001and one of the >> All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. Good evening everyone and welcome to the East Hampton Town Planning Board's work session uh and regular meeting of March 11th, 2026. Um do we have a public hearing tonight? >> No, >> we do not. All right, cross that out. Uh we have a couple of work sessions. We have a few items for a regular meeting. It is not the most ambitious schedule, so we have some time to play with. Um, but we're going to jump into it and start with Wayne Scott Green Hampton's Pride Project site plan. The applicant is in the room, I see. And uh, let's see. Aaron, you're going to take this for the planning department, right? >> Okay.
002And John, this will be you for the board. So, go ahead, Aaron. Um, this is the Wayne Green Hampton's Pride project site plan. It was last reviewed one month ago on February 11th. Some background information. A site plan application has been made to construct a number of accessory structures to create a monument at the town park ring. Also Dell Mastro Memorial Park. The project proposes this space to be a celebratory outdoor social area, a marker to LGBTQ plus history and memorial garden for those who lost um their lives to AIDS on the east end. Structures that are proposed include a 14 foot tall raised platform um a 14 tall ra platform roughly 32 32x 34 ft or 1 188 square ft and a 5ft tall monument of 7.5 by 7.5 ft or roughly 56 ft.
003The project is situated on the corner of Montalk Highway and East Gate Road. Wingscott is within the CB central business zoning is 100% cleared of naturally occurring vegetation. It contains a 12 space parking lot as well as walkways and a small roof pavilion with a picnic bench. The site books uh residential properties to the north and south although all but one of those properties is across the roadway and the commercial property is to the east and west. During the previous review on February 11, 2026 the plan the planning will issue some comments for the applicant to respond to if necessary. The first comment was the board general accessible. As previously stated on February 11th, there was review and the board of general acceptable and no required. The plan the board agreed with the planning department
004that the site plan elements listed in the planning department as recommended to be waved should be waved. Um a list during the previous um review was given and as recommended to be waved, they were waved. The items include topography, drainage, existing parking area, and details for the closed walkways. Um saying that the fire of marshall agrees on necessary. No further action is required. Uh the board agreed with the planning department that the following items recommended to be provided should be provided. Um for the site plan, those items were a proper title, a scale, a zoning district, property line setbacks for proposed structures, information pertaining to ADA compliance, information pertaining to drainage if there if required by the town engineer, and differentiation between existing and proposed structures. Uh for the landscaping plan, what was uh needed
005was a proper title and the fencing for other structures used for screening, names of plants. So space species included common quantities, height, and spacing. These were addressed. The applicant submitted a revised site plan and a revised landscaping plan upon review of all aspects are requested. All aspects requested have been amended. Um no further information is needed regarding drainage um per county engineer uh report and the application is referred to fire marshall for review. The currently the planning department has no objection to the revised plan and the planning board to review these plans to determine if they find them adequate. This application was referred to the fire marshall and on on March 2nd a report was given by the fire marshal. They found the proposed project is ADA compliant and the wings got rain 4 shows
006ADA compliance with with the proposed new project. In conclusion, the planning board should discuss whether any additional information is required regarding the landscaping plan site plan or other part. If the board agrees that no additional information is required, then the application is complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. >> Okay. Thank you, Erin. Uh, does the applicant wish to be heard? >> He's coming up. Just your name and address for the record, please. >> Jason Logan, 8 Jonathan Drive, East Hampton. On behalf of uh the Wayne Scott Green Project, I just wanted to clarify that the height of the deck is 14 in. >> That was 14T. >> Oh, does it say 14 ft? Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> that'd be different. That would be different, right? Ladders would be required. Okay.
007To clarify. >> All right. Good. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah. Thank you. Um so John would you like to lead our discussion? >> I um agree with the planning department that all necessary documents have been satisfactorily submitted. I don't know if we need to make a correction the 14. >> It actually says inches. I think it was in >> So as far as I'm concerned we're ready to head to public hearing. >> We've got questions. Uh, >> we do. >> Yeah. Did you have those? Let's just see if anybody else has anything else to comment on or say about the project. Are we all Are we all good? Okay. So, we'll go to the questions then. Does the planning board find the revised site plan and landscaping plans adequate? >> Yes. Yes. Yes.
008Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Uh, is the site plan application complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing? >> Yes. all around. Okay. So, we're good. Uh passed and carried. We are ready to schedule a public hearing. So, we'll have that resolution on at our >> Oh, we have we have it here tonight, don't we? >> Okay. So, we're going to actually do it right here in real time. >> All right. So, a public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall, 159 Panagago Road, East Hampton on April 8th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Wayne Scott Green Hampton's Pride project site plan at premises identified on the Suffach County Tax Map as parcel Suffach County Tax Map number
009300-197-1-40.1 files can be viewed and comments can be filed in accordance with the specifics in the public hearing notice which appears is part of the meeting record tonight and will be published in the paper of record no less than 10 days before set hearing date. The board will then vote to adopt the resolution to schedule a public hearing for the first application before rereading the script for the next application of that's not supposed to be right. >> Okay. You move a motion, please, to adopt the >> I'd like to make a motion to adopt the scheduling the public hearing. >> All right. >> Second. All in favor? >> I passed and carried. >> See you on the ETH. Thanks, guys. Okay. Our next matter is long house reserve. Uh Chris Decker, that is you for
010planning department. Lou for the board. I see the applicant is here. Um, so Chris, walk us through your memo, please. So, this is going over the long house reserve semi-public facility site plan. It's a second review for the board. It was last reviewed February 5th of uh last year. Um, this is just showing the parcel. It's about 15.1 acres in East Hampton. It's zoned A5 residents. Um, and current improvements on the 2013 certificate of occupancy include the 6,166qt two-story residence, a lap swimming pool, 600T shed, various patios, walkways, and artworks throughout the property. There's also a 1,02 ft one-story buildings serve as a museum visitor center with the restrooms and a store. Um, some existing structures are not shown in the CO. These include a shed, carport, storage containers, and fencing. Parcels within the South
011Fork uh special groundwater protection area is a critical environmental area and the southern portion of the property is within the agricultural overlay district. I'm just going to pull up the site plan to go over the proposal. So, the application has been revised and no longer involves changing the use from a residential museum to a semi-public facility. Now, the proposal is to improve parking and circulation for the existing residential museum use. There are also various existing structures that will require uh approval and those are the containers shed and carport that I mentioned in there. The proposal remains a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code. No further secret review is required. Now to just go over the planning board's comments uh from the review last year. The planning board commented
012that the applicant should clarify the parking layout and increase the amount of parking if necessary. And the revised plan shown here and calculations were submitted. The planning department notes that the submitting calculations appear to align more with the parking requirement for a semi-public facility which is not reflective of the residential museum use that is proposed to remain. The revised submission should correct this discrepancy um to correct the parking requirement and the appropriate parking requirement for residential museum is listed in our report. Also um shown here there's a tree within the drive aisle adjacent to parking space 10 that reduces the width um to lower than the 24 ft that's required by the code. So the planning department recommends that that tree be moved uh to provide a compliant drive aisle. Next was the board commented
013that the applicant should clarify the lighting scheme for the property and provide a comprehensive lighting plan. Um no response was provided in the planning department notes. So although the previous uh review mentioned that a comprehensive lighting plan was required um the board does have the authority to wave this requirement and it now appears that there is no proposed lighting and the existing lighting in the parking area appears compliant. So provided the applicant confirm that there is no proposed lighting uh we recommend waving the requirement. Next was that the board agreed to wave the requirements for improvements uh to the parking areas for um the requirement to provide dustfree stalls. And the applicant since revised the plan with gravel where uh wood chips were previously proposed for the parking spaces. So that's that's where that came
014from. But the planning department notes that the submitted plan doesn't indicate the surface materials um consistently for spaces 1925. You can see a zoom in here. This is a green space and it just appears that some of these spaces that part of them almost appear as if they're proposed of green space. I'd imagine that they're all proposed as gravel, but we just want the applicant to confirm and revise it. U space should not be made of more than one material. Next was just a comment about the fee application fee. the board recommend that it be waved and planning department notes that the applicant is working through that process. The board can continue to review it um but it can't be considered complete until the fees waved or paid by the applicant. Next, we have um
015an update regarding the fifth comment which is that the applicant should address the gates and other structures within the scenic easement. The planning department memo indicates that the applicant should address gates and structures within the scenic easement. Since issuing the memo, the department has learned that the applicant has worked with the building department and the town attorney's office regarding this issue. All details on that are not available at this time and the appropriate next step is for the applicant, building department, town attorney and planning department to review the status of these structures and determine the necessary uh steps in terms of how they should be handled. We don't have all the information um at this time. that should work with the town through that issue. Regarding the existing conditions on the site and department notes
016that according to aerial imagery, it appears that the gravel driveway and parking area was expanded in 2022 without necessary approvals. And the submitted plan appears to indicate proposed gravel in areas which are already improved um with gravel mainly around these catch basins to the south. That's it's already uh there's already gravel there. And as mentioned there's also the existing structures um the containers shed and carport required approval um with this site plan. The planning department recommends waving the requirement for elevation drawings of these existing structures. The ARB may request them in their review. But as far as for the site plan review, we feel that it's only necessary to provide the area of these structures as well as the setbacks between to uh show compliance for separation between accessory buildings. So the revised submission must
017accurately indicate all proposed work and existing improvements including unauthorized expansion of the driveway and coverage calculations should be provided. We also recommend that a certified survey of the existing conditions be provided and this would help us evaluate the total amount of land disturbance uh involved. So next is regarding the uh use classification and and just a reminder now it's proposed to remain as a residential museum whereas in in the previous um submission it was proposed to convert to a semi-public facility. So the board should review the town code definition of a semi-public facility which is included in our report which details a predominantly public character. This should be compared with the town code definition of a residential museum, which is an accessory use that permits an operation very similar in nature, but only where specific
018standards are met, uh, including the presence of a single family residence on site as the principal use. The board should also note that this property is encumbered by a large lot easement from 1986 in favor of the town which prohibits structures other than a one single family residence as well as accessory structures. planning department and town attorney reviewed this easement and determined that it would need to be modified for a semi-public facility to be permitted on site and modification of the easement would require public referendum um given that it's deemed a conservation ement. Another potential issue is that semi-public facilities fall into the category of residential community facility uses in the town code um which prohibits these uses except parks on sites partially within the agricultural overlay district which is applicable here. Therefore, relief from
019the zoning board of appeals or a change to the zoning map to remove the agricultural overlay designation would be needed for this uh for a semi-public facility to be allowed on a a property in in this district use. The site is already approved with the residential museum use as mentioned and there's no need for a change of use provided the site operates in a manner consistent with the special permit standards past approvals and the definition of a residential museum which is included in our report. This includes maintaining the single family residence on site uh that is open to the public on a limited basis. The applicant should confirm that the site is operating accordingly and then the board should discuss whether they believe it is appropriate for the application to move forward under its existing
020use as a residential museum. Also, the applicant should confirm the total gross floor area being used as part of the residential museum. The planning department notes that the revised parking calculations should provide the amount of interior exhibit space dedicated to the residential museum, but the applicant should also provide the total GFA for the entire museum, which would include areas uh like what like restrooms. According to the 2013 CO, it appears the only interior space approved as a residential museum is the 12 square foot museum visitor center. Should any existing improvements or proposed be considered a substantial expansion of use as defined by the town code for the residential museum use, then special permit approval would be required and any Spanish permit for residential museum would require compliance of general and specific standards in the town
021code. Lastly, on the use, the project title, Long House Reserve semi-public facility site plan no longer aligns with the proposal and the department recommends that the applicant consider renaming the application. Um, just very quickly, the engineer agreed with the comment about the tree in the drive aisle that that should be removed. Upon satisfying that and any issues that the planning department has, engineering approval is recommended. and the fire marshall signed off on the project on February 5th and noted that the proposal is ADA compliant. As far as other review, architectural review board approval is needed if lighting is proposed and will be re needed regardless for the existing structures um needing approval. Suffach County Planning Commission review is to be determined based on the total amount of land disturbance um once we have more detailed
022plans. So, in conclusion, the application is incomplete pending the revisions needed to address the issues mentioned. The applicant should remove the tree from the drive aisle, submit revised parking calculations, and confirm whether lighting is proposed. Parking spaces 19 to 25 should be revised if they consistent surface material. The applicant should coordinate with the town to review the status of the structures in the scenic easement area should determine the next steps. Certified survey should be provided. Revisions must be made to the site plan to accurately indicate proposed and existing structures needing approval. The applicant should confirm the site's operating in compliance with past approvals. Revised submission should include the total GFA of the residential museum and the applicant should consider changing the project title or should discuss these issues and determine whether they agree and question.
023>> Okay. Thank you, Chris. Uh, does the applicant wish to be heard? Before you start, by the way, I just want to say that, you know, we know there's a lot of cleanup involved in here, right? So, everything that we kind of brought up at the February meeting from last year is back here again. We know that there's been progress. We know that there's been some decisions made. So, just bear that in mind. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening everyone. My name is Martha Riker uh for the applicant long house reserve. Uh I'm from the law firm Tumi Leam Shay Kelly Duboro 33 West 2nd Street Riverhead New York. Um it's good to see everyone here tonight. We're back and um I thank Mr. Stoker for his very comprehensive review. Uh you know a couple
024comments which were when we were here last year that submission contained surveys. The initial uh submission also contained GFA calculations and all those various things. So, you know, after this meeting, I can confirm with Mr. Stoker um what actually is missing from the file because I believe that most of this has already been in the planning board's possession. Um I think one of the things that and I'm joined here by by Carrie Barrett um from Longhouse who can speak to some of the things that are important for Longhouse to get done. you know, this this project has sort of changed from when it was first submitted to right now. This is really about a parking plan that works for Long House. Um, based now that it's been to the satisfaction of the town engineer in
025their review, we have appropriate drainage. There is no new lighting proposed. Longhouse is not open generally in the evening, so there's no need for additional lighting. Um, put up on the screen the 2013 site plan. I just want to address Uh it was at the back of the town. >> So this is the co from that. >> Right. And that's >> is this is this okay? >> Yes. That's >> I also have what was approved. >> No, there's there's one that shows the parking. There we go. Maybe that one. >> This was what was approved in connection with the 2012 modification to the original. >> That's that's what I meant. 2012 resulted in the 2013 co. Um, I'm going to walk away from the microphone for just a second, but I think the more you
026can zoom in on the parking. >> Sure. >> Perfect. >> So, this is the area that in the TAM was referring to that it was changed. It wasn't really that there was an expansion of the parking area. is that this 2012 site plan approval contemplated here are your your gravel parking spots that this would remain a grass driveway with grass parking stalls >> which are overflow stalls essentially or >> no they were all part of the approved required number of parking stalls pursuant to the 2012 site plan application. So they were always there but in the planning board in 2012 said let's leave them grass and quickly that became untenable. Um so in fact if you look at the photos that are in the TAM showing 2022 at that point gravel had already been laid
027down because it would got very muddy etc. So there was really not an expansion of the parking area but a change of the parking surface. So there's that one. Right. So, so that's already parking. If if you're in near maps right now and you want to go a little bit further, you if you go back to like say 2014, you'll see that it is sort of dirt and um so so I I just want to clarify that that there wasn't an expansion or clearing. These were spots that were already approved for parking and gravel was added, but now, you know, we're improving flow and different things because in 2012 flow was changed again. the entrance and the exit were changed. And so I think as Long House, the longer it operates, the more we become
028aware of how to make it better. And and I think the town engineer and we've had multiple meetings with uh our former reviewer, Lisa Lori, with Eric Shance, with Tina, um and and as well as with the WER group and our engineer, Drew Bennett, to go over that and and reach the parking plan that we have now at this point. Um, I think that with respect to the number of of spaces, one of the special exception criteria for a residential museum is to show that you have adequate parking for all of your events, etc. And so I would submit that the number of spots that are shown here are again um adequate for for what is being used. Uh the the parking schedule is a minimum required. It's not a cap. And given the amount
029of time that we've put into again meeting with the town, with planners, with engineers, I would like to recommend to the board that we keep this plan as is. Um, and because we have actually additional spots for from the minimum that's required. I know that that tree is near and dear to Long House, to uh members of the board who are horiculturalists. Um, it's a really important tree to Long House. It's been there for a very long time. I know I've been personally going to Long House for about two decades. Never had a problem maneuvering it um in the parking lot. And so I think that there was a request and and if Carrie would like to get up and speak to it is that that tree is it's a specimen. It's worth saving. At
030the end of the day, Long House is also a part of the garden. And so protecting that tree feels like part of Long House's mission. And so we would ask the planning board to um to allow us to heat that tree. >> Can you tell me how I just want to get clear on the parking? >> Sure. >> I see on the plan I see 41 spaces. Is that the minimum required? I mean, I can calculate that that is the minimum required parking that you need for the current layout that you have, but the planning department has said there's another table where you calculated there's 47 spaces. Can you reconcile those differences? >> I would probably need to talk to our engineer only because it's it's a mathematical >> there's staff parking. >> Well, there
031is also staff parking. There's staff parking. the other spaces. >> Those are the additional spaces. So, if you go closer up to where the house is, >> you'll see those additional parking spots. >> They're not shown on the submitted plan. >> Yeah, that's true. >> They're shown on the plan that this board has seen a year ago. Again, in anticipation of this meeting, we were specifically told by uh engineers and Eric Chance and Tina and Lisa Laory when we met with them uh to just focus on this part which is really the outstanding remaining issue for this board to review. >> And that's the 41 spaces, >> right? >> So, there are spots up by the house closest to the entrance. In fact, there's also additional handicaps parking that's being put there, which is in
032alignment with ADA recommendations. Um, there are handicap spots. So, again, I'm just going to step away from the mic for a second. This area here has always had pavers because they're handicapped and gravel is not a handicap. It's not an ADA compliant service. So, those pavers have been there for a long time. Thanks. >> And then with respect to some of the other items that we need to clear up such as renaming the plan, um we can certainly submit those, but I I would like to impress that um springtime is here. Long House is been diligently and patiently waiting to to do this, but their parking lot really does need to be resurfaced, and it would be lovely if we could proceed to a public hearing so that they can do the work. I I
033have a question and um you had mentioned that the facility is not open at nighttime. Um we have a family home in close proximity to Long House and I just I had the impression from several years in a row that maybe you guys do weddings there and and evening events occasionally in the summertime. So those are awesome. Just to follow my point here, the parking for me is kind of a key aspect because I do know for a fact that the parking when you have an overflow situation flows out on Hans Creek and that can be a busy road and there's no sidewalk and it's dark. I I just don't know how safe that is. But again, I know you guys are an important part of our community and I want to be helpful here,
034but >> Sure. So So I I want to address a couple things about that. Uh it is not our parking overflow that happens on Hans Creek. What happens is oftentimes visitors come and they just park on Hans Creek. Uh when there are special events, Long House has always made appropriate arrangements for parking. In fact, also making arrangements with the church to use the unused portion of the cemetery lot. Um, so Longhouse is always taken in accordance with their special permit applications, but also their site plan approval to arrange for that overflow parking. What we can't control is what sometimes people just do and they just park on the street. But that means they didn't come into long house and were directed of where where to um the second thing is when there are evening events
035such as a wedding etc. lighting is brought in for that. But the part of Long House's everyday operations does not require additional lighting. Uh again, there is lighting in the parking lot that is sufficient for all of those purposes when when there are people there in the evening, but in general, M house isn't open at night. Uh it's meant to be toured during the day. Uh and so that's why we don't have any additional lighting proposed. And also I think it keeps with the residential character of the community and also Longhous's commitment to um again keeping the lighting in balance with the aesthetic and also um not overlighting it in terms of pollinators and everything else for for nature. >> This is my point. I think you may have pointed this out, but just to
036repeat it for emphasis that the uh the process of getting a special permit for an event really requires you to, you know, kind of lay out what it is you're going to do with the additional cars, right? You know, and I've been to events there where we're fed from a field across the road, you know, there are all sorts of things that that happen, right? And that are part of that process. >> Yes. Right. So, so again to to sort of just stress that when when people do park on Hans Creek Road, they are uh outliers. They're not supposed to and and they're certainly not being directed to do that by Long House. Long House always makes provisions for overflow parking to again not have it beyond Hans Creek. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Any
037further questions? Um like I said, I also have Carrie Barrett from Long House as well who can answer any questions you might have about day-to-day operations. Yeah. Actually, I have a question about the tree in the in the driveway. >> Sure. >> Are you Is there protection around it? >> There are there are four uh they're probably 4x4 ballards. Um fair fairly low profile, but they're there. Um >> and do you know what it where the ballards are and how it constricts circulation? I >> mean, I parked right next to it just before this meeting um specifically to try it out. But I have a very large three row SUV. I had no problems maneuvering around it. Um, >> okay. >> And that's there it is right there. Right here. >> So, there they are.
038And one of the things that we've been able to do is bring the bike rack here. So, it actually protects a really creates a very, I think, pleasing area for the bike rack. The bikes are protected. The tree has these ballards right there. There's also some um you again I I I have always personally found it not to be difficult to maneuver whether I'm parked alongside the tree or on the other side. >> Right. >> And it is it is a specimen. I believe it's a malberry tree. Um and again it's just an important part for for Long House. It's not just a tree. It's it's important for everyone there. >> Yep. definely get that. This photograph is very helpful. >> Yes. >> Okay, good. Any other questions? Uh, just stay close. Well, well, let's
039hear from Carrie and then we'll take it up as a board. >> Sure. >> I don't Martha's done brilliantly. I I just want to >> just state your name for the record if you don't mind. >> I'm Carrie Barrett. I'm the executive director of Long House Reserve and I'm just I'm grateful. This has been a a long haul for us. We took the the document from Lisa Laori from last was it February? >> Yes. >> And have really ticked through all the boxes. We've moved the deer fence. We've redid the septic. We've been studying the parking. We've redone it. We've done new surveys. We have done our due diligence. The goal here, I'll just say I'm an art historian, not an engineer or a lawyer. We just want to give private tours to the house.
040And that is within the museum provision. I'm I'm enlightened to hear that we can maybe drop Thank you. the change the change of use application and go back to being a museum in a residential neighborhood and still get what we want. We want to operate as we are now quietly beautifully. The parking lot is part of the experience when you come in. We need it to be that way. And then we'd like on a limited basis on weekends as soon as we can. We thought it would be this year but it seems like maybe not. But we just want to be able to um welcome people um by reservation to give to have tours of Jaclyn or Larson's house. That's that's all that I have to say. Okay. >> Um this has been I'll say
041I'm tired of I could vent this um the past 18 months has been expensive for us, time consuming for all of us. I have I have board members who have given money to repair this parking lot. They're waiting saying when is it going to be done. Um that's partly my job to say I'm so delighted to be here tonight. They were excited that we would be here. So I truly hope that we can get to a public hearing because long house itself I'm here with Jason Amos our head of facilities and operations. We cleared the parking lot of everything we could, mounds of things, extra bamboo, um, anything that was there in anticipation of really hoping that we would be able to do this during October and November in our slow season. So that by
042the time we open in April, the parking lot now is unmanageable. It's not safe. It's not beautiful because of all that we've cleared. We know from um our friends from BK Builders aren't here tonight. This will take us three weeks and I implore you to let us do this before June. Otherwise, our season of you talk about weddings and our gayla and everything that's on our calendar right now. The parking lot is a mess and that it's our own mess because we've begun we began to clear anticipation that this would move forward. So, I um I beg you, I implore you to let us do this in a way that is in keeping with everything that East Hampton wants to be more parking spaces, more of what Martha, getting people into the lot, not on
043Hans Creek Road. We have valet people, you know, having proper ballards in place. We're ready to do all of it and I have the money to do it and people who are saying, "When is it going to be done?" So, sorry if that sounds like venting, but I'm I'm so passionate about having this parking lot. This is the first thing that people see before they come into the dunes, before they see the house in the distance, before they see the red garden. And our parking lot does not represent Long House at its best. Not by any means right now. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Carrie. >> I I actually have one more just technical comment that I want to make in response to some of the questions that were put on the TAM. >> This
044says proposed gravel green space means exactly that. It'll be landscaped, right? So, it's not that we're having two different materials where it says green space. Those aren't those aren't parking stalls. >> The issue is the border of the green space indicated here to divide these spaces. >> So, when you look at the plan, that's what we're asking for clarity on >> gravel and then the green space is indicated within >> No, those those are >> Oh, those are those are curb stops, I think. No, this green line that goes across. >> Oh, I see. >> Follow my tracer. >> So, that's where it's not clear what the surface material is. >> No, it's contour line. >> Gravel. Gravel. Um, I think those have to do perhaps with drainage. Maybe it's >> Yep. It was It
045was just the same color and it was in the area indicated as green space. So that's why when when we're looking at it, we're asking >> Yeah. No, it's it's I think that's indicating something different from the stalls. >> And then the area of proposed gravel, that's where there's gravel currently existing. So we we just want the plan to clearly show what's proposed where it's existing. So there's currently gravel where it's proposed and then this was or was not clear. >> Well, those those are existing stalls. Yeah, I I understand that. And these are the existing bumper blocks and now they're being moved and it was not clear. >> I I have a feeling that that line is just No, there's no difference in in surface material. All parking stalls will be gravel and the
046new areas show proposed gravel. So, those are existing. I think that line is indicating something different. Um potentially the line the former bamboo fence that was there, it's unfortunate it's the same color as the SS. Um, but it's it's not a delineation of the stalls. >> I don't really understand it correctly. >> And then this is the area where there's proposed gravel where there currently gravel that exists. So that's just something that >> I believe the aerial here >> because again those those are >> this is all gravel in these areas, >> right? Because those are the former stalls that were approved under the 2012 Right. So if you go back to 2012, there were stalls all along that lane and with the new parking, those stalls are being lost to create a circulation pattern.
047>> Yeah. The 2012 plan shows those spaces all as grass. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> But we've established that over the course of time that grass became very muddy and gravel was pacing down. >> Yeah. The only comment was that the proposed gravel should be indicated as existing where it currently exists. >> All right. It's mostly a technicality on Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Anything else, Martha? >> No, no, that's that's all I had left. Um, and again, if we could um, oh, just an update because I don't know if the planning department is aware of it, but uh, we received an email from the town from Anmarie. I'm going to mispronounce her last name, Lractor. >> Practor. >> All right, good. Uh, stating that the resolution for the town board to wave the public
048uh, the fees will be on the March 19th meeting agenda. >> Good. that's that's happening. Um, and again, if there's anything else that we can in anticipation of potentially scheduling the public hearing, we can get the minor things changed like that line removed, clarify where proposed gravel is versus existing. Um, again, I think that it is hatched as proposed gravel because those parking stalls that were there that are now surfaced with gravel are being removed and this is becoming part of this new flow corridor as opposed to the spots that were there. But we will do whatever um the plane department wants us to make those revisions and we can get them in certainly well ahead of the public hearing. >> Okay, great. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Thank you for committing to that. I
049appreciate it. >> Absolutely. Um, so before I turn it over to Lou to to lead our discussion as a board about this, I just want to say that, you know, I know this has been a long time in in coming. There's a the long gestation period, the long time since the February meeting last year. Um, and as I said earlier, we're doing a lot of cleanup from that meeting. We need to make sure that everything that we brought up then has been addressed. Even though to some of you, I think you feel like, well, that was addressed, you know. So, you know, we're here tonight to really make sure that we've we've dotted all eyes and we've crossed all tees and we're we're kind of we're ready to go. Um, so with that, I'm going
050to turn it over to Lou to lead our discussion. >> Yeah. And to follow up on that, I I do have some items that are cleanup type items, and I'll go through those first. I think uh the big issue is the use whether it's a semi-public facility or a residential museum. I think that's the important one and I'll I'll save that for last. So let's let's go through the cleanup areas first. I think we covered the parking. I come up with the same calculation you did as 41. I think Chris came up with 42. I think that has something to do with the rounding uh calculation. So I think 41 or 42 is fine. Uh as far as the drive with the non-compliance, the width being non-compliant and the tree removal, I came in tonight
051deciding that I think the tree should have been removed in the interest of safety, but I changed my mind. I, you know, I think trees are important. Looking at the picture that you showed, I really don't think safety is going to be an issue, which was my problem with uh removing the tree or remedying that by removing the tree, but I think it's more important that that tree stays alive. So, that's my vote. >> That as far as the lighting plan, uh I I agree that we can wave a full lighting plan. There's no exterior lighting is propo. No new exterior lighting is proposed. Uh but this should be a condition of approval that there will be no additional lighting. Okay, >> that's acceptable. >> Uh the expansion of the gravel driveway and unprotected unapproved
052shed and carport containers, bamboo fence. I think they all require site plan approval and a certified survey is necessary showing those >> that was all submitted last year. >> Okay. >> In fact, I I put together a huge photo array for you guys of the carport and the and all of those um structures and we discussed them at the February work session. >> So, have there been any modifications? I'm sorry, Lou. Any modifications since then that should be reflected on a survey? >> Um well, that's well that's Drew Bennett's site plan. Um, let me just ask and confer with Carrie where they >> we screened them. >> There's there's been a bamboo fence screening that's been put around them. And so, but that's that's it's just fencing that sort of crisscross bamboo fencing. >> Are
053they on the CO? Those structures? >> No, they're not on the CO. Um, we discussed this again at at the February meeting last year. Um, we added them to the survey. We did a photo array so that we could discuss them. They are necessary with respect to long house for storage. Um, one of the things that happens with long houses, it gets a lot of custom large art pieces that are on loans seasonally. Those come in custom crates. They need to be stored somewhere during the and and so that's how those those shipping containers are important for that. Same as the carport. If you look at the carport and the small shed, they've been there for a very long time, right? They they are organically becoming part of the landscape. The carport clearly was designed
054by Jack. It fits with the architectural style of long house. It repeats that that that peaked shape. Um and so they are important sort of back of the house structures in terms of they have lawnmowers in them. Um they really function as as your basic storage sheds and storage for >> So but do we have a survey showing all of those? you have a survey from last year, but one of the things that we can do certainly as part of a condition of approval or before we get to the public hearing is provide an updated one if you'd like, but it's definitely shown on the site plan and um and and this is a Drew Bennett site plan, but it's sh it's based on a Wallbridge survey. So, um I don't have the full file
055with me right now to to sort of say when was the last time that a survey was submitted, but I do know because I personally handled the February meeting last year that we had in advance of that meeting submitted a survey showing those structures. >> Okay. Well, that could be get worked out. >> It's it's purely administrative. So, we'll go through and make sure that you have it. >> Okay. >> Right. And the de the deer fence was moved during that time too, right? During this time since February of last year. Correct. >> Yeah. So, we'll want to see that. >> Yeah. Completely. >> Also, um we need to know if the total GFA that's being used for the residential museum is not beyond the,2 ft building that you have. There's not going to be
056additional GFA museum space. >> So, can I can I can I clarify that question because we were talking about this earlier. Uh so it you know part of the issue that has that sort of plagued us a little bit over the course of the last year plus has been this this idea of what use are we going to go for the semi-public thing or not. the residential museum use actually has a different parking calculation, right, than the semi-public facility, right? So, there's a little bit of difference there and part of it is predicated on the amount of exhibition space, right? You know, we're we're in the same basically the same kind of area of the number of spaces is pretty much what we've been talking about. >> Here's here's >> hear me out. Um, so
057I do think that the quote exhibition exhibition space per se is really >> minimal because you're going to be touring the house, >> private tours of the house. This just occurred to me since our conversation earlier, which is really a very different thing than exhibition space. There is some downstairs I believe right off of the portico that you've got. >> Um, but I think that's the number that we'd like to have. 41 spaces is based on 1,12 ft. Yeah. Space. >> Yes. Exactly. >> So if you have if you're if you have more than 1,12 ft that changes the parking calculation at the very minimum. >> Right. But but Lou that number that you're citing I believe that is are you talking about the first floor of the house or are you talking about the
058gate house and then >> it's the gate house. >> So that that's separate. >> Yeah. That's that's very different because that was all approved under site plan. That doesn't h that's >> that I believe is what's counted if I'm not mistaken Chris that the 1,200 ft is what's listed as the residential museums. >> Yeah, it's it's an error. It's an error. This is an error to take it back all the way to >> we can get this this is all >> right. So that's yeah I'm just we're just >> I'm just trying to emphasize why I lose question is important that we do need some number for exhibition space. You absolutely do. And again, if we go back to the very initial submission where we had floor plans for the first floor and showing uh
059square footage and analysis for that particular exhibition space and the ADA bathroom that was put Yeah. >> on the first floor. That is what the parking plan numbers were based on working with our engineer and architects. >> Yeah, correct. >> I think it's going to be sort of the same number. >> I think it comes out to the same number as well. >> Last year we saw that. I don't >> I I know I >> I don't >> Martha, when when was that submission? Was that last part of last year's submission? >> Oh, it was two years ago. >> Yeah. I don't um >> what is it again exactly? Take us through one more time. So, our initial submission contained floor plans with uh floor area calculations showing the area where we wanted to have
060indoor exhibitions of art and also providing an ADA compliant bathroom. Uh all of which prompted the additional parking spaces that were added. Um, and really whether it occurs under a semi-public facility use or as part of the residential museum, the idea the square footage of that additional area that would be added to the residential museum >> uh use is it doesn't change under either use, right? Because it's a portion of of the first floor where there would be interior exhibition space, >> right? The exhibition space square footage does not change. True. But the way in which parking is calculated for the two uses is slightly different. But anyway, let's not worry about it at this moment unless you know off the top of your head what that number. >> I don't know off the top
061of my head, but I know that um it was certainly I mean first one of the things is that the residential museum use when the use was first approved in 2006 applied to the entire grounds, right? Um, and so that's something that if you look at the residential museum code, it doesn't contemplate a residential museum that is also a public garden. Um, and so I think that the parking calculations for when the visitor center was built, the museum shop, the bathrooms, and now the idea of taking in this additional area, that was all uh calculated by Drew Bennett um and the architect when we made this submission. So, I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but we can certainly >> use numbers and then we'll move on. >> Up to a
062th00and square feet of use of museum use requires 15 parking spaces. And then the the other part is how many halfacre units over two acres? For each half acre unit over two acres, you you need one one parking space. That calculates to 26 parking spaces. So 26 + 15 is 41. The acreage is going to stay the same. That's not going to change. So you're always going to have that 26. >> Correct. Anything over a th00and square feet of museum space, everyund square foot over that thousand, you will need an additional parking space. You're already at 41 now with the th00and square foot. >> Correct? >> So if you're going to go over, that's why I asked the question. If you're going to go over a,000 square feet, for everyundred feet that you have over
0631,000 square feet, you're going to need another parking space. So just remember that, >> right? But that was all taken into account with the additional spots. >> Yeah. You you have 47 though, right? >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. >> So that that was >> So we're just saying if it were 3,000 square feet, it would be different, right? We're different. We're dealing with a different calculus. Correct. Right. That is what we're saying. >> Absolutely. And >> so answer the question carefully. No, I just I just want to say that the the number of parking spots proposed and again the the square footage of of the first floor that was um all addressed and that was never an issue in our first two reviews. >> Well, let's hope it doesn't it's not an issue, >> right? I
064don't >> So, uh what about coverage? That's another area. the um do we have a survey that shows the proper coverage because the memo seem >> Yes, you have you have a survey that shows all the coverage. Um again, the planning department has those surveys. >> Okay. I thought the memo said that we did. >> We can review um of applicants mentioning that a survey was submitted. I know the previous submission included a site plan based upon a survey, but we can review and make sure that has the proposed and existing coverage. The plan did change a bit. So, it's there's a chance that we do need an updated plan with the proposed coverage, but we can review and work that out. >> Well, we're getting we're having getting an updated survey, we'll have updated
065coverage. >> Yeah. But but in general, Long House is well well under. >> Okay. The other question I had was the driveway and parking area expansion that took place that we saw in the photograph. Does that intrude or is near the scenic easement of the a overlay? >> No, >> it's not. Okay. >> The a overlay is a very very small portion of the very very rear of the parcel. >> Okay. nowhere near the parking but also as I explained before it was a resurfacing of already approved parking stalls pursuing to the 2012 segment. >> Okay, I think those are all the items. So on to the big issue which is is this a residential museum or a de fac de facto park which would be >> I'm sorry a park >> no a de
066facto park open to the public park which would which is the which is would be a semi-public facility which is what you originally >> were going to change the classification to. >> So our use is not changing anymore. I real I realize the question is is it truly a a uh residential museum? That's that's we need to make sure that that's what it is because if it's more like a park, a public park and over >> it's not a public park. I mean a long house closes at night, members of the public don't have access, people pay admission. Um it's it's not publicly owned in that sense. In fact, this is an issue that was reviewed by the town attorney's office back in 2006. Um, and you know, there's no requirement for lawn house to
067be open to the public, including under the large lot easement. >> Okay. >> Um, so no, it's it's not a park in any way, shape, or form. A park is something that has to be dedicated either through express or implied use. Um, but long house is a private place. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you, but I think it's important that you write a narrative explaining that justifying that it's more of a residential museum and not a semi-public facility. >> Well, so a semi >> should include the hours of operation, buses that come in, you know, people >> that's all part of the existing approved site plan. All of that information narrative explaining all that. Yes. >> In 2010, in 2012. So that's that's been a part this this isn't an expansion of the museum's operations.
068This is just a parking plan. >> Yeah. Why did you want to change it to a semi-public facility? It's been that way all along since 2012. >> So in full cander, it was Eric Chance's idea. Uh we met on site several years ago with Nancy Marshall, with Tina. She was newly on board. Eric, Eric has a very long institutional knowledge because he was the planner assigned when the residential museum use was created. Um, and so it was it was the idea that that this would be the natural evolution of a residential museum as as it changes over time. Uh the reason why we are no longer pursuing the part of the application that's sought to change to the semi-public facilities use is because as was identified earlier, we have to deal with the egg overlay
069district portion of the property. Um, and so that will take some some planning and and reviewing, but because of those sort of technical barriers, we, you know, there's no problem with remaining with our residential museum use, which was actually what Longhouse had intended from the very beginning when we started having pre-application meetings with the town, with the town attorney's office, with the planners, um, because we figured that we we weren't ready to go to a semi-public facilities and wanted to retain residential museum use. So, so it's we've kind of come around full circle because of the egg overlay district and potentially some of the issues with the >> largeings. You're right. That's that's your problem. >> Yeah, that's right. >> You know, I mean, this is this as you say, this was this was created
070for you and for Liber basically, right? >> Correct. >> So, we didn't anticipate everything. So, part of, you know, what's been happening is trying to bring this, you know, center all of this. Right. >> Right. So back back in 2006, Longhouse originally applied to become a semi-public facility. And because Mr. Larson was still living there, you can't have two principal uses on a residential um lot. So again, the residential museum was created as an accessory special exception use, which is sort of unique. Um so so we're remaining within those parameters and continuing to operate the way Long House has operated now for over 20 years, uh but with a better parking plan. Right. Well, you know, as I said, a lot of this is clean up, too, right? And Eric is with us, by the
071way, on if he wants to chime in. But there he's hiding, right? >> There there are a couple of criteria that we're really interested and maybe Lou, this is a time to talk about, but >> about the fact that if this is going to remain a residential museum, there needs to be a residence there, which simply means there needs to be a place where people can stay. >> There is. And there is and there is a kitchen. Okay. Right. A residence under normal zoning is is is a structure that has cooking and sleeping facilities. >> Okay. I'm just >> and those things are remaining there. >> The way the way that I understand it is a residential museum is supposed to be an accessory use to a single family residence open to the public only
072on a limited basis. Whereas the uh semi-public facility if it's that that is usually uh more frequent public use across most of the site and in substance u it it's it well it's a problem because it heightens the tension with the egg overlay and the and the uh easement that you have on the property. It's a legal issue if you if it becomes a semi-public facility. But if it's a if it's clearly a limited public access with the strong protection to the open space, which seems to be what you you're saying it is, then it's more of a residential museum, >> right? Well, there's there's a residence. It meets all the technical criteria of a residence. Um, right. It has its commonplace accessory structures such as the lap pool, gardening sheds, but it also has
073the permitted accessory structures that come part of the residential museum use uh such as the visitor center and the small museum shop, >> right? >> And all the art and sculpture that are there. I would uh following up on the other other point that that Lou was making about the definition and we're just trying to get clarity and make sure we're all on the same page. You're not challenging your >> No, I I understand it's it's esoterically I've spent a lot of time thinking about it and how to make it fit. the definition of limited opening, you know, I think the fact that you are not open for, you know, the winter essentially, right? Except the special occasions, you know, your your hours actually are limited, right? You're not open all day long. Nobody goes
074in >> seasonally limited. >> There's gates, all that kind of stuff, right? Um, >> you know, I think we I would certainly be willing to say that's limited opening, right? That it qualifies. Absolutely. Does everyone kind of agree with that? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Um I think those are really the two key things here. >> Yeah. I think all those other items that we covered earlier are cleanup items. Like we said, I think the big issue is this use classification. And I think you just need to have a narrative that describes and defines and justifies the use that you're going for, which is the residential museum. So you want a narrative similar to what was submitted with previous site plan applications. Well, actually special exception, >> but I think we're going
075to touch upon this in the questions, right? The specific things that we want in the narrative. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, anything else, Lou? >> Okay. Who else would like to ask questions, chime in, have an opinion? Um, first of all, thank you so much for kind of taking uh those of us who are newer on the board through the various iterations of this project. I appreciate it and I appreciate that you guys have really worked with everybody and um addressed most of the the stuff. Um I am very comfortable with it being remaining a residential museum use. I think that's exactly what it is. Um, I love Long House as a resource for our community and I think that, you know, having it stay open as much as it is and having it,
076you know, just upgrading the parking, like that's that's what we're really here for. I did have one question about the um do you I know that you guys mentioned you moved the deer fence back out of the scenic easement and that there was an agreement with the building department and the town attorney's office as to whether that stuff that is there the deer the cow >> Yeah the great and gate >> yes the great gate thank you >> sure so so the scenic easement allows driveways and gates and cattle grates are within the driveway and are commonly part of driveways throughout Eastampton. >> Yes, but maybe >> not technically in the code. Um the ARB the ARB approved it. >> Oh, they did. Okay. >> The ARB Ed, you can speak to this. Thank you.
077>> Aware of it. Yeah. >> We are aware. The ARB approved it and then came back later. >> Somebody else caught that that it might have been an error. So we just would need some sort of something in writing from the building. >> Okay. That's all that's all we're saying. >> That's all we're saying. >> Can address that for you. >> Yeah. No, we all we want is is something from you for the file. And I think our just I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think for us, you know, us as you know, the newer members here, we want to make sure that the next new board when we're not informed, we're no longer on it. Everything is, you know, eyes dotted, tees crossed, >> there will be no questions like this coming up
078in the next comprehensive memorandum that was submitted to council and the planning department back in October. >> Okay. It actually for that very expressed reason went through the entire history from 2006 through the initial creation of the residential museum the first site plan the modified site plan >> me for not having read all that >> that's okay it's it's um the goal is so that again because people change there's been a lot of turnover in the planning and building department so that there is a document that memorializes and compiles some of these things >> that's all we want >> that's all yeah >> so that's that's already in But make just make it specifically about that issue >> about >> the issue of the deer fence in the >> Sure. We can put in something
079>> to button up what transpired. That's all the gate. >> Um other than that, I think the tree should stay and all of the rest of the stuff is um kind of the details again, dotting eyes, crossing tees, and thanks for your patience. Oh, >> absolutely. I'm here to answer any questions that the board has. Um Longhouse is also near and dear to me, as it is to many people in the community. Well, I think if no one else has any other questions or comments, we're going to ask ourselves some questions. Thanks. Have >> one small note about the tree. Um, I don't think the board has the authority to reduce the width of the drive. So, just if they're going to allow the tree to remain, >> that that would be an issue for
080the one parking space. Um, >> for one parking space. >> Yeah, exactly. Like maybe it needs to be relocated or just removed, but just you won't be able to approve that parking space. That's >> right. Exactly. I just want to make that note like if you're allowing the tree to remain that doesn't mean you can approve the reduced dry is that understood. >> Can council opine on that? >> I'm going to defer to the planning department on that one. Um but that is my understanding that that >> what um what Chris is referring to is if you look at space number 10, parking space number 10 um behind any um perpendicular parking space, you need an access lane of 24 ft in width. And that entire lane has been designed to 24 ft in width.
081So the tree obstructs the lane behind parking space number 10. the applicants can remove space number 10, relocate it somewhere else um and be in compliance because you need um you know it's only behind the actual parking spaces. The drive aisle is supposed to have a unimpeded width of 20 ft. Um but I think that you know but that's really for access to a site. Um it's not access through a parking lot. Um, and in fact, if we had diagonal parking spaces proposed here, the lane would be, I think, uh, 12 feet is the the minimum um, under some of them. So, that's what Chris is getting at. That tree behind parking space number 10 prohibits a 24 foot width uh, lane behind it, which is a code requirement. >> Okay. >> But, but again,
082there are there are easy ways to fix that. Space number 10 on top. >> We were discussing that we have more spaces. uh are required. So that's it doesn't really strike me as an issue. >> Okay, >> great. >> Good. >> So we're going to ask our questions that in that case >> and yeah and actually um I'm sorry before the board goes into the the questions um just cuz kind of to summarize from from this conversation of what we need um because I think you know as happens often when we review things um the questions don't align perfectly. So um I have kind of uh four points here um that I think we just went through and I I just want to kind of summarize what the planning department is saying b you know
083after that conversation. So I think the first thing that we would be looking for and it's spread throughout some of the questions that you have is a revised site plan that shows all of the proposed structures um among other things. So the container um th those buildings that were referenced in the memo and that there was a picture of label those as proposed. Um we want to see uh existing um you know label the existing gravel as existing provide coverage calculations. Um I um the deer fence that is shown in the easement I believe that was relocated. But basically, you know, everything we've been talking about of inconsistencies in the site plan, whether or not, you know, a structure is shown the wrong spot, you know, maybe there are structures on site that aren't shown.
084Label um everything that is proposed, including those those accessory structures. Basically, all of that is a revised site plan um that that has all the existing and proposed conditions as they are today. Um that's one. >> Yeah. Do you want it as a single drawing or would it be easier to have an existing and a proposed just so that the lines don't get so confusing when you're looking at it? I mean, I know I know normally we do it all in one, but there's there's a lot happening here. So, I just preference >> you you could do it either way, whatever. >> You mean a survey as opposed to something prepared by a site? I think of a site plan as either an architect or a you know >> Yeah, we do want a survey.
085Yeah, we do have survey. >> We have both, right? So, we have we have an engineer site plan. >> Yeah. >> And then we can have a survey that shows existing and >> proposed. That's that's perfect. A survey that shows existing conditions, but then this site plan just revised to show everything where it is today, you know. So, if that deer fence has been moved, illustrated as such, illustrate everything that's proposed versus existing. Um, you know, basically just a a complete site plan coverage calculations updated if they need to be. >> Um, um parking calculations, but I'll get to that in a second. Um the second thing is identifying the interior exhibit spaces. It sounds like the applicant already did that. Um we apologize. Planning department missed that in the record, but if there is
086a floor plan that identifies the interior spaces, you know that that if it's in there, that's fine. If not, uh that should be submitted. But that's important um because the parking calculation is derived from the amount of interior exhibit space. I would recommend that any area that's going to be open to the public be identified as exhibit space. Um you know for the board and the applicant. The code doesn't prohibit um and doesn't limit the amount of space in the residence that can be exhibit space. It just requires that the um resultant parking requirement be met based on the square footage. So, you know, opening up most of the home um as exhibit space is not something that's prohibited in the code. You just need to provide the adequate parking for it. And then that
087kind of brings me to the third point, which is revising the parking calculations to reflect the residential museum use, not a semi-public facility use as they do right now. And basing those off of the lot area and the the exhibit space, you know, uh how the parking calculation is um crafted. And then um the only other two things I had was a narrative um that Lou had suggested which I think really gets at um the nature of the operation. I know a lot of that was submitted already in previous site plans, but even more so um identifying uh how you intend to maintain a single family residence on the property. Um you know, you may have people from Long House as a group living in there. Um my understanding of the code is that that's
088that's perfectly acceptable. Um but I think it would be good to have something in the record that identifies that you do intend to keep the single family residence um as the principal use on the site because residential museum is accessory. And then um the only other thing I had was um I think after this meeting um we'll all get together and talk about the easement but it seems that that uh issue has been addressed. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I feel like the easement doesn't have to delay the instant application that's before you with respect to the parking plan because we're not contemplating a change of >> Oh, no. I meant the scenic easement. I'm sorry. The structures in the scenic easement, I believe that's that's been addressed, but we >> and we'll we'll we'll
089have an updated survey showing that it's been removed. I think that a site inspection would have shown also. Um I don't know if it's a Were you able to see that during your site inspection? Um, when I went there, it looked like it might still be within the Eastman area, but we we can review that, but I saw it coming off the fence. I think I have a picture of it at the end, but we don't have to get into there, >> Martha. It's in the documentation. Sure. >> The fence actually goes up on the burn. >> It's He's looking at the gate. The gate is in the ement there, but we can we can all review it together and actually >> Yeah, we'll we'll figure it out. And you know, our indication since the
090memo, the planning department memo was written is that it has been addressed. So, but we'll we'll work with the applicant um and any other town departments we need to to to figure out the status of that. But, you know, again, I think, you know, we need to revised site plan. Um identify the interior spaces, which I think they've already done, revise the parking calculation to reflect those interior spaces, and just address that, you know, you're going to maintain a single family residence use on the site, you know. So, I I'm I'm trying to sort of summarize where we landed um from the the conversation. Um you know, the board should, you know, verify if that's their consensus, but just trying to kind of condense all of this into uh you know, um a path forward.
091>> Thanks for that, Eric. That's helpful. Um is that it Eric? >> You good for me? >> Yeah. Okay. Um so, we will ask those questions. Uh the first these actually do cover some of the things Eric just mentioned. The first is does the planning board agree that revised parking calculation should be provided? And we talked about that it, you know, is going to be a function of how much exhibition space you determine there's going to be and it needs to be modified from um, you know, the current use to the residential museum use way of calculating, right? So, we do need that >> and eliminating spot 10. >> Yes, we're going to get to that in a second, but yes, that's true. That's part of it. Um, does the planning board agree right now?
092We're gonna get to it. Does the planning board agree the existing tree should be removed from the drive aisle? >> No. I think everyone says no. We leave the tree. Leave the tree. >> Just a small point. The survey shows it as a 12 in tree. It It's grown since then. So, you might want to That's caliber. >> It's caliber. >> It is. Oh, yeah. Okay. >> It's caliber, not circumference. >> Good. Good. the 12inch trees have rights too. I'm just saying. All right. So, um, yeah. Although, so we should really add to that question >> that we agree that it should be removed, but that we need to relocate uh or rethink depending on how the calculations come out about parking in new circumstances. >> Eliminate 10 and either relocate or or eliminate. >>
093Sure. >> Okay. So, everybody's good with that? >> Okay. Uh, does the planning board agree that exterior lighting details should only be required for proposed lighting if applicable? I think we've heard tonight there is none. In fact, we'd sort of like to see that there will be none, right? As a condition. >> Um, does planning board agree that the same material should be provided for all parking spaces? We already went through that. Yes, they're going to be they are. Uh, does the planning board agree the prohibited structure should be I'm actually going to I'm going to read this, but then I'm going to rewrite it. Does the planning board agree the prohibited structure should be removed from the scenic easement area or the applicant should seek to modify the scenic easement? I think that question
094really should read. Will the will the applicant provide uh a narrative about the conversations that took place that led to the agreement that you would move the deer fence and keep the gates and the great right? Just provide just provide us with something that says what transpired. Um just that one issue. Does the planning board agree that a recent certified survey should be provided? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think we all said yes, we do need one of those >> and I think we six was >> yes the planning board agree that existing and proposed work should be indicated accordingly with floor areas setbacks and coverage calculations. So I guess this gets to the question of site plan and survey having accurate site plan and survey. >> Yeah, >> right. >> Basically, yes. Yeah. But
095essentially I mean Bruce can attest to this as an architect that uh surveying a site plan can't give you GFA can do that >> right exactly >> and which I will remind you were part of the very first submission received by this board. >> Okay board agree the applicant should provide the total gross floor area dedicated to residential museum. We already said yes. We do want to explore that idea as part of the narrative that was being that was being discussed. >> Um, does the planning board agree that it is appropriate for the application to move forward under its existing use of a residential museum? I think we all agreed earlier earlier that it meets the criteria in our view. >> Yes. >> So yes from everybody on that one. >> Does the planning board
096agree that the applicant should change the project title? you know, detail, but yes, you need to do that. >> Uh, what did I miss, Eric, out of your points? I'm sorry. >> I don't think anything um I I was more taking the questions and some of the other comments um and condensing them. >> Right. But did we miss anything in these questions that would be instructive at this point or have we already made the point? >> We got it. >> Yeah, we've already made the point. Okay, I think we're >> Yeah, I think so. I think you got everything. Okay. All right, I think that is a wrap for us tonight. >> So I guess my next question for the board because time is of the essence for long house to do this work is
097how can we move this forward in the most expeditious way because I believe that a lot of what you've asked for is completely ministerial. Um and there were narratives that were previously submitted so we can get that very quickly in terms of the narratives. Um, again, the survey also get probably within the next two weeks all of that stuff submitted. Um, is it possible to tenatively schedule? And we know that the town board will be waving the fees at the March 19th meeting. Could we potentially be tenatively deemed complete with a a hearing date in April? >> That question should be addressed to Eric. Eric is the guy that does the scheduling, so we'll have to have all of that, right? >> Yeah. Um I think what we should do is um Chris and I
098will reach out to the applicant um tomorrow. Um and we'll go through the file. We'll we'll see what we have and what we don't have. Um you know, we couldn't we couldn't deem it complete and schedule a hearing tonight anyway because you don't have a resolution. Um the next meeting is within 2 weeks. Um it may be possible to get the information that we need in time um and have it on, but we could also expedite things by when it is on the next agenda if you know the planning department does suspect that the board will deem it complete to also have the resolution to schedule the public hearing on for that night. Um but I think we need to coordinate and make sure that all of the items we need are submitted so that
099there is a complete application. We'll try to we'll try to help the applicant expedite that as much as possible. We'll we'll try to get this back on for the next meeting. Um but you know, we we can't just deem it complete when there are clearly incomplete items and when the board doesn't have a resolution to schedule a hearing. >> That's fine. We appreciate any efforts that the board and the planning department could do to help us get to the logistical time frame that we need. So, I appreciate all that and we'll we'll do our part to get everything to you very quickly. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your patience. >> Thank you guys for your time. Okay, our next matter is the Quail Hill Farm egg improvement site plan. I
100am recused from this. I turn this over to our co. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, I wouldn't be able. But I'll take some sustenance with me. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, since Ed is recused from this, um Sarah, this is you for the planning department and me for the planning board. So go ahead whenever you're ready and I know the applicant is here. >> Great. Um good evening everyone. So this is a initial site plan application um that has been made for three phases of work. >> So phase one is a permeable parking area um around three sides of the barn with made of stones and gravel. two concrete pads on the north and south sides of the barn for washing produce and a 12 by 20 concrete pad for a food storage cooler. Phase
101two includes relocating an existing 1,800 square foot greenhouse that will be relocated to the south side of the barn and expanded to 1,976 ft. A second temporary greenhouse will be erected parallel to the first one and will also measure at 1,976 square ft and 10 ft high. Phase three involves the replacement of 8 foot high deer fencing measuring approximately 2,170 linear feet. It should be noted that this does not need site plan but will need um ARV review. The property is situated along Old Stone Highway, Side Hill Road, and Deep Lane in Amigansit. It is nearly 100% clear of natural vegetation and contains mostly cultivated agricultural fields. All the neighboring properties are zoned residential, and the parcels to the immediate north, west, and south are also within the agricultural overlay district. The last site plan
102approval was last granted um in December of 2019 for a one and a half story barn with an office, a restroom with loft above along with an IA septectic system. As for Seeker, uh this is a type two action um and it will not be subject to additional review. onto dimensional conformance. The setbacks for a lot of this size are 90 feet um from the front front yard setback and 35 um side and rear yard setback for accessory buildings. Currently, the closest proposed greenhouse is set back 52.2 ft, which does not meet the 90 foot front yard setback for accessory buildings or structures. Um and this would require approvals from uh the ZPA. A more suitable site layout may be to leave the greenhouse in its current location and construct the new one adjacent to
103the existing one uh behind the barn or to the north of the barn. Uh the board and the applicant may wish to consider other alternatives and the applicant may want to give us more information about why they would want to locate the green houses in that area to begin with. Um onto building and total lot coverage. Um there are specific coverage and total coverage requirements for agricultural buildings and structures. Uh the maximum lot coverage calculations appear incorrect on the site plan and should be fixed by the applicant. Um the proposed coverage calculation should also be included for all structures. Um although it does appear that the proposal will not exceed um the coverage maximums. Um the new structures are proposed to be located in an area of the property which is covered by an agricultural
104easement. Um this easement prohibits all structures except those which are to use for agricultural purposes. Um so the board should ensure that the intend intended nature of use of the proposed structures uh to ensure it is consistent with the definition of agriculture. However, it does it does appear that the proposal complies. Um, the applicant will also need to submit an agricultural data statement. Um, and that's per New York State Law section 305B. Um, and the intention of that is just to identify nearby farm operations and their owners um, and assess potential impacts of farming activities um, on other farms. Um, onto the sanitary system. Um, installing an IIA septic system on site was part of a 2019 site plan approval. Uh, with the total density load at the time being 390.6 gallons per day. Uh,
105the septic system is designed to handle a flow of 550 gallons per day. Um, the applicant should clarify if any additional sanitary flow is anticipated and provide sanitary calculations. If increased flow is anticipated, Suffach County Department of Health Services approval will be a condition of approval. On to parking. Uh, the applicant indicated in their project description that they intend to have a permeable parking area made of native stone and gravel around the barn. Eight parking spaces are indicated on the site plan and appear dimensionally compliant with the town code. Uh, the planning department has referred the site plan to the fire marshall and is awaiting comment on ADA compliance. Um, there are no established parking requirements in the town code for the addition of a greenhouse. Um but the board should discuss with the applicants
106whether additional parking is necessary. On to uh site navigation. Um all aisles within parking areas um shall have a minimum width of 24 ft. Um when the parking spaces are at a 90° angle with the aisle. Um the current parking and navigation layout does not appear to meet this requirement and the board should discuss whether an alternate layout may be more appropriate. Um the drive aisles um the drive aisle widths should and site navigation should also be indicated on the site plan. On to lighting. Uh no information pertaining to proposed lighting has been submitted. Uh the planning department suspects that no additional lighting is needed or proposed at this time but the applicants should clarify this for the board. Um, as for town engineer comments, uh, per the March 4th, 2026 engineer review, the proposed
107site plans are preliminary in nature. Uh, the engineering comments are summarized as follows. Uh the site plan lacks sufficient engineering aspects to allow for a complete technical assessment. And the reviewing engineer recommended the submission of additional items for further review including a comprehensive drain grading and drainage plan to show how the site will be graded for the proposed improvements and how runoff will be managed. Um and secondly, engineering and construction details, including specifications uh for the proposed gravel and concrete areas, technical drawings and specifications for the proposed drainage system components and subsurface details regarding the proposed clean sand for the proposed drainage wick. Um as mentioned, this has been referred to uh the fire marshall and we are waiting comments. And then uh finally on to necessary elements of site plan. Um, I've already reviewed
108some of this. Um, but some of this information is new. Um, firstly, the finished floor elevations and ground elevations of buildings are not indicated. However, the planning department does not object to waving this information. The planning department recommends that elevation plans or renderings which illustrate the appearance of the green houses be provided. As these accessory structures are proposed within public view and are roughly 1,800 square feet in size, the board should determine if it agrees. Secondly, the dimensions between each structure are not currently shown, but the planning department does not feel this information is necessary. Uh the board should determine if it agrees. Um thirdly, the applicant has provided information regarding the proposed parking. However, the dimensions of general circulation pattern with uh directional movement are not provided. Um as already mentioned um the applicant
109should also submit a comprehensive breeding and drainage plan as well as uh engineering and construction details related to the proposed gravel and concrete areas. Um and then lighting and landscaping plans haven't been provided yet. Um but if they're not proposing any additional landscaping or lighting at this time and the board doesn't require any additional lighting or landscaping, uh the planning department recommends waving this requirement. um and the board should determine if they agree. And then finally, existing topography isn't shown um on the site plan. There are some slopes on the property, especially um towards the eastern portion. There's almost like a big um bank. Um so it might be helpful um in site plan review. Um finally, the planning department notes that it appears the site plan submitted is based upon a previous but fairly
110recent survey. Um it is typical that a new survey would be required um to see all existing structures and determine what would need approvals. Uh given that this is a large site and work is only being done in a specific area, the planning department does not have any opposition to waving this requirement. Uh the applicant should note that any structures not already shown on the survey attached to a CO should be removed or applied for at this time. Um so in conclusion um the planning department views this application as incomplete at this time and advises the applicant to submit revised and additional plans um as well as a response letter. Um the bigger elements that we're looking for here are engineering plans um as well as the other smaller items that are emitted on the
111site plan. Um, additional clarification is needed for parking and sanitary requirements and the site layout may need to be adjusted in order to avoid structures within the front yard setback. >> And that's all I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thanks Sarah. Would you like to be heard? >> Hello. I'm Melanie Tbins, vice president of Bonic Land Trust and Quill Farm is a stewardship project of Bconic Land Trust. Um, our address is 296 Hampton Road, Southampton, New York 11968. This is clearly preliminary plan. We have a lot of work to do, but thank you Sarah Lewis for your review and and attention to all the detail. Um, uh, we will provide engineered plans uh outlining the comprehensive drainage and everything that the engineer town engineer requested. Um we will also provide detail on the kind
112of greenhouse that we propose and being a temporary structure I guess we thought it didn't uh have to comply with the setback. So we need to clearly go back to the drawing board. We'll re-evaluate the necessity of moving the existing greenhouse. Um I couldn't tell you at the moment the reason why. So um we will take a closer look at that. Um, we also uh do not expect that a deer fence or parking area around the barn would require additional sanitary flow. So, I can say that as well as the lighting and landscape. We don't anticipate doing any landscaping. It's a it's a farm. It's an operating uh barn and farm. The proposed uh parking area made, you know, with the um the magnative stone is really to help with the the mud all around
113the barn. uh the tractors that are coming and going out of three sides of the barn. Um it's not I did not think that an agricultural structure required to be compliant with all the specific it's not like paved parking. So to have specific parking spots, we didn't intend to do that because it's going to be native stone. So, I guess I'm going to have to speak with the planning department to get clarification on what's really required for an agricultural structure because I don't exempt from some of those requirements, but we will get better plans to you that outline um how it's made and uh the concrete that will be on either side of the barn is is intended so that it's a better storage area. It's just dirt right now. So, that will allow water
114to drain away from the barn and not erode. Um so we'll provide you the plans that have been requested and um we're working with Rainer engineer so we'll provide an updated survey. Um and it would be appreciated though I was a little um I'm not clear on the question about showing a survey of existing structures. I think it's a relatively new survey. So I don't know that I'll have to just revisit that. Yeah, I didn't see it as part of the um application package, but we can work that out offline if it exists and yeah, get submit it. >> Yeah, we have uh everything that's existing on our survey. So, we'll just make sure you have the right one. >> Great. >> Okay, thank you so much. Um, thanks Sarah for your really detailed um
115memo and thank you Melanie for answering pretty much all of my questions. I do have one question about the cement pads for washing vegetables and stuff. Will there be like sinks and and and bins out there? Do you have well water? Is and is Quail Hill all organic? >> Uh Quail Hill is organic. >> Um it's not certified organic. >> Right. Right. >> But it is uh we will have stainless steel basins that we use. >> 90% of the people who do har belong to farm go out and harvest in the field. take home. But we do have some wholesale accounts we sell to some restaurants. So we have to wash the produce or sell or box share, >> right? >> So those vegetables need to be washed and then put into a cold storage.
116>> Okay? >> So that would be just underneath the awning according to food safety. And >> there if any if anything water is slashing around, we would want it to drain away from the building and not be puddled underneath the sinks. >> And do people pick up their CSA boxes from that barn or where do they pick them up? No, they picked them up um from 660 Old Stone Highway to the yellow shop. >> If you've ever been on the property, it's a threecar garage that we used as the only barn structure for 35 years. >> That will continue to remain where the public come in and just park there and pick up their food. >> It's an older It's a It's kind of wooded. It's a yellow kind of faded yellow structure. driving. >>
117You don't really see it from it, >> but it's away from this >> propert up here. >> It's up by the term by like that dead like dead man's >> like, you know, >> I knew exactly where it was. >> Side lane where the people who come to harvest come over here on deep lane and harvest off Birch Hill. >> Farm members that come to pick up come here and come down. Okay. >> So, the farm stand that I'm sorry. >> No, go ahead. >> The farm stand that is on the >> is that you is that being used at all or >> I'm not sure what you mean by the farm stand? >> Well, it's designated as such on the plan. >> Yeah, there's a small >> Oh, um that's that's meant to be
118simply a display. When the farm members come to harvest, they park there and it has a sign saying, you know, maybe there's some extra eggplant there, but it's not like we sell to the public. Okay. >> Uh it says directs them where to go on to which field to harvest that. >> Okay. >> It's moreformational. >> Um yeah, I think that you know for a preliminary application this is actually fairly complete. We've seen >> Oh, good. >> We have seen worse. Um, the greenhouse is the one big question I had. Why are you moving it so close to the road? Um, why not just leave it where it is? >> My recollection when this was discussed this past year was for the view. Uh, Michael Light is the son of Deborah Light who donated the
119property to us. He he cares a lot about the property and is there. And when you're standing up behind the new timber frame barn and you are looking down across the view shed and you see the orchard in the distance. >> Yeah. >> The greenhouse is in the way. >> Yeah. So he wants Okay. But you I mean it is >> I need to have an agricultural reason because we need to extend the growing seasons by adding the second greenhouse. That has been the plan. And the question was well if we're going to continue to expand using the greenhouse do we do it in that same location? And the this was an alternate uh location we were thinking about. It has a dirt bottom because it is temporary in nature. >> So, I didn't think
120it um you know, we can't get any further into the valley. If we go any further south, it would interfere with where we're growing. So, that seemed the best alternate location, but I'm going to have to explore how necessary it is. >> Yeah, because that's a huge variance to go for. >> Yeah. No, I we wouldn't go for variance. It's not that critical. >> Yeah. And then I mean I'm wondering if even you can shift the current greenhouse around a bit and then add the second one back there somehow. >> Yeah. And there also two smaller ones >> reconfiguration. >> Uh the two smaller existing green houses have been revamped >> better than they were and so >> um we'll re-evaluate if that's the better location to put a new greenhouse. Uh, I think that's
121all those were the questions or comments that I had. >> I just have one other question. Sarah asked if additional parking would be required. So, I feel like that's just a part of finding out how what what regulations really say are required. >> There's a calculation and I'm not familiar enough with it off the top of my head, but Sarah probably. >> Yeah. So there's no parking requirement for the addition of greenhouse, but we would want to make sure that the parking um meets the like use of the property of the barn. >> Um so you know like how many people are coming in and out like >> do you think eight parking spaces would be sufficient >> to meet the needs of the property? >> Right. Um we we have no plans of expanding
122the number of seasonal staff and they park both over at the yellow building up in the woods and sometimes down here at the barn. So six uh vehicles. We had three different farm vehicles and then they had some vehicles. So they were partially up at the yellow building and then down here. So we had said that would be adequate. Um, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't particular calculation that I wasn't aware of. So, I'll speak to >> I'm not sure if for the barn I mean that would have been determined when the barn was built, right? >> Well, what's interesting is the barn was approved with no site work around it. >> Oh, they're adding the parking. >> Yeah. So, it's like, well, we need to put down a better permeable surface, so
123we're coming in to make sure it's compliant and we're doing it right. But in terms of parking spots, I just am not clear if we really have to have a certain number with it being >> Eric, do you know? >> Yeah, I was I was just going to jump in. Um, you know, there is no specific parking requirement. Um, it really goes more by just what it what works on the site. Um, so you know, I I think when it was um, you know, when there was the previous site plan, there w there wasn't a certain amount of parking that was required for agriculture. Um, you know what I mean? It was really just what do they need um, based on the way that they're going to operate. So um you know that was kind
124of a long-winded way of saying there is no um code of five. >> So if there is parking proposed it then has to comply with the dimensional requirements of the code. >> Yep. >> Okay. So if you're proposing parking then it has to comply with the drive aisle and the turn r whatever >> radius. >> Okay. So I guess I'll have to find out if our plan meets your requirements. It's we're not going to have stripes or anything. This is >> gravel. That's fine. >> Tractors. >> And I'd like to just clarify the relocation of the greenhouse. It isn't that willy-nilly where it was is existing. Now, you see it's a the orientation is one way. It's inefficient. It really does need to be turned. >> Oh, right. >> And so, if we're going to
125turn it and add a second one, that was the thinking. Well, let's maybe relocate it. So, >> I'm I'm recalling that it shouldn't have been that orientation to begin with. >> Makes >> sense. >> Um, but we we use it. It's very critical to the farm operations who are up and running and have food to >> food to grow. >> Um, wonderful. Uh, does anyone else on the board have any questions, comments? >> The the food storage cool, is that used just for product that's grown on site or do you bring in other products from the outside? >> Um, it's only for produce on site. confirm that in make >> sure >> but I was just told that we don't need the concrete pad after all. We might end up using a container and that
126might just be a temporary structure that's there that can be relocated as needed but it can be fitted out with a cool god so it's a cooler container and we wouldn't need the concrete pad after all. >> Okay. >> So we'll clarify that. >> Yeah. And would they need approval for a container then as an accessory structure >> even if it's temporary? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um I mean there's no with few exceptions on special you know unique structures um there's nothing in the code that distinguishes between temporary and and permanent. So >> you know if it's going to be there um intermittently it still needs to be shown on the site plan. >> Okay. And because you know agricultural when you wash the product there are chemicals that drain out into the uh into the
127property. Uh so we have a groundwater protection policy that needs to be followed. >> So when the engineer designs the drainage I think they should be mindful of that. >> Sure. >> That they follow the groundwater protection policy >> in groundwater protection zone. But um We don't really use any chemicals on the on growing food, but I'll I'll add a notation to that effect. We're aware of it. >> Okay. And the three phases you you're proposing three phase. >> You know, at first I was going to submit three different applications and I think Chris Stalker had recommended just put it all together because the deer fencing we don't intend to do till the fall. Um, the greenhouse was also maybe a a summer fall thing and getting the parking fixed was sooner. Now I'm realizing
128maybe I should have separated them so we can get the parking lot sooner. Uh, so we will get our application into the ARB for the deer fencing. It was there in a smaller location before the building of the barn. So in a way it's a replacement of deer fencing, but it's expanded now. So I'll proceed with the ARB on the deer fencing. Um, but I'll I don't know if things will be approved any sooner if I say, "Can we just get the parking lot approved?" You know, I don't know because we are not going to have an answer for the greenhouse immediately. I have to do a little internal discussion. >> My understanding is that we can approve each phase how and then you can commence work on the phase. Is that right, Eric? I
129>> Yeah. So basically the the option with a phase site plan you you sort of have if you're unsure of the order and the timing of things you really kind of have two options. One would be to submit a site plan that's only for one element of the work that you want to do right now. Um you know go through the process have an approval meet all the conditions get a building permit and a co and then if you wanted later you could submit a new site plan for you know new new aspects if you want to do phasing. The reason that that's permitted in the town code is so that you can time the issuance of building permits and cos um subsequent to an approval. So even with a phase site plan, you know,
130if you have so for example um you know we have the work around the barn, the green houses and the deer fence, the planning board would be required to review that all as one project and would issue an approval all at once. So all of the information that we would need to get a complete application for all of those aspects would need to be handled. The benefit though of phasing is that then in a resolution of approval, the board could say, you know, meet this condition and get a building permit for, you know, the improvements around the barn. Then you can get a CO and you're fine to use those. You can wait a certain amount of time and then apply for the green houses. Get a building permit, get a CO. It basically memorializes
131your approval of all three of those phases in in one approval, but it has to be done all at once. >> The approval has to be done all at once. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, we'll stick with this plan. I think we'll get get working right away on addressing each of these items. >> Go ahead, Lou. That's it. A No, that's all I got. John Reed, >> I'm looking at >> No, I guess I just question location of the green houses. >> Yeah. >> Okay, let's go through our questions. Uh, does the planning board agree with the planning department's assessment of additional information that must be provided per town code 255-6-50, necessary elements? >> I think we do. >> Yes. Does the planning board believe that alternatives should be considered for the layout
132of the proposed structures? I think we're all in agreement on that one. Does the planning board agree that the applicant should clarify if sanitary flow will increase? We didn't talk about that, but yes, we should. We would like to hear that. >> Does the planning board agree the additional parking is necessary? I think that's up to the discretion of the applicant. >> It doesn't really Yeah. And does the planning board Oh, there's more. Does the planning board agree that the parking area should be revised to increase access aisles? If you're proposing parking, yes, it has to meet all the dimensional requirements. So, yes. >> What if I don't put any parking and just show it as gravel around the barn? >> No, it's still considered parking. Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I mean,
133I think it looks like you're close. >> All right. Yeah. >> Especially if you move the green houses. >> Yeah. >> So, >> should comprehensive engineering plans be provided, including grading and drainage plans and additional construction details related to the proposed gravel and concrete areas? Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the comprehensive lighting and landscaping plans can be waved? Yes. >> Yes. And does the planning board agree that elevation plans for the green houses should be provided? Yes. I think we'd like to see what they look like. Thank you so much, Melanie. Thanks, Sarah. And um let's get is coming back in. Take care. Thank you. Our fearless leader has returned. >> Fearless. >> Okay, guys. >> Fearsome leader. Yeah, >> that's better. >> Fearless sounds careless. >> Rockle, >> right? like that.
134>> Okay, we've already done one of the three reszos. The first is the schedule of the public hearing for for uh Fernra. That is you. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton on April 8th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of 9 south Ferncraftoft subwaver of premises identified on the Suffach County Tax Map as parcel Suffach County Tax Map number 3028-3-45 files can be viewed and comment comments can be filed in accordance with the specifics in public hearing notice which appears as part of the meeting record tonight and will be published in the paper of record no less than 10 days before set hearing date. The board will then vote to adopt a
135resolution to schedule a public hearing for the first application before rereading the script for the next application. That that's the John Carson approach of reading the instructions right now. >> Okay. You know, I think you did pretty well. >> Next time I want hear you hear you. >> I have a >> Okay. Motion. >> I'll make a motion. All right. Will you get second? >> Will you make a motion and you all in favor of the Fear? All right. Good. >> Let's do that. >> All right. Guess you get to do one slightly different. amending approval the gardener marina >> on TV. >> Yeah, >> there's no template for that. >> Yeah, this one is >> uh >> you have to make it up as he goes along. >> This is like the old way.
136>> Quiet, please. In the matter of the application of Gardener's Marina site plan, Suffach County Tax Map number 3000-93-1-8. >> Uh, I have read the resolution amending approval and I move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Great. Yeah, that would be fantastic. >> That's you know that's all of us script. >> It's a common script. >> All right. So we have to uh approve Katie's wonderful minutes. >> They were great >> from last time. I don't have any comments. Does anyone have any other >> I read them and >> comments changes? None. Okay. All right. Have a resolution to a resolution. Motion to approve. All right. All in favor approving the minutes. I >> passed and carried. And then we need one more question. All >> in favor? Yeah.
137I give you a second. Second. All in favor? >> Yeah. Very good. >> Kitty, was I to keep that? Have a good night, board.