East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 02/11/2026

001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the East Hampton Town Planning Board's February 11th, 2026 meeting. We have a pretty ambitious agenda tonight, so we're going to jump right into it. The first thing is a public hearing for St. Michael's basement alteration site plan. Uh is the is there someone representing the applicant here? Okay. Just we'll be right back to you in a second. Um are we properly noticed, Britney? >> Okay, great. All right. So, first, uh Sarah, you're going to take us through the application and then if the applicant would like to make some remarks after that, please do. >> Do I have to read? >> Oh, you'd have to read that. Public hearing notice >> notice is hereby

002giving that given that a public hearing will be held at for the East Hampton Town Planning Board on February 11th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. The application is the St. Michael's basement alteration site plan. It is a 233,477 square foot property or 5.36 acres located at 488 Montalk Highway, Amagancet, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-172-2-9.4. An application has been made for alterations to the basement of westernmost building which contains the community center and manager's apartment that were begun without site plan approval. A former storage area was converted to living space as an addition to the existing manager's apartment. The alteration converted 469 square ft in the basement interior and builds a 22 ft exterior basement stairwell for additional access. >> Okay. Thank you. Sir, if you'd like to address the uh the board, please first identify

003yourself, name and address, please, for the record. Brian Lester, Torbin Lester, 132 North Main Street, East Stampton, New York for the applicant. Evening. Um, this application has been u added by by this board previously before we got to this public hearing. It's a small extension of the manager's quarters and provide housing for um one of the uh security and maintenance people that uh that assist and is a family member of the of the manager uh necessary for living and to keep the uh property safe and the inhabitants have a a constant uh maintenance person available to them uh on site. Okay, >> Sarah, I forgot to ask you if you have any other comments. Nope. Nothing additional. I think >> Jen's memo kind of covered it, right? Okay. >> All right. Thank you, Brian. Are

004there any members of the public present here who would like to speak on St. Michael's basement alteration site plan? >> Okay. Hearing none. Uh are there any uh anyone on the phone lines? Uh, please stand by. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Just making sure everything is up and running. Everything is good and you have zero callers. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, we have no public comment on the St. Michael's basement alteration. So, Jen, do you want to move to >> make a motion to close the public hearing? Second. >> Second. All >> in favor? >> I Okay. >> All right. Our first work session item is the Macarva Barn site plan special permit modification. Aaron, that is you for the planning department. Uh Jen, and I see that the

005applicant is here. So, Aaron, if you want to take us through this. This is the McGar McGar site plan modification. It was last reviewed on January 28th, 2026. Some background information, there was an application made seeking a modification to a previous site approval modification fire, added curve cut, performance bond for longer turnout time for the horses, remove the jumping ring, and allow fence light irrigation. The original application approved a bond with six dolls, a grooming room, a tack room, a washroom, and a second story hog. Additionally, four padlocks, a jumping ring, and seven park. The subject property is approximately 5.1 acres in size and a zone A3 residence. Law is currently improved with a two-story single family residence, attached garage, four pan, swimming pool, dual fencing, hot tub, two frame sheds, and a playground patio.

006It's located in the south for groundwater protection area and is within the Suffach County Pine. During the previous review, the planning board issued written comments for the applicant to address. Um the first written comments were limited to the turnout time 4 hours as was previously reviewed in the last um meeting. The planning board agreed to amend the pasture management plan to no longer require their turnout time of four hours. No further action is required. Um the uh the second one question was the applicant should amend the accessible parking space to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The applicant did amend uh the accessible parking space now be compliant with the ADA uh by changing the proposed surface to asphalt. The town consulting engineer uh at least the site is now compliant with the

007ADA. No further action required at this time. The third question was the applicant clarified that seven total parking spaces will be provided including one accessible parking space. Um previously it was unclear how many parking spaces are on the property. However, the applicant has clarified on their site plan that there will be a total of seven total parking spaces including one accessible parking space. Going further than that, the following question was the applicant should amend their site plan to meet town parking requirements. Um that the applicant did do that. Uh they're now providing three grass parking spaces, three asphalt parking spaces, and one accessible parking space in line with town code which will require five total parking spaces in the situation. One of which would be ADA um accessible requirement. Uh they are they are they

008are putting in seven parking spaces that requirement. Lastly, the board agreed that accessory parking structures were built that were built should be allowed to remain during the last review. three attest parking structures built into the previous site plan removal uh site plan uh was was deemed to be allowed to remain. No further action is needed. The town consulting engineer reviewed this application and gave us their February 3rd, 2026. They agreed that the engineering they they said engineering approval was recommended and all such parking issues were fixed. Uh same with the fire marshal, David Brown, reviewed this and gave us a report February 4th, 2026. They found the site to be ADA compliant and within 1,000 ft of public water and fire troops. Um as for public hearing, as this application is a modification, the board

009is not required to hold a second public hearing. However, it is noted that the original site plan uh/ special permit application received public comment previously in the 2008 site plan approval and the board may elect to hold a public hearing at this time if it feels there's potential for public concern regarding the application modification. Um in conclusion, the planning department feels this application is ready for approval and the board should discuss whether they feel a public hearing should be held for this application. >> Okay. Thank you, Erin. Uh, before we turn this over to the board for discussion, does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Uh, yes, please. >> We know who you are, but identify yourself. >> Thomas Crouch, attorney for the applicant, Whan Filer, PLLC, 532 Montalk Highway, Amigan, New York. Uh,

010just one clarification. I think one of the things Aaron mentioned is that that we were removing the jumping ring. The jumping ring is going to remain. Um I think at one point he said that he modifying the application to remove the jumping ring but then uh at a different point said it was going to remain. So that just to clear that up over there. Um yeah, you summarize it pretty well. Um we'd ask the board to just move forward. Uh we don't believe the public hearing is necessary. These are pretty minor modifications. So uh happy to answer any questions the board has. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Thanks Jen. Um, thank you everybody for the recap. Yeah, we've heard this um application several times and I, you know, thank the applicant for adjusting things and clarifying

011and, you know, responding to all of the, uh, comments from the planning department and the board. Um, I do think given the nature of the comments that were heard on the last iteration of this that we should have a public hearing. Um, you know, it's a beautiful property. I actually drove up there today. You probably saw me on your camera. I pulled in and it's a little snowy like pulled turned around and pulled out. Um, but it's, you know, it's a it's a beautiful property. It's 5.1 acres. I'm of the opinion that, uh, a horse farm is in keeping with the rural nature of the neighborhood and the town, but I do think we should have a public hearing. >> Any other comments? Any other thoughts? >> Uh, yeah. No, I think they're minor modifications

012and I'd be in favor of waving the public hearing. >> Okay. All right. That is going to be one of the questions that we're going to ask. If there are no other comments, we'll just we'll go to the questions. Uh the first is, is the modification application complete? >> Yes. All around. Right. Okay. Will the board require a public hearing to be held for the modification application? >> I vote for yes. >> I vote yes. >> I'm leaning yes. You're leaning yes. Reed, you're a no. >> I I said yeah. No. Um I'm actually leaning towards no. >> Okay. >> Whoa. Tiebreaker. >> Oh >> yeah. >> Uh I am leaning towards yes only because there was public comment in the past. So >> yeah. I mean this this has had a long gestation period.

013I just want to make sure that everyone in the neighborhood's you know feelings about this from years ago have been resolved. I think they have been new pasture management plan. But I think it's useful to have a public. So we will move forward with that. Thank you. Thank you. >> As far as public, when would the resolution be on >> to schedule the public hearing? >> Next. Next meeting. Next meeting. >> Yeah. >> So that's all it cost is two weeks really. >> Yeah. >> Um All right. So our next work session item is the Serest pool and shed site plan wrap-up. Uh and that is who did I give that to? To you, Ava. Right. That was LSE. Um, and that is Chris, >> please. >> Thank you. >> Okay, applicant. >> Oh, there

014they are. Okay, good. Um, I'll just give a quick summary. This is a wrap-up memo. This is for the SERS pool and shed site plan. It's a phased site plan. Phase one shown in green here, uh, does not require any zoning board approvals. Phase two in red requires a natural resources special permit, which the zoning board already agreed um to go administratively. Phase one is just replacing the pool and its surrounding structures. Phase two is the new clubhouse building and sanitary system. Um this was complete at its last review. There was a public hearing held on January 28th and no comments were received. Um engineer and fire marshall both signed off. And the last piece is that we are just waiting for comments from the Suffach County Planning Commission on whether we can go forward

015with our resolution. Um provided the board agrees the application's ready for approval uh pending feedback from the planning commission. So once we get that feedback, we have the resolution prepared for a meeting soon after. >> Okay. >> Any word from the applicants? Okay. Uh, Ava, your thoughts? >> I I agree with the planning department that this is uh ready for approval pending the SE county planning commission's sign off. >> Agreed. >> Everyone uh on board with that? >> Yes. Ready for approval? Okay. And uh we can give this approval before the NRSP as Chris said and uh resolution after we get feedback from County Planning Commission. So, we're good. Thank you. All right, next up is the Surf Club fourphased site plan wrap-up. Chris, you again. And Bruce, this is you. >> Thank you. This

016is another quick wrapup. Uh located 20 Side Avenue in Montto. This is um just as a reminder, it's for enclosing existing patios to add livable space to four units across the subject property. Um there was a variance already obtained from the zoning board for setbacks from the dune to the south and this one is complete and ready for approval. Uh provided that the board agrees and if they do I believe we have a resolution prepared for later this evening. >> Y okay again applicant natada. Okay. Um Bruce. >> Yeah I think uh we've heard this a couple times and I think we're ready to uh go ahead with the approval. Okay. Well, that is our one question. Does the board agree the application is ready for approval? >> Yes. All the way around. >> Um,

017we could actually go right to the resolution. That That would make Lori really happy. >> All right. Hang on. >> Our goal here. >> Let me see. Here we go. >> Okay. In the matter of the application of surf club 4 phase site plan this is for site plan approval suff county tax number 300-49-6-21. I have read the determination and move for its approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I unanimous. Thank you very much. >> All done. Thank you, sir. You bet. All right. Uh, next matter is the Springs Brewery site plan. Chris Stecker, that's you again. Um, and that's one. >> Can I assign that to Jen? Lou is out. Yeah. Um, the applicant I see is here. Um, so Chris, please. >> So, this is the Springs uh brewery site

018plan located at 847 Spring Fireplace Road. This is the planning board's third review. The last one was on August 13th of last summer. Uh just note that the planning department also prepared a meeting for August 27th. Um however, the applicant adjourned prior to the board's discussion and a revised submission was since provided. So the parcel is zoned neighborhood business is uh 0.25 25 acres and contains a one-story building previously used as an auto body repair shop overlay district historic district overlay district and the acabonic harbor critical environmental area pulling up the site plan. So the application was submitted to remodel the existing building from an auto body repair shop to a brewery. The applicant proposes two uses, wholesale retail beverage distribution and retail store. The wholesale beverage uh distribution would apply to the rear portion

019of the building and that's proposed for brewing beer only and not to be open to to the public. The applicant detailed that most of beer produced uh would be sold at wholesale. retail stores proposed to apply to the front of the building um would be for customers to purchase beer mainly to go um with some limited on-site consumption proposed. The planning department requested um confirmation from the building department on whether these uses align with the town code and the building inspector determination dated October 22nd, 2025 confirms that these uses are classified appropriately. um the determinations attached to this report for any board members wanting to review. The proposal involves remodeling the existing building with some facade changes and interior alterations for the proposed uses as detailed in our report. The existing uh septic system is

020proposed to be replaced with a low nitrogen system and the existing well would be abandoned and they would connect to a public service line. Now, just to go over the issues from the planning board's previous review, the board requested additional information for submission items required by the town code and the applicant provided revisions for many of these items. Uh, however, the following issues appear uh to remain outstanding. First is the height of the proposed retaining wall needs to be provided with elevation drawings um to demonstrate that the proposed parking can be measured from this property line towards the northwest. You can see there's a retaining wall along this property line and they're measuring the parking from that property line including the wall because their intention is to use the wall for wheel stop overhang. So,

021if the wall is short enough, they'll be able to do that. But we we needed that demonstrated uh with elevation drawings to confirm such. They also need elevation drawings for a split rail fence along the front property uh line. Details on signage should be provided. The town code details the architectural review board only has exclusive jurisdiction to review signage when signs are proposed uh not condensed with any activity requiring site plan review. The floor area needs to be indicated consistently. There's a slight discrepancy with the proposed sanitary calculations which require a revision and the layout of parking is indicated consistently on the engineer plans. there's a small gap between the northern property line and the parking space. Uh whereas on the architectural plans, the landscaping plan, the spaces go right up to the line. The

022next issue was the board uh commented that the driveway dimensions should be revised or that they should remove um proposed ballards to limit obstructions in the driveway. The applicant removed the ballards and and that issue has been resolved. Next, I've gone into it um a bit, but the applicant was asked to provide compliant drive aisles and the applicant revised plans with a 24 foot drive aisle and reconfigured the parking. This issue appears resolved um pending confirmation that the retaining wall can be included in that dimension. And you can see here the dumpster enclosure is located between parking spaces which is um unique but basically they did that because that corner of the building is closer to that property line. So in that portion of the property it was not uh feasible for them to provide

023a compliant parking space and drive aisle. Um as as you go towards the south that's where they were able to um meet those requirements it appears. So we're satisfied that pending the issue of the retaining law. The next issue is the total uh lock coverage which has come up in each review and we asked for a detailed breakdown showing which structures were being included in their coverage calculations and the applicant provided such a list and the planning department notes the submission details the proposed total lock coverage is 68.3% where 70% is permitted by the town code. And I'm just going to pull up the architectural plan. Landscaping shows this a little better. Um, it appears the applicant excluded portions of the revised driveway, which now includes grass strips in areas that were previously proposed with

024pavement. Commercial driveways uh should be improved for their entire width. And regardless of whether grass was permitted in these areas, they would be considered part of the driveway which is included in total coverage um per the definition in the town code and the planning department confirmed this uh with the building department just um for everyone to know. So our estimate the planning department is that the proposed total off coverage is approximately 8,400 square ft or 76.8% or 70 is permitted. Uh this would require an area variance from the zoning board. Does not appear that the proposal can be revised to avoid a variance from being required since an increase in total coverage is likely needed to provide the required parking for the uses. And generally the planning department would not recommend against a variance in

025this instance. The proposal is increasing permeability by offering gravel in areas currently paved with asphalt and we don't expect or anticipate um any significant adverse environmental impacts from this proposal. The applicant should revise the coverage calculations and confirm to help confirm uh the extent of the variance which would be required. And just also note on the driveway with the site navigation, having those grass strips would likely um lead to ruts, mud, mud, things of that matter without any aggregate in that area. So we recommend that it all be paved um in terms of design standards. Next is the issue of the sanitary system. pull up the plan, but the applicant confirmed that the uh details were submitted to the county health department and they appear sufficient for review. The subject parcel has a population density

026equivalent of 150 gallons per day, the max sewage flow they could have. And as mentioned in the memo, uh dated August 27th, that's the one that the board did not get to discuss. The county health department project density loading rates includes a unique provision for breweries which states that breweries uh with a greater than 15% of the floor area dedicated to um tasting shall use bar rates. And given that more than 15% of the area is in a space for tasting, the county may apply bar rates to the proposal, which would likely result in a a loading rate increasing to beyond 250 gallons, which would require a substantial variance. But um ultimately the county health department will determine which use um aligns with their review standards and whether the proposal conforms with the maximum in

027this instance. and the applicants should continue to provide any updates they receive um in their legal process. And couple more issues to go over the noise. There's um some exterior equipment proposed along the southern facade. Um the applicant provided manufactured spec sheets. There's missing noise data on the proposed generator and glycol chiller systems. These should be provided and the sound output for the HVAC system exceeds that is what it is. is uh permitted at the property line. Just note that doesn't mean that it would not comply. Um but details on the noise attenuation would need to be provided and the applicant just must must demonstrate that the equipment is going to comply with the town those standards. Um the special permit standards are listed in our report but are more for the board to consider

028once this application's complete. And then just going over the engineer comments, the engineer continues to recommend that the drive aisle for the accessible parking space be swapped with the space itself to avoid the driver door from being blocked in when um a driver pulls in. And the applicant noted that the uh common practice is to have the aisle on the right hand side. So that that is where the vehicle door loading ramp is typically located in in certain vehicles. um and the planning department finds this acceptable, the board should just discuss whether they agree. And it would also note that if there were swapped, you'd likely see a further increase in in coverage just since there would need to be paving in that area. Um the next thing from the engineer was just a recommendation

029of project limiting fence to be installed during uh and before construction of the retaining wall along the property lines. The planning department agrees with that recommendation and it's something that should just be noted in the next submission or added uh to revised plans and it's something that we would go out and inspect prior to a building permit being issued. Um, lastly, the the fire marshall signed off for firefighting per purposes and uh compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, but he did point out that the uh floor plans must be revised since the employee bathroom opens into a space used for food or beverage um preparation. So, the applicant should just revise that to address his comments. The other approvals this will require is architectural review board, zoning board of appeals likely for uh coverage

030area variance, the health department for the sanitary system and the resolving the fire marshals issues. So in conclusion, the application is incomplete pending the issues mentioned. The applicant should provide the mentioned elevation drawings, signage details, and revise inconsistencies to meet submission requirements. the total coverage calculations and paving improvements should be provided for the entire driveway. Um, the applicant should apply to the zoning board for a variance unless revisions can be made to avoid such. The applicant should demonstrate the equipment will comply with noise standards and address the fire marshall's comments. The board should discuss these issues and determine whether they agree. should also discuss the engineers comments about the um accessible parking and the uh project limiting fence. >> Great. Thanks, Chris. Very thorough. Uh does someone from the applicants team want to be heard?

031>> Just identify yourself, please, as usual. >> Hi. Uh Gunnar Burke. Um I'm the architect as well as uh on the applicant team. Um just wanted to talk about the uh coverage issue a little bit and um give kind of our professional point of view. Um we uh respectfully interpret the code a little differently uh about regarding the ribbon driveway. um you know uh we designed the this ribbon driveway to specifically to reduce um imperous um surface area as part of a sitewide strategy to increase permeability on the site. Um that's currently all asphalt. Um you can see we're we're proposing gravel which is more permeable as well as um these vegetated strips in the driveway that are um you know we do not believe fall under the definition of a structure. Um um so

032we think this strategy meets the spirit of the zoning code um by increasing permeability, reducing storm water runoff um and maintaining vegetated space and and the rural character of the area. Um and and we we also think counting the entire width kind of removes any incentive um of of doing that. Um so um and uh with in regards to this, you know, we respect that the planning department would support a variance. Um but um you know we we can't really afford another year of deliberation on on um um a variance for this. Um, so if I I suppose if uh the ribbon driveway is not accepted as a solution to the coverage issue, then we we will revise the um uh the use layout to reduce demand on the the driveway area. >> Thanks. >>

033All right. Thanks, Gunnar. >> Yeah. So, um, Gunnar, actually, if you wouldn't mind coming, just come on back. Um, I just have a question about the driveway. Um, Chris, did you mentioned that it is against code for commercial driveway to have it has to be paved? Is that what you said? >> I'm not sure if it's ex exactly codified, but the standard is the planning board typically requires any commercial driveway to be fully paved. um especially in this instance, you have a driveway that's more narrow than the typically approved width. And um that's that's something we typically look for and and regardless of the improvements that the building department confirmed um that the entire driveway would be included. >> And is it the recommendation of the planning department that that be paved? Because I do

034agree with Gunnar's point that it >> Yep. Yeah. Um our our recommendation was just only providing grass in that area could lead to mud and ruts and whatnot and that it wouldn't be uh likely that it will >> last in a in a grassy state. But um yeah, I believe that's our take. >> Gunnar, how um heavily trafficked do you anticipate that to be with trucks loading for delivery, etc.? um not large trucks um but you know typical small delivery trucks um on a I would say weekly basis not not daily basis um but um you know just a quick point about the code um the only language in the code about about this is the definition of coverage and the definition of structure u there's nothing that specifically talks about commercial driveways or specifically

035a driveway such as this. Um, it just defines what coverage is and that that it's an impermeable structure and then it defines what a structure is, >> right? >> So, >> um, okay, thank you very much. I have a couple of other points to talk about with the board. though. Um, I have to think about the driveway thing for a sec because while I understand the thinking of the planning department in requesting that it be an impervious thing, it does then, you know, trigger the need for a variance, which as a planning board, we would hope that you wouldn't have to have a variance. So, this seems to be >> this seem to me this seems to be a good solution. I'm kind of talking it out in my head as um as I think

036about it. >> One thing I don't understand is if it's okay for the parking area to be gravel, why can't the driveway be gravel? >> Good point. >> The the gravel >> as coverage. >> What's that? Is counting as coverage? >> It is counting as coverage. It's right. >> Right. But it's but it's pvious and not impervious. So if it's okay for the parking to be gravel, why not the driveway? >> But it would still count towards the coverage. >> No, I know. But that's a separate question whether it's pvious or impervious. >> Yeah, I think it's less about the the permeability. Yeah. In this instance, it's uh if the grass is proposed, it's still part of the driveway and that's still part of the coverage. We we'd prefer to see gravel or some sort

037of asphalt there to avoid >> but gravel would be okay for the driveway. >> Yeah, I believe so. >> But ultimately though, it comes down to a coverage issue. >> I understand. But it's a it's more pvious than asphalt. Yes. Yes. >> So, okay. So, that's the driveway. So, I would I mean I think at first glance I would be in favor of allowing it to be grass strips instead of fully paved. That's how I'm thinking on that. I did have another just a couple of other comments on this. I think most of the stuff that Chris mentioned is um you know technicalities as far as you know resubmitting the plans the the fence um elevations the signage the consistency in the floor area the parking layout you removed the ballard all of that stuff

038seems to be fairly minor site plan adjustments um how much I am curious about the sanitary system How much of the area? It said it you said it had to be greater than 15% for it to how much of the area does the tasting room take up of that building? >> Not sure about the the room itself, but the square footage of of the retail area which includes that and Gunnar can correct me. Um so I'm not sure whether that includes the bathrooms and if the health department their review standards. >> Okay. Um but 854 square feet of um I believe it's >> 27 17 square ft. >> Yep. >> So um it's it's more than >> it's more than 15%. Okay. Um and that's not really our perview anyway. I was just wondering if

039the >> it was more just something we flagged for them and we expect them to go through the health department process separately. I think the only I I mean I think you guys have done a great job with re with revision and I'm very happy that the building department did come back and say that it's considered a retail space um not a bar space. I did want to just um ask one more question about the is there I know that you guys submitted a narrative um is there are there plans to have any sort of seating inside the retail area? >> Uh yes we do plan to come up again. Sorry. Pardon me. >> Uh we do plan for limited seating inside the the tasting area. >> How many seats approximately? >> Uh approximately 10

040to 12. >> Okay. So there's no because we don't have a definition for tasting room in the town code. I don't know what the standard is. We we discussed this a little bit in the pre-call. Um so I think if we could get a more clear narrative of the tasting room use and the number of seats and all of that then we can kind of evaluate that on the next go round. Um but those are really all of the things that I have flagged the seating inside. Um the small you know technical nature of all of the other changes that need to be made the question about the sanitary system and the driveway. That's all my Those are all my notes. >> Thanks, Governor. Anybody else? >> Yeah. Other comments? >> Any proposed outdoor seating?

041>> Uh, no, we're not proposing. >> Yeah, I you know, I think listen, I support this application. I think it's a great idea. Uh, and uh, I look forward to you being able to open this up. The, you know, as Jenna pointed out there, you know, there Chris has very thoroughly pointed out what needs to be done to complete the application. I think you know what those things are. Um, and the narrative I think is important about the tasting room thing since this is an unusual >> circumstance for the town, right? We're sort of finding our way through this notion of tasting room. Um, so your narrative about that will help. Uh, I just don't know how we get around the coverage issue, right? That I'm struggling with. Yeah. >> What we do around that.

042>> I had a quick question. Governor, you had mentioned kind of in lie of um having to get a variance if if this strip was is included, which to me it does appear to fit the definition and would be. Where would you potentially look to maybe cut back? I I didn't catch that. Or >> um we would redistribute the use in the building um which would potentially eliminate a parking space. >> A parking space. I got it. Okay. >> Could be your solution. >> Interesting. Okay. >> All right. >> Questions? >> Any other comments? >> Okay. I think we're getting there, Gunnar. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I'm really glad this turned out the way that it did for you guys. We have We do have questions that we have. Do you have other questions you

043want to ask? >> Yeah. But >> Oh, just for one second. >> Good evening, Britain. And also for the applicant. Um, I just want to note that the code doesn't necessarily state that the driveway material. It actually says that a driveway can be composed of gravel, dirt, or um, pavement. So, we're hoping that we can maybe ask for an interpretation or maybe we can sit down with Chris and see if there's a way to um, maybe use grass papers or somehow to riddle that driveway issue because I I don't think that it's inappropriate in a in Spring Historic District to not have tons of >> Yeah, >> absolutely. >> paving. Yeah, >> it's a it's a you know this is a transitional sort of commercial zone. So hopefully we can find something that aesthetically is

044pleasing and meets the coverage issue and all the other stuff that all the other details you know changing the bathroom entrance and all those things and we can resolve everything. If the board could just give us a really distinct um response on the the engineers our engineers comment about the handicap person getting on the passenger side and the driver side. If the board could just tell us which way so we don't have to go back and forth on that very small issue anymore. >> I think that's fine. Yeah, >> it also causes a coverage another coverage issue. So, >> absolutely fine. >> Yeah, I think that's fine the way it is. >> I agree. >> Great. So, we'll do our homework and we'll we'll come back. >> All right. Good. >> Thank you. Thanks. >>

045We have a few questions we have to answer before we conclude. Does the planning board agree with the planning department's assessment of additional information that must be provided per town code 2556-50, necessary elements of the site plan? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree the total coverage calculations should be revised? I think we're going to work on that. Yeah. Right. We're going to work on that. >> Plenty board agree the driveway should be revised with paving improvements for the entire driveway. Paving improvements. >> Yes. I think we could say yes to that. >> Um, does the planning board agree the applicant must demonstrate conformance with town code noise standards for the outside equipment? Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the configuration of the proposed accessible parking space is acceptable? Yes. >> Does

046the planning board agree the applicant should provide project limiting fencing during construction for the proposed retaining wall? Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the applicant should revise the proposed floor plan to address the fire marshall's comments? >> Yes. >> Okay, we're good. >> We'll see you. >> Ask for a narrative on the um >> thanks for reminding us of that. And yeah, since we could get a narrative on the proceeding plans for the retail space. >> Y thanks so much. >> Um, our next matter is the JHA Main Street office site planning. Chris, once again, that's you and that is Reed for the board for the applicant. >> And Britain for the applicant. >> Chris, please. Um, this is the board's third review of this application. Was last reviewed on November 5th of

047last year. Um, located at 261 Main Street in the Armagant Historic District. And I'm just going to pull up the plans here. The property is zoned central business. approximately 42 acres and is um the existing improvements include the 2,33 ft house, a 240 ft shed, a deck and fencing. The house is known as the George L. Baker House, which was constructed in 1853, and the site is 100% clear of natural vegetation. The proposal is to convert the existing historic residence into an office use. The proposal involves relocating the residents closer to the street. Also proposed finished basement for office areas and storage space, paving the existing driveway and adding 13 parking spaces, including one accessible space. The existing sanitary space system would also be replaced with an IIA system. All parking is proposed to the

048rear which aligns with the planning board and ARB uh feedback. So the comments from the last review um the planning board requested written consent be obtained from the property owner to the east uh for construction of the retaining wall. A notorized letter was provided and that issue call the landscaping plan. The board agreed the Norway maple tree can remain and the California private along the eastern property line should be removed. The landscaping plan was revised and this issue has been resolved. Um the board directed the applicant to provide a compliant drive aisle toward the north. The applicant revised the plans to provide the 24T ft required. Um that issue has been resolved and the planning board commented that proposed landscaping um that was proposed between the building and the eastern property line be removed to

049provide a more compliant trial. Those plans have been um revised accordingly and this issue has also been resolved. The other approvals include the health department for the IIA sanitary system and the architectural review board approval. The application appears complete and ready for public hearing and the planning board should determine if they agree. >> Thank you very much, Chris. Uh, would the applicant like to be heard? You're good. >> I can speak, but I don't think so. >> Okay. All right. That saves some time. It's good. Uh, Reed, your thoughts? >> Yeah. No, uh, this is a quick and easy one for me. A thank you to the applicant. Uh they've been very attentive and forthcoming to the planning board requests and I believe the application is complete uh and ready for a public hearing. >>

050Right. >> And that is our only question. Does the planning board agree the application is complete and ready for public hearing? >> Yes. All around. Okay. Good. Done. >> Thanks. >> All right. So our next matter is the Springs Fireplace Road Car Wash Site Plan Special Permit. Sarah, that's you. That's Bruce. Uh, and the applicant is here. >> Oh, it's you again. You guys again, right? Okay. Just put a different hat on. All right. Sarah, >> thank you. Um, a site plan application has been made to construct a 7,150 foot building along with associated parking, landscaping, drainage, sanitary, and associated accessory structures to be utilized as um part of a major car wash use as defined in section 255120 of the town code. A 43,663t property is situated along fireplace road. in East Hampton and

051is zoned commercial industrial with a portion of the property falling into the special groundwater protection area highlighted here in pink. It is 100% uncleared and is surrounded by properties of commercial industrial zoning. The property is also immediately adjacent to two access points of the town's recycling center. The application was last discussed in front of the board in January 2020 where it was determined that the application was to be scheduled for public hearing to allow collection of public comments which had been numerous up until that point. At this meeting the scheduling of the hearing was pending confirmation of the appropriate access to the property. It appears that the confirmation of appropriate site access delayed the scheduling of the public hearing as after this time an urban renewal map modification was pursued and has been approved. Prior

052to this review, there was a request for public hearing that was submitted in August of 2023. At that time, the planning department reviewed the files and prepared a memo that identified several issues that were recommended to be addressed prior to the public hearing. The applicant adjourned the planning board meeting in 2023. The planning board established a lead agency at the April 25th, 2018 meeting and this is currently classified as an unlisted action. No determination of significance has been issued. The applicant has submitted an updated short EF part one. However, due to the complexity of the application, the planning department recommends a long environmental assessment form to be completed and submitted for review. There have also been several changes in general site layouts and configurations since the last board review and throughout the duration of this

053application of the planning board. Um the size of the building has increased from 5,455 square ft from the time of the original application and is now proposed to be 7,150 ft. The site has been slightly reconfigured. Uh, previously a large part of the need for reconfiguration was due to the parcel being part of the old filed map study. The town board amended the UR map in 2016 to add a portion of Manhattan Street to the rear of the parcel to the subject property. Just to show you what has changed, um, this was the submission from 2019. So, as you can see, um, it looks fairly different. You can see that entrance uh to the car wash is further um or closer to Springs Fireplace Road compare compared to the newer submission. Um the planning department

054sees this as a favorable change. Um we also think that site circulation um is an improvement. Um, so the property also went before the town board for another UR map amendment to eliminate ingress and egress um to the parcel from Springs Fireplace Road. So um originally it was going to take access from Springs Fireplace Road. Um they got a modification so they could take ingress and eress from Maryland and Ohio respectively. Um and again the planning department sees this as a favorable change. Um the board should form a consensus on whether the proposed general layout is acceptable or if an alternative should be provided. Uh the planning department finds the general layout acceptable and views the changes from previous iterations as an improvement. Um per the last memo, the applicants have amended the site plan

055to provide a minimum 10-ft setback from the required scenic uh e easement along fireplace road. Um I can zoom in a little. Yeah. So that can be seen here. Great. Um per the site plan provided the 50-foot scenic easement area is to remain in its natural state which is mostly deciduous woodlands. The is existing habitat type. Uh this may not provide adequate screening screening during the winter months. Uh per the March 7th, 2019 follow-up memo. The board wish to see additional Evergreen landscaping screening to screen the parking lot from Springs Fireplace Road. The applicant should clarify if this landscaping is proposed and provide an updated landscaping plan. The planning department notes that as referenced um there is a 10- foot wide screen screening area between the scenic easement and the edge of the parking lot

056where such screening could be located. So, uh, the washbay is located towards, um, the eastern side of the property. Vehicles will enter at the south from Maryland Avenue. Um, as I mentioned, in comparison to the last site plan, this entrance is now located further along Maryland Avenue from Springs Fireplace Road. Um, the site requires one parking space per employee according to town code and it is estimated that there will be 8 to 12 staff working at a time. There are 40 or 41 spaces on site in total, including 12 employee parking spaces and 14 service spaces. It is unclear if there are 14 or 15 queuing spaces proposed as there is a discrepancy between two plans provided. Um the applicant should clarify if 14 or 15 queuing spaces are proposed. Um town code require requires

057that there be enough queuing space to accommodate eight vehicles per wash bay. Um as shown in the site plan. Um, one thing the planning department found after the memo was prepared that I'd like to note is that a portion of the site does not appear to meet the 24 foot wide drive aisle requirement. Um, specifically here between uh parking spaces in 9 and 10. So you'll note here it's only 14 and a half ft and 10 right here. on to the traffic study. Um, so this image here was the result of a computer computer autoturn simulation um of a 19 foot long vehicle um prepared by an engineer. So this just shows that um a car could successfully successfully navigate um through the site. A traffic study was also originally conducted which the planning board

058found acceptable back in 2019. In the 2023 memo, the planning department recommended an updated traffic study due to the age of the information and the fact that the original study did not reflect peak summer conditions. An updated traffic study dated August 5th, 2024 has been submitted. This included an updated report with turning movement counts collected in March of 2024. The report was prepared to examine the potential impacts of the proposed development, specifically on the intersections of Springs Fireplace Road and Ohio Avenue and Springs Fireplace Road and Maryland Avenue. The traffic study findings indicate that the future 2026 buildout conditions demonstrate that the proposed car wash will not have a significant impact on delay on at at the study intersections and that there are no imp impediments to the safe and efficient circulation of vehicle and

059pedestrian traffic on site. on to groundwater protection and um car wash water usage. In previous iterations of review, Zorn has questioned the water usage for the car wash. Um a few important points from previous reviews include um that detailed information on the closed system car wash has not been yet been provided. Um, two applications involving chemical storage are routed to the office of pollution control which checks compliance with design and permitting but not environmental impacts. The town planning board must ensure no significant adverse environmental impacts occur as part of SRA. Third is it it is unclear at this time where the applicant is with the Suffach County Department of Health application. It is also unclear if the Suffach County Water Authority has been involved to ensure there's no potential backwash from the system into the

060drinking water supply. Um, an RPZ is proposed that's um a reduced pressure zone device. Um, and that's designed to protect the public drinking water supply um from potential backwash. Um, but I'm not sure if that's been reviewed by the Suffach County Water Authority yet. The applicant should also um provide current information on water usage and closed system operation. Previous data indicated that the car wash can handle 80 cars per hour. Each car would require about 69 gallons of water, only 11 of which would be freshwater. Approximately 84% of water used um is proposed to be recycled according to um the last details submitted. Um, we believe the applicant should provide updated information regarding water usage and how the closed system will operate. This information is vital for the planning board to have so they can

061accur accurately assess environmental impact. The engineer comments um are summarized as follows. There were no objections to the traffic impact study, vehicle circulation report, and proposed site site layout. However, there are a few items to be addressed. The proposed grades for the sidewalk and car queuing lanes are higher than the first floor elevations of the building. The applicant's engineer should clarify that this is by design and correct. The town engineer also notes that an exterior lighting plan should be provided. Um finally, and as mentioned, um approvals will be needed from the Suffach County Department of Health Services and Office of Pollution Control, which be which would be required for the proposed uh zero discharge car wash facility. The town engineer recommends that the permit to construct be a condition of issuing a building permit and

062the board should decide if they agree. Um, the fire marshall review notes that the proposed project is not ADA compliant and that the applicant should provide ADA details from parking to accessible route to entrance. As mentioned, um updated landscaping and lighting plans should be provided. Carw washes also um this would require a special permit under the town code. Um as well, it would have to meet the specific standards and safeguards for a major car wash as outlined in town code section 25550. Um the planning department notes that some of these criteria should be made conditions of approval. It should be noted that one of these specific safeguards states that the water used in the washing process shall be recycled and that the facility shall be designed, located, and operated to protect ground the groundwater reservoir

063from pollution. In addition to satisfying um standards under local code, compliance with Suffach County permitting standards, and operating requirements would need to be a condition of approval as discussed. Um, I'd also like to note that there has been a significant amount of public comment on this application. Um, concerns of the public generally include but is not related to traffic and groundwater quality. Um, in conclusion, the planning department finds the application incomplete at this time um, and believes additional information on the before mentioned items should be submitted. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions that board has. >> Great. Thank you, Sarah, very much. Uh, I'm sure the applicant would like to be heard. Good evening again. Um, Britain Bistan here for um, 238 Spring Fireplace Road LLC. I'm also joined by Drew Bennett who's the

064project engineer and um, Greg Darin who's the project sponsor. There are a few points we'd like to make from the onset of this application just because I'm I'm not certain although Reed may have been on the board. I don't think that anybody else was. >> I was. >> Oh, really? You were? >> Yeah. Were you in 2015? >> The 15 version. Yeah. Right. >> Many iterations. Okay. Yeah. History. Go ahead. >> There's a few points we'd like to make just from the onset of the occasion which became began in 2015. The first is that the parcel of land being reviewed is in the hamlet of East Hampton. There was all this discussion about it being Springs. It's commercially industrially zoned um which is the highest most intensive use of zoning that we have in town

065zoning. Um the parcel is vacant. It's surrounded by town roads and the East Hampton Town dump. The majority of our comments are easy explanations and add additional information that we'll happily provide. Um and we'll address them the memo in totality. Um the only non-engineering comments that I'm qualified to respond to um is that we will absolutely submit the long form EAF. No problem. I know it's been a while. Um, and I just wanted to discuss the the easement a little bit because there was a lot of history um with the town board with the UR map and um I think we could all agree that the sort of you know scrub oak and brambles between Springs Fireplace Road uh are not exactly scenic and it's kind of a weird place to have a scene easement.

066None of the other commercial properties on this street have, if you think about any of the other occupancies, I don't want to list them off, but nobody has a 50- foot buffer to their business of of of, you know, vegetation. Um, but we we accepted this and we chose not to when we went to um alter the urban renewal map, we chose not to alter the scenic easement, which I have actually done on a project um down the road on Springs Fireplace Road. Um, but we I want to point out that 50 ft is a pretty significant buffer uh on this parcel and it's narrowest point that's over 25% of the depth of the lot and adding another 10 ft of this of landscaping isn't something that we we would desire. Um there's also the

067the kind of concept that we want some of the site activities to be seen. You know, they are pretty deep when you take the road right away and then the 50oot scenic easement. do want to run a viable business that attracts customers. And I don't know if screening more than what's already there is really sort of necessary. We don't want to not be seen. Um, and we'd like to sort of maybe have some grass. Um, we could do some low bushes if the cars are the concern. We just don't want to do tall plantings that obscure the bu the building. And again, we have this 50-ft very heavily vegetated buffer. Um the other twothirds of the property that we can use, there's really not much area for landscaping. If you look at it, it's mostly

068paved. It's parking. It's queuing. It's um entrance and exit of the tunnel. I don't really see the need for a landscape plan here unless the board can direct us where we would put plant anything that's on this parcel. And I just remind everyone the the the percentage coverage you're allowed on these properties on a CI property is the most. and we are probably I don't know the actual figure but probably about half of what what would be required if we didn't have this 50-ft scenic easement. So I just asked the board to give that sort of some pause and and think about the use and the zoning and this huge 50ft seen easement that's in the front. And other than that all the other questions are Drew questions and I'm going to step aside and

069let him speak. I'm happy to come back though. Good evening, Jvena consulting engineer. On behalf of the applicant, uh I won't take much time. Obviously, we have some things that we need to file in writing for the board, but I'd like to give you sort of a broad brush of information tonight so you have some sense of what the responses will be. So, for for clarification purposes, the number of queuing spaces is 14, not 15. And that is based on an autoturn analysis that we had done uh four weeks after a prior map had been submitted. Um there was a question by the engineer about the grading. Um they point out that the grading this is the east side of the building. The grading here is a little higher than the floor elevation of the

070car wash itself. And that is correct. The building is sort of built into a very mild slope. So that side of is a foot higher than the floor itself. And that was done by design. Uh yes, we understand we need to provide some details for the ADA accessible route and we will do so. Uh yes, we need to refresh the lighting to match the new building that was proposed, the larger building. Um a good catch on the travel width that we heard tonight for the first time. That's an easy solution. Uh there's uh once we have more than enough space to park, there's one space that we can eliminate and easily cure that. And I guess the real reason I'm here is to sort of give you a sense of where we are with the

071loss water, the groundwater issues that seems to have been kicking around for quite a while. I wrote a memo back in 2017 and another one in 2019 and I just learned tonight that there was actually even another piece of information that was submitted to the file by a car wash vendor that provides you some information. So trying to make it a little easier for you to understand. We'll be submitting a diagram like this. I won't give it to you tonight which basically go through the mass balance of how much water is used for each car um how much of it is recycled how much of it is considered reject water how much of is treated >> how much is that how much is used for each car and how much of is fresh >> so

072for um so uh so the the um car wash technology is actually pretty complicated so it kind of varies depending on the location and the technology for the friction car washes that we see here like in Hampton Bay or in Southampton the round numbers it's about 50 gallons per car about 36 of that is recycled >> okay >> and so I'll go through the numbers of makeup water how much is lost from evaporation how much of it is lost from what they call carry out um but I think the important thing for the board to understand is that um this is a zero discharge uh recycled wastewater system Uh there is no proposed treatment and discharge on site. Um that would require a state DEC speed permit. Uh and my understanding is that that that

073that treating car wash water on the island and discharging it up to the ground on the island is not permitted. So this is a zero discharge uh system. Um we've had some experience with some of the golf courses which have similar systems to wash their equipment. They have basically treatment units that recycle it and at the end of the season they haul off the dirty water. For a car wash, you're using fairly more water. So there has to be a fair amount of storage for the reject water. Uh and that is uh pumped out of tanks, holding tanks that'll be permitted by the county and there's monitoring for the tanks. Uh and that water goes to a off-site treatment and disposal facility that's also regulated. So again I I uh hope that this diagram which

074we will submit to you in letter will give you the quantification of information that you're looking for. So all right >> so you basically just describe the closed system. >> Yeah. That's all right. Okay. That's what I wanted. >> The key thing is that there's no discharge. >> No recheck water. >> Yeah. We're not treating it and discharging it on site. We're treating it. We're reusing it as long as we can. At some point it becomes quote unquote it's rejected. it's too dirty to keep using and so they haul it off site for treatment and disposal at another type of facility. So >> there there'll be a storage tank for uh on on site. >> There'll be a number of storage tanks. Yeah. All underground, some you know there's pumps. There's >> are they on

075the uh plans currently? >> No, they aren't, >> but they will be. >> Yeah. So uh at some point so um you're aware that this has to go to suffoc department of health services for bure environmental engineering review which is basically tanks and storage of hazardous materials. Putting those documents together is a a very significant endeavor. Uh the owner is trying to get some sense of whether this is going to be a go before he makes that investment. Uh and so that's where we are. So, we're prepared to do that. We'll get there. Okay. Any questions before I sit down? >> Any other questions for Drew? >> No. Thank you. >> I have a weird question about how many like how many times can you reuse the same water before it's deemed, you know, like

076unreusable? >> So, it's about 20% of the water. That's actually a complicated question. Okay. about about uh uh 15% it depends on the system but about 15% of the wash water for each car is basically uh rejected and and so so when you first start none of it's rejected but toward the later end in the process of the water gets dirty and dirty you begin to reject more but on average it's about 15 to 20% >> like okay thank you Drew Bruce. >> Yes. >> I have one more question. >> Where's the water coming from? >> Oh, yeah. So, it's all um the clean water is coming from Suffach County Water Author. >> Okay. >> And um there is an RPZ device proposed to protect the public water supply and we have not yet filed

077with a water author. That's usually done a little closer to building permit submission. >> Okay. Bruce, >> sorry Bruce. Yeah. >> Yes. Thank you, Sarah. Thanks, Drew. Thanks, Britney. Um, so I wasn't here when this project uh first showed up. So I think there's been quite a few iterations over the last few years. Um, couple modifications to the uh, urban renewal map which I think have helped um, not only with the, you know, grabbing that chunk of land on the east side, also with um, ingress and egress from the site as well off of Springs Fireplace onto the side roads. Um, that being said, I think the adjustments to the site plan, the site layout, the circulation seem okay to me. Um, the queuing, the parking, um, seem okay. It's It took me a little

078while to sort of wrap my head around back and forth through the site, but I I get it. Um, obviously we have a you have to address the ADA. Um, access to the site, the parking, all of that kind of stuff. Um, change in elevation from the east towards the west, it's roughly about 3 ft. I think Drew, you've >> figured that out in your site plan. The building plans don't show that. It's the grade is just flat. So, and I know that's you've got it figured out, but I think that the building plans need to sort of address that. Um, I don't have a problem with the increase in the building size. Um, I guess I do question whether you need a huge lounge area. You know, that's that's up to you guys. The

079building is still considerably under the allowable coverage um for the lot as well as um uh total lot coverage are under that as well. So, I think that's that all seems okay. Screening. Um, you know, I get the 50 foot wide scenic easement. Um, it's pretty sparse, especially when you go down there now. I understand. Um, site visibility. Maybe we can do something to soften it up a little bit. Doesn't need to. I don't think it needs to be huge trees, but maybe something just to soften um soften that up a little bit. um traffic study, the new one I think is okay. Um you know, the new one was done in early March. So I I guess I just have to question the the volume that was studied. Um whether or not that changes

080in the summer, you know, I don't know. >> Of course, it was done in summer, was it not? >> No, it was done in early August. >> It was the first weekend in March. It came out submitted in August. So >> Okay. you know, obviously that'll change in the summer. I think we all we all understand that. Um groundwater, I think obviously is a huge issue. Um test hall information um from the survey, no groundwater was was um encountered down at 19 ft. But I do understand that a partial of the site is >> is located within um what do they call it? >> Groundwater protection. So I think we have to be cognizant of that. Um, Drew, I appreciate your explanation of the closed system. I think that sort of alleviates some of the

081the question I have in my mind. Um, I just I guess I do question the the volume of water that's going through. When I did the math, you know, eight when did you say 80 cars per hour at 70 gallons per car? It just seems like a lot of water to me. And I'm just questioning whether or not this system I'm sure the system will be designed to handle all that. But you know what happens. I guess we just need some kind of information or study or something to better understand how that water comes to the site, how it gets used, how it gets treated, where excess water goes, you know, that sort of thing. and whatever counter measure there may or may not be to god forbid something happens you know all this water

082is going to take off down the street. Um other than that you know lighting plan obviously we need um landscaping I think we can talk about um >> yeah that's it. >> Okay good. Thanks Bruce. Uh let's go around the table and see what other comments there might be from other members about this. This is obviously a pretty important application. Ava, do you want to start? >> Yeah. No, Bruce kind of hit all the high marks. You know, there are a lot of, you know, technicalities that, you know, Drew and Britain both, you know, obviously acknowledge will be addressed. I do agree that the groundwater is certainly going to be the number one concern, you know, if and when this does go to um, you know, public well, already public comments been submitted. And I

083to kind of elaborate on what you said with regards to the uh details about this closed system, it I think it would certainly be very helpful to be as as detailed as possible on a you know in layman's terms so normal everyday uh people can understand you know kind of how how this water is going to be stored on site, how often is it going to be removed off site to avoid potential you know uh issues with overflow or you know what happens. Are there safety measures in place to to cap you know flow um from leakage or anything like that. So I think more detail on that would be probably the best in my mind. >> Thanks Chad. >> Um I agree with what Bruce said and with what Ava said. Uh groundwater protection

084obviously is you know top of mind. I'm also a little concerned about the traffic study. I think that doing it in March doesn't really, you know, include a lot of the, you know, especially the the trade parade that actually goes down, you know, back and forth on on uh Springs Fireplace Road every morning and afternoon. And um it is in a you know, it's a congested area. So I I think we should I think you should maybe do another traffic study at the height of the season um at peak times of travel just to kind of assuage some of the concerns that we have over here. I do think that the revised plan is you know much better than the first several iterations. I did take a look back. Um, but the traffic study, groundwater,

085and then I had one other thing. Oh, the scenic easement. I understand that 50 ft is a lot, but if you look at the dump next door, the recycling center next door, that's set way back from the road. And there is, you know, there is quite a bit of you can't see the the recycling center for. So, it is in keeping with the neighborhood to have a 50- foot scenic ement there. And I think as far as landscaping goes, I'm sure we can work something out. Um maybe not huge trees as Bruce mentioned, but some sort of softening. >> Okay. Thanks, Jen. Reed, thoughts? >> Um yeah, no, I agree with the previous comments. Um ironically, the next application up at 378 Mont Highway, I believe, was also the location of a car wash that

086was proposed back >> in maybe 2015 as well. I believe that was a closed system car wash as well. >> Um, and the same concerns were raised. Um, >> people were very concerned about the groundwater. They were concerned about the traffic and those are valid concerns, right? I mean, no one wants their groundwater contaminated. Let's protect that, right? And let's make sure that the uh traffic is manageable. So, I I think you're going about it the right way. Um, you know, I I'll tell you what, we're I think we need to acknowledge we're in one of the coldest winters we've had in a long, long time, right? And my outdoor faucets have been turned off for 2 and 1/2 months. My car is so damn filthy. >> You know, it is filthy. So, what I'm

087going to have to do is when the snow starts to melt here, I'm going to have to go out to Southampton and get the thing cleaned up, brought back. So, I see some value in a local car wash. And I think the location where it is commercial commercial industrial town recycling center the the building materials place across the street. You got the town highway department right there. It just seems to make some sense. >> Bus Yeah, the bus depot. >> Bus depot. Yeah. So those are my thoughts. >> John, yeah, I echo um what my fellow board members have had to say. The only concerns I have are about uh groundwater, protecting the groundwater. Like Reed, I would love to have a I live in Springs and I would love to have a local car

088wash, but I don't want Sudsy tap water though either. >> And uh so I'm sure this is existing technology. It can't be anything new. You know, how it how it exactly works. A closed system is just unknown to us and uh we'd like to all see it and understand it. I see the current set of plans show 11 dry wells and I I don't know what they're for if they're not for u maybe the loops closed system will replace those dry wells. I don't know. We just need to see it. I'd like to see it. >> Okay. >> Um that's it. And you know traffic does increase in the summer. >> It does definitely. Um yeah. So listen, I some of us were around for the for various discussions of this over the course of

089time and you know clearly the the issues that people have had with this and uh who live in the neighborhood live up Springs Fireplace Road in Springs traffic and the groundwater issue, right? This is a very sensitive area, right? We're right in a groundwater protection area, which is sort of ironic given it's the landfill, right? But it's this is a really critical area and the information I have seems to indicate that we're you know it's 11 ft to groundwater in that area. This is a really sensitive situation right and I think that we clearly need you you guys need to be super transparent with us with the building department about all the detail of what you were describing. we need to be along for the ride with your application to the uh to the health

090department and really understand uh completely exactly what's going on here because you know we're a secret lead agency. It's up to us to make sure that there are no environmental impacts to this. Um and you know we need the information. I also do think I agree with Jen that it would be helpful to update the traffic study. You know I think that would be good. I do believe all the other site plan situations can be remedied easily enough. We've talked about those. Um but I think yeah, let's update the the traffic and let's be really really transparent about how this water gets recycled, what your application looks like to the health department. >> Okay, >> questions. >> All right, so the questions are, does the board find the general layout acceptable? >> Yes. Yes. >>

091Yes. >> Should the applicant clarify how many queuing spaces are proposed? I think I think you have. >> Should a long environmental assessment form be submitted? >> Yes. >> Does the board find the updated traffic study acceptable? >> Not really. I think we're agreeing. >> No. No. >> No. Uh should the applicant provide additional information on the manner in which groundwater impacts will be avoided in the design and operation of the facility including explaining status of health department submission and engineering issues such as provisions for cross connection control the anticipated water usage volume and recycling system operations? >> Definitely. Should a permit to construct from the Suffach County Department of Health Services and Office of Pollution Control be a condition of issuing a building permit? >> No. Yes. >> Yes. >> Should the site plan

092be revised for ADA compliance? >> Yes. Should additional Evergreen screening be provided to screen the parking lot from Springs Fireplace Road? >> No. >> I think that's TBD. Yeah. >> Um, >> agreed. Agreed. Great. Should a comprehensive site landscaping plan be submitted? Uh, >> again I think >> again TBD. Yeah. >> Should a comprehensive updated site lighting plan be submitted? I think that one is a yes. Um, all right. So definitely some work to do here and uh some partnership to develop with the build planning department and us. We'll keep talking about this. Thank you. >> Thanks everybody. All right, our final work session item is the Wayne Scott Green Hampton's Pride project site plan. Eric, >> are you everyone? Um hopefully hopefully you can see my screen now. I'm screen sharing a far aerial

093um of the location of the property. I will um which you can see is on the western end of town in Wayne Scott. Um I will switch to a close-up aerial. So, um, a site plan application has been made to construct a number of accessory structures to create a monument at the town-owned park known as the Wayne Scott Green, also the Rick Del Mastro Memorial Park. The project proposes this space to be a celebratory outdoor social area, a marker for LGBTQ plus history, and a memorial garden for those from the east end lost to the AIDS pandemic. Structures proposed include a 14-inch tall raised platform of roughly 1,000 square feet and a 5-ft tall monument of roughly 56 square ft. Property is situated on the corner of Montalk Highway and Eastgate Road in Waynecott. It's

094zone CB and is 100% cleared of naturally occurring vegetation and contains a roughly 12 space. They're unelineated uh parking lot as well as walkways and a small roof pavilion with picnic bench. Uh the property butts residential property to the north and south although um all but uh one of these properties is across a roadway and commercial property to the east and west. Uh the project and I'm going to switch over to the submitted site plan sketch now. Uh the project is a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code. So no further action is required for secret purposes. Uh included in the applicant submission is a slide presentation made to the town board. This details the reasoning behind the proposed project as well as the goals and some uh specific

095features. The planning board should note that this project has been reviewed by the town board which has adopted a resolution supporting the project as currently designed provided that all necessarily uh necessary approvals and permits are obtained. As a town park, the Wayne Scott Green has an adopted management plan that details the intended improvements and permitted activities. This plan was recently updated to include the Hampton's Pride project in the long-term management goals. Uh the submitted documents do not provide basic information such as uh setbacks from property lines or total lot coverage. However, it's noted that setbacks in the CB zoning district for accessory structures are 10 ft from the side uh from the front and side property lines and 25 ft from the rear property line unless we waved by the planning board. Um as such,

096the proposed structures which appear to be situated roughly 20 ft from the side property line and roughly 35 ft from the front property line would be in conformance even without the board electing to wave the setbacks. Therefore, it appears compliant with with required setbacks. Uh coverage calculations have been provided on the submitted site plan sketch. Permitted total lot coverage on the property is 80%. Uh the proposed area of the new total lot coverage um proposed area of new total uh lot coverage is um 2,160 ft bringing total lot coverage to 11,530 ft. I should have mentioned 80% the maximum would be about 38,000 square ft. Um therefore it's well below the permitted maximum. uh as a result of these it does not appear that the proposed project would necessitate any variances from dimensional regulations and

097appears in conformance with the town code in that respect. Um so with regard to the necessary elements of a site plan um there are a number of items that are um omitted from the site plan that's provided. You can see it in front of you. Um I'm going to go through a few of those. We recommend that um a lot of the normally required elements be waved. Um but there is some basic information that we feel should be added to this uh site plan sketch. Um so for example the site plan does not provide a scale um or the zoning district. Both should be provided. The site plan does not provide front and uh sideyard setbacks basically from the platform. Um the setbacks should be illustrated on the site plan. Um no details pertaining to

098the existing parking area such as number of spaces, dimensions of spaces uh spaces or parking calculations have been provided. Uh however, the application would not alter parking requirements. Uh and no change to the existing parking or vehicle access are proposed. Therefore, the planning department does not object um to parking calculations not being added. Um board should determine if it agrees. Um there are other issues um regarding um the walkways and demonstrating ADA compliance as well as drainage. Um that information is not provided on the plans. I'll get to that in a second when I discuss the fire marshall comments and the town engineer comments. Um the only other element that we cited is that um topography was not is not added um on this site plan. Um however, the site is relatively flat. Um so

099we don't see the need for topography to be added. um provided that there isn't a need for grades or any similar information u to demonstrate ADA accessibility. Um with regard to the landscaping plan um and I will scroll up um the landscaping plan is largely the same as the site plan sketchbook with obviously the um the plantings that are proposed being illustrated. Um the plan incorporates existing mature trees mostly oaks along with proposed flowering trees, shrubs and grasses and wild flowersowers. Uh they are indicated as to be native species. Although the planning department has no objection to the general layout of the landscaping plan and commends the uh proposed use of native species, the plan does not provide any specific uh specific information about the plantings specifically um any fencing or other structures used for

100screening, the names of the plant species, quantities, locations, height, and spacing. Um all of which is um standard information for a landscaping plan. Um and we note that the plan should also uh include a proper title. Um so no information pertaining to proposed exterior lighting has been provided. The applicant should clarify if any exterior lighting including landscaping lighting is proposed. Uh and if it is uh information manufacturer spec sheet should be submitted um to demonstrate compliance. We note that um the proposed improvements are not large enough to mandate a comprehensive site uh lighting plan. um that is actually codified. Um so the application was referred to the fire marshal. Um formal comments to the record are still pending at this time. However, we did speak with the fire marshall. Um we believe that they're going

101to require um some information basic grades um maybe some additional information to demonstrate ADA compliance um on the proposed walkways and to the platform that's proposed. Um, if I scroll down to the site plan here, it's difficult to see. I can zoom in, but basically right where the walkway meets the platform, it's indicated that it's going there's going to be an 8 foot wide ADA compliant ramp. Um, but there's no further information on that. Um, so formal comments from the fire marshall are pending. Um, but we encourage the applicant to reach out to the fire marshall and we will as well um just to determine what information they need to demonstrate that it is in fact ADA compliant. So um I had mentioned earlier that no information related to drainage was provided. However, the town

102engineer has reviewed this and basically said that they have no objection to the engineering elements. Um the platform is not um particularly large and isn't going to contribute um a large amount of storm water runoff. So no drainage um was deemed to be necessary or no information pertaining to it. as well. Um the town engineer did note that structural drawings for the platform um should be prepared and filed with the building permit application as well as any comments that the fire marshall had about ADA requirements um should be addressed. Uh this will require also the approval of the architectural review board. I don't believe an application has been submitted yet. The applicant should do that as soon as possible if they have if they haven't already done so. Um so basically in conclusion the application

103is incomplete pending the resolution of the aforementioned issues and submission of the required items. The planning department has no objection to any of the substance of the subject application but notes that adequate documents need to be provided both for recordkeeping purposes and to ensure that the plans adequately illustrate what is proposed. The planning department recommends that the plans be amended as described in our memo, but notes that the application appears otherwise complete provided the board agrees to wave some site plan elements and provided the fire marshall and town engineer don't require additional information. And I would note again that the fire marshall is requesting additional information for ADA compliance. Um the board should also note that the project although relatively minor in scale does not qualify to be treated as a minor site minor site

104plan under the town code and therefore a public hearing will be required. You don't have the discretion to wave that. Um so for convenience and just to summarize as far as the um elements of the site plan that need to be provided, the site plan itself should have a proper title, a scale, the zoning district, property line setbacks um from the platform in particular should be illustrated and any information that needs to be added to demonstrate ADA compliant as requested by the fire marshall should be provided. I should also note in our memorandum I didn't highlight that the existing and proposed structures uh should be um differentiated. So in other words, you know, for the example, the plan that you're looking at right now, the applicants are proposing those walkways, platform, and monument um in

105the southeastern corner, but they're not illustrated as the uh proposed structures differentiating them from what currently exists. Um and then a landscaping plan as I mentioned with a proper title um name of species, quantities, heights, and spacing. Um but other than that, um the planning department has no objection to the proposal. Um we just feel that it's incomplete at this time and needs some additional information. >> Great. Thanks very much, Eric. Tom, would you like to be heard or just, you know, identify yourselves for the record, please. Jason Laran. Um, so a lot of these things that Eric brought up have been already amended and then in the other versions of these plans, these were sort of preliminary things we put in for expedience so we can move this along. We've already um you know

106the town board has approved and issued a resolution in support of this and um we've been in front of the Wayne Scott CAC which offered their unanimous support. So we just wanted to um get this in as quick as possible but um since then all of the comments that Eric has brought um regarding the site plan, the landscaping plan have all been updated and so they they will have those um this week. Okay, great. Great. Thank you. >> Yeah, and if there's any other questions, there is not any lighting planned for this. Um, also I just want to point out the square footage, the the the monument itself, the base of the monument is um 7 and 1/2 ft on each side. So, it's it's 28 square ft, not 56, I think he had said.

107So, the monument is much it's 28 square ft and 5t high. >> Okay. Um, as far as uh the ADA, there currently exists um on the top of the area in black on the top is a an existing ADA parking spot with asphalt going there and then it leads to a gravel path. our path which would be part of this installation um the memorial path aspect of the project would that would be ADA compliant but we're open to you know I'd have to talk to the fire marshall and I guess refer back to the town board on what the requirements because this is what exists now so we would be willing to continue that path to the existing ADA spot to make an ADA compliant path to the um decking which will have a ramp

108which will the appropriate slope to meet the >> As long as it meets those requirements, I'm sure it'll be fine. >> Yeah, it's about a foot of um grade for every inch you go up. So, we'll grade that out as part of the path and have it be the same material. So, aesthetically, it kind of blends to to that. with Tom uh >> uh Tom House from Hampton Spread and um I've only been here to touch the project to uh the board a couple of times and we're as Jason said we're fresh from uh from approval of the concept is about four years from the incorporation of Hampton's Pride but we incorporated um uh this was before the Hampton's Pride parade um before that be you know came under an umbrella. I incorporated this because

109we wanted to see something built you know where the uh where the swamp was right um historical marker and outdoor social area and uh so this uh Hampton's Pride was created um to well we incorporated to create and maintain this outdoor social area to continue the history there. Um it's important to us though that um it's seen as more than a memorial to the swamp. Although that would be okay, right? Because it was it was there for a generation. But um you know that area of Wayne Scott was known for it was called the miracle mile. There was the the attic was down the road from the swamp. There was place called um out of this world. So that was a very very special area that encompasses over 50 years of LGBTQ plus history that

110was about to be lost. Um I responded to um there was an article in the Star and uh um in which uh you know when that area became a park they said they were going to dedicate a bench to the LGBTQ community you know because of its you know the area significance to that population. So I wrote a guess words called well what kind of bench and all the right people read it and it was quickly decided that yes we need something more than a bench. So um we quickly uh we contracted with a a really great artist Gustavo Bonavari. Um if you see the plans you know they were in they're in the uh PowerPoint you can see the renderings that he did. They're absolutely beautiful. If it's done right could be world class

111because there's nothing like it anywhere. Um there is especially nothing celebratory in nature like most of the LGBTQ monuments throughout the world are memorial. They have a small tone to them. So you know um East Hampton sort of uh positions itself as having the first kind of of social area or historical marker like this anywhere. So um we're really proud of it. worked really hard to get to this point and we want to build it with impeccable materials in the most impeccable way and and you know have it be something you know in perpetuity we want to maintain it. So, um, you know, I could answer any questions you might have about, you know, you know, how it came about or why, but I don't want to take a lot of your time. Already did

112that twice for the town board meetings. Um but uh once again the the important thing I want to underscore um is that you know we think of this as a repository for you know over 50 years of LGBTQ plus history but also um you know it's on the very spot where the uh swamp dance floor was. you know, we had it, you know, surveyed out where we marked the four corners with the logo, you know, these little monument markers and um that's, you know, where the um the elevated dance floor would be built. It's there because it's a park, you know, the places where the attic was and out of this world, those are all business places now. You know, nothing can be built there, right? But this is gives us the opportunity to have

113a place in honor of LGBTQ plus people on the east end forever, you know, like right in that spot. Um, it just so happens to be where the swamp dance floor was that I think there's a lot of poetry in that. Um, but it's not limited to that, right? This is now there's nothing like this out here. There's nothing that's dedicated to this community, right, as a gathering space. And it's really celebratory. It's fun. It's beautiful. It's colorful. So, um, we really hope to, uh, we really hope to build it this year. >> Nicely done. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So, we'll we'll we'll have a quick discussion about this and see what other questions said. The landscape plan is all it's going to be 100% native plants. I I specialize in sustainable and

114ecological landscaping. So, we're >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm sorry to that. >> Yeah. So I I the whole and the landscape plan is going to be 100% native plants. I've provided um plant spacing tables, species, um heights, quantities. So all of that will be forthcoming. But I just wanted to reiterate what Eric said. So it's going to be a sustainable landscape model as well. So requiring no pesticides, no inputs, minimal water to get established, and um it'll be also quite beautiful and attract pollinators and native wildlife. >> Awesome. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> John. Comments. >> Um, I don't really have anything to add other on top of what uh um was discussed by by Eric and congratulations to you all for having had this vision and gotten it to the doorstep of uh

115approval. Yeah. Um, it sounds like the deficiencies in the plan have been addressed, >> the technical deficiencies. And I guess the the next step is uh an application to ARB. >> Yeah. >> And um >> so our part is just to answer a couple of questions and send you on your way, which is does the board find the general layout acceptable? >> Yes. >> Does the board agree with the planning department that the items listed above as recommended to be waved should be waved? >> Yes, we do. I think so. Yeah. Yeah. >> Does the board agree with with the planning department that the items listed above is recommended to provided should be provided. So, you know what? Yes. >> Should be what's being waved. >> I think we've gone over that in some detail.

116That's it. We're good. >> And then I I think we just need to add um that uh you know, the applicant will work with the fire marshall to address um ADA compliance. >> Good point. Okay, we'll do that. >> All right, gentlemen. the ADA compliance with the with the structure we're proposing or ADA compliance for the existing park as well. >> I think for what you're proposing what you're proposing >> what you're proposing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thanks very much. Thank you. >> All right. We let's run through our regular meeting. Okay. American Tower. Ava, you're going to do that one, right? In the matter of the application of American Tower at 103 Flaggy Hole Roads site plan special permits personal wireless service facility Suffach County Tax Map number 300-37-2-1. I

117have read the modification and uh move for the resolution to be approved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I All right. Great. And I think you're on Etay as well. >> Yes. In the matter of the application of SD restaurant site plan stuff county tax tax act number 300-50-1-13.1 I have read the resolution and move for its approval. >> Second all in favor. >> Uh Phoenix House that would be read. >> Yeah. In the matter of the application in Phoenix House, Security Gate site plan, Suffach County Tax Map 300-191-2-1 for site plan approval. I've read the resolution and I move it adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I unanimous. >> Uh, South Essex. This is Yeah, I know this is an old one. The matter the application of South Essex corner site

118plan special permit Suffach County Tax Map 300-49-1-13.2 extension of time. I have read the application and call for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Good. Snider phase commercial site plan. >> Back to you. >> Okay. Um, in the matter of the application of Snyder phase commercial site plan special permit, Suff County Tax Map 300-143-1-2.3, 12.4, 12.5, and 12.6. Uh, this is for an extension of time uh for one year within to obtain a building permit or until December 18th of 2026. I move to approve this extension of time. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I passion carried. Uh and we to surf club, right? We're done with that. So I think minutes got comments about the minutes. They were excellent. >> I thought they were very very very

119well done. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. A+ on that. All right. So what's our next move here? >> We didn't adopt. >> Oh, we got Oh, adopt them. Yeah. >> We would like to make a motion to adopt. I'll make five minutes. >> I second. >> Okay. All in favor? I. All right. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. We're going to do that. >> Second. Second. >> All in favor of journeying.