiving. Our next meeting is December 5th at 6 o'clock. Have a good one, everybody. Thank you. Motion to close? Second. Aye. Moving to second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The motion carries.

Second. Thank you.