001Three, two, we are live. >> Good evening everyone. Uh, welcome to the Wednesday, August 13, 2025 meeting of the planning board of the town of East Hampton. Um, I want to thank Jen Folks, our vice chair, for filling in for me while I was on a short hiatus. I thank her very much for that. Uh, I'm very happy to be back, but as you can see, I'm not in the room. Um, and as a consequence of that, uh, we're going to put the facilitation of tonight's meeting back into Jen's hands, starting with our public hearing. So, Jen, it's over to you. >> Thanks, Ed. I'm very happy to have you back. Um, we are also missing Ava Warren, um, who unfortunately experienced a flat tire on her way here. Um, so she she will not
002be making it, so we're down to five. Um, we are going to start with the Franetti uh, public hearing and Chris, if you wouldn't mind taking it away. >> Sure. Thanks. I'm just going to share my screen here. >> Do you read this first? >> Oh, do I have to, Britney? I'm sorry. Point order. Do I need to read this folding in? >> You can read it. >> Yeah, I'm never sure. Sorry. Thank you, Michael. Uh, take notice that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, on Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Francetti minor subdivision approval pursuant pursuant to chapter 220 subdivision of land of
003the East Hampton Town Code to divide a 53,72.5 square foot parcel 1.23 acres into two separate lots. Lot one will consist of 28,263.29 29 square ft65 acres and lot 2 consisting of 24,296.77 ft.56 acre. The parcel is located on the west side of talkhouse lane mtok and is split between an A2 residence zoning district and a B resident zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton and are identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcels 300-13-2-18.1 subject application is classified as an unlisted action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act part 617 of the New York code of rules and regul regulations and chapter 128 environmental quality review of the town code. A survey prepared by James F. Walsh LS dated revised April 23rd, 2025 is
004available for inspection at the planning board offices, 300 Pantico Place, Sweet 103, East Hampton, New York. The public hearing will be held live and in person by the planning board and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing and will be televised on local TV channel 222 and available for live stream on the LTV website www.ltvh.org. The public, excuse me, the public shall be permitted to appear in person, but may also provide comments on the matter being heard by calling 351 8886331. Any person or party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by callin to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 300 Pantigo Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 111937. Comments may also be
005submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eampneny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing dated July 9th, 2025. Ed crew chairman. >> Thanks, Jen. Um, so yeah, it's very simple project. You can just see here we are on the east um side of Lake Montalk on Tacos Lane. And this here shows where the zoning district divides the property. So lot one to the north did require a lot area variance given that it's in the Azoning district and is only 28,263 square feet where 40,000 square ft is required. The zoning board already granted that variance um regarding the state environmental quality review act during the board's last review a negative declaration was issued. the application was considered complete and um to
006date we have not received any public comment on the application. So it's pretty simple um splitting one lot into two. There's no uh access easement involved. They are both wide enough to have their own uh private access. So the access for lot one will be uh determined after the lot is created when they go to seek a building permit. So that's really it. There's not much to this. >> Thanks, Chris. Um, does anybody here wish to be heard on this matter? >> Jen, I just want to confirm for the record that we do have proper notice and after. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Whan, go ahead. >> Good evening. Richard Whan, Whan Farler PLLC. I'm only here for one purpose. Just want to make sure that you have the your lot area right. Um, as
007just noted, the uh there's no longer an access easement over lot two, which is the lot that has a house right now, because the applicant, Norah Franetti, is removing the uh the um solar panels. So, the correct lot area for lot two, which is not what's stated in the public hearing notice, is 25,439 square feet. So, you just make sure you note that at the time of your resolution. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to be heard on this? Uh Jason, do we have any callers? >> We have no callers in the on the line. And if it's okay, I'd like to just double check this and show uh publicly. >> Hi, this is Jason from LTV. Wanted to make sure that everyone can see that the public line is up and
008operating and that we have no other callers. >> Thank you. Um, so I make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Thank you everybody. Um, next we move on to the Breezes Padell Courts site plan. Will, this is yours for the planning department. Um, this is Ava Warren's on our side. And is the applicant here? If you wouldn't mind having a seat, we'll call you up as soon as we're finished. Thank you so much. [Music] Nikki, >> take it away. Will, >> do you have the one? >> I know. >> Go ahead, Will, whenever you're ready. >> Sure. So this is an application seeking approval to construct three new pedel courts, an Airstream camper to be used as storage, a storage container to be used as
009a snack bar, a sauna, a shade pavilion with decks, two sheds and outdoor shower, plunge pools, an ADA ramp and turf in lie of existing lawns. The subject property is located within the special groundwater protection area Suffach County Pine Barons and is the only property within the town's recreation overlay district. >> All right. This project was previously reviewed by the board at its June 4th meeting earlier this year where the board made comments regarding some remaining issues. First, the board requested the applicant submit details for the proposed outdoor shower, plunge pools, and ADA ramp. The applicant submitted these details and following review by the planning department and fire marshall, the structures were found to be compliant with the ramp appropriately designed for ADA compliance. Second, the board requested the applicant submit details regarding the proposed
010lighting. The applicant provided those details, including the color temperature of the lights at 3000° Kelvin, which is compliant with town code and dark sky regulations. In conclusion, the planning department recommends this application is complete and ready for a public hearing. >> Thanks. Well, does the applicant wish to be heard? [Music] >> Thank you. >> So, we're going to have just a little discussion about it. Um, thank you very much, Will. This is Ava's application. Um, and I think it's pretty much in order. I did have a question about the plunge pools and whether there's any need for fencing around it. Does that constitute a pool? Um, I don't know if the applicant maybe has the answer to it as per Suffach County. >> Um, I know swimming pools need to be >> four feet. I
011think this is above grade. >> It's above grade, >> I think. And so there's no necessary. Okay. >> Yes. Come up. >> Has Yeah. If you wouldn't mind coming up and stating your name. >> Good evening and thank you. My name is Rohan Kdar and I'm representing Bree's paddle for this application. In regards to the plunge pools, they have covers on it. So from our understanding does not require fencing. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Of course. >> Anybody else have any? No. >> Um, nope. Ed, I almost forgot about you. So, we'll move to our um single question. Does the board agree this application is complete and ready for a public hearing? >> Yes. >> Excellent. Thank you. Uh, the next one is Estee Restaurant. This is also Will and also Ava. group project >>
012whenever you're ready. Will >> is the first is the applicant here? Sorry. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, this is an application seeking approval approval for a proposed new two-story restaurant, shed, decks, and parking on a site located on the southwestern corner of Montalk Highway and South Emory Street in Montalk. Currently, the site consists of two separate properties which are proposed to be merged as part of this application and when combined the new property will be 22,138 ft in size. Currently 666 Montalk Highway is improved with a cottage and deck while 3 South Eye Street is improved with sheds, a botchi court, wood fencing, a pool patio, and a concrete swimming pool. These existing structures on 3 South Emory Street are accessory to the adjacent Sans Hotel which is located directly to the
013south of the subject properties. This application was previously seen at the July 23rd board meeting where the board agreed to request lead agency status for the project. Lead agency letters were routed to the depart the Department of Transportation and Suffach County Department of Health Services as involved agencies and both sent responses indicating they had no objections to the planning board assuming lead agency status. The planning department has prepared environmental assessment forms parts two and three for the board's review and recommends the board issue a negative declaration for this project. Additional review by the fire marshall was received on August 6, 2025, which indicated the newest plans were ADA compliant. In conclusion, the planning department recommends the board issue a negative declaration pursuant to SRA and that the application is complete and ready for a public
014hearing. >> Thanks, Will. Mr. Ren, do you wish to be heard on this one? Okay. Um, I agree. I think this, you know, we've seen this a few times. I don't think there's anything that needs to be additionally distra addressed. I think the applicant addressed all of the different issues along the way. Anybody else? >> No. >> Two questions on this one. >> Does the board agree this application is complete and ready for a public hearing? >> Yes. >> Does the board wish to issue a negative declaration pursuant to SRA? >> Yes. >> Amazing. Good. >> All right, rolling along. Um, Springs Brewery. I see the applicants are here. Before we get to this one, I do want to say that I have had exparte communication with the applicants, not about the application itself, just
015in general. They are members of a farmers market that I manage um in Springs on Saturdays. >> Um, can I can I make a note about the uh issue with the building inspector determination? >> Absolutely. >> Before Chris starts, Um so we just received a um determination from the building inspector at um about uh 4:26 uh today. Um so obviously we haven't had time to review that thoroughly. Um our comments from the planning department tonight are going to going to be limited to matters not directly determined by that use determination. um we will review the determination, put the matter back in front of the board as soon as we possibly can um to give a full analysis and uh consider the implications of that determination. Um so I just wanted to update the board on
016that because the memo was prepared uh without us having that determination that we've been waiting on. Um but we did just receive it uh although only a few hours before this meeting. Thanks, Eric. >> So, can I can I ask a question? >> So, can the building inspectors old determinations are in our document? Could we discuss those or are we just looking at the nuts and bolts of this project? I I think the most productive thing for the board this evening um and the way that we phrased the memo was as you say to to look at the nuts and bolts of it um the issues that Chris is going to outline regarding um with the vials um you know uh design of parking spaces. Um we haven't had a chance to review the determination
017go over all of you know the the possible implications of it. Um the main thing really for this application that finally you know establishing what the use definitions are um the ma the main aspect that that affects is the parking. Um so what we would like to do is have time to review that uh write that up thoroughly for your consideration and then bring it back in front of you. I think it's um a little counterproductive for the board to um get into the particulars of the determination given that we haven't had time to review it. And also, you know, I would give the caveat to the board that, you know, when there is ambiguity in the code, it's the building inspector that is empowered by the code to make a determination um as to
018what the appropriate use definitions are. So it's not something that is the within the purview or the authority of the planning board to determine um you know once it has been given to them for a determination. Um it's their their call on it. So, um, you know, I think at this point probably the best thing to do is to focus on the elements that are addressed in the memo and then we'll follow up with, um, you know, uh, more detailed comments on parking, sanitary flow, uh, generate sanitary flow, I should say, uh, and other aspects of the project. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Eric. Does anyone else have any clarification questions on the discussion points? Okay, take it away, Chris. >> Thank you, Jen. Um, so yeah, as Eric mentioned, uh, we just received the
019updated interpretation, so I won't go into any of those implications, and we'll just focus on the submitted plans and the other issues for discussion here. Um, so this is the second review. It was last reviewed at the January 22nd meeting of this year. And just to show where the parcel is, it's a quarter acre. It's just north of the Springs Historic District. Also nearby is the Aabonic Harbor Critical Environmental District as well as the Harbor Protection Overlay District. Although it's not within any of those areas, it's just uh noteworthy um that they are nearby. The zoning is the neighborhood business zone. And I'm just going to pull up the plans so we can go over the application itself. So, the site plan application was submitted to remodel an existing one-story building from an auto body
020repair shop to a brewery. And the applicant proposed two uses, wholesale, retail beverage distribution and retail store. But again, we're not going to go into that and we'll just focus on the the plans. So, the existing building is slab on grade with aluminum siding, has two garage doors, and the subject parcel has five parking spaces. The remodeled building would include a brewery, retail area, three bathrooms, an employee office, pantry, and separate areas for dry and cold storage. Um, facade changes are proposed to remove and seal off one of the garage doors, paint the metal siding, add windows around the building, and then paving improvements are also proposed, including the permeable driveway and uh parking area, a portion of which would be a stabilized lawn area shown on the uh western corner of the property, as
021well as a new walkway um to the entrance. The proposal involves removing the existing system septic system to put in a new IIA wastewater system as well as abandoning the on-site well um and connecting to public water on springs fireplace. So going over the comments from the last review, the board advised the applicant to submit additional information required by the town codes necessary uh submission elements for site plan. And the applicant provided a detailed list showing where each one was indicated in the plans. And I'm just going to go over the ones that are still missing or need some clarification from the applicant. So the first is there's a equipment pad shown on the southern facade of the building and just the area of this pad is not shown consistently between the engineer and architectural
022plans. So that should be revised. The lot area is still needs to be confirmed with a certified survey. Um the applicant stated that the area was taken from a surveyor. However, we still want to see a uh survey just to confirm the dimensions of the lot. The inaccurate setbacks on the northern side property line still need to be removed. So, you can see here is the accurate number, 19.57. However, as we've mentioned, there's just two lines here, one showing 9 ft, one showing 8 ft. Those should just be removed to clean up the plan um and make it clear. Regarding the driveway width, it is shown as 18.41 ft. That appears to run from the property line to the edge of this building. However, they are proposing ballards on the side of the building which
023would further reduce this width. Um, so just a revision to take into account that will be necessary as goes for the drive aisle on the north side towards the rear of the property line. It's indicated as 24.23 ft. However, this would also be reduced by the bolards that are planned on that side of the building. And also, we note that the setback here is indicated as 41.81 ft. um that's from the edge of the building to the edge of the property line. So therefore, it would be impossible for there to be an 18 ft long parking space and a 24T parking um drive aisle. So you can see the dimensions here. You have 24.23 uh 18 and that exceeds the numbers shown at this portion of the property. So that should just be revised to
024provide some clear and accurate measurements to confirm the width of this drive aisle and determine whether a variance would be needed to provide 90° uh angle parking. The applicant should confirm that the length of these uh parking spaces were taken from the property line. It appears that is the case, but we just like them to confirm. We'd also like the applicant to confirm that no signage is proposed um just for the the new business that's proposed on the site. Regarding the landscaping plan, they just need a quick change to indicate unique symbology for the trees. They have three different species all with the same symbol. Um so they could either just label each one accordingly um and go from there. Uh we're also still waiting on architectural plans that are accurately to scale for the
025digital copies so that we can evaluate them accordingly. Um the second comment was to indicate the area of the brewery and retail portions consistently. Um the areas are now indicated on both plans. However, they are um slightly inconsistent just given that the architectural plans were using a gross floor area of 2,717 square ft. Um whereas the engineer plans were using the gross floor area of 2,680 ft. So, it's only 37 square ft. And that lower number does come from the certificate of occupancy from 1994. However, the applicant pointed out when they were going to do their sanitary plans, the county's definition for GFA is measuring it from the outside in, which aligns with our town code. So, we see it as if when they had that higher number, the 2717, that appears to be accurate.
026So, they can just use that number and make it consistent across the the plans so that we have a consistent GFA. Um point three was regarding the use, but as Eric mentioned, we have that new determination. So, we're not going to go over the former um building inspector termination, and we'll we'll leave that discussion for another time. Regarding coverage on the property, the engineers report detailed that the proposed coverage is 7,475 square feet. The maximum permitted is 7,657 square feet. And we're asking for a breakdown of the areas that are proposed to be considered in this calculation. And that's given that the planning department estimates that the proposed coverage is actually approximately 8,984 square ft. Um, when you consider the area of each proposed structure and that includes the stabilized lawn area. Um again, so
027we just want them to confirm which structures they included in that calculations and make sure we're getting an accurate number to determine whether a variance is needed for the total lock coverage. Um regarding the sanitary system, we can't really go into that much without knowing the proposed use. What I can say is that the uh population density equivalent, the maximum density load this property could have is 150 gallons per day. That's based on 600 gallons per acre and it being a quarter acre large. The plans they submitted were accurate for if they were to get the um wholesale retail beverage distribution and retail um uses divided the way that it was proposed. However, given the use is not certain right now, we can't really evaluate the sanitary plans until we have a a more clear
028picture on that. And really quickly regarding noise, they have a some equipment proposed outside um that generates noise and we're still waiting on specification sheets just showing the decibb a to make sure everything would comply with the town code noise standards. The engineer um released two reports which are attached to this memoranda and the applicant can review the items in there um to address each one accordingly. regarding the office of fire prevention. They've reviewed it and there are no further issues to discuss from the fire marshall. However, the fire marshall will be consulted um if necessary to determine the occupancy of the proposed building if that's needed to facilitate the parking calculations or other things regarding the sanitary flow which is ultimately regulated by the Suffach County Department of Health Services. So additional approvals will
029be the architectural review board for everything except the parking lot and driveway. The zoning board is to be determined um for the number of parking spaces depending on the use, the drive aisle width depending on dimensions and the lock coverage as I discussed. Uh Suffach County Department of Health Services will be needed for the IIA wastewater system. And in conclusion, the application is incomplete pending the revisions of the items mentioned. The board should review the submission items required by 255650 of the town code to determine whether items will be waved and the planning department recommends that the listed items list of items be required in the revised submission and the applicant should provide those details accordingly. In particular, the revisions needed for the uh dimensions of the driveway and drive aisle should show accurate um
030figures. If necessary, the parking spaces should be reconfigured to provide a compliant drive with the lock coverage as we mentioned. And the applicant should also consult or apply to the uh Suff County Department of Health Services to determine which use that agency will use. um when factoring out this sanitary system to figure out what the associated density load needs to be. Um further recommendations regarding parking and applicable standards will be provided when the building department or when we've had the chance to fully review the building department's new um interpretation for the for the proposal. So just based on that, we'll be uh yeah, that's that's sort of everything from us on this one. >> Thanks, Chris. I appreciate it. Does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Hi, uh Gunnar Burke, >> Lindsay Reichart. Um,
031we're gonna reintroduce ourselves because it's been so long. >> Uh, so Gunner and I founded the brewery in 2020 after several years of uh, home brewing. And in addition to brewers, Gunnar and I also work in architecture. Gunnar works on residential and hospitality projects. And I work on cultural and community projects for uh, Weissman Freddy, which is a worldrenowned architecture firm in the city. Um, our project actually began as a not as like just a brewery, but also as an architecture project, reimagining my dad's auto body shop. My family has lived in Springs for many years, founding and leading the Springs Fire Department and the Springs Food Pantry. Uh my dad and my mom who are here today uh fresh from the auto body shop uh attended Springs and Eastampton high schools and they built
032and opened the shop 35 years ago and my dad continues to do the auto body work himself to this day. Um when my dad began to consider retirement, he initially planned to sell the building or lease the building to another auto body shop, securing a future for my parents. Um, at this time my dad needs to have um kind of careerending shoulder surgery. And so, you know, it's we first met with the planning board four years ago when we initially came up with this idea and since then our brewery um and small business has become a cornerstone of the Springs Farmers Market as well as the local community. We are devoted to using our community business to support other local community organizations like the Springs Food Pantry, Quail Hill, Amber Waves, and also by fostering
033a cultural culture of sustainability and collaboration in everything that we do. We believe strongly in the good that comes from community-minded year-round businesses in our community. And as our business evolves, the need for a production space of our own is paramount to our growth and success as a business. Gunnar and I are not figureheads for large investors, nor do we plan to sell our business to a large multinational corporation ever. The team is just the two of us, and we it will be for the foreseeable future. It is my hope that we can continue to have a locallyowned small corner of Springs and that our brewery could could contribute to uh bringing the Springs Hamlet plan into fruition. >> Thanks, Um and I'm going to respond to the the notes in the agenda. Um so
034just kind of going down the list um the mechanical pad. So we will revise those drawings to coordinate u between the architectural and the engineering. Um regarding a licensed survey, we do we have the survey the background um that was used for the TF engineering plan. Um and we are happy to provide that um to the planning department. Um we were under the impression that just the site plan pro produced by the um engineering firm would be sufficient but we can absolutely provide the existing survey. Um um there's a note about inaccurate setbacks on the driveway the eight and nine feet. So those are actually contour lines. They are not dimensions. Um so those are elevations. Um I it is slightly confusing. Absolutely. Um but um so we will make that clear in the revised
035drawing from TF Engineering. Um there were notes about the ballards reducing the driveway width. Um, so we can absolutely remove those ballards from the plan and uh there's the note about the rear driveway aisle um which is slightly confusing if you could you can kind of see it's slightly a skew. The building is not exactly parallel to the um property line. So we do believe we have the 24 ft clear um to the parking spaces and we will not be seeking a variance. Um so we will uh provide a diagram illustrating that. um uh signage we are uh under the impression that that will be reviewed in the ARB review. Um so we are not going to comment on proposed signage right now. Um there's a comment about the digital submission scale comment. I'm unclear
036which drawing is not to scale. Um so I will need clarification on that. I can I I checked that. So I think it should be good, but I'm happy to devise any drawings. Um um you know, the retail use clarification, I think we should talk about this. Um I think it's par paramount to what we're talking about here. Um because so the determination that came in this afternoon is that any serving of alcohol on site would nec necessitate a bar or tavern use. Um and that you know we would just like to say before this board that is not what we want. We do not want a bar at all. We don't we're not the business the retail business is not um mainly serving on-site consumption which is the definition of a bar tavern. I'll
037quote um bar tavern a business use or establishment which is primarily engaged in the sale and service of alcoholic beverages for on premise consumption subject to the regular regulatory authority of the New York State Liquor Authority. So I think it's what what's not getting across to building inspector is that the primary business of this retail is to go sales and we are proposing limited on-site tastings which is the use that we have we have been applying for since October. You know, this was kind of the use that that the Montalk president in in Montalk, the use that their tasting room uh utilized in the town is a retail use. Um so that is the use that we were kind of that is appropriate that we feel is appropriate. Um we do not want a bar.
038We don't think the neighborhood wants a bar. We don't think a future bar from a future tenant is the right answer. So um I'll just leave it at that I guess. Um yeah and then just continuing on with the comments um we propose stabilized lawn parking. Um and this I just want to clarify this was not included in the coverage calculation. um we we do not think that this is a structure. Um so I think that's something we need to kind of get together with the planning board on. Um regarding the sanitary system, uh our sanitary plan has been submitted to the Suffach County Department of Health and it is under review. Um and um so in conclusion, you know, we're not a asking that the planning board wave any requirements of the site plan.
039We're we're happy to work through these nuts and bolts issues. Um we're happy to clarify and provide all requested information to achieve an approvable site plan. Um, we sorry, we are proposing an appropriate use for a neighborhood business zone and ask that the planning board continue to work with us to expeditiously review the documents that require resubmission following the clarifications made in this document and at this meeting. Our prelim preliminary site plan application was received by this board four years ago, July 9th, 2021, and the 2019 Hamlet plan, which targeted this neighborhood business zone specifically, was discussed at length at that meeting. Um, our project is very much in keeping with the proposed guidelines outlined in that document. Um, and I know Eric has said that u this board has is at the mercy of
040a building inspector. Um, but I I I would like to challenge that and I think that I think that that is is the incorrect use determination. >> Thank you guys. Um before I turn it over to Lou whose project this is, thank you guys so much. I know it's very frustrating um to not be able to talk about the use determination. There are mechanisms for you to dispute that determination and unfortunately the planning board does not have the you know we don't have the authority the per it's not in our purview to to challenge that. So thank you. Thank you guys. >> Okay. Um yeah, I I you're first of all, I just want to say you're a very sympathetic applicant. Uh but we are governed by the rules that are stipulated in the code
041and we have to abide by that. Um, so it's not my personal opinion as to whether or not I should approve this because I like you or because you you're contributing to the town in a way that I would approve. Um, so as far the you know the big item as you mentioned is the use that front part of the building the re retail or tavern use. I can't comment on that. We have to re we're bound to review the uh determination made by the building inspector and that's what we have to go by. You can you can dispute that and you can challenge it and appeal the decision but you know that would mean going in front of the zoning board. So that that's all I can say about that. I mean it's a
042fascinating topic. I wish I could give you my interpretation, but I can't. Um, the rest of the application has a lot of points that are that I'm sure can be ironed out and taken care of very very rapidly. they they there, you know, a big category of inconsistencies, clarifications, uh inaccurate uh numbers, that kind of thing like the pad and things like that that can be handled very quickly and that can be gotten out of the way very quickly. The issue that I think you're going to the other issue which is problematic for you is the coverage. Now I know you said that uh you don't believe the stabilized lawn area should be included in calculating the coverage but unfortunately uh if you read the definition of the coverage what goes into determining what it
043is the coverage calculation that area is it's pretty clear that that area is in included. So that you know that would eliminate three parking spaces which could become problematic. Uh the other problem is the the aisle width, the drive aisle width. Now I know you said you'd get rid of the ballards and you're confident that you can get 20 the 24 feet there which if you you know you probably can. I think even with the ballards or maybe without I forget you're only you're only about a half a foot shy. So I think that could be worked out as well. But th those are the way I see it other than the use determination. Uh that's the coverage and the the dimensions of the parking spaces and the drive are the items that you need
044to take care of. Th those are the big issues. Everything else can be taken care of. Uh and I hope that they can be handled and um negotiated in a way that's speedy and and quickly so that you can, you know, put all of this process behind you and get your business going. Good luck. >> Anybody else? I guess we'll go around. Michael, do you want to >> can we discuss the building inspector's determination of 2012? >> Unfortunately, >> not relevant. >> That's not relevant given today's >> Well, it is in the record. >> It's Yeah, >> it is. It's right in there. Yeah. So, >> yeah, I'd look at this project as you got to cross the tees and dot the eyes and you the the the site plan part will be taken care
045of. And yeah, it's all about use at this point. And >> what can we do? Thank you, >> Reed. >> Um, yeah, I kind of echo what Lou had mentioned. I'm sympathetic to you guys. I I think it's great to see uh a local business helmed by a couple young people who we want to retain in our community. And I really think it's great that you're embracing that entrepreneurial spirit and wanting to grow. Um, but again, you know, I think that the building inspector's determination, I'm still a little unclear exactly what that determination uh says. I I haven't seen it, haven't read it. I don't know much about it. Um, I get the impression it was uh uh somewhat negative to what you're trying to do, but um uh I would like to see it.
046Um, just another comment, too. I think it's refreshing and I think it's authentic and genuine to to see you guys representing yourselves. I think uh you know sometimes people you know bring up the consultants and the lawyers and I just think it's great that you guys are spearheading this. Um and I do wish you the best of luck. I sincerely do. >> Yeah, I agree with uh I agree with you all. I think your site plan issues are pretty minimal. Um, I was just running some quick numbers and you know, your numbers are off by inches. So, I think that's just a a something hopefully you can clear up and and and fix for us. Um, survey, obviously, we will need a survey. I know TF Engineering does a great job, but we do need
047that survey. Um, and good luck with the use, >> Ed. Thanks for >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I I think my colleagues have really said most of what I want to say. Starting with the fact that um you know I too really very much like and support the idea of young local entrepreneurs like yourself um trying to create something that's really useful to the community and could be could be a you know a real asset to Springs where I happen to live myself. And um I do think that there is some potential for this for there to be kind of a win for everybody on this, you know, within the parameters of what we have to deal with, right, in terms of code. And I'm looking forward to having a more wholesome conversation next time when
048we've uh evaluated the building inspector's determination. >> Thanks, Ed. Um, I agree with um pretty much everything everybody has said and I, you know, I I think we're all disappointed that we're not going to, you know, that we really can't discuss the use part of it because that's really the crux of, you know, so many of the other other things going forward. Um, and you know, I I too support you guys and I think it's a wonderful proposed use and I wish we h I wish we could have a a better conversation tonight and thank you guys for your patience. Anybody else? So, we're going to move on to our questions. I wish I had brought my glasses tonight. Does the planning board agree with the planning department's assessment of additional information that must be
049provided per town code 255650 necessary elements? >> I think yes, we all do. >> Does the planning board agree with the agree that the width dimensions for the driveway and proposed drive a should be revised to account for proposed ballards or removal of such ballards? >> Yes. Um, does the planning board agree the applicant should reconfigure the proposed parking spaces if necessary to provide compliant drive aisles? I think, you know, if you can prove that they're compliant, there's no need for that. Um, does the planning board agree the proposed total lot coverage should be confirmed and that the applicant should provide a list of the areas which are included in the calculation? >> Yes. And does the planning board agree that the applicant should provide manufacturer specification sheets with sound data for the exterior equipment?
050>> Yes. >> So that's all pretty simple stuff and uh thank you guys. [Music] [Applause] >> Moving to the Nicholson subwaver modification is the applicant here. Oops. Careful Dan. Um, Lou, that's yours. Eric, that is yours. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, hopefully you can see my screen. Should show you a far uh aerial photograph. Uh, showing you the area of town that this is located in. Um, close to Seg Harbor up in Northwest. I'm going to switch to a closer aerial. So, this is an application to modify the conditions of approval of the Nicholson subwaver approved in 1986 in order to allow the rearmost of the three lots in the minor subdivision to take access from six pole highway as opposed to route 114 via common driveway uh that was set up to service all
051three lots. The subject parcel is zone A5 residence and is within the water recharge overlay district. It's currently vacant and has been since the adoption of the subdivision. It's 100% uh uncleared of naturally occurring vegetation and the habitat type is characteristic of the South Fork pine barons with a mix of deciduous and evergreen canopy consisting mainly of pitch pine and various oaks and an understory of low bush blueberry and huckleberry. Uh situated in areas designated for their importance to groundwater protection including the water recharge overlay district, South Fork Special Groundwater Protection Area, South County Department of Health Services Groundwater Management Zone 5, and the South Fork Pine Barons. Um the neighboring par parcels are all residential property both developed and vacant. Um the lot to the immediate west is owned by the town um and
052is to be the future site of the Route 114 middle inome affordable housing development. Um the lot to the immediate south is a developed residential property. So um again this is a modification of a previously approved uh subwaver. Uh that is a type two action under secret. So no further review is required. Additionally, when the subwaver was originally approved, um it did get a uh review under secret. Um so, in order for the board to consider a modification of a previous board approval, a legitimate change of circumstances must be found to be present. Uh this can include new legislation, uh changes to site conditions, or changing to surrounding conditions such as roadways. In the case of the subject application, it appears that a clear change of circumstances is present. spec uh specifically aerial photographs confirmed
053that six pole highway had not been improved in at the time of the subwaver approval leaving Route 114 as the only abuing improved roadway and therefore the appropriate access point. Um the board should determine if it agrees with this assessment. Um, further to this point, um, the record of both the subwaver application and a zoning board of approvals, um, uh, a zoning board of appeals approval, uh, indicate that, um, actually the zoning board conditioned their variances on access being to six pole highway, but then subsequently approved a modification because they realized that six pole highway had not been improved uh, at the time. So, um, really at the time the sub sub waiver was approved, there was no other option than to do a common driveway to, uh, route 114. Um, so we do see
054that as a legitimate change of circumstances. Um, the applicant uh, the application request identifies that the applicant wishes to change the address of lot 3. And by the way, I will switch just quickly to the uh, approved subwaver map. Um but our understanding is that they want to the application says that they're requesting to change the address of lot three. Um they are though also um requesting to change the legally uh established access point for lot 3 to be from six pole highway. Um the applicant should confirm that that's the case. Um, but basically the the idea here would be to remove lot 3 from the common driveway uh easement and being required to be part of it and have it have its own access. But our understanding is that um lots one and two
055would remain um having access from a common driveway. Um the applicant should clarify that. Um so I mean as previously noted there was a requirement in the previous approval uh that all three lots take access via common driveway. Um the actual common driveway easement document doesn't provide for its modification. Some of them do. They say you know planning board majority plus one um or something like that. This doesn't have a provision for modification. However, it's our understanding u that access easements can be modified provided there is uh consent of all of the lot owners in the subdivision and the applicant has submitted uh a certified letter from the only um property owner other than themselves uh of a lot within the subdivision. Lot one is owned by a separate uh private uh individual. Lots two
056and three are owned by the the applicant um Miss Nicholson. So, the town engineer uh reviewed the request and has signed off on it uh and stated that Six Pole Highway is in good to fair shape. The fire marshall has signed off on the project. Um we had originally suspected that Six Pole Highway might be a town trustee road. Um it was at one time. Um however, it's my understanding um based on looking through the records that this is part of the town highway system. And in fact, the applicant reached out to the town trustees to inquire about that. Um and they echoed that sentiment that it is not a trustee road. So um no approval from the trustees is needed. Um one of the important things to consider so again you know the planning
057board needs to determine first if there's a change of circumstances but then also you need to determine whether or not it's uh prudent and good planning to um to modify the subdivision as requested. So, one of the most important things to consider with this property is that it's sensitive to groundwater protection, as I noted previously. Um, but if you look at this aerial photograph, um, you can see that actually providing an individual access to the rear lot would reduce overall clearing on the property. It's a little bit difficult to see on this aerial, but right now the common driveway is appro improved up the flag strip and ends at the edge of lot two where a individual driveway branches off. If the applicants are required when lot three is developed, if they are required um
058as they are now under the way that the subdivision has been set up to extend that common driveway, they would have to extend it the entire length of lot 2 um and then into lot to provide access to to the building where it might be located. You can see clearly if they were coming in off of six pole highway um that driveway would be of lesser length and therefore would result in less clearance. So, we view that as a positive aspect of the modification request. Um, one note though is uh as I again as I had said previously, the lot to the immediate south is developed with a a resident with a residence. The lot to the north is um a town lot that is intended to be for affordable housing. It will most likely
059take access from Route 114. Um, so in order to avoid having a driveway that could potentially be right up against this southern property line and therefore um right up against that neighboring residence, we would recommend that if the board does submit uh support the modification that they include a condition that the driveway be located in the northern portion of the lot where it abuts uh six pole highway. Um a public hearing is not required to be held for a modification of a minor subdivision. Um, we recommend that you do hold one simply because it will change access patterns in the area. Um, you'll have a home that is now taking access off Six Pole Highway, which is a relatively quiet um road. Uh, and that will affect traffic patterns and and neighboring properties. Um, however,
060we do note that the most affected property owner is the owner of lot one of this subdivision, and they've already submitted um their uh support for for the request. So basically in conclusion um the board should discuss all of these these issues and determine if the application is is complete. Really to summarize it's is there a change of circumstances present. Is the the board um is the board the applicant able to modify the common driveway easement which is something you would have to check with council. Again we believe that they are but um you should double check that. And then really the at the end of the day is um you know provided you are allowed to make this modification, do you support it? Um so if if the answers to all of those questions
061are yes, then it appears that the application is complete and the board should determine if if you're going to hold a public hearing. Uh if the answers to any of those questions are no, then the application is incomplete at this time. >> Thank you, Eric. Does the applicant wish to be heard? Thank you. if you wouldn't mind just coming up stating your name. >> Hi, I'm Helen Nicholson. I'm the property owner and uh I want to say how much I appreciate the board's guidance on this. When we bought the property back in the 1980s, uh six pole highways was basically a shell dump and there was no way that we could have had public access to that road because it was undeveloped. But in 2009, apparently uh according to the town trustees, that's when it
062was paved. And so the whole frontage of that back lot faces onto Six Pole Highway, which is now aligned with residential homes. Now, we have no desire or plan to develop the property. We're not planning to put up a house or do any kind of construction on it, but if we were to sell it or if it were to be transferred to another owner, it would obviously be desirable for them not to have to clear I think it's 1,200 ft >> Yeah. >> of 20 feet wide, which is about 20,000 square feet, whereas they could come in from six pole highway and maybe have 150 foot driveway, which would only be 300 square feet of of clearance. So, it would be much more practical for anyone who would build a house, which is not us,
063to have that access. Plus, of course, if you've ever tried to turn left on 114, as I do all the time, you know that what has happened is 114 has turned into the Long Island Expressway. So, the fewer cars that are going in and out on that side, the better. And imagine plowing a 12,200 foot driveway. I mean, it just makes no sense at all. So for those practical reasons, I think that's really what we're what we're looking for. >> Thank you so much. Lou, this is your >> Yeah. >> You know, it's very rare that we get an application that doesn't check off any boxes that it should. I think I've had one in my experience. It's also just as rare that an application checks off every box that it should. This is one
064of them there. I mean, it checks off the environmental uh consideration box. Obviously, if you have access from the the from 114, you'd have to have more clearing, which is not smart. It checks off the um the code sections that require this kind of thing. It checks off the traffic. It checks off what's good for the uh environment in terms of the groundwater. I mean, I could go on and on. So, >> please do. I I like that. >> And also, when the subdivision was approved, they wanted access that they actually said that access for this lot was going to be on what is it? >> Highway. Yeah. They had clearly never seen >> then they realized that that it wasn't navigable that high. So, they had to do so. There's nothing else to say
065than, you know, oh, as far as the public hearing, I don't see what anyone could say in a public hearing that would supersede the benefits of doing, you know, putting the access on sixhole road. >> Oh, there's one one other >> there's also the neighbor to which is you. >> Yeah. >> No, not you. the other neighbor, the one who's submitted the affidavit. They they approved this plan as well. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, I don't really think it's in my opinion, and that's the only questionable item here is whether to have a public hearing or not. I don't think one is necessary, and I usually I'm for public hearings, but in this case, I don't really think it's necessary. Now, one one other thing I should mention, I talked to the assessor's office and
066they say if you approve the sketch that I submitted where the driveway, any potential driveway would be on the northwest end toward the town property rather than the developed residential property. They would need to know that that was approved so that they can give a proper street address. The location of the driveway apparently determines the street. >> Yeah. You're okay with having the location on the northwest side of the >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. So, I mean, every It's all good. >> It's all good. >> I I wrote down in my notes about how insane it is making a left on 114. So, I agree with you completely there. >> Anybody else have any comments? Ed Reed? >> I I don't I I agree. I don't think a public hearing is warranted. >> Oh, good.
067I I appreciate that. Yeah, I I agree as well. >> Yeah, just said and no public hearing. >> I agree as well. >> All right. Thank you so much. Questions? Thank you. Does the planning board find that a legitimate change of circumstances is present? >> Yes. Should the applicants clarify at this time whether they propose to amend the approval to permit two access points for lot three, adding permission for an individual driveway while keeping the rights to the common driveway or to amend the approval to completely eliminate all rights and use of common driveway for right three. Sorry, we didn't talk about this. >> Yeah, I can better explain that that request. >> Yeah. Um, basically what we're asking is just um will the common driveway easement be amended to remove lot 3 entirely um
068from being part you know having rights to that common driveway or did the applicant envision leaving the common driveway as it is but provide but having the board change the approval to approve a second access point. Uh my letter uh addressed on July 28th addresses that point and says we want to eliminate the access to 114 and have a single access point on six pole highway. >> Perfect. >> Okay. >> Hey Arc, I have a question. What happens with that flag pole portion of that lot? Um >> yeah, I mean that is something that uh I debated uh including in in the analysis. Um because there could be a I mean basically what happens is it remains as a flag strip portion of the lot. Um it would would not need to be developed uh
069further to provide to extend the common driveway. So it would essentially remain in its natural state. Um it is part of lot three. Um so in theory there there are improvements could go in there but um I don't know what you could put in there that would meet a setback. So it will probably remain in its natural state. Um one thing that could be considered is doing also a lot line modification to remove that flag strip because it's now not needed. Um but the applicant didn't request that so I I um didn't go down that uh that avenue. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh let me just say that that would probably require a new survey and we were told that that really wasn't necessary because it's only 20 ft wide. So there wouldn't
070there's no setback. I mean you can't build even a chicken coupe on it, >> right? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Um >> so did we answer that question? We So, yes. So, um the applicant is going to remove the rights to the common driveway for lot three, >> right? >> Eliminate all rights and use of the common driveway to lot three. Yes. Okay. >> Okay. Um, does the board agree with the planning department that an individual driveway for lot 3 to six pole highway, if approved, should be confined to the northwest corner of lot 3 opposite the property line that abuts currently developed residential property. >> Yes, >> I think so. Yes. >> Will the board require a public hearing for this modification request? I think we're all in agreement that we don't need
071a public hearing. >> We don't. >> Good. Okay. And does the board have any objections to a proposed individual driveway for lot three to six pole highway related to any issues raised herein or any issues not addressed in this evaluation? >> No. No objections. >> Thank you very much. Thanks everybody. Um, next is the echo acres subwaver. Eric, this is yours again. Is the applicant here? Hello. [Applause] Great. >> Okay. Hopefully you can see the aerial photograph of the property. Um, and just as a reminder, this is an application to subdivide an approximately 6.7 acre lot um into two individual lots. One of approximately 54,600 ft² and one of approximately 59,000 square ft. Um, so the last review, I believe there's an error in the memo where it says the last review date was April
07223rd, 2024. I believe that was 2025. Um, and at the time the planning board uh laid out the outstanding elements. Um, the first planning board comment was the applicant should address the prior comments including common driveway plan, approval for driveway improvements uh, in the right of way and and secret and site history. There's really sort of four points in there. The applicant did submit uh a revised common driveway plan uh and the town engineer has found that acceptable um regarding approval for improvements in the right ofway. The town engineer noted that a work permit would be required um and should be obtained from the town highway uh department um for the apron um and improvements in the town rightofway. Um but this can be made a condition of approval uh to be met prior to
073the issuing on any of the lots as per the recommendation of the town engineer. Um, regarding SRA, a revised EAF part one was submitted. Uh, planning department found it acceptable. Uh, and um, the necessary coordination to establish lead agency has been completed. The board had previously said they wanted to um, uh, declare lead agency status. So, regarding site history, that relates to actually the se the second planning board comment which was the applicant stated that a phase one environmental site assessment and testing have been available but not submitted. The board requested that these submitted uh these be submitted in response to the board's May and November request for information on site history. Um so, the applicant submitted several documents um in stages uh over the course of several submissions. Um and we noted in the
074memorandum the the various dates um and and documents that we received. Um it's a lot of information. Uh I'm going to go what we did was review all that information and give uh analysis of certain points and certain aspects of it. Um I will go through that um not in its entirety but uh just to give you the um the basics. Um the report states the study focused on the property history concerning uh past land use and development. Um and um the basically uh the comments that they made um in the phase one environmental assessment uh regarding the content of the study um was found acceptable by the planning department and responsive to the comments of the planning board. Um and I will also mention that um and really the the site assessment relates to
075the uh historic mining operations on the property. Um a timeline is presented in the document submitted that examines the active period of mining on the site. The report notes that based on aerial imagery uh there is a suspected area of sand mining on the south of the site. uh in the 1938 to 1957 imagery um during 1960 to 19 and during 1960 to 1985 the report notes that sand mining operation has expanded and is on the south and east side um or excuse me I should say during 1960 and 1989 the report notes the sand sand mining operation has expanded and is on the sou and east side of the site and that by 2008 to 2011 the sand mining operation was no longer visible and no longer conducted on the property. Um so the
076phase 2 site investigation included the following work program and results. Uh five soil samples and one composite sample of the stockpile fill material was collected and analyzed to determine if the historical dumping of the film material at the site uh has adversely impacted the site. The collected film material samples were tested for VOCC's, SVOC's, and metals. laboratory data for the submitted fill material samples were compared to uh New York State DEC regulations on restricted use fill material. All collected samples uh and the composite samples of the stock file had no detected levels of any of the items uh searched for in accordance with DEC regulations. As such, the film material tested does not have levels of VOCC's, SVOC's, and metals that would adversely impact the property. Um review of the soil testing information indicates that
077the boring locations are in the vicinity of future site development. The data table indicates the level of these um these compounds were all well below uh DEC requirements. The level of constituents found are also below uh DEC uh regulations. Um no groundwater sampling was conducted. However, after review of these materials, the planning department recommends that the uh information provided is sufficient and that the conclusion of the tech technical reports do not indicate the site is inappropriate for residential development. The planning board should determine if it agrees. And I will also give you a reminder that um at the last review, the applicants had mentioned that um they designed the the location of the building lots to be outside of the areas of the heaviest mining development and instead have those situated within the reserved areas.
078Um so we already addressed the the EAF uh and have sent uh lead agency coordination uh out. So um uh the other involved agencies under SRCA are the uh well is the um Suff County Department of Health Services. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is an interested agency under SRA. We sent referral to both of them. No objections to establishing to the planning board establishing lead agency um were made. Uh so accordingly the planning department has prepared an EAF parts two and three. Uh a negative declaration pursuant to secret in chapter 128 of the town code is recommended. Uh and that document has been drafted for the board's review uh for this evening. So in conclusion um the planning department recommends that uh pending the secret determination the application is otherwise complete. Uh,
079the board should make a secret declaration at this time and should determine if any additional information is required or if the application can also be deemed complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. >> Thanks, Eric. Would you like to be heard? >> Hi, I'm Samantha Malone from Tarbet and Lester PLLC on behalf of the applicant. um just here in case you have any questions and to respectfully request that um we schedule for public hearing. >> Thank you. Um I think that in you know taking a look at this I think that the applicant has done everything that we have asked. Um, and I think it is I I I don't really think there's too much to discuss here. Any >> is the illegal dumping in the sand mine area and not on
080the top part? >> What do you mean by illegal dumping? >> Wasn't used in here. It talked about there was >> Oh, it's just Phil. >> Phil. >> It was just Phil >> from the mining operation. >> There's nowhere in here that says illegal dumping. Then okay, then all of that that was tested is in the the lower the the the southern southwest portion of the property, right? >> I believe so, but I would have to review that and um get back to you. >> I think so. They did, just just to be clear, they did um soil testing throughout the site and in the vicinity of the building lots, which is really, I mean, where you want them to be doing the testing to, you know, make sure that there isn't any um aren't
081any dangerous compounds in the area. Um, and the results of their their soil sampling was that they didn't find uh any prohibited substances uh in any volumes uh exceeding any DEC regulations. What's that? >> No further questions from me. >> Anybody else? >> Ed? >> Uh, yeah. I just wanted to to to ask a question. The um I know that the EAF part the uh yeah, the AF part two does say that there's no or small impact to public or private water supplies or treatment utilities. But is is it the intention of developers to connect to county water here or are there going to be wells? I I didn't see any reference to water supply anywhere. >> I did we talk about this at a previous meeting and isn't there a water hookup on Bull
082Path? It it was >> I I believe uh originally the idea was to um have a water hookup, but there is um not very much public water in that area. Um the map as it's shown right now provides uh each lot with a private well. Okay. All right. >> Just anecdotally, that site has not been the site of dumping for much longer than 2008. Um, >> there's been, you know, or mining rather, not dumping. Um, I don't believe it was in full use even in the 80s when I was growing up back there. >> Okay. All right, >> that's an that's anecdotal. Um, any other comments? Okay. >> Does the board find the submitted information regarding the history sufficient to determine that the lot locations are appropriate for residential development? >> Yes. >> Does the
083board wish to make a negative declaration pursuant to see and chapter 128 of the town code? >> Yes. Is any additional information required or is the application complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Next. Bayberry Estates Subwaver. >> Eric, that's you. Are you here for that, Dan? >> Okay. So, I'm going to begin by screen sharing an aerial photograph of the property. And this is a sort of far establishing shot of the area of town. I will zoom in a little bit more um so you can see the property which is undeveloped um and undisturbed and uncleared. Uh and then I will provide you the subdiv proposed subdivision map. Um, so this application was last reviewed on January 22nd of this year.
084Um, again, it's an open space preliminary subdivision application to subdivide a 746 plus uh 746,000 plus square foot uh parcel uh into three lots. Um, also providing a 70% uh reserved area. So the proposed action is an uh proposed action is an unlisted action under secret chapter 128 of the town code. Um as requested subsequent to the last review a revised EAF part one has been submitted. Uh the planning department reviewed that document and finds the revisions um the three specific revisions that were requested have been made. We find that document acceptable. The board should determine if it agrees. Um the planning board declared lead a lead agency status during the application's initial review, but a complete and adequate EAF part one was not available to route to the other involved agencies. Provided the board
085agrees, the planning department will initiate the process uh to establish the lead agency at this time after this meeting. Um the planning department recommends that the board uh conduct a coordinated review of the application. The agencies to um be included are the Suffach County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Um referral to the Suffach County Planning Commission is also uh required as an interested agency. So at the last meeting um the board offered a number of comments um to the applicant. Uh the first was the applicant should revise the environmental assessment form. As I noted, they have done that. Uh the second was um that coordinated review with the involved agencies will be initiated after we received a revised uh EAF part one. They have submitted that. Um
086we will begin that coordination. Uh a require the third planning board comment was a requirement to annotate the map to recognize that the envelopes have been designed to avoid the areas of steep slopes will be made a condition of final subdiv uh subdivision approval. Um the applicants actually um uh sort of uh you know um are ahead of you on that and um a notation has been added to the map. Um so we don't need to handle that as a a condition of final approval. Uh the another planning board comment was the applicant should address the additional items needed for the preliminary map including the addition of a fire hydrant, well orn um the locations of those along with a letter of approval from the appropriate fire department or fire district. Um the applicants have
087submitted a letter from the fire marshall um that essentially signs off um on the project and finds that no further changes are needed for firefighting purposes. Um the fire marshall did previously make a note about a provision of state law that applied to the width of the driveway. Um basically they were citing a section of code that said that um if you have more than five buildings that are served by a driveway that um it needs to be improved to a 20ft width. Um the fire marshall I spoke with them about this. They actually since that time reached out to New York State um with specific questions uh about the applicability of that that code section and found that um it doesn't uh really apply in this case um and basically um stated that it
088is a non-issue. They they raised the issue thinking it was but um have now have confirmation from New York State that um it was a a incorrect interpretation of that code. So in conclusion uh the applicant has responded to all the outstanding items required by the board at the time of the last review and as a result appears to be complete provided the board agrees then secret lead agency coordinate coordination will be initiated and once completed in EAF's part two and three will be prepared by the planning department for the planning board's consideration subsequent to the adoption of a secret determination the application will be ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. >> Thanks Eric. Dan, would you like to say anything? [Music] >> Hi. Um, Dan Weaver from Wallbridge Surveyors on behalf of
089the applicant. Um, really just here to answer questions if the board has any. I don't think there's anything I need to address at this time. >> Thank you. This is another fairly simple thing and I think we you know unless anybody has any specific questions or comments about it we can move on to questions Ed. >> Yeah. No, let's do Yeah. >> All right. Does the board find the short form environmental assessment form EAF acceptable and wish to begin the process of establishing lead agency? >> Yes. Does the board find that the necessary elements related to the firefighting requirements have been met based upon the recommendation of the fire marshal? >> Yes. >> Does the planning board agree that once lead agency has been established and EA EAF parts two and three should be drafted?
090>> Yes. >> Thank you. Thanks, Dan. >> That concludes our work session. We now move on to the regular meeting portion of this um program. >> Um we have one, two, three, four resolutions, three resolutions and a scheduled public hearing. Um Bruce, I'm going to give you this to read because I'm tired of hearing myself talk. >> Okay. >> First is Mark's two-story infill site plan. In the matter of the application of Mark's twostory infill site plan, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-49-6-22. This is a site plan approval. I have read the resolution and move for it adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. Next is Moram. Yep. Go ahead, Michael. In the matter of the application of Moram >> I say Moram >> Moram EV chargers phase site plan
091the installation of four electric vehicle charging stations and convert existing parking spaces to EV charging only. I have read the resolution to move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> um 267 acabonic subwaver read. You want to read? >> Uh, sure. In the matter of the application for 267 Acabonic Minor Subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map 300-147-6-31.2 to schedule a public hearing on Wednesday, September 10th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. I've read the resolution and move forward with its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. and subwaver blue. Would you like to read that one? >> Matter of the application of Minor subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map number 3000-24-13-29 uh scheduling the public hearing on September 10th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. I've read the resolution and move for its adoption.
092>> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. Hi. >> Hi. All right, that concludes that board of review. There is one urban renewal road assignment. Um, I never know what to read here. Whereas the town engineer has brought before the board of review the request of Third Street Invesco LLC, John J. Quinn for a building permit. Uh, Suffach County Tax Tax Map number 300-76-6-7. There are road improvement units assigned uh three 3,300 road improvement units. Estimated cost for bond or undertaking is $16,500. It includes clearing and pruning the existing vegetation on the westerly side of and within the road shoulder along Third Street. Installing two leeching basins 8 ft in diameter by 10 ft deep on Third Street. Um the leeching catch basins shall be trafficbearing etc etc and I have read this resolution and move
093for its adoption as well. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Then there are the minutes. I read them. They're stapled incorrectly. But other than that, I think they look good. Anybody else? >> Look good. >> Okay. Um, does someone want to make a motion to adopt the minutes? >> I'll make a motion to adopt the minutes. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Yep. >> One final motion. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Thanks everybody. >> Nicely done. Wow. Eight o'clock. >> Congratulations, Chris, on your promotion.