Dear Bridget, Please read Doug Penny’s comment when he signed “Save the Shinnecock Canal” petition: “I was a life long resident of Hampton Bays, previously served on the Town Board, and was the primary author of the law which has morphed into PDD. This project does not meet the intended criteria." Mr. Penny’s opinion is an important consideration for you, for your colleague’s, for declining the zoning change. Also reason to revisit the Town Board’s vote to end public comment (after December 19, 2014, ten calendar days) and public hearings since the large majority of your constituents share Doug Penny’s opinion. Another consideration against the zoning change application is the Police Report, I entered into the record, of Motor Vehicle Accidents along Old Montauk Highway that need to be addressed. The applicant’s proposed changes at the interactions are self serving - does nothing for public safety according to a veteran Town police officer. Roadways, that directly affect public health and safety are your number one priority as servants to the public. There’s also no consensus on public benefits required by law. There is a historic marker along the Shinnecock Canal but not at the Canoe Place Inn. The (developer) applicant stated the CPI is not a landmark: plans for saving the use in a rehabilitated building were not made clear on their petition “Save the Canoe Place Inn”. Signatures were collected under the guise of a zoning change that is not required for the rehabilitation. But instead to permit private high density residential development (estimated by Ms. Kramer as 400% more then “as of right”) in a designated public area mandated in Town Plans. The “public boardwalk” is a floating dock. Landscaping nor materials have yet to be detailed for discussion. Few residents - and no community organizations - agree with the applicants claims that the zoning change will “improve the overall quality of life in Hampton Bays” I’d like to also bring to your attention that Kevin McAllister did not state nitrogen pollution, in the current plans, would be less then as-of-right to build. Please also note that Mr. McAllister said use of the Permeable Reactive Barrier (PRB) proposed for the western side of the canal could be the launching point of new practices if the monitoring, a condition of any approval, proved that true. Mr. McAllister did NOT say this was true for the nitrex system proposed on the eastern side of the Canal that you cite in your response. The use of the PRB is not proposed for the eastern side for filtering ground level pollutants. Despite expectations of rising sea levels due to global warming nor flooding caused by super storms. Such as experienced during Sandy that overwhelmed all. I think we all agree with Mr. McAllister's call for maintaining water quality with sustainable practices throughout the Town: starting with pervious driveways and parking areas. Minimizing lawns in favor of native vegetation and grass meadows and rain gardens such as my colleague Lillian Ball implemented in her Water Wash projects on the North Fork and Bronx. (www.waterwash.org). If this zoning change were to be approved here, along a historic waterway within the Peconic Estuary Critical Environmental Area: it can happen anywhere. There are numerous reasons open discussion and transparency must continue hand-in-hand during conversations with the Applicants. Why the request for zoning change must be denied as called for by former Town Board Member Mr. Penny, an opinion shared by most. Hope Sandrow, Shinnecock Hills