001All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Good evening, everyone. Welcome to East Hampton Towns Planning Board regular and work session for November 19th, 2025. Uh we have a bit of an ambitious agenda today, including um a a public hearing. We have uh three items on for work session and a fourth including the Wayne Scott commercial center preliminary supplemental draft environmental impact statement completeness review uh as well as some regular meeting items. So we're going to jump in with public hearing for McDonald Griffin subwaver. [clears throat] Um do we have proper posting on that? We do. Okay, great. Uh, all right. So, Chris, that's you and Jen, that's you for the board, correct? >> Yes, please. >> Uh, notice is hereby given that a public
002hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on November 19th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. The application is the McDonald Griffin subwaver. The size and location of the project is 54,494 square ft or 1.251 acres located at 981 Springs Fireplace Road, East Hampton. Suffach County Tax Map number 300-39-16-9. The application is to divi divide the existing lot into two parcels. Parcel one is proposed as 28,16 ft and parcel 2 is proposed as 20,0002 ft. >> Okay. Thanks, Chen. >> Thank you. >> Um All right. And is the applicant with us? Okay. Very good. Thank you. So, we're gonna start with Chris. uh gives it to give us a quick brief on what's what this is all about. >> Sure. Thank you. Um pretty simple project. Here's the subject property 981 Springs Fireplace Road.
003Um and as Jen mentioned, it's to divide the 1.25 acre parcel into two properties. Um and already went over the lot sizes. Um, parcel's currently improved with a two-story residence shown on the seat certificate of occupancy from 2023. Um, there's also a shed near the proposed common driveway which the planning board and the applicant agreed would be removed as a condition of approval. Um, the site zone B residence and [clears throat] partially cleared as indicated on the map here, uh, which conforms with the town code. So, there's no further issues on our end. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. Uh, do many members of the public wish to be heard on this matter, the McDonald Griffin subwaver. >> Okay, Matt, is there anyone on the phone who wants to be heard on this matter?
004>> Please stand by. [clears throat] >> And this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV. making sure that all the lines are open and clear in which they are and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Okay, with that I think we should call for closure of the public hearing. Jen, >> motion close the public hearing. >> I second. >> Let's [laughter] do it. >> All in favor? [clears throat] >> The public hearing is closed. >> All right. Thank you. So, we're going to dive into the work session then. We've had a request to make a change to the order of uh of the applications and uh we will actually go ahead and do that very [snorts] thing. But I'm going to make a motion to make that change which is is that we'll do
005Ecoacres after Wayne Scott Wambles and then Elite Towers and then the Wayne Scott commercial center. >> I second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> Okay. Pass and carried. All right. So the first uh of those items is Wayne Scott Wombles 2 LLC site plan modification will for the planning board. Bruce for sorry planning department. Bruce for the planning board. Tell us about it. Will. So, this is a modification seeking approval of an existing gravel walkway on the subject property and over a flagship portion of the neighboring residential property covered by an easement to connect to an adjacent commercial property. The site is located on Montalk Highway and Wayne Scott, zoned a resident, considered 100% clear of natural vegetation and is a type two action pursuant to CRA. The site is improved with a
006one-story office building, roof, patio, parking area, and dumpster. [clears throat] This modification for the subject site [clears throat] involves a walkway on a separate neighboring parcel. Both parcels are highlighted in this image in the blue. And this little center strip is the residential parcel flat strip. In order for the modified walkway to be approved for both sites and to obtain CO for both sites, the applicant must submit a second modification request for the neighboring site. The subject walkway will cross over an easement which permits a walkway over the neighboring flagstrip portion of a residential property. However, no documentation of consent from the neighbor was received as part of the submission and the applicant should provide such documentation. [clears throat] The submitted survey does not include lot or total lot coverages and the subject path is
007not labeled as proposed or to be approved. Additionally, offenses shown on the survey within the flagship of the residential lot which does not appear on the previously approved plan for the commercial lots or the most recent certificate of occupancy for the residents. The applicant should provide the lot and total lot coverages to determine whether the project meets town code requirements, label the subject path appropriately, and clarify who is responsible for the fencing in this area. As this is a modification, the board is not required to hold a public hearing, but may choose to hold one if it finds there is reason to suspect public concern. The planning department does not anticipate receiving any public concern about the subject path and recommends a public hearing not be required. In conclusion, the planning department recommends the applicant
008submit a revised site plan which labels the path and includes lot and total lot coverage amounts and calculations to demonstrate compliance and clarify the owner of the fence on the residential flagship. The board should discuss if it wishes to hold the public hearing for this application and if not the planning department recommends the application will be ready for approval when the revised site plan is received. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Sure. >> John, I did did not mention that a condition of changing the order was to for you to explain wombles. [laughter] >> I thought it was going to be really quickly. >> Uh I don't have an explanation for wombles. Uh so I think that the planning department has put forth some things we have
009to give to you the board to uh to push this application along. I have a question which the town attorney is probably going to have to answer. I don't expect the answer tonight. Um but maybe as part of the next submission before when I come here we can we can figure this out. I'm thinking that uh so the reason why we're here is that Wombles 2, which is the one to the east has no CO and as part of the application for the CO process the walkway came up. If you look at the survey, the walkway, uh, it is there there's a gravel walkway on this property, which clearly needs site plan approval. I'm not so sure that the walkway between the two properties, which is on a residential property that we don't own, should
010be before the board. Um, I'm happy to do that, but u I'm thinking that it's within our like the site plan approval is I guess my question is can can you give site plan approval off the property? I'm maybe that's a town attorney question. I just fig we'd get it right and figure it out for next time. >> What do you think? >> More. >> Yeah, I'll talk to you about it. Is it unusual? >> It's not [clears throat] um the same owner. >> Uh no, there's a residential property between the two commercial properties. So, I think that residential property could probably put a gravel walkway there without site plan approval. And um if they wanted to um clearly didn't, we did. But uh my point is I think I think what we should be
011looking at is the walkway that's on Wombles 2. That's a change to the approved site plan. So I think what we should be doing is coming to you and saying, "Hey, we added this gravel walkway on our property and we'd like to add we like to modify our site plan approval to include that gravel walkway." I think adding in we got Scott Wumbles one which has a CO and uh doesn't have a walkway on it really. Um and also I don't know. >> We can look into it. >> I should look into it. >> Y >> whatever the answer is I'll come back to you next time with the >> Okay. All right. Thanks, John. >> All right. So we'll have our discussion. So Bruce, would you leave that? >> Sure. All right. So that's
012actually kind of interesting if that walkway gets taken out. I guess Wombles 2 has no CO, but the walkway was added. I guess the other question is what about the small portion of the walkway on what is that wobbles one? >> Yeah. between the driveway and the walkway. Has that [snorts] has that been added as well? So, would we be reviewing that as well because that's an addition? >> I think the idea was that we should submit an application for that one as well. >> Okay. >> But I honestly that's such a rather than submit an application for you to have that I might just remove that portion because it's a driveway there. So, um, it's like one step. Literally one step. Yeah. So, I think what we would do is just remove that from
013the property. >> Okay. >> Oh, okay. >> All right. So, I think this is pretty minor then. >> I would agree we probably don't need a public hearing, but I think we do need property info, coverage, all those calculations. >> Right. So, are we thinking So, yeah, I was thinking initially that there were two different properties. Do we need two different applications here? But if you're going to be withdrawing, you're going to going to take away the portion of the of the pathway on Wampmples one. >> I would take that away. And and and it might be that the town attorney tells us we do need to submit two applications. I think we have to wait to find out what >> All right. >> Okay. >> And before you sit down, John, I just do
014you have a question about the property owner. Is there an easement for that? There is. Okay. So I guess submitting that would depending on >> where it goes with it. Yeah. >> Okay. Oh, you have you have permission from >> We have permission and an emanc that's new to me. I don't know who I assume we put it in, but I don't I don't know that for sure. Could have been Could have been the residential property just to keep people from uh >> wandering back there. >> Yeah, I'll find out. >> Okay. >> All right. >> We got a lot of Yeah. >> Yeah. We'll get out. We got a little work to do. Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] and some answers from town attorney's office to get >> I I would have brought up before. I
015just thought of it tonight when I was preparing. So, >> anything else, Bruce? >> No, that's it. All right. Any other comments? >> All right. So, uh we'll ask the questions. I think the questions now maybe look a little bit different. Should the applicant submit a revised site plan highlighting the the path in providing Glock coverage and total lock coverage? I think we're now saying that that's on depending on the answer from the town attorney's office only on wombles too. Um we need information about the easement right as you just described and uh information about the fencing. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Does everyone agree with that? >> Yes. Okay. >> Provided on wombles one that little room right? Yeah. Okay. Um, so it's probably a little early to be asking ourselves this question, but
016does the board wish to require a public hearing? >> You know, I think at this stage of the game, >> I don't think, especially if it ends up just being the one, >> you know, some of us love public hearings, including me. But [laughter] >> I won't hold you to you can change your mind later. >> All right. Yeah, I don't think we need to actually record that answer. >> TBD. Will the application be ready for approval when a revised site plan with the elements noted above is received? I think the answer is >> probably depending on the answer from the town attorney's office and what it is you actually wind up submitting. >> Yeah. Um Eric Chance for the planning department. Um I I would say that you um you know you you have
017too much kind of up in the air right now to uh determine that based on what was said tonight. But I also wanted to um remind you because it wasn't in the memorandum. Um, we also need uh something indicating consent of the neighbor. >> I think that's >> Does the easement does the easement cover that? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. I think we're good on that one. >> Uh, so let's move to Eco Acres. And who is covering that? Let's see. That is >> Eric. Absolutely. And Jen. Okay, great. Eric, please. Okay. Um, let me just put the screening plan up on the screen for you. Was submitted. Okay. So, hopefully you can see this plan in a second. Um, so a public hearing was held on September 24th. One member of
018the public spoke at the hearing. The member of the public who spoke at the hearing was a neighbor of the subject parcel. uh their concerns were primarily over potential visibility of new residences on the subject parcels from the neighbors property and vice versa. Uh subsequent to the October 8th meeting, the board agreed that the public's concerns had been adequately addressed with the condition of screening along the common driveway. Uh the specific condition recommended by the planning department was for a row of 6ft tall evergreen screening along the southern boundary of the building envelope um on proposed lots one and two. So you can see on the map in front of you um that would be basically a row of screening of Evergreen screening along the southern portions of both lots. Um however the applicant submitted
019photographs along with a revised subwaver map which serves as a screening plan which is what you see in front of you. Uh the photographs reveal that the southern boundary of the subject parcel is already significantly screened with evergreen and other vegetation and that only the area adjacent to the turnaround will require screening as this area appears to have been cleared at some point. Uh the planning department inspected the site on November 12th. It does appear that existing screening along the southern property line is substantial and that the only area with a significant gap uh appears to be the area adjacent to where the applicants now propose screening. Uh the planning department finds the additional screening proposed in conjunction with existing vegetation should adequately screen the proposed lots on the subject property from those on neighboring
020lots. The board should determine if it agrees. Um the engineer and the fire marshall have already signed off on the project. So in conclusion, um provided the board agrees, uh it appears that the application is ready for approval if you do feel that the public's concerns have been met. Um, one uh extra point um sort of included in the memo but kind of after the memo is um that the map right now contains a notation that says that the reserved areas will be dedicated to a homeowners association. Um we had spoke about that previously. That is the applicant's decision um as long as it remains for passive recreational open space. Um but my understanding is that the applicant intends to deed the the reserved areas to the town um which is more customary. Uh so
021if that the applicant should address that and if that is the case then the map should be amended. Um it is specifically notation number six um on the map um that says homeowners association map should be uh changed to the town of East Hampton if that's the way they're going. um they would submit that revised map and then a resolution of approval provided the board agrees would follow and that would um reference the correct updated map with the updated notation. >> Okay, thanks Eric. Any comments, Mr. Tarpet? >> Uh no, I wanted to thank Eric. He and I worked south the last couple weeks. Um and uh we are impacting it to the county provided adult. >> Okay. We have word that they're interested. [laughter] >> Okay. All right. Good. >> I really don't have
022anything further. I think you're right. The screening is definitely adequate except for that one one spot I've been there. Um so >> I have nothing more to add. Okay. I know you guys are surprised that I looking at me like, "Oh, >> all right. >> You [snorts] want that?" >> Yeah. >> Good. All right. Anybody else have comments on this one? It was pretty It was pretty easy breezy, right? Um All right. So, have the public's concerns been adequately addressed? And is the submitted screening plan, which I guess is now modified for what we're looking at up there, uh is that acceptable? Yes. >> Yeah. We're all in agreement on that, everybody? Yeah. >> Okay. Um, and is the application ready for approval? I guess I would add, you know, pending clarification about the screening
023and the change in the dedication uh information on the >> on the map on the map. >> I think the screening on that survey is is the >> is the is the new proposed >> that is finalized. >> Okay. >> So on that survey because the one we have in our packets different. >> Yeah. Yeah. So the one So there is the more current survey. So that's already been done. So it's just a matter of the change pending a change in the dedication to the town versus homeowners association. So given that, are we good? >> Yeah, >> I think so. Yeah. >> Okay, great. You're all done. Dismissed. Thanks, John. Thanks, John. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um, our next matter is Elite Towers at Springs Fire Department tier three personal wireless service facility.
024And Eric, again, that's you. And Reed, that's you for the board. And I see the applicant is here. Okay. >> Okay. Uh, at the time of the last uh review of the board on August 27th, the board stated that the landscaping and screening was acceptable, that it declared lead agency status. Um, the board is the only involved agency, [clears throat] and that the application would be complete, ready to be scheduled for a public hearing after a secret declaration was made. U the planning department had previously prepared a memorandum in EAF uh parts two and three for the board to review. However, it was discovered that the comments in the record from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation are outdated and do not reflect the currently proposed project. The applicant requested
025an adjournment until updated comments could be provided and the EAF amended accordingly to reflect them. Uh by letter dated November 4th, uh the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation stated, quoting, [snorts] "Based upon this review, it is the opinion of OPHP that no properties, including architectural and/or historical resources listed in or eligible for the New York State and National Register of Historic Places will be impacted by this project." Uh the applicants have also submitted a protected species impact assessment prepared by BHB engineering dated November 4th uh since the date of the last planning board review. This assessment identifies uh five specific threatened or endangered species as identified by uh both federal and state entities. As a brief summary, this assessment concludes that there is little potential for harm to any of
026these identified species due to the lack of needed habitat or ongoing human disturbance. Uh the northern long-eared bat is noted as the most likely species to be present. However, this is due to the presence of mature trees on the site, those being um those greater than 3 in in diameter at breast height. Um of which only five are proposed to be removed. Additionally, pre-existing clearing and ongoing site activity make this an unlikely site for this species and no examples have been observed on the project site. The planning department agrees with the conclusions of the assessment that there is a low likelihood of a taking of any threatened or endangered species as a result of the proposed project. Uh the planning department has prepared an environmental assessment form parts two and three. A negative declaration pursuant
027to secret and chapter 128 of the town code is recommended. Um so in conclusion uh the board should review the uh draft EAF and determine if any changes are needed. If no changes are required, then a secret declaration should be made and the application will be scheduled for a public hearing. Um, I will say uh two things in addition to this memo. Um, one is I would like to, you know, obviously the board's review uh focuses on the EAF. I would like to sort of briefly go through the EAF um part two and the the questions and the the boxes that we check in there um just to make sure that the board is comfortable with it. And then I also wanted to let the board know that we did receive a letter um from
028a member of the of the public, an attorney representing um a public group. Um that raised questions about the process here. Um but I will say the planning department has reviewed it and we recom we our recommendation is still that you move forward um with a secret declaration this evening and with a negative declaration. Um, with that, um, what I'm going to do is screen share, um, the EIF part two, um, and just sort of briefly run through the major categories here. Um, obviously the EAF part 3 has an attachment that has a more detailed explanation of the responses to each of these questions. Um but what I would like to do is sort of um go through um all 18 of these categories um somewhat briefly and um the board can stop me uh
029you know when it uh has a question about um the draft EAF and the responses that were put in there. So um the first category is impact on land. Um we don't anticipate any moderate or large impacts to land. Um we check this box yes because there is land disturbance involved in this project but as the board knows um it is a minimal area that's impacted. This is already a developed site. Um so we don't see the the potential for any moderate to large impacts. Geological features. There really are no unique geological features on the property. Same goes with surface water. There is no surface water on the property or within close proximity. Groundwater. Um the project site is over the the town's sole source aquifer, but there is not um a water discharge anticipated.
030Um flooding, this is not in a flood hazard zone. Um the area of the equipment enclosure and the um macro pole is not within any known flood flood hazard area that routinely floods. Um impacts on air. Other than having an emergency generator for the facility, there really is no impact on air. Impact on plants and animals. Um as I previously said, there are um threatened and endangered species identified as being potentially on the site um within the area. However, um most of those species that have, for example, one of them is the piping clover. The piping clover is a shorebird. Um we don't anticipate that on the property. And as I previously said, the um the impact uh on the property as far as removal of trees is is minimal. Um impact on agricultural resources.
031Now the we don't anticipate the project will really have any direct impact on those, but there are um agricultural properties in the vicinity. Um so we wanted to denote that um that there there are agricultural uses and active agricultural operations nearby. Um but we don't feel that any of the impacts that would result um raise to the level of moderate to large. Um impact on aesthetic resources is one of the um you know more key categories in consideration and review of of the application. Um we checked yes because obviously um as had been demonstrated in the visual renderings that were provided um the facility the the poll would be visible from numerous uh areas of Parkland. Those include uh Gerard Drive um uh Laos Point. Um but you know as was demonstrated in the visual
032renderings the the very top of a pole would be all that was visible. Um even though you can see the poll from those locations, I don't think it can be reasonably said that there is any moderate to large impact on those resources. Um impact on historic and archaeological resources. Of course, we would check yes here. Um the site is in proximity of the Springs Historic District, including the Pollock Kraner House, which is on the National Register. Um so you know we we've identified the fact that this will impact historic resources. Um however as you just heard from the updated comments um from uh New York State Historic Preservation they don't have any objection to this. They don't see impacts on any identified resources. And additionally the architectural review board um has reviewed this and sent
033favorable comments to the planning board. Um impact on open space and recreation is very much the same um situation as the answer we gave to um part nine which is impact on aesthetic resources. Um this will be visible from open resources but we don't see that the impact will um be moderate to large. Um the site number 12 critical environmental area those are special areas that are that are designated as such. This is not within one of those. um impact on transportation. Um we don't foresee any any significant impact there. Impact on energy, we checked. Yes. Um because they do have a generator. Um this is a facility that transmits transmits radio frequencies. It will use electricity. Um but again um certainly no more so than any other wireless facility and not to a degree
034that um puts any significant demand [clears throat] on existing infrastructure. um impact on no noise, odor and light. Um we check this yes um mainly because of just operation during the time of construction, but then also again because there's an emergency generator on the property. That would only be on at a time of emergency um and and for routine uh running of it. And there is a provision in the town code that allows generators in conjunction with wireless facilities. Um impact on human health. Um we check no here. Uh it is a common um thing that's brought up with wireless facilities of the fact that there's um radiation and a radio frequency being being emitted. Um but everything has been checked by our wireless consulting firm and found to be in compliance with FCC standards.
035um consistency with uh community plans. Um we checked yes um just because you know there are height restrictions and and other um you know regulations in the zoning code that are meant to limit the height of structures. Um obviously wireless applications are somewhat you know well are outside of those as applicable code restrictions. They don't need variances from them. Um but you know there is a deviation from the zoning code. So we just wanted to note that. But um we certainly don't see the potential for any moderate to large impacts. Um this does not require any variances. It is consistent with the wireless master plan that was fairly recently adopted by the town. Um so you know which also identified a coverage gap in this area. Um so we we do feel that is consistent.
036Um the the last uh category here is consistency with community character. Uh and we checked yes on you will see that this is the only area where a subbox was checked moderate to large and that is part E which is proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scaling character of the area. Um obviously this is a proposed 150 foot tall tower. It would be the largest uh tallest structure in this area of springs. Um but it is a wireless facility. It needs to be it is a wireless macro facility that needs to be of a certain height in order to provide adequate coverage. Um additionally the applicants have mitigated um the impacts that this will have um by putting it in the middle of the property and by proposing a stealth monopole design which
037is the least conspicuous for a macro facility putting all the equipment in the interior. Um [snorts] however we did feel that this is um the largest potential impact that would result from this project and really specifically that inconsistency with the overall really the height of buildings in the area and the proximity of residential properties. So you know we wanted to um acknowledge that that we you know we do know that this is going to be a very tall structure. It will be visible from nearby residential properties. However, we don't feel that this rises to the level of moderate to large impact um really based on the mitigation that the the applicants have offered and based on the visual renderings that have been submitted. Um so that really covers sort of the main categories of the
038EAF. Um I don't know if the board has specific questions or specific changes. Um but if so uh this would be the time to have that that discussion and I would bring the board um back to really the the main point here which is reviewing this document. We recommend uh that a negative declaration be made and then subsequently we would schedule a public hearing um if that is done this evening. >> Are there any specific questions for Eric regarding the EAF that he just reviewed for us? I know we've all had an opportunity to look at this uh in recent weeks. No specific question. >> No. >> Okay. All right. Good. Um Reed, >> did Okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Uh yes. Does the applicant wish to be heard? [snorts] >> Good evening. Uh
039Greg Alvarez of Mono Law Group, 666 Old Country Road, Garden City, New York. Here on behalf of the applicants, uh hello again. Um I'll just say that we concur with the analysis that Eric has presented in terms of SRA. Um we um so we uh obviously uh respectfully request for a negative declaration this evening. Um I would like to note as Eric had as well uh this morning we we are in receipt of the letter from um Robert Berg who represents the Springs residents against the leaked um association. He does not reference uh the specific residents in the area to make sure that um you know they are um they are interested in this application. So we would just ask for that. um in terms of you know the comments that are in there certainly
040there are questions that were raised in terms of this SRCA discussion this evening. We believe that all of those questions have been asked and answered but um we also like to say that we you know we um you know we welcome the opportunity for a robust discussion during the public hearing if this board is so inclined to grant that negative declaration. So um you know if any of those issues that are raised in any others uh certainly we feel that that is the proper form for that. So um uh this evening we again we look for uh your declaration and we thank you for this process this back and forth that's been going on in terms of our review of our submissions and uh making sure that we've gotten to this point in u you
041know in solid shape. >> Thank you Mr. Alvarez. >> Chair Robert Berg. May I make a couple comments from the my know that you normally don't have public comments. This is a important uh point in your you know process and uh sometimes for a public hearing for a secret determination uh you're not doing that. It's an option that you do have. It's not required by law but it is an option that many planning boards uh do. And if you allow me to speak for a few minutes, I could perhaps uh clarify some points. >> Well, you're right in saying that we do not typically do this, right? You know, in fact, we we make a point to to avoid doing it because, you know, having public commentary when the meeting is not noticed for such
042um is really, you know, kind of a conflict. I mean, that's really an issue for us. Um I we suspected that you might want to speak tonight and I we will allow it but three minutes. That's it. That's it. Can you time that J? >> Sure. >> And identify yourself for the record please. Sure. Name and address. >> My name is Robert Berg uh from the law firm of Robert J. Berg PLLC Marin, New York. Um I represent a number of residents who are opposed to the tower. They live right next to the tower very close by. Uh the tower currently presents a public safety hazard. If the thing falls over, it's going to crush some houses. If you move it into the parking lot of the uh fire station, if it falls over at
043that point, it's going to crush a bunch of cars and it might fall into the building and crush people inside the building. Uh you really should not have uh a tower like this, which can fall and in particularly in a hurricane or a giant noraster superstorm. Uh it's a public safety hazard. It doesn't have to do with the wireless issue, which I understand you can't make a decision on, but you have a public safety danger here. You have ice that can fall from the tops of the tower. I've seen, you know, in an ice storm, the stuff melts and the stuff crashes down. It's going to go right next to the parking lot where you're citing it here. So, that's one issue. You actually don't have a need for this tower because you put up
044towers right and left through town. Now, I can't believe it. When I was driving, I looked by the recycling center. You got a two giant towers going up there. I went by the Girl Scout camp today. You have a massive 185 foot tower there, uh, which is going to provide enormous coverage. Here you have the St. Peter's Chapel Tower for AT&T, 70 foot tower. There's coverage everywhere. If you look at the FCC National Broadband Map, which I described in my letter, there's a 100% coverage in the Springs in this whole area. Now, the studies that they've provided you uh they're old. there before the act the activation of the antennas on the Girl Scout camp tower. Uh the environmental issue uh threatened birds ospre their their mascot is the osprey. There are ospre on virtually
045all of the cell towers around here. There was an osprey nest for 5 years or more on the very illegal tower that's in the fire station. Now, it was cleared off apparently in the last month or so, but there's been an osprey nest there for years. Uh, you have an osprey nest. I drove by this evening right before dusk to the Girl Scout camp tower. There's an osprey nest on the lower the lowest level of the antenna arrays there. There's an osprey nest there already. You're going to have osprey nests there. You have eagles around here. was driving in Montalk this summer in September and there's an eagle perched on one of the new wireless the small wireless facilities in town there right across from John's drive. You're going to get wildlife impacts here. Uh
046visually I drove down this evening right before sunset again to the Laos Point area fun and you can see this thing. It's ugly. >> Okay, >> you had one more thing. You did a a positive declaration five years ago. That's an extraordinary thing to do to have a positive declaration for a cell tower. It happens 1% of the time or less. And now you don't even really discuss it. It Mr. Chance hardly discusses it. The positive deck here and differentiates things. What happened? The tower is 30 ft lower this time and it suddenly is not an impactful problem. That's nonsense. >> Okay. Thank you for sharing your concerns. I appreciate that. Um, [snorts] all right. Reed, >> I'm actually representing Verizon Wireless. >> I'm sorry. >> I represent Verizon Wireless. The collapse say a couple
047words. >> You're you're with the applicant, >> correct? >> Are you planning to respond to those the remarks that were just made? >> Yes. >> I prefer that you not that we not get into that conversation. Thank you, >> Reed. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, I first want to take a moment and just recognize that anytime, um, in the eight years that I've served on the planning board, a cell phone application or, um, a wireless facility comes up, it always generates excitement and a lot of controversy. Um, I want to thank the planning department. Um, I think, uh, Eric, you did a real good job of walking us through the environmental assessment form. Um, and I have read the uh protected species impact assessment that was recently submitted. Um, I I I will tell you,
048Mr. Berg, I know you're visiting from Larchmont, but there is absolutely a demonstrated uh wireless service deficiency in the Springs. I'm in the fire department. I hear about guys complaining about it. I I think it's a real problem. Um, so and and just another point, you had also talked about the relocation of the pole to the middle of the property. We've been told that this pole, the way they're designed now, and this was news to me, that they're collapsible. So that if something were to happen, it doesn't just fall 150 ft in one certain direction, it collapses down. Um, so I've also been told that. Um, but I think that the uh I think that your your comment about not no need for the tower doesn't um doesn't make sense to me. Um, so I
049agree that uh I think the secret does uh uh I think we should make a negative declaration on secret. Um, I definitely think we should have a public hearing on this matter and I hope that the public hearing I think it would be most productive for the public hearing to focus on this specific application and not the application that was submitted 10 years ago because you're comparing an apple to an orange. That's all I have. >> Thanks, Reed. >> And does anyone else want to comment from the board? So all we're doing today is we're deciding whether or not to do a positive or negative declaration on secret. >> Yeah. >> There are other issues that I think are going to come up. I have my opinions on those, but I don't think it's a
050good time to do that. That'll come up after the public hearing. We'll hear more about these issues. >> Yeah, we'll have an opportunity. As far as the declaration on seeker, I think this is a different uh application than the the other one where we made a positive declaration, but it's a stealth pole. It's lower. So I I think it was a thorough review of all the possible areas of concern with regard to see and I think that u I'm comfortable with a negative declaration. >> Okay. >> I just wanted to say one quick thing. Um, I agree with um what Reed has said and what Lou has said. And I also just want to express as someone who works in Springs every summer at Ashwag Hall, you know, which is one of the closest sites
051to this proposed poll, there is definitely a lack of service. um the the people that I work with every every week at the Ashwalk farmers market. You know, it it presents a limit to the business that they can do. It also presents a safety issue. You know, we've had times when we needed to call medical professionals or 911 or the police and it's it's a safety issue. So, um, but I am definitely in favor of the negative declaration as well because I think it was very well well researched and done and thanks to the planning department. >> Um, you know, I'll just say kind of to wrap up our board discussion that we have been talking about this application for a good long time and we have been through the EAF. We've talked a lot
052to the planning department about this. We I I don't want to get into a back and forth about other comments that were expressed earlier, but um you know the truth is this is necessary. The truth is this is safe. Um this is not the same tower in the same location as the previous application which was this is not that application. Um so I will ask the question of the board. Does the planning board wish to make a negative declaration pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code for this project? >> Yes. [snorts] >> Unanimous. Everyone in agreement? >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. Great. Is the applicant ready to be scheduled for a public hearing? Uh >> yes. >> Okay. We're good to go. >> Thank you everyone. Thank you, Eric. Okay. Before we
053move on to the Wayne Scott commercial center preliminary subdivision supplemental draft environmental impact statement completeness review. Uh let's see is Peter with us online. >> You have a lot of people on uh online right now. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh but Peter, our consultant, is he with us? >> Yes, I'm on. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Jan is recused from this matter. Thank you, Jen. >> You're not going to be back for the regular meeting, right? Okay, which is perfectly fine. >> What are we going to do? >> All right. Uh so before we begin, you know, I know that there are obviously I hear that there are, you know, a number of interested parties who are listening in watching on LTV, which is great. you know, please stay and um observe the conversation.
054I know there are people in the audience who may want to share their thoughts on this. This is not a public hearing. This is not a time for public comment. This is purely about us making a determination as to whether or not the preliminary sub um supplemental DEIS is complete or not. That is our sole objective for today. So, we're going to keep the conversation to to that and there will be plenty of opportunity for folks to comment on this. Uh when if it's judged to be complete soon, [clears throat] if it's not judged to be complete, after we get a complete uh DEIS, we will certainly have a public hearing and people's voices will certainly be heard on this. Um, so with that, we'll kick this off and Tina is going to start and
055introduce our consultants [snorts] and talk through uh their thoughts about where we are. And and the applicant I see is with us. Thank you. >> Thanks, Ed. Um, Tina Logaren with the planning department. We do have a consultant team with us. Some are participating. um via Zoom. Peter Fau from AKRF, they are our uh lead planning consultants. Um LKMA is the traffic consultant. We've got uh oh, Gwen Sabarici from Akf is also here. Sorry, I didn't see her. And then we also have Dan Russo and Rob Stout from White Austrian and Hannah, their secret council. And then in person here is Vinnie Godello. He's the town uh engineer. He focuses on storm water and subdivision review. Um, I'm gonna just leave the subdivision map up if there's questions about that. And I'm going to introduce
056the discussion of our completeness review for the Wayne Scott commercial center preliminary supplemental draft environmental impact statement. I'm going to call it the PSDIS. Try to say that consistently. Um, so I'm going to just introduce it and then I'm going to pass it over to Peter later for um more detailed comments. So the completeness review uh determines whether the preliminary SDIS has adequately provided the information that was required in the March 2025 SDIS scope for the purposes of commencing public review in accordance with SRA. In the report we gave you, we gave you the specific citation that shows where we are in the SER process and the SRA uh law governing what we're doing. For the reasons set forth in the memoranda from the town's planning consultants, the planning department is recommending that the planning
057board of secret lead agency determine that the PSDIS is incomplete and that the applicant uh revise it and resubmit according to the comments that we have issued. I'll also note that while we feel the document is still incomplete, it did contain a lot of the information that was requested in the scope. The completeness review comments we're offering this evening do not address our substantive review of the analyses or conclusions that are in the PSDIS. We said this a bunch of times throughout the memoranda and um it's important that we make that distinction. um the one of you speak to [clears throat] presence or absence of information and that's what's required in seeker and that's what we've done. We haven't reviewed the substance of the analysis. Once the applicant revises the document according to these comments
058issued today, we'll determine if they've been addressed. Once the document is complete with respect to the scope, we'll recommend that a public hearing uh be held and that the SECO process continue. It's noteworthy um as well that the PSDIS is not the only thing at issue. The applications associated with the um SDIS must also be reviewed. There are several applications at issue. The preliminary subdivision, the planned industrial park, um the special permit MD2 site plans for the existing uses uh site that are going to remain. Formal site plans have not been filed for the two existing uses, but the applicant has [clears throat] stated that they will file these no later than the SDIS. And that's important because the SDIS necessarily analyzes the impacts of complete applications. So, we will need that information. As I
059said earlier, while for the PSDIS we're only providing completeness comments, we have um stayed mostly on completeness for the applications, but there are also some substantive issues that have been mentioned in the comments um that are important as the applicants um progress towards completeness that those are addressed. Before passing it to the consultant team, I do want to remind the board and the applicant that the Suffach County Planning Commission comments on the DEIS and the preliminary subdivision um must still be addressed. The applicant provided um responses that um last year or so. They do need to be updated. The court does need to make that referral to the SCPC um in accordance with general municipal law. The referral is a requirement. Um so I'm going to ask Peter KRF [snorts and clears throat] to give
060only the higher level highest level assuming completeness report that AKRF Rainer and LKMA prepared. AKRF's reports 14 pages supplemented by additional technical analysis for Rainer and LKMA. You have all the reports and all the consultants are here to answer your questions. Um if the applicant has questions, the planning department is happy to meet with them and their consultant team to go through the report and explain exactly what's meant if anything's unclear. Um we're happy to explain the comments further, but we don't expect them to change substantively from from that interaction. So Peter remarks are going to provide a brief summary of the issues detailed in the technical memoranda focusing on the issues that we feel the most important omissions from the PSDIS. Those that relate directly to our ability to clearly understand the project scope
061relate to the potential for significant project impacts and those [clears throat] that relate to mitigation whether um what is proposed is practical and will be effective. So in conclusion, and you'll hear the detail from Peter, the technical reports provide the detailed reasoning that the planning department recommends that the planning board find the PSSE EIS incomplete and required to be revised and be submitted. Thank you. >> Thanks, Tina. Um, and [clears throat] thank you, board, and and uh those in attendance. Um, my name is Peter Furrow. I'm with the planning and environmental consulting firm AKRF. Uh my office is in White Plains. Um and I just want to begin with with echoing something that Tina said. Um obviously we're talking about the completeness of the PSDIS. um which necessarily means that um we're discussing uh what
062we believe um is is is not within the PSDIS that was required. Um but we we wanted to note that like Tina said um that document that was submitted does contain a lot of new information, a lot of revised information um and is generally responsive to many aspects of the SDEIS scope. So obviously we're focusing here on the negative space of what wasn't included, which I think um was obviously our purpose tonight and something that we need to do and you as the board has the obligation to do, but I just wanted to kind of uh put that up front um to begin with. Um so in um I'll try to do kind of high level like Nina said. Um the our first um grouping of comments discuss um the need for updates to the
063project description. Um this is a very large and somewhat complicated project involving many discretionary actions [clears throat] of the planning board. Subdivision, site plan, special permit. Um there are now roadway modifications and abandonments and um there lots of pieces and and some of those pieces were not clearly described in enough detail for us to really understand them and then understand the resulting impacts of those plans. Um so information um regarding buffering and phasing and specific elements of the site plans um need to be provided as as do um complete sets of the subdivision plat and the site plan. Um obviously, [clears throat] excuse me, these are not um plans that need to be um ready to be approved, but they need to be approvable and we need to see the full slate of information. Um
064there were a number of suggestions in the SDIS scope regarding um change uh changes or suggestions for the proposed projects layout. to enhance the consistency of the project with the planned industrial park special permit requirements. Um many of those were not included which was um contemplated by the SDIS scope. It didn't mandate inclusion of those. But we do need to understand um the rationale for not including them because that goes directly to the consistency of the um plat with the planned industrial park sub um special permit criteria. Um, in addition, as you see on the plat, um, in front of you in the bottom right hand corner of the plat drawing, um, there's a new east west road which is up and down on this, uh, plat being proposed within the subdivision that would connect
065to Daniel's Hole Road. And that new road um, um, crosses Hedges Lane uh, before it intersects Daniel's Hole. Um the applicant provided research showing that um it appears that Hedges Lane is not a private road in the sense that um it is not owned by the adjacent parcels. Um if if that is actually the case as we dig in um if it is a town road um there's now a new action here which involves modifications to the town road as well as um abandonment of a portion of a town road which is that uh curve linear section um in the bottom right um that would no longer be required. Um, at the same time, there's a um historic lot line modification um that the applicant had received approval for um for the residentially zoned lots
066um immediately north and south of that uh new roadway. And so we need to just understand how all of these different pieces um fit together so that procedurally we are um making sure everything is aligned and consistent um and we understand the impacts and the downstream impacts of these various decisions that the board is being asked to make with respect to um storm water. I want to point out there is for the board um there is there was uh one of the larger um changes to the proposed subdivision layout was design for the plat. Um and this design um replaces the um formally proposed design which was the applicant formally proposed to catch storm water from the roadways within um catch basins and and leeching pools and then on each lot there would be a
067rain garden to handle the storm water from that individual lot. Um the town had suggested pretty strongly that a positive drainage system was required for this plat. The applicant incorporated a positive drainage system. Um it is um as you'll see in in the comments from the the town's consulting engineer um somewhat atypical um of a design, but it is a positive design nonetheless. And in this design, water from the roadway is captured um in catch basins and then uh piped to larger bio retention basins that are placed in the rear of the various groupings of the lots. And those bio retention basins serve um to capture and treat the storm water from the proposed subdivision uh roadways as well as the individual lots themselves. Um so that is um a big change to the um
068flat and I just wanted to make the board aware of that. Um some additional information on this system is required for us to fully understand it. um including various um um engineering design that that uh Vinnie Gardiello has laid out in his memos. Um and we need to understand how these systems would be maintained moving forward. Obviously there would be easements um and for maintenance and access and we need to understand physically um as well as procedurally how those um maint access um agreements would would be effectuated um within the plan. So we need to again we need to drill down a little bit more on that. Um with respect to traffic um there there was a new traffic study provided as requested. Um it was based on a study that was provided by the
069applicant in um December of 2023 um after the original um DEIS. Um it it did answer many of the questions that we had, but there are a couple three main issues that um are still outstanding that need to be addressed before the document can be considered complete. Um one is we need some additional information on the data that was used to calibrate the model. Um and this is the real real world observations of queuing and other um um traffic data that that was used to then verify the model and make sure the model was predicting traffic correctly in the existing condition so that we could build predicted in the future condition. Um so we just need some of that data to ensure that uh we agree with that calibration. Um we need um the SDS
070needs to contain an analysis of um a a second a different trip generation estimate for the project. This was required in the SDIS scope. Um, and we need to kind of get some more information on this and have a have an analysis be undertaken that looks at this site um and assumes that there could be would be a higher level of um traffic generated than is currently proposed. Um, and we we went through many different ways that this exercise could be accomplished. Um and we just need to get that information into the SDIS so that it can be evaluated. Um and then finally some details on the proposed mitigation that is uh provided by the applicant in terms of their layout plans and exactly how some of the physical improvements would be uh implemented is
071required as well as um there are two mitigation measures proposed um which consist of restricting left turn lanes off of um Georgia Drive and Old Malk Highway onto Monttok Highway. Um the state DOT has said that they're not they're not certain that that it's an effective or appropriate mitigation measure. Um they didn't say no. They just said they're not sure that this is appropriate [clears throat] to understand if those measures are not implemented what the results would be for the rest of the traffic study. Would there be impacts somewhere else? Would the impacts change? >> [clears throat] >> Um, with respect to the analysis on subsurface contamination, um, we're asking for a little bit more information in a couple um places. One has to do with um providing um kind of a a mashup, if
072you will, of various pieces of information that were provided in the SDIS. So, um, some graphics that overlay um the previous site uses, the locations of previous site uses that have the potential to impact the subsurface with the sampling locations with the sampling results. Just kind of putting them all onto a single figure and it'll probably be more than one figure, but it'll be on different um areas focused on different areas of the site. All of that information is in the EIS, but it is it because the site is so large and there is quite a long sampling history. Um it would be very helpful to put that information onto kind of a single grouping of figures. Um in addition, we need to drill down on groundwater. Um it wasn't clear um from the document
073on the current use of groundwater within the site. Um so we need some clarity there as well as um the applicant is still proposing um and requesting to use groundwater for non-potable purposes in the future subdivision. Um and while the town has previously expressed their opinion that that was not appropriate. Um if the opportunity continues to propose this, we need more information on the measures by which they would mitigate impacts because of the contamination that is in that groundwater um even though it's being used for non non-potable um purposes. With respect to the analysis of uh wastewater and nitrogen loading, um we requested some more additional information um to fulfill the scope's requirement um of an evaluation of neutral sewage treatment plant on the site. So information, a little more information as the scope had
074required regarding um different technologies that could be utilized on the site and the efficacy of a sewage treatment plant to remove contaminants um other than um you know primarily nitrogen, right? So how how um effect a typical IIA system in removing these other contaminants which was something that the scope had requested. Um with inspecting um the calculations for the potential noise impact um from the operations of a full buildout um just were not correctly calculated. they simply need to be updated and corrected and that kind of carries through and trickles down through the rest of the um analysis. So we need to get those updated um in that chapter. Um and that is pretty much the high level. Um, obviously we can go into more detail if the board um has questions and I know
075Vinnie and Bobby are here um as well to talk about their areas because I I did my best to talk about summarize their their highly technical work as well. Um but what we attempted to do in these uh completeness memos was provide a a road map and a path forward and said this is what was required and if we if we can update the document pursuant to this memo uh these memos that we'll be able to have an SDIS that's complete and ready for public comment and and I'll echo what Tina said. We're happy to um you know have meetings with the applicants to this and their consultants to discuss um these comments and how best um to address them and what's appropriate um if if they would like. >> Okay, >> that concludes my
076presentation. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks very much, Peter. I appreciate it. So before I ask Mr. Tintelor andor Mr. even to to make a comment. Um, you know, I just want to say that uh, you know, this was an attempt on Peter and and Tina's part to really capture at a high level, you know, what the comments were and, you know, where we feel there's some there is a lack of completeness on certain issues that we need to, you know, we need to to hear it definitively on before we can move forward. Um, and I don't think we anticipated necessarily having a very detailed discussion tonight about, you know, each individual um, item that's been requested. I think there are over a hundred items that are that are noted. But this is a giant
077file, you know, and this is a complicated project. Um, and you guys have done, you know, a great job in [clears throat] in uh, this this last submission in getting us much closer to what we need to have to move forward. Um, so I I don't know that we really want to have a, you know, pointby-point decision, but we'd love to hear from you at this point before we have our discussion as a board. >> Good evening, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, David Egan, applicants attorney. Um, there's no need for any detail. Um, we got we received the comments. we understand them. Uh we thank you for turning it around so quickly. Um and we'll do the same. Um the only thing I wanted to add tonight is that um the new submission
078will have a new subdivision plat which is going to be [snorts] uh different because it's going to reflect the fact that as we started this project eight years ago, it was six lots that were being subdivided. lot 6 uh 3 and 6.7 have been sold. >> Oh. >> Within the last couple weeks as as well as the masonary supply business. So that is going to result in a reduction of acreage of 8 and a half 18% and I wrote a map. The new map is not quite finalized and ready for prime time. um the board can expect a commensurate reduction in a number of lots. So um hopefully you'll take that as an early Christmas present. [laughter] We'll be back to you in a couple months and Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. >>
079Thank you, Mr. I appreciate that very much. Um all right. So um you know recognizing that this is a very complicated uh multi-layered project and you know given that we've all had an opportunity to read um the analysis of our planning department and of our various consultants and have had an opportunity to speak one-on-one to all of our all of our resources to kind of get a handle on this thing. Um I think that we are in a position to uh to to agree with with our resources that it is incomplete and that the um the analysis that was sent to you folks is you know what needs to be addressed and you've agreed to do it. So with that I would u unless there's any other commentary I would like to make a motion
080to deem this um this is an in is incomplete at this point second. >> All in favor? >> Okay. So that's where we are. And I think that we Eric, we'll have next week we'll have uh a formal resolution to that effect. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Good. Gentlemen, thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> Appreciate it. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Moving on. >> Peter Bobby. >> Yeah. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Okay. All right. Moving on to our regular meeting. Uh the first thing is the Hubard site plan resolution of approval. And Bruce, I think that is you. Yep. In the matter of the application of Hubard site plan supp.1. This is a site plan approval um to legalize the now existing enclosed living space which was pre previously an
081approved screen porch which is an area of about 363 square ft. I have read the determination and move for approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I pass and carried unanimously. All right. Uh moving on to Scanelli uh subwaver modification resolution of approval. Uh that would have been Jen. Does that >> Could you take that [clears throat] Ava? >> Sure. >> Uh in the matter of the application of Skype subwaver modification, Suffach County Tax Map 300-9-1-22.1 uh with regards to the property location at 20 Foxboro Road in Montalk. I have reviewed the resolution and passed for its approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I carried unanimously. Well, while you're on a roll, >> I got to get my scraps on >> schedule. This one. >> Yes. St. Michael's base alteration.
082>> All right. Uh, a public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at the town at town hall 159 Panago Road, East Hampton on December 17th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the said application uh of St. Michael's basement alteration site plan county tax map 300-172-2-9.4 4 at the Oh, that's that uh files can be viewed and comments can be filed in accordance with the specifics in the public hearing notice which appears as part of the meeting records tonight and will be published in the paper of record no less than 10 days before said hearing date. Um I move to approve this schedule of public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? I Okay. So, the schedule um the minutes adopt the minutes. Is anyone
083Does anyone have any comments on the minutes? I saw just a couple more things. Um yeah, I think the minutes have been great compared to what I've seen in years past. So, good job. But on B at the very end, um I think you accepted the project as a type two action. Um, I think that's what you meant to say. And then, um, going down to D. Um, third paragraph down, if you could just put down member members Jones as opposed to read, that would be good. That's really all I saw. >> Is that it? >> That's all I saw. I don't know. >> All right. Read like it's like Frank. Just say Frank. You know who you're talking about. >> Yeah. Right. [laughter] read. >> Just read. Just read. >> Um, all right. Uh,
084motion to approve the minutes as amended. >> Yes. >> Okay. All in favor of doing that. Second car. >> Oh, yeah. Second car. >> Um, all right. How about the final move for tonight? >> Make a motion to close the meeting with seconded. Okay. All in favor?