001All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, LTV. Um, good evening. Today is uh December 17th and this is the East Hampton Town Planning Board regular and work session meeting for today. I just want to say at the outset that the um application for 350 pantiggo is not on tonight's agenda. So if anyone here is here for that, it is not on. Um that being said, we do have a pretty full docket today. We have a public hearing for St. Michaels. We have seven items on for work session, three for regular meeting, and one board of review. Um so that being said, I'd like to start with the the public hearing for St. Michaels. And do I read this in first? I will
002be asking this till the day I die. [laughter] >> It was properly noticed. So >> properly. Okay. Thank you. It was properly noticed. And then do I read the notice and then Will goes or will goes first? >> Say what the notice are and then >> uh notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on December 17th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. The application is the St. Michael's basement alteration site plan. It is a 233,477 square foot 5.36 acre property located at 207 um No, it's not Aabonic Road. No, St. Michael's. I'm sorry. I think this is the incorrect. Let's see. The address is wrong. >> The address is wrong. Will, do you have by chance the address for >> Oh, Eric, I'm sorry. It's you.
003>> I was going to say hang tight and I'll get you the right address, but you should have it for reading the notice. So, just give me one second. >> Sure. >> But it was properly noticed. Was the right address? >> Was it Can we just double check, Britney? Yeah. Thank you. [clears throat and cough] >> The address is 488 Montalk Highway. Thanks, Will. >> Thanks, Will. >> Sure. >> Yeah. It's not good. >> Yeah. >> [laughter] >> Bless you. >> I guess they wouldn't have website. >> I don't think so. >> Probably not. >> Does anyone have a copy of the star? There's probably Oh, do they have the star out there or is it just press? Yeah. >> Paper record. [clears throat] >> Start. >> That's the paper. >> I also learned today
004that All of us should have access to the the application for the minutes of the meetings, the agenda. And I I was told so, you know, the the town clerk, for example, will will log the minutes into this application called >> Yeah. And apparently we've had it for years. [snorts] We just never have been told how to access it >> or why we need to access it. I don't know. >> I usually go back and look on the town website, >> right? That's the the website portion, but there is the back end of that. >> Oh, interesting. >> Yeah. If you're interested in that, call the IT department. >> Okay. [laughter] Also, I took um I signed up for the SPRA seminar the other night on Monday night. Caitlyn sent around or what? >> See
005that? >> Um there was a secret um basics basically. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah, >> those are good. I found those. Remember we had the whole We had one last year. >> I was It was right [clears throat] right when I was refresher, but I was going >> it was it was end of December cuz it was when my mom passed away. >> Yeah. inaccurate. >> Next meeting, January 14th. Okay. Okay. Uh, thanks everybody for waiting. Um, it, um, as it turns out, the applicant properly noticed the neighbors, but the address listed in the paper of record, the East Hampton Star, is incorrect. So, um, we are going to table this till the next meeting and we will have it corrected in the East Hampton Star so that the public is aware. I'm so sorry
006about that. >> Thanks, Kathy. Okay. Um, so moving on to our work session. The first item is 176 Town Lane subwaver. Aaron, this is yours. And Eva, this is yours for us. And is the applicant here? [snorts] >> Yes. Great. >> Thank her. Whenever you're ready. >> Why did you say 350? >> An application has been made to subdivide an approximately 1.6 6 acre lot having front inch on town lane into two individual lots. The proposed lot is approximately the first proposed lot is approximately 45,300 ft labeled lot one. The second proposed lot is approximately 40,391 ft labeled lot 2. The site is currently improved with an estimated 770 ft one-story single family residence, an attached deck and an estimated 92 ft detached shed, a sanitary system and a dirt driveway. The project is listed
007as an unlisted action. Um, under SRCA, this project is listed as an unlisted action. Um, pursuant to SRA and the chapter 128 of town code, it is recommended that the planning board request lead agency status for the project. And for access, the planning board re the planning board, the following recommendation, the recommendation of town code section 220 uh 1.10 10 um often requires common driveways and common access for all subdivisions unless this is not possible due to lot constraint or pre-existing conditions. The use of a common driveway maintains rural aesthetics, reduces need for clearing and limits the number of traffic conflict points. The applicant is proposing a 20ft wide access and a utility easement along the northeastern corridor of lot one for the purpose of a common driveway for the purpose of a common driveway.
008Okay. Um the dimensions that the applicant proposes um of 20 foot wide uh access and improved roadway width of 14 ft meet the town code section of 223.02. However, the applicant has not provided a full common driveway plan with all information required in the section of town code. The current single family residence located in the s is access through a dirt driveway. The proposed the proposed common driveway does not serve as an access to the current single family lot. Only the proposed single family residence on lot two based on town code section 220 um 1.04 to be considered a common driveway. A municipal ingress and egress which is shared by two lots which provides vehicular access to a public street or highway is required. As a result, the current proposed access easement would not be
009considered common. Abandonment of the current driveway. A revision to show lot one access or a and or reveitation of the area would be required. Additionally, it would be noted that the proposed driveway is currently proposed to be put on a private cleared path that leads to commercial property. However, this path is private and as um and as such the common driveway put being put in that location would eliminate the use of that path. However, the path is not known to be in any trail system and does not connect to any such trails. No emergency turnaround in the proposed application is present per section 2203.02 in the town code and emergency turnaround is required when a common driveway is present. 220 section 224.04 prohibits the planning board from having the ability to wave the emergency driveway
010requirement. And as such, once it once it is included, it will most likely require some kind of lot um lot um subdivision lot config reconfiguration in order to meet the minimum lot area requirements. The planning department recommends the application to be revised. So a common driveway with mutual ingress and egress shared between the two lots is proposed. A common driveway is included and emergency turnaround is included. An abandonment of the current driveway with revitation is included for the mention regulations. The residence is located in zoning district A where the lot sizes are 40,000 square foot with a minimum lot width of 160 ft. In this calculation, access easements and emergency turnarounds cannot be included. Lot one is proposed to have a width of 28 ft of road frontage with lot 2 being set back between
011behind lot one having an approximate width of 270 square ft. Each proposed lot in the current state meets minimum lot requirements. Both proposed lots are as rectangular as feasibly possible. Once the emergency turnaround is included in the revised plan, it can cause the it could cause the proposed lots to be below minimum lot size. As such, when a revised plan is submitted, the applicant is advised to ensure it meets all dimensional requirements. Regarding open space, town code section 220.07H 07H regarding open space design standards for subdivisions of land, state scenic easements along public roads should be provided by applicant encompassing at least 10% of the total depth of the subject parcel [clears throat] as stated in the se in section 224.04 of town code. The planning board may choose to wave this requirement if exceptional
012conditions of terrain or other factors impo impose undue hardship or practical difficulty or if public or if public safety and general welfare would not be endangered by the lack of easements. The planning board should discuss whether it wishes to require scenic easement along the roadway. The planning department review of on-site uh visit findings and aerero imagery shows large portions of the site to be wooded along the roadway. These wooded areas are currently providing natural scenic scenic elements to the area according to a scenic accordingly a scenic easement is recommended to be required for other agencies. The applicant is advised additional is advised additional approval for the sub for the project will be required from the Suffach County Water Authority for approval of connections to existing infrastructure and for what and for water service approval as
013well as Suffach County Department of Health Services for approval of the subwaver. The proposed subwaver is to be served by the public water supply that is located on town lane. The planning department finds this appropriate. The proposed subwaver also depicts the location of the sanitary systems. The applicant is advised as stated in town code sections 21032B1 and 21044. Construction of new buildings on on areas without existing sanitary systems to serve them require the installation of low nitrogen sanitary systems before any building permit is issued. The building department will require all sanitary system details. Title for title of plans. All plans submitted for this application including but not limited to subdivision maps, roads, and drainage plans and landscaping plans must be labeled with the title of the subdivision. This must be consist consistent with the title
014that the application was filed under unless an official request is made to modify the application name. The proposed map that was given to that was given to the planning department is map of Gary Jones and the propo the listed project title in the application is 176 town lane 2 uh lot subdivision. The planning department recommends the applicant revise this title the title of the plans to be consistent with the listed project title. The this application was referred to the fire marshal David Brown for review on December 4th 2025. The plane department received a report stating the following sub submitted information is sufficient or not relevant to necessitate further review for fire protection purposes. Uh the application [clears throat] was referred to the town consulting engineer for review on December 9th. The planning department received a
015report stating the following comments. [clears throat] The boundary of the proposed access and utility easement in lot one needs to be described by the bearings and distances with all information annotated on the map. The access and utility easement is annotated as a common driveway. It is not clear if the easement is designed to serve as a vehicular access for both lots. Currently, lot one is being served by an existing driveway that would that would remain. [sighs and gasps] This should be clarified and amended to state whether the existing driveway will remain. If it is to remain, the note common driveway needs to be removed. There are two uh drainage structures leeching catch basin dry wells shown access and utility ement area. The depth of the structures is not specified. A separate driveway plan should be
016provided for the access [snorts] easement that's consistent with the proposed driveway proposed design. Subdivision approval from the Suffach County Department of Health Services Office of Water Management would be required for this project and the final plot. All proposed structures, topography, and building envelopes will need to be removed and not shown. In conclusion, the application should should submit a revised the applicant should submit a revised application with emergency turnaround and revised common driveway plan. The revision should should ensure all town code requirements are met. The planning department advises the applicant to submit revised additional plans and response letter. The letter must must um respond to each item below number by number and identify how and where these plans plans comments are addressed. The questions for the planning board is does the planning board agree to request
017lead agency status on this project? Does the planning board wish to request scenic ement along the runway? Should the applicant revise applications for the common driveway to provide access to both lots and provide a merch turnaround? Should the applicant amend the title of the plans to be compliant with t code? [cough] >> Does the applicant wish to speak? Come [snorts] on up. [clears throat] >> Okay. Good evening, chair and board members. Um I'm Deborah Chron of Matthews Cursed and Chron here on behalf of Gary Jones, the owner of 176 Town Lane. Um Mr. Jones resides at the single family residence on the 85,691 ft lot. The purpose of this application is to subdivide this nearly 2acre parcel to create a second residential lot with no variances and no protected natural features. At this time, it
018is not Mr. Jones's intention to renovate his residence or to develop the new lot. At this time, his goal is simply to create two conforming lots with as little disturbance as possible to the existing conditions where Mr. Jones resides and where all of the improvements already exist. [snorts] So, in other words, Mr. Jones is not in the position to undertake relocating structures, utilities or driveways or to undertake significant clearing or to undertake re reveitating large areas. So any one of those tasks would be costly and burdensome to Mr. Jones. Um so it is for those reasons that our application does not immediately offer the removal of Mr. Jones's existing driveway in favor of a common driveway. Um the notation for common driveway was accidental. It is meant to be just access for lot two. Um
019so we do not um specifically offer an easement along town lane at this time because that's where Mr. Jones's driveway is located now. Um so while we are always receptive to the feedback of the planning department and this board, I just wanted to open a dialogue and explain why we originally put this application the way that it it is before this board. um and have a dialogue about it. So, with regard to having a common driveway, um the technical analysis memorandum states that section 220-1.10 of the town code states um it often requires common driveways and common access for all subdivisions unless that is not possible due to lot constraints or pre-existing conditions. While I understand that this has been how the planning department and planning board have perceived this section of the town code,
020it is not how section 220-1.10 of the code actually reads. Um, it provides no enumerated criteria as to when a common driveway is required or is not required. Um, rather the code vaguely states direct access from individual lots to existing state, county, or collector town roads shall not generally be allowed. The precise wording implies that the board has much more discretion than only considering lot constraints or pre-existing conditions. And I submit that the code intentionally left extra wiggle room for common sense by using this language and also by including section 220-4.04 which gives this board even more discretion in its ability to vary or wave the provisions of chapter 220. So when it comes to the open space provision, um the technical analysis memorandum also cites section 220-1-.07H of the code which says along public
021roads, residential subdivision plats shall provide reserved area or scenic easement area for at least 10% of the total depth of the subject parcel as a natural buffer from development. However, again, we have section 220-4.04 04 which gives the board discretion in waving this requirement. Um where in its judgment exceptional conditions of terrain or other factors impose undue hardship or practical difficulty provided that the varying of such provisions can be done in such a way as to grant relief and at the same time protect the general interest. So it's really very broad in the board's discretion for these two things. So, as we apply common sense, it's important to remember that this chapter applies to all subdivisions of all sizes and was written in a way so that this board would have flexibility to address different
022kinds of projects at vastly different scales. So, while we review this project, I just ask that you keep in mind that this subdivision is of one residential lot into two residential lots that would both be conforming to size, again, with no variances and no protected natural features. So, all of that being said, in keeping Mr. Jones's driveway and locating lot 2's access along the eastern line, we specifically considered the lot constraints and pre-existing conditions as the technical um analysis memorandum suggests that we should. We also considered, as we are entitled to consider under section 220-4.04, the undue hardship that Mr. Jones uh would have and the practical difficulties. So, I just want to emphasize that I believe the board has more discretion um when it comes to waving the common driveway and open space provisions.
023So, here we have um an existing U-shaped dirt driveway which is already directly in front of Mr. Jones's modest house that is already located very close to that western lot line. So, it would not make any sense to squeeze a common driveway between the western lot line and Mr. Jones's house and we obviously don't wish to cut a driveway in the middle of the property. Um therefore, lot 2's access is most natural along that eastern lot line. And this just feels like common sense. Um following that train of thought, since Mr. Jones would need to clear a massive area containing trees and mature ve vegetation to take access off of that driveway along the eastern lot line to arrive at his house. Um that would impose an undue hardship and just a practical difficulty. So
024it's the strong preference for Mr. Jones to simply keep his exist existing dirt driveway and moreover allowing him to keep that driveway as opposed to creating a new driveway furthers the goals of this section of the code which are to maintain rural aesthetics and reduce the need for clearing. So ultimately the thought process as to the driveway design um which I just outlined is what prevented us from being able to offer the scenic easement along the roadway um because Mr. Jones's driveway, which we which we wish to keep, is in the location where such an easement would typically be recommended. So, in as much as the technical analysis memorandum notes that large portions of the site are wooded along the roadway and notes that the wooded areas are currently providing a natural scenic elements to
025the area, the existing driveway is clearly of no hindrance to this viewshed as it exists right now. So, I just appreciate this opportunity to explain our thought process behind those two items because they're obviously the biggest talking points of this application and I know that Mr. Jones um appreciates your time as do I and I'm here for any questions that you have and I just appreciate this as night one of our first time on. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. [snorts] >> Thank you, Aaron and thank you for the detail. So, my question really is, you know, I I I'm familiar with the location of the property, uh, the dirt driveway that is there. It's right right up against the road. You know, for access to lot two, there still will need to
026be a some type of driveway going back there. Uh, which will include clearing and certainly that east side would make the most sense. Um, while I I I'm certainly open to being um, you know, flexible on the common driveway aspect, there's still the matter of the emergency turnaround that's going to be required. So, you know, while there may not be any planned development at the onset, I would presume respectfully that in in due time there would be. So, you know, we just had a similar application where there was an existing property and a planned, you know, potential you it was a subdivision application and it was condition of a final approval when building plans for that second lot were to, you know, be presented. Um, I think we would need a little bit more detail
027with regards to that access to lot when a building plan uh was would be submitted, including the emergency turnaround. which would probably then in, you know, in turn include some additional vegetation that would need to be replaced because obviously there would be some clearing involved with with that access to lot two. Um, and that's pretty much all my comments. Yeah, the the other stuff is fairly technical. You know, the the title of the plans needs to be updated to match obviously. Um, any other comments? That's probably my my main point here. I don't imagine the new driveway is going to be a dirt driveway, right? >> I come back, please. Thanks. >> So, that's unknown to us at this time. So, as far as the development of that, um, you know, we can work with
028um, covenants that provide for the development of it in the future. If it's no longer a common driveway, I don't believe the emergency turnaround remains a requirement. I think naturally anybody who does have a driveway that's kind of like that flag pole is going to create a parking area that has sufficient space to turn around, but we can covenant that as part of the development on that um second lot when it becomes developed as a requirement of the permitting process. Um you know, Mr. Jones is not um it's not his intention to be constructing something. I believe his intention would be to sell. So if it um you know would be um how it gets developed in the future that that would not be up to him. That would be uh for a permitting process
029in the future. >> Thank you. >> Um Bruce, go ahead. Um yeah, I mean like Ava said, we just had a pro project almost exactly like this where we did make them take out their driveway um and develop a common driveway. Um and I believe we had them reveg as well. It was a [snorts] smaller lot, so obviously the revge wasn't as much, but I think this is >> quite similar to almost exactly similar to that. So, um I appreciate your your feedback, but I think um I think I'd be in favor of the common driveway as well with Rebge. >> I just think it would make the most sense personally, you know, like like you said, you know, the intent is to sell that lot. So, clearly the next intent once upon sale is
030to develop that lot. Clearly. Um so, I I I agree. I I think the common driveway is is really the the most Yeah. >> My question is, do we, as Deborah mentioned, do we have that leeway to wave the common driveway? The the turnaround on the >> not the turn. We do not >> not the common driveway [clears throat] and the scenic easement. We do have money. Yeah. >> So eventually they do need a turnaround. Mhm. >> That's not something that we can wait, >> right? >> So, if there's if there's a turnaround, I also appreciate the fact that there's going to be more clearing necessary if you have a common driveway, if you make that that the eastern part of the uh property. if you have a com if you have a common driveway
031with with access to both lots. But then again, you also cut off two access points, you only have one. So here you would have three basically, right? So yeah, my my inclination is to go with uh the comments of my uh colleagues uh that I think you need a common driveway with a turnaround. And also looking at this now with this new information in mind a a a drive if a common driveway is to occur it at the eastern end it'd be so much further away than the current driveway is to this house. So I I'm I'm thinking that the if it's a common driveway it's been the other side which mean the western portion of the property. >> Yeah. there's more there's more more available land on the eastern side. >> On the eastern
032side >> what yeah that's what it looks like. I think um >> I agree with all of my colleagues all of my colleagues here on the board and I think what we also have to remember is um while I completely appreciate Mr. Jones's, you know, the constraints he may have to do this. Now, we do have to look at the future. Um, I think his house was built, I'm familiar with the house and the location as well. The building permit dates back to 1990. So, that house at some point, you know, at some point that house will likely be um renovated, redeveloped, probably made bigger. Um, so in that instance, you know, allowing for the common driveway, the common access now is really good planning for the future. That's kind of my that's how I
033feel too. >> Yeah, I agree with that. [clears throat] >> Anybody anything else? So, we will move on to our questions. Um, does the planning board agree to request to be lead agency on this project? I think yes. >> Yes. >> Um, we didn't really talk about the scenic easement, but I do think that the if we are requiring the common driveway, then the scenic easement would Yeah. [clears throat] >> Does does the planning board wish to request a scenic easement along the roadway? >> Yes. Should the applicant revise the application for the common driveway to provide access to both lots and provide an emergency vehicle turnaround? Yes, >> ideally. >> And last but not least, should the applicant amend the title of the plans to be compliant with time town code? >> Yes. Thanks
034very much. Okay. Next up, 9 South Ferncraftoft subwaver. Aaron, that is you again. Thank you, Michael. Um Lou, that is you. >> Is the applicant here? Yes. Hello. Go ahead, Aaron. Whenever you're ready. >> This application is for 9 South Berncraftoft Place in Montalk, New York. It was last reviewed on March 19th, 2025. for some background information on the application. An application has been submitted and seeking subdivision approval for a property located on South Fernra Place in Montalk. If granted approval, this project would create two new lots, both with a road frontage, one being 20,000 square ft, another being roughly 27,671 ft. The subject parcel is currently 7 47,671 ft or about 1.094 094 [clears throat] acres and is located within B resident zoning district. The site is currently is currently considered improve or partially
035cleared according to town records. Previously, the lot contained a one-story single family residence with garage deck and patio. Although the structures appear to have been removed since early 2023, the lot is surrounded by residence lots. The lots also zone B residents to the north, west, south, and while to the west is zoned as park and conservation district. Um issues for discussion um the following uh the following the review of planning board on March 19, 2025. The planning board issued written comments to the applicant regarding several issues below where a comment was comment was made previously made by the planning board. It is underlined and the applicant's response and planning board assessment of whether the response is acceptable is provided directly after the for the first comment was the applicant should submit a short environmental assessment
036form part one as part of this application as an unlisted action pursuant to SRO. Applicant response was addressed. The applicant submitted a short environmental assessment form part one for review. The planning board's assessment was the submitted um the submitted shore environmental assessment form part one identify the potential presence of endangered species on the site. The planning department recommends the applicant comply with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines where to pro to protect potential populations of northern long-eared bats. These guidelines include avoiding clearing and doing forest management activities from March 31st through November 1st to avoid any harm that could potentially. Additionally, the the report states that regulated water bodies or wetlands are present on the site. However, during the planning department subdivision waiver initial evaluation, it was found that no wetlands are
037within NRSP jurisdiction and the parcel is set back more than 150 ft from any wetlands or water body. The planning the planning department recommends that the planning board assume lead agency status for this project. Planning board comment number two, the applicant should submit a revised plan that depicts a common driveway. the applicant's response partially addressed. The applicant submitted a response letter along with a couple plans um along with a couple plans. The planning board's assessment uh there are three plans submitted for review. One plan depicted a common driveway with an emergency turnaround as required by 223.02 a town code. The secondary plan depicts a common driveway without an emergency turnaround. And the third plan was submitted on 129 2025 after meeting with the applicant depicting separate individual driveways to have no requirement for a common
038driveway. The applicant is requesting the emergency turnaround requirement to be waved. However, after discussion, section 224.04 of the town code prohibits the planning board from having the ability to wave the emergency turnaround requirement no matter if all stakeholders involved agree it is not necessary. It is it is noted that the fire marshall and engineer both stated they believe the emergency turnaround to not be necessary in this case. Additionally, pull this up. [clears throat] Additionally, um the noted minimum lot size for the zoning district is 20,000 ft based on 220.04 and emergency turnaround and access easement cannot be included in the lot area. Once the access easement and emergency turnaround are included in the lot area calc um calculation, the lot will be under minimum. The minimum lot size for both common driveway proposed plans. The
039proposed common driveway meets all code requirements except slope requirements as required by 223.04F 2 of the town code. The maximum grade for driveway shall not exceed 12%. As it currently stands, portion of portions of the plan driveway are to be installed on a slope of 15% to 35% according to town GIS resources. Section of section 224.04 allows the planning board to vary the provisions of 220.3.0 3.02 F2. However, due to the high slope nature of the lot and use of the existing curb cut, we believe the proposed driveway is adequate. At the request of the applicant, the planning department met with the applicant to discuss the common driveway and emergency turnaround on the lot. The common driveway requirement was discussed. Access to the lot and potential solutions to the issue of accessing the lot. After
040discussing after discussion that the planning department evaluated the situation and found a potential code change is advisable to allow the planning board to have the ability to wave the emergency turnaround requirement in situations where all appropriate stakeholders believe it serves no benefit and prevents parcel owners from subdividing or developing their lot. The applicant was advised that the potential code change is just being considered now and that the time labor to make a to make such a change should it be desired is unknown. In response to discussion the common drive and common driveway requirements, the applicant submitted a revised individual driveway plan as a third option on 125 2025. What's up now? [clears throat and cough] 2025. The individual driveway plan would remove the need for an emergency turnaround. Due to plans being submitted recently, the
041fire marshall and engineer have not reviewed it. The planning to board is advised to discuss this option. The planning board should discuss whether it feels the access easement is appropriate and should wave section 223.05 3.02F2 O2F2 slope requirement and if the separate and if the separate individual driveway plan to negate the emergency turnaround is appropriate. The applicant should amend their plan to meet all lot areas requirements. Additionally, planning the planning board should discuss their view on a future code change to allow them to allow them to ability to wave the emergency turnaround requirement if local fire department, fire marshall and engineers submit for memos stating they believe a turnaround is not necessary for the safety of the lot and the local community. The third question was the the board may wish to request a scenic
042easement after review of the revised access plan. No response was provided. The planning board's assessment town code 220 1.07H regarding open space design standards for subdivision of land indicates a scenic easements along public roads should be provided by the applicant encompassing a recommended 10% um 10% requirement though not required. Total depth of the subject parcel 224.04 gives the planning board the the power to wave this requirement. The planning board may choose to wave the requirement if exceptional conditions of terrain or other factors impose undue hardship or practical difficulty or if public safety and general welfare were not being endangered by the lack of easements. The road frontage of the parcel has high slopes more than 30% in the areas more more than 30% in large areas. A scenic easement reserved SL reserved area as recommended
043town code would act as prevent protection of these slopes from erosion and use of these areas. However, it should be noted there is l there is lack of wooded areas along the road frontage, limited space in the lots and little to no natural vegetation on the site. The planning board should discuss whether they feel it is necessary to acquire an a scenic easement for the lots. Um the fourth planning board comment was the applicant should modify the the building envelope on lot two to avoid areas of steep slopes around the perimeter of the lot. Applicant's response was addressed. A revised map provided with new building envelopes. On the revised map provided, the planning board envelope of lot 2 has shrunk to avoid high slope areas. The planning department recognizes high slope areas are within the
044building envelope built within the building envelope and these are unavoidable to the n due to the nature of the lot. The planning the planning department recommends no further changes to the building envelope are needed. The fifth planning board comments was the applicant should should submit a revised map removing the existing easement on the property pending confirmation. It does not encumber the property as related to this application. Applicant response was addressed. Revised maps provided without the existing easement. No easement um no easement provided planning board assessment. The revised map provided um does not have does not have the existing easement. Based on the discussion with the town attorney during the previous meeting, it was agreed the existing ement easement should be removed from the maps due to never being filed. No further action is needed. Fire
045the application was referred to the fire marshall David Brown for review on November 21st, 2025. The planning department received a report saying the following comments. The proposed project is adjacent to or within 10,000 ft of public water and fire hydrants that provide adequate water supply for the for firefighting purposes. New York State Fire Code 511 2.2.2 turnaround are required when drivers are more than 500 ft in length. As this is not the case, it is not required by the fire code. The application was referred to the county consulting engineer for a review. On November 14th, 2025, the planning board, the planning department received a report stating the following comments. Due to the nature of the lot, the firefighting ability primarily comes from the south south Ferncraftoft place. As such, the town consulting engineers of the
046punion, an emergency turnaround is not necessary in the lot. A 20 foot wide easement should be included and written as a utility easement. Subdivision approval from the Suffach County Department of Health Services Services Office of and Office of Water Wastewater Management is required. The boundaries of the proposed lots and the SE access easement area needs to be fully described by bearings distances with information annotated on the map. Condition to approval, the applicant should be required to file an urban renewal map modification to amend parcel 55 and map 1016. [snorts] Um as discussed per as discussed in March in the 19th 2025 meeting slopes more than 20% in the building area conflict with town code section 221.08 at the at the time large amounts of the building area were above this 20% area. After discussion it
047was it was concluded that areas greater than 20% should be removed from the perimeter building envelope. The planning department agrees and supports this viewpoint [snorts] as instructed the applicant follows recommendation in the revised plans. However, it should be noted town code section 2201.0 1.08 requires no urban renewal map renewal modification while while not mentioned at the initial March 19, 2025 meeting is important to note this lot is within urban renewal map 1016. As such, an urban renewal map modification will need to be acquired from the town board. The urban renewal modification will be made on made a condition of approval. We will work with the applicant on the modification process. In conclusion, the planning board should discuss if the scenic easement should be required, the potential code change regarding the emergency turnarounds, access to the
048lots, the individual driveway plan, and the revised common driveway plan. The planning department advises the applicant to submit revised additional plans and the response letter. That letter must be must respond to each item below, number by number, and identify how and where in the plans the comments are addressed. Any changes to the plan should be noted with signals, highlighted, text box, bubbles, callouts, different colors, etc. Please note only items deemed unnecessary by the planning board during the board's deliberation may be omitted. The questions for the planning board is >> it's you don't need to read the questions for us, but thank you. That was very thorough. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Tara, you're up [snorts] vice chair folks and members of the board. I'm Tara Burke from Lighthouse Land Planning. I'm here with Andy Hammer
049from Beyond Own and Hammer and Drew Bennett is our engineer on this project. Um Aaron, thank you for your review. Appreciate it. Um this is the second time you guys have seen this one and um I think Aaron did a great job summarizing all of the issues. It's kind of ironic it's on after the one that was just before and then you have one on for your approval that also had a common driveway situation. >> Yeah. Um, so during our last review with you, um, you gave us the directive to go back and come back with a common driveway, um, because of the location of the property, right? It's right on the corner of South Fernraftoft and, um, West Lake. Well, we did that, submitted that plan, one with the turnaround and one without to
050the board. Um, the one without the turnaround for the common driveway, which is the same as this. This is the third one we submitted, but this is it's the same driveway location. Um, so the first plan we submitted was just the common driveway, which is 870 square ft of pavement. Then we submitted the second plan that was up earlier that Drew did that shows the 50 foot turnaround which um required an additional 1,115 square ft of paving totaling 2585 ft of pavement on a like 20,000 foot lots. Right? So, we were originally thinking I went to the fire marshall's office, talked to the fire marshal. They were in agreement. There's no reason to have a emergency turnaround on this property. The fire code doesn't require it. The fire code only or the state code only
051requires it if it's more than 300 ft from the road. Um, and then I think for the fire code, it's 500. And, um, in speaking with the fire marshall's office and um, you know, please confirm with them. I don't want to speak for them, but uh the main reason is because the whole intent is to get emergency vehicles up there to fight fires. The terminus of the common driveway is 60 ft from the road. So, in all actuality, the fire trucks aren't going to be pulling up there. They're going to be pulling the hoses up the driveway. Um it's safer for everybody. So, we were thinking, okay, great. Let's come to the board and have a chat about this because from a logical standpoint, who wants an additional, you know, 17 15 square foot of
052pavement on 20,000 foot lots where, ironically, we're talking about a scenic easement to protect slopes, yet we're about to put 2,000 square feet of pavement right behind the protected slopes because there's no vegetation. Um, we spoke with the planning department, looked through the code section 220 of what the board has the authority do to do and doesn't have the authority to do. As um, Deb Toron was saying earlier, you do have the ability to wave certain requirements of the subdivision section of the code. The one thing that you don't have the ability to wave is the common driveway turnaround. Um, so every time there's a common driveway, there needs to be that 50-ft turnaround. Ironically, historically, I think the planning board never did the turnarounds for two lot subdivisions. I don't know if it was
053an oversight. Um, but this seems to be something that's come up a lot recently. Um, so we met with the planning department to try to put our heads together on like what do we do about this because it kind of stinks for everybody. It's not necessarily, in our opinion, good planning. Um, you know, the town engineer is saying it's not needed. the fire marshall's office is saying it's not needed, but unfortunately the town code says it is needed. So now what? Um, so we talked to the planning department. Planning department was in agreement that, you know, you guys do a great job of reviewing these and to give you some discretion in this situation if all of the other agencies on board say it's not required. It would be great for you to have the
054ability to say, "Okay, it doesn't make sense in this situation." Um, that requires a code change. So, we're totally okay with that. We'll be there in support of that. We just don't know how long that's going to take. Um, so that's frustrating for everybody. Um, assuming that would be a direction you'd want to go in. So, we then came up with a third plan, which is this one. Um, which has two separate driveways. Um, the one going across lot one to lot two would be an access easement for lot two that's using the existing curb cut. Um and then we propose the driveway for lot one to be right at the edge of lot one which is um furthest into South Fernraftoft. There's a driveway across the street. Ironically the lot across the street is
055a single family residence that has a U driveway. So they have two curb cuts for one lot. Um we are trying to do what makes sense here. Um the additional it just seems like 2,000 square feet of pavement just so that there's only one curb cut where we could have another one. There's about 60 ft between the two. There's no sight distance issues for the second driveway. Um if the code were ever changed to allow you the discretion, we would have because of the access easement, we'd have the ability to come back and modify the subdivision to say, "Okay, fine. will, you know, eliminate driveway number one. Um, we just don't know when that's going to be. So, um, and then just to the comment earlier about lot area, because I know there was a
056comment in the memo, um, where when you once you remove the common driveway and the turnaround, there's not enough lot area. Um, there actually is. This one, we move the lot line over. So lot one has 21,508 and lot 2 has 26 uh162 square ft on this plan. Um and that is so that lot lot one's now 20,000 if we were to put the common driveway on lot two. Um that's only uh 1,500 and that lot's 2600. So there there is enough. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Um but and you know we could of course submit that plan if you needed us to if you go in the direction of the common driveway but this is ultimately the plan that we think makes the most planning sense. Um I think it's
057just you know it's a residential area and it's on top of a hill. It's going to look like a helicopter pad on top of this hill you know and then we're we're put you know like I heard Lou say last time it's really important to say the steep slopes. there's a little bit of vegetation on the road, you know, it would be nice to preserve that. But right above that is the helicopter pad. So, um, that's kind of where we stand on we're truly trying to do the thing that makes the most sense on this one. And I think this one is I haven't followed the other ones super closely, but I've been in the audience when they've been on. Some of the differences are there's this existing driveway that we would do as the
058access easement. You know, there there are the slopes. we're on this curve. Um, so I think there's a couple things that make, you know, this lot unique in that respect. Um, and those are really the two I think, you know, that's the main issue and then the scenic easement comes after that. We haven't addressed that yet because the directive at the last review was let's sort out the access and then we'll talk about the easement. But I can't help but see the irony in the easement if you know we need the um ex the large amount of paving and and then we have no issue with the engineers comments. Uh we can address all that the um urban math modication that's fine. All those sort of housekeeping things we have no issue with. So >>
059thanks Tara. >> Yeah. Yeah, Tara, Tara, thank you for a very clear, logical explanation of how we got to this point. And I think you've also stated indisputable argument for uh not [clears throat] putting a helicopter pad right in the middle of this. [laughter] Um so yeah, I agree. I mean, there's really three choices. one of them is not allowed to put and it's also not a good idea uh to have a turnaround there. So, we're stuck with uh two other choices. One is to wait to get a code change, but I I appreciate that. You never know how long that's going to take. So, we're left with one choice, the two different the two separate uh driveways. And I'm in favor of that. And I would hope that if the code does change in
060the future that we could modify uh the site plan and uh have one access point, one one driveway uh for both lots, common driveway. So yeah, uh you know, I agree with everything that you said. So I'm in favor of proceeding the way you suggested. I do want to make one uh last point about the scenic easement. I think 10% is not feasible but I still think that it's important that we do have some kind of buffer there if not for anything else. I mean there there are really steep slopes. So I think it's necessary for that in that regard. But it's also an aesthetic issue you know as you're coming up Westlake Drive. uh it's it would look better if that was vegetated as u scenic with a scenic east. So those are my
061comments. >> Thank you Ava. You have any comments? >> No I I I do thank you Tara for the you know articulate uh detail. I do agree, you know, with all the other departments reaffirming that, you know, that common driveway is not really necessary and the uniqueness of this subdivision, you know, the the other the irony of the other [laughter] subdivisions we we have looked at and and are looking at now are, you know, front and back, making it a much longer parcel, which again, I I think makes more sense with having the common driveway, whereas this is it's side by side. It's on a curve. Um, so I think this proposal is is the best the best option. Makes the most sense. Certainly. >> Thank you, Michael. >> I agree with the board and
062Tara and where where I live in Wayne Scott. I was just walking and looking and every house has a U driveway. [laughter] So mine doesn't, but they do. >> Bruce. >> Yeah, I would agree. Just Tara, one question. Um, why couldn't the they share the entrance and instead of going left to lot two, you just bang a right and go to lot one instead of two curb cuts? >> I think the slopes were part of the problem. >> You're saying like >> Well, I don't see. >> Yeah. Come off that way. Yeah. >> And then eliminate the um the west curb cut. you would still technically have a common driveway. Um I know what you're saying. >> All right. >> Yeah. Under the way it's defined, it would still be a common driveway. >> Yeah.
063Okay. >> I think it's the if the one curb cut goes to two lots, then it's Eric like >> Okay, that's fine. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Thanks, everybody. Thank you, Tara. Um I agree. I think that ironically this one is a case for two two separate driveways and uh thanks for addressing all the others and I think we'll address the scenic easement once we get um some revised >> well um >> just on that I mean this plan is um I don't know what we would revise okay >> right so um we can go back and talk to the property owner about the scenic easement I hear you know I heard Lou say that he wants Yeah, definitely. I think >> Yeah. So, we'll go to and then um we'll either, you know, submit
064a memo saying they don't want to do it or we'll submit a revised plan um >> with that scenic easement on it. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, the scenic easement is only like 14 ft or something, right? >> It's not. >> And then we just have to keep in mind that, you know, with the scenic easements then you have a 10 foot setback. >> They're not huge area. >> Yeah. Just one quick question. The scenic easement is largely along the road frontage. I think that's what Lou was talking about. There is an area in the rear. Do you mind just saying I'm Richard A. Hammer. Uh I'm Terra's assistant. I'm sort of like Vanna White tonight. [laughter] Uh but the area in the rear would that would the board consider applying that towards the overall
065output? I mean it's slopes in the back and I think that was one of the concerns is vegetated slope. So I do think that's eligible for inclusion. I I just don't know how much depth we can get off of the road frontage but I think that might be beneficial as well. It is visible from Westlake is my recollection when you drive by the property. >> The front yard setback, sorry, is um 20 ft, right? So just and then our lot line >> is here. I don't know how far back that is, but if we went like 10 feet ahead of the lot line, >> then our setback off the scenic easement would be the building envelope. >> I see. >> You know what I mean? >> Yeah. So then we wouldn't then you wouldn't have
066on the lot and you'd still be preserving the slopes. >> Yeah. >> Inclusion. >> So that might I mean I don't know. How does the board feel about like the scenic easement up until 10 ft before the building envelope? And we can you know it doesn't have to be like the building envelope comes >> comes Yeah. >> down here, right? because it's here and then it cuts down because there's no slopes here. But we could still I think the vegetation. >> And which way is the house going to be oriented? So if you're coming in off the driveway, would it be facing the driveway? >> That's not been decided yet. Yeah. I'm just trying to think for >> figure that out >> for vegetation which would be the I mean I I don't know how
067you guys >> but the idea is to create vegetation or to reveate this sloped area. It doesn't have to be you know the full 10% coming into >> well there's existing vegetation here right this is the clearing line. So this is all >> that's all vegetated >> already. Yeah. So this >> so the scenic ement would protect that. >> Yeah. >> So basically if you look would you mind bringing up the >> the aerial? >> Yeah. Just >> because it looks like there's a driveway already. >> Yeah. >> Cut there. It is vegetated. >> So the vegetation's here. Yeah. So that's what would be protected in the the easement. >> Yeah. You don't want those bare slopes there without any vegetation. So, if we can protect that, that would be that's what I'm looking for
068>> with the scen >> in the center like in here or up here. Okay. >> Yeah, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So, the >> the road frontage side. That's where Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I know what you're saying. We'll go back to our client and come back with um a map with the scene easement in the front. Fabulous. Okay. Thank you. Then we shall move on to our questions. Number one, does the planning board wish to assume lead agency status for this project? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree to amend the slope requirement for the common drive right? Well, >> we're worded a little um incorrectly. Um just saying that um the driveway does exceed the otherwise recommended maximum slope. There's really no way getting around that though if um it
069sounded like the board was uh okay with the the last plan that was shown. So you would have to agree to wave um the the requirement to comply with the the maximum slope, >> right? >> Yeah. So does the board agree to wave the requirement for avoiding the maximum slope? Yeah, the maximum slope is 12% and I don't think they make that. >> Excuse me. >> They exceed that. So, >> I'm in favor of waving that. >> Me, too. >> Do we know how much is it it is exceeded by? >> It is. >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. 35% >> 35% I think. >> And it's the existing driveway. Yeah. That used to go to the residence that was there before. It's a very steep. It's a steep hill, but there's no real [cough and
070clears throat] >> no other way. >> Like a driveway in California. >> Andy said it's 14%. I guess >> Oh, okay. [laughter] >> All right. Okay. Yes. [clears throat] >> So, yes, we do agree to wave the slope requirement for the driveways. >> Does the planning board believe individual driveways are appropriate? We do. >> We do. [laughter] Does the planning board >> believe the common driveway easement is appropriate? I'm not sure >> I understand this question. >> Basically, the um the third plan that the applicants had offered that involves an a an a single driveway. Again, um not worded um the best, but um basically what we're asking is is it okay that last map that you saw where they're going to take an individual driveway um for lot one, but then also have another
071one that goes across lot one to provide access to lot two, which will require an easement. >> Ah, gotcha. Access easement. Got it. >> I think yes, we are okay with that. Does the planning board find that a scenic easement area on the subject partial parcel should be required? Yes. >> Does the planning board agree to wave requiring no areas on the building envelope to be greater than 20% slopes? Did we did didn't that get moved? >> Uh yeah. So >> sorry. >> In the middle of the building envelope on lot two, there are like >> couple little spots. Um it's on the survey. Yeah. Um see right in the middle of the B building on but during the last review we talked about how it's a disturbed lot and the house there was a
072house and it was torn down and that's probably all construction and >> it's not natural. Yeah. A natural feature is worthy of preservation. >> Um so yes. >> Does the planning board agree it is necessary to require an urban renewal map modification as a condition of approval? >> Yes. Does the planning board feel they should discuss a code change to allow the planning board to have the ability to wave an emergency driveway turnaround? >> Yes. >> You and [laughter] you should you should wait on that until there is a specific code change that uh would be required to be brought in front of uh the board. >> But do we >> We're in favor of it happening. So, can we propose it to the town? >> Can we send our comments to the town? board,
073>> you can >> um you know, I think we'll when if if and when there is a specific code change proposed, that's probably the the time to um opine on it. >> But how will the code change get proposed if we don't >> I think the planning department's willing to put forth a code change. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Exactly. So, yes, we're willing to disc. >> So, yes, we're willing to discuss it >> anytime. [clears throat] >> Thanks, everybody. All right, Jay. Coochie [cough and clears throat] site plan. Will, this is yours. Lou, you're up again. Is the applicant here? Great. [clears throat] Take it away, Will. >> Whenever you're ready, will >> hit it, Will. [laughter] >> Okay. So, this is a site plan application seeking approval for a fencedin gravelbased facility for
074portable sanitary units, supplies, and vehicles on a site with a legally pre-existing non-conforming single family residence. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to merge the subject parcel with the property to the direct north known as 76 Queens Lane. The properties are situated on Queens Lane, clear of natural vegetation, and are contained within the South Fork special groundwater protection area. The applicant proposes adding a secondary use as a storage yard to the site, which is a permitted use in the commercial industrial zone, but not defined in the town code. >> [snorts] >> Properties to the north are zoned commercial industrial and have industrial uses and properties to the southeast are zones B residence and contain residences. Currently, the two lots are not merged and the applicant states they will be merged if the board finds the proposal
075acceptable. This application was originally submitted in March 2020 and has been reviewed on five occasions since. By a resolution from August 5th, 2022, the zoning board granted the necessary relief for the property to contain two uses. After the board's last review on March 15, 2023, it sent comments to the applicant about remaining issues. First, the board requested the applicant submit a site plan showing the extent of the proposed access easement. The applicant instead modified the application to include merging 74 and 76 Queens Lane, eliminating the need for an access easement. Second, the board requested the applicant submit a separate site plan for 76 Queens Lane, and the submitted site plan depicts both 74 and 76 Queens Lane, which the planning department finds acceptable. Third, the board contacted the building department to discuss whether sanitary update
076upgrade would be required. The building department stated the site would need a sanitary upgrade and this submission proposes a new IAWTS system on site. Fourth, the board requested the applicant label the substrate in the truck and sanitary unit storage areas and the revised site plan shows the areas of gravel in the storage areas. At the last review in March 2023, the applicants proposed to keep 74 and 76 Queens Lane as single single and separate properties, but provide access for 74 Queens Lane via an access easement on 76 Queens Lane. Now, the applicants are proposing to merge 74 and 76 Queens Lane, which eliminates the need for an access easement and a separate site plan for 76 Queens Lane. They are also proposing a 21 foot wide gate to control access into and out of 74
077Queens Lane. The planning department and town engineer have reviewed the proposed configuration of lots and access and have no objections. The application was originally made due to a code violation for operating a [clears throat] commercial use on a residential property without site plan approval. The commercial use has been operating for over 18 years without the benefit of site plan approval and required a variance from the zoning board of appeals for the maximum number of uses on the site. 76 Queens Lane also received site plan approval in 1996 to function as a parking area for the storage of commercial trucks and personal vehicles separate from any use pre-existing or proposed on 74 Queens Lane. Should the two lots be merged, the approved use on 76 Queens Lane would be added to the two existing uses on
07874 Queens Lane. The board should consider whether the parking use on 76 Queens Lane will continue on the merged parcels. If the parking use will be part of the storage yard use already proposed for 74 Queens Lane and not a separate use or business, this would be accommodated by the variance already granted by the ZBA as it would result in only two uses total for the site. However, if the merger would result in three uses on one commercially zoned property, another variance from the zoning board or a special permit for a multi multiple industrial complex may be required. The applicant should explain their plans for the area currently used as parking and the board should discuss whether this use is appropriate or if it constitutes multiple uses. The town consulting engineer has reviewed the submitted
079materials and made no objection to merging the parcels. However, he noted 74 Queens Lane will be required to replace the existing sanitary system with a new AOWTS system and remove the offsite dirt driveways. The engineer requested the applicant provide details for those improvements, including specifications for restoring the driveway areas. The site plan approval for 76 Queens Lane from 1996 included a condition requiring the applicant to protect existing vegetation, including maintaining 15 white pine trees along Queens Lane and five white pine trees along the southern property line for as long as the parking area exists. Contrary to that requirement, the southern property line has been cleared and would now be required to remain at least partially cleared for access. In the January 2023 submission, 20 white pine trees were added to the site plan to be
080planted at on 76 Queens Lane property along Queens Lane and on its southern border. At the time, the planning department recommended it was acceptable as it fulfilled the specific requirement of the original approval. The planning department notes no vegetation is shown on the most recent site plan and no landscaping plan has been submitted. The board should discuss where the app whether the applicant should submit a landscaping plan to comply with the referenced condition of approval and provide additional buffers for the site plan. The planning department recommends a separate landscaping plan which matches the previously submitted and reviewed one should be provided. In conclusion, the applicant should explain the intended use of the paved and gravel areas on both lots. Indicate the number of uses proposed. submit sanitary system plans and dirt driveway removal specifications. The
081board should consider whether the applicant should submit a separate landscaping plan. >> Thank you. Well, does the applicant wish to be here? >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Good evening, madam chair, members of the board. Richard Whan from Whan Filer also landmarks. Uh on behalf of the applicant, Joseph Coochie and Mr. Coochie is is here tonight. Uh so when this this application has been around for a while, I think it goes back to 2020. Uh and there have been gaps in terms of when we've been back in front of the board. Um I was actually surprised myself to see that we were last before the board in March of 2023. Kind of blew me away to see that. I went back and checked my calendar. Apparently that's true. Um [laughter] but we have in that period
082of time we have interacted with the planning department during that period of time and the main issue had been this question of an access easement how to get to the property. Let me back up for those of you who don't go back far enough to remember when this began. So the application originally concerned only the southern lot which is 74 [clears throat] Queens Lane. Uh the applicant owns a business called headquarters which is a portaotti business and he uses the site for storage. Storage only. There's no office on the property. There are no employees on the property. There is a residence on the southern lot 74 Queens Lane. Uh and a local family lives there and the applicant has wanted to maintain that. [snorts] That's actually where the variance came in because an oddity of
083the code, which is something else you should change in the code, is that if you have a residence on a commercial industrial lot, by the way, a residence is not even allowed use in the commercial industrial zone. But if it pre-exists zoning and you have a residence, then you're only allowed one use, which is the residence. So, if you have a residence on a commercial industrial zone property, you need a variance to add a commercial use. That makes no sense. Well, so we applied, we didn't wait around for code change for, you know, reasons you just discussed. So we went to the zoning where naturally the zoning were granted the variance, but that was the variance. The variance was to allow us to have a commercial use on the southern property because the alternative would
084have been to remove a residence that's used by local residents. So the issue though was access. The access was always proposed to come in from the north because we don't want to go in beside the the residents. And that got complicated um for various reasons. You know, you would have to create an access easement over the northern parcel. And finally, what we decided is, you know what, it makes more sense just to merge the properties and create one property then you're accessing your own property directly from Queensland. You don't need an access east. So, um I think the only real potentially significant issue here is the number of uses. The way we look at it, the uses, the use, the uses are obviously single family residents and storageard. Okay, storage yard is in my view
085a fungeable use. Uh if you're familiar with the office use in the code, if you're a landlord, you've got a building, you've got office tenants, you can have any number of tenants. Office is a use whether you have two offices, four offices, six offices, six different tenants, it's all considered office one use. Storage use as the plane department pointed out is not actually defined in the code. So in my view storage is a funible use and we the use is storage. Right now there are vehicles parked on the northern part of the property which is currently 76 Queens Lane and the storage for headquarters would be on the southern part of the property. But the overall use as we see it is storage yard and of course the resident. So by that count there are
086only two uses and we have no no issues. Um the other things the planning department has mentioned really don't pose any problem. We already have a design for the first of all, we were told that we have to um as a result of the project install a low nitrogen septic system. Mind you, we're not actually proposing any buildings. The low nitrogen would serve the existing residents, but it went through the building department. The building department determined that we had to do that under the code and we have a design for that. It wasn't provided to you yet, but it's been done. It's we have it on on a survey. So, that's very simple. We'll show where the light you know we have a design and a location for the low nitrogen IIA system. So we'll
087supply that. Um we should have there was some confusion I think between then the revisions to the site plan. Somehow the landscaping came off. Um agreed it needs to be on there. I would think we can probably do it on the site plan. Show the location the species the number you know the height is planted and so on so forth. There are some white pines currently on the property. I'm talking, you know, really talking primarily 76 Queens Lane. That's the northern one. I think that's where the [clears throat] landscaping was proposed. So, we would simply propose to show that on the site plan with the necessary details. I I guess what I just went back from the planning board is we had proposed 20 white pines. Again, there may be some there. I mean, I
088know there are some there. Uh when the surveyor went, I'd say, "Look, I can't it's hard to count them because there's other stuff in the in the way, but I would like some feedback from the board as to what you'd like to see." If you say we want 20 overall white pines in that area, we'll show you 20 overall white pines. Um the other um questions, the dirt driveways that transgress the property to the south, that property now has a house being built on it. Um shown on there or not? >> Yeah. Is that was a house going up? It's been going up for the last several years. The owner of that property has recently put along their back property line. So, they've actually blocked access onto the dirt driveways. Uh, and it's on their
089land. So, I don't really know. The bottom line is the neighboring owner over whose land the dirt driveways go has closed them off. We can't use them blocked by arbor vite. Uh, I don't know that it's appropriate for us to then therefore plan to put land, you know, grass seed or something or we have to go in someone else's property and do it. Bottom line is the driveways won't be used. The neighbors closed them off. Um I I don't think we can do anything more about that. And um the only thing I can remember besides that is the urban renewal map modification. So we're combining the lots. Right now the urban room map shows two urban renewal lots. Uh I will tell you what I did when I was the planning board attorney back in
090the day when we had urban room map modifications. Usually they were subdivisions. If the planning board was approving the thing that would change the map, like an subdivision, I would add a provision to the resolution saying the planning board recommends that the urban renewal map be modified in accordance with our approval. And we're not even doing a subdivision where you're combining the lots. The map, the urban renewal map should be changed. But I would suggest that you can just do that in your resolution and then you can pass that on to the town board. They can hold the public hearing and amend the urban new map. Nobody's going to complain about combining the two lots. So, um I think I've covered everything unless you have any questions. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
091>> Yeah, I think the big issue here is the three uses or two uses, however you define them. Uh and whether you um look at it as the storage including one type of product that's stored and another product that's stored. It's still one storage use or the one the the storage on 76 is necessary for the use of SE that's being stored on 74. However you look at it, I you know I tend to agree that it is one use. So if that's one use and the residence is the other use is still within the two use maximum. So I I'm in agreement with looking at it that way. As far as the landscaping, the there was a plan where all of Queens Lane was landscaped. I don't I don't know how many trees is
092necessary, but the original plan showed that there was a line of trees that uh lined all of Queens Lane as well as Dayton Avenue, but Dayton Avenue now has the the gate, the access. Obviously, you're not going to plant trees there, but whatever the other part of it, you need to do that. Um the urban renewal map, I agree with you. That's just, you know, whether it's a condition of approval or some other uh method, I don't think that's that's an issue that's going to uh cause any problems. Um I think the storm you didn't mention the storm water runoff calculations because now it's a merged um that you have merged lots. So uh the calculations need to uh account for the entirety of the two lots. That's all. Uh and also the existing conditions
093uh the plans need to be up updated for the fencing and other structures that are not shown on the proposed survey. And uh I think that's the dirt driveway removal. You mentioned that uh you you have no authority to deal with that. So I I I understand that that takes care of that issue. That's it. >> Thanks, Lydia. >> Yeah, I don't really have much to comment on, you know, with regards to the uh the vegetation. I I would say just pointing back to that original uh what's cited here in the uh plan approval from 96 just says, you know, landscaping shall be maintained by the applicant for so long as the parking area approved by the resolution continues to exist. It cites 20. So yeah, if you need a number, I would say that's
094there's your number. >> Thank you, Michael. >> So I'm I'm slightly confused about the three uses. So it would be three uses [clears throat] if different items were stored on the storage area. Is that what that means? >> Can I can I put something down? Along Springs Fireplace Road, there are at least two properties that I know of. I think probably three which have multiple tenants on them. Um people who have small businesses usually small contractors or landscapers and they store their vehicles and other machinery equipment on these properties. Sometimes there may be 20 or more tenants in there. The town has never raised. In fact, the town has encouraged, at least in one Atlanta I know of, encouraged them to accommodate people because otherwise those people were taking their vehicles back to their houses
095usually up in springs and park them in their front yard. So you might have multiple tenants on the property storing their property, not running a business off the property, but storing their stuff. And the town has here to four basically said it's one year storage, so it's okay. So that's all we're proposing to do. >> I'm fine with that. I was just perplexed by the the notion that if it's three uses, the two the uses would be simply items you store on the property. So odd in my mind, but I agree with two uses. >> Yeah. No, I agree with with everybody. And uh landscaping I think is probably a good idea as well. So >> thanks Bruce. Thanks everybody. Um, I agree with my colleagues. I do agree it's two uses. Um, all right.
096Questions. Should the applicant explain the intended use of the paved and gravel areas on both lots? I think we >> verbally just did. I think that's >> Yep. >> Does the board agree the planned use for the area currently used as parking is appropriate or does it constitute another use? It's appropriate. Should the applicant provide details and specifications for the new IATS system and removal of offsite dirt driveways? You've covered both of those in your comments. So, >> yes, >> you'll provide that and that off-site driveways are not your responsibility. >> And I I would just add um you know, I I um understand what Rick said, but sorry, voice from the sky. Uh but uh there is a notation on the site plan that says existing dirt driveways to be removed. If since those
097are on a not on this property, just that notation should be uh corrected or removed. >> Thank you, Eric. Yes, they that notation should be removed. Um and should the applicant submit a revised landscaping Oh, wait. Whoops, I skipped one. Should the board choose to grant its approval, does it agree the applicant should be required to update the urban renewal map as a condition of approval? Yes. >> And should the applicant submit a revised landscaping plan? >> Yes. Yes. >> Thanks, Mr. Thanks, Mr. Fuji. >> Seest pool and shed site plan. Lou, that's you. >> This is This isn't >> Chris Decker. This is This is Chris, but Will, I believe you're covering for Chris. >> I I was I was >> covering. Gotcha. >> And [laughter] Yeah. >> Yes. >> Lori's here. Okay. >>
098Okay. Hopefully the board can see the aerial. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Of the property. >> Okay. So, this is um sort of a brief update um and uh just a possible change to process. Um following the board's last review in November, um the board decided that the application was complete and ready for referral to the ZBA and the ARB. Since then, the applicant submitted a letter to request that the planning board move forward by issuing a resolution of approval so that the project can obtain a building permit for phase 1, which does not require a natural resources special permit. Uh the planning department finds this acceptable and the approval would be conditioned so that an NRSP would be required uh to be obtained uh to obtain a building permit for phase two would be
099required to obtain a building permit for phase 2, excuse me. Uh the applicant is reminded that the fire marshall will require the existing bathrooms in the pool house to be made compliant with the ADA if the new clubhouse building is not completed within one year of the completion of phase one. >> [snorts] >> Um we would also note though with regard to ARB approval um that is something that is uh normally done after the planning board application is complete. [snorts] So basically the the planning board had said at the last review that the applicant should go off to the ZBA to get an NRSP and the ARB. um ARB is usually handled after um the planning board application is complete and um there is no requirement that uh the applicant obtain an NRSP before um
100getting an approval from the planning board. In fact, it's um somewhat common to have that be a condition of approval if you grant it uh that they get an NRSP. Um and that's not required for phase one. So, we have no objection to the application moving forward um and being scheduled for a public hearing uh knowing that if the board does grant approval um both ARB approval and obtaining an NRSP would be conditions of the planning board's approval. >> Thanks, Eric. >> Lori Wiler for Land Planning Services. Eric, we are going to get ARB on phase one. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. Thank you. Do you wish to make any other comments, Lori? Okay, that's it. >> Yeah, I there's really not much to say here. It's a
101procedural move. Uh this is phase one. Uh I'm in agreement with approving it, moving it forward with the conditions that uh Eric cited. So there's not much else to say. >> Excellent. Anybody else? >> No. >> Agreed. Um, what I would like to do is have you read the resolution to schedule the public hearing since we're on it already. >> Script. >> Okay. So, >> here's the script. Here's the script. >> I got the script. >> There's all kinds of scripts going. >> So, I before we do that, let me just read the question so it's on the record. Does the planning board agree the application is complete and ready to schedule for a public hearing? I Yes. >> Yes. >> All in favor? >> So, am I just reading the resolution or am I
102reading the public hearing notice? >> No, you're reading it's actually the schedule public hearing public hearing. >> It's a different one. >> So, there's three things here. [laughter] >> So, if [snorts] you read, >> it's not this. >> It's the resolution to schedule a public No, that's >> that's for when there actually is a public hearing happening. This is to schedule the public hearing. >> So, you were right, Ava. [laughter] >> Okay. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Panago Road, East Hampton on January 28, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Serest Pool and shed site plan Suffach County Tax Map number 300-10-1-12 at premises identified on the Suffach County Tax Map as I just read.
103I'll read it again. Suffach County Tax Map number 300-110-1-12. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. >> Write that down here. >> You said the 26th or the 28th. >> Uh 28. >> Okay, good. >> Did I say 26? >> 28th 20 28th 2026. [laughter] >> Can I get a motion to schedule this public hearing? >> Bruce makes the motion. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Excellent. Next. >> Surf Club. >> So smooth. So smooth. [laughter] No kinks to work out here. >> Um, surf club fourphased site plan. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> I can't believe it's someone different. >> You want to do this one anyway? [laughter] >> L got the next one. >> Who does have the next one? >> Um, I I'll I'll
104before you do the resolution, I'll just give the the overview of the memo. >> Um, this one's even more simple, but same idea. ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. Uh however, in this case, the project required a variance from the zoning board of appeals. In those situations, the applicant must obtain the variance before being deemed complete by the planning board because otherwise the application isn't compliant with the town code, not the same for an NRSP as with the last application. Um so, these applicants did go to the ZBA and did obtain the necessary relief. Therefore, the application is complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. Thank you, Eric. Bruce, uh, Lori, do you wish to be heard? >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think this is super simple as well. So,
105>> can you um read the >> All right, let's see if I can try to figure this out. >> Can you Will you >> Okay. Public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall, 159 Panagor Road, East Hampton on January 28th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of surf club 4 phase site plan at premises identified in the Suffach County tax map as parcel Suffach County tax map number 300-49-6-21. Um, files can be viewed and comments can be filed in accordance with the specifics on 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 the set hearing. And >> I think that's it.
106>> That's it. Can we have Can I get a motion for its approval for scheduling? >> I'll make that motion. >> Bruce, I have a second. >> Ava will second. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Thank you for including the resolutions on night as discussion. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. You too. Take care. >> All righty. Solelay East Beach restaurant site plan. I see the applicant is here. And Eric, you're going to take this one? >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, an application has been made seeking approval for a proposed restaurant with roof rooftop deck and parking on a site located on the southwest corner of South Embassy Street in South Emerson AB in downtown Lalk. Uh the site is 100% cleared of naturally occurring vegetation and is 187 acres in
107size. The site is located within the resort zoning district and is surrounded by parcels of similar um similar use but uh also central business zoning. Uh the restaurant is proposed to be used seasonally and would be adjacent to the Sole East Beach Motel. Uh the applicants indicate that the restaurant will have 14 bar stools at the lower level and 13 table seats on the rooftop deck for patrons to utilize. The applicants are proposing 12 total parking spaces, sidewalks on all sides of the building for foot traffic, and a new sanitary system to the rear um under the parking at the alleyway. Um, I will switch over to the site plan now and hopefully you can see that. I'll zoom in a little bit here. Um, this project is a type two action under SRA, meaning
108that no further review for secret purposes is required. Um, as the subject property is located within the resort zoning district, the proposed quote seasonal restaurant, as indicated in the application, uh, use would require a special permit. Although the restaurant may be used in a season a seasonal nature, there is no distinction in the code for a seasonal restaurant and thus the use is classified as a restaurant. Simply uh the applicant should provide the intended hours of operation for the site. The applicant should confirm uh uh the proposed restaurant use will operate in compliance with the town code definition of a restaurant. Um, since a special permit is required, uh, the application will ultimately need to, uh, demonstrate that it can meet the general and specific special permit standards in the town code. Uh, the location
109of this property in the resort zoning district indicates a requirement for a 30-foot front yard setback, 15 ft sideyard setbacks, and 15t rear setbacks. Uh, the proposed restaurant is on a corner. Um so the uh proposed principal restaurant must meet the 30-foot setback on two sides. Uh the proposed structure appears to be dimensionally conforming with the building meeting all required setbacks. The building coverage is um 1,222 ft while the allowable is 1,222.75 ft or 15% of the lot area. So they're right up um on it. Uh the proposed total lot coverage is 4,886 square feet whereas the allowable is over 6,000 square feet or 75% of the lot area. So they're um well below that. Uh the proposed building is proposed to be 14 just over 14 ft in height which includes the 42in railing
110um at the top of it which falls well be below the 30- foot maximum for a flat roof in the zoning district. So basically um as designed as you see on the site plan, it appears to meet all dimensional regulations. With regard to parking requirements and site navigation, uh the town code um parking requirements list the number of spaces required for a restaurant as one per three permanent seats or one per each person of rated capacity plus one employee per shift. Um one per employee per shift. The applicant has proposed 27 seats total um 14 which of which are bar stools and 13 of which are table seats on the rooftop. According to the parking calculations, two employees are anticipated. With these numbers, 11 spaces including an ADA space uh space would be required. Um
111however, the board should discuss the intended nature of operation with the applicants as two employees seems low uh to be a reasonable estimate. Uh 12 spaces are currently provided and are proposed to meet the town code at 9 ft by 20 ft. Um spaces 1 through 5 are accessible via the alley to the north of the property and spaces 6 through 12 are situated head in along South Embassy Street. As per the town code, all aisles within parking areas shall have a minimum width of 24 ft when the parking spaces are at a 90° angle to that aisle. Um, the alley to the north of the site is only 20 feet wide, which does not conform to the 24 foot requirement. Accordingly, a two-foot wide alley widening easement from the properties on each side of
112the alleyway is typically required and should be required in this case. Um, and I should say too, uh, I don't think it's likely that there's a redevelopment of the property to the north. So, it may be most prudent to require the applicants to provide a a 4 foot um a two-foot alley widening easement, but a a further setback of 4 feet [snorts] um from the edge of the alley for the parking spaces in order to meet that 24 ft. Um, another issue is that the applicants will need to uh clarify how traffic will flow through the alley. Um, if I switch just quickly to the aerial photograph, you can see the alley um to the rear of the site and you can see that it's um mostly unobstructed um but partially it appears to be
113partially obstructed for some of the length. It's not improved uh with asphalt. Um so the applicants will need to provide details of how they plan to improve the alleyway. Um but also looking at the site plan, there's a question there. Uh, as you can imagine, if somebody pulls into the alleyway, um, if spaces one through five are occupied, what do they do when they get to the end of that alleyway? How do they turn around? Um, are they intended to proceed through the, you know, entire length of the alley? [clears throat] The applicant will need to clarify the the circulation pattern. Um, no truck loading space is required. None has been provided. Uh, the parking layout and site layout is consistent with other parcels in the area. It should be noted however that town code
114and good planning uh practices to put parking behind structures. Um again this is a corner lot uh that may not be possible. Um but that is guidance from the town code. Uh while the current proposal is conforming uh with the town code, another option is for parking spaces 6 through 12 um to be pulled into the right of way as this would match the existing parking configuration on the lot to the north. Uh if the spaces were pulled into the right ofway, an additional parking space may be able to be to fit along the alley on the corner of the lot uh nearest South Embassy Street. Um for the spaces to be pulled into the rideway, a parking area variance from the ZBA and uh highway department approval would be needed. Um basically because this
115would be taking those parking spaces off of the actual subject property and putting them in the rightway. Um site action should be considered in this case. If parking spots were located within the right ofway, then vehicles would back out directly into South Embass Embassy Street. Um [snorts] the board should discuss if this alternate alternative parking configuration is preferred. And I'm going to just jump back quickly to the aerial to show you. Uh it's kind of an illustration of what we're talking about. So right now, the way that the parking spaces along South Embassy are situated, they're entirely within the property. So, as you see this blue line here, they would be to the right of it um as it's drawn right now. Obviously, that leaves this big space that is now grass um in between
116those parking spaces and South Embassy Street. That would need to be improved with asphalt so that uh people could access those parking spaces on the actual property. Um so under the current design you would have a lot of asphalt between that of South Embassy that backup lane that would be the shoulder of the road and then the parking spaces on the subject uh property. So an alternative design which has been done in other areas of downtown Malkquealk is if you look um for example to the lot to the immediate north across the alleyway you'll see that um to the west of that property boundary there is uh head in parking spaces and asphalt that is within the right of way it's not on the subject property the building is right up to the subject property
117there. So there's an existing development pattern of having the parking spaces be within the rightway and not on the subject property. an option would be to continue that pattern further south uh for this property. However, [snorts] again, switching back to the site plan. That's not the way it's been drawn. Um the benefit of the way that it's drawn is that it's compliant with the code. All their parking is on site. Um however, if the board did want to allow the applicants to move that parking into the right of way, it would necessitate a variance. Obviously the planning board would send comments to the ZBA in support of that if if it favored that design. Um but that is something to consider uh at the outset here. >> What do they object to that? >> Um
118so with regard to water supply, sanitary systems and storm water, uh the applicants must receive approval from the health department for the proposed low nitrogen system. Uh in groundwater management zone 4, which they're in, the allowable uh sanitary flow is 600 gallons per acre. Um, thus the otherwise allowable flow on the property would be about 112 gallons per day. Uh, however, um, all uh, all pre-existing lots in downtown Montalk are grandfathered at 300 gallons per day. So that is their effective um, permitted yield on the property. Um, and we note that the sanitary system is proposed to be under the parking um, that is at the uh, situated at the alleyway um, as it's currently shown. Um, also in the sanitary calculations, it appears that the calculation for an outdoor or seasonal bar was utilized
119for some of the seating. The applicant should clarify if the second floor outdoor seating is intended be intended to be used as a seasonal bar. [snorts] Uh, comments regarding water, the sanitary system, and storm water are pending engineer review. Um, I should mention too, the standard calculation of the health department is 10 gallons per day per seat. Uh, for a restaurant, the applicants are proposing 27 seats. uh they're grant that so that would be 270 gallons per day. They're are grandfathered at 300 gallons per day. I don't think there's an issue here with them not meeting the sanitary yield. Um but the details of the calculation don't appear to match what the health department would otherwise required uh require. Um we could be wrong on that. Um if the applicants can submit proof that the
120health department would look uh at it differently. So um the fire marshall had several comments. Um most of these relate to interior um features. Um according to the comments, each toilet, bathing room, and associated water closet compartment should be accessible um handicapped accessible. The exception to this is where u multiple single-use toilets or bathing rooms are clustered at a single location. Not less than one room for each use at each cluster shall be accessible. Uh each water closet utilized by the public or employees shall have a separate compartment with walls or partitions and a door enclosing the fixtures to ensure privacy. However, water closet compartments are not required in a single occupant uh toilet room with a lockable door. An employee in public toilet rooms, the required lavatory should be located in the same room
121as the required water closet or in an adjacent room uh connected by openings without doors. One of the current toilet room locations is prohibited as toilet rooms shall not open directly into a room used for the preparation of food. Uh there should also be separate facilities provided for each sex with the exception that single-user toilet and bathing rooms shall be designated as genderneutral. Uh the toilet and water closets are currently non-compliant as per the fire marshall. Uh the fire marshall noted also that the maximum occupancy for the first floor would be 41 and 75 um for the rooftop deck totaling 115 and requiring a minimum of 28 ADA um bathrooms or toilet rooms is a sort of neutral term that fire marshall's using. Um the fire marshall notes that there are certain provisions for allowing
122lifts. Um but a lift is not acceptable for this application um for the second story. A lighting plan was submitted by the applicants including a phototric plan which indicates minimum light spill over property lines from the proposed lighting fixtures. The board policy requires lighting for sites uh not spill outside of property lines. However, if the planning board determines the spill is minimal, the board may choose to permit such lighting. [snorts] It does not appear that the um proposed lighting and subsequent light spill would impact any neighboring properties. Um again, this is commercial area. there's um a lot of lighting on on neighboring properties in in the area. Uh the greatest area of light spill is at the corner of South Embassy Street and South Emerson Avenue. The planning department recommends the applicant comply with the
123policy and provide for no light spill. Um the applicant should also submit light fixture specifications uh sheets for each of the fixtures proposed. We don't have that. Um and it appears that the uh chosen fixtures um meet the town code uh as far as uh color temperature. Uh the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan as part of their site plan which includes montalk daisies, bay berry, shad, winterberry um and ostrich and sweet fern. Uh the landscaping plan adequately shows limits of clearing uh the location of vegetation and structural screening and a key shows each plant species their common and scientific names the quantity of plants heights of plants and spacing which are all things that we require. Um the applicant is encouraged to use native vegetation wherever possible but generally speaking the landscaping plan is
124found acceptable um and all the details are compliant with the normal elements that the board would require. >> [snorts] >> Um the applicant is advised that additional approvals for this project will be required. These include the ARB, the office of fire prevention as a referral sign off um and the health department. Um [snorts] approval from the ZBA may also be necessary really pending the board's uh discussion regarding the parking layout. Um upon subsequent submissions, the applicant shall comply with the required items in section 255650 of the town code. A review of the missing elements has been performed and is detailed in the memorandum prepared by the planning department. Um I'm not going to go through all of the code requirements. I'll just list um some of the the necessary elements that are are missing or
125comments about them. Um so first the site plan uh submitted shows property line directional bearings and distancing adjac adjacent land ownership streets intersections directional arrow scale and zoning district which is the the first requirement. Um [snorts] [cough] I should I'll I'll confine this to the things that need to be added to the plan um not where they're compliant. So uh the applicant should clarify the proposed uh finished first floor elevation uh or ground elevation of each building and structure. [snorts] Um the the site plan uh submitted depicts dimensions of property line setbacks but does not label dimensions between buildings and structures. Uh that's a code requirement uh that the applicant should provide in an updated plan. >> [snorts] >> Um the applicant should submit a revised side plan depicting the intended circulation pattern for the
126alley. Um this can be a separate plan or on the safe plan. Um probably a separate plan would be clearer. Any changes regarding drainage structures and drainage calculations are also pending engineer review. Um so uh with regard to the lighting plan, the applicant should uh confirm light spill um outside of the property lines is minimized or remove it entirely. The board should discuss whether or not the lighting plan is acceptable. Um and the applicant should submit manufacturer specification sheets for the light fixtures. Um the applicant should also clarify if any grading is proposed for the site. the site is relatively flat. Um but no information was provided regarding that. Um and uh that that's basically it as far as the missing elements of the site plan. So in conclusion, there are a few items that
127must be confirmed and clarified prior to proceeding. The applicant should provide more detail regarding the use. Clarify the number of employees expected. Clarify parking areas in circulation. Uh confirm light spill has been minimized. Amend the landscaping plan if required. Um provide the finished floor elevations and submit dimensions between proposed buildings and structures. Um other comments may be um may be provided pending engineer review. Um and I should mention that separately that the engineer has not had a chance to review this yet. Um, those comments are pending. Um, and that's a summary of the department's comments. >> Thank you, Eric. Tara, >> good evening again. Uh, it's Tara Burke from Lighthouse Land Planning and I'm here with Drew Bennett, who is the engineer on the project. Um, thank you, Eric. Uh, so this is a um
128vacant lot, downtown Lock, which we don't see that much anymore. I feel like back when I was in the planning department, these came in more. So, it was kind of cool to get uh sort of a blank canvas. Um we are proposing a seasonal restaurant. It's a one-story restaurant with a rooftop area um for eating. There's tables up there. Um the planning department asked us to clarify the intended hours of operation. Um this is primarily we envision as being a restaurant that is anor to the hotel next door. it's owned by the same owners. Um, which is why on the site design, we have the sidewalk that comes right along the adjacent property line. Um, we anticipate it being breakfast, lunch, dinner. Um, a lot of foot traffic hopefully from the area as well. Um,
129but sort of like a like a beach shack kind of, you know, high quality but like nothing fancy sort of thing. Um so uh we read the definition of a restaurant that is uh exactly what we're envisioning. Um as far as the so the site design we actually met with the planning department about this um just because it is a corner lot and um just to kind of go through how you know how there used to be a formula for sort of how these downtown Montalk lots were done. They just haven't come in for so long. So, it's kind of like a, you know, refresh our memory. This is what we're thinking. Is this what you guys are envisioning um as far as the parking layout goes? So, um I guess I'll start with the
130the number of parking spaces since that's first in the memo. Uh the planning department notes uh the number of seats and the required parking and then made a comment about um the two employees and perhaps that not being enough. We did go back and speak with the property owners and I think it is more realistic if we um for employees is what they envisioned for their business model. So um we'll resubmit that. Um now with the number of spaces we've shown um that would be a requirement of uh 13 spaces and we have 12 on the plan. So um what we could do is put another space like here, right? or really anywhere along um South Emerson. Now, uh I understand that that might not be something the board might want to see. Um I
131know South Emerson is a busy road. Uh so historically, the way parking has been done and Eric kind of touched on this um with the pulling the spaces out into the right of way. We have to show you that we can fit the spaces on site um for our use, right? Otherwise, our use doesn't work. you know, we just can't fit it on the property. So, typically what's happened in the past is we show you that we can fit the 12 or 13 spaces on site dimensionally and then if it's in the interest of good planning to pull them into the alley, we would get your blessing to do that, right? We're obviously not going to go to the zoning board for a variance for parking if you don't agree with it because they wouldn't
132grant it. Um, and if you can't fit the spaces on site, then you use fees in lie of parking. Um, right. And that I think is gosh, I haven't done it in so long, but I think it's like 9,000 a space now, maybe. I don't think it's been updated, but that's been the avenue if you can't fit the parking. So, um, you know, for example, or or if you can't improve it in the right of way, I should say, right? So, if we're showing you that we can fit our 13 spaces or let's just say the 12 because it kind of separates. If we could show you that we can fit our 12 and you say, "Yeah, we think spaces 6 through 12 make more sense in the right of way," then we would ask
133you to send a memo to the zoning board in favor of that. And then we go to the zoning board for our variance, which we'd have to get before you approve the application. Now, space 13, let's say, for example, let's say we show it on uh South Emerson and you decide we don't want a space that is either parallel or backing out onto South Emerson or whatever. Um then we could apply for fees in lie of parking for that space, right? So then we could have one space for fees in le of parking and you know one, two, three, four, five, six uh for a variance. So that's kind of the framework of what I understand. And Eric, please correct me if I'm wrong, uh, or if things have changed since. Um, so when we
134met with planning, we said, "Okay, yeah, we can fit the spaces on site, but hey, let's take a look at the aerials and see what makes sense." Um, like Eric said, if they're spaces are on the property, there's a huge amount of paving behind them. Are people going to double park to go to the beach or, you know, I don't know. I don't know what's going to happen, but it it kind of creates a little bit of like a question zone and do you want that much parking? Maybe it'll look prettier to have those spaces pulled into the rightway and then we can put additional landscaping there. Um trying to think of other there's quite a few sites in Montalk where they've been pulled into the rightway. Oh, you guys know we did we did
135um Beckman together, right? That I think that was in the right way. Anyway, >> and even the other restaurant at the old Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So, um that was sort of our thought was when you look at the area, the property to the north has the spaces in the rightway. So, this might look a little um staggered and confusing to have all that pavement. Um but, you know, I'll let you guys discuss that. Um so, that would that's sort of the parking start. Um, now as far as the alley goes, because we do have those five spaces that we proposed on the alley, um, the alley is open all the way through, which you can see mostly on the aerial. Um, and I actually did a couple site plans further down. So, I
136I remember that that it's it's clear the whole way through. Um, so as far as circulation goes, I think the question was if they're backing out of a space or if they're driving in and all five of those are taken, what do they do? Well, they just keep going through the alley. Um, we're happy to provide the two foot road widening easement. Um, that's standard. Um, this is the first time I've ever heard of, well, maybe we'll have you do four feet since there's a building on the north. We can work through that with the planning department and the engineer. Um, you know, I just think we just have to have more discussion about it if it's required. in the only way to have the parking there, then we'll have to do it. But um
137like to have some further discussion with them on that. And um then as far as the what was the next thing? Oh, and the sanitary calculations. Um they bring up the seasonal bar. Um that's the it's the bar is not upstairs. Upstairs is seating. There's a dumb waiter brings the food up. There's a 14 seat bar downstairs. the um floor plans that you have show the tables upstairs and the the bar downstairs. Um there's only there's food service upstairs. There's no bar. So, we don't anticipate that area to be a designated bar. Um and we use that seasonal bar calculation for the bar downstairs because it's a seasonal bar and that's a health department. um the health department and the town code labels don't match exactly, but that's the use that we're prop, you know,
138part of the use we're proposing downstairs. So, that's why we use that calculation. Um, and the health department, we have to get our food service permit every year. They won't issue it. So, we're regulated by, you know, the use that we have approved with them as well as the use approved with you. Um, the lighting, um, I think the lighting is pretty negligible. the spill going over into the road right away, but it's a really easy fix. It's 0.1 foot candles. Um, as Eric said, it's a pretty well lit area. Um, but we're I mean, it's literally a matter of moving some of the light fixtures by like an inch or two, which we're, you know, happy to do. And the landscaping is [clears throat] all native except for um the Montalk daisies, which is
139um in line with what Monttok looks like. I think it's part of our charm. And and then as far as like the submission requirements go that the planning department listed, some of those were already shown on the plans. Um the Fish floor elevation is there. Um as far as the dimensional setbacks between the buildings, there's only one building, so I'm not sure what else we would dimension. Um the color temperature of the light fixtures is on the plan. Um and then the spot elevations of the grading is also on the plan. Um it's just pretty flat, so it's easy to overlook those numbers. Um and that's it. Thanks, Tara. Yep. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I I've got some questions and slash concerns. Um, a lot of the questions you've already touched on your answers, so
140sorry if I'm going to reiterate these points, but I just have my list. Um, so the what the first item I had was the intended hours of operation, and you you went over that. It's a restaurant. It's an ancillary to the U hotel. Ancillary to the hotel. So the concern I had there is that it's not going to become the typical concern that it's not going to become a gathering spot, nightclub, that type of thing. >> Yeah, that's certainly not the intention. >> Um the two employees per shift, which you now say is four employees per shift. I've never run a restaurant, but I've been in a lot of restaurants. It just seems to me even four employees per shift seems low. I mean, if you have two people in the kitchen and two servers,
141there's four right there. And that just doesn't seem as though that would serve be able to service the type of restaurant that you've described. So, that that's a concern I had. >> Yeah. [clears throat] I mean, we talked to the owner about it. They run Sole East restaurant. They envisioned like you said two in the kitchen and then there's one person downstairs and one person upstairs. It's really small. So, um there's not a lot of need for a lot of staff. Um and the reason we didn't initially include it in the parking uh just to add was uh they own the hotel next door. Most of the staff lives in the hotel next door. um or they ride bikes uh or ebikes from hotel other hotels in downtown Montalk that are staff housing. So, we're
142going to have a bike rack there. Um but we I mean I I spoke to them about it. They don't anticipate more than four staff members being necessary. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because that's going to affect the parking u and with regard to the parking and we'll start with the alleyway. So the alleyway you said you're amanable to making it 24 foot wide which is the requirement. >> Yeah. I mean I said we would go back and talk to the planning department. Um I've never heard of the two feet that are required of the neighbor on the other side being put on this side. But that doesn't mean that it's not true. So we'll certainly go um talk to them about it. >> And the circulation plan. there is no need for circulation plan because
143you say that it's a you can go straight through the alleyway and go out the other side. >> Okay. >> Um and I'm in favor of as far as the parking is concerned of pulling the spaces into the right of way and also if if you do that you can add a space like yeah >> in the alleyway. to them. So, I'm in favor of that plan. Um, I'm not going to go over all the fire marshall requirements with regard to the uh toilet rooms and the privacy of water. >> Oh, yeah. We have no we'll address all that. We have no problem fixing that. >> Um, I am concerned even though it's minor, but I'm still concerned with any light spill, especially in downtown Montour. Uh I would like to see native vegetation when
144wherever vegetation is to occur. As far as the um sanitary system, um I I I was curious as to why the rooftop seating is treated differently for kitchen flow uh than than the uh Drew is nodding his head. I think he wants to answer. >> Yeah, because that doesn't make sense to me. What's the difference between whether you're dining on the rooftop or in the enclosed area downstairs? >> Uh, good evening, Drew Bennett and on behalf of the applicant. So, uh, sanitary code requires us to develop design flows and design flows in the Suffach County Sanitary Code are based on use types. It's very similar to the town parking calculations where you try to fit it within the best definition, but in this case, there's it fits pretty well. >> [clears throat and cough] >>
145So, the the uh rooftop is obviously a seasonal restaurant. There's not much dining service in the winter on top of the roof. Uh and the bar is on the first level. And um that's clearly a bar. There is no bar or bar service on the rooftop. [clears throat] And so, we're able to define divide the two spaces into those two different types of uses which are in the design standards. And I can apply a flow rate for each of those types of uses. So is there I'm just trying to figure the I I you know obviously I believe you that that's the way it's stated within the Suffach County Health Department, but I'm trying to understand the rationale. So are they saying that it's different less gallons per day because it's seasonal and >> so
146you don't have the full year's use. >> Yeah, there's a difference. But even that doesn't make sense because how does that affect the gallons per day unless they take the whole year and then average? So I guess that's what they do. >> So the designs that's a whole another uh subject of conversation. So um uh 20 years ago we used to debate with the health department like you know how do you know this is really the appropriate design flow rate and the long story short is that they don't want to debate it anymore. They've set their standards and they sort of want to stick to those numbers. They don't want to review the design standards for every single application. And so we haven't applied to the health department yet. We think we have a pretty
147solid um set of plans right now. Your comments are very helpful. We'll apply to them. We'll get their comments. We'll work through this. Would you and last thing with regard to the sanitary and the [clears throat] type of use, would you be amanable to um uh having a co a covenant limiting the intensity of use? Um that's not for me to decide. I'll leave that up to the owner and tar. >> Maybe you want to explain that what that means. >> Yeah. [clears throat] Well, it would be more u comfortable for me if there was a covenant [clears throat] attesting what you described a restaurant will be like and that you will adhere to that description that you described. >> Well, but if you're approving a restaurant, we have to I'm not saying we're not
148amendable to it. think it just um I think your resolution when you say what use is approved that's what we're held to. I mean if we we could submit a covenant saying we agree to the definition of a restaurant in the town code. You know you know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. No, I know exactly what you're saying. You're making perfect sense. My concern is that sometimes a use is approved like a restaurant, but then it it mold melds into something else. And that's where ordinance comes into play, right? I mean, I think you didn't you just approve or you have one on tonight for a resolution and you [cough and clears throat] could probably say the same thing. Um >> I think at least. But any restaurant that's approved. That's a I I would
149think that's a concern. Um, but that's where you know the ordinance that's that's why you have an ordinance department is and downtown Montalk everyone's looking at each other and they're going to call the second something isn't what it's supposed to be [laughter] just like ditch planes. But I hear your concern. So I'm not trying to minimize it. It's just I think there are avenues in place um to address those concerns. >> Okay, that's it. Those are all my points. Thanks, Lou. Ava, >> Tara, I think we did have a a recent uh approval for a downtown MA talk restaurant earlier in the fall, I think it was. Um, and correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know if anyone recalls it. I should because it was my application. Um, [laughter] but I believe the applicant
150did submit a narrative that was put as part of the Yeah, we could do that. And that kind of speaks [clears throat] to Lou, I think, maybe what you're getting at. It's just something that was added into the record with full detail of what the intended use. >> Yeah, we can do that. That's no problem. >> And I I also agree with with the parking. I think the parking makes much more sense in that right away. Um 1,00%. >> Michael, >> you don't want to have cars on South Emerson? >> Um >> because I look at >> It's not that we don't. I mean, it's just a really busy street. super busy in the summer. >> I mean, if we were I mean, you know, >> if I if I go on Google Maps and
151go down south, I do see some parking >> on Emerson. I mean, I don't know when this was done, but because I'm I'm concerned about the the alley and like you said, you you can just go straight, but you got to go like how you define a block and talk. You have to go all the way through to turn is that road. >> I mean, just historically, the planning board has always wanted on-site parking in the rear, which where you take access from the alleys. Um, and then we usually would do variances or to put it in the rightway. Um, we we just thought that one was the one you were going to want more than anything because that's historically how it's been done, especially since this alley is open, right? There's a couple alleys
152that are obstructed where it's impossible. >> Okay. Um I'm just [clears throat] >> I mean we're putting parking on South Emerson. I we just didn't think you were going to want it. >> I'm just thinking of the folks who go down that alley and they're like, "Oh, where am I going now?" >> It's not that far. And and I know in specifically that alley is pretty wide. I actually thought it was a street for a while. >> And more than likely, it'll be the staff parking for spaces one through four there. You know, >> that makes sense. >> But it is it is a pretty wide alley. And I will say South Emerson gets so um it gets so busy in the summertime. There's there's also a lot of walking. Exactly. People biking and hiking
153because it's the ocean. >> Um it gets really crazy. >> [cough and clears throat] >> That's all I got. Bruce. >> Yeah. No, I agree. I think um pulling the parking into the rightway is a great idea. That gets you an extra spot along the alleyway. Um I think that gets you to almost to be where you're where you need to be. Um the lighting is an easy fix, so that's doesn't seem to be a problem. Um that's it. >> Great. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Thanks. I agree with um with everybody here. I think the parking in the rightway um I do think with the easement, the alley is probably a better place for the parking rather than South Emerson. And what they've got a great spot there for a rooftop restaurant, I have to
154say. >> Well, that's kind of what we were thinking is like there's nowhere >> in downtown Ma you can sit outside near the ocean and eat. Um, so that's exactly what we were thinking. Um, and just [clears throat] just to add to your sort of Michael's um point about the South Emerson fin, >> we are going to need one additional space, space 14. >> Oh, right. >> Um, so um or 13, I think it is. Yeah. Yeah. Because we'll be putting it if we pull it off. Well, I'll talk to Eric about how we have to do that because if I think we can show it on site. Um, Eric, do you know like I think we can show it on site on the South Emerson side and then once we pull it off, we
155put it in the alley and then we've met our parking. Do you know what I mean? >> Why don't you just add it down here? >> Yeah. I mean, I I think you can uh where space five is, you know, you you could add probably a few spaces there. >> Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll sort it all out. Um, thank you. >> Yeah, I know, right? We'll have to relocate the fire hydrant. [laughter] >> Um, and Michael, just I think this is still winter because the pools don't look all open. >> Okay. [laughter] Um, thank you. Does anyone else have any other comments? Any additional comments? So, we'll move on to our questions. >> Um, does the board find the general site layout acceptable, including the location of buildings, parking, and green spaces? >> Yes. I
156think we discussed all that. Does a board Does the board agree with the parking layout along South Embassy Street with parking spaces situated on the subject parcel or would the board prefer to see the spaces situated within the right of way? >> Right of way. >> Should the applicants clarify the number of employees anticipated and amend the parking calculations accordingly? I think you have and you will. Should the applicant minimize light spill outside the property lines and submit lighting specification sheets? Yes, please. Should the applicant provide ground floor elevations? Yes. I thought >> I think they might have already provided them. That might be an error on our >> um should the applicant submit a revised plan detailing the proposed parking circulation pattern specifically in the alley? I think you may as well just lay
157it out and maybe talk to them about having that be specified staff parking. >> Okay. >> Miss number six. >> Number six. Oh, wait. Was there a six? >> Yeah, there was um about distance between buildings and structures. I I can clarify that. I mean, right now it's only really a dumpster in the building. Um, but it might not be necessary, but we'll we'll check the the revised plan um to make sure that >> you know the elements are there. >> Um, but I I was just going to say about um the alleyway. Um, just a reminder, the town engineer has not reviewed this yet. Um, and I'm almost positive they're going to ask for paving details for the alleyway at least up to the boundary of of the property. >> Okay. Okay. >> Makes
158sense. >> Um, that [clears throat] does make sense. Does the board find the landscaping plan acceptable? >> Yes. >> Can I ask one question? Are Montto daisies early non-native? >> They're not. Yeah, as far as I know. Maybe I'll have like five landscapers call me tomorrow, but I don't think they are. [laughter] >> I know. I have them all over the place. The only thing they're so pretty >> on the landscaping plan that is a native. >> Okay. Do you want to add including the narrative as well? >> Including the narrative. Thank you. Yes. Um, does the board agree that the applicant should provide a narrative for the use of the restaurant and the hours? >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thanks, Sarah. Thanks, Drew. >> Okay. Next up is accessory
159dwelling units, proposed code changes. You're up, Eric. >> Okay. Um, so the the planning board has uh discussed this before. The town board is looking to amend some of the regulations related to ADUs um including uh allowing um them to be eligible for the rental registry and second homeowners um to be able to to own them. Um the the planning board recently reviewed those changes, sent a letter of support to the town board. Um included in that in those changes was um a change to the minimum lot area requirement for detached and attached ADUs. Um so since the planning board reviewed it and sent comments to the town board, the town board held a public hearing. Um but the town board has um further discussed the the requirement regarding the minimum lot area and wants
160to change it from what the board last the planning board last reviewed. So, it's required to come back to you for comments on this new uh change. And specifically, right now under the town code, the effective minimum lot area requirement for both attached and detached ADUs is 20,000 square ft. The previous proposal was to keep it 20,000 square ft for detached ADUs, but reduce it to 15,000 square ft for ADUs that are are attached to the principal residence. Now the town board has decided that um they feel that it's acceptable uh to make that be 15,000 square feet for both attached and detached ADUs. So um this is being brought back to you just to consider that uh change to the change to the proposed code changes. Um planning department obviously has no objection to
161it. Um the board should discuss it and determine if you want to send comments to the the town board. >> Thank you, Eric. Um, I think that I think that's reasonable. It didn't doesn't seem to make sense to have two separate u lot area requirements for attached versus detached. Seems to make sense to support this. >> Yeah, I think it's just thatility. >> I hope it encourages more folks to uh uh take advantage of this. I I I know you get 20 per school district or Hamlet. >> Is it 20 per school district, Eric? >> 40. >> It It was just recently up to 40. >> Double, right? Yeah, >> it's 40. Well, I I live in Wayne Scott and Wayne Scott has no one in Wayne Scott has done this. >> So, >> I'm
162not sure why, but uh >> you could be the first. >> I'm trying. [laughter] There you go. >> Eric, I have a question. Um is the ADU um restricted by GFA. >> Um and an ADU both go into the GFA calculation as one unit. >> Yes. I mean it's sort of a short answer. If it's detached, obviously it's not part of the gross floor area of the residence. Um but those are limited to 600 square ft. Yeah. Okay. >> Um if it's attached, there's a calculation um it counts towards GFA and there's also a calculation of the maximum size that it's allowed to be. >> Got it. Okay. >> So, short answer, yes. >> Okay. >> Let's make it 800 square f feet. [laughter] >> Yeah. Any additional um comments? I'm in favor as well.
163>> No. >> Does the board have any comments for the town board regarding the proposed changes to the town code to promote additional ADUs? I think we're in favor. >> In favor? >> Yep. This change >> tax break. [snorts] >> Okay. All right. On to the regular meeting. We've done the two um schedule public hearings. There's just one subwaver resolution of approval. In the matter of the application of McDonald Griffin minor subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-39-16-9. Um, I have read this resolution and I move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All in favor? Um, okay. There's one road improvement unit thing here. and it is for Suffach County tax map number 381-1-1.5 which is located at number six 16th Street in Springs and it is for road
164improvement units in the amount of I need my glasses $24,000. It's a five- foot road widening. Well, that's the easement. And the work includes survey road drainage for Second Street for 520 linear feet. Uh subbase preparation, etc., etc. for a total of 4,800 units, total of $24,000. I have read this resolution and move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? Um, before we move on to the adoption of the minutes, I just want to say that tonight is Michael Hansen's last meeting with us. How long have you been on the board? >> Four years. >> So, I've been on for two years and I just want to say thank you for being such a wonderful person to work with and I wish you the best in your new role as town clerk. >>
165Thank you very much. Absolutely. >> I'll second that. [laughter] And I think Michael has a >> I I yes it's my fourth year and I feel like uh I've earned a college degree in planning board and I want to thank all my professors on the board [laughter] uh as as well as the the planning department and I I I want to mention the the folks who I have worked on who who used to be on the board and one of they are Shannon Shannon Sharon McCob Randy Pars Ian Calder Pedmonts uh and Sam Kramer. And the planners that used to be I used when I first started were Marco Woo, Will Highland, and Dan Gross. And I hope I'm not forgetting anyone. And the attorney, uh Nancy Marshall. Uh all good folks. Oh, and the
166former director, Jeremy Samuelson. U all good folks. and I'm I'm you guys are a great team and uh I have the fullest confidence in the planning board and planning department. So, >> thank you very much. >> Thanks, Michael. >> Thank you so much. You've been a great um great colleague and I'm looking forward to seeing you in the clerk's office. Um minutes >> not here. >> Reed's not here to keep us honest. I briefly looked them over. They look good. Can I have a resolution to adopt them as written? Second. >> All in favor? >> I. [laughter] >> And Michael, would you do the honors? >> Uh, what do you say now? >> Motion. >> Make a motion to >> adjourn. Close the meeting. I make a motion to adjurnn. >> I second. All in
167favor?