East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 08/27/2025

001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the East Hampton Towns Planning Board, our work session and regular meeting for August 27th, 2025. We have no public hearings today, but we do have six items on for work session and we've got quite a number of items on for a regular meeting as well, plus some boards of review. So, we're going to jump into it. Uh the first item is Land and Marina. That is Brian for the planning department and Ava, that's you for the for the board. >> Good evening, uh chairman crew, planning board members. Brian Frank on behalf of the planning board uh planning department and um we're here tonight to uh review the um EAF that has been

002prepared for the lands and marina application. The EAF has been drafted by the planning department on behalf of the board um based on the history of the application and the issues that were identified along the way. Um, as the board may recall, this application was most recently discussed by the planning board uh back in April where it was determined that the application had progressed sufficiently enough uh to go to the zoning board for the required natural resources special permit and wetland setback variance that's required for the sanitary system. Uh if you may may remember shortly before that there was a question about whether some of the uh structures that were less than 100 ft from the wetland were considered water dependent uses. And since then the building department made a determination that the um the

003bathrooms, the uh uh freezer and a number of other structures were water dependent uses based on on the on the zoning district. And uh the zoning board did have a hearing on the natural resources special permit application uh and and variance application back in July and they dis discussed the application for approval at their work session in early August but cannot formally act until a secret declaration is made by the lead agency. The planning board established itself as the lead agency back in in 2013. Um so although conceptually the application was at least discussed for approval I think is accurate uh the zoning board can't formally issue a determination until uh a declaration pursuant to SRA is issued. So um with that I'd like to kind of uh briefly run through the the history of

004the application and uh maybe sit down at the uh presentation station uh while I do that if you don't mind. >> Great. Thank you. >> By the way, I didn't ask is the the applicant here? I assume the applicant is here. Is he Rick? Okay, great. >> So, the uh application the the site plan special permit application is for a dock extension to accommodate an additional 25 vessels. Uh there was some back and forth of discussion about the uh number of existing uh boat slips. um compared to the proposed. A total of 49 boat slips are proposed and there are 24 existing slips. So 25 slips are proposed. There may be a couple of places where that wasn't corrected in the memo, but for the sake of clarity, there are 24 boat slips and 25

005are proposed. um in the dock extension application. The application consists of a a dock extension, a 960 ft twotory bathroom on the first floor, office on the second floor with attached decking, dumpster exlosure, uh concrete pad with a walk-in freezer, additional parking, and uh fencing and involves uh an upgraded uh sanitary system. Um the EAF part two short form consists of 11 questions. Uh the planning department believes that the issues that have been identified by the department, the planning board and the zoning board along the length of the application are best grouped into uh two or three questions. and those involve the questions regarding compatibility with existing plans, intensification of land use, and potential impacts um to water quality. So, as the board may know, and if you you don't mind, I'm going to switch

006over to one of the aerials of of the area. Um this is the Kun Cove section. It's the northwest section of um Lake Malk. >> Not seeing an aerial It should come up there in a second. Let me see. There it goes. It's going to switch. I promise. >> Yeah, that's dramatic. Uh so this is Kung Foot Cove and as noted in the um EAF as well as the review that was prepared by the planning board, most of Kunfoot Cove is zoned for uh waterfront or resort zoning. There are a couple of residential properties on Star Island. Um but this is uh arguably the most area the area of the uh highest concentration of commercial development uh in Lake Malk. Most of the shoreline is bulkheaded, not all of it. And the uh last uh

007remaining uh salt marsh in uh Coonswood Cove is located partially on uh the the property that we're talking about south of uh Durier where the coach launch is as well as the town property um to the north. So this is the highest area of uh commercial development. um probably the high one of or at least one of the highest concentrations of uh docks in in the town and certainly in in Lake Mto. Um the dock extension and the development of the of the further development of the marina um appears to be consistent with zoning and appears to be consistent with uh the land use plans, our our comprehensive plan. No adverse impacts have been identified um to land use or uh intensity. The variances that were required were wetland sephad variances exclusively for the sanitary

008system. Uh the sanitary the the wetland boundaries the closest point of the wetlands is kind of in the middle of the property over here. Um the property is bulkheaded along its northern shoreline. So the uh wetland boundary is is the bulkhead there. This is the area of the salt marsh um where the wetlands come parallel to the the southern portion of the improved property uh before turning south. Sanitary system has largely been uh proposed in the most conforming area on the property to wetland setbacks. Um there are parking spaces uh proposed consisting of um gravel spaces along the northern property line, additional grass paving uh grass parking areas in the northwestern section of the property. Drainage has been proposed um to accommodate a 2-in rainfall and those drainage plans will be um forwarded with the

009uh town engineer. I'm sorry I wasn't able to do it before uh tonight's meeting, but um typically uh acceptance of the drainage plan is is usually a condition of uh site plan approval. Uh the dock consists of a 120 ft extension out into the surface waters of Lake Mtok. Um it does involve an extension onto town owned bottomlands. The harbor master has opined that it is um not uh that it is unlikely or it won't impact uh navigation within the harbor. Uh the town attorneys have written a letter to the file stating that uh a new lease agreement would be um required. they don't object to the um processing of the application and that their letter shouldn't be construed as uh either uh support or uh objection to the application. So uh there is a

010small area of underwater lease now for um the seawwardmost portion of the dock um but a new larger lease area will be required um when if if site plan approval is granted. Uh the dock has been proposed to be composed of non-treated uh materials which is consistent with the requirements of the harbor protection overlay district which limits the contact of chemically treated uh materials with uh surface water. And if you um recall earlier in the year um the scenic easement which had been initially proposed over the wetlands has been been proposed to extend um farther west to include all but the area of uh the proposed sanitary system. Um, Kunfoot Cove is a is a pretty in intensely used portion of the harbor and no um changes to the water quality, no adverse impacts to

011water quality have been identified uh in association with the application. So based on some of the items that I' I've summarized and you have an EAF part two and a part three addendum that kind of elaborates on the points that that I just made. uh the planning department has not identified any significant adverse impacts and uh recommended that the planning board adopt a negative declaration pursuing to see um if anybody has any questions um about the history of the application or what's proposed I'll I'll do my best to answer them any questions from the board specifically for Brian about what he just presented >> no okay good I think it's pretty clear Brian thank you um does the applicant wish to be heard. Okay. All right. Good. Um, so we'll take this up. I our

012our uh objective tonight is to, you know, we have the the parts two and part three narrative uh for the EAF in front of us. Uh Brian is vagely described what's contained in them. And I know the planning department doesn't have much of an issue, but Ava, you want to lead our conversation? >> No, no, I've taken a look. Thank you, Brian, for the overview. Um, I reviewed the part part two EAF. I concur with the declaration. I don't have any comments further. >> Anyone else have a comment? >> Uh, I just have a comment. I know you didn't you said that the water quality is not impaired by the the new extension of the dock. You also said that uh the harbor master mentioned that it would not interfere with navigation. But to me,

013just from a layman's perspective, it seems that there is an intensification of that very narrow area and I just I know that experts have chimed in and said that they're not going to affect negatively the navigation and such, but I just wanted to I feel compelled to ask how how was that possible given that this another 25 uh slips steps are going to be added to that very narrow area with and you said yourself that it is a very intensely used navigable portion of Lake M. So I just I just have that thought in my head and I think this is the right venue to just bring it up even though others have mentioned who know better than I do have mentioned that it's not going to be a problem. Well, it's a legitimate question.

014So, Coonsfoot Cove has limited tidal flushing. That's part of the reason why it has um stressed water quality. It's subject to administrative shellfish closures now because of the um extent of um uh dockage in the area. So, it's never open um for shellfishing. And no new impacts to the water quality within Coonsoot have been identified as a result of this uh of the dock extension. Is it intensive? Is it an intensification? Yes, there are going to be there's going to be 120 foot more of dock and 25 more um slips. Does that adversely change the water quality of the area? The harbor essentially is what it kind of sounds like you're asking. and we have not identified any. >> Okay. Yeah, that that is what I'm asking. >> Okay. Or as a navigation question >>

015and also a navigation question. >> Well, both um I believe you all you definitely have something more recently from um uh senior senior harbor master Tim Treadwell. I believe you also have something from maybe five years earlier from Ed Michaels when he had the same uh title. both offering that that same opinion about the impacts to uh navigation. >> Okay. Thanks, Brian. >> You're welcome. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Okay, good. >> Um, are we ready to uh >> Make a negative declaration on this. >> Is everyone ready to do that? I'm >> ready. Yes. Yes. Okay. John talk. Yes. Negative declaration sounds good. >> Great. Good. Just pipe up if we don't ask. >> Oh, I will. I will. Don't you worry. >> Sure. Thank you. All right. So, we will bear

016that for next time. >> Good. All right. So our next uh matter is the Devon Yacht Club site plan and uh Lisa Lori is uh representing us uh for the building department up department on that matter and Mike that's yours. >> Yeah. >> So Lisa, are you with us? >> I am. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Very good. Um good evening. Um, for the record, my name is Lisa Laori here on behalf of the planning department and I am reviewing with you the Devon Yacht Club site plan special permit um, variance and natural resource special permit uh, applications before the town. Um, and we're looking at the secret determination. So the application has been reviewed by both boards, the zoning board of appeals and the planning board over the past couple of years.

017There have been um quite a number of changes that have been made to the application and much more um development of the application as well as um positive changes um have been made over these past couple of years. Um there's been quite a lot of information um submitted and it is uh now at the time where uh we're ready to um ask you to be making a secret declaration. So uh just by brief way of background I believe everybody knows where the Devon Yacht Club is. It has been long-standing establishment and institution in the town for over a hundred years um in Amigans on Bendigo Road and Abrams um Landing Road. Um and the proposal is to demolish virtually all of the buildings uh save one associated with the marina. And uh we build buildings

018that have virtually the same function as the buildings that there are now. There are some different sizes. There are different locations. There are different setbacks. Um and all of that is all itemized in detail in um the environmental assessments um that have been presented to you. Um so just to talk about where we are in terms of the review process before we actually go through the EAF. Um this application um has had a preliminary hearing before the zoning board of appeals. the zoning board. Um that we had brought the application to the planning board several times to the point where before going in any further we needed to get an indication, the board needed an indication as to whether the zoning board would be likely to be looking favorably on the application as it will

019require 20 variances. So if the variances were not going to be granted, there was really no point for the planning board to be developing and moving this application further any longer. So, in somewhat of a a unique process, the zoning board conducted a preliminary public hearing um was an extensive review and input from the planning department, extensive review by the zoning board in that they held a hearing, held it open, got additional information, conducted several different work sessions, um and put together some preliminary recommendations to the planning board. Um, none of that is binding because the application is not complete before the zoning board nor the planning board until SRA is complied with, until it a secret declaration is made. But just in order to know whether this application might be able to move forward,

020the zoning board took a look at it and indicated in a memo to the planning board that um it was likely to look favorably on the variances. It wasn't a unanimous decision. There wasn't really a vote made, but there was an indication. And you have all of that, and I believe you've all reviewed that um with me in um in some prior uh uh memos in work sessions earlier this year. Um so uh it was decided then we've got an extensive environmental assessment form from the applicant with numerous attachments that the planning board was the um agency that had worked the most with this application looking at it and actually having it go back and forth before the board um for several times and making changes that the planning board would uh really have uh

021the most authority and most indepth knowledge of the application. and it would be most suitable to be the lead agency pursuant to SECRA. The application is classified as a type one action which means that there needs to be coordination between all the involved agencies. The planning board uh requested lead agency of the other agencies and um got no objection. So virtually you are the lead agency um at this point. Um, and again, before we get into the details of the environmental assessment form, after a secret declaration is made, the application will go back to the zoning board of appeals for their review and for a public hearing on the variances and the natural resource special permit. So, the board that board will be looking to see whether the application meets the standards for variances, natural

022resource special permit, and their review. So that is in addition to whatever SRA conditions there might be. After the zoning board makes their determination, it will come back to the planning board also for a public hearing. There'll be a public hearing on the site plan and the special permit. Um and again those are things that the your board will be looking to see if there are any other conditions um that you may find are required pursuant to site plan to satisfy site plan and special permit standards for you to then be granting an approval. So while the secret is a very very important part of this review, it is not the only review and is not the last review. Um so with that as a preamble I'm going to um go into a little bit

023of um the environmental assessment forms part two and three. So the application >> pardon me for one second. Yeah, >> maybe since really that is the discussion we're about to have as you is your you know presentation of the uh you know the elements of the part two and three I think we'll we'll give the applicant a moment to to speak and then come back and make that our discussion >> all right so let's do it that way sounds good so would the applicant like to be heard >> I don't think we have anything to think Mr. Chairman >> okay >> you guys have enough you >> see what see what Mrs. uh Lori says and we'll proceed from there. >> Okay. All right. Good enough. All right. So, we'll come back to us. Um

024yeah, Lisa, please. >> Okay. Um can we take a look at this site plan? Put that up on um the screen just to have as a background. Okay. While that's going on, um we can take a look at um going to page uh three of my uh memo um where uh it is identified as numbers uh 1 through 11 of the areas in the environmental assessment form part two um that have been identified as having the potential for adverse environmental impacts. Um so uh just to basically review here is the proposed um site plan showing um in uh kind of a light yellow tone where the buildings are proposed. There's two different types of blue. The one on kind of the right side of the page is the boat basin that's existing that there are

025no changes being proposed to it. Um and then it looks to me they're kind of like blue green um kind of rectangles representing the eight tennis courts. There are eight tennis courts. Now there's a proposal to um keep the eight tennis courts uh resurface a couple of them and kind of adjust the location of the others but uh to really to keep eight tennis courts existing, eight tennis courts proposed at the end of the day. Um the parking lot is proposed to be realigned and expanded in order to have um more parking on the property, to have a better um flow of traffic um and to have greater setbacks to the wetlands. Um the property now does not have any drainage structures whatsoever. So the proposal is to um put in drainage structures that comply

026with uh the town code um and also to meet the minimum depth to groundwater. Um and that requirement plus the requirement for uh the sanitary system to have a minimum depth to groundwater is what necessitates uh the requirement for bringing in a fairly large amount of fill the importation of fill into the site. Um I do have an error in the EAF and in this memo that I have given you um where I have indicated a a cubic yardage of fill as 4,793 but that has been reduced to 3,976. I just was uh referring to an earlier plan when I wrote this so it wasn't a new change that the applicant had done. it was um my making an incorrect reference but in any event uh all that's a long way of saying the project

027will have impacts on the land. Um so there will be all of that demolition and rebuilding and importation of fill and um uh grading and installation of uh sanitary systems um uh you know innovative alternative low nitrogen um sanitary systems and um drainage systems. So that will have an impact on the land. um is there generally one could say that they're beneficial impacts, but on the short term um during construction and during these phases um there is the potential for impacts to the wetlands and the dunes and the applicant has um provided a construction protocol, sedimentation plan, a swip plan. Um all these um plans uh have been put together to um provide protection for the sensitive features. Are there any questions or any discussion on impacts to the land? >> Yeah, I think it's

028important to note as we go forward here just so it's really clear. I think Lisa did say this, but just to reiterate is that um you know the focus of tonight's discussion is really on this EAF. This is what we're discussing. we're discussing this and making a secret determination hopefully or coming away from this meeting needing other information, you know, so that we can make one. So, we're really limiting this to the questions essentially that are contained in the EAF and the responses that were made and the narrative that was developed for as a part three to to the EAF. So, just to be clear about that. So, we're gonna Lisa's going to present and then we're going to have a discussion and make sure that none of us has any specific questions or objections

029to anything that's in this so that at the end of the process, we'll be able to determine where we where we stand. Okay. So, as Lisa suggested, we're open to questions, comments on the impact on land. Are there any, Jen? >> Yes. I just I've wanted to make mention and I think Lisa you'll probably get to this but the impacts on the land you know we have to also take into account I think the impact that leaving the buildings alone will have on the land and I think that this is kind of a special case wherein it's not vacant land that's being developed it's land that's already been developed and has been operating in its current capacity and has all of the, you know, permits to continue to operate. Excuse me, I have a cold.

030Um, to continue to operate as it is. So, I think as a board, we should take that into account as we're listening to the potential negative um impacts on the land in the short term. >> Okay, good comment. Thanks. Anyone else? Okay, Lisa. >> Okay. Um so the next impact is to geologic features. The site contains what we would classify as a unique feature, a primary dune structure. Um some of the existing buildings, the clubhouse, the sailing center, the um bath house are built somewhat into that primary dune. And so it the by removing them by definition you're there will be a short-term impact to the dune because you're actually going to be removing something in the dune right now. The proposal is to relocate or build new structures serving the same purposes further from

031that dune and also to uh rebuild the dune so that it would be a continuous structure going um from the north of the property to the south of the property and that would be what we would call like the left and the right side of the property. So again, where you see the yellow, those are the buildings. Um that would be where the the buildings would be moving back from the dune structure and the dune uh would be rebuilt to a height of uh 10 ft elevation and uh reveated. So that um uh the site is already fairly intensely developed and there are structures as we said built into the dune. Uh nevertheless there still will be um variances required from um the setback uh from the dune setback. um by and large they are

032all um less than or that the setbacks will be increased compared to where the structures are right now. And as Jen had indicated, we are not looking at the development of a vacant site. We're looking at a heavily intensely developed site that has certificate of occupancies for everything that is there now. Um and this is a proposal to rebuild what is there um and in with respect to the dune crest um farther than the um the existing structures are. One of the issues that had um come up several times during planning board discussions was the u proposal for a um a deck to host the flag. And because that um the the walkway across the dune uh does not have uh minimum dune setbacks because it's considered a coastal structure, but the deck to host

033the flag does not meet that requirement. So over the review for several years now, the applicant has continued to reduce the size of it. And here again, I have um I'll call it a typo rather than an error. I had indicated that the applicant has reduced the size of the deck to 175 square feet, the you know the smallest that could still function. That is off by an order of magnitude. It is down to 17.5 square ft for the deck. So uh that is uh really a a lot smaller than have been originally proposed. the the impact of having a deck in that location on the dune of that size is greatly reduced um from you know and the potential impacts not as much of a concern as when the project first came in. Um

034I think that covers the uh impacts on geologic features. Any questions? Anyone numbers? >> Nope. >> Good. Lisa. >> Okay. So, now um impacts to surface and groundwater. Um so, the site has a number of um very sensitive environmental features. Uh there's an extensive wetland system across the um I guess it's the western side parallel to uh Bendigo Road. Um that area where you don't see any of the colors because that's where the wetlands are and that's where the wetlands are going to continue to be. Um, one of the positive features of this application is that currently there is a a staff residents parking area and associated septic system in that little area that is green in the middle of that wetland area. That's all that's gray on either side. Um, and that is propos

035that biseects the existing wetlands. It does not have the the septic system is something like 4 feet away from the wetlands. it. Calling it a septic system is an exaggeration. It is probably a cesspool sitting in the groundwater table. Um and all of that is proposed to be removed. Um and uh the the staff housing is proposed to be located inland um away from the wetlands. There's that little uh yellow rectangle surrounded by green um just to the north or higher up um on the site plan. Um so that is um taking what is an existing impact to the wetlands and um reducing it um in a significant fashion. I mentioned that the groundwater the entire site has very shallow depth to groundwater less than 3.5 ft most of the site and so in order

036to get the um the drainage structures and the um IA sanitary structures to meet the minimum depth to groundwater fill is proposed to be brought in. So in order you can have that um the minimum separation so that the septic um systems are not sitting in the groundwater which they are doing right now and that there'll be um uh some soil to be filtering um the effluent before it hits the groundwater. So again, we've got a couple of things that are existing conditions uh that this application um is improving on by um putting in up to-date um sanitary systems, increasing the depth to the groundwater, increasing the setback to the wetlands compared to the existing structures. However, there still will be um a number of uh variances from the wetlands that will be required and

037um as with the dune setbacks, these um setbacks uh uh are increased by comparison to the ex existing structures. Um there'll be also a large amount of reveation that is proposed some in the area that where the staff housing is that the reveation proposed is will be done in order to um encourage and facilitate the um reconnection of the wetlands um in that area. and other areas that have um been cleared or proposed to be reveated as well um on the order of more than an acre of land. All of these things then um making the impact to the surface waters, the wetlands and the ground waters less comparatively to what there is now. >> Okay. >> All right. Good. Any comments on impacts on surface water and on groundwater? >> Well, I restoring the

038wetland, removing the staff housing is another example of how this is a positive overall generally positive uh application for the area. So, you you remove the staff housing and the landbridge and the cesspool. What are the what are the protocols for removing the cesspool that is I mean I I've walked this site. It's right in the wetland. >> Yes. Well, the um the Suffach County Department of Health Services has standards for um how sanitary systems should be abandoned. Um and the application is proposing to comply with all of those standards. All right. Thank you. >> All right. Anything else? Okay. Go ahead, Lisa. >> Okay. Um flooding. Uh the site is within uh quite a large number of zones and classifications pertaining to flooding. It's in uh the FEMA zones uh where the proposed development

039is in the AE elevation 10. There's a little bit of one of the tennis courts in flood zone X, but the the uh clubhouse, the bath house, and the sailing center are all in portion seawward of what's called the limwa zone, the limit of moderate wave action. And um by being in that zone, FEMA has uh recommended or found that there's a higher risk of wave damage to buildings that are seawward of that zone. And so the FEMA regulations recommend that um buildings in those areas comply with velocity zone standards, which is the highest standard for building in any sort of FEMA zone. Um, so the application does propose to meet those standards for those buildings. That's the that's the clubhouse, the sailing center, the bath house that are partially seawward of the Limoa zone.

040And as a result, so not only will their first floor, you know, meet those standards, but that's also pertains to construction standards, which will include um driving pilings. And they're proposing uh timber piles for supporting the foundations of each of those buildings. And just by way of comparison, none of the existing buildings meet the FEMA standards in terms of construction standards um or in terms of minimum first floor elevations. Um the property is also within the town coastal erosion hazard overlay districts zones two and four. um and the uh the standards for those the recommendations for those are all proposed to be met. Um there has been a concern uh that although the town uh reports both the um local waterfront revitalization plan and um it's the CARP plans, excuse me, the coastal assessment and

041resiliency plan both evaluated um the shoreline townwide and neither of those plans found this property in an area of eroding shoreline or um very hazardous in those terms. Uh found it to be relatively stable. That was also supported by reports that the applicant submitted. Um, nevertheless, we always are looking towards the concern that of sea level rise townwide and as this facility has already been in existence for 100 years and we hope they have another hundred years and more in front of them. um perhaps a a rather longer time frame than uh many other structures, a simple single family residence structure that um the zoning board perhaps may be looking at. We think there's like perhaps a longer time horizon that should be looked at in looking at the new buildings here and anticipating that

042sea level rise could have an impact on the property and on uh the buildings. And we raised that concern to the applicant and they worked with their architect and engineer and have determined that the buildings would be able to be elevated sometime in the future if sea level rise made that condition uh something that should be considered in the future. Um so um that's also something that has come about through the extensive review that's gone on with this application over the years. Um so uh we've also talked about how the project is um proposing to rebuild and restore the existing dune that will also help provide more uh protection flood protection natural flood protection as that's what dunes function to do. Um the project of all of the buildings are seawword of the coastal erosion

043hazard line. That is a boundary that has been um determined by the department of environmental conservation and therefore the project will need variances from those standards before the DEC. The applicant is aware of this. They have developed a plan keeping those standards in mind and I believe they have provided us with informal um feedback from the DEEC indicating that the project is likely to obtain the variances from the SEA uh standards. >> Okay. >> Um so I believe that covers flooding. any comments from the board on uh the answers to the flooding related questions? >> Um so I think the next several um areas in the EFs are really have uh there are no impacts that were noted. Is that right, Lisa? Impacts on air, plants and animals and egg resources, >> right? Um, yeah,

044sometimes I gave an a um narrative even if it was a no, just to explain why it was a no. So, I'll I'll go by your guidance, chairman, as to which of these uh which one you'd like me to discuss any further. >> Yeah, I don't think we need to discuss those. I think we can move on to uh aesthetic resources if everyone's agree to that. >> Yeah. Um okay so aesthetic resources has been something um the planning board has uh been reviewing very carefully has also asked the architectural review board for input on the potential impacts to aesthetic resources. This uh site is already visible from the adjoining public beach and from across gardener's bay. The proposal is to rebuild buildings in the similar style, the architectural style that the buildings already are constructed

045at. And those that style somewhat characterizes the Devon area. Um so the architecture is consistent with what there already is there. Now, um there has been a kind of a perennial issue over whether the increased height in the buildings, particularly the clubhouse, um might have an adverse impact on the aesthetic resources. Uh remember, in order to meet the FEMA standards, the buildings are going to have to be starting at a higher elevation and then also this is more of a two-story building than there is now. I would characterize the existing clubhouse as maybe one and a half story. This is more of a twostory. Nonetheless, it does it complies with the height requirements um of the town code as measured from natural grade. Um so it it complies in that way. The board has asked

046for drawings and there have been 3D drawings, visuals um showing also with the um planting plan what the structures what the view of the structures may be over in the first year and five years and 10 years and 25 years. um showing that with the uh planting that's proposed um how any sort of view of these buildings will be softened um from the beginning of the construction but even more so over the years. The um clubhouse will require a front yard setback from Abrams Landing Road. The property has two front yards. Um so Abram's Landing is considered a front yard. the clubhouse doesn't meet the front yard setbacks um from Abrams Landing. The existing clubhouse is considerably closer than where the proposed one is. And another mitigating factor is the right of way of Abrams

047Landing Road is rather wide in that area and there is some vegetation there. So when you look at the impact from the beach area and the roadway, it's actually a, you know, there's a lot larger of a setback from the paved roadway than what from the property line would indicate. So it sounds like a a rather large um setback variance, but in actuality um from what you're seeing, it is not quite as large. Um yeah, this would also go back to the um architectural review board um for their review. So >> does it all have to be decided under the EAF? >> Yeah, important to note that. Um all right, so I think we have some comments on on this category. >> It's more of a question and it has to do with the architectural

048review board. Obviously, as Lisa said, these this issue is going to be adjudicated overview by the architectural review board. They'll make a decision as to what's proper and what's not. How does how does that since it has a large impact on this form? How does that uh affect our decision today on whether to make a positive debt or a negative debt? Um >> well let me let me just take >> it's not only the this issue but other issues as well like the the variances the setback variances all of those things that are going to be reviewed by the zoning board. >> So if they if they have these large impacts as stipulated on the on this form how do we answer that? How how does that affect our decision today? What kind of decision

049we make? >> Lisa, Eric, I'm going to take a crack at it. Okay. But >> Sure. >> You may need to jump in and correct me. Um, you know, my understanding is that we are really looking at all of these all of these factors and um determining whether on balance we feel as though the impacts positive or negative all have been identified adequately and that we feel comfortable moving ahead. This is not by any means this is not even we approve the project. This is really, you know, we have another opportunity to do a formal site review after the ZBA has their public hearing and it comes back to us for for site review and for our public hearing. So, there's plenty of opportunity to kind of look at details again like this and the

050input of other involved agencies. >> I I understand that part of this stated it very well. However, I think at the beginning of this procedure, we said that uh we either make a positive deck or a negative deck. We also might request some items to be further moderated by the applicant in order for us to make that decision. You did say that at the beginning. >> Yeah. Well, we might ask for more information. Yeah. Yeah. waiting on another board to >> asking for more information I guess is is not the same as >> I don't you know I don't think are are you thinking that we should get a you're suggesting that we >> I think we have no I believe in especially in this case I think we have plenty of information with regard

051to the graphics that they've submitted and we know what it's going to look like there's no change there's nothing missing there so if that's the only thing that we're looking for, then I think we're good. We ask for anything. >> Right. Right. And the ARB's uh >> as far as deciding whether it's proper or not, that's a decision the AR, >> right? And you know, when their perview is somewhat limited, you know, so yeah. Um any other thoughts about uh aesthetics? Okay. Um, you want to move on to historic and archaeological resources, Lisa? >> Sure. Um, so in terms of archaeological resources, uh, there is a state map that indicates in general terms where there's a potential for archaeological significance. And this virtually the entire coastline is an area where there could have been indigenous

052activity. So it lights up. Um so this area shows up on the state map. When the planning department reviewed this application with the planning board over the past couple of years, we've indicated our belief that the site has already been heavily disturbed and the likelihood of finding anything intact of significance is slim. So we have not recommended that there be further archaeological investigation. The applicant may in pursuing the state permits. If one of the state agencies says you need to do it, well that's up to another agency, but um it has not been our recommendation to ask for further um archaeological investigation on such a disturbed site. In terms of historic resources, um the area is Devon Yach Club is in the vicinity of the Devon Colony. The Devon Colony was identified um in the

0531990 and 1991 um historic reports um conducted uh for the town by Robert Hefner Association identifying areas that may have um hold together as a historic district have significance for that. He inventoried the entire town. He found that there uh the four houses um that are in this vicinity called the Devon Colony um uh at that time had met the criteria for being a historic district. the um town has not moved forward on making that an historic district. This site is while it's got the same name, it is not contiguous. It is not a budding. Um it is not adjacent to it. Uh the townwide archaeological the historic study did indicate that this site uh could not be investigated at that time to determine historic significance. Uh there was really way too much that would

054need to be done and they did not have access to it. So, the site has not been identified as having historic significance. >> Okay. Do any board members have any comments on on historic and archaeological resources? >> No. Okay. >> All right. I think we're down to the last two categories if I'm not mistaken. U transportation impact on transportation. >> Okay. Um so the the project um as I've mentioned several times uh will involve the importation of a large amount of fill. In my uh memo on page three I have the wrong figure for the amount uh and that is higher then is where's my corrector sheet? I'm sorry. It's about um thousand. I'm sorry. Okay. Uh so just to correct what is written, the proposal is to use 38 cubic yard trucks to bring

055in the fill and uh it would be importing 3,976 cubic yards, which would involve 105 truck trips one way or 210 trips round trip. And during phase one, it would be 55 truck trips and phase two, it would be 50 trip trips. So they wouldn't all be there's a year between them and the construction is proposed for the off season. Um so not as much impact on the truck traffic. There had been some concern during the review over the review of the project as to whether these truck trips would have impacts on local roads. We hadn't made any determination one way or another. We were consulting with the consulting um engineer um and also with the highway superintendent with the possibility of, you know, considering whether there should be a bond um put up by

056the applicant uh to cover the off chance that there are um any sort of adverse impacts to the roads by the truck traffic. Um, are there any comments on the transportation category? I >> I would like to hear from Eric if you and I would like just a little history on how a bond put on the wear and tear of a road has been applied in East Hampton Town. >> Sure. Um, so I mean I I can't give you a full and comprehensive history, but um it is standard practice for the planning board. um as a condition of approval and the zoning board in certain instances particularly where um you have um fill or sand um being carded for um you know dune restorations. Um it's been standard I would say you know in in

057unique circumstances to require bonds. Um basically the idea here is that all of that truck traffic might um tear up the road and roadways adjacent to the site. um a bond would be established to cover the cost of repair if the applicant um doesn't do it themselves uh upon completion of the work. So um it's something that's been required actually in some relatively small subdivisions. There's one in particular um I remember called Wadnull um that was up by uh the Montalk Manor in Montalk. um a bond was required as a condition of approval um to ensure that that uh after work was completed in this case in that case I should say uh installing a common driveway that the road was in fine shape. Um, generally what you would do is have the town engineer

058uh identify whether or not that is a recommendation first and then have them identify um, you know, what would be uh the cost of repairing roadways immediately adjacent to the site and then establish that as the bond. Um, I mean that's basically the way the board has done it in the past. Um it's something that's unique in that most of the site plans that you see um certainly you don't require them but um it's standard in the sense that it is something that the board has required on numerous occasions in the past and this being a very large application and as Lisa just went over necessitating many um truck uh trips to um bring the requisite materials to the site it's something that the board um might want to consider. Again though, um sort of

059um building on what was said before, um you know, right now you're reviewing the EAF part two and three, um you know, this still has to go to the zoning board of appeals for multiple variances and a natural resources special permit. They may require that as a condition. Um and then again, the planning board has yet to deem this complete and schedule it for their own public hearing. It's something that you could um condition, you know, further along in the process. So um >> so we don't have to do it tonight. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> So hope hopefully that's good background. >> Thank you. >> Uh I mean I'll make a comment on that same topic. And I I think it it is important uh that we you know consult with the engineer and

060determine uh you know what's an appropriate appropriate bond for this because I do think it's important uh in this neighborhood to make sure the roads are are protected. So just but that's just a comment for the future, right? We can sort of deal with that kind of down down the road as Eric as Eric is saying anyone else have any other comments on on this issue. Okay. Uh so I think our last category Lisa is noise, odor, and light. Is that correct? Yeah. >> Yes. Um, so one of the aspects is I >> sorry I I I don't want to skip over number 17 because it was checked off as a no. So you may >> where where we >> number 17 consistency >> oh yeah I'm sorry there there is there's >> yeah gotcha

061gotcha >> okay go ahead Lisa >> we'll we'll do that after the noise odor and light um so starting with light the applicant has come in with a lighting plan that shows that all light will be contained on site um no odors uh to be produced reduced off site whatever there's kitchen obviously um and noise is the one potential impact and as earlier mentioned the project is going to involve pile driving um for the uh to meet the construction standards in a velocity zone um and putting in uh timber piles. The applicant initially proposed to uh go within a 300 foot perimeter of the site to um go to all the neighboring properties and inform them of this and pretty much look at the condition of the buildings before any sort of um the driving

062goes on. We had recommended going to 500 ft and they have agreed. Um so that is it is a necessary part of the project um in order to meet the standards for being in this type of a flood zone. So it will be short-term impacts. Um they will be notifying the uh the neighbors within 500 feet of when this is going to occur. It will be in the quote unquote off season. Um and they've, you know, expanded the area that they will be informing the people of this disturbance to. >> Okay. Great. >> Any comments on on that category? No. >> All right. So, Lou, you'd like to talk about one that we where the answer had been no impacts consistency with community character. >> Yeah. And more specifically, item C. So this is consisting

063of community plans. Item C says the proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. So item C. >> Oh, you're we're on I'm sorry. We're on community plans not character 17. Okay. >> Um so I think it does u I think it is inconsistent with zoning regulations. I mean just the fact that there are 20 variances that are needed for this project uh illustrates that it's it's not consistent with zoning regulations. And I also would like to take issue with reg regard to this uh point. Uh I believe this is a narrative that was submitted by the applicant's attorney or or some other agent where he says in the narrative he or she the only fair way to undertake the environmental evaluation of this project is to do so in the

064context of considering what currently exists on the site to assess the impacts of what is being proposed comparatively against the environmental impacts of the current conditions. So basically they're saying compare what's there now with the plan that they have for the property. And if you do that you're going to see that you're better off with the plan that they're proposing rather than just leaving it the way it is which I agree with. However, I don't think that's the only way to look at this. The another way to look at this is compare what they're proposing with another plan which is more restrictive, less coverage uh than more more minor in nature than what they're proposing. So uh I think with regard to the u to that item C perhaps and I know one of the

065objectives of doing SRA is to for the applicant and for the planning board to review alternatives to what different issues on different points. So why couldn't we ask for an alternative project plan? uh for us to consider within the CR review based on that argument. I I don't want to speak for the applicant, but the applicant seems to be pretty steadfast in uh their plan, their proposal, and it it it's like they won't make they won't they'll keep it as is for the foreseeable future, right? which is I think detrimental to the ecology of that whole area. That's that's in the back of my head. >> But Michael >> and I and I I appreciate you don't >> every applicant came before us and said listen this is the plan we have. You either take

066it or leave it. >> It's but we have >> we we weigh that, right? We we and from my early days on this on this board, we we've weighed that like how how much does the benefit outweigh the disturbance, right? That's like our job. >> Let let's let's remember what we're doing here. I I don't want to get too far a field. You know, we do have this is not us, you know, approving the project. This is not us modifying the project in any way. So this in specific this is simply to say do we understand >> the impacts and it doesn't mean that that we can't ask for some modifications down the line right and I think the the only thing that's relevant to this discussion it seems to me is do we want

067to note this as moderate to large impact that their proposed action is not consistent with local land use plans. >> Yeah. At the very least I believe. >> Yeah. I don't know if that particular phrase captures what you're saying. Um, >> so do you think that this is consistent with zoning? >> It's it's a isn't it what is the it's zoned residential and it's a it's a yach club and it's a >> but zoning regulations have particular setback regulations. Yeah, >> they are they are significantly in violation by substantial amounts, >> right? But requiring 20 variances. Now that to me is not consistent with zoning reg. >> All right, but let's let's remember that you know the current the current site is pre-existing as it is, right? >> Sites developed. the current side is >>

068looking at a vacant like Jen said earlier, we're not looking at a vacant property. >> Yeah, >> I think that will be a different story. >> So, I want to ask Lisa and Eric for their opinion that if um if the board kind of agrees to make a point about this uh how might we do it in in this context, right? I don't know that 17c is exactly necessarily what's being driven at here. Um Excuse me, guys. Can I make one comment with regard to Lou's? >> Um, >> go ahead. >> So, Lou, I do I do see what you're saying, but I feel like this is the plan that the applicant has come up with and and the applicant from my understanding, you know, I have not been on this board for more than

069a year and a half. Um, but my understanding is the applicant has been receptive to to making changes and I do think that the plan before us is much better than what's there now, but in a broader sense, not to get too into the weeds, in a broader sense, if we say no, we don't like this application and this plan, doesn't it set us up? I I mean how where where will that sort of lead this board in a in a general sense? Um you know then other applications kind of become subject to this um determination on our part you know we'll come back with with something something else. I mean I do understand that they do need 20 variances um and that's a huge amount of variances. I I I totally get that. But

070I I just think that in this case, this is what's there. I don't think it's a take it or leave it kind of thing, but if we don't approve it, the reality is it's going to stay. >> But we know we're not anywhere near >> approving. We're not approving or dis. >> No, no, I know, but I'm just kind of saying >> theoretical probably not the time. But as a theoretical >> secret review, you ask for alternatives. You don't just say this is the plan. You ask for alternatives. Now, the applicant may submit those alternatives. Say we're we although we're submitting these alternatives, we're really not we don't want to go down that path with these alternatives. But it is a secret review is a review of alternatives here. We're not getting any. We're just

071getting one. Well, I I would I would object to that, but I you know, I think this whole process has spun in which the the project has been continually refined >> as we've asked for further input. >> Trimming the forest is not alternative. >> I I think I I would like Lisa and Eric to opine on how we captured this thought in this context, right? I mean, I understand what Lou is saying. Do is that something that needs to be captured at this point >> or is it something actual course of events >> and I'll take a stab at it first which is look just looking at that question is the proposal consistent with local land use plans. Well yeah it is it in the comprehensive plan talked about water dependent uses keeping them on

072the waterfront making sure that they're an important part of the community and how it operates. There's nothing in the comprehensive plan or any of the other plans, the coastal, you know, the cart plan, um the other things that that says that this project should go away. Um it says or that this project is inconsistent. This project right now um the way that it exists right now is more inconsistent with the zoning than what the proposal is. Right? So, you could say the existing site project is inconsistent with the zoning regulations, which it is, right? It doesn't. It would need more than 20 variances to build what's there now. Um, and you wouldn't be able to do a lot of those things. You wouldn't be able to put in septic systems that don't work that way.

073You wouldn't be able to put in have a site with no drainage. You wouldn't be able to do any of those things. that site the way it exists you would not be able to build it. So to answer their question to say okay from you know what how would you answer it the existing site doesn't meet the zoning regulations. So there is something to be looking at it comparatively are you making it less conforming or more conforming but it's not strictly that these are issues for the zoning board right to be looking at the variance standards and that's why before we got it to this point where we were putting together a a draft secret determination we said let's hear from the zoning board of appeals is this likely to meet those variance standards. And

074by saying yes, they're basically saying it meets zoning. Um, so this hasn't been a strictly take it or leave it application. It's been reviewed many times over two to three years. I think the applicant began with doing some other public work before that. um and there have been many changes that have been made um over the time. So even if you were to answer this question, yes, it could have a moderate to large impact because it's inconsistent with zoning regulations, it would go the zoning board, should the zoning board grant the variances, it meets the zoning standards. Um, so if you're looking for other alternatives, what you need to do is identify what how this plan is harmful to the environment and what type of an alternative would be less harmful. That's that's really what

075you need to focus on. So we need to say what is an unacceptable impact to the environment that then an alternative could help us address. Right. >> Okay. Just one last comment because I don't want to drag this on. It seems to me that we're sort of setting to my mind sort of setting a precedent where an applicant comes in, they have a plan, they can tweak it here and there if we ask them to, but that's their plan and we have absolutely no recourse to get alternative uh improved plans than what they've submitted. And by and in this case, what I'm talking about is less coverage, less GFA, uh more permeable land surface, uh less uh setbacks to wetlands, that kind of thing. So if you have less number of buildings or smaller buildings,

076less tennis courts, I'm not suggesting that that's the I'm just throwing out examples. Those are alternatives. We're not getting any of that. We're only getting the initial plan that they came in with that was tweaked here and there and along along the way. That's all. That's all I just want to say. >> I think the tweaks have been pretty substantial. I haven't been on this for very long, but it seems like the tweaks have been pretty substantial with a small >> right >> footprint to work. Yeah, we're I know it's very difficult to not get into the specific merits, you know, of of the of the proposal, but I do think that we have an opportunity for some of the kinds of things you're talking about in the site plan review process. Uh I I

077would suggest that we leave this as it is. >> Okay. >> Um if everyone else is okay with that, >> um take this up as we go along. Okay. Um All right, Lisa, thank you. That was a a lot, but uh it was very helpful for helpfully for everyone listening and certainly for us. We've reviewed this a you know many times, but it was great to have it all in this condensed format. So, thank you very very much. Before we turn this o I'm turn this over to Michael who's committing on this project. >> There's not I have nothing more to say. >> All right. who you might um I just want to go I I do want to just say as I said earlier that this is really not you know our our making

078a secret determination is really just a step in the process and it's important for us to make one in order for the process to move forward to uh back to the ZBA again as we talked about earlier and um you know this is really about us looking at this project in balance and determining whether or not we we feel like you know the impacts have all been identified adequately and that we feel comfortable with them and knowing that we have an opportunity to do a formal site plan review down the line. So with that, >> a negative declaration does not mean we approve this. Just a negative declaration. And this has I've had this from the very start from however long ago it has been. And every I've said this before too. Every meeting whether

079it's the ZBA or the planning board or a CAC, they have made an improvement of some kind to this application. And it it we might be at the point of a diminishing returns where there's how much more improvement can you make. So that's all I have to say on this. >> Bruce, what do you have to say? >> Uh I I've had nothing. >> Okay. How do you feel about a negative declaration? >> I support it. >> Okay, Jen, >> I agree. I think um negative declaration is the way to go. Um, yeah, and I agree with everything Michael just said about all the improvements and changes that have been made based on everybody's comments. >> Okay. Thanks, Jen. Ava, >> I certainly haven't been on this nearly as long as as Michael or anyone

080else at the table, but I'm very familiar with the site. Uh, I' I've read through everything and I I agree. I I'm in favor of the negative declaration. >> Okay. I'll also vote for the negative. >> Okay, great. Um, all right. Uh, great conversation everybody. Thank you very much. And I just want to say that, you know, this is a very complicated application as you all know. Uh, it's taken a long time for us to get to this point. Uh but it's also a hugely important project to for the town and it is uh one that I I have said before and I think it's true but it's a model for other organizations in town to really look toward uh as we all think more about uh rising sea level uh and other environmental issues

081that are coming down the pike. Uh so I I like that. But it's also been a very unusual process. The sort of soft public hearing that hap I'll call it soft public hearing that happened with the CBA and their you know their informal uh kind of opinion prior to this discussion is a little bit unusual too. Uh but I do agree that every time that we've had a discussion about this uh you you know you've been very responsive. you've come back with alter, you know, with alternatives for specific elements of the plan that have made it much much better. And I think what we actually one of the things we're really looking at is, you know, do we actually need to move to an e an EIS before we, you know, make any declaration or

082not? And I think we almost have one because we've spent so much time uh on this project and you guys have provided so much information. um you know just for tonight for example right you know I mean stables is out of paper I think after this uh so I would also say that we are my opinion is that we're ready to make a negative declaration and uh not go for an EIS and move the process forward. Excellent. It sounds like we're you know in tune on that. So that is how we end the discussion. Am I missing anything Lisa? Eric, >> you should I mean I I think it's a little bit of a matter of formality, but you should make a motion um to make a negative declaration. >> Okay. Would you like to

083make that motion? I make a motion to make a negative declaration on this application. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I passed and carried. >> We didn't do that on the first one. >> Should we have done that on the first one? >> Maybe. our lawyer will tell us if we have to do that. >> This was a big one. >> Yeah. Agreed. >> So, just one procedural thing. I um I will be making those corrections to the AF for those points about the um amount of fill and the size of the flag deck. Um and then all of that gets routed and everything in um as what a type one action should do. Okay, good. Thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for all your hard work on this, Lisa. It's a lot.

084>> Good. Thank you. >> All right. All right. If we have any energy left here, let's move on. Uh, let's see. We have the agenda right in front of you. >> Bruce. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I'm going to sign off. Good night. >> Thanks, Lisa. >> You go and have dinner. All right. So, Hubard is up next and that is Sarah. That's you. Uh, and Bruce >> and the applicant is here for Hubard. Joel, right? Yeah. >> Righty. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. Um, so this is a site plan resubmission for Hubard, formerly Naturally Good Food Cafe. Uh, it's located on 38 South Etna Avenue in Montalk. The lot is zoned as central business with the most recent certificate of occupancy issued in 2000 and that was for a retail building with an

085apartment above. Um the apartment had a screened in porch which has since been enclosed with the work done around 2003. The site plan was um or a site plan was submitted in 2003. However, it was missing some elements. Um, a site plan application for these improvements was resubmitted in July of this year. Um, the applicant is now seeking to legalize the installation of windows that replace screens for a second floor exterior porch. I can show the plans up here. So, that's for this area. Um, 363 square ft. Um, as mentioned was previously screened and is now uh windows. Um, this project is a type 2 action pursuant to SRA, meaning it is not subject to additional review. Um, the change is considered minor and there are no expected impacts to coverage, parking, or the sanitary

086system. There are no proposed exterior improvements or new structures as part of this application at this time. Um, the planning department has no objections to enclosing the second story porch. Um, it should be noted by the applicant that any additional structures, additions to existing buildings, or other changes on site that are not approved under under the most recent CO um will need to be removed or receive the necessary approvals. Um, the planning department has reviewed the submission and notes that the submission does not clearly illustrate the area to be enclosed and does not include an updated survey. Um but given the minor nature of this proposed project, the fact that the proposed changes are interior and that the board has waved site plan elements for similar applications, uh the planning department finds the emotion acceptable

087and the board should determine if it agrees. Um if the board agrees that the emissions are acceptable, the board should decide if the proposal is complete and ready for public hearing. Are there any questions? >> Anyone? >> Thank you, Sarah. Joel, would you like to be heard? Good evening, Joel Hson. Uh, I don't really have anything to add to that. I just like to address um it is just a small 363 ft enclosure. There used to be it used to be a knee wall around a covered porch on the old it was the old naturally good naturally good building. Uh, at one point they took the screens out and replaced it with windows and that's what we're trying to legalize. So, simple as that. >> Okay. Bruce. >> Yeah. I um I don't have much

088to add. I think this is is very simple. You know, square ft. Um no increase in the footprint. Um no increase in anything exterior except aesthetics. Um it was under a roof to begin with. So um I I I don't have a problem with it. Doesn't trigger septic. hasn't triggered GFA. Everything's all within the acceptable limits. So, I >> Okay. Um, how about the point about uh potentially waving the uh public now waving the um a site plan, you know, a current >> site plan or survey? >> Current survey. >> We haven't got an updated survey. Was there one in 2003? There's one from 2003. Um, if you want, I have that to pull up. Um, I think it's also also worth noting that, you know, when they go to get their CO, they'll have

089to get an asbuilt survey. Um, >> true. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's worth noting, >> but >> I think we can probably let that go. >> Yeah. But you mean the only reason I bring it up and I don't know if anyone else has any opinions about this, but if you know if there is some other something else that's happened, you know, since so much time's gone by since this was originally done, if there's something else there that would require review, >> you know, and it'll come out ultimately co anyway, right? But still Joel, do you want to comment on that? >> I believe we did send an updated survey. I actually had the survey updated to actually outline the portion of the building that um had the the previous uh in uh

090sorry screen porch. I don't have a I didn't bring all my files with me unfortunately that I don't have because this file is big. Let me check over there. But there should be a survey on file. >> We have we didn't receive one in our packets. >> There wasn't anything in the packet. >> Okay. Sorry about that. I do have actually I do have an updated survey that shows that was what they required currently. Yes. >> Yeah. So, um I will I will find my I'll submit that to the file. Um nothing's really changed on the property except for the building. Well, and that hasn't even changed. It's just the windows. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, you know, that was the only concern I had. Yeah. If there's anything else on the site, so

091if you if you do have a current survey, we'd like to see it. Uh any other comments or should I just go to the questions that okay so do we as planning board agree with the planning department's recommendation to wave the item required by town code 2556-50 which is the site plan we're just we're agreeing we're waiting >> not we're going to get one >> we're going to get one correct Joel >> yes >> okay >> does the planning board find the proposal complete and ready for a public hearing >> is it required of a camera. >> Yeah, >> I think it Sarah is it? >> Yeah, it has habitable space. So, my it has um has habitable space. So, my understanding is that it needs one correct me if I'm wrong. >> All right.

092>> That's all right. Thank you, Eric. Does everyone Everyone's good with that. >> Yeah. >> Ready for public hearing? Okay. Once once we get the site plan. Okay. Thanks. All right. I think Franetti is next. Uh, >> are you standing? >> I'll be covering that for uh Chris Decker. >> Okay. Thanks, Eric. And that Jen, that's you. >> That's me. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So, I think >> Oh, and just I'm sorry. I keep not asking this applicant. >> Yeah. Of course. Great. So hopefully you should be able to see my screen now and you'll see a sort of far aerial uh of the property in mom talk. Uh this is a closer aerial and then this is the minor subdivision map. Um so basically um this should be pretty brief certainly more brief

093than the last uh or application before last. Uh public hearing was held on August 13th. We received no comments from the public. The fire marshall has signed off on the minor subdivision and provided the board agrees, the application is ready for approval um with the uh subwaver map which you see in front of you uh noted in the memorandum. >> Okay. Uh any other comments from anybody? Jen, what anything to add? the applicant wish to be heard at all or is that first? >> No. Okay. >> All good, Jen. >> I guess we're all good. >> Um, yeah, >> we I'm all good to approve this. We just, you know, we just saw it two weeks ago. Nobody on the public hearing. >> I'm all I'm good. >> Everybody agree with Jen. We all good?

094>> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, we don't have a resolution tonight, but we will next time. Good. Thanks, Rick. Okay. All right. On to the next, which is Elite Towers at Springs Fire Department. And that would be Eric again and Reed. Let me share the landscaping and screening plan that the applicant submitted. Um, so that was really the main outstanding issue the last time the board reviewed this. Um, if you recall, the applicants were proposing a a lone row of 6ft tall evergreen screening in the form of arbor vites. They've augmented that by adding another row to create what is essentially sort of two staggered rows of six foot tall evergreen screening. Uh, this time adding cryptoaria. Um and then they're also proposing to add another five of those plants um adjacent to the

095tower itself. Um so the board should determine if this is acceptable. Um the code does require well otherwise require screening of the entire site so around the perimeter of it. Um however the code also empowers the board to wave that requirement. I don't know that there's any benefit uh to screening out the Springs Fire Department property in its entirety and I don't think the board um was going down that road at the time of the last review. Um but the applicants have submitted uh this additional screening. Um since the date of the memo, they also submitted updated photo simulations of this area. Um so what you see now in front of you is the site as it exists um in the rough location of where the equipment area would be and the pole itself. And

096then you can see here a visual rendering of what that would look like. Um so the board should determine if that additional landscape is landscaping is acceptable. Um the other outstanding issue was that the EAF part one needed to be amended. the applicants have amended it as directed um by the board and the planning department. Um given provided the board also finds that acceptable, we will begin the process of um initiating lead agency for the planning board. Um we needed a complete EAF part one to establish lead agency. Um we can do that now. Um the board just to let the board and the applicants know the other involved agencies have 30 days to respond to that. Um if they respond sooner, the planning department will react sooner. Um but usually they take the 30

097days. What we will do is at the the end of that referral period have an EAF part two and three ready for the planning board to consider at a future meeting. Um and then we can also schedule the matter for a public hearing. That is of course provided the um board is okay with the screening. Um the ARB reviewed this as they're required under the code to send comments to the town board. Um, we do now have a copy of formal written comments from the ARB. Basically, everything they said was I shouldn't even say basically everything they said was supportive of the application as it's currently proposed, including the, um, coloration of the tower. So basically um in conclusion uh the planning board should discuss whether or not the additional landscaping and screening is sufficient

098um and also if the EF part one is acceptable in which case we'll begin initiating um the process to establish lead agency. Um there are other matters that are code required as far as a final formal recommendation of from planning department staff as to whether or not to approve this. there are unique um conditions and requirements. This being a wireless application um we'll fulfill the we'll um provide those uh when uh NEAF part two and three is prepared and the board is set to consider a negative declaration. Um so that's basically it. >> Okay. Thanks. Your applicant obviously wishes to be heard. I think I already was. Um, good evening. Uh, Greg Alvarez, a model law group in the New York Here we have the applicants. Um, we just wanted to say that hopefully we

099have heard properly in terms of the direction uh from last time um uh with the landscaping and um as I and as Eric mentioned um believe we've addressed all of the issues on the EF as well. So um at this time we entertain it for your um review and opinion and uh hopefully if we are in order uh hope we are on that path then for a public hearing. So thank you very much for the review. >> Okay thanks Reed. >> Yes we're hearing >> this is not a public hearing Rick. This is not a public hearing. >> Let the applicant's attorney speak to you. >> Pardon? >> Attorney has spoken to you. I represent >> that the process is our planning department provides their analysis. The applicant is asked to speak. The board then

100is cut out of the process. >> We do you know very well from years of doing this that that we don't typically allow comment from anyone else. >> Trying to make a decision whether you're trying to make a decision on your secret. We're not going to be allowed to comment before you make that decision. We are making a decision tonight whether or not we are going to we are going to uh ask for lead agency. >> There's no public hearing on this. So I don't get to talk if I don't get to address you now. >> I'm not going to take much of your time. >> There's no public hearing on this. >> Very little to say. >> Well, >> but I think I should be able to say something. >> There is. No, >>

101there will ultimately be a public hearing. Is that not right, Eric? >> Correct. >> There will be a public hearing. Yes. >> Yes. But after you've made your secret determination. It's correct. >> Rick, >> you're a piece of work. I gotta tell you, I'm gonna give you three minutes. >> That is it. >> And this is the last time it's going to happen. Okay. Seriously, >> Richard Whale, I'm attorney for just to be clear because this came up in the applicant's letter. I represent David Kelly and Nicole Barbara. Their properties are less than 600 ft away from the proposed new tower location. uh and they are supported by other residents of town which far Lane. Those are my plans. Very my comment is very simple. The board made a secret determination in July 2020 to

102require a DEIS. You actually had a scoping outline in August of 2021 and at that time you identified five areas that you felt had the potential for significant adverse impacts. those affected aesthetics, historic character, uh potential impacts on human health, uh community character, and inconsistency with local plans. So, we don't think anything has changed other than the applicant has withdrawn the application and resubmitted it. And frankly, they had a approved scoping outline in September 2021. That's four years ago. If they had simply proceeded to submit a dis in accordance with what you determined, the board itself determined, this process would probably be done already. So that's my comment. I think that you should adhere to your prior decision and should require a dis. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I don't want this to become a

103debate. >> No, no, no. I I I we stand on our written submission in terms of our description as to why it was more than more than justified in terms of the withdrawal and resubmission and I'll leave it at that and leave it to the board to consider. Thank you. >> Eric, do you have any comments on that on this issue? >> Additional unless the board has specific questions. >> Okay. Um All right. >> So, we're nearing the uh end of this process. Um, I want to thank the applicant for their cooperation. They've done everything that we've asked them to do. Um, I think the screening is adequate. Again, this is at the rear of the property. Um, but I I I thought it was important to have some screening and you've complied with that.

104Um, I'm comfortable with us uh establishing lead agency status. I am comfortable supporting negative declaration on SRA and I think we're ready to schedule this for a public hearing. >> Okay, good. Any other thoughts? Any other comments? Jen, anything? >> Um, I agree with Reed. Okay, >> just just to be clear, um the matter in front of the board to to get us to that point um is whether or not you find the screening acceptable or whether or not there are any other changes that need to be made. Um the EAF part one will send out. We're not ready to to make a negative declaration yet. Um that is dependent upon responses we get from the involved agencies, but provided they don't object to it. Um then it is the intention of the planning department

105to prepare an AAF part two and three and bring that back to the planning board for their review and consideration for a secret declaration uh at a subsequent meeting. >> Thank you for the clarification, Eric. So we'll go to the questions then. Does the planning board find the screening of the equipment area acceptable? >> Yes. Okay. All right. So the the thing that we're uh our objective is to is to then go ahead and begin the process of establishing lead agency. All right. Um and move move forward to a public hearing once lead agency has been established which will take a little bit of time and then there will be a public hearing and there will be an opportunity for neighbors and others to be heard. So, um, do we have a motion to begin

106the process to establish lead agency? >> I make the motion to, uh, begin the process of establishing lead agency status. >> Second. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> unanimous. All right. Thank you. All right. So, let's move on to Spencer Oaks. >> Okay. >> Eric, that's going to be you. And Jen, I believe that's you. >> That's me. Hopefully you can see my screen. Um, this is an application to modify the Spencer Oaks preliminary subdivision approval of a five lot subdivision located in the D residence zone. It was approved in 2010 and then modified the following year. Um, the proposed modification is to depict a portion of Sharky's Way along lots 3, four, and five to be abandoned. And the proposal would designate this area as an access and utility

107easement with a common driveway serving lots four and five as well as an out parcel that's also owned by the applicants which you can see on the far left hand uh side of this plan. This originally initiated from uh after the applicants received preliminary subdivision approval. They went to the water authority trying to extend water service for the the lots on the far left here. The water authority wanted um there to be a common driveway and a utility easement over that area so that there was ownership of the area rather than just being in an abandoned portion of roadway. Um so that's what in uh initiated this. Um it's been a long time since the board reviewed the modification request. the planning department has been working with the applicant um to provide complete plans um

108and uh we feel that that they're at that point. Um the town engineer had recently identified two specific um sort of deficiencies in the plans. Um when I wrote the memo, we had not received a a follow-up report from the town engineer. We have since and the town engineer has signed off um on the project. One of the comments the town engineer made was this plan that you see right here. I apologize it's difficult to see, but shown in light green as a common driveway um coming off of uh the culde-sac of Sharky's Way that wasn't previously shown on this plan. What you see in front of you is an updated plan reflecting the town engineers comment. The other issue that was raised was about a notation related to the scenic easement and access on

109the properties. So, I'm going to zoom in a little bit um on the lots on the far left. And what you will see on the map as it was drawn and approved is that there is a scenic easement um of varying width that runs, you know, uh between the interior of the lots where a home would be and the road and common andor common driveway that's serving as access. So obviously there needs to be some provision for access through the scenic easement. There was previously a note on the map that said um lots three and four uh shall take access from the location uh shown on the map. Um which as you can see in front of you, the map does not have a location indicated. The last time the board reviewed this, the planning

110department um suggested that rather than amend the map to draw a specific driveway um that the scenic the language of the scenic easemen could be crafted as such to provide for a single access of a width consistent with what the town code requires. Um it seems that the planning board agreed with that. Um but it was a while ago and it wasn't entirely clear. So the planning department had said the planning department recommends that the final subdivision includes clear language on clearing restrictions within those northern scenic easements to ensure that only area which is required for each site driveway and utilities is cleared. Um the planning board said after that meeting the comments regarding the subdivision should be addressed including scenic easement conditions regarding driveways. So it's something that the board has done. So, you

111sort of have two options here. Whether or not you want to have the map amended to illustrate a specific driveway location. Um, we don't feel that that's necessary. We've done it before where um the easement just provides for a singular access and also that can be done at final subdivision. Again, this is a modification of the preliminary subdivision approval. um they still need to submit a final subdivision application and that is where um most of the sort of house cleaning of of the subdivision is done. Making sure map notations are correct, making sure that uh draft copies of easements, CNRs are submitted to be reviewed by the board and to be found acceptable. So, we're fine with the applicants um doing it as a provision in the scenic easement and we're fine with them uh

112submitting that draft language uh with a final subdivision which is um really the standard way to do it. Um only a few other notes here. One is that um this these lots are currently in a UR map. Uh the applicant actually already obtained a UR map modification and then a modification of that modification. Um we believe that um there's actually going to be another modification that's needed which is really essentially just to retire these lots from the UR map. Um actually these lots this property is in the same UR map as Green Hollow Woods and when that subdivision was done those were originally UR parcels. The subdivision was created and then they were retired out of the UR map. The reason being, one of the main reasons to have the UR map is to perfect

113access um in the area and throughout the map. If you're doing a subdivision of those properties, um the roadway is going to be improved and the common driveway is going to be improved through the the subdivision process. And actually, if I zoom out here on the map, you'll see obviously the applicants are going to have to complete the improvements to do the culde-sac and the common driveway. Um but just making a note of that um that that will come. But again, that is also something that's usually completed um this time as a condition of final subdivision approval, not at the final subdivision approval. Um the applicants also added uh two map notations which were uh previously noted to be required. Those are actually usually only required at final, but the applicant provided them. Um they're

114fine. The fire marshall has signed off on this. So, um, basically in conclusion, um, uh, the town engineer has deemed the application complete, so it appears that it's otherwise complete. Um, the board should just, uh, determine if it agrees. >> Let's see. Jen, please. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Sorry. >> Um, Joel. Joel. Joel. I have nothing to add unless you have any questions for me. Eric was very eloquent in his speech process. >> Good. I thought you I thought you'd say that. >> Jen, >> now it's my turn. Um, yeah, I agree with Eric. I think that this is, you know, a change to a preliminary subdivision and I think I'm good with the changes and I think it's there's not much to talk about. Okay. Um, any other comments? >> Okay. Yeah, I

115think it's pretty straightforward. >> Yeah. >> So, I think we can just, if no one has any other comments, we'll go to the questions, which are uh, pretty much what was outlined by Eric. Does the planning board find theation on the map regarding access acceptable provided draft language for the scenic easements and access permitted is submitted at the time of the final subdivision application? >> Yes. >> Yeah. Sounds like everybody's good with that. Does the planning board agree that the modification application will be complete and ready for approval once the town engineers concerns have been addressed? >> And and again, the town engineer has signed off since the date of that memo. So, you could amend that question to is the application complete, ready for approval. >> All right. Is the application complete and ready

116for approval? >> Yes. >> All right. Let's check that one off the list. Thank you. Um, all right. Well, that is the end of our work session. We have quite a number. I think >> I know the end of the board is here. It's for >> it's No, they the applicant withdrew. >> Yeah. I guess they didn't tell you that. >> Another one. So, >> okay. >> All right. Sorry. >> Yeah. Okay. So we have uh a number of uh public hearing schedulings. The first of which is brieased court. So uh Ava, you want to read that in? >> Uh in the matter of the application of Brieas Padell site plan subcounty tax map 300-181-1-5.1. Uh public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall, 159 Panagle Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, September

11724th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter uh may be heard to consider the said application after read. >> Um you know what? No, we we don't typically do that, but I I'm wanting to include uh point number >> six. >> Uh is that right? Yeah, six. 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 calling to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 3000 Panagago 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 received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. >> Good. That's the

118part I think we should tell people ahead of time, right? Um, okay. Do you want to make a motion to approve the resol to adopt the resol? >> I make a motion to adopt the or to approve the public hearing as scheduled. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> Great. Scheduled. Uh, second one. It use you again. Estee restaurant. Same thing. >> Okay. Okay. In the matter of the application of SDA restaurant site plan, Suffach County Tax Map 300-50-1-13.1 and Suffach County Tax Map number 300-47-3-5. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held 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 said application. Any person or party wishing to be heard

119with 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 panico 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 received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. I make a motion to approve the scheduled public hearing. as scheduled. >> That good. I like that language. It's good. >> All in favor? >> I >> We have another public hearing scheduled. Um Jen, do you want someone else to read for you? >> Yes, please. I think it's better in the room. >> Okay. Bruce, do you want to read? Do you

120have that? >> Thanks, Bruce. >> Matter of the application of Ecoacres minor subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-135-2-11.2. two. This is to schedule a public hearing. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Panagle Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon at soon thereafter, as this matter may be heard to consider the said application. 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 Pandigo Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 111937. Comments may comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eamny.gov. All comments

121must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. >> Thank you. So, while your vocal cords are warmed up, you want to do read co you have you may not have that one. Wait, do we get >> Oh, we do have a motion. I make a motion to schedule the public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I love public hearings. Keep keep scheduling them. Go ahead. Do another one. >> Do this one, too. All right. In the matter of the application of Minor Subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-24-13-29 to schedule a public hearing. Public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Panagle Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, September 24th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may

122be heard to consider the said application. 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 Panagle Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 111 1937. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eamny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. I make a motion to schedule a public hearing. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I Okay. >> All right. That's all we have. >> Yeah. No more public hearings. Um >> a busy night. >> This is going to be busy. It's going to be

123busy. All right. So, we do have three uh personal wireless uh facility. >> Who has one? >> Oh, you have Nicholson. I'm so sorry. Go ahead, please. >> in the matter of the application of Nicholson subwaver modification suffic county tax map number 3000-133-1-13.3, 13.4 and 13.5. I have read the resolution amending the approval and I move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Okay, pass car. >> It's all yours. >> So, amended. All right. So, I'm gonna I'm going to read these uh cellular trend uh extensions of time. American Tower at 103 Flaggihole Road in the matter of the application of American Tower at 103 Flagihole Road. Site plan special permit PWSF modication for Suffach County Tax Map 37-02-1 extension of time. Uh let's see. We are looking to

124extend the time in one-year increments in which to obtain a certificate of occupancy uh or until one for one year or until June 28th, 2026. I have read this extension of time request and call for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay, great. Unanimous. In the matter of the application of new singular wireless, also known as AT&T at SCWA Flamingo site plan special permit PWSF modification 4, Suffach County Tap Tax Map 300-16-2-13, extension of time. Uh we are extending uh the time to obtain a certificate of occupancy in one-year increments um or until April 28th, 2026. I've read this extension of time request and call for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> adopted in the matter of the application of new singular wireless

125aka TNT tower at MTO site plan. Special site plan special permit PF PWSF modification for Suffach County Tax Map 300-049-3-46 extension of time. Um looking to once again extend the time to obtain a certificate of occupancy in one-year increments or until April 28, 2026. I've read the request for an extension of time and call for adoption. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> I >> again passed and carried. Uh so we've got a couple quick boards of review. The first is for Garbas Lane 12 Garbas Lane Road report. Uh let's see. They've made a request to that will involve an undertaking secured by a certified check or other shorty to the to the town board. uh road improvement units uh adequate to move forward with the building permit. The set undertaking is in

126the amount of $6,000. These requirements will be subject to review one year from the date of this resolution or August 27th, 2026. I have read this request and call for it adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. And finally, another board of review uh for 178 South Essex Street in Montalk uh block 40 lots. What does PO stand for? You got planning guides, Eric. PO PO 11 and PO2. >> You have two other >> part of >> Sorry. Part of course it's part of Yeah. Thank you, Will. Eric. uh part of and 11 part of 12 map uh 1013 URP number 169B in MN2 and S Suffach County Tax Map 300-28-5-26.2 uh looking for road improvements um to be able to is to get a building permit issued uh that will be an

127undertaking in the amount of $12,000. Um, I have read the request and call for its adoption. Second. >> All in favor? >> I I got it. Pass and carried. Finally, how about those minutes? Minutes for August 13, 2025. >> You have minutes. >> I didn't see them. >> You didn't. >> I should have got them to you and I didn't go to the meeting. So, >> you're great. >> All right. Yeah. If uh if you don't have the minutes and you haven't reviewed them, we'll add them to the agenda for September 10th. >> Yep. Got to do that. >> That's good. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. Well, then in that case, >> I make a motion to adjourn. Second. >> All in favor of adjournment. Five.