East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 10/08/2025

001Yeah. >> Well, just tell me where you get them. >> Okay. Planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Uh, good evening everybody. Welcome to the Town of East Hampton Planning Board's October 8th, 2025 meeting. We have a pretty ambitious uh agenda tonight. Um although there are two items that um will not be on the agenda tonight that were originally on the agenda. Item number two in the work session, item number three in the regular meeting um agenda and that is the elite towers the Springs Fire Department. So with that, we'll dive in. And the first thing we're going to do is talk just very briefly about uh the Wayne Scott Commercial Center and you know, having received a copy of a supplemental draft environmental impact

002statement which we just got and posted online. Um and Eric, I believe you're going to talk us through that, right? >> Eric, I'm sorry. Before Before we begin, I'm Is there a waiting room that you can send me to um on Zoom? >> Jen, I don't think I don't think you need to do that for >> Okay. Even for the meeting. Okay. >> Discuss the substance of this at all. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's fine. But thank you for asking. >> Okay. Um so, just an update on the application. We have received the preliminary supplemental draft environmental impact statement. It was posted on the planning board web page shortly after a receipt. Uh the next step is for the planning board as lead agency to conduct a completeness review of the document. The purpose of

003the completeness review is to determine whether the preliminary SDIS is adequate with respect to its scope and content for the purposes of commencing public review. The planning department will also be reviewing the document and will submit its findings to the board. Uh note that there are two possible outcomes to this review. One, the preliminary SDEIS is determined to be inadequate. uh in which case the planning board will need to identify in writing uh the deficiencies and provide this information to the project sponsor so they can update the PSDIS and resubmit. The other is if the preliminary SDIS is determined to be adequate for public review, the planning board will have to prepare, file and publish notice of completion of the draft EIS, file copies of the draft EIS in accordance with the requirements of SRA

004and schedule a public hearing and comment period. In some the board is encouraged to commence its review of the document for completeness with respect to the adopted scope. The planning department will be conducting its own completeness review which will be presented to the board. Once the SDIS is determined to be adequate with respect to the scope, a formal public comment period um uh will be provided uh and a public hearing um will be scheduled recommended soon. >> Okay. >> All right. Great. Thanks, Eric. So that we just want to give everyone an idea of where we where we are. I know many people um are interested in in that particular application and where we stand with it. So now now you know where we are, right? We've received the some documentation which we need to

005review in some detail as Eric just outlined. Um all right. So the first uh other matter other than that is 41 South Elmwood site plan. Um it's a project in Montalk and Will that's yours? Um, Lou, that's yours. And is the applicant here? That's you, Joel. Right. Okay. Great. Well, >> great. Good evening, board. Um, this is an application seeking site plan approval to construct a new dry retail store with an apartment above on South Elwood Avenue in Ma. The parcel is zoned CB Commercial Business, 100% clear of natural vegetation and currently vacant. The proposed first floor of the building will be 1,121 square ft in size and the second floor apartment will be 597.5 ft making the gross floor area 1,718.5 ft. Four parking spaces are proposed on the northern property line and a

006new AOTS septic system is proposed. This site is 3,977.5 ft in size and is surrounded by commercial uses. A parcel to the west of this property is a municipal parking lot with approximately 40 parking spaces. The project is a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code and no further action is required. The proposed uses of the property are retail and apartment within a commercial structure. No details about the proposed retail use have been provided other than it being a dry use. Retail is a permitted use in the zoning district and apartments within commercial structures are allowed with a special permit. The presented application does not appear to fully follow the special permit guidelines for apartments within commercial structures. No private outdoor area for apartment use. No washing machine or

007dryer space is designated within the apartment. the parking the apartment and retail parking appear to be combined and no screening or landscaping is proposed to separate the two uses on site. In addition, town code also requires other features. The apartment must be available for moderate income families and it is standard for legal documents to be filed ensuring affordability in perpetuity as well as obtaining an annual permit from the office of housing and community development. fire marshall approval and each apartment must have at least one on-site parking space. The new building is proposed approximately 7.5 ft from the front property line where a 10-ft setback is required in this zone and the building will have no setbacks from the side property lines where 10 ft is typically required because the proposed building will de directly abut

008a business to the east. No setback is required on that property line. Currently, no building is cited on the property to the west of the slot, and the board should discuss whether it wishes the applicant to have a 10-ft setback as typically required or to wave that setback. As these proposed setbacks are not fully compliant with town code, the applicant should either revise their plans to de to demonstrate compliance or clarify if they intend to apply to the ZBA for variances. The plans indicate the property will utilize Suffach County Water Authority 6 in water mane in the alley to the north. The septic flow calculations estimate a daily flow of 251.2 gallons per day while the proposed IIA septic system can tolerate 550 gallons per day. However, no sanitary profile drawings were provided and the

009applicant should provide these details to demonstrate compliance. In addition, no details regarding storm water drainage were provided. The applicant should include that in their next submission. The applicant proposes four parking spaces and a paved parking area in the northern section of the property. Town code requires one parking space per 180 ft of first floor area of a retail store. And in this case, 6.23 parking spaces would be required. In addition, the town requires one parking space for each apartment within within a commercial structure, making the required number of spaces 7.23. With fractional numbers, town code requires the number to be rounded up, making the number of required parking spaces eight for this project. As only four parking spaces out of the eight are proposed, the planning department recommends the applicant rework their plans to include

010as much of the required parking as possible while also remaining compliant with permitted coverage. The total lot coverage is proposed at 3,9 394.8 ft where the maximum allowed is 3,182 ft making this proposal only 87.2 ft below the maximum allowed. Additionally, the configuration of the parking spaces will need to be modified as town code requires a minimum lane width of 24 ft for turnaround behind the spaces. The planning department recommends the applicant use headin parking to the south of the site in the rightway as is used by neighboring businesses. The planning department also recommends the parking in the north of the site also be head in. With these changes, it appears there is room for four spaces at the rear of the site and three spaces in the rightway with one being ADA accessible. As

011the applicant proposes to use the alley to the north of the site for parking access, they should provide plans for improvements to the alley. The submitted plans and survey do not include the dimensions of the parking spaces or the aisle behind the spaces. And the applicant should revise their site plan to include those dimensions and ensure they comply with town code requirements. Because the applicant is proposing less parking spaces on site than are required, the board should consider alternative options. The applicant could alter the proposed site plan to provide all eight required spaces, though that may result in a decreased building size. Typically, if a site plan can theoretically include all required parking on site, but the board would prefer the applicant include some off-site parking in the rightway, the planning department would recommend the

012applicant apply for variances. The alley to the north of the site is partially obstructed and is currently used for parking and waste storage, so parking at the rear of the subject property would not be out of character. However, the applicant will need to demonstrate adequate access will be provided there. The board may choose to wave the parking requirement for the apartment when there is adequate parking on site or nearby. And the board should discuss this, though it may wish to wait until a revised parking layout is submitted. The board should discuss whether it wishes to wave the requirement of the apartment parking space and if the applicant should apply to the ZBA for variances. The applicant should revise their site plan to include the dimensions of parking spaces and drive a consider revising their plan

013to fit as many required spaces as possible and reorient the parking to be head in. To the east of the site, multiple businesses have pedestrian sidewalks outside of their property and within the rightway. Extending the existing sidewalk will permit pedestrian access to the town parking lot to the west and extend the near complete sidewalk access of the entire block. The applicant should amend their plans and submit details regarding the sidewalk. No lighting or landscape plans are provided and the applicant should include those in their next submission. No dumpster or waste receptacles are shown in the plans. And if no dumpsters proposed on site, the applicant should clarify the proposed method of waste disposal. If a dumpster is proposed, the applicant should revise their plans to include the proposed location. The town consulting engineer has reviewed

014the submitted plans and requested several alterations be made. Parking calculations should be provided. A comprehensive grading and drainage plan should be provided for the site, alley, and road. A soil, boring with groundwater measurement should be provided. Detailed specifications for curbing, drainage, pavement, walkways, and fencing should be provided. Approval from the Suffach County Department of Health Services will be required. and a highway work permit will be required from the superintendent of highways. Comments from the town fire marshall indicate that as only four parking spaces are proposed, no ADA parking spaces are required. However, if the applicant revises their site plan to include additional spaces, further fire marshall review will be required. The board should discuss whether it supports the applicant applying to the zoning board for parking variances and should the proposed work be approved by

015the planning board, ARB approval will also be required. Several elements required for site plans were not provided with the submission and should be submitted in the next submission. These include dimensions between proposed structures and property lines, a parking circulation pattern, and comprehensive lighting and landscape plans. In conclusion, the board should discuss if the application complies with code regulations for apartment with apartments within commercial structures, if the building plan should be changed to eliminate the need for setback variances, if the parking spaces on site should be headin, and if it supports the applicant applying to the zoning board for parking variances. The applicant should revise their site plan to include dimensions between the building and property lines, parking space and aisle dimensions, building finished floor elevations, parking calculations, and parking area circulation plan. Additionally, the applicant

016should clarify if they intend to apply to the ZBA for variances, submit a sanitary profile and storm water drainage details, submit lighting and landscape plans, and reworked our site plan to include as many of the required parking spaces as possible. >> Okay. Thank you, Will. Mr. Holly, would you like to be heard? Sure. I guess uh I'll just kind of go down bullet point by the >> record name address. >> Sorry. Uh Joel Hulsey uh representing uh Lighthouse Land Planning 85 the plaza in Montalk, New York. Um representing uh the property owner for the subject property. Um so I'll start uh regarding the retail use that hasn't been decided. uh we're way way too far in the beginning of phases of trying to get an approval before we can decide what we're going to put

017inside there. Um whether there's sufficient outdoor space or is appropriate consideration should be given to incorporating outdoor common areas for the for the private outdoor space for the apartments. Um as we held this small lot it's 3,977 ft. So there it's not really a sufficient outdoor space. The property is two blocks from the ocean and in close proximity to other areas of open space throughout Montalk. um installation of the washing machines. This will be shown in the next set of plans that gets submitted to the uh the um the planning board. Uh but however, there is a laundromat two two doors down from this, but we will show we will put washer and dryer in there. Um residential parking should be located separately from commercially designated parking spaces when practical practicable. This is not really

018practicable on this site. Uh again, it's a small lot. It's 3,977 ft. uh screening to separate the residential use from the commercial use. The commercial use is on the bottom floor, the residential use is on the top floor. There's really not much we can screen in that situation. Um there is a separate entrance shown for the apartment on the plan. Uh well, actually you're you you access the apartment through the through the exterior stairs up to the the second floor apartment. Uh so there is a um a separate entrance. Um each apartment should have at least one parking space. love to see you guys uh tell us we need that parking space for the apartment. Uh there's a lot of parking in this area. Um and we do show four spots. I I'll touch on

019parking in a little bit. Um the building is 7 and 1/2 ft from the property line. That was an error on my part. Uh I did not The building is 7 and 1/2 ft from the front yard property line. We will have it shifted back 2 and 1/2 ft to meet the 10 foot set back on the next uh submission. Uh the building is proposed to have no setbacks from the property lines where 10 ft is required. We don't we're not required to set back from the eastern property line because the there is a store next to there on the eastern side. In the future there could be a store on the western side. Um I had discussed this prior to submitting an application with the planning department and they were kind of under the

020same agreement with me that eventually a store could be there and so no setback should be appropriate in that situation. Right now there are trailers on that site. Not that they're legal or anything, I don't know. Um, so it would have but the trailers which would actually have to move because they're slightly on the subject property. Um, we will revise the site plan to include the setbacks. Uh, we will revise the sanitary plan uh to show the profile. Uh, we have we will we uh David Rhodess who is working on the parking plan as well as the sanitary plan. Uh after tonight's meeting, we will work on the the the parking design once I determine what the how the board would like to see it. Um we did not show hidden parking to the south

021side of the building because that is in the town right ofway. If the board would like to see the head-in parking and say go for ZBA variances, we'll go for ZBA variances. We'd love to see we'd love to do that. Actually, wouldn't love to do that, but we will do that. Um we will try to reorient it orient the parking. So it is pulling parking in the on the north side of the building as well. Um the alley to the rear they um applicants should provide plans for improvements to the alley. The alley to the rear is already improved. So I don't know what plans we would necessarily need to be submitting to improve that alley. Um we will again touch you know once after tonight's meeting we'll redesign the parking that will be submitted

022and hopefully address all the concerns here. Um parking so hopefully uh technically we need eight spots. Hopefully we can knock that down to seven without the apartment uh with not require the apartment. Um, and if that's the case, we could probably, well, we might even be able to squeeze four in the front and four in the rear and actually show the eight spots. Uh, we would need to show a handicap spot, I believe. Um, it's not that we don't need a handicap spot if we only have four spots. I believe we just don't need to label a handicap spot if we have four. We still need to make it handicap accessible. It just doesn't need to be labeled. I might have misunderstood the fire marshal in that situation, but I believe we still need it.

023It needs to be accessible. just doesn't need to be labeled as a handicap spot. I'm not quite sure the the reasoning behind that, but if we have to show more than four spots, then um you know, we we show a handicap spot anyway. So, I think it's good to have it there anyway. Um any parking spaces uh put way of the parking requirement that's been discussed. Uh and we uh we will submit plans to show the sidewalk extending from the east across the front of our lot as well. um lighting plan that will be submitted for the next go around. Landscaping plan, there's not much landscape, but we will landscape whatever we can. There is a small patch of of lawn which is going to extend another 2 and 1/2 ft in the front. So,

024that's probably going to be the area of landscaping. Uh and we will show a small dumpster on the site somewhere once we can find out where we can squeeze that. >> Okay, >> I believe that's everything. >> Okay, off to a start here. Um Lou, you want to lead our discussion? >> Yeah, I in support of this application. I think uh I would encourage it just a few modifications that I would suggest. I think some of them have already been touched upon by Joel. Uh the parking I think would be better if we did have those three or maybe four uh in the right of way which would give us maybe seven maybe eight parking spaces like you said. So I think that's a modification that's necessary. U the setbacks I agree with you that

025I think on three three sides you're definitely uh meet the setback requirements. uh it's the western side that's that would be an issue. I didn't realize that that was a lot that could be built. If that's the case and another uh commercial establishment would be built there. I think uh my opinion we'd have to find out if it's uh if it's true that uh you wouldn't need any setback there as well. So you're good with the setbacks. Um I the reason I like this for this project is because of two benefits I think it will provide. One is the affordable housing unit that you're creating. So I think you know any affordable housing unit that we can get will welcome. Uh the other one is the u uh the the alleyway. That alleyway is a

026mess and by improvement I think you know it needs to be paved. There's a giant pothole in it right now. It's totally disorganized. I don't know how we go about doing that. But if this project leads to improving that alleyway, I think that's that in itself is a major accomplishment. So I would push for that. Uh I guess the town owns that alleyway. >> I believe so. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Will they shake? >> Yeah. So uh but we had we had another application last year where there was an alleyway that was improved by the uh applicant that was in front of us. They they did turned it into it created a problem but eventually they it worked out very well. So if we could do something like that here I think that would

027go a long way to uh you know this this application. Um, >> that's that's about it. >> Okay. >> So, you're uh on the setback issue, you're good with a, you know, a zero on the west. >> There was another establishment that could be another commercial establishment. If so, I think it's true that they >> I'd like to pull the board on on this application and other >> I just have a question or a clarification. So, one of the parking spaces will be for the affordable housing. >> Uh you could wave that requirement. Um if you wish uh if we could somehow get eight parking spaces then you know we could well if you encourage us to go for the parking variances if we need if we could if we can only show seven spots

028actually four spots on that site and we need a four more spots to get to the eight. So we need a variant of four spot parking variance. >> I'm just trying to think where the person in the affordable housing would park >> In the back would be okay. They have staircases in the back, right? >> Yeah. The entrance is in the back. Yeah. So, I if we can if you encourage us to go for the the parking variance, we could probably squeeze four spots in the front, pull in, and we do show four spots in the back. It might need to be reorientated to try to make sure it works. And one of those could be a designated apartment parking space. Um, and so we would show that. Uh, I'll probably discuss that, be able

029to discuss that a little bit more further in the next meeting. uh just to see what we can show. Um so if we can show four spots in the back and four spots in the front, we got our eight. Well, either way, we're going to need, you know, a parking variance of four. But if we can show eight spots, then I guess either way, we'd still show the spot a designated spot in the back as a the apartment unless you want to wait. And and you did say that the four spots in the back would be reoriented from what you submitted here so that facing the back of the building. >> Yeah, I think that's a better >> that's the only way it works. So they don't have the 24 ft. >> Agreed. >> What

030What is the is the width of the lot the same on the alley and on Elwood and what is >> I believe. So >> it is 40T. >> The alley is 20t wide and the lot is 40t wide. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Gotcha. All right. Um, so I would like to hear from everybody on on sort of the key issues here, which really are the the sparking and the setbacks. So Reed, we'll start. >> Yeah. No, so when I read through this, I thought that this one application was going to tie us up for a long time tonight because there seem to be a lot of issues. Um, but it seems to me that the board, the town, and the applicant all seem to be on the same sheet of music here. And I think

031we've worked through some of these issues. And I think Luke, you have a very good overview. So, um I agree with everything he said. >> Okay, good. >> So, we're good on setbacks. We're good. >> Yeah. And I I think the eight spots um is important. I I know this time of year, you know, um you can find a parking spot out there, but in the summertime it gets a little tighter. So, having more parking is is better than fewer. >> Yeah, I agree as well. I think um the head-in parking off of South Elmwood is definitely a must and also the head-in parkway headin parking off the alley I think is going to help your case a lot better. You don't have enough width to do the parking the way you have it now.

032Um the sideyard setbacks I'm fine with to go to no setbacks. Pushing the building back to the 10 feet I think is is is fine. And uh yeah, other than that, I I don't have a problem with it. >> Okay, good. Are >> are the sidewalks of of the building next to it going to match the sidewalk? I assume you're >> Yeah, I believe they still be the I'm pretty sure the sidewalks of the Montalk red or pink. >> Okay. >> Um so I believe they will. >> Well, color is one thing. I just want to be the same path because there have been other >> spots in Montalk where the sidewalks don't match up >> there. And now I we we're kind of going back and forth with the design on the sidewalk a

033little bit and moving the building back. We may be able No, I don't think it really I'm trying to remember why we had to kind of just a slight curve in the sidewalk. So I can't I'll try to get >> Okay. All right. >> So I I see where you're going with that. Um so there was and I don't believe I that that's kind of like a just a napkin design we were working on. I don't have that, but I will try to get it as straight as we can get it. >> That's great. I concur with Bruce and Reed, and Joel has answered all my concerns. >> All right, good. Ava. >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm in agreement as well. I'm in favor of this application. As Lou said, you know, the affordable housing

034especially, I would like to see the the parking updated to kind of dubtail off what Reed said, this time of year it is a bit easier to park, but that is a hightraic area with the uh with the beer distribution. We got to say I had to bring that up. >> Sorry. >> Some of my favorite spots there. Burn on a roof, but um yeah. No, it'd be great to to see that updated plan. Um and the setbacks, but I did not realize that the lot adjacent was buildable. So, so I think we're in good shape. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I I basically agree with what everyone else has said, you know, and I think, you know, the idea of this this notion of a sort of a contiguous and continuous line of

035retail stores, you know, has a really nice effect, right? That sort of downtownish kind of feeling. And it would look odd, I think, if you had odd setbacks that no one else had along that strip. You know, it's out of context. Um, I do question a little bit. I'm just wondering about this um about the because you'll be 10 feet behind the buildings next to you. >> I believe we might be in line with the building. >> I think you're going to be in line. So >> setback is 10. >> Okay. So there's building 10 ft of grass and then you align with the existing sidewalk. >> I think so. Yes. >> All right. We'll explore that further. >> Maybe throw that into the varian. >> Yeah. Not entirely sure that's true. Um, but I'm

036I'm good on the setback thing obviously as I just said and the uh the parking you know I mean there listen you're 50 feet away from a 40 car parking lot right even you know we know in the summer it gets crowded but still nonetheless um I think there's maybe >> retail it's not like a restaurant or anything like that >> yeah um and the affordable housing aspect of this too is obviously a real plus we seem to do this one unit at a time you know in this town which is great we're making our way there. Um, so all right, given that we'll go through the questions, which are should the applicant amend the application or to comply with special permit guidelines? And actually, I think you'll need some help, Will, on what you're

037referring to exactly here with the special permit guidelines for apartments within commercial structures and update their plans and demonstrate compliance, which which u >> now I know I know to chime in. I know that's in relation to the guidelines that are in the specific special permit standards. Um those are the ones that relate to an an open space area for the apartment. Um separate entrance. I think the applicant addressed um a lot of those issues for the board. Although I can't speak to the board. I wasn't sure. It was a more expansive list. So >> that's on page four at the >> All right. >> Right. Like the like the screening of Yeah. Right. >> Addressed already. So I >> Yeah. So is the answer should we does it need to be amended? It has

038been discussed and amended I think is the answer to this. >> Does everyone agree with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Me too. Don't forget about me. >> Uh not recused. >> Yeah. There we go. Um, should the applicant revise their plans to comply with setback requirements or clarify whether they plan to apply for setback variances? I think we talked about that and I think we all agree that we're fine with what's been presented. >> Yes. >> Yep. Yes. Yep. Okay. Just chime chime in. Jen, the applicant provides their plans to include setbacks between the property lines and the proposed >> building. No. the setback from the front yard property line. >> I'm sort of assuming that's what this referred to. Yeah. >> Um so I guess the answer to that is no. You're going

039to >> front yard, sideyards, no, >> right? We're not asking for revision to the plan to include setbacks between the front property line and the proposed building. I think that's what we're I think let's think of the question that way. Okay. >> Okay. Um, okay. >> So, do we agree with that as revised? Because I think we addressed the other issue already with the second question. >> Side property lines, not front, right? Is that the way we're thinking about this? >> The front they've already agreed to >> they're going to push it back. >> We were, just to clarify from the memo, um, we were kind of, uh, more asking that the setbacks be illustrated on the plan. In other words, you know, illustrating, you know, 10 ft um from the sideyard. >> And I

040think as far as the, you know, I think we understand the board's consensus, and correct me if I'm wrong, that um and based on what the applicant said, the applicant will move the building back to meet the 10-ft setback from the front uh property line, but the board doesn't feel that there needs to be any setback from the sideyards. They're comfortable with the building being designed to abut property lines on those sides. Um, and I will say, um, this is something we'll look into. Um, the applicant brought brought this up, too. We're confident that the code, um, its requirement is that, you know, it's a 10-ft sideyard setback, there's a note in the dimensional table that says if it's a budding a building on the on, um, either side that it doesn't need to meet

041that setback. We're not 100% sure whether that means that the eastern property line can have no setback, but the western property line where there is no building um if that needs to have the setback. The wording of the code um suggests if it's abing a building on either side um that it doesn't need to meet the 10-ft setback. So, we think the the the board um may be within its authority to allow the building um up to the property lines on both sides. Um we'll talk to the town attorney. We'll talk to the applicant. We'll figure that out um for the revi revisions that >> So, yeah. All right. So, I think we need to go back to two and revise the question, right? So, it's really should the should the applicant revise their plans

042to comply with setback requirements based on the outcome of discussions with the planning department relative to whether or not you've you meet the requirements for zero setback on the west. I'll figure out some slightly better wording than that, but everyone knows what I'm trying to say, I believe. Yes. >> Um uh so yes. So let's let's just leave it at that for question two. Um does that mean question three can go away? All right. So let's just let's do two separate questions. So the question the question I just asked you know about revising or not the setbacks based on the outcome of this discussion with the planning department. Right. Um there will be no need to do that if the if the planning right. So will it's pending that discussion. >> Okay. >> So is

043that a yes or no? Right. >> So pending. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> We always agree depending. >> All right. So it's it is conditional. It is provisional. So that isn't a yes or a no, right? Depending on the outcome. Depending on the outcome is the answer. Should the applicant revise their plans to include setbacks between and so just as a separate question to include setbacks between the front of the building and the property line, >> right? Yes. You're going to push it back to 10 ft, right? Okay. >> Yes. >> Good. Thanks, Jen. Should the applicant submit a sanitary profile and details regarding storm water and drainage? >> Yes. Should the applicant reorient the on-site parking to comply with planning department recommendations which are head in front and back? >> Yes. >> Uh should

044the applicant provide plans for improvements of the alley to the north? >> Yes, please. >> Yes, we'd like you to. That's going to be a qu but further detail about what about that will come up in further discussion with the planning department >> of course with the town too because it's town property >> it's town property and it is a mess as Louis pointed out it really is a mess and if somebody has to use that as their main access to an apartment >> it's not just the area behind the building you're proposing it's the entire alleyway that should be >> it's a long alley Yeah, there's a curve in the end of it. >> Yeah, that curve is past three or four buildings. >> Yeah. All right. So, I think what we're saying here

045is improvements are required, you know. Yes. And you can participate in some way in that and we'll discuss what that is as time goes on. >> Okay. >> I mean, it doesn't make sense to just fix up the alleyway behind the building. And while we're at it, we should endeavor to fix up that entire alleyway. >> So that may require our the town's involvement in that process. So I think, you know, really the intention of the question is >> can we have those discussions? >> Yeah, we'll discuss. >> Yeah. >> Should the applicant submit uh revised plans including dimensions of the parking spaces and aisles behind the parking spaces? You're going to do that? Yes. >> Yes. Everybody. >> Yep. >> Does the board agree offsite parking in the rightway of South Elwood Street would

046be appropriate? >> Yes. >> But not for the resident of the affordable housing, right? >> No, it is in the back. >> Yeah, it Yeah. Okay. >> I don't think we need to make that distinction quite yet. >> That's fine. >> Does the board support the applicant applying for parking variances to permit off-site parking in the rightway? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh should the applicant extend existing sidewalk access across the front the south side of their site and submit plans for the sidewalk? >> Yes, she would. Okay, good. Should the applicant submit a comprehensive lighting plan? >> Yes. >> Should the applicant submit a landscaping plan? >> Not much. >> Uh there's more. one shred. >> Should the applicant clarify if a dumpster is proposed and if not, what method of waste disposal

047is proposed? If a dumpster is proposed on site, should the applicant revise their plans to include the proposed location of the dumpster? You said you would provide one and show us. >> Yes. Yeah. >> It's going to be accommodated. So, it's a yes. Thanks, Jen. Should the applicant provide the listed missing elements of a site plan which are required as necessary elements? >> Yes. All right, even good start. Thank you. >> Okay, next we've got McDonald Griffin subwaver. That is Jen. That's you. And Chris for the planning department. And is the applicant here for McDonald Griffin? Shannon. Okay. So, Chris There we go. >> So, this is the fourth review of the McDonald Griffin subdivision waiver application at 981 Springs Fireplace Road. Um, I'm just going to pull up the map here. [Music] Site zone

048B residents 1.25 25 acres in adjacent areas of environmental consideration. Parcels partially cleared with 13,151 square ft of cleared area which conforms with the town code. And the proposals to divide the property into two parcels. Parcel one is proposed as 28,16 square ft with frontage on Springs Fireplace Road and parcel 2 is proposed as 2,00 20,02 ft. um sites currently improved with a two-story single family residence which is reflected on the most recent CO from 2023. There's also a shed um existing near the proposed common driveway which would be removed as a condition of approval which the board agreed to during the last review. Um next I'm just going to go over the comments from the previous review. The board commented that uh council will determine if the proposed common driveway can be approved without

049an emergency turnaround area. Council determined that it was required. Uh the applicant indicated that turnaround area accordingly. Um and that issue has been resolved. Next was to ensure that the catch basin design for the common driveway was appropriate for drainage standards. Um common driveway plan was updated. the town consulting engineer reviewed it and found it to be acceptable. Um the next comments I'm just going to group together. The board commented that the proposed conservation easement and access easement areas should be indicated. The uh easements should be subtracted from the lot areas and the flag strip should be subtracted from the lot area to parcel 2. All these adjustments were made by the applicant and the planning department is satisfied with the revisions. Um for SECRA, the board agreed to conduct a coordinated review for which

050a coordination letter was sent to the Suffach County Department of Health Services on October 3rd. Once the county provides a response letter of 30 days passes, the board can move forward with its review. The planning department will prepare an environmental assessment form parts two and three, and negative declaration will likely be recommended. The planning department notes that the board may move forward with considering the application complete and ready for public hearing at this time. Um, in addition to the comments on drainage, the town consulting engineer just mentioned that there are some proposed structures. You can see the building on uh parcel 2 that should be removed on the final plat as well as building envelopes. The planning department recommends that this could be made a conditional approval and the board should determine if this agrees.

051Um otherwise the only other approval that would be required is from the county for the final subwaver map. And in conclusion, the application appears complete and ready to be scheduled for public hearing. Uh the board should discuss whether those proposed structures could be removed as a condition of approval. And if no additional information is needed, the board should determine whether the application is complete and ready to schedule for a public hearing. >> Thank you very much, Chris. Uh the applicant. Yes. >> Good evening, Shannon McCaffrey. Dewy's planning. Um we agree with everything that Chris just went over. Um, but we do request that the construction of the common driveway and turnaround be a condition of a seal on lot two only and not um that lot one can maintain their access as is for now

052just so that we don't have to clear unnecessary trees until a house is actually built back there. Um, and we're okay with the condition of signing of the mapping, the removal of the building envelopes and proposed dwelling. And then we also just request to be scheduled for a public hearing. Okay. Can we do that planning department? Um, regarding the turnaround, you know, if if there if you're not going to build on the back lot initially. >> Correct. >> Do we have a >> think we have >> we've we've had a lot of problems um with people not completing subdivision improvements. Um we can do it as a condition um of final. Um so I guess you know the short answer is yes. >> When you say condition of final, do you mean final approval by

053us as opposed to condition as opposed to getting the CO for that lot which is what I think Shannon was asking about. >> Um it's Yeah. So, it's it's something it's kind of unique to the subdivision, but it's tricky of when you time the uh installation of the turnaround. Um because what can happen is we do have a lot of even minor subdivisions that have sat around for 10, 20 years. The owner, you know, if you condition it that they only have to build the turnaround when you go for a CO on the back lot, then there could be a subsequent change of ownership. um this owner sells and leaves, the subdivision isn't completed, nobody is looking to build a home on the back lot, then they come in um looking to build it, and

054it can be tricky because then it's tough to figure out who's responsible for building the improvements. Um so, but the the plus side of um deferring the construction of the turnaround is that you don't um clear areas of woodland. you know, you're not making them do that in investment and um have improved surfaces that are essentially sitting around. >> Um but the the negative of it is um oftent times significant. Um so what I long story short, what I would recommend is that um the uh turnaround should be completed um before the chair signs the map and there's any transfer of ownership um of any of the lots. Say that again before the >> before the chair signs the map. >> I'm not I'm not sure I understand. So basically that's a I think that's

055a >> no to Shannon's question right is recommendation. Okay. >> I mean any the covenant for the common driveway is going to be filed at the time of the recording of the map. any transfer any title if new buyers will be aware of the requirement of this construction of the common driveway. So, and or it'll be the owners today that know this requirement and so I think kind of kind of covered over that. >> Yeah. I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt. >> No, you're good. Is there any time horizon for when the owners plan to build back? >> And so I mean I just it could be to the fact that they want to build a pool on lot one and keep lot two still wooded for many years and so we would just

056have a common driveway that's not being utilized at all. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. It it actually, you know, now that I'm thinking about it, looking at the map, um it might make the most sense in this case. and and given that that the the backlot may not be developed, it may make the most sense to condition that it has to be completed and signed off on before the issuance of a CO. Um, which is common in in subdivisions and is what the applicant is asking for >> lock. Yeah, that might make the most sense here. I'm very I'm trying to sort of correct um this situation in some other sub uh subdivisions where things weren't built and now people are looking for cos and trying to figure out whose responsibility it is. Um but

057thinking about it, the the issues that affect those probably don't affect this subwaver. Um so I'm I'm sorry to, you know, wait go round about and waste the board's time, but um I agree with the applicant. I think if you did eventually make completion of the common driveway, including the turnaround, a condition of um uh before a CO is issued on either lot, um that should be sufficient. >> Okay, >> great. >> So, let's see how the board feels about it. Jen, >> yeah. Um thank you. That was a little twist and turn there, but um I agree. I think it does make sense to wait for the CO on lot two. Um, and I think the applicant has, you know, really answered every question and and submitted to every, you know, submitted changes to

058every request we had. The um structures that are on there that are being removed, that would be a condition of approval, but barring that, I think it is ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. >> Okay. Okay. Um, all right. around the table. Let's let's see how everyone feels about this uh new piece, this new request and this new possible solution to the turnaround. How do we all feel about that? Do we want to do we want to uh kind of make this condition of the CO for lot two or require it now? >> I I think it makes some sense. I'm just curious who shoulders the cost of the common driveway if the ownership changes. Um, does that make sense? >> A lot of times in it all depends on how the covenant

059is going to be written, but a lot of common driveways, it's 50% shared across the board evenly between lot owners. So, we can put that into the covenant language. >> Okay. >> You're okay with waiting? >> Yeah, I'm I'm okay with waiting. Yeah, >> I'm good with waiting. >> Okay. >> I agree with the last thing Eric said. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Yeah, I think it's agreed. I agree to wait. >> Yeah, I agree with waiting and as long as it's clearly, you know, written out in the covenant, then that's an that follows the the sale. So, if that was to occur. >> Yeah. All right. Well, that um that makes sense to me, too. I have to admit my my initial take on this was really Eric's, which is you know, it's

060very sometimes very difficult to get things to happen later, right? Uh and we often are in a situation where we have to sort of uh figure out how to get something done that should have been done. But I I do really think it would be a shame to take down trees and do all that stuff and have it sitting there for, you know, maybe a decade or two. >> Exactly. >> So, I I kind of agree on that. So we'll we'll add this to the questions. Um so the first is so we're I think we're in good shape. Does the planning board agree that the proposed structures and building envelopes can be removed from the final map as a condition of approval? We didn't really talk about that. Um >> yes I agree with that.

061>> I think it was mentioned. >> Yeah. Is there any question there? I have a I'm unclear about that question. I'm sorry. So basically those proposed buildings and septic systems, those are just for health department purposes of their review and would have to be removed um to make the map clean to be recorded anyway. So that's not an issue. >> So they're literally there as proposed structures. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I will I will clarify though that's an error talking about the building envelopes. The building envelopes shouldn't be removed from the >> the map. Building envelope should stay. >> Okay. >> All right. So we agree that those structures should not just can be should be removed from the final map as a condition of approval. >> Yes. Good Jen. Okay. >>

062Yes. Yes. >> Um so I guess really an intermediary question before we get to the next one is do do we agree that we can condition the construction of the turnaround as a condition of approval for the CO of lot 2? >> Yes. Yeah, >> I think we're all agreeing. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. Okay. Does planning board then find the application complete? >> Yes. >> Good. Everybody's Yes. Okay. >> Does blending board agree the application is ready to be scheduled for a public hearing? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Good. >> Thank you so much. Have a great evening. >> Thanks, Shannon. >> Did you get all that, Katie? Good. We're good on that last question. Okay. Um All right. So, our next up is the Shunster subwaver. That's Chris. That's you, Bruce.

063>> Um and the applicant and his legal counsel are both here. Whan and Mr. Shinster, I presume. Yeah. Okay. Uh Chris, >> thank you. Um so yeah, this is the Shamster subdivision waiver application 20 Bay View Avenue in East Hampton. Uh it's the third review. It was last reviewed on May 21st of this year. Um the site shown here is zone B residence. It's within several areas of environmental consideration including Suff County Pine Barons groundwater management zone 5 town water protection district and south for special groundwater protection district. It's also partially cleared of natural vegetation. The existing parcel was originally compromised with three individual parcels created as part of the Olympics height subdivision filed in 1912. These parcels were subsequently abandoned and consolidated under common ownership in September 2023 as required uh by its designation

064within an old filed map area and pursuant to the town code. The former lot lines are shown on the proposed subdivision map along with the existing um lot lines. Um so background on the application it's a subwaver application uh to divide the existing lot into two parcels. Parcel one which is 20,159 square ft and parcel 2 which is 18,59 square ft. The subject property is 240 ft of frontage along Bay View Avenue. And during the previous two reviews, the majority of the board is not supportive of the application since the proposal would create a non-conforming parcel which could establish a precedent for supporting similar proposals. Uh the board also agreed that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood andor would undermine the intentions of zoning and

065old filed map study. Um so going on to the issues, I'll go over the comments from the last review. The board commented that a scenic easement area for at least 10% of lot depth would be required. Applicant responded by providing a 16 foot wide uh ement to the map and submitted a lot a letter that neither lot would require reeducation. Um some portions of the property are deeper um with a total depth of about 175 ft. the other towards the east gets narrower to about 147 ft. The 16 ft width appears adequate since it's about average uh for the total width of the parcel and the planning board should determine if it agrees. The proposed scenic easement includes areas which are currently cleared. Uh the planning department recommends that the board requires a reagitation plan

066to enhance the natural buffer. Uh the board typically requires reveation plans for partially cleared scenic easements and the board should determine if it agrees uh in this instance. And then comment two was um just for the applicant to indicate clearing and just to show that it was conforming with the town code. The existing uh boundaries of the existing clearing were shown and it does comply with the town code. Um, and we just note that reveation may be required within the scenic easement should the board choose. Um, pursuant to seek as mentioned in the past reviews, it's an unlisted action. Pursuant to see chapter 128 of the town code, uh, it be recommended that the planning board request lead agency and the applicant should prepare an environmental assessment form part one at this time. Um, regarding

067existing conditions, submitted map indicates existing accessory structures which are no longer on the subject uh property according to aerial imagery from March of this year. Just quickly show you can see a lot of the deck and garden whatnot are no longer on site. Jump back to the subdivision map, but basically the map should just be revised to indicate what is actually there at this time. as well as you can see some lot lines from the former urban renewal parcels as well as some lot lines which we had trouble identifying. These should be removed and the map should only indicate the existing uh one single lot and then the two proposed lots just to make it more clear. um engineer report details um that there may be so areas of slopes of 20% or greater are

068shown with these dash marks here and the town consulting engineer just noted that there might be additional areas on site with those slopes. Um however the applicant should confirm that and would need to consider topography and uh potential impacts of storm water runoff when developing. Um, as mentioned in the previous reviews, building envelopes should be provided which avoid these areas of steep slopes. And the engineer also noted that the applicant would be required to obtain sewage credits associated with the lack of density from the South County Department of Health Services given that parcel 2 is uh less than 20,000 square ft. For the other approvals of this project, the zoning board of appeals uh would need to grant a lot area variance for the non-conforming uh lot size of parcel 2 given that the planning

069board did not support the lot size. Sub County Department of Health Service would need to approve the final subwaver map and sewage credits for parcel two and the town board would need to approve um an urban renewal map modification given that the old filed study called for this lot to just be one buildable lot. Uh one addition from our written report is that Suffach County Planning Commission review would be required given that the property is within the Pine Baron Suffach County. Um the title of the map should be revised to show that it's a map of the Shonser minor subdivision. And in conclusion, it remains incomplete pending the resolution of the issues mentioned. Um the board should discuss whether the proposed width of the scenic easement is acceptable and whether re vegetation plan will be

070required. Applicant should confirm that all areas of slopes of 20% or greater are indicated accordingly. And given that the majority of the board was not in favor of the proposed lot size for parcel 2 area variance would be required. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Richard Whan from Whan Filer PLC. Um I've just been engaged to represent Mr. Scherer, James Sher. James is here. How you doing? I'm hiring Rick to do the uh representation for me. >> Okay. Um >> so I'm here for you if you need any questions. >> Okay. Good. >> Um so I'm new to the matter but um I have looked at obviously looked at most of the files so far. So, uh, first

071of all, uh, apparently the board made a had a discussion earlier this year and there was a four, I believe it was a 4 to3 vote that said that you didn't recommend in favor of the subdivision because, among other reasons, uh, it would have an adverse presidential effect. Um, that's not the case. The application, as is true of most library variants, is super generous. It's one of a kind. uh you the prior agent for the applicant submitted to you a narrative and an analysis of the impact on neighboring lots and baby avenue. I took a little bit of a longer larger look. Uh the map of Olympic heights was filed in four sections in 1912 1913. It comprised around 95 acres of land. I looked at what is residentially zoned and privately owned today. I

072use Southern County GIS. So there are some commercial portions of Olympic Heights on Old Fireplace Road on the east side of the map. There's a small neighborhood business zone on the west side on three road. I excluded those areas because they're not residentially zoned. The town own town owns a partial contiguous property of about 2.1 acres in the middle of the map. So that's not developable. I excluded that. What you're left with is about 87 acres of residentially zoned land in Olympic Heights. actually less than that because I didn't go to the trouble of excluding the roads but within that residentially zone block privately owned land is about 87 acres there on the current urban new map about 171 lots James's property comprises about 96.7% of the required lot area that he would need to

073have a 40 to two 20,000 square foot lots so he's very very close it's basically a dimminimous variance and he would be adding one lot to 171 that currently exist in Olympic height. That's all by by way of background because we may revisit that question again as you already know it's not really your call anyway is the zoning board of the fields. So let me address what's in the memo um in terms of things that you would be requiring. So a scenic easement for at least 10% of the depth of the parcel the map now shows a 16t deep scenic easement. I will note that the requirement for the scene easement applies to subdivisions fronting on a public road. I'm not at all sure that baby Avenue is a public road. It's the urban renewal

074street. I'm going to guess that it probably has not been dedicated to the highway system, but you know what? It doesn't matter because we're going to offer you that scenic easement anyway. So, I just want to point that it really technically applies only if you're in a public road. Clearing appears to not be an issue. The property is not over cleared. Neither of the proposed lots would be overcleared if they were created. Um I do understand you will need an environmental assessment form part one which I plan to submit. Uh in terms of conditions on the on the map, it is true that the remaining structures have been removed. So the map should be updated to reflect what is or is not on the lot today. 20% slopes. I've read the memo obviously and the

075engineers memo. So, I will talk to the engineer and we will determine whether or not he's accurately depicting the 20% slopes. And if he's not, we have to fix that. And then we'll show a building that will presumably it'll only be on parcel two because I don't think we have any 20 I assume that we don't have any 20% slopes on parcel one. So, we'll deal with that and uh see that any 20% slopes are properly shown and that a building envelope will not disturb them. The last thing though is the big thing. All right. Whether I come back to you depends on what I determine is the path forward with the health department. The property is in groundwater management zone five. There were three tax map parcels on this property going back to the

0761981 tax map and the health department usually defers back to them. The reason that the parcels were combined and it's still a little bit of a mystery to me. I wasn't representing James on this of course but he did do road abandons in accordance with the urban map. And once the road abandons were filed, the county real property tax service agency assigned a new uh tax partial for the entire property. So I have to figure out what the st how that affects the health department um process. If there's no way forward with the health department, then we'll probably not have any reason to come back to you or go to the zoning board. So that's really my first order of business is to go talk to the engineer who I've not yet talked to, see

077what the situation is that there is a current application to the health department, find out where that stands and see if it is there's a pan forward with the health department. So depending on on what happens there, we'd either be back or we won't be. >> Okay. >> Got you. I just like to um >> sorry persisted on this but um I feel like doing what's right for my family and my community uh the area is more or less you know affordable and for people that you know work in the community and everything and uh one of them is my family actually I have four boys and we we bought that property with both 18 and 20 it was under the in you know without doing all the due dill diligence and finding out. Uh

078I was always under the impression that was two lots and so was the family and uh one of them was supposed to go to somebody that's working in the community. So anyway, I regardless if it's my family or not, these lots are affordable for people that could uh build something nice and raise their family. Uh acre lot in this area is is useless. And I I I I'm you got to excuse me. I'm I'm going by logic, you know, and that doesn't work. Um, trying to market that, trying to get a family in there that's going to take the acre. I'm going to have to, you know, it's just it's just a loss for another family. That's the way I feel. And one of them is for my family. So, >> so, just a point

079of clarification, are you planning on building on one of these two lots for your family, >> for you to live in or >> uh, one of my sons, right? He works for the town. Yeah. Right. >> And that's more or less why I've been pushing on it and and I just can't see it, you know, going as an acre because nobody's going to afford that. You know, nobody that wants to live in this area. Well, there would be somebody, but two people would be better and that's why I'm fighting so hard to do this. You know, it's costing me and thank you very much. >> Thank you for sharing all that. I really appreciate it. Bruce, before I hand it over to you, I just want to clarify a few procedural things with Eric. Eric,

080if you can uh clue us in a little bit. You know, I take to I'll just take to heart your Rick your discussion about sort of this is a conditional kind of process, right? If the health department is good, great. if we are um if we all sort of agree that we're going to going to suggest to ZBA that they should uh you know rule in your favor on this thing may maybe that's another condition kind of as you've kind of worked >> obviously we would we would yeah >> we would appreciate that if you did that >> yeah yeah okay >> but again you know we have health department first because you know unless we have a path over there there's no way to do this >> right so let me just ask Eric

081the question which is are we meant to be u establishing requesting lead agency tonight. Is that part of our objective? >> You're you're not um the applicant and Rick stated this that he'll submit it. Um they still need to submit a revised complete EAF part one after we have that established lead agency. >> Gotcha. All right. Um Okay. So, yeah. No, I I just I appreciate your the logical way in which you're approaching this and I think it makes sense. I think we need to give you kind of a sense of how we feel about it, what we may say to the CBA, you know, in addition to anything else that we're considering about this. Bruce. >> All right. Thanks, Chris. Thanks, Rick. Um, you know, this is our third time looking at this. Um,

082I don't have much to add except, you know, they have acquired the the two sides of the abandoned road. So that obviously added to their square footage for both lots. Um when you take a bigger look at the area, the majority of the lots are around a quarter of an acre. Um, you know, I don't I don't know if this this helps our argument, but you know, when you're in the neighborhood, this is a big lot, and as you drive towards the east, there are very, very small lots, smaller than than what we're going to what potentially they could end up with. Um, now um 16, the the scenic easement, I think, is fine. You know, it's going to require a little bit of reveation. Um, you know, lot two is is going to be

083deficient by less than 1500 square feet to reach its its minimum of 20,000. So, um, in reading the narrative, which you know, thank you for the narrative. I I kind of support this. >> I do. Okay. >> Let's hear from everybody on it. Let's start on this side now. Ava, >> I agree. I don't really have much to add. Um, but I I think Rick's path, like you said, it's kind of hinging upon we may not even be having a discussion, so I don't really know how much we really need to add in at this point because it may be moot. That That's my only point. >> I do think though, one thing that the applicant would appreciate is how we feel about whether or not we're going to recommend this to the CBA. I

084think that's important, right? Didn't we already vote on this once previously? And this is kind of a rehash. >> Well, but it was it was a straw poll just to give some direction to the applicant, you know, and now they're back giving it another shot with some new representation. I I will say for the board though um there are some revisions that the applicant still needs to make um to the plan including you know we need to straighten some things out as far as the area of slopes um that need to be removed from from areas where development is permitted. Um, so you know, you may want to wait until you have, you know, a pretty much complete map before you, you know, have that conversation about specific comments to the ZBA. Actually, I think

085that's a really good point because I think defining the areas of the slopes are going to affect potentially the building envelope at least on what is that? Lot one to the right, >> right? >> Parcel two. Sorry. >> It makes sense. Does that make sense in terms of your your timeline and your your process? >> Yes. I I don't even believe an application to the CPA is pending yet. I'm brand new, but I don't think we have an application pending. So, let's get to that point and uh we have a final map. If we come back to you with a revised map and a ZBA application, then we'll ask you formally to make a recommendation to >> All right. Well, we'll have more information to be able to do that, but you know, we will

086do it again. We will have to do it again. >> Yeah. Okay. You know, I you see that Bruce has already kind of changed his mind on it based on his changes. >> Yeah. >> Um and the narrative changing. Uh so, so we're not going to do that straw poll tonight, but any other comments for the applicant. >> There is always the build a house, build an AD unit on the property. >> That was going to be my comment. >> Okay. >> No, go ahead. Please say it. Oh, that's you can build a 600 foot separate building. It It has a full kitchen. It's It's not a garage. It's a It's a small house as an option. >> I was going to say the same thing. >> Yep. >> I attended I also attended earlier

087this today a a talk on affordable housing in general throughout the town with the supervisor and and David Lee as well. And and uh I I sympathize. Housing is so important out here and we've said it here at this table many times. The demand is through the roof and any little bit helps. >> Yep. Uh so Jen comment go ahead please. >> I think um I agree with the comment about the ADU and I also do think given Mr. Whan's you know statement that they really do have to get health department approval. It is kind of a moot point as Ava said. Uh so I think maybe we should hold off. And I also think to Bruce's point about the slopes, you know, the building envelope could be, you know, very much smaller um if

088the sloping is substantial in more areas than is indicated on the map currently. >> Okay, good. Thanks. Yeah, I'm glad you guys brought that up though. I don't know if it's an alternative or it's not an alternative, but this is certainly something that the town is encouraging. you know, is the ADU approach. Um, it sounds though like you maybe wanted to build on one lot and sell the other perhaps, but you know, in any case, um, you know, know that there's perhaps another option. Um, all right. So, let's see where we are with the questions. The first is, does the pling board agree the proposed width of 16 ft for scenic easement is adequate? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. Jen, is it a yes? >> That's a yes. Sorry, I was muted. >> Okay. Does

089planning board agree uh reveation plan should be submitted for the proposed scenic easement? >> Yes. >> All good on Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh do we agree that an EAF part one should be submitted? >> Uh yes. Does the board agree that proper title should be added to the map? Yes. >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree the map should be revised to remove structures and former lot uh lines which no longer exist? Clean up the map? Yes. >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that building envelopes which avoid areas slope greater than 20% should be added to the submitted map? >> Yeah. So good. We look forward to seeing you again. Thank you. >> Okay, the next uh matter up is the Bay Estates Preliminary Subdivision. Um Jen, that's you. And that

090is Eric for the planning department and is the applicant here. Dan, that's you. Okay. Um, >> so Eric, please tell us about this. >> Um, just showing you on the screen in an aerial a far aerial photograph of the property. Here's a closer one. Um, this is just by way of background. This is an open space preliminary subdivision application to subdivide a roughly 17 acre parcel into three individual lots with a 70% reserved area. Um basically uh the planning department prepared an EAF parts two and three and attached it to the memorandum. A negative declaration pursuant to see in chapter 128 of the town code is recommended and provided the board uh makes a secret declaration. We will send this out to the Suffach County Planning Commission as required. Um and we also have a

091resolution on for this evening to schedule a public hearing um if the board agrees. Uh at the time of the last meeting, the board said that uh once a secret declaration was made, the application will be complete, ready to be scheduled for a public hearing, sir. >> Okay. Um All right. Uh >> okay. So we u you know you part two uh the short envir environmental assessment form the impact assessment uh does note any uh there are either none or small impacts may occur on the items that are part of that assessment. So I think everyone's probably had a chance to look at that. Um, so, uh, Jen, that is you to lead the discussion. >> Does the applicant is the applicant there? Is there any >> Yeah, we already asked that. Yeah, you >>

092Oh, I'm sorry. I can't I didn't hear that. Um, I I think it is. Um, I think we're ready to make a negative declaration and schedule for a public hearing. >> Does everyone agree? Yes. Y happens to be our first question and second question. Negative declaration and ready for public hearing. >> Yes. Say yes. >> Good. Thank you. >> Uh we can go right to that. Sure. >> Jen, do you have the uh >> I do. What >> do you have the resolution? Jen, do you want to >> Yes. Let me uh let me read it. Hang on. I lied. Do I have it? Yes, I do. Okay. In the matter of the planning board of the town of East Hampton and in the matter, I'm sorry, in the matter of Bayerry Estates preliminary subdivision,

093Suffach County tax map number 300-155-1-25. I have read the resolution. Um all of the plans and uh paperwork is available on the town's website and in the town planning department. A public hear by a public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pantiggo Road, East Hampton, New York on November 5th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the set application. The public hearing will be held live and in person by the planning board and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing and will be televised on local TV channel 22 and available for live stream on the LTV website www.ltv.org. The public shall be permitted to appear in person but may also provide comments on the matter being heard by calling 351886331.

094I move to schedule the public hearing. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Passed and carried. Thank you, Jen. >> So, you'll notice, by the way, board, that we have changed up the way we do these notices, right? That we've decided it's better for us to go into a bit more detail when we notice it and no real detail when we actually have the hearing so we can just zip into it. who made that executive decision today, right, Britney? With Britney's concurrence. >> See, when you schedule a public hearing, you you have to go into more detail >> when we Well, we figure that it's practical actually, too, when you're scheduling it to announce when it is, how you can, you know, how you can comment, you know,

095what the number is to call in and that kind of thing, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And but we don't really need to do that again when we actually have the have the hearing itself, right? So, we're kind of >> reason for I have to do that uh this evening. So, for the EV Montalk charger. So, >> Oh, was that a schedule of public hearing? Yeah. Okay. >> No, actually that's for um resolution of approval. I'm sorry. I misspoke. I was thinking of the >> Yeah. We'll we'll we'll trim the script down. So, by the time we get back to you, you'll have the real the real words. >> Good. Thank you very much. Um All right. Moving on to the Brieus Padell Court site plan. Will um and Ava is the applicant here from

096Pedell. Will >> Okay. So, this is an application seeking approval to construct three new Fidel courts, an Airstream camper to be used as storage, a storage container to be used as a snack bar, sauna, shade pavilion with two decks, two sheds, and turf in lie of existing lawn on the subject property. A public hearing was held on September 24th, 2025, and no members of the public spoke at the hearing or submitted written letters to the file. The hearing was closed that same night on September 24th. Comments from the fire marshall dated July 1st, 2025 found the submitted information sufficient and no further review necessary. In conclusion, the planning department recommends this application is ready for approval. Okay. >> Does everyone agree with that? >> Yes. Is it ready for approval? >> Yeah. Yes. Absolutely. >>

097All right. Great. Yes. Carried ready for approval. >> Good. >> Okay. Uh another wrap up. Est restaurant site plan. Will you again and Ava? You're a team. [Applause] >> Will. >> All right. So, this one is an application seeking approval for a proposed two-story restaurant, shed, deck, parking, and IA sanitary system on a site located on the southwest corner of Montalk Highway and South Emory Street in Montalk. A public hearing was held on September 24th, 2025. One public comment was received at the public hearing in which a neighbor expressed concerns over access to the alley south of the subject properties, proposed parking plans, and proposed curb cuts. No modifications to the alley are proposed as part of this project and no path connecting the pool to the Sands Motel to the immediate south which might

098interrupt access or traffic is proposed. All proposed parking spaces will be located within the property lines and will not obstruct traffic within the alley or adjacent right rightway areas on MAK highway or South Emory Street. The application proposes modifying the location of the existing curb cut which serves 666 Montalk Highway which will result in no increase or decrease in the number of cur curb cuts serving the site. The hearing was closed on September 24th. The board should discuss the public comment and determine if the public's concerns have been adequately addressed. Comments from the fire marshall were received on August 6th and found the submitted information sufficient and no further review necessary. This project received a negative negative declaration at the August 27th planning board meeting pursuant to SRA and no further SER action is required.

099The applicant submitted a revised sanitary plan with minor corrections from the previous plan which appears to comply with all Suffach County Department of Health Services criteria. Comments from the Suffach County Planning Commission were received on September 3rd, which deemed the application a matter for local determination and offered general comments on the project. The board should review the comments and take them in into consideration when discussing the application. In conclusion, the planning department recommends the application is ready for approval. >> Okay, thanks Will. Um, so these are not really baked into our questions per se, but um, so that there was you you'll recall that there was someone who made a comment about the curb cuts as Will just explained, you know, and the answer to the question is there are no additional curb cuts, right?

100So we just I think all agree that that is probably kind of an adequate answer to that question. Jen, do you agree that we're good with >> I agreed. Yeah, I agree. >> Okay, good. And we know the conditions of approval on this are submission of a site plan containing approval from the county department of health as usual and submission of a final written approval from the ARB. Um so given that is this application ready for approval? >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Unanimous 100% done. >> Thank you. And then we've got the the Kum subwaver. Um, and that is Will once again. And Jen, you're back up. And the applicant is here. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. This application is seeking subdivision waiver approval for property located on Spring Fireplace Road in Springs. If

101granted approval, this project would create two 20,000 square foot lots, both having road frontage on Springs Fireplace. A public hearing was held on September 24th, and no members of the public spoke at that hearing, and no written letters have been submitted to the file to date. The hearing was closed on September 24th, 2025. Comments from the fire marshal dated May 12th have found the submitted information sufficient and no further review necessary. This project received a negative declaration at the August 27th planning board meeting pursuant to SRA and no further secret action is required at this time. In conclusion, the planning department recommends this application is ready for approval. >> Okay, great. Uh Jen, do you have any other comments on this? >> Nope. Let's get this one approved. >> Okay. Um there we go. Is

102this application ready for approval? >> Yes. >> Mr. Terry, unanimous. Thank you very much. Uh, Echo Acres is our next final matter for the work session and that is Eric and Jen once again. >> All right. >> Oh, the applicant. We need the applicant. >> No. >> Do we need the applicant for a wrapup planning department? I think not, right? >> I don't think you do. >> I don't think so. >> Says no. >> Britney says no. >> Okay, let's see if we do. I doubt that the dad will, but I have tons of questions. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, as a reminder, this is an application to sub uh subdivide an approximately 6.7 acre lot um into two individual lots. one of approximately 54,000 ft², one of approximately 59,000 square ft um

103with two reserved areas. So, a public hearing was held on September 24th. Um one member of the public spoke at the hearing. No written comments were received. The member of the public who spoke at the hearing was a neighbor of the subject parcel. Their concerns were primarily over potential visibility of the new residences on the subject parcels from the neighbors property and vice versa. The neighbor cited an elevation change in the area which could exacerbate this problem and suggested that the board consider requiring increased setbacks. Uh the planning department notes that the neighbor's residence is situated at roughly 52 feet above median sea level whereas the building envelopes for both proposed lots are situated roughly 80 ft above sea level. Uh the nearest edge or about a 32 feet difference. The nearest edge of the

104building envelope on proposed lot two to the neighbor's residence is roughly 125 ft. And um it's uh that is also roughly 275 ft uh for proposed lot one. Um that being the uh the distance between the envelope on that lot and that that neighbor's residence. Um although future residences on proposed lots one or two could be visible from the neighbor's property, the size of the lots will make building placement the primary determinant of this. Uh the subdivision has been designed to meet the code required setbacks and further removed areas of steep slopes along this property line uh from the building envelope increasing setbacks slightly. Uh any construction on either lot will need to comply with the pyramid law um which prevents a building from looming over a property line. Uh as such, the planning department

105does not feel that a redesign of the subdivision by increasing setbacks or making other changes should be required. However, the board should discuss the public comments and whether or not any conditions will be imposed to address them. Uh the planning department notes that the board has required rows of evergreen screening along property boundaries as a result of public comment in the past and that a row of at least 6ft tall evergreen screening along the southern boundary of the building envelope on proposed lots one andor two uh may be adequate to cut off line of sight between residences to the south and those on the subject property. Um, one other comment here, uh, is that the applicants have indicated that they intend to put the reserved areas in ownership of a homeowners association. Um, and there's

106notation on the map that reflects this. Um, this is, uh, somewhat unusual for uh, nonrecreational reserved areas. Um, but it is permitted under the town code. Um, in the memorandum, the planning department um uh quotes the code section of the subdivision chapter that that permits the reserved area to be put in a homeowner uh homeowners association as long as the purposes um meet those that are listed in the code, which is basically passive open space. Um it's allowed to be in a homeowners association. Um however, if the applicant does that, um there are a number of codified requirements that must be met. Um, we put those in the memorandum. Um, I won't go through all of them. They're, like I say, they're explained in the code. Um, they'll be reflected in conditions of approval should

107the board um, choose to grant it. So, other than that, um, the engineer has signed off on the project, so has the fire marshal. And therefore, uh, in conclusion, if the board agrees, the application is ready for approval. Um, we note two sort of unique conditions of approval. One is that no CO should be issued on either lot until they've been um reveated um in accordance with the town code. Um I believe they're conforming. Um but that's a requirement that the board wanted um from previous discussions. And then as I mentioned previously, the documentation to memorialize and meet the restrictions of a homeowners association um will be required to be submitted. Um but with those conditions and then the standard ones um that you have for a subdivision, it appears that the application is ready

108for approval if the board agrees. >> Okay. Thank you, Eric. Chen, do you have any comments particularly on the public comments? Um, so I've been to that I've been to that location and it's pretty heavily wooded at this point, but I do feel if they are going to plan the the driveway, excuse me, on that side, then they should we should actually ask for re not reve um on that side just to continue to block it. I think that's a good idea and I think it'll fit nicely with the neighborhood and I have no objection to the homeowners association taking ownership of the uh reserve area. I I think that's fine in this case. >> Okay. All right. Good. Thanks. Any other comments particularly on the issue of the public comment about screening? >> The

109it was screening specifically from the public. >> It was the idea that you know his house is at I think it was there's a 30 foot difference, right? >> I recall the elevation difference being an issue. >> Yeah. >> And it is like 30 feet down. >> It's like a cliff. It It really is. It's like you So I I think, you know, for both parties, it would be nice to have the screening there. Um because otherwise they're going to be overlooking his house >> and he is going to be looking up. Yeah, >> I don't I mean to be honest, I don't think he's going to see anything other than the the hill, but you know, screening can't hurt. >> Yeah. You know, we don't we haven't seen plans for the development of these

110lots yet. We don't really know where houses are placed. >> Exactly. >> You know, what the pyramid looks like, any of those kinds of things. And you know, and you know, I think we all know that nearer term screening does block the view as you look up, right? >> Yeah. Um, >> is there any zoning requirement or restriction? I mean, >> for for the neighbor, the one who's going to be developing these lots, he has every right to build the houses as long as it conforms to zoning codes. >> Yeah. >> There's nothing in there that says you're going to obstruct the view of the next door neighbor. >> There is not. as long as you conform to, you know, pyramid laws and you've got it, you're you're meeting setbacks >> and you're within any

111established building envelope, you're good. You can do whatever you like. So, you know, we're really dealing with a situation we don't know what it's actually going to look like in the end. You know, it is up to the person that buys a lot and builds on it. Um, I would support the idea of screening at the driveway, you know, just as a as a measure to uh, you know, help prevent encroachment of of the view. I think it's it's fair enough given that there's such a tremendous grade change. >> Yeah. >> How does anyone else feel about that? >> I agree. Support. I support the Evergreen. >> Yes. Yep. I I think it's a nice idea. I think it's a good idea. I haven't supported it. I'm just not sure that we have the ability

112to mandate require based on what based on based on what zoning code. >> Well, it's it's our discretion to handle, you know, these kinds of public comments. You know, we we've many many times put screening along common driveways that run close to a property line, >> right? >> I'm don't get me wrong, I'm all for I'm all for uh making life better for the neighbors in this thing. I'm just wondering whether or not we have the authority to do so. >> Right. That's >> Well, planning tell us the answer. I presume the answer is yes, we can. We've done it many times before. >> I I would say it falls under your authority and responsibility to provide adequate buffers and screening of adjacent residential properties um under the subap >> under the what Eric >>

113subdivision chapter sorry >> regardless of of not knowing the actual building plans for the prospective lots. The common driveway is is planned. That is that will be what it is. >> That's true. >> So I would think that that would fall under our purview. That would be in my opinion. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, it sounds like even if one of our board members wants a further explanation as to how we're able to do this, it sounds like we'd all like to, you know, request it. Um, Britney, since the applicant isn't here to sort of say that uh they would like to conform to this, they agree to do it. >> Can we make this a condition? >> A condition of approval for this would be the sub uh subdivision. You're saying that on

114the basis that the driveway already exists, >> correct? >> Link to the driveway. >> That's that was >> linking it to the driveway, right? So we can we can make this determination without uh there any input from them. >> They're not here to object to it. Um at this point I would say if you want to have input from them before you decide because something they say may change your mind then I would maybe uh adjourn this to another meeting or table it to another meeting. Well, wait a minute. There were notice that this was going to be coming up this evening. It's right in the memo. I mean, you know, they unfortunately aren't here. So, so >> and and also, you know, as a a matter of usual routine, we'd have to draft a

115resolution of approval that would have a specific condition in it. Um, and then bring it to the board for a meeting. Um, so >> we may be able to review it at that time. >> Yeah. >> As well. >> All right. We're going to take the tough love approach here. >> Yeah. Um, so I think we're all concurring that that we want to add this as a condition to add screening of the driveway, the common driveway. >> Yes. >> All right. Good. I think we're done with that one, are we? >> Yes. >> Uh, does that mean, however, >> there's one question. >> Uh, so the public's concerns have not need to be addressed with the screening that we just described, right? >> Yeah. >> So, is the application ready for approval? conditionally, can we

116just put it that way, Britney? Conditionally ready for approval based on um based on this new based on the screening >> discussed by the board. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Good. Done. Great. All right. So, into our regular meeting then. Uh let's see. We've got a couple of other uh couple of other pieces of business here to do. One is 267 Aabonic subwaver resolution of approval. These should all be really quick. That is Jen. That is you. >> Yes. In the matter of the application of 267 aonic minor subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-147-6-31.2. What this says? Wa waiver of subdivision approval. Is that correct? Shouldn't it be >> resolution of subdivision approval? The paperwork, >> right? The body of this also says that. By the way, waiver for

117sub application for waiver of subdivision approval. It's a subwaver approval, but it's not a waiver of the subdivision. I think this is potential. >> Eric, is that just miss >> it? It might be. Um, let me uh I'm just trying to call it up so I can look at it. >> Sure. >> Might want to skip that one and go to other. >> Yeah, let's let's move on and we'll come back to that. >> Uh we'll give Reed something to do here. >> Okay. uh at and that would be the EV chargers 531 montalk. >> Okay. In the matter of the application of EV chargers 531 Monttok site plan Suffach County Tax Map number 300-1 172-2-33.1 for site plan approval. I have read the resolution and I move forwards adoption. >> Second. >> All right.

118All in favor? I >> Sounds unanimously. All right. Cool. Uh, city towers we are not doing. Bay estates we did. Right. >> Yep. >> We're down to the St. Michael's basement alteration site plan which is Jan again. >> Yes. >> In the matter of the application of St. Michael's basement alteration site plan, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-172-2-9.4. Schedule a public hearing. Uh the plans and paperwork have been submitted and are on file at the planning board office and on the town website. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at town hall 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton on November 5th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the said application. The public hearing will be held live and in person by the planning board

119and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing and will be televised on local TV LTV channel 22 and available for live stream on the LTV website www.ltv.org. The public shall be permitted to appear in person, but may also provide comments on the matter being heard by calling 351-8886331. And I have read the rest of this scheduling of a public hearing resolution and move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Unanimous. Passing carried. So, let's see. Let's go back to 2767 Aabonic. What do we have here, Eric? This is confusing. >> So, yeah. So, I mean, you're you're saying that at the top where it says waiver of subdivision approval. >> Um, yeah. I mean, that's standard language. Um, I was just looking and I saw we have some more recent examples

120of subwavers where we said subwaver approval or minor subdivision approval. Um, but that is what a subwaver is. That's that's in the name. It's a waiver of full subdivision approval. So, um, I was just looking back through resolutions. We have them variously worded, but um I don't think that I think that accurately describes what the approval is. And I I don't think it's problematic. >> Okay. Uh we trust the expert on this one. Yeah. I've never seen I actually have never seen >> Yeah, because it does say application for a waiver of subdivision approval. >> Yeah. >> Is that Are we >> We're good. I guess we're good on that, Jan. Let's just put it. So, go for it. >> All right. In the matter of the application of 267 Acabonic Minor Subdivision, Suffach County

121Tax Map number 300-147-6-31.2 waiver waiver of subdivision approval. I have read the resolution and I move for its approval. >> Second it. All in favor? >> I passing carry unanimously. All right, we're good. We're done with all that. The final thing is uh looking at the minutes, which I'm sure you all scour it very carefully. >> I I did have one question. Um it's not a correction, but it's just a question on the work session at the Monta Airport Redevelopment. Um there was a a bullet point in there about applicants should submit full copies of airport operations details. I assume that would entail traffic and takeoffs and landings and that sort of thing. >> Well, I think an operation is a takeoff and a landing. Okay. So, that's I think there it's specifically >> the

122up and down. >> All right. Good. Yeah, that's the way that we talked about it at the meeting. That's what it was. That's what we were asking for. So, >> all right. So, with that question cleared up, someone like to make a a motion to approve the minutes. >> I'll make that motion. >> Okay. Second. Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> passed and carried. We're good to go. Thanks everybody. One more. I meant one more. >> I make the motion to adjurnn. >> All right. You got it. >> From above. >> Okay. All in favor of adjourning? I >> I