001All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the town of East Hampton's uh planning board regular and work session uh of November 5th, 2025. We have a number of things on our agenda tonight, but just to uh let you know if you're here for one of these applications, they have been withdrawn by the applicant. The St. Michael's basement alteration site plan public hearing will not be happening tonight. The 68 uh meeting house lane trust lot modification will not be happening tonight. And the Garbass Lane border review will also not be h happening tonight. uh again at the uh request of the applicants. So obviously you're all here for something else. I can see that. Um so before we begin,
002I just want to give a shout out to our member Michael Hansen who won the race for town clerk last night and is going to be leaving in January. Props to him if you raise him right in this on this board. So with that, Jen, you want to kick off public hearing for sure? >> Uh, public hearing notice. Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on November 5th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. The application is Bayberry Estates Open Space Preliminary Subdivision. The size and location of the application 746,342 square ft which is 17.134 acres located at 476 Wayne Scott Northwest Road, Wayne Scott, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-155-1-25. The application is to subdivide a parcel located in Waynecott into three individual lots taking access
003via a common driveway from Wayne Scott Northwest Road with lot one proposed to be 72,52 ft or 1.66 acres. Lot 2 proposed to be 65,392 ft or 1.5 acres. and lot three proposed to be 62,489 square feet or 1.44 acres. Also proposed is a reserved area to be dedicated to the town of East Hampton of 70% of the lot area or 552,439 square ft 12.68 acres. >> Okay, >> that's it. That's our view. >> Great. Thank you very much. Eric, did you want to give us a little bit of rundown on the project? Sure. Um I think should we check the affidavit? I don't know if we did that. >> It was probably noticed. Okay, great. >> Okay, so um hopefully everyone can see my screen which is an aerial um shot of the property.
004I will zoom in um so that you can see the property with a current aerial photograph over it. Sorry, just taking a second for it to load properly. Um but you can see the property here in Wayne Scott um by um uh on the where Wayne Scott Northwest Road meets uh actually the paper road portion of Six Pole Highway. Um I will switch over to showing the proposed subdivision map um which you can see in front of you hopefully. Yep. And I will zoom in a little bit. As mentioned in the notice, uh the lots can be seen at the front here. Three lots are proposed with a 70% reserved area which is primarily in the back of the property over areas of steep slopes which is what you can see um uh colored in
005here on the map. Those are areas of 20% or greater slopes. Those are uh either uh in the reserved area or um removed from the building envelope shown here. and access can be seen over um these flag strip portions of the lots out to Wayne Scott Northwest Road. >> Okay, thank you very much. Um so is there anyone in the room who would care to be heard on this matter? >> Please come to the podium and if you would let us know who you are and what your address is for the record, that would be great. >> I'm Frank Delane. Um, I live on 10 Ridge Road to >> Uh, yeah, we Okay, we >> I have I have documentation here. Um, I would like to have this as evidence and I also have photographs,
006all right, on this SD card. >> Okay. We typically do not consider stuff that's that's submitted the night of the of the hearing, but we'll we'll Okay. >> I thought he was giving us cookies, but >> So, I did a lot of research on this property. Uh, and I used his super gru. Uh, it's pretty interesting what AI is doing today and the amount of information that they have that you may not have here locally. So the partial is classified on a building class 557 as other outdoor sports. Historically the site served as a location for an old gun club evidenced by remain remnants such as broken clay pigeons scattered across the land. This use aligns with this classification for outdoor recreational purposes. I had done research locally and found it was a private gun
007club uh that existed uh sometime from the 1950s to about the late 80s early early uh late 70s early 80s. Uh I purchased my property uh 40 years ago in 1985 and built my house. Uh, as I uh searched uh walked the properties, I saw a clearing and I went over there and I saw two uh ski trap houses um and a full uh trap and ski course uh there uh that was uh very visible over the years. Those those houses were deteriorated. At one point in time, kids in the neighborhood put that on fire. I was the one who called 911. I let the fire trucks the whole field was ablaze also and lucky for us they put that fire out very quickly. So I asked a question from GR about u what what
008what is some contamination that could occur on a property like this that was used as a gun club. As you see in a plastic bag, you can open that bag. You can uh take a look at at what it is. Uh, and if anybody here can identify that, those are broken clays. Uh, and that's what they shoot at when they just keep the trap shooting. So, that is litter all over the property, literally on the surface beneath it, beneath the leaf litter. Um, and if there's a tremendous amount of broken clay p uh pigeons, you can be certain there's a lot of lead shot that's also out there. And as we all know if we read the paper mates Mason Gun Club was required by the town board to to uh remediate the lead there
009because of the problems environmentally with it. Lead is a hazardous waste and both my wife and I are suffering symptoms from lead poisoning. The doctor found high levels of lead in my blood. Gave me a cleating agent to take that lead out of my body. So, I want to read you a little bit about what Brock says. >> Just so you know, I I I did not I failed to mention the fact typically we we uh limit remarks to three minutes. >> Three minute. >> Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. >> In writing, but a lot of information. >> Yeah. Okay. This is very useful information, but if you could kind of wrap it up, that would be good. The property at 476 Winskott Northwest Road former site of an old gun club with reminiscent broken clay pigeons
010raises the concerns regarding potential lead contamination particularly in the context of ski trap and shooting activities. Below I provide a structured analysis based on the available information addressing both the general risks assoc associated with such sports and the specifics of this parcel. General risk of lead contamination in ski and trap shooting. SK and chop shooting typically involve the use of lead shot ammunition which can result in significant environmental contamination at shooting ranges at shooting ranges. Key considerations include lead depositions. During shooting, lead pellets are dispersed across the range. Um I found information that these lead pellets can can travel about 230 yards. That's over two football fields. Um, trap ski ranges can accumulate high densities of lead shot which record levels reaching up to 334 pellets per square foot. In some cases, clover to substantial
011tonnage over time. Annual lead deposition at clay target ranges variously can range from half to 10 tons per year depending on usage intensity. Environmental impacts led from strength shot can bleed into soil sediments and groundwater posing risks into ecosystems at UN health. This is exasperated in areas of sandy soils and proximity to water sources where lead mobility increases. Regulatory guidance such as that from the US Environmental Protection Agencies emphasizes best management practices for lead recovery and remediation out. >> Mr. Mr. Jillian, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but you you've submitted this document to us, right? Yeah. >> So, we will, you know, this is a very valid point. It's I'm glad that you brought it up. >> Um, but we have the information to give to the planning department for evaluation. >> Um, but we
012really have to move on with with the meeting, but we appreciate your comments very much. Yeah, there's significant problems with liability. Uh significant problems with um uh uh neighbors uh in groundwater. Uh we're experiencing that now. >> So I don't know how anybody can approve development on a site like this. It has been through the wast CAC. Um it has been u brought to the CPF to purchase it. Um they have reached an agreement with the owner. Um that I believe would be the best thing to happen to this property. Um, but developing and building houses here would not be both wise at all. >> Thank you for your comments, Mr. Deine. >> Um, all right. Is there anyone else in the room who would care to speak on this application? >> Matt, is there
013anyone online on the line? >> Stand by, please. stand. >> And this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV, making sure all lines are open and clear, which they are, and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Matt. Um, all right. Given that there are no other speakers who want to be heard on this topic, Jen, >> can I um can I just make a suggestion? Uh, Mr. chairman. >> Um and and you might want to check with council, but um normally what we do uh we don't accept submissions from the applicant or the public really at the the public hearing. Um the thing that might make the most sense is to leave uh the record open for one week for m only for Mr. Delene to submit his information
014to the record and then perhaps leave it open for a subsequent week for the applicant to respond only specifically to the information submitted by Mr. Delene. Um that would also put us to the next planning board meeting so there wouldn't be a loss of time necessarily on the record for the applicant. >> That's a really good idea. Thank you, Eric. >> Submit that information to >> the planning department. >> Department. >> Yeah. Miss uh just to be clear, Mr. Delene should um contact Katie, the planning board secretary, and we can help uh him tomorrow or uh in the coming days with um formally submitting what he has to the record. >> Great. I'll drop it off tomorrow. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> So, we're leaving it open. I make a
015motion to leave it open for one more week for Mr. Delene to submit and then an additional week following for the applicant to respond. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor open for a week and then it's the second week. Okay. >> Great. Thanks very much. Pass and carry. Thank you, Mr. Dene. Appreciate it. >> All right. Moving on to our work session. Our first matter for discussion there is the McDonald Griffin subwaver. And Chris, that is you for the planning department. Jen, that's you for for us. Is the applicant present for McDonald Griffin subwaver? No. Okay, Eric, can we carry on with this without the applicant? >> Uh, you can for sure. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, okay, Chris. >> Thank you. Good evening. So, this is the McDonald subwaver
016application. We last reviewed this um last month on October 8th, and tonight we'll just be talking about seeker, the environmental review. Um so just as a quick reminder it's at 981 Springs Fireplace Road. Um the area of the property map the proposals to divide the existing uh property parcel one's proposed is 28,16 ft. Parcel 2 is proposed as 20,02 square ft. uh sites currently improved with a two-story single family residence as reflected on the CO from 2023 um property zone B residence. It's partly cleared uh as indicated on the map which conforms with the town code. So tonight we're just talking about the environmental review. planning board uh agreed to conduct a coordinated review pursuant to SRCA for which coordination letter was sent to Suffach County Department of Health Services on October 3rd of this
017year. The SCDHS sent a response letter on October 15, 2025 to indicated no objection uh to the board being lead agency. So now the planning department has prepared the attached environmental assessment form parts two and three and a negative declaration pursuant to secret and chapter 128 of the town code is recommended. you'll need other approval would be from the SCBHS of the final map and um yeah that's that's it for tonight is to review the EF part two and three and uh we recommend the negative declaration the board should determine whether they agree >> okay thank you very much um the applicant is not here so we will not ask if they want to be heard on this um so we'll go straight to our conversation and Jen you want to lead us on that
018>> Sure So, um, we've seen this recently. We saw it about a month ago. And I think this is a fairly simple discussion. Um, I am assuming everyone has kind of looked over the, uh, EAF parts two and three. Um, the planning department has not noted any moderate to large impact. So, I think we're good to um, make a negative declaration if everyone agrees or if there's any concerns or questions. Any other questions or concerns? Okay. Yeah. Right. So, you know, Jen bring a good brings up a good point. You know, there is no or small impact on each of the items in the EAF. I think it's important that, you know, on the record, as Jen already has done, speak to the the EF that was completed. Uh we have done that analysis. So,
019um I don't believe there's much else to discuss except do we wish to make a negative declaration pursuant to secret. So, Jen, if you want to call for that. >> Yes. I make a motion to call for a negative declaration pursuant to SRA. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. All right. >> Pass and carry. >> Okay. Okay, our next matter is JHA Main Street office site plan. And again, Chris, that's you and Lou for the board. Is the applicant I believe the applicant is here. Written, are you the applicant? Okay. Um, so yeah, Chris, fill us in. >> Great. Thank you. This one will take a little longer. Um, so this is the planning board's second review of the application. that was last reviewed on October 23rd, 2024. Uh the planning department did review
020this application for the July 23rd meeting of this year uh for work session. However, it was adjourned before the board could discuss um but a revised submission was provided um since our memo went out in July. So, just a context on the site here, I'm going to zoom in. Uh the property zone central business approximately 18,453 square ft and it's within the Amigans historic district. Um the existing improvements include the 2333 ft house and 240 ft shed, patio, porch, and fencing. Um all indicated on the certificate of occupancy from 2023. The house is known as the George L. Baker House which was constructed in 1853 and is one of five intact Greek Revival and Italianet dwellings in the historic district and the site is 100% cleared of natural vegetation. So the proposal is to convert
021the existing historic residence into an office use. The proposal involves relocating the residence. So, the front yard setback would decrease from 110 ft to 42.3 feet. Also proposed is to construct a 1,260 ft finished basement for office areas and storage space, paving the existing driveway, and adding 13 parking spaces, including one accessible space. The existing sanitary system would also be replaced by an IIA system. the architectural review board uh reviewed the proposal and provided comments to the planning board in late June and the proposal has since been revised to relocate all the proposed parking um to the rear. So now I'm going to go over the comments that the board made following their review last year. And we note that the applicant also provided revisions in accordance uh with the planning department's memo from July
02223rd of this year. So first the planning board uh requested additional mapping to compare the setbacks um the proposed setbacks to other historical structures in the area. Um the map shown here was submitted comparing the setback to four historic buildings in the historic district. We note that the this map did contain an error. It appears they measured the setbacks from the edge of the pavement as opposed to the property line. Um however, the planning department went and looked at the cos for the reference properties. Um and and we find that the proposed setback of 42.3 ft appears compatible. Um, while it would be the largest of the five properties shown here, the town code mentions that a commercial proposal for this building could involve moving the building closer to the street uh without seriously diminishing
023its integrity in its setting. And the ARB um and planning department both reviewed the setback and found it acceptable. The board should determine whether it agrees and if so, a revised map should not be required. So the next I briefly touched on the board requested that all parking uh be relocated to the rear. The applicant has done that and the planning department satisfied with that which aligns with the ARB's comments as well as the town code. Um the next was also regarding parking. Uh the board requested that a narrative indicating the number of employees and visitors using the site should be considered for the board to consider waving the required number of parking spaces. So the submitted narrative detailed that the office would mostly be an 8:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. Monday to Friday office
024for 14 employees. On occasion, meetings may be held that require an additional three to four spaces. The proposed parking spaces uh accommodate the company's daily needs while also providing small surplus for visitors. Um planning department notes that this narrative was from when 15 parking spaces were proposed. Now there are only 13 as these spaces have all been uh relocated to the rear. Upon further review, there was an error in interpreting the number of required spaces since the basement was included in the gross floor area, which does not align with the current town code definition. Therefore, only 14 parking spaces would be required. The town code has a provision which allows the planning board to wave the number of required parking spaces in historic district, but um certain conditions must be met in order to do
025so, which are that the proposed use needs to be suitable for the area and consistent with preserving the historic attributes of the property on site and nearby parking uh can accommodate projected demand. and that the required that requiring the parking spaces uh required by the town code would have a detrimental impact to the historic attributes on site. So, if the planning department finds it suitable for waving this requirement um for one space since the use appears suitable for the property, the site plans configured to preserve the historical building and open space in the front yard and we believe that the adjacent municipal parking lot uh can accommodate projected demand from the use when or if necessary. So the board should discuss whether um they will wave that parking requirement and the applicant should adjust the
026the GFA gross floor area uh to exclude the basement in the revised submission. Next was regarding a walkway to the parking lot. The board requested that one be added. You can see here this is towards the north. This is a walkway um that has been added that would connect to the municipal parking lot. This is the gate that would be provided. Um so planning department finds these revisions acceptable. They provided an ADA compliant walkway. Um which is which is good to see in this case. So next was about the facade and the board just requested that additional information be provided. um on the facade and the applicant responded by submitting a rendering as well as more detailed architectural drawings and a material chart um with pictures. So the planning department's assessment is that the review
027of the proposed facade changes is within the purview of the ARB. Um, the ARB comments detailed that comments about the front facade, trim, and color with regard to the character of the farmhouse would be more appropriate to provide during the formal ARB application process and could potentially result in minor modifications. The details submitted appear sufficient for the ARB to conduct their review. Um the planning department recommends that the proposed facade changes are generally appropriate and complimentary to the historic attributes but the ARP will consider the proposed change in color. The town code does suggest that historic buildings with white siding should retain that color um which is the case here. The board should the planning board should discuss whether they're generally in favor of the changes to the historic building. And the next comment was
028basically requesting this revision or this rendering rather provided. Um just to get a sense of the existing condition versus the proposed um planning department finds this rendering acceptable for showing that there's a minor error. The parking toward the rear is not depicted accurately, but that parking would um be shielded by this building. We don't really see the the need for having a revised rendering to be provided at this time. Um the board should determine whether they agree on that. Next is about landscaping. Just note that the landscaping plan was revised quite substantially um since the planning department's memo from July of this year. Go over couple of our comments on that. Uh so our assessment of the landscaping plan is that it addresses most of our comments uh from our recent memo. It includes 19
029plant species, six of which are not native, including two which are invasive. Of these two invasives, the existing northern Norway maple is proposed to remain on the parcel. Although this plant space use is regulated by the DEEC, it is a mature tree and there's another Norway maple in front of the property in the state rightway. Again, these trees are shown toward the south um west corner and then the one in the rightway is adjacent to that driveway. um given that we find it acceptable for this tree to remain. The other invasive is an existing California privet um along the eastern property line which we recommend should be removed and replaced with a non-invasive species that lines the eastern property line. Um and this privet might need to be removed regardless in order for them to
030construct a retaining wall along this eastern property line. So, the applicant should just confirm whether that's the case and and what their plan is for for this area. Um, some landscaping is proposed between the driveway and the east side of the building. I'll get a little more into detail on this in a bit. Um, revisions may be required um for the invasives and if the planning board agrees that these plants be removed. The next was about um submission requirements which we have for all site plan applications needed additional information and the applicant submitted uh engineer plans with additional parking lot dimensions and elevation drawings and information to specify materials for the building parking areas and other structures. Um our assessment is that the dimensions should be indicated for the proposed accessible space access aisle and
031the drive aisle for the southern parking area and the submitted architectural drawings construction details appear sufficient for evaluating materials building materials. The ARP may request additional items in their formal review. The drive aisle for the northern parking spaces is 20 ft wide where 24 feet is required by the town code and should be revised accordingly and the board should determine if they agree. Um next was the fire marshall reviewed the application had no objections. His report details that since the uh building is within 150 ft of the street there's no requirement for a fire apparatus road to be constructed. and he also noted that the project conforms with the uh Americans with Disabilities Act. The the last comment from the last review um was the the applicant should work with the planning department and consider
032ways to improve the driveway access. Um, the applicant mentioned that the submission has improved the access to the best of their ability. And the planning department assessment, just going to zoom in a little here, is that while the 10- foot wide driveway width is acceptable for fire protection purposes, the town code requires 20 ft. Therefore, the applicant should provide the maximum unobstructed width while maintaining conformance with setback requirements. The planning department recommends that the proposed landscaping between the building and the driveway be removed and instead this area should be added to the driveway to provide a more compliant width of about 12.7 ft and the board should consider discuss whether this is sufficient. So that's the landscaping which I showed you um along this side of the building. Um just a few a few more
033issues. Um for SECRA, during the initial review, the planning department considered the application an unlisted action pursuing to SRA and the town code. Upon further review, it appears it should be considered a type two action for the reasons detailed in our report and therefore is not subject to additional review under seeker. Um, regarding consent, so there's a retaining wall proposed on the Easterly property line and written consent from the adjacent property owner should be provided at this time um for the purpose of constructing that retaining wall. And we know the submitted letter mentions that there is some common ownership between the LLC's of the uh adjoining property. So shouldn't be a a big issue. Lastly, the uh waste disposal. The proposal does not include any areas for waste disposal. Applicant should explain how waste will
034be managed on the property. Um plan should be revised to provide a dumpster enclosure if one's intended and avoid any issues of site navigation. When doing so, the planning board should determine whether they agree on that. The engineer reviewed the provisions, recommended approval pending the resolution of other issues. Um and the other review that is required for this proposal is Suffach County Department of Health Service for the IIA system architectural review board. The zoning board of appeals would be required if the planning board does not wave the parking requirement and Suffach County Planning Commission uh more than 10,000 square feet of land disturbance on a state road. In conclusion, uh the application is incomplete pending the revisions needed to address the issues mentioned. The board should discuss whether the proposed front yard setback is acceptable
035and whether they will wave the parking requirement. The planning department recommends that the applicant should avoid proposing landscaping which would reduce the unobstructed width of the proposed driveway. The board should determine whether it agrees. The applicant should propose propose a compliant drive aisle for the northern parking spaces, label the missing dimensions, and confirm whether the invasive privilege along the eastern property line needs to be removed to construct the retaining wall. The applicant should also explain how garbage will be disposed of and indicate the enclosure accordingly if necessary. >> Great. Thanks, Chris, for a very thorough and concise um ask a question. >> Sure. I may have misunderstood the the memo and what you said tonight with regard to the width of the driveway and the landscaping that you want you feel should be removed. I
036I understood and maybe wrongly that the landscaping that you were referring to was the landscaping that separates this property from the adjacent property. Is that correct? No, I understand how that may have been um received. Can you see this like orangeish uh burgundy color? >> That's the landscaping. Um but we did reference that this privet might need to be removed since it's shown where a retaining wall is proposed. So, the applicant should confirm if they're removing that privet. They plan putting any uh plantings on top of the retaining wall. the um landscaping to be removed would be between the building and the driveway. >> Okay. All right. I thought it was along the east side. >> Any other questions from Chris on Chris's report? Okay. The applicant I assume wants to be heard. >> Good
037evening chairman, members of the board. I'm Britian here representing 61 main street LLC. I'm joined by the project architect, Charles Sparza. It's a hard one. It's been a while since we were here. Um we took a detour to the ARB, which is not the standard sort of process, but it was important for this historic um property. Um and we wanted to confirm that we were on the right track before we continued along with this board in terms of um historic value of the parcel and the amigance at Main Street setting. Um, we got a very favorable review from the ARB and felt comfortable to make a few revisions. They also felt strongly um about not having the parking spot um at the south side of the property uh at all cost if we could figure
038out how to make the parking really an ADA compliance issue that we had there. So, we were um pleased that we were able to make that happen. um that was a really strong historic um element that we'd like to keep the sort of open lawn setting to the facade of the house um on main street. Um as noted in our initial filing, the project in front of you is to convert a single family residence which is a non-conforming use in the central business zoning to a conforming use of a professional builder's office. Uh the office will house John Hmel and Associates admin administrative offices. As I'm sure the board is well aware, the Hummels have been known for two generations of custom building, which include preserving some pretty significant historical landmarks in this town, including
039the Hook Mill, the Thomas Moran House, the Dominous, and the Albby Foundation. It's the reason that they chose this building for their headquarters as it's representative of the rich architectural history of downtown Amigans and our building traditions. At our last planning board review, the board was in favor of the site plan layout and asked for some confirmations relating to the historic setback which Chris went into from the street as well as exterior finishes and advise us to go to the ARB. We did just that. Um I mentioned that we were able to redesign to put all the parking in the rear. Um in relation to parking, we we are asking the board the board was somewhat favorable of of waving parking last time we were here in a cursory review. Um, we would like you
040to ask to formally wave that one parking spot. Um, because it is solely fueled by the historic nature, which is what the code is there to protect, but we move that parking spot from the front, which keeps the architectural integrity. We also provided um access to the municipal lot. And where this property hits the municipal lot, it's the expansion, as I'm sure you all know, to the east, and it's the least utilized portion of the of the parking lot almost year round. I mean, I run through there all the time and it's never really full. Um, and we also don't really think we need it, but we would ask the board to formally wave that one site, that one spot. Um, at the previous meeting, um, sorry, regarding refues. Um, so this is an interesting
041one. I know that the board likes to see sort of dumpster enclosures and fencing and the garbage truck to back up. The use of this building is really similar, more akin to a domestic use. The kind of garbage they're going to be having is employee lunches and a soda can and um things like that. There is no carpentry or any sort of construction use of this property. So, uh we were planning to keep the refues in typical domestic um like it is right now inside that um building at the rear and just separate the recycling from the regular garbage. Um there there's nothing that other than just employee garbage on a daily basis that we're going to be handling on the site. So it's not a typical site plan in terms of um you know
042a restaurant or something that we don't think we need a dumpster. There's dumpsters on every other job site if we had something to to throw away. >> But where where are those refuge cans? >> Um they're in the the back building at the north. >> Okay. >> We have a it's about 300 square foot um back >> so they're housed within that which I think is a good planning solution as well. So, if you want to make that a condition of approval that no trash is stored outside, we're happy with that. Um, as well, um, you know, most of these changes are we can easily accommodate the 24 um, ft at the back. We'll have Drew make that modification. We'll add some dimensions. We're happy to remove the planting on the east side of the
043building and make the driveway a little bit wider. Um, that was a very good suggestion by Chris. um we will happily remove the hedge um on the eastern property line and we will provide in our next submission a letter showing um that the neighbor the neighboring property owner is will allow us to install the retaining wall and use that property. It is a principle of the company so >> easily obtained um I think in summation that's that's all I basically had. I'm hoping that we can make another round of um revisions and the board can formally wave that spot and we can move our way to a public hearing in the early 2026. >> Great. Thanks, Britain. Any questions for Britain while she's up here? >> Okay, Lou, this is your application. >> I think
044it's a this proposal is a generally thoughtful adaptive reuse of this building of historic resource. It also aligns with the Amigans historic district's intent to open the front setbacks and conceal the parking to the rear. So, I'm all in favor of that. I'm also in favor of waving the 14 spaces to 13. I think that's a reasonable uh request uh because it does preserve the front yard character. It's also there's also a close proximity to a municipal parking lot. So that makes a lot of sense. Uh I was prepared to disagree with the planning department on widening the driveway to 12.7 ft because I misunderstood that it was the uh border landscaping that was to be removed. But, you know, I was going to say no, I'm in favor of keeping it, but now I'm
045in I agree with the planning department that they should remove that landscaping that's adjacent to the building. Um, I also agree that uh the invasive species should be removed. Uh, I guess there's only one, right, Chris? Well, there's two, but one of them I I agree with you. I think we should keep it because it's where it is and it's a tree and so I think it's okay with that uh but I think the other one should be removed and I agree with the applicant with the regard to the refues. Uh I I think it would be disfiguring to this property to have a uh any kind of large uh you know type of refuge container and hidden in that shed would be much better. So um I think you know I think we're ready
046to move forward with this. Lou, just to clarify, I know you just said you would be against the landscaping being removed removed along the property boundary. It's It sounds like the applicant just confirmed that that would be removed since it's it's the invasive privet that we referenced and it's where a retaining wall is proposed, >> but I thought they were going to replace it on top of the retaining wall. >> I'm I'm not sure what >> I thought. 109 for that area. >> Um do you don't have a ton of room there and I think >> proposing landscape that's going to be that we have a future in a road and I just I don't think it's a good solution to plant something there that's going to impede in that in the future and just
047require a lot of maintenance. I just want to point out about the the non-native um vegetation. That was a a very typical of the time period that this this house was built. you know, you bought a a specimen tree from England or something and you planted it. So, these are non-natives, but they it's the character of amigans that we have a lot of these beautiful non-native trees and that's a gorgeous tree like for at least 100 years. >> Is there a difference between non-native and invasive? [Music] um not not native means not native to this region but invasive >> means it has potential for spreading so like a classic invasive would be bamboo it can go >> across and expand um >> so I guess I'm okay not invasive >> exactly yeah >> the hedge
048is invasive >> non native invasive >> it can be >> I believe the tree is not as invasive but but it is common and it's found in the state right ofway. Um, and it's a mature tree, so we don't see the need to take mature tree down, but the Norway maple is regulated by the DEC. Um, so if it was proposed, that would be something that we would um cons consider asking a different species to be proposed. >> Okay, great. Thanks for that, Chris. All right, that was a great summary, Lou. Thank you. Does anyone else want to be heard on the around the table on this? I think our questions actually cover most of these points, right? >> So, let's just jump right to those. Does the planning board find a proposed front yard
049setback for the principal building acceptable? >> Yes. >> Okay. Unanimous. >> Does the planning board satisfied with all parking spaces being provided to the rear of the principal building? >> Yes, they definitely are. >> Yeah. >> Does planning board agree to wave the requirement for 14 parking spaces and instead allow 13 spaces? Yes. >> Yeah, definitely. You know, I think there's street parking there. We've asked for a gate to the to the municipal lot. There's plenty of parking. >> Um, is the planning board generally in favor of the proposed changes to the building's historic facade? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I think what we've seen looks >> Yeah, I think it looks great. >> Can I ask what what is the condition of the building now? Is it in good shape? >> It's in very
050good shape. It's been inhabited, so it hasn't been abandoned. Okay. >> It's been used as a single family residence >> even now. >> Yeah. >> Oh, is that right? >> Curious about that. >> Great. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. So, that's yes all around. >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the submitted architectural rendering is acceptable? >> Yes. Yes. We know the ARP is that's really their perview. Does the planning board agree that the Norway maple tree can remain and that the California private should be removed? >> Yes. Yes, >> I think we agree on both those. >> Does the planning board agree that the drive aisle for the northern parking spaces should be widened to 24 ft to comply with the town code? >> Yes. And you've agreed to do
051that, Britain? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that the proposed landscaping between the driveway and principal building should be removed to provide a more compliant driveway width? >> Yes, we were just discussing. Yes. Does the planning board agree that the revised submission should provide methods for waste disposal? I think we got our answer on where waste is going to be stored. >> Should be. >> Yeah, she said. Yeah, you offered that. Let's do that. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Britain. >> Thank you, Mr. Spurs up. Appreciate it. >> All right. Our next uh application is the serest pool and shed site plan. And Chris, once again, that's you. And Lou, once again, it's you. >> You're the applicant here for Serest. Lori and Chris. >> Chris. Okay. Um, this
052is the planning board's fourth review of this application. It was last reviewed on July 9th. This here is the serress pool and shed site plan at 2166 Montalk Highway, eastern end of Amigans. Um subject property zoned resort. It's approximately 7.7 acres and contains a pre-existing resort use. Um the property is within coastal erosion overlay zone one is significant coastal and fish wildlife habitat and partially within the local waterfront revitalization program area. Um the proposal involves two development phases. Phase one shown in green, phase two in red. Phase one proposes replacing the existing swimming pool terrace pool enclosure fence, constructing two poolside pergolas, a nearly 200 foot shed with an enclosure fence for pool equipment, an additional enclosure fence for an existing shed, a nearly 4ft retaining wall near that shed, gravel walkways, four accessible parking
053spaces, and an accessible walkway to the swimming pool area. Phase one will also involve replacing non-compliant lighting with fully shielded fixtures to conform. And phase two involves work that will require a natural resources special permit from the ZBA should not require any variances. Uh, phase two proposes a new IIA wastewater system, a turf area for barbecues and games, seven dry wells, a 3,647 ft two-story clubhouse building with bathrooms, a gym, lounge areas, and covered patio, uh, additional walkways around the clubhouse building are proposed, and lighting for the work area in phase two. The project is a type two action pursuant to SECRA and the town code and therefore not subject to additional review under SRA. Um now I'm going to go over the comments from the July 9th review. Um first being that the planning
054board commented that parking calculation should be added to the site plan. the applicant did not provide these calculations and the planning department's assessment is that since the proposal includes 88 spaces um whereas 78 spaces were shown on the most recent CO from 2021 the proposal does not involve any improvements that would require additional parking spaces. Um, given all that, we find it acceptable that the calculations were not provided and the board should determine whether they agree. Next was about the parking um in the rightway on Navajo Road. Discussed this before. Um, the applicant should remove signage that indicates that parking in the town right away is for the exclusive res use of the Serest Resort or provide evidence that it is for their exclusive use. The applicant did not provide a response and the planning
055department's assessment is that since no evidence was provided, we recommend that signage prohibiting parking in this area be removed at this time and that a condition of approval should be that no signage can prohibit or discourage parking in the town right away and the board should determine whether they agree. Um, I'm going to group the next two comments. The claim board commented that the applicant should provide dimensions for the four accessible parking spaces and that they all must be relocated within the property if the right ofway is not for their exclusive use. Um the applicant responded by indicating the dimensions and relocating all the spaces uh within the property. The uh the spaces are dimensioned on this plan. So so we're satisfied with that revision. Um we note that some details were not provided for
056the um signage that's provided with um accessible spaces, but we think it can be appropriate to just condition um that ADA compliant signage be provided for each accessible space um for this proposal the board to determine whether they agree. The next was about the sanitary plan. There was um some confusion on this in the last review. So the planning board commented that a sanitary plan including calculations that provide figures for the generated flow for both existing and proposed uses and structures as well as design details must be submitted. The applicant responded with a copy of an updated sanitary plan and email correspondence between the applicant and the project engineer. Um the planning department satisfied with the submitted plans and recommends that an official copy um be submitted as condition of approval. The correction was that
057we now acknowledge there's no additional density load um from this clubhouse building. Before we questioned whether there'd be additional sewage, but since it's uh it's for users that are already on the site that there is no um there's no density load. That's a correction on our part. Um so the board should determine whether they agree that the the plan is um is all good. Next was about the landscaping plan. It was missing some basic submission requirements. It's since been revised with the key showing showing the information like the sides, spacing, heights, and whatnot. Everything is labeled um in accordance with our standards and we're satisfied with the revisions there. Um with regard to other review of the project, um following review would be required. That's the architectural review board. Um the zoning board of appeals
058for phase two the work requiring NRSP u within jurisdiction of the wetlands. The Suffach County Department of Health Services um will be required to approve the swimming pool in phase one um and the proposed IIA wastewater system in phase two. Um review the Suffach County Planning Commission is required in this case. And in conclusion, the application appears complete and ready for referral to the ZBA and the ARB. The board should determine whether they agree and discuss whether there are any other issues to consider at this time. >> Okay. Thank you, Chris. Once again, does the applicant wish to be heard? >> I don't think we have anything to add. >> Okay. No. All right. Yeah, I think I think this is pretty clear. Um, Lou. >> Okay. Um there's a couple of items uh that
059I want to emphasize and also I have um certain comments about the project as a whole. Uh the parking calculations were not submitted by the applicant and although the number of spaces that have been identified as 88 is an increase from the number that was on the previous co 2021 of 78. I think we need a formal parking calculations in order to verify compliance. Uh, the board should adopt a binding condition prohibiting any signage or enforcement implying private control of the town right of way. With regard to landscaping, the coastal plantings, the beach grass to Bay Rosa Rose should be prior prioritized to stabilize dunes and reduce fertilizer use. lighting a plan to ensure no glare extends towards the beach and adjacent parcels to be adopted and I think we should require a construction phase
060erosion and sedimentary control plan given that the coastal uh slope and proximity to the ocean. Um, now my comments on this this this application. The Serest property has over 60 years of layered approvals, many predating modern zoning. It lies within a highly sensitive coastal habitat and erosion zone. It serves a seasonally surging population causing temporary but intense parking and wastewater impacts. The phased redevelopment of the pool, the shed, and the clubhouse risk pushing the site beyond its sustainable carrying capacity. It's important that we balance modernization with environmental and community protection. I think we need some kind of living record, a management plan or at least a narrative that we can always refer back to which allows the town to track compliance and control incremental intensification without relit relitigating the entire site each time a minor
061modification is sought. The document should uh include existing and propo proposed floor areas, unit counts, parking allocations, and operational intensity. Are they going to be events at this property, special events, how busy is is the site going to be? What's going to be the uh turnover of activity? All this will serve as a baseline plan for all future applications or amendments. Those are my comments. >> Okay. Thank you, Lou. Let me I just want to ask a question about your comments. The the narrative, what what specifically are you >> Well, I would pref I would prefer a more comprehensive plan than a narrative. At the very least, it should be a narrative, but it should include all those items that I mentioned. But sound like you're talking about the history of the site. >> No,
062I'm I'm talking about with regard to the narrative. I'm talking about what this what is the existing use, intensity of use. Are there going to be special events? What is the floor area? >> That should all be u codified. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, um do you want to comment Lori, >> please? So Lori Vulture for land planning services. Um so this site has been developed in this form with these number of units and number of parking spaces for many many years. Um, alls that we are doing is replacing a swimming pool, building replacing a shed, building a new shed, and building a clubhouse, which is like a pool house combined with a gymnasium for the residents of the condominium. Not for outside people, not for events. It is not for anyone but the
063people that live here. I really think it's a very minor project, even though it seems like a major project, but the only thing we need to do to safeguard the environment is to get the NRSP and we'll be before the zoning board to do that um coming up after this review is complete. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And we are, by the way, upgrading the sanitary system or putting in an IIA system for this new building. Right. So, I think that, you know, the since the ZBA is going to be evaluating this for a natural resources special permit, some of the things you're talking about, I think are going to be, you know, part of what they're going to need to review. Um, but, um, you know, I did hear you talk about some other
064things like lighting, you know, uh, which I don't think you address. Do you address lighting? Did I >> most of the parking lighting is all being addressed? >> We have the lighting. >> Okay. All right. We didn't talk about it tonight, so I'm It's It's in front of you. >> Yeah. All the lighting is being upgraded to meet current code. And you have a lighting plan that meets current code as part of your packet. >> Okay. >> And there were no issues raised about lighting. >> Yeah. Lighting was not discussed tonight since that that issue is resolved in the last review. There's no trespass and all lighting would be fully shielded on on the property. >> Okay. >> All right. Good. So that's great. Um Yeah. So we should have a talking number calculation. >>
065Yeah. So you know I do have that question. >> How do we know whether it's in compliance or not? >> I do have that question too actually Chris. You know I know that it's more than what was coed but is it the right number >> the 88 >> that we can't fully confirm without knowing exactly how many units are on site right now. Yeah, that that was the point of my narrative or comprehensive plan, whatever you want to call it. Why can't we get all these facts in one document? Floor area, parking, lighting. I know the lighting has been established. Uh what kind of intensity of use? >> Well, the the parking is some it's it's a required item and it's up to the board to wave it. So, if if you choose to require
066it, then it then it would be required. um the parking calculations, >> right? And I think >> I think >> that is one of the questions, right? >> Yeah. >> But the reason I I brought this up is because like I said, this has been going on. This project, this property was developed in 1960. There's 64 years of continuing layering of different things that have happened to the property. We've gotten to the point now we're we're in a different era. um the environment is much more sensitive and subject to uh degradation. I think we should be very careful with a big project like this. I'm not saying that they're they're in violation of the code and I think we need to get our arms around this and have one document that stipulates all the all
067the necessary items that are according to the code. we shouldn't and we should always have it in reference to make sure that it's being complied with. >> Well, so I think one of the what, you know, what we need to do as a board is make sure that we're operating within the purview of what we have, you know, an opportunity to comment on and maybe some of those things we can parse out and are part of other questions like your comment about landscape and doom stabilization and those kinds of things, right? Um, but I think, you know, the CBA will take care of some of the things we're talking about. Um, you know, I don't think there's any sort of precedent for exactly, unless I'm mistaken, for exactly the kind of document that you're talking
068about. So, I think maybe we if there are issues, we can pull them out. >> The only document that there that I have come across and there is precedent for is a narrative. the the applicant. Many applicants supply a narrative of what >> well narrative you you were talking about history and all sorts of things. Do you mean >> intended use and those kinds of things? >> Yeah. I'm not talking about the history of the project. I'm talking about the project as it stands now. a fully described dimensional detailed itemization of what we have there. We don't have floor uh GFA numbers. We don't have parking numbers. We don't have the circulation calculations. So, I think all of that should be in one place in one narrative. I like to call it a comprehensive project
069plan, but >> maybe that's not something that uh is within our purview of the code, but I know a narrative is I think there's no reason >> a narrative is typically about use, you know, >> right? It's typically about use >> and it could also ref typically about use but also reference the dimensions of the project and so forth parking landscaping lighting. >> Let's ask the the planners this question. So is there is there anything regarding those metrics that is missing from this as far as a planning board determination is concerned? you know, G, you know, the parking thing we know is a shoe and I had that issue too, actually. Uh, but other than that, are there other, you know, metrics, the kind that L's referring to that we don't find here that we
070would need? >> I mean, I guess you could ask as as many questions about the nature of the operation um and management of the facility as you know, you desire. Um, I would say the board, if you do still have specific questions, um, and it sounds like it's more related to the nature of the operation, um, you should lay them out and and have the applicant address them. Um, it's hard without having a specific question to know, you know, whether or not the department stance would be that the applicants have addressed it already. Um, so I I'm not sure what the specific questions would be for the applicant. Yeah, >> I think we have what we need in terms of information about this project, you know, within the bounds of, you know, what our remitt
071is here to be able to make a determination. >> Yeah. And I mean, you know, some of the answers that that they might give um could it could be helpful to to have that in one place, but you know, I mean, I don't know that there's a good reason to assume that they will operate outside the parameters of what the town code dictates um as far as noise and you know, and other considerations. Um, so I, you know, maybe you should discuss whether or not there are certain aspects of the facility that you still need answers um to questions on, but I would say, you know, the the applicant had said it and it's very much the the tone of the report that, you know, this is an application to build what are essentially accessory
072structures. the uh parking requirement uh and a lot of the intensity of use uh at least as it's dictated in the town code is is tied into the principal use which is a resort use and then the number of units. They're not proposing to change that. So a number of you know otherwise applicable regulations and aspects of the project such as parking um you know some of those things are not being altered uh under the town code requirements. So, for example, sort of getting back to a specific of the parking, um the the previous co for the site says and and site plan says that they have 78 spaces is is what they're required based on the number of units on the site. They actually have 88 now. So, they have more than than what
073they were otherwise required. And again, they're not changing the number of units on site. So, uh, you know, you could defer. Obviously, that's a a question to defer, uh, to council. Um, but I don't know that, you know, you have it within your purview to to sort of bring up that issue again because there isn't a nexus between what they're proposing to do and requiring additional parking. Um, there's not a direct nexus under the town code. You know, if there was a specific need um for additional, that could be something that's discussed. But, you know, we have been through this application a number of times. There is adjacent um public parking. So, using that just as a specific example, um I think we've moved through a lot of the issues in the application. But if
074the board does have specific outstanding questions, um you know, then it's appropriate to ask the the applicant to submit a narrative about it >> about specific questions. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yep. I think some of the questions that you asked can be, you know, the the building department card has a lot of the information. I mean, you kind of have to read through it because it is since 19 61, but you know, the number of units is in there um in each building, all of the different um cos and changes that have come along. Well, that that was one of the reasons why I thought about this because it seems that you know over 60 some odd years there's always something that gets layered onto this project and and like the part take this parking issue
075as an example. So we had a CO which said 78 spa spaces were adequate. So now we're saying you need 88 or you need certain amount 78. Exactly. >> But so but we never we never did the calculation of what you actually are required. What how many parking spaces. We're just assuming that the 78 was what was required and they're coming up with 88. So we're above what was deemed to be appropriate. But we don't have a C. Why doesn't the code require and I don't mean to pick on this one topic make it a big deal of it. I'm just using it as an example of what I'm talking about. Shouldn't we have a calculation now as to what the parking requirements should be? >> I think there's a nexus issue here, but but
076Chris, would you like to >> on the architect? >> Um, there were 78 in the originally when we did our site plan, we restriped the parking lot and found that we could accommodate the additional parking. That's why we added the additional parking to the site. It wasn't at any specific request. >> No, I really >> So we we we were avail the space in the existing lot was available by making conforming parking spaces and striping it appropriately. So we allowed ourselves to provide for more parking closer to what the code requires. Did you just make the spot skinnier or did you >> There you go. >> But but by striping it because I mean it was but by striping it we can >> we can Lori before you before you comment Eric uh Eric a
077question for you. So we can presume however that the 78 uh spaces that were seeded were what was required you know when this was originally came through site plan review. Yes. Can we assume that? >> Yeah. They're illustrated on a a site plan um attached to a survey that was approved through the town process. So that is their legally required number of parking spaces for the number of units that they have on site. My understanding is they're not proposing to change that. >> Okay. >> So I wanted to skip to the last line of this memo. It says, "In conclusion, the application appears complete and ready for referral to the ZBA in the ARB. We've been before you many times, and this issue could should have come up at the beginning if any of this
078was going to be required on this application when we first presented it. We've been before you. We've answered every single question, resubmitted, redesigned, and got everything you asked us to do back in front of you with the hope of moving on to the ZBA and then the ARB and then the building department because we still have a long road to go if we start getting into transcendental memorandums and narratives and us having to go back the entire history of all the site plans that have come before the other planning boards and the building department and all the previous cos to tell you what's on this site. All we have to do is rely on the last co. That's when the building department said what's there is legal. Thanks Lori. Um okay. Okay, I think maybe
079what we should do is go to the questions and see if the questions actually, you know, in incorporate some of the thinking that we've been doing here and see if we want to add anything to them. Um, all right. Does everyone agree or does anyone else want to comment on on the questions? >> Yeah, questions. >> On to the questions. >> Questions. >> All right. Um, does the planning board agree to wave the requirement for parking calculations to be submitted? >> Yes. >> I changed my mind on that. I do agree they should be waved. >> I disagree. >> Okay. All right. We're six to one on that one. >> Um, does the planning board agree that a condition of approval should be that no signage can prohibit or discourage parking in the town right
080of way? >> Yes, >> we all agree on that. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Does the planning board agree a condition of approval should be that an applicant must submit an official copy of the proposed sanitary plans? >> Yes. >> Because we don't have >> You skipped one. >> Skipped three. Okay. I I was That was my intention. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Does the planning board agree a condition of approval should be that the applicant must install a sign which complies with the ADA standards for accessible design for each accessible parking space? >> Yes. Yes, >> absolutely. Um, okay. Those were the questions. >> Yeah, I know. I know. But, you know, the punch line is the last one. Does planning board agree the application is complete and ready for referral the ARB and ZBA under circumstances?
081>> Yes. >> I agree. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Good all around. Thank you. Good discussion. We got there. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we move on to Skielli, I'm going to say, is the is the way that's pronounced. >> Is that right? >> Skelli subwaver modification. It's Will. >> That's for you, Jen. Once again, that's you >> is the applicant here. >> Scanelli. Subwaver. [Music] >> Are you Are you the >> Are you the applicant? >> Yes. All right. We're going to We'll take that as a Yes. Okay. >> Just thinking about it. >> Yeah. >> All right. Uh Yes. So, Will, will you tell us what this is about, please? >> Yeah. Just one second. Yeah, this is so this is an application seeking to
082modify a subwaver which was originally approved in January 2012. The applicant submitted a revised map seeking approval for CO and the planning department noted the map is not the one which was originally approved. The applicant the applicant clarified the map is new because the original surveyor has since retired. The planning department revi reviewed the new map and finds it appropriately contains all required features and accurately replicates the originally approved map. Conclusion. The planning department recommends this modification is complete and ready for approval. Discuss if it agrees. >> Okay. Looks like this is pretty simple. Um the Do you wish to be heard? There's no You don't need to be. >> All right. Well, then we'll have our conversation. Jen, would you lead that? I think that since it's just a simple new surveyor issue, we
083should just as long as the planning department is confident that it's the same information on the map, I think we're good to go. >> Everyone agree? >> So, it's the same information. >> Same information. New surveyor >> and got put back. >> Yeah. >> With a new surveyor. Yeah. Exactly. You know how that is with a new surveyor. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Does the board agree this modification is complete and ready for approval? >> Yes. All around. Thank you. All right. Closing in on the end here. The Hubard site plan. Uh are you doing this for Sarah? >> I am. I will cover it. >> Oh, Eric is doing it. Okay, great. Uh Eric, thank you. And Bruce, this is you. >> Yep. >> Sure. So, let me just >> Is the applicant Robert here by
084the way? I don't see them. No. >> All right. Well, we're gonna power through anyway. >> Oh, that was Joel. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, this is just a wrap-up memo. Um, this application had a public hearing on October 22nd. No members of the public spoke at the hearing. No written comments were received. Um, so, uh, the planning department recommends that it's ready for approval. Um, with the sole condition being, um, or unique condition being ARB approval. Okay. Right. So, this was just replacing um screens with windows. >> Yeah. Already been done. >> Replacing screens with It's already been done. >> Okay. >> Doesn't affect anything. >> Okay. >> Fabulous. >> All right. So, therefore, >> is this application ready for approval? >> Yes. >> All around. Thank you. >> All right. So, um you're
085up now, Eric. uh multiple residents comments to the town board. >> Okay. Um so as the board knows because you've reviewed that twice previously, the town is working on um proposed legislation, a proposed new use um to be added to the town code that would permit people to build multiple residences on properties within the affordable housing overlay district um that are less than 3 acres. Right now, the only mechanism in the code, the only use that's permitted uh when you have the AHO designation is a full-scale affordable housing development. One of the special permit standards for that is that you need to have at least 3 acres of property. So, among other changes to the town code to promote affordable housing, the town board has been looking at creating a mechanism on smaller properties that
086have the AHO designation to allow them to build some affordable housing. So, um that's the background on this use. Um, and as I said, the the planning board has looked at the draft legislation for this new use um, a number of times. Uh, the town board did schedule and and hold a public hearing. Um, although after the public hearing um, in looking at the draft code some more, there were two issues that we wanted to clarify further. Um uh well I should say one that we really view as a clarification um in the code and then one that is a change um from the regulations that really will um determine the design and appearance of the facility which is particularly important to the planning board considering this would be a site plan special permit use.
087All of these um before they're approved would have to come in front of the planning board and obtain your approval. Um so to to get to the point here um the town is looking to modify this draft legislation. Two specific um regulations of it. The first is and again we believe a clarification clarifying that the owner of the property or a member of their immediate family um may occupy one of the housing units and only one of the housing units as the owner occupied unit. So proposed to be added to the legislation are a couple of definitions for owner occupied unit and immediate family member. Um but basically the idea here is that um you know the the owner of the property so let's say somebody owned a single family residence they got the AHO
088designation they wanted to do an affordable multiple residence we would you know we wouldn't want to prohibit the property owner from living in one of those units. So, let's say you had a home, single family residence, obviously one unit. They did a affordable multiple residence to do four units. Under the way that the code is now drafted, that property owner would be able to live in one of those housing units, but then rent out the other three. Or they would be allowed to put one of their immediate family members in that one owner occupied unit that's reserved for the for their right to use. Um, but it could only be one unit. that one unit doesn't have income restrictions or rent restrictions. Obviously, most of the time, you know, a property owner is not going
089to be charging themselves rent and they're probably not going to be charging a family member rent. Um, so the intention is to make it clear in the code that the owner of the property is allowed to live in one of the units. And if you think about it, it it aligns with if you look at an ADU, um that is where the resident will continue to live in their single family residence and they build this additional accessory affordable housing unit. So um we want to maintain that right. Um some other reasons are uh that it does make sense um to have the landlord be present on site uh from a management standpoint. Um again, under this model, the land uh the property owner would be the landlord. Um and then another reason for this is
090and one of the things we always wanted to address with with adding this use to the code is not only to create affordable housing units for the tenants who might be people in need but also to give mechanisms for property owners to get a little bit of extra income. Um, a lot of times, you know, most of the households in this town are income burdened as determined by or uh housing cost burden, excuse me, is determined by HUD. Um, so, you know, in a lot of these cases, it would also benefit the the property owner um to, you know, to be able to live on site um but also to be able to rent it out. and you know, we don't want to put them in a situation where they have to choose between creating
091additional affordable housing units and then finding a new place to live. So, um, that's the reasoning for that. That is the first of two changes since the last time you reviewed this. Um, again, just clarifying that the owner of the property or member of their immediate family can basically have one of the units reserved for them. Um the second is removing the requirement that all units be in multi-unit buildings. So this is a dimensional requirement. Um the full code section would say no units can be in multi-unit buildings and no building uh has more is allowed to have more than four units in it. So, the reasoning for this was, you know, when we were crafting the code, and I will say the the requirement to have all the units be in multi-unit buildings came
092from me. Um, the reasoning for for it, um, is that, uh, what we wanted with this is we envisioned this on smaller properties and to be something that can at least aesthetically and in other senses seamlessly fit into a single family residential neighborhood. So, we didn't want to see a proliferation of of multiple buildings um where somebody wanted to create an affordable multiple residence. Let's say they had a right, you know, and otherwise had the yield for four units to do four scattered buildings on a single a lot that might otherwise be within a single family residential neighborhood because that's not the development pattern that you normally have on those properties. It's usually one large principal building. Um once you get to a larger property that is eligible for this use where you're allowed to
093have you're otherwise allowed to have the yield for five six or more units, you're going to have a larger property and it's going to be easier to to spread that out. So that was the impetus for requiring that all the units be in multi-unit buildings. Basically trying to take the housing units and condense them into one principal structure in most cases and certainly on the smaller lots. That being said, um in discussing this further, there are situations where it might be more appropriate on a property um to have multiple cottage style buildings um to have a layout of that kind. Um I think the town board wants to have this use have um some leeway and some ability to have different designs and and different layouts um and see what comes in. So I I
094you know so the the current proposal is to remove not the requirement that um there be no more than four units in one building because we don't want super large buildings but to remove the requirement that they must be in multi-unit buildings. So um again as I said at the beginning that does impact the planning board because if and when this use is adopted all of these uses are going to come in front of you. So, um, you know, that is something that's particularly pertinent to you as a review board. Um but you know I do think that the option if we're you know in light of the fact that we haven't reviewed site plans for any of these uses um you know it is better to heir on the side of having more flexibility
095within reason for this use um and have the potential to have different layouts because again this use necessitates that the AHO designation be put on a property. This is not something that a property owner can could otherwise do on any other residential property. It's not like you're going to see cottage style developments or or applications for them throughout town. The town board needs to designate a property as as having the AHO to allow them to seek this use. They may do that on a property that is the underlying zoning is single family residential and it's in um an otherwise residential neighborhood. Um, or when I say they they could do that, they could receive a request from it and they could grant that. Um, but we don't see that as the likely scenario. We see
096it more likely to be properties that are on the peripheries of downtowns where there's employment and goods and services that can be walked to. Um, and possibly zoning that is not, you know, single family residential that might not be in the middle of a single family residential neighborhood. And it makes sense to have flexibility in design. So, um, that's really the background on this. Again, it's two changes from the last time you saw it. One um saying that the owner or their a member of their immediate family can live in an owner occupied reserved unit and the other being removing a requirement that all of the units be in multi-unit buildings. And I'm sure the board have questions. So, um >> I'll let you. >> Thanks. Um by the way, is the town board going
097to hold another public hearing uh regarding these revisions? >> Yes, it will need to be reheard. Um and and that I should have also um sort of prefaced all of this with and that's why it's it's back in front of you is because anytime there is a code change, the planning board is required under the code to review that and send comments to the town board. You have reviewed this twice already, but these are new changes and we wanted to make sure that the planning board's comments. >> Right. Right. That is that is our process that we we review them and make comments. Um and then the town board takes it from there. Um I mean I don't know how other people feel but to me though these are two things that I would have
098assumed in some ways would have already been in it. >> Does anyone have do we all sort of support these two? >> I just have a question. >> Yeah. >> The is the requirement for the number of units the same for a multiple unit building as it is for separate units? Number of units per acre for instance. >> Good question. Uh I'm not I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Um the the yield would be essentially four units per acre, you know. Um but if you were proposing to remove a requirement that um you know, let's say you have an a an acre that all four of those housing units be in this in the same structure. >> But the yield is the same. It could be four. the yield doesn't change and there is
099no proposed change of you and maybe this is the question you know if you're going to put all the units in one building is there a different yield than if you're going to do them as separate buildings we're not proposing that >> okay >> so Eric as the property owner they would have to apply to get the AH zoning status if they're not within that zone that's correct or alternatively the town board would have needed to have proactively looked at their property and reszoned it. >> Got it. >> Is there an application out there for properties that are not currently zoned AHO to be to make that request? >> No, probably not yet. No, >> there isn't an application form, but there is a process. Um, and there have been a number of requests to
100add AHO. Um there is one that is outstanding um for the Ruddy property on Three-Mile Harbor Road. We've received another request um for another property um in the town. So, it there is a process laid out um but basically it entails that the property owner would contact the town board um and ask them um for a reasonzoning and then it would probably quickly be referred to the planning department for a technical review and the planning board for comments on it because you will also have the authority and responsibility under the town code to review uh zone changes. >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> Yeah. zone changes are not so simple, but you know, but I think everyone in town knows that there are not many AHO zoned plots, right? But I think this is really
101a matter of putting together building blocks so that when that can be expanded, you know, we understand how they can be used. Um, so are there any other comments that we want to give to the town board? We're not taking public comment. Kirby, sorry. We're not >> We're not taking public comment. No public comment today. >> You know, public comment on this is really for the town board, not for us. This is our review. Uh, and we've been asked for our comments as a board. >> They're going to have another public hearing. >> And they're going to have another public hearing, right? So, that's where we go. Thank you. Thanks for understanding that. >> Um, we can simply say we support it unless there's any other uh >> I agree. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I think
102I think I would have thought that included. >> Yeah. Yeah. At some point very logical. So, okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um All right. So, Eric, you're up again for the So, yeah. So, we can just make the comment that we support >> we support the Yeah. >> Yep. >> Gross area code change. >> Yep. Yeah. So, this one should be um I think even more straightforward. There's nothing. So, as the planning board knows, the town board recently changed the formula and requirements uh and restrictions for gross floor area um for for various buildings in the town, residential, commercial. Um and in doing so, set up a new formula for single family residences and what they're permitted as far as maximum gross floor area. When that was done, um there was a the
103table of dimensional regulations in the town code where you would look up setbacks has two pages. The new formula was added to the one page but not the other. It was just an oversight. Um and then there's a section of the town code that basically uh establishes what the formula is for GFA and that wasn't updated to the new um the new formula. So, these are truly corrections of typos and just um things that were missed. Um there's no new substantive regulation. It's just clarifying that the old rule no longer applies and the new rule applies and making sure that those two code sections accurately reflect that. >> So, it's just a misstatement. It's inconsistency, you know, basically, right? >> Clean up. >> Um clean up. Do these GFA formulas apply to the multiple housing
104units that we were just talking about? >> It would be um one of the dimensional provisions in there actually in the same sort of subsection where it talks about the multi-unit buildings. Um is that uh they have to comply with all of the applicable dimensional regulations of the underlying zoning district. So, if you're a single family residential lot, you need to meet the setbacks that a home on that lot would meet would need to meet meet. Um, you need to meet the GFA coverage. Um, all of that stuff. >> Yep. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> Uh, does the board have any additional comments for the town board regarding the changes to the town code? >> No. >> Uh, so just that we support them. >> What took you so long? >> We've been waiting
105for you. Um, all right. Great. So that is our work session. Thank you very much. And we can power through our regular meeting. I think our first item Ava is you, the Bree's Padell Courts. >> Yep. In the matter of the application of Bree's Pedel Court site plan, SuffK County Tax Map 300-181-1-5.1. Uh I've reviewed the final determination and conditions of approval and move to approve the site plan approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I all around. Okay. >> And also in the matter of the application of SDA restaurant site plan county tax map 300-50-1-13.1. also review the findings and determination and conditions of approval and make a motion to approve the site plan and special permit. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Okay. Pass. Jerry. >> Uh, yes. So, >>
106that's me. And Mr. is here. I know. >> This is the last time. This is it. In the matter of the application of minor subdivision, SEO county tax map number 300-24-13-29. I have refu I have reviewed the waiver of subdivision approval and I move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? I carried. >> Thanks for tuning in. Appreciate that. >> Um 316 Aabonic. That is Bruce. >> That's me. In the matter of the application of 316 Aabonic Road EV chargers site plan, Suffach Academy tax map number 300-149-2-56.3. I have read the determination and move for the site plan approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I passed and carried. Great. and want to mess up a debut of our new format for for scheduling public hearings. Ava. >> All right. All right.
107A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall, 159 Panago Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of lands and marina site plan special permit uh at premises identified as Suff County tax map number 300-12-1-1 [Music] uh 2 14 and 15 files can be viewed and comments can be filed in accordance with 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 said hearing date. >> Okay. Actually, wow. >> That's really good, right? >> That was good. >> Okay. So, call >> for it adoption. >> Oh, yes. Uh, and I I call for the adoption
108to schedule this public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor of scheduling it? I >> All right. Great. Minutes. Minutes. Who's read the minutes? >> I just skimmed. >> Comments, corrections, anything? >> Read. We're counting on you. You know, I looked it over. They look good. Okay, good. >> Uh, move their adoption. >> Yeah. Thank you. A second. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor adopting the minutes. I >> Excellent. Great. >> Uh, motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? crying.