East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 03/25/2026

001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go forth. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome to the town of East Hampton's planning board regular and work session for March 25th, 2026. We have a couple of public hearings today. We have a work session and we have a regular meeting. Uh just to make a little announcement at the beginning. Uh I see a lot of folks here. The you may be here for some of the two of the actual public hearings which are the Maccgarvea barn and the JH Main Street. It is not a public hearing on the town code changes. Just so you know if you're here for that purpose. There'll be another public hearing for for those code changes down the line. So we'll jump into it. And our first

002uh public hearing is JHA Main Street office site plan. Uh Chris Decker is going to handle that for the planning department. Lou is going to handle that for the planning board. The applicant is here. I see. Uh was proper notice given. Okay. All right. So we start with a description by the planning department of the project. Uh, and then the applicant will be given an opportunity to speak and then the public. So, go ahead, Chris. Kick us off. >> I I think Lou goes first to read the public hearing. >> Oh. Oh, do you read the public hearing? Okay, go for it. I think. >> Thank you. I want to jump on the >> notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on March 25th,

0032026 at 6:30 p.m. for the application of JHA Main Street office site plan. The site location is 18,453 square feet.424 acres located at 261 Main Street, Amigans. Suffet County tax map number 300-171-2-8. A site plan application has been submitted to convert the George L. Baker House, an existing historic residence into an office use. The proposal involves relocating the historic residence closer to the street. The front yard setback would decrease from approximately 110 ft to 42.3 ft. Also proposed is to construct a,260 square foot basement for office areas and storage space, paving the existing driveway and adding 13 parking spaces to the rear of the building, including one accessible space. The existing sanitary system is proposed to be replaced by a low nitrogen sanitary system. Okay, thank you very much. Would you like to add to

004that description, Chris? >> I don't think there's much to add, but I can pull up the plans and show everything um if there's any questions. But >> Slooh mentioned it's a simple conversion of a historic residence to an office use, all the parkings to the rear, which is in keeping with the uh historic district guidelines and I'm against it. And um now is the time for public comment on it or if there's any questions from the board. >> Uh any questions about the project from anyone present at the meeting or online for Chris? Okay. Um so we will allow comments from the public. Obviously this is a public hearing. Um the comments are timed at 3 minutes. Could you give me my time on appreciate that? Um, so let's start with who would like to

005be heard on this matter of the McGar of the JHA Main Street is our first public hearing. >> Any comments? >> Okay. Is there anyone online who would like to comment about JHA Main Street? >> Uh, let's stand by. Just one moment. Make sure all the lines are are open and clear. One moment, please. >> Thank you. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Just making sure everything is good and everything is good. And you have zero callers on the line. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Matt. Um, so with that, I think we'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on JHA Main Street. >> Motion. >> I second it. >> All in favor of closing the public hearing. All right, passed and carried. So, we will move on to

006the Macarva Barn site plan special modification. And that is you, Jen. >> Uh, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on March 25th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. This hearing is in the matter of the application of the Macarva Barn site plan special permit modification. The size and location of the property is 222,615 square ft or 5.1 acres located at 181 Middle Highway, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-118-1-63. An application has been made seeking a modification to a previous site plan/sp special permit approval dated September 19th, 2007. The proposed modification would remove a fire, add a curb cut, remove the performance bond, allow for a longer turnout time for the ecquines, and allow fence line irrigation. The original application approved a barn with

007stick with six stalls, a grooming room, a tack room, a washroom, and a second story hoft. Additionally, four paddics, a jumping ring, and seven parking spaces were approved. >> Okay. Thank you, Jen. Chris, want to pull that up? >> Eric is handling this one. >> Ah, okay. That's right. >> I've got it. I think you need to um check the after after Thank you, >> Eric. Sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um, so I have the an a far aerial photograph up on the screen showing the location of the property. It's just to the east of Middle Highway, which is where the principal access to the property is located through a flag strip. Uh there's also access from the rear along Punting Road. Um although under the site plan that is reserved as only an emergency

008fire access if necessary. Um I will show a closer aerial view of the property. And then we also have the site plan um for the proposed modification. the public notice um noted everything. Um and I think the key points here are that this is a a past site plan approval with a modification um of that approval sought. Uh I would also add for the board that um you have received two written public comments already to the record. Um so just a heads up on that. >> Good. Thank you, Eric. Um, yes. So, there there have been some public comments received which we'll talk about in a moment. But in the meantime, is there anyone in the room who would like to comment on the project Tom Crouch Whan Filer PLC for the applicants? Um, yeah.

009So, just uh to continue what Eric was saying, this is a modification. There are four conditions of approval that we're seeking to either remove modify. Um I'll just go through them one at a time. The first is uh removal condition requiring the applicant to install a firewall. In the original approval, the planning board required an applicant to install a firewall located 50 ft from the entrance of the parcel. That would be off of middle highway, which is about 700 ft this way. Um, so and then the barn itself is obviously toward the back of the property. That'll be another 300 or so feet from where the firewall would be installed. Um, it's typically installed in the town right away and the fire department takes over uh maintenance and control of it. Um, however, there's now

010a fire hydrant installed on Hunting Road much closer to the barn, approximately 700 feet from the property line and another about 150 feet from the barn. Uh, once you're on the property, so the the firewall is down here on hunting. It's between 27 and 25 hunting on the this side of the road. So, that's about 700 ft to this point and then another about 150 to the bottom. Um, so it's much closer. Uh, you know, a key, this is a really positive development in terms of fire safety for the applicant and the surrounding properties. Um, per an email from Chief Fire Marshal David Brown, the FD feels much more confident with a hydrant supplied by unlimited public water rather than to rely on an electric well. So, it's not only a distance improvement, the quality

011is much better. The fire department feels much This is a much better situation as far as fire safety. Um, and then as far as the access, there's going to be a curb cut right here on Hunting, and it's just for fire safety purposes only. Will be labeled that way on the site plan. It is not a general access to the property. Um, so that's the first one. The second one is removal of condition requiring of a performance bond. Um, the planning board eliminated that requirement in 2011. So, the applicant just requests that the board, you know, agree to remove it for this application. Um the third condition is a removal of a condition requiring a typical 4-hour turnout. Um the original site plan requires the applicant to submit a pass through management plan which includes

012a quote 4hour typical turnout for the horses. Um there are at least three reasons why this condition should be removed. Uh first the condition is vague and not enforceable. You know, we believe the the condition allows for the horses to be out the barn for only four hours in a typical day, but that's not stated anywhere within the original site plan approval. Um, also, you know, what is a typical turnout? Uh, would that be the average turnout in a week or a month? It's not really clear. Um, there's no further detail in the original site plan approval. So, the applicant is left with an undefined obligation to limit the turnout of horses. Uh second, this condition unlawfully interferes with the applicant's business operations by imposing inconsistent hourly restrictions without support in the record. I put

013in a case uh case law that I provided the council. Case is Home Depot USA versus town board of the town of Hemstead 6383rd uh 938. Um and I attach it to this letter. Um, finally, even if the condition were well defined and easy to understand, it is unhealthy for the horses to have a restriction on turnout. Dr. Norah Kleps, DVM, provided a letter to the planning board stating, quote, "It is my opinion as a horse owner and small animal equin small animal veterinarian of over 30 years that ecoin should have unlimited turnout." End quote. So, among other reasons, the plane board should not continue to impose a condition on an improved horse approved horse farm that would harm the horses there. Um and then finally, we're just asking to modify the condition requiring underground

014irrigation to fence line irrigation. Um underground irrigation in the paddics would, you know, it would be problematic because the horses are going to step on the sprinkler heads. So fence line irrigation is an industry standard. We're just asking that you modify that. Um so I did review several the public the two public comments that were received. Um, you know, I think in my comments that I just made, I think I outlined most of the issues that were brought up, but um, there are several others that were kind of outside the scope of this hearing, but um, I believe there's some confusion where we are in the process with the neighbors. >> Yeah. And Thomas, we will, you know, we do, this is not normally an opportunity to kind of refute that stuff. It's really a

015matter of just us hearing from folks. So, you know, and we understand that many of the things you've already described are things that we have discussed and already, you know, agreed to, right? >> I mean, I've got the comments and I this is not my chance to speak on them. So, >> all right. But you just go wrap it up quickly. That would be great. >> Um, I think there's some confusion about where we are in the process because this this site plan hasn't been implemented yet. My clients can't get a building permit because they haven't met all the conditions for a building permit. Two of which are the firewall and the performance bond. So, you know, we're happy to, you know, move forward with construction and meet all, you know, implement all the different

016plans as far as landscaping and drainage and and build the barn and build the manure pit and all the other things that were mentioned in the comments. But where we are in the process is that we have to get clarity on these issues before we can go get a building permit. So, I just wanted to make sure that that was cleared up. Yeah. >> Okay. Anyway, that's all I have. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Thomas. I appreciate that. So, yeah. Um, as per the comments that have come in, some of which you've already seen and commented on just now, we're going to leave the record open for another week for you to formally respond to them. We kind of thought since some of them came in very recently, like today that uh you

017would perhaps want an opportunity to do that. So, we're going to we're going to we're going to do that. Uh but in the meantime, if there are other members of the public who want to speak uh on this particular application, please make yourself known and we'll give you three minutes to talk about it. >> Okay. >> All right. Going once. All right. Uh is there anyone online or on the telephone who would like to speak? Matt, >> you have zero calls on the line. Thank you. >> So, I make a motion to >> Can I just ask if you're going to leave it open for a week? Is it just a week for me to respond to written comments? Like, no. No other comments can be received from the public. >> No, it's for you

018to respond to the comments that have been received. >> That's okay. So, I was just going to say I make a motion to close the public. >> Excuse me one second. May I interrupt? We We now have a caller on the line. >> Okie dokie. Would you like to take this caller now? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Stand by. You >> would. >> And caller ending in 1732. You are live. >> Yeah. Hi. Um my name is Brad Carson. Um and you I believe you received my email today. >> One of the neighbors that comments today. >> Yes. Okay. Yes. If you can Well, what is your address, Brad? We for the record. >> It's it's 185 Middle Highway. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Yes. So, if you could uh keep your comments

019to three minutes, please go ahead. >> Well, what my question is, do I is it helpful at all for me to read my email into the record or is it already part of the record? I don't want to be repetitive or waste any time. >> It is part of the record and there will be a response. >> Okay. And what if I'm not, you know, what if I think the response is not complete? Is the response going to be from you guys or from the attorney that just spoke? We don't, you know, we do not debate at this at a public hearing like this. We hear from the public. We take in comments and we respond to them thoughtfully uh after the meeting. >> Okay. All right. So, I will hear from you guys regarding

020my my email. the application will be responded to in general. >> You may not receive okay >> specific responses to your specific >> comments or questions, but you will receive in the next iteration of this board hearing this application. The public comments that are received will have been responded to. >> Okay. and well um how well how I received notice as to when that's going to occur. >> Everything is posted on the town's website uh the Friday prior to any meetings. Um that includes the agenda for the upcoming for the meeting the following Wednesday along with any documents and planning department memos that are applicable to the application. >> Okay. All right. Well, thank you for clearing that up. Appreciate it. >> Thanks so much. >> Thank you, Mr. Parsons. >> All right. Byebye. >>

021All right. Do you want to >> close? >> So, yes. So, I um make a motion to close the public portion of this hearing and leave the record open for the applicant to respond to the public comments that have been received for another week until next Wednesday, whatever date that is. April 1st. >> April 1st. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Anyone second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Okay, passed and carried. >> All right. Thank you. >> Public portion closed. Thank you. >> All right. So, the first uh matter on our on our work session is the Steiner Oasis LLC subwaver. Again, that's Chris for the planning department um and Jen for the board. Uh, is the applica applicant present? Great. Okay, let's take it over. Go ahead, Chris. >> Thank you.

022Um, this is the Steiner Oasis subdivision waiver at 77 Lane's second review of this application. It was last reviewed last year, March 19th. And just showing the parcel here. The yellow shaded area is uh the village, clear area is the town. So the subject parcels in the B resident zoning district and it's also in groundwater management zone 5. Good job. >> Uh historically the parcel's only been subject to village zoning regulations and the existing improvements are all indicated on a 2008 certificate of occupancy from the village. Um, I'm just going to pull up the submitted map here with me. It's being a little slow right now. So, the application is to divide the existing 1.52 acre parcel along the town village border. Uh, lot one would be 40,642 ft entirely within the village. Lot two

023would be 22,978 ft entirely within the town. Uh both lot sizes conform with the minimal minimum lot area requirements of their jurisdictions and the town planning board is only reviewing town code compliance for lot two and the village is reviewing for lot one. Both municipalities will effectively approve the same map. During the last review of the town planning board agreed to allow the village planning board to act as lead agency for SRA. Therefore, the town will be an involved agency and cannot consider the application complete and ready for public hearing until the village issues a final approval. One update since our memo was posted is the applicant submitted written correspondence from the county health department that the county already considered these lots as separate buildable lots. Um therefore their approval should not be required but

024the town and village should continue to review uh for conformance with their respective jurisdictions. For example, we're reviewing to make sure there's a adequate common driveway and easement um to the town lot um although the village may recognize them as as separate at this time. So just going over the issues from the discussion last year. The first was to revise the proposed access easement as an access and utility easement. That has not been done yet. Um but the applicant can make that quick change to the notation um on the revised map. And the next was to revise the uh common driveway to provide adequate drainage and turnaround. Um revised common driveway plan was provided and the town consulting engineers signed on off on that. So we don't see any issue. um pending the revised easement

025location, there should be no outstanding issues for the engineer review. The fire marshall also signed off on this proposal. And then the other approval would be the Suffach County Planning Commission review since it's on the boundary of the town. Um the village will likely lead that referral process given they're the lead agency for SRA. And then uh regarding the title of the map, our memo states that the proposed map and driveway plan should be updated with the title Sky Oasis LLC. Um however, we just note that we'll first coordinate with the village and the applicant to ensure that both municipalities are approving the same map. We've yet to hear back from the village. Just just want to make sure um matter of record keeping that everything's consistent between the two. Um so the application was

026revised accordingly except for the limitations on the easement and the title. If the board agrees the planning department can coordinate with the applicant and village to confirm the appropriate title. And as mentioned uh it appears county health departments not necessary. So we'll remain coordinated with the village and n cannot hold a public hearing until the village does their uh final approval as lead agency. So if you have any questions. Okay. Any questions for Chris? Dan, do you want to be heard? >> Sure. >> Just name and address, please. For the record. >> Uh Dan Weaver, George Walbridge Surveyor PC. Chris, thank you for your memo. Uh I'll be quick on this. Uh we're perfectly willing to change the label for the access and utility easement. That's not a problem. Um we'll take care of that.

027Um, and the name, the title is no problem either as far as I'm concerned. So, we'll, as long as the village agrees, we'll change the title to Sonor Oasis LLC. Uh, we should be on the village agenda for their April 9th meeting. So, um, I'm hoping by that point Chris will get the comments he's waiting for back from the village. Um, and then we'll be able to move on. So, that's all I have. Anybody has questions? >> Any questions for Dan? >> Okay, here we go. This seems very straightforward and I think you know Dan just answered the two questions so I have nothing further to add. >> Anyone else have any comments, thoughts, questions? >> Okay. Yeah. Pretty clean, right? >> Yeah. >> Does planning board agree the proposed common driveway plan is acceptable?

028>> Yes. >> Okay. Unanimous all around. Does pling board agree the proposed access easement should be relabeled as an access and utility easement? >> Okay. around. Does the planning board agree that the map title should be revised to reflect the project title Steiner Oasis LLC to be consistent? >> Okay, unanimous all around. Great. Okay, we're good. Thank you, Dan. Thank you, Chris. >> All right, so our next matter is the Prospect Hill Final Subdivision. Sarah, that's you for the planning department and Ava for the board. All righty. Good evening board. Uh so the application was last reviewed by the planning board in October of 2025. Um application has been made to modify the covenant and restrictions of prospect subdivision lot 14 approved October 26, 1983. Mr. Mu. So, this was the original building envelope approved

029in 1983. Uh, the house was built in 1998. The building envelope was altered once in 2002. That's what this is for the pool and pool deck. And then this is what they're proposing now. Uh, the subject parcel zone A2 residence and is considered improved and partially cleared. The proposal would be to alter the building envelope a second time, specifically removing a portion of buildable space to the northwest and adding a portion to the southeast. As shown on the proposed survey, there's no net change in square footage of the building envelope. The existing building envelope is 9,753 square ft. The proposed reduction is 1,161 and the added area is the same. Uh the applicant is also proposing to remove the structures not on the certificate of occupancy including the shed, deck, stone patio, and mulch path.

030Uh the mulch path and stone patio are currently within the scenic eman. So issues for discussion. The planning board last reviewed this on October 22nd, 2025. Um I'll review some of the comments made by the planning board, the applicant's response, and planning department analysis. Uh the first comment was that the board has yet to determine if a change of circumstance is present and has requested that the applicant submit the change in circumstances in writing. Uh the applicant submitted one letter on November 26th and an addendum on March 5th outlining the property history and potential changes of circumstance. The November 2020 2025 letter notes that since the 1984 subdivision and the 2002 modification to the building envelope, the lot has been developed and the owners have faced limitations due to the envelope's placement and the site's

031topography. The applicant further argues that the 2002 amendment itself represents an additional change as it unnecessarily restricted uh construction on areas of lot 14 that neither contains steep slopes nor are visible from East Lake Drive or other distant points on L. They also claim that the new legislation has affected the property as it was originally zoned a residential and later reszoned to A2. The applicant suggests that the prior board might have located the envelope differently had the zoning been A2 at the time of the subdivision. Lastly, they site a personal change in circumstance expressing a desire to expand their home without forward development. The planning department, however, considers these changes partially self-imposed and therefore a weak basis for a legitimate legitimate change in circumstance. Um so thus the planning department what met with the applicant

032to discuss these uh potential changes of circumstance and following that meeting the applicants applied an additional letter in March of 2026 where they identify an additional change in circumstance related to property setbacks. So when the original subdivision was approved uh building envelopes were established to protect slopes and view sheds. At that time, the zoning code did not impose a fixed front yard setback. Instead, the pyramid law was applied which required the horizontal distance from lot lines to equal the vertical height of the structure. Numeric setbacks were not enforced and the envelopes were not designed with setbacks in mind. So, under the current zoning code, uh lots of this size must comply with a 40 foot front yard setback. The existing building envelope provides only a 35 foot setback from the front lot line making a

033portion of the envelope unusable under current standards. Um so this creates a dead space within the approved envelope and reduces the buildable area. Just to kind of give you all a visual hopefully you can see my current. Uh so in this red area a portion towards this top um would be unusable by the applicant without a variance that is. So, at the October meeting, um the planning board had several other comments, including that it supports the request of modification. Uh the board agreed that the applicant should confirm compliance with the original subdivision requirements on storm water management. Um the applicant stated that a drywall drywall was installed um by the previous owner as shown on the survey and noted on the 2010 certificate of occupancy. They further indicated that if in addition to the house

034is constructed um additional storm water mitigation may be required and they expect expressed willingness to accept a condition requiring such mitigation if necessary. Um and the board also agreed that it would require public hearing for this modification request. Um I'll just note the planning department thinks that this is a legitimate change in circumstance. Um as the original planning board could not have anticipated the later adoption of fixed setbacks at the time the intent of the envelope design was to mitigate environmental impacts not enforce setbacks. Uh the proposed adjustment to the building envelope does not increase its size or encroach on sensitive areas. Rather it relocates the envelope to comply with current zoning and setback requirements. Um the planning department views this as a reasonable change for the property and the board should determine if they

035agree. Great. >> Answer any questions? >> Good. Thank you, Sarah. Any questions for Sarah? >> I have a question. Sure. >> The applicant in his letter said that the front setback is 50 ft and you in the memo say it's 40 ft. Who's correct? >> Yeah, 40T is correct. >> Okay. >> That's something I double check. >> Okay. Okay. Is that it? Anyone else? Jameson, would you like to be heard? >> I'm okay. Okay. Unless you guys want me to >> I think we're good. Do you have any questions for Jameson? Bring her up. If not, >> I was just in my comments. If not. >> Okay. All right. >> Um Jameson, thank you for both of the detailed uh you know, comments and explanations. I actually did find the history fairly interesting myself. Um

036and I do feel that after the March, what was it? The Yeah, the March 5th response uh certainly qualifies for a change in circumstance. um if if new construction was put on this parcel, it would be completely non-conforming. So I I think the change in circumstances has been qualified. Um I do feel that with regards to the um what was it the storm the storm water management I think that should be a condition if there is if there is um you know additional occupancy uh and that needs to be reviewed that would be a condition of that and a public hearing obviously should be required but I think we're good. Okay. Anyone else have any comments on Prospect Hill? >> I I agree with I think we should specifically indicate that the change of circumstances,

037the setback issue and not any of the personal uh changes that the applicant had suggested. >> That's a good point. >> Good point. >> That is a good point. Okay. Anyone anyone else have any comments? >> So clarify if you would, Ava, your your thoughts about the storm water issue and what we might need to do to go to go forward. >> Well, because it mentioned if if an addition to the house is constructed. So at this point there's correct me if I'm wrong, there's no real plans in place, Jameson, for an addition. This is just to amend the building the envelope. Correct. >> Yep. >> Name and address, please, for the record. Jameson Williams from the Adam Miller Group. Um yes, that's correct. Um this was >> this was the first step in hoping

038to establish um the space necessary to be able to construct a uh a small addition on the side that made sense for like the layout of the house. But as far as I know, nothing has actually been planned. But my thought in response to that comment um and why I included that was that if they were to increase I guess you know like the roofed areas so much so that there's the calculation that calculates how much runoff you need to catch and all that then of course we would you know comply with any of those additional requirements >> right >> but that as far as um the existing storm water that does you know that we had plotted on the survey that that is sufficient for the existing structure. >> So as plans come through

039for an application comes through for some addition, we can deal with that issue. >> Compment anyway. >> It's a code requirement. >> Yeah, I would guess >> I think the building department does also look at that, but if the board wanted to just feel more comfortable like we'll agree to, you know, some additional language, whatever you guys think is appropriate. >> Okay. How do we feel about that? Do we wait for the next application or do we want to make comment about the storm water scenario? Now >> I I feel like it's already codified >> and so the building department will catch it when plans are submitted. >> Sure how we all felt. >> That's how I feel. I don't know. Yeah, >> I this application was just for the building. No, it was it's

040a good catch because it's an important situation in this very steep, you know, >> topography. So, >> and thanks for being willing to do it, Jameson. Thank you. So, will then if there's no other questions or comments, anything for Jameson, we'll go to the questions, which are does the planning board feel that a change of circumstance is present and that that change of circumstance is the change to fixed setbacks? >> Yes. >> Okay. We'll identify that specifically. >> I think that's a great idea. Does the planning board support the requested building envelope modification application? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Does the planning board find that the proposal complete and ready for public hearing? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Good to go. Thank you, Jameson. Good to see you. >> Okay. Our next matter is the

041Surf Lodge uh stage. The applicant is here. I see. Um, and Sarah, is this you again? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. And Lou, this is you. So, an application has been made to construct a new stage on an existing deck. Uh, the existing stage is to be removed and the new 262 square foot stage will be constructed in the same general area with a slightly different footprint. A plexiglass uh acoustic barrier and sound absorbing materials are proposed as part of the plan. The subject parcel is zoned B residence and contains two legally pre-existing non-conforming commercial uses in the form of a restaurant and motel. It is situated along Edgeir Road in Monttok and is adjacent to Fort Pond, a New York State significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Um I incorrectly stated Lake Monttok in

042my memo. uh Fort Pond is the correct location. Uh the northwestern section of the property contains a bulkhead while the southwestern portion is separated by a steep embankment. The entirety of the property is situated within the Harbor Protection Overlay District or Hod. Um, it should also be noted that the property was the subject of a stipulation of settlement between the owners and the town of East Hampton in June of 2016, which required a number of specific conditions and improvements, some of which are still applicable. It should also be noted that the proposed parking on the current survey was part of uh a previous site plan. No additional new parking is proposed as part of this application. Um, so this is the parking that is not part of this application that was already approved as part

043of the previous site plan. And just to run through the plans um and renderings with the board quickly. Um, so this red line is the existing stage and what is in black is what is proposed. Um, so now this is the existing stage and then this is what is proposed. Um, so it's actually altering a little bit in configuration and facing away to from the water now. Um, a little bit more. Um, >> can you just point out on >> Yeah, those renderings where the current one is on the those renderings here. >> Yeah. So, it's in the same general location and I think this image is helpful. So, the red line is where it is now. >> Gotcha. All right. >> And then the black is what is proposed. >> Okay. So, it's going

044to be facing more east than it was. >> Yes. >> Where Sarah, I'm sorry. Is the um acoustic barrier is it basically the the band shell behind the stage? >> Uh yes. >> So, there's nothing in front of it, just behind. So this project is a type two action pursuant to seeker in chapter 128 of the town code and thus is not subject to additional review at this time. Um as mentioned this lot is considered pre-existing and non-conforming and no additional clearing or coverage is proposed. The proposed location of the new stage will require two variances and a natural resources special permit from the zoning board of appeals. One variance of 97 feet is required um in order to construct a new stage three feet from wetlands where a 100 foot setback is required. One

045variance of 47 ft is required to construct the stage 3 ft away from the western front yard lot where a 50ft setback is required. I wanted to review a few parts of the stipulation of settlement um the ones that are applicant or applicable to this application. Um most of them are pertaining to zon and noise music permit laws and other laws and regulations. Um in summary the provisions of the settlement are related to the queueing of patrons and the music permit for the property. Um so the music permit is subject to special conditions um which are outlined in the stipulation. Uh to highlight some uh total occupancy on the premises is limited to 395 people. Uh, no more than 50 additional people may be on the premises or queuing. Uh, no outdoor music is permitted

046after 8:00 PM. Live music is only permitted between May 15th and September 15th and is only permitted 5 days per week and on Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day. Live music is limited to two hours per day and under no circumstances may may be performed after 8:00 p.m. Live music is prohibited at all other dates and times unless an assembly permit is approved. And within 30 days of the stipulation back in 2016, the defendants were to implement all components of the 2010 sound mitigation plan or an equivalent plan as approved by the office of the town attorney. Um, in terms of lighting, the applicant uh should clarify if any additional lighting is proposed for the stage or outdoor area, and if so, they should submit a plan and comply with the town code.

047Um, on to the noise and engineering review. A sound evaluation of the existing stage was conducted in 2019 by Sound Sense which found that with um appropriate mitigation um that the new stage orientation is expected to result in sound levels from the stage that are equal to or lower than current sound levels. Um the planning department had a civil engineer and acoustic engineer review um which was completed to assess potential noise impacts of the proposed change. The town engineer noted in their memo that from a civil engineering perspective, no objection was taken to the proposed site plan application. Um the additional technical sound review was completed by AKRF and they had specific comments, some of which are as follows. Uh the first is that the measured sound levels from the existing stage orientation used to

048validate the exterior noise propagation model appear to have been measured offaxis um from the sound system. As loudspeakers can be highly directional at mid and high frequencies, this modeling approach would tend to un underestimate environmental noise levels for onaxis receivers when modeling directional noise sources as point sources. Secondly, in addition to the aweed levels provided, um the applicant should also provide source sound levels and predicted future results um at each receiver on an octave band basis for review. Third, the applicant should comment on the manufacturer or model of and height above grade for the stage loudspeakers. Fourth, the applicant should add um a discussion of whether acoustic instruments or instruments amplified by means other than the house sound system are expected. Uh fifth, the applicant should confirm whether Surf Lodge has obtained a music entertainment

049permit with the town to be stamped in and confirm anticipated hours of outdoor music. And six, the limiter setting procedure appears to be incomplete. The procedure should be amended to include verification that increased output signal from the soundboard does not result in increased sound levels at verification locations. The planning department notes that the data used in the model modeling is outdated and almost seven years old. Uh per the information provided, the data was collected July 14th, 2019 uh during a performance on a Sunday. The planning department recommends that a new sound study be collected and that the AKRF comments be taken into account in this new study. Um the planning department notes that without a new data without the new data and revised study the potential for noise impacts from the proposed change cannot be

050adequately understood and evaluated. The board should determine if it agrees. Um onto fire prevention. No further review is required uh per the fire marshall. um onto necessary elements of site plans. Um the following items are not part of the current site plan. Uh the board should determine if they would like to weigh these requirements. Um the first are dimensions between each structure not currently um are not currently shown on the survey, but the planning department does not feel this information is necessary. The board should determine if it agrees. Uh secondly, lighting and landscaping plans have not been provided. Um, should the applicant not be proposing any additional landscaping or lighting at this time? And provided the board does not require any additional lighting or landscaping, uh, the planning department recommends waving this requirement. Uh, but

051the board should determine it if it agrees. And third, techniques by which natural features may be preserved on site have not yet been submitted. However, it is anticipated that this will be discussed uh, further with the zoning board of appeals. So, in conclusion, the planning department notes that this application is incomplete at this time and advises the applicant to submit revised and additional plans um as well as as a response letter. Um the planning department recommends that a new sound study be conducted in order to evaluate impacts uh based upon more recent data and address the technical comments regarding how the sound levels associated with the new stage are calculated. Um, one last note is that when the planning department conducted a site visit, it appeared that some of the structures were not uh currently

052approved or on the survey, um, just as a reminder, the applicant um should note all the structures on the property um or um it should be applied for at this time or removed. >> That's all. >> Can you enumerate what those are? >> Yeah, so they were um it appeared there were day heads in this sand area over here to the west. They were what? >> They were like day beds >> with a cover over them. A permanent structure. >> Yeah. I don't think I have a picture of them for tonight, but um yeah, they were they appear to be permanent structures. >> Okay. Okay. Thanks, Sarah. Any other questions for Sarah before we ask the applicant to speak? Yeah, Sarah, just to confirm, the applicant does not have a music entertainment permit. >> Um,

053I'll let the applicant speak to that. I didn't see one in the property record, but I could have missed it. >> All right. And is there anywhere in the town code a decel level uh limit? >> Um, Eric, do you know of one? I don't. Yeah, >> I couldn't. >> There are noise standards in the town code. Um, however, you know, those apply to sound that's generated and measured at either a residential or commercial property line. Um, with a music entertainment permit, usually there's some agreement, you know, understanding that they're going to exceed that for a certain amount of time. So, yes, there are codified noise restrictions. They're chapter 185, I believe. Um but I think a lot of the um you know when they're using the sound stage will sort of be outside of

054the you know the realm of that. >> So it doesn't apply basically. Um I mean it it does um the noise standards apply to every property but I think at least in the context of you know evaluating the sound output from when they have amplified music you know using the sound stage um you know it's it's not applicable in in that context. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Please identify yourself for the record. >> Good evening chairman members of the board. David Kurst from Matthews Kurst and Shoron 241 Panville Road East Hampton for the applicant. Um first just to address the music permit. Um that records kept by the town clerk. It's permit number 60. It was issued renewed this year issued picked up. It's on premises at the property. So there is a valid music

055permit. Apparently that gets renewed every year of submitting a simple verification form. Um to address the question regarding the decibel levels, um there those there definitely are requirements for that in the town code. Um, I'm sure code enforcement will uh be will take measurements at the property line if there's any complaints and issue violations like they do with every other um restaurant, bar, whatnot that has any sort of music. So, um that's a code enforcement issue will be complying with. So >> um the question regarding the extent of the acoustic barrier um can we see do you have the plans? >> Sure. Which ones? I have these ones. >> Yep. If you see on the plans there, this area here >> is actually a plexiglass panel that's along that side of the deck. So, there

056is an acoustic barrier beyond just the shell um that does extend out along the the one side of the deck in the area that the current stage is in. >> Uh I see maybe >> so facing it to the right >> kind of if you're facing the new stage >> to the north. >> If you're facing away from If you're facing away from the water, it's going to be on the left hand side. if you're facing the stage itself. All right, cool. >> Yes. Do you have um Can you A100? >> It's along right here. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Is that a fence to that side there? Right where your cursor is, Sarah. Is that a It's >> the deck railing and there's stairs down from the deck. So there would be no sound

057mitigation on the other side of the band right there >> where stairs are. >> No, the the shell >> closes off on No, extends on that side. >> Okay. >> But not on the front side on the front side of the property. Like you >> No, I mean that goes right into the building. >> Well, is that the building or the deck? >> So the building that's the deck. >> That's building. >> This is the deck. This is the building. Gotcha. Okay. Um, there is no proposed landscaping or lighting, which is why no landscaping or lighting plans have been submitted. There's no change to parking. There's no change to occupancy. Uh, there's no changes to any of uh those items, which is why there's nothing submitted in that regard. takes care of everything that I

058have the technical ability to address. >> Okay. Um so with me today is Bonnie Schnida from Sound Sense um to address the comments from AKRF regarding the sound study um which we feel um you know once you hear from her I think hopefully you'll agree with us that it does not need any sort of updated meeting. No we >> to the building department >> or the planning department one for everyone. Thank you. >> Yes, you can give them to to Sarah >> tomorrow. >> Yeah, I'll drop them all tomorrow. >> Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Name and address, please, for the record. >> My name is Bonnie Schnida. I am a founder and CEO of a company called Sound Sense, which is an acoustic engineering company, and we have a

059history here in East Hampton. So I moved here in the 80s and my background is I have a bachelor's in math, masters in mechanical engineering and my PhD work with signal processing which means I'm educated to mathematically model signal and noise. And when I came here I was doing classified work for DARPA. I hadn't started had started my family had my children here and then that was when I realized I couldn't be like locked in doing classified work for DARPA and be a good mom. So I started a company and it was called South Fork Technological Consultants and all I did was consulting and every once in a while someone would say this isn't working quite like you said it was going to and I go it's not an art it's a science. I went

060in the field and I realized that some of the time the material was swapped out because something looked just like it um or it wasn't installed properly. So now 20 plus patents later um in the year 2000 I did a reset. My company is called SoundSense and basically we give a solution set. We mathematically model it. I can't tell you what I did at DARPA but I can tell you that it had to do with farfield as well as just the analysis of how sound travels through an object. Uh farfield means long distance like the analysis that was performed refer and um we basically did a solution set. It includes sound sense materials or equivalent. We that requires them to submit to us for what the equivalent is if they want to. Um and then

061we also have installation crews to give a level of a guarantee and we do testing. So I thought I would give an example of some of the materials. Um there's a many variations to this but these are some of the materials. Oh I can't give this to you. >> No. >> Okay. So basically um there's barriers and absorbers. Absorbers are such that it reduces the amount of sound that's reflected off of it. Um, and what I'd like to do is with that background, in case you didn't know me, you now know that my education and my training is mathematically model sound and noise. Um, and now I want to address the issues of AKRF. So, in the memo that you will be receiving, um, I did it in order of a respon their comments and

062my responses to them. So the first thing is that AKRF basically said that uh there was a problem because we were offaxis or on axis and it was not necessarily looking at how the sound was traveling from the speakers and I don't know if they came out here but it is a very complicated nature because you have sound that is bouncing off of buildings. you have sound that is like the the speakers bake are not shooting sound out they're shooting angled into the sand for one you know an aspect of it doesn't go as far but also is has a variation and a slight beautiful um dispersion um and then also there is that whole dynamic of because of the nature of these speakers and trying to contain it within the area you can have

063problems with what's called superp position and in the article I referenced there's some great all you do is Google superp position and it'll show you how waves can if you have a phase coming like this and it strikes a wall it's coming up like this if it comes back down that becomes additive so now in some areas it could be very loud or if it goes opposite phase um and here I'm trying to do a sound wave if it goes opposite phase that's the equivalent of like active noise cancellation so it literally There are areas where you will not hear sound as well or all of a sudden it is amplified. So the whole analysis had to do with taking we took many readings. They were both on and offaxis so that we could determine

064where there was superp position. It's actually a wonderful game to uh try to outsmart these waves. And then also there is the land across the street and its foliage and its elevation is such that it interacts with the waves. So all of this was taken into account and I do have to apologize on the report that we gave we talked a lot about um earlier analysis earlier years where we took readings in that analysis and that was used for when we did the most recent analysis which was in 2025 and the reason why was in April of 2025 it was we were hired to look at this realizing that there's no way that we could you know we have to get the latest readings. We were told speakers don't change just the stage is shifting.

065But in order to like document exactly what was going on with those speakers, we wanted it to be during the summer. And so we decided that on July 5th we were going to go there. That was a great time. Very popular time. It was packed. Trying to get readings while we were jammed into a tiny space while everyone was having a great time was difficult. and yet we succeeded in doing it. Um there were we had two engineers and I had an assistant with me and we took all those readings. So going back to my my response to AKRF, we did take both on and off axis and I tried to go into some details um as to why we did that because of the complicated nature relative to the superp position having to do

066with reflection off of water, the buildings, the dynamic of the foliage in the sand itself. um just and then uh also they had asked for um octave band data which we're happy to give but we took so much data I did provide an example of looking at it as when you do the analysis there's sound power levels and you have to basically there's certain types of readings that you do at a distance and certain types of readings that are independent of distance and we looked F max L max meaning the maximum level. So we provided all that information but only as like a starting point. We talk a lot of times to AKRF is a very good company. I'm happy to talk to their engineer and to find out exactly what data that they would

067like and we could provide that. But I submitted um an example so that you could show them you know we have all this data and it all does come from 2025 with the realization that if the speakers aren't going to change it's only the stage that's going to change and we want to take you know perspective on what is going on with the dynamics of any type of the foliage etc. We wanted to make certain we did it. Um there's a mention about noise code. Um outdoor noise is limited, you know, is basically per the agreement. Um is limited uh to can go up to 8:00 p.m. which means it's daytime code. So in our report we talk about what how we would do the analysis relative to uh once everything is set up where

068the readings would have to be taken which would indicate that in um it would meet code the daytime code. So that was taken into account when we did the analysis. Um and then um there and so the second thing had to do with uh requiring recent data, tons of it. Um and that was done in our analysis uh that we provided and supportive as to the final solution set for what we needed to do. It was not easy but it is doable and sound plan is a well-known documented uh mathematical simulation program. Um I have my own but it is very old and my engineers wouldn't know how to use it because it's written in forray and so we use the sound plan. >> Can I interrupt you? >> Uhhuh. >> Uh we are not

069sound engineers. You know you are we're not mathematicians. You are um I with all due respect to your uh expertise in this arena. We're we have an an engineering firm who does have expertise in this and we I think we need to discuss how we want to kind of hook you up with them. to make sure that everything that we need, which is that the neighbors around this be happy and know that we did our best to mitigate the sound problem, which is the key problem next to parking, which we're not discussing tonight. >> Uh is really the thing that that that is on the minds of the people who live in the neighborhood, right? So I think you know if no one else has another idea that we should perhaps bring the discussion to

070to the board and leave you there if you don't mind for questions. >> Oh okay good. And so basically everything that they brought up is in the memo. I made sure I itemized it in accordance to what they said and the kind of the concluding factor is that yes I should talk to them and find out what other information they would want so that they could give you an answer independent of us. So, I think what we're going to decide is how we want that to happen. Is that just a discussion with them to see if you can >> answer their questions or do we want a new a new study? I didn't realize there was one from 2025. >> That was extensive. >> I just wanted to clarify in the cover letter from SoundSense

071it says that the data was collected in 2019. So, is that a typo? >> The the data that was used for 2019 was to basically calibrate the system. Mhm. >> So the sound plan analysis that was done was calibrated with the 2019 data so that we could get it ready for July so that we could quickly turn it around. Um it's not easy. It's not like you could basically say oh here are the speakers and whatever. You have to basically because it is such a complicated nature with all the um reflections and diffusions and superp position basically you go and you put it in there and then you use the data points and you say okay I'm going to turn on the speakers is am I getting the right answer >> so I have a

072question related to the 2019 versus 2025 since the orientation of the stage is changing how can the data points used from the way the stage was in 2019 be applicable to what's happening in 2026. >> Right? So basically we set up the sound plan, calibrated it with the 2019 data. Then when we got the readings that we took July 5th of 2025, we then put that information in and we rotated the stage. So the program is smart enough that it'll say, "Oh, okay. The speakers are here and the stage is rotated this way. The speakers are in the same location except for some of the ones by the stage and three of them are actually being eliminated because of the way that the direction is changed. And we did all that in the program >>

073and that's all explained in this new memo that that you've just dropped or that you'll drop off tomorrow. >> Best I could without getting too wordy. >> Okay. Thank you very much. We're going to bring the conversation to the board and Lou is going to lead the discussion. >> Okay. >> Yeah, you're right. And I we're not sound engineers. I don't have a PhD in anything. But I did, you know, I did take some of the points that AK AKRF made and I I understood what they're saying. It's a simple concept especially on the onaxis offaxis read. >> Correct. So the way I understand it is if you look at a cone effect, the on axis is the direct line down the middle. >> Yes. >> Where the offaxis are on the sides of the

074cones. >> So what they're saying is that we weren't getting direct onxis readings. All the readings were offaxis. So the receivers who are the where the spot where the noise ends up where it goes to are not really you're not really getting an idea what these receivers are hearing or the level of sound that they're hearing. So that was one concept that I understood very clearly and simply. The other one that you mentioned is this octave band data. So that measures the at all different layers the where the sound how the sound is travel >> frequencies. Yes. >> And they they felt that that was something that was necessary in and wasn't provided in that 2019 sound s study. The other the other item is that the study didn't address the acoustic instruments and amplifiers

075that are not routed through the house system. So you got you got the speakers that you're measuring with, you know, with all those prior items that I mentioned, offaxis, on axis, and the broadband uh sound. But then you also have you might have uh a drum set that's not playing through the system or some other instruments that are acoustic that are not going to the speakers. They need to be measured. The sound from those instruments need to be measured. So we need that data. And the last thing I had which you addressed which we don't need is um whether the music entertainment permit is in place and I guess it is. Uh so the other question I had was I with regard to this stipulation and this is out of your area not out of

076your purview but if we decide as a board to make certain conditions for for our approval of this stage and it differs from some of the stipulations that the agreement that the board has made with the applicant. Do they need to have a formal amendment to the stipulation or is that something that we can do on our own and it acts as a condition that they need to follow? >> It's a town board issue. >> So the town board would have to amend the stipulation if we decide. >> Yeah. I don't think that's going to happen. >> Yeah. >> Yes. To be clear, we were we did do readings on access as well as off. So I and I can clarify it with them because there are certain spots that they probably don't realize it

077was direct line of sight to the speaker if you could look through the trees or whatever. >> Okay. Well, you can explain that to >> Yeah. to them. >> I think you could play a sound engineer on TV actually. >> Exactly. >> But I do want to I want to give you an example. Um I know um uh Paul Monty when he was at um Gern's there was this it was called day and night and they would come out on on a Saturday or something and it was just blow the sound out and everyone go wild and crazy and and Paul's like going how do we handle this and I said okay I'll do the analysis I'll tell you what the treatment is but you're going to also have to do a limit put a

078limiter on it because there is no way that we're going to be able to stop the sound for the nearest neighbor and Paul was very adamant about he did not want to violate any code. So that's exactly what happened and um told them what needed to happen in terms of the installation materials install all that done and then right before each time so they couldn't fiddle with it because it's different because this is the way surf lodge is actually um a DSP and so it's solidified within the software there it was this guide you know switching lower and higher or whatever it was so amplifier lower it or whatever but Right before every event, I would go there and I would look at the data in terms of the octave bands. Actually, I look at

079the one-/ird octave bands and identify which ones needed to be lowered. I went there and I basically told him how many dB each one had to be lowered. Went back to the nearest neighbor boundary line. Yes, indeed, it meted or whatever. And then I showed Paul how he needed to keep track of that so that after I left, they didn't try to tweak it up a little bit. I said, "Look, if this number comes up above this, then this is what you need to do." And I showed him an app and how he controlled it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. One last one last point. >> Okay. Don't bring up octaves again. >> Don't bring up octaves again. Go. The the other thing that AKRF mentioned is the the sound propagation might be underestimated with the

080sound going across the water as opposed with the sound going over land because the land absorbs the sound. The water doesn't. So that's another item that they brought up which I think is important because there are residents across the water as well. >> Yeah, we took readings all over the place. I don't think we >> and for the board I just want to mention that this requires a special permit and one of one of the standards of the special permit is the noise hazard that we are satisfied with that there isn't a hazard with the noise level. So that's one of the things that we'll be looking for when we get >> it does apparently special permit special permit different. >> And lastly, I I'm okay with wave waving the lightning lightning plant. However, what

081happens if with with the stage and I've seen it myself. I've been there. Sometimes what they do is they put lighting on this is in your area but they put lighting on the stage for you know special lighting for certain concert certain artists. How do we handle that since there is no lighting plan and they decide to put lighting uh on an ad hoc basis? >> Maybe the the musicians decide to do it themselves. Right. So, how do we handle that if there's no lighting plan or should there be a lighting plan with that kind of thing being considered? >> Eric, is that part of like a special permit for, you know, an event, for example, if >> I was going to say to get uh special permission to add, you know, temporary lighting for

082for such an event. Um, it would be non-compliant lighting. So, if any lighting is proposed, it should be included in this site plan application. Um that's you know permanent lighting >> but since there are such restrictions you know as per the stipulation the music is only up until 8:00 p.m. and it is summer months. So I >> it's light in laid out. >> That's a good point. Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. But Eric makes a good point though. If there's if there's any anticipation that there would be something we should know that now. And this is a technical question also, but not too technical, I hope. Um, do the musical acts at the Surf Lodge bring their own sound equipment or is it sound equipment that is at Surf Lodge permanently? >> It basically goes right

083into the sound system, the um house sound system. So it's all fed that into that system through those speakers and it's all with the limiter that is set and that's permanent. >> So they don't bring amps or things that that are extra and external to the sound system. >> No, but they might bring drums. And this is something that I worked out, you know, Ben Kinsky when he was alive at East Hampton Point, he wanted to have this band playing every once in a while for like weddings. And so I did I basically said, "Okay, if that's the case, they can't go there. They have to go here. And this is what you put behind them or kind of around whatever it is." And that solved the problem of the neighbors complaining. >> Yeah. Okay.

084>> Okay. >> All right. >> The speakers are all fixed. They're not adjustable. >> They will be slightly adjusted. Say, for example, they're moving the stage. So you can't have the one speaker that's going this way when you really wanted to like shoot it into the corner of the building as opposed to straight out, which is what this will allow. >> Right, >> John? >> Yeah. I just wanted to point out that uh a picture of the existing stage shows permanent lighting in the back. Permanently attached lighting. >> Okay. To the to the shell. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So there's lighting there now. >> All right. So we will need some comments on on that, you know, and and as well as what things that might come up periodically for special events. We

085want some feeling about that. Okay. If I may, um, stay close. Okay. Any sort of special event requires a special event permit that's issued separately. Mhm. >> Um I mean we really can't predict the future on what type of event it's going to be or what type of equipment those people will want to use, but we'd have to obtain a separate permit for that. >> Right. >> That's not really this purview. >> But I think what Eric, if you can just clarify the point you were making earlier, which is that some knowledge of, you know, what might happen within what's compliant? How do we how do we sort of frame that out in a way that's useful for people to plan events, right, so that they're not doing something that won't be compliant? Eric, do

086you mind? >> Yeah. I don't know that the burden falls on the planning board to necessarily um anticipate. >> No, it's on the applicant. It's on the applicant code. >> Yeah. Um but I'm saying just to ensure through this application um that that's the case. If they're proposing no um exterior lighting, then um the only lighting beyond um you know, anything that else that's existing on site that would be permitted is anything that was permitted in association with a a special approval from the town board and a special event permit. Um you know, if they if they're applying for a special event and want to have lighting associated with it, the the special events committee would review that proposal. um you know, they don't need an approval from the planning board for that lighting. Um

087as long as they get, you know, the special approval through a spe a special event permit. >> Okay. And that would include lighting. That would include lighting. They would be >> Yeah. It's not We're not talking about permanent lighting. you know, if they're proposing to a fixed lighting to the top of the stage that is going to be available for, you know, at all times, irrespective of a special event, um, then absolutely, just like any other, you know, um, exterior lighting, um, in any other application, they would need to get approval from the planning board for it. But if it is something that's temporary and associated with an event that they have a permit for and they've made, you know, that um you know, made it known to the town board and to the special

088um uh events permit committee that they're going to be doing that, then they would be allowed to do it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. I thought you had said something slightly different, but that's that's good. That's fine. >> Um Okay. Thanks. I want to go back and just wrap up the sound question for a moment. We've learned a lot tonight, but you know the people that really need to feel comfortable with this are number one our consultants and then the you know we need to be able to interpret this at the layman level to to everyone else who's concerned about this right so I think what we need to think about is how do we proceed do we you know the question here is written is do we want to have a new more

089current >> uh of analysis sound study done or do we need to have a discussion with AKRF? >> Can I make Can I make a suggestion in light of the applicant um bringing a written response that they'll submit into the record tomorrow? Um I I think maybe the most appropriate thing to do is for that to be referred to our consultants to see if it answered, you know, any or all of their their concerns, have them review that, and then follow up with a report to the planning board. that well that's where I was going with that comment. >> Do we all agree that that is that that's the right thing to do at this point rather than go straight to do it again. >> Yeah, especially since the data was taken last July as

090opposed to 2019. >> All right. extensive data and um I didn't it's spec the procedure that normally we go through it doesn't matter which side we're on on this is that it is specified the uh data that they would like and then we provide that they would like basically say how the format and then we just provide that because it is extensive and I can actually explain to them which of the readings were on access and which were off and which ones kind of showed superp position. And please tell them not to be insulted that I talked about how what the definition of superposition is. It's not for them. They know what it is. It was basically to help you guys understand better what it is. And I just think it's really neat the whole

091concept. >> Well, and I'm sure they do too. >> So, thank you very much. You know, it's it's an important very important issue as you've heard from all of us that we get this right. Okay. >> So, thank you very much for your input. We really appreciate it. >> David, did you have any other comments that you wanted to make? Um, you were heading up to the podium earlier. >> Just uh one comment which I'm sure you'll consult with your council over is um you know there there are terms of that stipulation of settlement. I believe what we're proposing here doesn't require that to be redone. um you know that those things were implemented and here we are asking for a change to the proper procedures for a structure through the site uh site plan

092process. Um so I that's my legal opinion. I'm sure your council will advise uh you know how how they feel as well. Um and just to be clear we are this is just a site plan application. The special permit for this use is existing. We're not reapplying for a special permit here. So, just I wanted just to clarify that. Thank you. >> Right. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks everyone. We we'll ask our questions and then wrap this up. >> Um does the planning board this the question is now going to be modified. Does the planning board require a new sound study to be submitted using more recent data? And that addresses the AKRF comments. Let's change that to does the planning board agree that uh a discussion between AKRF and sound sense

093uh should that be made to happen as a next step? >> Yes. >> All agreed? Yes. >> Okay. >> Uh does the planning board agree that the requirement to show dimensions between each building structure and use can be waved on the survey? >> Yes. Yes. I think that's fair. everyone. Ava, guess. Yeah. >> All around. John, read first. Okay. >> Uh, does the planning board agree that a comprehensive lighting and landscaping plan can plans can be waved? I think we've decided that's probably yes, there will be none. And we've discussed the issue of lighting on the stage. Um, so we're good on that. Um so yeah the final question is if plenty board does not wish the applicant to conduct a new sound study and wave other requirements does the board believe the application is

094complete it it is not complete um because we need to have this discussion about the the sound with our new study in li of a new study. May I make one other suggestion >> please? >> Question. Um I know on the current survey there's the proposed parking from the last site plan approval. We is it possible to require clean survey site plan with like changing the designation of all of that to um as built parking or whatever the term is so that we're not confused as to what's being proposed and that so that when people when the next planning board goes back to look at this they're not confused as to what this >> I mean it's all just a shell I mean there's no lines there's no dividers between those parking spaces That's kind

095of just shown for to show the number based on size. >> Can you remove the word proposed so that it doesn't look like it's part of this this application? >> Not a problem. >> Sorry. >> No, no, that's good. No. So, while while we're on that subject of things that may be there or not there that are on this the survey, uh Sarah, do we want to have the day beds noted as structures? Are they structures? Are they to be noted on this on a new survey? Oh yeah. I believe the um the day bed structures should be shown on the survey and applied for at this time. >> Right. It's my understanding that they're not permanent. I will check on that, but that's my understanding. Um and I don't believe at this point that

096they're being proposed to remain. So I'll I'll speak with our client and see if we're a roof over them. They they are considered to be structures. So >> I understand that. But that's something that could be clarified through Sarah and the planning department. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. So that's the final thing. Thank you very much. We really appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All right. So we have two two things to discuss as a board and to provide comments to the town board tonight. uh one is the affordable housing unit definition a code change around that uh the rentrestricted employer sponsored housing code change is the second one I know that there are two people in the audience who are very attached to these code changes um and just

097to say this is not a public hearing for the planning board regarding these code changes. This is our conversation. there will be there will be a uh town board public hearing around these code changes if they decide to move forward. So, just to say that we're we're not taking public comment at this point. >> Um so, Eric, I think you're going to walk us through these first and then we'll discuss. >> Yeah. So, um as you said, you know, both of these are proposed changes to the town code, to the zoning chapter. Um the first pertains to the definition of an affordable housing unit. So, what I'm going to do is put up on the screen um that code section with um you'll see clearly highlighted the proposed changes. And I know I'm zoomed out

098a little bit here. I'll zoom in in a second. But basically, right now, the definition of an affordable housing unit, um in order to be one, a housing unit, um it's, you know, you can see the code here. It says an apartment or residence and it gives um subsection one is a maximum rent that can be charged for something to be deemed an affordable housing unit. Section two is the maximum initial sales price. So, in the past, um, all of the affordable housing units that have been created, whether they be apartments within commercial structures or affordable housing developments that have come in front of the planning board, um, they have proposed either to rent the units or to sell them. Um, so, you know, there's been that that sort of contrast. This section of the

099code, you know, what you can see here at the bottom of part one is adding the word and. Um the code right now doesn't have an and or an or in that section. So we haven't come across this yet, but if someone were proposing a model that involved both a sale, an initial sale of the unit and then a subsequent rent, the code right now is unclear about whether or not one of those applies, both of those apply. Um, so this proposed code change would add an and and then it would also clarify at the bottom probably um more to the point here and I'll zoom in on that that where there is proposed to be both an initial sale and a subsequent rental um that both standards would apply. So in other words, the

100rent would have to be in conformance with the maximum that's allowed to be charged. Um and um the initial sales price would also have to comply with that and that is in the definition already of an affordable housing unit. That's this calculation that you see for maximum uh initial sales price. U but basically this is a clarification of the code. uh there was an am there's an ambiguity in it right now as to whether or not both the rental and the initial sales price uh maximums comply. This would make it clear that both apply if if both a rental and a sales component are proposed for the creation of an affordable housing unit. >> Okay, >> makes sense, >> right? Any thoughts on on this? I think this is pretty straightforward. I think it, you

101know, it it really opens up the way for the second code change essentially in my view. >> I just want to make a point of clarification. I just I checked with Eric on this so he clarified for me but I want to bring it up in front of the board and I think it's of the interest of the gentlemen who are here tonight in the audience. So the way I read this is that take a project that is for affordable housing that the developers want to sell the units to employers who then rent those units to their employees. So this code change, what this says is that those units can only be sold at a maximum amount which is you know they have that formula there depending on how many members of the family or

102how many bedrooms. So for instance a four family unit wi-i which is their the maximum u level of income I think is 214,000 or something somewhere around there. So according to this formula that you cannot sell that unit to th to that family for more than three times that 214,000 which would be about $645,000. >> Correct. Now what that does in my view because my concern was always with these types of projects that it g it gave them a competitive edge against potentially or potential developers who wanted to develop that land not for workforce housing but for affordable housing, traditional affordable housing, year-round residents. What this does in my view, and I just want to make sure everybody agrees, is that this levels the playing field. So now the the developer cannot sell these units

103at a market value to the employers. They need to be capped at a certain amount. That's the way I understand it. that doesn't apply to the rent to the to the second the rent restricted employer sponsored housing >> is going to be a different >> this is just for things that are literally affordable housing in this definition >> Eric didn't you say it applied to these >> clue this is just to clarify the definition of affordable housing so models that do not fit this definition um would be a model that does not apply an initial uh maximum initial sales price and if applicable the max the cap on rent. >> Yeah. So under the situation uh Lou was describing this would make it so that you know if you wanted to create a unit sell

104it at an open market rate but then rent it um to at an affordable rate. You couldn't do that to be an affordable housing unit. That initial sale would also have to be at an affordable rate. and then the subsequent rent would be I think it's important to note you know because we're starting to kind of mix these two code changes they are related it is a segue though that the next code change the rentrestricted employer housing is the idea of having a model which involves if somebody wanted to build a unit sell it at market rate um and then subsequently make it uh affordable that they could do that. So, this essentially closes it where a an affordable housing unit to be deemed that you can't have that model. The the next use we're

105going to talk about, the proposed use to the code, it would open up an opportunity for someone who was seeking to do that to to have that model of a housing development. And for this one, the purchaser, if it was something that was being sold, would also have to fit into the um income requirements for the purchase of the house. So, it's works on both ends. >> It's not it's not being it the sales price has to be low enough, but the person who's purchasing it also has to have an income that fits into the affordable housing. And the income for a family of four would have would be the $214,000 that you spoke of. >> Right. But what I'm what I was concerned with is the sales price. >> Doesn't this doesn't this code

106section limit the sales price? Doesn't it >> for affordable housing units which are different from the ones the other ones that you're talking about? >> Housing, >> rent restricted employer sponsored housing. >> This doesn't apply to workforce housing. Correct. >> Correct. >> Just affordable. >> That piece of it, that piece of it does not. >> Yeah. >> This sales price piece of >> Yeah. Well, you there are few things that are not quite the same, but that's the principle one. >> We'll go through the the rent restricted employer sponsored housing separately. Let's look at them separately. >> Right. And that will Okay. I don't have any particular comments on the first piece, the affordable housing unit definition piece. I think it's an enabling, you know, change. I think that that allows us to look at

107the second piece. Um, I don't have any specific comments really on it. Does anyone >> No, the only thing I was going to say you did bring up, you know, it levels the playing field. It does level the playing field in terms of being able to continue to provide affordable housing if someone was to sell and it perpetuates that affordable housing unit. It keeps it in the affordable housing. >> It keeps it keeps it going, >> if that makes sense. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> How I interpret it. And I think that that's wise. >> Any other comments on this piece of it? Okay. This first one. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh Eric, take us through rentrestricted employer sponsored housing. >> Okay. So, um I'm going to share on the screen uh the draft code

108for this, but it's a number of pages. Um so, it's it's not a a great visual, but um it can help if we need to go through the specific provisions here. Um but basically the idea here, um so, you know, the previous one was a change to some of the wording of an existing definition of an affordable housing unit. This concept is a new use that would be added to the town code called rentrestricted employer sponsored housing um or housing development. Um so basically this would not be true affordable housing um you know um for the reasons that we just went through um mainly under this model there wouldn't be a cap on initial sales price of units. Um but basically the idea here is to um you know open up an avenue for a

109a different type of housing development that although not meeting the strict definition of affordable housing does provide housing to a needed segment of the population does provide housing that has an affordability component to it. So, um you can see um in the in the um on the screen here you have a a definition. Um it's a little bit involved because it involves reference to other sections of the code. But I think maybe the most important thing here um to consider is that what we did was uh we really started out with an affordable housing development and the special permit standards that exist in the code for that use. Um that's the most comparable use. It's a largecale um multi-unit housing development. So, a lot of the restrictions that exist for that use are appropriate for

110this one, too. Um that includes the dimensional requirements, setbacks, lot coverage, um all of those things. Um the minimum lot area. So, you know, for an affordable housing development, dimensional regulations go by the MF multifamily zoning district. We carried that over and proposed that here. Um, the minimum lot area requirement would be the same of roughly three acres. The density permitted would be the same, eight units per acre or up to 12 units per acre if there's an additional special permit approved by the planning board and the applicant meets certain extra conditions including providing sewage treatment. Um, the maximum number of units on site would be 60. you know, all the required services, public water, um design requirements, so recreational areas, private outdoor spaces, the size limitations on units would all be the same. Legal

111requirements um would be the same. Importantly, the planning board under the requirements for an affordable housing development can require any and all legal documents necessary to ensure a number of of aspects of the development. One of them being that it remains in perpetuity available to moderate income families. Um we carried that over here so that the board has the authority to require um any legal incumbrances on the property to ensure that it's properly managed um and would you know continue to be throughout the life of the facility. And then importantly also in here just like we would have in an affordable housing development are a cap on the maximum rent and a cap on tenant income. not a cap on initial sales price of a unit. Um so you know some of the the things

112though that we added in here um and I I want to scroll down a little bit here. Um obviously we added definitions. Um, we also are envisioning this use to allow condominiums to be created that would allow a developer to create the affordable housing units in a largecale development in multiple residences or buildings that contain multiple units but section off those units as individual pieces of real property that could be sold. Um, that's important for this this model that we're looking at. We also worked in a number of um tenant protections. So you'll see here I'm putting up on the screen the the section that um relates to affordability and tenant protections. Um all the dwelling units have to be available for moderate income families which means that income limitation. The rent has to meet

113uh the maximum rent that's designated for an affordable housing unit. Um the occupancy. So the idea here is that what we're expecting is that a developer would create units um condominium units most likely and then would sell them to an individual employer so that they could put their employees in the unit. Um obviously that that raises questions of tenant protection, you know, where you have a tenant that is also working for their landlord. Um we do envision this to to also accommodate seasonal um seasonal tenants and and seasonal employees. So um what's worked in here is um having uh a grace period of 6 months for an employee um after their employment would be terminated, you know, at or until the end of a current lease term. um you know and then also there's a

114provision in here that you know really tenant protections are governed by New York state law. Um so there's a reference in here to that uh as well. Um one of the other important things here which you'll see is part five authority granted um and then management. Um but an an idea here is to um empower the office of housing and community development to promulgate uh additional rules and regulations for such a development. Um, now again, you know, the way that this one of the ways that this model deviates from affordable housing developments that the board has seen before is that you're not going to have one uh central authority that, you know, owns all of the housing units and and manages it as such. You know, with developments that the East Hampton Housing Authority or

115Windmill have done, they are the sole, you know, owner and manager of of the development. um were, you know, they also generally enter into agreements with New York State Homes and Community Renewal that govern, you know, the rules of of how things are going to function. Um, so obviously in this case where we're not expecting that it's going to be a a developer that, you know, is is being subject to those conditions and they're just they're a private developer, we want to have um the town have some authority to create rules and regulations unique to to such a development. So the code would have a provision in it that the office of housing could come up with rules that that dictate the management um and the oversight of the development. those rules would have to

116be adopted by the town board through a public process. Um, but there's a provision in there to do that. Um, the last really sort of unique aspect of this relates to the same idea, but is a requirement that there be a third party management um, group that oversees the, you know, continued operation of the facility. Um, again, you know, with most affordable housing developments that you'd have, you would have the housing authority or a central entity that, you know, is a certified housing corporation that exists only for the purposes of of that development and managing it and and managing the finances of it and the operation. Um, we feel it's necessary if we are going to permit this model to have a third party management entity be a requirement of the town code. um that

117would be reviewed by again the office of housing um to make sure that it's appropriate. Um but we feel with those added oversightes um that the deviations of this model from a traditional affordable housing development that cause concern which you know largely are how will it be managed and run? Um you know how will we ensure affordability in the future? um you know, how will the tenants be protected if they're employees of the the landlord uh the business that owns it? Um we feel we've worked those um those safeguards into this this draft code. Um you know, hopefully the planning board, you know, um well, the planning board's looked at it and hopefully you can put together some comments for the town board this evening. You know, the town board has reviewed this concept. Um

118they did so last week. um they were in support of the general concept but you know under the town code it's required to get comments from the planning planning board but they also um commented uh the town board that is that the next step should be running this by the planning board. So um we want to get your thoughts on it. I guess the the last thing to mention too is that you know one of the things and and this this is related to a concept uh that Lou brought up of the um you know uh a different model out competing traditional affordable housing developments. Um, we're proposing that this use, you know, would require a special permit, but would also only be permitted on properties that have the designation of both the affordable housing

119overlay district and the limited business overlay district. The reason for this is that, you know, this model contains a housing component and an affordable housing component. It's a large scale, you know, multi multiple residence, multiple unit housing development. the type of uh the zoning designation that we have that designates properties that are appropriate for that is the affordable housing overlay district designation. However, if the two largecale housing developments that you're allowed to do just in the AHO are affordable housing development, which is subject to all of these extra restrictions, often requires money from the state or county or even the town. um and accompanying those are are extra regulations. If you have that as one option and then you have the other option being a private developer that can come in and build the same

120number of units and sell them on the open market, you know, and I should have mentioned too with the affordable housing development, the the initial sales price the of units if they are going to sell them is capped. This would out compete that. So, we don't want those to be um options that are both permitted in the AHO. However, as I said previously, this is a multi-unit housing development. It's the AHO is an appropriate designation for those type of developments. So, we looked at that. Then, we also considered this has a commercial component to it. We really want to see these around the peripheries of downtowns or adjacent to to commercial areas that provide employment opportunities, provide goods and services. And one of the zoning designations that's appropriate for that is the LBO. Um, so

121you know there are only a limited number of properties that even well have the AHO or the LBO designation. The LBO is limited to properties that are on North Main Street and Montalk Highway. Um, there are two properties in the town right now um that are that have both the AHO designation um and the LBO designation. One is a vacant privately owned property. The other is the Gancet Meadows affordable housing development um which is already developed. So, you know, that limitation on which zones this is permitted in um will limit the applicability of the use. Um so, you know, that's really what what what we've come up with so far. You know, this is a draft code. The town board is looking for the planning board's comments on it. So, I will leave you to

122discuss and answer any questions you have. >> Thank you, Eric. That's very, very helpful. Um I'm going to kick it off with my comments on what you just said. Um, I totally support this model. I think it's a really great idea to bring private money into the uh workforce housing, affordable housing realm. I think it's a really great idea. Um, you know, we don't know yet exactly how it's going to go over is 60 units, you know, 48 units, whatever it how many is going to be enough basically, right? We do we know that yet? We really don't know what the market will support. So, you know, I do think while the restriction of having essentially one buildable lot in town that's that is uh where this would be permitted, you know, maybe feel rather

123ownorous, but uh I have a feeling that if this works well, u that won't be such a problem down the line. Um my other two comments on this is that I wonder if 130% of AMI is really too low. You know, I think about um you know, the people that we really want to have in town and what they can make with overtime and so on and so forth. You know, people who are really, you know, essential to life in East Hampton. Um maybe maybe that's not high enough. You know, I know there's been some some discussion uh among in the planning department, the legal department, and among people on the board about the idea of specifying a class of folks who might be carved out of that uh exemption. But I think that there's

124some legal issues around that that we can't really quite anticipate yet. It hasn't sort of been tested out. There's no case law. So, you know, that's one thing I want to throw out is that perhaps there's not really it's not high enough to to uh include some of the people that we really want to have uh around town. >> And if I can add to this um or or add to what you're saying, you know, this wouldn't classify as affordable housing as defined or affordable housing units. So, you know, you're this code the code provisions for this use wouldn't be necessarily >> um restricted by the income cap or the rental cap of an affordable housing unit. So, that's certainly something the town board can consider as a an amendment to this. >> Yeah. So,

125I think that I think that's potentially on the table and that's a comment that I would like to like to make. The other one is I I don't really know that the three acre minimum site is really necessary particularly right um it seems to me there might be an opportunity with this model to to produce units on smaller on smaller lots you know particularly closer to the business districts in town um I think that might be an impediment that we'll find is really >> uh something that we'd want to later deal with but it feels to me that smaller scaled um options might be I can think of a few uh myself actually that small you know opportunities to build at a smaller scale might be if it's profitable to the private sector uh it

126might be a good thing >> I I think I agree with you um >> well then Jen go ahead by all means >> one of the things I was going to bring up also was the um the income requirement uh for for renters. And I do think you're right. I think that raising that, you know, maybe the town could think about, you know, a different a different calculation for that because there are people who are couples who are professionals, you know, the people we want to stay here, our doctors, our teachers, our coaches, you know, all of the people we want to encourage to to live and work in this town. Um, and to ex I think to exclude them because of an income requirement might be detrimental to the effect that this is designed

127to have on keeping people in this town. Um, that's interesting too about smaller lot sizes because 3 acres is is big and there probably aren't as many 3 acre properties that are designated already LBO that you could add the AHO designation to if they were less than 3 acres. Um, and I 100% support this this model as well. And I I think right now there being the one property that it's possible on, you know, see how it goes. I I think it's a great great idea. >> Okay, I'll I'll take the other side of the argument and excuse my obstinency, but I I I need to get clear clarity on this. So, let's just use numbers as an example. The numbers that I was using earlier. So you have two developers. One developer is developing

128workforce housing. The other one is developing affordable housing. >> Well, another developer would be the town. >> Well, not necessarily. >> Yeah. No, by definition, >> the real developer is going to do >> Yeah. They're not affordable housing. >> No. >> Okay. So, even if it's the town, the the workforce housing developer can sell those units to employers. Well, is meant to sell them to employers. It's by definition. >> Right. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right. But they can sell to the employer at market value. >> Right. So the example that I used earlier whereas the town in this case the affordable housing would be able to sell to a four family four per family for $645,000. Whereas the affordable housing developer could sell that same unit for maybe three times that >> twice that employer

129sponsored housing >> for the work employer sponsored housing. >> Yeah. The point that I'm getting to is that the employer sponsored housing developer has a competitive edge and that competitive edge is that they can sell the units at market value. To me, in my mind, what that does is it it takes away the availability for for locations that can be developed for affordable housing units, >> traditional townsponsored affordable. >> To me, that's a problem. Obviously, unless people don't don't understand this, but obviously that's not a problem to a lot of other people. But to me that's a problem because to me the most important and I'm not against workforce housing and what you know the >> employer sponsor let's call it employer sponsor >> okay I think it's a good thing it's just that this

130one part of it is a problem for me because of that competitive edge that it gives them. So we will never we any location that's available for affordable housing whether it's employer sponsored housing or traditional affordable housing is going to go to the work to the employer sp sponsored housing. So maybe that's not a big issue for a lot of people but for me it is. That's just the point that I'm making now to say to what Eric said is that the disadvantage that the employer sponsored housing has that the affordable housing development doesn't have. The disadvantage is that the way this is being proposed is that this can this type of housing can only go in limited business overlay district and >> affordable housing. >> Exactly. >> So that is a limitation that the

131other group doesn't have. >> So I'm glad for that. But nevertheless, you still have the financial advantage and I for me it's a problem. >> Okay. Anyone else want to comment on that? >> I think that both these are proactive solutions and um I I I totally support them. Um you know, we have a workforce housing crisis out here and I'm totally in line with you, Mr. Krue. I would I'd take it a step further though on the income. I would give the town board a number perhaps. Um, you know, I'm not an expert this thing, but just to kind of throw it out to them that we should it should be higher. Maybe we take it 25% higher than 130. Maybe you come in at 160%. Which I think would be a better uh

132starting point, but that's just my take on it. So, okay. Thanks, Reed. >> Anybody else? >> Yeah. No, I agree with you guys. I think this is a great idea. I think it's a great model. I think it's something we really really need. Um, and I would be really interested to see how well this model works on a smaller lot. >> Yeah. >> To me, that's actually really kind of interesting. A big lot you can do, you know, whatever, but a smaller lot would be actually really interesting to see what kind of model can be, you know, >> can be produced. So, yeah. >> Yeah, I think it's great, >> John. >> Yeah, I agree. They're both needed solutions to a a problem here. And uh um to open it up to make it as

133less restrictive uh as possible, I think is a good thing >> by reducing the requirement for three acres and maybe increasing the maximum income for, you know, professionals that can't afford to live here. >> Yeah. >> Is is needed. It's a needed solution. Ava, you want to chime in? >> Yes. Um, so I'm kind of on both sides here. U, I'm going to make a comment. What's good for some is not good for all. Um, while I do agree with your point in terms of bringing, you know, p, you know, private money in and whatnot. I I think that's good. Um my concern is that the employers that would be able to purchase these said units at market value are not in in my point of view is not the school district is not the

134hospitals are not the areas of concern the town um of the employees were really looking to fulfill seats out here and to keep out here. Mhm. >> Um I think they're more seasonal um moneybacked organizations that are here for, you know, Memorial Day to Labor Day. And you'll see a pretty high rate of turnover. And as a local business owner, I I can say while I would love to be able to provide housing to some of my younger people that are struggling to live out here, that's not a benefit that I would be able to, you know, offer as as a local business owner. Mhm. >> Um so that's my main concern. I think that it's solving a small aspect of a problem um for a limited group of people. I do think that it's

135a good test model especially having the um restriction for the lot being needed to be in the AHO and and the what is it. >> So I I do think in that respect it's constrained to a very limited one area right now. Um so you know that's my 5050 on it. >> It's a good point. >> It is a good point. >> It's a good point. I do think that um you know anecdotally you know what I understand is that there are a lot of folks who have really raised their hand and sort of said we're in uh including the the hospital but you know we will we will see you know this is really >> by the way the the development on three mile harbor road isn't that a private developer >> no that

136was a town >> the town well the town you know town hire someone to build it and there's the builder private. >> Yeah. Yeah. The builder is private. >> The builders Oh, the builder's but >> and they're the management company, I think, too. >> Just so you know, we we have a mix of um developments like Windmill, for example, is a a private housing corporation. They're not, you know, affiliated with the town. >> So, we have a mix of town projects and, you know, private housing corporations that have built affordable housing developments. But there are developers who search out properties that are available for affordable housing and then develop it to a certain extent. May maybe not in the same way that but for instance the the one that I brought up the three-mile harbor

137property >> George Green Ventures is a perfect example of that. Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's a private developer that found that property, developed it with the town help, but it was a private developer that did it. So you have private developers competing for these locations >> with with the towns >> and collaborating with with government. >> That's neither here nor there. You have private developers that are searching for properties where they can develop affordable housing. In one case, it's affordable housing. the other case it's uh we call employers. >> Okay, that's just wanted to make that point. >> Okay. >> All right. Thanks. Um All right. Katie is listening, right? Katie is >> question. Yeah. No, no questions on this comments. >> So, I think we've captured our our comments. Thank you everybody for being

138thoughtful about it. Um and we'll go from here, you know. >> Yep. I will uh draft something and check it with you, Ed, and we'll we'll run it by the board before we send it out. >> Awesome. >> All right. Good. All right. So, ends our comments. >> Hi, guys. >> Thank you, gentlemen. >> Uh so, our regular meeting, we have a few uh few items on to quickly go through the Serest pool and shed site plan resolution of approval. Lou, that is you. Let me find it. The application of secrets pool and shed site against Suffach County tax map 3000-110-1-12. I have read the site plan approval and I move for its adoption. >> A second. >> All in favor? I >> all around unanimous passed and carried. Thank you. >> Okay. Second. Smart

139store site plan special permit resolution for extension of time. Approved. That's me. All right. In the matter of the application of smart store site plan special permit uh sufficity tax map number 300-184-1-8.11. This is an extension of time for one year. Um I have read the resolution and move for its approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I pastor Gary. All right. I have the next two. I think the Joseph Potter site plan. This is an old one. In the matter of the application of Joseph Potter site plan county tax map 300-150-1-1.14 for an extension of time to May 15 2020 uh May 15 2026. Is this correct Eric? Do we >> um let me take a look at it real quick. >> That doesn't seem like a future extension of time. >> Yeah,

140it's maybe 2027. Yeah. All right. While you're doing that, let's go to Amadu. >> Yeah, you might want to. >> Yeah. Uh, Amadu and Kuscetus. Had a long time to practice that while we were talking about that. I'm going to say it again just for kick. At Amadu and Kuscetus, minor subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map 300-197-3-10. extension of time uh until March 25th, 2027. I have read this resolution and call for its adoption. Second. All in favor? I >> passed and carried. >> Uh boom. >> So, while Eric is looking at that, let's talk about the minutes. Any changes, comments? >> Mistakes. >> Mosswood. >> Oh, is that it? >> That's right. Housewood. >> Is that a sign to someone? What do you mean? There you go. Okay. This is another old one. The Schwank

141property on Monarch Highway. Moss Wood Preliminary Subdivision Seph County Tax Map 300-157-2-15.3 and 16. Extension of time. I've read this resolution and call for its adoption. Uh, let me I'm just scanning for the date on this. >> Um, >> oh, April 3rd, 2027. Okay. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I passed and carried. >> Uh, what do we think about the Potter extension, Eric? >> Okay. So, I looked at it and I believe it is correct. I think the reason why it's only until May 15th um is because of the conditions and time frames of the previous approval. you can only extend it in increments. So I think that you could only extend it to May 15th of this year. Um and then they would need to get another extension of time. Um I

142can double check with Katie tomorrow, but at the very if if anything it would be more time that you could grant them. Um so I think you're fine to to adopt it. >> All right. Fine. Yeah. Okay. >> Right. We had since November 2000 to work on this. Interesting. Um All right. So I I'll reread it. Joseph Potter site plan suffocating tax math 3150-1-1.14 extension of time. Uh I have read the resolution to extend this until May 15th of this year and ask for resol for a motion. I'll make that motion motion. Motion made second. All in favor? >> Passed and carried. >> Anybody feel strongly about the minutes? Yeah. >> Motion to adopt the minutes. >> Yeah, I'll make that motion. >> All right. And seconded. All right. Ch. >> All in favor. >>

143Pass and carried. And then finally, >> someone. >> I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Pass and carried. Or do I need you need to go for a vote? >> Approval. Approve. >> John wants to stay. >> Good. Stay.