Full Transcript

Thank you.

You're ready. Heather? I'm sorry. Thank you, Sam. Can we stand for the pledges, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. We'll make sure that the cell phones are off. We'd appreciate it. Thank you. Heather? Okay. So first we have a reserve decision. Appeal number 2025-042, which is reopened and amended, 1099 Royal LLC, 1087 Old Country Road, Riverhead, Suite 1103, Suffolk County Tax Act number 600-108-4-14.5, shopping center zoning for a proposed ambulance center. Applicant requests an interpretation of Town Code Chapter 301-3B, definition shopping center. To establish that the proposed ambulance center slash garage is a permitted use or an alternative. Variances and or relief from Town Code Chapter 301-110A, where proposed use of ambulance center slash garage is not a permitted use within the shopping center zoning use district. Okay. Before we go, I'd like to say that this is one of the longest cases we've ever had as far as time, meeting with the participants, and listening to all. All the people that had comments to make from the town itself. And we did listen. We read everything. We got pounds of paper, which was appreciated. We learned a lot of things. My hat's off to all those doctors on both sides that are involved with stroke medication. So we have come to our reserve decision, and we'll move on. Please. Okay. It's a very long decision. My printed copy is about... 23 pages. I'm only going to read the relevant portions, which begin on page 19. Under the findings section, and the subsection is interpretation, interpretation, the board finds as follows. The zoning board has given careful consideration to applicant's request for an interpretation that the shopping center zoning district permits the storage slash warehousing of ambulances, office, teaching center for ambulance personnel, and location for dispatch of emergency response. The shopping center district purpose and intent set forth in chapter 301-109 clearly describes moderate size convenience shopping centers, mainly on Route 58, in central locations that are accessible from the adjacent neighborhoods by car, transit, walking, and biking, where residents may purchase daily food, and other services. The building is currently under construction. [transcription gap] retail, personal service, banks, etc., the adopted 2003 comprehensive plan related to shopping center zoning described the intent to provide retail stores flanked by larger retained box stores or larger scale retail, be it grocery stores, furniture stores, etc., with retail as its paramount use. In addition, the adopted 2024 comprehensive plan did not deviate from the 2003 comprehensive plan regarding the shopping center zoning district. Here the proposed uses to wit storage slash warehousing of ambulances, office teaching center for ambulance personnel, and location for dispatch of mobile stroke unit for emergency response do not serve as a location for the residents to shop and purchase or receive services from. And instead, none of the uses are open to the public. Under the subsection use variance section one, is there a lack of reasonable return? The zoning board gave careful consideration to the evidence regarding reasonable rate of return offered by the applicant at the January 8th, 2026 hearing. A single written report from Michael Heikeman, if I pronounce his name properly, I apologize, partner of Heikeman Capital. And the proof offered and set forth above, including the affidavit of Michael Heikeman, managing member of 1099 Royal LLC, owner of the property, which described retaining various marketing firms, for example, Ripco, Sabre Realty, and Brody Realty. And the property was marketed to at least 80 potential tenants that included retail, office, restaurant, health clubs, and retail. And the equity frontage with visibility from Route 58. The Zoning Board also considered arguments of counsel, post-hearing affidavits of Michael Hockerman and Mr. Brody, and all submissions. The Zoning Board is not satisfied that the proof demonstrates dollars and cents proof of an inability to realize a reasonable return under the existing permissible uses. Mr. Hockerman stated that while there was a number of tenants that did express interest in a portion of the former big lot space, none wanted the rear portion of the space due to lack of visibility or loading dock. Similarly, Mr. Brody described that potential tenants had no interest in the entire size of space or the rear portion of the space proposed to be occupied by applicant as and for the ambulance storage due to lack of loading dock and lack of visibility from Route 58. There was no proof that there was an inability to improve the space with a loading dock. It is noted that there exists loading docks for several of the existing retail stores in the shopping center. There is also no proof that reconfiguration of that portion of the space with frontage along the parking areas and marketing for smaller potential tenants would be a good idea. Mr. Brody, I would like to ask you to comment on the current situation of the

! The current situation of the !

Rape Rape

While the Zoning Board does appreciate the significance and importance for retailers, restaurants, and personal services to have frontage within the complex, there is ample frontage along the north and east side of the space previously occupied by big lots with the ability to configure the space, maximize tenants, and secure a reasonable rate of return. Many of the recent tenants secured by Mr. Brody, example Dollar Tree and Planet Fitness, are not visible from Route 58 and instead are set back from Route 58, or set back a significantly greater distance from Route 58 than the space previously occupied by big lots. Further, the third vacant space that Mr. Brody identified at the Planet Fitness slash Dollar Tree site has a pending building permit to be occupied by Men's Warehouse, which is retail. Finally, the Zoning Board does not find the relief or proof submitted in a grant of relief for a portion of the Bricksmore property, Aspen Dental STM number 600-101.1-1.8.1, analogous either regarding proof of reasonable rate of return or any aspect related to this request for use variance. It must be noted that the Bricksmore site is not located within the shopping center district. It is located within the Destinational Retail Center district, nor is the use remotely similar to that proposed here. Under section two of this section, is the alleged hardship unique to the property or does it affect other parcels? The Zoning Board determines that the hardship is not unique to this property. There are at least 30 lots in the shopping center zoning district, many of which are set back significantly greater distances from Route 58, and others due to site plan required buffers and plantings have very limited visibility from Route 58. For example, Target, STM number 600-108-3-13.7, BJ's, the former Kmart, STM number 109-1-19.6, now converted to government social services office use. In addition, Gala Fresh is located within a shopping center, STM number 104-2-16, with uses situated along Route 58 and in front of the north side of the Gala Fresh supermarket, with advertising limited to the facade and road frontage plaza signage similar to the Big Lots space. The FDIC is located within a shopping center, STM number 104-2-16, BJ's, the former Kmart, STM number 105-1-19.6, BJ's, the former Kmart, and the L-shaped configuration is also not unique, nor is it the potential for some square footage as dead space. As described by Mr. Brody, several large box stores have new tenants and have reconfigured the space to attract available tenants. The existing shopping centers are designed and do provide the complement of uses described and permitted in the shopping center zoning. From grocery stores, banks, hair and nail salons, and in an array of restaurants all open for purchase of goods and services by the public, not for storage or non-public space, and not for emergency response through a parking area. Under Section 3 of this section, will the use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? The Zoning Board heard an abundant amount of information related to the mobile stroke unit. As reflected in the hearing, the Zoning Board heard an abundant amount of information related to the mobile stroke unit. As indicated in the hearing transcript and the exhibits, the mobile stroke unit is unique. And if located in the town of Riverhead or for that matter anywhere near the south and north fork of Long Island would be the first specialized ambulance equipped with CT scanner, laboratory, and specialized staff to serve this area with capability on site and in the ambulance to provide treatment and potentially save a life or improve post-stroke recovery. It is beyond Cavill's

that the mobile stroke unit is a significant advancement in technology and emergency stroke care. The zoning board also heard competing information regarding the benefit or appropriateness to locate here in Riverhead and discord between Stony Brook and Peconic Bay Medical Center. Admittedly, the zoning board gave wide berth to all those desiring to be heard, in part, the uniqueness and advancements in treatment delivered by the mobile stroke unit, and in part, a desire to understand stroke treatment in general, and Peconic Bay Medical Center's commitment and progress to advance care with a thrombectomy-capable stroke center. Notwithstanding all the above, and the zoning board's recognition of the potential and promising benefit to any stroke victim in the North or South Fork, of Long Island delivered by the mobile stroke unit, the issue before the zoning board is to determine if the proposed use to wit, stores slash warehousing of ambulances, office teaching center for ambulance personnel, and location for dispatch of a mobile stroke unit for emergency response will alter the character of the neighborhood, and not if the use will benefit the community. As depicted on the zoning map, this area, particularly east of Harrison Avenue and extending to Roanoke along Route 58, and also east of Ostrander Avenue, is zoned shopping center and improved with a host of retail uses frequented by not only Riverhead residents, but dozens of customers and shoppers from the South and North Fork. This area, this site, and the other zoning shopping center sites are intended to be developed for and provide moderate-sized, convenient shopping and direct public services, retail, personal services, offices, etc. The shopping center is also designed to be accessible from the adjacent neighborhoods by car, transit, walking, and biking, where residents may purchase daily necessities such as groceries, personal service, and a variety of retail. The shopping centers purchased daily, oh, sorry, the shopping centers in the shopping center zoning district, including the property where the proposed space and proposed use are located, are improved consistent with the above. While the zoning board heard and received information regarding traffic, the zoning board accepts that traffic is more than likely not impacted by the proposed use. However, again, the proposed use is not retail, nor is its purpose to provide goods or services to the public, and instead it is designed for non-public, non-customer use. In addition, while traffic impacts may not be increased by the use, the dispatch of an emergency vehicle in an area designed for customer access, like parking of a car and walking through the parking area to shop, is contrary to the purpose and design of this zoning district and not compatible with an area designed for customers walking from their cars to the stores. The storage and or warehousing of vehicles, be it ambulance or otherwise, and office and or training, are quite specific having frontage on the shopping center. The currently vacant space was previously occupied in its entirety by a single tenant, but could be subdivided into smaller spaces similar to other tenants in the shopping center in order to fill the existing vacancy. This is evidenced by other shopping center zone properties proximate to the site, wherein a large space was left vacant and the property owner modified the existing space to accommodate multiple tenants to more easily adapt to the changing market. The property owner knowingly submitted an application for use that is not permitted within the shopping center zoning use district, nor is it akin to any of the permitted uses within the district. Furthermore, the use does not align with the purpose and intent of the district. For these reasons, the zoning board finds that the zoning board has not provided any appropriate use for the existing space. The zoning board reminds the district that the alleged hardship was self-created. The conclusion and determination under the interpretation section reads, based upon the findings above, the zoning board denies applicants' request for an interpretation that the shopping center zoning district definition of shopping center in 301-3b and its designated and described uses permit the purpose permit the proposed use to wit storage slash warehousing of ambulances, office teaching center for ambulance personnel, and location for dispatch of emergency response. Under the use variance section, the Zoning Board of Appeals has weighed the benefits of granting the use variance request against the detriment of granting the use variance request to the health, safety, and welfare of the community and has considered the evidence in the record, the criteria for reviewing a use variance request, and the findings above, and denies applicants' request for a use variance. Okay. May I have a second? Second. All right. Moving to the second. Mr. Portia? I vote aye. Mr. Barnes? Aye. Mr. Cannello? Aye. And for the record, it's got to be voting nay here. That's right. That's just a copy. Just so we know, the record should reflect that the copy has been... We're already voting nay, which is wrong. I vote aye. Okay. And I vote aye. So the variance has been denied. I'll tell you, I don't know. I learned a lot about what's going on in our town about strokes, and I guess we should be very excited about what's happening in Peconic Bay. I mean, they're going to have the top item as far as treating strokes, so I don't know if there's anything else to be said. Some people have to, in town, trust some of the people. Some people that are in office or whatever, and doing the right things. And I believe we did the right thing tonight. So thank you very much. Thank you. John, I thought you'd have a stroke first. And that was the short version, right? That might have been the longest. That might have the record for the longest red decision in zoning board history. I think you did. You did. Yeah. Mr. Piggyport, did you have something to say? All right. We're done. Thank you. So moving on to public hearings. Appeal number 2026-007, Jessica Acevedo, 189 Trout Brook Lane in Aquavog. This was heard on April 9th, and it was adjourned to this date pending redesign and possible withdrawal. We have not received any correspondence from the applicant yet. I would be willing to send her an email or call her to see what the status of her application is. I don't know what the board's pleasure is. Somebody says, Jesse, give her 30 days. If we don't hear from her on that, I guess June 11th. Make a motion. We adjourn to June 11th for the response. All in favor? Aye. I would send a letter as well. Yes. As opposed to an email. Opposed? Okay. It can't be grouped. Okay. So next we have appeal number 2026-008, Allison Fimonari, 190 Park Road, Riverhead, Suffolk County. Tax number 600-13. Oh, thank you.

chapter 301-11 where proposed side yard setback is 15.9 feet and 7.4 feet. The minimum required is 25 feet. Where proposed combined side yard is 23.3 feet. Minimum required is 55 feet. Where proposed rear yard setback is 12.7 feet. Minimum required is 60 feet. Where proposed impervious surface coverage is 20.2 percent. Maximum allowed is 15 percent. And chapter 301-9a1d where existing shed side yard setback is 3 feet. Minimum required is 5 feet. And where existing shed is less than 10 feet from any other structure. Minimum of 10 feet is required. And we did receive the affidavit of posting a mailing and the certified mailing receipts. No. Please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. Please state your name and address. Greg Lerato, Captain Permanent, 535 Broad Hollow Road. Melville, New York, Suite B16. Go right ahead. So we're here today seeking relief from the board to approve a 15.9 by 25.6 side yard addition, which will create an additional bedroom and an additional bathroom in this house. The current house consists of two bedrooms, both around 90 square feet, and one bathroom. This addition will allow the bedrooms to increase to a little over 100 square foot each, and will add an additional bedroom for future family members. The owners have a grown family. Currently they have one baby. They would like this to become a home where they can build a family with additional space for everyone to be comfortable, as it's very cramped right now. Due to the positioning of this house being pushed back and the unique shape of the lot, it creates a lot that does not conform. And since this is a non-conforming lot, any sort of addition to this house will trigger a variance, which is why we're here today. The reliefs we are seeking for this addition are side yard setbacks of 15.9 feet and 7.4 feet, where 25 feet is required. Thank you. These are the current setbacks of the house. We are not decreasing these setbacks with this new addition, as the new addition is kind of tapered in from the side of the house, the secondary front yard, which will create a setback at the narrowest point of 8.6 feet. The rear yard setback will be 12.7 feet, where 60 feet is required. However, the current setback of this house is only 28.6 feet, which again, doesn't conform to code. So technically the only setback we are changing is the new addition. The only setback we are changing from the current setbacks is the rear yard setback. We feel that the location of this addition is the only spot available, given the layout of the property and the layout of the house. The proposed impervious surface will increase to 20.20% where 15 is allowed. The increase of 5.20% we are seeking relief for is approximately 295 square feet. The size of the addition itself is 401 square feet. The last relief we are seeking is to increase the size of the house to about 4.5 feet, which is the only spot available. The only relief we are seeking is to maintain a shed that is a 3 foot setback, where 5 feet is required. This particular shed is actually going to be removed. However, the shed that is currently in the front of the house is going to be moved where this shed is, and they are pretty much identically the same size. Even if the shed was to be moved back as far as we could, it would still only be 6 feet away from the addition, and it would be about 1 feet away from the property line. So if the Board isn't in favor of this location, we would just like to move it back. We would just like a location that you would be in favor of, otherwise the owner would be willing to fire rate the sides that are closest to the structure, if that would be okay with you. We don't feel that if the Board were to approve this application, it would create a negative impact on the neighborhood, the surrounding properties, or the environment. We are also not aware of any of the neighbors writing in, calling in to our office in opposition to this application.

So, let me get this straight. The shed to the north, on the north side. In the back, like the back of the house? In the back, on the north side. Yeah. Are you going to remove that, and then take this shed that's on the south side and move it over to that? Correct. So I would assume... Because the one in the back is falling. They're the same size, though. It's 10.3 by 10.2, and the other one's identically 10.2 by 10.2. Okay. Just for my clarification, when you were describing it... Yes. I thought you were requesting to keep both sheds. You're not. No, the other shed didn't come into question, which I'm surprised, but we have it shown on the site plan as being removed. So I guess that's why it wasn't brought up in the variance.

So we don't need to have a condition on that? No. So if I could, just for the record, I'd like to put photographs of the area up on the screen, quick. You're welcome. You deserve a drink.

Oh, thank you.

property and surrounding it shape of the lot so saying it's it's a burden do you have a question I'm just talking about you know we did write the summit part in part into the decision about removing one of the sheds it seems like you're gonna achieve that by getting rid of one of them one of the front the other side but it still will be not conforming so I don't know if we can do anything other than grant a variance for that he's asking for the variance for a shed so it's my understanding you're gonna remove the one that is on the north side and move the wine from the south south side to the north side is that correct yeah there's something wrong with that same size sheds I just want to make the record clear that's all so so that okay anybody else anybody out in the audience anybody on zoom so take it that no neighbors are opposing this because they would have been here and you did you did have the sign up okay so I move that the appeal of Allison Fimo Gurney hey is that how you say it Feminari okay very good thank you 190 Park Road Riverhead tax map number 600 13 dash 5 dash 1 located in the residence are 840 district and for variances and relief from the Town Code 301-11 with a proposed side yard setback is 15.9 and 7.4 a minimum required is 25 feet with a proposed combined side yard is 23.3 feet minimum required is 55 feet where proposed rear yard setback is 12.7 minimum required 60 feet where the proposed impervious surface coverage is 20.2 percent maximum allowed is 15 percent and chapter 301 9a 1d where the existing shed side yard setback is three feet minimum required is five foot and where the existing shed is less than 10 feet from the other structure minimum of 10 feet is required so that being the case in accordance with the application and sketches with the members there too if any file with the building inspector second subject to the removal well they said they were going to remove it no yeah they don't put it in the record let me go out and shoot them and we pull his permit stop the job all right second okay subject to removal of the northern shed being replaced with the southern shed it's still second okay let's do it in Mr Porsche aye Mr Barnes aye Godzilla aye and I vote arise so thank you thank you guys have a great night with your variants coming in thank you now come and last we have appeal number 2026-011 Brian McGinnis 888 Soundshore Road Jamesport Suffolk County tax map number 600-8-1-14 residents a 40 zoning for a proposed rear deck applicant request variances and relief from town code chapter 219-14 a2 where proposed deck is not specifically allowed development under 219-14 subsection B all enrollment and bluff areas is prohibited unless specifically allowed by 219-14 subsection B and we did receive the FD of it opposing a mailing and the receipts you sweat out you with the whole truth that about your itself you got I do a lot of clear voice please take your name and your address please thank you Robert Stromsky I reside at 44 Circle Drive in Jamesport New York uh also representing Mr Brian McGinnis at Stromsky architecture an associate of mine Tyler Danowski has been the majority of the project manager on on the application unfortunately you're going to be here tonight so I'm here to represent Mr McGinnis who is in the audience if you have any questions related to the property owner um as stated in the um the relief request we are looking to remove an existing 6.3 foot by 8 foot existing rear deck platform with a new deck having an approximate footprint of 22 foot 4 inches by 20 feet uh to be constructed on the rear of the house of that small platform due to the fact that the coastal Rose hazard line runs through the house setback beyond that there really would be no um place to put any sort of a deck or essentially do any work to the house without uh getting relief from chapter 219. we get looked at uh other locations for the deck but the northern uh area which would be a C word of the existing structure really is the only fit for for the deck uh it would be constructed uh with standard uh concrete piers they're proposing to do most of the work with hand digging just to be sensitive to bluff area they would also construct uh servants and hay bales you know uh along the the bluff Edge uh to basically take care of any sediment that may happen during the construction they're not looking to use any sort of heavy equipment for the excavation so they're trying to be sensitive to the area without reason the side yard setbacks of the existing house uh would not be uh decreased with the the deck and the building did not cite any sort of area variance it was just the fact of the work being proposed

there are any questions regarding the application at this time. Like I said, I have the property owner here who could address any other concerns that you may have. Well, Rob, we're a little concerned with the size of the deck. It's actually a very huge deck. And of course, you're totally in the coastal erosion hazard. And I know it's the goal of other municipalities as well as the state to try to minimize any kind of development within that area. So is it something that he has to have? Is he planning a wedding on that deck? I mean, it's huge. The footprint is of 20 by 20. I mean, I don't consider for this property, you may say, that that's a large deck. I mean, you're looking at an actual usable area of less than 430 square feet. You know, to me, when you look at a lot of the properties that are along Soundshore Road that may have bigger property area, I've been before this board many times, 3,500 square foot houses that have decks beyond 400 square feet that are in some cases closer to the bluff. I believe what we are proposing is, as the top of the bluff comes south, we would be 13. I think the closest we're looking to be to the top of the bluff is...

13 foot 7 inches. God bless. So I know that, you know, I've been... You know, in the many years that I've done work along Soundshore Road, I've definitely had proposed projects that were definitely closer to the bluff than 13 feet. You know, granted, you know, I think the property, the footprint of the house is very small, so the deck seems to be large compared to what's there, but we do have a situation that, you know, he would just like to have a deck. I mean, you, as you can imagine there, it's nice to be able to have... you know, a nice, you know, table to sit a family and have an additional seating area. I mean, the CZM line is like it swoops behind the structure and everybody else along the bluff. It's in front of their structures. So I just don't understand the reasoning of that, why they did it that way. But it's something that the board may want to think about or... But we'll talk. You know, and also the properties to the east and west are much closer, much more seaward than even the proposed deck would be, you know, in relation to where the bluff is on the east and west properties. Did they get, receive zoning board relief for those? Which one? The properties you're referring to and the decks. Comparing to? Yes, there's been, in certain cases where we had, demolished an existing house and put up a new one. We also had a situation where we had to rebuild an existing deck, like in kind, that the edge of the deck was pretty much right on the bluff. Is that unanimous? That didn't require a ZBA approval? But part of it, it was part of an application for the detached house. But, I mean, I have been before this board for other properties. I can't see. I know definitely to the east of us, there was a property that was rebuilt that would need to require a variance. They were closer to the bluff. I don't have them particularly, but the Cavalera residence is a property that is west of this property. And that was one where we demolished an existing, and we also even had a pool on the north side. Okay. So, we brought the property back when we demolished it. The house was actually right on the bluff. One of the concessions that we made is we moved it away from the bluff. But we're, you know, I think that the position that we have here with 13 foot 7 at its shortest distance, and that's just because the bluff comes in beyond that, the deck is much further away as that bluff line tends to, you know, follow the . If I may, the examples that you were describing, you were talking about like-kind replacement, not variance. If I could just finish, please. You were talking about like-kind. Then the last example that you gave, and you were citing it close to the bluff, you admitted that the house came down, and you moved it back. So, you've minimized what was potentially greater impactful. So. I would just, you know, you're proposing basically a deck three times the size of what currently existed. Do you have any examples of zoning board relief wherein they permitted basically an increase in size, almost triple, well within the coastal erosion limit? Oh, quite a

point of board would not like to reduce the distance of the existing structure to the bluff at all. Can I ask you, if you reduce the deck, would you be able to reduce it and perhaps cantilever it so you could still have a quote good sized deck with minimizing impacts of putting footings and disturbances closer to the bluff? I mean you can obviously cantilever the structure. You can bring the girder back from the edge of the deck currently as it is right now. It's not that. When we're saying that we're 13.7 that's to the edge of the deck. The pier itself is probably I would say at least 14 plus and you're only looking at a 24 inch diameter hole that's dug and filled exactly with concrete. So it's not like you're creating a situation where you're going to have erosion. You're pretty much just digging a 24 inch diameter by 36 inch deep hole and pouring it solid with concrete. And then just placing a deck on that. Is there a standard when you cantilever? In other words, is it like a… Safely you could bring the girder back two foot from the edge of the deck safely without having to increase the joist depth of the framing. So safely just in my experiences as an engineer and designing structure as an architect I would say that. you could bring that girder back two feet from our standard 12-inch offset that we have now.

If the zoning board will permit me, can I inquire as to the vegetation? Sure. Is that okay? So I have, this is a photograph.

These photographs are, Justin, can you put those up?

So you can see in October 16th of 2024, there was considerable vegetation within the coastal erosion area and within the required, is it 20 or 25 feet, Heather? The buffer. 25. And within the 25-feet buffer. And it appears. That's all been cleared. Did you obtain a permit for that clearing? I don't have any knowledge that I have. Mr. McGinnis, can you explain? On that behalf, I have no knowledge of that. I mean, most of them. Yeah, right. Oh, how'd that cut through? I don't know. I could have been a demigod. President, you're right. I do solemnly swear. Tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help you God. Please state your name and address. What do you do? Brian McGinnis. Brian McGinnis, 79 Titus Avenue, Carl Place. Okay. When we purchased the home, there was extremely overgrown bushes. And to the right of the, when you're looking out, to the right there, all along, and we asked our landscaper to clear it. I told him to stay, please stay clear of the bluff as it runs, and I pointed out it runs diagonal. We did not go, we took out bushes, but we didn't go super far to be super careful of the, and it wasn't, there were bushes. So if the clearing that occurred is not permitted under the town code and it's in violation of the town code, it would have required a permit because it was within the coastal erosion hazard area. And actually within the required 25 foot buffer. So basically it was cleared from the back of the property all the way around towards the seaworth side of the house without a permit. I didn't know that, ma'am. But at the last, I think, meeting I viewed, they noted that maybe we could plant some vegetation. Okay. We had like three different choice grass and some choices that they said maybe they would suggest that we did some plantings to replace that. Obviously, I would love to replace anything that you, the board would like. Whatever it takes, we would love to do it. Didn't do anything intentional. And as far as the deck, the only thing I'd love to point out, it does, I understand it seems rather large to you folks. There is, it's actually comes out 16 feet with the stairs. So. It does protrude out 16 feet already. When we did consider doing 16 feet out, and I said it, you know, I stood out there honestly, and I said another four feet would be lovely. And that's why we asked for 20 feet. But currently it does come out 16 with the staircase straight out.

Further comment? No, I think that Rob would probably provide a couple of cases and that probably would help us make a decision. So we will. How much time do you need Rob? I have to juggle that down. Uh.

headhead !

June 11th to 12th and 26th. Thank you. It's 50 feet, Ann Marie. Sorry, it's not 25, it's 50. From the line, it's 50 feet back from the line or the top of the bluff, like where the point of inflection is. All right. So we do have minutes from April 9th of 2026. Second. I'll move. Be approved. Second. All right. All in favor? Aye. And seeing as there are no cases for May 28th, and our last case tonight was adjourned to June 11th, that would put our next meeting date for June 11th of 2026. So moved. Thank you. Motion to close. So moved. Second. Aye.

Thank you.