East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 09/10/2025

001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. Welcome everybody to the East Hampton Town Planning Board's meeting uh a work session and regular meeting for September 10th, 2025. Uh we have a public hearing tonight. We have a couple of items uh up on the work session. We have a couple of internal uh discussions to have and we have a few um additional uh points of business in our regular meeting. Um, but first before we start, I just wanted to mention and welcome >> Katie Rostrren, who is our new planning board uh admin. Welcome Katie. We're really happy to have you. Thank you very much. We're lucky that Katie Katie moved from further west to our neighborhood and has great experience working for the town of Babylon. So,

002we're really happy to to have her as part of our team. So, welcome Katie. >> Welcome. Um so the first item on our agenda is a public hearing for 267 acabonic uh subwaver. Um is the applicant with us? No applicant. Okay. Do we need the applicant, >> Britney? We don't do we do we need to have the applicant to have a public hearing? >> Okay. They were notified. >> Right. Okay. >> Yeah. Eric's on. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Hey, it's Eric Chance for the planning department. Um, you you shouldn't need the applicant to be present. Uh, as long as they provided the service and posting. >> Okay. Okay. All right. I don't think we've ever had a public hearing without the applicant, but all right. If that's okay, we'll proceed. Um, and Britney

003service and posting everything is okay. We're ready ready to go. Okay. Um, I'm looking out at the audience and thinking there may not be anyone who wishes to be heard on this matter, but I don't know. It's possible. >> Do I read first? >> Oh, yes. Public ser public hearing notice. >> That's what I thought. I'm getting it. Um, take notice that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, on Wednesday, September 10th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of 267 Acabonic Minor Subdivision approval pursuant to chapter 220 subdivision of land of the East Hampton Town Code to divide a 58,123 1.3343 acres parcel into two separate lots. Lot one

004will consist of 34,123 ft 7834 acres. Lot number two will consist of 24,000 square ft 5510 acre. The parcel is located on the westerly side of Aabonic Road, East Hampton. residents zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton um is identified and is identified and are identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel number 300-147-6-31.2 Two subject application is classified as an unlisted action pursuant to the state environmental quality review actra 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 David Elsascus LS dated revised June 25th 2025. A common driveway, road and drainage plan prepared by DB Bennett, Consulting Engineer, dated revised May 29th, 2025, and a proposed revitation plan dated

005May 16th, 2025, are available for inspection at the planning board offices, 300 Pantico Place, Sweet 103, East Hampton, 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 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 351-886331. 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 into the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 300 Pantigo Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 11937. Comments may also be submitted

006to the planning board by email to planning boardny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing dated August 13, 2025. Ed crew chair chairman. >> Okay. Thank you. U so with that, is anyone who's come in uh just recently here for the public hearing to make comments on 267 acic? >> Um just a note, you should u I don't I couldn't quite hear before. before. I know there was an exchange, but you should check and make sure the affidavit of service and posting is is >> Yes, I asked you that. >> Oh, you did? Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Um, do you want me to give a brief overview? >> Uh, yes. Go ahead. >> Sure. Um, so just very quickly, the um

007map that you see in front of you is the proposed subdivision map. As the public hearing notice uh mentioned, the lots are zone B residence, which has a 20,000 ft minimum lot area. Um both lots exceed that as proposed. So no variances from lot area are required. Uh what you can see here is the front lot that has an existing residence um identified as lot one. Lot two being the rear lot um that is currently vacant with both lots proposed to be serviced by a common driveway. Um, the board should note that there has been public comment received already that had requested that the drainage structures within the common driveway be relocated from the southern property line to the northern boundary of that common driveway. And as you can see on this map, um, that

008has been done by the applicants. And if there are members of the public that want to speak and reference the other plans that were noticed um including the common driveway plan and the reveation plan, I have those available to put up on the screen. >> Okay. Thanks, Eric. All right. Once again, we'll ask is there anyone in the room who would like to speak on this matter? >> Okay. Uh not hearing anyone. Matt will go to the phone lines. >> Okay. Stand by, please. And this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV. Just making sure that all lines are good, which they are. And there are zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Okay, Matt. Uh, so would you >> I make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. All in favor of closing the

009public hearing. >> I All right. Good. >> So, uh, our first work session matter is the McDermott lot line modification. Um, will, that's you for the the planning department. U Lou, that is your application. Is a representative for the applicant here, Lori. Okay, great. Thank you. >> Good evening, board. Um, so this is an application seeking to modify a lot line between 70 Shore Road and three Merrills Road in Amigansit. This lot line modification would transfer 4,89 square ft from lot 1 to lot 2 and result in a new lot one area of 14,623 ft and a new lot 2 area of 13,731 square ft. Both parcels are located in Emigans, zoned A residence and are located within the AE FEMA flood zone near the coast of Cherry Point. Lot one is currently improved with

010a one-story single family residence with an enclosed rear porch, deck, hot tub, front porch, concrete walls, cess poolool, and detached shed. While lot two contains a storage pod located partially on both pre properties. This project received a lot area variance from the zoning board of appeals on June 11th, 2025. Previously, lot one was the subject of another ZBA application which sought setback variances for several structures. Variances for the screened in porch and hot tub were granted while the variance for the decking was denied. As part of that approval, the zoning board required a new covenant requiring the applicant to upgrade the existing sanitary system on site should the gross floor area of the residence increase. The planning board last reviewed this application on April 9th, 2024, where it requested additional details regarding the purpose and

011design of the application. In response, the applicant submitted a narrative explaining they wish to expand the residence on lot one and provide setback relief for the non-conforming deck, outdoor shower, and walkway, which order the lot line to be changed. The planning department recommends the public hearing for this application be waved as the owners of the lots are co-licants on the project and the project does not present the potential for significant public concern. Additionally, this project has had a public hearing at the zoning board, which received no public comments. In conclusion, the planning department recommends the application is complete and ready for a public hearing, or should the board choose to wave the public hearing. The application will be ready for approval. >> Okay. Thank you, Will. Uh, Miss Wilchshire, would you like to be heard?

012Nothing to add. >> What's that? >> I'll hear from the board first. >> Okay. All right. What? All right. In a change of protocol. Sure, why not? Um, so we'll go to Lou who's going to lead our discussion. >> Okay. Um, I think, you know, even though the lot sizes are substantially less than what's required by zoning in this area, they're similar in size to almost all other lots in the neighborhood. That's one. There's no increase in density. There's no environmental negative impact that I can see wet land such as that. Um the existing house can can be expanded by 342 square ft but if done so they'll be required to put in a new IIA system. So I think um this application is ready for u approval. Okay, great. >> Does anyone else on

013the board have comments on this? >> I don't I I'd be in favor of waving the public hearing. >> Okay. All right. Uh, any other comments or any other thoughts on the public hearing, Michael? >> I agree with waving the public hearing. >> So do I. >> Okay. So do I. >> Yeah, I think this is a pretty easy one. So Lori, you changed your mind about comment or you want to just quit while you're ahead or what? All right. So the one question we have to ask is does the board agree the application is complete and ready for a public hearing or does the board wish to wave the hearing making the application ready for approval? I think we've agreed it is ready for approval. Yes. >> Yep. Everyone. >> Everyone. Yep. >> Okay.

014All right. Unanimous. We're good to go. Ready for approval. >> Thanks, Lori. All right. Our next matter for work session is the Haven Hotel renovation site plan. Uh this is Chris for the planning department and uh Reed is filling in for Bruce who's not with us tonight uh on the planning board side. The applicant is here Britain. Okay, great. Um all right, Chris. All right, thank you. So, this is the initial review of the Haven Hotel renovation site plan. It's located at 525 and 533 West Lake Drive in Montalk. Uh, here is just showing the property zoomed out in the docks area of Montalk. Zoomed in photo. You can see one lot is currently improved with the existing motel. One is vacant. And I'm just going to give a little background. So, the subject parcel

015um is going to combine the two and would be combined to a total of 1.1 acres and the properties are in the resort zoning district and are also within a scenic area of statewide significance. Um the properties are near the Block Island Sound with the nearest portion being approximately 150 ft from the nearest tidal wetland and approximately 67 feet from the nearest bluff and beach. So the background for the proposal itself is that the submission is made to replace or renovate an existing 9,775 square foot two-story motel building in place and inind. And then on the vacant lot they construct a new pool, spa, cabana and bathroom building um as well as some accessory structures for the pool area. Currently, the motel has 29 units and the proposal only includes 28. The proposal involves merging

016the parcels as I mentioned and um the 533 Westlake is currently improved for the motel, 22 parking spaces, and a swimming pool and pool patio, which are proposed to be removed. Um 525 is currently vacant, and that's where all the new pool and accessory structures would be placed. Um the existing parking lot is proposed to be reconfigured to bring all parking spaces within the property uh boundaries. Just showing the existing conditions. Here's the property line shown in black. You can see about 13 of the spaces currently uh spilling to the right of way. So the 29 parking spaces include the two accessible spaces which are required and this would bring the site into compliance with its uh latest site plan approval from 1978. I'll just briefly pull that plan up as well. So that's shown

017here. Uh one consideration is that if the proposal is adding number of bedrooms is increasing then additional parking spaces will be required for each additional bedroom in accordance with the town code and that's at a rate of 1.25 spaces uh per additional bedroom. Also involved in the proposal is two uh new IA sanitary systems and removing the existing conventional sanitary system. So going over SEC SECRA state environmental quality review act it's a type two action pursuant to SECRA and the town code and there's no uh additional review subject to SRA for this proposal um regarding the reconstruction and the nature of the project we just ask that the applicant clarify whether the building will be torn down and rebuilt or renovated. Um, the site plan notes that the building will be replaced in place and

018in kind, which is consistent with the definition in the town code for reconstruction, which is included in our report. And it's important to establish that this is reconstruction as portions of the building um are within required setbacks. And these nonconformities are permitted to remain provided that they are not increasing in nonconformity. Regarding the existing and proposed uses, this is was originally constructed and received its latest site plan approval uh prior to 1984 when most of the current regulations in the town code regarding uh applicable use definitions, dimensional regulations, and other standards were implemented. So, there are building floor plans in the town uh records for a 9-unit edition that was approved in 1978. and just quickly show those. There's not much to discuss about them. Um, and the previous certificate of occupancy identifies it as

019a motel. Um, I'm just going to pull up the floor plans that are proposed for the rest of this discussion. So under current town code regulations, motel both as a use on the site and in terms of individual units can be classified as either transient motel or resorts. So generally speaking, any motel is considered a transient motel unless one of the following situation exists. And there's three conditions. If it's larger than 450 square ft, it would be considered a resort unit. if it contains any cooking or kitchen facilities or if it has been converted into a residential co-op, cooperative or condominium. So, it appears based on the town records that all but one of the existing units would be properly classified as a transient motel unit. The exception would be two uh units which were

020combined to create one approximately 760 ft unit and that's pursuant to a building permit from 1970. So, the applicant should provide a breakdown of the existing units and their sizes and the presence of kitchen facilities. This should provide uh us a picture of what's currently approved and existing on site. They can work with the building department to determine this if they need additional documents. So the proposal includes 28 units and the submitted floor plans did not indicate the proposed gross floor area for each unit um to evaluate whether they meet the dimensional standards of 450 uh square ft or less which is required for a transient motel. Um the planning department estimates and and note that all these estimates are approximate that 25 of the units are about 300 square ft. One unit appears to

021be 360 square feet and then they offer two three-bedroom units approximately 700 square f feet. Um so the revised submission should just indicate the gross floor area to confirm those numbers and based on the submitted information it is assumed that two units will exceed the 450 ft threshold and would not meet the definition of a transient motel and would instead be classified as resort uses. um which I'll get into more in a second. Uh as as mentioned, it does appear that one of those units may already be approved at a larger size, that being the one that was combined to create one larger 760 ft unit. So, it appears that the applicants may be reducing the total number of units from 29 to 28 to combine two units into one larger three-bedroom units, but the

022applicant should confirm that at this time. And should it be the case that any units are to be enlarged beyond 450 square feet, whereas they do not currently exceed that size, then a special permit for conversion would be required under the town code. And a second use also requiring a special permit, the resort unit, uh would also need to be approved by the planning board. And it's important to note this does not necessarily prohibit any aspect of the proposal, but it must be determined to figure out what approvals will be needed and which standards of the town code will apply. Additionally, the board and the applicants should note that the specific spec special permit standards for conversion. Um it appears that if the two transient motel units are combined to create one new resort unit

023that the underlined section of special permit standards in our report would apply regarding permitted unit densities which limits the number of units um per acre to 12. So that's the discussion regarding the use. The next thing we'll go over is setbacks. I'm just going back to the alignment plan here. So the submitted plans do not indicate the 150 and 200 foot setbacks from the top of the bluff crest across the property and these should be added to evaluate whether proposed structures will require natural resources special permit NRSP from the zoning board. It appears the northerly proposed IIA sanitary system is within 200 ft of the bluff line which would require an NRSP. Um to confirm the setback line from the proposed IIA system to the bluff line should be indicated on the revised submission. Regarding

024setbacks in general um property line setback should be indicated for all accessory structures. The subject property has 30 foot setback requirement along Westlake Drive and Wells Avenue and excuse me and and a 15t requirement for all other property lines. Uh setbacks are not indicated for the proposed retaining walls, walkways, and poolside patios. Although there are no minimum setback requirements for walkways and retaining walls, the planning board has the authority to control its location during its review. And many of the poolside patios appear to be to the north appear within 300 uh 330 ft of the setback requirement, excuse me. The planning board has the authority to reduce the required setbacks for these structures given their accessory and the planning department recommends that the setbacks be indicated before the board decide to reduce any setback requirements

025uh for these structures. Should the board decide not to reduce these setbacks, then an area variance would be required from the zoning board. Next is parking. As I mentioned, the proposal includes 29 spaces, including two accessible spaces. And if this was a new project, it would require 40 parking spaces per town code. However, the 1978 um site plan approval grandfathered them in at 29 parking spaces. However, if the number of bedrooms existing in the building is increasing, then each additional bedroom should provide parking spaces in accordance with the town code at the rate of 1.25 parking spaces per additional bedroom. Regarding site navigation and traffic, 24 foot drive aisles are offered in each of the three parking areas, which is sufficient. uh a directional pattern should be shown in each area um for our submission

026requirements. And although there is adequate width for two-way traffic in the Southerntherly parking lot, the planning department recommends the applicant consider moving it to oneway traffic just to avoid any spatial conflict in this area. The proposal also includes adding a new curb cut. Currently, there are three and this would be the fourth, which is unusual for any property in the town. particularly one of this size only 1.1 acres. So the applicant should consider removing the curb cut or just providing a rationale for its proposal. And we just note that the curb cut might need to be provided in order to meet that minimum uh number of parking spaces required and if the applicant's going to proceed with it that the highway department will eventually need to approve um that crew cut with a permit. Regarding

027the sanitary system, these are the submitted sanitary plans and calculations. The population density equivalent for the property, the maximum flow that they could have per Suffach County Sanitary Code would be 663.6 gallons per day if this was a new project. These submitted calculations detail that the permitted allowable density load is grandfathered as 3,100 gallons per day as per historical temporary residence permits. Therefore, the applicant should provide a copy of the historical permits or written proof from the SCDHS demonstrating that the proposed flow is permitted. The planning department notes that the motel units without a kitchenet that are less than 400 square feet have a density load of 100 gallons per day, whereas units greater than 400 square ft have a density load of 150 gallons per day. Should the applicant be unable to demonstrate a

028grandfather density load of 3,100 gallons per day, a variance would be needed from the SCDHS. The calculations contain some errors. the are for a total the submitted calculations use a total number of units of 29 whereas the proposal only includes 28 and the calculations also state that four of the proposed units are greater than 400 square ft whereas the planning department estimates that only two are um so the calculations should be revised accordingly and then proof of the grandfathered flow um should be provided if they wish to proceed regarding the landscaping plan all 17 species proposed are native. Um, six of which are actually approved by the town for reveation. So, we're pleased to see that. Not sure why it's not fully loading, but that's okay. Um, some of the plants are shown near the

029property line where they may protrude out, but it appears that everything is okay and the applicants just reminded that it must be within the property boundaries and if they want to do anything in the right of way that the highway department would need to be involved. I'm just trying to see why this froze up on me before I go on to the lighting. It's very strange. [Applause] I just try to reopen it. This is I'm going to close the program and reopen it. Sorry for the delay. 653. >> All right, let me just jump ahead to where we were. >> There we go. There it is. >> You can see it's taken its time to pull up everything. >> But that's the landscaping plan. Everything's good on that. Won't need to be changed unless other

030aspects of the site are revised. Regarding the lighting plan shown here, that appears to meet the intent of the planning board lighting guidelines. All the lighting proposed is fully shielded as defined by the town code. It is missing plot byplot illuminance levels. However, you can see these yellow semicircles indicate areas where the illuminance is greater than 0.1 foot candles. And given that none of these areas protrude across the property line, we find the submitted lighting details to be sufficient. Regarding the pool requirements, the applicants reminded to consult being very slow. um the Suffach County Department of Health Services for disinfection requirements typically need extra chlorine given it's open for public use and approval from that agency will ultimately be required. [Applause] Not sure what is going on. Anyways, noise. We just want to see some

031manufacturer specification sheets for outdoor equipment, particularly pool equipment, showing that it'll meet the town code noise standards. Um, and any other equipment outside that would generate noise. Also, setbacks for these equipment to the property line should be indicated. Regarding signage, there's one existing sign in the town right away, um, which is proposed to be updated with some new text. Given that this is not on the property, it's not really the planning board's authority. So, they can go through the highway department to do that or they can move it onto the property and include that in their submission. Regarding the town consulting engineer, he offered his report which is attached and there's only two points that are really relevant for the planning board's consideration. One being that the total area of disturbance should be quantified and

032notified on the site plan and the second being that there is a drainage galley proposed. um partially underneath the dumpster enclosure and that should just be relocated to avoid any conflict with the the refu area. Um as mentioned the additional comments are attached for the applicant to review but are not really pertinent to the planning board's discussion regarding the fire marshall findings indicate that the proposal is not compliant with the American with Disabilities Act. There appears to be no ADA accessibility to the pool area and there appears to be um less than 60 in between the toilet and laboratory in both ADA units. Um so these plans should be revised accordingly and the applicant can contact the chief fire marshall for clarification if needed. Regarding the necessary elements of a site plan, the missing elements

033that the planning department would like to see added is the lot area. The setbacks plot areas should be confirmed with the certified survey. Setbacks indicated as mentioned nearest fire hydrant should be added. Circulation pattern as well as elevation drawings for the proposed dumpster enclosure and two gates to the swimming pool area. Routing elements that could be waved. That would be for the existing lighting which is proposed to all be removed. We don't see the need for having that. And as far as additional approvals go, that would be the architectural review board. The zoning board is uh to be determined for property line setbacks for pool patios, the number of parking spaces, and whether an NRSP or variance will be required for structures proposed within 150 ft of the nearest bluff, and the IIA system within

034200 ft. Uh Suffet County Planning Commission review is required since the project um is within 100 within 500 ft of a county road. Office of Fire Prevention is needed for ADA compliance and South County Department of Health Service for the sanitary system, swimming pools and spas. So in conclusion, the application is incomplete. Depending the issues mentioned, the board should review the list of required items to determine whether items will be waved. The applicant should provide copies of the existing and proposed floor plans with the GFA of each unit indicated. and the applicant should add the 150 and 200 foot setback from the bluff on the revised submission. The applicant is advised that the planning board may only work within the property boundaries. Any changes outside will need to be reviewed by the highway department, which

035will also review the proposed curb cuts, driveway aprons should they remain part of this proposal. Uh that's that's all we have on our end. Sorry for that, delay. >> Good. Thank you, Chris, for a very thorough report. I appreciate it. Uh, Britain, I assume since you're moving toward the front, you would like to be heard. >> Good evening, Chairman Crew, members of the board. Sorry, I'm very short. I'm Britain Vistrian representing 53 Westlake Drive LLC, owners of 53 Westlake Drive in Montalk, which is the site of the existing Haven Motel. I'm joined tonight by representatives of the project team. Um, ownership Dyl D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Dylan Priv from Blue Flag Capital, Wilson Moreno from Nelson and Pope Engineers, Jonathan

036Kirby from Workshop as the architect and as well as Karen Hog as the land used attorney. Um, as outlined by Chris, the hotel was constructed in the late 1950s. Over the following 25 years, units were added to the property, resulting in the current configuration covered under a 1983 certificate of occupancy. The current owners purchased the property in 2024 and they desired to renovate and modernize the hotel. It had fallen into some disrepair in the last 40 years. The parcel is 2/3 of an acre on the corner of Westlake Drive and Wells Avenue in Montalk. The owners also purchased the adjacent vacant lot at 525 Westlake Drive, which is also zoned resort within the intent to augment the hotel and its amenities with the additional halfacre lot. The project in front of you tonight is representative

037of a renovation to the existing 29 unit motel. Very key in that because I think there was some confusion and there may have been a carryover um on one of the plans, but this is intended to be a renovation of the existing unit count on the existing motel. >> Just >> Yep. >> May I interrupt you for a second? >> Sure. So just define renovation versus reconstruction in your in your view about >> tearing it down or removing more than 50% of the exterior shell materials is reconstruction. >> Not doing that. >> Um so we are not reconstructing, we are renovating. Um as well as the relocation of the swimming pool and construction of new accessory structures including a hot tub, cabana, pool equipment shed and additional patio areas. The purpose of this renovation is

038to both modernize the hotel, make it code life safety upgrades, make the property handicapped accessible, and install the IIA septic system, which I would note in the circumstances, although we're in planning board review, it's somewhat elective in the sense that we're not adding anything that would trigger uh an increased septic uh sizing. Um, first of all, I want to say thank you to Chris for a very comprehensive and thorough review memo and on, you know, reasonable a reasonable turnaround time, which I think should be lauded because we submitted a this is a big application and it was turned around pretty quickly in current timelines at the planning department. So, I wanted to recognize Chris for that. >> Like to hear that. Thank you. >> I'm not sure if it's worth going through each item in

039the me memo, but generally stating that we will easily address all of them in our next submission. The big items I would like to make sure that I state on the record is that we are outside of NRSP jurisdiction for this entire project. We will add the setbacks to prove that statement. We are disturbing less than an acre. So we are exempt from a SWIP. Um the pool is designed with an ADA accessible route which we will just add further details to as well as the septic density is conforming. We have um the reason for the 28 29 unit count debate was we were in a parallel track with the health department. Um you know this has been there since the 50s. So the records were not entirely clear and we didn't know whether they

040would recognize the existing 29 unit. They just did issue a health department permit for our 29 units. So we will be submitting that to the that happened well after we had submitted to this board. So, we will be submitting that to the file to prove that we are grandfathered into our existing and proposed 29 unit flow. At this time, I I would just say if the board wishes to ask any direct questions of myself or any of the project team present, we'd be happy to address them. Um, I don't know if there's any specific items, but most of them are kind of laundry list things that we can address in our in our subsequent submission. >> That's good. I am curious about the size of the 450 foot unit issue that that Chris raised or

041we're not >> I might have Karen is I might have Karen speak to that because if it's if it's coed is a 29 unit motel it doesn't really necessarily matter that we change the definition of motel subsequent to the co for this property. We're not changing the unit count or the the square footage. So >> I'll have legal. >> Hi good evening board members. Karen Hog from Timulate Them. So, just in terms of the um the number of units on this site plan that Chris had um had shown, it does reference, it's not so easy to see, but it does reference the 29 units. There was a a nine room addition that was added um at the bottom. I don't know if Chris, if you could pull that up. It's written in red. The the

042different room numbers as the room counts rather in addition the um the looking for the old site plan. >> Yeah, the the old site site plan approval which matches up with this with the CO. >> This one? >> Yes, that one. Um, it it's kind of hard to read. It's written on the the bottom here in in blue the number of room counts as being 29, which is also what the health department grandfathered in as well. And when our next submission will, you know, provide the updated floor plans and the square footage so that the board has all that information. >> Okay. But the the proposal is 28 units. >> It's 29. >> It's It's 29. >> I counted 28. I'm sorry. >> I believe the proposal is 28 units. And then there's two, three.

043>> Some of the debate we were not going to propose the 29 units until we made certain that we could get health department approval that they would recognize the grandfather 29. We now have that. So we can amend accordingly >> because the the the plan that you submitted showed 28 units. >> Correct. And subsequent to that we received health department approval for the 29 units that exist. >> So how does it go from the 28 to the 29? How do you how do you change that? What what do you do to because the way you got to 28 is two units, one on the first floor and one on the second floor combine the number of bedrooms into one. Do you want We'll let our architect speak to that. Jonathan Kirby. >> All right. Jonathan

044Kirby, workshop APD. Um to answer your question, um we were proposing in this submission two three-bedroom suites, which eliminated went from 29 guest rooms down to 28. >> To bring that back up to the 29, we're going to take one of those three bedroom suites and turn it back into two separate guest rooms. Got it. And that will also go back to having just one unit exceeding the 450 ft which is what was grandfathered in. >> Okay. >> So then there's no special permit needed because the one is already grandfathered in. Okay. >> Will this will it qualify as a conversion because there there was always 29 units and one of them was always approved over 450 ft. So there is no additional unit that's over 450 ft. So then there the issue of conversion

045won't apply here. Is that what we're saying? >> I'll let Karen answer that specifically. But >> That's correct. When we resubmit it'll be it'll go back to the one room that's >> we don't have to worry about conversion. [Music] >> Okay. >> What about the number? Do you want me to ask these questions or do you want >> Well, I are we now getting into Yeah, I think we're getting into our our discussion. So, let's let's read. >> Okay. Um well, thank you. Um Chris Decker, that was a very thorough memo. Like Britain said, I appreciate uh the detail. Um I think we're off to a pretty good start with this application. Um I did correspond with member Cisco and I think he and I are both pretty well aligned on this application. Um it's

046my understanding and I think that was demonstrated this evening that um you're going to merge the two parcels, continue with the same use. Um you're going to renovate the existing motel. The same number of units 29 will apply. Um and it looks again, you can see the map the uh the pool, spa and cabana will be on the new parcel. Um, I like the fact that the uh parking is increasing from 22 to 29 spots. Um, I think that uh it it actually makes uh the configuration makes it safer, especially now if 13 of the spots are poking into the town right away. I'm not so sure that's the safest setup. So, I think that's good. And I think we also have to be mindful that the applicant um you know, the date that we

047have to remember is 1978. and they're kind of grandfathered into some things here that we might not nowadays approve or accept, but again they're grandfathered into it. Um, and that would be pursuant to the parking and the septic flow. Um, they're upgrading the septic system. There was some question uh from member Cisco about um the septic system uh for the pool house. Is there a separate septic system for the pool house? Um, and it sounds to me as though the distance to the bluff is not going to be an issue um once those uh uh uh measurements are provided. But um c can you show me where that septic system is for the pool house, please? >> And and while you're there, there was also a question about the drywalls for the pool and the

048hot tub. I don't know if uh that >> Can you state your name for the record, please? >> Sorry. Good evening. Uh Nelson Pope Wilson. Um so the flow for the bathrooms will be to that northern IIA system uh IIA system that you see there. >> Okay. >> Um so it's just taking the flow from the I guess it'll be male female um and we're just tying it into the system on the north. So, it'll be it'll be all all be gravity fed and then going into the IA system. >> Okay. And how about the drywalls? Uh, member Sysa had a question about the drywalls for the pool and the hot tub. >> See if I can pull up the drainage [Music] around the hot tub and pool you mentioned. >> And the pool. Yeah.

049>> Yeah. Sorry. Dry wells. >> Oh, for the pool plans themselves. See if we have those. >> I'm not certain that we we have this on that. >> That's okay. All right. But that was a question. >> Requires it and we will um amend it with our next submission. >> Yeah, no problem. Um I I do somewhat disagree with the planning uh department in reference to the curb cuts. I think um member Cisco and I think that four C curb cuts uh make sense here. Um I it sounds as though the planning department's opposed to four thinking that three is more sensible, but um I think four um seems to make sense to me and to member Cisco. So that's my overview and >> that's good. >> Thanks Reed. Yeah, >> Mike, do you have

050any other comments or questions? >> The the curb cut question is interesting to me, but uh nothing other than that than resolving the laundry list of points. Okay, here we are. >> I just want to state that we are we are open to the suggestion of making the two at the south um one way. I think that would make sense. Part of the reason that the fourth one at the at the pool area just from an emergency services perspective to be able to get an ambulance or something of that nature there. It's not going to be easy if we if we eliminated that one. The other ones are, you know, they're motel units. You park your car, you take your bag, and you walk into your and that's the motor hotel. That's the kind of

051nature of how the site was originally laid out in the 70s. So, um I think we'd be open to the the one way, but we would like to keep the four access points. >> Just out of curiosity, Britain, is that is that is it there? It's there for emergency access, you say, and also for servicing the pool equipment, I'm sure. Right. as well as >> and also for just you know cleaning and you know someone who's coming that to clean the pool or to park in a remote location and pump buckets and hoses and you know there's programmatically another um use on that parcel and it's entitled to its own curb cut. I mean we could potentially be proposing a restaurant or other resort use there and really just taking a pool from the hotel

052site and putting it on the other side. So, it's a really it's a um I mean know it's vacant now, but it could be a much more intense use. >> Okay, >> good. All right. It's one of the questions we're going to ask as we kind of wrap this up. Chen, any questions or comments? >> No questions. But I do agree. I think the four curb cuts is kind of necessary and especially if you're going to do the oneway thing down at the bottom, you need you need both of those curb cuts. And then yeah, I think and I think it's a well thoughtout plan. It's gonna be a nice hotel. >> If I can just add to that, the fourth curb pit allows us to get the 29 parking spots on the properties, >>

053whereas the existing conditions, some of those spots are actually off of the property in the right way. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Working around the existing footprint of the Haven building, that's how we're able to get those additional three spots. >> Okay. >> And yeah, it's important. We we acknowledge that it might have been the case where they needed that cut to meet the requirement and we're more just looking for a rationale. We don't directly oppose um the fourth cut the department. >> Yeah. And I think we have a rationale now. You know, thanks for raising the question, Chris. Um Blue, you had other questions. >> Yeah. on the parking. I think I might have misunderstood this, but so the current proposal is uh 32 bedrooms and if the existing number of bedrooms the existing

054number of bedrooms are less than 32, meaning that you're increasing the number of bedrooms, then parking must be increased. And this is the part that I didn't understand. Is it does it does that trigger uh a new parking formula sitewide or is it just the additional bedrooms that need to be calculated in terms of the additional parking spaces needed? Um, if they were increasing the number of bedrooms, it would just be for the additional, but based on what the applicant and the architect are saying, it sounds like you're moving toward just doing the same number of units and the same number of bedrooms. But you can clarify. >> So, we're not increasing the number. >> Correct. I think the approval on file is 31 bedrooms. And by switching from the three two threebedroom suites to

055one bedroom uh one threebedroom suite, we're eliminating one of those bedrooms to keep the existing 31b cow. Meaning we're not increasing rooms or guest room counts as well. >> Okay. So, as long as you're not increasing the bedrooms, then there's no issue there. And as far as the uh sanitary system, will you be able to get the u proper documentation from the suffic health department showing that you were approved at 3,100 gallons per day. >> Correct. So the process that we went through was called um a best fit. Maybe I mean Wilson can speak to this as well, but we have a current health department permit to upgrade the septic system on the Haven Hotel site alone for 29 units. That gave us our grandfathering on that property. So now we will take that grandfathering

056and put and merge the properties together. So we are and we can submit the health we have an actual health department permit for 29 units on the Haven site alone. So we can submit that to the file. It was just obtained in the last couple of weeks. >> Okay. And what about the fire marshall comments that the ADA >> those are very easy to address. Um, one is we just have to outline the accessible route. We we meet all the slopes and everything. And the other one I think was just a graphic issue in terms of the 5ft circle in that bathroom. So, both of them will be addressed. They're conforming in the future submission. >> That's all I have. >> Good. Thanks, Britain and team. Um, so I think we're ready to go to

057the questions which will cover a few other things um that were raised in in Chris's analysis. The first question is, does planning board agree with the planning department's assessment of additional information that must be provided per town code 2556-50 necessary elements of a site plan, which are the ones that he enumerated, you know, their details, you know what they are, you know, lot area, setbacks, fire, hydrant, location, circulation, and so on. So, I presume that you will do that. So, do we agree that we want them? Sure. >> Yes. Okay. Uh, does the planning board agree the applicant should provide existing and proposed four plans with the GFA of each unit and the number of bedrooms indicated? >> Yes. >> Reed, you're good. Yes. >> Yeah. Good. Absolutely. >> All right. Good. Just checking. Does

058the planning board agree the applicant should indicate the 150 foot and 200 foot setbacks from the nearest bluff? >> Yes. Does the planning board agree the applicant should make the drive aisle in the southerntherly parking lot one way only? >> Yes. Yeah. I think we all agree we'd like that. And it sounds like you're open to that. >> Does the planning board agree the applicant should avoid adding a fourth curb cut to the subject property? No. >> I think there's some discussion on this or >> disagreement with the with the notion. >> Yeah. Well, there's no Is there any other way to get to those three parking spaces? I mean, that's >> not really >> that that's the only reason why you need that fourth and unless there's an alternative on how to get to

059those parking spaces. There's >> Well, you know, I think the point was also made that it's also a way of getting to servicing the pool and doing things like that as well. I I understand that it's uncommon, you know, to have four curb cuts on a property of this size, but it feels to me in this case it's not. >> Yeah. It's a big deal. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we're saying no, we don't we don't believe that you should uh avoid adding that fourth curb cut. >> Does the planning board agree the applicant should revise the senator calculations to align with the proposed number of units? Well, the proposed number of unit I think that question was based on a change in the proposed number of units. So, >> exactly >> if there's

060no change, >> right? No change. So, we don't really need to consider that question. >> Maybe you can just say revised to align with the submitted plans so we can just make sure it lines up. Say it again, Chris. Should the sanitary calculations be revised to align with the submitted plans? >> So we make sure that they >> to align with submitted plans. >> Yeah, I know that makes sense. Do we agree? >> Yeah, sure. >> Does the planning board agree the applicant should demonstrate that the subject property has a grandfather population density equivalent that permits a density load of 3100 gallons a day? >> Yes, we talked about that. Britain's getting that. Does the planning board agree the applicant should submit revisions in accordance with the town consulting engineers report? Um, you know, I

061guess this this mainly is about the drain the drainage and the leeching galleys. You know, there might be some conflict there. Uh, and what else was was she commenting on? I just want to be clear before we answer that question. the the total area of disturbance across the site was the other >> area of disturbance >> and then there's a full report attached which they can review but it's not necessarily the planning board's uh review. >> Okay. Uh but do we agree that that you should you should submit some revisions in accordance with the town consulting engineers report on those issues? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we're all in agreement on that. Yes. >> Okay. Does the planning board agree that the applicant should provide manufacturer specifications sheets with sound data for exterior equipment to show

062compliance with town code? >> Yes. Yes. All around. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. We're good. >> Thank you very much. >> Off to a good start, you guys. Thank you. See you again. >> Trying to reopen it. The software is being okay. >> All right. Next, our next uh matter is the Tandy lot line modification. Sarah, that's you, right? >> Yes. Good evening, board. >> Okay. Uh and that Jen, that's yours. And the applicant is here. All right. Great. Thanks. >> We're ready to go. >> Okay. This is the initial review of the Tandy application located at 173 Skim Hampton Road in Amigansit. These parcels were originally a single parcel which were previously subdivided into three separate lots via an approved and filed subdivision map in 2011. Two reserved areas were also created as

063part of the subdivision. one at 12,521 ft and one at 8,969 ft². The application proposes merging lots 2 and three into a single lot, resulting in one lot of 80,52 ft, while lot one would remain at 40,000 square ft. Lot one is currently improved with a single family residence and associated accessory structures. This lot is partially cleared with a mix of ornamentals and naturally occurring vegetation. Lots two and three are wooded and vacant. Can show an aerial. Um combining the two lots is a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act and chapter 128 of the town code. Since lot line adjustments are classified as type two actions, so no further action is needed there. The applicant proposes to reduce the number of lots which the planning department views as a positive

064change as this leads to a reduction in housing density which also leads to minor reductions in traffic, sanitary flow, and other impacts associated with residential development. The proposed map illustrates that the combination of lots two and three would result in an L-shaped lot. The board is guided by the town code to create lots that are generally rectangular. However, the planning department does not object to the proposed configuration. The board may wish to discuss with the applicants whether or not two rectangular lots of roughly the same size would be more appropriate. A 25- ft access and utility easement of 1,270 square ft is proposed through the town reserved area. It has been the past practice of the planning board to require common driveways and common access for all subdivisions unless not possible due to constraints or

065pre-existing conditions. The reasoning behind this is to reduce the number of traffic control points um or conflict points, maintain rural aesthetic as opposed to suburban with multiple driveways side by side, and reduce clearing needed for access. The three lot subdivision was originally approved with all three lots taking access from a common driveway. Um, the planning department recommends that the common driveway be kept and that all utilities, including the water service, be located within the common driveway easement unless the applicants can demon demonstrate why this is not possible. The lots are zoned as a residence and a large lot easement would be required for the larger parcel um which is again being proposed as 80,52 ft. The board may wish to consider this as a potential condition of approval. Um, it appears that all necessary submission

066elements have been provided. However, the board should discuss the proposed lot configuration with the applicants and the appropriate means of access for the proposed lot too. Um, finally, the planning board should also assess whether a large lot easement is required. >> Okay. Thank you, Sarah. >> Does the applicant wish to be heard? Just please identify yourself for the record. >> Hi, Samantha Malone from Tarbet and Lester PLLC. on behalf of the applicant. Um, I'd like to thank you Sarah for your report and um, you know, this application, the reason that it is being presented is because we have a family here that owns the three lots, um, a father and son. And so they thought that it would be beneficial in order for the community to combine those two lots, minimize the density, but for

067their purposes, they would prefer to have two um separate driveways. So, uh this is the configuration that would be most beneficial to them. We thought that it would be a beneficial um offering to the surrounding neighborhood to decrease the density by having two lots instead of three. Um we understand that the points that the um planning department has made but are would like to hear your thoughts. >> Thanks very much. I have a question. >> Sure. >> You mind? No. Um, we received communication from one of your colleagues in your firm today and he mentioned that the two driveways would result in less clearing than a common driveway. Can you explain how that would occur? >> Yes. So, if you look at the map, there is a portion of the current existing driveway that would

068be removed. Um, it's on the northerly lot. So that portion would be removed and um the common driveway I believe would be wider than having just two separate smaller driveways um is the reasoning. >> It shouldn't be >> especially house is all the way back. >> Yeah. Okay. Is that what what are the minimum width requirements of a of those two separate driveways? And what is the width of the common driveway? >> I do not have that. I have the physical print in front of me. I can check, but I do not have the minimum requirement of my head. >> Sarah or Chris? >> Either one, whoever has the information. >> Right. Right. Right. So, I know the um proposed second driveway is proposed to be 25 ft wide. Um Eric, I'll defer to you

069if you know the minimum requirement for driveway width or Chris if you know. >> Yeah. So, I don't know offhand. Um, I can look that up, but they're they're very close in terms of uh whether it be a common driveway or an indivi individual driveway, the improved and um cleared widths for them. Um, I will and really, you know, we could get exact numbers of what is going to result in less clearing. It's probably going to be very close in this instance. If you do individual driveways, you technically don't need an emergency vehicle turnaround, which removes the the need to to do that improvement. But if you do still require a common driveway, you don't need to um I mean, if you look at the area that's in red hash mark on the map, you

070don't need to further clear that to get access um to proposed lot two. So, those are somewhat comparable. Um, I know the question was about the the improved widths. Um, it's going to be somewhat negligible in that sense. I think the big difference is going to be that if you did individual driveways, you wouldn't need an emergency vehicle turnaround. Um, but if you don't allow them to do individual driveways, they would use the portion that cuts between the two reserved areas and not need to clear the area that's in the red hash marking. But again, I will say a lot of this is sort of a negligible difference in the in this case. >> Thanks, Eric. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for the >> Okay, Jen. >> Yes. So, thank you. Thank you

071both for explaining all that. Thanks Sarah for the presentation. Thanks Samantha for the explanation. Um, I I my feeling is that a common driveway is really the best case scenario here. And I I don't see what the issue would be if the common driveway comes in and then immediately branches off to the to the right um for the second lot and then, you know, kind of keeps heading towards the house that's already built. I don't I don't see that as a as a hardship. And I also think just, you know, I I can't really see the dimensions because I'm blind, but um I think that if we're talking about clearing another entire driveway up to the place where that proposed second house is, it is going to be a lot more clearing. Um it it's

072also another curb cut. It's disturbing the reserve area. And that common driveway seems to be from the aerial. Would you mind bringing up the aerial, Sarah? It seems like it's already there. >> Yeah. >> Can you zoom in? So, in my opinion, and I'm grateful that the applicants wish to combine three lots into two, and I think that's wonderful, but I do think that the most common sense solution is to keep the common driveway. Um, it seems to be in the interest of good plan planning. >> Okay. Thanks, Jen. Thoughts? Reed. Um, >> well, thank you uh for your comments and uh I appreciate Jen's overview. I I I think I disagree. I I see this as a tradeoff and um a reduction in density from 3 to two is a huge plus and all

073the applicant is really asking for is an additional driveway. Um, and according to what Eric said, I it it sounds to me like it wouldn't be that much of a an increase or or perhaps maybe even a decrease. Is that right, Eric? Is that kind of what you suggested? >> That that's true. But, um, you know, Jen brought up a really good um point, which is I I'm sort of viewing what I was saying is sort of viewing the one for one of kind of the minimum improvements you need in the two scenarios. Um, but depending on where a future home is put on lot two, that's really going to be the biggest determinant of um, how much clearing you need for a driveway. Um, and as you can see on that aerial photograph right

074now, the common driveway currently extends pretty far into the rear of what would be, you know, proposed lot two, currently lots two and three. Um, so if there's a residence put in the rear, it's almost certain that the existing configuration of the common driveway is going to result in less new driveway rather than bringing a driveway up the well the right hand side as you look at it. But, you know, um, is as an alternative, if they put a residence up at the front of that lot up near the reserved area near Skim Hampton Road, it may result in less clearing overall. >> Okay. >> Thank you. have nothing addition. >> Okay, Michael, would you like to comment? >> I'm I'm with Reed on this. I don't mind the the two curb cuts and just

075the way the the aerial looks when a the front yard is the grass in the driveway and yeah, it doesn't feel comfortable to me, but what what I'm sorry. So the front door and the the grass and then you have the driveway unless you you you pass this first 20 ft and you the driveway turns right. I mean is that is that what we're worried about? >> That was kind of what I was suggesting that you know since the curb cut is already made you pull in and you immediately veer off to the right and you wouldn't have two curb cuts. But but to Eric's point, even if we don't even we have one curb cut and the house is way in the back, >> it's already >> you still need to with the would

076the shared driveway be this existing it's and which is there by the way, >> right? >> And versus cutting over and kind of making your own driveway. So you maintain the one curb cut, but you still would >> interesting, >> you know, have to cut down trees and such. >> Is the applicant proposing to fill in and reveate the current paved. >> So yes, that portion would be removed. That current portion would be removed. Um and also just as a comment without the second driveway, um this application would likely be um withdrawn and they would just proceed with maintaining the three separate lots that are separately buildable. Mhm. >> They can do that too. >> Yeah. I'm with Reed and Michael. I you know, also what Eric said is you if you have a common

077driveway, you need the emergency turnaround, which is an additional area. I I really and and if the two driveways were uh negative in any substantial way, uh I would, you know, I would fight for the common driveway, but you know, I really don't see the downside to having two driveways. I mean, these lots were Yeah. I mean, and also I think we're getting a big remediation here or benefit if you want to call it that that you you're merging two lots into one. So, I really don't think this I think we're talking about an item that's really not that big of a issue with me. So, I would I would go with the two driveways and the merging of the two lots into one. >> Okay. All right. Well, you know, I I am a

078big fan of common driveways. I have to say I think that, you know, too many curb cuts, too many driveways is very suburban and this is a really kind of lovely ruralish, you know, stretch of Skim Road. Um, you know, there's a there's a beautiful reserve along there and having another cut through that just feels like it would not be on the surface of things. forgetting any other consideration is really not something that I that I would support. But, you know, having said that, you know, I think that, you know, what's been discussed in the way of of being able to eliminate the emergency vehicle turnaround, you know, bringing bringing that down, you know, reveating around that area. Um and you know given that this the frontage along Skim Road is really quite long quite

079broad um you know we may have an opportunity here to move to if we move the driveway all the way to the other side of um the eastern side of of the lot and you know it would pro and and I'm not sure where the house is going to go and I don't believe that's decided yet, but I think that, you know, I would probably change my vote on this one to allowing the two driveways. Um the issue though of access, utility access, however, right? But so obviously the house that's there has utility access already. Um and where where does that come from? Does it go across the do we know where where that happens? It's not going up the driveway that exists. Do we have any idea where they're receiving the utilities from the

080street? >> I do not have that information in front of me. Um I'd have to look into that. >> All right. Well, but in any case, obviously the new house needs access to utilities as well and it would need to be in the driveway, right? >> As far as I'm concerned, >> I think. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Well, let us consider a few questions that we have here. Um, and the first is does the board find the proposed lot configuration acceptable? We actually haven't really even talked about that. >> Um, but I do I think it's fine. >> You know, it's unusual, you know, but it's fine. >> Everyone agree. Yeah, >> we're all good on that. >> Then you also have the large lot easement. >> We didn't talk about that. >> Yeah,

081exactly. And that is a question coming up here. Should the applicant revise so that a common driveway be kept and that all utilities including the water service be located within the common driveway eastment? >> I think we're agreeing to a person. No, >> I'm going to say I'm still going to say you can keep my vote >> for common driveway. >> Common driveway. Yeah. >> All right. So, we're four to one on this issue, right? Uh we don't have 100% consensus there, but we are four of us are going for two driveways. >> Okay. >> But I I would add to that though that you know the the the the utilities for the second new house will ultimately need to be in that driveway. >> Okay. Uh does the planning board agree that a large

082lot easement is required? >> Uh we haven't really talked about that. >> I know this is an interesting concept to me. Yeah. So I mean large lot easement basically means that that a lot a lot that is large and potentially subdividable no longer becomes subdividable. >> Yes. And I do think that that easement or covenant should be required. >> Yeah. That's that's reasonable. >> Yeah. >> And also I thought it's where a lot this this what's the size of this lot the merged lot isn't it? 80,000 square feet. >> 80,52 ft. And the uh zoning for that that neighborhood is a residential a one one acre. >> Yeah. >> So since it's over since the 80,000 is over >> the zoning requirement that requires a large lot eas. [Music] >> So there's no question it's

083required. >> Okay. So, we agree a large lot easement is required. >> Yes. Um All right. So, there you have it. >> Can I can I just make a a couple points um before we stop on this one? Um just because there there sort of other comments um post meeting comments to make. Um, one is that the um reserved area um is um has been transferred in ownership to the town board. So just for the board and and the applicant um I think ultimately the town board could um sort of effectively veto the change. Um, also I do believe that since it's not just a lot line modification anymore and that it will require changing the conditions of approval of Skim Hampton Woods, I think we'll need to do a modification um of of the

084subwaver. Um, but you know, the department will talk with the applicant about this and and what's needed. Um, but the one other thing I wanted to ask you about, um, cuz if you the board does want to move forward with it is whether or not you would hold a public hearing for this. Um, and I point that out actually because with adjustments like this, you you have the ability to wave that requirement. But actually, um Sarah, if you don't mind, if you could put up the aerial photograph again. Um I would urge the the planning board to hold a public hearing just because the location of that second access. As you can see on that aerial photograph, it's very close to a neighbor's driveway. Um so I think that uh it would be prudent to

085hold a hearing for this. >> Okay. Do we agree on that, Lou? Yeah, I'm I'm always I'd like to error on the side of having a public answer. >> Agreed. I think it's >> I sorry. Yeah, >> sure. >> We like public hearings. >> Yes. >> No one No one showed tonight. >> Anything else, Eric, that we need to talk about this before we >> That all I had to add. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Eric. Thank you. If I was that neighbor and I had the option of having a driveway or more or two houses instead of one, I think I know which one I >> Yeah. Good point. Good point. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Um All right. So, our our next matter for discussion is

086the affordable multiple residence. Um >> do we want to answer these questions or >> Oh, we did. We did. We did. We did. Yeah, we answered that. >> Where was I? >> Yeah, >> I don't know. >> I was watching the next screen. >> Yeah. Uh, affordable multiple residence comments to the town board. So, the town board has made some changes to the draft code and Eric's going to review them. >> Sure. Um, yep. So, the planning board discussed this uh in order to send comments to the town board on June 25th. This is the proposed new use in the code to allow multiple residence buildings um that are affordable in the affordable housing overlay district. Um this went back to the town board and they reviewed the planning board's comments. Um they had a

087discussion about the draft legislation. They amended it slightly um in part due to comments from the planning board in particular about energy sustainability. Um, and what I will do quickly is just screen share uh with you. Um, and I apologize cuz there's a page break there. Um, but basically there were two areas of the proposed legislation. The standards that were changed. One was the minimum lot area was increased from 20,000 ft or roughly a half an acre to 40,000 or roughly an acre um as a requirement for the use. Um but then the more sort of involved change was um energy sustainability requirements and you can see I have them up on the screen here verbatim um as they would read in the code. Um but basically the it's a another set of standards in

088the code that where there would be a new building built or a substantial expansion um of an existing building to turn it into an affordable multiple residence that um and these are sort of advisory to the planning board that the site plan shall include adequate landscaping and screening. um but more so more unique here um that it be uh drought tolerant native species um essentially sustainable practices, sustainable landscaping and then also the requirement that as part of site plan review the planning board shall consider opportunities for energy efficient design including solar ready sighting and all electric building systems consistent with the New York State building code and energy code regulations. So the town board added um well made the one change to the minimum lot area requirement but added um those requirements for energy sustainability.

089So basically um the planning board should have a discussion about those changes. Um if you have additional comments to send to the town board, form a consensus um and we'll we'll draft those and send those. Otherwise, this matter is scheduled for a public hearing on the 18th of September. Um and the the town board will will hear further public comment on it. >> Okay. Thank you, Eric. So, my my take on this is we need to just determine, you know, whether or not we feel as though the two changes that have been made. Uh we know we need to comment on how we feel about the two changes that were made, right? That's really fundamentally what we're doing here. And uh you know if there are any other changes that we feel strongly about we

090should also surface those at this point. >> Right. I I find the language of the uh landscaping interesting because it says it shall prioritize sustainable practices. It does not mean they must have or must use sustainable practices for their landscaping. Well, that's I think they did that because there might be situations where it just would not be the right thing to do to mandate certain type of landscaping. I can't think of any off the top of my head right now, but I think that was the thinking that they had. It's the same thing with the sustainable uh energy efficient design. It's also it should be prioritized not mandated because there might be situations where like for instance if um if you mandate that they put in solar panels and it's a house that's that's in

091a very deeply wooded area >> right >> where would so that wouldn't make sense. So it's that kind of that that's why they use that kind of language. I think >> I think you're right. I think you're exactly right. My only concern is that they'll they'll say say well >> anything can be >> well I think >> nothing's going to be prioritized because it's like shall consider >> well I think it comes down to the planning board because these applications will come in front of us and we would have to use that guidance that language in how we approach how we review the application. >> I wonder if it's also a cost issue maybe I think it's that too. Yeah, it's more expensive to have it >> sustainable, but you can look at the longer

092term that it's probably less expensive over over time, >> right? But the c the initial capital cost, >> right, >> determines what your return on investment is. And if the return on investment is not high enough >> in a short term, >> you're not going to have you're not going to have anyone uh investing in these kinds of projects. >> Did you want to say something? I do, but I and not about the landscaping. Um, the minimum lot requirement for the use was changed. It was it was doubled. And I I think I object to that because I feel like it's leaving out a lot of properties that might actually >> Yeah, I I think >> be able to, you know, or be willing to wanting to, you know, desirous of of doing this. I

093think it just it limits it unnecessarily. >> I I would keep it at 40,000 right now. The only reason I I don't have a problem with the 20,000. >> I I think this was also the reasoning behind the boards keeping it at 40 or changing it to 40. We don't know how this is going to be exploited by builders. So if we do the 20,000 and again I don't have it on the top of my head how it will be nefariously exploited but it if you leave it at 20,000 there's a bigger chance a wider span where they can come in and do something that was not intended in the original uh language or the reason for this this zoning code change. So you you do it at you start at 40 and then if

094everything works and there aren't any problems, any unforeseen uh exploitation of this then you know they could look at it again and spread it out further to 20,000. >> I don't have any criticism with what the the language is. I just what I have are fears that it may not be used for the reasons that we're putting this though that the town board is putting this into the zoning code. And my big fear is that it's going to be used by certain businesses to create housing this multiple housing for seasonal workers. And that wasn't the intent. >> That's not the intent. >> And again, I I I keep repeating this. There's no nothing wrong with housing seasonal workers. And if those seasonal workers are full-time community uh ordinary folks that live here, residents of East

095Hampton, that's fine. But if it's transient type workers, that's not what this is intending to correct. >> I I agree with all that. I just I I don't know. I I feel like it's just um limiting. But maybe you're right. Maybe it can be, you know, piloted at 40,000 square feet and then, you know, relooked at in five years >> or even sooner. >> Eric, do you do you agree with that? Is that something that u the way it was formulated something that can be looked at again in the future? >> Yeah. Yeah, >> and and the town board touched upon a lot of the the points that you were making. Um I think they I mean I don't know that this is exactly where they were going, but I think that they felt that

096if you have a larger property um that there's sort of less likelihood of something, you know, something being sort of forced onto a property that uh is not large enough for the use. So, um I think they felt that an acre is probably a better starting point just because, you know, a a 20,000 square foot lot is a small lot. Um and it has to be done right as far as you know, if you're going to put an additional unit of housing on it. So, I think that's mainly where they were coming from um with with changing the minimum lot area requirement. Yeah, that sounds really >> And I mean there are, you know, so many restrictions now that the GFA has been amended and all that. So maybe maybe it just won't work for

097a 20,000 lot. I don't know. That that was just my hand. >> You guys have any comments on the lot? >> I don't I agree with the pre prior comments. I'd keep it at 40 and revisit it in a few years. >> Yeah. All right. That's sort of my point of view, too. I think I think I But do you agree >> Yeah. fundamentally with Jen the word that we may ultimately be missing some opportunity here on smaller lots. But I think for all the reasons that everyone said starting with 40 is probably smart and I do think the language around sustainability is pro is is appropriate with the you know um >> prioritizing sustainable practices for cost reasons and practical reasons right that it needs to be made. >> Yeah. I just Yeah. I

098will say not having a lawn has saved me a lot of money. >> Yeah. >> I I I you know it really it's fabulous. I don't have to mow. I don't have to fertilize. I just have to >> But does this also mean like they're going to just put in a Leland cypress tree versus uh you know [Music] >> or they're going to go >> Yeah. whatever the least expensive tree that's not native, they'll just drop in there and say, "Hey, that's what we got to do. You're not forcing it on us." >> You know, it's hard to mandate this. You know, it's hard to mandate this if you broadly speaking. If you look at individual projects, >> you know, maybe we have more of an opportunity to comment. The other point I want to

099make is if they put the language about the uh energy efficient design language, I think eventually they should do it townwide, not just on these types of units. So this could be a starting point to see how it works. See how the applications are reviewed by the planning board, how that you know how it's received and how we can encourage people and if it works out relatively smoothly, maybe that's something that we can look at to expand it further. >> Yeah. You know, I think at this uh at this level of development, you know, I mean, this is not a huge money maker necessarily for any builder um being one myself. Um so I think, you know, we do need to provide some opportunity for people to have some options, right? So that they're not

100turned off completely to the concept. >> And Ed, I just want to point out um that language was chosen for a reason. It was um considered because with the energy efficient designs, it has to be consistent with the New York State Uniform Building Code. Otherwise, our regulations could be preempted. So, the language about prioritizing um >> sustainable correct? >> Yeah. So it really refers to landscape >> including the solar ready sighting that needs to be consistent with the state building code. And with respect to the landscaping and screening, it does direct it the discretion back to the planning board because it says the site plan shall the site plan shall include adequate landscaping and screening as determined by the planning board. So that is coming back to the planning board for >> right. So, we're

101going to say you need to do a a sustainable >> I'm going to be the one. Great. >> We're going to elect you to to be all those projects are going to be your crickets. >> Yeah. >> All right. Good. Well, I think have we had enough discussion about that? Do we we're sort of we're okay with the two changes that have been made. Okay. >> Um I don't know if there's anything else that we need to discuss around this >> or any other comments that are important for us to make at this point. you know, comments have already other comments have been made >> already been made and incorporated. So I think >> or made and not incorporated perhaps >> depending on the comments. >> Um all right so we can end that conversation

102then. Thank you Eric for leading us on that >> Britney and thanks Britney for your input. So our next um item for discussion is exparte communications which is really something we we don't necessarily need to be discussing in a public forum but you know Jen and I felt it was important to do that because there has been a sort of a shift in what has been >> right >> uh perceived to be you know our our policy around exported communications. So if you >> So I understand that in the past it may have been um encouraged exparte communications. So this is just kind of a reminder of best practices from a legal standpoint. Um exparte communications are not considered the best practice as they do create a legal risk for a quasi judicial board like

103yourself. So as the planning board, your decisions are need to be based on the record before you. and courts reviewing article 78's um they'll scrutinize whether the board relied on information that came before them in the record or if they were if if a board member relies on an exparte conversation that they had that decision that was made by the board could potentially be invalidated. So it's important to just remember that exparte communication should be limited. Of course they're going to happen in your normal life. um applicants are going to see you and want to speak to you about it. To the best of your ability, if if you do have next part day communication, you should come back to the um to a public meeting setting and disclose that what the contents of that

104communication was. But the safest practice is if it's not in the record, then it shouldn't be part of your decision-m practice. If applicants do approach you, you could always direct them to planning staff with um specific questions if they have a specific question. But when it comes to the merits of the application, make sure that the review is based on the record that comes before you, not exparte communications. >> Can I ask a question? Um, this came up in our premeating. Quasi judicial board. What what is what exactly does that mean? So you're you're making a decision that's not just it's something that can be it's going to be looked at by a court and it needs to be based on the record that's before you and it can't be arbitrary and capricious. So it

105you're you're bound by what the town code allows you to do >> and that sets forth where you can make your decisions and the record is going to dictate the rationale for those decisions. Yeah. >> So, yeah. So, we are making judgments, you know, based on the code. >> Based on the code. >> Yeah, exactly. >> I have a question. >> First, I have a comment. I think that Britney's chair should be about 3. >> Yeah, I know. I can't see anyone. >> I actually I wanted to go back to the table. >> I know. Yeah. >> It's too >> I feel like a Roman. So Britney uh my question is you know I think there's a b I always try to balance the need for more information so that I can make a better

106judgment more informed judgment and the and the exparte rules that you that you cited. So if if there's an application where the applicant invites me to visit the site or I take it upon myself to go to the site and and ask the applicant to be there to answer some questions in the interest of me learning more digging deeper into how I can uh better judge what's in front of us on that application. What you're saying is as long as I reveal that discussion in public, it's okay to do that. >> What I'm saying is the best practice is not to discuss the merits outside of a public meeting setting. It does occasionally happen. If it does happen, then it should be disclosed. Site visits in general are fine, but you shouldn't be getting into

107a back and forth on the merits of an application. and asking general questions and receiving an answer to the question could be permissible if you're you should come to the meeting and disclose what you learned on the record. So, it's part of the record that you're basing your decision on as a board. >> So, you're saying the the type of discussion that I have with the applicant on site is really what matters more. >> Right? So, if I'm just asking general questions aboutformational type questions about the site and the application, that's okay. But if I get into the area of discussion where I ask him to give me his reasoning as to why it should be approved, then we're moving outside the bounds of what's acceptable, >> right? >> Yeah. Absolutely. I think you I

108think you get that right. Yeah, >> you know, it it sort of like the uh the uh tours that we had of uh of another application in the winter of this year, right? We all went we had lawy, you know, an attorney with us. It was explicit, you know, we all wanted to see the site, right? But we we set it up so that we had >> uh it was not to be discussing the merits of the of the situation at all. it was 100% looking at the site. >> But there have been applicants that have invited us, you know, through the years that I've been on the planning board. Not very many, very few, but there are some who say, you know, give me a call, call me, meet with us and I'll show

109you around so that you can get a better idea of what's going on. >> I'll show you the neighborhood. I'll show you I'll introduce you to this neighbor and that kind of thing. But it's not. But does that doesn't sound that doesn't sound related to the application though. You're talking about meeting the neighbor. >> Well, meeting the neighbor to see what the neighbor has to say about the application. >> I I think listen guys, I think we need to be very very cautious about anything that in if if the application doesn't go the way of the applicant and there's a reference made to some conversation as innocent as it seemed at the time can be brought into an article 78. We don't want to we don't want to open ourselves up to that conversation. >>

110I I appreciate all that, but also I have visited sites that have brought up new questions. I'm like, why is that there? I visit the site. I didn't know that was there. So, >> all right. So, I have a suggestion about that. >> Okay. >> You visit the site, you make your observations, and in a public setting when the when the application is being discussed, you ask the question in a public setting. We've really to >> we've got to stay away from having >> communications because they can easily steer into territory that could get us in trouble. >> And also, you have to remember the court's going to look at it um whether there is an appearance of impropriy. So, even if there wasn't impropriety or if there wasn't a bias, there is always the

111risk that there's an appearance of impropriy and that could also invalidate a decision of a board. >> Gotcha. I think that's the key, the propriety. And I think I, you know, I drive by things, I park my car, I peek around, but it's, you know, and I listen, it's a small town. It is so hard, you know, to not run into people that have applications before the board. >> Sure. Um my recent answer is you know that we're trying to get to everything you know because there has been a lot of you know discussion about the the timing of things but I do think I think yeah I think discussing any specific cases is just >> not a great idea. Yeah. No, it's this balance between really understanding the application, knowing knowing what's going on,

112and you know, being mindful of conversations that are not appropriate and could be trouble down the line. >> And I I also think that if there is a need or desire for us as a board to see a specific application or site, then we should express that to the planning department and have an attorney present as we did for that other application back in the winter. >> Um. Yep. >> All right. So, I think everybody understands that and the uh I think one of the reasons that we wanted to be clear about this and to actually discuss it at a meeting on the record is that you know the website our website said until two weeks two or three weeks ago, please contact you know your planning board committee person right and it really should

113be saying please contact the planning department you know who are really the people who are >> that's right >> experts. I didn't know it was taken out. >> Was taken out. >> Taken out. >> Zip card. >> Was there a reduction in phone calls when when it when it came out? >> I was wondering why no one's calling. >> No one's calling. >> So anyway, I think we we understand how to how to proceed. >> So thank you very much, Britney. Uh we just have a couple of other things to quickly do some resolutions. And the first one is you Spencer Oaks. You can power through these. >> Yes. um planning board of the town of East Hampton in the matter of the application of Spencer Oaks preliminary subdivision Suffach County Tax Map number 300-182-2-5.1

114and 7.1. The planning board has reviewed reviewed a prior determination of the board and desires to modify certain provisions. I have read this resolution and I move for its adoption. >> Second. All in favor? I unanimous. >> Okay. The next one is Franetti. That's you again. Yeah. >> Um in the matter of the application of Franetti minor subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-13-2-18.1 waiver of subdivision approval. I have also read this waiver and move for its adoption. >> Second. Is there someone? Second. All in favor? I >> I passed and carried. Uh and then we have Hubard a a resolution to schedule a public hearing. I can I can read it. That's you. Okay. In the matter of the application of Hubard site plan MAP 300-49-4-12.1 schedule a public hearing. The hearing is hereby

115scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Pentag Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, October 10, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or soon after this matter may be heard or considered the set application. I move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> Okay, scheduled. Great. Uh and we have two sets of minutes. Uh the first is from the 13th of August. Is has anyone read them or are there any comments? >> There's just one comment on on the minutes from August 13th. Not a big deal, but on the last page 267 aonic subwaver. Um it's member Jones, I think is what you meant to say, but uh minor minor change. Number C. >> Number C. Where is it again? >> Oh, alternate member Reed. Alternate member. >> No, >> you're a regular member

116Reed. >> We have no alternates. >> Where is it? >> Okay. >> And then >> any other comments or corrections? >> No. >> Thank you, Eagle Eyes, for that one. >> I am. Yeah. No, sorry. Yes, we're good. Okay. So, a motion to approve those minutes as amended for August 13th. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Uh, all right. So, how about the minutes for the next meeting? >> The 27th. >> Thought we were all done. >> I have also read those. Those look fine. >> Everything look good. They look good. >> All right. Would someone like to make a motion to approve them? I make a motion to approve the minutes for August 27th. Is there a second? Oh, there's a second. There we go. >> All in

117favor? I passed and carry. All right. There's one more resolution. One more motion to make. And I think given that you're subbing for Bruce, you should say Bruce is not here that we close the meeting. >> Resolution motion. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's all good. >> All right. We've done that. Thank you very much. >> When is our next meeting? two weeks >> I think. So, >> was that an all in favor?