001Even that kind of >> All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Good evening, everybody. My name is Ed Crew, chair of the board, and I'm calling the East Hampton Town Planning Board uh January 28th, 2026 meeting to order. This is a regular meeting and a work session and we have two public hearings. Uh we have five items for work session, a couple of items to clean up and a regular meeting. Um so we're going to dive right into it. And the first public hearing is the serest pool and shed site plan. Uh who's Chris? You're already there at the desk for the planning department. And Lou, this is you. Do you want to read the the announcement? >> Sure. Notice is hereby given that
002a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on January 28, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. Flip it over. >> Crest, can you read just read the description there? Yeah, >> the application is for phase FA for a phase site plan. Phase one proposes to replace an existing swimming pool and its surrounding structures and proposes new structures, including a storage shed. Phase two proposes a townstory clubhouse building, a new sanitary system, and accessory structures. Perfect. Good. Thanks. Um, so Chris, give us a lowown what this is about and we'll hear summary. Um, this is there we go. This is a property. It's on the eastern edge of Amigansit along Montalk Highway and as Lou mentioned, it's a phase site plan. um where phase one just involves replacing the swimming pool surrounding structures
003um some new accessory structures and then phase two shown in red is the new low nitrogen uh sanitary system as well as the twotory clubhouse building that's about 3,647 square ft that required um natural resources special permit they're going through that process now and there's a type two action pursuant to secret. >> Okay, thanks Chris. Uh, so the way this works it >> Oh, yeah. I forgot to ask the question. Thank you, Britney, for reminding me. Uh, the way this works is we allow members of the public to speak for three minutes. We start with people in the room. We move to people who are calling in. Um, shares our time to three minutes. So, we'll first ask if anyone is present here who wants to speak uh to this particular application. Anyone in the
004room? Okay, Matt, is anyone on on uh on the phone lines who wants to be heard? >> Let's just do a double check of the phone lines. Stand by one second, please. And this is Matt Chman calling from LTV. Making sure all the phone lines are good. And they are. And you have zero callers. Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, Matt. All right. Given that, uh, make a motion to end the public hearing. >> I'll second that. >> Second by Bruce. All in favor? >> I. John. I. Okay. Great. So we'll move on to our second public hearing which is Surf Club 4 phased site plan. Again that's Chris and Bruce public hearing notice. >> Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the Eastampton Town Planning Board on January 28th, 2026
005at 6:30 p.m. for the application of Surf Club 4 phase site plan. Uh size and location is 271,999 square feet or 6.22 acres located at 20 Surfside Avenue in Montalk. Suffet County tax map number 300-49-6-21. The applications for a phase site plan to expand and partially renovate four motel units. Units 35, 73, 81, and 85. For units 35, 73, and 85, the project proposes enclosing existing patios with matching footprints off the bedroom to build a new bathroom and extend the existing bedrooms. No changes are proposed to the second story, the units mentioned. Given the project areas within the building portion with one story, new skylights are proposed above the project area of the units mentioned. Unit 81 proposes enclosing most of the entry patio 40 square ft to expand the existing kitchen and entry corridor.
006>> Okay, thanks Bruce. Uh Chris, do you want to give us any other information about this? >> I think Bruce covered it there. Everything's within existing footprints. Um this work did require a variance from the zoning board and it's since obtained that on December 3rd of 2025. So it's it's good to go. >> Great. Okay. Does anyone in the room wish to be heard on this application? >> And for the record, it was properly >> And for the record, it's been it's been noticed. >> All for two. >> Yeah. All for two. [laughter] Claritin. Um, all right. Is there anyone on the phone lines, Matt, who wants to be heard? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Okay. So, those were two very quick public hearings. Um, I make a motion to to end
007this public hearing. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Done. Moving on to our work session. Uh, the first item up is the Macarva Barn site plan modification. Um, Aaron, that's you for the planning department and Jen, that's you for us. Okay. >> And the applicant is here, I presume. I see Tom back there. Yep. Hi. So please >> this is the McGarin barn um site plan modification. It was last reviewed on December 18, 2024. Some background information. The application was made a modification site plan approval modification add curb cut remove the performance bond allow for a longer turnout time remove parking spots potentially and allow fence light irrigation. The original application approved a barn with six stalls a grooming room a tack room a washroom and a second story haloft. Additionally,
008four padlocks, a jumping ring, and seven parking spaces were approved. The subject property is approximately 5.1 acres in size and is only 83 residents. The lot is currently improved with a twotory single family residence with attention and flat patio and a playground patio. It is located within the South Fork brownwater protection area and the southern county bar on December 18, 2024 application during the previous application. There was some comment the board meeting comments as follows. The first planning board comment was the board agreed to the condition of approved employment fund. No response was required by the applicant. This was addressed this was addressed in the previous application and the board agrees to remove it. As such, no further action needs to be taken. And the second comment was the applicant should submit information pertaining to
009turnout time by a pro professional in the field. According to um this was addressed by the applicant according to sections 4.9 and 4.9 of the original approval 2007 site plan. The site was required to have a pasture management plan in the form of a declaration of restrictions that was supposed to be filed with the office of the sub county council clerk. No such files can be found. Currently, section 4.9D1 of attachment management plan only allows a typical turnout time for four hours. The applicant is proposing to remove this restriction. During the previous review, the board requested the input of professional regarding turnout time and how it might affect animal welfare. [snorts] In response, the applicant did submit a letter to Nora Kelps, a DBM, a local ecoin and small animal veterinarian. Dr. help stated quote
010equin should have have an unlimited turnout time and quote time due to the restrictions causing horses to potentially develop anxiety manifesting in various physical ailments and unpleasant behaviors. The primary concerns were the extended turnout times with the creation of dust and potential noise disturbances. However, there are already noise standards [snorts] already the the noise standards already outlined in count code um and that this property would be required to be compliant as any other would be. As such, it is unlikely that disturbances from horse farms would be present tonight. Additionally, the site plan was approved with irrigation for these areas which is proposed to remain although reconfigured along the fence lines. Therefore, the planning department does not see that the restrictions are necessary but the board should determine if it agrees. Third comment was the applicant
011just submit a site plan depicting the new proposed locations of the drainage swale fencing. This was addressed. The applicant has submitted site plan to those locations on review. The town engineer had no objections and no further action is needed. In terms of fire protection, the previous site plan subm in the previous site plan submission, the applicant provided email exchange between them and the town fire marshal indicating the public water access would be sended within 1,000 ft of the property, no longer requiring a firewall. The town fire marshall did respond and conduct a review on January 15th, 2026, and it was found hydrant was installed within 10,000 ft of the site. As such, fire fire protection is deemed sufficient and no further action is to be taken. The application was referred to the town consulting engineer
012for review. On January 8, 2026, we did receive a report. There was no objection taken to the new to the new curb cut and driveway. The site plan does include the construction of one new accessible parking stall that is proposed to be service of gravel. Their proposed surface for the accessible stall fails to conform to EDA standards. If an if an accessible parking stall is required, it should meet all applicable standards. In terms of parking to add on to that too, the parking calculation on the proposed site plan indicates five parking spaces will be provided. However, upon the review, only four spaces are shown, including one accessible space. This modification also eliminate three grass parking spots. Under town code, a horse is required to provide one uh stall one space per stall as well as
013one space per employee. The previously approved site plan permit the bar to have six stalls. As such um in the parking calculation in our state to have the barn has four stalls. Based on information provided the site would require to have five parking spaces. The applicant should clarify the stall count and amend the site plan amended parking. Um as previously stated the parking spot should surface with something not that's not gravel and conformance with the ADA standards. As such that the planning department's working established amend the site plan to conform. This site currently has three accessory structures that were not included from the 2007 site plan. The structures are 19 about 190T frame shed 200 20 foot frame shed and the play and a playground within the existing 774 ft cleared area marked by a
0146 in wood curve. All structures all structures meet related requirements. The town board should the planning board should discuss whether they feel these accessory structures are appropriate and should be allowed to remain. Um all plans submitted for application including plans plans. They should all be consistent with the titles and applications which was filed unless an official request is made to modify them. In conclusion, in the following uh in the following submission, the applicant should clarify how many parking spaces will be provided, meet ADA require ADA parking requirements, and assure the provided parking meet town code requirements. >> Great. Thank you, Aaron. Does the applicant wish to be heard? My mentioned that the that the they did submit a new um they did submit a new site plan but we haven't had time to review it
015as it was given a couple days ago will be reviewed in the next submission. >> Okay great Tom just name and address please for the record. >> Thomas Crouch Whan Filer PLC 532 Mont Highway sweet 203. Uh here for the applicants uh Lori and David Garva. [clears throat] Yeah. So we that the we're not trying to get a reduction in the parking spaces. I think that was just a mistake in oversight submission. So, we submitted a new uh revised plan, you know, due to the storm and everyone's schedule, we didn't get an end in time for planning department to review, but then the revised plan has seven spaces and a handicap space just as the original submission did. Um, so that was really the only change. Uh, happy to answer any questions from the board.
016>> Okay. Does anyone have any questions for Tom? for the applicants. I have a question. >> What's Where is the curb cut? >> Is it off the driveway? >> Yeah. So, it's >> okay. All right. I'm just >> right back here. >> Oh, that's the back of the property. Yeah. >> Oh, and that goes to Hunting Road. Is that what's over there? >> It is. Right. Okay. Where the fire hydrant is, right? All right. I was not aware of that. Oh, >> okay. >> Um, okay. Great. Well, then if no other questions from the board, we'll go to Jen to all this question. >> I think Thanks, Thomas. Thanks, Aaron. Um, I think that all of the previous things that we discussed have been addressed. Um, I don't see any issue with anything. I think,
017you know, all of the things that Aaron mentioned and all the things Thomas mentioned, I think it's kind of a an easy an easy yes for me. >> Okay, >> good. Now, this seems like a pretty >> Yeah. >> clean submission. If anyone else though has any other comments, >> please make them. Now, >> I did want to bring up the I'm sorry, I forgot this until just a second ago. Um, I did want to bring up the question of a new public hearing because it is a revised site plan. Is that something we need to do or >> um, well, there'll be another submission to, you know, clean everything up. Um, you know, including us looking at the new site plan that you've >> right >> prepared with the additional parking. Uh, so we
018may talk about >> the turnout time for the horse. >> Yeah, exactly. So, we're going to go through the questions which includes that. Um, so, uh, these are the questions the planning department has given us. The first is, does the board agree to remove the turnout time limit of four hours? >> Everyone's in agreement, John. >> Yep. >> Okay. Should the applicant amend the accessible parking space to be compliant with the with the Americans Disabilities Act? >> Yes. And I think >> And I think that's in the Yeah. Is that in the >> You've done that in the revision. It's fine. >> Yeah. Should the applicant clarify how many parking spaces will be provided? You said you would. So, but yes, I think we're all answering yes on that. >> Should the applicant amend their
019site plan to meet town parking requirements? Again, >> you've done that. Does the board agree the accessory structures built since the previously approved site plan should be allowed to remain? >> If they're all they're all compliant, they're all conforming. >> Yes. Yep. Um, and those are the questions. So, I think it's great that there is a horse farm in East Tampa. So, I'm all enthusiastic about it. So, so we're good. So, we'll just we'll meet again obviously with revised documents. >> All right. So, our next application is the Phoenix House security gate site plan and uh Will's at the desk. All right, that's great for the planning department and that is Reed. Um, so take it and the applicant is here for you guys. Okay, great. Will. Okay, so this is an application seeking to
020construct a new security gate at the Phoenix House located on Industrial Road in Queen Scott. The project proposes [clears throat] adding a new security gate, widening the existing driveway, adding traffic islands, and relocating two light posts. The site is currently improved with a two-story building with porch, 48 parking spaces, basketball court, volleyball court, and stone barbecue. The property is within the Suffach County Pine and Fires and South Fork Special Groundwater Protection Area, both of which emphasize the importance of clean water. The site is zoned CI commercial industrial, considered improved and partially cleared, and is 3.7 acres in size. Properties to the north, west, and east are vacant and owned by the town of East Hampton. And the property to the south is owned by the Long Island Railroad. The Phoenix House is considered a semi
021semi-public facility allowed by special permit in the CI zoning system. The project is a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128. No further secret action is required. The proposed work will widen the entry drive from 25 ft to 32 feet and limit unp [snorts] unpermitted access which will provide greater security for its occupants. New landscaping is proposed on the traffic islands and the applicant should consider using native species. The proposed gate may be somewhat visible from industrial road and the board should discuss if the applicant should provide additional landscaping to shield it. However, the board should also note industrial road has limited traffic flow as it is a deadend road and much of the traffic is industrial in nature. The lot is leased from the town by the Phoenix House and the lease
022agreement was examined to ensure the proposed site work is permissible. No limitations within the lease documents appear to prevent the planning board's approval of the improvements should it choose to grant it. The fire marshall reviewed the plans and submitted comments dated December 17th, 2025, which found no fire prevention issues. Staff consulting engineer reviewed the plans and submitted comments on January 15, 2026, which found no objections to the proposed design, but noted the increase in storm water runoff from the driveway widening should be directed and contained to an existing drainage feature. Based on planning department review of the project, we recommend it qualifies as a minor site plan and the board should discuss if it agrees. If the board finds no visual detriment or interference with future planning of the site, it may choose to deem
023the project a minor site plan and wave the public hearing requirement. Although some elements were missing from the applicant submission, the planning department recommends these are not necessary or relevant to the project and the board should discuss if it agrees. These items include property line setbacks to each new structure, finished floor elevation of each building structure in use, location of all easements on the site, including utility lines, hydrants, sistns, and firewalls, and existing sewage. In conclusion, the board [clears throat] should consider the impacts the proposed driveway gate may have on the appearance of the site, whether it wishes to require additional landscaping, if it wishes to deem the project a wider site plan, and if waving the previously mentioned items is appropriate. >> Okay, thank you. Well, does the applicant wish to be heard? >>
024Just provide your name and address, please, for the record. Jack Naylor Lockwood Kesler and Bartlett three aerial way Scioset New York for the next week. Then we're moving. [clears throat] Um the one comment that I would add is that the we are not widening the entire driveway. The thought was to widen it only as we approached the traffic gate so that the part that would be immediately visible from the road would remain as is. Um the I guess the most relevant comment is with regard to the landscaping. Um in our visit to the town early this week, I we obtained a list of preferred plantings. We proposed changing them to using the common names Bayberry. Uh if you'd like to see pictures of it, I have extra copies here. We're good with Bayberry. What? >>
025We know. We know Bayberry. >> Okay. Any other one? Blue flag. >> You want to get a little color at the entrance with a little bit of cheer for the people coming in. >> Um if there's additional landscaping, um you know, having become familiar with the load, it is a heavy industrial. Um I will say it's the most attractive property on the road. Um and it's recently it's also undergoing um an exterior renovation which is under review by the town to replace doors, windows and sighting much of which got damaged by Sandy. [snorts] Um the owners are amendable to providing additional landscaping to you know be advised that take into account that uh they're supported by donations and public funding. Uh it took you know quite a few years to get the money together to
026get this thing done but still you know uh the relationship between the town and Phoenix house is a long one provides a very needed service and uh they look forward to as you mentioned uh extended lease and continuing to be partner with the town for the forthcoming decades. >> Great. Uh if with regard to additional landscaping who ever wants to make any suggestions, we're welcome. As we said with the to avoid coming back for the architectural review board on the other project, uh instead of coming back for another hammy, we basically said whatever color you want. [laughter] that w that was decided in a two-cond conversation [clears throat] and went into the record that after extended deliberation uh that offer was made. Be happy to answer any additional questions. The director of facilities is here
027if you have any questions for him. Otherwise, I'll let you move on to your next item. >> Thanks for your comments. We appreciate [snorts] that, sir. And we will uh we will have our conversation which is it's Reed. It's going to lead. So, just we'll ask other questions of you as they come if they come up. >> Thank you, Ed. Uh, and thank you, Will, for the overview. Um, just to remind everyone, the Phoenix House, uh, I think we would all agree is an important, um, and much needed facility in our community. Um, just to remind people about the mission of the Phoenix House, and correct me if I'm wrong, um, it's a semi-public facility that provides treatment to men with substance, uh, use disorders. Um, I, you know, my take on this is I,
028I think the application is reasonable and appropriate. I actually visited the property this past Sunday, the snowstorm. I went in the morning [laughter] and um what's unique about it, it's this where it's located, it's so quiet back there and as was noted by Will in the memo, it borders East Hampton Town land in all directions except for the railroad on the backside. Um and what wasn't mentioned is across the street from that is from the Phoenix house is a pods warehouse. So, for me, um, I'm somewhat indifferent towards additional landscaping. I understand their budget constraints and that sort of thing. I don't think anyone on this board is going to push back. If you want to make more landscaping and make it nicer, I think that'd be great. But again, there's very limited traffic there.
029It's at the end of a dead end street anyway. So, um, very, very few drivers uh, come down that way. So, I I'd recommend the board considering this as a a minor site plan and wave many of the standard requirements that we typically would. Um, and I'd also be in favor of waving the public hearing. >> Okay, thanks. Uh, does anyone else on the board have any other comments that they want to share about the application? >> Okay. No, I agree. Yeah, I think the thing is back far enough where >> we don't need that. >> It's all wooded around it. It's the nicest property on the street, [laughter] frankly. >> Yeah, absolutely. You know, it's in an industrial area. You know, as you know, as Reed pointed out, this is an organization with a
030with a really great mission and uh yeah, I think we're all pretty good with what you're proposing. So, let's answer the questions that we've been given to answer uh which are should the applicant provide additional landscaping for areas adjacent to the proposed gate? And I think we're we're all agreeing there's no need for that. John Dorson, >> I agreed. >> Okay. Does the board agree this project may be considered a minor site plan? And if so, does the board wish to wave the public hearing? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think we're all in agreement on that. Does the board agree with the planning department's suggestion of waving the above listed uh normal items required in the site plan? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Yes. Provided the board agrees to wave site plan elements, wave
031the public hearing, and does not require any further revisions to the plans, will the application be complete once comments from the town engineer have been received and addressed? >> Yeah. >> And uh it's it's Eric Chance for the planning department. I should clarify too, as Will said, um when we had prepared the memo, we didn't have town engineer comments yet, but we have since received them and the engineer had no issues with it. So I think given that the board could um if the board agrees could say not only that it's complete but also that it's ready for approval. >> Okay. Good. Yeah. All right. Great. You have the the comments. >> Are we complete and ready for approval? >> Yes. All around. >> Yes. >> Approve. >> All right. Good. Complete and ready for
032approval. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um All right. Our next uh application is American Tower at 103 Flagio Road Tier 3 uh personal wireless service facility modification. Chris for the planning department and Ava for the board Chris. Go ahead. >> Oh, is the applicant here? I'm sorry. I >> don't think so. >> The applicant for American Tower. I think we Eric, I think we can move ahead with this anyway, right? >> Yeah, you can. The the applicant doesn't need to be present. >> Okay. [clears throat] All right. This is pretty simple. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um All right. Tell us about it, Chris. Go ahead. >> Um yeah, as mentioned, this is a simple site plan modification at 1035 Evil Road in Springs, uh front three Mile Harbor Road. Just showing the parcel
033there. It's a It's a little over 172 acres and it's home to Camp Blue Bay. It's owned A5 residents and the application is to allow an existing it's called an H frame to remain within the equipment compound for the monopole. Uh this construction drawing shows with the red arrow um where this frame is in the equipment compound. I'm just going to show a picture of the frame itself so you get an idea of exactly what it is. It's this um equipment there. It needs to remain according to the applicant. Um due to some electrical phasing differences between Ryzen service and a newly installed metering center. Um due to the minor scope of work, the planning department recommends that this be treated as a minor site plan. uh we board to just review the uh required
034items for waving the public hearing in our memo and if they agree um they can move forward to public hearing requirement and the fire marshal also signed off on this proposal. So provided a decrees the application is complete and ready for approval. >> Okay, great. Thank you Chris. Ava, do you have any objections to H frames? Uh, no I do not. And I actually did I did my due diligence and did look up [laughter] what it was. This is an existing monopole. Um, it it is required for electrical phasing. So I believe if it it is removed that we would have a nonfunctional monopole, which would be a bad thing. >> Don't want that. >> Um, so I am in favor of uh agreeing that this is a minor uh minor site improvement and um
035waving the requirements for a public hearing. Uh they did update also the math uh the the onbuilt drawings in November 2025 including the H frame because the prior drawings did say it was going to be removed. So >> Oh, okay. So that's been updated. >> Yes, that has been updated. >> Good. Uh does anyone else in the board have any comments? >> Okay. Well, frames. >> Does the planning board agree to wave the requirement for a public hearing? >> Yes. >> All around. Okay. Does the planning board agree the application is complete and ready for approval? >> Yes. >> All right. Done. Great. >> Yeah. This is great. This is excellent. All right. So, our next application is for a preliminary site plan permit evaluation LLC for property at 348 Montalk Highway in Wayne Scott.
036Um, and again, just remind everyone on the board, this is a preliminary site plan. and we're just giving high level comments essentially on uh on the proposed use. So this is um Chris again and Luke this is you >> know I know the applicant is here right here >> correct yes >> it's good to see you Mr. Thank you, B. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Um, yeah, as mentioned, this is preliminary site plan application. It's a one-time review for us to give guidance to the applicant before making a formal submission. This is the subject uh property, 348 Montalk Highway in downtown Wescott. >> Downtown Wayne Scott. >> The subject property is 63 acres. zoned commercial business and the properties within groundwater management zone 5 and not within any of town overlay districts or
037other areas of special environmental concern form total lock coverage of 86.4% where 80% is permitted in ECB zoning district. Um the application is made to partition existing [snorts] uh 9,538 ft one-story building into four storage units that would be for service commercial or other permitted or special permitted uses. A commercial unit is also proposed to the south where a retail store was previously approved. The existing building was previously approved in 1981 as a retail store with warehouse storage to the rear and the zoning board of appeals determination dated um July 16, 1988 permitted 20 parking spaces where 35 spaces were required. The footprint of the building is proposed to remain the same. Two new vehicle delivery doors are proposed on the northern facade along Bathgate Road and one existing delivery door is proposed to be
038converted into entry doors. The proposal includes four new restrooms for the storage units in a common area indicated. Um, in regards to SERA, upon formal submission, the project would likely be considered an unlisted action. Um, pursuant to SER and chapter 128 of the town code, applicant should prepare environmental assessment form using the DPC mapper um with the formal submission. So, going over the proposed use, um the applicant proposes four storage units. This going to show a schematic floor plan showing this shows the four storage units. Um mechanical [clears throat] spaces where the restrooms are and then the commercial unit to the south. Um the four storage units are to accommodate service, commercial, or other permitted special permitted uses. The maximum number of uses permitted on a commercial district lot is two unless a special permit
039is obtained for a multiple business or multiple industrial uh complex. Each service commercial unit would be considered a separate use and service commercial is not considered a business or industrial use. So it could not be part of uh either of those complexes. Since the subject property is zone CB, um the planning board cannot approve more than one service commercial use unless a variance is obtained from the ZBA. Only in the commercial industrial uh zone may the planning board approve up to two service commercial units per 20,000 square ft of lot area. Um the submitted parking calculations detail that the area for the proposed storage units would be considered a warehouse use which is not consistent with the rest of the submission. The formal submission should clarify the proposed uses and warehouses are also prohibited in
040the CB zoning district and would therefore require use variance from the zoning board. The only storage unit that's typically permitted in CB zone um is a storage garage by special permit which our town um code definition is included in the report for. However, special permits are prohibited for this use on on Montalk Highway. So, it would require a variance in in this case. It appears that regardless of which use the applicant decides to propose for the four storage units that a variance would be required. The applicant should consider these issues when deciding the proposed uses and the planning department typically discourages proposals that would require variances. Um, so they should work to make the proposal conform with the town code. Should they decide to propose more than two business uses, that would be a multiple
041business complex and they would need to comply with the special permit standards um for that use. Next is just going over the parking. Let's pull the site plan back up. So the the previous zoning board determination from 1981 which allowed only 20 parking spaces where 35 were required specified that the variance shall become null and void in the event the premise shall be used for any purpose other than the retail of plumbing fixtures and supplies. It's very specific. Um therefore since [snorts] the applicant proposes new uses the variances would likely be deemed void. The proposed number of parking spaces, 20, will likely require a variance from the zoning board prior to planning board approval pending the confirmation of uses and revisions to the submitted calculations. The calculations appear to contain errors. They excluded [snorts] um
042the mechanical space from the gross floor area. The mechanical space appears to be associated with the mentioned restrooms. So therefore should just be added to whatever use is decided for the storage units. The calculations um going over the warehouse use issue. Lastly, the um front of the building was detailed as a showroom in the parking calculations with a parking requirement of one space per 180 square ft of gross floor area. Um, this should be revised to a use consistent with the town code. Based on the architectural plan, it appears it would be either an office or retail use, which would have that same uh requirement. Next is going over the the site navigation. This is a sketch from the planning department. The yellow shows the approximate location of the vehicle delivery doors and orange just
043shows areas of potential um spatial conflict. So, just to note, there are some pre-existing non-conforming drive widths to the south. Um, 17 and a half ft being the most narrow, but the fire marshall does not see an issue with this for firefighting purposes. So, those are permitted to remain. Um, more our concern is, as you can see on the right, this is a western facade, and if the vehicle is delivering to this door, it would have some conflict with the parking space proposed in that area. Um, so our consulting engineer prepared this sketch since the report was published and it's likely that those two spaces could be moved over to avoid that conflict. And just to go back to the sketch, um, these door on the southern facade when that door is being used for
044delivery purposes, it would block access to the adjacent u parking spaces. So that is also um an issue. So the applicant should consider revising the submission to improve the conflict. Um and the formal submission should also indicate the delivery doors on the site plan to just clearly show their relationship to the surrounding parking spaces. Also not shown on the plan here, but they are proposing two delivery doors on the northern facade. and there's only about 5 1/2 ft between the edge of the building and the northern property line. So therefore, when they're using those delivery doors, it's likely that they'll need to protrude um they will need to protrude into the town right away. The planning department understands this area has been used for perpendicular parking. Um but there's no evidence to demonstrate that there's
045approval for them to use a rightaway. So upon making formal submission, the applicant should just consult the highway department. Ultimately, they would need to approve um the property using a portion of Gate Road for their operation. Next is the sanitary system. Um sanitary details are not required for the main site plan, but they did provide some details which we reviewed. Um the calculations detail the property has a grandfathered population density equivalent of 381.5 gallons per day where 189 uh6 gallons per day would typically be the maximum the site's constrained since it's in groundwater zone 5. And the county health department regulates the density equivalent and their approval will be required upon formal submission. The calculations apply the general industrial use to the entire building with a flow rate of 0.04 um gallons per day per
046square foot. This may not be applicable to the entire building or any of the proposed uses. However, this can't be confirmed until uh the proposed uses are. Ultimately, the county will determine whether the uses align with their review standards and the applicant should apply to them early in the process and submit proof of a grandfathering flow rate um to the planning board. So, also regards to the sanitary system, it appears the existing conventional septic was constructed in the 1970s. It's likely more than 50 years old at this time. And given the property is also within groundwater management zone 5, the planning department recommends that the formal submission uh propose a low nitrogen IIA sanitary system. Um the submitted lighting details were all compliant with the town code and met submission requirements. In regard to signage,
047there's just a small error. The submitted survey shows three signs in the front yard uh when in fact there's only one. So there should just be an updated survey upon formal submission. And then as far as waste disposal goes, the applicant should explain how waste solid waste will be managed. Um the plan should be revived revised to show a dumpster enclosure if one is intended. Um when doing so they should mitigate any negative impacts to internal navigation and also provide elevation drawings for the enclosure. For landscaping, there was no landscaping plan provided. Sites fully cleared with the exception of three mature trees along the front yard and the planning department recommends that a landscaping plan be provided with um native vegetation and areas that are currently um vegetated with grass. Um so that that should
048come in the formal submission regarding the town consulting engineer. He had no objections to the proposal but just offered a few notes um for us to consider and it mentions that the existing drainage was designed for a half to one in rainfall event where current standards are 2 in. Um, ultimately we'll review that upon formal submission to see if it needs additional capacity, but at the very least they should clean and service the existing system to uh just enhance its lifespan and it its current productivity. Um, and the planning department recommends that a detailed grading and drainage plan be submitted on formal uh submission. when the fire marshall signed off for firefighting purposes as I mentioned. However, um some small revisions are needed for the proposed restrooms to comply with the Americans Disabilities Act. As
049far as um submission items that should be provided in addition to the issues I've mentioned, the floor area for all proposed uses should be indicated consistently and detailed sanitary plans uh should be provided upon formal submission. Additional approvals from the architectural review board. Zoning board of appeals is to be determined whether variances for the number of uses, use variance and/or whether an area variance for the minimum number of parking spaces will be required. The fire marshall will need to sign off for ADA compliance and the county health department for the sanitary plan. In conclusion, um just a reminder, it's a one-time review to give guidance to the applicants. Uh upon formal submission, clarify the proposed uses and revise the proposal to conform with the town code. Parking calculations should be amended accordingly. The parking spaces
050and vehicle delivery doors should be reconfigured to avoid spatial conflict. Uh we should have proof of a grandfather population density equivalent and consider proposing an IIA sanitary system. Applicant should explain how solid waste will be managed and should provide a grading and drainage plan, landscaping plan and address the missing submission items and the planning board uh should discuss these issues and determine whether they agree here to help us if you have any questions. >> Thank you Chris for a very thorough review. I appreciate that. Um [clears throat] before we hear from the applicant, does anyone have any questions for Chris? Is there a lot of moving parts here on this application? No. Okay. I I do have one, Chris. Uh, is it possible to have a self [clears throat] I know self- storage is not
051actually officially a town use, but would would that would that use change anything about the the dynamic here in terms of numbers of uses on the site? I'm not sure off the top of my head. Eric might know, but a public I think believe it would be a public non-nuisance industry which is only allowed in the industrial zone, but that that's something we need to confirm. >> Okay. >> U take a closer look at. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Hooper. [clears throat] >> Uh good evening, [clears throat] chair, board members, council, and staff. John >> Yeah. Go ahead. John Yuber, Balsson, Schmid, and Yuber, 231 Pantiggo Road, East Hampton. I also have an office in Port Jefferson Village. Uh, for convenience, I live in Satan. Uh, I'm pleased to appear before you tonight. Thank you
052for your time. And I want to compliment Chris on an excellent review. He concisely covered a vast amount of material. Um, as you can see based in his the harder he worked now, it makes it easier for me to make my presentation because I can respond exactly to the very precise points that he raised. Uh, when uh, Mr. Modus who's present approached me about the project and described for me his vision for the property. I said, "Gee, this seems to me like an ideal candidate for a preliminary site plan submission because there are it's a little bit of a moving target and depending on the board's valuable feedback, it will help us now tailor this about how we proceed. So my intention in submitting the preliminary site plan application was to initiate the dialogue about
053the project, flesh out the ideas so we could proceed in a formal fashion more efficiently. As you can see, there's a lot of moving parts with some interesting code compliance nuances. And many of the projects I do are unique and so um they're not cookie cutter and I need to develop sort of a fresh insight on every project. Every property is different. So, the [clears throat] existing building at the property was previously approved with related certificates of occupancy for office, retail, and warehouse space. The intention for this project has been that Richard Modus, member of Jojo Ben LLC, the entity that owns the subject parcel, is retiring from the plumbing and heating supply business after more than 50 years. uh and he desires to use the existing building without changing the footprint in a way
054that will be beneficial for other small business owners and entrepreneurs in the community. In so far as the building has historically been used for plumbing and heating supply, the primary intention was to partition uh the rear approximately 7,000 square ft that had been used for warehousing [clears throat] into four separate units, not storage as indicated on the plans. That was basically I don't want to say in our haste to make the submission to get on the board's agenda. I probably could have chosen more artfully the term I use there. Even unit would have been better than a storage, but that was not the intention. Um, the purpose of these units would be for local contractors or tradesmen to use them as workshops in a matter literally identical to the service commercial definition set forth at
055code section 255120 290. So there's the curly brackets that each of those definitions receives. Uh 290 is the numerical location for service commercial. Use table attachment three to town code chapter 255 expressly identify service commercial as a special permit use in central business zoning district in which the property is situated. >> [snorts] >> Uh so in light of the comments and code analysis provided by Christopher um applicants options in compliance with code section 255245 paragraphs A and C and I have extra copies. This is basically the code provision that's moderating our dialogue tonight and it says how many uses in each zoning district are permitted. And so after analyzing that and reviewing Chris's insightful comments, I it was incumbent upon me to really simplify our options for this proposal to make it easier for you
056as a board to get your heads around the concept. So these are what I think the options are. Applicant could submit a special use permit application to have one service commercial use and an unlimited number of as of right offices or one service commercial use and one other as of right or special permit use listed under the category A business uses set forth in the commercial use table. That's option one. or and this is when I submitted the application as preliminary. I styled it the way I did either service commercial or other uh permitted or special permit uses. Here's option two. applicant could submit a special use permit application for a multiple business complex and that's defined at code section 2551-20 233 as a grouping of three or more permitted or special permit category A
057business uses on a single lot. So just to be clear, I want the board to have peace of mind. I'm not trying to cram 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 lb bag here. Just to be clear, if we pursue the multiple business complex use, we will not include service commercial use in so far as that is not considered a business use under the code. nor will we propose any additional warehouse space or garage storage uh in compliance with your code that doesn't allow that garage storage on Montour Highway. Also, at this point, I don't anticipate that we would seek to reszone the property to commercial industrial to accommodate additional warehouse space. Of course, we understand that both those options are subject to all other applicable dimensional, special permit, and site planning requirements. Our desire
058is to propose the project under either option in a manner that will eliminate or minimize the need for variances from the ZBA. It's just good planning. Based on Chris's preliminary evaluation, the proposal needs to be refined in a number of ways, including the following SRA. So, as Chris requests, we'll prepare and submit the short environmental assessment form with the forthcoming formal submission. A full parking assessment based on existing conditions at the site. Adding spaces beyond the existing 20 will be challenging, if not impossible. This is a perennial issue for this property. goes back to the 80s when the zoning board considered it and gave them basically 15 space variance. There's no um space on either side on adjacent parcels to purchase for additional parking. So, what we need to do is optimize on the site
059the way we configure the spaces that we propose and we're going to do our very best to come up with an optimal location or configuration. However, I I've looked at the code and how it deals with parking and under these circumstances per perhaps the board might consider in lie of some or all of the additional ordinary off street parking that would require maybe we could do a payment of a parking fee under code section 2551146 paragraph B that's available for properties in the commercial or in the central business and whatever the numbers turn out to be that would obviously be a business decision for the client. If it's a reasonable number, that may be the way to go. If not, then I may need to go to the zoning board for the parking variance. But
060if it turns out that the payment in le of parking is v viable for the board, we wouldn't even need the parking variance. I don't think and I'll defer to council's interpretation on that certainly. uh site navigation. Chris's evaluation discusses various issues, including contemplated alterations to the building's frontage along Bathgate Road and the use of vehicle delivery doors. I can assure the board that we will address those comments in the formal submission. Although the fire marshall has already determined that the existing drive aisles could be permitted to remain uh as they are in so far as they are sufficient for firefighting purposes. One thing I'd like to specifically address now is that the existing building is indeed about 5.2 2 ft south of Bathgate Road highlighted up on the the plan on the screen. [snorts]
061As a result, we don't anticipate using that area on the property for vehicle deliveries because interfering with is it just makes no sense and it is of no benefit to anyone to have perpendicular deliveries blocking [snorts] traffic on Bathgate. One thought was that little 5.2 two foot strip that runs from uh west to east along the back of the building. It's currently paved. That might be an ideal location if we were to remove the asphalt and put native plantings there. Um and uh that would perhaps help us offset the lack of other available space on the property to do native plantings. Sanitary system. We also need to confer with our project engineer David Rhodess of TF Engineering in Sag Harbor to determine whether or to what extent the existing septic system is sufficient or whether
062it should be replaced with a low nitrogen even though code section 210-3-2 doesn't appear to require low nitrogen system under these circumstances. Uh but if um it you know from the client's perspective, it's a business judgment. We're estimating that a new system like that might be in the neighborhood of about 60 to 70 or $75,000 and how that would impact the overall project budget. Um exterior lighting is satisfactory as proposed. signage. At the time the survey was done, originally the property had been for sale and then the suitable offers were not received. So then the alternative was to propose this project that I'm before you tonight to speak about. The survey uh includes some of that old for sale signage. So we'll have that cleaned up. And so the board is aware, we're proposing a
063new sign uh similar in the configuration to the existing sign that says East Hampton Plumbing and Heating. It's going to say like Mid Hampton's Common or that was the original subdivision name back when the Staler Enterprise subdivided this property back in the either the late 60s or the early 70s. We'd like to revisit and go back to that and call it Mid Hampton Square. And that's what the new sign would say and we obviously have to go to the ARB for that approval. Solid waste disposal. This sort of dovetales with the parking issue because if we were to put a dumpster and an enclosure were eating up valuable space for parking. The initial concept was any occupants of these spaces would be responsible for removing their boxes and solid waste offsite. Whether or not that's
064practical, uh, we really need to look at that carefully. If we were to put a dumpster with an enclosure on the property, we would have to locate it somewhere in there where it didn't u diminish our ability to provide parking space. probably would use up about one parking space. Landscaping. Based on Chris's comments, we need to provide a native vegetation landscaping plan for the limited areas on the property currently planted with grass. We plan to maintain the three existing trees along Montalk Highway. Engineering comments. As indicated in Chris's evaluation, the January 12, 2026 report issued by the town's consulting engineer has no objections. I was delighted to hear that. But they note that we might consider enhancing the site's drainage [snorts] capacity to accommodate 2 in rainfall. So there are three drainage basins in the
065courtyard currently. Whether we could put replace those with pre-cast rings of a wider diameter is one possibility uh to increase their capacity to accommodate the 2-in rainfall. But that's definitely an issue we're going to consider uh and and submit appropriate materials for you. My desire when I make the final the formal submission is to get it right the first time and get you everything you want to see. When I do those things, believe it or not, I put myself in the position of a board member and I say, "What would I want to see if I were reviewing this application?" And so that's what I'll do here and give you the information that I think you want to see. Fire prevention minor clarification. Uh on January 14, 2026, I had some dialogue with uh Chief
066Marshall Brown. He initially said that the laboratories that were proposed were not ADA compliant. We revised the design, gave him an updated plan. [snorts] On January 14th, 2026, he issued an updated memo [clears throat] and he confirmed that it is now ADA compliant. So, that's one thing off the check uh list. So, with that, I'll conclude. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to respond to any questions or comments that >> All right. So, noted. I believe the updated fire marshals comments may have stated that it's still not ADA compliant, but we can confirm that and get back. There may have been a miscommunication. >> My sense on that is when he issued his updated report, he changed the box um that was darkened previously saying not ADA compliant. He took that off and he
067highlighted ADA. He just didn't take his comments off. >> Yeah, we we'll take a look and >> but I I know you're good for it. So, thank you, Chris. I appreciate. >> All right. Thanks for your comments very much. Before we turn it over to the board, you know, just to note this is a preliminary site plan, so we're kind of keeping our comments u you know on the broad plan and sort of getting conceptual and let you know what it is that we would need to be able to move forward. I think you've got a lot of conversation still to have with the planning department. you know, some of the things that you proposed about uses and special uses and so on and so forth are things that we don't yet know whether will
068wind up being uh permissible, you know, or accomplishable in any way. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Lou for our discussion. >> Yeah. Thank you, Ed, because that I was just going to say that because the comments that I have are comments that I thought, you know, as you said, what a board member would want to see. And um I know you've uh addressed a lot of these that I have a lot of these items that I have on the list, but um in this forum tonight, I can't respond to those until they're made as part of the formal submission. So, I'm going to let you know the items that I think are important issues that you should address, some of which all of which were mentioned by Chris in his
069memo. So, first of all, we have the proposed uses that that's a big issue. Um, right now there there's three uses. There's service, commercial, warehouse, and storage. Uh, these are materially different land uses with very different zoning and parking implications. So before we can meaningfully review the site plan, the applicant must clearly define each intended use and demonstrate full zoning compliance. This is a threshold issue. Number two, there's a significant deficiency in parking and the prior ZBA parking variance is invalid because of a change in use. The parking calculations that you submitted exclude required floor area. They apply incorrect ratios. They mischaracterize the nature of the proposed uses leading to a significant parking shortfall. So you must submit fully revised code compliant parking calculations based on clearly defined uses. Number three, vehicle circulation and deliveries.
070Your proposed layout creates major operational conflicts, particularly involving delivery doors located where trucks would block parking spaces, inadequate maneuvering room, potential encroachment into the town right of way. The site must be redesigned to provide safe and efficient internal circulation, fully accommodated delivery and service access. No reliance on public roadway space for operation. This is a core site design issue, not a minor technical correction. the sanitary system if it was put in in the 70s it's very likely that it's a large capacity cess poolool which means you would be mandated to replace it with a brand new IIA system in either case I think you know it's very important that you give serious consideration to putting in a new IIA system number five solid waste management agement. Your application lacks a coherent waste management plan. The
071the revised submission must clearly show trash enclosure locations, screening, truck access and turning on-site functionality without circulation conflicts. Number six, landscaping and visual character. The site is currently overh hardened and visually stark particularly along Montalk Highway. We would need a comprehensive native landscaping and buffering plan. We would require soften visual impacts, reduce the dominance of parking and improve street case streetscape character. Landscaping is a core design component, not an accessory element. Number seven, traffic and operational impacts. Future submissions by the applicant should include traffic generation, delivery scheduling, peak hour operations, and noise impacts. So in summary, your proposal requires substantial redesign and clarification. Specifically, you should return with number one, clearly defined lawful uses. Number two, demonstrated zoning compliance or identified relief. Number three, revised parking calculations. Number four, a reconfigured site plan that resolves
072circulation and delivery conflicts. [clears throat] Number five, updated sanitary waste management and landscaping plans. and number six, any required traffic and operational impact [clears throat] studies. Until these issues are addressed, the application is not ready for detailed site plan review. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Lou. Um, there's a lot going on here. I think we should uh go around the table and get everyone's impressions as this is a preliminary site review and we're giving we're giving directional advice to the applicant. So Ava, we're going to start with you just directional. >> No, there's, [clears throat] you know, there is a a lot going on here. I think first and foremost, the the the uses need to be clarified and and I do agree that, you know, staying within the confines of zoning, we need to
073understand clearly what those defined uses are to for for the other pieces of the puzzle to kind of come together. You know, I do agree about the the sanitary system. It's over 50 years old. I'm no expert in that field, but I would think that that should be heavily considered. Um, and I'm familiar with the with the site as well. You know, parking is an issue and again dependent on what the ultimate use is, I think that the parking and the circulation, especially being at a Montalk Highway [clears throat] fronting property needs to certainly be addressed. Um, so some work to be done. >> Thanks, Ava Chen. Uh, I agree with pretty much everything that Lou and Ava have said. I think a traffic study is important. I think the use question is like first
074and foremost. We really can't have a meaningful discussion about the rest of it without understanding what the uses proposed are. Um, and that being said, you know, the everything else that follows. Um, I do think that the sanitary system is a huge I I think that needs to be replaced. I mean, it's 50 years old. So, I think an IIA system would be the way to go and I hope that the applicant seriously considers that. >> Thanks, Jen. Bruce. >> Well, um, yeah, I agree with with all these guys. I don't have anything more to really add. I think the uses, like you guys said, are are super super important to understand everything else, parking, circulation, septic, the whole nine yards. So, I think that's that's the key thing to uh to start. >> Okay,
075good read. >> Yeah, I thought Lou gave a a great overview. Um and I agree with everyone on the board that we have to nail down the use before we can really proceed here. Um you brought up a um a a comment that I I found interesting. It's a comment I haven't heard in years, and that [clears throat] is fees in lie of parking. Um, and it's my understanding that the town collects that money and kind of does a trade-off saying, "Hey, you don't necessarily need this extra spot or two and you pay a certain sum and then that money goes into a fund, right, that buys parking elsewhere in the town where it may be needed." Um, I I think that that's a concept I'd be open to, but um I I don't know
076what the shortfall is going to be here because I really don't [clears throat] know what the use is going to be. So, we can't put the cart in front of the horse. I think we have to figure out the use forces. That's all I have. >> Good. Thanks, Reed. John, would you like to comment? >> Yes. Uh, thank you. Um, I'm in agreement with everything uh my fellow board members have said. The two biggest hurdles to the this application are um use that won't require zoning variance and parking. And then the rest uh you know the IIA system and uh traffic studies are secondary but important. >> Good. Thank you John. Um yeah I mean you guys know this is a challenging site right? I mean this site is very overbuilt you know as many
077many other sites in this way Scott strip are that were building during that same time. And this is going to be a little bit tricky. I mean the the easiest path of course would be you can have retail plus warehouse and 20 parking spaces as was permitted in 1981 if you want to just return right to what what the use has been uh [clears throat] that is probably not not the thing that you'd like to do and maybe that's not even really very marketable at this point in time but you know and of course we'd like to see the building reused but this is this is very tricky I mean use is everything here right figuring out the use is really the beginning of the process and It's going to require some some deep conversation
078with the planning department to really understand what actually is going to fly. You know, I think you had some interesting suggestions as to what those might be, but I think we need to really seriously consider them. Um, but it's going to be a challenge and I think, you know, all the other attendant things that go along with this that other board members have mentioned, including sanitary system, are going to wind up being very important to us down the line. So to be a little bit more specific, we'll go through the questions the department's given us to to answer. The first of which is does the planning board agree with the planning department's assessment of additional information must be provided upon formal site plan application pursuant to town code 255650 necessary elements. >> Yeah, I think
079we always we always agree on that. Does the planning board agree the applicant should revise the proposal to conform with the town code? obiating the need for variances as much as I can. >> That would be ideal. Yes. Right. >> But not mandatory. I mean, it would be ideal, but >> right. >> There's nothing wrong with applying for variances. >> We don't encourage. >> We don't We're not encouraging. >> We're not encouraging. Yeah. Yeah. And this it's going to be tricky to do that quite honestly. the few >> but we would I guess the way we want to answer that question is to the extent possible feasible >> you know it still meets your objectives uh third question is does the planning board agree the applicant should clarify the proposed uses and amend parking calculations
080accordingly? >> Absolutely. >> We've talked about that a lot. Yes. >> Yes. Yeah. Uh, does planning board agree the vehicle delivery doors should be added to the site plan? I think >> yeah, I mean it's a bit of a detail at this point. >> Depends on use probably. >> Yeah, depend. It really depends on use is I think our answer. >> Does the planning board agree the applicant should discuss the use of right of way with the highway department? >> It sounds like you may not have plans to actually use it, but if you do, then of course you would need to do that. Um, does the planning board agree the applicant should submit proof of a grandfather population density equivalent? >> Yes. [snorts] >> Does the planning board agree the applicant should propose a
081low nitrogen sanitary system? >> Yes. >> I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that. Yes. All around. Does the planning board agree the applicant should explain how solid waste will be disposed of and taken away from the property? >> Yes. You offered some hints at how that might happen, but yeah, formalize it, please. Does the planning board agree with that a detailed grading and drainage plan be included in the formal submission? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, so concludes your preliminary review. I mean, hopefully that was helpful and gives you some direction on what we're thinking. We'll be hearing [snorts] from you again, I'm certain. Thank you. All right. Um, next thing on our work session is comments to the town board on a code change clarifying building permit requirements for wireless services facilities. Eric,
082you're going to take us through that? >> Yep. Yeah. So this is um this matter is for the planning board to send comments to the town board as is required whenever there is a um proposed code change regardless of scale. Um so basically this relates to tier one wireless facilities and permitting. Um those are small cell that are that are within rightofways. We've received a number of applications for them. Um and you know we have a new process um on this. Um [clears throat] that new process was dictated when the town recently overhauled the wireless code. Um one of the things we did was we took what I believe were almost 30 different code sections that were spread throughout the code and condensed them into uh section 255141 of the town code. Um we better
083organized requirements. So included in there is a detailed list for tier 1, tier 2, and tier three of what the application process is, including timelines for review. Um so in that section of the code for tier one, um we detailed the application process, which includes getting an administrative permit from the planning department. Um getting an agreement from the town for use of the right of way. Remember tier one, small cell are all within a right of way. um and then also getting a work permit from the highway department for actual physical work um occurring within that right of way. So we basically have one section of the code um which details that application process for tier 1. But then in reviewing recent permits we realized that we failed to modify another section of the code
084which is the one that says uh work that requires building permits. So, right now the code says that um any component of a personal wireless service facility requires a building permit. Um we had never intended for that to be the process. As I said, we laid out the process in 255-1-41 of the town code. Um we do want um tier 2 and tier three applications to still be required to obtain a building permit. Tier two are mainly swap outs of equipment on um in existing facilities and on existing structures. So, you know, you have a tall building, the Montalk tower that has wireless equipment on it. That's a a tier 2 application would be swapping out the equipment. And then tier three are the applications for new macro facilities or large support structures. Um the
085planning board has one of those um active in front of it right now. Um so those would still require building permits. um as as we had um you know uh envisioned would be the process. Um so this code change is just removing that requirement for a tier one um and removing that conflict in the code and keeping it just the permitting process that's detailed in the new um wireless code. >> Thank you. Yeah. So, uh, right. So, I guess, uh, to put it a slightly different way, the the issue was that we never it should not have been in the code that tier one needed a building building permit, particularly since it's in a right of way anyway. It's not really even possible to to get one. So, this seems pretty pretty minor. Does anyone
086have any comments that they want to give to the town board about this? >> No, just >> I agree. I agree. I agree. realiz that that would be applicable to one. >> Out of curiosity, how big is a tier one? >> Like you know on the new town lane on the the pole that was just kind of knocked out knocked over over the holidays. It's like those little things that attach pole. Yeah. >> Yeah. Like the little antennas. >> Got some of them are a little bit bigger. Yeah. But >> but they're attached >> attached to something else. >> Yeah, they are to to an existing utility >> pole. Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. >> It's like cameras. I mean a lot less intrusive than a tower, right? >> Um so we don't have any specific comments,
087Katie, except that we >> just we thank you. >> Thanks, Eric. >> Um all right, so our other [snorts] uh topic here is the landing artist studio resolution modifying the approval. We talked about this at our last meeting. Um >> Oh, wait a minute. before. >> Yeah. Sorry, I went backwards here. Heritage Farm final subdivision. Um, >> and that is something that Aaron did and Reed. I think I don't think we need any explanation or do we from planning on? >> I don't think so, but I'm happy to give one if you need some context. >> Okay. >> Yeah. What? Just just just really quickly on that because that's a little complicated that one. >> Yeah, sure. So, this is an application on Heritage Park Lane. Um, basically the driveway had a certificate of occupancy
088of two individual driveways where the original subdivision said that it should only take access from one common driveway. Um, since got the modification to allow that second driveway to remain. However, the conditions of approval stated that no certificate of occupancy could be granted to any of the properties in the subdivision um until a certain document for the common driveway was revised for the subject property. That was an error. It should only hold up a certificate of occupancy on subject property, which is lot one in the subdivision. So, this is just a correction so that other properties in that subdivision can get a CO um before the subject property finalizes documents. >> Good. Thank you. Yeah, it's a little it's a little complicated. Uh but Reed, if you want to just uh call for >> Yeah,
089absolutely. So, uh, in the matter of the application of Heritage Farm [clears throat] Laney, uh, final subdivision modification, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-157-3-7.1 for resol resolution amending approval. I've read the resolution and I call for its adoption. >> I'll second that. >> Second. All in favor? I I >> carried and uh the landing artist studio. I don't think we need much of an explanation on that. We just went over this last last week. So Ava, if you want to just read that in. >> Sure. In the matter of the application of the landing art studio, Suff County Tax Map number 300-56-2-27. I've read [clears throat] the resolution and I move for its approval. Second. All >> in favor? I >> passion carried. Okay, great. Uh, so all we have left is the adoption of
090the minutes for January 14th, our last meeting, >> which I have read. >> I have read them. >> Cover to cover. I didn't have any changes, but there are people on the screen who have more of an eagle eye. >> I did see just one thing on number two, page two. Um, background. I just remember Jones would be better than Lee. [laughter] Whatever. That's a casual thing. >> All right. [laughter] >> Member Jones. >> You got that, Katie? You caught that. Okay. All right. All in favor of uh approving the minutes >> As amended. As amended. Member Jones. >> Jones. Member Jones. Just call Just call for >> I Okay. Motion to adjurnn. I'll make that motion. Second Jabber.