Good evening and welcome to the July regular legislative meeting.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Mayor Rainbows Herbert.

Here.

Councilmember Lopez.

Councilmember Tarantino here.

Councilmember Peters.

Councilmember Aston Layet.

Councilmember.

Good evening again to our July meeting.

Just as a reminder, in August, we are on recess.

So this is our last formal meeting until September.

Tonight we have 15.

No, we have sorry, pretending it's my first day.

All right, may I have a motion in a second accepting the minutes for the regular legislative meeting of Tuesday, May 19th, 2026, and the committee of the whole session of Tuesday, June 9th, 2026.

Kay and Stern, all in favor.

Any opposed, and I'll note the submission of minutes for the regular legislative meeting of Tuesday, June 16, 2026, and the committee of the whole session of Tuesday, July 14th, 2026.

We have items two through 15.

I just want to call out a couple of light edits.

On item six, these were the traffic regulation changes on Nordosi Place and Industrial.

I'm advised that the image in the packet was updated to match legislation, which currently excludes the Costco parking lot because we're waiting for a response from Costco.

So I think it's just in tiding up the legislation to the image.

And I'm advised on item eight.

This was the taxicab ordinance that mechanically was removed from the definition of taxi meter as discussed and voted on at the CAL requested by Councilman Stern.

Are there any questions regarding items two through 15 on the consent agenda?

Hearing none may have a motion and a second adopting items two through 15, please.

K and Lopez, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Brilliant.

Moving on to item number 16, which is a proposed settlement of claim.

It's a resolution authorizing the settlement of the matter entitled Chatham New Rochelle R I L L C versus the City of New Rochelle, New York, in the amount of 150,000.

This was discussed at our executive session last week at the Cal.

Anything you want to add, Corporation Council?

No.

City Manager.

Any questions or comments on item number 16?

May I have a motion and a second adopting this resolution, please?

Kay and Lopez.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Moving on to item number 17.

This is a new item.

It is a resolution authorizing the city manager to submit New York State Consolidated Funding Application and related New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Climate Smart Community Grant Application for Tree Planting and to commit matching funds.

If I recall correctly, Councilwoman Kay uh raised some questions about this last week.

Anything you'd like to add, City Manager?

Um, we just took the opportunity to um take advantage of this grant to continue our tree planting program beyond into the future years and to hopefully secure funding in the later years beyond uh what we already have in place.

Excellent.

Uh questions or comments, Councilman Peters.

Um matching fund.

Well we know the matching fund for number 17.

80,000 80,000.

I think it's in the package.

No, yeah.

Okay.

It's 20% match.

That was incredible.

Any other questions on number 17?

Say thank you.

I think this will go along away.

We're trying to reach our tree planting and equity clause committee for us management plan.

Um may I have a motion and a second adopting the resolution authorizing this application.

Okay and um Oshan Louis, all in favor, say aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Moving on to item number 18.

Our commission of police is stepping to the table.

It is a proposed amendment to the 2026 budget regarding the national night out 2026 grant.

Um we are being asked to accept an ordinance by the Westchester County Board of Legislators, 2026 National Night Out Grant Award in the amount of 2,472.

Commissioner, anything you want to add?

No, nothing to add, just that our national night out this year is on August 4th.

And I hope to see all of you there.

It's one of our biggest event, and uh it's always a great night.

Excellent.

Questions or comments on item number 18.

Where is it going to be?

Sorry, sorry.

At police headquarters.

In and around.

Right.

Parking law.

You were saying councilwoman Lopez?

I look forward to being there.

Thank you.

Time.

Sorry.

Uh I believe we're starting at uh five.

I know there's a banner.

There is a banner in front of City Hall for anyone who's missing it.

Um any other questions on number 18.

Hearing none may have a motion and a second adopting the ordinance.

Stern and Lopez, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Really?

Thank you so much, Commissioner.

Moving on to item number 19.

This was subject to our public hearing that was held last week.

It's a proposed ordinance approving the 2026 CDBG and home annual action plan and budget amendments.

Questions or comments regarding number 19.

Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second adopting this ordinance, please?

Umye and Stern.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed.

Number 20 is a discussion item regarding Pratt landing requested by council member Al Tarantino.

Um I brought this uh forward because I'm just wanted to get an update on uh where we are with the uh crat landing, getting a lot of um uh requests for information from the public about you know what's going on.

Uh so you know, I'm interested in finding out what where we are with that and what we're how we're going forward.

So the developer is um seeking a site plan amendment in response to some updates to the building code regarding the subterranean uh parking structure.

Um and uh we you know there are and and that we're we're planning to review those plans.

I would uh and and submit, you know, they're trying to get on the agenda for the October uh planning board meeting.

So I mean, basically, you know what I understand about the changes.

I haven't seen the final submission is that there aren't going to be major changes to you know the project that can be perceived from the outside.

There is there is potentially a um an increase like the the the level of parking might come like one level lower, so they're trying to uh come up with a design that is the the least impactful on the outcome of the project.

So that's the goal is not to change fundamentally what we've all seen.

Okay, so in other words, and this is you know, this is a concern that you know, being that it's not hasn't nothing has happened, you know.

The people are getting the you know concern that it's not happening at all, or it's gonna be a dramatic change from what it was.

Um is there anything available for the public to see?

Uh they'll see it after the planning board uh meeting, they'll be able to see the uh they'll see it at the planning board.

Okay, the planning board meeting as well.

Is there any height increases or no height increases, no reduction in parking?

Um I'm not sure as I said, I haven't seen the uh those are the issues that are shorter concern.

So okay, I just want to because you know we're we're still waiting for a 12 million dollars, and uh you know it's a year and a half since we uh signed on with them.

And you know, my feeling is is that maybe if you know this is gonna be they're tying up the property, it's still costing the city of Marichelle money to maintain the property.

We we still own it.

And um I think that it's important that if if this isn't going to go forward soon, that we should maybe look at a um a plan where they maybe have to pay for additional time.

Uh is there anything in the agreement that allows us uh I mean, right now we can end this agreement at way beyond their um well.

I mean, they are entitled to another extension on the site plan approval.

Right, but we can but what I'm saying is is that yeah, so I mean this is something that that's interesting because every time you go for an amendment, you can extend the process.

I mean, and that can be done downtown, it could be done anywhere, you could just keep on extending.

So you get a two-year limit, and you can pick up another year or two by just file an amendment, you know, change parking garage or whatever.

So, what I'm saying is is while they're sitting there trying to figure out what they're doing.

I'm just concerned about the the residents are paying to maintain the property.

And we don't have access to the money that they're supposed to pay to buy the property.

So what I'm looking for is us to look at a way, maybe it's not now, but it's in a year from now when they when if nothing goes forward, that we put some we have something in place that allows us to get a fee.

Almost like what we have in downtown, where if you don't go forward, you go buy another year.

Well, you know, in this particular case, um, it would be nice to get some money so that takes some of the pressure off off the public.

So yeah, that's where it's going.

I mean, that's I I'll I can certainly go back and and and take a look and see if something like that is possible.

I mean, I I hear what you're saying about the opportunity costs, let's call it for you know, sticking with this particular developer.

I will say that just generally speaking, the job, you know, there are financial kind of macro conditions that have made it difficult for a lot of jobs to be feasible, like the pencil today we call it, meaning you know that they make sense financially.

And um, so I I personally I think this developer is serious and really committed to a high quality project.

It's it's a heavy lift, there's a lot of moving parts.

I think that um, you know, I I don't have the indication that they're kind of trying to you know do anything untoward or or not really build the project that we all expect to be built there.

I think they're dealing with the financial right situation.

I totally get a part of it.

You know, the question is this is that they can I mean if tomorrow they determined that it wasn't feasible anymore, they can walk away.

We're starting all over again.

And you know, we sort of got to start the process again.

So what I'm saying is every year that this thing sits there dormant, uh it's costing the the residents nourish money, and all I'm looking for is a way to make them whole.

Uh, if the developer can spend money on, you know, constantly changing their project, and you know, the fact that uh interest rates went up, you know, they had this project for I think I was 17 when they started with this project, not not quite, but you know, it was a long it was a long time ago that they started with this project, and you know, we're still waiting.

And I think you know, the public has come around that they sort of like the project, but you know, how long do you wait before you start to question if if if it's really gonna go forward or not?

And how long do the does the public get caught up in paying while the developers, you know, uh waiting for the the uh the right uh time to I think that's fair.

I can go back to them and see what we can do to you know time.

Could you let us know if they you know demonstrate the commitments and then the project follows?

Okay, and just let us know gestures and thank you.

And then the only thing the only thing I'll add to that is that we've been having regular meetings with them, so they've been updating us on the process.

They're still committed to all the same elements of the project.

Just this major code revision had a major financial implication to the to the project.

So that's what they work in through.

So they committed to coming back to up to us in like Adam and mentioned in October.

So I think um see what happens in October.

Well, that's you know, this is the first time I'm here about October, so it's been going on a while, and you know, the big the big concern is that uh, you know, we while we're sitting there waiting, uh they can walk away, and you know, there's an anticipation of 12 million dollars coming into uh the city for this project, and then we're back to square one, uh start with an RFP all over again, and there's a whole process that would have to be done again.

So, you know, I think if there's anything that we can bring this somehow to a conclusion at some point, um, and again, try to make the public whole by getting something uh for the extension the time that they're holding on to the property, uh, you know, that would I think be beneficial to the community.

I just have a couple of clarifying questions.

The code revision around the parking was a state legislation change, right?

It wasn't so much the building code building code.

So the state issued a regulation after the initial pass.

So like they had to try to respond, they have to make the correction to the state legislation.

I just wanted to be clear on like the amendment.

I see the commissioner of buildings coming up.

The amendment came as a result of legislation from the state in recent months.

So there's a structural revision to a reference standard in the state code, it's ASCE 716.

Uh now it's you know you're gonna say that one more time, right?

A ASCE 716 to ASCE 722.

Okay.

Um it has to do with structural loading, um, wind loads, snow drifting uh on flat roofs, and so on and so forth.

Um so you talked to us a few months ago, they were gonna file a plan.

I haven't seen the plan.

They canceled a couple meetings, and I guess they're working on some form of revision.

Um it's it's been a minute.

So I know as the city manager pointed out, we've been talking to them, and I think they are just you know, working through the design, right?

I think we they need to, but they've committed to getting that.

I think the new schedule, I think originally it was a September intro to planning board, I think, but now it's looking like October.

And then sorry, on flight plan approvals.

So just as a general concept, our policy, our charter, our code, it's two, they there's a two-year-old.

You get a two-year from the initial site and approval, and then generally they're entitled to a one-year extension and they pay a cost of one dollar per square foot.

But and you know, as precedents, there's several projects that have gone for amendments that we have given them two years from the date of the amendment to um, you know, to to pull the building permit.

In general, uh, most projects, there's only been one of those, you know, amendments, but um, you know, it's it's it's not exactly codified, I think given you know, we've generally um it's been a precedent that started before I was the commissioner.

There were about eight jobs that had gotten amendments and that kind of had a new two-year, you know.

There's there's one that's still kicking around, it's been kicking around for a while, where they kept doing amendments on it.

Okay.

Um, they sold the project.

Yes.

They did demolish the building that cost a couple hundred dollars.

It's the old Bank of America, right?

And um they they tell us that we should have a filing in the next four to five months.

And when we're done the land transfer they closed on the land so that like the you know the ownership changed to the new developer, which was Fisher Brothers, and now it's Lincoln Property Group.

And um they are a big developer, they've done work in a lot of different markets, California, the Midwest, so we're confident uh that they're we have capacity to begin that project.

And again, sorry, when there's an extension applied for there is a fee paid.

An extension, yes.

For the site plan approval.

So there we would be receiving some money from the developer.

But for an amendment, there's there's a there's a fee, but it's it's a nominal fee.

It's a different than the extension fee.

That's not like different some of these larger projects or hundreds of thousands of square feet.

Right.

So where you could get into a very substantial fee.

So I mean, well, very substantial actually.

So I hope that they do some re-evaluation of their uh subterranean work there at Pratt Landing because it could minimize their infrastructure costs.

If they didn't have to build a bathtub to hold uh 800 cars that's underground, um you know, and put in floodgates and pumping systems and protection of all your mechanical equipment and so they may be able to reevaluate that, but I don't know what they're reevaluating because I haven't seen the drawing yet, but you know, we look forward to that happening sometime in the future.

Yep.

Okay.

No, I I I um I think the issue that you just raised is really important, the one that you just raised here because you you you you talked a little bit about the state, and um and in addition to uh whether or not we're councilman Tarantino was talking about in terms of us having some kind of a of a safety vow somewhere along the line.

I'm I I and so both of these seem to me to be connected tissue to make it very challenging sometimes where I feel like we're we're not we're not in a strong position, although we're in a strong position in what we're seeking to get done if it happens in that way.

And so I'm feeling more and more that we're not in a that we're really we're we we seem to be really susp can be susceptible in ways that that become damaging to us as a whole.

And so I'm I'm I'm wondering, and we'll just what kind of are there any safety vows or or any ways in which we can we can have a stronger response system for this to be able to you know to roll out in an effective way?

Um, I was talking about this last time, as you know, and and this is another example of that, uh although it's a different location, but the example we may is the same, and I I don't feel like we're that we have I used to like the term that you used to use a lot around you know they're punch above their weight, right?

I I would love to see us to be able to punch a little bit above our weight.

It seems as that as a city we we just we could push down a lot, based on a lot of different things.

So I'm wondering if that's a concern, if that's something that we can get better at.

Something we can do in some fashion with our partners who have a case like me.

I wonder what you have thoughts.

Do you want to talk about this?

This is adopted from the federal well, it's in our local, it's in the state building code, so it's a reference standard that was adopted by the state as a reference standard for um structural analysis.

I hear it.

I mean, I think those types of things are you know, they carry have like a life and safety component to them, so it's often difficult to challenge like engineering standards, but I suppose you know advocacy to logistic topic.

Time is the time creates the risk.

Time project, right?

So as long as you know, as as that clock keeps ticking, uh this was a very complicated project with the with the armory portion of it and that initial that that whole initial uh negotiation agreement and time goes on, then you add a code change in there right in the middle of it.

So I think as the clock ticks on, the risks become greater in data for these projects and financing and uh material costs, uh you know, interest.

So it's the quicker the deals are made, the better.

That's uh but city manager, that is a big project.

That's 482 dwelling units, uh about 870 or so parking spaces, 32,000 square feet of retail, 150 room hotel, uh revision of the uh the armory and bring that back to life.

Um there's a lot of components there.

Yeah, it's a it's a it's an innovative project, right?

And I think and then being caught in a financial tailwind or interest rates and everything else are normal projects are finding challenges.

Never mind a part residential, part ownership, part rental, part hotel, part the historic preservation of the armory, the environmental stability of the waterfront, you know, building roads, I mean like making it for retail by 2026 standards.

Um I'm not surprised that there's some, I mean, duly noted more information for residents, because I do think residents want to see it.

I do think there's an excitement around it.

And then vis-a-vis child, you know, talking to the state.

I mean, the good thing is is our delegation is accessible.

They're having a town hall tomorrow in your district.

You know what I mean?

Three out of the four there.

And so those can always be conversations that we can have.

I mean, I'm I'm I'm very comfortable saying that that there's they're always accessible on phone since I was a council member.

Um, and I think if there was an issue with the legislation or if we see a sort of uh compendium of different legislation, we can always raise how it's affecting us as a smaller city, right?

So um but I think when you're you know, when you have a project that's forward-thinking and innovative, I'm not surprised that there's a little bit of something that that create headwinds.

But I I trust that the conversations you're having reflect that there is still an intent to move forward with the project.

We really have no control over how the state adopts reference standards.

Those are those are national standards.

When I say ASC, that's an American Society of Civil Engineers, they develop reference standards based on um climatic geographic um factors, snow and windloads, um changes in the environment, so on and so forth.

So that's how they implement the reference standard changes when they do a code cycle.

This code cycle is brand new, so it's gonna be with us for another four more years.

I see.

There was a timing too.

Yes of the cycle.

That's a very good idea.

Three to five years, you know, we've been leaning towards the five-year cycle lately.

So that's helpful actually information.

All right, any other questions or comments?

It's just a discussion items.

There's no code.

All right, thank you so much.

Our next discussion item is right back to Conslimin Tarantino on Davenport neck zoning.

Okay.

Spending a lot of time on the water.

Um this is about, you know, obviously about the resuming on the data sport net um slot.

And um, you know, it's uh highly controversial thing in the in the community there.

Um I've been getting uh calls from many of the homeowners' associations down there, so you know, they're concerned, but there's also what I see um concern and understanding what exactly is happening because some of the things that are going on right now is that we've come up with a zoning plan, um, but when you looked at the information that was given out at the meeting last week last week, um if you look at it, one of the things that um I want to find the map that I had here, it's somewhere to actually that shows the map on the um the map that shows the beach clubs.

Um the larger parts get a lot of the here.

Just get to it.

Sorry, I think you're all just getting the the deck just to refresh our brain.

David, do you need one council page to that?

I printed a couple as well.

Okay, do you want me to work from that?

I would copy your record.

I think everyone has one.

Oh, um, do you do we need to drop the projector down, Bobby, to for him to use the laptop?

No, this will work.

Oh, okay.

Okay, the map that we're working from is that um what it's showing is you know basically um how many units are being proposed in the new zoning with what we got last week, and uh, you know, the comparison to the old zoning, what the deterrence is that it looks like we flipped the entire zoning map around.

We built, we're allowing a higher level of building toward the primary road, which is church street, and we're reducing as we get in further.

And with the proposed build out, you know, places like the new Doean Foundation.

Uh, one of the things I noticed on this and other maps is that the new Doan Foundation and the VIP are owned by the same people.

When we factored in the amount of units uh for those properties, those were factored as two separate parcels because they're no longer they're not combined, correct?

Um, right, they're two separate parcels.

Yeah, but the parcels are another delimited.

You know, most of us know that a property is the Dr.

Osborne property, it's where that brick house is.

That's a separate parcel.

That whole area is a separate parcel from the VIP club.

Correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So the zoning we're showing here has setbacks on all of this.

So the VIP is showing like 70 units, and uh the new dawn foundation property shows you know approximately 30 units, but if you combine those two properties together because they're owned by the same owner, um, they would eliminate setbacks that they required by that because they're separate properties.

They would only eliminate yeah, I mean it again, it's it's not a proposed you know, build out necessarily, it's just to give a rough idea of what the potential is.

But what what the what that map does is it's showing setbacks from single family homes, it's showing setbacks from the roadways and things like that, and those wouldn't change regardless of whether or not those parcels were combined.

No, but what uh where I'm going with this is the fact that those two properties combine eliminate a lot of the setbacks.

If you combine those two properties together, it becomes one building line, one lot.

You eliminate the setbacks like an example is VIP has to set back from uh watermark point, correct?

And there are there are yard setbacks, but but this is slightly different from like a zoning setback.

This was this was really just used to determine a potential build out for a zone.

No, I understand that, but wouldn't they be able to get more units if they combine the properties?

Because they would eliminate the requirement of setbacks.

No, because 14 acres the buffers that are shown there are like I said, are really about the location, the proximity to sing family homes to the roads, the parks, so those don't change regardless of the colour.

But again, you're gonna you know that's a 14-acre site, and they can build say the same amount of units as um the way I I figured it, I could be wrong, that a site down at the other end toward the primary road.

And one of the concerns about uh the zoning flip that we did is that uh we counted in the fact that VIP Green Tree have uh the floodplains on their property that are significant.

It doesn't stop them from you know there's something in here that said about you wouldn't be able to you're not supposed to build, you couldn't build on those on those floodplains.

State law allows you to build floods.

But that's not what the way the zoning was written, it it just takes into account the floodplain.

Right, but they would still they would still be able to do that.

You can still build on the floodplain just still you have to build your way out of the elevation, but then your elevations are gonna get higher because an elevation is counted from the height of the floodplain.

So theoretically, if you have a 10-foot height for a floodplain, and you're building a 60-foot building, you're building a 70-foot building because the first floor is breakaway.

The only thing you can put down there are automobiles.

And that's what they did at Watermark Point.

So you're going to have a much greater build out at these locations.

And the floodplain, because I've heard this over and over about the floodplain.

The floodplain really maybe costs a little more to build because you have to do certain things.

But you have Brittany Lane, many of the houses are in the floodplain.

Many of the houses are in the floodplain.

Davenport's in the floodplain.

Green trees in the floodplain.

So all of these properties that are in the floodplain, my concern is that they're going to come back and we're in the floodplain.

We want more density.

What you're going to see is you're going to have these density levels continue down the road increasing.

And again, I'm just bringing this out because this is what I'm getting from residents in the neighborhood.

Because for many, it's very difficult to understand.

So, you know, I don't want to dig in too deeply today.

I'll just say that, you know, the density for those sites has been approved for 10 years.

Right.

There has not been a run on, you know, demolition of the surf clubs that are there.

We we are not proposing increasing the density of anything, we're actually making it more expensive to develop because we're adding in a fee for investment in the infrastructure to support uh a responsible build out on the Davenport next.

So I we I don't understand where the concerns that we are you know engendering demolition of the beach clubs uh for residential development when in fact we're actually making it it's more restricted, we've lowered the heights, we're taking into account we think, you know, reasonable uh criteria such as the floodplain.

I think it's a reality, you know, that you know the the the that there is a change in uh you know flood patterns in in the in the in the city and and like climate change is is happening, and I think that's the FEMA marrow it's not only that.

Your point, the way I understand it, is that we're doing something that is going to somehow catalyze the repositioning of these clubs, and we're very intentionally we're keeping what in terms of a density, what was allowed for the last 10 years is still allowed.

Right.

So if there was no build-out over the last 10 years, I'm I'm not sure what you believe is changing that's gonna spur this kind of major representing what I'm saying.

I'm not talking about I'm not what you're talking about is not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is the zoning change flipped the zoning, the zoning was carefully planned 10 years ago to make sure that the scale was down as it got closer to the residential neighborhoods.

There is in excess of 350 homes from the primary road all the way through Davenport Neck, all the way to the apartments on the other side.

Okay, you're increasing uh by pushing so many units to one area, you're increasing that area by approximately 20% more homes, and it's right at the primary road.

The primary road is the connector there that brings all the traffic down Davenport net and into those neighborhoods in the back.

So there's a concern about I'm just giving you the concerns, and then your job is to figure out you know but the traffic demand is less in a residential property than is in the current use.

The the lot coverage of the what we're allowing in the new in the new zoning is less than what is currently covering the lot that's there.

Right.

In every almost every measure, what is being allowed under this new zoning is less impactful than what is even there already.

You're inaccurate, and I'll explain to you why, and you know, I it's it's understandable that you would think that way of just looking at the numbers.

Um the schools are in session during the winter, the beach clubs aren't operational as beach clubs in the winter, so there's no interaction between the beach clubs as beach clubs and the schools.

The schools operate during the day, beach clubs operate during the rest of the year, mostly in the evenings for their parties, and usually midday if they have a party in the afternoons.

So the traffic issue that exists between the clubs and the school and even the residents is spaced out over the 24 hour day because they really don't interact at the same time with each other.

The only one that does is the homeowners leaving to go to work and the school.

That's the only one.

But as far as the clubs go, when you have you know 500 people there at a party or 400, 300, whatever it is at a party, uh they're getting down there, you know, uh later on, it's usually 7 o'clock party, and they're out of there by 11 or 12.

They really don't, I mean they're living down there 44 years, so I can tell you uh really there's no interaction between the two.

So, you know, while numbers might show you that, oh, you're reducing traffic, but at those particular peak times, uh it'll actually increase traffic because the more units you put on Davenport Neck that have to leave to go to work, they're coming out while the schools are in session.

So they're gonna actually increase.

In fact, right now the schools are telling their parents to drive around through the back of Davenport Neck to come in through the back, and they're bringing them right into the neighborhoods, which we're getting a number of complaints about.

So you've got all these moving parts, and I just, you know, the concern is is that the pressure on that primary hub in that area.

But I don't want to just want to make a comment in response to that.

One of the key facets of this zoning recommendation is the $35,000 per unit, which is going to allow us to intervene to build to construct solutions, you know, traffic improvements to make that area better.

Currently, the 210 units that are currently allowed under the existing zoning would have to make no such payment.

So you run the risk of exactly what you're talking about now doing nothing.

What you get in exchange for the exact same impact is a pot of money that can be invested in making the improvements to the all of the traffic and all of the infrastructure around the Davenport Neck to better accommodate the development.

So it's a more responsible and responsive way of permitting.

That's already allowed.

In theory, it makes sense, but let's jump out for a second.

You got I don't want to focus on one club, just it could be any club that has 50 units.

You're gonna get $35,000 a unit.

You're gonna generate X amount of dollars.

It's not gonna be a lot, it's gonna be a million, million and a half dollars, two million dollars.

Um what are you gonna do with that money?

The flood mitigation.

You know, one of my questions is is that where is the flooding in Davenport Neck?

Where is the problem?

Because I'm living here 44 years, and the from what we gather, the main flooding problem exists on uh Church Street because of the Titus Mill Pond, this lack of um drainage, which is impacted not by the city of Narishm mainly, but by the federal government because most of the pipes that lead into that area to drain the street stormwater-wise, um, are silted in.

Uh, and we can't do anything to repair them.

And if we did, it would be literally millions and millions of dollars.

So this isn't gonna fix that problem.

The other problem is let me finish my turn.

The other problem is is that we talk about sidewalks.

That's a good idea.

New sidewalks down to the grave.

People like to walk on the sidewalk as far as in the street.

But we have programs, we have CDBG money.

Why is that neighborhood being signaled out that they have to accept um dense higher levels of density so that the city can build sidewalks in that neighborhood?

We're doing it all over the city.

We build sidewalks, we repair sidewalks for everybody.

Why?

Why they have to pay for it out of out of uh their quality of life.

So those are the things that I'm hearing from people, and I want to bring it to the table so that everybody can hear it and understand what the concerns are.

I and that this is you know, this isn't about you and I going back and forth, it's just about what I'm hearing.

I mean, I got a call the other day from one of the um marinas down there, and they're quite upset because we've eliminated their ability to put condos on their property, and they don't want a restaurant, they don't want an inn, they want something else, they would prefer uh condos, and what was interesting, I said, Well, what about the restaurant?

You can operate.

They said, We're a seasonal business.

When you get into October, uh nobody's gonna come to the restaurant, and we shut down.

We need those parking lots to store all our boats.

So we don't even have room if you put a uh a substantial restaurant down there.

We don't have room to put cars because the boats take up the parking lots.

Well, may I respond?

Currently, under the zoning, the marinas would not be able to exist in they would either have to be residential or they would have to be a marina.

Currently, the marina use is not allowed in the current zoning.

So there would be a bothered in.

It's grandfathered in, but they couldn't add residential to that as an accessory to the marina because they couldn't increase the non-just.

We approved the condo development down there.

That was on a different site.

That was not on the marina site, that was on a parcel that the owner of the marina owned that was adjacent to the marina.

Okay.

So that was a separate.

So the question the question is this have we gone to the marina owners and spoke to them about the thing because when somebody comes to me and tells me that it's telling me that nobody spoke to them.

Well, we have spoken to the marinas.

I I I have yes, I mean they were some of the several of them were I got this call.

There were at least two marina owners at at each of the meetings that we had in the public.

Yeah, but did we ever with with the current zoning that we created?

Did we go back to that to tell them what we were anticipating doing?

Yes.

And seeing what then why would they call me and call you when I'm not going to be able to do that?

I mean, so those are things that we need to go and check out because you know, I'm hearing something from them.

They're calling me.

Uh I'm getting calls from a lot of calls from residents.

Um I've gotten a call from one of their lawyers from one of the residents, and um, you know, right now we're going through this process, and you know, I want to be able to, if there's questions, I want to be able to bring the questions back to Department of Development so that you can look at them and give us give us answers so that they can better understand what's going on.

But I think you know, the the disconnect here is that a lot of them don't understand exactly what's going on.

What they're seeing on the surface is that there was this flip, and a high density was pushed toward the residential base.

And that was the concern.

I think it's out there now for people who could digest it now.

Right, right.

But just you know, just looking at it right now, like parcels two through five.

I think what the proposal is actually more restrictive now.

This proposal for parcels two to five.

Nothing really changes except I actually I think it's gotten more restrictive.

The FARs had gone down.

Um parcels six through eight, the flip that you referred to.

I think it was more the idea too was a to preserve the marina industry.

I mean, it's the character of the neighborhood, right?

Um, it's also to give it it some sort of um economic opportunity to them to to survive because the current code doesn't allow that expansion.

So it's really, you know, whether you agree with that or don't agree with that, but you know, looking at six through eight, it's like to preserve that marina industry, right?

With within the neck, you know.

Um shifting the units to parcel one is when you look at the you know, when you look at this map doesn't show it, but we look at the the floodplains and you look at the the flood area and the more buildable area, uh you know, parcel one is more conducive to that to that building.

However, it was restricted, right?

The height was lowered on parcel one.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

So if you notice the other the other ones were 60, 60 feet, five stories.

I believe parcel one was subject to that same requirement under this proposed zoning, it's actually been lowered.

So that there's an offset there.

So two to two to five, nothing really changes, it's just more restrictive.

Six through eight.

It's really, yeah, we ship, you could call it a shift, but we're preserving the the marinas, right?

Yeah, you know, you don't that's the character, I think, of I think we want a character of this whole entire area makes the area so special.

If they're telling you that they don't want an inn or they don't want a restaurant, this is why we're having this conversation.

This is a conversation that's why we have public hearings.

Would you mind if I just stood up in a show together?

Yes, and I just want to no the commissioner buildings wants to jump in when you're done.

Okay.

You want me to go for it?

Yeah, please go.

Okay.

Okay, this is what I'm talking about.

You see this here, all up there, all those single family homes.

There's 350.

Plus, you have Malisania and Brittany Lane that are tucked into this area, and you have Watermark Point.

your input into the final panel if they're telling you that they don't want an in or they don't want a restaurant that's what we're this is why we're having that conversation that's why we have public hearing would you mind if I just set up the show tone yes and I just want to no the commissioner buildings wants to jump in when you're done with that okay you want me to go first yeah please okay this is what I'm talking about you see this here all up there or those single family homes 350 plus you have Malasania and Brittany Lane that are tucked in to this area and you have Watermark point um I'm hearing from Malissania I'm hearing from uh Brittany and I've heard from a number of people in Watermark uh not all of them are 72 so we haven't really heard from everybody uh but what we're hearing back there is you know 225 people came to a meeting more than 225 but 22 people it was you know were very very concerned so this is where this h I mean if we went to the meeting and everybody said this is a great idea let's go forward with it I don't have a problem working within the framework of that however if there's a concern we gotta either quell those decert the concerns or make changes to accommodate them because they're the people that are living there commissioner just the language that we're using is a little hey I was allowed to build anything in a flood plane ever building a flood zone not a floodplain we have different delineations on the map on a FEMA map um if there's no base flood elevation on the map then we establish free point it's a just a process that you go through when you evaluate something from the state code um so I just wanted to point that out because we keep saying floodplain floodplain and can't build anything in a floodplain ever.

Thank you for the clarification any other questions or comments on this discussion item okay hearing them thank you thank you very much all right um I'm in I don't know what I just did um well all right here we go um I'm advised that that was our last formal item on the agenda I'm advised we have one matter for executive session related to real estate may I have a motion I do not anticipate we'll come back to public um meetings after the exact session so may I have a motion and a second to end this part of the meeting and enter into executive session please K and Ashan Loye all in favor say aye any opposed brilliant thank you so much enjoy the recess friends