001All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Good evening, everybody. Uh, welcome to the town of East Hampton's planning board. through our uh regular meeting and work session of September 24th, 2025. Nice to see such a big live audience. Welcome. We have a very ambitious agenda tonight. We have four things on for public hearing, which maybe is why some of you are here. We have seven items on our work session and we have five items on our regular meeting. So, lots of stuff to talk about tonight. So, we're going to jump right into it. And our first matter is the Brieus Pedel Court site plan which uh is Will who's already situated at the computer and Ava for us and the you're here. Okay, great.
002Read the notice, please. >> Okay. Uh, take notice that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall, 159 Panago Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as site planned to construct three new pedel courts, an Airstream camper, storage container, sauna, shade pavilion with decks, two sheds, and turf in lie of existing lawn. The property contains 1,54,767 square feet, 24.214 acres, and is located on the north side of Daniel's whole road, Wayne Scott, and Citrate in an A5 residence zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton, and is identified on the Suff County tax map as parcel 300-181-1-5.1. Subject application is classified as a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality
003review act part 617 of the New York code of rules and code. A survey prepared by George Walbridge surveyors PC dated revised April 11th 2025. A set of plans prepared by architect Chris Teter RA dated April 9th 2025 including cover sheet uh ex do I need to read that? >> Yeah. >> Uh T-001.0 00 existing pedel court plan and relocation a-.00 proposed pedel court uh panels a- 20 oh I'm sorry uh 200.00 isometric views and color selection a-201.00 typical panels a- 2022.020 0 proposed lighting plan A-203.0 lighting plan level A-204.00 Typical P panels elevations front and rear A-205.00 Proposed cable installations and floor light detail A-206.00 Site additional accessories A-300.00 A-301.00 00 A-303.00 and pro proposed pavilion plan A-302000. Cover letters prepared by Tara Burke dated April 21st and June 23rd, 2025. Accessible route improvements
004prepared by DB Bennett PC dated June 16, 2025. Outdoor shower prepared by DB Bennett PEC dated 20 uh June 16, 2025. and cold plunge specifications are available for inspection at the planning board of offices 300 panico place sweet 103 East Hampton New York. The public hearing will be held live and in person by by the planning board and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing and will be televised on local TV LTV channel 2022 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 351-888-6331. Any person or party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by callin to the
005live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board, 300 Panagico Place, Sweet 103, East Hampton, New York, 937. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning boardeamptonny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. >> Oh uh dated August 27th, 2025 group. >> Now you're finished. >> Thanks. Perfect. Great. Just want to play it by the by the book. So before we start, is this hearing properly noticed? >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Terrific. Um, all right. So, you're going to give us an overview and then we're going to ask for comments from the public. >> Yep. So, this is an application seeking approval for three new pedal courts, an Airstream camper to be used as storage, a storage
006container to be used as a snack bar, a sauna, a shade pavilion with two decks, two sheds, and turf in lie of existing lawn on the subject property. The site is located within the special groundwater protection area, Suffach County Pine Barons, the A5 resident zoning district, and is the only property within the town's recreation overlay district. The site is currently improved with a singlestory frame building, 10 sheds, a pool, four parking areas, a building on slab with six indoor tennis courts, a singlestory building on slab, an outdoor bar, a mini golf building on slab, a mini golf course, two platform tennis courts, three pedel courts, and a singlestory frame building with porch and wood decking. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so the way this works, as many of you probably know, is we ask
007first for comments from within the room. Um, we we time comments at 3 minutes each. We go to anyone who might be calling in. Uh, and then if there's if time permits and there are other comments or someone wants to take longer than the three minutes that they had the first time around to to share, we'll come back to the room again. Uh, so before we begin, uh, are there is there anyone on the phone? Matt, >> uh, please stand by. >> And this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV, making sure the lines are open and clear in which they are. And you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Great. So, we're going to start in the room. As I said, is there anyone who would like to make
008a comment on the Brieus Pedel Courts project that we just discussed? >> Okay. I guess you're not here for that one. All right. >> Excuse me. One second. Planning board. Um, >> yeah. >> When when Ava read the notice, did she happen to say channel 20 and 22 or is that a typo? 22. It's just 22.2. >> It's just 22. Okay. I thought I heard her say 20 and 22 because it's only on 22. Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Great. All right. So, would you like to make a motion to >> Oh, close. >> I'll make a motion to close public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor of closing. >> I Okay. Thank you very much. Our second public hearing is the Estee Restaurant Plan. Um, and that again is Will and Ava.
009Once again, you're going to be reading >> the announcement. >> Okay. Uh, take notice that a public hearing will will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall, 159 Panago Road, East Hampton, on Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter, as this matter may be heard, to consider the application of Estee Restaurant site plan to combine two properties, demolish an existing residence, and construct a new restaurant, shed, decks, parking, and new IA OWTS sanitary system. One property contains 15,329 square ft 0.351 acres and is located on the western side of South Emery Street Malkque and Citrit in a CB central business zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton and is identified on the Suff County Tax Map as parcel
010300-50-1-13.1. The other property contains 6,810 square feet 0.156 acres and is located on the southern side of Montalk Highway Malk and is situate in a CB central district central business zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton and is identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel 300-47-3-5. Subject application is classified as an unlisted action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act part of the New York code of rules and regulations and chapter 128 environmental quality review of the town code. A survey prepared by George Wallbridge Surveyors PC dated revised June 6, 2025. A set of plans prepared by JM2 Architecture PC dated revised July 3rd, 2025, including site plan C-1.0, landscape plan C-4.0, lighting and phototrics plan C-6.0, lighting specifications C-6.1 6.2 First plan C-7.0
0110 second floor plan C-7.1 rooftop floor plan C-7.2 and elevations C-8.0 zero. A set of plans prepared by JM2 architecture dated revise June 6, 2025, including site and layout plan CT-1, grading and drainage plan CT-2, site plan details CT-3, septic site plan CH-1, and septic details CH-2 and three are available for inspection at the planning board offices, 300 Panigo Place, Sweet 103, East Hampton, New York. A 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 LTV channel 222 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 351-886331. Any person or party wishing to
012be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by calling to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 300 Panagago Place Sweet 103 East Hampton New York 11937. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eampny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing dated August 27th, 2025. Ed Crew, chairman. >> Okay. Thank you, Ava. Um, and again, is is this hearing hasn't been public properly noticed? >> No, this was properly given within the statuto. >> Okay, great. Thank you. All right, we'll start with the room. Would anyone like to comment on >> Oh. Oh, will. Yes. I thought it was such a
013thorough reading of what what is going on with this will, please enlighten us. Thank you. This is an application seeking approval for a proposed two-story restaurant, shed, decks, parking, and and an IAWts sanitary system on a site located on the southwestern corner of Montalk Highway and South Emory Street in Montalk. Currently, the site consists of two separate properties which are proposed to be merged as part of this application. The lots are both zoned central business district and are considered to be 100% cleared of natural vegetation. Combined, the subject property will be 22,138 ft in size. 666 Montalk Highway is improved with a cottage and deck, while 3 South Emory Street is improved with multiple sheds, a botchi court, wood fencing, a pool patio, and a concrete swimming pool. The existing structures on three South Emmery
014Street are accessory to the adjacent Sands Hotel which is located directly to the south of the subject properties. >> Okay. Thank you, Will. Um, okay. I do notice that the applicant is here. Um, you don't need to be, by the way, but I'm happy you're here and you can speak with everyone else if you care to. Would anyone in the room like to be heard about Estee Restaurants site plan, >> please? >> Sorry, I just have some questions. >> Could you please come up to the microphone and identify yourself, please? >> Name and address, please. >> Uh, my name is Patricia Viscardi Dusa. I am the neighbor directly adjacent to the left of the proposed restaurant. We have a vacant lot currently. Uh, and I just had some questions. We just received notice on Monday.
015We were out of town. Uh yesterday we were at a funeral and couldn't get here before 3:30 to look at the plan. So, we just had some questions really about curb cuts and parking and um and about the alley which is uh deed access to our parcel which is next door. Um so, we just we just really I have some questions that I just haven't been able to answer and I'm not really this is the first time I'm seeing the plans. Um and I just didn't know. Are there curb cuts proposed? Is there parking? >> One thing that people who who come to their first public hearing are unaware of and disappointed in is the fact that we don't actually entertain questions per se. >> Oh, okay. >> Uh at a public hearing. >> Okay.
016>> Um but the planning department is available to answer any questions you may have about the application and all the materials that Ava mentioned in in her leadin um are available for examination in the planning office. >> Right. It just we got noticed too late for us to actually be able to look before the hearing. So I guess my if I sorry >> the materials are also online. Oh >> as the materials are online >> the letter I apologize that we received um so I guess then my concern I will just not pose it as a question but as a concern my concern is the alleyway remain clear as it's oured access um I'm cons I'm curious I would like to express concern about the curb cuts >> through New York State and just understand
017what the parking plans are. So that's >> so those comments are duly noted. Okay. >> And they will be addressed great, you know, in the recap of this public hearing. >> Terrific. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. [Music] >> Um, anyone else in the room? Matt, do we have anyone online wants to speak on this? >> You have you have zero calls on the line. Thank you. >> Okay. So, >> make a motion to close this public hearing. >> Second. Hi. >> All right. So, the the third public hearing is for Ecoacres. Uh >> a small Titan. >> Okay. >> Spelling of acres. >> Make sure we say correctly. I'll >> pronounce. >> Um All right. So, that this is Eric um and Jen for the board. Um I'll ask the question one more
018time. Do we have was this properly noticed? Yes. So it's properly noticed within the statuto time frame. You can see the public hearing. >> Okay. Fine. All right. Great. >> All right. So air. So we have Yes. The announcement. Take notice that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall 159 Pansko Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, September 25th, September 24th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Ecoacres minor subdivision approval pursuant to chapter 220 subdivision of land of the East Hampton Town Code to divide a 292,810 square foot 6.722 acres parcel into two separate lots. Lot one will consist of 54,616 square ft or 1.25 25 acres and lot 2 consisting of 59,027 square ft
019or 1.36 acres. The parcel is located on the westerly side of Old Northwest Road, East Hampton, and is situated in an A3 residence zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton. Premises are identified on the Suffach County Tax Map as parcel SCTM 300-135-2-11.2. Subject application is classified as an unlisted action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act 617 of the New York Code of rules and regulations and chapter 128 environmental quality review of the town code. A survey prepared by George Wallbridge Surveyor PC dated revised June 26, 2025 and a common driveway road and drainage plan sheet C1 prepared by DB Bennett consulting engineer dated revised April 21, 2025 are available for inspection at the planning board offices 300 Pantico Place Suite 103 Eastampton, New York. The
020public 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 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 351-88863 53. Nope, 6331. I forgot my glasses. Any person or party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by call-in to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 300 Pantico Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 111 1937. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning boardny.gov. All comments must be
021received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing dated August 27th, 2025. Ed Krug, chairman. >> Okay. Thank you, Jan. Um, Eric, do you want to fill us in on this project? >> Sure. Um, so hopefully everyone can see on my screen the proposed minor subdivision map. Um, as noticed or as included in the public hearing notice, this is an application to subdivide an approximately 6.7 acre lot um into two lots. One of approximately 54,000 ft², one of approximately 59,000 square ft. Uh, two reserved areas are also proposed uh and in addition to an access and utility easement um a common driveway that would come off of Old Northwest Road. Uh the site's located in the A3 resident zoning district and water recharge overlay district. Um it's a mandatory open
022space subdivision um due to its inclusion within groundwater protection areas um among which include um the water recharge overlay district, Suff County uh Department of Health Services Groundwater Management Zone 5 and the Suff County designated Pine Barons region. Um, I also have the common driveway um and drainage plan here if anyone needs it and um can provide anything that's in the official file for a member of the public. >> Okay. Thank you, Eric. Uh, does anyone in the room have any comments on the ecoacres subwaver? >> Please come forward. Uh, name and address, please, for the record. Mark Gardy G- A R D Y 203 Bull Path. My property is adjacent to this property. It's I guess eastsoutheast of the property and I believe it was a sanded at some point the property. So it's
023dug out. So we're in a gully. So this property is if our house is behind me, it's to the left is high. And we also to the other side is where the uh cell tower is for the town of East Hampton, the auxiliary fire uh building. My only concern because two houses on seven almost seven acres is certainly fine and it's great. I just am concerned because we are so far down as I said with the woman yesterday when I came look at the plants. I don't want it to look like the house from Psycho the mother's house where you're looking up on the hill and it's and it's right there. So, and I don't want I'm sure they don't want to look down at me and I certainly don't want to look down at
024them. We'd also have a tennis court right there. They probably don't want to hear it. So whatever the setbacks are to the extent they can be expanded would be would be great. Um but again I don't have a problem with the idea of two two homes on seven acres roughly. >> Okay. All right. Thanks for sharing that. I appreciate it. We will address those issues as I said at the as we summarize the uh the public hearing. It'll be addressed. Um all right Matt, is there anyone on on the phone? You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Okay. So, Jen, >> if there's no one else, no one else. Okay. Um, I make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I second. >> All in favor? >> I carried closed. Um, all right. Our
025final public hearing is the subwaver. And again, that brings Will back to the control seat. Uh, and Jen, that's you once again. And are we properly noticed, Britney, for this one? >> Yes. >> Okay, >> great. Take notice that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall, 159 Pantico Road, East Hampton, on Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Minor subdivision approval pursuant to chapter 220 subdivision of land of the East Hampton Town Code to divide a 40,000 square foot.92 acres parcel into two separate lots. Both lots will consist of 20,000 square ft.46 acre. The parcel is located on the westerly side of Springs Fireplace Road Springs and is situated in a
026B residence zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton and are identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel 300-24-13-29. Sub subject application is classified as an unlisted action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act part 617 of the New York code of rules and regulations and chapter 128 environmental quality review of the town code. A survey prepared by James P. Walsh LS dated revised March 11th 2025 is available for inspection at the planning board offices 300 Pantico Place sweet 103 Eastampton New York. 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 LTV channel 22 and available for liveream on the LTV website www.ltv.org. The
027public shall be permitted to appear in person but may also provide comments on the matter being heard by calling 351886331. Any person or party wishing to to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by callin to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 300 Pantico Place Sweet 103 East Hampton New York 1137. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eampny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing dated August 27th, 2025. Ed approved, chairman. >> Okay. Thanks, Jen. >> All right, Will, fill us in, please. >> This is an application seeking a subdivision waiver approval for a property located on
028Springs Fireplace Road in Springs. If granted approval, this project would create two 20,000 foot lots, both having frontage on Springs Fireplace Road. The subject property is currently 40,000 square ft or 0.92 acres in size and is located within the B resident zoning district. The site is currently improved with a singlestory single family residence with a sun room, shed and patio, all of which will be contained within proposed lot one. The site was originally created as part of the Clearwater Beach subdivision which was approved in February 1960. Since then, the two lots were merged and this application seeks to revert back to having two lots. >> Okay, that's the summary of the project. Uh, does anyone in the room wish to be heard on the subwaver? >> Matt, do we have anyone anyone on the on
029the phone lines who's interested in talking about this? >> You have zero callers on the line. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. All right. Closed. >> All right. Those are our public hearings for tonight. Thank you everybody. Um it took longer to read the notices have the hearing, but that's how it goes sometimes. Um all right. Thank you. So we will jump into our work session and the first first application is the Montalk airport redevelopment preliminary subdivision. Um so we start with uh Chris who is uh representing the blending department on this and this is read for the board. So Chris, please. Oh, and the applicant is here. I see. Yes. All right. So, this is the initial review of the Montp
030airport redevelopment preliminary subdivision application at 428 East Lake Drive in Montp. This map just shows where the airport is towards the northern and east lake drive. And the preliminary subdivision application has been made to subdivide the Montalk airport property into four residential lots in a reserved area. Since the property is located within the A5 residence zoning district, it must be treated as an open space subdivision, which requires that at least 50% of the property be preserved as a as open space. The proposed lots and access easement are across approximately 16.2 acres and the remaining 21.4 acres which include all wetlands on the parcels are proposed as a reserved area. The proposed lot areas range from approximately 3.23 to 4.83 acres. Access is proposed within access and utility easement uh which is about 55 ft wide.
031And just to give some more context on the site, I jump back to the aerial. Um, the subject property consists of two tax map parcels shown here and the overall lot area is 36.315 acres. These parcels are within the Montalk School and Fire District and located within a New York state and local um significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat and a scenic area of statewide significance which regulates projects that would reduce or diminish the scenic value of the property. The property is surrounded by Montalk County Park on three sides and is near to Big Reed Pond which is one of only three areas on Long Island which has been designated as a natural national natural landmark by the National Park Service. The locations of natural features including wetland boundaries, the primary dune crest and beach
032vegetation were verified by the planning department on July 8th of this year as a copy of the verification uh from the department. Flood hazard zone AE shown in orange here covers roughly covers portions of the property and encompasses most of lot where my cursor is there. um most of the proposed reserve area, roughly half of lot 4 which is in this area and some of lot three. Property is currently improved with the airport terminal building, three aircraft hanger buildings, two parking areas, some perimeter fencing, the runway and taxi way as well as communications equipment. The submitted full environmental assess form EAF part one details that the existing improvements will be removed including pavement in the proposed reserve area. Applicant did not provide details on whether reveation will be proposed and the properties are partly cleared
033with beach vegetation northwest of the runway wetlands between the runway and taxiway towards the northeast and there are some wooded lands towards the south here as well. So now we go into the issues for discussion beginning with uh secret. So the project has been preliminary prelim preliminarily classified as a type one action pursuant to chapter 128 of the town code and the state environmental quality review act. The proposed action includes activities associated with the closure of the Montalk airport, the subdivision of the site into four lots and reserved area. the physical alteration of about 12.3 acres and residential construction of the four lots to be created. The activities associated with the airport closure and the change of use on the site are subject to SRA as part of this review. Next, we'll go on potential
034impacts of SRA. Um and the planning department notes that the submitted EF did not include all components of the proposed action in its analysis and will require substantial revisions. Therefore, the EAF part two and three could not be completed at this time. However, based on the number of flights estimated to be operating at Montalk airport as published in the East Hampton Town Airport operational changes draft generic environmental impact statement EIS, there's a potential for substantial displacement of air traffic to other regional airports. So the planning board should note that the in determining potential significant adverse impacts from the proposed action impacts to communities surrounding these airports should be considered. Accordingly, the planning department is likely to recommend a positive declaration for this project and EIS is the appropriate mechanism for which these issues can be
035fully analyzed and appropriate mitigation identified. The following items are specific areas where potential for significant adverse impacts exist. The first is increased noise from aircraft and vehicular traffic patterns and roadway volumes in the areas surrounding regional airports may be experienced due to increased flights from displaced traffic based on the closure of Montalk airport. Airports that might experience increased traffic should be identified and impact should be analyzed at each location. Two, changes in the community character surrounding regional airports that receive displaced bike traffic. Three, impacts to significant natural communities or special species status status species as a result of the physical disturbance at the project site and four being impacts associated with the environmental re remediation of the site pending the results of a phase one environmental site assessment. Next, we're just going to go over
036quickly our comments for the submitted EAF and the department. Our planning department notes that we reviewed it and offered preliminary comments for several of the questions on the form which are detailed in our report. We're just going to go over some general feedback now that it should be noted that uh not all parts of the proposed action were considered. Um so therefore many of the questions were not fully answered in in submission. So when making the revisions, the applicant should consider each element of the proposed action scope and provide a comprehensive answer to each question. Once a revised EF is submitted, the positive declaration recommendation can be confirmed and should an EIS be required, a draft scope must be submitted for planning board review. It's recommended that upon completion upon receipt of a completed complete
037EAF part one the planning board should declare lead agency status for this project. So that's it for SRA. The next is regarding the Federal Aviation Administration FAA requirements. The submission included copies of three grant assurances from the FAA and one copy of special conditions from a separate grant assurance. and the applicant submitted letters uh which indicate that only a single grant assurance remains in force on the property and will expire in August of 2027. The applicant requests that the board consider approving this application on the condition that the applicant would forgo active development of the parcels until the grant insurance is expire. On preliminary review of this submitted documents, the town acknowledges that the applicant's claim appears correct. However, the applicant should submit full copies of all grant assurances and copies of written correspondence between
038the FAA to confirm that the FAA consents to the eventual closure of Montalk airport and the applicant should provide clarity on what FAA approvals are required for the closure of the airport. Next is the reserved area. The proposal includes approximately 21.4 4 acres of reserved area which is about 57% of the total acreage of the subject parcels. This meets the requirement of the town code for at least 50% to be preserved as open space and the locations proposed as reserved areas seem generally appropriate since they're nearest to big reed pond and include all wetlands located within the property boundaries. However, as the property contains and is near other protected elements such as dunes and beach vegetation and may contain rare threatened species, optimal configuration of the reserved areas and building envelopes should continue to be
039considerations. Also, the reserved area is mostly in flood zone AE and to the northwest and includes areas of steep slopes. The town code requires that reserved areas be marked as reserved area for use of residents of the subdivision and possible dedication dedicated to the economy stamp. The map should be revised accordingly and the applicant should detail their intention or preference for the future use of the reserved areas and we note that there are opportunities to connect to the nearby trail uh network in Montalk County Park to the southeast uh which should be explored. The board should discuss whether the applicant should provide a reeducation plan for the reserved area, particularly where the pavement will be removed. You note that there are wetlands shown in green here, um, between the runway and taxi way, which will
040likely migrate and expand once the pavement is removed. Therefore, it's recommended that a revitation plan be provided to help this land return to its natural state. The town code requires that a reserved area or scenic easement be provided along public roads at least 10% of the block depth as a natural buffer. Currently, the road frontage for all of one and most of lot 2 are cleared and the applicant should provide a reveation plan for this area. Um, and the revised submission should confirm whether a reserved area or scenic easement will be used to provide this buffer would be approximately 42 ft wide. and the board has the author authority to wave this requirement. However, the planning department recommends that it be provided and the board should discuss if it agrees. Next is dimensional regulations and
041our report provides a detailed breakdown of the lot sizes and total area of the reserved area. The applicant could should confirm whether the proposed lot areas for lot three and four exclude the flag poles accordingly. It appears that they were not excluded and if not the lot area for three and four would be further would be reduced. This would require consideration by the board regarding whether to approve lot areas below the 200,000 square foot minimum lot area in the A5 zoning district. The board has the authority to reduce the required lot area for an open space subdivision and routinely does this to create clustered designs. In this instance, we recommend approving lot sizes in this location. Reduce lot sizes with is appropriate given that there are sensitive natural features surrounding and this would also help
042the lots from protruding into the wetlands to the east and would maintain rectangular block shapes. Um, however, the planning department does recommend that the applicant confirm the lot size before the board determines whether the proposed lot sizes and configurations are acceptable. Well, most of lot one is in flood hazard zone AE. The planning department recommends that this is generally acceptable since alternative lot configurations would impact wetlands with rare plant species, areas of steep slope, and move the proposed lots further from East Lake Drive, which would negatively impact firefighting capabilities. The applicant is advised that future development on lot one would require compliance with FEMA standards. This would require the base floor elevation to be approximately 2 feet above grade which could impact aesthetics. Noting the sensitive natural landscape, the planning department recommends that field surveys
043to identify the presence of threatened endangered species, a special concern be conducted. And should these species be located within lot areas, mapping of building envelopes to avoid these areas would be recommended. Conservation easement may be another method for protecting sensitive areas such as beach vegetation. Just to note that beach vegetation is shown north of this runway across lots 2, three, and four. So it's about a third of that area. Um identifying some of the species of concern requires field inspections at appropriate times of the year. The applicant should propose a work plan uh which the planning department would review for adequacy. There are missing submission items that are required by the town code and should be added at this time. Our report includes a detailed list and the more involved items are we want testful
044data proposed five fire hydrants as well as the proposed drainage system with preliminary calculations. Next is proposed access. I'm just going to zoom in on the access ement shown there with the dashed gray. The submitted map indicates a proposed access and utility easement along the southeast property lines of lot two and three which would appear to serve all four lots. The applicant should confirm whether that is the intended use for the proposed easement. Lot one and lot two both have adequate width for individual driveways. However, the planning department recommends that the board requires four the four parcels to share a common driveway to reduce curb cuts. The board should determine that it if it agrees and since East Lake Drive is a town collector road, direct access from individual lots may not be uh generally
045allowed for the town code. The easement includes two flag poles which are proposed as parts of lots three and four and are approximately about 27 1/2 ft wide for a total width of 54.98 ft. Only 25 ft of rightway is required by the town code. Um given the width, the applicant should consider should confirm that the proposal is for a common driveway and not a new roadway. And the applicant should consider reducing this width to 25 ft for the easement and provide plans for a common driveway with a cleared width of 22 feet and an improved width of 18 ft. uh along with an fernound area at the end of the driveway as well as a turnoff area that should be indicated in accordance with chapter 220 of the town code. Next is drainage and
046storm water control. Um our town consulting engineer details that the proposed access could be designed in a manner that conforms to drainage standards. However, the means providing such uh must be submitted. Regarding topography, the slopes across the property range from nearly level to steeply steeply sloping um on the northwest side of the runway. There appears to be some areas with slopes of 20% or greater, most of which are in the reserved area to the northwest and some appear to the northwest of levels three and four. The map should be revised to indicate these areas of steep slopes and it's recommended that the board require that building envelopes which exclude any areas of 20% or greater be added to the map at this time. Sanitary systems are not indicated and they will need to be added
047and removed in accordance with county standards. The fire marshall reviewed this application and provided a sketch that was put together by the Montalk fire department. This shows that two high fire hydrants are proposed. Those are shown with those blue circles. Um and that's where the location should be if they offer two. This pinkish circle shows where it would be um if they only offer one fire hydrant sort of more towards the center. and that should be added to the revised map. At this time, the fire department will eventually need to approve the application. The applicant submitted a letter to the assistant chief at the department, but is yet to submit a response letter. Um, a quick correction from the engineers report noted that the areas of 20% slopes or more should be reduced from the
048lot area. That was an error and they only need to be taken away from buildable area um which should be reflected on building envelopes. Regarding other review for this project, the zoning board feels we need to approve future natural resources permits likely on some or all of the lots for construction. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for potential freshwater wetland permits and storm water pollution prevention plan as part of this proposal. Suffach County Planning Commission review is required given its proximity to the county park. The fire marshall must review and submit a written report to the Montalk fire department which will eventually need to approve the proposed fire hydrants. South County Department of Health Service will need to approve the final map but not this preliminary application. And as mentioned, the FAA needs
049to approve the closure of the airport. So in conclusion, the application's incomplete pending the revision of the issues mentioned, the EF should be revised accordingly and missing submission items should be provided. The board should discuss the lot and reserved areas configuration and if potential adjustments to these may be needed, pending identification of other protected features and threatened or endangered species. The board should also discuss whether the proposed building envelope should be adjusted or whether a conservation easement should be considered to protect sensitive areas such as beach vegetation. The board should discuss whether they will require reveation plans for the proposed reserve area and for natural roughford along East Lake Drive for 10% of the lot depth. The board should also discuss proposed access and whether the lots should be required to share a common driveway
050and whether the width of this easement should be reduced to 25 ft. And more straightforward questions for the board to consider uh are listed in our report um for you all to form a consensus part of your discussion. Thank you. Good. Thanks Chris for a very thorough report. Does the applicant wish to be heard? Please identify yourself for the record. Eric, uh, good evening, Ed. Members of the board, Eric Brown from Acriman Partners, 34 Pentagon Road for the applicant. Um, I I'm really here to listen to, you know, to you guys talk about the project. It's obviously, you know, a complicated one and we're, you know, early days into this. So, you know, as far as I'm concerned, unless you have questions, you know, for me, which I'll be happy to answer. Um, you know,
051I would just like to hear you guys discuss it and I'll make notes and we'll, you know, await the communication from the staff and the board about, uh, you know, the various additional items that need to be uh that need to be submitted in order to move it forward. >> Good. Thank you. >> Uh, yeah, that's that sort of works perfectly. Reed, before I turn it over to you, I just want to say that, you know, this is a preliminary subdivision review, right? So, we are really not going to make any any hard and fast decisions. We're providing direction to you, giving you some idea about what we might decide in the future. But, uh, anyway, I just wanted to say that a caveat before we start read. >> Yeah, thank you, Ed. Um, I
052just want to take a moment and thank Chris Decker. thought it was a very detailed memo and I thought he did a very nice job of explaining it. I think it's a very good uh initial evaluation. I would say that on my Christmas list, I would like to see the town buy this uh parcel. Um yeah, I know that town had had an opportunity uh just a few short years ago, I think in 2021 to buy it, but uh for whatever reason, a deal was not able uh to be pulled together. Um, you know, we're dealing with a large 38 acre parcel here in a very environmentally sensitive area with wetlands and dunes. Um, and you know, the current current status is it's privately owned and uh the FA grant or the loan grant assurance,
053whatever you want to call it, expires in 2027. So, the applicant has the right uh to redevelop this property. Um, and overall, I think the plan has some sensible aspects to it. Um, you know, number one, it's appropriate with the zoning A5 residents. It meets the open space requirements. Almost 50% of the land is preserved. Um, the applicant ha can have up to five lots um in this uh subdivision. They're only proposing four and the proposal is really minimizing the potential impact. Um, the proposed redevelopment is a less intense use than an airport. I think we'd all agree with that. Um, I would say that the memo that the town has put out on this is completely reasonable. Um, it's a very environmentally sensitive area like I previously mentioned. Uh, so we need to play
054this one by the book. And, you know, I think that the environmental assessment form definitely needs some substantial um, revisions. uh something that wasn't addressed in the memo and I don't even know if this is uh a major point or not and maybe I should preface this by saying this airport I do not believe they uh allow fueling at this airport. >> No fuel. >> Okay. But with that being said, it's been used for a while as an airport. I don't know if you'd have to do any remediation for contaminating substances. I I know firefighting foam fuel corros don't have any idea. I don't know much about aviation. Um, but it might be something that uh might make some sense. Um, in reference to the layout, I think the layout is acceptable. I think it
055uh it's fine. I don't have a problem with lot one being in an AE zone. I don't think that's a major issue uh whatsoever. Um, and the the final thing I I did want to say is that we do not know um the amount of traffic going in and out of that airport. Um, I get the sense that the Montak airport is not that busy. Um, but something that was stated by Chris Decker and it's also in the memo is that once this airport's closed, that traffic is not going to disappear. It's going to go elsewhere and it will likely come into East Hampton Airport. So, I I just wanted to mention that and I think it's something we need to be cognizant of going forward. So, that's really all I had. >> Sorry, >>
056you you have a question obviously. Do we know the number of operations at the airport? And an operation, by the way, a landing is one operation. Takeoff is another operation. So down up is count of two operations. Do we know the number of operations at the Montalk airport? >> We do, but I don't know it off the top of my head. Michael, I'll I'll get you I'll get you the data. >> And okay, >> it's not it's >> my Okay. >> Yeah, if you can please. >> My question is to read. >> It's not a it's not a huge number of flights. I mean, compared to, you know, what you see at, you know, at East Hampton. But >> do you know where they come from? Do they come from New York City? Are they
057coming from >> wherever? I mean, oddly enough, my father who was a airline pilot after he retired used to fly out and visit us from upstate New York and they would they would land here. So, you know, and you know, so it's a variety of different, you know, of of different sources >> and I I believe there are lessons given there, too. So I think >> yeah I yeah I think this is a flight school >> probably you know beginner >> right but but this is exactly why we we're you know the recommendation is we're calling for a study of exactly this what it what is the traffic how much and what is it >> right >> and what is it like what's exactly >> limit of the size >> and can it be absorbed
058>> somewhere elsewhere elsewhere >> yeah Well, there's a >> I live by the East Hampton airport, so uh >> we get a lot of helicopter traffic overhead, so any increase is gonna >> disrupt a lot of uh poor folks in Wayne Scott. Uh my question is about the It's a private airport. >> Yes. >> Which means Well, they've accepted grant assurances. >> Yes. So the once those expire, they can do whatever they want or are we going to have a judge issue a temporary restraining order and said you can't close the airport or I I I I don't know. I I think I correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the FAA oversight ends after 20 years. And if they took the grand assurance in 2007, come 2027, >> right? I mean, I I
059understand you'll need more documentation from the FAA, but our FAA council, you know, having spoken to the agency has basically said that their primary concern was the expiration of the the grant that Reed was talking about, which expires in in 27. And you know, >> it's not a public. >> Yeah. No, it is not it is not a public difference between East Hampton and and I know what you're getting at. Well, the East Hampton airport was they tried to make it private >> and they had those grant assurances and that was correct. That was very important. It was to us near the airport and once it was expired, >> we we had high hopes. >> I I understand. >> Uh uh where do the where do the medevacs take off out in Montalk? Like if
060there is a serious injury, where do the helicopters land? Do they they go there? Is there another location? depending it depends on where the injury is. So the firehouse is one location. I believe the airport is another location >> and I think the west overlook is another. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think it is. >> So if this is gone that just one less spot for a emergency helicopter to land. Okay. >> Is that it, Michael? >> Yeah. >> Sorry. >> Thank you. All right. >> Chomping at the bit all day. >> Yeah, exactly. I I can tell you these were well formulated questions. Bruce, would you like to comment? >> Yeah, I just have I think one question and why are the lot sizes significantly different? So, we go from like [Applause] 40, it's
061almost over an acre between lot one and lot four. >> I'm just wondering why they're a little they're not more uniform. And if the flag poles were included in those um I'll have to check with uh with Drew Bender to see if the flag poles were included. Uh I believe the the intention just in that regard was to have you know just a regular flag, you know, just a regular common driveway entrance. In terms of in terms of the size, Bruce, all I can say is that you know the the surveyor's brief in creating the map was to try and you know get a four lot yield out of this in you know in deference to the you know to the to the site conditions. And so that's really you know that's really how it
062lays out. It has it has nothing you know as you guys have pointed out there's a lot of stuff going on on this site. You know, you can see that the the location of the lots is obviously, you know, pushed to what is the probably the least sensitive portion and then the rest of the the rest of the property, which gets more sensitive as you as you go out, has been proposed for, you know, preservation. >> Okay. And I think I would be in favor of a common driveway for >> sure. Okay. We're going to get to that question. >> A more narrow driveway. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Jennifer, >> hi. Um, thank you everybody for all of the great comments on this. I um, one quick question about the lots kind of to
063piggyback on what Bruce said about the differing sizes. Are the lots also situated? Is that the width of the runway currently? Is that or is it does it over >> the you can see I think yeah if you go in okay so that that right there is the width of the runway >> and so it would be so yeah. So I think, you know, given the fact that it's been an airport since 19 30 something. >> Yeah. 36 I think. >> 60s. >> Okay. East Tampa airport's 38. >> I wonder. Yeah. I I do think there might be some sort of um remediation that needs to be done once you remove the the runways and all that stuff because there probably was fueling there at some point if there is not if there is not
064now. Um, but I, you know, I do think the design is fine. It's a, you know, long narrow piece of property. It meets all the zoning requirements. My one question goes to the trail system because it would be nice to have the trails, you know, >> connect to that area so you could kind of, you know, people could walk all the way through those that trail area. I don't disagree and I'm certainly something we'd look at. Yeah, >> that's kind of it. >> All right. Thanks, Jen. Ava, would you like to comment? >> Um, I don't really have much to add. Everyone had very good comments here. Um, just to kind of stem up what you were saying with the revitation when the that uh p when the uh runway is pulled up, you know,
065that reserve area, I would like to see like Reed alluded to, the town had an opportunity to purchase that at one point. Perhaps that becomes a covenant to deed back to the town of East Hampton. >> We can certainly talk about it. Absolutely. >> Okay, good. Um, yeah. No, listen, I think that we're off to a really great start. Uh it's it's uh a good first take. Um I do and the questions that we're about to do will actually get to the heart of this, but you know, I do real agree with the planning department's valuation of what the potential for adverse impacts could be, >> right? I I think they're pretty irrefutable. The first is the the whole issue of diverting traffic to a new airport. What does that mean for the receiving airport?
066You know, and what does that data look like? you know, how many, what kind of flights, that kind of thing. As everyone's been talking about, the community character is the second thing. Um, you know, impacts to, you know, the natural environment there, very sensitive, right in the middle of the county park. Um, and the possibility of the need for remediation. So, you know, I think personally that there, you know, we have identified some, you know, clearly uh, you know, potentially potentially adverse impacts. Um, so I think that will determine how I'm going to answer the questions, right? So it's so we're gonna get to that. >> Thank you. >> All right. So the first question is, does the planning board agree the full EAF part one must be revised to address the comments above in
067this document? Yes. Okay. Great. Of course. Uh, does the planning board agree with the planning department's preliminary assessment that the project will be considered a type one act type one action which will likely receive a positive declaration? And again, we're not making that declaration. >> Yes, we're just talking about >> right everyone is everyone's a yes on that. Okay. Does the planning board agree the applicant should submit full copies of all grant assurances from the FAA and copies of written correspondence with the FAA to confirm that the FAA consents and what approvals are required from them to facilitate the eventual closure of Monty airport? >> Yes. >> And can we add to that um that we would like to see reports of what the traffic is that will potentially be diverted because I don't think
068that's in any of the other questions. No operations or operations. Yeah. >> Yeah. Like the flight traffic, not traffic. >> All right. So, >> uh, so we could add to that. We we could revise the sentence and say the planning board agree the applicant should submit oper, you know, airport operation detail, let's say, and full copies of. >> All right. So, are we good as revised? Yeah. Okay. >> Airport operations. Uh, does the planning board agree the applicant should provide a revge plan for the reserved area and for a natural buffer along East Lake Drive for 10% of the proposed lot depths? >> Yes. All around. Okay. Does the planning board agree the applicant should confirm that flag poles were excluded from the proposed lot areas and if not that these areas should be revised
069accordingly? >> Yes. >> Um, okay. will probably change with the common driveway anyway. >> Yeah. >> Yes, I think it will. >> Um, and then question six, does the planning board agree that the applicant should provide the submission items required by section 220-2.08 of the town code? Those were the things that Chris talked about like test data, fire hydrant locations, you know, those that list the things. >> Everyone's a yes on that, right? >> Okay. Does the planning board agree that the four proposed lots should be required to share a common driveway? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh does planning board agree that the building envelopes which exclude any areas of 20% slopes or greater be added to the preliminary map and may be potentially required to be further restrictive based on field surveys.
070We didn't really talk about that. >> We didn't talk about that, but I think I think and that's part of the town code anyway, right? The 20%. >> Yeah. So, >> okay, everyone's a yes on that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Does the pling board agree that a conservation easement should be considered to considered to protect beach vegetation and provide a natural buffer? >> Yeah, that would be great. Um, all right. So, those are the questions. I think we're done for tonight. >> Mr. Brown, >> thank you very much. Hopefully, that was helpful >> as always. >> Okay. Thanks very much. Right. So our next application is 531 Monttok EV chargers site plan and Aaron that is you and Reed the board. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think so. I have to >> you're accused on both
071of these, right? >> And is this a quorum? This is a quorum. >> We're good. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Five. Yeah, >> so this is uh this is a site plan evaluation for EV chargers at 531 Montalk Highway. The site is 4.6 acres or approximately 200,000 square ft. It is zoned A in a residential foring affordable housing overlay. The affordable housing consists of six twotory apartment buildings and a equipment building. Currently the currently the site has 74 parking spots, four of which are ADA compliant which is following what is required for this lot. >> May I interrupt just for one second, Eric? Would you mind speaking a little bit? Thanks. The site currently has 74 parking spots, four of which are ADA compliant, which follows the requirements on the lot. Uh there is a
072proposal to put in four EV chargers consisting of two poles with backto-back chargers and four ballards and an H frame to hold electrical service equipment to the side. Uh they want to use four existing parking spaces on the property, one of which is ADA compliant. All chargers and parking spaces will be labeled as EV chargers only. The height of the charger with the pole will be approximately 8 ft. Uh the upgraded electrical equipment will be in the form of a new 200 amp 120 or 208 volt electrical meter and a new 200 amp uh panel, a miniature circuit breaker. And that will all be attached to a H frame. Um we believe that this is a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality and review actra and town co. Uh the fire marshall
073has reviewed the site as part of the normal process to review site plans and after reviewing the documents uh provided the fire marshall found that the proposed project is ADA compliant and no additional comments were given. Um during the process of reviewing this, we looked at change a little bit. One of the spots that were going to be used were uh ADA compliant and it's an existing spot which would be converted to EV charger only. Um after talking to the fire marshal, uh when you put an EV charger only sign on EV charger on ADA compliant spot, it effectively removes an ADA compliant spot. uh with the the parcel currently has four ADA compliance spots and it's only required to currently have three at 74 parking spaces. As such, with the removal of one parking
074one ADA compliance spot, it will still meet the minimum. I also want to note that at the time of writing the memo and the evaluation, it was mentioned that not all parking dimensions were provided, but after further review, uh that is incorrect. And I just want to add that the that dimension was indeed uh on the site plan. Uh the archite uh we also want to note that uh in addition to the formal site plan review, the proposed project will also require approval from the architectural review board for new structures on the site as pursuant to of the town code. and the applicant in the site plan and architectural drawings mentioned that there will be EV charger only signage attached to poles. However, neither document provided shows dimensions of such items and applicants should submit
075the actual dimensions of such items to the ARB uh to ensure compliance. Additionally, uh the planning department recommends this project be deemed a minor site plan as no variances are required, health department approval is not required. The proposed work will be approximately 30 square feet and no additional parking will be requested. Um also no visual impairment is believed to exist and no current public controversy exists. Um not and additionally not all information was provided as part of this application which uh we we believe as the planning department should be clarified. There should be a clarity if any new or modified lighting is intended. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether the location of the EV charger stations is appropriate, if the quantity of parking spaces is good, uh, including those reserved for ADA accessibility is
076adequate, and if any additional information or changes to the plans are needed, and additionally, uh, whether to wave the public hearing requirement as part of marking it as a minor site plan. >> Okay, great. Thank you, Erin. Does the applicant wish to be heard? name and address, please, for the record. Hello, my name is Oscar Ramirez. Address is 531 Eabonic. Uh, I'm here just to answer whatever questions the board may have about the virus project. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. Uh, Reed, I think this is you, please. Good evening. Uh Katie Casey from the East Hampton Housing Authority, 316 Abonic Road. Uh I just wanted to say that um we do have some residents that require EV chargers. These are level twos we're proposing. Um they would be open to the public. They
077are primarily to serve the residents so that um they don't have to do what they're currently doing and that is running an extension cord across a sidewalk which is which is >> sounds a little dangerous. >> They they can't charge at home. They have to charge at a so um just so you know that really is the purpose of this. not only to contribute to the infrastructure but primarily to serve the residents of housing authority properties. >> Thank you. >> Is that is that billable to them by the way or is this for char was this being charged to them? Is it >> Yes. >> pay, right? >> It's it's to pay. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So members of the public could potentially Yes. And pay. Okay. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you, Katie. Um All
078right. Great. >> Thank you. Thank you, Ed. Um, yeah, we're seeing a lot more of these EV charging uh applications. Um, this one's easy. It's a minor site plan. It's a simple conversion of port four parking spots to EV charging. I'd be in favor of waving the public hearing. Um, and I support the application. I don't have any problems with it. >> Okay, good. Anyone else have any comments? >> I agree with Reed. >> Yeah, me too. >> Absolutely. >> All right, so let's answer the questions. Does the board find the location of the proposed EV charging stations appropriate? >> Yes. Yes. Looks good to me. >> Does the board find the quantity of parking spaces, including ADA accessible spaces, adequate? >> Aaron explained that it was. >> Should the applicant revise the plans to
079provide the dimensions of the EV charging only parking spaces? Yes, they've been provided. >> Right. That was as Aaron said. What else we got here? Uh, should the applicant clarify if any new or proposed modified lighting is intended to be included as part of the project? >> Yes. If there's going to be, we like to know. >> Does the planning board agree this proposal qualifies as a minor site plan and that accordingly the public hearing will be waved? >> Yes. >> Yeah. In agreement on that? Yes. >> Thanks. So, moving right along to 316 aonic EV charger site plan. Aaron, it's up to you again. And Bruce, this time it's you. >> Yes. So, this is another uh for 316 Aavonic Road. This is another EV charger site plan. It is located um on 316
080Abonic Road on Aonic Road. Um it is 28.6 acres or approximately 12 1.2 million square ft. It is zoned a res under the residential affordable housing overlay. The affordable housing site consists of 10 two-story apartment buildings, one-story uh center and a paid parking area. The site is within the south for special groundwater protection area and is also designated by the subway county as parents. The site currently has 100 parking spaces which is based off of um based off of the general building permit information from 1992. Uh they want to put in four EV chargers consisting of two poles with backto-back chargers and four ballards. They want to convert four existing parking spaces on the property, one of which will be ADA compliant. However, as will be seen will be seen later in the plan. Um
081this propos this proposal conflicts with what is um on the architectural review. The total height of the charges will be approximately 8 ft. Uh the project is a uh the p the planning department believes this is a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality interview act SRA and town code. Uh type two actions are not subject to additional review under SRA. The fire marshall reviewed the plans um as per normal protocol and found that the narrative alludes to a ADA accessible EV charger space. However, no such spot is on the site plan or architectural plan. Um the planning department recommends that this project be deemed a minor site plan as no variances are required. House department approval is not required. The proposed work will be approximately 30 square ft and no additional parking
082will be requested. No visual impairment is believed to exist and no public no current public controversy exists. In addition to the formal site plan review, the proposed project will also require approval from the architectural review board for new structures on the site as pursuant to of the town code. The applicant in the site plan architectural drawings provided mentions to EV charging only signage attached to poles. Neither document provided shows uh shows dimensions of such items. The applicant should submit the actual dimensions of such items to the ARB to ensure compliance. Existing lighting and proposed location of signs, fences, screenings, plantings and exterior stuff needs to is shall be provided as required by the town of East Hampton planning board guidelines for lighting as adopted by the planning board. However, not all lighting information was provided
083as part of the application and the applicant should clarify if any new or modified lighting is intended. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether the location of the EV charging stations is appropriate, if the quantity of parking spaces is adequate, if any additional information or changes to the plans required, and whether to wave the public hearing requirement as it will be as marked by a minor site plan. >> Thank you, Aaron. Does the applicant wish to be heard on 316? >> Joe, did All right, good, Bruce. >> Yeah, ditto for me as well. Um, no, uh, you know, we're almost on a 30 acre site. Uh, these won't be seen from anywhere from a public road. Um, I really don't have an issue with this. Okay. >> Yeah, I think it's I think it's great.
084>> Anyone else? >> I Bruce was I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on the parking space issue and signage. Those are two things that I you mentioned. >> Yes. So the applicant in the narrative mentioned that they will be providing one ADA compliant spot uh just like on the 531. However, looking at the site plan um and as the fire marshall of the site plan and he commented he does not see um an ADA compliant spot despite what they stated in their narrative. And the signage is the same with um the first site of 531 where they state they're going to put up EV charging only poles. However, they don't state the size of the poles which is required when going to ARB. So that's for when they go to ARB, they should know. >>
085All right. So there is not a charger on an ADA client parking spot. >> Currently it does not look like that. >> Okay. All right. Just as long as we're all clear about that. >> But are they're including one per New York State code, right? Um they on their narrative they say they are but in the site plan >> in the site plan it's not >> and the site plan does not look like one is marked as 88 compliant. >> So I guess they should just clarify that. >> Okay. >> All right. So we'll add that to the questions I guess. Right. Um All right. So does the board find the location of the proposed EV charging stations appropriate? >> Yes. Yes. >> That's good. Should the applicant clarify if any AD compliance bases are
086a part of this project? Yes. Okay. >> Um, should the applicant clarify if any new or proposed modified letting is intended to be included as part of this project? >> Yes. >> Does planning board agree this proposed proposal qualifies as a minor site plan and that accordingly a public hearing will be waved? >> Yes. Yes, we all agree on that. We're all good, Katie. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, we should wave to Ava out there. Can you just tell >> when you pass by Ava? >> Aa. Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. So, we're moving on. We're knocking these things off one by one. Our next application is the St. Michael's basement alteration site plan. Um Eric, I think you're taking that for Sarah. Is that right? >> Yep. I'm going to cover this for Sarah. >>
087Okay. And good. And that's Jen. >> Same. >> Um and are are you here for the applicant? No. >> Okay. Great. Thanks. >> All right, Eric. >> Okay. Um just give me one second here with screen sharing. Just want to show you where the parcel is located in town by showing an aerial. Um although most people know where St. Michael's is. Um, it's been a while since the planning board seen this application. Um, but it's a site plan application made to approve a uh basement alterations that were made without site plan approval. Uh, the application is for alterations to the basement of the westernmost building, which contains the community center and manager's apartment. A former storage area was converted to living space as an addition to the existing manager's apartment. The alteration converted 469 ft
088in the basement interior and built a 22 ft exterior basement stairwell for additional access. Um the property is uh roughly 5.36 acres. Uh and site plan approval was granted in 2010 for the um affordable housing development that exists on site which is a senior senior only housing development. Um so the the time that the board last reviewed this um which was in October uh of 2022 um clarification was requested regarding compliance with the building code. Um, basically the only outstanding issue was a fire marshall sign off um, as there was an issue with the uh, the design of the interior space. And I'll show you the floor plan here. Um, and you can see it um, highlighted where that change was made. Um, the fire marshall has since looked at the floor plans and signed
089off on the application. Um the board said at the time of last review, provided that the fire marshall finds the floor plans to be acceptable and verifies this for the board, the application will be complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. So accordingly, we believe that the application is complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. >> Okay, just identify yourself for record. >> Hi, Samantha Malone from Tarbet and Lester on behalf of the applicant. um just here in case you have any questions and um would like to hear your thoughts. >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. Uh Jan, >> um I do want to disclose I have had one exparte communication with the manager of the um housing authority and she was just asking when this was possibly
090going to be scheduled. It was a few months ago and I did not know. So I don't think it changes anything that I would say. Um, I think it's fine. I mean, it's it's already it's it's been built. The only thing we were asking for, I know this is pretty much a new board since 2022, but I think, you know, the only thing we had requested was the fire marshal sign off and he did so. I'm in favor of scheduling a public hearing. >> Okay, great. Any other comments from anyone? >> No. >> Okay, then let answer the question. We're all really in agreement. Um, does the board find the apartment's design acceptable or should it require any additional conditions of approval? >> Acceptable. Right. >> Yeah. >> Does the planning board find the application
091complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing? >> Yes. >> All right. Unanimous. We're all in agreement. >> Woohoo. >> Thank you, Samantha. >> Okay. Uh so we are now on to 267 acronic. Uh that is our next application and that >> me as well. >> That is you and that is Eric once again. >> Yep. >> Um so this is an application to subdivide an approximately 1.2 acre lot um having frontage on Akabonic Road into two lots. one of approximately 28,000 square ft, one of approximately 24,000 ft² in the B resident zoning district where the minimum lot area is 20,000 square ft. Um so at the last meeting the board held a public hearing for the application. No members of the public spoke at that hearing. Um one letter was received from
092a neighbor who was concerned over impacts of having drainage control uh structures installed right at their property line to the south. The applicants have since amended the plans to locate the drainage structures on the north side of the proposed common driveway, correcting the potential for any possible intrusion onto the neighboring property during installation or servicing. Um the town engineer has signed off on the project as has the fire marshal. So in conclusion, provided the board agrees, it appears that the application is ready for approval. Um we noted three sort of unique conditions of approval that the applicants complete the reveation. there was a revitation plan um associated with this application. Um the applicant will need to complete an urban renewal map modification and um the applicant will be required to legalize or remove um the
093existing shed and fencing on the on proposed lot one um prior to a CO being issued on that lot. Um so uh that's basically it and in conclusion um we feel the the application is ready for approval if the board agrees. >> Okay. I should have asked this question earlier. Sir, are you the applicant on this? >> Is this uh this isn't a baby, right? >> No, it's not a baby. >> I'm a baby. >> I don't know. Do we have a bay view? >> Yeah. >> Let's see. >> Just a second. We have Hartley. >> Who was the email? Was it from the planning department? >> I have the email. I'm sorry. >> Was it from the planning department? The email? I'm just curious. >> 6:30. >> What's in your application, please? >> It's
094for Bay 18 or 20 bay. >> 20 bay. Thank you. >> Was it from the >> uh you sure it was for this board, not for ZBA or ARV? >> We met on it already. >> Yeah. >> Looked familiar. >> Yeah. [Music] >> Is it Seanster? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I don't know. No. I don't know. Here, let me come and get your information and I'll >> Thanks. >> All right. We We don't want you to have to do this again. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But we you know, we usually don't love for people to zoom into these things, but >> we'll let you do that. So, wait a minute. So, the applicant is not here for 267. >> Interesting. >> Okay. Is that an issue? Is that a problem? >> Because this >> Yes,
095Lester. >> Yeah, it was. Yeah, it was. You forgot to show the second one, I guess. >> All right. Well, this is really a wrap up, so I don't think that this is an issue. Okay. Um, >> and Jen, this is you. >> I think they've kind of complied with everything we've asked. I do think that the, you know, the one comment from the neighbor, I think it was addressed >> Yeah. >> adequately and I think it's ready for approval. >> Everyone agree with that? >> Absolutely. Unanimous around. Okay. >> Those are the two questions. >> All right. So, we bet we go Do we find that the public's concerns have been adequately addressed? Yes. Really just the driveway neighbor driveway issue. Is the application ready for approval? Yes. Done. Okay. Very good. So now
096we're going to move on to 21 hard. Okay. The applicant is here. I see. Um all right. So that is who's doing that? That is >> Eric. That is Eric again. Yes, indeed. >> Okay. Um, so hopefully you can see the aerial photograph here. This is sort of a far shot of where the properties are located in town. Um, I will zoom in to show you closer. Um, keep in mind these are tax map parcel boundaries, not UR parcel boundaries. Um, and then I just want to show you quickly the existing configuration in the proposed, although that's not going to show you a ton. um this sketch might be the most helpful um for the board's discussion. And what I'm going to do is zoom in a little bit and let you take a look
097at this um sketch. So this is a request to modify a UR map in order to increase the size of UR parcel 11 from 12,000 ft to 20,000 square ft and in turn reduce the size of UR parcel number 14 from 18,000 ft to 10,000 square ft. Um the parcel of zone B residence with no overlay. It's currently vacant and surrounded by developed residential properties. Um this is an application that is just a UR map modification request. There isn't an associated subdivision um or other planning board application. So as such sort of your charge for tonight is to send comments to the town board. Um the board received a report from the town engineer uh that recommends approval of the requested modification given the circumstances related to ownership um which I'll get into. Um so
098the applicant's proposal would result in UR in a UR parcel that is made conforming to minimum lot area in the B resident zoning district as it would meet the 20,000 ft² minimum. It also will not uh increase housing unit density in this already densely developed area of town. However, as a result of making UR parcel number 11 larger, UR parcel number 14 would shrink and become more nonconforming to minimum lot area. Uh, it's important for the board to note the ownership of the multiple pieces or lots that must be combined under common ownership in order to complete urban renewal parcels 11 andor number 14. So as you look at this map which is colorcoded here um you'll see in yellow the ownership of uh the Palmes in orange Sterling Place JPAP which is a co-licant
099with the Palm Mees in green are portions that are owned by the town of East Hampton and in pink are portions that are owned by an owner identified as John Smith. Um, so it's a little tough to see on this sketch, but if you notice the dark line, property line, um, that's in between 41 and 42 as identified here, that is the boundary of UR parcel 11, um, which is everything to the left of that. And then the boundary of it's also the boundary of UR parcel number 14, which is everything to the right of that, um, bold line. So just keep that in mind as you look at this. Um all lots needed in order to complete UR parcel number 11 um which are identified as lots 36 through 41 are currently owned by
100either the Palmes or Sterling Place JPAP as co-licants for this modification. Sterling Place owns lots 42 through 45 which are required under the current UR map to be part of UR parcel number 14. The town of East Hampton purchased lots 46 through 48 with the small lots fund for the purpose of preservation and John Smith is listed as the owner of record for lots 49 and and 50 which are required under the current UR map to be part of UR parcel number 14. So the applicants do not need the requested UR map modification to obtain a building permit for UR parcel number 11 and could obtain one at this time. However, unless a modification to UR parcel number 14 is approved, Sterling Place JPAP will not be able to utilize or build on the portion
101of UR parcel 14 that they currently own. The subject modification request would alleviate this burden for the applicants. Uh the modification would reduce UR parcel number 14 in size and make it more non-conforming to required minimum lot area. However, it appears the UR parcel 14 is current currently unbuildable and would require an urban renewal map modification irrespective of whether or not the subject UR map modification is granted. Um, in order to be so, um, this stems from the fact that the town purchased lots 46 through 48 in the middle of UR parcel number 14. Um, the board should note that in order for a building permit to be issued on a UR parcel, all lots that comprise that parcel as depicted on the UR map must be in common ownership. Currently, various portions of UR
102parcel 14 are owned by Sterling Place, the town of East Hampton, and John Smith. The portion of UR parcel number 14, purchased by the town of East Hampton, was done so with a fund, and for a purpose that designates it as open space. any transfer of ownership to a private party by the town would constitute parkland alienation. So basically it's not a solution for the town to sell its portion of it. Um therefore it appears that the only two viable options with relation to resolving the ownership problem between the town and Sterling Place JPAP is to either one modify the urban renewal map as proposed um and place the lands in ownership of Sterling Place with those of them and Palmi in UR parcel 11 enlarging that parcel or two um for the town to
103purchase the portions of UR parcel number 14 owned by Sterling Place in order to add to the existing parkland. Um, in order to resolve the ownership issue between the town and John Smith, it appears that either one in urban renewal map modification and subdivision application to create a new UR parcel by turning UR parcel number 14 into one smaller buildable parcel under ownership of John Smith and one open space parcel under ownership of the town of East Hampton would need to be approved or two, the town would need to purchase the portion of UR parcel number 14 owned by John Smith in order to add to the existing parkland. Um, at this time the planning department has no objection to the map modification as proposed. We would normally express concern over the fact that UR
104parcel number 14 would be made more non-conforming, but it does not appear uh that this parcel is currently buildable due to the town's purchase of lots 46 through 48. As an alternative to the requested modification, the town of East Hampton could purchase the portion of UR parcel number 14 currently owned by Sterling Place. Um, the planning board should discuss these options and send comments to the town board, but must answer the following questions with regard to the subject modification proposal, not as an eitheror choice. So, in other words, you your um charge for the evening isn't to tell the town board whether or not they should purchase the portions of you are parcel 14 that are owned by Sterling Place to add to the parkland versus approving the the modification that's requested. you should just
105review the the merits of the subject modification application. Um so with that I will let the board uh discuss and um answer any questions that you have. >> Thank you Erica. I was able to keep score as we were kind of going through all of that. >> Uh the applicant does he wish to be heard? Yes. Okay. Richard Whan Whan Filer PLLC representing the applicants uh Stephen and Lauren Pauly Eric's memo is legally and factually correct. So I don't really have much to add. I will say one thing not I don't think it's in the memo but just so you understand Sterling Place is an LLC which the Palmes own. So they do control everything you see in yellow or orange they control. So, I I think my time is best spent seeing if you
106have any questions for me because I have really nothing to add to what Eric wrote. >> All right. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Um, all right. As this was an unassigned application, I'll I'll kick off the conversation. You know, I feel as though what's been proposed is really the most, you know, is really the the best and highest, you know, kind of use of these parcels, right? it because what we get is, you know, is a conforming buildable lot, right? And, you know, the uh the John Smith lot is really not developable anyway, right? Um you know, the the town the town purchase of number 148 is um you know, has sort of made that impossible to to kind of get around. It's always going to be that. Um and you know, perhaps they'll cough up
107a few bucks to buy it as well, right? and add to add to that open space. So, personally, I think the proposal is really the the best alternative. So, I'd like to hear from anyone else who >> I agree. I think it is. I think you're right. It creates one conforming lot. It preserves the open space that the town has already purchased and perhaps the town can reach out to Mr. Smith and make it a bigger arsenal. >> Anyone else have any other thoughts? Yeah, I agree. It took me a long time to figure this out. >> I read through this like 10 times. >> If I hadn't been on the pre >> It's like Jenga or something, right? >> Like, well, >> yeah. But yeah, I agree. I think it's the best use of
108of all those thoughts. Anyone else want to comment? >> No, my only question was the was the ownership, the relation and its common ownership. >> So, that makes really simple. Yeah. co-op. >> Do we have any idea what if the town is going to uh buy the Jade Smith property? Is that on the table since it's not it's not buildable, right? Because of the slopes. Is that why too small? >> Of course. >> Yeah, that's really the issue. So, it's up to them. >> We appraised our four file map lots of $300,000 spent zone two lots. So, tonight probably >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Nothing else. >> All right. Well, if if that being the case, does the board find the these proposed changes consistent with the urban renewal plan? >> Yes. Yes. >> Does
109the board find that the change requested is practical, noting the the the comments of the town engineer and planning department? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board recommend that the town board approve the requested map modification? >> Okay. Absolutely great. >> Good. >> All right, moving on. Thank you. >> Uh uh the next thing we're going to take up is accessory dwelling units. And Eric, that's uh you, I believe. >> Yep. Um so, basically, this is a uh board conversation to send comments to the town board. Um the town board's considering changes to the town code to help um uh facilitate the creation of addition additional accessory dwelling units or ADUs. Um I planning department prepared a memo and attached the specific code changes. Um I can put those up on the screen if if
110that's helpful, but they they span um a number of pages of code. Um basically in general um summarizing the code changes uh one of the main ones is the minimum lot area for an attached ADU um which is one that's within the principal structure would be reduced from 20,000 square ft to 15,000 square ft. Right now the requirement for an attached ADU and a detached so one that would be in a separate accessory building is 20,000 square ft. Um, this proposal includes reducing the minimum lot area for attached ADUs only, um, as they're seen as less obtrusive. Um, also, I guess a a large part of these changes are facilitating and making it possible for a second homeowner to be able to build an ADU. Um, I know when I was with the housing department,
111we got a lot of inquiries from residents in the town that were second homeowners. They wanted to build an ADU. um they like the idea of having someone on the property and also being able to utilize a somewhat underutilized property. Um and the town code currently prohibits that. So um included in that is um just saying um no longer requiring that either the home or the unit be um owner occupied as well as the owner's primary legal residence. So, in other words, some of the wording was changed so that a second homeowner can can have an ADU. Um, also uh related to that is the concept of allowing property owners that build an ADU to also um be eligible for the rental registry program. Um, right now they are not. I I think there was
112a fear that um you know that allowing Thor to rent out their home too would be you know um too much intensity of use on a property. Um but I think when you you look at it you know um somebody who doesn't have an ADU is allowed to put their property on the rental registry. Um, and there's nothing that's inherently, you know, implied that if somebody, you know, has their home, has an ADU, and then wants to go away for a month, um, and wants to rent out their home in the interim that that that's going to be problematic. And also, we really haven't seen any problems, um, with or certainly not widespread ones with disturbances and code enforcement issues with ADUs. So, um I think that that's uh we have a prohibition in the
113code right now that is really not necessary. Um some other sort of minor changes um but impactful is that right now there's a limitation that you can't park more than four vehicles on a site uh that has an ADU. Um the idea being to try to prevent there from being, you know, turning a front lawn into a parking lot or something like that. We haven't really experienced that. Also, if you have a home that probably needs space for two cars and then you have an ADU and you might have a couple in there that need space for two cars, what happens when someone visits? So, um, we're proposing to make that a little bit more accommodating and have it be a maximum of five. Um, also changing something that we had wanted to change for
114a while, which right now the code says that the ADU must be the tenants in quotes legal doicile. What that was really always intended to mean was their only legal doicile. Um because obviously if they're living there and they have a lease, it's a legal doicile. Um but the idea was that they don't have other housing elsewhere that they are someone who is in need that is um taking up that that ADU. So um it's proposed to change that requirement from legal doicile to sole legal residence. Um and then the remainder of the code changes are mostly just cleaning up um phrasing in the code including changing apartment to accessory dwelling unit um in in various areas of the code. So um again all of these are really designed around the concept of sort of
115loosening the restrictions on ADUs. Um you know I think a lot of the restrictions that exist in the code were put up for you know fear of there there being problems with ADUs. We haven't really seen that happen. And really what we've seen is the opposite, which is that not enough people have been able to build ADUs, particularly those that want to build them, um, and face impediments with code requirements, um, whether they be a second homeowner or the their lot is just a little too small. Um, so with that, I'll I'll leave it to a board discussion. Um, and you can form a consensus on any comments that you may want to send to the town. I have a question for you, Eric. So, and you may have explained this to me earlier today
116and I maybe not just absorbed it. So, when for second homeowners who are building an ADU, what what what's the profile of the tenant? Is it are there any additional restrictions on that or is it the same as any other ADU? Is it >> it it'd be the same as any other one? um where the tenant is required to income qualify um and be a resident. So um you know there are um you can put your family uh in that unit as well. Um but basically it's there aren't there are no added requirements or restrictions on tenency um beyond uh beyond what is required of of any you know um ADU. regardless of whether or not the owner is a second homeowner. I think that's the question. Sorry. >> Right. Okay. So, it's the same.
117Okay. >> Okay. >> Anyone else have any other questions for Eric? I >> I have one question. Um, one of the points is that the property owners would be permitted to participate in the rental registry. So, that is that's optional or will that be a requirement? >> No. No. So it's not um there's so the rental registry um is its own process. There's just to clarify there's also already a process where an ADU gets a permit um from OCD. Um so we're not saying it in the sense of they would have to go through the rental registry to do an ADU. We're not saying that. What we're saying is they can build an ADU and then the main home would still be eligible to be put on the rental registry. the property owner would have
118that option. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think that is a great improvement to the code because as Eric said, if you have the ADU, well, you suddenly you can't rent your house anymore. I think it's also good for older folks uh moving into the accessory building, the ADU, and then renting their their primary house. And I think these are very positive. Yeah, I mean I agree. I agree. >> Yeah, these all seem to really encourage, you know, I mean, take away some of the obstacles that people have really >> enhancing additional affordable housing with the amount of secondary homes that we have here. I think that's only a major benefit. >> It could be huge actually. >> Yeah. I mean right right away um I forget the exact figure
119but I think it's 55% of the house the homes uh and properties in the town are you know seasonal second homes. >> So right away more than half are you know essentially um cut out of the equation. So I think this is a good change. >> All right great. I I think this is great. I don't have any specific other comments the town. >> Yeah. So I think right so I guess in terms of a a comment direct comment from us I think we are >> is it fair to say we're all in agreement with the changes >> thumbs up is that what you need Eric from us >> sounds good >> okay >> all right so moving on to the regular meeting where we can whip through some of time and scheduling of public
120hearings and we're going to start with my call with American power >> the matter of the application of American Tower at 103 Flagihole Road site plan special permit personal wireless service facility extension of time and the extension of time on or till February 21, 2026. I've read the application and I move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Passion carried. AT&T at 103 Flaggi Hall. >> In the matter of the application of AT&T at 103 Flaggihole Road, tier 2A, administrative personal wireless service facility permit SCTM number 300-37-2-1. Um, this is an extension of time until ACO is issued or until December 26, 2025. I have read the resolution and I move for its adoption. >> Second. All in favor? >> Carried. Uh, moving on to Horizon at 411 Wayne Scott Northwest
121Road. >> Is that you? >> Yeah, >> that's the one I just slipped to you a moment ago. >> Oh, no. Oh. Oh, did I? Okay. >> Uh, wait a minute. Who? >> It's Verizon at 411. I have >> Who has that in their in their hand? I can read it quickly. All right. Go ahead, John. In the matter of the application of Verizon at 411 Wayne Scott Northwest Road, tier 2A, administrative personal wireless service facility permit, SCTM number 300-180-1-8.5, an extension of time until November 1st, 2025. I have read the resolution and move for its adoption. >> Second. All in favor? >> I passing carried. >> All right. Yes, it was McDermott line modification. >> Okay. Okay. In the matter of the application of McDermott lot line modification subcount tax map 300-84-3-17N18. Uh I've
122read the lot line modification conditions of approval and move for approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I carried. Uh and finally the Hubard site plan resolution. That's Bruce schedule a public hearing. >> Yep. in the matter of uh the application of Hoverard site plan Suffach County Tax Map number 300-49-4-12.9. This is to schedule a public hearing uh to be scheduled or held at Town Hall 159 Panagle Road, East Tampa on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the sub application. Um I have read this and move for its adoption approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Pass and carry. All right. So we don't have any boards of review tonight. We do have minutes though from our
123September 10th meeting. I'm sure everyone has read them, absorbed them, commented on them. May maybe even has one or two corrections perhaps. I don't know. If not, someone please read. Why don't you make your >> I'll make a motion. Go ahead. You do make the motion. >> I'm going to make a motion to adopt the minutes as written. >> Can I second? >> All right. All in favor? I >> Okay, carry. One final final motion. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All