East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 12/03/2025

001Oh, he can see that one. >> All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, LTV. Uh, welcome to the December 3rd East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting. I'm Jennifer Folks. I'm the vice chair and unfortunately our chair is unable to be with us this evening so I'm stepping in. We have kind of a packed meeting. We have uh a public hearing, six items on for work session, five for the regular meeting, a board of review and then an adjournment. So we'll start with the public hearing. Um would you like to read that one, Ava? >> Yes. Thanks. >> Is proper notice given Have we properly noticed? Yeah. >> Great. All right. Oh, I'm sorry. Does Brian start or do we read the notice

002first? Okay. >> Okay. Uh notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on December 3rd, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. The application is Lands and Marina site plan special permit. Site location is 108,453 square ft 2.49 acres located at 386 West Lake Drive, Monttoque. Suff County Tax Map 300-12-1-1 2 14 and 15. The description is the application is to construct a floating dock extension to accommodate an additional 26 vessels, a 600 sorry 960 ft two-story bath house office with attached decking dumpster enclosure concrete pad with a walk-in freezer, additional parking, replace existing fencing, and install a new sanitary system on a parcel of land containing title wetlands and surface waters. zone district is resort RS and is within the harbor protection overlay district. This is an

003unlisted action of SER with a negative declaration issued on September 10th, 2025. >> Thanks, Ava. Brian, would you like to give us a quick recap? >> Um, sure. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Um, as you know, uh, this application is an approved property. It's approved right now with the single family residence. Um and the marina consisting of um about 16 slips alto together. Um the application involves warfing out farther building a a T-shaped floating dock extension that will require an additional lease area from the town board if it does gain final site plan approval. The application has been before the zoning board of appeals and has received a natural resources special uh permit for the improvements under consideration uh by uh planning board tonight. Uh this was last heard by the planning board in September

004um where the planning board issued a negative declaration. Um the plan improvements include the bath house which includes offices and um uh bathrooms as uh described in the notice. Uh both the existing residence and the proposed uh bath house are proposed to be tied into a new sanitary system located in the uh southwest corner of the property. Uh scenic easement is proposed in the southern portion of the property along the intact portion of the the salt marsh uh hatched in red uh as shown on the site plan. Um and parking is a combination of uh gravel and grass parking area predominantly in the northern portion of the property. Um drainage is proposed uh beneath the parking area and that would be subject to uh approval by the uh town engineer. I I think that's uh

005I think that's the overview and unless the board members have any questions. >> Thank you. No, I think we're good. Is there anyone here in the room who'd like to speak on the Lanszen Marina site plan application? No. Matt, do we have anyone on the phone? >> Please stand by. >> Thank you. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV making sure all lines are open and clear and which they are. And you have zero additional callers. Thank you. Thank you. >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Thank you. Um, next up is uh the surf club beach access railing site plan. Is the applicant here? Uh, Brian, that is you from the planning department and Bruce, that is you for the planning board. Good

006evening board members. Uh Brian Frank on behalf of the planning department. Um so this is an application that the surf club and Montalk. This is a property that the planning board has seen uh semi-regularly over the last couple years for generally minor uh alterations to the individual units that that make up the complex. Uh and this application is for uh a seasonal handrailing proposing to extend um from the southern limit of the walkway that provides access to the beach uh to a distance um probably needs to be clarified a little bit whether it's 32 ft or 50 ft over what's uh it's a brand name but a mobility mat. This brand is a Moby Mat, which is a a fabricated uh surface used at a lot of uh beaches, including public beaches to provide a

007bit of a firmer surface for walking than um a typical beach, Cobble Beach or Sen Beach does. Um and the planning department is sensitive to the concept of uh providing uh improved access to people with limited mobility. beaches are one of the the the town's um most prized resources and like to see it uh accessible to everybody. Um but there are some uh practical limitations I think from this application and um I I think this uh this initial discussion tonight is the best place to discuss what those limitations are and um where the application should go from here. Uh, as the board members probably know, I been working on waterfront construction for the town for a pretty long time. I'm uh the an official at this point it's probably official LWRP uh coordinator and I'm

008not familiar with a with a project like this either in town jurisdiction or um beyond in in in other coastal areas. So, uh, this this might be a bit of a first for, uh, a first of its kind, um, come for the board. Um, this is, uh, um, the the structure itself is relatively innocuous. You're talking about two um, wooden handrails on either side of the mobile made out of EP hardwood. Um there are architectural plans that show it extending uh 32 feet south of an existing walkway that runs through the middle of the property. You can see it on the aerial. Um the survey shows it running a distance of 50 ft which is kind of the full length of the MOI mat and probably the seawward edge of that moi mat is largely

009buried sand right now and that might that might contribute to some of the discrepancy between the um plans a little bit. Um, even though the structures are relatively innocuous, we should recognize that this is a bit of a volatile area. This is a velocity flood zone. It's seawward of the state designated coastal erosion hazard area. It's an area that has been prone to um severe erosion. It's uh been well documented. Um, part of the reason the beach looks so great in this photo right now is that um, this area was uh, recently finally the the recipient of the long-awaited um, FIMP or FEMA, whichever acronym you want to use for the Fire Island of Montgomery formulation where this is now a designated um, feeder beach as um, as established by the Army Corps of Engineer

010and about 460,000 cubic yards yards of sand was pumped onto this beach from an offshore borrow site uh along the um entire downtown area. Uh prior to that, if you're familiar with this area, you know that as a almost in a little bit of desperation, a sandbag revetment was installed uh seawward to all of these buildings in uh around 2015 as an interim measure really to protect these buildings until um the uh formulation plan could be completed and implemented and and actually built. built and those sandbags uh still exist beneath this sand in front of all of these properties and are almost certainly located right right below where the where the project is. There may be restrictions uh associated with that um in an agreement with the Army Corps of Engineers that uh property owners

011were required to offer to not damage the sandbags by installing structures directly above them. And that's one of the gray areas that need to be clarified. Uh the the town will continue to do that. I've inquired with the uh town attorney's office and the natural resources department that were a little bit more on point for that interim project than uh my department was at the time. Um and uh maybe between uh ourselves and the applicant, we can we can um get that uh established. Um so the width and the width, elevation and slope of this beach is going to continue to change over time. Uh beaches are not really um ADA compliant because they're soft surfaces. This the slope is dynamic. It's not fixed. Uh it really can't meet the standards of the Americans with

012Disability Act. And that's why I don't think it's accurate to describe this as a as an ADA uh handrailing. It is something that in theory could improve access for people with um limited mobilities, but but may not be uh the the best option. Uh this structure is going to end abruptly at the end of uh either the either the mobile map or shortly before that in which case somebody with a physical limitation is is kind of on their own. It extends from a walkway that um is level um but also lacks handrails um so it's a sensitive topic again um beyond sensitive to it because uh again we'd like to see our resources um utilized by the community to the fullest extent possible with as few limitations as possible. Um, on a personal note, I've

013been involved in a lot of lift assists over the last 10 years as as a firefighter and even more um transports to the hospital for slip and fall victims as an EMT. So, I uh I'm aware of um uh people's sensitivity to their their limited mobility under a lot of circumstances. It's uh it's it's a sensitive subject for a lot of people. Um I I think alternatives that need to be um explored a little bit more fully here are regrading under the MOI mat. planning department doesn't mind being on record as saying that uh you know lifting the MOI mat up and grading the sand underneath it to provide a more gentle slope would um be uh something that the planning department would not uh object to. Um there are also um walkers that are

014specifically made uh to be used on the beach, large tires, low air pressure, uh more structural support. Um that would probably provide more utility than just ending at let's say 50 ft south of where the walkway is now. And those probably need to be explored a little bit more fully. Maybe when the applicant speaks, they can address um the population that this is in intended to serve, the number of patrons at the residents of the at the surf club at Monttok that uh this is intended to improve access for. But in going forward, there are a number of considerations that the um planning board should evaluate and those are kind of listed in the in the questions at the end there. In particular, the um depth of those sandbags. Those sandbags are closest to the

015surface the farther north you get. So it's unclear exactly how far below the sand surface they are currently. The depth of penetration of the of the posts for the handrails protect proposed to be about 4 and 1/2 ft 5 ft. And it is important to not do anything that um that affects the integrity of those sandbags. This feeder beach is supposed to be periodically uh renourished uh by the core of engineers in and supplemental projects. Um but in those windows in between, we certainly hope it doesn't come down to a time when those sandbags become the only protection uh for the for the structures behind them. But if that's the case, it it would be unwise to do anything that would uh compromise their structural integrity. It is in the coastal erosion hazard area zone.

016I don't know what the current DEEC policy is on seasonal structures needing permits. I believe this would need a permit from the DEEC. An application has been made to the to the zoning board of appeals for a natural resources special permit. Um comments have been solicited by the fire marshall. discussed it um informally with the fire marshall and I even even though you haven't gotten those comments for this meeting I wouldn't expect a lot of detail to come from the fire marshall because this isn't a structure activity that's really subject per se to the fire code or the building so um I'm not sure that you're going to get uh um well I don't want to speak for the fire marshall but because of the limited utility of of this structure and its seasonality. I'm

017not sure how much detail you're you're going to get from those comments. Um, I think at this time I'd just like to see if the uh board members have any questions that I could answer. I do have um the plans uh which are a little bit more generic, but maybe the uh uh survey is the best um If you want to see the plans, I'll bring them up. I included a couple of recent photos in in my memorandum. One looking uh south across, you know, towards the ocean from the mobile map and one from near the end of the map looking north just to provide context as to what those existing conditions are. Uh you can see that there's uh dune fencing on on either side of the map and uh the dune was planted

018with beach grasses were um all specs of of the feeder beach project and the uh handrail would be um between those fencing on either side of that sh. >> Thank you Brian Lor planning services. Um so we were approached by the president of the board of the surf club. Um there are 92 units here and um we have an aging population and people are having difficulty accessing the beach. The the slope getting down to the beach is the problem. It's not the walkways on the property in general. It's that soft surface. Smoking mats are not inflex. They are flexible. It's not very they they help but they're not perfect. Um a reeling is one way to you know whether you're on the right or the left side climbing up you can hold it going down

019you can hold it to have wheelchairs or to have walkers. Um so these are one-bedroom units. There's the likelihood of someone having a caretaker is not very good. Um, so if you're lining up wheelchairs and walkers to take down to the bottom of the MOI mat, there's no one to bring them back up and then you're going to need a whole bunch of them. So you're going to need a little parking lot for wheelchairs and walkers, which makes no sense whatsoever. This seems to be the simplest solution. I can hear that there are some engineering questions that have got to be answered, mainly about these sandbags. either Brian, myself, or Wahbridge have access to the easement that was uh put forth when the Army Corps put the sandbags in. But we'll get our hands on

020that. We'll figure out what the circumstances are, be in touch with the right professionals at that organization, and figure out how we might implement 4.5 ft of indepth sand penetration with the standards for the fencing. And that we'll have to get back to you on once we've seen the easement. >> Okay. Thank you so much, Lauren. >> One question. Yes. Have you explored the nonstructural alternatives as outlined by uh >> so the nonstructural alternatives were the wheelchairs or the walker >> or the gradient underneath the uh >> well the gradient underneath will help some but you're still always going to have a slope going down onto the beach. There's no way around it. It's a man-made dune with sandbags underneath. >> So it's not going to be flattened out just because you regrad the mowing

021p. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks Brian. Thanks, Lori. Um, you know, I think we really need some information on um the sandbags depth from top of sand to top of sandbags and if this is even feasible or not because without that information, I think this is kind of a >> I know mute discussion. Um I think it'd be great if we could you could see if there's another alternative. You know, I understand that it's a good idea for the handrails. They're kind of, you know, not that offensive, but I think as Brian said, this is probably the only beach access that has it on the South Fork. It sounds like ahead. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, yeah, I think I think we need some more information for sure. just I just we've

022been approached by other condominiums with the same requests. Nothing's come before you yet, but it's the same problem. Aging populations trying to get to the beach at the condominium where we live. Um the other thing you just said that I wanted to address. You'll get the sandbag in >> I do have a question for you. Um while you're still up here, >> what's the plan at the end of the MOI mat? So >> Oh, that was the other thing. >> Yeah. Um, these are also uh seasonal. They will be removed. >> Okay. Yes. >> But at the end of the Moby Mat, the the guest or the owner will still have to traverse a great deal of sand. >> Sure. But it's the slope that's the issue. It's not the sand that's the issue. It's

023the the slope of getting down to the beach. >> And what do we know, Brian, what the uh elevation change is? >> Do we have any info on the the slope change? I know it's it varies. Well, and and that's why um spot elevations weren't requested. Um so, no, we don't have any any information about the elevation change northbound, >> but that information would really just be a snapshot, >> right? >> And it's going to it will change over time, of course. >> And and that's that's why I didn't think to request that in >> Right. I we can look at it as right now, but it will definitely change even with the mobile event. >> Does anyone else know? >> So, so these would go in on Memorial Day weekend and come out on

024Labor Day weekend. >> I don't think we have a schedule yet, but yes, they will be seasonal for the summer population. >> Lauren, I just have a quick question. Since since it is seasonal, is is there any other alternative other than the MOI mat to have more of a structural piece that could be installed and >> like a wooden deck? >> I'm thinking of like off Marine Boulevard how those private paths are wooden like >> wooden walkways. It would still be a structure and I'm sure would obviously have to go through process but it would be and I don't know storage wise obviously that would be another topic but I just another alternative >> I mean I think that's well with the sandbags maybe not a bad suggestion I can certainly bring it up but

025I think they're still going to need the handle >> yes but right it would still have to pro obviously be embedded somehow but maybe not as great I don't because we don't know what the >> Yeah. >> what the you know how deep the handrails would have to be from the moy mat or versus >> the nice thing about the moi m you can just roll it up and take it away. No, I know. >> And then the decking is a little more complicated. >> You need more storage space, right? >> But that's >> okay. It's a tough decision. You don't want to you don't want to add structures to the beach. It it takes away from the natural beauty of the beach. I mean, we've done enough to that beach necessarily, but and I

026understand I'm I want to be sensitive to the people who want to access the beach that have mobility problems. So, I'm I think like Bruce, I think we just need more information. and I'm going to uh delay my decision as to whether I like the idea or not. >> Excellent. Um I too have the same questions about the depth to the sandbags and I do think I think the walkers would be a viable alternative. I actually took the liberty of looking them up online and they're about $1,300 each for a personal walker which is I'm assuming much less than, you know, building a railing and reinstalling it and storing, you know, every single year. And I do worry a little bit about the like this year it may be okay to go down five feet

027and not hit the sandbags, but next year it may be a problem that pops up again. So, I think with all that said, um, we need more information and I guess we can move on to our questions. Anybody have anything else? Does the board want to encourage the exploration of non-structural alternatives such as grading beneath the MOI mat or the use of walkers or wheelchairs specifically designed for beach use? Yes. Should the applicant reconcile the length of the handrail shown on the survey in the architectural plans? Yes. >> Should the applicant reconcile Oh, whoops. The same thing. Should the applicant be required to submit any easement or agreement with the town or army corps of engineer related to the protection of the subservice geoexile revetment beneath the proposed handrail? >> Yes, >> I think. Yes.

028Yeah. Does the board want to wave the site plan elements listed in this evaluation? I think we don't have enough information yet for that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Lori. Thank you. Next up, McDonald's Griffin subwaver wrapup. Chris, this is yours for the planning department and it is my application. Thanks, Brian. >> Good to go. >> This is should be a quick wrap up. This is for the McDonald's Griffin uh subwaver application at 981 Springs Fireplace Road. Uh shown here subwaver map. Um the site is zoned B residence. It's 1.25 acres and it's partially cleared as shown on this map here which conforms with the town code. The application is to divide the existing property into two parcels. Parcel one proposes 28,16 square ft with frontage along Springs fireplace road and a

029scenic and conservation easement uh along the street. Uh parcel 2, the flag lot is proposed as 20,02 square ft. Um and the property's currently improved for single family residents and the board has agreed that this driveway would be removed of approval. A public hearing was held on November uh 19th of this year. No comments were received from the public. Both the fire marshall and town consulting engineers signed off on the approval signed off on the application and uh in conclusion provided that the board agrees the application is ready for approval. >> Thanks Chris. Is the applicant here? I hear you are. Good evening, Shannon McCaffry, Dewy's planning. Um, first I'd like to thank thank the board and the planning department for their time on this application. And in reviewing the memo, I just wanted to

030reiterate the condition approval that we talked at the October 8th meeting about the common drive being installed as a condition of CLM 2. That's all I have. Thank you. >> Thanks. Thanks, Shannon. Thanks, Chris. Anybody have any comments? Does does the planning board agree the application is ready for approval? Yes. Okie dokie. >> Next up is gardener Marina site plan modification. Chris, this is yours again. Is the applicant here? >> No. Is the applicant here for gardeners? >> Bennett's right there. Drew >> here. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm staring right I thought he was leaving and I >> I was like wait all right the applicant is here. Um Chris whenever you're ready. >> Great. Thank you. Um this is the Gardener Marina site plan uh modification evaluation at 353 mile road in spring and

031this is the board's first review of this application. Um just to give some context on the site, uh the lot is approximately 2.7 acres um excluding wetlands and it decreased approximately 4,150 square ft with the original approval which enlarged the marina basin. The property is partially cleared and contains expansive tidal wetlands which are regulated by the New York State uh environmental conservation. OSA wetlands are with any coastal uh area resources system zone which prohibits most federal expenditures that would encourage development in the area. properties also within several areas of environmental consideration including the harbor protection overlay district h pod uh state and local coastal significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat tongue coastal erosion overlay zones two and four the boral zones and the bang environmental environmental area uh to the south is three mile marina

032then to the north is a town owned lot purchased through the community preservation fund uh all the lots across the street to to the east are residentially zoned. So, just to go over the application itself, I'm going to zoom in on that site plan here. So, the modification application has been made to alter the facade, decking, and lower the first floor elevation by 1.5 ft for the proposed 2,392 ft twostory clubhouse building. Uh, previously approved in November 15, 2023. Uh this would involve converting the proposed basement into a crawl space and other modifications proposed are to relocate four uh accessible parking spaces to a line of walkways, two outdoor showers, and some HVAC equipment. Um two modifications from the approved plan are existing changes. The boardwalk to the east and north of the existing boat

033slips was constructed uh slightly wider um than the approved width shown in blue on this plan. and the parking area is proposed to remain as gravel whereas the original approval uh was for asphalt to be paved um in this area. So just going over the issues for uh environmental review. It's a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code and it's not subject to additional review uh pursuant to seek. Um the project description um was very detailed, but it's just missing the width, the difference in the approved and the growth width of that boardwalk. Um the applicant provided some square footages, but we just want to have the applicant confirm. It appears it was uh less than a foot, so it doesn't doesn't appear very substantial. Regarding the finished elevation

034of the bulkhead, the approved site plan detailed that it would be raised 1 and 1/2 ft over the existing elevation. It appears that it was built to 6.71 ft and the applicant should confirm whether that was accurate. The original approval conditioned that it not be raised more than 7 and 1/2 ft. So, it appears to be compliant and uh that would be reviewed prior to the issuance of of certificate of occupancy. Um the next couple issues we have we we have some small corrections to make from the planning department for lot area. The survey and site plan submitted uh appear to indicate some inaccurate lot areas. However, to correct our report um since this is a modification to close out of previous site plan approval, we find it sufficient that the applicant used the lot

035area um of approximately 2.8 8 acres from before the marina basin um was enlarged. They're still closing out that that previous approval. So, we know the submitted uh survey did not exclude the wetlands from the lot area, but the site plan did include accurate figures including the proposed lot area of approximately 2.7 acres. Um and this is what should reflect the existing conditions and should be sufficient for our analysis. an asbelt survey with the corrected updated lot area would be required um prior to a a co being issued and so to confirm the lot area should not need revision the and the applicant has also provided a certified survey since this report was published um regarding coverage the proposed building and lock coverages both uh substantially comply with the town code but the submitted plan

036also detailed that the coverage of adjac adjacent areas um to tidal wetlands is proposed to decrease approximately 7,922 ft. Um the applicant should explain how this area is being decreased with this modification request and the title wetland adjacent area is defined uh by the DEC and it's more um only applicable to their review, but we just want to confirm that the information on the submitted plan is accurate. uh regarding setbacks to the tidal wetlands. Um it appears that all the work is within 150 ft of title wetlands. So this modification will also require a modification from the previous zoning board approval uh for the NRSP. So the applicant could make an application to the ZBA at this time as well as since these wetlands are regulated by the DEC a modification from the previously issued

037article 25 title wetland permit should be obtained from the DEC or a letter of nonjurisdiction. Um, >> regarding clearing, the site plan details that there is 365 ft of revitation proposed, but upon further review, it appears that this work was connected to the original site plan review and should not be subject to this review. Um, regarding the survey submitted, a revised version has since been provided with the existing and proposed clearing, which should not require further revision at this time. This will be confirmed at the next review. Um, for the flood zone, it was in fact labeled on the site plan and there should be no further issues regarding flood zones. Next was exterior lighting. Uh, it appears there's no new lighting proposed. Applicants should confirm if any new is proposed and they should just

038provide specification sheets on those fixtures. Um, upon reviewing the lighting plan that was previously approved back in 2023, the entrance sign by the driveway included a light fixture with a color temperature above 3,000 Kelvin. So, that didn't comply with the town code. So as the applicant to uh swap that out with a compliant fixture and I believe that um some details were submitted this week that we will review for the next um next review. Next is noise and that's that's for the HVAC equipment that's proposed along the street. Um applicant should provide specification sheets with sound data for the equipment um or some other method to show compliance with town code noise standards and also just label the setback for this equipment to make sure that those standards are met. And then just to briefly

039go over the submission requirements from the town code um just given some of the corrections we have here. The submission items that we planning department thinks should be provided are to indicate the existing electrical service lines, dimensions for the proposed accessible parking spaces and their access aisles and uh specification sheets for newly for the items to wave. Um the setbacks for the clubhouse building should not be necessary since there's a 25 ft setback line shown along the plan here which is sufficient. Um lot area revisions should not be required for the reasons mentioned. And then additional topography uh should not be required. The topography lines along the clubhouse were not labeled, but there's plenty of spot elevations there to show the uh the grading there. Lastly, um the layout of existing and proposed parking area,

040including dimensional spaces and aisles for the gravel parking lot. Um we recommend waving that requirement since it was not required in the original approval and there's no changes to the dimensions of the parking area. So, we we find it's sufficient if only the dimensions are provided for the accessible spaces. Running to fire marshall comments, they signed off for firefighting purposes, but just noted uh that the accessible spaces are not ADA compliant and should instead provide firm slip resistant surfaces instead of gravel. The engineer, town consulting engineer, uh no objections to the proposal and the planning department notes that the ADA spaces should just be indicated with asphalt and probably be the most simple fix. Um the other review that this project is required to undergo is from the DEEC to modify or get a letter

041of non-jurisdiction zoning board appeals as mentioned as well as the architectural review board. So in conclusion the application is incomplete pending the revision of the issues mentioned. Applicant should confirm the difference in the approved and modified width of the boardwalk and the top bulk elevation. The applicant should apply to the ZBA at this time and should provide details on the coverage of areas adjacent to title wetlands. The board should determine whether they agree. Details should be provided for compliance of general lighting and noise standards of the town code. Applicants should provide information for the missing required submission items and the board should review the list of required items to determine whether they agree with the planning recommendation. complete the requirement for stretch parking and drive a dimensions um and the corrections to not require lot

042area setbacks or topography lines near the club. >> Thanks Chris Drew. Would you like to speak? Uh my name is Drew Bennett. I'm a consulting engineer. I'm here on behalf of the owner. Uh Mark Mendleman, one of the owners is here with us this evening. Um thank you very much, Chris, for a very thorough review and your other staff that assisted you. So, uh I'll give you my best elevator pitch of what we're actually asking for. Um so, as Chris pointed out, we have approval from the board to do um alterations and restoration of the marina, and that was done in back in 2022. In December 2023, they started work on the marine basin itself and the bulkhead work and um this is a winter construction activity because they keep the marina operating during the

043summer. So we have a winter window to do the construction. So it took two windows or two winter windows to complete the bulkhead work which was the expansion, replacing the bulkhead uh and getting the parking lot and so forth back into place. So during that time the owners looked at the clubhouse which was also part of the original and said we'd like to rethink planning some of the space. Uh we don't think we need a full basement. So they hired an architect to rework some of the interior layouts. Uh and they changed the west facing facade or elevation which faces the water by lowering the house a foot and a half or clubhouse I should say. It helps with um access to the building for hiccap less need for ramp so on and so forth.

044So overall it's a much better plan. Also during the process of tearing the place up to expand the bulkhead at the basin and the bulkhead um they restored what we refer to as the sort of the peninsula which is the rectangular area here. This is an existing rectangular area that was a parking space. It previously was asphalt before they did the work. Uh the asphalt was removed and the owners actually felt that the gravel was a better surface for them. it's a little cooler. It's more in keeping with um you know the aesthetic basically. So again, we think that that's a positive. Uh the other thing that occurred I think that Chris pointed out is that there's a boardwalk. So this is the this is the area this is the area of the basin that

045was expanded and this blue area is the area that the new bulkhead was put in. There's a walkway here in blue that goes around the side of it. So, the starting condition was a pretty beat up walkway. It was a pretty rundown marina before they took over. And long story short, the width of the of the original starting bulkhead walkway was probably um it varied, but it was on order of like probably four to four and a half ft. The walkway that's constructed now when they did the bulkhead is six feet wide. But using round numbers, I would say it's probably two feet wider than what was originally shown on the plan. And it was basically something that wasn't really that well thought out at the time when we put the plan together. Um, it

046does match the conditions that are at the town marina which are immediately adjacent. It's basically the same kind of vinyl walk. Uh, so that was that change. Um, so we we knew that we had to come back to the town to get your approval for the updated clubhouse plans. We filed with the architectural review board already. And so I had suggested, pardon me, I had suggested getting an up-to-date sort of under construction survey to see where we stood with everything else. Um the clubhouse um has the same footprint and the same gross floor area that was originally approved. It's strictly architectural changes and the lowering of the house itself. Uh and so in doing the construction survey, we said, okay, there's some additional coverage in terms of the board. That's one of the things that

047we want to bring to you. You know, we try to be transparent about we could deal with it at the end of the job as a CO issue, but we want to bring it to you now so that we don't have headaches at the end. Um, so, uh, we see this as a fairly straightforward modification. The attempt, you know, what we're focused on is making some modest changes to the clubhouse. Again, same footprint, same GFA. Uh, that result in some minor changes to where the paths are. Uh, we've adjusted some of the ADA parking space location better. uh we adjusted uh removed the asphalt, put in gravel, so on so forth. Um so we think that all of those are positive attributes for this project and we'd like to think that this is a minor

048modification, not the major rethink of the entire project. We think that's that's important for us to keep in mind. So um time is sort of the essence. Um, knowing that we had to come back to the town to get an updated approval means that we lose out on this winter's construction season to get the clubhouse up and operating for spring of 2027. We have to break ground to September 15th, which is not that far away. So, um, the uh, I can either go through the accounting of everything that I think Chris has summarized or try to respond to what the issues were that were for discussion. That's that's use of your time. >> I think that we have a pretty good understanding of it. Lou, would you like to lead our discussion and then if

049we have any more questions, we'll we'll ask. >> Okay. >> Thanks, D. >> Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm in agreement. The modifications uh that are sought by the applicants are minor. It's more of a requirement of procedural correctness and zoning compliance. Uh the items that are required are to correct area calculations with depiction of wetland boundaries used in the calculations. The entire proposal is within 150 ft of title wetlands. So it's going to require modification from the DVA. Uh lowering the floor of the clubhouse is not a big deal in my view. Uh the ADA parking has got to be asphalt. The dimensions are required. I'm I'm in favor of the gravel parking rather than asphalt uh preferable in my opinion. Um but is the layout still going to going to uh allow 76 functional spaces

050>> parking for parking? >> That's correct. There's no change for the parking. So that stays the same. Oh, what about the storm water compliance? Is it going to change that? >> There there's no changes to the storm water compliance. >> Okay, so that's the same. Um, the lighting has to comply with H pod required standards. I'm sure you're going to do that. We need specs for the uh updated an updated photometric plan on the lighting. Um, relocated HVAC units need sound ratings. Uh, and the boardwalk. I think that's a dimminimous change. So, I have no problem with that with the extra width. All in all, I'm in favor of moving ahead with your changes. >> Thank you. >> Lou, just to be clear, there they already had an approved lighting plan. It was just one

051fixture was not uh to code. So, they just need to provide a sheet showing. They don't need to do a new lighting plan or anything. >> Okay, great. >> Great. >> Anybody else have any comments? >> I support the application. I completely agree with uh what Lewis said. >> Yeah, same technical Yeah. >> corrections. >> I agree. Shall we move to the questions? Does the planning board agree with the planning department's assessment of additional information that must be provided per town code 255-6-50 necessary elements? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Does the planning board agree the applicant should detail the difference between the approved and modified width of the boardwalk? >> I think that was was that one of the ones that done? >> Can I interrupt the questions? Absolutely. I don't want to be out

052of order at all, but I think >> Go ahead. >> So, um, simply put, um, we think that the map that's submitted is complete. >> Okay. >> And we have submitted, so the issue with the light was a sign that was approved. The temperature was slightly warmer than should have been. Um we have this we have since filed an appropriate cut sheet for the same uh signlight at the appropriate temperature. Uh and it's just you know select the right option. Basically it's not blue light. It's just a slightly different option for the light. Right. >> So that's already been filed. The AC compressor we've already submitted sound attenu or sound data for that. It's a residential size unit. Um it's a quiet unit. There aren't any issues with it. uh that's already in your file.

053As far as the land areas, uh lot areas I should say, that is correct on the plans that are filed and that will be as I refer to it as a CO survey issue. Um so that'll be verified at the end. That's what's most important. We're sort of in the middle of construction here. So, uh, we think or I think and obviously the owners think that we do have complete plans that have been filed and and many of the issues that have been outlined here, we've had the opportunity to discuss with Chris and the planning department. Uh, as far as the ADA spaces are concerned, um, there are dimensions on the details. Um, perhaps I should have added the the original approval show them as asphalt. Perhaps I should have added another label to make

054that more clear. Uh, but if the board would consider just making that statement in a resolution of some sort, we would appreciate that. um mostly from a timing point of view and most of the things that we're um asking for here are not entirely pertinent to what we're focused on which is the clubhouse and and not to be uh I don't know what the right word is us because once we get through this process we have to file for building permit applications and we're really nine months away from trying to do the work and and we came to you to be transparent and we're trying to do the right thing and hopefully the board will recognize that this is a fairly modest ask at least from our point of view. >> We do. Thank you

055Drew for clarifying and yes um Chris and the planning board did mention our planning department did mention that some of the questions had kind of already been answered um in the time since this memo was prepared. But just for procedural stuff we just have to ask and answer the questions so we have it all kind of like on record. Um some of the questions though we did strike earlier today. So, we struck four, six, 7. Um, Chris, were there others that we struck? Four, six, and seven. >> And then eight was the LA the last one. And then >> as far as the plan, >> so nine we can strike right now because it's the lighting one because you've already submitted that and 10 with the HBAC stuff, right? >> So, we can. Then as

056far as uh the applicant is talking about treating this site plan as compliant, um the submission items that the planning department recommended being required are would um Mr. Bennett just mentioned the dimensions for the ADA spaces. The board can consider waving that. And then the only other item is um existing electrical service lines, but the planning department did recommend uh having those added to the plans, but that is within the board's perview. too late if they just >> I don't even see that question on here about the electrical. >> So, the electrical services are underground and they are actually shown on the map. You'll see the electrical panels where they come in. There's electric that goes to the clubhouse and there's electric that goes to the dock. The electrical lines aren't actually the underground wires

057aren't shown, but the electrical panels and so forth are. So, can we Tina then maybe just change the questioning on this to to say does the board agree that all of the requirements necessary for a site plan either have been submitted or will be submitted as per Mr. Bennett? >> I I think so. I think the one thing I'd want to make sure we have the accurate plan on is at least the um the parking and the ADA changes. I think if the board could agree to the modification pending the planning department's acceptance of the revised >> so how should we word that for Caitlyn here >> I can help you know does the planning board agree that the plan will be adjusted as discussed approved by the planning department something like that I I'll

058help with the word There you got it. Awesome. Thank you. Thanks, Tina. Thank you very much. >> Oh, that's it. All right, >> that one. Thank you guys. >> Have a good night, Drew. >> Next up, Tandy Lotline Line Modification. Sarah, that is you. Is the applicant here? Don and Oh, me. whenever you're ready. >> Good evening board. It's Sarah Lewis for the planning department. Um, so the board previously reviewed this application on September 10th, 2025. Uh, the planning department feels it's important to share some new information following that meeting. So, an application was made to modify lot lines so that three lots would become two on Skim Hampton Road in Amigansit. These parcels were originally part of a single parcel which was previously subdivided into three separate lots and an approved and filed subdivision

059map in 2011. The application proposes merging parcels 8.2 and 8.3 into a single lot resulting in two lots. One lot comprised of 8.2 3 with one lot remaining as 8.1. One of the existing parcels uh 8.1 is improved with a single family residence and associated with accessory structures. Lots 8.2 and 8.3 are wooded and vacant. Lot 8.1 is partially cleared with a mix of ornamentals and naturally occurring vegetation. Uh lots 8.2 and 8.3 are uncleared and contained mixed deciduous woodland habitat with oaks dominating the canopy. So in 2011, three lots and two reserved areas were created in a minor subdivision with uh the map of Skim Hampton Woods filed March 16th, 2012 as map number 11848. So at the September 10th, 2025 meeting, uh comments previously made by the planning board are as follows, just

060as a recap. Um so the board agreed that the lot line configuration was acceptable. The majority of the board agreed that two separate driveways with separate utility access through the separate driveways was acceptable. The board agreed that a large lot easement is required and the board agreed that a public hearing would be required. Um so following meeting the planning department investigated the process for moving forward specifically regarding the driveway being constructed through a townowned reserved area. According to the 2011 minor subdivision approval, condition of approval number 13 states, "No buildings or structures may be placed, installed, erected, or constructed within the areas depicted on the map as reserved area, nor may any clearing, grading, or filling occur within these areas, and the set areas shall be left in their natural state forever." The planning department

061felt it was important to share the following information uh with the board. The original 2011 subdivision approval also states the deed to the reserved areas was meant to provide that the land so conveyed is to be restricted to use for park purposes only. However, the deed to the land and the town board resolution do not specify the park per purposes only limitation. Thus, there is some ambiguity about the reserved area being held by the town as parkland and triggering parkland alienation legislation. So, regardless of the reserved areas being considered open space or parkland, allowing a driveway through and detracting from the reserved areas would change the decision of the previous board. To move forward, a modification would need to be submitted and the applicant would need to demonstrate a change of circumstance in accordance with

062planning board policy. The planning board change in subdivision conditions from three lots to two may be considered such a change. Secondly, if the planning board wanted to move forward with the driveway through the town reserved area, town board approval would be required. If the planning board still agrees that a separate driveway through the reserved area is favorable, the planning board should determine if they wish to send comments to the town board reflecting such along with their reasoning. The p the town board will need to determine if they agree to the access and a final determination on whether alienation legislation is necessary will be needed. The planning department defers to the town attorney's office as to steps and details of the process of obtaining town board approval. The planning department sees no practical benefit to the

063proper design of this subdivision, the immediate area or the town as a whole by permitting this reserved area to be cleared for a driveway when adequate access for the subdivision has already been established and is constructed. Um we are reiterate our opinion regarding the proposed individual driveways um from our initial evaluation. Um so in conclusion, the planning board should reaffirm whether they are accepting of the proposal to have individual driveways for this subwaver or if any additional information is required at this time. If the planning board is accepting of the requested modification, a modification application should be submitted. And the planning board may also wish to send comments to >> Thanks. >> Thank you, John. >> Thank you. >> Thorough. Uh, so since September, these issues have come up about how to move forward. I

064think that the um planning department would like us to go to the town board and ask the town board's permission to go through the reserved area because the deed was to the town board. That seems fine to me. Um it's hard to argue against that. And the other thing that they wanted us to do, um I think they want you they want to know if you want to have comments to the to the town board, which um probably seems appropriate. That's pretty normal. >> Um oh, and there's open legal question about whether you'll be an alienation of Parkland or not, which I guess the town attorney's office will eventually have to uh determine um one way or the other. So everything that the planning department said I agree with. I just don't know if I

065I definitely don't agree with the fact that we should be um asking the planning board to relook at relitigate the issue that we decided in September. I can't tell you how um I mean this this in my 25 years of doing this, this has happened a few times and more than more that I'd like to uh have experienced. But when the when the planning department makes a decision on an application, it it should there should be some sort of uh comfort to the client and the applicant to not have to have that every time a new issue comes up to go back and I I understand the planning department was against um this application. They thought that it was better to have uh three lots than two driveways. But we shouldn't be here again tonight

066rehashing that old issue. I think the only questions for the board tonight really should be um do you want to provide comments to the town board? Uh and um can't think what the other question was. Town board and >> find out about the park lineation. >> Well, yeah, I think that's that's a town question. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thanks, John. Um yeah, I I tend to agree. Um, I don't think we should go back too much and ret talk about the same stuff, especially since majority of the board decided that the two driveways was preferable because it would yield two lots instead of three lots. So, I think unless anybody's opinions have changed on that, I think that's probably kind of where we land. And if anybody has anything to say for the record that

067um you are within your jurisdiction to listen to hear the new information. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Is it so decisions are have been made? Nothing binding yet. Just want to put that on record. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And I just want to be clear like we're not asking you to reconsider because we didn't agree like we wanted, you know, mommy said no and we want to see if daddy give it again. we found new information and we wanted to make sure that we share that with the board so they can make an informed decision and that's that's really all. >> Okay. I and that that's completely justified. Um so does anybody have any comments? >> I just had a comment and that would be um that I think I think the good outweighs

068the bad on this one. I I really do and I I said that three months ago when we we reviewed it. There's a high degree of likelihood that if we played hard ball here, the applicant they're going to be like, you know what, fine. if you guys don't want to give us the extra driveway, we're going to put three >> Yeah. >> homes there. And I I I think it's a reduction in density what's been proposed and I think it's a nice compromise. So, I I support it. >> Great. >> Yeah. I agree. >> Great. >> I I agree, too. But I just want to make the comment that the new information is permanent because what we're talking about now is parkland alienation, which was not on the table, >> right, >> when we first

069reviewed it. So that may or may not change people's opinion about how they voted on this originally. But having said that, I still uh maintain my same position as I did three months ago. I I >> even if it even if we have to go through parking >> and the change in circumstances to the town board would be you're going from three lots to two, which is a pretty compelling argument, I think. >> Yeah. And ironically, I was the one person who voted for one driveway last time, but I do agree that um >> since we already since we already made the decision. Um, you know, I think you're right. Two lots versus three is the is the way to go. Um, we do have some questions on this. Um, does the planning board feel

070that individual driveways are appropriate? >> Yes. Should the applicant submit a subdivision modification application? Well, that's a kind of a technical question then. >> Yeah, I yeah, I think I didn't answer the So, I when this came to me, I really didn't know what to do. Um, so we submitted for a lot modification. >> Um, I think that's probably appropriate to also fill out a um >> subdivision modification. Okay. >> modification. >> Okay. So, yes, if the applicant is willing. >> Yeah. >> Does the planning board wish to send comments to the town board? >> Yes. Yeah. Yes, >> sure. >> And our comment would be >> we support >> two is better than three. >> Two is better two. One, two. Wait, two driveways, two lots. >> Thank you. >> Thanks everybody. Okay. Um

071the next up is 435 East Lake site plan. Is the applicant here? Yes. Okay. And Sarah, this is you as well. Okay. And Lou, it's you for us. Sarah Lewis again for the planning department. Uh so a site plan application has been made to construct a pool, equipment and bath house, cadell playing courts, bar tent facility and other related accessory structures on a property with an existing restaurant, single family residence, motel and recreational marina. Project site consists of a 4.59 acre upland parcel which is cleared of naturally occurring vegetation and a separate parcel of underwater lands of Lake Monttok. This parcel is zoned as resort and was is within the Harbor Protection Overlay District. The site is currently improved with a 14 motel units located within three buildings, a single family residence, a restaurant being

072built in place in kind due to a fire, accessory structures, bulkheading and parking areas including three access points along East Lake Drive. It is to the southwest of Montalk airport and Theodore Roosevelt County Park. The project is preliminarily a type 2 action pursuant to SERA and chapter 128 of the town code which is not subject to additional review. So the site plan indicates that the proposed new structures include two podel ports, a pool, pool equipment and bath house, an accessory bar, tent, and other small accessory structures on the western side of the restaurant. The narrative submitted provided little to no information on the proposed uses, but it appears that the existing and proposed uses include transient motel, recreational marina, single family residence, and restaurant. It is recommended that the applicant submit a narrative including details

073on how the site will be utilized. Details such as the number of total employees, hours of operation, the intention of use for all of the accessory structures should be included. The applicant should also clarify if the proposed outdoor bar is an accessory to the restaurant and if so then the applicant must comply with section of the town code. It is also unclear if the proposed new structures are to be used by motel patrons or if these facilities will be open to the public. According to section 255245 of the town code, typically only two uses are permitted on a commercial property unless the uses are legally pre-existing, which appears to be the case in this scenario. However, if additional uses are proposed, then the applicant will need to demonstrate that they meet the requirements for a

074multiple business complex special permit. So, as mentioned, this law is within HP POD, the Harbor Protection Overlay District. I'll refer to it as H pod from now on and fronts lake Montalk. The purpose of H pod is to maintain surface water quality, maintain or improve wildlife habitat and waterways and reduce impact of storm water, septic systems, swimming pools and the like. HBO requirements and the impact to Lake Montto should be considered throughout this review. The lot falls into different flood zone areas with portions of the property falling into the AE BE and 2% annual flood chance. um annual chance of flood zones which which are associated with a higher risk of flooding. The limit of moderate wave action also appears to fall upon the area of the proposed pool. A portion of the lot also

075falls within coastal erosion overlay zone 4. The flood zones limit of moderate wave action and coastal erosion overlay zone should all be indicated on the surveys as outlined in town code section 255 385. There are specified safeguards for the location and construction of structures in these zones, including all buildings and other structures except coastal structures shall be located and constructed so as to minimize the damage to property and risk to human life which may be caused by flooding and erosion. And secondly, all construction and related activities including the clearing and grading of land shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes the damage caused to wetlands, beaches, bluffs, dunes, and vegetation growing thereon by flooding and erosion. It appears that at least one variance for the proposed structures on the western side of the restaurant.

076Um and a natural resources special permit would be required from the zoning board of appeals as some of the proposed structures are within the 150 foot setback of lake lake montto. So the pool right now is um proposed to be 100 ft and 11 in from lake montto. So it doesn't need a variance just an NRSP. Um, so any setbacks from natural features should be shown on all site plans and based on a 2021 wetland flagging. There are wetlands on on the southeast portion of the site which cannot be seen on any of the current plans. Um, the plans and surveys should be revised accordingly and the applicant should discuss how these features will be preserved. Um, these should be properly delineated and all their setbacks should be measured from the bulkhead or mean high

077water where applicable. In terms of site layout, uh the planning department notes that there are several components for the board to consider. Um the applicant should explain why the proposed site layout is ideal. As it currently stands, the Patel Courts with an 8ft chain link fence is 50 ft 2 in from the roadway. Um which does meet the 50oot setback requirement. There is currently no vegetative screening proposed um at this time. The fence would need architectural review board um as the fence fronts a public street and exceeds 6 feet as outlined in town code section 2551 1138C. The Montalk airport's runway is also directly across from this development uh with aircraft flying in the northeasterly direction to land. Um while the airport is proposed to be subdivided, there may be height restrictions on the structures

078across from the runway and coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration may be necessary. The pool is also lo located in potentially the most damaging location to Lake Montto. While it does not appear that the pool would require any variances, as I said, a natural resources special permit would be required. Um, the proposed tented areas fall into higher risk flood zones, which should be considered at this point in review. It also does not appear that the pool equipment and bathroom structure uh building meets FEMA regulations for that flood zone. Um there is extensive property history at this location. Um there's been dredging here since the 1980s. Um in 2006, um the owner submitted a site plan to extend the bulkheading and walkway, constructed an awning and gravel patio for the existing restaurant and legalized an enclosed

079entrance, walk-in cooler, and enclosure around the hot water heater. The zoning board also granted variances for the awning and patio. And as part of the determination in 2006, the applicant was required to pro provide a plan for the reveation of a 25- ft buffer area landward of the bulkhead. Part of the site plan approval also included the following conditions. Seating shall be limited to a total of 75 indoor and outdoor seats for the restaurant and uh there should be removal of any light fixtures not depicted on the lighting plan. So again, that was back in 2006. At this time, the applicant has not supplied a revitation plan for the buffer along the bulkhead. The planning department recommends that this be submitted with the landscaping plan for review. The applicant also proposes seating in excess of

08075, which would be in violation of this condition and potentially trigger a sanitary upgrade. The applicant should clarify if this is the intent. In terms of coverage, uh, per section of the town code, clearing in commercial districts in H pod should not exceed 10,000 square ft or 50% of the lot area, whichever is greater. The parcel is predominantly cleared. Um, but it does predate the current H pod clearing restrictions, but um, just to note, the clearing should still be indicated on all the surveys. Existing lot coverage is 63,565 ft and the proposed is 72,412 ft um which is well below the allowable coverage. Additional lot coverage is proposed for the concrete pads, tents, pedel courts, decks and ramps, HVAC, the generator, pool, pool shed and pool equipment. So access to the site is provided by

081three entrances. uh one main entrance for the motel area, one entrance for the restaurant area, and one entrance for the garage and residence. The site is pre-existing non-conforming with regard to parking with motel use and marina predating 1957 and the restaurant originally constructed in 1959. It should be noted that no additional parking is required if the applicant is not proposing to add or expand a use. If users are expanded, then the parking and the parking requirements will need to be met. Per the 2006 site plan approval, which I mentioned previously, uh the restaurant seating shall be limited to a total of 75 indoor and outdoor seats. Based on the site plan provided, the restaurant has a capacity of 111 which is used in the parking calculation. Again, the applicant should clarify if they intend to

082go above the 75 seating limit and if just one employees anticipated for the restaurant as indicated in the calculations. The applicant is also providing parking for the pedel courts. However, um it is unclear at this time if the pedel courts are an accessory or if they will be used um as a new use on the property. Um the parking calculations will need to be adjusted accordingly. The applicant does identify two potential truck loading spaces which complies. Um if any of the new improvements trigger additional parking, ADA spaces will be required. So per section uh 25560 of the town code, parking areas and driveways shall be sufficiently drained so as to prevent ponding. Uh whenever feasible, parking area should also be placed at the rear of buildings. Um the gravel parking lot should have catchment basements

083for storm water. It does not appear that the parking lots are included in the current storm water calculations. I'll zoom in a little bit for this next part. So, the proposed accessory bar is here. As stated in town code section 25550, there are several special requirements for a bar or tavern as accessory to a resort or transient motel. The applicant should again clarify if the proposed outdoor bar is an accessory to the restaurant and should also include additional information regarding the proposed use, including the number of seats, employees, and hours of operation. The applicant should also indicate if this is intended for use by motel patrons only, or if this bar and other areas of the property are open to the public. Moving on to the pool. So, the applicants propose a 1,782 ft swimming

084pool to the south of the property, which as I said is set back 100 ft 10 in from Lake Monttoque. No variance would be required as the 100 foot setback is met, but a natural resources special permit would be needed. As per town code section 255375E, there are also several additional regulations for swimming pools and H pods, some of which I will mention. One of the requirements is that swimming pools are required to have a system to reduce the use of chlorine and that's to protect um Lake Ma and other um bodies of water. The applicant should clarify which system they intend to use. Another requirement is that the pool meets a minimum of 2 feet above groundwater. Um the pool appears to meet this requirement, but the applicant should submit a cross-section of the

085pool showing elevation above groundwater. There are other requirements that the applicant should be aware of, including dry wells, rules regarding draining and cleaning, which are more thoroughly outlined in my memo. Per the engineer review, The proposed site plans are considered preliminary. The drainage design calculations have been provided. However, a complete design and plan view is not provided. Existing and/or proposed sanitary and water supply improvements are not shown on the plans. The applicant should revise the plans to include the existing and/or proposed sanitary and water supply improvements. The applicant should also provide grading and drainage design for the project area. Approval will be needed from the Suffach County Department of Health Services for the pool house bathroom facilities and for the pool. Um, according to the planning and building department records, the sanitary system that serves

086the restaurant is pre-existing non-conforming and located approximately 30 ft from Lake Montto where a 200 foot setback would normally be required under um the turn the current town code standards. The building permit to reconstruct the burntown restaurant indicates that the existing septic is to remain. However, as I mentioned, the seating is limited to 75 people um including the bar area. So, any increase in seating capacity or increase in use would trigger a requirement for an upgrade by both the Suffach County Department of um health services and the town. As for fire marshall review, uh the fire marshall notes that the proposed project is not currently ADA compliant. Um as I mentioned, if there's no expansion of use, then the parking is sufficient as is. Um the fire marshall did note a lack of accessible routes

087from parking to all facilities and the plans lack accessibility details for the pool and pool area. The fire marshall also made several recommendations regarding parking and accessibility regardless of um if a use is expanded. As for landscaping and lighting plans, um the applicant has not yet provided these um and the planning department recommends that a landscaping reveation and lighting plan should be provided for review. So in conclusion, um the applicant should clarify the proposed uses and provide justification for the proposed location of accessory structures which currently do not appear to be in the best locations to minimize impacts to Lake Monttok. The number of pre-existing uses on the property is already over what would otherwise be permitted and the applicant should provide an explanation of how the site will operate. As indicated in the engineer

088and fire marshall memos, there are other outstanding items that should be addressed. The site is extremely environmentally sensitive and any changes to the site will have a direct impact on Lakemonto. The planning department finds the application incomplete at this time and advises the applicant to submit revised plans. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Sarah. Would you like to speak? Thanks. Um, good evening, uh, members of the board. Brian Matthews, Matthews, Kur and Shon here for the applicant. And, uh, thank you, Sarah. Very, very, very thorough memo. Um, so I appreciate the time, uh, uh, to take here with the board and the planning staff to get everybody's thoughts and reviews on this application. You know, I understand as we all do that, you know, zoning applications on waterfront commercial properties in

089particular can be complex, but all in all, we view this application as being relatively innocuous. Um, and of course, we'll prepare a supplemental submission to address all the comments, questions, concerns that are raised in the memo that come up tonight. Um, and this being the kind of the first time on or the actual first time on, I don't have a lot to go over, but there are just a few items that I wanted to specifically call out. Um, first being the number of uses because it was obviously addressed a number of times and rightfully so uh in the memo. To be clear, we're not adding any additional uses to the property. Um, adding only accessory structures. Um, the pools and padell courts are not in and of themselves. They're not uses under the town code.

090These are accessory amenity structures on a resort property. Uh, accessory to the uh the existing the existing motel, the bar. Um, and I expect we'll have a number of conversations about this. It's not it's not the introduction of an accessory bar or tavern to a transit motel. And it's not the introduction of an accessory restaurant to a resort or transit motel. It is an accessory service area to the existing restaurant within an area that is already approved as part of that restaurant. um in 2006 I think it was there was that the tent awning canopy area whatever we want to call it it's probably called a number of things over the years is a is it approved was approved uh by this board I think it was 2006 now the applicant is looking to double

091the size of that tent area uh but the the bar the bar structure itself is with is to be incl is just like again it's just an accessory service area within that existing restaurant so it's not the introduction of a new use to the property Um, and again, we'll we'll address this in more detail in our supplemental submission. I'm happy to talk to council about it. Um, but I just want to be very clear on that issue. The pool location, I know, you know, the location of structures is obviously within the purview of this board, but the principal impact of that pool or lack thereof in our view, um, is going to be vetted in the NRSP application before the zoning board. Um, and we'll get in that in more detail as that process plays

092itself out. But the comment in the memo that quote, "The pool is in the most damaging location." Um, it's a pretty strong statement. Um, there's not anything else in the memo um that really then addresses that statement or substantiates it. I understand it being raised, but I do want to point out three things that I think are critical um, in addressing that statement. The pool as proposed does not require any variances. it meets the the 100 foot NRSP setback. That 100 foot NRSP setback is measured from an existing bulkhead which again would mitigate any impacts that the pool would have um and is proposed to meet the H bar requirements of separation of groundwater and everything else. So all of the necessary elements to make sure that that pool was cited in the least impactful

093area but still have it in an area where you'd want to put it um was done uh prior to the submission. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. The pedel courts um I wanted to note one thing. U I don't believe and again we'll put this in our submission that we'll have to go to the ARB. Um, our office dealt with this issue just very recently with the ARB and the building inspector's office and there was a determination made that these 8 foot high walls or fences, whatever you want to call them, they're embedded within the definition of a plane court. So, they're exempt from ARB review. Um, so I don't believe we're going to have to go there again and we'll put that in our supplemental submission, but nonetheless, vegetation and

094screening, the applicant's going to want to make this property look nice, too. So, I don't think there's going to be any objection to that at all. And then just a few other, you know, bullet point items I wanted to address. Um, they're not proposing to do any more seating. Um, they the reference to 111. It's in the parking calculations. It looks like they did the parking calculations instead of the 75 seats off of the 111 rated capacity for the building. So, it's not a proposal to add new seats. It looks like that's just how they did the parking calculation, rightly or wrongly. Um, so probably the calculation of 38 spaces there is probably more than would be required technically. Um, but that's where that 111. It's not an increase in seating from 75 to 111.

095The wetland uh to the southeast, we can certainly add that on there um for to be thorough. It's not going to come into play in this application. Everything that we're proposing here is roughly three, two, three, 400 feet away from that wetland, but we'll certainly put it on there so the the map is accurate. Um, I'll double check uh with on the FEMA for the the pool house um and the pool equipment. I'm sure we'll have to do something with FAA. I don't think it's going to come into an impact here for a pool and an 8 foot high fence. But if we have to submit whatever from them and get a response that this is okay or outside of their jurisdiction, we'll certainly do that. Um the 2006 revge, I I don't know anything

096about it. Um it's well prior to our clients ownership of the property, but if it's an issue that has to be addressed and we'll look at a little more thorough thorough, um we'll address it. be it whether that appropriate board is here or with the CVA application that's going to be required or both um but that'll certainly be addressed and then the narrative really um we'll put that in of course and expand upon the admittedly very you know uh short narrative that was put in but I think the expectation is that the operation of the property is going to be exactly the way it is right now. Um, people can come in, you rent the hotel rooms, the rest of the property and its facilities, the marina, the restaurant, and then the pool would be

097available for use for people staying at the hotel or members of the public. No different than it's been for however many decades the property's been in operation. So, that's really what I have right now. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Yeah. I just have one question regarding the number of uses. >> Sure. >> So, it's a resort. >> Yeah. >> But it is also a marina. So, it it's got the hotel, it's got the marina, >> it's got a single family restaurant and a restaurant that's open to a single family residence. >> And a restaurant that's open to the public. >> Correct. >> So, how is that one use? >> I don't know that what's it's it's admittedly very complex. I don't know that that's there's many ways to look at it. They're all

098uses that are legally existing on property. >> I don't think in some ways our town code is very thorough. In some ways it's probably too thorough and they don't all dovetail in the way that they should because I think the reality is is that we're not I don't think we're it's accurate to say there's a resort and a transient motel. Um, you can either be one or the other and I think the kitchenet facilities in nine or 10 of of the 14 units takes us out of a transit motel and makes your resort. But then there's also the there's resort as in the town code and then there's this property is zoned resort and kind of in a more functional accurate way of putting it is that the single family residents put that aside. I

099think the the restaurant, the marina, and the hotel are all >> but who can >> resort. Yeah, I'm sorry. Let me just just want let me finish my train of thought. So, >> it is zoned resort, >> correct? >> And I understand that. So, we'll take transit motel out of there. So, you have a you have a hotel there. That's >> you have a restaurant that is not there to serve the hotel only, but also open to the public. And I think that is a separate use under town code. Am I >> I I just I'm speaking from other applications that have also >> I I think that whether or not I I think it may be may or may not be. I shouldn't weigh it, but I think it ultimately is. >> You're only

100allowed two uses. This this location is grandfathered to have four uses. And the four uses are the resort motel, the marina, the restaurant, and the residence. Those are all four separate uses that normally would not be allowed but they're grandfathered in. Now the question is are there any more uses over the grandfathered uses which would you know you would look at the outdoor bar, the event tent, expanded resort amenities. Do they constitute an additional use? I think they do. >> And the Adele court. >> Yeah, >> I think that's a fair question. I think the ex the restaurant that tent awning area is already there and permitted just the it's looking to expand the size of that outdoor area as part of the restaurant use. And I think it's a fair question, but I don't

101think legally and under the code or under New York state law they a pool and a pedel court would be deemed us. >> I I just I just have just one question. >> Sorry. Take it away, Lou. Sorry. >> Who who can use the pedel court? Is that for only people who are uh have a hotel room? >> I don't think I we'll put that in our narrative and we'll I'll talk more about that with the client. But I think the expectation would be to have the property operate in the same way it has >> for decades. >> But there is no there's no podel court. Correct. But the use of the restaurant, the use of the marina has never been limited to >> the hotel guests. So in my mind use >> Michael Michael

102to answer your question who can use the FedEll court. I think the applicant has already answered that because if you look at their parking calculation they allocate four parking spaces two spaces each for each court. So that assumes that people will come to the resort park and use the pedel court. So if you're staying at the hotel, you have your own motel parking space. You don't need another Fidel parking space. So that that answers your question as to who can use the Fidel court in my eyes. So just let me ask that question. It's obviously going to be a question we'll have tonight and as we go. Is it the board's preference that only that no members of the public be able to go on to use the these additional amenities on this property? I

103think it's a matter of what use is allowed, not necessarily a matter of >> I think I don't disagree with that. I think it comes down to that fundamental question of are these uses or are these structures? >> That's to say that not to cut you off, but you had originally said that those are considered structures, which I would initially agree with you. However, I believe if those are open to the public, then that opens the door to that being an an additional use. >> What's the use? because it becausere to recreational use to to the public. >> What what under the sound code then what would the use be? >> It's uh tennis club. Yeah. >> These are all perfectly valid questions. I want to be very clear and and I fully expect them

104and we'll go through them as we go along. But that's why I wanted to make clear like that this is the applicant's view about how that would be. We'll have certainly have all these discussions about int ability to use, intent to use, and where they all fit within the existing framework and what they would be classified as we go. Um, and we'll put that what our view is, and I'm sure you'll speak to council, the building special, but that's what our view is how that would go. These are not additional uses regardless of who comes onto the property to use them. >> I think the narrative would would articulate that much better. >> Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. >> Have a discussion about absolutely >> to answer the question as to if it's for public use or

105just the uh motel guests, there's there's another issue that comes up, which is traffic on East Lake Drive. I just want to read to you something that I didn't write, but it was uh it was publicly available. East Lake Drive is likewise its own ecosystem of businesses, tourist attractions, and more than 175 homes that are accessible only from the single two-lane road with no shoulder. Five hotels, five marinas, 365 sits, seven restaurants, 250 seats, two county parks, one with 80 parking slots for toad campers, a town beach, the 350 member Malkque Lake Club, and New York State's largest commercial fish packing house in terms of total tonnage shipped from its docks, all lying between Route 27 and Monttoque airport. Any additional vehicle traffic could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. So when you're

106intensifying this property with pedel courts court two court two >> I'm not sure I don't okay go ahead >> swimming pool bar um entertainment tent I don't know I'm not sure what that's going to be but >> it's for outdoor dining that already exists there >> so you're you're increasing the intensity of use for the public it seems to We'll find out more when you write them down. >> Traffic are legitimate concerns for every member of this board to raise individually and collectively. And certainly we can address them. The question of whether or not it's not the introduction of a bar. I want to be again it's again some of these terms are >> being artful and artful at the same time. It is a service bar of an existing restaurant. >> Okay. So we

107talked about the the uses. Um the as far as I see the only variance you're going to need is for the uh the proposed walk-ins that you have. >> That's right. As of now, yeah. >> Uh you're going to need a full dimensional table. uh all resort standards, front, side, rear yards for each structure, height of new structures, distance between buildings, accessory structure setbacks, and any special resort conditions for resort use. Uh and if we determine that there's multiple uses above the four grandfather uses, you might have to get a multiple business complex special permit as well. Okay. Now, the other the other point that I want to bring up is the H pod designation for this property and the issues that that raises. The pool is within 150 ft of Lake Malkque and close

108to the coastal erosion overlay zone number four that may violate the stricter HP pod and flood hazard standards. The pool equipment and bath house do not appear to meet FEMA flood zone requirements, suggesting that as cited and elevated, they may not comply with HPOT standards that require construction to be consistent with applicable flood regulations. The reconfigured and additional coverage parking lot drainage proposed may violate HOD's requirement to prevent runoff into Lake Malkque. Clearing in current layout, new tent, court, decks, pool area does not meet H pod requirements to restore preserve vegetation buffers adjacent adjacent to the shoreline. Accessory uses near the shore areas. Citing the pool, bar, tent, event space, and pedel court courts in the most water approximate portion of an extremely sensitive site will increase noise, traffic, lighting, and runoff in a way

109that violates HOD's sighting goal to maintain or improve surface water quality and habitat. even if strict dimensional setbacks are met. So those H pod standards are very very crucial to this to what you're proposing. >> They are certainly. >> Okay. Now this this item I'm really um concerned about and it's the sanitary system. Before I I get to why I think you need an upgraded sanitary system, I just want to read something from a planning department memo from uh 2012 on this site. And it talked, you know, I won't go through the whole memo, but it talked about the uh the sanitary system and why they thought at that time that they needed to upgrade the system to an IIA system. Conventional septic systems are designed to primarily address bacterial removal and decay of organic

110wastes and have changed little over the past 20 years. Conventional septic systems do little to remove nitrogen which can be a concern for both drinking supplies and a threat to coastal waters. It has been determined that 50 to 60% of nitrogen mostly as nitrate is likely to escape the leeching field and percolate into the groundwater. The sanitary system that you have there is 4 feet above groundwater and 200 feet from Lake Malkque. And since the groundwater flows into Lake Mtoque, there is a significant potential for nitrogen and other contaminants reaching the surface waters in a relatively short period. The memo also talks about the sensitivity of Lake Malkque and the the pollution and so forth and the importance of having an upgraded system >> and it's 30 feet from Lake Montalk. The septic system the

111setback requirement is 200 ft. >> Okay. >> So it's even worse. >> Yeah. So now getting back to the sanitary system in an H pod district. And so the the code says that an existing sanitary septic system which legally exists on a residential property since January 1st, 1996 shall be replaced or upgraded in the following circumstances and to the following extent. Every septic system regulated by the sub this subsection shall be replaced or upgraded if a a natural resources special permit is required for work to be performed on the lot or parcel containing the septic system. The new pool and other improvements are within 150 ft of Lake Malkque which trigger a natural resources special permit. So that one alone would trigger the upgrade. C. The septic system in question does not meet the minimum

112requirements of the Suffach County Department of Health Services for septic system capacity. This parcel has a maximum sanitary density load of 2814 gallons per day. The existing uses, not to mention the increased more intensive uses, including a 75 seat restaurant, generate 3,120 gallons per day. So, you're already over on the existing uses. Um, and the la the last item I wanted to talk about was the parking, but you you you covered that question that I had because your parking calculations uh come out to 111 seats and you're only you only are uh you're only allowed to have 75 restaurant seats. So, we talked about that. And I also mentioned that the if the pedel courts require parking as you suggest then it's an additional use as far as I'm concerned triggering that would trigger the

113multiple complex special permit because you have more than four the four grand parking uses. Um, I think the courts and the bar should be considered as separate public uses because as far as I know on this site, the bar has always been used as a separate use. The restaurant closes down and then there's a big bar scene that happens afterwards and people come just for the bar. So, I don't I don't see that as an accessory use to the restaurant. Not if it's used in the restaurant. that in our memo. I said it's a a belief that I don't think is accurate, but we'll address it certainly. >> Can I ask one quick question? Sorry. >> Um, as far as the 75 seats go, that would be if the bar is an accessory to the

114restaurant, then the 75 seats would be for the bar and the restaurant. >> There are 75 seats permitted if they take with the this bar structure. >> So, what size tent are they requesting >> right now? The tent is the approved tent I think is 30 by 30 and I think they're trying to do 60 by 60 to make it match. >> Yeah, that's a huge I mean >> to make it match the >> you can fit 150 people under that tent let alone in the restaurant. >> Under respect to seating is understood that if it's any seats for outdoor dining if they put 20 seats outside for instance they come from inside. They're not an addition. That's the way the code works. So the the the cap on occupancy on any one night would

115be 75 people at one time. >> The town code does not regulate outdoor capacity, >> but the seating is doesn't. It just doesn't. >> But outdoor seating for a restaurant, >> but there's there's there's property capacity and then there is building capacity. That is the 111. And then there is seating. >> But if you're saying that the tent is an accessory bar to the restaurant, then it should conform to the rules. It's part of the restaurant. It's a secondary struct secondary service bar. >> So there shouldn't be more than 75, right? But it shouldn't be more than 75. >> No more than 75 seats is permitted >> and they can take 30% of the seats for put it in the tent. >> Yes. >> But then they would have to subtract subtract from, >> right?

116>> So it wouldn't be just a a bar outside. You couldn't just drive in. It's not a It's not a different >> It's not this is >> service bar because >> it's not his Rick's Krabby Cowboy whatever they whatever they ultimately call it and that this is some other separate separate establishment. It's a it is a bars have service areas. Bars have multiple service bars. Restaurants have that. This is meant to be part of that which is why it is part of the whole restaurant complex if you will. >> Yeah. So, I'm just trying to understand because when I think service bar, I think of a place that servers go to like get the drink. >> Secondary service area. There's service bar that only does drinks for the tables, but this is a secondary service

117area within that same >> where bar patrons can directly order. Sure. Okay. >> Okay. >> That's the intent and we'll put that in our narrative and we'll talk that out further. But if it's in if I have this is my restaurant here, I put a bar there. I put a bar there. It's not a separate it's not a separate use. It's all it's different two two bar structures within that same use. >> Okay. >> You know like or if I put one out right 75 people >> 75 seats 100% that does this is not in any way meant to circumvent seats. It doesn't add anything at all. >> But 75 people >> no it's 75 seats. It is not 75 capacity 111 capacity. >> It's not a loophole. It's the way the wall. >> Yeah.

118The max capacity. Okay. seating >> every This is not special to hear. This is every every bar and restaurant in New York State has a seating capacity that's based on your septic and your parking and a building capacity that is a farm marshall number. >> I wonder how the tent you see max capacity. >> There is the tent as it is right now has a 95 person capacity. >> Okay. Okay. >> But if you take seats that and that is a fire marshall capacity that's >> okay. That's not unique to hear. That is >> okay. >> I don't want to overstate it, but I think we're clearly stating it at every barn and restaurant in New York State. >> When you go back to your client, >> could you ask him about the upgrading sanitary?

119>> Well, of course, it's a it's an expected question. It's a big undertaking for a property like this. Um, for something that again, I'm not trying to downplay putting a pool 100 ft from Lake M. I mean, there residences throughout town that have that and closer, but to for a pool and a a plane court, a multi00,000 septic system is a it's a lot. But of course, I'll have that conversation with them. And they're very they want to they want to be able to do what needs to be done. But just >> can't the town help with that? >> Not commercial. I don't think there's no Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um, we're going to have our discussion. I think Glue, you're gonna a little bit if >> any more questions. I'm happy to step up and

120do the best that I can >> and we can. Yeah, I I I personally think, you know, of course it'll have to be investigated further by the planning department and our attorney, >> but I think uh as I mentioned in my comments, >> because of the H pod regulations, it does trigger a uh upgrade to the septic system. But whether whether it does or it doesn't, any applicant with this kind of ambitious plan on Lake Mtok of all places, if they don't upgrade their septic system, to me, they're not consciously following uh they're not they're not good citizens of Montalk and East Hampton. I mean every almost every establishment serious establishment like this one proposes to be has upgraded or will upgrade their suffic system. Uh I also think that there are more than four

121grandfathered uses. I think the pedel court is a an additional use. I'm not sure what you call it. Tina said uh tennis court type of place club. Um I think the bar is a separate use. It's not an accessory use. That's something else that needs to be uh fished out. So, um I think the I think the big issues are the septic system, the uh the special permit that they'll have to get because there more than four uses. Those are the two big ones in my my view. >> Yeah. Thank you, Reed. Any other >> Yeah. No, I I'm in agreement with Lou. I I consider myself a very business uh friendly uh board member. Um, but I think you nailed it uh with that one word, ambitious. This is a pretty ambitious plan. Um,

122quite frankly, I think you're trying to do too much here. But that's just my assessment. >> Yeah, I agree. So, I think adding the pool and the pool house with bathrooms, I think that's increasing your septic capacity as well. Um, so yeah. >> Yeah. And the septic system is 30 feet from the lake. That's troubling. And what is the what is the current septic system? You know, it can't be uh it can't be great. >> Yeah. I mean, it must have to be pumped out. Um Eva, >> I I agree with the septic issue. I will be maybe a little more open-minded about the the additional uses. I am interested to see what the narrative is um you know, about the pool and the pedel courts. Uh, I think, you know, personally I will have

123an open mind about that just knowing the site. It's it's been there for a long time. It has had multiple uses for as long as I can remember. So, um, I'm interested to see what what that how that kind of fleshes out. >> It's also been, you're right, it's been there a long time and it has a long history of problems. >> I didn't read this part in my comments, but >> Go ahead. There was an annual party build as shark attack sounds which drew between 2,000 and 3,000 people >> and u East Lake Drive residents said they couldn't get to their houses or out of their driveways because of the traffic. >> Yeah. >> So that happened at Rick's Krabby Cowboy. That that's not the applicant. So I'm not blaming him. >> Yes. >>

124It's I don't want to belver the point but for my client's benefit and I think it's important that our client didn't own that property at that point in time but but the implication is that he had something to do with that and it goes along with the statement that >> well the only reason >> if I can for one second it goes along with the statement that >> I understand I I take issue with saying that they're not good citizens and they're not genuine people because of the the cost and expense that goes to they're going to look into this but to defend my client I think that statement is not really fair and it's not really appropriate. And I would just like to say that >> thank you. I will say um just to

125be 100% transparent that since the current owner has owned it, there have also been issues with the you know overcrowding occupancy with the fire marshal >> burned down. >> It hasn't been open >> this summer. Yeah. Well, when it was common ground, >> they did not they were not they are not common ground. That is not >> No, no, I know. But they rented it to Common Ground as far as >> this is not this is not this that is a prior owner. >> Okay. Okay. >> That's I think it's all very important. my my >> I don't want that to cover the board's review of this applicant and what they want to do here. I can I have no issue with taking issue of saying the pool and this and that. Those are all

126very fair and that's what we do. >> Okay. >> But I think it's I think it's important to be accurate about who and what we're talking about. >> Thank you. Point point well taken. Thank you very much. Um I agree with the kind of everybody else's sentiments. I do I personally just have like the pool right there on Lake Montalk is uh troubling because we're trying so hard as a town to you know protect um the environment and that waterway especially um every waterway in town. So I I I have a big problem with that and I do think that an upgraded IIA system if this were any other application um you know barring the fact that the that it burned down if it were any other application even for this size which you consider

127to be a fairly innocuous upgrade um it would trigger the requirements for an upgraded IIA system and I think that is something that should be really um it should be emphasized that it would be a real a boon to the to the application >> absolutely have that that discussion with them >> and I think with that we are ready for questions. >> Thank you very much for your for your explanation and your patience and thank you Sarah for the for the thorough review. Um does the planning board agree with the planning department's assessment of additional information that must be provided per town code 255-6. Oh, that's number two. Um we'll go back to number one. Um necessary elements. Yeah, I think there's a lot that needs to be. Um, number one, does the planning board

128require additional clarification regarding the proposed uses, including a narrative that addresses the details here, including whether the accessory structures will be utilized by outside patrons, the hours of operation, number of employees, etc. Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I had one more point. You mentioned um that the Pedell courts, so the description in the memo is that the Pedell courts are going to be surrounded by an eight link 8 foot chain link fence. That is not part of a pedel court as far as I know like a glass a plexiglass wall. So is there an additional fence that can be part of the Okay, that should be part of the clarification. >> I don't want to speak and seem reveal how little I know about >> Yeah, we've had that discussion here multiple times. >> Um,

129does the planning board require that the applicants provide revised parking lot calculations? >> Yes. >> Yeah, of course. Does the planning board agree that alternatives should be considered for the layout of the proposed structures? Yes. >> Should comprehensive site drainage information be provided? Yes. >> Should comprehensive sanitary information be required? >> Should a comprehensive lighting plan be submitted? Yes. Should a comprehensive site landscaping and screening plan be submitted? Yes. Should a revitation plan which provides a buffer for the areas adjacent to the bulkhead as previously required by the ZBA submitted? >> Yes. Should additional information pertaining to the swimming pool and how the requirements of the town code will be met be submitted? I think yes. And should the wetland boundary be added to the plans? Yes. And I think we can we just add

130one more question about the IIA system that does do we as a board think that should be something to be heavily considered or I would just add to um something that Mr. Matthew said um triggered the if the rated capacity of the bar area is going to be increasing that would have a septic impact. So that should be quantified and I think that the the fire >> by doubling the size of >> Yeah. If you double the size of that and and it's not a service area where only like servers are going to get drinks and serve if it's like more people will be able to fit >> even if it's not a new use which I'm not conceding it's certainly an expansion of an existing use and increasing the capacity of that has septic

131and parking. So, I would just want to make sure that the revised >> delineates look at all that >> that. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Have a good evening. >> You too. Okay. Next. Bayberry Estates Preliminary Subdivision. Um, that is Eric, but that is Tina. >> And Dan, are you the applicant for range. >> Yeah. And I'm just going to make an aside. Kirby, are you waiting for a specific application? You've been sitting here so patiently. >> Waiting to hear what happens with the Wayne Scott commercial center. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> Um, that's only a um >> it's only a resolution. It's only a resolution which is online. There's not a work session discussion. Do you think >> you can read it? >> Just I just don't want

132you to be sitting here for nothing. >> If there's not a discussion on Scott commercial center, they're just going to adopt the resolution. I just so you understand the one that's posted. There's nothing else beyond that. >> We're not talking about it. >> Rejecting the stuff. >> That's it. >> Yes. >> Exactly. >> Oh. Thanks very much. >> Good to see you. >> Yes. Thanks, Curry. >> Okay, go ahead, Tina. >> Uh, okay. Um, I'm covering for Eric this evening. He wasn't able to make it. This is Bay Area preliminary subdivision. This is a wrapup memo. Um there was a public hearing on November 5th and just briefly I have the subdivision map open. It's an open space preliminary subdivision application. It's subdividing a 17 acre parcel into three individual lots. 70% of the parcel

133being dedicated um back here and there's three building lots um about you know a half acre each give or take up or down. Um the issue that we just wanted to talk with the board about is that at the public hearing a member of the public provided information that the site had been historically used as a shooting range. The planning department was not aware of that during the review. Um shooting ranges can result in um lead contamination from the shot on site. Um the applicant after that was revealed provided some historical testing which wasn't sufficient to lay concerns that there's no lead contamination and then um did go at the planning department request and take additional warings. The planning department did not get to review the testing protocol um as we had wanted. It's important

134when you're doing testing to make sure you get enough representative samples. Unfortunately, with this situation, we don't know where the troubling historical activity occurred. So, we can't really pinpoint. Typically, what you would do is pinpoint areas that are more likely to be contaminated. We're unable to do that here. So, the applicant did take borings within the building envelopes on the proposed lots, which does make sense. Um, we do think additional testing should be done just in the area of the common driveway and at least two more on each of the building lots just to be sure that we've got enough uh representative information to um really clear the site for SRA and make sure that no environmental controls are necessary with respect to on-site contamination being transported or remaining when there's you know residential uses

135on the site. I will say that the borings that have been taken already do not show lead contamination um at levels that would be troublesome for residential use. Right? So here's the results. The highest value was three, but it's still uh you know below the regulated the the residential threshold regulated set by DC. So the issue for the board tonight, the the application is otherwise complete, right? Obviously the public hearing um already occurred. So the only matter is whether the board would like to see additional testing or if they find what has been already done satisfactory. Um, now the last thing I'll say is that because this is a preliminary subdivision, the board could condition the preliminary subdivision on additional testing. Right? If they if they do think, okay, the applicant's done offer the preliminary,

136we could say do the additional testing before the final. Um, that is an option to the board if they want additional testing. we think it's better to do during the preliminary when we're doing the environmental review, but it would be acceptable as long as we get the additional results um to proceed either way or if the board doesn't think that testing is required. That's obviously um your decision. technical question about waiting till prior to approval. If the soil contaminated is like cleared, you know, if they clear and dig down for a driveway or dig a foundation or whatever and then it turns up subsequently to have some contamination. >> Well, that's what we're trying to avoid, right? >> Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So, yeah, you don't want to move it off site to someplace

137else where it could be >> Exactly. So, we what we're saying is we'd like to do more um borings before they get to construction. Um and either you could do them as part of the preliminary subdivision review before the final and either one of those we think would be fine. We just >> before they start construction. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yes, >> that's my comments. Thank you. Dan, you're up. >> It's a public hearing. We can keep talking. Um Dan is the applicant. Yeah. >> Uh Dan Weaver from Walbridge Surveyors. On behalf of the applicant, um we do feel like we provided enough testing. Um you know, we sampled on, you know, two samples in each of the lots. Everything's come back below the required thresholds for DEC. Um you know, that's just the one

138comment the um property owner wanted me to make was that they do feel like they've done enough testing at this point. That's ultimately up to you. >> Tina, what did you say earlier? I might have missed it. That that when the testing was done, it wasn't done with sufficient supervision or adequate supervision. >> No. So, we didn't review the testing protocol. Um, if we had, we would have suggested more borings at that time and then they wouldn't have to go back. That that's all. I mean we told them that we felt testing was necessary and I think in the interest of time they just went and did the testing without saying where they were going to do it. Um but >> and now that now that you've seen where they have done it are you

139satisfied with >> that's what I I think that additional boards would have been required just because we don't know where the historic uses were. So we can't say whether or not these are good. So more representative sampling like um the areas of the common driveway that have to be disturbed for um drainage and road installation, more areas maybe central to the site that are more likely to be um disturbed during construction. you know, we don't know where the homes are going to go on these sites and we don't have we could make building envelopes more restrictive, but I mean rather than that, if we just get another boring or two and have greater confidence that there's no contamination, that would be our preference. >> Yeah. Ju just to your point, um, Lou, the protocols are

140all mandated by the DEC. So, the only question is do we need more locations? not not the process, not the methods. None of that needs to be addressed. It's only do we need more locations of borings. Uh, another point to make, the Suffach County Health Department as part of their review of the application is requiring uh, and you can see on the corner the bottom of the map here, I can point it out here, is requiring a test well to be installed, which has been installed, and we're waiting for water sampling to come back on that. So, we will have that bit of information as well. We just don't have it back yet and that would be um requirement for the Suffach County Health Department. We have to pass their quality, the water quality levels.

141So that will be tested as well. >> Wouldn't it be to your advantage to do more tests now cover a larger area so you you would prevent any possible problems that Jen mentioned might happen when you start uh construction? That's a true that's your decision. My client feels like they've done enough. That's that's all I can say on that matter. >> So the problem with soil contamination of this nature is it can be there and nobody will know unless we look for it further, right? So they're not going to get like the building permit process won't require soil testing. Um so they could basically if the soil is contaminated it could be moved from the site put somewhere else and and people you just won't know and it won't be handled in accordance with the

142appropriate um state laws is the issue. >> How many more borings would satisfy you? >> Yeah I mean we said two more for the common driveway and two more per building lot. Um two more per building lot. What about one more building? Um, maybe once I don't >> I mean lot one's pretty minimal. Lot two is pretty minimal. Lot three is quite a bit higher, >> right? That was our other concern. Kind of closer. >> I mean, how big are these lots? >> They're like one 1.4 acres, 1.6 acres. They're all like around there. Um, >> I guess from the, you know, amount of lead in the soil, it would seem that the they shot towards lot three. >> Yeah, I just don't know. You know, >> I I I tried to address that. Um,

143unfortunately, there's no historical arrow >> that show this properly. It would make sense to me from what was cleared that from towards the back of lot three towards the reserve area is where the shots would have happened based on what little aerial evidence I could find. I tried to research this. Yeah. >> Um >> so and that was part of why originally when Eastern Environmental did their original assessment, which I think was 2020 or 2021, >> they assumed the same thing and that's why they didn't do any samples in the front. When the plan department said they wanted more samples with because those samples were mostly behind these lots. So then when the plan department said they would like more samples on the lots again like as Tina brought up. Yeah. In the interest of

144trying to move this along as quickly as possible. >> My client said I don't want to wait. Let's do more samples. So that's why Eastern did two on each of the existing proposed lots. But they also feel the same thing. The shooting would have happened towards the rear away from the street. you wouldn't have been firing shotgun shells, right? I mean, I know the street wasn't very busy back then, but still still wouldn't have been firing shots towards the street. You would have been firing away from the street. Both of the adjoining subdivisions that exist now didn't exist then. There was no houses in that direction. So, all of the shots would have been fired towards the rear of the property, and that's why they concentrated their borings originally on the rear portion of the

145property. >> Where does the homeowner who says he's been poisoned by lead, where does he live? I'm not sure which lot it is. I think it's one of those public com >> 10 Ridge Road. >> Yeah. >> Which is off of >> north and west. >> Northwest. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Cold. >> North and east. Sorry. North and east of these lots. Yeah. >> Would there be a compromise acceptable, Tina, to the planning department? Like what if we required or we asked for two holes on the driveway and then one additional hole on each lot in the center where the building envelope is. >> No, I mean I think I think that'd be better. Yes. Um I could go with one more I suppose somewhere centrally located and where they're most likely to construct

146>> and that in conjunction with the test well might >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean the Suffach County we are relying we're not asking for any groundwater testing because we know that Suffach County is going to and for you know they're doing a test well and then for each individual well they'll have to go through testing. So >> we feel that they have that covered but if we don't test the soils nobody else will. So >> of course yeah >> but >> what does it cost? >> Yeah. >> I I don't know. >> I don't know the answer to that either. I know it's more expensive going back out than it would have been if we had just >> I I you know obviously we don't want to put an undue burden on the applicant, but

147I I do feel like if I were moving in there too, I'd want to know and couple more holes would make me feel better. What does everyone else think? >> And I mean, let me characterize it like this. you know, the board as part of its seeker obligations needs to certify that there's going to be no significant environment adverse environmental impacts right to public health. So, if we can't know something like that for sure, I think we need to air on the side of conservativism. You know, we thought about this too. You know, I I don't want to have an undue burden. I don't want to be um unfair, but again, residential uses, sensitive land use, >> and especially if it's well water. Well, and then there's just on-site soils that are contaminated with high

148levels of life >> if you had kids. >> Yeah. No, I I agree with you and I agree with Tina. I I don't think it's a big ask to do some additional >> testing. We We have a homeowner >> who absolutely says he's been poisoned by lead from the property from lead contamination. >> I I I think that that should be addressed. I I I don't think that's a fair assumption. um just because somebody has elevated levels of lead in their blood. There's multiple ways that that could have happened to to make the statement that that's got to do with where he lives adjacent to this property. I think you got to be careful about making that statement. >> I agree. I think you need to be careful. I think you got to be careful.

149The other thing I want I do want to address with that and I don't want to you know um I'm not trying to say that there's the the issue is not an issue that should be discussed but he also mentions in his memo that the report is AI generated and I don't know you can be very very careful when you're analyzing an AI generated report for instance I had a client who said to me I want to put a plane court in my property said you don't have enough building coverage for to total lock coverage for it. Said, "How much total lock coverage do I have?" And I gave him the numbers. He said, "What about a half court?" And I said, "Well, no, a half court's still too much." And I told him, "The

150size of a half court." He goes, "Well, that's not a half court." I asked AI what a half court is, and AI took the dimensions of a court and cut each of them in half, which is a quarter of a court. So, you know, I just think we need to be cautious of some of the statements that are made in that report and where they come from and how they were generated. uh Eastern Environmental did a proper assessment of the soils and is not finding elevated levels of contamination and I think that's more important than an AI generation. >> I agree and I I didn't to be honest didn't read the whole report. >> Yeah, I didn't and to be honest I didn't really rely on the AI report at all. I am professionally aware

151that lead contamination is a potential in situations like this. So, I didn't need the AI report to to tell me that. >> Um, and Dan's 100% right. Like, you know, a big grain of salt. >> Um, >> I think it's a decision that we make now is going to have ramifications, possible ramifications for a long time to come. So, I think it's important that we make the right decision now >> and maybe we should heir on the side of safety. Yeah. >> Because if we screw up, it's gonna it's going to create a situation that you can't unwind. >> Yeah. >> So, I I'm I'm just curious if new borings are requested from this board, where are they going to go? How many? Because, and I and I'm the minority here where I I think

152this is deficient. The 267 is the highest, but 400, right, is the >> minimum. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, it's it's it's still lower than than the >> So, I'm just like, how that's why I asked how many more how many is going to how many more borings is is going to satisfy this board? I I mean I suggested one in the middle of each lot and two in the common driveway because a lot of dirt gets displaced when you're doing a driveway. >> And you know if if there is contamination somewhere in there, you need to know before you displace it. My my concern is because of some other projects we have uh you know removing all that soil that might be contaminated that would go where it would be it would be filled

153in another site somewhere. >> There are well that's why we would do the testing. >> That's my that's my concern. >> Well that's that's why the testing so that the contractors would know to safely dispose of the potentially contaminated soil. >> Right. >> The test scores aren't deep. They're only like foot. >> Yeah. >> And and and still Suffach County Water doesn't have any water mans up there yet. >> No. >> We went through this we went through this a couple months ago in front of the application. It's still too far away. They did not come this far up when they did the airport remediation work. So, we're beyond. >> They got a Don't they They have uh fire hydrants up there. >> They just put it in on 114. So, it should >> Yeah,

154but they don't come up. They don't come northwest road. They went around up 114. So they don't run past this property. So they're not in front of Okay. We would have hooked up the public. Okay. >> Yeah. All right. >> All right. >> Required to >> Bruce, any um comments? >> Um I just have a question. Dan, are we doing are you is it a common driveway or >> correct? A common driveway. There's an access easement over the flash for the common driveway. It's up to the top of the sheet. I think there's a detail. >> Oh, got it. Yeah, I see. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> This does look confusing. And we have it looks like it looks like it does. >> I didn't see the common drive. >> Yeah, there's an there's

155a scenic over one flags. You can't use it. It's blocked. >> So, the high the 267 is in the southoutheast >> corner there. Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> and that is where Dan presumes the where the the most >> the most likely the number of shots. Okay. >> Any other So, are we generally agreed that more testing is better aside from Michael? >> I think additional testing is warranted. >> Yeah. And I think I would follow the advice of the planning department. That's just me. >> Okay, >> Bruce. >> I think maybe one in the middle of lot three and one at the end of the common driveway towards lot three. Lot one, it seems like it's pretty minimal. The same with lot two. The higher elevations are on lot three. >> I think that's

156an educated appraisal. >> Yeah. Uh so I I I'll sign on to this uh suggestion. >> Yeah, I I agree. I think the logic is clearly that your readings are probably going to be in alignment with what is here for lot three, but I do think the driveway needs to be needs to have a test hole. >> Yeah. So then one test hole, one additional test hole at the end of the driveway by lot three and then one additional test hole in the middle of lot three. >> Split the baby. Yeah. Okay. But I think we can answer our questions with kind of these details. Have the public's concerns been adequately addressed or does the board feel that additional soil and/or groundwater testing as recommended by the planning department and as detailed above is required?

157Yes. No. The public's concerns have not been adequately addressed and we do feel that there is additional soil testing necessary as we just outlined >> groundwater as recommended by Bruce >> as Bruce. Um, okay. So, this is if no attention. So, number two was an if no. Okay. And then I think that's it. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks, Dan. >> Thanks, Dan. >> Thanks, Sarah. >> Okay. So now we move on to the regular meeting which uh during which we have one we just have a couple of um resolutions. So Michael would you like to read the Wayne Scott commercial center >> on the matter of the application of the Wayne Scott commercial center preliminary subdivision subg tax map 3000-192-2-6.22 to 26.7 the nonacceptance of preliminary supplemental draft envir environmental impact

158statement. I have read the resolution and I move forward adoption. Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I am recused from this one. So it's one, two, three, four, five eyes, one abstension. >> Recusal. Thank you. Um, second one, Echoacres sub waiver resolution of approval in the matter of planning board town of East Hampton in the matter of the application of Echoacres minor subdivision Suffach County Tax Map number 300-135-2-11.2 waiver of subdivision approval. I have read the resolution and move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I Towers read. >> Yeah, I got that. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pantiggo Road, East Hampton on January 14th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. as soon thereafter as this matter may be

159heard to consider the application of lead towers at Springs Fire Department tier 3 personal wireless service facility at premises identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel 300-62-2-18 period 2 files can be viewed and comments can be vi filed in accordance with the specifics in the public notice which appears as part of the meeting record tonight and will be published in the paper of record no less than 10 days before set hearing date. I've read the resolution. I move for its adoption. >> All in favor? >> I. >> You sounded like you had a southern accent there for a second. >> Southern accent. >> Yeah, that's what I thought was going to come out. Maybe >> it's getting late here. Yeah, >> he's rolling >> in the matter of the application of the White

160House site plan special permit Suffach County tax map number 300-171-2-3 for an extension of time until July 23rd 2026. I have read this resolution and move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? I this one me too. Nice. In the matter of the application of Scanelli Skagnelli minor subdivision modification Suffach County tax map number 300-9-1-1718 and 22 uh for an extension of time until July 11th, 2026. I have read this resolution and move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. A board of review full pile map road assignment. Hang on. Okay. Um this is for road a road assignment at 166 Granite Street in Montalk filed map number 1017 block 159 lot 3 URP number five in MN-5 and Suffach County tax map number 300-9-3-35. Uh a

161revised report has been made on November 21st which is attached and made a part of this resolution. Um the road improvement I can't read because I don't have my glasses. >> 16,500. >> Thank you. It's uh 3 thou 3,300 road improvement units for a total of $16,500. I have read this resolution and look for it approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? I minutes. Has everyone read them? >> I know that Katie found an error. I know. So, I think we can be uh >> That was a That was a good error. >> That was a good error. >> Kudos to you. >> Um I move to adopt minutes as written. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> And there is one last resolution. As Ed would say, >> make a motion to

162adjurnn. >> Second. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi.