East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 04/22/2026

001All right, planning board. We are live. We are recording. Phone lines will it remain off. Go for it. Thanks, Matt. Thank you, LTV. Welcome everybody to the April 22nd, 2026 East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting. We have kind of a full session today. We have no public hearings, five items on for our work session, four items on for our regular meeting, and then one Board of Review to discuss. >> [gasps] >> I just want to say at the outset that the we have received public comment about the project most application, and tonight is not a public hearing, but there will be a public hearing as that application progresses through the board. So, our first work session item is the Highlands at Devon final subdivision modification. Will, that is you for the planning department. Is the

002applicant here? Yes, you are. And John, that's yours for the planning board. Hi, good evening, board. So, this is an application to modify a subdivision. Share my screen. So, this is an application to modify a subdivision titled the Highlands at Devon, which was originally approved on December 7th, 1994. This modification is seeking to change a condition for lot two, which requires residences to have only natural wood shingle siding and roofing. The original subdivision created four residential lots and one reserved area, all zoned A residence. Parcels are partially within a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat and a Scenic Area of Statewide Significance. Currently, lots one, three, and four contain residential structures, while lot two and the reserved area are vacant. This modification is a type two action pursuant to SEQRA, and no

003further action is required at this time. It is a policy of the board to determine whether a change in circumstances is present, which warrants review of a prior subdivision approval. If the board determines a change exists, it may review the original approval to determine if it is consistent with the town subdivision regulations. A letter from the applicant states the covenant was created to limit visual impact on Montauk Highway to the south. When the subdivision was approved in 1994, there was less vegetation between the lots and the highway, giving a more direct line of sight. Since then, pitch pines and other vegetation have grown between to shield the residences. The parcels also have large scenic easements along their southern border, shown in this image by the hatching, giving a greater distance between the residences and highway.

004The applicant also submitted images taken from Montauk Highway, highlighting the distance between the residences and the road. In the planner review of the original subdivision, it is mentioned the applicant offered the subject covenant requiring only wood shingle siding and and roofing to mitigate visual impact. Additionally, the applicant states lot three, which is also subject to the covenant, received a certificate of certificate of occupancy from the building department in 2014, which approved stucco siding and crushed bluestone roof. In previous subdivision modifications, the board has considered changes in the existing natural features or vegetation and the issuance of COs to be valid changes in circumstances. The planning department recommends both are present in this instance and constitute a valid change of circumstances, and the board should discuss it for the greens. Under current code regulations, the lots

005would not require approval from the ARB, and no unique restrictions to their home design would be applicable. As such, the subject restriction exceeds what would currently otherwise be required. A small portion of the Napeague subunit of the SASS boundary covers the southern border of the reserved area of lot two. However, the SASS boundary does not include any of the building lots and largely excludes the subdivision. The covenants and restrictions also require the planning board to hold a public hearing if any covenant is proposed to be modified. Should the board agree to move forward with this modification, a public hearing will be required. As submitted, only the owner of lot two is identified as an applicant and provided an agent authorization form. However, the covenants and restrictions require all lot owners to agree to any modification.

006The applicant should obtain agent authorization forms from all lot lot owners of the subdivision in order for this modification to proceed. The applicant should also clarify the record with an addendum to the application identifying the other lot owners as co-applicants. The planning department notes the applicant submitted letters of support from all three neighbors within the subdivision. The board should also note the covenants and restrictions require a supermajority vote to approve any modification. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether the conditions outlined constitute a change in circumstances and if the proposed modification is appropriate. If the board agrees a change in circumstances is present and wishes to modify the subject covenant, a public hearing should be scheduled. The applicant should identify the other lot owners as co-applicants and submit additional agent authorization. >> [clears throat] >>

007Thank you, Will. Would you like to say anything? David Curt from Matthew's Curt, Cooley, Turano, 241 Pantigo Road, East Hampton for the applicant. I don't really need to add much. I think the planners did a great job going through everything. We've discussed with council the need to get these the authorizations from the other lot owners. We've my client's reaching out to them to do that. However, the the letters that we did submit, they did they're more than just letters of support. They said they joined in the request to do it, so we didn't feel it was necessary at the time. But council would like that, and that's what we'll try [snorts] and get, so. We don't feel that that should be a hold up though to get it scheduled. We have consents from these four

008the the three other lot owners, and we'd like to move this forward. Is there um building planned on that lot that's vacant now? >> Yes. I believe they they may even have a permit application in for house that does comply with the With the cedar shingle, yes. But as as you know, we've submitted photos, the neighboring parcel on 150 is white, has stone chimney, and you know, so I believe that they'll also want to sign the authorization and join in the request just for clarification purposes going forward. Okay. So, I it complies with all C&Rs except for paragraph 12, the planned house. >> [clears throat] >> That's my understanding. But all other uh are are met. All other con >> Correct. That's the only that's the only thing we're looking to change. And my understanding

009is that the submission the application that they submitted is complying with everything other than it's even complying with that at this time. Based on how long the building department is taking to review things, they submitted an application which does comply with the restriction with the ability to amend that with the board, so grants that approval. Thanks, David. John, would you like to lead us in our discussion? >> Yep, thank you. So, my initial concern was that to consider whether this change of circumstance, the vegetation that blocks the view from Montauk Highway, which was the original concern for stipulating that the houses be of cedar siding and cedar roof, which I presume was intended to have it um meld more with the the woods and be more compatible with the neighborhood. Um that this vegetation, the

010change of circumstance from in the last, I think, 32 years from '94 till now, um whether that's permanent or not. You know, it it didn't pertain in in '94, but it So, I drove there today. I drove down Montauk Highway. I stopped exactly across from pretty much where this photo was taken. I couldn't see the houses at all. And not only my concern was that part of that vegetation are the pitch pines that are presently being devastated by the southern pine beetle. Um but they are really in the foreground as you can see and I believe that in the in the scenic easement area is uh are trees other than pitch pine. So, [clears throat] um I think as long as the the scenic easement remains, which of course it will, that the my initial

011concern that this uh visual buffer would could be compromised uh is uh not a legitimate concern. It The house is well screened. Um you know, my thinking was too that the when the these lots were purchased by the owners, they fully understood and read the covenants and restrictions. They're part of the deed and they agreed to um you know, paragraph 12 about cedar siding and and shingling. Um and that uh you know, this this change will be permanent. It carries with the land and it also applies to all four lots. Um so, my my thinking is that um to maybe a compromise solution is that uh the materials that are used be be natural color. Use site the house that's nearby which is cedar uh siding, I believe. It's not shingled but it's It's partially

012stucco, I Yeah, partially stucco and partially cedar. >> Cedar, yeah. >> Yeah, I look I looked at it today. And and the fourth lot of the subdivision was not subject to this restriction, which is an oddity in itself. They put it on the three but not four of these adjacent lots, which The reason uh being uh believe and it was um mentioned by Eric in the planning department was that it was the furthest from Montauk Highway and would be the the least visible lot. Uh so, I think if maybe we should consider discussing whether the materials that are used for this house be uh natural that would blend more with the environment to help them to be less visible and and match what's there. But isn't I think what's before us is to decide whether

013or not this covenant is terminated or Right, to strike it from the >> Strike the >> Just the paragraph. Yeah. Yeah, just the one paragraph. >> Yeah, I think it's section 12 of the So, So, are you suggesting that we do that but also impose the condition that they they use certain types of materials when they build the house? >> Yeah, but we'd consider that, yeah. But why why would we want to do that if you can't >> To help lessen the visual impact from the road. It is slightly visible. That the conditions may change. It may become more visible um to match what's there now along Cranberry Hole Road. Yeah, no, I I think you gave a very nice overview. Uh what's unique about this application is that it requires a super majority. So,

014one person at the table is not in favor of it, it's not going forward, okay? Um when I initially saw this, I said, "No way. Change of circumstance not warranted." I drove out there. You could see right through that area and decimated as you said with by the pine beetles. I drove Cranberry Hole Road. I drove Montauk Highway. So, I'm not so sure I would have chosen that as my flagship argument for a change in circumstance. >> [clears throat] >> But with that being said, it's been 32 years and things have changed. And to your point, yeah, the neighbors and I think all this predated ARB because um it was kind of funny seeing the typewriter uh Yeah. going uh you know, like the planning board was trying to be the ARB a little bit.

015Um but um I think that that condition is too onerous. Um so, I'd be in favor of us striking that uh condition. Yes? >> Yeah, I'd have to agree. I drove down there um yesterday to take a look across and you you can't see anything. My first my initial reaction was, "Well, all the trees are gone. There's got to be a new shed across there." And there there isn't. And yeah, I think I I agree with Reed as well. I mean, this was done 30 years ago. Obviously, the house next door didn't abide by it. So, I have no problem striking it. I'm not sure about amending it. I would get rid of that paragraph. Ave? Yeah, I actually live very close by. I'm familiar with the house that was built and that is not

016a compliant. So, I was kind of shocked actually when I read this. I was like, "Oh, yeah, I I know that house." So, to to that point, you know, that's kind of deep off even with the degradation of the the woodland. It is pretty deep. They're sloping, you know, even from Montauk Highway to to see into those homes. It's been a lot of time and the fact that the the non-compliant home has a CO, I think that that's your change in circumstance. Mhm. [clears throat] Interesting. Yeah, I I agree with uh my fellow board members. And that I I appreciate what you're trying to do, John. But I think with that I think it's lot three. The house that's white and So, I think to impose that condition on lot two where lot three clearly

017violated would be just not right in my view. So, I I think we should strike that condition in the covenant. And to to just remove it in total without any other conditions. I um may ruin your super majority a little bit. Um I'm not 100% I'm not 100% in agreement that either of those um constitute a change of circumstance and I'm very sensitive to setting a precedent where covenants and restrictions of subdivisions can be revisited for things like um you know, vegetation change or because the neighbor was issued a CO. That being said, in this specific case, there doesn't seem to be any negative impact to letting this one additional house not be sided in, you know, um in cedar shakes and a cedar roof. So, does anyone have any thoughts about the the precedent

018setting of this or >> I don't think the house that's white is the cause of the the change of circumstance. I'm not I'm just I was addressing that to John's point to make it clear. Mhm. Yeah, I think it wouldn't be fair if that house did it and then you're imposing the condition. >> [clears throat] >> So, like we >> think the change of circumstance of the vegetation. And I think that is valid. I Mhm. I disagree with you. I think, you know, over 30 years, the landscape has changed. And what other, you know, I can't think of a better example of the change of circumstance than the whole landscape changing. >> Yeah. But to John's point, I agree that I think it's really kind of a dangerous precedent to revisit prior planning board decisions.

019But you know, again, 32 years and things have changed. But may I offer Yeah, absolutely. In in regards to the precedent, we're also discussing a covenant that's not a standard [snorts] planning covenant. It isn't you know, the requirement of cedar cedar shingle and roofing was I don't think it was really even that common back when this was done. >> Actually, I I disagree with that. Um my ex-husband is a builder and a lot of the um homes that he built around that time, including the one where we lived in Devon, which is very close. The covenants and restrictions on that subdivision were natural um materials needed to be used. So, whether it was cedar or stone or stucco. But it was it was a very common um instrument back then to ensure uh I guess

020to ensure a type of um that you know, like a standard to the look of the neighborhood back in the '90s. To that point and I agree with you because I live in one of those areas. >> do. >> [laughter] >> But this is an interesting stretch of road. >> Yes. You have this is a [clears throat] a subdivision that sits on a long road >> Yeah. that goes all the way to Lazy Point. That is not a cul-de-sac. It's not really a It's not a neighborhood. Yeah. You know, you're look a few lots down and you have completely architectural looking homes and on the opposite side on Devon you have very, you know, [clears throat] farmhouse, you know, country looking, you know, cedar shake >> Yeah. homes. So, It was stucco right in front

021Yeah, it's it's it's it's very diverse. >> diverse, yes. This is an interesting Well, I agree with the precedent setting. This is a unique area in terms of a subdivision being smack in the middle [clears throat] of basically a, you know, 3-mile long stretch of of road. I have a question for you, Brittany. Could we vote on this and, you know, read the questions, take the vote, and can I just add a comment into my yes vote? Well, we still need a public hearing. Right. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, of course, of course, of course. But, I mean, as far as doing our, you know, doing our questions. I think we should answer the questions, so. Well, that's true. Okay. So, on the property card, it says that that a building permit shall be issued for

022construction on the lot until it should not be issued until I should wear my glasses or something. >> [laughter] >> All right, here we go. On the lots until a fire hydrant has been installed in location shown on fire fire flow And [snorts] then, in the letter of 7-22-24, it's um the building eligible for a building permit for all conditions. So, I'm just curious, was that fire hydrant ever put in? Do we know? I have no idea. Well, I have no Our chance for the planning department. We we can check for you, but I mean, my suspicion is yes, and building permits wouldn't have been issued unless it had been. But, we can look. I can't call it up immediately, but we will look before the next time this comes before the planning board. Okay.

023Do we feel comfortable um answering the questions? I'm sure. Does the board agree a change of circumstances is present? Yes. Yes. Uh yes. Ish. Um does the board support the proposed modification to remove the requirement for all wood shingles in roofing? I think we're still discussing that and, you know, based upon the public hearing comments. Right? Am I reading the room correctly? I mean, we I think we agree in theory, but it's still a long way from being a final question. Right? Well, I think some of us had a definitive Some of you did, yeah. Some of us did not. So, yeah, so one, two, three, four, five of us had a definitive yes, and one of us has a maybe. Yes, that's okay. Um should the applicant submit an addendum to the application identifying

024all of the lot owners in the subdivision as applicants and submit agent authorizations from these lot owners? I think so. They have to have all of them because Lot four doesn't matter. Lot four doesn't matter. Because lot four is exempted from it. Exactly. Just the three. Just the Oh, yeah. All three have to do it because the covenant was for all four. >> I got you. I got you. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so all four have to. No. No, just the three that are subject to that. >> all four of the symbols of the subdivision are When it comes time to apply to recording the the modified covenant, we're going to need all four Okay. So, But, I for I agree I think for the purposes of modifying that section, it would only be these three

025lots that it applies to, but But, all four need to sign on All four need to sign. They'll they'll need to sign the covenant to get it recorded with the county. So, yes to that. And then, provided the board's answer to all three questions above is yes, will the application be scheduled for a public hearing once authorization from each lot owner within the subdivision is received? [clears throat] Yes. Yes. So, that specifies each lot owner within the subdivision. So, all all of them. I Can I respectfully request that we schedule a public hearing? And I will you know, have them by that date Yes. or as a condition, if the board so approves, tracking down I know two out of three were very easy to, you know, get signed documents from the third one. Tracking

026down the other one was more onerous, so I would rather not wait until we can get that before we can get it in. We don't have a resolution to schedule the public hearing tonight, but we can get that We can work with the planning department to get that on for perhaps the next meeting, Eric. Yep, shouldn't be a problem. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And that'll give some time for the applicant to, you know, obtain those authorizations. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Makes everybody okay. Next up is Project MOST Community Learning Center site plan. Sarah, that's you for the planning department, and me for the planning board, and I know the applicant is here. >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, board. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. So, our revised site plan and additional information

027has been submitted in support of the site plan and special permit application for the Project MOST Learning Center. The planning board most recently reviewed this application at its meeting on October 22nd, 2025. So, application has been made to renovate and add to the existing structure. Project MOST provides after-school, summer, and community programs, classifying it as a semi-public facility. The applicant is proposing to add 2,284 square feet to the first floor, which is proposed to contain a lobby, classrooms, a gym, and multi-purpose room, bathrooms, meeting spaces, and a commercial kitchen. The applicant is proposing to add 1,567 square feet to the second floor, which will include a caretaker's apartment, office spaces, an upstairs foyer, and a bathroom. Um the basement is proposed to have additional classrooms, storage, restrooms, and activity rooms, small music rooms, an art

028room, and kiln room. The total heated and conditioned living space is proposed to be 9,179 square feet, while the heated and finished basement is proposed to be 6,591 square feet. The applicant is also proposing a new parking and drop-off area, and a new sport court. The subject parcel is roughly 2.4 acres in size, and is zoned a residence. It is 100% cleared of naturally occurring vegetation, but has mature oaks primarily at the front and rear of the parcel. It is surrounded by residential property. Um on [clears throat] to issues for discussion. So, following the review of the planning board in October, uh the planning board issued written comments to the applicant. I'll go ahead and review these comments, the applicant's response, and the planning department's assessment. The first comment from the planning board was that

029the applicant stated that they are unsure at this time if they will apply for the property and building to be formally designated as historic through listing in the state or national register of historic places, which the property has been deemed eligible for by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, or SHPO. Um the applicant supplied a 2024 SHPO letter saying that they were found eligible for listing, but the planning department has no objection to the applicant remaining undecided at this time regarding whether to pursue formal designation. The second planning board comment was that the applicant stated that they will check to be sure that the original Suffolk County Department of Public Works Public Works approval is in the planning department file, and if not, they will submit it. They have also

030stated that they have no objection to submitting the revised plans to the Public Works for review if needed, and emphasized that the curb cuts have not been changed. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works indicating that they have reviewed the plans and offered comments. The applicant notes that a final approval will be granted after the building department forwards the building permit submission to their office. The planning department finds the response and explanation sufficient, and notes that this is commonly a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The third comment was that the applicant stated that all concerns of the town engineer have been addressed. Um the applicant submitted updated site plan drawings, and the engineer noted that the site plan drawings and documents have

031been amended to address previous comments. Per the engineer memo, the proposed sidewalk and walkways as shown appear consistent on all plans. The drainage design is complete. The limits of disturbance are shown and the total area annotated. A complete lighting design has also been provided which appears acceptable. Furthermore, the site plan drawings have been updated in a manner that contains the information and details requested by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works. At this time, engineering approval is recommended conditioned upon the applicant addressing any outstanding items and issued issues identified by the Planning Department and or fire marshal. The fourth planning board comment was that the applicant stated that they will consult an expert about sound attenuation and may include structures or other means to diminish noise impacts. I'll [clears throat] go ahead and go to

032the landscaping plan. So, as noted on this March 4th, 2026 landscaping plan, the applicants are proposing additional noise mitigation in the form of a sound attenuating fence around the northeast and south sides of the property. The fence is proposed to be 6 ft high and will have a sound attenuating blanket. Combined with the proposed screening of staggered evergreens, the Planning Department recommends this is considered sufficient for the use of this type. The proposed basketball court also meets required double side yard setbacks for playing courts which is intended to buffer the potential impacts on neighboring properties. It is also set back further than the existing court, so it's improving existing conditions. The Planning Department also notes that other applications of similar scope were not required to do additional noise mitigation beyond vegetative screening for playground or

033playing court areas. The Planning Department believes that the proposed fence attenuation blankets and vegetative screening should be adequate to minimize noise and visual impacts to neighbors. The Planning Department notes that this fence will not require ARB as it is 6 ft in height and set back 50 ft from the front yard lot line. The fifth planning board comment was that the board made a motion to declare lead agency and re-initiate coordinated review. No applicant response was necessary. Planning comment Planning Board comment number six was that the board agreed that the revised site and building plans are appropriate. No applicant response was necessary. Planning Board comment number seven was that the board agreed that the plans should be submitted to ARB for comment and that ARB should consider the historic nature of the building in their

034detailed review. The plans were submitted to ARB for comment and the ARB discussed the application at the meeting held [clears throat] November 13th, 2025. The ARB was supportive of the revised application and their comments are included in the application file. Planning Board comment number eight was that the board agreed that concerns regarding site operation and parking have been adequately addressed. No applicant response was necessary. On to SEQR, on December 6th, 2023, the Planning Board categorized the proposed project as an unlisted action pursuant to SEQR and Chapter 120 of the Town Code. At the meeting in October, the board made a motion to declare lead agency and re-initiate coordinated review. On to archaeology which may be a focal point of conversation tonight, between March and May 2024, Tracker Archaeology conducted a Phase 1A and 1B [snorts]

035archaeology study on site. The archaeology study was submitted during the week of the last Planning Board work session, so it was not subject to detailed review at that discussion back in October. Field testing of the site included 116 shovel tests across the project area at 25-ft intervals. According to the report, no prehistoric sites or features were found. A small historic site was encountered consisting of six positive shovel tests with 19th century artifacts around the house. Those are shown in red X's on the screen. During field testing, a historic site was confirmed in this area and the consulting archaeologist recommended Phase 2 intensive intensive testing on the portion of the site which is threatened by proposed impacts prior to any development related to groundbreaking or construction. Phase 2 investigations would include site integrity including the depth

036and extent of undisturbed soil horizons and the presence or absence of cultural features, cultural components or affiliate affiliations and time range present, vertical and horizontal distribution of archaeological remains, and site interpretation including any uniqueness or significance in a local or regional context. Following the review of the archaeological study, SHPO issued a letter stating that their archaeology department determined that the property is not eligible under National Register Criterion D, archaeological resources, and that any proposed ground disturbance would not affect archaeological resources. The Planning Department, given the professional archaeologist's report, was unclear as to the basis for SHPO's conclusion and why Phase 2 testing was not recommended given the findings of the Phase 1A and 1B study. After reaching out to SHPO, their response indicated that the few artifacts found were scattered and not from any meaningful

037or intact archaeological context. SHPO also believes that some artifacts dates and appear inaccurate suggesting the site is more recent. Thus, SHPO does not believe that additional archaeological work is necessary. Although SHPO does not believe further testing is needed, the Planning Department recommends it would be conservative to follow the recommendations of the professional archaeologist who conducted the study. The Planning Department recommends moving forward with a Phase 2 archaeological study to ensure careful and thorough review and to properly assess impacts pursuant to SEQR. If the Planning Board agrees, the applicant should prepare the scope for the Phase 2 and submit this to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the initiation of work. Based on the recommendations in the Phase 1A and Phase 1B report, the area of investigation may be confined [clears throat] to

038the areas proposed for disturbance as well as as part of the proposed work. On to setbacks and coverage and special permit standards, the proposed project does represent a substantial expansion as defined in 255-120 of the Town Code and a new special permit approval will be need be needed to be granted by the board. Review of the applicable applicable special permit criteria from 255-550 was reviewed in the October 2025 memo and with the board. The project appears to comply with all special permit criteria. On to lighting, the applicant submitted a lighting plan dated December 8th, 2025 and it appears consistent with the Planning Board's policy prohibiting light spillover onto adjacent adjacent properties. The fixtures specified also appear to comply with the Town Code as their color temperature does not exceed 3,000 Kelvin. The Planning Department believes

039the lighting plan is sufficient but that light fixture specification sheets should be submitted to verify that the light fixtures are fully shielded. The Planning Board should determine if they agree. I didn't mention the landscaping plan, but I just wanted to mention that um in last iterations of review, the Planning Department noted that you know, previous versions of the site plan included extensive landscape design that provided substantial buffers between on site activity and adjacent residential uses. The Planning Department thought this was still appropriate and the updated landscaping plan adequately shows limits of clearing, the location of vegetative and structural screening, and a key showing each plant species, their common and scientific names. It also shows the quantity of plants, heights of plants, and spacing of plants. The Planning Department believes that adequate screening is created along

040the property and the road. The Planning Board should determine if they agree that the provided landscape plan [clears throat] is sufficient. On to fire marshal review, per the December 12th, 2025 review, wheel stops will be required across parking spots 1 through 9 to prohibit prohibit vehicles reducing ADA access along sidewalks. Additional fire marshal comments are pending. As Jen mentioned earlier, the board should note that written comment has been received on this application and there were several concerns about the project that the Planning Department has not vetted or responded to yet. However, the Planning Department would like to clarify that a public hearing will be held once the application is considered complete, which was one of the concerns raised. In conclusion, the Planning Department notes that the proposed project and site plan was recently significantly amended

041to no longer include the demolition of the neighborhood house and instead now proposes additions to the existing building. The Planning Board has reviewed numerous aspects of the proposal and has found the majority of the site plan issues addressed including the general layout of buildings, parking, access, etc. At this point, several key determinations remain under the purview of the planning board to ensure that the project fully complies with town standards and adequately addresses potential adverse environmental impacts. Specifically, the board should consider whether additional archaeological investigation is warranted, um such as such as a phase two study, and whether the proposed landscaping, lighting, and noise mitigation is sufficient. Happy to answer any questions. Thanks, Sarah. Tara, would you like to say anything? >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, members of the board. I'm Tara Burke from Lighthouse

042Land Planning here on the project. Sarah, thank you for your detailed memo. Um it's really helpful and well organized, so thank you. Um as Sarah had mentioned, this is the second time you're seeing this iteration of the project, um which is the renovation and expansion of the existing building instead of the um you know, the fleet the Francis L. Wood building being put there. Um part of the reason we did that, as I think you all know, is um you know, we're trying to be sensitive to the community. The neighborhood house does have um a rich history um within our community, so we were trying to preserve that. And then um receiving the comments from SHPO that said the um the building should be remained intact, and if demolition is proposed, we need to consider

043alternatives. So, we said, "You know what? Let's just bring this all back to square one and put an addition that is, you know, keeping the existing structure intact." So, that's how we wound up here. Um the last review uh I think the issues were you know, there was only a couple of them as outlined. I think we most of them were addressed. The Department of Public Works um the engineering comments um we did submit the landscaping plan. If you have any questions about that, um with the sound attenuation, I'm happy to answer them. Um as was noted by the planning department, um it's consistent with uh similar scope projects in residential neighborhoods um for similar uses. So, uh we followed that format. Um as far as the lighting goes, um just cuz the planning department

044memo said the cut sheet should be submitted, uh those actually were submitted in 2023. Um so, we resubmitted them. As soon as we got this memo, we uploaded those cut sheets to the portal, um and those are all full cutoff fixtures. Um and I think that you know, of course, if there's anything that you want to discuss with me outside of the archaeology, I'm happy to do that, but I think that's the one that feels the most looming. Um and you know, we did the phase 1A and 1B that was recommended to do. Um we sent that to the State Historic Preservation Office for their review. Um they you know, it's not just SHPO, right? They It stands Historic Preservation Office, and they are the division of New York State that has been charged with

045governing over archaeology and historic preservation. So, we sent that to them as is noted that the memo from SHPO is attached, um and then Sarah's follow-up um email to get some clarification cuz it didn't say why, right? They didn't want them to move forward or that why they didn't think we should move forward with it. Um I think it's just important to to read through parts of that. Um so, in in Sarah's email asking for clarification, she had said, "Um as you review the track record seems to reject their findings that phase two testing is necessary, want to reach out and coordinate with you to understand this further. We are hesitant to require the applicant to incur the time and expense of a phase two if your professional team has reviewed the technical data and

046determined it's not required." So, then their response was um "The artifacts recovered from the site do not suggest that further work needs to be done on the site. They are few in number and did and are not recovered from clear context suggesting that there is something intact that is historically significant. The archaeology unit also does not agree with the date ranges for some of the artifacts, so the site is probably younger than was suggested. Based on this, we determine that the site was not eligible and that no further testing needs to be done." Um and I understand I understand the planning department's um you know, opinion about they'd like to follow conservative measures, um but I guess where I'm getting jammed up is this is the division of the state that is charged with reviewing

047these from their professional standpoint, and they've said that they don't agree um and that they don't think that anything further needs to be done. So, I I sort of feel like it's um if if they have said that, then why do we have to do more? It's not just it's not that we're being insensitive, it's the state who is the governing body has said that it's not necessary. Um and I did speak to Alfred Kemisa, who did the archaeological report, um and he said, "Oh, okay, they didn't agree with me. Why?" And I told him, and he said, "Oh, okay." And that was his only comment. And then I said, "Well, just out of curiosity, what does the phase two entail?" And he said it's about $10,000 and 6 months. So, I know that that

048can't be your primary consideration, but I only bring that up in in helping you understand the the larger picture of what that means for the applicant. [clears throat] Um and you know, I was on SHPO's website looking at uh what they do, and and their mission statement is they are to assist communities in identifying, evaluating, preserving, and revitalizing their historic, archaeological, and cultural resources. Um so, I would just ask you to seriously consider whether or not we need the phase two just for the point of being thorough if we've already forwarded on, you know, four secret coordination to SHPO. Um and I'm assuming you have stuff you want to talk to me about, but that's really all I have uh at this point. Oh, wait, one more thing about the archaeology. Sorry. So, when you

049look at the locations of the X's, I it might be a moot point since SHPO doesn't agree that they are actually archaeological resources, but those are in areas that are not being disturbed. The building is being designed like the addition comes off the center part in between the X's. So, none of those are um those areas aren't being dug anyway. So, I just wanted to add that. Thank you, Tara. Yeah. Um and thanks, Sarah, for the very thorough thing. I think the two things that this board needs to discuss are the sound mitigation or noise mitigation and the archaeological study. And I just want to start with the noise mitigation, and I think that the fencing and the sound mitigating blanket are sufficient to um you know, mitigate as much as possible any noise. It

050it it's you know, it's hard to mitigate all the noise. It's right on a pretty much a highway at this point. So, I think but I think that that's um a great solution. And the landscaping. And the landscaping, yeah. Um so, on to the archaeological study. Um Thank you so much for um doing the first study, the 1A and 1B study. Uh I've gone over this back and forth. I spoke to Sarah about it. We had a we discussed it in a meeting earlier. And I think that I don't think that. I know that my opinion is that SHPO is the governing body that we turn to because we are not archaeologists here. Um and so, I am of the opinion that we should listen to their recommendation and say that no additional testing is

051needed. It seems like the the shards and you know, things that were found seem to be, you know, mostly glass and sort of insignificant to any sort of um settlement there. I've looked at the distances in the archaeological study from you know, areas of significance to where the neighborhood house is, and it's quite a distance, you know, it is within, you know, a mile or so of some of the some of the known locations that might be of historical significance, but this this location has also been disturbed for over 100 years. Um so, those shards could be anything. And I I just I do I appreciate that the planning department wants to be very conservative in this, but I do think that SHPO is the governing body and has said not once but twice that

052the items found were not of any significance. And now I'd like to go around the table and ask for your opinions. Eva, I'll start with you this time. We're just talking about archaeology. Well, talk about anything, but I think that's the main, you know, unless you have some No, I do agree [clears throat] with your sentiment about the the the the sound mitigation and and the landscaping. So, I I'll I concur with you on that. Um and with the archaeology study, I I do also have to agree. I'm sorry, SHPO is is the the governing authority. I would say, based on the markings, and Tara, thank you [clears throat] for pointing out cuz that was going to be kind of small. I looked at it, but I wanted to point out or I thought, based

053on the proposed plans, that the markings didn't appear to be, in my view, affected based on the extension. I would think a total, you know, teardown and rebuild would be uh certainly airing on the side of conservatism here, but that's not the case. Um so, I I would be in agreement, but I I don't believe a phase two is needed. Okay. Uh I started off with the buffer cuz I've been sensitive to the neighbors issue with noise and >> [snorts] >> all along that and I think the the solution that we'd come up with I think is very suitable with the blanket, the fence, the evergreen screening. I think it's uh I think that answers that uh issue. And also [clears throat] with the double-side yard setback with the basketball court. Um also another issue

054before we get to the tracker archaeology thing. I think, you know, the ARB had an enthusiastic endorsement, so I've got to go with that. >> Yeah. Uh cuz that was also an issue that uh I've, you know, been concerned with. Um Let me leave the archaeology for last. I do have a few other points. Um The uh the bamboo removal in the right-of-way, Tara, is [snorts] that um will there be replantings done to replace the bamboo? And will there be some kind of management plan after uh go going further into the future? Um I mean, if I would assume with the bamboo removal you need to manage it moving forward. We haven't submitted anything formally to that extent, but Yeah. It would be nice to know if you could mention [clears throat] that that's would

055be something that you >> Yeah, no problem. Also, one other point with regard to the total coverage, uh the total coverage uh is 35,752 sq ft. And the allowed maximum is 36,943, so we're pretty close. Uh I was wondering if the proposed full floor parking area, 12 spaces, that's included in the coverage area. >> [clears throat] >> Is it included in the coverage area? As far as I know, yeah. So, we don't then we don't have an issue then with uh We are within the allowable coverage limits, yeah. Um Oh, one one other thing, the uh getting back to the ARB's uh opinion, and you know, the scale of the building is still an issue that we need to consider when we do our secret determination. Cuz that's one of the things that uh we

056have to go through. And we haven't yet made that determination, so that'll be an issue that'll come up in discussions. Okay. Uh I agree with Ava and I agree with uh Jen on the uh archaeology. There were I you know, there were 116 shovel tests at 25-ft intervals. And they only found very few items. And SHPO mentioned that some of those items weren't even uh as old as they were first mentioned. And also, one other thing that we haven't talked about is that uh there's no evidence of a cemetery anywhere near the area. So, that that was good to know. Um I thought that, you know, a kind of sort of a compromise there would be an alternative uh instead of having a phase two study is to have the applicant adopt a construction monitoring

057monitoring protocol as, you know, we could make that as a condition of approval. So, that would make sure that uh as you're doing the construction to be on guard for any archaeolo- archaeological uh artifacts. And I think that, you know, is a good compromise and that's my suggestion. That's it. I like that suggestion, actually. John? Um as far as the uh sound attenuation goes, the basketball courts being moved [clears throat] further away from lot lines, um that there's vegetation that's going to uh screen sound uh from neighbors and and um padding along the fence line, so seems very adequate. That'll be better than um what it has been. Um I've no questions about the landscaping or lighting plans. I guess we didn't know that we'd received the cut sheets. >> Right. Um as long as

058they're [clears throat] dark sky compliant, I've no issue with that. And I've just got a question about the phase two archaeological study. Would that be restricted to the six uh red axes, the locations? Yep. I see. Um and the those spots won't be disturbed in any case, and I like uh uh Lou's suggestion that I don't know how it works on a construction project that someone pay attention to um excavated soils to see if anything's discovered. >> [clears throat] >> I I like the idea of adding that as a condition. >> [laughter] >> I forgot I was I was I was saying Yeah, no, Jen I Jen, I'm in lockstep with you on this one. Um and I I don't think a phase two is needed. I mean, $10,000 in 6 months, I mean, that's

059a real burden to put on an applicant. And um I think >> I I will um just if I can jump in, you know, I I think the other members have mentioned, you know, there is you do have sort of a conflict here between the information that's been supplied to you. You have the archaeologist saying one thing, you have SHPO saying the other. Um it sounds like, you know, from what I've heard from the board that the um that SHPO and and what they've said um seems to be the um the way that you want to go. Um but I just want to remind you that, you know, um the burden on the applicant uh is not a a factor that should be considered when you're assessing the potential adverse environmental impacts um of the

060application. So, you know, I think um it's it's best to focus on the information that's been submitted um and not, you know, what it would entail for the applicant. Okay. Well, based upon what you've said, um and based upon what's already occurred in stage one, I don't think stage two is necessary. Yeah. Um I would agree. I'm I think the the fence and landscaping is great. The lighting seems good to me. I would My one question is uh um the scope of the project, is that lifting the house the existing structure and putting foundation under the whole thing? All right. So, that's what your GFA Yeah. >> calculations. Okay. That's what I figured out. Um in terms Yeah. Um in terms of the archaeology, I think I'm I'm fine with it. I think there's only

061actually two areas that may be um in the area where excavation or for the new um structure will be. I think that's that's points 45 and 57. Those are the only two that I think are within the footprint of the new addition. Um Without a um a list of stuff that you guys found, I'm assuming I'm assume it wasn't very important. So, I'm I'm fine with with not going ahead with a phase two study. That's all. All right. Thank you. Um I think we should move on to our questions. And um thank you, Tara, for all of the information. Let me just scroll back down to the questions. No, no, no. I want to make sure I can do this on my laptop. Here we go. Does the planning board wish to make a Suffolk

062County Department of Public Works approval a condition of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit? Yes, I think. Uh does the planning board agree that the proposed noise mitigation is sufficient? Yes. Does the planning board believe a phase two archaeological study is needed? No. Does the planning board find the lighting plan acceptable provided the applicant submit manufacturer spec sheets for all proposed fixtures in order to verify that they are fully shielded, and that is already completed, so yes. And does the planning board find the landscaping plan acceptable? Yes. I just have a quick question. >> Sure. Um so, assuming once the planning department looks at the cut sheets that are already in the file, I think we're ready for a public hearing. So, I would just suggest or request if you could schedule

063that at your next meeting. >> Yeah. Talk about that with All right. illustrious planning department. Thank you. Thank you, guys. >> Thank you. Thank you, all. >> Thank you. All right. Next up. Excuse me, Madam Vice Chairman. May we just request um that the planning board consider being a little bit more open with the people of the community who have asked for that several times. So, um we everything needs to be done kind of at a public meeting. Um so, we have we you know, when you I'm assuming you will come back and be heard at the public hearing, and that's really the time for those kind of discussions. >> we're asking you We're asking You said earlier that you visited like in prior first application. We're asking why in 4 and 1/2 years you've

064not Except for Mr. Cortese, you've not come to the site and met with us. Nor has this organization. We have [snorts] To be clear, none of us have met with the applicants at the site. No, I'm I'm I'm making two statements. We've requested >> Microphone microphone. for even over here the request for the board members to come to the site with drawings to discuss it. And {comma} {period} Project MOST and the representative have never met with anybody in this community in the last 4 and 1/2 years. I can answer that question. What about the first question? Uh the first question was why have we not met with Project >> extending again requesting. I didn't ask I'm asking We're requesting the members I have I think I think there's some disconnect in I have to I

065have to double check that. Yeah, I'm sorry. Okay, when the first applicant Just 1 second. This first of all, this isn't a public hearing. I know that. I can ask a question though. The answer to your question is the planning board cannot have ex parte conversations. When the planning board was mentioning visits from the prior application, they were mentioning a site visit that they went by and visually saw the site property. They didn't meet with any applicants, they didn't meet with any neighbors. We Yeah. >> site visit so they could observe the property with their eyes. That's it. 4 and 1/2 years of one side and you haven't been able to hear what we're saying on the desecration of the Thank you. All right, next. Um 9 I'm sorry, Wainscott Green Hamptons Pride Project site

066plan. Eric, that's you for the planning Yes, I will handle this for the planning department. I will put up the um landscaping plan actually um first for the board to review. Um but this is I'm sorry. Sorry to interrupt you. I just want to um make sure that uh applicant Jason is on Zoom and I know that Tom is here, yeah. But Jason was going to join by Zoom. Oh, yes. I'm sorry, the applicant. We do not have uh we do not have James on Zoom. Okay. Jason, that's okay. Um Tom, are you okay? It's just a wrap up. Okay. Perfect. All right, so we're good to go. Go ahead, Eric. Okay. Uh public hearing was held on April 8th. No members of the public spoke in person at the hearing and one phone call

067was received. One letter of support was received and one member of the public expressed concern over the adequacy of screening along the northern property line where it abuts their property. Uh planning department notes that the platform and monument proposed as part of this site plan application are to be situated greater than 100 ft away from the edge of Ardsley Road itself, which is variably 30 to 4 50 ft in width. Uh the property does uh not have any significant areas of evergreen screening either along this property line or elsewhere on site in keeping with the pastoral setting of lawn with mature uh deciduous trees. The applicants do propose additional screening including mixed deciduous and evergreen shrubs variously 3 to 5 ft in height around the sides of the platform providing some screening of the proposed

068improvements themselves and you can see that on the um landscaping plan that I'm sharing. Uh additionally, as the board is aware, this property is a town-owned park which has an adopted management plan. This plan does not currently detail additional screening to be planted along this property line or elsewhere on site. Um the board should discuss the public's comments. The planning department, given the distance of the improvements associated with this application, the proposed landscaping and the fact that the town board has a comprehensive management plan for the site, recommends that additional screening along the northern property line is not necessary to provide an adequate buffer for the improvements proposed as part of this application. However, the board should determine if it agrees. Um so just going over some of the wrap-up elements, the town engineer has

069uh approved the application. Same with the office of fire prevention, the fire marshal. Uh the Suffolk County Planning Commission does not require um that uh these applications or this one is minor enough in scale that it doesn't require referral to the planning commission. Um so in conclusion, uh the board should discuss the public comments and concerns, determine if they've been adequately addressed. Um and it appears that the application is ready for approval if they have been. Thanks, Eric. Um Who was this for the planning board? Wait, hang on. Let me get to my This is John. Oh, John. That's you. Anything to add? I I agree that the plan is ready to move forward for approval. I'm sorry, I forgot Would the applicant wish Would you wish to be heard or Uh just if you

070need any clarification on the screening, which was never part of the phase one plan. Thank you. Anybody else have any comments? Um I agree. I think this one is is ready for um and is We do have a resolution on just to for approval. So once we answer our questions, we will read in the resolution. Have the public's concerns been adequately addressed? Yes. Is the application ready for approval? Yes. And in the interest of moving this along, I suggest that we read that resolution in right now, John. Okay. I've uh You have it there? Yeah. In the matter of Wainscott Green Hamptons Pride Project site plan, Suffolk County tax map number 300-197-1-40.1, I have read the resolution and I'd like to move uh for its adoption. Second. All in favor. I. Passed and carried. Congratulations,

071it's approved. Thank you. Um 9 South Fern Croft sub waiver wrap-up. Eric, that's you again and Lou, that's you. Okay, so um another wrap-up memo. Uh public hearing was held on April 8th for this application. No members of the public spoke at the hearing and no written comments were received. Uh the town engineer has issued an approval as has the fire marshal and this application was required to be referred to the Suffolk County Planning Commission um uh who by letter dated March 23rd found this to be a matter for local determination. Um so in conclusion, provided the board agrees, it appears that the application is ready for approval. Um we did list uh in the memorandum some of the conditions of approval um and just to go over them briefly, it would be um approval

072of a UR map modification. This is in an urban renewal map. Um All buildings and structures being confined to the envelope shown on the map. Um the access easement being filed. Uh that the health department give approval as they need to for all subdivisions. And then um there was a comment of the town engineer uh who just said uh the proposed curbing at the roadway should be set uh minimum of 2 ft off or set flush for a distance of 2 ft from the edge of pavement to avoid nuisance hits uh from snow plowing activity. So they're basically just talking about how the road how the access uh meets the roadway of uh Fern Croft. Um but that would be made a condition um of approval and was included in the resolution that you have

073this evening. Thank you. Are you the applicant for that as well? Would you like to say anything? [laughter] Lou? Uh I agree that it's ready for approval. Anybody else have any uh comments? No. Okay. Now, see this the problem with having this on my laptop is I have to keep Yes. Is the Well, first is the application ready for approval? Yes. Now, you may read. In the matter of the application of 9 South Fern Croft minor subdivision, Suffolk County tax map number 300-28-3-45, I have read the waiver of subdivision approval and I move for its adoption. Second. All in favor. I. Passed. Thank you. Thanks, Eric. Next. This is accessory staff housing comments to the town board as prepared by Eric Shantz. Okay, so um this just to give a brief overview here and I'll

074screen share the the memo that I prepared um and just show you some of the bullet points of um sort of key features of this. Um but really, you know, there isn't a true visual for this cuz this is a a concept of a potential new use in the town code um that would essentially allow commercial properties to build staff housing on their their physical property. Um so I I have that up on the screen, but um as you look at some of those features, I'll I'll give you somewhat of an overview and then I'll come back to these. And then really, the the point of this is for the planning board to have a discussion about how they feel about this, any initial concerns that you may have, and then craft comments to be

075sent to the town board. Um I believe the town board has scheduled a public hearing for this for May 21st. Um so that is a little ways away. Um but with that, I'll I'll give you the overview. So um the town board is considering a change to the town code in order to create a new use called accessory staff housing. Uh the town board did already discuss this at a work session on March 17th and on April 7th. Um and the town board has unanimous support for the concept. Um the use would create a mechanism where commercial properties could be developed with accessory on-site staff housing in the form of single-family residences, apartments, or a rooming house, all subject to the limits of the uh county health department uh restrictions on septic density. Uh this

076initiative aims to create a way for private businesses to directly provide housing for their employees and to contribute to addressing the vital housing needs within the town. Uh it's also hoped that such measures uh will help to alleviate some traffic congestion roads by requiring less employees to commute into town. Uh use is proposed to be permitted in many uh in many zoning districts and on relatively small properties in order to make it applicable to many commercial properties. However, it's important to consider other limiting standards such as the requirement that there be a conforming >> [snorts] >> uh commercial or semi-public facility or agricultural use on site. Um additionally proposed is a cap on 25 such uses town-wide um and all accessory staff housing developments would uh require ARB approval and site plan special permit approval

077from the planning board. So, all of these would eventually make their way to the planning board. Um no single accessory staff housing development could have more than 16 individuals through any combination of single-family residences, apartments, and or rooming houses um as permitted by this board and by the health department based on their standards. And you can see on the um the bullet points that I'm sharing on the screen, there's a limitation on the number of people you can have per bedroom and the number of bedrooms you can have per unit. The idea would be that you can't have any you can have any combination thereof, but it can't exceed 16 individuals that would you know be in those housing units. Um but perhaps the most limiting factor uh in the number of properties which would

078be realistically eligible will be the regulations of the county health department which will limit how many units can be built on on a site. Uh many properties, especially smaller ones, will not have the requisite yield to accommodate um both the existing commercial uses and additional housing units. So, remember, this is going to be accessory to an existing commercial activity. That commercial activity generates sanitary flow, eats away at the development density of the property. The uh an applicant would only be allowed to add as many housing units as they have left over in terms of their sanitary yield on the property um which can be a bit restrictive. Um however, the code has been drafted to accommodate many properties with individual property owners needing to determine how many housing units they can provide >> [snorts] >>

079based on those health department regulations. Um so, the planning department should review the draft code. Um but, you know, I'm going to go into some of these elements um as a a summary here, but um I will say, you know, the planning department views this as um an opportunity to address a need uh that is in the town. Um I will say that the town's comprehensive plan from 2005 even noted um you know, it's not a direct analogy. It's not the this proposed use isn't the exact same situation, but the comprehensive plan, you know, did identify the fact that there's a need for employee and staff housing, that there's a need for seasonal housing. Um there was a proposal in there of a seasonal housing overlay district um which was an idea that to house

080uh seasonal staff. Um the particulars of that idea are not the the same as this, but this is very much um the same idea and I point out the comp plan just to uh note that, you know, this is a problem and a need that's been identified particularly by local business owners um in the town for for quite a while. So, um just uh switching over to these uh bullet points um that that you have in front of you um and just going through them quickly and then I'll um let the board discuss and answer any questions that you have. Um so, you know, again, um a special permit is needed, so this would have to come in front of you. Um we tried to have this be eligible on as many properties as possible

081knowing that most of those are going to have um development constraints based on health department um regulations, but basically it's allowed in all the commercial zones, in most of the residential zones, and you would say, "Okay, well, that doesn't make sense if this is going to be accessory to a commercial use, why allow it in residential zones?" Well, we also want to have this be permitted as accessory to agriculture and to semi-public facilities, um in which case most of those properties are zoned residential. Um so, the way that the code is worded is that you have to have a commercial property or an agricultural use or a residential community facility which includes semi-public facilities and residential museums. Um you can't this they would not be eligible um any property that has a non-conforming commercial use

082is not eligible for this special permit. So, a commercial use that is on a a residentially zoned property would not be eligible. Um there's also proposed a limit on 25 such uses in the town. Um the planning board is familiar with um accessory dwelling units. There's a similar provision in the town code for those where there's a limitation on the number per school district and the number town-wide. We're looking to do something similar here um but with a cap of 25 town-wide um and not breaking it up by school district. Um so again, you know, this is an accessory use. This wouldn't count as a separate principal use and it could only exist on a property that has an active business and it and you know, with this housing being accessory to that business. Um

083there are also provisions worked into the draft code where if that business ceases to operate, the housing um development and the housing units on the property uh would no longer be permitted as well. And also related worked into that is a limitation on the length of leases. Um normally when we look at restrictions for uses that provide housing, um we're looking more to make sure that the lease isn't too too short of a term. Um in this case, since this is tied to an existing business that may fold, um we want to limit the amount the amount of um the length of the leases um and not have leases of more than a year. Um so, you know, again, ARB approval would be needed. Uh the minimum lot area that we set for this right

084now is 1 acre. Um obviously, that is not an overly large property, but again, um you know, with having a limitation on the number of people that could be housed in those housing units of 16, um that is going you know, that is going to limit um the number of properties that are eligible. So, for example, um you know, giving an example of a 1-acre property, most of the town is in groundwater management zone four of the health department which permits 600 gallons per day. Um every single-family residence accounts for 300 gallons per day, every apartment accounts for um for 150 gallons per day. So, you know, even if you had a property that was 1 acre and was in the more forgiving groundwater zone, the more common one, you would only be allowed to

085do four apartments and that's not even accounting for the commercial use that already exists on site. So, you know, in most cases when you have smaller properties, their sanitary yield is going to be prohibitive. Um we didn't feel that it was necessary to be prohibitive in the provisions in the town code given that um you know, the the health department restrictions are are really going to be the controlling ones. Um so, just going through some of the other um provisions quickly. Um you know, I I had alluded to it before, but we set a maximum number of persons per bedroom, a maximum number of bedrooms per uh per single-family residence, apartment, and rooming house. Um and you know, they they can't exceed that. They could do any combination of those types of housing. You know,

086maybe they want to build a home for um one employee and their family. Maybe they want to have a rooming house for seasonal staff. Um but as long as they don't exceed 16 individuals, they can do a combination of that. There's also um worked into there um limitations on the size of units, the the minimum size, the maximum size. These relate largely to um what is already in the town code um for for apartments, usually affordable apartments. Um and then the rooming house requirement is based off of a provision of state law um that council uh for the town board uh had found. Um setbacks would be based on the underlying zoning. Um parking, um we set a parking requirement here that is also similar to what is in the town code for these uses.

087A single-family residence is required to have two spaces, an apartment is required to have one space per unit. Um rooming house, which I'll elaborate on, um which doesn't exist in the town code right now, we feel one space for every four beds um is appropriate. So, um really everything else here um for the most part I've covered. Uh I will say we do have uh worked into here um uh an affordability requirement in the fact that none of these units created could be rented at a a a higher amount than what is deemed an affordable housing unit in the town code or an affordable rent for an affordable housing unit or 130% of fair market rent. Um, there are no income restrictions for the tenants that are proposed. And again, this is the model here

088is for an employer to be housing on site their own employees and that's a requirement of this use. So, it is not affordable housing as defined. It's certainly not traditional affordable housing in the sense that there would be a cap on you know both the maximum rent and a cap on income and then it would be offered to anyone who met the criterion for the program. This is meant to be housing for that business and only that business. Um, the last thing I want to mention just before I let the board discuss and and ask any questions is you know, a new thing in here is the concept of a rooming house. Um, you know, we looked at state law cuz there are other municipalities that that permit rooming houses. Um, as I'm sure the

089board knows, you know, you've never really seen an application for a rooming house style um, of staff housing. There are a few properties that have legally pre-existing non-conforming housing units and buildings that you know, are largely used as rooming houses, but it's not a permitted use under code. Um, this would change that. It would allow someone to build a rooming house which is essentially you know, a number of beds that are in separate rooms um, with shared bath and and shower and cooking facilities. Um, so that's a new part of this. That's a lot to digest. But as I say, you know, the town board discussed this twice. They're comfortable with this. They've moved it forward to a public hearing. Um, but the code does mandate that the the planning board has to review this,

090has to send comments to the town board. Um, and you know, again, I'll reiterate that this being a use that would require site plan and special permit, you will see every single one of these if this is passed. So, um, that's something important to consider and with that if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you. Thanks, Eric. I do have a couple of questions and then we can all ask questions. The limit of 25 permits, that's a blanket limit town-wide. Would there be any provision for certain hamlets that may have greater need for it? I know that affordable housing initially was capped at a certain number of units per Hamlet. Excuse me. So, I'm wondering if there's a if there's a provision to open it up to more if this is successful

091or to you know, I guess going hand in hand with that question is if it's if no non-conforming properties are eligible for this and I guess most of Montauk is is out and that's kind of the place where we many employers need staff housing. I'm not sure Montauk is entirely out. Most of the resorts are. Many of them are. would be area that I can support. Um, just to answer your your first question though about the limit on 25. Um, I I I believe the way that the draft is worded right now you know, is that the town board could amend that if needed, but you know, the the town board just as they are as they you know, are considering adoption of this law, they they can amend it in the future. So, you

092know, I think we wanted to start off with something that was limited you know, or limited >> [laughter] >> um, but yes, they they could change that. And it's town-wide. So, there's no it's not like two of them have to be in Wainscott, four have to be in East Hampton and three have to be in Springs and No. >> Okay. Yeah, and in all honesty, you know, most most commercial properties although again, you know, they have to be larger than an acre, but you know, Montauk has the majority of the individual commercial properties within the town. Um, East Hampton has some, Springs has very little, Wainscott has sort of a limited commercial district. Um, so you know, most you know, I think most of the applications you would see for this would be in East

093Hampton or Montauk. Um, most of the commercial lots in Amagansett are you know, probably too small [clears throat] to qualify for this. May I interject? >> Absolutely. I just wanted to follow up on that point you made. That's one of the points that I was going to raise. It seems to me the 25 cap is it's arbitrary. It's not really based on anything. Were was there any surveys done? Any planning, any analysis? Infrastructure? Density flow? You know, anything that just seems like you picked a number out of the hat. Yeah. Yeah, so you know, we haven't done the the full environmental review for this yet. Um, and you know, obviously would be mandated. It's an action under SEQRA. Um, you know, when when and if we get to that point, you know, we would have

094to consider the cumulative impacts of you know, essentially 25 * 16. You know what I mean? 25 the maximum number of properties and you know, 16 individuals on each property. You know, I will say that is really where the consideration came from and where we came up with that number. We wanted to limit the number of you know, individual [clears throat] people that you know, would be generating traffic on these sites throughout town. Um, to to set a number you know, an overall number that that wasn't viewed as too large. But you know, as a direct answer, you know, we didn't do a traffic analysis of it. We didn't look commercial district by commercial district at you know, where they might need more where there might be more applications. Um, so you know, I think

095kind of the short answer is no and we're not really up to that point yet where we've done the thorough analysis of the potential impacts. Well, that was my you brought up SEQRA. That was my one of my other questions. Is this this is going to require a SEQRA review, right? Yes. Yep. Okay. Because it looks like it's a type one action. >> [snorts] >> It um, It's a change of use of uh, or more. Yep. Or five acres or more. So, Yep. Yeah, it will be a type one action. The town board would be lead agency. Um, and you know, the environmental assessment would be expected to be done after a public hearing. Although you know, I will say too you know, the the town board's schedule is for a hearing. In my experience

096with you know, sort of similar uses and and propose new uses to the code, it you know, it often takes a couple of public hearings because the town board will you know, hear comments that are that are pertinent from the public, discuss them after that and then there'll be further revision needed to be done. So, um, you know, I expect that you know, SEQRA will come after the public hearing, but I also say there might be public hearings. Um, but I guess we'll find that out. So, did I understand you to say that the 25 cap number might be revised during the SEQRA review or more analysis will be done during the SEQRA review to determine whether that number should be lowered or raised or changed? Yeah, so like for example, um, you know, the

097traffic impacts. You know, as I had said earlier, you know, part of why we want to move this forward is I hope that it will decrease traffic congestion because employees will be at the sites that they're working at at least some of them. But when we do the SEQRA analysis, you know, if there's a cap on 25 such uses, um, you know, you'll have 16 people as a maximum on each one. We would have to look at you know, the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual and you know, get an estimate of how many additional vehicular trips it would generate. You know, that is an exhaustive thing that needs to be done and needs to be part of the environmental analysis. You know, we may find that that that you know, the town board as the

098lead agency may look at that and say that number is too high. They may want to reduce it. They may look at it and say, you know, that is not a large impact and and might increase it. I think the latter is probably less likely. Um, but you know, that I think that number you know, may see some refinement. I can't say that for sure, but you know, again, this is something that it has been discussed twice at a work session by the town board, but it hasn't gone to public hearing yet. And public input on on it is going to dictate a lot of you know, how far the town board is willing to go as far as you know, what the the guardrails are on it including the limitation on the the number

099of permits. It says here that the permits will be issued on a first come first serve basis. Um would there be a way to take a look at the you know, the maps of East Hampton and kind of identify where we think or what properties would be applicable to this? Because what I'm thinking is every restaurant, every hotel in Montauk, if they can get this permit, they're going to apply for it. And then we're going to have 25, you know, a backlog and 25 * 16 just in, you know, one area. Or what I I was thinking the same thing except I was approaching it from a little different angle. That the first come first serve basis is going to cause the more resource to businesses, the larger businesses to get in right away. >>

100Right. And all the smaller [clears throat] businesses who that may need it even more >> Right. >> crowded out. So, have you thought about that, Eric? We We have. Um you know, I that is as far as the first come first serve um and that provision of it, you know, I I I'll kind of defer to the town board, you know, as as far as how they want it they want to handle that. Um you know, whenever you have a limit on the number of permits, you have to figure out how you're going to um you know, how they're going to be handed out. Um but I guess just sort of quickly going back to the example of downtown Montauk. Um so, most of the lots in the downtown Montauk grid are um about 4,000

101square feet. Um so, you know, they're they're they're small lots. Yeah. Um they're not going to be eligible for this use. Um the minimum lot area is an acre. But if you take So, and then also another important thing to consider is that already in the town code is the use apartments within commercial structures. So, with apartments within commercial structures and again, you know, an apartment is an apartment as far as the health department is concerned, they consider both generally speaking, they're 150 gallons per day. Um you know, the lots in downtown Montauk are grandfathered at 300 gallons per day each regardless of if they're they're inadequate in size. So, you know, you could have one apartment um and, you know, your use on site if you're only at that 300 gallons per day. But

102the code already permits that it permits apartments within commercial structures and in fact, it permits up to four in any one building. Now, most properties won't be able to do that because unless you had an a one-acre property in groundwater zone four, which is 600 gallons per day that you're allowed, that's four apartments right there. And then that leaves nothing left over for your use. >> For your business, yeah. >> So, yeah, you know, for and it's so it's tricky and you know, I realize that the way that the the code is worded you know, doesn't really lead you to that conclusion so much, but you know, it's going to be very prohibitive particularly for small lots. Um and you know, really even a lot of an acre, which is the minimum lot area proposed

103for this, um it's still going to be difficult to get um you know, a a large number of units. And it is in fact mathematically impossible for a one-acre lot to have more than four apartments, which is what's already permitted under apartments within commercial structures, and have uh you know, a principal commercial use. >> Yeah. So, you kind of need to be at, you know, an acre and a half, two acres before you're really at the point where you could even get more housing units by pursuing this use than you could get just now with apartments within commercial structures. Uh I just have one comment with regards to the lease restrictions and the you know, tenant employees, I don't see any age restrictions listed. And specifically with rooming houses, I'm just thinking of one of

104my favorite places, Block Island, where you know, everyone's favorite teenagers go for the summer [laughter] to work at the National and are all housed. I just I I would say there probably should be some type of age restriction if that is even legal, I don't know. Um at the age of 18, you can Can I ask just to piggyback off that? [clears throat] Eric, maybe I missed it, but could you educate me who enforces these restrictions? That's That's confusing. That's another question I had, too. Yeah. Yeah, so I mean a mixture of code enforcement and then it's proposed that the office of housing um review them much like they they do ADU permits and um well, and apartments within commercial structures, um they issue annual permits for those, so. So, this isn't an affordable housing

105it's not like an affordable housing where there tenant eligibility >> It's not affordable housing, but you know, it is housing and it's proposed that that, you know, oversight, that permitting and making sure that, you know, cuz again, there's also a rent restriction proposed, leases would have to be reviewed. Basically, the short answer is housing is, you know, proposed to be tasked with that. Is housing This is a learning. I We're all learning from what's been happening with the building department. Is housing staffed to deal with an influx of applications and managing, you know, the pieces for 25 * 16, which if I were smarter in math, I would have an actual number for that. Thank you. I mean, you know, obviously the housing director would have to speak to the staffing situation, um but I

106do know that the staff that is there has a lot of experience reviewing these types of permits. Um you know, housing, like I said, already reviews all of the annual ADU permits for the 40-plus ADUs that we have. It reviews the um apartments within commercial structures permits. I believe there are 12 such or 15 um thereabouts throughout town that are that were permitted through apartments within commercial structures. Um it's been there are other housing-related uses that have been proposed that, you know, we brought in front of the planning board um and housing is is proposed to to do the oversight. So, I will say, you know, as far as the the capacity of the workload, you know, obviously the housing director would need to speak to that, but I do know that the housing department

107and the staff that are there are well experienced with, you know, reviewing these these types of permits. Eric, do you have any sense as to what the demand is for for accessory staff housing? You know, I I don't in any quantifiable sense. You know, I don't think it was ever um well, I don't think it was ever directly addressed as far as a number in the business study that was done as part of the hamlet plans. Um I will look into that. But yeah, we we haven't done any kind of analysis of the need, but it is something I can say that, you know, I know a number, you know, I know I have fielded questions from a few local business owners many times over the the past few years who have asked for something

108like this. So, there may or may not be a rush to to the 25. >> Right. Yeah, which we just So, this isn't necessarily industry driven is more town driven this initiative. Yes. Yeah. And any sense of how many lots meet the criteria? Yeah. Yeah. That's a great question. I I can based on a like a study of It's what lots would be cuz I mean, this is going to depend upon an existing structure on the property. >> Right. And existing use. >> There's a lot of fail-safes here. Agricultural Yeah. That that is an analysis that we'll have to do. And again, you know, I think you know, that's that's going to be done through the environmental assessment, but Bruce, you were touching on it a little bit. I don't have those numbers right now

109because there's a lot of lot of moving parts with this proposed legislation, so you know, it's allowed in in most of the zoning districts. It's allowed on properties of an acre or more, which is easy to search, but then you need to figure out if the use on site is a commercial use, not an industrial use. You then need to look and see if it's, yeah, semi-public facility or agriculture. You would need to look at the existing use and the scale of it. Commercial Um and figure out try to estimate what their current sanitary generated sanitary flow is. So, it's going to be a bit of an exhaustive exhaust, you know, um effort to to get a good estimate of that, but we will prepare that, but just because there's so much that goes into

110it um and we haven't quite hashed out all of the um you know, the provisions of this um you know, we haven't uh compiled that yet. So, in your opinion, Eric, is this is the proposed law code change is it premature based on not having all that information or is it right in the perfect time and do you change the law with all of these guardrails in place and then do the analysis? So, I I think, you know, these this is kind of part of the process, you know, and and with any, you know, keeping it to just propose new uses, you know, you always kind of end up in a little bit of a cart before the horse or catch-22 situation um where, you know, you want to have all of the data and,

111you know, all of the information about it as it's proposed, but, you know, you also know that there's going to be public comment um you know what I mean, the the town board again is really initiating this and they're looking for for your comments on it. Those comments are going to change uh you know what I mean, the the regulations and the specific provisions. So, >> [clears throat] >> it's it's really tricky. I don't think it's premature um just for the planning board to discuss the concept, discuss the provisions that we have come up with um so far, which we think, you know, do provide adequate safeguards. Um you know, I I do wish I had, you know, an exact number for you, but, you know, I mean, you know, it's uh 25 * 16,

112so 400 uh I think. >> [laughter] >> Um you know, so you know, we're talking about the the additional generated traffic from 400 individuals um you know, throughout the town. Um you know, it is limited uh largely in in terms of impact by >> Theoretically, those who need a rooming house or something don't have a car. Well, would it be a decrease in or a wash? Or a wash, yeah. They're driving or they're walking. I God. They're not driving. They're driving to work, they're walking to work. It's a decrease in Yeah. Right. traffic. Right? In theory. In theory. In theory. So, wouldn't that wouldn't that kind of survey that Bruce asked about or Jen uh wouldn't that also be done during the seeker review? Wouldn't that be something that would need to be done by

113the seeker review? Um survey of of number of properties and how many would be available to fit within this code amendment? Yes. Yeah, we we would try to get um as accurate a number as possible of properties that would be eligible um sort of both at face value and then realistically based on, you know, existing site improvements. Um but yeah, we would absolutely, you know, we would we would come up with as accurate a number as we could of the number of properties that would be otherwise eligible. What what happens when the if uh the special permit what happens if the business ceases? According to the draft of the change to the code change, it says that the special permit becomes void. So, in that in that case, what happens to the structures? So, the

114commercial business ends, you now have residential structures on that property. Do they need to be tear tear down? What happens to them? They they would need to be converted into a non-residential structure or removed from the site. And there would be a provision uh in the code that would require that. Does it say >> Well, what if another commercial >> Yeah, if another >> entity bought the property? Then they could apply for an updated permit, but they would need to be the business that applies for it. But if you bought that property and wanted to do something else or wanted to do whatever you wanted to do without having staff housing, would you have to tear down those structures? If you didn't want to apply for a special permit? What if Yeah, well, tear them

115down or retrofit them into a non-non-residential structure. Also, um other than ARB review of the structures that go up, shouldn't we have some kind of uh guidelines as to what could be built? I mean, you don't want to you don't want to have people building, you know, back door barrack type of structures. Shouldn't we have some kind of guideline that would prevent that kind of thing from happening? Well, the building department, I mean, there is there are building codes, so they would have to conform. Do you mean like aesthetically? Like the state aesthetically? Like kind of like a like a covenant in terms of And you mentioned Block Island. Yeah. Yeah, it's the first thing I think of with [clears throat] three-man houses. How about cedar shingles? Cedar shingles. >> [laughter] >> Cedar shingles on

116a wood roof, please. Um I I I think that I think that's a Yeah. No, I was just going to say I think that's a good comment for the town board, you [clears throat] know, consideration of aesthetic guidelines. There's some basic guidelines as was to what could be built or what cannot be built, even more importantly. Like it can't be a corrugated tin shack. Yeah, some type of some type of or trailers. Trailers, right. Shipping containers. Yeah, I I Yes, I think so, yeah. I think we should have a guideline maybe besides the ARB. But you're right, it would be a Maybe it should be something to exclude specifically, you know, trailers, shipping containers, you know, all of these things. Which serious No, seriously, people are building you know, tiny homes. Shipping containers actually is

117not a bad idea, to be honest with you. Oh, yeah? Yeah. It's very eco. It is eco-friendly. And budget-conscious. Yeah, and they're cute. Also, I have a comment on the language of one of the uh stipulations. It's It says that it permits the use on {quote} {unquote} vacant property in a in a commercial [clears throat] zone. So, this could allow housing to be built with only a paper commitment to a business use. And then, what if they never build the business use? Should Should we have a tighter language on that? Um I'm not Well, I I guess there's sort of two scenarios um if somebody has a vacant commercially zoned property and they have a site plan that involves, you know, not only proposing one of these accessory staff housing developments, but also a principal

118use, but, you know, it doesn't exist yet. Then that we're envisioning would be permitted, you know, someone can propose to build the main commercial use as well as as one of these um uh you know, housing developments. Um I guess the other What was the sort of you're saying on vacant um properties? Yeah, it says that it could be built [clears throat] the the it permits the use this code change use on vacant property in a commercial zone. So, it it's allowed on a vacant piece of property. So, what if the the applicant builds [clears throat] the housing and never builds the commercial use? Um it's a technical thing. I'm just saying that the language should be changed or tightened up a little bit so that you don't have a situation where somebody builds the

119residential housing and then never gets around to building or or creating the commercial use. It would have to be submitted in conjunction with, maybe? You know, you could say that the the request for the permit application for the staff housing needs to be if it's on vacant property, needs to be submitted with a site plan for an actual commercial use. And then you have to build it within so >> to build it. And they have to be built The commercial use should come first. >> Yeah, the commercial use should probably come first. >> way or the other, I'm not I'm not suggesting what the change should be, but I'm just saying that it's open for it's kind of like a loophole there that can be exploited. I I would look at the language a little

120bit more. And [clears throat] then one last thing um non-conforming uses are excluded unless they hold a use variance or {quote} {unquote} other necessary relief. So, that phrase other necessary relief is undefined and potentially overbroad. Does it include a pre-existing certificate of occupancy for a use that predates current zoning? It just seems um we should sharpen that language. Got you. I agreed. Um Do you have enough from our conversation to kind of [laughter] And maybe we can talk tomorrow and yeah. Yeah, for sure. Okay. Um so those I have one more dumb question. Okay. What is a rooming house? Is that like a dorm? Basically. >> definition of rooming house in the town code, yeah. Yeah. So we have um Yeah, and and just quickly you know the town code right now doesn't have that,

121but the health department does and other municipalities do so, but more importantly the health department does. Okay. So and I would also like to hear Ed's comments and can we take Ed's comments via email or would it have to be done in a public public meeting as well since he's not here? I'm looking at you, Britney. We good? Okay, good. All right. Great. Okay. So yes, we agree to send comments as discussed to the town board. All in favor? I. Was that the question? That was the question. >> [laughter] >> Um okay. Moving [clears throat] on to our regular meeting. We've done Wayne Scott Green Hampton's Pride Project and 9 South Heron Croft. So McGarvey Barn site plan special permit modification. Let me find it. No, I'm going to do it. It's here. Um I

122swear it's here. Maybe it's not. It's the first one. I might have to cave cave. >> [clears throat] >> In the matter of the application of McGarvey Barn site plan special permit modification, Suffolk County tax map number 300-118-1-63. I read the resolution amending approval and I move for its adoption. All in favor or Second. Second. All in favor? I. I. Okay. And then the next one Accabonac Road. Oh, it's Ed and he's not here. Able, would you like to read this one? In the matter of the application of Accabonac Road Cemetery expansion two site plan Suffolk County tax map 300-103-2-4 -1-0. I've read the extension of time to obtain a certificate of occupancy until January 27th, 2027. I move for its adoption. Second. All in favor? I. I. Okay, then the last one is the

123board of review for Garbies Lane in the matter of the Garbies Lane Shifa LLC. This is for road improvement work and it is in the amount of $18,000 and it's work um clearing Garbies Lane to 20 ft wide and widening it to 20 ft wide adding 4 in blue stone blend as described in the road improvement works resolution for a total of $18,000 and I have read this resolution and move for its adoption. Second. All in favor? I. I. Minutes. Anybody have any comments on the minutes as written other than how lovely they are, Ken? brevity Like reliving it over again. I make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. Ken? All in favor? >> [laughter] >> I. I. Last motion. I move to adjourn. I'll second that. I move to end this meeting.

124>> [laughter] >> I'll second that. All in favor? I. Okay. Okay. Have a good night, folks.