001It's not here at the time. >> Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Okay, good evening everyone. Uh, welcome to the East Hampton Town Planning Board, our regular and work session for January 14th, the first meeting of 2026. Very glad to be here tonight. Um, a couple things I want to point out before we get started. Um, you know, we may look light up here, but we do have two members who are unable to be here tonight. Ava Warren and, uh, Bruce Cisa, who are both still members of the board. Um, and Reed has re-uped. Reed Jones has re-uped for another another term on the board, which we're happy to announce. And John Thoren, who is zooming in tonight, is joining us uh as
002a member uh recently of the ZBA. He's now, and there he is right now with the crutches in the background, which is why he's not here. >> Not a prop. >> So, he's here participating uh virtually with us. So, that's the board for 2026. Uh, one thing that I want to cover again before we get started is that we are not having the public hearing tonight, uh, on the Elite Towers as the Springs Fire Department. >> Uh, I don't think there's anyone in this room who's here for that purpose. There were some people here earlier, but if there's anyone who is viewing online or on LTV, uh, we are we are not holding conducting that public hearing today at the applicant's request. um you know they have removed it from the public hearing schedule for
003tonight. Um they have not withdrawn the application which someone asked earlier. Um it'll be set for a public hearing at a future date but that is not happening tonight. So then jumping into our work session uh the first application up is the landing artist studio. Um sir are you here to represent? Okay. All right. Just wanted to make sure you were here before we start that there was somebody represent the the application. Um and Eric, you're you're online with us. You're you're handling this for the planning board planning department. Okay. >> Yep. >> Um all right. So, yeah. And Jen, you're going to be handling it for for the for the board instead of Ava. >> So, Eric, if you'll fill us in and then we'll invite you to come up and identify yourself and
004speak. >> Sure. Um, an application has been submitted seeking to modify an artist studio on the subject property located on Old House Landing Road in East Hampton. The site is 33,956 square ft uh zone B residence and within the Harbor Protection Overlay District. Property is currently improved with a singlestory single family residence with deck garage, swimming pool, pool fencing, brick patio, deer fence, and the subject artist studio. The artist studio was approved by the planning board in December of 2023 and obtained a building permit in March of 2024. A final inspection request was received from the applicant on September 2nd of 2025 and the following memo from the planning department uh indicated that the site was not ready for the issuance of a CO. The R studio was constructed largely in accordance with the resolution
005and plans approved by the board in 2023, but also includes a wood deck, additional doors, windows, and lighting. Uh the application is seeking approval for the existing modifications [clears throat] uh in the submitted uh well what I should do uh is uh point out that the uh visual you're looking at is an aerial photograph of the subject property from earlier this year. And then um I'll show you the approved survey uh which is here and you'll see the artist studio in the lower corner um of the screen with a 15 ft setback um but basically as depicted and then um switching quickly to uh the existing conditions. You'll see that there was an area of decking um put around the studio. The studio is now 14 1/2 ft from the property line. Um a gravel
006area and walkway. um some other minor improvements, but I'll I'll get into those. Um so, in the submitted project narrative, the applicant specified the deck was added because of the distance between the entrance of the artist studio and the adjacent uh finished grade. The original R studio plans include steps up to the door and those steps appear to have been expanded to become a deck of approximately 225 square ft in size uh which borders two sides of the studio and you can see that uh on the survey here uh labeled as deck. Uh the plans approved by the board in 2023 included sliding doors on the southern facade of the studio, no windows or doors on the eastern facade, three small windows on the western facade, and one large window on the northern facade. As
007presently built, only the southern and eastern faces comply with the approved plans, while the western eastern sides do not comply. Uh the western facade includes three small windows similar to what was approved but also has glass sliding doors and decorative wooded uh sliding barn doors or wooden, excuse me. Uh and then uh in the memorandum prepared by the planning department um there are photos that compare uh those two facades from what was approved and what's existing. Um the applicant should explain the reason for these changes uh from the approved plans and the board should discuss whether they are uh appropriate. Um, just for the record, the planning department has no objection to those changes. Uh, in the original application, no lighting was shown, proposed, or approved. Currently, [snorts] four, uh, lighting fixtures are on the
008studio, one on either side of both doors. This lighting appears to be dark sky and town cone compliant. Uh, but the applicant should confirm this and specify the lumen levels and color temperature of the fixtures. This could easily be accomplished by providing manufacturer specification sheets uh for the fixtures chosen or identifying the type of bulbs used. Uh the SMID survey prepared by George Walbridge surveyors uh bears the name map of property which you can see in the top right hand corner. Uh the planning department recommends this survey be revised to have a name such as map of landing artist studio uh and residents. The board should discuss whether it agrees. Additionally, the distance between the artist studio and the rear property line is slightly decreased from what was approved. The planning board approved a 15
009foot setback between the rear property line and the studio. And the studio has been built at 14 1/2 ft from the rear property line. As you can see on this survey, [snorts] uh although this is slightly closer to the property line, it is noted the minimum setback requirement for a lot of this size is 10 ft. Um therefore making it still compliant. The board should discuss whether this decreased setback is acceptable. In conclusion, the applicant should explain the need for the modification after the previous site plan approval. Revise the title of the survey and manufacturer specification sheets which provide the color temperature and lumen level for the existing light fixture should be provided. The board should discuss whether the addition of the deck is appropriate, if the addition of windows and doors is appropriate, if
010the applicant should revise the name on the survey and provide additional lighting and if the applicant should revise the name on the survey and provide additional lighting information. Excuse me. Uh if the board finds these changes to be acceptable, it should discuss whether the modification will be complete and ready for appro approval provided the survey title is changed and the information regarding the lighting is submitted. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Eric, would you like to speak on behalf of the applicant? If you're going to identify yourself first, uh name and address. My name is Sean Leonard. Uh I'm the architect uh for the project. uh 320 Hampton Road, Southampton, New York. Uh all these changes had taken place after I had already prepared all the drawings and were submitted. So be quite honest, I
011wasn't privy to any of these changes that took place uh while it was under construction uh until the uh unfortunately the uh the owner wasn't able to be present tonight and has filled me in on the situation that has, you know, come to come to light. Uh my understanding is that when she was con constructing it, she didn't think, you know, at the time that it was uh that big of a deal for us to ha for her to have that little deck in the front there. Uh and she thought just for aesthetic points purposes, that's the reason for the sliding doors was more of a of a visual thing from her house. And that was the reason for for that change on the front there. And um uh and I think she just felt
012that having that deck kind of coming up, it would made it a little bit easier for her to kind of get in and out of the out of the space. >> Okay. You have any questions for me? >> Yeah, I I don't think we will, but we might. So, stick around. Uh but Jen is going to lead our discussion. >> Thank you so much. Um and thank you, Eric, for the um memo. I think that given the applicant just provides us with the updated survey, the lighting plan, and all of the tiny things mentioned in the memo, I think it's fine. I don't think there's any um notable change to the plan. It meets all setbacks. It meets clearing restrictions, coverage. Um that's my opinion. >> Yeah. Anyone else have another opinion or want to
013comment? No, I was I was curious about the explanation on why [clears throat] these changes occurred and I think you provided a reasonable response to that. I I don't have any problem with it. >> Yeah. >> Uh it doesn't meet setbacks, but I'm okay with it. Right. >> It does setbacks. >> Isn't it 14 and a half ft now? >> It's 10 foot for that size lot. >> Oh, 10, right? Okay. Yeah. So, it's I agree with Jen. Yeah. Fine. >> Yeah. I think the changes are are minor. We we have >> John first. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. John, do you have a some thoughts on this? >> Yeah. No, I agree with everything I've heard from uh you all in the in the planning department. Um particularly interested in seeing that the lighting
014is uh dark sky uh code uh compliant. Um, and I I note that, you know, this is an H pod and uh some pvious areas were added, but the gravel or impervious rather, but the gravel uh is pvious. Um, and the pavers did not appear on the original uh survey. Um, that just adds, you know, more impervious uh area to an H pod, but that's hasn't been discussed. So, uh, that's something I I noticed. Okay, good catch. >> Yeah. >> Um, right. He's referring to Harbor Protection Overlay District, by the way. Okay. Um, all right. We have some questions that we are compelled to answer as a as a board. Does the board find the addition of the deck administration and lighting appropriate? And I'm also going to add the pavers to that sentence. >>
015And the pavers >> gravel >> uh impervious or pvious rather. Yeah, I think we're fine on the gravel. >> Yeah. >> Does everyone agree, John, that we are uh >> we find those additions to be uh appropriate, >> everybody? Okay. >> Does does the board wish for the applicant to update the map title on the submitted survey as Eric pointed out earlier? >> Yes. Yes, John. Yes. >> Yes. >> Does the board find the existing 14.5 ft setback between the studio and rear property line acceptable? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. It's decode. Should the applicant provide manufacturer specification sheets for the exterior lighting which provides lumen levels and color temperatures of the light sources to demonstrate compliance with the town code? >> Yes. All around. Okay. Does the board find this modification will be complete
016and ready for approval once a survey with a revised title and information demonstrating the lighting is compliant with the town code has been provided? >> Yes. Okay. Good. All right, sir. I think we are done. >> Uh so you can >> I have your notes. I will make sure all of those things are complied with. >> Okay. >> We'll get those submitted. Do we submit those back to the planning board? to the planning department. Yeah, >> we'll make sure all that's taken care of. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate your time. >> Sure. >> All right. Our next work session is Atlantic Headland Preliminary Subdivision. And I do see that the applicant is present. Um and Eric is going to once again lead the conversation for the planning department.
017and Reed is going to lead a conversation for the board. >> Sure. So, I'll start off by showing a bar aerial um of the property, which hopefully the board can see. Now, um you'll see that this is in uh Malk Point um on the far eastern end of town. I will switch to a closer aerial um showing just the property [clears throat] and then as I uh go through the evaluation I'll switch over to the subdivision map. Um application has been made to subdivide a 40 plus acre property in Montalk into two residential lots with no reserved area. The application has been submitted as a subwaver. Uh, since the property is located within the A10 resident zoning district, it must be treated as an open space subdivision per section 193-2-40 of the town code, which
018requires that at least 70% of the property be preserved as open space. Uh, lot one is proposed at roughly 26 acres and lot 2 is proposed at roughly 13 acres with expansive areas of wetlands throughout each. Access is currently proposed uh with an access easement of 25 ft in width. The property abuts residential property to the west and east, New York State Parkland to the north, Montalk Point State Park, and the Atlantic Ocean to the south. The subject property is currently vacant with no record of residential or other development in town records. The property is characterized by expansive areas of wetlands, rolling topography, and mixed deciduous woodlands, which are representative of the Montalk Morlands of uh Montalk Point. So, I'm going to switch over to the subdivision map and um it's a little difficult to
019see just because of the dimensions, but I will zoom in a bit um which should help the board. Um so, with regard to SRA, the applicants have not submitted an EAF part one for the application and uh should be required to do so at this time. However, the project has preliminarily been classified as a type one action. Um, pursuant to chapter 128 of the town code and SRCA. Um, in the memorandum prepared, we site the specific uh areas of SRA that we believe are applicable. Um and accordingly the site's location adjacent basically in SRA um if you're for activities other than residential construction that impact um a certain uh threshold of acreage um that's deemed a type one action and then if this occurs adjacent to parkland that reduces the threshold of land disturbance. Um
020so accordingly the site's location adjacent to publicly owned parkland sets the threshold for land disturbance at 2 1/2 acres. It is reasonably assumed that the creation of access as well as the resultant disturbance from the project will exceed this amount of area. However, an EAF part one and a significantly revised subdivision map as I'll describe um will be required before a secure classification can be made. Uh it's also noted that it's impossible to ascertain potential impacts from a number of aspects of the site in the subdivision at this time and until an EAF part one is provided as this document will detail um although not exhaustively the potential presence of protected or threatened species um archaeological sites uh other information. So as as previously noted, this property is situated in the A10 resident zoning district
021and therefore must be reviewed as an open space subdivision. um unless the board were to uh approve a deferment of open space which is uh a separate process and not really applicable to a two lot subdivision. Um in the memorandum prepared we cite the exact code section which is mandatory use procedure that says that any um lot within the A10 zoning district can only be subdivided as an open space subdivision. It sets the reserved area requirement at 50% but that becomes 70% if the property abuts the Atlantic Ocean or technically is within 100 ft of the Atlantic Ocean which this property is. Um so as noted uh the proposed map does not include the requisite reserved area and will need to be amended. Um that's a major amendment that needs to occur. Um per the
022town code reserved area shall be marked reserve area for use of residence of subdivision and possible dedication to the town. Um, this submitted map should be revised to have this notation. The applicant should detail their intention or preference for the future use of the reserved area. Um, there are options in the town code. You can set something up that's an active reserve area. [snorts] Um, but that doesn't seem uh appropriate for for this subdivision. So, it's recommended that uh the reserved area or areas be dedicated to either the town or a private conservation group for open space preservation, which are two of the three options other than an active uh uh reserved area. Uh the town code requires that a reserved area or scenic easement be provided along public public roads uh for at least
02310% of the total depth as a natural buffer from development. Um, as per the town code, the board has the authority to wave this requirement. The planning department department recommends that a natural buffer should be required and the board should determine whether it agrees. So, basically whether or not you want some component of reserved area or eastmen to provide a buffer for 10% of the depth of the lot along the front of the lot along Old Montalk Highway. Uh generally speaking, the redesign of the subdivision and location of reserved areas should take into account the board's policies as detailed in the town code for open spaces and the memorandum um includes those standards verbatim. With regard to subdivision design, this property has numerous unique conditions that warrant attention when configuring the reserved area and building
024lots. Um two sections of the town code, subdivision chapter general policies and requirements and subdivision requirements. Identify the general policies for subdivision review and design as well as the required information as a summary. Although other issues affecting subdivision design and reserved area location will likely also need to be considered. Um the following is a list of those issues identified at this time. So basically they fall into a number of categories here. Um with one the first one being existing on-site trails, possible connection to future adjacent trails and public access. The next being public vistas and scenic resources. The next being freshwater wetlands. Um also protected plant and animal species. Also unique habitat types. Also coastal resiliency considerations as there's a bluff crest and toe beaches beach vegetation in the Atlantic Ocean >> um on or
025abuing the property. Also topography and area of steep slopes which are present throughout the site and prehistoric and historic resources the presence of which is to be determined. So getting into those categories more specifically with regard to trails and public access, the submitted map indicates that a portion of an existing and formal trail system that has historically existing on the property will be preserved. Also indicated is a 4ft wide pedestrian easements uh easement. The applicant should clarify if this trail and easement will be for the benefit of the lot owners only, the public only, or both. Uh historic aerials of the property indicate an intricate system of what appear to be trails. The applicant should clarify the historic usage of the property by the public or private individuals and a field assessment of areas that
026have been cleared and/or which contain invasive species should be conducted in the area of these trails as well as the upland portions of the other upland portions of the site. Uh it is assumed that these trails were created around the 1960s and utilized to varying degrees since but have since mostly grown in. Uh it is the understanding of the planning department that this lot has been used as an informal slash unorth unauthorized access to the shoreline for at least half a century including for surfing and fishing. Uh the owner should be commended for allowing even passively the public to access this portion of the shoreline which is it in in and of itself a great scenic and recreational natural resource. Uh the planning department notes that all this although this property is believed to have
027historically provided access to the Atlantic Ocean, no such provisions appear to have been formally established. Uh the property extends to the high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean and similarly no provision for through access along the beach for the public has been uh has been established. The board and the applicant should discuss the feasibility of providing public access either to or along the Atlantic Ocean. Um and then in the memorandum we cite the sections of code that relate to to trail preservation um and the board's responsibility uh to preserve uh trail systems. Um also cited are um the subdivision standards with regard to waterfront areas and protecting those um and providing public access. Um, so with regard to public vistas and scenic resources, the property is situ situated in the Montalk Point subunit of the
028scenic area of statewide significance. Although a redesign of the subdivision with greater coastal setbacks for the building lots may greatly mitigate potential impacts, the applicant should provide a visual analysis of the potential visibility of residences and other improvements from the Atlantic Ocean and the adjacent public overlook on Montalk Highway to determine visual impacts. Freshwater wetlands. Uh the property contains expan expansive areas of freshwater wetlands identified and mapped by the town of East Hampton, state of New York, the DEC, and the National Wetlands Inventory. Uh the freshwater wetlands consist of a mosaic of habitats including red maple, black tupelo swamps, shrub swamps, intermittent streams, herbaceous marshes, and freshwater ponds. These uh wetlands ranked as class one wetlands by the DEEC are extremely significant habitat for wetland dependent species of flora and fauna in addition to flood
029control. Uh either a permit from the DEC or a letter of non-jurisdiction from this involved agency should be submitted. Uh the submitted map indicates that the wetland boundaries were last verified by the town in 2019 whereas they were last verified in 2025. The notation on the map should be corrected. Uh, as drawn, both lots would contain building envelopes within Natural Reefs' special permit uh, jurisdiction of nearby freshwater wetlands. The planning board may permit lots to be created, which may require an NRSP, but cannot create lots that would require variances. The proposed configuration does appear to be compliant. However, it is likely that there is ample room to create lots and building envelopes which can maintain the 150 ft setback required to keep development out of NRSP jurisdiction. The applicant should take this into consideration when
030redesigning the subdivision. Uh the reserved area should be situated to cover as much of the area of freshwater wetlands on the site as possible and additional areas of scenic easements or other protection mechanisms may be required. Priority should be given to the areas of wetlands that are most pristine and unaffected by historic land disturbance after this is determined. Uh with regard to protected plant and animal species, uh due to the size and diversity of the vegetation within the wetlands, the property has an above average potential to contain protected species of flora and fauna. And the planning department has obser observed at least one species of special concern, the spotted turtle, on numerous occasions. Uh the blue spotted salamander has not been observed on site but is known to occur throughout the Morlands area of Mto.
031The population of blue spotted salamander is unique in the northeast because it is the only genetically pure diploid population in the state. Elsewhere the salamanders hybridize with the closely related Jefferson salamander. Both the spotted turtle and blue uh spotted salamander are listed as species of special concern which is defined in the environmental conservation law of New York as quote any native species for which a welfare concern or risk of endangerment has been documented in New York State. Uh in addition to the wildlife species of concern, a large number of protected plants can be expected to occur in these wetlands. Most wetland dependent wildlife species are equally dependent on the adjacent uplands as the wetlands themselves. Um as noted as noted previously an EAF part one which would identify the potential presence of state or federal
032federally protected plant and animal species has not been provided. Once this information has been provided and presuming that there is a potential for the presence of such species, the applicant should provide a plan for the protection of these species, including how potential adverse impacts will be mitigated and should perform a field inspection for their presence. More specifically, the planning department recommends that field surveys to identify the presence of threatened, endangered um or threatened or endangered species or species of special concerns uh must be conducted. Should these species be located within the lot areas, mapping of building envelopes to avoid these areas would be recommended. A conservation easement may be another method for protecting sensitive area, which the board should discuss. Um, identifying some types of uh specific species of concern. Um, requires field inspections at
033appropriate times of the year. The applicant should propose a work plan to conduct this work and the planning department will review to determine adequacy. Um, with regard to unique habitat, the property contains Montalk Morland habitat, which is a unique dwarf forest habitat that generally consists of a dense canopy of short trees and shrubs uh shrubs with an extensive complex um extensive complex frequently interconnected wetlands, coastal bluffs, and rocky ocean beaches. The state's environmental resources mapper lists the following natural communities on the property. Maritime intertitle gravel/sand beach maritime beach uh coastal plane poor fen maritime bluff red maple black gum swamp coastal oak hickory forest successional maritime forest maritime [clears throat] shrubland and marine rocky intertital habitats. The site also has coastal bluff escarments and Atlantic Ocean beaches. The Morlands of Montalk Point have been designated
034as a locally significant fish and wildlife habitat and are are a particularly noteworthy example of a habitat type unique to the town of East Hampton. Many areas of the property are pristine, but invasive species such as multifllora rose, shrub, honeysuckle, and privets are found near old Montalk Highway and in areas close to the trail. Additionally, an estimated 3.8 acres in the central portion of the property was cleared sometime between 2013 and 2016. During the planning department site visit in 2019, some areas of the clearing had been reveated and fenced, presumably to reduce the impacts of deer brows. When redesigning the subdivision, uh care should be taken to locate reserved areas, building lots, and building envelopes to avoid fragmenting this habitat. As noted above, field survey of the property should be conducted and the subdivision design
035uh designed not only to avoid areas of wetlands, steep slopes, etc., but also with consideration of the interconnection between these areas and the impact that fragmenting habitat could have on species that may be present. With regard to coastal resiliency, uh the property abuts the Atlantic Ocean at its southern boundary, is within coastal erosion zone one and and is within a PCON estuary program's critical natural resources area. As currently drawn, the building envelope on proposed lot one would be roughly 350 ft from the edge of the bluff uh crest. As currently drawn, the building envelope for proposed lot two would extend to within a 100 feet of the bluff crest in an area that appears to contain a natural swale from the upland portions of the lot that runs down to the beach. Uh section 255440
036coastal setbacks um of the town code mandates a minimum distance of 150 ft from a bluff crest for construction. As such, portions of the building envelope on proposed lot uh two are not compliant with the town code and will need to be re re uh redrawn. Um, additionally, no sanitary system components may be situated within 200 feet of the boundary of a beach and the subdivision should be redrawn to be in compliance with this requirement as it appears that there are portions of proposed lot 2 as it's currently drawn that would be within this setback. Um, sanitary envelope should be provided uh for the building lots um in a redesigned subdivision. [clears throat] Uh it's also noted that no clearing is permitted within 50 ft of a bluff crust, proper mechanisms to preserve such areas
037from potential future clearing such as putting the reserved area over those areas or scenic easements uh should be provided. Additionally, although the portion of the bluff along the southern end of the property appears to be relatively static, the impact of sea level rise and climate change uh likely will likely mean that this will not be the case years into the future. The property is situated in coastal erosion overlay zone one, which is the most restrictive of the four zones, prohibiting any new erosion control structures. It's recommended that a significant setback between the building lots on this property and the bluff be provided and that this be protected either by reserved areas or other mechanisms to assure an adequate buffer in perpetuity. Uh with regard to topography and steep slopes, uh the subdivision map uh does
038not illustrate any areas of steep slopes, uh those being greater than 20% and does not provide information for existing grades throughout the site. Um although there there are topographic lines. Um the slopes across the property range from nearly level to steeply sloping with widely varying elevations and apparent um natural water courses throughout, seasonal water courses, I should say. Uh these appear to uh there appears to be some areas with slopes of 20% or greater. The submitted map should be amended at this time to illustrate all areas of 20% slopes or greater as the planning board cannot permit this as buildable area under section 220-1.06 H2E of the town code. It's also recommended that the board require that building envelopes which exclude any areas of 20% slopes or greater be added to the preliminary map. Um,
039with regard to prehistoric and historic resources, no information pertaining to prehistoric or historic resources has been provided. The board should require that the applicants provide at minimum a stage 1A archaeological report and will likely need to prepare a stage 1B depending upon the findings of a stage 1A. So, moving along to the issue of dimensional regulations. Um, both proposed lots have been drawn to meet the minimum lot area requirements as well as all required yard and natural feature setbacks. um with the inform with the aforementioned inclusion of areas of the building envelope on proposed lot 2 being within variance jurisdiction of the bluff crest but otherwise everything else meets the dimensional requirements of the code. Um the planning board has the authority to reduce the required lot area for the building lots for an open
040space subdivision per section 193-2-10 of the town code and routinely does to create clustered subdivision designs. The planning department recommends that approving um reduced lot sizes in this location with sensitive natural features surrounding is appropriate. Uh the reduced size helps avoid the proposed lots protruding into the wetlands, areas of steep slopes and water courses, topography, unique habitat, um and helps maintain uh rectangular lot shapes. The planning department recommends that the applicant redesign the subdivision though before the board determines whether uh the lot areas below 425,000 square feet which is the minimum lot area required in the zoning district um and the overall lot configuration are acceptable. With regard to subdivision requirements um the town code um lists the following required items um which are missing from the submitted uh information which should be added. Um
041that includes uh the uh notation um for easement areas and reserved areas marked that reserved areas are either um for the benefit of the subdivision or to be dedicated to the town. Um trails showing the proposed manner in which these features will be preserved or protected. The submitted map does illustrate trails but not the entirety of the trail system. [snorts] Um the map should have the coastal erosion hazard line added to it. Uh the most recent wetland verification date should be provided. Um the scale should be adjusted. Um there's some other uh required items. Post office address, the address of the subdivision. Um all utilities including the names of the utility providers and their location. Name and address of the developer or owner of record. Test hole data. Um proposed fire hydrant well or system
042locations or anything required by the fire department. Proposed preliminary drainage calculation, storm water drainage systems. Um the location of wells um private drinking wells are proposed. Uh typical house illustration with sanitary system. Uh and all areas of steep slopes uh exceeding 20%. Um those are the codemandated elements of a subdivision map that are are required. Additionally, the following information should be provided apart from the preliminary subdivision map. Um, we recommend that as per section 220-1.08, a site analysis map and written description um be provided. That's something that isn't often required in subdivisions, but basically the idea is that you have a a separate map and a separate write up that explains where all of the important resources on the property are situated. So, you know, it would have a mosaic of where there might be
043archaeological resources that are found, where the trails are, where the wetlands are, where unique habitat types are, maps those out, and then gives a description of where the resultant uh building lots are proposed to be, and why it makes sense in the context of all those uh site conditions. Also, a yield map um as required by section 220-1.06 of the town code um should be submitted. the subwave subwaver map that you see in front of you does act as a de facto yield map. Um however it's appropriate to have that amended um slightly and noted to be a yield map and submitted to the record as that's a subdivision requirement. Um we don't anticipate that there would be any issue with the applicants having a yield for two lots. Um we just feel that uh
044for the record uh an appropriate yield map as its own document should be provided. Um, with regard to uh comments from the Office of Fire Prevention and the Montalk Fire Department, ultimately the Montalk Fire Department will need to approve the proposed map. This includes review of any improvements needed for firefighting capabilities as well as well as their locations being depicted on the map. Uh, the planning department discussed the application with the fire marshall who indicated that the Montalk Fire Department may require that public water be brought to the site. It is noted that public water is located nearly a mile away at Montalk Highway. Although firefighting improvements are often determined in the final subdivision review, the applicant is urged to contact the Montalk Fire Department at this time to ascertain whether significant improvements such as
045a long extension of public water service uh will be needed. Um it's alternatively sometimes required uh that water supply be provided in the in the form of a well. Um I don't know what the fire department of jurisdiction is going to require, but um we recommend that the applicants reach out sooner rather than later cuz I had heard um that public water might be required. Um with regard to drainage and storm water control, the submission did not include details on proposed drainage or com or a common driveway plan. This information should be provided in a resubmission and is required by the town code and the code section is cited in the memorandum. Uh the town consulting engineer will review the proposed project after submission of a revised map as well as other plans and details,
046specifically a common driveway plan. Um if a common driveway is still proposed, uh with regard to other review required, um the zoning board of appeals uh may be required. Uh natural resources, special permits on some or all of the lots would um be required under the way that the lots are currently drawn. Um and then as I previously noted, a portion of the building envelope um for lot 2 is within various jurisdiction of the bluff crest and that should be amended slightly. Um DC approval uh will be needed. Um freshwater wetland permit we suspect is needed. They may issue a letter of non-jurisdiction. Um and then also a storm water uh pollution prevention plan may be required depending upon the extent of improvements um and the amount of land that that's disturbed. Um this will
047ultimately be referred to the Suffach County Planning Commission. As I mentioned, review by the Office of Fire Prevention or the Fire Marshall um will be conducted. Um also Montalk fire department approval and then uh as with all subdivisions, Suff County Department of Health Services uh approval will be required for the final map. Um so, uh in conclusion, uh the application is incomplete pending the resolution of the aforementioned issues and the submission of the required items. This property contains an extremely unique and sensitive habitat type as well as expansive areas of protected natural features and likely various protected plant and animal species. As such, subdivision design must weigh a number of factors and be guided by sufficient information provided to the planning board. The applicants must redesign the subdivision as an open space subdivision with a
048minimal uh minimum 70% reserved area and which places lots and reserved areas in appropriate locations. This includes consideration of existing and potential future trails and public access. Protection of public scenic vistas and resources. Protection of natural features including wetlands, bluffs, and beaches as well as steep slopes and natural topography. A design that does not endanger protected plant and/or animal species or fragment the unique habitat. Does not adversely impact coastal resiliency and which accounts for archaeological resources uh archaeological resources that may be present. The applicants must also provide an EF part one, a common driveway and drainage plans, a yield map, and all map elements listed above and required by the town code. Uh it is recommended that field surveys be per uh performed and incorporated into a site analysis map which can be used to
049guide subdivision design as well as a stage one archaeological study. Uh the planning department um advises and the planning department advis gives the standard advis advisement that applicants should submit the revised plans um with a title consistent um with the subdivision um and uh should follow the planning board's uh consensus on what future items are required subsequent to uh your conversation on this uh application. Thank you very much, Eric, for a very very thorough analysis of a of a complicated project. Uh, does the applicant wish to be heard? >> And for the record, please identify yourselves, name and address, please. [clears throat] >> Good evening, Chairman Krug. Members of the board, I'm Britain Bistrian. My office is at 9 North Main Street, East Hampton, New York. Um, I'm joined here with Beth Baldwin, who is
050the land use attorney, also working on the project. Um we are representing Saltzman Business Holdings LP which is the owner of the parcel at 190 Old Mont Highway. Um Eric gave an overview of this where this is. It's basically the the end of um Old Mont Highway just before the uh state park. The parcel is vacant and undeveloped and bound by the Old Mont Highway at the north and the Atlantic Ocean at the south. It has a unique presentation as this is one of the largest lots left in the town of East Hampton um that has not been developed at 40 acres and has remained that way and virtually undisturbed in the same family's ownership for 64 years. When it was initially purchased by the family um in 1962 uh prior to wetlands and modern
051subdivision regulations, it could have been developed into 233 house lots according to the zoning at the time. I think that's just important to sort of note that difference between 233 to two. Um the owners, one family all along for more than 60 years have always viewed the property as an especially rich local mont resource. In fact, going back way back, they rejected proposals for development to secure home sites similar to Ditch Plains. The parcel has long been in the community preservation fund acquisition list, but the town has never made an offer for purchase and the owners want to move forward with the next phase for the property resulting with the proposal in front of you to subdivide into two residential building lots. Um, one thing we we want to make sure that we have in
052the record is that although the owner has permitted access over the ocean and beachfront over the decades, no formal public access or public trails or easements exist on the parcel today. The proposed access easement and pedestrian and trail easement shown on the subdivision map are to prevent private vehicular access to lot one and private beach access to lot one over lot both of those over lot too. The owner has expressed interest in perpetual access via CPF purchase and hopefully this is still a possibility. This is an initial subdivision view so there are many layers of data as Eric you know succinctly outlined to be collected as we get deeper into the planning process. I don't think I want to go through each line item because Eric did it extensively. Um, but just to generally outline
053that we will pursue all the environmental, archaeological, and subdivision data as requested in the planning board memo. Other than that, we really just wanted to hear some board feedback and Beth and I are happy to address any questions that the board has. >> Okay. Thank you, Britain. Appreciate that. Uh, so Reed, we'll turn the conversation over to you. >> Yeah, thank you Ed and [clears throat] and thank you Britain. Um Erica, just a quick uh thank you to you as well. Uh that was a very comprehensive memo like Ed had mentioned and uh there's a lot in this memo um to go through. Um I have visited the property. Um it's a stunning 40 acre parcel. Uh a lot of natural beauty. The views are amazing. Just a gem. Um in my estimation, this is
054an example of why the community preservation fund exists. uh you know and just to remind everyone the CPF is there uh to protect our community by preserving open space and [gasps] safeguarding environmental sensitive lands for future generations. Um and as Britain had mentioned um and I've also been told that uh and this is good news that this parcel has been flagged as a potential acquisition target uh for the CPF. You know, I'm not aware of the CPF's um financial capacity currently. Um my recommendation would be that the town pursue acquisition of the property. Uh it's not very often we have the opportunity to to purchase uh 40 acres of contiguous um land. So, and and you know, it makes a lot of sense, too, as as was noted in the memo, uh, the overview that,
055you know, it's been used for decades by surfers and fishermen and there are trails there, although I I don't know how often that trails are being used currently, but it's a really nice um public um there there are a lot of public aspects to it that I think are important. Okay. Now acquisition um it takes two to tango and when you have an acquisition you got to have a willing seller and a willing buyer. Um and if the CPF purchase is not feasible which is a distinct possibility uh I think that the application must be reviewed strictly in accordance with the applicable guidelines put forward by uh Eric and and that requires a significant amount of information uh additional information from the applicant. Um, first and foremost, it has to be treated as an open
056space subdivision, which was stated, which would require that 70% of the property be permanently preserved. And, um, you know, there are a lot of things here. I mean, you know, a proposed subdivision map would have to be substantially revised, a visual analysis, a full form EAF. Uh, there'd be a lot of things that would have to come forward with it. But, um, that's that's really my overview. Um, and those are my thoughts. >> Good. Thank you, Reed. >> Yeah, [clears throat] >> I think, you know, given the importance of this uh application, we're going to ask for everyone's thoughts on this. So, we'll start with you, Jen. >> Um, I think Reed put it all very succinctly. Um, that this >> property is precisely what the CPF has been designed for. I mean it's in
057an area of um significance of scenic significance. It is on the Atlantic Ocean. It's bordered to the north by you know current parkland. And it has been used albeit, you know, unofficially for the past however many years as an access point to the Atlantic for surfers and fishermen. Um, and given the fact that if it were not purchased by the town, 70% of it would have to be given over to open space, I I it kind of seems to me like a no no-brainer for the town. As you mentioned, Reed, I don't know what the financial um ability of the town is to purchase this and what the seller, you know, would potentially or what the owner would potentially want for it, but it seems to me that this is really um an opportunity for
058the town to expand a already wonderful, you know, park vista. Um, and then as Reed said, if it if that does not work, then yes, I think it has to be almost, you know, we'd be starting over from from square one, and it would have to be an open space um subdivision with all of the requirements that come along with that. >> Good. Thanks, Jen. >> Yeah, I I agree with Jen and Reed. I I my [clears throat] hope is that the town will be able to buy it. Uh however, right now we're uh we're we have the task of uh doing a preliminary subdivision review and I have several items that I wanted to go over that some of them reemphasize what Eric has said and some of the other members of the board
059and a few other items that um I think are important or to really uh put my uh spin on First of all, uh I think given the scale and the ecological diversity and adjacency to state parkland and the Atlantic Ocean, we need a full EAF part one, including identification of protected species, unique habitats, wetlands, steep slopes, and archaeological sensitivity. By the way, Eric, I think there's a typo on the memo in the application information list. the uh secret type of action is uh listed as unlisted and in the memo you mentioned that it's uh classified as type one >> preliminarily >> probably. >> Yeah. No, that that is a typo. There wasn't supposed to be a conflict there. Um we technically can't determine um the secret class until the EAF part one is submitted. Um
060but yeah, the the in the background information that should have mirrored what was in the the body of the content in the memo, which is preliminarily we are um thinking that it's a type one action. >> Okay. And I want to reemphasize that, you know, an A10 zoning with a proximity to Atlantic Ocean absolutely trigger the 70% open space requirement as required by chapter 193 and that's non-negotiable. Um the reserved area should cover the bulk of wetlands steep slopes and the most intact more land habitat and that coastal bluff and beach margins be placed in reserved areas of conservation easement. This is sound and consistent with the town's general policies and on natural features, drainage and coastal hazards. the requirement to bring building envelopes outside NRSP jurisdiction whether feasible and to comply fully with bluff
061and beach setbacks is also very appropriate. We should identify all trails, clarify the pedestrian easement, consider trail relocation with reserved areas, and encourage public access rights consistent with code policy. A visual analysis from the Atlantic and the Mtok Highway overlook is appropriate given the property is in a scenic area of statewide significance. We should also require a standard subdivision yield plan that ex that excludes wetlands, steep slopes, beaches, and reserved areas from buildable acreage. The laundry list of missing technical items like seal line, steep slope mapping, utilities, drainage, fire protection, test holes, etc. is legitimate and should be adopted as a planning board requirement for completeness. A 40 acre scenic area of statewide significance oceanfront wetland dominated parcel cannot be a minor sub subwaver. The property is heavily constrained by wetlands, slopes, and coastal setbacks.
062It seems to me that creating envelopes that maintain 150 ft from wetlands is going to be very difficult. The applicant must demonstrate if such envelopes are physically feasible. If not, the board may need to consider whether subdivision at the requested density is appropriate at all. I don't think we should signal that two lots is a given. The ultimate yield may be fewer than two lots if environmental and design constraints preclude two fully compliant building envelopes and that the yield map is not a guarantee but an analytical ceiling. I'd also like to know how will construction occur on a steep wetlandri bluff adjacent site and how temporary impact cut fill construction access routes staging areas etc would be managed. You should require as a condition of sub, excuse me, your subdivision approval, at least conceptually, a
063construction access and erosion control plan consistent with steep slope and wetland constraints. Given the sensitivity of coastal and wetland resources, we should also require a conceptual wastewater analysis with advanced treatment and sighting justified in relation to wetlands and the ocean. The planning department memo appropriately notes sea level rise and coastal erosion overlay zone one. We should condition subdiv subdivision approval with a prohibition on future shoreline hardening and general inland placement of building envelopes. Lastly, [clears throat] we should require the restoration of the 3 acres of unpermitted clearing that was done between 2013 and 2016. Those are my comments. >> Thank you, Lou. Uh, member Thorson, would you like to comment? Yes. Uh thank you, Chairman Krug. Um I'm not sure I have much to add um uh beyond Eric's very thorough analysis and I am
064complete agreement with all of the recommendations that were made by the planning department. Um and I'm I was very uh impressed by what member Cortezy the points that he made as well. Um and the the applicant noted what a u pristine and rare uh piece of property this is. 40 acres on the ocean, never developed, containing wetlands um and uh uh native species that are endangered. Um I hope that there are a willing uh buyer and purchaser here for uh consideration for the community preservation fund. That would be the ideal outcome. Otherwise, I I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed that um because this is such an important environmentally and scenic area that uh um all steps um available be taken to preserve it scenically and uh environmentally. So, that's all I have
065to add. >> Good. Thank you very much, John. Um, yeah. So, just to wrap it up, I think that we're all of a of a mind on the board here that the the ideals outcome here would be purchased by the CPF. Whether or not, as Reed first asked the question if there's enough funds in the CPF at the moment to uh get into a venture of this scale is is something we don't know. So therefore we will of course need to proceed and make sure that we you know we understand that there is a way to to develop this as sensitively as possible you know using an open open space subdivision methodology you know reserving 70% of this and um all the many things have been talked about member Corteese uh Eric um you know
066all the other safeguards that need to be put into place to make sure that this this has minimal impact needs needs to happen and we need to your cooperation and getting getting going on that particular process. So with that we'll we'll focus on the questions that we have in front of us which really outline some of those points and issues. Um does the planning board agree that the full form EAF part one must be provided? >> Yes. >> Okay. That's unanimous. Does the planning board agree that the subdivision should be redesigned and submitted as an open space subdivision providing a minimum 70% reserved area? >> Yes. >> Providing, you know, CPF doesn't want it or can't. >> Well, we're going to get to that question. Yes. Thank you, though. Should the applicants identify all trails
067on site, clarify the purpose of the illustrated 4 foot wide pedestrian easement, and address any proposed mechanisms for public beach access or through access? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> All on board with the yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Does the planning board agree that a visual analysis which details the potential impacts of residential development on the property uh on the property on recreation on the Atlantic Ocean andor the scenic overlook at Montalk Point State Park should be submitted? Yes, definitely. >> One question. >> Um Elizabeth Baldwin, Essex Hefner and Angel on behalf of the applicant. Um some of the the questions I think might be a little premature. we know we have to make some serious changes to our map and including the 70%. So I think certain aspects of of the asks here might
068be a little premature until the board actually sees the open space map in front of them and then maybe at that point we can discuss what addition and all you know I think the last two questions and this question specifically um with regard to the visual it might be helpful to really determine um what the board wants to see on the map once you have the framework in front of you. >> Right. I I think these things are things that we think should be incorporated into the first plan. >> into the first plan. >> Do okay. We we just feel like might be a little premature before the board. >> Well, we can as as things progress, we can talk about that, but we want to make it clear what we're thinking now that shouldn't
069we should be seeing, >> right? Okay. >> Thanks for bringing that up, though. >> Should a field survey be performed in a site analysis map prepared based on these findings? Does the board agree that the following should be identified? Protected plant and animal species either as present or ideal habitat type for such species. Protected natural features, areas of unique habitat, all existing trails, areas of clearing and land disturbance, areas of greater than 20% slopes, prehistoric or historic structures, uh, resources rather. >> Yes. Should a yield map in accordance with the requirements of the town code be provided? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the applicant should provide the submission items required by section 220-2.08 of a town code as I detailed as detailed above? >> Yes. Um, does the planning board wish
070to send comments to the town board andor director of land acquisition recommending the property for public acquisition for open space preservation purposes? >> A letter to both? >> Yeah, letter to both. >> Yeah, >> exactly. Um, should a stage 1A archaeology report be submitted? >> Yes. Yes. >> Does planning board agree that building envelopes which exclude any areas of 20% slopes or greater and any areas within varianc's jurisdiction of protected natural features be added to the preliminary map and that these may be potentially required to be further restrictive based on field surveys? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the redesign subdivision should include a buffer along Old Mont Highway at least 10% of the depth of a lot? >> Yes. Does the planning board agree that the reserved areas, conservation easement, or
071similar mechanisms should be placed over the southern end of the property to protect on-site development from the impacts of sea level rise and climate change? >> Yes. >> Guidelines. Guidelines for next submission. Um, >> thank you very much. >> Thank you guys. Okay. Uh, so onto our regular meeting. We have just a couple of things to to do. I think the first is >> schedule public hearing for St. Michael's basement alterations. >> Gotcha. >> Correct. Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pantico Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, February 11th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of St. Michael's basement alteration site plan at premises identified on Suffach County tax map as parcel
072SCTM number 300-172-2-9.4. Files can be viewed and comments can be filed in accordance with the specifics in the public hearing notice which appears as part of the meeting record tonight and will be published in the paper of record no less than 10 days before said hearing date. I make a motion to schedule this public hearing. I second. >> All in favor? >> I >> All right. Passed and carried. Uh so the next item is um an extension of time in the matter of the application of Maidstone acres 2 site plan Suffach County Tax Map 300-38-4-1 and two extension of time. Um, we're resolving here to give the applicant until July 26th, 2026 to um obtain a certificate of occupancy. I will note that this is an application that has repeatedly been extended. Uh, and I
073know that there have been conversations with the planning department about what's still needed and missing. Now, I would just encourage the the applicant to be in touch with the planning department to make sure that uh we don't need to keep extending the timeline on this. All right. The next is um another extension of time Verizon at 103 [snorts] Flagihole Road. Uh tier 2. >> Did you Did you adopt a resolution? >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. >> Did you adopt that resolution? >> Oh, right. >> Oh, did we not do that? Yes, we did. All right. Um, yes. I I make a motion to adopt this extension of time. [laughter] >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> threw me for a loop there. [laughter] Um, yeah, I got all wrapped up in my speech.
074Um, all right. So, we're on to Verizon at 103 Flaggy Hole. Tier 2 administrative uh personal wireless service site plan, Suffach County Tax Map 300-37-2-1 extension of time. Um, this is to allow the applicant until December 13th, 2026 to get a certificate of occupancy. I make a motion to to approve that extension of time. >> Second. >> All in favor? Okay. Again, uh Verizon at the Amigans Fire Department tier 2 administrative personal wireless facility site plan county tax map 300-150-3-16.5 extension of time to allow the applicant until January 4th, 2027 to obtain a certificate of occupancy. I make a motion to approve this extension at time. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> All right. Okay. And then we have a couple of boards of review uh so the first is >> the let's
075see which one is first. The Cruise brothers, right? >> Yeah. So, the uh this is at the request uh of Cruz Brothers for 2415th Street LLC uh looking to obtain a building permit uh for residents on at that address. And this this requires there be some road work that's done. Uh, I have reviewed the notification from a town engineer that the amount of the undertaking to accomplish that will be $16,500 um obtainable from the applicant and the Yeah, that's all we need. I I have read the uh notice from the from the uh town engineer and I call the approval of this board of review. >> Second. All >> in favor? Hi. Hi. >> Hi. >> Okay. So, I will note too that we received some public comment on the uh remaining two uh boards
076of review that the uh the actual official owner of the parcel is not listed here. However, I'm going to make note that the planning department's advice to us is to in fact uh use the name of the um the applicant who may be an agent for the owner or another party involved in the application. So, that's what we're doing. Um so, this is a request by Xiaolin for a premises located at 35 Washington Avenue in Springs. um similar situation looking to uh build on that site and is within an area that requires road improvements. The town engineer has evaluated the road road improvement needed and said undertaking is to be in the amount of $20,000. I have read the report from the town engineer and call for the adoption of this board of review. >>
077Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay. And finally, a similar situation. Yousef Mina applying for a building permit on the premises at 411th Street in Springs. And in this case, the undertaking for the road improvement required is $24,000. I have read the town engineers uh report and call for the adoption of this board of review. >> Second. Okay. And to all in favor? >> I. >> Okay. And finally, we need to approve the minutes from our last meeting, which was on the 17th of December. >> Seems like so long ago. >> A long time ago. It's true. Um, I was not at that meeting, so I can't I don't have any comments or thoughts. >> I read through them. They look fine. >> They look fine to you. Okay. Motion to approve
078the minutes. >> Motion to approve the minutes. >> Second. All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> Are we good, Britney? Everything's good. We can we can adjourn. Okay. A motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? >> I >> All right. pass and carried to