001Everything that's in yellow. All right, planning boards. We are phone lines are open. Go for it. Hello everybody, good evening. Welcome to the town of East Hampton's Planning Board regular and work session of April 8th, 2026. We have a fairly light agenda tonight, but we do have two public hearings, so we're going to jump right into those and the first is Waste Not, Green Hampton's Pride project site plan and that is Eric for the planning department and John for the uh board. So, we will jump into it and if you want to just read the notice into the record, please. Yep, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on April 26 uh April 8th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. The application is Wainscott Green Hampton
002Pride Project Site Plan. Site The size and location is 47,916 square feet, which is 1.1 acres, located at 378 Montauk Highway, Wainscott, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-197-1-40. dot one The description is The site plan application has been made to construct a number of accessory structures to create a monument at the town-owned park park known as the Wainscott Green also Rick Del Maestro Memorial Park. The project proposes this space to be a celebratory outdoor social area, a marker to LGBTQ+ history, and a memorial garden for those from the East End lost to the AIDS pandemic. Structures proposed include a 14-foot 14-inch tall raised platform of roughly 32 feet by 34 feet or 1,800 1,088 square feet, and a 5-foot tall monument of 7.5 feet by 7.5 or roughly 56 square feet. The zoning district is
003CB Central Business, SEQR Class Type II. Thank you, John. >> And before we begin, Brittany, are we properly noticed? Properly noticed. Okay. Um Eric, do you want to add anything to John's description of what we're talking about? Sure. Um just to give an oversight um or an overview of where the site is located and the plans that we have available. Um what you can see on the screen right now is far aerial of the location of the property in Western Wainscott. Um what you see now is a closer aerial of the property. And then I will also screen share the site plan. Um that is the proposed site plan here. What you can see in the upper right-hand corner is the existing parking area. Um and walkways throughout the property. Um a additional walkway is
004proposed to lead to the platform and monument that was just explained in the project description. There's also a planting plan prepared by the applicants illustrating all the landscaping and screening that's proposed in association with the project. And I can scroll through these plans as needed for members of the public. Okay, thank you Eric. Um Are there any members of the public who want to be heard on this matter who are in the room? That includes the applicant if you'd like to be heard. Um Or you know, any others. No comments. Okay, great. Uh Matt, is there anyone on the phone who would like to be heard? I don't see anybody on the phone lines, but let me do a double-check of the phone lines. And I'm calling in Matt Chapman from LTV. Everything is good
005and as a matter of fact, we do have a caller. Stand by. And last four digits of 1 2 3 4, you are live. Hi, it's Philip McCarthy. Appreciate the the opportunity. I'm actually the owner of the property that's on the northern border of it. The My front front of my house and the yard look onto the park, so Um Can you hear me? I'm sorry, I'm getting a echo cuz I have the thing live. Okay. Um yeah, I was just calling to give my support of the park. Um And I do look forward to, you know, the beautification of the park in general and some privacy screening along my border would be great, but I do hope it's um well used and it's a celebration for the community. Okay, great. Thank you for your
006comment. Uh Caitlin, did you did you get the information? Okay. All right, great. Um all right, is there any last takers who want to be heard on this? Okay. There there was an email that was sent today. Yes. Yes, after close of business. >> close of business. Okay. All right. Oh, it was two it was two weeks Yeah, we'll we'll take we'll take a look at it. It was in support, so It was we understand it was in support. Yes. Okay. All right. Very much so. All right, well I think we can close the public hearing in that case. Do you want to make a motion, John? >> to make a motion to close the public hearing. I second. I second. All in favor of closing the public hearing, I. Okay. Closed, passed and carried.
007On to the next step. Thank you, guys. John, Jason, thank you. Uh all right, the second public hearing is 9th South Ferncroft uh sub waiver. Again, Eric for the planning department. Lou, that's you. Um Would you like to read in the notice, Lou? Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Easthampton Town Planning Board on April 8th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. The application is for nine South Ferncroft sub waiver. The size and location is 47,671 square feet, which is 1.094 acres. It's located at nine South Ferncroft Place in Montauk, Suffolk County tax map number 300-28-3-45. The description of the property is an application has been submitted seeking subdivision waiver approval for a property located at nine South Ferncroft Place in Montauk. If granted approval, this project would create two new
008lots. Both lots have road frontage, one being 20,000 square feet, .46 acres, and another being 27,671 square feet, which is .64 acres. The application is Wainscott Greenhamptons pri- Oh, wrong. Should I stop right there? I went on to the wrong thing. Okay, the end. Um are we properly noticed, Britney? >> We are. I have the updated property maps and notices. Okay. Uh again, Eric, would you like to describe the project a little bit further? Sure. Um so, hopefully everyone can see my screen, which is an aerial photograph of the property. It's located in Montauk off of Westlake Drive. Um I will switch over to the proposed subdivision map. As you can see, and as the notice indicated, it's a proposal to do to divide the lot into two lots. Um you can see uh the
009western lot would take directly take access from Ferncroft Place. The uh more eastern or southeastern lot would also take access across the other lot proposed lot one from Ferncroft via an access easement. A scenic easement is proposed along the front of the property in those the area of steep slopes which are indicated in orange. And if any member of the public needs any of the plans that were submitted including the road and drainage plan or any other documents in the official file, I can bring them up. Okay, thank you Eric. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to be heard on this matter? I don't think I see anyone. Would? All right. Matt, do we have anybody online? Let's see if the same person wants to talk about this issue. Let's go Last four
010digits 1 2 3 4, you are back on. No comment on this one, sorry. No comment, okay. Then we have zero callers. Thank you. Okay. I think then that we can close the public hearing. I make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor. Aye. Okay. Motion carried. The hearing is closed. Thank you everybody. All right. So moving on to the work session, we have two items on um I will point out that the project MOS Community Learning Center site plan which some people may have expected to be on tonight is not at the request of the applicant. It's been postponed until our next meeting. But I think people who are here are here for McGarva, but we're going to start with JHA Main Street office site plan which is a wrap-up.
011Chris, you're you're speaking for the planning department and Lou, again this one is you. Um If you would, the applicant is not here, so go ahead. Thank you. This is a quick wrap-up showing the the property here in downtown Canandaigua City. We had the public hearing 2 weeks ago on this project and just a reminder, it's the proposal is to relocate the historic residence closer to the street and convert it into an office use. Central business zoning, Canandaigua Historic District, and and the lots fully cleared of vegetation. All parking is located to the rear, all 13 spaces. And there's a new sanitary system proposed. As far as public comments, we received one letter from a nearby property in support of the project. Um both the town consulting engineer and fire marshal signed off. And for
012conditions of approval, it will be County Health Department approval of the sanitary system, Architectural Review Board approval, as well as the fact that no garbage or other items shall be stored outdoors. The board previously agreed that they can use a shed on site to store their their refuse. Um so, in conclusion, provided the board agrees, the application is ready for approval and we do have a resolution prepared for tonight. If the board agrees. Okay, great. Thank you. Um the applicant is not here and does not need to be as far as I know. All right, so Lou, what are your comments, if any, on this? I was very gratified with how this application went. It's a very sensitive area, historically speaking. I think it's been uh it's been uh submitted in a way that uh
013it kills two birds with one stones. It main- maintains the historical vista of the area as well as utilizing the property for modern use. So, I think it's a win-win all around. And that's all I have to say. Okay, thank you. Anyone else care to make any comments about this? Okay, we've looked at this quite a number of times. All right, so the only question that we have to answer on this is does the planning board agree that the application is ready for approval? Yes. >> Yes. All the way around? Okay, unanimous. Motion carried. It is ready for approval. So, we'll get that underway. Thank you. All right. So, I think the rest of our audience minus Caitlyn is here from McGarva. So, let's take a look at that. Um So, let's see that is
014again Eric for the planning department and Jen, that's you for the board. Um So, I see as you already noted you guys are here. So, if you wouldn't mind Eric giving us a quick rundown on where we are since the last time we looked at this. Sure. So, a public hearing was held at town hall on March 25th. One member of the public who had previously submitted a letter to the board spoke at the hearing as well as the attorney for the applicants. Two letters from the public were received. Both letters were from neighbors in the immediate area and expressed concerns over the proposed application and active operations on the site. Two letters from the applicant's attorney including one submitted as a response to public comments were also received. The written comments should be should
015be read by the board, but the planning department summarizes them as follows. The first main topic is firefighting. Members of the public expressed concern that the fire wall is proposed to be removed and that a hydrant along Hunting Road may be too far from in proposed barn to provide adequate water supply. Um using ArcGIS, the planning department measures the distance from the hydrant to the property line. It's roughly 750 ft if one were to drive along Hunting Road um and roughly 687 ft in a straight line to the property line. We measured the distance as 980 ft to the proposed location of the barn if one were to drive along Hunting Road and across the proposed emergency access or 835 ft in a straight line. Um so those are the distances to the property line
016and to the barn itself. Um however, this seems somewhat uh moot as the chief fire marshal, upon conference with the East Hampton Fire Department, stated that the distance to the hydrant is acceptable and the fire department favors a hydrant over a fire well. As such, it appears the firefighting capabilities are adequate with the existing hydrant in place. Uh the next general topic was emergency access. Concern was expressed that trucks and regular deliveries would use the emergency access point at Hunting Road. The applicant's attorney stated in their response letter that this access is for emergency purposes only and noted that a specific notation is included on the site plan. The planning department recommends that the board include a condition of approval, should it choose to grant it, that states, quoting here, "All trucks, construction equipment, and
017construction materials will be brought in and out of the site via the existing driveway and not by the proposed emergency vehicle access road/driveway at the northeast corner of the property." Uh the next um uh topic and briefly was about the jumping ring. A member of the public inquired as to whether or not the jumping ring was proposed to be eliminated, as confirmed by the applicant's attorney and as shown on the latest site plan, um which you can see on the screen in front of you, uh the jumping ring is not proposed to be removed from the proposed project. You can see it in the southeast corner um of the property or lower right-hand corner of the uh the screen. Uh compliance with conditions was a an another topic. Members of the public stated that materials
018and debris have been stored on site, fencing has not been prepared, uh, rip Excuse me, fencing has not been repaired, vegetative screening is sparse or has died and not been replaced, and that manure has not been regularly picked up, and wondered how the site plan conditions would be enforced to prevent these occurrences moving forward. Uh, the applicant's attorney stated in their response letter that the site plan approval has not received a building permit yet. So, the current state of the site is not that which will be when they do obtain a building permit and commence and complete the site plan work. Planning department notes that all site plans and site plan modifications require a physical site inspection by the planning department before a certificate of occupancy can be issued. This inspection will be performed and
019any features of the site which do not match the approval will need to be changed to match the approved plans or a subsequent modification will be required. Uh, this includes any areas of outdoor storage of materials or debris which is not established as permitted on the site plan. Any such areas will need to be removed before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for the property. Any subsequent violations can be reported to ordinance enforcement as they will uh, not as they will not be permitted under the approved site plan. Uh, additionally with regard to both fencing and vegetative screening, maintaining both as landscaping features has already been made a condition of site plan approval as per the original 2007 resolution, uh, and is standard for all site plans. Um, and that condition that's in um,
020the previous approval is all landscaping shall be maintained by the applicants in accordance with the approved site planting plan for so long as the improvements approved as part of the site plan are in use. This requirement shall be a continuing condition of approval, and the applicant and any successors in interest shall replace and replant the landscaping on the site as may be necessary to satisfy this condition. Again, that that wording is unique slightly, but that's pretty much standard for for most site plans. The planning department does recommend those slightly modifying this condition to clarify that fencing is also included in this. That specific wording only mentions landscaping. Fencing is part of landscaping, it's also part of the site plan, but just for the purposes of clarity and making it clear that fencing needs to be
021maintained. We would recommend adding some language to that condition. Additionally, upon review of the original approval, the planning department notes condition of approval 4.3, which requires that a revised landscaping plan be submitted which includes additional screening to the east of the jumping rink. I won't go through all of it, but basically it asks for a total of 34 trees in the southeast portion of the property. You can see that on the site plan that's up on the screen. You'll see these red illustrations or icons which are vegetation in that area. That was to be augmented with additional 6 to 8 ft tall white pines. That condition exists in the the current site plan approval, wasn't requested to be modified in any way, so it carries over and has to be done before a CO can
022be issued. Then I think maybe the main point of concern for neighbors is sort of the last category here, which is manure handling and odors. Members of the public expressed concern that manure would be spread throughout the site as opposed to being temporarily stored and removed. This may present problems both with below and above ground travel to adjacent private water wells or properties. The Atkins attorney stated in their response letter that all manure will be stored in the designated bin illustrated on the site plan, which is adjacent to the parking spaces there, and removed at least weekly as per the existing condition of approval from 2007, which is also required to be memorialized in the declaration of covenants and restrictions. And that condition says, and I quote, "All manure shall be temporarily stored and removed
023from the premises in a sanitary manner that minimizes odor and which ensures that no sanitation problems or nuisances caused which affects neighboring properties. Manure shall be stored in a manure pit and removed from the site at least once weekly." Um the proposed manure storage bin is located adjacent to the proposed dumpster dumpster, which are both at adjacent to the proposed parking spaces, and both are to be screened with a 6-ft stockade fence. Um a member of the public also questioned how issues related to odor would be addressed. The principal safeguard against these is the requirement that the property stall store all manure in a the assigned location and not spread it throughout the property. There is no specific chapter of the town code related to odors with measurable restrictions such as for noise where there's
024a decibel limit. Um however, the zoning chapter does contain um provisions um regarding nuisances being prohibited. Those are in 255-150 of the town code, and any violations can be reported directly to ordinance enforcement. Um so that's basically the summary of the public comments. Um we also note that the engineer has signed off on the proposed modification. The fire marshal as well has signed off on it. Um the no referral was necessary to the planning commission, um and it doesn't appear that there are any other involved agencies where um modifications or other approvals would be required. So basically in conclusion, um the board should discuss the public's concerns and determine if they have been adequately addressed. The planning department recommends that with the conditions noted um in the memo, and I'll go through those briefly. Uh
025it appears that the public's concerns have been adequately addressed. Um so just very quickly I wanted to go through um some recommended conditions of approval if the board does grant it um and sort of go over some existing conditions of approval that should remain. Um so first is condition of approval 4.3 um which is not to be changed as to the applicants need to submit a revised landscaping and lighting plan that provides that additional screening. Um we mention it more just as a notice um that that is still a requirement. Um again it was something that came up in the public comments. Uh condition of approval 4.9c um is the condition that requires that all manure shall be temporarily stored and then removed at least once weekly. Just making a note that that condition should
026remain unchanged. Um regarding use of the emergency access point, I already um mentioned that um we recommend that a condition um be added to modification approval if you grant it that all trucks and construction equipment use the main entrance and not the emergency access. Um you'll see in the memo um I won't go through the exact wording cuz it won't be easy to compare it with the the existing wording in the in the resolution and what we're proposing. Um but we recommended that condition of approval 4.10 be amended. Um that is the one that relates to the landscaping being maintained in perpetuity. Um we recommend some minor changes to the verbiage to include um that fencing must be maintained um and that that is in accordance with the planting plan and the site plan. Uh
027condition and then um two more here. Uh condition of Well, um one of them um that we noted not directly related to public comments, but one of the existing conditions of approval says that uh lighting shall consist um of four full cutoff dark sky lanterns made by Seagull Lighting and there's a specific model number in there. The barn itself is proposed to have four light fixtures mounted to them. There's there's not an excessive amount of lighting. But I I just in reading that condition note that this original approval was from 2007. I don't know if the that manufacturer still makes that model fixture and if we don't modify that condition as well, then they would be required to find that exact fixture. So, just want to add some language in there that says that or
028a comparable fixture or and bulb type that meet the town code as well as the board's guidelines can be submitted instead of that specific fixture. But then the the last items here regarding conditions of approval are sort of grouped together, but there's a few conditions of approval that are to be struck in their entirety. So, those include condition of approval 4.2, which is the one that requires a revised site plan be submitted that shows the location of the fire well. Again, the commercial and fire department have said that the existing hydrant is adequate and that no fire well is is needed. The next condition is 4.6. That just requires that a fire well be installed. So, there's a little bit of redundancy there, but again that's not being done. Condition of approval 4.8 requires that
029a bond be submitted for the site plan work. The board has already said that they're okay with removing that and back in 2007 that was standard practice. It it no longer is. Condition of approval 4.9 D1 is the condition that requires a 4-hour typical turnout time for the horses. As the board has already discussed um, and the applicant submitted a letter from a veterinarian, um, the board is willing to to strike that condition. Uh, condition of approval 4.9D5, uh, requires underground irrigation. Uh, the board has already discussed this and agreed that fence line irrigation that's above ground but, um, below the fences that, um, delineate the horse paddocks is is adequate, uh, and sufficient. And then the last, uh, condition that should be struck in its entirety is condition 4.9D6. This is a condition, um,
030that, uh, basically this condition of approval dictates what should be included in the C&Rs over the property, the covenants and restrictions. And this, uh, condition is in direct conflict with the other condition that says the manure has to be stored in the bins and then picked up at least once weekly. Condition 4.9D6 says, um, permits the applicants to spread the manure throughout the site. Um, obviously that should be struck in its entirety and that was a little bit of a, um, uh, conflict in those conditions from the original approval. So, um, with all of that, again, um, the board should discuss the the public comments, determine if they've been adequately addressed, and, um, then determine if the modification application is ready for approval. Great. Thanks, Eric. Very thorough and concise. Those. Um, before we come
031back to the board, does the applicant want to be heard? I know you've responded, Thomas, and ready to many of the questions here. Nothing further to add? Okay. Um, I don't really have much to add, either. I think the applicant has responded to all of the questions, um, from the public and Eric, I think that all of the suggestions on behalf of the planning department should be noted in the conditions of approval. Okay, good. Anyone else have any comments? >> Yeah, I do. There's a couple of uh issues that were brought up by the uh neighbors that I think might need further addressing. Uh I'd like like to know who is going to enforce the weekly manure manure removal and how will they do that? I have a couple of suggestions. Uh we could have
032the manure removal contractor provide an annual written certification to the planning department. Or we can have the operator keep a removal log available upon request to the code enforcement. Does that sound reasonable to anyone? Eric, we do that sort of thing for a few other situations, I believe. Or it wouldn't be unlike having an elevator inspection log, you know, kind of thing. Yeah, have we ever done this before, Eric? Is there a way of monitoring this other than having a neighbor subject to the odor and having to go, you know, investigate what's going on? Yeah, I can't think of a specific example where where we've had a condition that's, you know, um directly analogous um to that. I don't know, you know, I think um keeping a log um is probably the sort of more
033manageable aspect of it, but um you know, it it is one of those things where, you know, there isn't going to be town staff that's going to monitor that on a regular basis. Um unfortunately, you know, like like with many uh issues on properties, I think we'd be reliant on neighbors or or someone to report it to ordinance enforcement. Um you know, uh I'd guess, you know, it is a difficult thing for them to ascertain um whether or not it's been done on that required weekly basis. So, yeah, I mean the the short and direct answer to your question is I can't remember ever doing that. Um it's probably a condition that you'd want to speak with the applicant or the applicant's attorney about. Does anyone else have any comments on that particular matter? I
034do. Um I think that might be an undue burden being placed on the applicant and I wonder if it sets a bad precedent. Um there are other horse farms in the you know, in residential neighborhoods. And if we're not asking like Stony Hill Stables to prove on a weekly basis that they remove their stuff manure, then I don't think it's fair to ask this applicant. Especially since Yeah, that's my >> Yeah. Yep. Got you. Yeah. I I will say Yeah, I'm I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt, but um I I should say too, you know, you can see it on the site plan that's up on the screen, the the storage bin is located to the very center of the property adjacent to the barn. Um and you know what I mean, if they're
035not spreading the manure throughout the property, it is I would think unlikely unless they let it overflow and you know, don't don't empty it for a prolonged period of time. I would think it's unlikely that it's going to cause odor problems. Um but that being said, you know, a very hot day, the right wind direction, um I I assume that could happen, but I think if they do follow the protocol, um you know, there it should be limited to to a great extent if not entirely, you know, any impacts from odor. Yeah, anyone else have any thoughts on this? Bruce, did you want to say something? I would I I'd agree with that. Okay, with whatever Eric just said. Yeah, okay. Um you know, I do I do think that we often in cases like
036this where things, you know, we're asking someone to do something like this on a weekly basis, we typically give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, right? Unless someone complains or has an issue with it. And I'd be happy to go down that path, you know, I presume that the the vendor does have some record if if it was ever required, but I would I would say let's go with tradition here Yeah. and not create a burden. Thomas, did you want to speak on this? Yeah. Um Thomas Crouse, attorney for the applicant. Um, yeah, I mean, my understanding is there's six horses on the site, there are going to be six horses. There's a finite amount of space in that bin. Like if you don't empty it every week where's it going to go? Like,
037you know, it would have to be spread, and as we've determined here, it's not going to be so. I don't think it's necessary. Like um, you know, I my understanding is that six horses are, you know, you're going to have to empty that bin pretty often, and so I I don't I don't think it's a necessary thing. >> Okay. Don't go far. Okay. We may have more for you. So, are we are we feeling as a board? I take your point. >> what Thomas just said sounds reasonable. >> Okay. Is everyone going to have to agree we can Yeah. I think we can move on. >> one other point, though. Please. So, the fence line irrigation uh, you know, I agree that the underground sprinkler is impractical. Uh, but uh, we should confirm that the
038fencing irrigation does not create runoff patterns towards the neighbor's property as well as towards the groundwater protection uh, area. Do we have a drainage analysis that would um um confirm that those things wouldn't happen? Um I don't believe so, no. No, I don't believe so. We We We don't. Um during the course of the review, there was engineering review of, you know, the impervious surfaces. So, roofed areas, parking areas, um things of that sort, which is standard in what we do for every site plan. Um and and there were I believe there is a uh drainage um provided for the barn um to to accommodate the the roofed area. Um it's not standard um to do that for irrigation. Um really the whole idea of of having them, you know, uh it it's weird because
039um you know, like you say, it's in a a groundwater protection area. Um you normally you don't want irrigation. You don't want water being drawn, you know, um out of the aquifer to to be spread on a lawn. However, in this case, you have a horse farm. Um you know, you have animals that are going to be trampling those those grassed areas. So, really the planning board in the initial um original site plan review was seeking to get irrigation um of the area. And I think, you know, I don't know that the applicants or or the property owners have any um desire to overwater those fields. Um you know what I mean? Uh if they do, I I do assume that there is a potential for for runoff to occur. It would You can see
040on this uh on the site plan, the there's a topographic contour lines. It would run roughly to the northeast. Um but, you know, I think unless you're you're doing an excessive amount of irrigating the the lawn area, which I I don't know that it behooves the applicant to do it. Um I don't know that we're going to have that problem cuz really the the purpose of the irrigate uh irrigation um is to have the water be absorbed by the the grass in those paddocks. Yeah, and it's it's the range is minimal right to irrigation, the range. The area that you're irrigating. The fences are these are the paddocks that you're talking about moving them from the center of the paddocks to just the fence lines here so that the horses don't step on the sprinkler
041heads. Yeah. Okay. And that keeps the dust down and all of that, right? Right. Yeah, I don't think the runoff is a very significant problem. Good question. >> Anyone else? Yeah. Thank you, Lou, for keeping us honest here, right? Um Okay. Any other comments that anyone has? I just had one question regarding the emergency access that was brought up. I don't know if Hunting Road is a town road or a private road, but would it be unreasonable to see if an actual sign prohibiting that type of traffic or confirming that it is only emergency access to make a make it more of a statement, you know, obviously anyone could certainly Yeah, you know, I don't I don't It might be a private road, actually. Is it? Eric, do you happen to know? Thomas? Yeah, it's
042a it's a private road. Hunting Road is private. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I I don't think that's a problem, but also I from my understanding of the neighborhood, I think if they're bringing in trucks and other vehicles that, you know, there would be neighbor input to enforce that. It would Have you seen Hunting Road? >> I I have. I just I didn't know Yeah. >> You never know who what's Yeah, it's it's true. I I would say tend to doubt that anyone a big truck would decide to make that trip. I was just yeah, to you know, acquiesce to some comments. That's all. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I got you. Okay. All right. As long as it's a condition, so. I'm all for it. Yeah, I think that takes care of it. >> Yeah. Um all
043right. Good. Thanks, Thomas. Thank you. So, with that, the planning board agree with the planning department that the above-listed conditions of approval should be added, amended, or struck as has been noted. Yes. Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Yeah, I think as Eric outlined them. Are there any additional changes? Is the application ready for approval with the conditions noted? Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Good to go. Thank you. Okay. Would you take this next one? I have a little coughing jag going. Uh we're moving on to our regular meeting. So, the next up is the JJA Main Street Office Site Plan Resolution of Approval, which I of course do not know. Oh, here we go. Here we go. See, I didn't print anything. Um in the matter of the Planning Board of the Town of East Hampton,
044New York. Um in the matter of the application of JJA Main Street Office Site Plan, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-171-2-8, I have read this resolution for site plan approval and move for its adoption. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Good to go. All right, thank you, Jeremy. You're welcome. Good night. >> Uh Prospect Hill Final Subdivision. Yes, I think I am on it. Woohoo. Uh resolution to schedule a public hearing. Ava. It's me. Uh in the matter of the application of Prospect Hill Final Subdivision Modification, Suffolk County tax map 300-13-2-1.12. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton Wednesday, May 6th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Or as soon as thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the set application. I move to
045schedule this public hearing. Second. All in favor. Aye. The motion carried. All right, on the two following resolutions for Barad Clearing John would like to be recused on these because of business relationship with the with the applicant. I think given that these are going to There's no information being shared here. You don't need to leave the room. Now, you just won't vote on that. So in the matter of the application of Barad Clearing for Cattle Walk site plan, Suffolk County tax map 300-90-4-8.2, extension of time. I've read this resolution to extend the um the time during which a building permit will be obtained to the greater of 1 year or December 15th, 2026. Um So, I've read the resolution. Call for its adoption. Second. That's what I do. Yeah. All in favor. >> All in
046favor. Thank you. Yes. All right, very similarly, in the matter of the application of Barad Clearing eight Cattle Walk site plan, Suffolk County tax map 300-90-4-8.3, another extension of time. Um the same circumstances on this job to extend the board's resolution uh 1 year or to December 15th, 2026, the time during which to obtain a building permit. Do I have a second? All right. All in favor? Aye. All right. Motion carried. You're back, John. >> John's abstention. Yeah. Yeah. On the two. All right. And then we have a late entry to our schedule, a Gardiner's Marina site plan. Uh and Lou, that is you. There This is Are you aware of this Lou, the what the situation The situation is just the There was a typo. Do you want to explain this, Eric? >> Yeah,
047I was going to say I can explain. Um we added this to the agenda um late. Um the We were actually looking into the Gardiner's Marina application for an unrelated matter, but realized that the um one of the earlier resolutions uh referenced the wrong date in it. So, this is purely just a typo. It's not a modification application um from the applicants. It's just us correcting the the paperwork to to memorialize the correct um date in that resolution. Okay. In the matter of the application of Gardiner's Marina site plan, Suffolk County tax map number 300-93-1-8, I have uh read the resolution amending the approval, and I move for its adoption. I second. All in favor? Aye. Passed and carried unanimously. All right. Um The three boards of review um all on Bay View Avenue in
048East Hampton, um all being uh applied for by Larry Kane. The first is lots 58 Bay View Avenue, lots 123 to 129, including part of Hemlock Place, Block 5, file map 730, Section 1C, URP 8, I and East Hampton 16, and Suffolk County Tax Map 300-114-1-4. And this is for an undertaking road improvements that will be in the amount of $41,500. I have read this Board of Review and call for its adoption. Second. All in favor? Aye. Passed and carried. The second is at 60 Bayview Avenue, lots 130 to 136, including part of Hemlock Place and part of Bayview Avenue, Block 6, file map 730, Section 1C, URP 9, in AEH 16, and Suffolk County Tax Map 300-114-1.3. This is for an undertaking that will be in the amount of $41,500 and road improvements. I've
049read this and call for its adoption. Second. All in favor? Aye. Passed and carried. And finally, 62 Bayview Avenue in East Hampton, lots 137 to 142, including parts of Bayview Avenue and Pine Place, Block 6, file map 723 and 730, Section 1C, URP 10 and East Hampton 16, and Suffolk County Tax Map 300-114-1-1 and 2. This is for another undertaking in the amount of $41,500. I read this resolution to with Board of Review and call for its adoption. Second. All in favor? Aye. Passed and carried. It's all right. Who's got some comments on the minutes? Anyone? I thought they were lovely. Beautifully done. thank you, Katie. objective, so They're not objective. They're empirical. They're empirical. >> empirical, good. Good night, everyone. Um All right, is there a motion to approve the minutes? I'll make that
050motion. Okay, will someone second it? I'll second it. I will. >> Let's give it to the new guy. Here you go. All right. Uh all in favor of adopting the minutes? Okay, great. And finally, we need another one more motion. I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. Is that passed and carried? Absolutely. So, we're out. Okay. Okay, guys. Have a good night, board.