East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 10/22/2025

001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the East Hampton Town Planning Board's October 22nd, 2025 meeting. Uh, this we have a regular meeting and a work session. We do have a public hearing tonight. We do have a number of matters on for work session. We have one meeting uh one application on for a regular meeting. And there are a couple of applications that have been withdrawn uh at the applicant's request for tonight. So if you're here for Southampton Masonry, 54 Industrial Road, or Eco Acres Subwaver, uh we'll be rescheduling those for another meeting. Okay. Uh so we'll start with uh our public hearing and we it's for the Hubard site plan and Bruce if you want to read in

002the quick it's a very quick streamlined announcement for the public hearing. >> Yes. Okay. Take notice that a public hearing is being held today, Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025, before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall, 159 Panagago Road, East Hampton, to consider the application of Hubard's site plan. The public may comment in person or by telephone by calling 351886331. >> Excellent. Thank you. All right. So, we'll have a quick description of the of the project, Sarah. >> Sure. Uh, so the site plan application was resubmitted to legalize the now existing enclosed living space, uh, which was pre previously an approved screen porch, an area totaling 363 ft. The existing use of the building is a retail store with a kitchen and food service at the first floor, plus office space at the first

003floor, both allowed in the central business uh zoning. The second floor apartment required a special permit in a um in a central business zoning district per 25511. The planning board reviewed the application at its August 27th, 2025 meeting. The board agreed to wave the site plan elements as noted in the planning department memo. The applicant agreed to submit an updated survey which they did and is shown on the screen and the board deemed that the application was ready for public hearing. >> Okay. Thank you, Sarah. Uh are there any members of the public here tonight who wish to be heard on the Hubard site plan? >> Just for the record, the um public hearing was properly noticed. >> I'm sorry, I did not ask that question. Okay, I'll ask it again. Anyone here want to

004speak on the Hubard site plan? U Matt, is there anyone on the line who'd like to speak on this? >> Please stand by. >> Say it again. >> He said stand by. >> Oh, >> and this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV making sure that all lines are open and clear, which they are, and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. Oh, sorry. I was going to make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Motion's been made and it's been seconded. All in favor of closing the public hearing. >> All right. Unanimous all around. >> All right. Well, our next uh application is 316 Aabonic EV chargers site plan. Um Aaron, that's you. Bruce, that's you again for >> authority. And the applicant is here tonight. >> And

005Ava is recused. Okay. [Music] >> Everyone ready? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> So, this is a followup on 316 Aabonic Road. The last review date was September 24th, 2025. Uh to give a brief background of the site plan, the project proposes to erect a total of four EV charging stations by utilizing two separate concrete pads. Each charging pad includes two chargers which are placed back to back and attached to one main pole. Um the EV chargers will provide charging capabilities to four existing parking spaces through converting four spots to EV charging only. The site is 1 about 1.2 2 million square ft or 28.6 acres. It's located on Akabanic Road and is zoned a residential under the affordable housing overlay. The site has been approved with 10 two-story apartment buildings, uh a one one-story healthcare

006center and a paved parking area as per the CO. Um I'm just going to go through the planning board comments from the previous meeting and if they were addressed by the applicant or not and what the planning uh department assessment is. The board of the the first comment was the board finds the location of the proposed EV charging stations appropriate. The applicant was not required to respond. Um the planning board the planning department's assessment was that the funding department sees the location of the proposed EV charging stations as sufficient and recommends no further action be taken. Um the second comment which is a more which is a more detailed comment is the applicant should clarify if any ADA compliance bases are include are to be included as part of this project as per their original

007narrative. They stated they were to put in um an ADA compliant spot. Um the applicant responded and addressed it. They stated there is currently no um no designated parking spot at the installation site, but we will dedicate uh one EV charging charger parking spot um for mobility and accessible uh van parking spot that will be indicated by blue striping and appropriate signage. As such, their updated site plan was submitted uh with accessible electric uh vehicle charging spot. After talking extensively with the fire marshal, we have deemed it uh we have deemed it accessible um and following the accessibility board's guidelines and the New York State guidelines. Um as you can see, this is updated signage on the pavement. And if you go to the very bottom of this, uh this is updated signage for it

008for the accessible spot. It says accessible EV charging use last. Um, we believe that this complies with the state of New York recommendations for electric vehicle charging and as such the planning department believes no further action is required regarding this comment. The the other planning board comment was the applicant should clarify if any new or proposed modified lighting is intended to be included as part of this project. The applicant addressed this stating no additional lighting is contemplated at the site. Signage will be detailed on a revised plan to submit for A or B. um it would be minimal and and compliant with town code. The planning board's assessment, the planning department's assessment was based on the small nature of the plans proposed. No additions to lighting or changes in in the lighting plan are proposed.

009As such, the planning department currently recommends no further action uh be taken regarding lighting. The last comment was uh the board agrees this proposal qualifies as a minor site plan and that accordingly the public hearing should be waved. The applicant's response was not required. The planning department's assessment was we agree um as no variances are required. Health department approval is not required. The proposed work will be approximately 30 feet. No additional parking will will be requested. No visual uh no visual impairment is believed to exist and no current public controversy exists. The planning department believes this application should be considered a minor site plan. In conclusion, the planning department recommends this application as complete and ready for approval. Um and the planning and I listed one question at the bottom which is does the board

010agree this application is complete and ready for approval. >> Okay. Thank you Erin. Does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Did guarant. >> All right. That's what we like to hear. Uh Bruce, do you have any comments? >> I don't. I think everything's been addressed that we spoke about last time and I think we're ready to move forward. >> Okay. So our one question is does the board, as Aaron said, does the board agree this application is complete and ready for approval? >> Yes. All the way around. >> Yes. Okay. And uh we did determine last time that this is a minor site and will not require a public hearing. >> So good. All right. Excellent. Done. >> Thanks. >> All right. Moving on then to Bonic Rooster lot line modification. That's Will for

011the planning department. Lou, that's you for the board. Is the applicant here for Bonic Rooster? Okay. All right. Great. Good. Um, all right. So, we'll let Will take the lead. >> Okay. So, this is an application seeking to modify a lot line between two properties. The applicant proposes adjusting the lot area of both lots with parcel A having a new area of 35,874 ft and parcel B having a new lot area of 22,136 ft. This proposed modification would reduce the number of non-conforming setbacks of the existing residents and the lot areas. Here's a recent aerial um taken October 1st showing the two properties. Currently, access is proposed to parcel A over an existing shared driveway the parcel has dated access to. The parcels are both zoned A residents and parcel A is currently improved with

012a one and a half story residence, two accessory buildings, a barn, a carport, a treehouse, and a metal container. While parcel B is improved with only an asphalt driveway. The relocation of the lot line would result in the existing residence being located within parcel B with the asphalt driveway, while the other structures will remain as part of parcel A. And here is the site plan. The lots were created as part of the 99 acic road subwaver approved in 1975. Previously, the board reviewed this application on May 28th, 2022, where the application was deemed a type 2 action pursuant to SRA. After the board's last review of the project in 2022, it requested the applicant to submit more information regarding the northern access for parcel A and the applicant submitted the deed to the property to

013the north which permits the lots to the south and east of it to use the common driveway of which parcel A is one. The existing common driveway, which parcel A proposes to take access from, appears to be in usable condition, though may not fully be compliant with cleared or improved width specifications. However, as the current application does not propose to modify existing access conditions and the driveway appears to be operational, the planning department notes it improvements to the common driveway are not required at this time. Both parcels are undersized for the A resident zoning district they are located within and the lot area variance is required from the zoning board of appeals. Because density will not be altered, the planning department does not have concerns regarding the variance. The board should consider if they agree

014and if they will issue comments to the ZBA advising them of its position. In conclusion, the board should discuss if the application is complete and ready for referral to the zoning board. >> Okay. Thanks, Will. Uh does the applicant wish to be heard? Uh we've reviewed >> Can you please come to the podium and just for the record state your name and address 135 Main Street East New York on behalf of the applicants. Uh we reviewed Will's uh review and have no problem with it. >> Okay. Great. Uh Soo >> this is you. >> Okay. I just have a few comments. Um I agree with the planning department that you know although both lots will be non-conforming for the a residence zoning no change to density will occur not create new lots nor propose new

015construction. So in light of that I recommend that uh a lot area variance be provided by the ZBA. But I would like to add a provision to that that the nonconformity should not establish a precedent for similar types of requests. Um and the other comment I had the lots are 100% clear of vegetation. Um, can we require a revitation plan for any area that's not essential to structures or access particularly within 10 ft of the boundary? >> I recommend that we do that. That's my opinion. >> I hear I believe if we are if the CO is that the uh the lot is 100% clear that that is what it is. >> Question. Eric, >> if I can chime in. Um, I mean, I I don't believe there's a mechanism in the code where you

016could require it. Um, they're not creating a new lot, so it's an existing nonconformity. >> Okay. What about the driveway, Eric? I I understand it's existing, and I'm not sure. I understand the planning department's thinking on it as to why we can't require u dimensions that that it submits to the codes dimension for driveways as well as um you know other requirements for that type of access. >> Yep. Yeah. I mean, if this were a sort of full subwaver application, uh, where they were creating a lot, um, it's kind of the same situation as the clearing, um, they'd be creating a new lot. That lot would otherwise need to be in conformance, uh, unless the planning board, there is actually a mechanism to wave clearing for subdivisions, uh, in the code. The access is a

017very similar situation where they're just doing a lot line modification. They're not adding a lot. So, you know, by through submission of the deed, the applicant's attorney has demonstrated that they already have a legally existing right to access over that driveway. They're not adding a lot to the driveway, so there's nothing that triggers any changes to the dimensions of it. Um, so that's basically it. I mean, in both cases, they have legally pre-existing right to the to the access and the clearing. >> Okay. Well, in view of all that, I think the application is complete and I do recommend that we suggest a variance to the ZBA. >> Thanks. Would anyone else like to comment? >> Everyone pretty much in agreement with Lou. Yes. >> Okay. Uh and the questions are, does the board agree

018the application is complete and ready for referral to CPA? >> Unanimous all the way around. Okay. Does the board agree with the planning department that there are no objections to the variance and does the board wish to send comments to the ZBA? >> Well, perhaps what are the comments? >> Well, yeah, right. >> That's what we Yeah, >> it Yeah, I think well the comments I think would generally be that we support the the variance, >> but as Lewis said, he didn't want a precedent setting. Um >> Yeah. >> Well, that's Yeah, you're right. Uh I'm not sure what they can do with that exactly, but I >> can't they make it a uh covenant a restrictive covenant or some kind of provision that binds the applicant? not binds the applicant, but uh has the

019have the applicant draw up some kind of narrative and state that this is not the typical type of variance that they would give in this regard so that they don't set a precedent. >> You mean the the ZBA? You're asking if the ZBA could could make some that would be my >> reference to that. We can definitely make that suggestion to the ZBA. Definitely. So I think then the way that this should question should read perhaps is does the board wish to send comments to the ZBA uh including that the board supports the variance and that we would like them to um make a statement in their determination that this is not a precedent setting decision on their part. >> Everybody okay with that? >> Yeah, I think that sounds good. >> Sure. Okay. Anything

020else? >> No, that's all. >> All right. Well, we'll leave it at that. All right. We're done. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to Prospect Hill final subdivision modification. That is Sarah. That is you, Michael. Um, and is the applicant for Prospect Hill in the room? Jameson. Okay. >> Yeah. [Music] All right. >> So Sarah, go ahead. >> Sure. So application has been made to modify the covenants and restrictions of the Prospect Hill subdivision lot 14 approved October 26, 1983 to alter the building envelope. The original subdivision was completed in 1983 as stated and the building envelope has been altered once in 2002 to allow for the pool and pool deck. The subject parcel is zoned A2 residence and is considered improved and partially cleared with the most recent

021certificate of occupancy for this property issued in 2010 for the primary residence and accessory structures. The applicant is proposing to remove the structures not on the CO, including the shed, deck, stone patio, and mulch path. It should be noted that the stone patio and mulch path are currently in the scenic easement. The proposal removes a portion of build buildable space to the northwest and adds a portion to the southeast. There is no net change in the square footage of the building envelope. The existing building envelope is 9,753 square ft. The proposed reduction is 1,161 square ft while the added area is also 1,161 ft. The planning department views the modification as relatively minor in nature. The original Prospect Hill subdivision was planned around the rolling topography with the building envelopes designed to exclude steep slopes

022and limit visibility of construction on the high areas of the site. The planning department emphasizes that there is no increase in size of the envelope and that no significant slopes or grades will be altered. The area of the building envelope expansion is at the same elevation of the existing home, meaning that views would be similar to the ones of the existing building. The proposed change actually moves construction away from areas of steep slopes and this may be appropriate. The steeper slopes on this property are to the west and the area is under the protection of a scenic easement. The area to the east where the envelope addition is proposed would not intrude on steep slopes. It should be noted that while the sideyard setbacks will still be met, altering the building envelope would permit an

023addition closer to the neighbor to the east. Vegetative screening to the east already exists. However, the board may wish to confirm that the screening will remain. Given these conditions, the planning department does not object to the technical details of the proposed Modification of this project is a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code. Typically, in order to review a prior subdivision approval, the planning department must determine or planning board must determine that there has been a change of circumstance that warrants looking at the approval again. If the planning board determines that the change in circumstance is existing, then the board must review the modification and determine whether it is is consistent with the town's subdivision regulations. Changes of circumstances typically include new legislation, changes to site conditions, or changes

024to surrounding conditions. The applicant has not yet articulated specific changes in circumstances warranting review. In this case, the applicant should do this and also support the consistency of the proposed change in the context of the town subdivision's regulations. The applicant has articulated that the layout of the house makes it challenging to design an addition for the front of the house as a driver in this request. Um, one of the original conditions of approval stated that each lot shall have drywalls to control storm water runoff. The applicant should also clarify what exists for drainage management and if there are no dry dry wells for the roofed areas, the applicant should comply with the original conditions of the subdivision. The applicant should also provide information regarding runoff control during the time of construction as part of the

025building permit process. Um the planning department also notes that the board is not required to hold public hearings for subwaver modifications. However, the board may wish to determine if this is appropriate or not. Um in conclusion, the board should discuss the issues presented to to determine if the application is complete. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh let's see. Michael, this is you. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Jameson, would you like to address the board? [Applause] >> Good evening, board. Uh, Jameson Mc Williams for the applicant um from the Adam Miller Group at 2462 Main Street in Bridgeampton. Um, as stated, this is uh the subdivision map of Prospect Hill. This is lot 14. Um the map, the subdivision was approved in October 1983 and uh was filed in December 1984. Um and it

026was as noted um amended in March of 2002. So it's been amended once already. Um at that time it was to expand the size of the building envelope uh to allow for that pool and pool deck area to the south. Um, so this application is to modify the CNRs of the map of lot 14. Um, again, as stated, there is no net change in the square footage of the building envelope. So, it would be a straight swap. It's a 1,161 square ft. um giving up the or offering to swap out the red which is currently included in the um required building envelope to allow for the um change of the blue area uh to be part of building envelope instead. Um there will be no significant slopes or grades that are altered with this swap.

027Um and just as one of the points um questioning the screening to the east that the applicant is willing to you know maintain the screening to the east increase any screening that the board felt was suitable um and you know I guess covenant or whatever you guys wanted to um to that effect. Um to answer the question about drainage, the entire house has gutters and the gutters are connected and drained away from the house underground and there is a drywall located on the site. Um this was information given to me by the owner. So they said where the large basement window is. Um I would have to get more information about where exactly that's located on the site. Um but we could have that plotted on the survey too. um if the board wanted us

028to um and if any modification um was allowed to provide for an addition to be constructed on the site then we would obviously have you know adequate gutters and require storm water management to account for any additional square footage. Um so sort of most importantly it seems in the um report was to address the changes in circumstances in the site um since the time of the original subdivision. So um the first and most important change that I found was that the subject lot has been upzoned since the original subdivision. Um so the subdivision map indicates that it was zoned A at the time of the subdivision and it is now zoned A2. Um, I tried to confirm I if Eric is still on, he's knows these things off the top of his head, but I

029tried to confirm the exact date of the EP upzoning um based on the notations on the zoning map. This is on sheet nine um of our current zoning map and there have been changes over the years. I couldn't indicate, you know, I couldn't pinpoint exactly when, but clearly based on the notations of the two um maps, it was upon sometime subsequent to the approval. Um so that does change. you know, it's not legislation in the technical sense where like the law as written changed, but that would be an action of the town board to, you know, upzone the area. Um, so that is a significant change in my opinion. Um, >> can I ask you just a quick question? What is the change between A and A2? I'm a little confused. >> Okay. Um, so

030there it changes. >> You said it was significant. I was just curious. >> It's a square foot change. >> Yeah. So there's a lot of like the difference is >> Yeah. So the >> Eric, what is the difference >> between A and A2? >> A and A2. >> You a minimum lot area or >> Yeah, I got it. >> Um A is 40,000 square ft and A2 is 84, I believe. >> Wow. >> 84. And it also changes you know some of the required like the the setbacks in question the side art setback in question that is it's different between A and A2. This would meet both you know by far because of the you know they they the map notes at S30 and as you pointed out in your memo that um it would

031at least meet the 30 which is what it is now. At the time of the subdivision, it would have been 20. But and the setbacks, you know, as we know, are somewhat irrelevant because by virtue of the fact that there's a building envelope required at all, so it's already more restrictive than either zoning. Um, so that was my first change in circumstance. The second being, and this might sound like a little strange when I first say it, but follow me here. At the time of the subdivision, this was a fully wooded, undisturbed lot. Um, as you can see now based on our updated survey work, um, there are significant grade changes on the site. I don't think that the grade has changed, but there were no tobo lines on any of the approved maps that

032I saw from the town's files. Not that they were not acknowledging those, but at the time when you're looking at an undisturbed and undeveloped lot versus now once you have tried to develop within that required area and you now understand how the driveway has to be oriented with the topography there on the northwest side and you live with the site, you realize that sometimes, you know, you don't know the limitations of the of the required building envelope until you're there. So this is sort of a in my opinion a better alternative to what he ultimately would have to do to get a larger house with an addition here to accommodate I guess he has five children and grandchildren and things on the way. um he could do a total redevelopment of the site to try

033to build, you know, more in that red area, but this is a much less extensive, less disturbing process if the board were amendable to it. Um because they could certainly try to redesign this entire thing and demo the house and rebuild and reorient. Um but this was a preferable sort of first step to see if this was amendable to the board. Um that's really it. the the other changes and circumstances, they don't really rise to the level of, you know, the some of the case law that I read, but the personal, you know, family changes and circumstances, which you guys hear about. The zoning board would hears about it more. Um, those are not legal arguments. It's just factual. Um, they're like a local community oriented family with adult children and, you know, they they

034want some more space. The zoning code allows it. They're not looking for any, you know, they're not going to be going to the zoning board next and looking for GFA variances or anything like that. Um, and then other notes that are also in the memo that are just, you know, points to make that there is a very large existing scenic easement. Um, it's a little bit hard to tell on this, but it's the entire L of the whole left side of the property. Um, like the dotted line. Um and then this is not really a concession as you guys know but there has been some disturbance within the scenic easement. We would like to remedy that. Um as well as removing a few small structures um that are not on the co. Um and one

035other point um that was raised in the memo about you know how this change could more align with the current subdivision uh you know regulations that and it was also stated in the memo that this technically would be moving the required building envelope into an area with less you know topographical distur you know issues to deal with that. There are a lot of slope issues there on the northwest side and very few on the on the blue side there on the south. So that's my >> before I turn it over to you. Michael, I'd like to ask a question. Jameson, >> I just want to make sure I understand your argument about the upzoning, you know, and how and how you think that and and I presume just to ver just to confirm this that

036this happened since they've owned the property or since it was since the the uh building envelope was established. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um I think it probably happened before they owned the property. Okay. But since so the the history on the site is that it was definitely a when it was subdivided. I don't know like I said uh when it was the zone was changed but since they bought it there has only ever been the building permits and the cos for this existing structure. So they they haven't changed anything that has always ever been approved. Um I mean like there it's only been disturbed once. Um, and really the only, you know, the the difference, like I said with the with the upzoning is that I don't know, I can't go back and understand

037why the planning board at the time when this was zoned A set this building envelope exactly as it is, but it's possible that now that it is A2, it would have been set in a different location with different setbacks. And we don't know that, but it's a change in the circumstances like that. The town board upzone to this entire area. So, it would have been analyzed potentially in a different way >> essentially. >> Now, you guys would know better than me if you look at the zoning when you look at subdivisions. >> I have like a followup to that. Did the current owners purchase it vacant and improve it or they purchased it with the house and everything on it and then they added the pool? >> No, actually not. So my the the current

038owners purchased it from I believe it's was always the original family purchased it after it was subdivided. They pulled the original building permits for the house first. Then they came to this board and got the building envelope modified. They pulled the permits for the pool, closed that out. It's all seeded. And then the current owners purchased it after that. >> Okay. Good. >> You know what the change of circumstance was? That's my question. [Laughter] >> I'm stealing my thunder. >> Yeah. What happened in 2002? >> I don't know. I asked for that file, but I haven't gotten it yet. And I don't know if there's notes to that effect. Probably. >> So, Michael, please. So, we we've seen an earlier map that had >> the maps >> like an earlier map that actually had this

039triangle in the building envelope and it seems that there was some compromise that >> there it is. Look at that. >> Yeah. >> So, was it there was a swap then that said triangles um dimension numbers to the left. >> Is that what you're talking about? that goes off to the left. No, there wells down here. So, it's just offsets from the house to the right. >> I'm glad we have an architect. >> Gotcha. >> What's that then? >> To clarify if it's helpful. So, this is the original filed map from 1983 1984. So, the area that they're proposing to add in was part of the original building envelope in 2002 when they added the pool and pool deck. They removed this area that they're now proposing to add back in. Um but it looks

040like um and then they extended it here for the pool and pool deck. >> But again, there's no net change that they're direct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And now they're swapping another piece for this. >> And again, I'm curious if that was the discussion of a change of circumstances came up in 2002. >> Yeah. I was able to read um read up a little bit and the board's view in 2002 was that modifying the building envelope did not conflict with the planning board's goal in approving um the map. So um you know their goals were to uh let me see you know contain the steep slopes and then visibility um you know of any structures on the lot. Um so in 2002 their review was that the pool area um did not conflict with those

041goals being the steep slopes and the visibility. >> What what is the plan for the lack of a better phrase the blue triangle? >> Oh in addition to the house >> A bedroom. I can't be sure about that. I don't know the plan for the like the interior layout. Could be a living room but yes additional square footage for like a an addition to the house. It's a little bit of a difficult wedge to work with sort of building, but >> if you >> Yeah. It's not The plan is not to have it be in the shape of that wedge. It would make sense um architecturally. >> It's restrictive. >> It's It is restrictive, but we were trying to um have it meet, you know, because of the way that the building envelope actually is.

042It this aligns and maintains that 30 foot setback from top to bottom. and we wanted to pick up just have it be an equal 1,161 square feet. So, my guess would be that they would have to, you know, kind of come off of that lower area and bump it out a little bit, but it wouldn't be, you know, the whole side or if they could do that and have it make sense and meet the setback. >> I I am comfortable with the technical aspects of all this. I'm just burdened by the change of circumstance that we have to consider. >> Well, I think the change of circum there's two changes of circumstance that you cited. I think the second one is has more impact in my calculation because the first one whether it's a one

043acre or two acre lot, it's possible that they could have designed the building almost the same exact way. So that didn't really affect it. However, the second one where when they when they originally uh made this subdivision and it was a wooded property and they now did you say they didn't have topography? >> I I don't want to imply that they were not aware of the topography. I believe that they were because slopes are such a you know consideration of this board. on the approved maps. I didn't see topography on the on the older ones, which is typical of the of that time. >> Does it seem reasonable? >> It doesn't seem >> No, it's just that once you clear it and try to work within that, you know, required envelope is when you learn

044the limitations. So now that it's cleared, it would it's it would make sense to have the building envelope as you're requesting it by the way it was designed because of topography. >> That's one of my arguments. Yes. >> What was the original? So the original was the line we're talking about right here. >> Yeah. Here's the >> Yeah. So >> that was the original setback line. I know. >> But the 2002 pool, the swap for the pool, right? >> And now they want to swap something else. >> But the pool is interesting because it actually wasn't even just a fair swap though. They just increased they also increased the square footage of the building. >> I was going to say there's no way. There had to have been a change of square footage at some

045point. >> Actually, it looks existing 91 whatever proposed was 9,000. >> So it's actually a decrease. Yeah, they did also take out this sliver um to the west. >> Okay. >> so that's another change of circumstance. Well, but it's, you know, in many ways, you know, what happened in 2002 is not that relevant. What that, you know, um why isn't it relevant? The the language that that was cited by Sarah. >> Well, you know, I think the you know, the thing that that to me is the most compelling here is is the fact that the building envelope was established by, you know, looking at the best use of the land. Right. >> Okay. Right. And that was, you know, something that was made by this board. And, you know, that is something to me that

046is sacrosanked unless there's a really excellent reason for it not to be. It could, and I'm not going to throw shade on the 2002 planning board, but um their mind >> they, you know, listen, every things happen for all sorts of reasons, right? and they may have found that uh it was you know in their view that there was adequate reason but we don't have to be held to that same kind of logic as as the last change. It seems to me we're evaluating this a new under the current circumstances as far as I'm concerned. Um so let's just make sure everybody is heard from on this. Um do you have other comments Bruce? >> No I think I'm good. >> Okay. All right. Reed. So, I I think a change in circumstances has been

047demonstrated. Um, you know, and I I see this as a a swap, a trade-off. Um, there's no change in the square footage. The setbacks meet the requirements. I I don't have a problem with it. >> Okay. Ava, >> I I agree. I just think it needs to be, you know, articulated in written format with the change of circumstances that is. But I agree with exactly what Reed said. Yeah, my opinion is that I think this swap is beneficial. I think it's a better plan in my view and I and but if it wasn't a change of circumstance, I would be blown to approve it. But I think we have two changes of circumstances that we can site as bonafide changes of circumstances. So I like I I don't mind the swap. I think it's a

048good idea. It doesn't do any harm, doesn't cause any other problems. And I think we have the u substantiation in having a change in circumstance whether you pick the A or B that was cited by Jameson. So I I'm in I'm in favor. >> Okay. >> Can I um can I I'm sorry. Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt the board, but just to jump in and make a suggestion. Um, Kaza had already mentioned it that um perhaps the applicant should, you know, put in writing their their grounds for a change of circumstance and then uh planning and council can review uh the reasoning. >> I agree. I was Yeah, I think that's >> Yeah, because you know, as long as the change of circumstance is adequate, you know, meets the standard, then I'm fine with

049it. As everyone else has said, the swap seems reasonable. >> Yeah. >> Michael, do you have no comment? >> I agree with >> everybody else. >> I'm uh I I actually So my my opinion is I think the the change of circumstance is a little on the edge. Um but I would, you know, I I will go along with my fellow board members on it. think what exists, but I was going to say we we'd really like to see this written up. >> Oh, definitely. I really need to be very clear. So, I apologize. >> Yeah, we we we can't really vote on this until we are. >> Yes. No, I I understand. Okay. >> I didn't know what what your deadline is for written submission. I didn't think I was going to squeak by,

050so I had to just get it verbally and I will follow up with a >> Okay. Do you understand what we need? >> I 100%. Okay. What is the when how does this procedurally happen from here? Submit it and then you'll somebody will let me know if it's going to be further >> discussed to the planning department. >> Okay, perfect. Well, thank you all for your time. >> All right, good. >> All right, we have a couple questions to go through. The first is do does planning board find that a change of circumstances is present as long as we have evidence from the applicant? >> Yes. >> All right. important that we be yeah aligned on that. >> Does the board support the requested modification? >> Yes, under those circumstances. Yes. >> Does the board

051wish to have the applicant confirm compliance with original subdivision conditions on storm water management? >> Yes. So, we need >> to have evidence of that. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, exactly. And will the board require a public hearing for this modification request? Yes, >> I think we should. >> Oh, yeses on a public hearing. Sure. Yeah, I think we are >> because it's moving closer to the neighbor. >> Good. Thank you, Jameson. >> Thanks. [Music] >> All right. Uh so our next application is project most site plan and that is Sarah. That is uh Jen and who is here to represent the applicant. Sarah Great. >> Just pulling everything up all around them at each other. >> Okay. All right. I'll probably need a couple water breaks. Um, but a substantially revised site plan and

052additional information have been submitted in support of the site plan application for the project most learning center. Um, this is located at 923 Mile Harbor Road. Uh the planning board reviewed previous versions of this application at its meetings in 2023 and 2024. The details of the proposed use have not changed. However, rather than demolishing the existing neighborhood house structure, the existing building is proposed to be restored and renovated and an addition is proposed to the rear of the existing structure. just to do a quick walk through of um the proposal. So these are just the elevations, the nice pictures. This is of the entryway again. So the front facing is really reusing pretty much the whole existing structure and then the addition is to the back um which is very different than previous applications. Just

053wanted to do a quick scroll through for the board. So this is the right side elevation and back to the survey. So project most provides after school summer and community programs classifying it as a semi-public facility um as per the town code. In prior submissions the applicant has confirmed that 15 employees are anticipated. In the summer, the anticipated student population is 75 and in the winter, 30 to 40 students are anticipated. In addition, there is one apartment proposed on site. The site would be home to the applicants community learning center. Services offered include year-round academic and recreational programs for children and families in East Hampton. These include programs like school vacation learning and academic programs, summer learning labs, summer camp, and community programs. The subject parcel is roughly 2.4 acres in size and is zoned

054a residence. It is 100% cleared of na naturally occurring vegetation but has mature oaks primarily at the front and rear of the parcel. Let's go back here. The applicant is proposing to add 2,284 ft to the existing 4,232 ft first floor, bringing the total to 6,516 ft. The first floor is proposed to contain a lobby, classrooms, a gym or multi-purpose room, bathrooms, meeting spaces, and a commercial kitchen. The applicant is also proposing to add 1567 square ft to the existing 196 square ft second floor. Let me scroll to that. Okay. A a caretaker's apartment, office spaces, and an upstairs foyer and a bathroom are proposed on the second floor. The basement is proposed to have additional classrooms, storage rooms, restrooms, uh an activity rooms, small music rooms, an art room, and a kiln room. And

055this is the basement plan. The total heated and conditioned living space is proposed to be 9,179 ft, while the heated and finished basement is proposed to be 6,591 ft. The applicant is also proposing a new parking and dropoff area and a new sport court. [Music] Moving on. So on December 6th, 2023, the planning board categorized the proposed project as an unlisted action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code and initiated a coordinated review circulating the short environmental assessment form or EF part one and lead agency request to all involved agencies. Given that the site plan has changed substantially, the planning department recommended uh reinitiate or recommends reinitiating a coordinated review and reissuing its request for lead agency status for the project. The applicant has already submitted an updated short EAF part one

056and the planning department has found this acceptable um and recommends it is suitable for use in initiating the coordinated review. Just gonna take a quick sip of water. Getting over a cold. Sorry. Uh when the site was last reviewed by the planning board and planning department, it was determined that referral to the state historic preservation office or shipo was appropri appropriate as submissions from members of the public had noted the potential for archaeological sensitivity on the site and shipo has greater expertise on matters of archaeology. In a March 5th, 2024 letter, Shipo recommended a phase 1A1B archaeological survey, which is designed to determine the presence or absence of archaeological sites or other cultural resources of the project. The surveys were conducted by the ACT and submitted to Shipo. As per an August 23rd, 2024 letter

057from Shipo, their archaeology department determined that any proposed ground disturbance would not affect archaeological resources. However, as a part of the Shipo analysis of the site, it was determined that the neighborhood house structure is eligible for listing in the state and national registers of historic places. Thus, Shipo would consider the demolition of the historic building adverse. Um, hence the revised plan. Um, the applicant has provided the shipo letters and more recently provided the archaeological surveys which still need to be reviewed by the planning department. It should be noted that in Shipo's last correspondence, they noted that no further consultation with their office is required. Should be noted though that um when the EAF is circulated, it will be routed to Shipo um just as a courtesy to see if they have any additional comment. The

058planning department recommends sensitivity around the restoration approach based on the findings shared in the Shipo studies. The proposed use uh of the site seems generally consistent with historical uses. As noted by Shipo, the site was historically used at varying times for nursery schools and children's programs such as Boy Scouts. The planning department notes that the proposed use of the building as a semi-public facility geared toward children and the community is generally consistent with historical uses of the property. With respect to the physical aspects of the project, the building plans have been revised to be more consistent with the historic nature of the structure when compared to the original. The the planning department also notes that many of the historic structure elements identified by Shipo under their resource evaluation will remain including elements like the chimney

059and other architectural features. Uh the proposed addition will be on the backside from the primary structure when viewed from the public manages along 3mile Harbor Road. Importantly, construction on historic structures should be handled with care and the arch architectural review board or ARB um typically has purview over those matters um of historic construction. So, it's recommended that the planning board send comment to the ARB alerting them of the historic nature of the structure so that historic sensitivity may be included in their review. The proposed project represents a substantial uh expansion as per town code section 255120. Um and a new special permit approval will be needed to need to be granted by the board. Special permit standards must be met if the project is to be approved. At this time, the project appears to comply

060with the elements required of a semi-public facility. The property does not appear to require any variances and the proposed project complies with coverage allowances. It should be noted that the um original structure predates u modern zoning. So if it were constructed now, it would need a variance, but um it long predates modern zoning and thus is pre-existing non-conforming. Uh the town engineer has submitted comments, so I'll offer a brief summary of comments. However, the memo can also be found within the application materials. Um, in regard to his comments, it's requested that the applicant show the proposed location for sidewalks and walkways consistently on all drawings. As for drainage, that [Music] for drainage, the information provided in the drywall schedule needs to be re-evaluated. Uh, the location of some of the drywalls are not shown on

061the plan view or included in the drywall schedule. Um, and additionally, the proposed limits of disturbance should be shown and the area should be annotated on the site plan. Um, within the October 16, 2025 memo from the engineer, he also noted that a permit would be required from the Suffach County Department of Public Works for the new curb cut or access improvements proposed within the road rights of way of 3M Harbor Road. It is recommended that the proposed design is forwarded to the county for preliminary review. The site plan indicates that the current curb cut or access point at the northern end of the site and immediately adjacent to neighborhood house drive, which appears to be a private road and is not improved to town design specifications. This road appears to serve as a primary

062access for over 20 adjacent residential properties. Although the planning department generally discourage discourages having two access points in close proximity, it does not appear that there is a superior location for access to the subject parcel. As for sanitary calculations, I think I'm going in the right direction. Okay. Um, a total of 90 occupants were used for the sanitary calculations. All of the calculations appear correct with the proposed sanitary flow being 675 gallons per day and the allowable being 726.9 gallons per day. As for parking, uh the site plan indicates that 22 spaces including two ADA spaces will be present. An overflow grass parking area is also proposed offering an additional 12 spaces. The applicant has indicated that the truck spur has no curving and that is where grass parking will be accessed. The planning department

063recommends that the parking is adequate based on the number of employees and apartment use. The planning board should determine if they agree. It should be also noted that no parking signs will be installed within 30 ft of neighboring roadways and driveway entrances which are indicated on the plans. In previous iterations of the site plan, uh the majority of parking was situated at the front and north side of the site. The most recent submission has the parking lot situated in the rear and will likely not be visible from adjacent roads. The planning department recommends this is appropriate and the planning board should determine if they agree. The stall dimensions in the parking lot were not shown and they should be labeled. Uh the applicants are also proposing screening along the northern lot line. Uh the planning

064department also agrees with this as the screening will block views from neighborhood house road which is a private road and serves residential properties as stated. The proposed oneway access lane meets the 20 foot unobstructed width required for emergency access. Um however we still are waiting for fire marshall comment. Um the applicant also provided an updated queuing area analysis for the dropoff loop. The loop now contains room for 11 cars where it was previously 10. Uh based on review of previous planning board meetings, I don't believe the board had concern over this. Um however, if the board wishes to redisuss um they obviously may and that's shown here. Other outstanding items um include a site landscaping plan and a lighting plan for this project. Uh previous versions of the site plan included extensive landscape design that

065provided substantial buffers between on-site activity and adjacent residential uses. Uh the planning department recommends that this is also appropriate for this plan. Uh following the review of the planning board on January 24th, 2024, which was a very different application, uh the planning board did issue written comments to the applicant regarding several issues. Um it should be noted that within this application, it appears all of these have been addressed. The comments were specifically in regards to confirming the number of employees and students, installation of no parking signs on neighboring roadways and entrances, adjustments to the ADA parking space, adjustments to the truck loading space, curb cuts, and the archaeological investigation. The planning department notes that the new site plan is substantially changed from the previous review. The proposed work is now more compatible with the confirmed

066historic nature of the neighborhood's house. The parking is at the rear of the site and setbacks at the facility are compliant with the town code. These are all p positive aspects of the project. As noted in the engineer memo, there are some outstanding comments that should be addressed. Um the planning department recommends that the application is currently incomplete pending confirmation of the noted items and also still requires the submission of the landscaping landscaping and lighting plan as stated. Think >> that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, great. >> Thank you very much, Sarah. Are there any specific questions for Sarah before we move on to Tara? Sarah, >> I actually do have a question and this is a weird question. Sure. There on the on the plans there are areas of

067refuge noted >> on the building plans and actually maybe that's a terror question. I don't know what that means. >> Yeah. Is that in the basement? >> The fire marshal. I'm the architect for the project. I'm sorry. Would you mind coming up to the Thanks. >> Sorry. I thought it was a Sarah question. >> It's in the basement. Just >> It's on every floor. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Just name and address for the record, please. >> Uh I'm Val Florio, uh Sag Harbor, New York, and I'm the architect of record. Um with the previous submission, the fire marshall had requested a area of refuge which um in the event of a fire, anyone wheelchair bound would have a place uh to wait as a fire department came. So it's a fireproof room and uh it's

068a requirement and so this new plan incorporates that specific code related request. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to be heard? >> Good evening, chairman and members of the board and Sarah. Thank you for your detailed memo. Um, it's really nice to be here in front of you with this application again. Um, I know it's been a long time coming and uh, as Sarah thoroughly went through, it's a very different application than you saw last time. We've been working really hard to um listen to the board's comments, listen to the community comments, and um listen to the comments from Shipo. And as a result, we've redesigned the project. Um and with the primary goal of locating a new addition in a fully conforming location and preserving the existing

069structure. Um we hope you see this as a thoughtful and community sensitive approach. Um, we intend to present the project with a focus on the historical significance of the neighborhood house and its long-standing presence in the community. Um, as you know, that building has been there since prezoning. Um, I think the first building permit was in 1956, uh, which zoning actually started 1957, so it's even interesting that that's on the property card. I've never seen that before. Um, and it was a community center then and continues to be so now. Um, after taking careful consideration of the feedback from the community and this design is a more modest and collaborative approach, the revisions speak directly to the concerns previously raised, particularly response to the impact of the historic structure. Uh, this proposal is a considered

070response aimed at preserving the character of the building while allowing allowing for a carefully integrated expansion. The proposed addition is positioned discreetly and is not readily visible from the street, helping to reduce its visual impact uh to the surrounding neighborhood. Um, as Sarah noted, the student population employee numbers aren't changing from previous submissions. The use isn't changing. The only thing that's changing is the design of the building. Um, which is significant. Um, I think one of the the big items that had come up last time was the the the looming question of the historical significance and whether or not there was archaeology present. Um, we had some concerns from the neighborhood given the history of the area. Uh, as Sarah noted, we did do the phase one archaeology study that the board had asked for.

071Um, we submitted that study to SHIPO, which is the state historic preservation office, who is the governing body for historic preservation and archaeological resources in the state of New York. Um, the two letters from them are in the file. Um, they did recom say that the building is eligible to be on the state and national register of historic places and that demolition is averse. Um, and they also said that it is not eligible under the National Register of Criterion D for archaeological resources and that any proposed ground disturbance would not affect the archaeological resources. Um, earlier this week, as Sarah noted, we did submit a copy of that report from tracker archaeology, which was the report that was forwarded to ship so that they could make that determination. Um so that being said you know

072we took all that into consideration and what you have here is a result of that. Um and as summarized by the planning department the project proposes to maintain the historical structural elements and the addition is situated in the rear. Shipo has a whole set of guidelines for um I know some of you are familiar with that for additions onto historic structures. So we really took that in consideration. Val Florio, who you just heard from is our architect who has um extensive knowledge in that area and can speak to that um if you'd like some more information on it. Um and we absolutely would appreciate um communication with the ARB. Um I know you have every intention of, but since the ARB process now is we don't go to them until the planning board is approved,

073it would be nice to have their input ahead of time. Um, so if we could coordinate that, maybe comments to the board or or something of that nature. Um, with regards to all of the other items in, uh, Sarah's memo, um, for example, the sidewalks and the walkways, um, the architect and engineer will coordinate. There's been so many variations that there are little oversightes that happened. Um, and we're happy to make those revisions. the drainage we can that's an easy revision to do on the plans. Limit of disturbance no problem. Um with respect to Suffach County Department of Public Works, uh nothing has actually changed with respect to the curb cuts from our first submission um under the old design to DPW and we did get an approval letter um well as far as you

074can get with DPW without going for a building permit. That letter should be in your file. Um, but I will double check and if it isn't, I'll resubmit it. Um, we're happy to let them know about the change in the building design, but it doesn't impact the curb cuts. Um, and then my understanding is we've gotten as far as we can with DPW. And then once we go for the building permit, uh, the building inspector has a form that they have to fill out and release and they send that to DPW and then DPW releases their permit. So, um, but we're happy to, you know, send them these plans. Um, and submit that to your file if it's not already there. Um, with regards to the parking and on-site circulation, um, I think Sarah went

075over it in pretty pretty detailed. I'm not sure if I need to go through it all again, but things like putting the stall dimensions, we're happy to do that. Um, comments from the fire marshall, whatever those might be, of course, we'll incorporate them. Um, and then as far as the landscaping uh goes and the lighting plan, we have every intention of submitting detailed landscaping and lighting plans. We just really wanted to get this in front of you first before, as you know, when there are minor changes that impact so many things with landscaping and lighting. So, we're going to hit that next. But, um, we intend to screen neighborhood house road, the rear, you know, all of the items that were brought up by the board last time. And in addition to we had a

076meeting with the planning department in May of 2025 and the planning director gave us some guidance on that as well. So you know we tend to submit a full-scale landscaping and lighting plan. Um and that's all I have aside from answering your questions. >> Okay. Don't go far. >> I won't. >> Um so we'll next have our conversation and Jen, you're going to lead us on that. >> Yeah. Thank you Tara for explaining everything. Thank you Sarah for stepping in on this application as well. Um, you know, I came on the board when this was still being, you know, discussed as a completely a much different project. And I have to say, I really think the applicant has taken the time and the energy to listen to, you know, all of the public comments as

077well as the comments of the board and redo the application in a manner that is, you know, I think it's um I think it's better, frankly. Um, I'm very I'm very interested in the fact or I'm very uh interested I guess is the word that when submitting to Shipo, it was deemed a uh building of historic nature which, you know, from looking at that um or eligible for the for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Uh and interestingly enough that also kind of speaks to the nature of the actual building itself over the past you know 100 plus years that it actually has been it was designed for this type of use. This type of use has been ongoing for the entire life of this building. Um and it's going to continue. So,

078I think that you kind of continuing on with the history of the building itself and the space, uh, that it remains a place that the community can use and I think that Project Most obviously is a very vital program to East Hampton Town in general. Um, I think all of the things that you discussed, you know, the parking dimensions, the landscaping, the lighting, all of that can be worked out. And I think that this is a great first step in this um reinvention of the project. >> Good. >> Thank you, Jen. >> Thank you. >> Let's hear from everyone on this. This is an important one. David, we'll start with you. >> Um I to kind of second on what Jen said, Tara, I'm I am in very much in support of this application. I

079do think projects is a vital part of our community. Uh I was also surprised I was not on the board when this application first uh was came around, but I I did follow it. I know that uh you know obviously you've taken the comments um very much to heart. I was very surprised also to see that Shipo came back with the uh historical eligibility of the building but you know really maintaining the integrity of that uh which is what I think everyone will is happy to see at least I'll speak for myself I'm very happy to see uh and maintaining the the use of that going forward. um you know the logistical items you know lighting, landscaping obviously that comes further a little further down as uh as approval would be granted. I do think

080that the ARB should be notified as soon as possible specifically with you know any changes or or requirements for the facade maintaining of of that original the original structure. Um just so you're not you know chasing chasing things down. Um, but I I fully support this application. >> Thanks, A. >> Okay. Yeah, I I agree with what AA said, what Jen said, so I won't repeat all of that. I'm just glad that this kind of change has taken place. Uh it's and also it's a testament to the applicant listening to not only the board, the planning department, but the uh the local neighbors uh the area. I just have a few comments, few questions, comments. Uh this does require a special permit and one of the general standards is uh the impact that it has

081on the neighborhood. The neighbors and one of the concerns that I have and I'm sure the neighbors would agree is any noise level that would come up because of the kids running around especially in the summertime outdoors. So I was wondering if the applicant has any can address that in any way to mediate that kind of problem. >> Well, I mean we're happy to provide some landscape screening um and buffering, but I I think to Jen's point from before, it is important to note that this has been a community center since the 50s. that hasn't been active recently um but historically has been a center of a lot of activity within our community. >> And has there been a lot of activity outside in the >> yard with Oh yeah. I mean a lot of

082my friends can remember when they were kids >> and probably some of the board members can as well. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think one of our members was a summer camper there. >> Yeah. So I I know you mentioned that you didn't submit the landscaping plans because at the last time you were in front of us there was a very substantial landscaping project that you were going to do on the uh what is that the east side of the building the back of the building. So is that still >> we haven't worked out the details yet but um we understand the concerns. So you know we'll do as much as we can that's also within budget. All right. And the last comment I have just you know that you mentioned there's going to be

08375 students in the summertime, 40 in the winter with 15 employees. Um so you have the entire building including the basement you have 16,000 square ft. Can you address the question as to why do you need 16,000 square feet or maximum 75 students? >> Um, I think project mo can probably speak to that better than I can because they know the ins and outs of their programs more, but my understanding is the different spaces are used for different things. So, it's not like the whole building is going to be used at the same time. >> Yeah. It was noted in the memo the types of >> Yeah. and how the building is to be configured, classrooms and other meeting places and so forth. >> Is there is there someone here from project most that can

084can speak to that particular issue? >> And and before you speak to that, just one last comment about that. Would would you be willing to restrict or maximize those numbers so that cap those numbers so that it doesn't go above that? >> Uh we have no choice because of our health department >> approvals. So we can't go above >> can't go above the numbers that you Okay. >> Yeah. Otherwise we wouldn't be in compliance with the sanitary regulations. >> That was my main concern. So >> if you can identify yourself. >> Sure. Uh Rebecca Taylor, executive director for project most resident of East Hampton Town. Um so the reasoning is is is exactly sort of what Terara said is because we do several different classes. um with kids throughout the day and so they're rotating

085through the different classrooms. Um you know the smaller classrooms we do tutorial programs. So the smaller classrooms are for either music lessons or tutoring classes. The bigger classrooms are for um an art class that's going on or a STEM class that's going on. And so the kids will rotate through those activities. The gym space is staying the multi-purpose space. um for multi-purpose activities. Um currently that's what it has been used for through talking through to many of the residents who have used it in the past. There's been basketball there. Um there's also a stage there that has been numerous plays and performances there. So all of that will be staying. So for the size of the building, it's really because of all the different activities and the classes that we anticipate and provide for the

086children >> and it's different age groups, right? So >> it is different age groups. So we're we're also regulated by Office of Children Family Services. So thank you, Jen. Um we're our ratios are like a 10 to1 staff and the groups technically can't really be mixed either. So that building will be in compliance with our office of children and family regulation. Um so that's another reason why for the several different classes and >> okay one last comment maybe you can answer it. The spillover parking, the grass parking, is that going to be for special events only? And will you be will you be getting a special permit for special events in order to have >> Yeah. So, you have to get a special event permit if you go above certain numbers for something that's outside

087of your use. Uh that's in the town code. So, we would have to apply that. >> The grass grassy areas >> and the grass parking is for Exactly. for that. Yeah. >> Okay. Is there an intention, by the way, to to rent out the space for, you know, parties and weddings and stuff? Neighborhood House used to do that years. >> Not that I'm aware of now. >> Thank you. >> Is that it? Luke, >> Michael, uh, working families are the norm on the East End. Uh, I know uh uh the Winscott school where my 5-year-old goes gets out at 2:30 and there's a bus that takes her to the Bridgeampton Center. And the Bridgeampton Center tells me that they are getting kids from Sag Harbor, Bridgeampton of course, and also East Hampton. Uh this will

088the neighborhood will project most be taking kids like after school during the school day is that part of the >> I mean they still have their programs at the schools that's not changing. >> Yeah. >> So so our existing after school programs which are at John Marshall and Spring School will stay as is. They are sightbased. Um, we partner with the school districts and I think maybe that was a little confusion with the last board in the last presentation and and also with the neighbors in the community. They think of Project Moses is just after school, right? And so their thought was, "Oh my goodness, we're going to have 300 kids on this property and yeah, it's going to be loud, right?" So, um, that's not the case. those programs are staying on site. Um

089because because in reality a kid gets dropped off at 8:00 in the morning. Why transport them when they can be there till 6:00 at night, right? So and tax is a taxpayer building. Their buildings aren't used in the afternoons. So this um pro this community center is for classes in the afternoon where maybe families don't necessarily need a true afterchool program. Um tutoring programs. Right now we're doing we we started doing this at the neighborhood house in 2019. Um and then COVID hit and then we shifted and we ran spring school only opened as a hybrid school model. um 2 days a week. So we had close to 60 working families, children in that building from 8:00 in the morning till 6:00 at night, 6 feet apart doing remote learning with those kids and then

090after school. So so we shifted our focus and did that. Um but our true intention is to keep our afterchool programs sitebased but to use this as like a annex um classroom to use it during school vacations. Not everyone goes away for vacations during school break. Um and right now we moved out of the neighborhood house cuz things were we felt were moving a little faster and then it didn't. So we moved our programs that we were doing there currently over to most Holy Trinity Catholic schools. So that's sort of where we're basing right based out of right now. So we do our school vacation programs there. Um we do summer classes there and we do our summer camp currently at the spring school but we use most Holy Trinity as a annex classroom to

091bring the kids over there. So, um, we will just be doing what we have been doing at the most holy trinity and we're doing in 2019 at the neighborhood house, >> right? >> And then I think, you know, I'm just as we're talking about all this, I know it's been a while since everybody's seen this. Um, but I'm fairly certain we did submit a detailed narrative of how the site was to be used and what times certain groups of kids were coming and drop off and pickup and which is there and what's at the school district. So, all of this should be in your file. Um, and um, I mean, you certainly have the right to ask again. Um, but I do think it was something we did go through with the board and everyone

092was at least at the time was comfortable with the use. So, I just want to reiterate that it's just the building that's changing um not the numbers or anything like that. >> One other small question. So, the the eligibility from the from Shipo was August 2024. Is how does what is how does this work? Is are they going to deem it historic site? >> No, it's up to us whether or not we want to register it. It's not a requirement for it to be registered. They're deciding, hey, it's eligible to be registered. That's something we'll have to figure out. >> Okay. >> But >> can I answer your question? >> Yeah. Um, thank you. With regard to the structure which enjoys a lengthy history, this goes back to the 1800s. And as you all know,

093I'm a last p well, if it' be helpful, the last page of the PDF I have from the East Hampton Historical Society, just a littleformational to say this was a community center. It was um the the larger structure was put onto the small house with the intent of serving the community. Now I'm a former architectural review board chairman from village of Sag Harbor. I still consult with our board. I advise them. I am a member of the National Society of Historic Preservation. The Secretary of Interiors has specific guidelines. When you add on to a historic structure, there should be a link, some sort of parentheses between the historic and the new. I've taken that pathway and we went to revisit this. So the intent was uh from the streetscape. This will read exactly as it

094has since the 1800s. The addition is behind the building with the intent to just preserve the streetscape. It's also commercial or semic-commercial use within a residential zone being very sensitive to the neighbors and nothing is really changing in terms of their perspective uh as you see it from the street and I think that was vital to the program. But um to answer your question or concern the second floor of this building is administrative only. There's no children on the second floor. So limit sound. the apartment is existing in the house portion. And I think that's an important distinction because you're not going to have a music room that's blaring whatever horn, violin, something. It's all in the basement. So, as the director has stated, um although it's a large structure, the floor plans will tell

095the story. the the main floors for reception, conference area, children in the basement, and I think that's really important factor in terms of mitigating sound. Um, and then your point about sound to the neighbors, a planting plan will be provided. And with fencing, there's a fabric. It's actually a vinyl. It's called LV1. Uh, Bonnie Schnetta of Sound Sense. This is something that's well known. Um she does a lot of studies and we can place a double fence. We can do all sorts of things to mitigate sound and that's going to be critical I think in terms of the neighbors. So these ingredients will be forthcoming but >> we didn't know if we should ask you about that but you offering it is getting better. I I thank the board because we did come to you

096with um a real just redirect in terms of okay let's do something that's sensible that's you know um not offensive to the neighbors. I was given a challenge with this initial goround because my client had donated an old Francis Fleetwood house for the program and I couldn't it just felt so out of character, so out of place and we met and said look let's preserve this and I to answer your question I was the one who said although it's not landmarked it should be and I want to treat this building exactly as such it's going to be reshingled, redetailed, and have photographs from the historical society that show what it looked like in the 1800s. So, that's what we're aiming for. And the architecture of this addition has a mass and scale of the primary

097community building, but it's a little bit smaller scale and it's integrated nicely to it. So I I think that we've addressed the the thing if we want to get it qualified as a historic structure. I think we should because that's part of the preservation of Freetown. In fact, the children's section of this as you enter would like to have like a museum type ingredient which celebrates the history of it and have them learn about our history in terms of who was impoverished. There was a lot of uh there was actually slavery back in the time period of this building. Uh and little things that might get erased as time goes on. And this not to say we need to celebrate those moments in time, but children would learn and benefit from this. And I think

098that that's part of it is uh it's making an exclamation point on history. And it's not just a building of commercial use. It's really um it's honoring the spirit of Freetown. And that's important. I read a horrible article in East Hampton Star after the first presentation. There'll be cooking. There'll be smell of grease. There'll be this and that. We need programs for children. And as a latch key kid, I had the key to my front door at 5 years old. And that bewitching hour from 2:30, 3:00 until your mom or dad came home. It's a tough hour for any parent. And as a board member, I know every member on my board, zoning board, architectural board, we wouldn't be board members if we didn't live here prior to, you know, real estate is climbing. There's

099parents who've got to work two jobs, double, you know, income, and that's vital to the community. And I think that this should be supported um just for that reason. It's not uh we want it. It's sort of an these are essential workers. I I deem them project most and that's um it has heart for me. I I put effort into this because I'd like to see you know children benefit from it but also respect the community. So I've overspoken but I wanted to give you what's behind this design and why it it has merit. So >> thank you. Thanks for sharing all appreciate it. I'm done. Are you done? Yeah, Bruce. >> Yeah. No, I think this is great. Um I think it's great that you guys went back to the drawing board and actually

100really thought this through. Um I know the neighborhood house. I spent a ton of summers there running around making a lot of noise. So I mean it you guys did a really really good job in rethinking this. So, I I'm definitely in support of this. Thanks, Bruce. Reed. >> I think I'm in agreement with the entire board. I I support Project Most and the mission it serves in our community. Um, I think the renderings look nice that you had up and uh I'd like to see it uh advance forward. So, to your point, if there's something we can do to help um facilitate that, I feel in favor. >> Good. Thanks, Reed. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'll wrap it up. Um so yeah I mean this as Val said this is a redirect you know

101this is a very interesting reset point for this project you know it's you know very significantly changed uh and I think this really shows what can happen when you listen to the feedback you know from us from the community um I think it was you know a really great you know thanks for complying with our request to do the archaeological uh you know phase one um on this I think it's it's very important that we that we uh went through all of that and there will be plenty of opportunity for public comment on this as we move forward. Um, you know, and I just want want to point out too that we as a board with the planning department are giving a lot of thought at the moment to how we might kind of redesign

102the way in which we solicit public comment to make it sort of simpler and easier and do it in a way that's sort of organized and is properly noticed um, and isn't really just part random kind of people sharing at a at a work session. So, but you know, we definitely want to want to hear from the public about this newest version of the plan. So, thank you. So, what we're going to do, we're going to we're going to reset by reestablishing lead agency um on this project because of the significant changes. So, um Jen, if you want to make a motion to >> request lead agency. >> I make a motion to request lead agency. >> All in favor? >> I >> That will happen. So, we're going to reinitiate coordinated review. Um, the

103questions we have in front of us are, does the planning board agree that the revised site and building plans are appropriate and that ARB should consider the historic nature of the building in their detailed review? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. >> Should we add a comment that it should be sent to ARB? >> Yeah. >> Yes. As soon as possible. >> Yeah. So let's add that um that ARB should consider the historic nature of the building in their detailed review um >> and they should at least get the project to look at >> right yeah on how to coordinate that on our end. >> Perfect. >> All right. Yeah. So I think that takes care of it. Does the planning board agree that concerns regarding site operation and parking have been adequately addressed? >> Yes.

104Yes. >> I think so. And just to piggy back on Tara's point, there is a an enormous box in the planning department office with all of the supporting paperwork as well. So if we if any of us want to go in and read through the, you know, the plans that they submitted in the last >> Hey, I don't know what you guys are doing on Saturday, but >> I can email you copies, >> make a weekend out of it. Yeah. >> Um, all right. Good. Will the outstanding submission items listed in this memorandum such as lighting plan, landscaping plan, updated drawings for sidewalks, walkways, revised drainage plan, archaeological surveys be submitted? I think you've already agreed that you can submit them. >> So, yeah, I think we're we're good for tonight. Thank you very much,

105everyone. All right. So, moving to our regular meeting. >> Yes. >> Uh, let's see. Which is the McDonald Griffin subwaver resolution, >> which is a resolution. >> It's a public hearing announcement. Yes. >> Okay. Is that you, Michael? >> That is you, Jen. >> Oh, it's me. So, we know we're we slim these things down. Just the pertinent points, >> but this one is just I think this is all just the pertinent points. >> No, we just talk about what it is. We don't through all the >> There's really nothing >> top and I think like number four >> one four. Okay, >> now that we've figured that out. Sorry everyone. uh for the planning board of the town of East Hampton, East Hampton, New York, in the matter of the application of McDonald Griffin

106subwaver. Suffach County Tax Map number 300-39-16-9. Uh Gareth Griffin and Mayor McDonald owners have made application for subdivision waiver approval. The application is to divide the 54,5494 square foot 1.251 acres existing lot into two parcels. Parcel one is proposed as 28,16 square ft and parcel 2 is proposed as 20,0002 square ft. The site is located at 981 Springs Fireplace Road in East Hampton is zoned as B residence and is identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel 300-39-16-9. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held in town hall 159 Pantico Road, East Hampton on November 19th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the said application. >> Six. Any person or party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so

107in person or by agent or by attorney or by call into the live stream stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 300 Pantico Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 111 1937. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eampny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Do I need to move for this? Yes. I make a motion to schedule this public hearing. >> All in favor? >> I >> scheduled. Okay. Great. Um, so then we just have to look at our >> mutes exactly from last time. Beautifully put together. I'm sure everyone's read them. I did. >> I did. I did not see anything, but one of our

108eagle-eyed members might have. >> Okay, >> that's good to me. >> All right, look, you make a motion. >> Make a motion to adopt the minutes. >> Second. All >> in favor? I I All right. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> Yes, sir. >> Is there a second? Second. >> We agree. We want to adjourn. >> Yes. >> All right.