East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 05/20/2026

001It's all the family here in the front. Okay, planning board. We are live. We are recording. All lines are closed. Please begin. Okay. Uh good evening everyone and welcome to the Town of East Hampton's planning board. This is our regular and work session meeting of May 20, 2026. Um and we have a number of things on our agenda today, both for work session and the regular meeting. We do not have any public hearings tonight. Uh if anyone is here to uh to discuss the Panigo 350 Panigo Road application, that has been adjourned uh as you may know until our next meeting on this on the 3rd of June. Um so we're going to jump right in and our first matter is the Southampton Masonry storage bin site plan and Will, that's you for the the

002planning department and Bruce, you're going to take that for the board. Is the uh applicant in the room? I see Lori. Lori. Lori. Lori, is that you? Uh, for Southampton. Hampton, yeah. Yes. I know. Okay, chinning and chatting, I get it. It's good. It's old home week. Um, all right, great. Terrific. No, no, no. Just just wanted to make sure you were here. >> [laughter] >> Will, please take it away. Good evening, board. Um, this is a project located on Route 114 in East Hampton. You can see by this aerial >> closer to the mic. We'll bring the mic closer to you. >> better? Does that sound better? No. No. >> [laughter] >> Is it on? It should be on. >> be. Is it on? Move closer to you. Okay. Does that sound better? I

003was getting there. No? >> [laughter] >> There you go. That's it. >> real close to it. All right. So, this is a project located on Route 114 in East Hampton proposing changing the use of this site from bus storage and maintenance to warehouse and storage yard, constructing a gate, fence, and dumpster enclosure, and legalizing existing material storage bins, and retaining wall. Um, you can see the aerial here. And this is a more general area showing the, you know, the railroad tracks and the general location. Here's the site plan. The property is 1.03 acres in size, zoned CI commercial industrial, and is improved with two one-story masonry buildings, material storage bins, a retaining wall, and a parking area. This project was last seen by the board on June 25th, 2025, where the board requested further information.

004The applicant made a new submission providing much of the information the board requested, and the planning department prepared a memo. However, the applicant chose to address further concerns with a new submission instead of appearing before the board, and submitted more information, which is addressed in this memo. First, the board requested the applicant revise the the parking plan to provide adequate access lane width, and the applicant illustrated the 24-ft wide lane in the revised site plan. Second, the board asked the applicant to submit sanitary details, and the applicant submitted a letter from David Rhodes of TF Engineering and a revised site plan including the sanitary flow calculations. The planning department notes the calculations provided comply with those required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. However, town code section 210-3-2B states all non-residential properties requiring

005site plan review must have a low nitrogen sanitary system. To clarify, as it was not stated specifically in the planning memo, the applic- the upgrade to a low nitrogen sanitary system is required due to the change of use. Also not included in the planning department's memo, but related to the use, is the site plan indicates an area of the front building is intended to be used as retail, which is a prohibited use in the CI zone. However, there are permitted uses in the in the commercial industrial zoning district that do allow and include a retail or sales component to them, such as warehouse supply yard and building supply distribution, which is what the applicants have applied for. The planning department does not see a portion of the building devoted to sales as inconsistent with this

006use definition, but the site plan should be modified to remove the notation that this portion of the building is retail, and the board may wish to verify with the applicant that this will be an accessory function of the use. The resolution of approval, should the bo- board choose to grant it, should not approve a retail use. In the previous review, it was noted that the site exceeds its maximum allowed total coverage, and the applicant revised their plans to propose removal of some areas of paving, making the site more compliant. The last The site last received site plan approval in 1990, approving a non-specific amount of total coverage at quote a about 70%. The site received a CO in 2017, which included an amount of total coverage greater than both the approved site plan and the

007permitted maximum. As no new site plan or zoning board approval has been issued approving this excess coverage, it appears the CO was issued in error, which has been confirmed by the building department. The applicant should either reduce the total coverage on site to comply with permitted or apply to the ZBA for a variance. An area which may benefit from reduced coverage is the front of the site, which could create a buffer between traffic on the site and on Route 114 and increase safety. The board previously discussed the present parking configuration and found it acceptable. However, given given the coverage issue, it may be appropriate to reconsider. The revised site plan depicts an area behind the front building to have its paving removed, but no mention of what will replace the paving was provided. Within the

008area of proposed removed paving are portions of the fuel tank and retaining wall, and the applicant should indicate if those structures are proposed to be removed. If not, the areas of the fuel tank and retaining wall should not be removed from the total coverage amount. The applicant has provided the 12 required parking spaces, but two are not in ideal locations. These spaces would block access to the fuel tank and cesspool, and the planning department recommends they be relocated. A more suitable area for these spaces may be along the northwestern property line near the truck parking space. The town consulting engineer reviewed the submitted plans and documents and found no issues with the proposed project. In conclusion, the applicant should revise their plans to include a new low nitrogen sanitary system, indicate if they plan to

009remove more areas of total coverage or apply to the ZBA, State what the area of paving to be removed will be replaced with and ensure total coverage is accurately represented on the site plan. The board should discuss the applicant's response responses regarding the sanitary system and total coverage issues. And whether the currently proposed parking plan is acceptable or should be revised. Okay, good. Thank you very much, one second planning board. This is LTV. Can you just give me a quick moment? Um just pause on me and just for a second, please. Thank you. Sure. >> [cough and clears throat] >> Okay, thank you very much. Okay, Matt. And yes, please resume. Thank you. Name and Just for the record. >> Lori Wiltshire, 231 Pantigo Road, East Hampton. Um so, we're in receipt of this memo

010and we've reviewed it and [snorts] we have several comments. I submitted it response in writing today. I don't know if the board has received it, but okay. So, I will just go ahead and read it into the record. With regard to the parking layout and design, the town engineer has no objection to the parking layout. Employees park in the two rear parking spaces now and will continue to park in those spaces moving forward. This enables easy access to the fuel tank and cesspool when needed. Total lot coverage is proposed at 38,096 square feet and the last CO issued in 2017 before Southampton Masonry became tenants showed total lot coverage at 38,291 square feet. Um this is what we have proposed now is less than what was on the CO the the CO. This was a

011building department error and was not caused by Southampton Masonry who relied on that number when they signed the lease. The areas where paving is proposed to be removed will be planted with grass and will not contribute to total lot coverage. And although town code section 210-32B states that all non-residential properties that require site plan review pursuant to 255-630B, two, four, and five must upgrade to an IAOWTS. 255-630-230B2 says if the change of use increases site parking requirements. Um the bus storage and maintenance use that was previously there does not have a parking requirement listed in the town code. However, I attached an aerial photo to what I sent you today and um that shows nine cars, 22 buses, six mini buses, and two pickup trucks for 39 total parking spaces required for the previous use.

012And that's not telling what's inside the building cuz it was also a maintenance facility. We are proposing 12 parking spaces, which is a reduction and therefore it not trigger an IA update. The proposed warehouse and storage yard only require 12 parking. >> [clears throat] >> I just said that. 35 255-630B4 says if an activity or land use increases occupancy limits of a building or increases site parking requirements. Neither of these apply to this proposed site plan. And 255-6 30B5 requires an IAOWTS if a conversion is proposed. A conversion applies when a resort, motel, or multiple residence is to be converted to a condo or a co-op, which is not the case in this application. Therefore, the upgrade to an IAOWTS should not be merited at all with this application. Um none of these code sections

013apply to the current application. The applicant has been before the planning board since 2024 and at this time this application should be deemed complete and scheduled for public hearing. I believe we've addressed all of the issues. Thank you for the information, uh Ms. Wilshire. As you know though, for things to be considered at a meeting we need time for the planning department to absorb your commentary and the deadline is Wednesday or Friday of the week of the >> have been Friday. >> [snorts] >> I circulated my draft letter, but I didn't get comments back in time. Okay. Yep. All right. Um Okay. Eric, how should we handle his comments? You're the they're the closest one to this application. Yeah, I think rather than um you know, us trying to refute or you know, um go

014through the code here, I think it's probably best if we review what was submitted. Um you know, and then respond with a memorandum and we'll try to do that quickly. Okay. All right. So, is there any point in us discussing this further as a board at this point? Uh I don't think there's much to Right. I don't think there's much for us to say. >> [clears throat] >> Right? Really. Eric, what's your opinion? Yeah, um I guess just looking at any points that we have um quickly. You know, I'll I'll just pipe in. I mean, I think if you want to discuss at least the building department error cuz that's something that um might change the way we review the material. I mean, Will discussed the building department made an error in reviewing the CO

015that had clearing above the limits. Right. Um the applicant's response to that was just noting that, you know, the applicant right now is not responsible for that clearing. At the same time, we don't really have a mechanism to approve clearing over the limit. Um, so if if that might be something we'd need to speak with the building inspector about if the planning board wants to get like a further interpretation of that matter. So I I I would just at least proffer that um for your consideration now while while we look at the rest of those. Okay. I think that actually makes sense. Bruce, you have any particular comments you'd like to make? >> [laughter and clears throat] >> Um, yeah, I just have a couple. Uh, you know, the parking in the front uh with

016the 24-ft-wide access I think is is a is a good start. Um, there was a a comment about trying to put a buffer, I guess, between Route 114 and the parking, maybe to gain some additional coverage back. I'm not sure that's really going to do much for us. I mean, we can push the parking closer to the building, but I don't think we're going to gain a lot of square footage. Maybe I did a quick calculation, maybe it's 3 ft, which doesn't even equate to like 500 sq ft. Um, one thing I was thinking about for gaining some coverage back is maybe taking the pavement out all along the east side from the last parking spot on the right up to the road. Um, you know, that seems like a pretty good area that you

017may be able to gain a little bit back. Um, in terms of the sanitary, I guess I'm really not going to comment on that. And coverage I sort of touched on, you know, there might be some ways to gain a little bit back in the area I was talking about. The parking, you know, the two spots in the back are kind of funky, but you know, I can't really I couldn't come up with a better solution to suggest, so I I think that's probably okay. I assume it's probably going to be employee parking anyway, so I think that's probably probably fine. I could not like I said, I can't think of a way to make that any better. Um And that's it. All right, good. Okay. All right, so we will do our homework and

018planning Oh, do you have a comment, I'm sorry. Just one quick comment and then I'm sorry, Lou. That's okay. Um you can go after me. Um I I think my comment is to the clearing. How do we know it would be something to look into with previous you know, season about how long has it been over cleared? Because as long as I can remember it's been pretty much a I I mean I think you have the CEO dates in the memo or we can give the board the property card at the next review. That would be great. It's been over cleared for quite some time and the applicant's correct it was on the CEO. It's just not legal coverage, right? Because it wasn't ever done pursuant to a site plan or a building permit. But

019they could remedy that by getting a variance as well. They could get a variance, right? And just say that it's been existing for a long time. Whatever justification they could provide the zoning board would hear that. Okay. It was done with CEO in 2017 and total lot coverage not clearing. Okay, I'm sorry. That's what I meant. Yeah. Okay. All right, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry, Lou. Sorry. No, no, I just want to make few minor points. On the septic, I just want to point out that it's in this location is in ground management zone five where nitrogen loading to ground water is a recognized concern. >> [clears throat] >> So, we should keep that in mind. And as far as the coverage, it's um the coverage the maximum permitted is 33,658 and the existing coverage

020is 38,291. That's pretty sizable. And my understanding, I could be wrong. I'm not the authority on it, is that a mistake by the building department does not forgive or does not uh overlook the uh the requirement of what the lot coverage should be. That's my understanding, but anyway. And also on the property card, it makes that it says that uh uh there was a stop work order on February 28, 2024 because of the uh retaining wall was over 8 ft. Uh I don't know if that stop work order was ever resolved, so we should find that out. And also it said in that same note that the ARB may be required as the exterior was recently painted. I don't know if that was resolved, either. So, those are my points. Okay, thanks, Lou. All right,

021we have some things to think about and some some work to do. Uh planning [clears throat] department will take up what you've submitted. Um we'll probably wind up talking to the building inspector uh about the coverage issue and we'll craft a new memorandum and get it to you. Okay, I just wanted to If you want to speak, please come up. Yeah, I just wanted And identify yourself for the record. >> Yeah, Catherine Tiscano. And Catherine Tiscano, Southampton Masonry. Just in regards to, you know, the the error, um I know that our new landlord bought it in 2017, but he has made no changes to the existing, the way that everything is in the lot coverage. So, I'm pretty sure that it would be preexisting because it was from the bus depot. I I know it's

022stayed the same. No one's changed that footprint for for years. So, I just wanted to I know it's 2017, but I think that's just because he purchased the property then. Things do reset when you're back with a new use. Yeah, it changed hands, but it hasn't It's been >> When you're back in front of us for a new use. So, but thank you for that information. That's all. Thanks. All right, we'll move on to our next uh to our next matter, which is the Stephen Talkhouse Paving Lot Site Plan. And Will, that's you again, and Lou, that's you for the board. Okay, the applicant is here, so All right, I'm They are presumed that, yes. >> [laughter] >> Um so, this project seeks approval for existing paving over the former gravel parking area, which you

023can see is sort of tan in this aerial image in the rear of the site. And here's a sort of neighborhood view of the site um Amagansett Square Amagansett Town um pretty much in the heart of Amagansett. And here's the site plan. The site is approximately 28,066 sq ft in size, zoned CB Central Business, cleared of natural vegetation, and located partially within the Amagansett Historic and Agricultural Overlay Districts. The site is currently improved with a two-story frame building with decks, concrete block garage, frame sheds, outdoor bar, outdoor cooler, and ticket booth. The project is a type two action pursuant to SEQRA and does not require any further SEQRA action. The site plan does not illustrate individual parking spaces, drive aisles, or dimensions. The Planning Board last approved the site plan for this property in 2014,

024which contained an ADA parking space and reconfiguration of the existing 24 parking spaces. However, the most recent certificate of occupancy for this property in 2015 did not delineate the parking spaces. The site plan does not include proposed areas of coverage and only shows the existing and maximum permitted amounts. Additionally, the coverage amounts labeled as existing on the site plan do not match the existing coverage amounts from the most recent CO or site plan approval. However, the site plan includes a 21 square foot decrease in building coverage and a 203 square foot decrease in total lot coverage. No information regarding drainage and storm water control was received as part of the submission. The site plan indicates at least four catch basins are present along the western property line and as the site has a downward slope

025to the west, these basins are in an appropriate location. The town consulting engineer reviewed the plans and stated, "Storm water runoff from the paved parking area appears to be properly managed and contained on site." No lighting plan or details were included in the submission and the applicant should indicate if any new or modified exterior lighting is proposed. This property is contained in the Amagansett Historic District and its central business district and is known as the Erastus Barnes House as it was originally constructed in 1832 by local builder Samuel Schellinger for whaling captain Erastus Barnes. The historic designation of the property encompasses the entire area of the project. However, as the proposed work is related to the driveway, it is exempt from ARB purview. The town consulting engineer reviewed this project and stated no engineering issues

026were identified. The planning department notes the following necessary elements of site plan were missing from this submission and are relevant to the proposed work and should be submitted. First, layout of existing and proposed parking areas with dimensional spaces, aisles, street approaches, general circulation pattern, curb cuts, traffic safety devices, sidewalks, curbing, paving, drainage structures, and drainage requirements. The board should discuss whether the applicant should comply with this requirement and revise their plans to contain this information. Second, existing and proposed exterior lighting, signs, fences, and screen plantings. The applicant should confirm if any new or modified exterior lighting, signs, fences, or plantings are proposed, and if so, the board should discuss whether the applicant should comply with this requirement and provide such information. The planning department has also identified the following requirements, which are missing from this

027submission, but are not relevant to the proposed work, and recommends they be waived. Floor area for all buildings, setbacks between buildings and structures, a comprehensive lighting plan, location of sewage disposal system, topography and elevations of buildings and structures. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether the applicant should revise the site plan to include delineated parking spaces, dimensional spaces, aisles, and circulation patterns, and if it wishes to waive the requirements of floor area for all buildings, setbacks between buildings and structures, a comprehensive lighting plan, locations of sewage disposal systems, topography and elevations of buildings and structures. The applicant should clarify the causes of changes in coverage and whether any new or proposed exterior lighting, signs, fences, or plantings are part of this project. Okay, Will. Thank you very much. Does the applicant wish to be heard?

028Sure. I And just please Yeah, please step up and identify yourself for the record. I'm Nick Kraus, partner at Steven Talkhaus. Okay. Thanks for having us today. Uh we're happy to discuss anything you'd like as far as marking the parking lot, any concerns about lighting. We don't feel there's any need for any sidewalks. It's just all flat. Uh as far as screening, vegetation, anything like that, everything's fenced in. Our neighbor behind us uh is the Bistrian farm, so it's a field that you know, nobody sees, no neighbors. Uh our neighbors to the right uh and left are all fenced off and have been for 30-plus years, so nobody really looks at it. Um but if there are any concerns or ideas, we're happy to be part of the community and answer them. So, Great. you

029know, want to be a team player and so anything we can do to make everybody happy, we want to do it. Good. Thank you very much. Oh, and as [snorts] far as the uh >> [clears throat] >> the differences as far as the numbers go, I think the decrease is because we removed some uh sheds that were on a cooler that had been taking up space, and so on the new survey, they're removed. So, that's why there's a a minus in terms of square footage. Okay. All right, good. Okay, thank you. So, stick around uh and Lou is going to lead our conversation on the board. Okay. Thanks for having us. Thanks. Okay. Um well, first of all, I just want to mention that the this paving was done without site plan approval. So, this

030is an after-the-fact legalization. Um I don't like to consider these after-the-fact legalizations as routine because I don't think we should set a precedent so that people continue to do I understand that in this case, it was not people didn't you people didn't know that you were supposed to get a site plan approval. Are you glad? My hearing's not that good. Sorry. Could you identify Yeah, no, obviously I didn't realize that. Um and the reason I didn't is maybe 14 years ago. I'm Peter Huntercamp. I'm one of the partners and managing partners of the Steven Talkhouse with Nick. And maybe 14 years ago, we paved in front of the garage back there, and people from the town came down and said, "That's fine. Just put a handicap space in." So, when I had the back part

031of our parking lot, which was dirt and continually flooding my neighbors' parking lots cuz the dirt would run off into um the dry wells, we put in three other dry wells and paved it. And since the 25% we had already paved, the town had looked at and didn't say boo, I it never occurred to me that doing something that mitigated a problem of flooding and had the approval of my neighbors and was not visible to anyone was an issue. Once I found out it was, you know, we started this apology [clears throat] process essentially, but it wasn't um always worked with the town. And if I knew I had to do that, I would have done it. So, I stand corrected, but they they didn't do anything when I did 25% of it 14 years

032ago, so I didn't know. Okay. I I I appreciate your response. Thank you. I'm not going to make a major issue. I I just want to >> and I just don't like to make these 40 years with this town is to go by the book, so >> That's fine. >> I'm sorry it didn't work out that way, but that's why we're here and we'll do whatever you want want to do, but we're not we didn't change anything else. We just made it better for our neighbors, better for flooding, and we didn't change anything. So, there's no lighting, there's no setbacks, there's It's been an employee parking lot for 30 years, and that's all we're trying to do with a different surface. Thank you. Okay. Okay, I think the the major You know, let me just

033mention a few other minor points, and then I'll get to what I think is the major issue. Uh which shouldn't be an issue because you've already implied that you're going to take care of it. So, uh I think it's important that even though there's no change in lighting, you should you should still submit some kind of plan showing what the lighting is. Um and this is a scenic area statewide significance and it's part of the Amagansett historic district. So, a lot of people may be concerned with what's happening with this property. In my view, the area that of concern is in the rear. It's not visible from the street, so I don't think there's really anything that should be done or can be done in terms of buffering or planters or things like that. I

034I examined the area and I don't think that uh it's requires anything like that to uh address the historic district and the scenic area statewide significance. But, I wanted to bring it up because I know people consider those things very important. Make sure that the right thing is done. Uh so, the issue that needs to be taken care of is the parking. So, it needs we need to have delineated parking spaces and a circulation plan. So, I think once that's done, we should be fine and we can move on to approval for this uh this application. Thanks, Lou. Yeah, good good. >> [clears throat] >> I guess my question would be Nick Crouse again. My question would be whether you want us to just go ahead and put lines in on a plan or do

035you want us to submit a plan of what we're thinking about before we do it as far as markings and things like that? We can just go ahead and do what seems obvious, but I don't want to overstep again here. So >> Our planning director's right behind you. >> Yeah, she she like she Tina >> kind of have it done. Yeah, we're just Yeah, it's kind of on the >> They had an approved site plan from 2014 and if they're not proposing to change anything and that's the number of spaces that was approved, I don't see a reason to make them do anything new. That way. Sure. And and that was included in the package. Yeah. Great. >> Okay. Is that it, Lou? Yeah. Does anyone else have any comments that they would like to

036make on on this? Okay. All right, so we have some questions to answer. Can I just ask I wasn't clear on this. Um were you proposing to change any lighting or add any lighting? No, okay. Uh I You know, I might I might have misspoke. I think I said lighting plan. I didn't mean that. I meant just a notation to say that the lighting was stay as is. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Because if they're not changing anything, I don't >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Yeah, okay. Yeah. So just add a note to the survey that or a cover letter no lighting changes. That is one of our questions, in fact. Should the applicant revise their site plan to include delineate parking spaces, dimensional spaces, aisles, circulation patterns and topography? I would say yes, but

037not topography. >> Yeah, topography seems >> Yes. It's extreme. Like a lot up front. It's flat. So I'm just going to one more time the town the major concern with changing the surface of the parking lot is drainage and we did ask the town engineer to review it. The town engineer asserted that the drainage is acceptable for what has been done. So I don't think that we need topography for any reason. That's kind of onerous. If you needed it to do the analysis, that would be one thing, but they when they did a site inspection It's okay. Yeah, I don't think we need it. All right, >> we can take that out. I would recommend that. Okay. Yeah. So, uh delineated parking [clears throat] spaces, dimensional spaces, aisles, and circulation patterns. Yes. Yes, Lou. Yes.

038>> Yes. Yes. Yes, Jen. Yes. Okay, yes. >> [snorts] >> Does the board wish to waive the requirements of floor areas for all buildings, setbacks between buildings and structures, a comprehensive lighting plan, locations of sewage disposal systems, topography, here we go, and elevations of buildings and structures? So, we're looking to waive those requirements. Yes. Yes. Yes. Not necessary. Should the applicant clarify the changes in coverage if there are any? I think noting we just did. Yeah. >> we did we just did that, right? Okay. Yes. Should the applicant clarify if any newer proposed exterior lighting, signs, fences, or plantings are part of the project? And I think we just heard from Tina that you were just making notation on the survey, you know, where lighting currently exists. Correct? Okay. All right. Great. We'll see you

039again. Thank you. All right, so our next matter is Prospect Hill final subdivision modification. It's a wrap-up. Um So, Tina, you're doing this for Sarah, and Ava, you've got this for the board. Are we going to do the wrap-up tonight or tomorrow? Yeah, sure. Why not? Yes. >> [cough] >> Greetings, board members. Tina Lagergren for the planning department. I'm covering for Sarah Lewis tonight. This is a uh wrap-up discussion for the Prospect Hill um final subdivision modification. And it's located at 98 Prospect Hill Lane in Montauk. And there is an aerial image that I'm sharing. Um I will switch to the um subdivision modification. The uh this modification was to modify the building envelope as shown on this plan. The area in blue was being added and the area in red is being subtracted from

040the approved building envelope from the original subdivision. Um the planning board held a public hearing on May 6th, 2026. Did I read that say right? Yep, May 6th, 2026. And there were no public comments received. Um so at this time, we're suggesting conditions of approval for the board to consider. Um all building and structures, excepting driveways, gates, pillars, fences, shall be confined to the envelopes shown on the map. Those are the new envelopes. Um additional stormwater mitigation may be required um for the addition, which I'm sure would be handled during the building permit process, but we'll certainly say it anyway. Um structures not on the certificate of occupancy shall be removed. And then importantly, all structures within the scenic easement should be removed. Um scenic easements are not appropriate for the placement of structures. You

041can see here it is this uh patio and pathway through the easement that um do need to be approved. One thing we added to this that we hadn't discussed with the board before is that the applicant should submit a revegetation plan to restore these areas um to let them naturalize over time. Um that's pretty standard for scenic easement. They're supposed to remain in perpetuity as preservations of open space. So, you know, revegetating these small areas is important. Um so, sorry. >> Removed or approved? I'm sorry. Did you mean removed or approved? Removed, not approved. >> I thought you said approved. >> Sorry, I'm talking fast. Um, remove the structures from the scenic easement and revegetate those areas. Um, so with that, uh, it's the board's discussion. Okay. Uh, is the applicant here? I didn't ask

042that question. Jameson, that's you, that's right. Do you want to be heard? Do you need to be heard? Okay. So, Ava. No, I don't have any further comments. Uh, I think we're in a good position on this one. Okay. All right, so the question, we'll go to the questions then. Uh, and the one question really asks about the things that Gina just discussed. Does the planning board agree that removal of structures and revegetation, as described, of the scenic easement should be required before building permit can be issued? Yes. >> Yes. Yes. So, that's a condition. Uh, is the application ready for approval? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Jameson, you're all good? You don't need to be here then. Uh, yes, so we have a resolution, so let's go for it. Yes. Okay, in the matter of

043the application of 98 Prospect Hill final subdivision modification, [snorts] Suffolk County tax map number 300-13-2-1.12, I have read the resolution and also conditions to modification and move for its approval. Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Passed and carried unanimously. Thank you. Now you got what you want. Okay. All right, before [clears throat] we move into SDA restaurant, I think, uh, I see that, uh, the folks from Holy Trinity are here. This will be a really quick quick thing. We have, um, two resolutions, one for an extension of time and one to schedule a public hearing and Ava do you have any questions? I do. I have it. In the matter of the application of Most Holy Trinity Cemetery site plan special permit modification Suffolk County tax map 300-142-1-12. This I've read the extension of time.

044We are hereby extending the time within which the applicant must comply with the conditions of the board's resolution retroactively in one year increments within which to obtain a certificate of occupancy or until May 16th, 2027. I move for approval of this extension of time. I second. Okay, all in favor? I. I. All right, Pastor Carey. All right, and then next is public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Oh, do I have to read that first? You have to read the in the matter of the application. Sorry, in the matter of the application of Most Holy Trinity Cemetery site plan special permit modification Suffolk County tax map number 300-142-1-12. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, June 17th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.

045or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Most Holy Trinity Cemetery site plan at premises identified again Suffolk County tax tax map number 300-142-1-12. Files can be viewed and comments can be filed in accordance with the specifics in the public hearing notice which appears as part of the meeting record tonight and will be published in the paper of record no less than 10 days before said hearing date. Move to schedule the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. I. Okay. Public hearing is scheduled. Thank you very much. We have a We have a guest here. We do. We just got a Um all right. Yes. I need I'm just going to call out we have we have a special guest in our audience tonight who was a former

046a former planning board member has not been enough. Right, exactly. To check in on us now that he's town clerk. He's got some sway around this place. So, good to see you, Michael. Good to see you guys. Yeah, I I'm sure you do. All right, now we're going to move on to Esty Restaurant, the site plan special permit new supporting materials. So, this is a bit of an unusual situation in that there's not actually an application in front of us. Um thank you for agreeing to to come to talk to us tonight about some new new information that came to to light. Uh we've got some questions. So, we're going to go about it the normal way we would as if there were an application which is Tina will for the planning department walk through

047the memo and then the applicant can talk, one one or both of you. All right? Tina. Thank you, Ed. Um this is a discussion about the Esty Restaurant site plan um and a review of new supporting materials regarding the application. The subject application received site plan approval in November of 2025. Since approval, supporting materials have been reviewed by the planning department in connection with the application. These include the State Liquor Authority application and building permit application plans. And these appear to contradict um some of the uses outlined in the planning board's site plan approval. This was a concern, and accordingly, this discussion is convened to clarify the nature of operations proposed on the site and confirm if there have been any changes. Approval was previously granted a new two-story restaurant with a roof deck. Um

048also a shed, decking around an existing pool, and an IAOWTS sanitary system were part of the application, um which is located on um Montauk Highway and South Emery Street. Um there's a map here showing where it is in downtown Montauk. The site plan approved a 39-seat restaurant. Um currently the site is two separate properties, and they were proposed to be combined as as part of the site plan application. They're considered 100% cleared. Um the property is 22,000 um 138 square feet. So I'm going to I'll pull up the site plan just so we're looking at what was approved. This is the planning board approved site plan. As I referenced earlier, since the initial approval, the department has reviewed SLA applications and the building department permit. Um we received the referral for the SLA application as

049part of the normal course of business. And we looked at the building permit after a story in the local paper regarding potential materials associated with this location that were circulating that were describing operations inconsistent with the restaurant use. Um so that story referenced the uh a large DJ venue similar to the Surf Lodge operating um with room for 250 people on the roof, and and other such details that in our view were not consistent with the 39-seat restaurant that the planning board approved. Uh based on these concerns and the review of the building permit and the SLA application, planning board chair Ed Krug issued a letter to the applicant outlining some of the concerns. Um the applicant in response promptly responded with an email explaining um um the materials and asserting you know certain things

050about the operation that had not changed. We asked to meet with the applicant, they agreed. The planning department and town attorney met with the applicant and their attorney and during that discussion we asked them to come here and they have agreed to do so. They're attending tonight. And the the email that the applicant sent outlining his responses to the concerns in Ed's letter is attached to the uh memo that the board received. In consideration of all these discussions and after review of everything we've received thus far, the planning department is recommending [clears throat] that at this time either one of two courses of action is recommended. The first is that either the applicant confirms that their original narrative uh remains accurate supplementing it by answering the questions within this report um and reverts to the

051original floor plans that the um planning board approved with its site plan. Or um if the applicant wishes to seek approval of a new narrative that they develop that and submit it uh that corresponds to the revised floor plans and then the planning board consider those as a modification to the application. In either case, we recommend that a modification is appropriate at this time to formally document the parties understanding of the resolution of this matter. So um I alluded to the changes um between the uh site plan approval and the building uh permit approval and I'm going to go through those in a little more detail now. Um let me just find where I have that. Okay. So the the report that the planning board department developed has a table that shows the side by

052side of what was approved by the planning board during the site plan process and then what um was found on the building permit application. Right, the So, the building permit was obviously made subsequent to the planning board site plan approval and it should be based upon it. Um there's numerous changes within the floor plans associated with the building permit plans. So, on the screen on the left-hand side are the building permit plans and on the right are the approved site plan. On the first floor, we circled some of the major changes, right? So, there are three additional ladies bathrooms. There um there three additional tables. The applicant verbally stated that they plan to remove those, but they're still here, so we're we're referencing those. And then there's a modified seating area with more seats. Um

053these aren't restaurant seats, right? So, the applicant hasn't changed the overall number of seats requested in the building permit, but they have added more seating. That's non-restaurant seating, right? So, there's more couches. There's another table-looking thing here. Um so, you can see here the approved site plan kind of had a sparsely populated first floor and this first floor with the building permit is um a little more busy. On the second floor, the changes include um modified seating. So, at the top of um in the circle here that I'm hovering around, there's a reconfigured area um and this is not labeled. It could be either a communal table or a bar. We can't really tell. Um so, we did want the applicant to talk about what that is. And then there's a uh wide empty area

054labeled as a dining room, but there's no chairs or tables in that dining room. And then there are uh two additional bathrooms on this floor. And finally um on the roof, there are new seating areas. There's a seating area here. This kind of look These seats look the same as these seats, but they're not labeled as restaurant seats. Not sure what those are supposed to be, and then there's more, um seating and fire pits. So, this is something we wanted to talk about with the applicant and really hear the details on, you know, the application when it was first approved was part of the application review was this narrative that the applicant submitted, right? And the narrative, you can see, really does reference the floor plans in respect to how the site is supposed to

055operate once it's constructed. So, the fact that there are differences in the floor plans, we were concerned that there could be changes in the narrative, and we wanted to make sure that we all were on the same page about that and understood. Going back to the, um, second floor, which I do talk a little bit about in the report, the changes between this floor, um, are pretty, we think, worthy of attention. Um, here the seating has decreased, right? There's only 12 seats here where there's 16 seats approved, which isn't an immediate concern, but the way the room is now designed, there is only a small area devoted to dining and a large wide-open area that's that's labeled as a dining area. I did reference the definition of restaurant in the report. That does have language

056in our code, right? 255.120, where definitions are, that does have language that references that the relocation of tables and chairs, um, could and and the creation of an area of dancing could constitute a night club use. And the way they've reorganized this right now, they wouldn't have to move anything to have an area for dancing. So, it's a little atypical also in a restaurant setting. I mean, if you could see in the approved site plan, this is what you expect a restaurant to look like when you walk in, you know, tables and chairs in a dining area. This is just kind of nothing and then, you know, a little tiny area of dining. So, we did want to understand more specifically from the applicant why they made this change and precisely how this area is

057still a restaurant, um, with all that open space. Um, and then whether or not this is a bar, you know, right now I'm talking about this area being a table, but I don't know if that is the case. It's It's not labeled. It's It's hard to tell. And, you know, the code does also reference that the sole purpose of a restaurant is intended to be food service. Meanwhile, here we're seeing large areas that are not clearly devoted to food service. Um, and so their use is a little more ambiguous, making a clear understanding of the narrative all that more important for this new use. And, we do think, finally, that the approved site plan configuration of tables is more consistent with a restaurant than the revision that we saw in the building permit application. The

058other thing I'll note, and I'll talk about it later, too, is that the number of bathrooms now provided is consistent with a bar use and, um, not a restaurant use. The, which that standard is set by the New York State Plumbing Code. So, that's another change that signals that warrants discussion of, you know, what's driving the applicant to go in that direction. The next thing I'll talk about is, um, the nature of the operation, really with respect to our review of the SLA permit application. As part of the application process, our requires certain aspects of the operation to be identified on the permit. The application for this listed um live music including DJs and bands as well as third-party promoters and security personnel within the methods of operation for this site. Again, I'm just pointing

059to the um town code in the report um that does uh admit that outdoor musical entertainment is allowed from 1:00 to 9:00 at restaurants, but anything else has to happen with the special events permit. Now, we did speak to the applicant about this and they have explained that um they anticipate these types of activities DJ live music in association with special events. So, we did want to understand from them a little bit more about how the site will be used in that fashion. And we do think it's important to memorialize that those um aspects of the site operation DJs live music would be associated with special events as opposed to the normal restaurant use cuz, you know, we just looked at the narrative earlier. The narrative that the planning board originally approved didn't contemplate those

060types of um functions on the site. Um so, just to close up about these two issues we do think that even if the applicant wants to continue with the originally approved floor plans, we would still like a little more in the narrative to be approved as part of the application that describes the use of the site for special events and the intended frequency as well as the use of DJ equipment and live music on the third floor. We really do think that's a concern um to have outdoor music on the third floor as we expect the sound will travel large distances. There'll be no attenuation um there to shield the noise from traveling far distances. So, we do think those items require further clarification. And then in the case of the applicant doesn't wish to

061revert to the approved floor plans, we do have additional comments based on the building permit um floor plans and the SLA in combination, right? So, both of those things really interacting together. Um and I I listed them all here. I I don't think I'll go through them all, but you know, one of the key things we want to make sure that the applicant confirms that the number of employees remains the same if the floor plans have changed. Uh as you could see in the narrative, the applicant said there were going to be seven employees. That's a very important number for the parking calculation. If there's more robust uses on the site and the employee number increases, that will be less um site parking available for patrons. And there's only 13 spaces already. So, it's important

062to understand that use of the site above a 39-seat restaurant will quickly overwhelm the site's ability to safely circulate um those patrons and there's no room for additional vehicles, you know, above 20. So, those two those two things combination are very important. Um the narrative had stated that there was no seating in any of the bars, and I I just don't know if this area on the second floor is a bar. So, we do need that clarified. Um The narrative had also indicated that there were service bars. Um service bars implies that therefore like waitstaff to go get a drink for their table, not necessarily that people can come up and like order drinks. So, we do want to hear the applicant's um more detailed understanding of what they meant by service bar when they

063um described the operation as that. I I already mentioned the bathroom and that, you know, the applicant had said when we asked them about the bathrooms that [clears throat] the cost was not that significant to add more and that it was for special events. So, I would like to hear more about that tonight. I I know I do have a concern that that number is associated with the bar use as opposed to the restaurant use that was on the original approval from from the planning board. And, you know, the additional seating in all the places, again, just to understand how that seating functions with the restaurant use. Um an additional change and just going through the site plan, I happened upon one of the mechanical plans did seem to move um the generator from its

064originally proposed location and did add some additional condenser units. These are all noise sources, so if this is going to move, we would need analysis and for the new ones, you would need analysis that those those would require modification if they are proposed in those locations. Um some of the site plans in the in the set didn't have those, so that's a question for the applicant. But, if they are moving to those locations, that should be part of the modification and we do need noise um analyses for those. So, in conclusion, the planning department's recommending a modification is required for this application based on the inconsistent supporting materials >> [clears throat] >> with the original approval of the planning board. If the operational narrative hasn't changed, the applicant should answer the the two additional questions

065we had regarding uh noise and special events and revert to the originally approved floor plans and that could be um memorialized in the modification um you know, the the new supplemental information, the the uh narrative that the planning board already approved and those affirming those floor plans. Or, if they wish to make the changes that they have in the building permit plans, they should propose those to the planning board along with the new narrative that explains how the site will operate. There's one thing I want to mention before I conclude. Um we have received several public comments regarding this application. Um the the latest of which were just received today. Uh I just want to let the applicant know that there are public comments in the file and we encourage them to review those and

066respond. There's a lot of concerns in the community regarding um you know, after the article and and the materials that were circulated. So, we do hope that the applicant reviews those and provides um substantive responses to those concerns as well. And I think with that, I will conclude. Okay. I have just one quick question before you conclude, Tina. Um in your memo, you referenced that the Star article included documents associated with the location, but I don't see those documents in our files. We asked the applicant about those and I will um let them respond. They they didn't want to include those in the record that we provided to you. So, I respected that request. >> Okay. Thank you. Thanks so much, Tina. Very thorough review. Uh Mr. Dominguez, Mr. Whalen, who would like to speak

067first? And you're for the record, Marley. My name is Marley. I'm one of the owners of uh estate of the of the site. Um I will try and cover everything. Uh I've made some notes here. Uh the first thing I would say is nothing has changed in terms of the way we intend to operate the property. Um I I think the vast majority of comments um from my perspective, I thought they were very very minor, uh to be honest. Um I didn't understand implications of them. For example, the furniture plan. In my I've probably done this 20 years. I hadn't seen a municipality um pay much attention to our furniture plan. I spent zero time looking at the furniture plan that was submitted to the building department, not because of any reason other than we

068have we still to this day we haven't gone through it with the interior designer. So, I don't know if the chairs are if the couches are, but in terms of number of seats and everything like that, that will stay the same from in terms of proper dining seats. Can I just comment the seats the number of seats is not the same. Like the casual seating has been increased. Is that not right, Tina? The amount of casual seating or something. That is that is correct. >> Right, that is our concern. It's not about where exactly it is from where Right, but my understanding is there's a difference between like waiting areas and dining seats, right? That's my understanding. I could be wrong, but that was my understanding. Well, yeah, I mean To me where that switch

069was I don't I don't want to kind of get into a to back and forth here on this, but >> So, where that switch was was one of the couches. So, originally the thought I had was I kind of like the idea of large couches that kind of force people to sit next to each other and kind of strangers interacting. Mhm. As I was talking to local business owners like Leo Donut and Tom Flight, a big thing that they kept saying was wanting to extend the season into the winter, and I think a big part of that is kind of like working from nice spaces. We have fireplaces in these in these levels for that reason. So, realistically if people are working together, they want their own kind of private space. They don't want to

070be sitting next to like four other people working type of thing. So, that's why we went with just smaller individual seating areas rather than large communal areas. So, that that's the origin of that. There was no other kind of nefarious reason. >> See how that might appear a little club. I totally get it. And I'm also I feel like a little bit in a catch-22 because one of the other comments was more floor space equals more dancing, which we're not a nightclub. We never intend to be, but I now have more kind of coverage and furniture we can't move, which makes it even less circulation space for dancing, let's say. But, if you want me to remove couches, that's totally fine. But, my intention really was for it to be an extension of the season

071where people can go and sit down next to a fireplace and have like a nice environment to to hang out essentially. So, that's the intention on the first floor. Um and I think that's pretty much the only change minus the bathrooms, which we can go over because that's for both levels. Um it's it's really was the same thing. Um but, as far as seating goes, that's really the only change was to the types of couches. Um were there any questions on that point? We'll come back to it. >> Okay. On the second floor, I actually uh brought some pictures to show you kind of what my intention was with the top. This is a place I love in LA. Uh well, they have many locations. So, it's basically omakase, but pasta. Mhm. So, I'm not

072someone that can eat a lot of carbs, so I like the smaller plates of it. So, it's a small uh uh like five to eight course tasting menu, but it's just a little bit of pasta, a little bit of chicken parmesan, whatever it is. And you have the chef kind of preparing it for you and sitting around the table dining like that. Mhm. That's what my >> [clears throat] >> that's what my plan uh is was. Um my only concern is coordinating two different menus in the same menu. Um so, that is the primary plan. The secondary plan is that we would put tables right down the middle and remove all those seats. But, the seats the seat count will be the same. But, if you're asking my honest transparency, I don't know whether we'll

073do something like this or whether we'll just go to traditional seats down the middle um and do the same menu that's on the rooftop. So, I'm not totally sure, but it'll be one of those two. And the other thing I would note, that that where those seats are, the architect put those in there, there will not be that many seats there. I think that's like 12 ft and he has like 12 seats. You simply cannot fit in that. So, that's just not set out correctly. And to answer you know, I thought I thought I mentioned it before, there's actually a table here. So, this isn't a large open area. There's a table there. So, this area >> it on the plan? Yeah. Yeah, it's one of one of the other pages. >> Oh, okay. Yeah,

074it's in there though. Um and so, once that table's there, the space between that and the other seats isn't really that far. Um it's not a large area at all. And actually, compared to the original plan, we decreased the the dining venue area by putting that back hallway there. Um so, the overall space for the venue, if you will, on that floor is actually smaller. Um my whole thought behind this was that we create more of an intimate um kind of elevated space. Uh in my opinion, in the town, there isn't this kind of omakase experience. Um and that's what we were trying to do. I have one Can I May I interrupt with one question? It sounds as though we've gone from like a casual restaurant for hotel guests to having two separate restaurant

075uses. I don't know is the honest answer. Um so, the the the the number of seats and people served is the same. And I kind of went where you're going of I I love this idea, but I'm like that might be too complicated. So, that's why we might just remove those seats and just have tables right down the middle. So, I I I don't know. As it is right now, we're probably not going to be open this season, but as we're getting closer and there was still possibility we would, I was like, there's no way I'm doing a second menu. So, we were just going to do um the tables down the middle. So, I think it depends on the chef that we hire. It depends on a lot of things like that, but the

076seat count itself will be the same. It's meant to be in either direction. It's meant to be a smaller, more intimate venue. And the other thing too worth mentioning, we have uh either this floor or the rooftop will rarely be open at the same time. So, the rooftop closes at sunset. This floor is only open for dinner. So, it won't be open during uh breakfast and lunch. Um so, What did you say about the the sun deck? When does that open? It closes at sunset. So, it's breakfast, lunch to sunset. Oh, okay. It closes at sunset. >> After sunset, yes. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Like right after sunset or sometime after sunset? I mean, essentially right after sunset. >> All the sun sets. >> [laughter] >> Can you speak to the special events? Yes. So,

077the the the deck that Tina is referencing, uh that was made essentially for like four or five people that saw it. It just turns out one of them was a competitor of ours that circulated it. Uh I made that for a friend of mine named Christina who's getting married this uh fall. And she was stressing out. She's one of my best friends, like a sister. She was stressing out like, don't know where to get married. She was going to get married at the lighthouse. She wanted to have an event and support our restaurant. She's like, what can we do there? I was like, I haven't even looked at special events. I'll put something together for you in like 5 minutes. The renderings I did myself. They're not particularly accurate, but it literally was just for

078her trying to help guide her through her wedding questions and things like that. Um so, it was truly just a document I did in 5 to 10 minutes for one of my best friends. And are you saying that's what was sent to the star? Correct, yes. Oh, okay. >> Yeah. So, it wasn't a perspective to >> No, so then so I that was just images that I had sent her and some some notes to help guide her to say like maybe this is what we can do. I don't know. And then being totally transparent, myself and another individual have bought out my previous partner. And I sent it to three or four people that were interested in coming in as my new partner and buying out my existing partner. One of the people that said

079he was very interested, as it turns out, is actually an owner of our direct competitor. And that's how it got circulated. So. But what are your intentions about special events though? I mean I I understand how you why you want >> have weddings and yeah, we'll obviously go through the proper process of applying for special events, but we'll have weddings and I don't even know what else beyond that, but that's kind of the primary one. Obviously, it's an important business in the shoulder season for any hotel out here. Um and that's that's really it. That's 99% of what I would imagine a special uh event would be. Okay. And that's really the origin of this, too, [clears throat] frankly. >> mean this is something I hadn't thought a lot about during the process last process

080uh that we went through when we, you know, got to an approval for you. Um is that, you know, this is a lot of square footage for 39 people, right? I mean it really is. It's a funny thing. You know, and now that some of this new stuff has come to light, it's like wait wait a minute here, you know? Well, it's much less because by the time you back out the mechanical rooms, the bathrooms, the back of house, it's less than half of the gross square footage. So, like I think I think that's like because again, keep in mind there's a table here. So, the circulation space is literally just this, which I I is 12 or 13 ft wide. It's not a particularly big space. Okay. But, you know, maybe you have On

081three floors you've got like 1,500 sq ft. Sure. Yeah. Probably something more. Exactly. Yeah. Right. But keep in mind also not all of them will ever be open at the same time. Yeah. So, one of the things that concerns us, you know, now that this this whole notion has really come to our attention is the number of bathrooms, you know, the amount of space that's sort of underutilized, all those kinds of things, right? [clears throat] If you decide to sell this space, you know, to someone else, right? It really looks like a bar. It looks like a club. It could very easily, you Um So, I just point that out. It's one of the things that sort of is is on our mind that even if you're not, you know, contemplating that, someone else down

082the line might. So, on the uh couple things you had mentioned. On the toilets, honestly, um when we originally did this, it was three male or three male toilets, three female toilets. The male also had three urinals. So, there was six um fixtures for the men and three for the women, and uh a friend of mine pointed out that probably doesn't work at all. So, we reduced the men and increased the uh female. Um so, now it's uh I believe it's five and five fixtures. Um and then originally what happened very simply, the female sink I believe Oh, yeah. So, there you go. It was on this side. And the architect pointed out, "Look, you have enough space to put it on this wall and you can fit a few more uh toilets for female."

083That was it. My I think he said that the first and second floor combined will cost us about $3,000 to do it. So, Really? >> It's a very minor cost. >> Yeah, I mean, the the floor is being built anyways. So, it's literally just the rough-in plumbing and then uh a $250 toilet. So, it's it's very, very inexpensive. So, seemed kind of like an easy decision, frankly. I didn't understand any ramifications of it at all. Um, but it really was just that simple. Well, you know, we're grilling you on this because, as you probably know from having been around town for a while, right, that there have been any number of bait-and-switch kind of situations that have happened. Yep. Right? And the good people of Montauk have had to suffer with it. And enforcement has

084attempted to do their best, and there still issues and problems and noise and all the rest of it. So, anything that begins to kind of any hint that something like this is happening really needs to be thoroughly clarified, right? Totally. That's why That's really where we're coming from, right? You know, I've been to many 30-40 seat restaurants in the city in particular where there's like two all-gender bathrooms for everybody kind of thing, right? I mean, uh, so, you know, I don't want this to read as something someone could buy as a future club, bar, whatever, right? It's important. Totally get that. I guess my understanding I mean, I always understood if we operated like a club, we'd be shut down. So, like, I thought it was just that simple, so the thought of doing that

085never crossed my mind, so um, and and in these decisions, hopefully you're understanding how I kind of made the toilet decisions. The calculation that Tina was mentioning, I don't even know I don't understand that calculation. I never even looked at it in my life, so um, it's new to me. Um, it certainly wasn't remotely in the math of me adding a couple toilets in, which were born originally from the fact that there was too much male, too little female, um, and then, like I said, the architect said, "Just flip the sink around. It's super easy." So, Um, I following up on the bathrooms, um, so, the total number of toilets has increased overall by four. >> So, two per floor, yeah. >> Right. So, that's that's four additional toilets, whether it's male or female. Um,

086is this your first My understanding was that you've been developing restaurants and the like for resorts for a little while. So >> Developing, yes. Restaurants, not really. >> Okay. So, you don't you didn't have any knowledge [clears throat] of the the wastewater calculations or anything like that that would go into it, especially in a place like Matouk, which is, you know, Yeah. Okay. Who else has questions for Mr. Dominguez? Um, I just want to understand again. I I I asked you about it before, but I I just want to make sure that I I understand your answer. So, the material that you sent to the star, you explained very well the pictures or the renderings that you did for your friend who was thinking of having a wedding at your restaurant. But, in addition to

087that, was there a prospectus that was for the purpose of soliciting other investors in this venture? Yeah, so the the pages that were had images and text, that was that was from my friend that was getting married. So, I had generated that very very quickly for a friend that was getting married. We had a bit of an urgent time frame to bring in a new partner. So, I just used that basis and literally sent it to literally like four people. It's just that one of those was one of our competitors. >> than pictures? Were there projections and Yeah, so I that's the slide that I added. Yeah, so that's the slide that I had added when it then went out to potential a few potential investors. And may I I'm sorry to be the the

088question person. Um, may I ask why you did not want that prospectus entered into the record? >> Cuz I did it in 5 minutes and I didn't want that like I really didn't want that to be viewed as something that I thought was Bible for lack of a better word. I did it just for a friend of mine. I mean, it was not >> the prospectus, I mean if you sent it out to potential investors, you must have thought it was somewhat viable. >> than a handful of people and I did it in a day. Like honestly, like I didn't think very thoroughly about it. I was in a situation where we were very time constrained on bringing in a fairly sizable amount of money. So, I I really needed to move very very fast.

089Um so, it it really was just that that quick and it wasn't thought through that much and frankly, I spoke to these people and gave them the same information of hey, this is something done really quickly. Give you a quick overview. Um it wasn't meant to be any sort of you know, long draw I mean, normally I would do a business plan that's 40 pages long. This was done in you know, in total less than an hour. So, But since this prospectus, if I can kind of I may just follow up on your question. Uh it's sort of not in the record. You know, we we won't discuss sort of any numbers that some of us might have some inkling of that we're in it. Were your were your projections around the use that we

090approved? No, so Oh, sorry. The the use of it Yes, uh 100% Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, it's not based on you know, becoming Surf Lodge or another >> No. The the only reference to Surf Lodge and you can ask anyone that's known me. I've been coming out here for over 15 years. Totally honest, one of my favorite venues in the world. 15 years ago, was Surf Lodge where you walked in, it was 50 to 75 people, super casual, great like low-key background music and that was it. And I would like to bring something like that back where it's not shoulder to shoulder, where it's a more relaxed environment. I mean, I'm 46. That's my demographic. Um I would like to recreate recreate something along those lines, not packed, you know, that not

091not that certainly not a nightclub. That's not the business that I'm in. I never have been in any capacity, whether it be operating or an investor. So, that's not what we're looking to do. There's Can I ask you what your projections are for revenue for for the restaurant per year? Yeah, so it's about 5 million. 5 million? That's for events, branding, food, takeout to hotel guests. That's all in. Okay, so the definition of a restaurant re- requires food service as the sole purpose with alcohol service only as an accessory use. So, that 5 million that you're projecting is mostly food service. Yeah, and I I'm I'm not going to share other businesses numbers, but I do know them, and that is in line with other um other restaurants that are very similar. Some are smaller

092and doing those numbers. So, it's That's where I got those numbers from cuz prior to that I was pretty much finger in the wind. So, those are My numbers are actually lower than some smaller venues are currently achieving in Montauk. To Excuse me. To clarify, that's food and alcohol. Well, yeah, like so take for example Yeah, I mean any any restaurant a restaurant. I'm not talking about like a Surf Lodge or anything like that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm on the board and understand. >> [clears throat] >> Yeah, proper restaurant. So, do you understand that the way I see it is that we received information from different sources. This Star article, the SLA application, um The building permit. >> The building permit. All of those all of that information, this wasn't speculation or third-party derived

093information. This was information that you created. It came from you all in all three categories. And all of that information points to a an establishment that's more akin to a Studio 54 than a modest Nick and Tony's restaurant. So, you can see why we had reservations about that we felt that the application that we approved was being betrayed, was not being followed. So, you how do you how can you How can you dismiss all of this information if it all came from you and it's all pointing to a different type of establishment than what your original narrative? Yeah, I'm not dismissing anything. I'm clarifying where that what the origins were for that. I mean, like the to me it seems like the elements that are being are of concern here is one we added a

094couple toilets. Uh hopefully that's clarified as to why. Um clarified how we see the the seating on the top there. Um I mean, in that prospectus, it literally So, this this venue is the actual formal name of it is Pasta Bar. It literally says that on the the the leaked information. It says Pasta Bar. So, it's very much aligned with this sort of um uh venue which to me feels very low-key um and very intimate. So, I can understand why there's a need for clarification of but this aligns with what was even in the leaked information that it is this kind of venue. So, totally fine to, you know, go through all these details. I actually appreciate like in a way like it's a little frustrating for me that all this went out without us

095having any opportunity to have a conversation prior. Um but I'm glad as well that because I'd rather have the conversations now than a year from now or you guys thinking that we're trying to hide something. I mean, for one, I submitted these plans to the building department. So, if I am nefarious, I'm the worst criminal ever cuz I sent it to the town. But um certainly wasn't trying to hide anything. Um then we're here just to clarify. Right. So, we're we're basically on the same page is what you're saying. 100%. Okay. So, how would you recommend that we are assured that nothing different than what was approved last November by this board is what will come to fruition? How how can we get those assurances? Uh well, you tell me. I mean, I I I've

096always I'm from California. California, if you want things slightly off, you're shut down the next minute. So, I assume that's the way it is here. So, I think that's one of the first things I would have thought. >> I think your attorney wants to answer that question. >> Well, Your attorney wants to answer that. We have ideas, Rich, but >> Well, yeah, we we have ideas. >> Rick, sorry. You're going to be Rich, too. Yeah, my brother does. Richard Whalen from Whalen Pyler, PLLC, attorney for the applicant, Marley Management and his his company. Uh the answer I think to Lou's question is let the place operate. Uh because a lot of this a lot of the angst obviously derives from this this material that was distributed. Uh and you know, I read it. I've read

097it for the first time when I got a copy of it in in the the chairman's email. I regard a lot of it as fluff. Having said that, I definitely understand why if someone from the town read that, they would be, you know, what is this? I mean, it would certainly if I was working with the town, uh, I would find it eye-opening. But, it's not Maralie's intent to run anything other than what he has approval for, which is a 39-seat restaurant, not a nightclub. There were I know there were comments at the Montauk CAC about people said, "The operators, they're going to just run a nightclub and just pay the fines." Let me tell you, that would be a disastrous built, you know, uh, uh, plan, uh, economic plan if that was your intention.

098And Maralie's not going to do that. He knows he can't run a nightclub. It's a restaurant. Uh, so I think this the simplest answer is let it operate. See what Let's get, you know, not what was when this projection, which was baloney for the most part, uh, and a bunch of it would not be allowed. Um, if he were to try to do that, he would get shut down. So, I think the answer is let the building get finished. We have approval. They have You've approved what we can do. That's what we can do. We're limited to 39 seats. I know there were a few extra seats in those on the plans with the building department. You know, the extra dining seats, they can't be there. And Maralie's already discussed [clears throat] that with Tina.

099They are they'll be removed. Uh, they can have 39 seats and up to seven employees, and they're legal. So, let him run. If they don't abide by that, if they do something different, the town is going to proceed. And as I said, that would not be a very good business model for Maralie. Makes someone have a slightly different idea about that. It's essentially the same thing, but I think it really comes down to I mean, as you know, right? This has caused a firestorm of, you know, comments, social media. It's all over the place, you know, Montauk. People Montauk are very sensitive to this after having a lot of bad experiences where people say they're going to do one thing and do another, litigation, years, all of it, right? So, I think that you know,

100we are bound really, you know, by our remits, you know, to kind of protect, you know, people who who live in the Hamptons of of East Hampton Town to ask for a modification to this. I would like to see this revert to the original plan and we'd like to add the conditions of approval that specify all the stuff that we've been talking about, right? All the stuff that Tina was talking about, you know, special events, how they work, you know, all the stuff that we add on on on on Tina's list. I think I think we need to go there. Unless you guys want to move to the plan you submitted to the building department, which I wouldn't support, you know, just based on the fact that it reads bar to a future owner, the

101number of bath bathroom stalls for one thing, right? Uh I'd really prefer things go back to the first plan. So, that's my opinion. >> Well, to the approved plan. The approved plan, yes. I'm sorry, yes, of course. Well, let me let me offer some kind of back. So, some of the things that Marlie would be entitled to do in East A would be through a music entertainment permit. For example, you can't have music on premises with a music entertainment permit. That's issued by the town clerk. Those can be revoked if you violate [clears throat] your occupancy limits or you violate the noise ordinance, they can pull those permits, all right? So, any restaurant in town is eligible for a music entertainment permit. So, that's we would not agree to not be allowed to do that.

102Special event permits are the same similar thing. If you want to have a wedding or something like that, those are issued by a I think a committee of the town board or the town board actually does it themselves. So, again, if you're if you're a lawbreaker, you're not going to get those permits. So, we're not going to agree in advance that we can't apply for things that we would otherwise be entitled to. >> Not saying that. All right, I just want to make that make that clear. >> Yeah, not saying that at all. >> what we're saying is what you agreed to what we approved in November, you would just be restating now that those are the specifications that you will adhere to when you construct the source stream. 39 seats, >> Yes. parking, the

103whole every single condition that was approved to approved to in the original application. I mean, that's just that's basically saying we're not going to change from where what we were approved of in November. I don't I don't see unless you want to change. If you're saying you're not, I don't see why you wouldn't agree to that. >> So, the number of bathroom stalls that's not a hill we're going to die on. All right, I think Marley's explanation makes sense. Probably makes more sense of you know, more women's stalls than men's, but if you want us to go back to that, I imagine we'll do that. What do we care? The one thing I do want to be clear about is the furniture arrangement within the dining spaces. As long as we don't have more than

10439 dining seats, we have the right to move that around. All right, the planning board does site plan approval. You don't micromanage how a restaurant works, and you all know there are restaurants in the town, and they change their seating and dining arrangements from time to and they never come back to the planning board for site plan. In fact, site plan doesn't deal with the interior of the building. The one thing they can't do and the one thing that we can't do is we can't increase the number of seats. [clears throat] That would change our parking requirements. So, I you know, I don't want to get too hung up on how the furniture show you know, we don't even have building you know, Our our concern about furniture Rec was just simply that and this

105we can phrase a condition of approval around this idea, it was beginning to look very clubby, right? The way the couches were arranged and that kind of thing, right? It wasn't like we're going to say don't put a couch there, but it was beginning to look like a different intention, right? So, we we need to find some language that will So, let me talk to Marley and then I think we'll probably wind up talking to Tina. Yeah. And then, you know, I think we'll get back to you. That would be my advice. Okay. Yeah, and I mean, I'll just add if it the a restaurant moving the tables and chairs to create that area for dancing is something that's not allowed. So, yes, we're not going to go in and say, "Oh, you can't, you

106know, combine these two deuces to make a four-top." Like, nobody's going to say that, but when you've got a wide open area that kind of alleviates the need to reconfigure your space to become a club, I think that's a bit different. It's not like a furniture conversation, it's more like a structural, like, what are you doing with the space conversation? >> Yeah. We're not moving the furniture. We don't have any place to move the furniture to for one, but uh we're not moving the furniture at any point. There's no intention of doing that. Um Just so I'm clear, on on the toilet seats, so we had three male, three female. I would and the male also had three urinals. I would prefer to have two male and four female then if, you know, things like

107that, but I mean I think if you keep the overall number the same, it's not a concern. The overall number is >> [clears throat] >> The growth was the concern. On the Could you go back to the side by side on the second floor? Oh, sorry. Yeah. I was trying to find that table you mentioned. Um I think I think um Richard mentioned this and you guys are okayed it, but on the second floor, the number of seats will stay the same, but as I mentioned, I don't know if we're going to operate it more omakase style or if it's going to be just traditional tables, but um assuming you guys have no problem with either option, the seat count staying the same, um that's totally fine from my perspective, too, cuz I don't even

108have a chef yet and I don't know the way he's going to want to do it and I would lean on him cuz he's the expert, not me. So, I just have one quick question about the two, whether it's two restaurant, like two different restaurants. I maybe this is a Britney or a Tina question. Is that two uses or is it one use to is it Yeah, that's my question. I mean, do you want to answer that or I don't think it's one use. I am. >> I mean, we can have different menus in different parts of the restaurant, but it's one restaurant. You would probably look at how it's functioning, too. If it's all coming out of the same kitchen, it's it's it's one restaurant. Two uses, yeah. >> Where is the kitchen, by

109the way? Yeah. It's our It's to the left. It it Oh, I see. I see. I see. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah. I can't >> Got it. And then there's some kitchen on the ground floor, but it's just like uh janitorial, basically. Yeah. Not a kitchen. >> [snorts] >> Um I think those are the main points. And then the other thing, too, just to clarify, on the ground floor, there were some seats that might have looked like dining seats. Those were never dining seats. Those were meant to be just little um uh like lounge seats, again, just to work on your laptop or do whatever. So, a big big thing for me is trying to extend that season. We have a spa in the hotel. Um so, we want it to be kind of a

110nice winter destination. Just to clarify, those tables do look like the table you put on the third floor and and these are counted as restaurant seats, so you can see why we would interpret it that way. To- totally understand. I My interior designer's not even touched that. That was never any intention there. That was just something indicative from the architect that was submitted, so Okay. And actually, that wall is going to be more of an art wall. So, um Yeah. Did you have a question, Bruce? >> I did have a question. Tina, did the fire marshal determine maxi- maximum occupancy per floor yet? Not formally, um but I do have um an estimate from him. It was like 450. It's Well, it's a lot. >> Yeah, it's significant. That includes the decks though, right? It

111includes the first floor, second floor, and roof deck. I mean, I meant the um the deck on the other side of the pool. No. Okay. That's a lot. Good. So, that you know, again, that right there, Bruce, speaks to a real disconnect between what >> how there's That was going to operate. >> building for 340 people. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'm surprised by that number, to be honest with you. I mean, it was rough, so don't >> Yeah. Yeah, but still, it's not What I thought was actually a much a much much lower number. It's like less than half, but um I haven't talked to Alex about any numbers yet, so um Are you sure that wasn't just stand- like if it was standing? It was um an estimate. Yeah, I I believe it was standing,

112and I think it was supposed to be >> okay. Well, that's that's what I was thinking. It's a lower number than that. It's a lower number It wasn't far off from that. Those materials. >> Yeah. No, if you When I talked to Alex about it, he um there's two calculations. There's one is it's like just open standing space. If there's a single table that exists on that floor, then it goes to um a seated calculation for the entire floor, which is less than half. So, I think the number is actually less than half that, I think, but I haven't talked to Alex specifically to Tina's conversation, so I don't know. Our our goal here, and it sounds like we have a plan, which is that you work with the planning department to really, you know,

113Yeah. come up with some conditions that really spell this out, cuz it's got to be really buttoned up, >> Sure. so that the people in this town understand there is no possibility for this to become anything other than what you first purported it was going to be to us. Yeah. That's what we have to do. And the other thing too, just for what it's worth, I own the hotel just across the easement. The hotel's value is seen every more than the best case scenario of the restaurant. We don't want our guests disrupted with some sort of late night music and stuff like that either. The the reward for whatever extra money we make pales in comparison to whatever loss of value of the hotel, so >> Yeah, it's a good point. I mean the surf

114lodges rooms, too, but okay. I I I get your point. Slightly different value depending on the situation. Yeah, so Can I ask It's a different situation. I'm sorry? I want to ask about that. Are you saying that the your your projections show that the revenue from the hotel is much greater than the restaurant? I would say net income I'd have to double-check, but what I would say the revenue the value of the hotel is in in my numbers is probably four times that of the restaurant. The value if you resell it, you mean? Correct, yeah. What what about revenue? I'll have to double-check cuz I've changed things constantly, but the hotel makes more, yes. You know, getting back to the occupancy, there there are places in Montauk where people are stuffed in there like sardines,

115coming out of the woodwork, coming out of into the you know, into the terrace inside, upstairs, downstairs. This place could become one of those places. I mean, that's the that's not what I'm trying to do at all. Yeah. And there's nothing that we're that we've done or there are no conditions that we've asked you to agree to that would prevent that, and that's what I'm afraid of. You can still let 250 people in. They could be there listening to music, drinking, not there for dinner, and it would be more valuable [clears throat] to you because you'd be making more money doing that than serving two, three, four seatings at the restaurant per day, per night. Yeah, I I don't think it would be more valuable to me, honestly. Like actual numbers, that we value the

116hotel 4x the restaurant. It is not 3 and 1/2. It's It's literally 4x. So, I wouldn't want to do anything that risks the guest experience on that property. I mean, there's no question about it. That actually brings up a good question though about the bars. You had stated in the original um narrative that the bars are only service bars. And they could still maintain the maintain the service bars and everybody would be served a drink. Yeah, what were we saying? I mean, the term bar came up a couple times. One is cuz the venue for the second floor that I'm mimicking is called Pasta Bar. That's actually the proper name of the venue. So, that was one place you saw it. Um and then the second one on the ground floor that's going to have

117so many different purposes. There's going to be a huge coffee section, a bakery display. Like it's going to have just multiple purposes. So, um it's kind of getting taken up by all that. I I was really more referring to the, you know, the rooftop bar, that kind of thing that you you originally stated it was only a service bar and people can't walk up and and buy drinks. And it's closed at sunset. >> at sunset. It's definitely closed at sunset, yeah. >> So, was there another bar where people Will there be a service bar on the second floor for people to get their drinks during dinner if they're there after sunset? Well, I guess it depend I like I'm I'm just thinking through this. On the second floor, if we operate it omakase style, it

118is literally just dining. Uh I mean, there'll be kind of, you know, seats there. So, I wouldn't think anyone would be able to come up. If we go with a more traditional dining, then there wouldn't be any seats there. So, yes, in theory, somebody could order there. Um that's my gut reaction. So, I think in the narrative, though, it's it's specifically said Can you bring that up, too? Yeah, yeah. That that all the bars are service bars only. So, I think if we're going to go back to the original and make these conditions of approval, and you guys can talk about this. I just want to make sure we're hitting all the concerns. But, don't you think they could still be service bars and serve people who are just standing there? And they'd have But,

119then they'd have to have more staff, and they've only specified step seven team members. Seven. [snorts] Seven. I questioned that in the original [clears throat] application, that they could operate this restaurant with only seven people. Well, a couple things. One is that the whole place won't be open at one time ever. So, that's the first thing. Um the second thing is that uh we have a very simple menu. Um I'm not very complicated uh as myself. We're going to serve very, very simple menu. Um so, low prep, um quick serve. So, we don't need to We just have focus on quality. So, it's a very simple uh operation. We're even getting those little kiosks where you order yourself. Um the I think I mentioned this in our first meetings that uh the way we plan

120to order similar to how uh D'Angelo's does it. I personally, as a guest, like it where I can just go check the box, hand it to someone, sit down, eat my meal, leave when I want to, don't have to wait for the check. I like that, honestly. Um so, that's the way we plan on doing it. Um and it's the way we operate our hotel. It's it's uh um more of a light touch. So, we have on site, like even on the weekends in the summer we have maybe three staff on site. It's very very low. All right, here's here's what I'm going to say. Let's let Tina and the planning department kind of work with you guys on this. I think we understand the parameters that are already in here. So, it's just a

121matter of taking them and turning them into conditions of approval that that really obviate the kinds of, you know, disastrous ends that we could potentially see, right? I think it's pretty simple. Yeah, it's just going to take some some thought, but we have what we need to be able to do that. Sure. I do [clears throat] I want to just add, um, you know, um, Mr. Dominguez is talking about like the interplay between the, uh, hotel and the restaurant, which is fine, but the the restaurant was approved as a stand-alone use. It's not like an accessory restaurant, so, you know, that may be the intent [clears throat] of the applicant now, but you do also have to consider, you know, the the future and how it operates on its own. So, just, you know, um,

122Also, the the roof deck, we should we have a noise analysis on the So, I was going to say I do think we should go through the questions cuz I mean, I'm happy to work with the applicant, but I do want to make sure that the board's direction [clears throat] is clear, right? So, the planning department did recommend that we have a noise analysis regarding rooftop music. Right. Um, it's a it's a unique kind of request and had it been part of the original narrative, we would have recommended the noise analysis then. Now that it is part of the narrative, I think it's important because it, you know, the noise is going to propagate differently when there's no attenuation from any walls or anything. >> Right. Um, and then it would in an indoor space.

123>> And the music's only during special events. That's not what I heard. If that's the case, I guess that's different. >> Well, background music you're talking about, right? But, no, every any restaurant can get an administrative music permit. indeed but DJs and live music, right? So that's different than like background music in a restaurant. But restaurants have live music. >> Yeah. And my understanding in the town code there is like noise uh calculations and obviously violations and stuff like that. We would absolutely adhere to that. >> Okay. All right, so we're just going to go through the questions so we can uh move on. Um does the board agree that the applicant should confirm the original narrative and answer the supplemental questions regarding special events and noise including doing a noise analysis if the applicant

124wishes to revert to the original floor plans. Yes. Yeah. Yes. We would like you to do that. >> [clears throat] >> Does the board agree Can I ask a question on that? When you say original floor plans, that's where for example, Tina sorry, could you bring up the comparison on page two just to make sure that I'm clear in my understanding? The ones on the right. >> So like the second floor, I think that's really where there's Well, they're they're all different, right? So I mean each one has differences and the original ones are the approved site plans on the right side. >> Yeah, well the first floor is toilets but the second floor is where there's Toilets and seating, mhm. Right? All these tables and these tables you've seated that are going to be

125moved. >> is is is couches floor plans? You know, this area >> we're interested in more in the number of seats, dining seats. Yeah. That that that's what I thought. I just want to make sure. I'm just trying to be explicit. >> We're creating conditions where it's not going to be a hangout you know, kind of situation where people are lounging around on couches like all night. It's That's not your intention it doesn't sound like. If we condition this properly, I don't think we really care that much about the couches. >> Yeah, I think I I understand Tina's concern was that it looked like they were dining seats there. We can absolutely clarify that that's not the case. Um on the second floor though, that's where when I think of floor plan, so kind of

126important for us and I I thought would be viewed favorably, we reduced the size of the space. So before it was the whole area, now we put a hallway in here to reduce the size of it. So the venue itself is smaller. That wall is different than I mean it's this wall is essentially extended here. Is that a floor plan change that we need to revert back to or is that okay? That's more of a structural plan. Right. Okay. Yeah, I mean the main concern here was we didn't know whether or not this was a bar and there's no seating in the dining room. Yeah, I think that's the issue. The intensity. >> the issue. You're right. You're right. I don't think it's the space. I think it's the use of the space. The intensity

127of the use of the space. >> [clears throat] >> That's why I'm asking these questions. Not because but that goes back to my question that I had asked 5 minutes ago. So I don't know how we're going to seat that floor. Just being totally honest with you whether it be like the pictures I showed you where it's kind of a chef presenting the meals to somebody sitting sitting seated around kind of a bar type of thing or if we say that's just too complicated we're going to regular tables. In either case though it will be the correct approved amount of seats and my question for you is are you okay with either option as long as the seats are in place. That floor plan and it's that number of toilet stalls. Yeah, okay. All right.

128I mean that's really what Well, I think if they want to trade one from the men's and give it to Oh yeah, I'm not talking about the toilets here. Yeah, yeah. Okay. All right. Yep. Yep. But so we're okay with an arrangement that has a I was just going to say that the big open space was the kind of the big question about whether that could be used as for people congregating. >> But he said that picture is really deceiving because it doesn't contain the table. The one on the left. >> Yeah, so this this is this is not open. There's a there's a table there. Yeah, so this is like 12 or 13 It's it's not a big space. As long as there are the same number of seats that you had in the

129original plan. Yeah. And what I what I just don't know yet is whether they're going to be seated here or seated here. I I I just don't It depends on the menu actually. So I'll I'll look for the the table. Look for the table. Okay, great. Okay. The second question is does the board agree that if the applicant wishes to change the approved floor plans that they should submit a revised narrative that corresponds to these new plans and answer the questions about special events and noise and those about how the new seating and new floor layouts will function. I don't think you're going down that path of new plans. Right? Correct, yeah. I think once you do decide what the seating is on the second floor, we would like a new narrative for that, right?

130Just a thought. Do you want me to submit what both look like? I can submit what both look like. The seating layout could change. Yeah, so I don't think we want to say this is what it is forever. As long as there are the same number of seats. I mean I I can submit both. It's It'll take It'll take the architect five minutes. I mean it's It's just so you guys can see it. And as long as it's not a bar, right? Cuz we couldn't tell from that picture what it was. Okay. Okay. Does the board agree that the proposed second floor plan and additional bathrooms may be inconsistent with the approved uses of a restaurant and that the approved floor plan for the second floor should remain unchanged? That's what we were just talking

131about, right? You know, because you know, the bathroom suggests bar as we said. So we have agreed we're going to go with Back to the number. >> Back to the number we had. Fixed your number. Fixed your number. Everyone agree on that? Yes. Does the board agree that the applicant should include in their modification the changed location of a generator, the new condenser unit structures, and provide analysis that show that the noise code is complied with for these modified or new site features. >> Yes. Yes, absolutely. Okay. It's close to the property. >> Yeah. Close to it. So, Tina, are we still then will you you'll discuss this with these guys, right? But we are we still looking at a modification? Um and a new Well, new narrative obviously in the conditions of approval, right?

132>> so because right now the site plan and the building plans don't match. Right. So, we we need consistent documents between both of those approvals. And the board just agreed a little bit more information regarding special events and noise is appropriate even with sticking to the original floor plan approach. Okay. So, does that narrative include when each floor is going to be open and closed? So, I don't think we spoke about >> that's helpful. I you know, I think that's very helpful. I think that's very helpful. Because again, our our concern is the overall intensity of use on the site. If one floor is always going to be closed, then that I think speaks to the nature of the use the applicant is Right. um proposing. Okay. Okay. I think we're good for tonight. And

133also, are we going to get the applicant's response to the public comments that have been made? You suggested that earlier. I did suggest that. I'm I'm concerned about the level of concern that the community has. Some of the questions that the community's posed to the planning board and the planning department, it's not within our ability to answer. I think it would be, you know, the applicant has come here, agreed to meet with us. I think it would be another show of goodwill if they respond I wasn't I wasn't thinking so much of the suggestions they made, but some of the materials that they included with the those suggestions. If the applicant could review the materials and tell us whether they're bona fide or I mean cuz we've seen them. So, are they real? Are they

134Can we count on those numbers? Or not? Richard Whalen, do you have the So, I have not seen any of the public comments. I doubt that Molly has. They're in our file. We I don't think we sent them to you. Um so, we'll take a look at them and respond. But, I mean the public is going by what they read in the newspaper. Yeah. >> I mean, that's it. Rick, I get that point. I understand, you know, some people make some suggestions that [clears throat] are made without the knowledge that you should have. But, I was referring more to some of the financial projections and uh Again, I I haven't seen it. I don't know how anybody outside can make financial projections. But, I bet that Molly has. We don't look at business plans. I've

135I've heard some interesting um rumors. And one that was uh particularly interesting was that I have a $23 million loan on the restaurant. If that were the case, I would be bankrupt already. Um that is roughly the amount on the all the investments combined. Um uh And as far as financial projections, to be honest with you, what I looked at [clears throat] 6 weeks ago has changed today. That's just the nature of the business. It's constantly changing. Um you know, speaking on anything from what was 2 months ago, I think, at this point. >> don't you know, I just to make it clear, I don't care what your financial projections are. That's not our business. The only reason that I'm calling it out is because there are certain numbers in those projections that relate to

136some of the questions that we asked you and and how they it applies to whether this is going to be a nightclub or a restaurant. What you asked earlier, yeah. >> why I am putting any importance at all on these financial projections. I don't you know, I don't care what you what you projected or whether you succeed or fail. Actually, I do care. I hope you do succeed. >> Thank you. But you know, I just want to make that clear. Yeah, I and I remember what you were saying earlier and the hotel is not >> establishing that it's not a nightclub. >> Yeah. Right, we have a pathway. We don't We don't need to delve into these financial numbers. But if there's evidence in financial projections that I don't need them. >> Well, I I

137don't think Yeah, I mean I don't think we need to >> I I shared our our internal numbers here, so I mean it's and it is in line with other even smaller restaurants. It's you know, the numbers out here are large. Um definitely atypical, I would say, but um I think the important thing is you know, understanding the public comments and concerns and responding to the substantive concerns regarding how you're going to operate, you know, and I think a lot of the stuff we talked about today will help clarify that like in the revised narrative. But to the extent that you review the public comments and there's something else I don't think we need the detailed financial information. I think that's the company's business, but to the extent that it relates to how they're intending

138to use the site, I think that it could be addressed in a general manner. With not not with projections or projections, I mean you can't [clears throat] hold somebody to them. I have just one visit. I'm zipping it after this. Um does the modification or the um you know, the adoption of these you know, conditions of approval, does this trigger the need for a new public hearing given all of the public comment surrounding this? Good question. I I think so. I mean I think that depends. Yeah. We don't If we decide that we need a modification, again, we want to talk to Tina about that. It becomes your question whether you want to have a public hearing. Yeah. Uh at the end of the day, if people come out of the woodwork to object to

139something that they know almost nothing about, which I could see happening, if nothing else, we'll just go back to the original plans and, you know, throw the narrative out the window and everything else out the window, and we're just going to go with the plan that we have. So, we'll see. Let's talk to to Tina about that, and we'll see where that goes. But, whether or not hold the public hearing on a modification is entirely up to you. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I just kind of wanted to flag it. >> [clears throat] >> So, all right. This was a great conversation. Thank you very, very much, guys, for meeting with us about this. I think we made some progress. And more to come. Tina, are you the point? Yes. >> Planning department? Okay. All

140right. Good. Thank you, gentlemen. >> Thank you, guys. >> Thank you. All right. We have just a couple quick things to go through, and then we're done. Um In the matter of the application of Seller Sealer's on Wildlife Modification, Stafford County Tax Map 300-170-4-23.4 and 23.5 extension of time, uh I have read the resolution to move up to 1 year or until May 1, 2027. Uh I have read this and call for its adoption. Second. All in favor. Aye. Sounded unanimous to me. Uh in the matter of the application of Joseph Potter Site Plan, Stafford County Tax Map 300-150-1-1.14, another extension of time, uh this time to May 15th, 2027, uh to complete uh to get us to a CMO, I've read this proposal and call for its adoption. Second. All in favor. Aye. Okay,

141passed again. Again. And then finally, minutes. Minutes. Someone like to make a motion to approve them? >> a motion to approve them. Thank you, Jen. And second. Second, thank you, Bruce. All in favor. Okay. Final. Move. Final of the night. >> Motion to terminate the meeting. How about adjourn? Let's call it adjourn. [laughter] Terminate sounds too final to me. Second over here from Ava. All in favor. Adjourned. Have a good night, board. Thank you, Matt.