East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 05/06/2026

001was told not to accept. >> All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. Good evening everybody. Welcome to East Hampton Towns Planning Board uh our regular and work session for May 6th, 2026. Uh we have a public hearing to start with. We have four items on for our work session, three other items on for a regular meeting. Um so let's dive into it. Our first uh item up is the public hearing which is for the Prospect Hill final subdivision modification. Uh so Sarah, that's you for the planning department and that will be Lou. Can you take Ava's place on that one? >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh yes, you may have noticed that we have two members missing tonight. Jen Folks, our vice chair and member Ava

002Warren are both um unable to attend tonight. Um so first Britney, are we good to go? Are we properly noticed >> and the mailings? Yep. >> Okay. All right, great. So, Lou, do you want to read the uh public hearing notice? >> If I find it, let's see if I have it at the top of the page. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on May 6, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. The application is is Prospect Hill final subdivision modification. It's uh 67,944 square ft, 1.559 acres, located at 98 Prospect Hill Lane, Malkque, Suffach County Tax Map number 300013212. The application is to modify the covenants and restrictions of the Prospect Hill subdivision lot 14 approved October 26, 1983 to alter the building envelope. The

003original subdivision was completed in 1983 and the building envelope has been altered once in 2002 to allow for a pool and pool deck. The proposal would be to alter the building envelope a second time, specifically removing a portion of buildable space to the northwest and adding a portion to the southeast as shown on the proposed survey. There is no net change in square footage of the building envelope. The existing building envelope is 9753 square ft. The proposed reduction is 1161 square feet while the added area is also 1161 square feet. >> Okay. Thank you, Lou. Sarah, do you want to run us through uh >> Yeah, sure. >> What's going on here beyond what Lou just said? >> Yeah, absolutely. So, I have the aerials uh previous and current envelope modifications available for review if

004needed. Um the application was last reviewed by the planning board on March 25th, 2026. At that meeting, the board agreed that a change of circumstance was present due to the change in setback requirements and express their support of the requested building envelope modification. When the original subdivision was approved, the building envelopes were established to pro protect slopes and view sheds. At that time, the zoning code did not uh impose a fixed front yard setback. Instead, the pyramid law was applied which required the horizontal distance from lot lines to equal the vertical height of the structure. Numeric setbacks were not enforced and the envelopes were not designed with setbacks in mind. Um as a portion of the current envelope is within front yard setbacks. Um, the board will require that any additions to the home be

005designed with leaders and gutters to control storm water runoff as a condition of modification approval should it be granted. The applicant is also proposing to remove the structures not on the current CO including the shed, deck, stone, patio, and mulch path. And I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you, Sarah. Um, all right. So, the format of these public hearings is that we ask first for people in the room if they'd care to comment. Comments are limited to three minutes. Uh once we gather any comments from folks who are here in person, we ask for people who may want to comment uh via phone. So starting with that, is there anyone here to comment on the Prospect Hill final subdivision modification? Okay, hearing that there's no one. Uh Matt, do we have anyone

006online? >> I do not see anybody. So, let's just do a double check on the line. Stand by, please. >> Okay. And I am calling in from the landline and everything sounds great and you have zero callers. Thank you. >> Okay. So, there are no comments from the public on Prospect Hill. So with that, Lou, since you're pinch hitting for Ava tonight, do you want to make a motion to close the public hearing? >> I make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I'll second. >> You'll second. Thank you very much. >> All in favor? >> I Okay. The public hearing is closed. Thank you. >> Um All right. So on our work session, our first um our first matter is the most holy Trinity Cemetery site plan. special

007permit modification. Uh Will for the planning department and Reed that is you for the board. Um so if you will will uh let us know what this is all about. All right. So this is a modification proposing to remove invasive bamboo and giant cane from the southern property line of the Most Holy Trinity Cemetery. The site is about 39 acres, zoned A5 residents, partially cleared, located within the Suffach County Groundwater Protection Area, and identified by the New York State Cultural Resources Information System as a historic cemetery of East Hampton. The site is currently improved with cemetery plots, an irrigation system, driveway, sheds, calarium, and pump house. The project is a type two action pursuant to SRCA, and no further action is required at this time. The site received site plan and special permit approval from

008the planning board in 2005 and included expanding the cemetery by 171,000 square ft, extending the existing irrigation system road, and adding two new culde-sacs. The approval included a 20 foot wide non-disturbance buffer along the southeastern property line and a landscaping plan. The bamboo and giant cane proposed proposed to be removed are located within this non-disturbance buffer and their removal will require its disruption. In order to modify this non-disturbance buffer to permit clearing of the invasive plants, a modification of the covenants and restrictions is required. The planning department recommends the covenants be modified to permit removal of invasives from the buffer in perpetuity as it is likely the bamboo and giant cane will return as long as they grow on the neighboring property. The same covenant also restricts the removal of top soil from the buffer.

009However, when the bamboo and giant cane are removed, some soil may be lost. The planning department recommends the loss of a small amount of top soil may be acceptable in this case and the board should discuss whether it agrees. The applicant proposes to reveate the area with bayberry, bow bush, blueberry and or huckleberry. The applicant should ensure native or non-invasive species are used in this reveation plan. Should the board agree the modification is appropriate and the planning department will work with the town attorney and applicant to draft language permitting removal of invasive species in the buffer provided the area is reveated with an adopted reveation plan. A specific provision of the covenants and restrictions from the 2005 site plan approval require a public hearing to be held if they are proposed to be changed. As

010such, a public hearing will be required for this application. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether this modification is acceptable and if so, if it is complete and ready for a public hearing. >> Okay. Thank you, Will. Does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Uh, please provide your your name and address for the record, please. >> Patrick Hines, 18 Tim Betrayal Amiganza. And uh, >> could you speak into the microphone, please? Just >> Yes. >> Okay. So, uh it it appears that the uh adjoining neighbor, uh planted the bamboo and giant cane, you know, I don't know when, but a couple years ago, whenever they did, and it creeped, you know, it's creeping into the uh burial plots, you know, at the cemetery. So, it's it's kind of serious that we, you know, we

011have to go into that uh 20 foot uh non-disturbance buffer to stop it from spreading. >> So, that's that's really the main issue. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, read for the board. >> Sure. >> Our conversation. >> Thank you, Will, for the write up and thank you, Mr. Hines, for the comments. Um I've been to this site numerous times. I was there once again today. It's a a beautiful setting. It's quiet. It's peaceful. Um it's the final resting place for a lot of notable former residents. Um you know, bamboo is is is really an invasive thing. It it moves incredibly fast. It's aggressive. uh the root system grows horizontally, so it's it's really difficult to uh uh get rid of. Um so I'm totally in favor of the

012modification. I think it's acceptable. Uh the reveation plan is important and that's already been provided. So um I'm supportive of what's been presented and I would be comfortable waving a public hearing, but I don't have that option. The board does not have that option. There will be a public hearing which will delay this slightly but um hopefully you can have that uh cane and bamboo removed in short order. So that's all I have. >> Okay, Reed. Thanks. Does anyone else want to comment? >> Yeah, I have a few comments. The first one is I'm I'm concerned with the because this is in the uh special groundwater protection area. So, I wanted to know if there will be any use of uh chemicals or anything like that that would may seep into the groundwater with the

013removal process. >> Well, we weren't planning on we we're planning on, you know, removing it with machines, you know. >> So, no chemicals, no no herbicides, anything like that, >> right? Just mechanically move it. Would you be willing to uh agree to that condition that you won't use herbicides? >> I I guess I guess we could. >> Okay. The other point that I wanted to make was uh have you been in touch with the neighbor because it seems that this problem is not just affecting your property, but since it's on the borderline, it's it's also happening on the long house reserve property. >> Yeah, they they took care of it. you know, you know, they uh got rid of their bamboo, but they're still maintaining it. It still shoots up there, too. You know, >>

014because that could be a problem for you if it's still happening. >> Yeah, but they're they don't like it. You know, they're they're work, you know, they've worked hard to get rid of it and, you know, they're doing a pretty good job. >> So, you're in touch with them and >> uh I saw I saw them once when I was doing the survey. you know, there was a person there, but I could see it, you know, that, you know, they're they they don't have it on their side, you know, except it couple of shoots, you know, here and there, but it looks like they're heavily maintaining it. >> Okay. And lastly, u I noticed in the building card there was a there was a building permit that was issued in 2006 in July of 2006,

015but uh there was never any I don't see a certificate of occupancy ever being issued. Now, this is, you know, almost 20 it is 20 years ago. >> I'm I'm not sure about it, but that could have been a building permit so they could like do the roads and, you know, you know, It called for it called for CFO to be issued within 18 months and I see no record of that. It doesn't matter practically for what we're talking about here but you know from a procedural legal standpoint and I turn to our attorney for this question. If there's no CFO was ever issued, it sort of undermines, you know, we we would be modifying a um a stipulation that was never technically or legally uh valid and I don't know if that's causes a

016legal problem or not. we would need to look into it further and >> okay >> we don't have that information right now in front of us >> right I mean issuing the building the CFO is really the perview of the building department u but yeah no it's a good point that everything really should be tied up but um uh I think actually l oh first of all does anyone else have any comments that they'd like to make I do think that Lou raises an interesting point u and I would I would very much like to see uh now that Liz brought it up, the idea that this be removed, you know, with using manual means, you know, not using herbicides. I very much doubt that you're you're going to do that, but I think it

017would be great if you could uh attest to that, you know, commit commit to that idea and make it a condition of approval. >> How is >> as long But I want to make just poll the board to see if everyone is in agreement with that. Well, I'm curious to know. I I don't know anything about I I know very little about gardens and, you know, extracting bamboo, but what does that entail? I mean, maybe herbicide is needed. I have no idea, but there are some herbicides that are perhaps not as dangerous. I I don't know. I'm not exactly sure what it all entails, but um >> Well, we also have groundwater protection. >> Yeah. No, I'm aware of that. Sure. >> And it may may be in that in those policies as to whether

018or not what they can and cannot do. Herbicides being one only one item. So I think we should make it a condition that they at least follow those policies. >> Yeah. I mean there really are no herbicides that are that are completely safe as far as I know from you know what I research I've done into it. What so what policies are you referring to that would be guidelines to this? Yeah, we have this these uh special groundwater protection area guidelines. >> Okay. >> That we have >> I believe it's the Suffach County um >> I believe it's the Suffach County groundwater protection. >> Right. Right. >> Um if Eric can confirm that, >> right? >> Yeah. Um that's the special groundwater protection area that they're in. It's designated by by Suffach County. Um, >>

019so if there are any rules and regulations associated with that area from promulgated by the county, you could require them to >> Yeah. Not that are really pertinent to this application or that pertain to curbing use of of herbicide. Um, you know, I I think um, you know, you could ask for more information from the applicant on what actually goes into removing the bamboo. My understanding from other projects is that really it's just a matter of digging up the root system um removing the plants, making sure that you're removing all of the runners and all of the you know, as Reed was mentioning that it expands out horizontally um underground. So I, you know, I I haven't been the individual doing the main review of other applications to remove invasive bamboo, but my understanding is

020that generally it can be done and is usually done without the use of herbicide. Um, but I think it's a good recommendation to have a a condition of modification approval if you do grant it that uh no herbicides be used. >> Okay. Do we want to reference the uh the groundwater protection guidelines that Lou was referring to in that? >> Well, yeah. I mean, I I think there's um sort of, you know, um not conflicting, but maybe um misunderstanding of terms. The planning board does have uh groundwater protection policy um but it doesn't really refer to projects like this. it it really mandates the design of primarily industrial buildings. Um you know they're really the groundwater protection policy isn't a wide ranging policy um that you know covers everything that might affect groundwater. It's really

021confined to designing the interiors of industrial buildings so that they can contain spills and they can be cleaned up. Um, so but as far as the, you know, it is a fact that it's in the, um, South Fork Special Groundwater Protection Area, but you know, getting back to sort of the original question, um, I'm not familiar with any specific guidelines they would have for removal of invasives or, you know, really a project of this type. All right. We can work on the wording, but I I would I would uh propose that we just for now just uh pull the board to see whether adding some some terminology to to this uh making it a condition that herbicides will not be used specific language to be vetted by legal in the planning department. And I think

022we can move ahead if you agree that that's that's the case. But first, let's see if everyone is. >> Yeah, I I think the applicant said that that's what they're going to do. So, if that's if they intend on doing that, I don't see they they would have any problem attesting to the fact that that they're that's what they're going to do. >> Okay. >> So, I think we should make it a condition. >> Yeah. >> So, make it a condition. Yeah. >> I agree. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. So, unanimous that we're going to add that condition. Um, so the the questions here are, does the board find this modification as just amended acceptable? >> Yes. >> Unanimously. Does the board find this application complete and ready for a public hearing? And I think

023we can say yes to that and we can be working on this language. >> Yeah. >> Do we want to put in there pending whether or not they have a CFO or it doesn't matter? >> No. >> Okay. >> It's not really our purview. Um, all right. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Um, all right. Our next matter up is the Springs Brewery site plan and that is Chris Stecker for the planning department and Lou, that is yours for the board. All right, good to go here, please. Thank you. This is the Springs Brewery site plan application. It's the board's fourth review of the application. Last reviewed on February 11th. This is the subject parcel zone neighborhood business. It's a quarter of an acre and contains a one-story building. Previously used as an auto

024body repair shop and the property is not within any town overlay districts. It's adjacent to the Springs Historic District, Harbor Protection Overlay District and the Aabonic Harbor Critical Environmental Area. Um the application is to convert the existing building um into a brewery and that proposal involves two um land uses. The wholesale retail beverage distribution use would apply to the rear portion of the building which is proposed for brewing beer only would not be open to the public and the beer um brewed would primarily be for selling at wholesale. The retail store use uh applies to the front portion of the building which would be for customers to purchase beer mainly to go uh with some on-site consumption proposed with with a tasting room. The building inspector determination from October 22nd of last year confirms that

025these are the appropriate use classifications in the town code. The proposal also involves remodeling the building with some facade changes, interior alterations as detailed in our report and a new sanitary system, pavement improvements, and a water service line. The Springs fireplaces proposed. So, I'm just going to go over the issues from the board's last review. The board agreed that additional information was required to meet submission uh requirements. The applicant provided these items in accordance with the planning department's uh previous report to just add some details on signage, elevation drawings for the retaining wall and fence and correct some minor discrepancies. The town consulting engineer did mention um that details on the proposed retaining wall need to be amended to include a a cap on the top that's only about 4 in and wheel stops need

026to be placed um for the parking spaces along that rear property line. Um the planning department recommends that this should not withhold the board from considering the application complete. Instead, we recommend that this is something that could be provided for planning and our consulting engineer to review um administratively. It's a minor detail just to make sure that the parking arrangement is um is safe along that rear rear property line. The next um as some of the board members may remember there was grass strips proposed in the driveway in the last iteration and the board agreed that paving improvements um should be provided throughout. has also just given that the the driveway is always going to count towards the coverage and the applicants since revised so that it's a gravel driveway throughout and the planning department

027satisfied with that revision. And we also note that the total block coverage now conforms um with the town code. That was done by adding some additional green space along the uh rear property line. Next was regarding noise standards. There's some exterior equipment along the southern facade here. Um, and we just needed some more information to show that it's going to demonstrate with town code noise standards. And the applicant did submit a analysis um by their architect as well as specification sheets. There is a chance that the generator may slightly exceed the nighttime levels um measuring at 58 dB where 55 are allowed at night. However, this cannot be fully proven and the generator would only operate during power outages and periodic testing. So, planning department finds this acceptable um for proving conformance. Next was regarding

028retaining wall. There's a um engineer recommended project limiting fencing around it and the applicant has since provided that. Um, we find that acceptable and we just recommend that the planning department go out and inspect the limiting fence prior to a building permit being issued. The next was in the previous floor plan, the employee restroom opened directly into the space used for brewing. Um, and that was an issue. They've since revised their floor plan to provide a buffer area and now the fire marshall has signed off on on the project for as far as building code goes. Um the last point from the previous review was that the board requested the applicant submit a narrative clarifying the proposed tasting room operations and seating plan. The applicant provided a narrative of the proposed operations which details that

029the primary function of the space is selling directly to customers for off- premise consumption. Um beer would be sold for limited on-site consumption with point of sale transactions. So, no like running tabs um like you would see at a bar use. The planning department finds the description acceptable and notes that it appears to align with the building inspector interpretation. And we also note that tasting room is a regulated feature um is a feature only regulated by the county health department. So, you'll see that classified as a use on some of the plans they submitted. But as far as the town's concerned, we just consider that whole um area to be part of the retail use. Um one one new issue um thing to go over is just waste disposal. Previously, they had a um dumpster

030enclosure proposed that has been removed. So, we we just think it would be um we recommend that the applicant just explain how they're going to manage waste, but we don't think um if the if the board finds that the waste management is acceptable and it doesn't involve any new structures or alterations to the plan, uh it shouldn't require it shouldn't uh withhold the board from considering the application complete um provided that they're not doing anything that would alter the plans. And then the wholesale retail beverage distribution use which is what the the brewing portion of the building is classified as is a special permitted use in the neighborhood business district. So our report details all of the special permit standards um for the board to consider which which you must before considering this complete and

031ready for public hearing. And I just note the planning department finds the proposal does conform with these um standards as we've sort of gone over them as we've reviewed this this application um a few times. And then the other approvals are the architectural review board approval will be required and county health for the sanitary system. So in conclusion, it appears complete and ready for public hearing. board should determine whether the planning department can review the parking wheel stops administratively, if we should inspect the project limiting fence prior to a building permit, and whether the sound analysis and narrative are acceptable. Lastly, the board should determine whether the proposed waste management is acceptable and whether the proposal meets the special permit standards in the code. Provided the board agrees with this all, the application is ready,

032complete, and ready for public action. >> Great. Thanks, Chris. Does the applicant wish to be heard? Is that No. >> Okay, great. Thanks. Um, all right. So, Lou, this is your application. >> Well, first of all, I want to thank the applicant for their patience. I know it's been a rough road, so I'm glad we're line. Uh I think uh we've taken care of all of the almost all of the issues. Uh you've addressed all the necessary site plan elements. Um you the re your revision to replace the grass section of the driveway with gravel is satisfactory. Uh the potential for the backup generator to slightly exceed the nighttime maximum is acknowledged, but I accept the planning department's assessment that it's intermittent operation during outages of testing is manageable. I also agree with the planning

033department's recommendation to allow administrative review of the retaining wall detail for the 4-in cap and wheel stop. And I agree with the planning department's recommendation that the planning department should inspect the project limiting fencing prior to the issuing issuance of a building permit. But I suggest that this inspection should be a condition of approval. Uh the omission of a dumpster enclosure is a concern. Ideally, I would ask that the applicant uh uh resubmit a site plan, but I don't think that's really necessary. I think a narrative would do that includes a properly screened dumpster enclosure addressing the aesthetic and sanitary concerns. Uh and lastly, I think it would be a good idea to get a more detailed landscaping and lighting plans, the type to name the types of plants and placement and that to ensure

034that we have adequate screening and also to know what type of light fixtures and placement to avoid spill over into adjacent properties. Other than that, I think uh the application is complete and ready for public hearing. Okay. Um actually, I do have a question for the applicant if you wouldn't mind coming up if you just uh >> uh Gunnar Burke uh for Westway Eastampton. Okay. Uh, yeah. So, I asked you up just so we can take care of everything that we can that we can tonight so we don't need to, you know, have you come back again. How do just how do you plan to deal with with waste? Do you do you plan on keeping it internally? Do you have bins that you want to put out like the, you know, the blue recycling

035bins? We plan to deal with it internally and uh the majority of the waste will be spent grain that that uh will be picked up regularly by a local farm. Um and then the rest of Okay. >> the waste will be uh in internal and in a roll out cart that will be picked up. Um >> yeah. >> All right. Good. Thank you. Yeah. And can you give us a sketch of the landscaping plants that touch >> there is uh we have a plant list and um uh landscape elements noted on the on the landscape plan. We also have the lighting plan as well that that shows I I think everything that you asked for. So, um, >> I can confirm that, Lou. We already um reviewed the landscaping and lighting and they they appear

036to meet all the standards that the board and and the code call for. >> Okay. >> Or spacing and they they've used a lot of native plants and all the lighting is compliant. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you. >> Any other comments from anyone or questions for the applicant? >> Okay. >> Um, all right. Thank you very much. I do have one other comment. I do I do agree with with uh Lou that we should make uh inspection by the planning department of the uh project limiting fencing a condition. Uh and also the another condition that I would like to see is to make uh operation of the brewery subject to uh what's been outlined operationally in your narrative. Right. So I think we would we would add those two things as conditions if everyone

037feels comfortable with that. I think I think it's important on the operations piece of it that you know a future owner perhaps not sort of misinterpret what the tasting room was really meant for and kind of keeps it in the spirit that we all have agreed to. Right. Uh so if everyone agrees with that. >> Okay. All right. Uh so with that hold on we do have some questions to ask. Does the planning board agree that the planning department can review the proposed wheel stop revisions administratively? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the sound analysis is sufficient? >> Yes. Yes. I find just as a comment I find it interesting that the you know the 55 decel limit there's there's virtually no generator out there right that doesn't exceed that. So it's

038an interesting an interesting thing. We may have to change that. The does the planning board agree the submitted narrative is acceptable? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Does the planning board agree the proposed methods for waste management are acceptable and do not require revised submission and that being that you're going to keep waste internally? >> Do you have a narrative? Could could the applicant submit a narrative describing that? >> I think it's a good idea. >> Sure. >> Always good to document everything, right? Yeah. >> Thank you. Does the planning board agree that the proposal conforms with special permit general standards? You know, we have actually reviewed these many times in the course of our conversations. You know, from the general standards, compatibility, use use definition, which we've had a lot of conversations about circulation, runoff

039waste, environmental protection. We've gone over these, I think, pretty thoroughly, so I think we could say yes. >> Yes. >> On that. >> Okay. Um does the planning board agree the application is complete and ready for public hearing uh with uh you know the understanding that we're dealing with a few administrative you know tasks that we just described a moment ago. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Good. All right. So, if you can follow up on on the the to-dos that we brought up in this conversation with the planning department, that would be great. All right. Great. >> Just um just to remind the board um we do have a a resolution um on to schedule a public hearing. So, >> yes, we're just about to read it as a matter of that

040is you Lou, right? >> Right. >> Okay. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pantico Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Springs Brewery site plan at premises identified on the Suffach County Tax Map as parcel Suffach County Tax Map number 300-62-3-26. I have read the schedule of the public hearing notice and I move for its approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. Public hearing scheduled. See you then. >> All right. Uh, so our next matter is the Maidstone Acres 2 site plan modification. That is Chris Decker. Again, uh, I'm going to be taking that for Jen and is the applicant here. Are you guys the applicants? >> Okay,

041great. >> Um, all right, Chris. >> Thank you. Um this is the Maidstone Acres 2 site plan modification elevation. Um this is the board's first look at this modification. It's a 28 Maidstone Park Road in Springs. Just showing here um your nearby Maidstone Park. Take a closer look at the property. Um property is also zone neighborhood business. It's approximately 6,900 square ft or.16 acres and it contains an existing one-story building with a restaurant, a twotory single family residence with a second story deck. There's also a new IIA um sanitary system, gravel areas, retaining wall and raised deck on Richardson Avenue. is 100% clear of natural vegetation and is located within the town water protection district and partially within the 3M Harbor scenic area of statewide significance. I'm just going to pull up this was the

042original um site plan that was approved back in 2023. So, a modification application has been made uh for changes to the approved sanitary plan, landscaping, and accessory structures. The original site plan approval dated July 26, 2023 included the replacement of existing lights in their current locations with compliant lighting, the removal of an existing dumpster from the right of way, upgrading the sanitary system, providing landscape plantings in the northwest corner of the site, constructing a retaining wall, and an enclosure over an existing brick landing. The sanitary system submitted to the county health department was slightly different than the plan that the planning board previously approved. And there is now a below ground liquid propane tank near the sanitary system which must be considered. And this is the plan that they've uh submitted with their modification request.

043Just so the board knows that's the propane tank um that we're talking about is indicated in this corner. The tank um is located in this corner where landscaping was previously approved and modifications to the landscaping appear necessary if the tank is going to remain in its current location. Fencing was also constructed beyond the perimeter of approved fencing, but it appears the modification request involves bringing the fencing into compliance and adding a gate within the previously approved uh perimeter. And that's what's shown here. Also, the original approval included a condition that the applicant must obtain a license agreement for any improvements that protrude outside the property boundaries. The applicant has since decided to relocate some of these protrusions within the property's boundaries. Um, which is will lessen what's subject to that license agreement. And as shown

044here, you can see they're proposing to bring some stairs and whatnot along Richardson Avenue um within the property boundary. So, just going over issues for discussion. Uh, the planning department's understanding is the site's currently out of compliance and was recently issued a stop work order by the ordinance enforcement department um for work that was done without a building permit and the applicant should move expeditiously towards compliance with the previous approval or expedite their timeline of uh seeking this modified approval. regarding the state environmental quality review act. It's a type two action pursuant to SECRA and chapter 128 of the town code. Therefore, no additional environmental review under SRA should be required. And then I'm just going to go over the existing uh conditions. So, the stop work order um as I mentioned was issued when

045they removed some protrusions from the right ofway. And I'm just going to pull up some pictures of of the items just as I as I go over them and make it a little easier for everyone to understand. Um, so during a site visit on April 17th of this year, the planning department observed that the elevated deck does not have any staircase or railings and uh therefore should not be used for safety reasons. the fencing um towards the northwest corner. It was constructed beyond the approved perimeter as I mentioned. Um and the landscaping planted does not align with the previous approval. Um there's a different quantity and size of bushes um in this area currently. And this is likely due to the the location of the fence being right on the property line, them not having

046the space and as well as the um propane tank which is just on the other side of this fence um within the gravel area currently. Exterior lighting that does not comply with the town code um was also observed throughout the property and the previous approval included a enclosure over the brick landing shown here at the main entrance on Maidstone Park Road. this was never completed and the applicant should confirm whether it's still proposed um since it's not indicated consistently throughout the submission and we just note that this would also be subject to the license agreement with the town given it's in the in the rightway during the site visit we also observed metal covers shown on the ground here of Richardson Avenue um and they're not indicated on the previously approved plan the submitted survey

047or the revised plans and seeking modification. The applicant should uh consistently indicate these features across the submission and describe what they are connected to. Um I've already gone over the license review requirement, so I'll skip over to outdoor dining. Um these tables here were observed during the site visit in an area which the applicant uh typically applies for an administrative outdoor dining permit, which is an annual permit that the planning department does for outdoor dining. Um and the applicant's reminded of the condition from the original approval it's stated that they need to apply uh for it on an annual basis unless they seek a permanent approval. Um so we also just ask the applicant to confirm whether they want to make permanent outdoor dining part of this application just given that it appears um an

048outdoor dining area currently exists where one is not approved. And we also note that if they do apply for the administrative permit this year, there is the propane tank cap within that area and that that would need to be considered um just to avoid any any conflict of that within the dining area. Just pulling up. This is the sanitary plan that was included in the modification submission that is different than the one the plan board previously approved. Um the expansion areas for the new system were relocated from near the western property line closer to the center which the planning department has no issue with. Um however this must be updated so that the plans match with the county. Also neither the previously approved nor the recently submitted sanitary plans indicate the propane tank and it

049must be shown on the revised submission. County typically requires a 20 foot separation between a sanitary system and below ground fuel storage tanks and they must approve plans showing the tank consistently with the plans approved by the planning boards. The town consulting engineers report expresses concern about the proximity of the propane tank piping the IIA sanitary system including manholes um leeching fields and piping. The planning department recommends that the revised sanitary plan indicate all piping um throughout the property to evaluate potential conflicts with water, propane, and sanitary lines. Regarding landscaping, I've already gone over it a bit. Um but the proposal involves planting Green Giant Arbor VA within raised planter boxes. um which is not normal to see green giants planted in in a planter box. There's concern that they would outgrow the boxes. And

050this portion of the property also has a downward slope towards Harbor Boulevard. So, we do also have concern that those trees could eventually tip over into the rightway and and create other issues. The proposed gap um near the cap of the propane tank also appears to lessen the screening at this portion of the property and the planning department recommends that the applicant consider different uh landscaping methods that can provide adequate screening while mitigating the issues mentioned. Um lastly, the landscaping plan needs to be shown consistently. It doesn't match between this plan and the sanitary plan that was submitted. So, that's that's a main thing there. Um, exterior lighting, we've already discussed it a bit, but all lighting that does not comply with the town code needs to be replaced with dark sky compliant lighting. The

051revised submission should show where these fixtures are on the plan that need to be replaced and they should also provide manufacturer cut sheets of the fixtures that will replace them. um the submitted narrative details. There's a emergency exit lighting in the gravel area um that the fire marshall required is what the the applicant's narrative states, but we have confirmed with the fire marshall and the applicant that uh this exit light's not required and it should just be removed at this time and not included in future submissions. Um, and I just note that our report and the photos um that we have is not an exhaustive list of non-compliant lighting and it's it's really up for the applicant to go out about the site and make sure that all the lighting conforms. And then briefly going

052over the necessary submission items in the town code. The following items we believe are relevant and should be required by the board. um that's indicating the propane tank consistently as well as the metal covers along Richardson Avenue including on the sanitary plan. The enclosure over the main entrance to the restaurant should be indicated consistently if it is proposed. Um lighting I've already gone over. We need those details as mentioned and landscaping should be indicated consistently. One item we don't find relevant is the gate along Maidstone Park Road. Um where this review doesn't appear relevant, but the the architectural review board may may require those drawings. Um briefly just going over the fire marshall findings attached to this report dated April 14th. Did sign off on um the proposal. However, then shortly afterward, the fire marshall

053noted um that there may not be adequate clearance over the external air conditioning unit. I'm just going to pull up a picture. It should have I think it's a little back, but you can see here um and the fire marshall has since provided updated comments. Basically, any AC unit needs 5 ft of clearance over it uh for heat exhaustion. it's a fire hazard and currently there's less than that in that area and they their proposal involves building a staircase over um this unit which would create a further issue. So the applicant should consult the fire marshall or just find a place to relocate this unit that doesn't uh create that issue with the the building and fire code. Um, in addition to the issues mentioned um by the engineer regarding the piping throughout the property,

054he also included some comments about um design criteria of the retaining wall and mentioned that it should prove that the retaining wall can support the load of a parked vehicle. Um, the plane department's reviewed this and and gone over it a few times, but the previous site plan approval included zero parking spaces. There's no parking permitted on the site. So, the applicant is reminded that parking anywhere within the property boundaries is prohibited. Um, therefore, design criteria should not be necessary for the planning board's review. And, um, we're all reminded that there's no parking on the site. Other approvals that are necessary with this modification would be a modification from the ARB and then county health department approval which again needs to show all these features that we've gone over um consistently with what the planning

055board is looking at. So in conclusion, the application is incomplete pending the resolution of the issues mentioned. Revised submission must clearly indicate proposed and existing work consistently. Applicant should confirm whether they intend to propose a permanent outdoor dining area. Propane tank and piping throughout the property should be indicated consistently and the applicant should explain what the mentioned metal covers are connected to. The applicant should consider different landscaping methods. Exterior lighting should be brought into conformance and specification sheets should be provided accordingly. The missing submission items should be added. Adequate clearance over the AC unit should be provided and the applicant should move expeditiously towards compliance and the board should discuss these issues in detail to determine what information will be required in the revised submission. >> Great. Thank you Chris. I have two questions uh

056for you before we go to the applicant. Does the applicant have a license for the current ramp at the entrance that exists now or is it just the proposed enclosure? But it is a question. Uh believe there's no no license agreement in in place. Um Britney, there's still no license agreement for the the structures in the right of way, is there? >> There's no existing agreement for the >> All right. Um, and the just a question. We drove by uh this this evening uh and I noticed that there were, you know, a number of solar light fixtures attached to the to the fencing particularly along the Mstone Park side. Are those non-compliant because the light actually uh Yeah, those are they non-compliant with dark sky? Yeah. So, sorry I glanced over I went over that

057quickly in um my report. So those fixtures would likely comply with the town code, but the issue is that fence is right along the property line. And the town code states that the light source light >> Yeah. light source the bulb like the filament cannot be visible from outside the property boundary. If you're standing on that asphalt, you can you can see the light bulb. So that's that's um would not be compliant with the code. on that point is um I made a note that there's there's a conflict because the ARB in their review and I'll quote from them regarding these lights the existing exterior lighting to remain to remain including solar downward-facing fixtures mounted on the Maidstone Park road screening enclosure fencing unquote. So they're saying that that those lighting fixtures could remain. >>

058Okay. >> Yeah. And we're saying the planning department is saying that they u violate the code because they shine down on the right of way. >> Planning department's assessment of it is trumps everyone else. Right. >> We can take a closer look at that. Like I wasn't aware that the ARB said that, but that was our analysis. >> We'll look at that. We'll look at that. There's there's work to be done here for sure. So before we go deep too deeply into the weeds on that point, um does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Name and address please for the record. >> So Rich Gerardi, 11 Bonic Woods Lane, East Hampton. And um so I guess in regards to the propane tank um and the planting bed because we've and I think we've submitted

059um a response to each one of these items um with all your requests. So I'm not sure. >> Okay. If when did you submit them? >> Uh yesterday I think. >> Yeah. So we we wouldn't have looked at it for this meeting but we'll definitely look at them for the next >> All right. So, we kind of we gave a response to each and every single item that was listed on there with a detailed uh plan in place. Um, but if you are going to be reviewing it, one thing with I think there's a misunderstanding with the planting bed for the Green Giants, it's not a planting garden bed. It's proposing an 8 in border around the planting garden with no bottom um just to retain the dirt because there is a slope and two

060just to define that space. Um, and also that 8 in of bed is going to give us 8 in more of soil to plant the green giants above the propane tank. So there's no issues. >> So just to be clear, so the fence is now moving 6 feet or so toward the building, right? >> Correct. Yeah, that's correct. >> So the planting bed is going to be in that space and the gas tank cap is outside the fence area. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. the the issue we have um with this sanitary plan is every single square inch of the property is completely consumed with leeching field pools and as you guys can see. So what we were told on site the health departments uh they've issued multiple variances and you'll see that in

061our response from our architect and engineer that there's multiple site variances as the project was going on. they had to allow variances for everything because nothing could fit exactly what the plan was proposed originally. Um so that tank was proposed to be there and they inspected it. So um I think one thing is because those leeching galleys are about 12 feet deep and the tank is maybe at most 5t deep at one point. So there's no way that that leeching would affect those tanks. >> Right. Essentially. >> Well, that'll that'll be up to the the the county health department to determine whether that's adequate or not. >> Exactly. Yeah, we're just waiting for that information back from the county. Um, so just yeah, just to be clear, it's not a planting flower garden. It's literally

062a 8 in railroad tie retaining, call it a wall, but garden edge to retain the dirt and give us a little bit >> that still could be problematic as arborites grow and roots spread. Right. >> Of course, I mean, we could go back to the original approved boxwoods, but I think planning wasn't happy with the screening that they provide. So, we're trying to find an alternate option. I don't really know what that would be that >> is that large and you know >> it's easy to retain. you've submitted something. You know, the way that we work around here is that things need to be in it's Friday still, right? Fri the Friday before the meeting is the deadline for responses, >> right? >> Yeah. That's when the the agenda is finalized. >> Okay. So, you

063know, you you've given some responses to most of these questions, it seems. And, you know, there'll be an opportunity to talk to the planning department about them and to kind of make your pitch for what kind of vegetation you see there and can get some input on that from from the planning department. >> Absolutely. Um, you know, things that I see, you know, as as you know, the things that we need to to to work on are, you know, the license issue, right? If the if the ramp in the front is not it's on a license agreement with the town to have it there, you know, you'll need to get one. If there's going to be an enclosure, um, if one of those is going to be proposed, that obviously is part of that as

064well. Do you intend to create an enclosure there? >> No, not at all. That was something the tenant uh wanted way in the beginning. That should have come off the site plan at some point. Uh licensing, I think it's in the hands of the town attorney's office. They've been trying for months over years now to finalize some kind of an agreement. At this point, we're like, well, we're just going to remove what we can from the rightway and just I think the only thing that's going to be left is the ramp to the front door because we need handicap access. So, >> okay. So you're saying that there is a proposed licensing agreement in play at the moment. I think is that >> there have been discussions about a license agreement? There have been discussions

065about a license agreement and that's the intent is to have a license agreement, but we can't begin working on a license agreement until we know what we need to license. So right now there are structures within the right of way that are intended to be removed. Um if those are going to be we need a list of what's remaining. >> Mhm. and then we can talk about the details of the license agreement. >> Okay. >> All right. So, yeah, just to Britney's point, we just need to be clear about what needs to be licensed and what doesn't. And it sounds like now your intention is to get it down to just the front ramp. >> Yeah, that's our goal. >> Right. If you if you want to speak, you need to come to the podium.

066Let's show you. No, this >> name and address please. >> My name is Richard Gerardi senior. >> Okay. This restaurant has been in been there for over 40 years. That particular ramp was put in we've owned it for 18 years. Prior to that, I don't even know when that ramp was put in, but I assume it was put in when they brought in handicap rulings because this has been a restaurant. This B building is almost 80 years old. It was built prior to any building department that existed. And a lot of these things that we're talking about here were there. We didn't put them. >> They were there. So, as far as the as far as a license agreement goes, we probably occupied the property more than the requirement is to con to to claim

067it, which we're not even thinking of doing. We just want to keep that only. We were able to move everything else out of the rightway, which I thought the town was thrilled about because when we had a a a Zoom meeting, we spoke about it and everybody from planning seemed to think that that was a great idea. But I did say at the time at that meeting, the only thing we can't get out of the town is that ramp in the front. And that's because we have to meet handicap responsibility because the door actually could be outside of it, >> but it can't be with a ramp. I appreciate that. I know the building has a very long history. I even know people who operated it before the current operators years ago. >> Yeah. >>

068So I, you know, I totally understand. But, you know, given that >> we're making modifications now to the site plan, it means that things have to be brought up to code, which simply means if that's the only thing that's going to be subject to license licensing agreement, we need to have one. Yeah, you know that's fair that it's pre-existing and all the rest of it. >> We're ready to do that. That's not the issue. Then also, just so you understand, when we agreed to do the septic system because they came to us and said, "Would you do it?" We were we were willingly doing it. It wasn't we weren't forced to do it, but we want to we we've lived out here our whole out here for a long long time and been part of

069the community for a very long time. And and as far as as far as the the the restaurant itself, it's but we've probably cleaned it up way more than it was over the years. So by putting in the septic system, even the health department said, "Gee, there's no way you could actually bring this to what the new standards are completely. They would have needed many, many variances." So they automatically just granted the variance because in their opinion this was the best thing that we could do for the environment was to put this new system in as best we could. The problem was we had a limit we we had a limited amount of space to be able to place this system. So even when they designed the system they weren't sure exactly how it would

070be laid out. So it had to be laid out and the health department was part of this. They had to come out and inspect it and all that kind of stuff. So it wasn't like we just haphazardly did stuff. But right now you have a brand new grease trap. You have all these brand new systems that airates everything is completely 100% maybe more than 100% better than what was there before. So just to say we appreciate the work that you've done to bring this up to snuff. It's our job to just determine that everything is buttoned up and legal, right? That is our job. We appreciate the work you've done. Yeah, >> we know it's a constrained site. So, >> yeah. No, I'm just bringing that up because I don't know that everybody knows the

071history of the property. That's what I'm saying. >> Most of us do. >> And then also with ARB, we went through the whole ARB inspected and they've already signed off on the lighting and things like that. So, that that wasn't something we changed. We did what they said and we complied. We gave them all the pro and they completely signed off on it. I understand that you guys override that, but I'm just pointing out the point that we did go through the proper procedure and spent all the time to get to this point. >> Okay. >> There was two other just finished because I want you to understand the process. Then there was two a few other lights that were existing on the building would never part of it. Nobody ever brought it up until

072uh later on and we immediately changed them to uh dark sky applicable lights. >> Okay. >> All right. As I said, we we appreciate all of that. We and we're almost there. So, let's call back. All right. >> Yeah. >> That's really what we're looking to do. So, um I guess you know >> we do, you know, we'll go through some questions here which I think point the way toward what it is that we need next. You know, with one of one thing is to just have a survey that includes, you know, the new LP tank and piping from it to the restaurant so everyone can feel comfortable. This is really, you know, a county health department uh thing, but we want to make sure that we that we're, you know, that you're giving them

073everything that they need to make a determination about about that LP tank and its location. I think everybody appreciates a it's a very constrained site. There's no doubt about that. Um, I think we can go through the questions unless somebody has other comments they want to make at this point. >> Why am I surprised? Well, you know, I was going to make a comment about compliance. I appreciate, you know, you you wanting to cooperate in what you've done, but I've also don't appreciate, you know, that in a lot of issues, the compliance has been lacked. For instance, there was an incident in July of 2025 when you were pouring concrete outside the approved site plan. Um, and there was a stop work order issued. The contractor removed the stop work order and continue to board

074the concrete. So, that's the kind of thing that I don't appreciate. But it was on we had the approval st approval from the plating board to do that pad. It was on the original it was on the original >> off to stop work order and just continue. >> No, I didn't do that. So I I agree with that. I'm not disagreeing with that. But that was >> the other point I wanted to make was I disagree with the planning department where they're saying on the retaining wall uh we don't they don't uh have a problem with uh the parking that because the parking is prohibited there >> right there is no parking >> there is no parking that's saying well with the type of you know lacks compliance that this applicant has I would feel

075safer if there were ballards or some kind of at least a sign or something that would prevent the parking from happening because I don't I don't see them adhering to that restriction if there's no u anything to stop them. >> I don't know which retaining wall you're talking about because >> one along Richardson where the access is >> but that's a slope grass that's been there. We nobody parks there that I know. I mean, >> not the grass. He's talking about the houses. That's where all the the cleanouts are. They don't want parking there cuz >> Right. That's what he's >> Oh, you're talking about down below. >> Yeah. The problem is that the engineer in his report wanted to confirm that that that retaining wall or that area is structurally sound in case you

076do park on top of it. And I don't want to leave that up to just, you know, you adhering to that restriction without some kind of obstacle to prevent it. That's the point that I'm trying to make. >> But there's no retaining wall there. >> No, hold on. Yeah, I understand what you're saying. The sign that says no parking up in that space to prevent anyone from parking there. >> Yeah, because it's not going to be structurally sound. somebody's going to decide to park on it and then things will collapse and we'll have a bigger problem than >> But I think there's if you're talking about where he just put there's no retaining wall talking about >> no that I agree on top what would nobody else talking on top >> that we know that's

077different I I thought you were I'm misunderstanding so >> I thought you're talking about this >> we Actually, we can't. Most of us can't see you from that one. >> Okay. >> I'm putting my mouse. >> Do you want to show on this one? >> I I thought you're talking about this. The manhole covers that you're referring to here. That's not >> the left. >> Okay. This is This is basically the retaining wall here. There's no manhole covers exposed over here. >> Those are buried. That's everything's buried. >> I think the suggestion was simply that since there's no parking allowed on site, right? >> Right. that something needs to be put in place to prevent parking from that space above the retaining wall >> because it's not struct structurally sound as per the engineers comments.

078>> Yeah, I actually I think it is and I think we have an engineer's letter saying it is structurally sound for vehicles, but >> that's not what the planning department >> but they're prohibited in any case. >> Yeah. So, it doesn't matter. >> Yeah. No, that we know when nobody's talking. I thought you were talking about it. How would they get up? >> There's a very steep >> Yeah. >> incline from Harbor Boulevard up to it. >> Oh, on the other side. >> Yeah. On the Harbor Boulevard side. Yeah. But it's a very steep climb to get into it. Right. >> Mhm. >> So, the point is the engineer made a comment that he felt that should be structurally sound to withstand parking. >> The planning department says that's not necessary because parking is prohibited

079there. What I'm saying is that's not enough for me because I just somebody's not knowing or inadvertently or whatever for whatever reason is going to because they can park there. It might cause a big problem. I don't see that as being unreasonable. >> No, that's not unreasonable. Totally. Yeah, that we can propose that. designed to be parked on originally and then they said no parking but the architect that designed that that retaining wall >> was under the consideration that that was going to be a driveway originally. >> Right. But our engineers said it's not >> I think maybe you're missing the point. I think you can you >> I got it. We're good. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, this is something we can consider y >> going down going down the line.

080Okay. >> And is by the way, is this article 78 proceeding still happening? to do. >> We're not involved. That's our tenant in the in the town. So, >> that's the restaurant. That has nothing to do. We told them not to do it. >> But I can't I can't stop what they're doing. >> Yeah. It's really that's not related to this. >> Nothing to do with the restaurant. >> It has nothing to do with the restaurant. >> Yeah. Yeah. We understand. You guys are the owners. Yeah. We're very clearly we're a very clear line. >> Yeah. Yeah. Somebody we shouldn't be discussing that. That's fine. >> Mhm. >> Let me understand the the sanitary system issue. So, I I I get what you're saying about the the uh Suffach County Health Department. I saw on

081the the plan that they stamped it with uh these following words. construction approval issued acknowledging the best fit scenario available for the proposed sanitary system and other alternatives are not feasible. I guess that's what you were saying earlier that they did the best they could. So, but it's still >> but that sanitary plan that went to the Suffach County Health Department doesn't match the plan that we were given to the planning department. Are we going to be able to reconcile those two or have a plan that will be the final plan? >> Yeah, we've already submitted it to planning. Um, and the only thing that's changed was the future expansion moved. Uh, other than that, it's still the same. >> Still same. >> Okay. And what are we doing with that propane cap again? >>

082This is going to be outside the fenced area. >> Okay. So, it won't interfere with the dining area. >> No, not with the dining area. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's outside the fenced area now. >> And the string lighting is going to be taken down. >> Yeah. I don't think it's I don't think it's there. >> The air conditioning unit. >> Well, we have to see there's a little bit of an issue there because we can't move it one way because the oil fill up is is right there and then we can't move it anywhere else because then we'll be off the property line again. And the only way I'm seeing now is possibly modifying the landing of the deck on the corner of the property to maybe move the unit on the corner there

083to make sure that we have a clearance of the deck >> to move it to the opposite side of that deck. Can we see a picture of it, Chris? >> Sure. Sure. >> Yeah. I think if you cut the deck in half, you can move it to that east corner. >> Something like that. I don't think there's a requirement of the landing size out of there for egress or anything. So, >> can you see? I could see what we're talking about. >> Yeah, I we we see it. We see it. >> Saying is instead of having it here, move it here. So, it's outside of the deck. >> Well, I think we're saying I think that is actually off the property at that point. >> No, no. On side. Still our property. >> Oh, is

084it? Okay. >> Yeah. Still our property actually goes >> up to the fence that's existing to the neighbor. >> Okay. >> So, it would So, see here, it's off the property. Just It's too It's under there. We could actually fit it on this side of that. >> Okay. So, we just we have to find a place to put it. >> We had to find a place to put it. We're also running out of space. >> I did notice, by the way, that you have you have put stairs in there. >> We had Yeah, they're open for business now. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Um, normally we never need a building permit to move the stairs from one side to the next. So, they just got caught up. >> Yeah. >> And you realize that the building

085permit expires on July 1st, so we have two months. >> Yeah. We may have to renew it. >> Can be renewed. Yeah, >> we could, but I'll be honest with you to do to we just want to get a building permit so we could take all the things off of the site that we talked about except for the front steps and then we can get a survey done by Saskurvey who's doing it and he will show everything where it is and at that point then it's just really doing the light the licensing for the front entrance but we we he doesn't want to come out and do it until we move we showed you proposed what we're doing. >> Yeah. But we want to really have it surveyed. >> Yeah. Understood. Understood. >> So, we

086have a permit now till the 26th that we were hoping that we could get going back there and move all the stuff away. There's a planter that somebody put we're going to take out up front. And the only thing will be left that'll be on town property. You'll see that on the survey is that front entrance. >> Right. Understood. >> Then it's a matter of doing the licensing agreement with that. >> Good. So, you know, we're we're here today just to make clear to everyone what it is that's required and how you move on to that next step, how it gets cleaned up. Does anybody else have any comments that they want to make? Okay. Um, >> one question about the mystery uh steel covers. >> Oh, the steel. Yeah. What are those? >> That's

087the lower sept residential septic system that's down there. >> Oh, it's on the updated septic plant. I'm not sure why it didn't get reflected. Okay. It's just the lids too. >> And and they are just so you know, they're made to be if somebody drives on them, they're safe. >> They're load bearing. >> They were load bearing. We paid extra money to do that. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. We have some questions that we're going to answer as a board and then we'll be ready to move on. All right. Cool. Um, sure. >> Anything else? Let us know. I mean, obviously, >> well, we're going to go through these questions. >> Doing what we got to do. >> I understand that. I do. We appreciate it. Does the planning board agree with the planning department's assessment

088of additional information that must be provided per town code 2556-50 which is necessary elements of the site plan? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree the applicant should confirm whether an enclosure is proposed over the restaurant entrance? >> You should. I think you've done that. The answer is no. You are not going to do that. Does the planning board agree the applicant should confirm whether they intend to propose a permanent outdoor dining area? That is up to you, but you you need either way whether you're going to do the administrative approach. >> Question question. Should we do that? Is that something you would prefer that >> that's something discuss that with the planning department? >> But the point is simply we're advising you that you need to take care of it either either way.

089Okay. Does the planning board agree that the revised sanitary plan should indicate all piping throughout the property? >> Yes. Right. We need to see where everything is and where it's going. >> Yeah. >> Does the planning board agree that the landscaping plan should be revised accordingly? >> Yes. In conversation with the planning department. >> Does the planning board agree that exterior lighting must be brought into compliance with the town code? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Does the planning board agree that adequate clearance must be provided above the external uh air conditioning unit? >> Yes. Okay. Um and we will acknowledge that you have kind of agreed that as we move forward you will consider the idea of putting ballards or some other some other way to block people from parking where no parking is actually allowed

090on that site above the retaining wall. So let's acknowledge that. If you can put that in the record, Katie. Um, all right. I think we made some progress. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All right. The next work session is the Zindel lot line modification. And Rick, I assume that is you. Um, thank you very much. And that is Sarah for the for the plenty department. And Bruce, that's yours for the board. So Sarah, fill us in. >> All righty. Just getting everything filled up. So this is the initial evaluation of a lot line modification between two Lily Hill Lane lot one and three Barzis Lane lot two which proposes to transfer approximately 7,547 square ft of the three Bars this lane lot to the adjacent two Lily Hill lane lot one is

091proposed to increase in size from 40,916 square ft to 48,463 ft. Lot 2 is proposed to decrease in size from 19,265 ft to 11,538 ft. The proposed modification would create one rectangular lot uh two and add a section to an already irregularly shaped lot one. Lot two also proposes to remove a portion of its existing driveway. Let's see if I can zoom in a little bit. Yeah, the exist remove a portion of the existing driveway over here. The subject parcels are zoned A residents and are in the special groundwater protection area. Lot one is improved with an existing house attached garage, swimming pool, and cabana. Lot two has two twostory single family residences plus a separate two-story garage or accessory building. The proposed lot line modification would move one of the two-story single family residences

092and the two-story garage or accessory building to lot one. Surrounding properties are entirely residential with the exception of agricultural property to the northwest across Aabonic Road. On to issues for discussion. So this is a type two action pursuant to seeker and chapter 128 of the town code meaning it is not subject to additional review under seeker. Um this lot line modification would require several variances uh from the town code, some of which are substantial. The first is lot size. Uh the proposed lot area of 48,463 square ft for lot 1 would conform with the minimum lot area in the A resident zoning district. However, the 11,538 square ft for lot 2 does not conform with the 40,000 square ft minimum lot area in the A resident zoning district. A lot area variance would be needed

093for lot two. Currently, lot 2 is of substandard size and the proposed modification would increase that nonconformity. The applicant should also clarify the amount of area that would be transferred. Uh lot two according to the calculations on this survey uh is proposed to decrease in size 7,727 square feet which does not align with the proposed increase in size of lot 1 which is 7547 square ft. The second issue is the number of uses um on the properties. So variance from town code section 255245 number of uses uh would be required. This section limits the number of principal uses on a residential lot to one use. Uh the code states any one residential district lot or any one residential property is permitted one use. Additionally, 255245C specifies that each of the individual units devoted to any

094such use other than office use shall be counted as separate counted as a separate use in calculating the total number of uses on a property. So all that is to say that the two separate dwelling units on lot one or on one lot would be considered uh two uses. So lot two currently contains two single family residences which is a legally pre-existing non-conforming condition. Lot one uh currently contains one single family residence making it conforming to the permitted number of uses. Uh the proposal would result in lot 2 now being conforming with uses since it would uh only have one single family residence. Uh but lot one would become non-conforming. Although a lot line modification would not increase the total number of housing units across the two properties. The nonconformity would be transferred to a

095new lot maintaining such condition. Whereas the town code seeks to rectify conditions of nonconformity. The creation of non-conforming conditions on a lot where one does not exist is not typ typically considered consistent with good planning practices. onto setbacks. Um, it should also be considered that a number of the structures on site, including the existing two-story garage and twostory frame dwelling that are proposed to move move from lot two to lot one would be within the required property line setbacks making them non-conforming structures. So, if you're looking at my cursor, I'm circling those two structures. This is the proposed lot new lot line. Uh where the proposed lot line modification would not decrease these setbacks, no new relief is needed for these non-conformities to remain. However, where the lot line modification will further decrease these setbacks,

096variances will be required, which would be subject to review by the zoning board of appeals. The proposed 48,463 ft lot would have side and rear yard setbacks of 20 ft for the principal structure and 15 ft for accessory buildings or structures. Setbacks from the proposed lot line should be illustrated on a revised survey to confirm and determine variances needed. Um also just a note about informed consent. Um so the applicant details that both subject parcels are owned by separate um entities. Uh, lot one is owned by John Zindell while lot two is owned by Fourth Chakra LLC. Given such, written consent should be provided from both properties to formalize owner authorization for the proposal. Onto lot shape. Uh, the proposed configuration for one of the subject parcels does not conform uh to the lot shape

097standards established in the town code. Section 220-1.09 09 configuration of lot lines part C states in general lots shall be rectangular in shape somewhat deeper than they are wide. Although lot 2 does not meet the minimum lot size requirement, its shape is considered acceptable. Lot one however is already an irregular polygon and the proposed modification would would further increase its irregularity. The planning department also finds that this alteration could complicate for future planning efforts for lot one um and is inconsistent with town code section 220-2.18 um which requires that any proposed um adjustment of property lines will not make future planning of either of the affected parcels more difficult or impossible and poses no immediate or potential problem which would justify more thorough re review by this board. um existing structures. The existing sanitary system

098for lot 2 is not indicated. The revised submission should indicate the sanitary system for the planning department to determine whether Suffach County Department of Health Services setbacks requirements would be complied with. It also appears that the water and electricity services between the proposed lot one and lot two are currently interconnected. Um, so if you're looking at my cursor, you can see the water lines cross lot lines. Uh, and the electric, I think, or the gas lines do as well. Um, or the electric over here, maybe not. Anyway, um, so the applicant should just clarify how how these utilities will be separated, reconfigured, or if an access easement is proposed over lot 2 um into access for emergency vehicles. Um due to the location of this pool, um this single family residence would not be able

099to be accessed from lot one. Um the applicant should explain how the single family residence will be accessed and clarify where emergency vehicles would potentially also take access. The board and the applicant should also note that the approval of the Suffach County Department of Health Services will ultimately be required should the planning board grant lot line modification approval. Variances from the zoning board of of appeals will also be required as discussed. So ultimately uh the application is incomplete pending the submission of the required items and the resolution of the above mentioned issues. The location of the existing sanitary system for lot 2 should be indicated to determine whether it will meet Suffach County Department of Health setback requirements. The planning board should discuss whether they generally support the proposal and whether it will impact the

100future planning for the subject parcels. Access for vehicles and utilities should also be further clarified. Uh the planning department recommends that the lot line modification as currently proposed is inconsistent with town code requirements, would require extensive relief, may negatively impact future planning on the lots, and would perpetuate and create new nonconformities. The board should consider these facts and form a consensus on whether or not the proposal is consistent with good principles um with good planning principles. Um I will mention that the zoning board of appeals has ultimate authority to consider whether the requested variances meet the town code standards as outlined in town code section 255850. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. Thank you Sarah. Any questions for Sarah before we move to the applicant? Okay, Rick, I assume you want

101to be heard. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Sarah. >> Richard Whan from Whan Bor PLC. On behalf of the applicants who are John and Jennifer Zindelle, um first of all, let me explain the purpose of the application. The uh the Zindels own both of these lots. Uh their main residence is in proposed lot one which is to number two Lilio Lane. Uh the house on the main house on was number three I think Bars Lane the Bars Lane lot. Uh since they bought this property and I think their first purchase I don't know they bought them on the same they first purchase I think it was back to 2017. So they have and they currently do rent that um main house on Bars Lane on a year round multi-year basis to local residents. Uh the

102current occupants of that house are a couple with two children. I believe they're both school teachers in Amigans public school. So they you know this this the rental house is not a you know it's not on Airbnb. They rented it year round to local people. uh what they do with the the second house, I'll call it the cottage, although it's two stories, but just to keep things, you know, simplify things. The the secondary residence on lot two, uh is basically used by the Zendelas when family members visit them. Uh it's not really fully occupied. So, if they have family or guests who are visiting, they have access. Those guests park on lot one, the main house parking lot. And there is a fence kind of along the current property line with a gate and the

103guests go through that to get into the main house. The main house is physically I mean sorry the cottage. The cottage is physically kind of separated from the front of the Bars Lane lot which has the rental house uh by a stockade fence and shrubbery and that's right along the current that's that that that barrier if you will is along the proposed property line. So they treat that area including the um the garage accessory building as part of their lot right now. That's how they're using it. access to it on foot is taken to their own property. The accessory building which is a you know substantial structure is two stories in height. The ground floor is a garage. I think there are two bays or at least two bays. The tenant in the bars laying

104house has the right to use at least one of the bays and then the Zindels I don't think that they park a car in there but they have the they you know can use the other bay as they wish. The second floor is basically a large area that they use, you know, for uh for yoga for their own by themselves um you know or family members or whatever not not for any other people. So that's how the you know the so those two buildings the the garage other than the one space reserved uh in the lease by the tenant on Bars Lane and the cottage are both used in connection with the Zindel's main house. So they want to be able to perpetuate that and in the long term perhaps if they ever wanted to

105sell one of the you know houses they would want to be able to keep the cottage and the garage with themselves and be able to convey off the front lot on bars lane. So that's really the motivation behind this. Um considering how many times the planning department memo refers to non-conforming conditions and perpetuating non-conforming conditions. Let's look at what we have right now. The lot in Bars's Lane is less than 20,000 square ft in an Azone 40,000t minimum. It contains two sorry three large buildings, three-story buildings, two of which are residences. So that's an extremely non-conforming existing condition. We have a very much substandard lot for the Azone and it has two houses and a two-story garage accessory building on it. So, one of the things that our proposed lot line modification would do is

106it would move two of those three buildings onto the larger lot, which would become 48,000 ft². So, let me I'll turn to the more substantive things in the memo, but let me do a little bit of housekeeping. First of all, uh first of all, we'll provide you with a statement that Shakra LLC or for Shakra, whatever the LLC name is, um consents to the application that is owned and controlled by the Zindels. I suspect that probably the reason why there is no separate endorsement in the application is because of how you've designed your open gov form because you could only sign one place. But we'll give the the as I said the the Zindels's control they own that LLC. So we'll provide something that states that couple other housekeeping things very important one here the

107cess the the septics which are cess poolools on lot are shown on the survey now they're not conspicuous so I'm not in any way faulting Sarah for noticing them. There are two little circles that say CP meaning assessful. So there's one behind the bars this lane house and that there is one kind of between the cottage and the garage accessory building that's partially under a deck. They are there and they do meet the health department setbacks, but like I said, they're not easy to see, but when you see CP in a tiny little circle, those are sessables. Those are the existing septics for the those properties. the um there is a bathroom in the garage accessory building and that is connected to the same cesspool that serves the cottage. Um because it it's mentioned the

108memo when it comes up as one of the questions for you. All the utility lines are shown on the survey. So I know one of the questions at the end is should the should the survey depict the proposed or the existing utility lines and they're all shown electric uh water gas they're all depicted on the survey. with different symbols. So, as I said, that's some housekeeping. In terms of the variances, um, as I said, the the essential element of this is you have a existing very non-conforming situation with the house on Bars Lane. So, um, we would move two of those, um, buildings in including one of the houses onto the larger lot. Does it result in a somewhat oddly shaped lot? Yes, of course it does. Uh if you were to look and we

109don't have it here, but if you were to look at the Suffach County GIS and look at the surrounding properties, this is an area obviously this area was developed, you know, as a result of whatever the property ownership was in the days before zoning. There are multiple misshapen, strangely shamed lots in the area, strangely shaped lots there. So having a a perfectly uniform lot is just not something that even though even lot one which which Sarah's memo refers to as not being being somewhat of a not >> polygon. Uh that's a lot approved by the planning board in a four lot minor subdivision in the early 1980s. Why is it not rectangular? Because that's the way the property was. When you come on to Akavani Road, there were three lots behind it. It's the front

110lot of a four lot subdivision. So you you kind of deal with the cards that you're dealt. Uh the property property configurations in this area are not you know they're not always uh rectangular. The important thing as I said I think to bear in mind is that the um the the density associated with the front lot with the bars lane lot most of that would be shifted onto the bigger lot which we would argue is more uh able to to handle it. Um, so in terms of variances, so obviously we need a lot area variance. We're making the front lot small. We're making the the lot in Barc's Lane smaller. It's already a non-conforming lot, but that acreage gets transferred to the lot on Lily Hill Lane. Uh, in terms of setbacks, we do we

111do need to show one of the things that point out in the memo, we should show the proposed uh setbacks from the garage accessory building and the cottage to the proposed new boundary line. and we'll do that on a revised survey. Um, obviously the the sideyard setbacks for the those two buildings changed somewhat because they'll now be part of a larger lot and the setbacks are different for a 40,000t lot than they are for 20,000 or sub 20,000t lot. But that has no material effect. In other words, in terms of neighbors, the same buildings will be in the same place on the property with the same property lines. Um, in terms of the number of uses, again, there are two principal uses right now on the front lot, which is less than 20,000 square ft

112in size. Now, as a result of our proposed lot line modification, it would be two principal uses on the large lot, which again is probably better suited to accommodate those uses. Um, trying to think the other setback variance, lot area variance, number of uses. I think that covers the number. Oh, uh I'll obviously clarify this in writing, but there was a transposition of numbers in the on the survey. So, lot one as proposed will be 48,643 ft. Of course, I'll memorialize that. I think right now it says 48,463 square feet. So, they just transposed two numbers. um terms of the lot shape and how that affects things going forward. I understand the planning department's concern here is that um the odd shape of the proposed lot one could complicate future planning for that lot. I

113just don't really see how that happens. The area being transferred is already substantially improved. It has two twostory buildings on it including one of them is a house. You know there what addition there's no additional development on the property that's possible and it's already nonconforming to pretty much all the property lines. In fact the the garage building itself just you know so you're aware of this that is a party wall with the building on the adjacent property to the north literally the north wall of that building is the same wall as the building to the north. You don't you don't see that very often in East Hampton. The setback is zero and the neighbor setback is zero because they're sharing a wall which is right on the property line. Uh so that's my I think

114my main point there is that the um in terms of complicating future planning for the property just it is what it is. The buildings are already there. There's no really uh significant potential for future development or changes here. Uh we um in terms of the access I've explained how access is taken. Right now access is basically by by foot pedestrian access from the the owner's principal residence to the two buildings on lot two. What would happen in an emergency? Well, I think we all know what would happen in an emergency. When the fire department has to deal with a fire, they don't ask for a deed before they come in the property. They're going to take whatever access is the most convenient to fight the fire. And so if you know I imagine if either

115of the two bu two buildings down the ant area to be transferred if there was a fire there I would imagine the fire pro fire department is probably going to come in from Barza's lane and what's the person on Bars Lane going to do say no I don't want you to fight the fire let it catch on to my building. So I don't I don't see that as a serious concern. Again the situation is what it is right now. you don't have direct access to those buildings from Bars or at least to the house from Bars Lane right now for the to the cottage. Um so lastly, the we haven't submitted an application yet to the zoning board or to the health department. We want to see your reaction. We want to see whether the

116planning department or the planning board uh you know has such problems with the application that it isn't worth us pursuing it. So we need to get feedback from you before we decide whether we're going to make applications to those other agencies. But as I see it, we're taking an existing very non-conforming situation. There will, of course, we'll still be, you know, we're still going to have a non-conforming condition here or conditions. We're not removing any of the buildings, any of the houses, any of the buildings really, but there'll still be three houses on this combined lot. So whether the lot line modification is approved or not, you know, you're still going to have non-conform, you're going to have multiple non-conforming conditions on these properties. We just think it makes more sense to put two houses

117on the larger lot and it also makes more sense to have the ownership reflect the way the property is actually being used by its owners. So, I think that covers what I need to cover. Do you have any questions for me? >> I'm curious how Sorry, before you get going, I just want to know how do you get access to the garage? Now, >> the garage has doors that face towards Bars Lane. So that garage is the garage itself meaning the first floor is accessed driving in on the driveway to the house on Bars Lane. >> So when you when you shift that area of lot two to lot one, how will the residents of lot one access the garage? >> So in the short term, the owners own both properties. They'll simply use, you

118know, the the current owners don't have any plans at the moment to sell either of the two lots. So they will still have access to drive in the garage. Uh if it's someday they convey out lot too, then you know they give up their access to to use the the garage I guess. I mean remember there's a second floor and the second floor in many ways is more important to them. The second floor is accessed through there's a both a side door on the south side and a door on the east side the back of that garage that leads to stairs that go upstairs and it's the second floor which they use for their exercise you know yoga and all that. I I haven't thought this out but it just the thought just came to

119mind. Have they is it possible to combine the two lots into one lot? Would that be easier instead of >> the problem with that is that well first of all that itself would require variance because now you're putting three principal uses on one lot. Secondly, it precludes them being right now they have two separate properties. They could transfer them separately. If the day comes that they wanted to sell one lot and retain the other one, they could do it. They could do it right now. Although they would then if they sold the bars as lane lot, they would lose the right to a lot of things they find useful. guest quarters for their family members who visit and access to their, you know, to their to the uh to the space they use for for

120um yoga. So, they want to be able to maintain a second lot. So, someday if they want to, they can sell one lot and keep the other one. >> Okay, Bruce. >> All right. >> Please. >> Well, Sarah and Rick, thank you. Rick, thanks for your um your write up that I I did read through. Um, you know, this is a pretty interesting scenario. Um, I'm not sure I really and in favor of it. You know, I understand lot one, listen, that's conforming. That's all well and good. That's fine. Lot two, I find more of an issue. Um, a non-conforming in size. However, on the north side of Bartis Lane, there are four properties that are also non-conforming. Um, the neighbor directly to the east is actually half the size. It's only about 7,500 square

121ft. Uh, the two further down, one's 30 and two are 15. So, lot two now is one of the bigger lots on that north side. However, making this lot line modification creates one of the smallest lots on that road. I think that's in my mind that's kind of an issue, right? I think that sets kind of a bad precedent moving forward. Um, you know, right now nonconformity is contained on the one lot. Obviously, it's pre-existing non-conforming. We all know it's legally COed, etc. The lot line modification creates a non-conformity on both lots now, right? So >> again, I think that's something that that's an issue. You know, the uses, Rick, you explained the uses don't change. That's I think that's sort of immaterial whether we transfer one to another. It's still the same use. It's

122still the same density. It's still whatever, right? Um, I think the bigger issue is, you know, they're not changing, but the setbacks for these two buildings when we we combine the lots. I I have a funny feeling both of the buildings are going to be basically outside of the setback, right? We have we now have a rear yard setback, right? Which we don't now. So, we move the lot line. We have a rear yard setback. These buildings are roughly five feet, I think, from that line. And Rick, on this survey, I couldn't find where those property lines were. I saw the the notifications, the meets and bounds. I couldn't see where the lines are on the one that was that we got. So, I sort of assumed >> Y proposal. >> Yeah. It's not it's

123not on it's not on the survey that I printed out from the our packet. >> You got it pretty much right. >> I I assumed it. So I'm I'm I'm close. Um so I think that the setbacks I think are going to be issue because now we have a a lot line that we have to to um to deal with the lot shape. Listen, I get it. Lot one it's irreleving this I don't think does much in my mind to change that. Um, you know, lot width it is what it is. We're not really changing we're not changing lot width of either one. Um, couple things that I do have an issue with is is access to these two um to these two buildings from uh Lily Hill. I think we need to make sure

124that that is documented, is designed and is acceptable for access for not only the family but for emergency vehicles. I don't think we want to assume that listen if there's a fire in one of these units, fire department's going to come in on on someone else's property, whether it's same family or not. I think we need to show access from uh Lily Hill. Um couple things from the survey that I had questions about. Um the property lines I just spoke about, they were not clearly marked on the survey that I got. septic systems you spoke about, I assume they're going to need to be upgraded at least for these two buildings if we move forward. Um, utilities we spoke about, I guess, you know, that will sort of be ironed out at some point. And,

125you know, garage access, you did talk about that. I, you know, it's probably immaterial, but it's something that we should also be um aware of. Okay. And that's all that's all I've got. Okay. I think that's enough. >> All right. Yeah. Thanks, Bruce. All right. Let's hear from everybody on this. We'll start with at this end with Reed. >> Okay. Um well, Sarah, thank you for the write up and and Rick, I I do appreciate your uh comments. Um you know, I'm taking a long-term approach in that um the family that owns both parcels right now will not always own these two parcels forever. And I just I honestly I just be straight up. I don't think this is in the interest of good planning. You know, that law too is going to really become

126significantly more nonconforming. And I just it it just doesn't seem right to me. So, um and for the other issues that Bruce has already brought up, I I just don't feel like this is the uh appropriate way to go. >> Thanks, Reed. I concur with fellow board members. Hey Rick, good to see you. Um, yeah, uh, taking lot one, which is currently conforming, and adding a nonconformity to it and actually increasing non-conformities in lot two, uh, making access to emergency vehicles, if not more confusing, more difficult. um uh creating uh setback issues that don't uh currently exist or making uh making increasing that the nonconformity for setbacks is uh troublesome to me. And and also just practically speaking, it makes note if it's the same owner of both properties currently, um jiggering the uh lot

127line doesn't practically affect their use of the properties. Um so uh I uh I I don't believe it uh approval would reflect good good planning. >> Thanks John Lou. Yeah, I you know very rarely we come across applications where I feel that uh it's not even worth answering the questions because the planning objectives objections are just not rectifiable. U I wouldn't say this is one of them but it came pretty close. Uh, I think, you know, I I don't like to just use good planning without justifying what that means. In this case, it's definitely not good planning. And it's not good planning because in the future, if you want to develop or redevelop lot one, it's going to make that much more difficult. That's that's one thing. also nonconforming. We're supposed to look at non

128pre-existing nonconforming as situations that eventually get rectified or amortized or lessened in the future. Here, what we're doing is we're creating new nonconformity instead of trying to eliminate. Um, and I it's not just one uh variance that I think you're going to need. I could be wrong because you're the master at at this break. >> The memo is correct. >> Okay. Yeah. It's going to be at least three variances that are going to be needed. Um the party wall is that what's the legal, you know, I'm not familiar with legally how how would that work with the uh is there an agreement that uh between the two parties? No, apparently there's no written agreement. They just >> the building was I don't know what the prior ownership was decades ago, but the building >> there's

129a build there are buildings and there's a common wall and that sits right on the property line. >> Yeah. It just, you know, from a layman's perspective, I just see a common wall with two parties on either end of either side of it. How do you know who has the right to do what to that wall? That kind of thing. That's what I mean about legal. So, but that that doesn't really pertain to what we're reviewing tonight. And the the utility separation, would that how would that work? Because right now there is no separation. Correct. >> Yeah. Some of the utilities serving the buildings at the back of lot two come through. They're coming through the bars and lane lot two. So, um, you know, the owners haven't decided whether they would try to whe

130they would install new lines or maybe they would just give a general easement, you know, uh, have lot two give a general easement to lot one to allow those lines to exist. Uh, and if the owner of lot two, future owner of lot two ever wanted to move them because they want to build something new, then somebody's got to agree to move the line. I think that's how you would do it. >> But they have to act independently, right? I mean, >> uh, each of the buildings has its own is metered separately right now. Even though the electric lines, I think the I forget the electric line runs through, um, the front house on lot on Bars's Lane, but each of the buildings is metered separately, >> including the garage because there's electric there, and

131there's even water there because there's a bathroom in that building. >> What's the line that comes out of the back of the house? Unfortunately, I can't see that. Which house? >> Uh the front house on. >> So water comes into off bars whatever that is into the house through the house out to the cottage from the cottage out to the garage. So >> it's all in chain. >> So it's probably not metered independently. >> Um it >> I believe I I know electric he's got separate electric meters for each of the buildings. I I can't say for sure about the water, but I think he told me that they are metered separately, but I'm not sure that's done. >> And and I didn't hear anything or read anything about changing the septic. I mean, there's

132cess poolools right now. >> Yes. >> So, there's no talk of upgrading to an IIA system. It wouldn't happen automatically, only if we offered it. >> Yeah. Okay. Those are my comments. >> Okay. Thank you, Lou. Uh so I I share the concerns all of the concerns that my fellow board members have. But my my fundamental question though really is can you do this? I mean the non the pre-existing nonconformity on lot two can't just as far as I know and I will defer to our legal counsel on this be transferred to another lot as of right. I mean, I'm not sure what the process would be to say, okay, this was non-conforming. Now, I'm going to have two houses on this lot instead. >> Varant. We would need a variance to have two houses

133on lot one. But note that lot two, the bars lane lot in terms of its use becomes conforming. It becomes a single lot with one house. >> Single lot with one house. >> It becomes more non-conforming in terms of size, >> right? But in other respects, the the bars lane lot becomes a conforming lot. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. And Britney, I don't know if you have any comments on that, but you know, it feels complicated to me to to sort of the the nonconformity sort of runs with the parcel, it seems to me. But maybe I'm mistaken. >> Right. That's why he would need a variance. So it's and it's not going to transfer as of right. He can't just have a non a non-conforming use on that one. you would need a

134use variance for the parcel that's becoming non-conforming. >> Yeah. But I mean, our argument to the zoning board would be we have one lot with two houses and another with one house and now there's going to be houses on the other lot and one house in the first lot. So it to me most of the variances are air. They don't really change anything. The uses don't change. The locations of the buildings don't change. There's a new property line. the property line will be moved and it would be in front of you know west of southwest of the cottage and the garage and we need setback variances from that >> but the other stuff is there doesn't really change anything >> all right so let's assume that that's the case and it really just simply a

135matter of having the ZBA determine whether or not they want to grant that variance or not but the you know the other things have been pointed out by some of the other board members like you know it is sort of impractical in a way to if if were thinking long term about a legacy and you had said that the owners want to memorialize the way that the properties are used now, right? You know, they're not going to own this house forever, right? And you know, to to have a second house on lot one with like really no access essentially is going to be problematic, I think, in the future. I mean, you know, right now, as as I think John pointed out, the, you know, the the property owners can use this, they're using it

136the way that they want to use it now. And doing this doesn't really change that at all. Right? The only thing it allows them to do is sell off the front house on Barstice Lane. That's really it. That's all that this buys them. And it's a it's complicated. Creates a lot of additional nonconformity. variances. It's a complicated, it's a big ask, right? >> But let me put a different perspective on it. If you look at the ownership of the houses on the properties on Bars Lane, see the see the names of the owners. You look them up in the GIS. Most of them appear to be locals right now. And we all know the affordability issue. I'm not going to say anything here would be inexpensive to purchase, but the lot on Lilia Lane is

137a 1acre lot with a big house and a swimming pool. Not many local people's going to be able to buy that. The house in Bars's Lane and that might be buyable by a local person someday, but it's got two houses on it and that drives the price up. Take the second house off the cottage and put it on the big lot and the lot on Bars's Lane is a 10,000 plus square foot lot with one house. And yeah, it might be possible someday that a local person of some means could afford that. So, just throw that out there. What what do we what do we do with the second house on lot one? How is that? >> Well, lot one will always be unaffordable to a typical local person, >> lot one, the bigger lot.

138>> Yeah. But, you know, how does someone potential buyer of that house get access to the second house that it has on the property, right? It's going to have to have to figure that out. >> It's a guest cottage. You walk through the person's house. I mean, this is not the only place in East Hampton where there are second residences on a lot and the second residence or the cottage, whatever you want to do, is usually at the back of the lot and you got to walk there. It's not that unusual. >> But you have a garage, too. >> Yeah, they'll work out. They'll work out how you use the garage, the downstairs. >> Okay. Well, I think you're detecting that, you know, the board doesn't have quite the enthusiasm that you do for this

139for this project, right? >> I'll go back. I'll talk to the client. We There's a reason why we didn't make applications of the boards. We wanted feedback. Obviously, you're not giving us good feedback. I'll go back, talk to the the clients, and see what they want to do. Okay, good. So, we know we have some questions that we're meant to ask here, but I actually agree with Lou on on this one. I'm not sure that the first three of these questions are really even relevant at this point, right? Um, you know, we will ultimately need more information as we move forward like setbacks. Um, you know, the amount of square footage being transferred um uh you know, you're indicating that the the well actually one thing that ultimately would be good if if you choose

140to move forward would be understanding where the proposed sanitary systems would go. You know, we can talk about whether or not you're going to upgrade the the cess poolool for the house, the front house on bars this lane, but the fundamental question we're going to answer tonight is does the planning board find the proposed lot modification is consistent with principles of good planning? >> No, no, no. >> no. That's where we're at tonight. Rick, >> um I would um Mr. Chairman, uh your point is well made that the first three questions in the memo might be moot, you know, given that answer to the fourth one. But just in the event that the applicants um do come back with the project, I think it's probably beneficial to answer at least some of them on the

141record so that there's a a direction on the application. You know, the first one is should the setback should be illustrated on the survey. Um, you know, I think you should >> we're going to say that, Eric, >> as long as I said let's not Eric's probably going to say do it anyway. And and it's a point well taken. >> I just want to I just want to make one final point if you will. I the last point you made struck a chord with me. So, I just wanted to let you know that about the affordability of the lot. That made more sense than any of the other arguments that you made. That's all. I just wanted to get that out there. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Does the planning board agree that all structure

142setbacks to proposed lot line should be shown? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the applicant should clarify the square footage that is being transferred? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree the revised submission should indicate the location of existing and proposed sanitary systems and water and electrical service lines? >> Yes. >> Okay. There you go. Thanks, Rick. All right. So, we have a couple of reszos here. We did Springs Brewery public hearing. I guess the next one is the Highlands of Devon. Uh, schedule public hearing. Mr. Thorson. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Panago Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of the Highlands at Devon

143at premises identified on Suffach County tax map as parcel uh 300-151-2-9.1 files can be viewed and comments can be filed in accordance with the specifics in the public hearing 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. Thank you. >> Okay. So, you've heard the resolution and you call for >> So, I'd like to make >> we include 192 1931 1941 195. >> Yeah, we should actually >> uh to add to the Suffach County tax map numbers uh in addition to 300-151-2- uh 19-uh.1 also 19.2 2 19.3 19.4 and 19.5. Thank you, Bruce. >> Excellent. >> So, I'd like to make a motion to uh schedule the public hearing. >> I second.

144>> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, pass carried. New Singular Wireless AT&T tower at Montalk site plan special permit personal wireless service facility modification resolution for extension of time. Oh, hey, what do you know? That's me. Uh um or in the matter of the application I'm going to I'm going to free form this one. In the matter of the application of new singular wireless aka AT&T tower at Montalk site plan special permit personal wireless service facility modification for Suffach County Tax Map 300-49-03-446 extension of time. uh we send the time within which the applicant must comply with the conditions of the board's resolution um in within one-year increments within which to obtain a COO or until April 28th, 2027. I have read the resolution for extension of time and Crawford's adoption. >> Second. >>

145All in favor? I >> pass and carried. Okay, minutes. Let's look at those minutes. Um, any comments on the minutes? >> Good to me. >> Okay, you guys attended last time. I did not. So, if someone wants to call for a >> adop motion to adopt the minutes. >> I move to adopt the minutes. See, you knew exactly what I was going to ask for. Um, second. All in favor? >> I. >> Minutes adopted. Thank you very much. And to round it out, Bruce, would you do the honors? >> Sure. I'll make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. >> I'll second that motion. >> All in favor? I >> Okay.