On the events of last Friday, in Paris and in France, France are ancient ally who joined us in our fight for independence in our revolution.
Worldwide
came to that city, many of the citizens suffered.
If you would remember them and you have thoughts on your prayers in this moment of silence.
Thank you very much. Are we going to have the, okay?
we're just going to listen to the French National Anthem.
Very much and I'm sure we all
would agree that any attack by terrorists join us all together in common cause.
Thank you all start the board meeting.
The clerk will call the roll.
Council member Kappa here council member Foley
President
Council member Canada.
Thank you very much.
We'll have a report to the board.
Yes.
We put a revenue for the town for office for the month of October, with 71,086 dollars and 3 cents.
May I have a motion to accept report item number 1?
All those in favour?
Aye.
Opposed.
Thank you.
We move on to the communications consensus agenda on which there are six items.
Yes, there are six items on the communication consensus agenda.
May I have a motion to accept these communications?
communication with the citizens of the world, others in favour.
Aye.
Opposed.
Thank you.
Okay.
We move on to the highway consensus agenda of which there are five issues.
Yes.
Five items on the highway consensus agenda may have emerged in.
So move.
Opposed.
Aye.
Opposed.
Thank you.
We move on to the consensus resolution agenda.
Councilwoman Pepper. Okay, we'll approve resolution 2015-C-0709 to C-0755.
Second, others in favor.
All right.
Opposed.
Thank you.
You at this point in our agenda, we have general public comment.
And we listen to the public, the Board does not speak or answer questions.
We simply listen to the opportunity for the public to come forward.
Every member of the public has three minutes to state their peace and with that, the
clerk has some cards that have been killed out.
We have William Grant, Alexis Grasso, been changed our recall and Anne Hayes.
In that order, you'll each have three minutes.
Mr. Grant, you're going to start first.
You can begin.
Thank you, Members of Board for you.
Let me speak tonight.
My name is William Grant and the resident of 19,
after the road rocky point.
I'm also being, I mean,
Lifetime member, I'm a student.
Lifetime resident of Brookhaven Town.
I grew up in Shore and Wading River.
and class in 1990 and I've been, excuse me, and my 43 years have watched the once sleepy towns of the North Shore.
We've come in and dated with massive homes and luxury condos and traffic just becoming more immense and immense as time goes on.
And now with the current solar panels.
We have another chance to use open space that's going to come, the Tolgrace golf course, to a great end. Having a 25-megawatt solar farm there, by end energy, would be the best use of that land in my opinion.
You're talking one megawatt of solar energy at a low end could power 164 homes.
Now, add that in with the current project going on, as for us, as per Cape Town residents,
that would you go up to about 5500 homes that would get energy directly.
It would make us the largest, percaving the largest solar farm in New York state.
Think about the constant revenue that could be brought by this by the...
You know, with the 25 year lease, I'm not sure what the lease would be, but constant and
brocade in needs.
I think this would be the best use of this land, no more large homes, large, you know, luxury
kind of, seeing my friends leave because they can't afford the area.
Please consider this proposal and approve the possible solar form coming at the Tolbergres
Now, of course, they're good.
Thank you.
Hello, Brookhaven.
I'm here to speak about big money and politics, as usual, and to take a different cut
at it from, again, the site free speech for people.
In an Amicus brief before the United States Supreme Court in American tradition, partnership
versus Bollock filed by 22 state attorneys general, 22 attorneys general, including these
Free Republicans, Robert McKenna, Attorney General of Washington State, 2005-13, Mark Schertleff,
Attorney General of Utah, 2001-13, and Lawrence Waston, Attorney General of Idaho, 2003-2
now. In particular, the Amikki states believe that the court should agree examine the
assertion in Citizens United that independent expenditures no matter their size or circumstance
stance, rarely cause corruption or the appearance of corruption of federal office holders, as
well as the holding that the federal law at issue in that case could not be supported
in whole or in part by government interest in preventing distortion of political campaigns
and protecting shareholders from the use of corporate funds for political communications
they do not support.
The states have regulated corporate participation in politics for over a century.
The states legislate of responses to the citizen's decision.
However, evidence, they are continuing interest in ensuring that corporate expenditures
do not threaten the integrity of their democratic processes.
The states have a compelling interest in preventing domination of state and local elections
by non-resident corporate interests.
The anti-corruption interests is not the only cognizable government interest that can support
restrictions on campaign expenditures.
A polity also has a compelling interest in regulating electoral influence by non-residents.
And non-resident corporations, due to their large aggregations of wealth and discrete
economic interests present the greatest risk of domination or distortion of state and local
elections by non-residents.
Thank you.
In terms of the good evening, Vincent Erko, Port Jeffes and Station, I'm going to share
something that I learned about last week with you.
A new group of politicians has come together, especially for the purpose of the
addressing the detrimental effects that money and politics is having on-of democracy.
They call themselves the reformers' caucus, and are so far comprised of over 100 former members
of Congress and governors, both Republicans and Democrats.
They maintain that this problem is the core civic issue of our time.
A 70-page report has been published entitled Blueprint Prince for America.
The forward to this document was written by two members of this Reformers Corquant, Corquant,
Senator Allen Simpson, a Republican and Senator Bill Bradley, a Democrat.
In the report, there are proposed solutions, actionable reforms that can be initiated.
Some have been and some for future, such as full transparency and disclosure, lobbying reform,
stronger enforcement of existing laws, and new systems of financing campaigns.
All of the ideas all are well intended.
However, the report concludes with this.
Despite what the current Supreme Court says, our current Constitution not only supports, but
requires, laws that prevent our democracy from being responsive to only the wealthiest
interests.
But if the Supreme Court cannot be convinced of that simple proposition, we will have to
look to changing the Constitution to make even clearer what the Supreme Court refuses
is to see that is, if a citizen's ability to exercise constitutional laws is dependent upon wealth,
then only the wealthy truly possess those rights.
This is why efforts are already underway in states and at the national level to amend the
constitution, to make it clear that it is individuals who have first amendment rights, and
exercise of those rights on that depend on wealth. Even though there is already widespread
support for a constitutional amendment, getting an amendment passed is a long and difficult
process. We have moved to amend a grain and we ask you to help us in that process. Thank you.
I say, thank you, my comments will go toward the budget that you intend to vote on tonight.
And I wanted to address the unfortunate distortion of what I said last time with regard to the proposed budget for the South Country ambulance district.
My comments had to do with the disparity between the expenses that are reported by the private
corporation that provides ambulance service in the district, the difference between the
figures they report to the federal government and the ones that they've presented to you
in connection with their request for funding for the upcoming year.
It's apparent on the face of it when you look at the 499 that gives a total functional
expense of 1.625 million that it also shows that included in that total is over $200,000
of what's called depreciation, which is not an actual expense.
If you take the 200 out of the 1.625, you're left with 1.4 million that would be actual expenses.
Yet this particular corporation has submitted to you a request for more money than that, and your budget picks it all up.
So you can't get away from the fact that you've authorized money in the past that's more
than has been actually expending, and you can't get away from the fact that this corporation
has accumulated liquid funds of a million and a half dollars or better.
In spite of that, in your budget, you've increased the line item for equipment purchases.
I'm submitting to you that it's inappropriate and fiscally irresponsible for you to keep adding sums up in a budget and giving increases when there are significant taxpayer funds that have been accumulated.
And this is all taxpayer money that has come out, so not only has it been accumulated
by the private corporation, but in addition, this board has not yet done anything to take
advantage of health insurance reimbursement for ambulance services at a base reimbursement
of approximately $400 per call that would be Medicare approved.
That's a million dollars, or better,
and reimbursement that would be available to the South
Country ambulance district, and you've not been taking advantage of it.
Next four speakers, Sherry Vittington, Steven Lupo, Greg Salantino, and Robert Sonado.
Good evening.
I'm here to talk about the proposed South Country ambulance building and its location.
As I mentioned at the last town board meeting, all the literature that was sent out during the campaign specified that Supervisor Romaine was an environmentalist.
Also, at the budget hearing, two topics of importance in the budget were of importance in the budget, to improve quality of life for residents as well as less in carbon emissions.
Having lived in Belport Village for 58 years, our community and surrounding communities are being saturated with pollutants.
We have the landfill, we have three industrial plants on Beaver Dam Road, where huge tractor trailers are leaving from these industrial buildings and traveling on Beaver Dam and station road.
And this happens all day long.
Now the proposed location for the South Country Ambulance building on station road,
that property has the only greenery left in the area.
Don't these industrial buildings as well as tractor trailers,
The only greenery left on Station Road is taken away doesn't this affect our quality of life.
The traffic is horrendous on Station Road and Beaver Dam Road.
In the Greater Belport land use plan, it indicated before South Country ambulance building
was put in, that the proposed that the complaints were made regarding traffic and safety and
congestion on Beaver Dam Road, South Country Road, and Montau Highway. Three years ago, I mentioned
at one of the meetings that the Planning Board turned down and access road on to Beaver Dam Road
because of congestion and because of traffic.
I would like to read to you, and I'm not going to have time,
but I would like you to review the town law 202A expense of maintenance,
because there's been no regard to giving us what it's going to require to maintain, to the
expense of maintaining the improvement for this fiscal year of this particular building.
And it's taxpayers living in this district have a right to know the maintenance clause.
Thank you.
Mr. Lofa, you can begin.
Good evening. My name is Stephen Lofa.
I'm here tonight to ask this Board to recognize the elephant in the room.
And that elephant is our government is institutionally corrupt from the influence of money.
This week, Assemblyman Silver is on trial for the corrupting influence of money.
Senator Skello's is on trial for the influence corrupting influence of money
The executive of an asshole county he's laid up from the corrupting influence of money the
supervisor of the town of Oyster Bay
He's not talking either because of the corrupting influence of money. I can go on all day
For this this past election cycle 20 19% of registered boat is turned out to vote if we take it to consideration
The people that are potential voters and decided not to register, what do we have?
12 percent, 12 percent, show up the vote, we call ourselves as a democracy.
The folks who want on this past election cycle, you can pay yourself on the back, but
you pretty much want to prevent it.
78% of potential voters, can we really state that we are a representative Democratic Republican
this point? People have disgusted, they disenfranchised, and no one wants to admit it. It's the
elephant in the room.
It's embarrassing. Let's admit it.
Supervisor Remain,
will you
Councilman Panaco, Councilman Foley, Councilwoman Kephart,
Councilman LeVow, Councilwoman
Bonner,
Councilwoman Cautwright,
does anyone in this room still believe we are representative
Democratic Republic?
I don't think so. Not if you being honest,
we've spoken here many
times, urging this board to support the notion that money is not speech and corporations,
unions, any non-human entity is not in doubt with the nail, even with human rights. If this
movement, if our government is going to change, if we're going to end this institutional
corruption, it's going to start here at the town level all across this nation. Grass roots,
bottom up. That's the only way we're going to restore ourselves to a representative democratic
of the Republic. Thank you very much for listening to my comments.
Mr. Seventeen, this is Seventeen. You can begin.
Good. Greg Seventeen, is that you?
It's Seventeen.
Seventeen.
I came to this board meeting for months ago to speak about the accessory apartment with you
board and an illegal apartment on my block on a cab and a household.
When that time I was told that things would be looked at about that apartment and nothing
has been done at all.
The owner's back was exactly the same thing he did during his summer.
He's got a tent on the main dwelling living in the back room and he just rented the apartment
the steel legal apartment to a couple as it stands and they have two cars, right?
Nothing was done. No follow-up, nothing. It's unbelievable that I come to this place and
explained to you about criminality that was going on at that apartment and you all turned
a blind eye at a deaf ear. Nothing was done. Now he's back to his old. Now the owner is back
to what he was doing before. Your codes are ambiguous and barely enforceable and no one is there
force him at all. He has his apartment going on again, and nothing's been done. And to add
to that, a month and a half ago, I'm sorry, 45 days ago, I had a foil request into
the town, because I wanted to show you, and give you proof that your accessory partner
review board is useless and incompetent, because in a three year period I wanted to know
against specific dates, how many cases, review board her, out of those cases, how many were
approved and how many were denied? And I still haven't gotten that request. When I asked
about it a week ago, the woman on the phone told me they don't keep those records. What
are you hiding about the review board? Is it a political patronage job that you give your friends?
And they just go about their business and just allow apartments to be operated without even
proper bedding of the owners, plus my other foil request was I wanted to see the plans for
that house.
Now I have it's mythology of that house, because 26 years ago when that block was built,
those in one of the houses, that was available.
That house, the living space of the house, and I want to make this clear, the living space
of the house, is 950 square feet, according to your code.
It has to be the living space to the proportion of the apartment.
During that hearing, they're telling me that that house is 1600 square feet.
I wanted to show this board that that house was misrepresented,
and either he'd lie to the board or he'd show the wrong set of plants.
And I still haven't gotten that request.
And I'm tired of this town.
In 26 years, it's the same ossified, an eligible bureaucracy that we've been dealing with.
And I just want to make this one little less statement and just want every board member to understand this.
The wheels are just as blind slow, they grind fine, and they grind on.
Just read the papers and you want to understand what I think.
Mr. Good evening, Robert Denado, middle island.
I'm calling for the resignation of Barack Hussein Obama and if he doesn't resign,
I'm calling for the Congress to envision, and I see this merchant smiles over there, but you know, this is what the American public would like, because he is not representing us.
When he raised his hand to say that he was going to uphold the fame, the Constitution of the United States of America, the United States of America, not the United States of Islam, or Islam, or whatever they want to call it.
So what I'm calling right now is for him to resign, and if he doesn't resign, for the American
Congress to impeach him.
Now, I hear a lot over here about the Citizens United, that's fine.
But Supervisor Romaine, November 14, means a lot to you.
November 22, 23 means a lot to your American public.
JFK was assassinated by a conspiracy, not by one individual.
And you've heard me speak over here about a news day,
Because I sent news day, a letter, 53 years ago, and I said, you know what, it was a conspiracy
because Dr. Matthew Perry said that there was interest ruled over here, okay? And not
with that, but a senator said that he was writing in the car and he smelled smoke. Now you have to
tell me how the senator can say he's most smoke when it came from this way, when it came
from that way. And then also somebody on the commission for the assassination of the
President said, you know what? I was going to vote coming back from Europe when they said
They shot. They shot the president. They shot. This was the person that's on the commission.
And it was a conspiracy.
And everybody has an illness that this was a conspiracy.
And that the president was shot by people, not one individual, but by many.
And I would like to just end by saying Councilwoman Kepett, I may disagree with you, but I would like to thank you for your service.
And I stand you really push the vote and you acknowledge the fact that, of course, here is now going to replace you.
But I would like to thank you.
We have no other cards and
you would like to say something?
Yes.
Thank you.
Madam Clerk.
The accessory appointment review board did that application.
The attorney who represents him is Jennifer Lunchlitzer and she extensively briefed me
both before and after that hearing.
She asked every question that's possible at the time the hearing came before the board to legalize that appointment.
The tenant that was spoken of here today was not in possession of the premises.
The people are entitled under our code to accessory appointments.
It did pass the accessory appointment review board, but it was a lengthy hearing.
We did our due diligence, police matters, or another jurisdiction.
It is now going through the building permit process.
If there are areas of that house that have been converted,
it will be vetted at that time.
Because now the accessory department approves it.
And you can look at how many applications they have.
They don't have discretion and not the zoning board.
They are there to make sure that it's owner occupied.
The owner of this particular property showed Jennifer a numerous evidence that he lives there.
And it was proven at that time.
It was bills. It was ID.
We did it as best we could at that hearing.
And we understand the frustration that there have been building
selectivities in that house, but that's not under our jurisdiction.
And the accessory point review board doesn't have jurisdiction.
If you prove it's a house, you prove you have certain things in there, parking, etc.
They have to grant, it meets the code.
They're just there to ensure it's own occupied and the apartment is the appropriate size.
One second, I'm sorry.
I just wanted to address something.
Ms. Hayes came up and spoke about the South Country ambulance district and it was part of
were the same concerned that she mentioned at the last board meeting, I did have an opportunity
to sit with Commissioner Morris about it, and he's agreed to speak on it when we talk
about the budget a little later. So he will be responding to some of the concerns that was raised
by Ms. Haynes. I just wanted to let her know that we did hear her concerns, and he will address
it.
I just have one comment. I want to congratulate my law school classmate and friend
call rate on a beautiful wedding.
Thank you.
And happy birthday.
Thank you.
She was a supervisor.
My birthday in the 15th of November.
Oh, have a birthday.
Happy birthday.
Mr. Supervisor.
It's the time to talk to Kevin again.
All right.
My mom hasn't said anything about being single.
So don't bring that up.
She's going to be a nurse.
She's watching this.
I'm going to be, you know, the cast eyes.
Okay, with that, we're going to move into resolutions at this time, and we'll start off with Councilman Folley.
Resolutions 0.7, 8.4, 2015, award the bid of number 1, 5, 0.7, 9, planting beachgrass at CBU.
Fire out into the lowest responsible bidder, Lewis Fobado, landscaping, and some moves.
Resolution 075 2015 award of the bid number 15078 planting Beachgrass at Ocean Bay Park, Fire Owens, the lowest responsible bidder, Lewis Barbado, and Skating Ink, some moves.
Second.
All those in favour?
Aye.
Post.
Much in cash.
Resolution zero seven eight six two thousand fifteen award of the bid number one five
zero seven six planting beach grass at Davis Park.
Far Island to the lowest responsible bidder.
Lewis Bob bottle landscaping in some move.
Second.
Oh, those in favour?
Aye.
Opposed.
Much in cash.
Resolution zero seven eight seven two thousand fifteen award of the bid number one five zero
seven seven planted planting beach grass.
fire island pines, fire island, the lowest response will be there, the lowest part of the
last gaping in, some moves.
Thank you.
All those in favour?
I post.
Washington, Kansas.
Resolution 078, 2015, consent of the town board to the superintendent of the
highways, ordering the taking of and laying out certain roads as highway pursuant to
section 189 of the highway law, some moves.
Second.
All those in favour?
I'm opposed.
Question.
Resolution 789 of 2015, authorization to acquire a vacant parcel of Suffolk County
on-land, the drainage purposes, pursuant to section 72H of the General Municipal Law,
Bayland Avenue East to talk it, Suffolk County tax fat numbers identified, so moved.
What does it say round on?
I'm opposed.
on that motion?
Yes.
It just occurred to me.
How many life guards are we
supplying there to that location?
Yeah, if you could, we could have the pork submission report.
And I would have asked this a work session,
but it just occurred to me in looking at it now.
This has the numbers.
The time of vocabulary reports upon
we're supplying three life guards,
throwing the weekday shifts,
And on the weekends, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, there will be four guards.
And what is the villager of Belport Payne?
Whatever rate, the life cards are going to pay through by the town.
And we charge it back.
52,865 dollars, budget, neutral impact.
Is that include French?
French, yes, which is okay.
This past year, it was just over, it was about $25,000, but we started about a quarter into the season, so we'll probably
to check and so on around 35 or so.
OK.
Others in favour?
Yes.
Any pose?
Motion carries.
792 of 2015 is authorization to transfer funds from the Motor Vehicle Capital Reserve
account to the capital budget for a Motor Vehicle account.
Some more.
Second.
Others in favour?
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries.
The 73 of 2015 is a men in 2015 capital budget information technology to establish new projects for intrusion protection.
Do we have anyone here from my team?
No.
The only reason why I ask is because I know that we have spent and sent a staff member from the town to Nebraska with regard to our firewall protection.
I mean, I'm not public safety.
I tell you.
Mac and you, Andrew, is this timely and critical?
It's just demanding the budget.
It's not taking an action here.
No, I know that.
So what?
All right.
I would make motion to table this until the third.
All those of the favour to table, aye.
Opposed.
Thank you.
And this is a resolution 7.94.
It's a resolution of the town and board.
It's on the town of Brookhaven to the New York State Department of Transportation.
For an administrative hearing to consider a railroad group,
causing infrastructure at Madison Street,
end of our orphaned street in Mastic, New York.
This one, this one should be district six.
So they want to make the notion there.
It has a C4.
I'll make that motion.
All those in favor, I pose, I think I'm also making an example.
This is, this is 95, 10th woman,
7.95.
8.95.
7.95.
It's 2015.
It's operating capital budget transfer.
It's so moved.
7.
7.95.
I know, but I'm gone, I must go to the table now because the computer is not right.
Would you like me to take the resolution?
Yes.
D-4.
Okay.
Can you pay for the bill of the game all the residents are yours now?
Okay.
No worries.
796 is authorization to pay various invoices for goods and services provided with that
professional service, requisition, contract or purchase or whatever, as required by the
committee policy, so moved.
All those in favour?
Seven ninety seven.
And is authorizing the commissioner finance to amend the 2016 preliminary operating budget?
So moved.
Second.
Okay.
It's part of the discussion.
We have all commissioner finance.
You see.
And on the right of our operations map.
Miner.
Mr. Finance.
At the time of right.
Mr. Board members have any questions that they would like to ask.
before we move ahead with the adoption of the budget?
I would like to just give you a little bit of background.
How did some amendments came about?
You may recall in the preliminary budget.
There was a small, a plan to use a very small amount of fund balance in the general funds,
and a highway fund to balance the budget.
That is because we were closely watching how the final health insurance rate and retirement contribution rates
would come in for the year 2016, it's always a gas until we get much later in the year.
The health insurance rates, we do have, there is not a significant change in what we had
originally projected. However, the retirement countries were considerably less overall
now that we paid off, we had full impact of paying off all of the amortization debt on the
So we were able to reduce the retirement contribution expense in all funds that had employees.
And in the general fund, full town, the general fund part town.
And in the part town, highway fund, we were able to reduce the use of surplus.
And in the highway fund, we went from half a million to 350,000, which does help.
fund balance for next year. In the two general funds we are now using no surplus, certainly
for the first is a planned use of surplus for the first time probably since I can find evidence.
And that means that we are structurally balanced in our 2016 budget.
So let me just re-emphasize that, obviously, our pension course came in a little less than anticipated that in several other factors, both the A and B fund, the two major general funds, are structurally balanced, did not require any surplus, and the surplus that was needed to balance the highway budget was diminished from over half a million to about 350,000.
is that correct?
That is correct.
And I'm not referring to further emphasise that in garbage collection, which is charged
in the past, has been $350, the household is that going down to $345.
That's $353.59, now it's going down to $345.
So it's going down from the price of $14.
down about $14. $14. So garbage collection will be reduced for a household by $14 a year.
Yes, it's still good.
Yes.
With respect to South country animals.
Yes.
So let me just try to clarify a couple of things in terms of, I'm sorry, I'm modeling at the garbage
for you going down. What was the, what the course that meant the garbage free to go down?
Councilwoman, if you recall, the town entered into the new
Kavantu Agreement, now about a year and a half ago, that allowed us
to, you know, significant reduction in the price per ton of MSW.
So it's had nothing to do with recycling going up or anything like that.
It's certainly recycling going up and less garbage being disclosed
health, but we went from paying well over $100 a ton all in to $91.25, all in, so that
that $10.15 a ton translated for the 170,000 tons that we generate was able to reduce
the savings.
Okay.
Well, so, thank you.
Also, as you mentioned, recycling has produced less garbage on average.
We've seen about 4 to 5,000 tons annually less, especially when now the single stream, and that's certainly helps.
I'll grab you for a single stream.
Yes.
And a revenue from single stream.
So it's a combination.
I think the biggest factor is the reduction in the tipping fee.
But certainly there are the increased recycling, the diminished waste, and a revenue from the single stream.
But that combination is a lot of some flexibility in the garbage district.
Okay, thank you, man.
So with respect to ambulance companies versus ambulance districts, I want to make a distinction
here, it's a background before I go over some of the questions around the ambulance companies
1990s.
The town is responsible for the ambulance district, which is required under our filing with
New York State as a special district to provide emergency ambulance services.
There are several cost components that exist in that ambulance district that you will see in the budget.
One is the contract cost for the contracted services with the ambulance company.
But there are other costs, too, for example, the low-sap retirement plan is a big cost in there,
as well as administrative charge back that we make as a town where the legal services,
accounting services, et cetera, that are provided to those ambulance districts.
The ambulance companies are independent 501C3s.
They are not the ambulance district, the town contracts with these 501C3, no profit organizations.
And we have a contract with them like we would have with any contractor that provides services
on behalf of the tax district.
The ambulance companies are required under the contract to submit
a budget request each year. That budget request is, of course, a great deal of due diligence
by the ambulance coordinator, by the liaison of the Council offices, by finance. We review
in crisis and the spending request,
inquire what is behind that sort of thing compared to previous years.
Look at the trend growth.
There is a great deal of discussion and conversation
that goes on between the town and the ambivalent companies
as we review their budget request.
Eventually an agreement is made as to what that increase will be.
They are entitled to a CPI increase
if the tone so chooses.
And that CPI is defined in their contract.
In 2016,
the CPI increased, they were entitled to,
the contract that was stated was less than a half of set,
.48.
That was less than the .73 that the state controller allowed
as part of the tax cap.
The supervisor made a decision to allow the ambulance companies contract amount after a review
to go up a maximum of 0.73.
Some contracts didn't, some of the companies didn't ask for any increase, some asked for
very small increase, but the maximum increase that was allowed was 0.73.
So that's a quick history on what happened in 2016, some back on it.
Now, the 990 is an IRS form that is required to be filed by 501c3s who earn income that is
not directly pursuant to the services that they provide.
It's not as relevant at all to the operation of the district.
It is to map it is to, no, it has no bearing on the operation of the district.
This is for a corporation, not for the district.
Correct.
We, I don't run the corporation. I, as in the members of this board jointly, do to the state
law, are considered commissioners of all the ample districts. Correct. But the town, as
monitors closely, the 90s, because they do give us information about how much money is being
spent. We certainly wouldn't want to see that we're giving them significantly more money
and they're spending in total, but there will always be,
I would say, in the every 990, I reviewed,
more spending by the 501c3 than their contract request.
So let me ask this once again.
The 990 form has no relevance to the operation
of the ambulance district that goes to the relationship
between the private corporation and the IRS.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
Thank you.
And it may as it comes from their audited financial statements, which we, of the 501c free.
Now, in 2014, which is the most current 990-owned file for the South Country Ambulance,
as an example, the 990 report demonstrates of $1,652,000 was spent by the ambulance 501c free company.
The contract request that year was a million five sixty-eight by the annual company.
So they clearly spent more money than they even asked us for, and this is the type of
thing that we monitor to make sure that it is always more money than we're paying.
Otherwise we'll be following up asking questions and when they come in for another contract
request next year. We'll be asking questions about this.
Thank you, Commissioner Wright. Just one other question related to that. So when the budget
request comes in, you don't review the 990. You review the audited financial statements.
Correct? We review both. Okay. We review both. We certainly hope that when the ambulance
companies' contract request and they don't come in, that they have completed their audited
the mental statements, and filed their 1990, the treats of the virus, like many municipalities,
the audits are often not completed until August of the year.
That was true for this town, for example, for many, many years until we started moving it
earlier in the year to June.
So as soon as we have it, we're reviewing it.
If we can't review the most current year, we're looking at the year before.
And I'm not sure if the public had access to this, but because I sat down with you today,
and we're just looking at some documents.
But it looked...
Like on the audited financial statement, the expenses total expenses for 2014 is 1,613,619 dollars, correct?
in 19. I don't know why. I mean, we would have to ask their orders. No, I could sniff.
Why? They're the 90, so these been 1,652, 0,222 versus 1,613,619. The difference is not.
In both cases, it's more money than the contract amount. Okay, that year.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm just another note, I, you know, I sat down with Commissioner Reiner, I've spoken to you,
Commissioner Reiner, my office has been in touch with you and I had a number of concerns
with respect to the budget and I just want to thank you for sitting down with me to go over
everything and to question. They basically come to a agreement with everything I'll be voting
in favor of the budget, but I wanted to just state something for the record. One of the concerns
I had was with Inspector the Townwide Council District Park Improvements, initially it has been
since I've been here, $100,000 that's allocated for each council district and recently
because of certain capital projects we are knocking it down to $75,000 per council district
and it's my understanding that we're doing that because of extenuating circumstances this budget
cycle, and that for the next budget cycle that we're going to work towards, I'm getting
it back to the 100,000 for each council district.
So I just wanted to put that on the record and make sure that we're in agreement with that.
We will certainly review it until the budget is developed, and we see what the debt services,
I don't know that right now we can commit 100 percent to the 100,000, but I understand
you a request, and as we develop the budget with the supervisor for 2017, we will certainly
look at that,
but right now, the town has significant debt, and we need to manage our capital
projects wisely to enable those to get to the 100,000 for next year.
That's what you'll be looking towards, correct?
I would like to comment, we are attempting, whenever possible, to limit the amount of debt
That would take on. We thought it was reasonable to reduce some 100,000 to each member of
this board, not to supervise it, but town board members for projects in their district.
But as I've told board members, and I think may have been conveyed to Councilwoman Corp,
right, if you have a valid project, and it requires more than 75,000, but it's a valid project
we would attempt to find the additional money. But in the budget, we put forward a budget
that we think will control spending and debt. But if valid projects come along, we're not
going to let them sit if they are beneficial to communities and we will try to find additional resources.
If I may add, as we spoke, Councilwoman, we have been moving towards more specific
parks, parks, projects in the budget, the names of the parks and a full budget outlawing
for those parks and more and more away from unallocated money.
And I think the overall parks budget is going up even though the unallocated portion is going
down.
No, I understand.
And as I articulated to my colleague, most of them on the board, I think it's important
that each council district has $100,000 to be able to work with their smaller parks.
It's one thing that they can work with the Commissioner of Parks on without having to
go through the process of fighting over every small park.
I mean, it's clearly something that has to be approved.
You know, the Commissioner of Parks has to say that it's okay and work for move forward with it.
But I'm okay with the 75,000 to this year hoping that we are going to be able to move back up to 100,000.
The other thing is we have an agreement that the Parks Department
We'll purchase a new playground and fencing for Washington Avenue Park in my district out of the General Townwide Park in playground and or townwide fencing line out of
2016.
We talked about the specific projects that would be agreement and I just wanted to make sure that this is stayed in on the record.
I was there for that conversation with our first commissioner that was my understanding as well.
Okay, and that's in addition to the 75,000 that I'll be getting, and in addition to any money that was over from this year that hasn't been utilized from my line item, but parts. Thank you.
Further questions for Commissioner finance with the right to reparations?
No.
There being no further questions, we have a motion before us.
I have a second, so I'll take all those in favour.
Hi.
Hello.
Motion carries.
Okay.
We're solution 7-9-8 is authorizing an agreement with Albright, Luciano Zerak and company
PC to provide auditing and accounting services for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015
so moved.
Albright.
All right.
Resolution 7-9-9 is authorizing the Commissioner Finance to amend the 2016 to 2020
preliminary capital budget.
So moved.
Second.
All those in favour?
All right.
Opposed.
Motion cameras.
And resolution.
800 as authorizing the commissioner finance to amend the 2016
preliminary operating budgets inclusive of special districts.
So moved.
Second.
All those in favour?
Opposed.
Okay.
We have one walk on the capital.
Can we have a second?
Yes.
6.
All right.
We do have decisions before trying to remove the decision count.
The decision number one.
Six.
decision one, and number one, resolution after public hearing in the matter of adopting a 2016 preliminary operating budget as amended, as the annual operating budget for the fiscal year 2016,
inclusive of special districts, pursuant to New York State Town Law, Section 108.
It's a type two secret action, and I shall move. Second.
We are on to decision number two, which is a resolution at the public hearing in the matter
of adopting the 2016-2020 preliminary capital budget as an annual count budget for
fiscal year 2016-2020 exclusive of all special districts pursuing two section one-on-line
of New York State Town Law and I some more.
Model's and date five.
Opposed.
OK, decision number three.
It is a resolution and order of adoption in the matter of the increase or improvement of
facilities of various special districts for the 2016 Capitol budget pursuant to section 109 and section 202-p of the town law and I some more.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We move on to decision number four A, and that's going to be carried by Councilwoman
Councilor Scott.
Thank you, Mr. Supervisor.
The first is a negative declaration to consider application of 545 William Foy Parkway for
a change of zone from J Business 2 to J Business 5.
special use permit, the major restaurant with drive-through, and wave-waves of town-boots
special permit, criteria on traffic located and surely new, like someone's back in.
All those in favour?
Aye.
Opposed?
I think I can.
And this is the resolution of a downstream to consider application of a 5.45,
William Floyd Parkway, for a change of zone from J. Business 2 to J. Business 5.
Special use permit, the major restaurant with drive-through,
The way we was informed was special permit criteria on property located in sure we knew some of it.
Second, all of us in favor.
Okay, at this time, public hearings are set for 630.
We can't conduct any business until 630 at this point.
But I will say that public hearing number 2, we got in a wetland's permit has been adjourned for December 16th.
And public hearing number five, regarding a licensed agreement for Fishing Station has been adjourned also to December 15.
At this point, I will entertain you.
I can take a motion on those two gentlemen.
Okay.
I will make a motion to adjourn public hearing number 2 to December 17.
All those in private section, all those in favour?
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion carries?
I will make a motion to adjourn public hearing number five to December 17.
All those in favour?
Aye.
Opposed?
Motion has.
Okay, we're going to do something that I haven't done.
I think it's very years that I've been supervisor.
We're going to take a motion to go into executive session and discuss a legal matter.
We're concerning the RTA, which we're in litigation with before federal courts.
system,
and the kind of turning has communications regarding this litigation for the board.
So I will take a motion to go into executive session for that purpose.
We will come out of executive session, but only at 630 to start public hearings.
Is there such a motion?
Second, other than favour?
Okay.
We're going to the media room to executive session.
I'm going to go
back into General Session.
All those in favor.
All right.
At this time we have a walk on resolution and we're going to have a move by Councilwoman
Kevin.
Okay, this is authorizing the town attorney to settle the litigation.
and town of Brookhaven versus Sillsville.
Most of them haven't had a story.
Motion to add.
Eight-all-one.
Motion to add.
Resolution 801.
Some moves.
Second.
All those in favor.
All right.
Opposed.
Motion to add carries.
OK.
This is a resolution authorizing the town attorney
to settle the litigation of town of Brookhaven versus Sills
Rose Road Realty LLC.
for Kevin Rale LLC, US Rail, New York LLC, for Kevin Terminal Operations, Oakland Transportation
Holding LLC, Seals Express by Associates, Woodrow, Brothers Incorporated and Pratt Brothers
Incorporated.
So move.
Okay, at this point I'm going to ask the kind of turning to give a brief explanation
of this resolution.
This resolution authorizes me to further negotiate the particulars of the settlement deal,
which will then be presented at another executive session through the town board.
And at that time, I'll be authorized to sign the settlement agreement.
And the specifications of the settlement agreement will be made obviously public.
Yes.
At that time.
the appropriate time board meeting when the settlement negotiations are over.
Right. And the negotiations still continue over language, details, and a number of
other items that need to be the specificity of which needs to be spelled out in greater
detail.
Yes. And once it is fully signed, we will put it into the public domain. It's at a sensitive
point now. We've made much progress. And we want to continue that progress.
So we will be back with the town board at a executive session and then once it is signed by all parties
It'll be filed in the federal court. It becomes public record
Okay, so having been moved and seconded others in favor. All right. All right, I suppose
Okay, we move right into public parents public hearing number one.
I'm hearing number one
You don't want traffic to remain in adjacent and redneck.
Traffic safety will be providing a brief summary of tonight's public hearing.
Too many in the public health care, legal notices.
Public hearings have published no less than 10 days, no more than 20 days.
Prior to public hearing, in one of the legal terminus papers, our office has received the
time to have a debate of a publication from the newspaper.
Before we go further, I just want to, as they're leaving, thank our attorney, in this case, the next one.
Yes, Rob Calico.
Did an excellent job on this? And also Stephanie Davis from FPM, our geologists, we couldn't have done all this great work without her and saved a beautiful piece of land, a nice portion of it.
Okay. So I'd answer up, but they were leaving, and I wanted to thank them for their service in representation that town on this very critical case.
Good evening, Mr. Supervisor and Members of the Town Board.
The following is a summary of amendments to the kind of vocabulary
uniform traffic code, Article 7, Section 26,
stop and your intersections.
There's one addition for that.
There's one addition on the hand on a vocabulary.
OK.
A share of motion.
Good for you.
All those in favour?
Aye.
All those in favour?
Aye.
Okay, we're on to public hearing number three.
Thank you.
Thank you, Jason.
And we have Joseph Zano from the Planning Department.
Public hearing number three is to consider the application.
For 43 March of Highways Center, Merit's.
I'm sorry.
The application of 43 March of Highways Center, Merit's.
for amendment of restrictive covenants and property of the state and the kind of
rich is new y'all.
Big ol' notices for public hearings, I publish no less than 10 days, no more than 20 days
prior to a public hearing of the legal time newspapers, our office has received the
signed affidavit of publication from the newspaper, Secret Negative Determination will
be submitted by the world's current review resolution, if applicable, we have received a letter
with comments from the East Merchist Center, East Merchist Property Owners Association and the
Merchist-based Civic Association.
The applicant was required to post the property as well as not to fight all property owners
within eight-five hundred foot radius of subject property, and I have the Epidivist-Amalion
Posting in my possession.
Okay.
So, do we have speakers on this and we'll hear from first of all, we're here for planning
what's involved in this application.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Members of the Board.
This project site is located along the north side of Montau Highway.
A west-of-checks-reason road in Sen.
It is 0.73 acres in size.
Currently is owned J4 business.
The site is improved with a residential structure,
which has been converted into an office.
And they bond in the rear of the site with associated landscaping and parking.
The site was the subject of a change of zone.
It's a two story frame wooden house.
Yes, on one side of Montau Kaiway adjacent to Mount Pleasant Samitary.
Immediately adjacent immediately adjacent.
Pleasant, which is to the east and north of the property.
In 1989, there was a change of zone application.
And it was approved by the town board for J4 business zoning.
And at that time, there were covenants applied guidance, restricted the property, restricted the property, and used solely as a law office.
Law office with two attorneys only.
And addition, it was also that we remain residential.
Residential and appearance character, and there would be no further building.
No further building.
So we're lifting that covenant.
What are we putting?
Just the covenant number one.
We're just lifting the one about the two attorneys.
That's the one.
So the other two were all J4 uses would be applicable as long as they kept the professional office.
No, no.
Well, actually we are proposing new covenants be put in place just a supervisor.
I think at this time it might be appropriate for me to read them for the board.
I would.
Thanks.
Okay.
The two covenants that will remain or the architecture show remain residential and appearance.
And no new buildings will be constructed on the premises.
That's already on there.
they're going to remain. In addition, we are adding no outdoor storage or overnight
parking of vehicles, shall we permit it on the subject parcel?
So, I can't be useful landscaping business in the back.
They can't put things to vehicles, yes, outside.
And permitted uses shall be limited to professional, administrative, financial, and business
offices, including the ordering of cemetery monuments, but shall not include undertaking establishments.
okay. That would be the proposed governance.
And the applicant is aware of the revised
confidence? I believe so. Mr. Wooso?
Mr. Wooso? Mr. Wooso. Mr. Wooso.
Mr. Wooso. Mr. Wooso? Mr. Warton? Mr. Hooseo?
Mr. Yubun. Mr. Yubun?
Mr. Warton? Yes.
Mr. Supervisor, an Member of the Board for the Record.
My name is Eric Rooseo, with a law firm at Van Bruntje,
so you can also vote.
Office is a 140-main street, save-a.
We do represent the applicant.
43 Montau-Keyway lc at three-tuddle point form road in these
richest, the property as you're aware is 43 Montau Highway, the managing member is Edward
DeGotta.
He's on the property as of this December for two years, December 23rd to be exact, and
he is aware of the release that we're applying for, and we've had prized some of the information
that's just been forwarded by the town attorney in the planning division to you and
the public.
And we're prepared to go forward here with your advice, Governor.
Yes.
And the other point is the covenant that was on the property, truly was on enforceable based
on the code in terms of the restrictions boarded on a little bit of legality question.
And the second part is there are CEOs for the structures that are on the premises, however,
the prior property owner, after they got the change of zone in 1989, never converted or filed
a change of use to go from residents, which is what was there, to the office that used that
was portedly sold to our client for.
So I assume a filing will be forthcoming.
There will be a filing, we've discussed with planning
that we would need to file a change of use application,
and then we proceed from there.
I have nothing further.
And we did submit all of this.
Any questions or members of the board?
I have a question to you, and just a statement.
Chase for allows under A is administrative financial business
professional office.
That will continue to be allowed.
Is that correct, Jim?
That's correct.
But our gallery bank, take care of facility, exhibit hole, and under taking the establishment,
the applicant will cover it in against any of those other, for not being permitted.
And then that covenant would also cover specially permitted uses in the code, whether it's the
town border or the planning border.
My correct.
That's correct.
Okay.
The second question is for the town attorney, the covenant, which is odd to me.
I don't know the genesis of it, that can only be two attorneys.
Is that legally enforceable if challenged?
I think Mr. Russo and I have discussed this, you cannot regulate use of a premises, you regulate the zoning of a premises, you can establish uses by a code, but to say two attorneys versus one attorney versus three attorneys, it's on very much on the edge of regulating the business rather than the property, and that's my problem with that covenant.
Okay, that's understandable. The last question. If they're selling cemetery monuments, why is that not retail? Obviously headstones are not think you come in and you find your name like a license plate in a gift card store.
Those have to be made especially for the person when that person dies. Why is that not considered retail under the code?
Under a code in a definition of a retail sales establishment, you actually have to physically leave the premises worth the product.
without that, it's not considered retail sales.
So you are going to a facility, a retail store,
you're purchasing a product and you're leaving with that product.
That's for the definition of retail sales in our town code.
In addition, if you were going to an insurance office,
you'd be going to an insurance office,
having them print out or look at a policy you're paying for,
but the policy is coming to you in the mail.
I could read the definition.
I get, I'm just going to ask, asking the question for my application, the board's application,
and probably something somebody else was thinking of in the audience.
Okay, thank you.
Other questions?
Did we know all the questions are the speakers on this platform?
Yes.
We have four speakers.
Thomas, Stenixen, Mary Davis, Jason Burwah, and Jim Pleasant, and that order.
I'm sorry, but if you don't get through it, no, he's in Tony.
So why do they thought they get their five minutes, they're attorneys, and I would just
fight for it.
I understand that, but I would like to just do them all together and swear them.
Victor, please, then are you coming up?
Okay, I just said I want to square everybody in the next
this morning.
This is good too.
Yeah, he's in prison.
Yeah, she's in prison.
Jim, you're in attorney at law, right?
There you go.
That's the only one person.
And why do I always square him in?
I don't know.
I didn't know that.
He's a very courteous gentleman that would not want it.
Sir, you know, raise your eye hand.
And do you swear to tell the truth that the whole truth
I will be glad.
So, what we are going to do is to start with Mr. Sennigson.
Good evening.
I know the property.
I remember, the supervisor of Maine and members of the town board.
My name is Thomas Sinnichar.
Thomas Sinnichar.
I am an attorney and prior owner of the property.
I am here tonight because I think it is very important that the town board be advised
of the history of the zoning petition of the subject property.
I purchased the property in the mid-80s at the time.
My primary office was in Midtown Manhattan.
and it continues for you street, as well as my residents.
I plan to use the building as a satellite office
and place my wife and I to stay
and we visit her family.
Because for I could do that on the weekends when I came out,
I had a thousand of it back at my car,
and I really was kind of difficult to represent people
in the back of your car.
Friends, you know, friends from home, growing up.
When the office became busier,
I filed a petition for change of zone from A1 residents
to JQ General Business.
I went through a lengthy, two-year process.
And when I finally appeared before the town board, they were not inclined to grant a J2 application,
but would said they would consider a J4 for the premises.
At that point in time, I requested to amend the petition to proceed J4, but they said no,
I had to start all over again.
Thereafter, I submitted a second petition for a change of zone this time to J4.
office use, the other lengthy two-year process, and when it appeared before the town board,
they were still reluctant for general business use of the property. They were only granted
J4 with a restricted covenant and restriction that said basically law officer number one to
attorneys. They were not inclined to for general business use on a busy corner and reducing
their residential appearance of the community.
I probably should not have agreed to such
If you're one language, one at a time, I had been through two petitions in four years when
I really had enough to want to move forward regarding the subject of application.
If the governance and restrictions are modified by operation of law in essence, it should
be referred back to the Reset A1 Residence.
An applicant can't remove governance and restrictions and gain general business use without
a formal change of zone process.
If that was the case that I would have done many years ago,
finally, is the issue of the
here at use and occupancy of the premises. Upon information and belief, the applicant's
tenant is currently operating a D-2 channel versus monument company, and just because
you can't have the monument out, doesn't mean it's not retail. It's subject would be an
earner. You can certainly work out with an earner and the monument memorial company,
sells things you can work out with. You can't say, you're not retail, just because they
have a product.
There are signs and a daily employee of the property. In the rear of the
barn, a pure storage of commercial trucks and trailers, which I believe requires L1 zoning
and I've been informed tonight that they don't allow that item. My question is, how can
an applicant seek relief when they are in current violation of the town code? In the law, this
This is referred to as, don't come to court with unclean hands.
For the record, my brother, Lee Sinichon, owns a monument company down the street.
Competition is fine, but I'm not going to buy a way out of the town code.
In conclusion, I believe that the petition for the relief of modification of these restrictive
covenants should be denied.
And the current, the current illegal use and occupancy of the premises should be stopped.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Davis, you can begin.
Thank you.
Could you be Mr. Supervisor and town board members?
My name is Larry Davis and I reside in the workplace.
I'm here tonight representing Thomas Simpson and Rodney Dickson.
Mr. Dickson is the owner of a parcel, one door down to the east of the subject premises.
Mr. Dickson applied for a change of zone to the premises in 1992 from A1 residential to J4.
That application was denied by the then existing town board.
The townboard reasoned that the rezoning would result in a significant intensification of land use and would allow a significant increase in the pervious surfaces,
sewage generation and traffic trip generating above the present zoning. Additionally, potential impacts include loss of open space and natural vegetation,
and an alteration of neighborhood character afforded the community. The present application is not far different than Mr. Dickson on Mr. Simpson.
A history of the approval of the site from A1 to J4 showed that the town board overwrote
the recommendations of the Suffolk County Planning Commission.
The county voted to disapprove the application for the following reasons.
Number one, it constitutes the unwarranted further perpetuation.
Now, of strict business, zoning along Montau Highway, county road 80. It would tend to establish a precedent
for further such downsonings along county road 80, adversely affecting with safety and traffic, carrying
capacity of set facility. Number three, there are ample land zone for business purposes
in the local, along county road 80. Number four, contrafiends recent town board initiatives to
up zone and diminish and diminish business zoning in nearby areas as part of the comprehensive
of plan and update, and number five, it is a consistent with the 1987 land use plan for
the town of Brookhaven and 1982 development plan for the Mauritius area, which designated
this area for open space, single-family residents' purposes.
This application to amend the coveting should be denied.
The applicant has been used in the property and violation of count code and the covenants
which are presently enforced and affect.
There is current advertising in place promoting a business which presently cannot operate
From this location due to the covenants, there are signs on the property indicating a new
business is coming. In fact, there are two blue signs stating coming soon for key memorials.
The barn located on the back of the property has been renovated without town permits. A
second door has been added to the rear of the building without permits. An employee of
key memorials has been in the main building at least three days a week for at least six
months. There are landscaping trucks park overnight and a large metal storage container that
that's located from months behind the barn. This application is before you while the applicant
completely disregards the laws of this town. And quite certain that there is not a sign
permit in place for these signs or even an attempt to install a sign that we blend in the historic
district of Santa Meritches. Instead, the applicant has these two blue signs on the property
and operating without a permit before this board has even heard this application.
This is mere
approval, a match of the Deputy Assembly of Peruvia's permitted to conduct his business
with the proper zoning.
The lifting of covenant should never be taken lightly.
There were many reasons that the prior town board required these covenants, and that decision
should be respected by this present board.
An action by this board to lift the covenants will erode the decisions of our prior town boards
and disregard the decision that made to down up to ZET down zone this property.
That board was very specific as to why these covenants should be in place.
The prior owners, including Mr. Thomas cynics, send it here to these covenants the entire time
they own the property and the new owners should comply as well.
Should the board choose to lift the covenants then the property would revert, but should
revert back to the deprizone of A1?
This application is not one of the situations that war and a change in covenant.
The present covenant is not egregious.
It does not violate federal law.
Nor does it shock the conscience of the community.
The applicant purchased the property with full knowledge that the covenants existed.
The covenants were identified in a tidal report and the applicant chose to choose to purchase
the property, subject to these covenants, a business decision that was made by him.
There should not be a reward for violating town law. In fact, town enforcement should have
been at the site issuing summonses that are answerable in district court. The prior owners
have here to the law in my client's expect nothing less from the present owners. Accordingly,
we respectfully request the application of the item. Thank you.
Larry, I have a question.
The parcel you refer to to the West.
Is that the parcel you would show to me either a couple of days ago?
That's the property next to Kurt Weiss.
Yes, it is.
The House of its own day one?
All right.
I'll let Eric Russel come back.
My question is, I think, of more for more for him.
And I will say, for the record, I found out.
for the purposes of this application, if the town did rank tickets, as I understand, on this
property, for the landscaping use, and the container, whatever was stored back there,
and I'm going to believe by our staff that that is now gone.
And off the property.
No, it's not gone, but it's they've agreed to remove it and we're working toward that settlement
and you're right, the violations were written and they are in court.
Correct.
May I ask a question?
It's a sense.
It's your.
Thanks to see you, Tom.
What was the boring use for when you owned the property?
Storage.
Storage?
You know, anything.
It really was.
It was an old, you know, barely staying a barn.
So it wasn't really.
Usually much or anything else.
Just, you know, basic storage.
Storage for your business?
What's that?
Storage for your business?
I don't think that was in there.
Was it really anything in there?
But there was a title company in the building also, correct?
All the title company, absolute abstract was part of my love practice.
I mean, asked the secretaries of the building.
Okay.
And, well, I know.
But the back building was used for what type of storage?
I mean, different times it was over 25 years period.
It was a big of many times.
Sometimes a guy would ask me to put a boat in there for a couple months or something like that.
nothing, you know, was on occasion. I did a favor. Okay, thank you. Mr. Burwah, you can
begin. Good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board. I come to you as a resident from
15th Bill, you have in you in Center Ruches. My general concern is basically the traffic
there. We've got a lot of businesses on that curb already. I can see right out of the side
my house and it's a daily struggle for drivers to get in and out off of Bellevue, I've heard
the sirens going off many, many times for accidents that occur on that curve and to
add landscape trucks and a retail center that's going to draw a business whether it's carrying
it out to their car, not they're still pulling into a parking lot and pulling back out
onto Montau Highway and a curve generally is the hardest visual for any driver to pull that
out until, and when you have MAC trucks and cars moving at high rates of speed, I mean, we're
just adding another collision, so my concern is safety, ultimately, because I have a family
and a lot of friends that live in the area, and I'd hate to hear a story about somebody getting
to an accident right there. That's all.
But it's just what I could purpose is of the record.
The snap location is not for a landscape company, or a retail center, which is probably white.
The stretch of road, I travel every day, which is probably the reason in why the town board
I believe acted correctly, and not giving the other parcel the next-to-curt-wise, the change
of zone in the past to be the J2 or J4 and kept today one, because you're right, that stretch
of road where there is the turn. A1 is the appropriate zoning. We're currently going through
a rezoning of the entire area, and as I understand, we're keeping that area zoned. A1,
But here, though, this is not for a landscape company cannot exist on this property zoned
J4 at all, and a or a retail center cannot exist, and that's not what I just want
to make sure, over the public is aware.
That's not what we do.
We do ask a couple of months.
There has been landscape trucks, don't trucks, with trailers, strapped to them pulling in and
out of there, and I've watched them remodel the barn, and I mean, I saw it all.
I didn't know what was in place and how legal anything was.
My general concern was, wow, new company, new businesses.
This is just adding more trouble to the road.
And now, especially since they read the calendar's pond,
it's an attractive site.
It's going to draw a total of people.
It looks beautiful.
I love it.
But I don't know if there's on Bellevue.
I can give you with the dress.
But I did a good job.
So I mean, there's going to be more traffic either way,
adding a business, I think, is just detrimental to the area.
OK.
There's only other side of town.
Yeah, we are writing tickets against that offense.
These people will appear in district court, and at the court, there will be an adjudication
and probably they'll have to evade that problem.
They will have to evade that problem.
They're occupying it with any legal use that is not conforming to the governance currently
in place.
The current suggestion is to change the covenant to allow a monument, business or law
or office, or other professional offices period, no landscaping company, no storage company.
Nothing of that nature would be allowed, correctly, if I'm wrong, and that, on that, what would
be allowed would be being proposed.
So we are, you know, we are concerned about this property and it's usage and this
aesthetics and made a good point about clean hands and that's something that I'll ask Mr.
Russo to address when he comes up here about that because I'm interested but we also have
to Gleason, who represents the East for Richish Propheoners.
So, let me just be self-taxed and if we're done, go ahead, Mr. Gleason.
Jim Gleason, for the East Merchish property owned association in the seedling, for the Merchish
Bay Civic Association as well.
A letter was submitted, which I believe you all should have received several days ago
with respect to this application, and just now I handed up an aerial that was marked up
of interesting points, which hopefully you also received by my
difficulty in getting it to you.
The position that was taken by both civics has been that this is a
particularly sensitive area, it's character is really
view-colic, it has in it a variety of things that need to be protected.
And as a result, any expansion of the use beyond the one that is
proposed that is to say an office for a cemetery monument company would not necessarily work
out of well at all.
In looking at this, we've looked at the stretch of highway about a third of a mile between
that bend and the road that is mentioned and Kailer's pond, and there are a number of things
in there as you can see from the aerial that was submitted today that deserved protection
so that the character is maintained on the area you can see an S with a circle that's where the subject property is.
One is to catch a man built in revolutionary times and used for various purposes since the town historic landmark.
It is open to the public.
Excuse me?
1698.
Thank you.
Number two on the aerial is five acres of county land preserved purchased with taxpayer money.
The same amount of the resolution to acquire that.
Yes, you did.
The number three is the cemetery that has been mentioned and the entrance to that cemetery is right on the Montau Highway,
and is particularly picturesque right next to this property.
The number four is 263 acres, the Terrible River County Park, which I also, which I also
purchased in on the 80-9, as a County Legislative.
And then, number five across the street, the Havens Home Stead, which states back to 1750,
additions were put on it over a variety of years, but many years ago, they're also historic.
it's also open to the public and it's another town historic landmark. Then you've got
Kailer's pond, it's being improved, as been mentioned. You've got the Terrell River
and it didn't mention this in the letter, but number nine, which is on the east side of
the Terrell River, is with former duck farm purchased by the towns as open space. So in this
area, third of a mile, you have a lot that has been protected and the town and the county
have already recognized that it should be protected by spending taxpayer money on it.
So what should happen, the area of this area should maintain its character, it should
not lose it.
Some of the covenants that are there help to do that.
So use of the offices, as they have been used in the past, just as offices, is something that
we're willing to do, go with, and if it's a cemetery, monument company, instead of a law
office, that's okay.
So, we don't mind modifying that covenant, so is to amend what type of office may be in there.
There's been some discussion, and I just learned when town attorney read the proposed
covenants, that it would be possible for the business to be there and allow the ordering
of cemetery monuments. That was a new idea to me. The thought of it being an office, that's
we've been discussing, but when they originally submitted the application, they said that
they wanted to use it for sales of cemetery monuments. And the planning department wrote
back to them and said, you can't do that. That's J2. This is J4, not allowed. So they amended
the application. And they took out sales of cemetery monuments. But what's the difference
between ordering cemetery monuments and the sales of cemetery monuments. That's an interesting
question, and I'm not sure we have the time, and I have the time, and 30 seconds, the
parts of out.
You just wasted them, you just wasted them.
Can't speak that fast. It needs to be worked out. It has to be clear what can and can't
be done if there are cemetery monuments outside the building that's outdoor storage, not allowed.
If people can, in fact, if there were cemetery monuments there, people could come in and
walk out with them.
They may need to wheelbarrow, but they could do it.
So, they're not going to be any cemetery monuments there.
Is that what I'm going to understand?
I think this needs to be made considerably more specific and clear, so there is not
a lot of confusion in the future.
Thank you.
I don't think I use my five minutes, just one sentence.
Go ahead.
I go ahead.
You have that.
Thank you.
I think what is that one sentence?
It's looking at this whole project.
I think it's clear that I'm...
Animate company can be no way to consider appropriate for J4 professional use, and the argument
that it's heavy is ridiculous. It's a retail business, appropriate for J2, where the applicant
should do. If he wants this business, or wants this relief from the confidence, the proper
procedure would be for to seek his J2 zoning change, and at that time incorporate the removal
of the governance. Not to try to circumvent the zoning process of the category of payment by
and so in monuments, you know, 18 ability was built in 18 hundreds. It's not appropriate.
Okay, but you're the card next speaker. Mary Ann Johnson, thank you.
Well, Mary Ann comes up by the question for that. Is it, is it because you order your monument?
That monument is there by delivered to whatever cemetery it is.
Correct, the monuments would not be.
You can't sell a monument.
Unfortunately, I've had to order a monument so they show you pictures a sample they have like a little piece of it
Like for instance
There's a piece of the granite. There's the color of the granite. It's the monuments are shown in books
So you can't walk out if I walked in and I wanted a pre-order mine monument
I think that granite here lies Daniel J. Pannico
1978 to whenever greatest personal life. I can't walk out of there with a monument. Will you point in 1978 you're very young
I can't walk out with a monument, you say.
I think they would cover it to that.
If that would clear up.
I think my comments will go to the heart of your discussion.
Would that be my headstone?
I don't know.
Do you want me to have it engraved?
I'm afraid of what you might say.
I was a Jew.
Realistically, I think we're...
When the square who ends?
to switch and tell us what the whole truth and nothing but the truth to have to go.
Oh, Wes.
And now you can begin.
I think we're listening to what is loosely called a legal fiction.
I've got a shared it, coupons.
I couldn't carry it out, but it was retail sales.
You know, come on.
The idea that you can't carry out a monument.
Anybody been to well would have a new in West Babylon?
Yeah, tons of monument companies with monuments lined up because people can't buy what they can't see.
It's not a book, it's not how monuments are sold.
They're sold by having displays in front of the building.
The most inappropriate use for this property in this area that I could possibly imagine.
Beyond that, we have an applicant who came before a town board and was denied this very
use, this kind of a change of use to J4.
That troubles me, that troubles me a lot, because this town, when it has refused to change
the zone for one applicant and comes back and changes it at a later date, has been held
lineable for those costs and the loss of revenue to that applicant based on the use that
he was denied, that I'm asking if that is the case, that's not the case, Marianne.
It's this is an application for a relief of a covenant.
The property is J4.
It is J4 now.
Now, talking about another one next to Christ, which is on the very, very severe occurrence
that I'm going to say.
Well, the one thing that I want, this one is J4.
The one thing that I'm also concerned about in terms of the quality of that area is the
amount of taxpayer money that he's been spent to keep it as a bucolic area. Retail creeps.
What you will allow here under covenants, someone else comes in, wants to same kind of covenants,
same kind of an office space. I've never, I have awarded monuments never once from a book.
I saw what I wanted out front of the monument building and when he found out what the
course was, how much it was going to cost and how long it was going to take to have
an install. I don't, I don't walk out with a car when I buy it, but it's still retail.
At the end? Well you never walk out with a monument at the end. You go visit the grave,
that's where it is. They install it, you know?
So we're talking about it. You know what I mean?
So realistically, you even need to revisit the definition of retail sales in
Berkhaven, or actually not consider this application in its present form because the
one thing I didn't hear the town attorney say was that there would be no monuments out in front.
There will be no monuments out in front. I didn't hear it in the covenant.
Well, we can, if that was, it was taken out of the application when they showed it and we told them they couldn't have it.
And there wouldn't be monuments out front and we can address that.
But I would like Mr. Russo to come back and we can't, I still have some intelligence.
I think you don't mind.
So realistically, the covenant that are revisited by boards that are long come after you guys.
Don't know what your discussions were, what your understanding were.
They only know what the Covenant says, black and white in print, and nine out of ten times
you can drive a map truck through some of these Covenants.
What I want to see very clearly is that we don't have monuments out in front of an office
building.
And frankly, I'm not so sure that, you know, I think the two civics that really represent
that area have a vested interest in seeing it remain in its bucolic historic function.
and the taxpayers of this town and the county have spent a lot of money and I think the benefit
to the applicant is insufficient to outweigh the detriment to the community and I think
I will respectfully ask that you not lift the covenant.
Thank you.
Okay.
So, carries the next one.
Do you sweat as hell of two?
No, two.
Nothing.
We can begin.
Hi.
Thank you.
I, oh, I was my father, son of a gentleman in the company, and I just wanted to clarify in the aspects to retail business with the monuments.
If you came into my money in the company, you could walk out with certain items.
For instance, at most of the cemetery, you're allowed to have lighted angels, statues, or places to grave.
There's also cemetery vases that can be purchased.
If you weren't a temporary marker, for your loved one before you even got a headstone,
that is something that I can give to you in-house when you come into see me and then I can present it with to you when you leave.
So to me that would be considered retail, which I thought we were doing at that location.
Also with the previous ladies basically stated, in that whole area that is there, there is no retail.
I think that it's cut that way for a reason.
I think that makes our town look the way it does and feel the way it does and also people want to stay in our town.
So I just want to clarify that you can walk out of my apartment company with something so which for me would be considered retail
I'm happy that there won't be any outdoor storage there because I think that, you know, that's something that should not be right there
So sometimes even if people don't want to see that when they're going to see their loved ones at that time
But I hope I clarify that for you
Thank you
And that is the difference in what Kerry Sinney said in that what her and her father
we have is a undertaking establishment and this would be just an office they could not
sell any of the things here that were described under the law could not sell any of the
things that were just described by Kerry is that correct?
Well,
we have a definition here, to my knowledge it was only monuments that we're going to be here,
that they would covenant, no undertaking establishment, so that would mean they're not going to sell
arms and things of that nature.
So, they've, in J4, undertaking establishments are actually allowed.
I know that they're going to covenant against that, I'm like correct.
So, if we're saying that monument use is an accessory used to an undertaking establishment,
then it's here.
So, the undertaking establishment they're covering not to do, but they would like to sell
and the exact language that we were proposing and which we can modify pursuant to
in Johnson's comments are, including the order ring ordering of cemetery monuments.
And however, no monuments shall be displayed out there, I will say, in the exterior of the
property.
Or the code calls it outdoor retail display that's what we did in the time of the code.
There's outdoor retail display.
And I believe that was discussed with the applicant and they were agreeable to that.
Correct, Mr. Rusha?
Yes, but I'd like to point out a couple of things.
And I don't want to believe we're the hearing.
However, I am not a fan of revisionist history,
But Mr. Senecason, who was kind enough to sit here and say, he bought the building, he used it as a law office.
He stored his stuff there. He had a title company there.
Except the container that's on the property was Mr. Senecason's, along with another container.
And when he sold it to my client, he removed one and said, I'm going to leave the other one there for you.
I'm not able to remove it.
In those containers that were there for over eight years, there were his files.
and other documents from his law office.
However, the other part that we seem to be forgetting is the barn that was there, and since
there are at least one, two, three of you from Santa Maritches.
My client's telling me when he was looking at the property, he had had both builders in the
barn, he had had carpenters in the barn, he had had landscapers in the barn, they were
trucks parked on the property, and they were fire extinguish fire extinguish individual
who made fire extinguishes in the barn.
So there were various uses that were used here
in this bucolic setting that he is purporting to say,
you don't have to, I want to enforce my covenant.
What I find also interesting is Mr. Davis,
a very well-practiced, disowning attorney,
has been for the sport to relieve covenants as well.
So he understands the purpose, he understands the nature
and why we're here.
We're here because the covenant that was there
was uninforcible, as the town attorney, and I have discussed.
The other part is, yes, there was a violation issue.
It's returnable in the District Court on December 3rd.
This application, since its filing, which goes back
to March of last year, has taken a year when he first came
into my office last November, a year this time,
to get before the board, a simple release of Covenant
has taken a year to get a hearing.
And in this particular case, he's prepared to go to prison.
Why do you think it took a year?
Why?
I have, well, part of it.
We had to revise it.
Because partly it also had to do with the fact that there
was questions about figuring out what the sources were.
And then I will also point out to you that I had
surgically from the 14th of September.
And I'm just about walking again as a result of a right
left knee replacement.
But it's taken a year to get to this hearing.
It's a simple hearing.
It's not, it's not one that's like controversial, yes.
Mary and Johnston talking about looking at
covenants that need to be revised.
Yes, tell them where it's this board.
I was deputy supervisor.
There were times when we put covenants on property
that perhaps weren't done.
And you can look at the minutes with the best
of fourth or an illegal action that went with it.
So in this case, you're trying to fix a zoning error.
Or if you want to put new covenants on it,
we're willing to consider it, and in terms of the use, it's planned to be and continue to be
a residential use.
And so, at this particular point in time, I would also like the point after you that when
there's discussion by R&D, the property that was denied, because there was a letter of November
16 from R&D, the investment company, and I talked about how their application was denied.
But I did a search in the governments and restrictions on that particular property, and what I found out was, after that was denied, in 1995, a change of zone was granted, and the change of zone that was granted, and I have copies of it, was from anyone to Jay to business.
for this particular problem.
No, no, for Roddick's.
For Roddick's.
I've been checking.
Here in R&D has nothing to do in this area.
I just have the money that you denied a jay for there.
And it did get Marion died.
But that would have no bearing on this case.
Well, it does the board should know the truth.
The purposes of the truth go ahead.
The purpose of the truth, and I'll give you up the two
Publints and restrictions, is that the adjoining property
that Mr. Dixon is complaining about,
I'm sorry.
Not in a way, not in a fun.
Next slide.
This letter that he wrote to this board in the town clerk that was filed as of Monday.
Indicates I was denied a change of zone.
We went to the records.
We wanted to verify that.
What we found was it was denied then.
But two years later, you got a change of zone for me.
One to Jane too for the property.
And with all due respect, the present town attorney was council.
Then and has the covenants here.
So I'll pass them up.
So, the bottom line is, I'm not looking for the penalized device.
I'm not looking to penalize anybody.
What we're trying to do is take a business, an office use,
and make it a viable office use in a two-story building,
with all of the commitments and suggestions that we're being put forward.
I'll test these up exactly.
Are you sure you're correct that it went to J2 and not J?
They may have went to J. I couldn't verify the tax lot or the meeting bounds,
because I don't have the technology here.
It has the same tax law and it does say that.
And it's the same tax law in the public.
Restrictions, unless I'm misreading it and I'm looking at it against the R&D investment company letter of November 16.
And the bottom line is the R&D investment company property, which is 200, maybe number of the top. It's on the negative.
There it is. 200,
we could pull it up. Those are the cognits and it says it's J2.
So, again, I'm not looking to ruin the Bucharest setting of Senate Marriages, we're trying
to take an unforceful covenant making it go away and have an office use in the facility.
The building violation that was issued was for the fact that he put a new roof, he put
siding and resurfaced the garage door.
That's still to be debated with the building department and with the district with the
the attorney, because building permits for new roof and cedar shake and resurfacing of
garage door. Last time I looked did not require a building permit. If you made structural
changes that did make a require a building permit. There was also, there was also a change
required building permit, cosmetic changes, but you know. And in addition to that, there was
a summons issue, because there was use other than a law office, and that's what the two summons
are that we're issued. And we're addressing that.
I cannot explain a little bit about the dictionary.
You want to take it in further. Further further, further, in some of the truth, it's
own Jay. That's Jay too.
I'm not sure if I remember correctly.
It's been a while. I was probably reviewing it back then in 1994.
I believe at the public hearing that time it was changed from a Jay to
application to a Jay business application, the board granted it as Jay
and the town clerks letter from that time does say a want to jade business and does appear on
the maps today as jade business.
But the governments reflect jade, too.
Dan, are you going to close this and hold a position here?
I want to close this and hold it.
I'm not going to make a decision tonight.
I'm going to work on the governance to make the governance more specific in the event that
this board does pass it.
I'd like to see the district court action closed out.
And by the time our next town board meeting comes about, I believe, when you back before it.
That may be the case, but I'll close it for third.
And place it on the decision calendar.
Okay.
Motion.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Thank you.
Okay, we're on to our next and last public hearing, public hearing number five.
Number four.
Public hearing number four is to consider ten boards on motion for our CR-D-S5-2A for a changes zone.
J-business to J-business on property located in Brookhaven, Hamlet, New York.
Legal notices for public hearings are published now less than 10 days, no more than 20 days prior to public hearing and one of the legal time news papers are office has.
We see if the signed academic day would have publication from the news paper.
Secure compliance was covered by the binding statement and the firm's findings statement for the comments of our conservation and management plan.
We are in the receipt of a letter from the South of County Planning Commission, returning it to be a matter for a local determination.
Town clerk's office was required to notify the owners of the subject property by sort of, I'd mailed,
and the certified knowingly seats have been made part of the town clerk's official file.
The letter from dated October 20, 2015 from South of County Planning,
the MSMAT pursuant to the requirements of Section A14-14-14, A14-14, to A14-25 with Suffolk
and Administrative Code, the above reference application, which has been submitted to the
Suffolk and Economic Planning Commission, is considered to be a metaphorical determination
as there is no apparent significant, any wider, inter-community impacted, decision-of-local
determination, should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval signed very
truly yours, Andrew P. Freyling, Chief Planner.
Okay.
With that, we'll have Joe Sinsana from our planning development to simply review this property.
Thank you.
I'm Supervisor Mums of the Board.
This property is part of the Carmen's River Conservation Management Plan.
It was one of the properties proposed for rezoning within that plan.
The property is 0.9 acres in the size located on the south east corner of Yappank Avenue in the first block road in the Hamlet of Brookhaven.
Sight is currently vacant and undisturbed.
It is adjacent to other single family residential land uses, a long Yappank Avenue on the east side.
On the west side of Yappank Avenue is town property, which is part of our waste management facility.
The site is vacant, fortunately. Currently zone J2 Business, the Lange Plan recommended
that this site be resowned. The proposed zoning at the time is A2, the property owner,
and the town work together, and agreed to J Business for this particular property. So the proposed
J Business, we would consider that to be in conformance with the recommendations of the Lange's
land and would be also in conformance with our comprehensive plan as well.
Joe, could you just list what you said or allowable in J?
In J, you have personal service shops, office,
other non-retail commercial uses with
the residential architecture, so it must look like a residence when you drive by and put
no more than a second.
Non-retele commercial payments.
It's surrounded by it's, so that's only what's surrounded as A2.
That's correct, that is South and East is A2.
Those are single family residences along the Pancavindu.
I'll go back to the aerial.
And you can see right in this area.
And what contributing area, what contributing zones, that in?
This is in the 10 to 20 areas of a little bit outside of the two to five, which we focused on in the
in the Conjurer plan, but it still was in the area where we up zoned all of the residential properties.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, we have speakers on this. There's a code to call speakers.
I'm that carrying Johnston.
Who has already been sworn in?
It's not an adjourning.
What's going on?
I'm just walking out of the body.
You're not going to be living up here.
You're not even a copy.
We're giving you time, Mary.
What's that?
That's not working.
On the speaking.
That's the only speaking, yeah?
Yeah, yes.
When I'm Eddie, I'll go to the roast.
So there you go.
You can, your time is begun.
My time is begun?
OK.
Mary and Johnston.
I have an interest in this property, not financially or in any other
away, but one of the impedices was a project that came forward on this prior to the comments
or ever.
If you remember, I think it was corporate center, or some such thing.
And it was going to be two stories that was going to be offices and stuff like that.
But this is inconsistent with the intent and the stated purpose.
And it would be outside the character of the general area in which you've up-sewn residences
and residential areas to A2,
subjecting them to the restrictions of being in the comments
or of a watershed management area.
So I have some very serious concerns.
There's only one retail type establishment
that's along the APNK Avenue.
It's essentially a small little strip mall,
just north of this site.
But personal service, you know, facilities, hairdressers, tattoo parlors, tanning salons.
Really?
Is that what we want in the comments of a watershed management preservation areas?
I don't think so.
When you are empowered with the power of police power to upsell things, to preserve things,
you need to actually achieve the purpose.
A lot of people were very upset that their land was put into the core, or that they were
put into the CGA, but we did the right thing, and we need to do the right thing here too.
A personal service of facility located on that site would be anathema to the intent of the
commons river, preservation and management study, and it is just outside the two to five years
just outside, and personal service facilities, they have
cesspools, and stuff like this, there's no sewer in here.
There's barely any public water in the area.
So realistically, you allow this to come forward, and what happens is, again,
retail creep, you know, somebody else comes in and says, well, you did it for that guy,
I need to do it for me, and we have to be consistent when we state something, an abca was very
consistent about this.
When you call something a preservation plan, it needs to preserve, not development.
This is a wooded parcel, it's ideal for preservation, and not for changing to a personal service
contract in the J-zone.
Even J-2 is very, it's not J is less restrictive, it's transition zone, but transition
from what? The river is on one side and was in the landfill or on the other side, and the county
center is to the north. We're not transitioning anything. What you're doing is essentially
allowing a personal service facility to be built in the middle of the watershed management plan.
I say no. Thank you.
You know, the speaker is on this, uh, a net, that way is the speaker's right.
Oh, sorry.
Yes, Councillor.
Can you, um, tell me why you're planning is asking for a jazon here?
Well, the property right now is J2.
We feel that that's inappropriate for this location.
And Jay business would be more compatible to the adjacent residential land uses as opposed to the J2.
Okay, normally now, this is in what I'm sorry, what contributing area of law?
Just in the 10 to 10.
Was this in the plan? Was this intended to go to residential?
It was.
Yeah, original proposal. You can see this is CR52A. We originally heard this as 502. We adjourned that and met with the property owner and worked out a J Business as opposed to the
Eight.
This is a company.
We've got this.
Yes.
With the property owner.
Point nine acres.
Point nine. Yes. So you're going to get a very small development.
It would be essentially a size of a house.
Size of a house.
Size of a single family house.
Yeah, now we're looking at surrounding that is that E2 that I'm looking at so the south is a two and developed with single family homes
Along the east side of Yapank Avenue. Yeah, I would agree with Mary Ann. I do not think this is appropriate for Jay. So
I don't know how we want to proceed here
Why don't you do it
Well, we do it if the board all feels the same way and Joe. I guess we come back with the
and let the chips fall in any.
All right, motion to withdraw.
Second.
All those in favor.
All right.
Let me just find the correct spot.
Motion by Councillor Kaffee to withdraw.
Secondary value.
All those in favor.
All right.
Opposed.
Okay.
All the ones in return.
All right.
We have set dates.
Okay.
Set dates, please.
I have a motion to set Uniform Traffic Code to be heard on December 17, 2015 and 630M.
All those in favour?
Opposed?
That's done.
And I think that's it then.
Okay.
If you know further business motion, do a join.
All those in favour?
Stand the join.
Two.