East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 07/23/2025

001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Thanks, Matt. Um, welcome to the East Hampton Town Planning Board meeting for July 23rd. I'm Jennifer Folks, the vice chair. Our chair Ed Krug is not in attendance this evening. Uh we had one item removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. So the JHA Main Street office will not be on the agenda. We had one board of review added at the end of the meeting. Um and I just want to remind everybody here that this there is no public portion of this meeting today. No public comment. Um, with that being said, I think we should just jump right into the Marks twotory infill. Chris, that is yours. And Lori, I see you're here for

002the applicant. >> Go ahead. Sorry, I can't see you behind. >> Thank you. Um, this should be a very quick wrap-up memo. This is for the Mars twotory infight plan at 20 Surfside Avenue in Montalk property 6.22 acres. It's on the Atlantic Ocean and you can see it's partially cleared with some natural vegetation to the south and within coastal erosion overlay zone one ocean lal zone. Um this plan here shows the unit in an orange color that had the proposed work and the scope of the work is this deck here is about 40 and 1/2 square ft and it is proposed to be enclosed to provide a new foyer on the first floor and an office on the second story. Um all within the existing footprints. um the office of fire prevention and the town

003consulting engineer both signed off on it. It's missing from the report, but it'll also be subject to architectural review board approval. Um and that's that's really it. Um if the board agrees, we find this application complete and ready for approval. >> Thank you, Chris. Lori, >> um yeah, we've seen this uh a few times. Last time we had a public hearing, no one weighed in. Um, I do think that it is ready for approval. If anyone else has any >> I've written a 10page. All good. >> Um, all right. That was super quick. Um, does the planning board agree that the application is ready for approval? >> Yes. All in favor? Fabulous. Um, the next one is the Moram EV chargers phase. Will, that is yours. Is the applicant here for that one? That's you

004again. That's what I thought. Okay, so this is the second review for an application to construct four new EV charging stations on concrete pads on the subject property located on Ocean View Terrace in MAK. The project will have two phases with phase one including the construction of the first two chargers set back to back located further south on the site and phase two will include the construction of the second two chargers also set back to back located further north. And here's the site plan showing the location of those chargers. This is where the proposed phase one chargers will go further south and the proposed phase 2 chargers a little bit further north. The EV chargers are intended to provide electric vehicle charging for four existing parking spaces which are to be converted to EV charging

005only spaces as part of this application. The application was last seen at the April 23rd, 2025 meeting where the board made several comments and agreed no lighting is proposed and the application qualifies as a minor site plan. First, the board requested the applicant to submit dimensions of parking spaces proposed to be converted to EV charging only. The applicant submitted this revised survey with the dimensions which showed the northern pair of parking spaces to be converted are undersized at 10 ft by 15 ft. However, as no new parking spaces are proposed and the non-compliant spaces are shown in these dimensions attached to the most recent certificate of occupancy, it appears the applicants are not required to modify the dimensions of these spaces. The board should discuss whether it is practical to add charging stations to undersized

006parking spaces and whether it would be appropriate to relocate them to elsewhere on the site. Second, the board asked the applicant to clarify if the if any new utility installation is required for the EV chargers. And the applicant stated the charging stations will be fed from an existing electrical panel in the basement of the adjacent building. And in conclusion, the planning department recommends this application is complete and ready for approval provided the four degrees. >> Thank you. Well, Lori, >> I have nothing to add. Michael, this is yours. >> The the current location of the proposed uh spots is fine with me. I think it's ready to go. >> Anybody have any else? >> I do wonder if there is a a way to move those parking spots. I I agree. I think it's ready,

007but the two undersized parking spots, that's the only question I have about this. The two to the north, >> any reason for them? They could um just simply put a sign on. They say compact compact char contact charges. That would be any test. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I agree. Um does the board agree this application is complete and ready for approval? >> Yes. >> Okay. Next is Estee Restaurant. Will, that is you again. And is the applicant here for that one? Lori, >> Patrick. >> All right. >> Right. >> Yep. >> So, this is the third review of her project proposing a new 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

008will be merged as part of this application. Combined, the property will be 22,138 square ft or approximately half an acre in size. Currently, 666 Montalk Highway is improved with a cottage and deck, while 3 South Emory Street is improved with sheds, a botchi court, wood fencing, a pool patio, and a concrete swimming pool. The structures on three South Emory are accessory to the adjacent Sands Hotel which is located directly to the south. The project was last reviewed at the June 4th planning board meeting where the board made several comments. First, the board asked the applicant contact the superintendent of highways and New York State Department of Transportation about work in the rightway and the applicant stated they have submitted applications to the New York State Department of Transportation and Superintendent of Highways. If the board

009agrees, the planning department recommends the applicant may submit these permits or letters of non-jurisdiction as a condition of approval. Second, the board requested the town consulting engineer review drainage details, drainage calculations, grades, and contours of the site. The town consulting engineer review these details and recommended they are compliant. Third, the board requested the applicant work with the planning department to revise the circulation pattern in the western parking area. On the site plan, the western parking area is over here towards the bottom. After discussion with the planning department, the applicant removed parking space number 14 in the parking area to provide a turnaround in that lot. And here you can see it's sort of shaded in green. Additionally, the applicant elongated the southernmost parking space and the eastern parking area to be 10 ft wide and

01040 ft in depth, which will allow the space to be used both as a traditional parking spot as well as a truck or delivery parking space. The town consulting engineer reviewed this revised layout and recommended it is also compliant. Fourth, the board requested the applicant add the tax map numbers, annotate the existing structures to be removed or demolished, and provide dimensions between buildings on the site plan. The applicant submitted this revised site plan, which the planning department reviewed and found sufficiently modified. Fifth, the board agreed to request lead agency status for the project pursuant to SER. The planning department finds the provided EIF part one to be in order and the planning department will route lead agency letters to involved agencies after the board agrees the application is complete. Following the previous review, the fire

011marshall reviews the proposed project and noted it was not ADA compliant, noting an elevator was required. In response, the applicant submitted revised plans which contained an elevator. At this time, updated comments from the fire marshal regarding ADA compliance are still pending. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether the map revisions are satisfactory, if any further modifications to the parking layout are needed, if the engineering issues have been adequately addressed, and whether the application is complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. >> Sorry, reading. >> Nothing to add. Okay, good. Um, this is yours, Michael. That's >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. >> Um, just a couple of comments. I I do agree that I think the application submitted to the DOT and the superintendent of highways should just be submitted for the for

012the record. Um, you know, >> As a condition of approval. Yes. Um, the parking uh arrangement I think was well worked. I am a little interested in the elongated parking. um how when it's not loading and unloading for deliveries, how that can be used as regular parking since it's long, but you couldn't fit two cars side by side. >> I'm Marley, one of the owners. Um that was actually requested from the planning okay uh team at the city. >> Um it actually works out really well because the storage of our basement in the hotel is right there. So, it it was a great suggestion. Um, and what we'll probably do is have some I mean I don't it's like some sort of barrier or whatever, but it it'll remain a parking spot. Okay. >> Um,

013if that's kind of your primary concern, it'll definitely >> I was just I was just interested how we would you know, obviously during the day hours for deliveries, you know, >> common sense, but >> for better or worse, yeah, the companies don't come out too much, so even if we wanted, it's not going to be too frequent of deliveries. Um but uh yeah, it'll be utilized uh otherwise. >> Really? There's there's a couple of pending items obviously, but it's subject to approval. So, >> anybody else have any comments, questions? Me either. Um so, let's move to the questions from the planning department. Um just want to make sure I have the right one here. Does the board wish to request lead agency status pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code? I >>

014say yes. >> Should the applicant submit documentation of permits or letters of non-jurisdiction from the New York State Department of Transportation and East Hampton Superintendent of Highways as a condition of approval? >> Yes. >> Does the board find that any further revisions to the parking layout are needed? >> No. Are the map revisions acceptable or are further revisions or any additional information needed at this time or will the application be complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing once a secret determination has been made? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Thanks everybody. I would just like to make a request if possible. Um I know you're going to do the secret and then you're also going to put a memo on saying it's now complete and it's possible to be put the res

015the resolution scheduling the public hearing on the same meeting. >> Thank you. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh next up subwaver review uh for Um, Will, that is you again and it's my application. >> Hey, you're here. There we go. All right. So, this is the third review of an application seeking a subdivision waiver for property located on Springs Fireplace Road and Springs. The project would create two 20,000 square foot lots, both having road frontage on Springs Fireplace Road. The subject property is currently 40,000 square ft or 0.92 acres and is within the B residence district. Lot one is proposed to contain the existing residence while lot two is proposed to contain a new residence detached garage and pool which are yet to be constructed. The site was originally two lots created as

016part of the Clearwater Beach subdivision approved in 1960. At some points, the lots were merged, and this application seeks to revert back to having two lots. The planning board conducted a coordinated review and routed lead agency request letters to to involved agencies on June 16th, 2025. No responses were received from the involved agencies, and the planning board can now continue its review. The planning department prepared EAF parts two and three and recommends a negative negative declaration be adopted. The planning board should review the environmental assessment forms parts two and three and determine whether it agrees the project will not cause significant environmental impacts and issue a negative declaration accordingly. Comments from the fire marshall found the submitted information submitted found the submitted information sufficient and no further review necessary. In conclusion, provided the board agrees,

017the planning department recommends the application is complete and ready for a public hearing. >> Thanks, Will. Does the applicant wish to be heard? >> If nobody, >> great. Um, so I also agree this seems to be another one where we're ready to move forward with scheduling a public hearing and declaring a negative declaration. So any other comments from anybody else? >> I agree. >> Does the board wish to make a negative declaration pursuant to Sra and chapter 128 of the town code? >> You have to make a motion. I make a motion that the board makes a negative declaration pursuant to secret and chapter 128 of the town code. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Is the application complete and ready for a public hearing? >> I [Applause] another subwaver review 267 Aabonic. Thank

018you very much. Um that's Eric. He I believe is on virtually. >> I am. How is everyone? >> Hi Eric. And is the applicant here for this one? Yes. Great. >> So Eric, whenever you're ready. >> Yep. Just starting a screen share. >> Great. >> Um, so this is an application to subdivide an approximately 1.2 acre lot into two lots, one of about uh 28. >> Can I stop you for one second, Matt? Is there a way or do we have the ability to make that a little bit louder? >> I'm sorry, my mic might be turned down. Let me turn it up a little. >> Want to make sure everyone can hear us old people. >> Okay. I don't know if you can hear me now. Is it better if I project? >> Uh

019I that it's about the same. I guess that's fine. We'll just all >> Okay. Let me uh really try to be loud. >> That's better. >> Okay. Um so it's an application to subdivide a roughly 1.2 acre lot into two lots. One of approximately 28,600 square ft and one of um 24,000 square ft. Um the planning board last reviewed this on May 7th. Uh the first comment was that the map had to be changed to have the proper application title. that has been completed. Uh the second comment of the planning board was that the applicant should submit a revised reveation plan indicating the size of the easement intention of the existing evergreen perimeter plantings in the southeast uh and add the name of the preparer as a condition of approval. It appears that um the

020applicants have addressed all of this. They've submitted a revised reveation plan which actually I will scroll down to but I need to reorient the screen. Uh it is this last document here. Um but basically the reveation plan uh includes leading uh leaving the canopy of mature deciduous trees and uh filling in the understory with bayberry which is pretty standard for deciduous woodland habitat reveation. So we find it acceptable. the board should determine if they agree. And then the uh final comment that the board made was about uh drainage um and the number of dry wells. Uh the applicants have made this revision and in fact the uh town engineer has reviewed this and signed off on it. Um additionally the office of fire prevention has signed off on the project. The planning department prepared an

021environmental assessment form parts two and three uh and attached it to the memorandum. a negative declaration is recommended and provided the board does make that negative declaration um then uh if there are no additional comments or changes to any of the plans then the application is complete ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. >> Thanks Eric. >> Would you like to be heard? Thank you. >> State your name, please. >> Hi. Uh my name is Samantha Malone. I'm here from Tarbet and Lester on behalf of the applicant. Um just here in case you have any questions and we would respectfully request that uh it be scheduled for public hearing. >> Thank you. Um this is mine. Um I have to say that I think the applicant has done a good job of making the

022changes and adding things um and answering all of our questions. So does anybody else have any? >> No. No concurs. Everyone concurs. So we shall move to those qu these questions. Um are any changes to the revitation plan needed or does the board agree with the planning department that it is acceptable? >> Yes. Is any additional information required at this time? >> No. Does the planning board wish to make a negative declaration pursuant to secret? Do I have to make a motion for that again? I make a motion to make a negative declaration pursuant to SRA for this application. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I Does the board agree this application is complete and ready to be scheduled for public hearing? Yes. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. And

023now the one everyone I believe has been waiting for. I just want to remind everybody that there is no public hearing tonight. Um, so we're just going through the application again. Eric has the application from the planning department side and read it is your application. >> Okay. Uh, let me screen share here. I will share the elevation drawing of the tower. Uh, this is an application for the on-site relocation of an existing but never approved 150 foot tall stealth monopole with equipment for three individual cell carriers at different sectors and equipment for the Springs Fire Department at the property of the Springs Fire Department in Spring. Um, also proposed is a 30 foot x 70 foot fenced in equipment compound and equipment uh for carriers Verizon, Dish, and T-Mobile are proposed. So, this application was

024last reviewed by the planning board on April 2nd. Uh, the planning board issued written comments and uh directions to the applicants. Uh, the first was that the board agreed with the planning department's previous recommendation about additional locations for photo simulations. Um, the applicants provided this information. There were six uh individual additional sites recommended where the applicants would prepare visualizations of the um existing and proposed uh conditions. I will um go to uh the visuals that were provided. And so I'm not going to go through all of them, but I will note that these photo simulations are found on um page 46, I believe, or 48 or beginning on 41, but most of them uh on 48. Um the planning board should look through this information. Um but basically to summarize, um and I'm just going

025to go quickly back to the tower elevation um as I go through this section. Apologies. Uh but basically um to summarize so um the visualizations were uh based off of a balloon test which is actually a code requirement that was performed on April 23rd. Um so with not full uh tree cover. Um but basically the tower would be substantially visible from various locations on Fort Pond Boulevard, Springs Fireplace Road and Talmage Farm Lane. The tower would be visible although obscured uh at least on a seasonal basis from points on spring fireplace road uh including in the vicinity of the Paul Kraner house and town farm lane. Uh the tower would be largely invisible from Ashwag Hall and the top of the tower would be visible from far locations uh such as Gerard Point and Laos

026Point. So basically the board should determine if any in uh any additional information pertaining to the visibility of the site is required at this time. Um the board should discuss the visual impacts of the proposed project. Um the planning department in the memorandum provided um went through uh a number of items that are codified that are in the town code uh as things that need to be addressed in staff reports. Uh most of these are related to visual impacts. So, um, I'd like to go through a few of them. Um, the first is whether or not the facility is in an avoidance area. Technically, this site is not in an avoidance area. However, it is close to the Springs Historic District, Polar Kraner House, which is on the National Register of Historic Places and um,

027scenic areas of statewide significance, the Akabanic Harbor sub uh, subunit. And the distances again from the historic district is about 690 feet. From the Pollock Fresnner house about 925 feet and from the border, the scenic area of significance um 900 ft. So technically it's not within 500 ft of any of these locations and isn't in an avoidance area, but we do want to make it clear that it is uh in proximity of some such designated areas. um whether or not the facility is in an opportunity site. I suppose that's in question. I think um with a broad interpretation of that section of the code, it is. It's on a privately owned site that does have tree masses um and doesn't meet any of the avoidance area criteria. That would make it an opportunity site. Um

028the location standards are basically those. Um so based on that, uh those have been met. sighting standards which refers to the location on the actual property itself um we view as met. There doesn't appear to be a superior location on the subject parcel for citing the tower. It's proposed to be situated basically at the middle of the property um maximizing setback from adjoining properties. So also we need to address um or identify um necessary practical measures to avoid minimize or or mitigate uh adverse impacts of the wireless facility. So again the tower is proposed at the center of the property which avoids the need for any variances from fall zone requirements and assures that a a catastrophic collapse of the tower will not likely result in damaging adjacent properties or endangering any of their occupants.

029Uh further the the design of the tower and associated equipment has been reviewed by the towers uh town's wireless consulting firm cityscape and is found to meet um has been found to meet all applicable design standards and engineering requirements. Um as previously mentioned, the tower would be visible um to the public and adjacent private property owners from various locations. However, the design of the tower as a stealth monopole without exterior mounted equipment arms and with a narrow profile should help mitigate these visual impacts. Um, and then also we make a note here that the architectural re uh architectural review board will review um the uh application uh and really mainly focus on coloration and design elements. Um so as far as the type of mount again this is a stealth monopole with all the antennas

030uh entirely within the structure. Um the panel antenna details have been provided. Um they are panel antennas with associated control units again entirely within the support structure. Um, I'll get to this in a second in another section, but the planning board will need to determine if screening and the location of the proposed equipment cabinet and equipment area is appropriate. Um, however, they have been situated near the center of the property provided adequate screening is uh provided then there shouldn't be uh an issue of um code compliance. Um so as far as the design standards uh the equipment does not project from the support structure at all and therefore does not exceed any of the thresholds in the code. Um there are design standards in the code that dictate how much um arm mounts or panel

031antennas can protrude. Uh in this case there is no protrusion because again it's entirely um internally mounted. So the code also calls for the applicants to consider alternatives. They submitted um information for three possible alternatives, all lo uh alternative locations, one being Camp Blue Bay. Uh they note that the site is already being developed with a personal wireless service facility uh and that self-service is still needed at the subject property uh to remedy a coverage gap. Um there's also a town owned property on a corner of Crannle and Norolk. Um the Woodland property uh that side is owned by the town. Um, however, there are other issues with this uh site not being eligible for a wireless facility. And again, it's a town- owned property. The town would need to have um an interest in

032putting a facility there. Um, and then the third that they offered was Spring School. Um, and they noted that Elite Towers was unable to secure um the property owner's consent to to pursue an application there. So, um, you know, as noted by the applicant, none of those alternative sites appear superior to subject property. Um, and the planning department acknowledges that and also acknowledges the coverage gap that exists in Eastern Springs. Um, whereas the only one of those locations that's in Eastern Springs would have been um, Spring School. Um, so the code also requires staff to identify alternatives. Um we don't know of any other site within a thousand feet of the subject property um that would uh you know not meet the avoidance criteria and would meet the opportunity site criteria. Um with the exception

033of right ofways where small cell or tier ones could be installed. Um however we do already have a number of active applications for small cell in this area of springs um including from at least one of the carriers that's proposed for this application. Um also the propagation maps um both provided um by the applicants for this and other applications and as well as in our wireless master plan um indicate that you're not going to be able to fill the entire coverage gap with just small cell. Um a macro facility is needed in this area. And then also again another component of this application is that Springs Fire Department is proposing to put its equipment on uh this tower and presumably they need a relatively tall mount uh to do this. Um so again you know

034it appears that with respect to the coverage gap the site is ideal. Um however this does not obiate the need to consider a shorter less conspicuous tower at this site. Um although the planning department notes the obvious fact that the shorter the the shorter the tower the less visible it should be from adjacent public and private properties. We also note that this brings with it a decrease in the opportunity for colllocation of carriers. Uh the applicants currently propose to provide equipment for the fire department and three separate cell carriers. a significant reduction in height would likely result in at least one of the carriers um or one less carrier being able to colllocate um and in turn would result in a proliferation of small cell installations to um to make up the difference. So basically

035the board should consider all the all of this information and discuss the potential vis visual impacts of the proposed project. The board should also determine if additional information is required at this time to assess the impacts. Um, but basically, uh, you'll need to have a discussion about whether or not the visibility and the the negative impacts that come from it, um, supersede the applicant's efforts to mitigate those impacts and the, um, community need for for a utility of this kind. Um, so the second comment that the planning board made was that the applicant should submit additional photo documentation to facilitate the determination regarding if the application would be suitable for a waiver from the landscaping requirements. So this specifically relates to the equipment cabinet and what I'm going to do is switch the visual to

036um one of these renderings. There were two of these renderings in particular. Um the applicants did submit photo simulations and additional renderings um to show what their equipment area and the screening would look like. So what you have centered on the screen right now are the existing conditions basically where they want to put their equipment tab uh equipment area. It is to the rear of the site. It is effectively behind the main building on this property. But basically this rendering and I'll zoom in a little bit. Hopefully that helps. I know it's a little tough to see there. Um, but shows you that they have an a fence in equipment compound um with a row of 6ft tall arborite which are evergreen screening. Um, the planning department finds this acceptable. However, the board should determine

037if you need additional screening of the equipment area. Um, we do note that the code has um specific guidelines for what the landscaping is supposed to be for a wireless facility, a tier three facility. Um, and this doesn't meet it to the letter of the code. Some of those requirements are really about landscaping around the perimeter of the site, the property, not specific to an equipment cabinet uh equipment area. Um, but the board should determine but the board is also empowered by the code to accept um basically any any landscaping and screening that is offered by the applicants. We feel it's sufficient um but the board should determine if they agree. A couple of other um elements here. Lighting. The applicants haven't uh proposed any exterior lighting. They did make a comment in their submissions

038though that they might need one or two fixtures um for the equipment area. Uh the planning department notes that um they could easily accomplish um or you know um how we could easily do a full review um through an administrative outdoor uh lighting permit um or modification uh in the future if they feel that they do need lighting. Um I wouldn't anticipate that they would need more than a few fixtures just like the equipment area. Um and we could easily review that um at a later date. So um the only other main outstanding item that I have is related to SERA. Um I listed some in the memo listed some specific corrections uh and revisions that need to be made uh to the EAF part one that is the document that's provided by the applicants

039essentially describing the project. Um just very briefly they didn't properly list all the permits that would be needed. Um they said to be determined as far as um fuel storage and storage of hazardous materials. Um they should clarify uh for their their generator um and any other use um what uh amount or volume of uh fuel will be stored on site. They uh identified that there were not any designated um public resources in terms of historic resources in the immediate area. I'd like the EAF part one to reflect the fact that a site on the National Register of Historic Places is nearby as well as a historic district. Um and then uh a technicality um the EAF Mapper is a program or the website that's supposed to be used in preparing that document. Um that

040should be done as well. Those are um fairly easy changes to that document um that should be made um and must be made um and technically uh the application should be once again deemed incomplete until that document with those revisions are submitted and the shot clock on this application should stop until that that revised document is provided. It should be fairly easy enough to to provide that. Um, another thing to mention here is that the board did receive public comment specific to SECRA. I don't want to mischaracterize the public comment, so I encourage the board to read it um for themselves. Uh, but basically um the public comment was that there was a previous application on this property for a cell tower that was given a positive declaration under SRA. A scope was adopted and

041the applicants were directed to prepare an environmental impact statement. Um, that was never prepared. the applicants have submitted this application as a separate and new application. Um the public comment basically uh states that the town can't process this as a new application because it's circumventing the requirements of SRA. In other words, they would these applicants are required to prepare and submit a draft environmental impact statement. Um the planning department defers entirely to the town attorney's office um for a sort of a final answer on this question, but we did confer with them um and um basically came to the conclusion that that is not the case. This application is substantially different from the one that that predates it. Um specifically the previous application proposed a tower of um nearly with width antennas 199 ft above

042ground level. This tower is 150 ft above ground level or roughly 25% shorter. Uh the previous application proposed a new tower that was stated to principally be providing emergency services equipment, not cell equip equipment. Um so basically they were uh applying for a different use as a public utility. Um this application is is proposing uh to be a personal wireless service facility. They are proposing emergency services equipment too. Um but that's somewhat incidental and they've submitted this as a wireless facility and addressed the um specific standards in the code for that use. Uh town code provisions regarding fall zones uh and required property line setbacks have been amended since that previous application was submitted. Um but at the time that application um because it was proposing a taller tower that was right on the property

043line required multiple variances from the town code for fall zone requirements still would today under the current regulations. The subject application requires no variances um from these requirements. And then um the other uh discerning aspect here is that the previous application was for a monopole um but with exterior mounted protruding support arms uh needed to support the cell antennas. The subject application is for a stealth monopole with all antennas interiorly mounted. Um, if you want an example of a monopole with exterior mount arms uh of the height of the tower that was originally proposed in that previous application, you could look at the one that's near the northwest um fire substation that is 185 ft nearly 200 with whip antennas and a monopole that has protruding arms. um what the applicants are proposing in this

044application is um much less conspicuous and a much more desired um design. So uh just a note that uh the code requires that this application be referred to the architectural review board uh for their comments to the town board. Um they uh their review will be on design features only. They will probably look at the coloration um of the tower as a primary focus. um but that is required and will be done um shortly. So um basically in conclusion the application is incomplete pending the resolution of these issues and the submission of the required items. The board should discuss whether additional information uh information pertaining to visibility screening andor lighting needs to be submitted at this time or if it agrees with the planning department that these issues have been satisfactorily addressed. The board should

045also determine if the EF part one needs to be revised. Although the planning department views this as as an issue of completeness uh of submission requirements, not a discretionary item. Uh as referenced in the com in the comments regarding design and visibility, the town code details the content of staff reports that must be provided for tier three wireless uh facilities. The planning department has provided all the required information in uh the memo that went out uh and and the one preceding it with the exception of part M which is recommended decision uh which includes findings of fact and a recommendation from the department to the board to approve or deny the application. Uh the planning department will complete this aspect of the staff report subsequent to a board determination of significance under chapter 128 of

046the town code in SECRA. uh and the application having been deemed complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. So basically when this is entirely complete uh we will give you a recommendation to that effect as required by the code. Um but we will wait until the board deems this application complete and makes a determination of significance under secret. Um so uh want to make sure I'm I'm getting everything here. Um yeah. Okay. And I did address um stopping the shot clock which um you know as as the application is incomplete at the very minimum for uh revising the EAF part one. The shot clock as we refer to it under the federal regulations. Um as the board knows there are federal guidelines that dictate that we as a local municipality um issue

047or deny uh permits within 150 days for an application of this type. um the shot clock should be stopped due to the incompleteness of the EAF part one. But as soon as that information is provided andor additional information that the planning board might need, then the application would be um the shot clock would be told again and we would be on the clock again. So just wanted to make that point and um that is basically the summary of this application. >> Thank you, Eric. Uh does the applicant wish to be heard? [Music] Yes. Good evening, vice chair, members of the board. My name is Greg Alvarez, uh from Amato Law Group, 666 Old Country Road, Garden City, New York. Here on behalf of the applicants, uh thank you for uh to review this evening of

048uh our application. Uh thank you, Eric, for uh walking through the details of your letter. Um, I think just as a general big picture, um, we hope we have presented to you the required items that, uh, that arose at the April 2nd meeting and was referenced in your April 4th letter. So certainly, I think for purposes of tonight, that's our main our main focus. Um, we understand the um, more substantive questions that are part of this application. We certainly welcome that discussion as well. um and certainly something that'll be um more fleshed out at the public hearing. So, so we definitely look forward to that. But so tonight I'll just focus on making sure that we provide you um the last items that were mentioned in Eric's report. So I think generally um we're in

049agreement. I just want to I just have a couple of um comments and suggestions to uh hopefully wrap things up here. um you know notwithstanding I we did if I may ask Eric I I think we did receive a completeness letter as to this application and so these last items are just sort of to wrap up based on this continuing review. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. And I should clarify for the board as far as the codified submission requirements. So documents that need to be provided and demonstrate compliance with FCC regulations. The application is absolutely um complete in that regard and we did send a and confirmed by the outside consultant cityscape. We sent a letter to the applicants um confirming that. Uh we did note in that letter though that there are

050other issues that the planning board needs to discuss and you know um that there might be further items and information needed which you know is basically where we are today. But yes, um they are complete as far as the codified submission requirement. >> All right, thank you for that. Um and so in that spirit certainly we want to provide you all of the information that you know is being sought here so that we are fully prepared for that public hearing to vet out all of the particular substantive issues. So I think what I'll proposed to say is that um we we would consent to that um um to that stoppage of the shot clock. Um you know with the understanding that um you know we we do look to um address these last few items

051that that have been referenced in in pretty quick fashion. So, we would just respectfully request if we could be scheduled for a hearing in the interimm uh based on that because I'll just go through the items real quick um that I think uh as far as I understand we uh we we we uh we need to provide you at this point. So, uh just running quickly through Eric's list. Um I think in terms of the visual analysis, we're hoping at this point that we have satisfied the requests uh from last time to provide those additional views. uh we actually had some additional uh views beyond that that were included to uh to not mention in terms of requests from community members uh who live nearby. So we've actually included those views as well. Uh so

052we're hopeful hopeful we're complete on that front. Um in terms of the screening uh certainly we're just looking for your direction there. as Eric accurately described the code section. Um on one hand um it doesn't um on the four corners of the code necessarily address it, but because of the unique nature of where we're located this facility that it's going to be essentially right in the center of the property and the fact that there are um existing um um pockets of vegetation at the perimeter of the property already. um it seemed appropriate to try to address the comment by focusing our landscaping and screening on the immediate area that's surrounding um our equipment. So, as Eric had showed you earlier, that that would be the the intended view with those 38 arbor bodies that would

053surround um the screened fencing that would also be there. So, I just want to point that out. So hopefully at this point we we look for your direction on that that at least in uh terms of proceeding to a public hearing that that would be sufficient to allow us um to proceed and for you to consider that as a proposal. Certainly we welcome any further comments that may uh be connected with that item. um lighting. Uh similarly, I think we're in agreement there in terms of if there is any uh lighting in the future that may be required. It may be uh most likely likely it would be involving the uh wireless carriers that would be colllocating on the pole. And so if any um of the carriers see a need for that certainly we

054would include that or they would include that as part of their subsequent applications. And so for us as a condition of approval that that would be the case. um we would have be a amendable to that as to the arrangement moving forward in terms of site lighting. Um okay, next is the EAF part one. So I just like to point out one item there and I do have uh William Scar from BHB uh who had prepared the E part one EAF. So if there are any additional questions, but I'm just going to focus our attention on the question involving part E3, the designated public resources. And I guess it's connected to the EAF mapper as well where um Eric had referenced earlier about the um location of nearby historic districts including the Paul Kraner House.

055Um while it's um certainly in the vicinity um sort of the four corners of the EAF and as directed uh by the DEEC as well, we just want to make sure we're completely accurate in terms of how we would fill that particular question out. And right now we've question we've answered that question no because there are no um historic uh historically significant properties within 500 ft of the property. That's that's the bright line of the EAF. Now, that being said, we would certainly be amendable to leaving that answer as is, but perhaps adding an asterisk to note the locations of those other historic locations on the EAF itself. Just to make sure that again we're in the four corners of what the EAF demands and and then that way at least it would it would

056acknowledge those other historic >> I'm going to defer to Eric on this question um as I'm not as familiar with the EAF form itself. Um, >> I I was just going to chime in and say, uh, I concur with that. Um, and, you know, it it isn't within 500 ft of anything. I think, um, so I I I think that they're they're not wrong in saying that, you know, uh, it wouldn't be identified by the EAF mapper as immediately adjacent. I think though for the record um and you know for to sort of memorialize at the outset um the conditions of this site and you know neighboring uh and nearby resources it's uh it's best to have the record reflect right from the start from the EF part one which in many ways is an

057application description uh to have that reflect that there is uh an awareness of the proximity of those historic resources but We're not looking to hold the applicants to uh saying that they're in a historic district. We really just want the record to be clear that um the applicants and then in turn the board uh noted from sort of day one that uh that those are in close proximity. >> Okay. Yeah. And and we would agree to that that you know we'll we'll note it as such um as we discussed on the updated EA. >> Okay. Um and I think that that would apply then to the mapper as well. Correct. So, so the mapper um is actually set so that it can only identify those properties within 500 ft. So, I don't think there's a

058way uh tell me if I'm wrong. Uh >> EF mapper won't show the why don't you come up >> to the and introduce yourself if you don't mind. >> Hi, William Squire. I'm senior environmental planner with VHB. Um, so we are happy to attach the EF mapper results to the part one EAF. Um, just noting that it won't indicate the historic resources results, but we will add a note uh to reflect as suggested by Eric. >> Great. >> Thank you. >> And that's perfect. That that's all the department is looking for. >> All right. Perfect. So So we'll uh as long as that's uh also amendable to the planning board, we'll proceed in that fashion. Okay. And then um just two more points. Um the first one is uh pretty straightforward. We will update the

059plan title to reflect um the title that has been assigned to this application. So we'll certainly do that. And then for uh the question just want to address also um the public comment that it did come in. It was by letter from uh Mr. Whan at Whan Filer regarding the question of whether or not um this application can proceed. So um I think what we're talking about here is the question of resjudicado which basically um the concept is that um to proceed with a new application at um at a site um there has to be what's described as um material change to the aspects of the case. That's that's the language. Um I can provide you the um the uh relevant second department case that that sort of covers that. That's a matter of Hurley

060versus zoning board of Amniville from 2010. That's the second department. Um we'll we'll plan on including that in our resubmission of course, but I just wanted to highlight that um to point out that um we are uh in agreement with both uh Eric's office and also the town attorney's office in terms of uh whether this application um may proceed as a new application as opposed to um being, you know, straddled with that prior application. This is a very different application in a lot of ways. Eric's already covered that and um the way that the case law reads is that it's very much in the discretion of the board to make that determination. It's not something that you know has a bright line rule which is suggested in the letter that was provided that it's it's

061actually quite the opposite. And so taking that into consideration and of all the changes that have been made to this application which are quite significant and in the words of the case law material change we think that is the case and allows us to proceed with this new application in that fashion but that's something we'll also add to our submission to uh to ensure that's uh that's covered as well. Um so with that um at this time we just look for your final direction in terms of these final items and if we are in agreement we'll proceed in uh turning around a resubmission in short order. And again we just respectfully request that um you know a hearing can be scheduled uh because we if if these are the last items then we certainly think

062we can complete these in in a very short time. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. believe this is yours. >> UL is >> I'm sorry, Mr. Will. There's no public comment on this one yet. >> Uh you just allowed the applicant's attorney to address you and in fact to deal with the very issue I want to talk to you about. So if you don't allow me to speak on behalf of the clients I represent who are neighbors, you're depriving us of our due process rights. I have a right to speak if he can speak. I respectfully disagree, but in the interest of keeping this moving along, you have uh three minutes. >> Very good. Thank you. Richard Whan from Whan Filer PLC. I represent neighbors to the project. Our concern is to first

063of all determine whether the tower is actually necessary and if it's determined that a tower is needed here to minimize its height. You should not even be discussing this. The planning board paused decked this project in 2020 and you accepted a scoping outline submitted by the applicant in 2021. It's the same project. The fact that they withdrew the application and submitted a new application is utterly meaningless. If that's all you had to do to evade a positive declaration, everyone would do it. As far as the alleged differences between the project in 2020 2021 and now they're very minimal, Eric Chance in his memo gives lists four things that are different about the project. All of them were contemplated in the scoping outline. First of all, it was proposed basically as a cellular wireless communications tower

064in 2020 2021. The applicate expressly said that their dis would would consider the impacts from a wireless service facility on the tower. That's number one. Second, the height of the tower was described in 202021 in the dis and the in the scoping outline as 180 ft tall. Now it's red down to 150 ft. But the the the opt the option of having a lower tower was again an alternative that was expressly discussed in the scoping outline. In other words, the alternatives that were to be considered by the applicant and discluded a shorter tower, a relocated tower such as moving it more to the center of the property and other technological changes which could cont which could contemplate the enclosure within the so-called step tower apparatus. So the project is not different. These are alternatives that

065were to have been considered in the DIIS. And what the applicant decided to do is they said, "Well, let's let's just go to the alternatives, slip that back in front of the planning board, and see if we can get them to remove the requirement for the DIS entirely." They're still subject to the positive declaration. I'm asking you, the planning department does not make the decision. You know that it's your decision to make. I'm asking you to tell the applicant they are still required under your decision in 2020 and this 2021 scoping outline that they submitted and you accepted that they have to submit a dis. If you don't do that, I have to tell you and I'll tell the applicants attorneys, we will assert our rights in court. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Back

066to you. Uh so you know wireless applications especially new wireless applications uh tend to be controversial. I don't want to over complicate this and I have a tremendous amount of respect for you Mr. Well. I sincerely do. I know you know the process. You know planning. This is a simple relocation of just a few hundred feet. And I think it's unfair quite frankly to compare the 1999 application to the present form. You're comparing an apple to an orange. I sincerely believe that. Um the tower is needed. Um this tower is going to have personal wireless facility in it, personal wireless equipment in it, emergency services equipment in it. There's no viable alternative in the neighborhood. It's an opportunity site. It's a fire department. It's in the It's being relocated to the center of the property,

067which I think makes a lot of sense. You talk about a fall zone. First of all, I've been told that the fall zone really doesn't matter because these poles are designed in such a way that if there's a disaster, they crumple upon themselves. But, god forbid it doesn't crumple and it falls. It's right on the property line. You might have a problem there. So, I I think moving it to the center makes a lot of sense. Um, in reference to what the applicant said, um, listen, you know, I I think you've addressed most of the items that we've talked about previously. You did the balloon test. I mean, you're going to see this thing and I I understand that in any neighborhood, no one wants to see a wireless tower, but let's face it, I

068mean, it's it's something we need in our community and um I think it it makes sense. Okay? And and I would say that the landscaping I I told you the last time you were here that I think it's important. I understand it's the at the rear of the fire department, but their picnic tables, you saw the picture that Eric had up, their families, they have barbecues back there. I mean, she'd look nice. I mean, you guys shouldn't do it on the cheap. You should go and do the right thing, I think. So, um, that's really my two cents on the application. So, >> thanks Reed Bruce. >> No, I agree. I don't I don't >> Michael completely and I my question is why no landscaping is is landscape around the pole such a burden? I

069I really don't see it as as that and there are many events at that location. So, okay. So, what I'll say is this. Um, this is a proposal to try to work within what the code has specified, but certainly we're before he you here uh tonight and hearing what we're hearing in terms of landscaping, you know, that this is part of the process too to receive some feedback. And so, um, that's something we can certainly address to, you know, before we get to the, uh, public hearing to make sure that, um, uh, we provide even more, uh, landscaping. If there's anything in terms of specific direction, uh, to, um, uh, to help guide us, we would certainly welcome that as well. Um, >> I think I think anything you can do to go above and

070beyond is important in this project. >> All right. Understood. All right. We we will uh, we will definitely address that. Thank you, sir. >> Thanks, Michael. Ava, >> no, I I agree with all the sentiments as well. And then to, you know, to go off what Michael just said, I I agree. I think anything and everything you can bring to the table to, you know, make this acceptable as as much it can be acceptable by the community. You're not going to please everyone. I think that would certainly help. >> Understood. Thank you. Um, yeah, I've been involved, you know, on the board from the original application and I was uh I had a lot of problems with the original submission. Um I think a lot of the issues that I had with regard to comparing

071it to what we have in front of us today, a lot of those issues have been mitigated in my my view as far as whether or not u this represents a new submission with regard to SRA or it's just sort of a an endound by by the applicant. I I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, so I reserve judgment on that. I I would hope that we can get some legal advice within the planning department on that. Um I also would like to although I do feel that a lot of the issues have been mitigated with regard to the fall zone, the the appearance of the monopole versus what was originally proposed. I think that's important. Uh the only thing that you know still is an issue with me is even though it falls within

072the 500 foot uh line the you know the historic areas uh it still can be seen but you know I don't think if we're going to look for the perfect we're not going to ever approve anything. So uh so that you know that's the only sort of gray area for me. Uh and I would also like to reserve judgment to hear what uh people have to say, neighbors have to say at the public hearing. So >> I still hold back my uh final decision until I we have the public hearing. >> Understood. Thank you, sir. And and I'll just add to the um and certainly we're going to have more discussion about this, but I'll just add at this time that um think about the DEIS or a DEIS that's that's filed. Um and I

073think Mr. Wayland had a pointed it out as well is that the way that they're structured is to presuppose that there is an application on the table. So the application that was on the table was that original design. Certainly you can go further through the process but there's a difference between the proposal and the alternatives. And here this we have elevated to a new proposal that um is completely different from what that original proposal was on the table. And that's that that's the analysis. That's how you look at it. So, um I just put forth that initially, but certainly we will uh like I said, provide you some more further detail and in further consultation with the town. >> Do you have other uh precedent where this sort of thing has happened where one submission

074was made and then it was retracted and a new one was made and was there a case law regarding that type of thing happening? Yeah, I >> how it was resolved. >> Yeah. So I I don't have that answer for you tonight. I admit um what I have for you is um the general standard of res judicado which I mentioned but um we will also um we will also consider that and and and that will be part of our submission as well. >> What what is that Latin phrase they use? Rejudic >> residue. >> Correct. >> Judicado. >> Oh res judicado. Yes. Yes, sir. >> Which means what? >> I got it right here. I got it right here. You want to read it? >> Go for it. Is a legal doctrine that prevents the

075same parties from relitigating the same claim or issue that has already been decided by a court in a previous case. So often it is in that context in the litigation context but it has applied in the land use context as well where one application is filed and then a new application is filed after that. And so the case that I quoted you was just an example uh from the second department that had that same consideration where there was one application and then there was a second application and the court essentially said yes board you you have adequately determined that these are two separate applications and therefore you can consider that second new application because it's materially uh different enough >> and this is this is for the planning board to decide. Are is that right?

076Are are we the folks who say it's okay that they have this >> they've or I believe that the correct me if I'm wrong Britney but I believe >> sorry so the town attorney's office has looked into this and we do agree that this is a separate distinct application the previous application was withdrawn thereby ending the process the application that is before you today is um substantially different from the application that was before the board a couple years ago uh I don't need to rehash why Eric has a nice memo here dimension the location, the differences in the service provided and the design will all support the fact that this would be a new application before the board. >> Thank you. Thanks so much. So, um, thank you very much. Uh, I have just a

077couple of comments as well. I also see this as a new application. Um, and as to the question of whether this is needed, this is absolutely 100% needed. I work in Springs at Ashwag Hall every Saturday and there is no service. um you know there are events there there are people trying to conduct business there are you know medical events that happen and we have no service and I'm pretty sure that the you know public Kraner house as well which is the other site of significance you know they have the public coming in and out of there as well and I do think it's a public safety issue at this point as well as a convenience issue you know this is you know one of the most wealthy and wonderful places in the world and

078we can't make a phone call when we're driving down Fort Pond Boulevard. So, I think it's absolutely necessary. I do agree with the attorney's office and with Eric's assessment that it is a new application and I appreciate the fact that the applicant has made the substantial changes. I also agree with everybody else as far as the landscaping goes. Let's make it pretty. I have events there, too. Um, and it it would be nice to have, you know, some lovely landscaping back there. >> Understood. Thank you very much. >> So, I think we can move on to our questions. Thank you everybody. Um, does the planning board find the visual analysis acceptable or does any additional information such as additional visualizations need to be submitted? >> I think it's acceptable. Yeah. >> Um, does the planning

079board find the screening of the equipment area acceptable? No. No, >> let's go back to the drawing board with that one. >> Um, does the planning board agree with the planning department that the submission of information pertaining to exterior lighting and planning department department approval if proposed in the future can be made a condition of site plan special permit approval should the board grant it. Now, this is a little bit confusing to me, Eric, because I thought you mentioned that it could be handled with an administrative lighting permit. >> Yeah, exactly. And you you could So, they're not mutually exclusive. you could have a condition of approval that if any additional um lighting is proposed that the applicants obtain an administrative lighting permit >> that's somewhat yeah that's somewhat redundant with the code because any

080exterior lighting um either need site plan approval or an administrative lighting permit um but that's basically what I was getting at would be that >> if you do approve it you could have a condition saying if you do add exterior lighting you will go and get an administrative lighting permit >> as as Eric has said, do we agree that if they do need it? Okay. Yes. >> Um, does the board agree that the EAF part one needs to be revised as per the planning department's comments? We discussed that and you're willing to do that? Yes. >> Is the application incomplete at this time and until additional further information is provided and that accordingly the shot clock for this application should be paused until a resubmission has been made. >> Right. Yes. >> And we're, you

081know, again, we're we're uh we're amendable to that just with the interest of again um uh looking for that public hearing to be scheduled as soon as possible. >> Yes. >> So, Eric, are we we need to wait until all of this is submitted before we can then schedule a public hearing? Is that the procedure? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Um great. we we would need a revised EAF part one. Um once we have that we will send out lead agency coordination letters. Um or you know um and finalize zebra after that the first step is done we'll prepare an EF part two and three for the planning board. Um it is really only after you make a secret declaration that the application would be complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing.

082Um, but there are, you know, only relatively minor uh revisions and additional information the applicant needs. So, we should be able to get there uh pretty soon. >> Great. And would we I I guess the question would be provided we submit these items uh do you see a need for another work session or provided Eric uh signs off then at that point we would be able to >> Yeah. I mean maybe a resolution to schedule a public hearing. they not agree with the landscaping. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we we would um since there is going to be changes to the landscaping, the department would want to bring that back before the board to determine if it's appropriate. Um however, I don't foresee a reason why we couldn't do that concurrently with um

083bringing you a parts two and three. um and also possibly at the same meeting um if it is incomplete scheduling a public hearing. So maybe one more. Great. Thank you, Eric. Thank you so much. >> All right. Um now Eric is back on. We're going to have a discussion about affordable multiple residences. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. You guys may you don't have you can listen to this if you like to. Sure. Um, so this is a continuation of a planning board conversation from June 25th. Um, we had gone over a PowerPoint presentation that I had prepared for the town board. Um, gone over the memorandum that was prepared for the planning board uh detailing this proposed new use. Um I not that it's my right to do this but

084I assign you guys some homework of of uh reading through everything and thinking of comments and questions uh for the planning department uh and for me uh based on it. Um again this is a proposed new use. Um it basically the idea is to create a mechanism to do multiple residences on properties only within the affordable housing overlay district. Um there are a very limited number of properties that would be otherwise eligible um as we sit here today that have the designation and and meet the criteria. The hope is that um and irrespective of this use and whether or not it's adopted. The the hope of the planning department would be that the town board will expand the number of properties that have the affordable housing overlay district designation. that's also called for in the

085comprehensive plan um and at least one of the Hamlet studies. Um but that's basically a separate um you know effort that needs to be undertaken by the town board. Um but I want to point that out that this proposed new use will be limited in scope. Uh which is a good thing and a bad thing. Um, we need more affordable housing, but we're talking about a new use that right now would really only be viable on probably one property in the town. Um, again, the this the genesis of this was the fact that you can do an affordable housing development as a specific use in the AHO or affordable housing overlay district. Um, but you need a minimum of three acres to do that. That's one of the specific special permit standards. So the town

086board a while ago began discussing that there should be a mechanism to do affordable housing on AHO designated properties that are less than 3 acres. Um you know what an obvious thing you could do is just go to the code and say okay you don't need three acres to do an affordable housing development but affordable housing developments have a density or other otherwise permitted density of up to 12 units per acre. that's not going to be appropriate for something that is 1 acre to do 12 units on a a relatively small um property. So what we were looking at was um doing something that is of lesser intensity um less permitted maximum density of housing units. Really something that is intended to fit into a residential neighborhood um and also allow an existing residence to

087be converted into a multiple residence where appropriate, you know, as determined by the town board by giving the AHO designation on the property. Um, one of the other things that we mentioned is there is actually a mechanism in the town code right now um called change of single family residents to um two family residents or other multiple residents. Um I believe it is a holdover in the code from old code changes uh specifically when ADU regulations were adopted. Um but I don't see I don't have any supporting documents to to back that up. But that is a use that basically says you can convert a single family residence to a multiple residence on pretty much any property in the town. Um it's permitted in all the residential zoning districts and there are no provisions that

088that multiple residents be made affordable. What we're proposing here is to um you know remove that existing use in the code, replace it with the affordable multiple residence which again limited to the AHO must be affordable. um which means that the residents, the tenants would have to be um moderate income families or at 130% of area median income or less. The rent would be cast at 130% of the fair market rent as determined by HUD. Um and then there are also a a number of dimensional regulations that you know, as I mentioned, are meant to um help this use fit um relatively seamlessly into a residential neighborhood. Um obviously this is a use uh that would require a special permit from the planning board. So you would get you would be reviewing these individual sites

089as they came in and asking for these um for this specific use. Um with that I you know I won't get into all of the specific dimensional regulations. That's basically the concept here. Um it's something that myself and Ian Calder Pedmont of the town board primarily have been working on for a while now. Um over a year. Um you know I I feel I'll say it although I don't think I have to that there is a dire need for affordable housing in the town of East Hampton. Um when you look at the different types of housing that are permitted under our code to be built. Um, obviously there's a lot of zoning in this town that's intended for single family, a single family residents, one unit on them. Um, there are provisions for affordable apartments

090on residential properties, so ADUs or affordable apartments on commercial properties, apartments within commercial structures. There's a provision for fullscale affordable housing developments. Um but there really is no mechanism for affordable multiple residence developments um which would allow someone to take a residential property and create two units, three units, four units in a building uh and have rental units that you know in many ways serve as the sort of bridge for people between a smallish apartment that they might be living in when they're they're starting out their their careers and their lives and a home and home ownership. um we want and need to have viable rental options um for the the workforce of the town. So um you know this is a specific new use uh and as far as the code requirements of procedure

091go um we do want to bring this back to the town board uh who has already reviewed it. Um but the code requires that this be brought rightly so requires that this be brought to the planning board for comments um as proposed legislation. So, also attached or also provided to the board is a draft code uh that was reviewed by the town attorney's office. Um I guess one thing I didn't mention is that uh another safeguard on this is that it would be required to have an annual permit from the office of housing. That is exactly the same as an apartment within a commercial structure or a residential ADU. Um, so with that, um, I'll sort of leave it to your conversation and any specific questions that you have for me. >> Thank you, Eric.

092Um, does anyone have any questions or comments about this? Yes, >> I have a few comments. >> Great. >> Okay. I I think Eric, I think the uh idea is a great idea. I'm all for it. I have no problem with it. I just have a few issues or a few items that I think need to be addressed as well. Uh first of all um it seems to me if I can use an analogy that uh if I wanted to build a house uh personally I would hire an architect uh I would get a building permit but to use the analogy to compare to this I wouldn't have a piece of land to put the house on. So, it's important that we have this code which allows this type of multiple family affordable housing, but

093it seems to me there are no designated areas in East Hampton on which we can put these these uh multiple family units. So, I think it's important for the town board to complete the process and do this prep, you know, pass this code change, but also make a concerted effort to designate certain areas of East Hampton where you can build these uh multiple family affordable housing units. So, that's number one. Um, I think they it should also have a condition where if if I'm a u uh someone that that complies with the restrictions or the requirements to be a resident in one of these units because of my uh income is capped at a certain level and then I uh rent the unit in one or two years I excel at my job, I get

094a raise and I go above the cap. I don't think it's right for me to have to leave that particular residence if I want to stay. So, I think that condition should be worked into the uh code somehow. Um, also I think, you know, there's a potential for a misuse of this type of affordable housing. And by that I mean, and I, you know, I know that maybe I'm the lone voice on this, but and again, I'll repeat it. I'm not against affordable workhouse housing. I'm all for it. I think we should have more of it. But I think there's a competition if we if we allow it to compete. The affordable housing for the ordinary citizen, the ordinary resident of modest income is going to get locked out in favor of seasonal workers that

095uh that will be put into these types of units. So just to be more clear on that point, if we build these units, these if we allow these multiple family units to be built and they're they're bought by businesses or wealthy uh establishments so that they can house their workers. It takes affordable housing uh away from the ordinary citizen. they're not going to be able to compete with the wealthy businesses that are going to be able to buy these units. So, I think we should put some kind of um covenant or some kind of restriction that that mitigates that sort of competition. So just to expand a little bit on that, you know, my view of the community is one where we allow the children of longtime residents to be able to stay here or

096other other residents who want to be able to stay here and afford to live here and have that kind of community. I don't I don't think any of us want a community where it caters to wealthy second home owners only and we turn it into a vicious cycle where establishments are started and built that cater to the wealthy people. Those establishment needs work need workers. they gobble up all the affordable housing for the workers and it just continues in that vicious cycle and the ordinary people who can't afford to live here it becomes even more difficult for them to stay. So I think that's why it's important that we gear these affordable housing u approaches so that we prevent that kind of thing from happening. Um, oh, and just lastly, last point, I think we

097should have u some kind of covenant or some somewhere have some kind of uh stipulation that this what whatever is built is at infinitum or you know 99 years times two that kind of thing. It's not going to be something that in 20 years is uh turned into regular housing and you know becomes again competitive on another level. So I think that's an important covenant that we should build into the uh into the code or wherever the town board feels it's appropriate. So those are my comments. >> Thank you. Will anybody else have any? Yeah, I I just wanted to I I think you made some outstanding points and and I think that um the proposal is is a good one. Um but it it does need some work. I I do have a question

098though on the 130% of area medium income. What is that number? I I I'm just curious to know. Do you have any idea what that number might be? >> I think it's a >> Hold on. I'll I'll look it up and I'll tell you specifically before I tell you the wrong thing. And as you're looking that up, I I will say that um I do like the residency requirement. I think that that's um important. Um but the thing I I get a little worried about and maybe I misunderstood this is that let's say you have two teachers. Um I'm a I don't know what the 130% area medium income is, but um you know, you have a teacher maybe married to a police officer. I mean, would they be uh not able to to qualify

099for this? >> The most recent median household income for Suffach County is $119,000. >> Oh, 119. >> So, that 130. So, roughly 150 160. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is that regulated is is that regulated by by HUD or >> so it's I I please correct me if I'm wrong anybody who knows more about this than me probably Eric and Britney but I believe that it is um set by New York state like it's a one of those data points that New York state and then it's by county so each county >> municipality I'm sorry to cut you off but so the municipality can't can't flex on that >> so It wouldn't be the No. And this is a problem that a lot of organizations have because the mean income, you know, for Suffach County is

100>> the disparity between east and west is just Yeah. >> Exactly. The median of >> So I mean, if if it were me, I I'd be inclined to take that up to 200% of the median income. I I think even then I mean it's it's so hard to live out here and you know the cost of living is crazy >> and uh you know if you're going to cap people out at what one what they're saying one what is it 162 with two people I mean that's uh >> yeah that's low >> so this yeah so uh just to give you some background here um this is actually slightly outdated this has been changed for 2025 this is HUD numbers and basically the effective row to look at it that you know what you were

101looking at there 130%. It goes by household size though. So as your household increases in size 130% of area median income is is larger to reflect um added incomes and and added people in the household. So these aren't exact um but these are very close to what the uh the current requirements are. But as far as the um the the effective limitation of 130% area median income, that is codified. That's the definition of an affordable uh of a moderate income family in the town code. Until and unless the town board changed that to increase it, um it kind of is what it is. And if we propose that this use allowed the households to go beyond 130% without also changing that definition in the code, then it wouldn't be affordable housing. It technically wouldn't meet

102that definition under our code. Um, so that's that's where these come from. I I get what I'm saying. >> Thank you. >> I have a question about You want to go next? >> Go ahead. All right. So, Eric, I have a couple questions. Um, you know, you only talk about five lots in your memorandum here that could be used for this. If the town expands the AHO um areas, is that a is that like a general neighborhood? Is that big tracks of land that'll be split up or is that just selective parcels here and there? And and the reason I asked that is a is there any thought to a minimum lot size? And then that sort of segus into, you know, how do you or how do we go about dealing with, you know,

103total building coverage, all of the calculations that I sort of have to deal with every day, right? And then, you know, is there any thought on how that affects the density in say a neighborhood if if you're only talking about specific properties that are going to get changed. >> Gotcha. So, I I guess I think the first part of that was kind of related to, you know, where are um the, you know, new AHO properties going to be situated? which properties could potentially have that designation. That is sort of step two in this process and the planning board the town board will will have to determine that. We don't have, you know, other than um illusions to it of uh one of the hamlet plans says along um North Main Street that there's an area

104that would be good to to have a mechanism for multif family housing. We don't have anything picked out as far as individual properties. I mean, my hope and my understanding of the need is that the town board really should look into adding the AHO to large properties, ones over three acres that are um also going to be uh able to build affordable housing developments, full scale ones at 8 12 units per acre, but should also look into smaller properties. Um, and that's really where this proposed use comes in. It's really meant to be a mechanism for the smaller properties. So, you know, I I can't really answer where which properties the town board's going to add ahos to, if any, um, and whether or not they're going to be large or small, but I think,

105if you're asking me, I believe we need both large and small properties to to be added to the AHO. Um, as far as the minimum lot, >> well, okay, as far as a minimum lot size, this has in it 20,000 square feet is the minimum lot area or you know, so um what you need to do is um you can't do because the only way I'm trying to think of the best way to describe this. Uh 20,000 is the minimum law size under the town code um for under of any of our zoning districts, residential zoning districts. Um it's also the minimum that the health department requires. Um the most sort of I guess the way to put it is forgiving uh groundwater management zone or the health department is four. Um which basically allows

106you 600 down gallons per day per acre. So the only way the the minimum size you could ever have to have two uh single family residential units would be to have at least 20,000 square feet. So that's the minimum lot area that would be established on this. You couldn't that's the the minimum amount that you could do two units um or two residences on. Um as far as the dimensional regulations, what's proposed here? So gross floor area setbacks, total lot coverage, that is proposed just to be whatever the underlying uh requirement of the residential zoning district is. So in other words, if there was a swath of property in in an area of town that was owned B residents, A residents and the town started considering um you know adding the AHO to them, um

107you know the the affordable multiple residence that someone would want to build other by building a new structure or converting an existing one would have to meet all of the dimensional regulations that they were designing a single family residence. Um and in accordance with that uh you know those requirements. >> Okay. So 20,000 square foot lot under our new GFA calculations is less than 3,000 square ft allowable. >> Yep. >> That's pretty small for more than one family. >> Yeah. I mean the most you could do would be to divide that building up into two roughly 1500 foot units. um it would look otherwise like a single family residence because it would be meeting the GFA requirements. There's also design requirements in there that would be enforced by the planning board, but uh you're right,

108those aren't particularly large, but 1500 square feet is enough for a family to live in and if it can provide additional affordable housing. I don't see that as prohibitive. >> It's kind of the way it used to be, right? Um >> can I just pick up on that for a second, Eric? uh you know one thing I I forgot to mention is I feel that and this goes to the competition point that I made. I feel that, you know, if I look at this from the side of the investor, the builder, if I'm looking at this a as a as an investment where I get a proper return on my investment, I don't think I I would be interested because I'm capped at what I can earn in rent and I still have to expend

109the same amount of money that I would if I bought a home where I could charge market rent. So why would I build an affordable housing unit, albeit it's small, but nevertheless, I could build the same size somewhere else and I could make twice the money. Why would I do that? >> Well, in I'm a business establishment and I don't my concern is not a return on my investment, but I need housing for my workers. So, you know, that's that's the issue that I think is important. I think that should be explored more deeply. >> That's a good point. Why would you buy property? >> But I think it's intended more for, >> you know, families who probably currently have a home. Not only though >> not only but >> No, because if they expand

110the the housing overlay district then yeah that would potentially encompass vacant parcels that could >> That's true. But I mean you know I'm thinking of it more in terms of like >> for me >> I could put a wall down the middle of my house. My daughter could live over here. >> But to Lou's point also you you also that necessarily wouldn't be a good business decision on your end because you could but it wouldn't be for business. Yeah, >> but you could also rent your house for >> Well, that's my point. There would be two parties that it would be >> good for them to do it. What you described >> in a business establishment that needs to house workers >> on a purely return on investment basis, nobody's going to do it. >>

111So, maybe anyway, I'm sorry. We're kind of >> What do you have to say about that, Eric? I was going to say Lou is correct and uh I do envision that that is the scenario um that's going to be most likely um and and that was actually one of the reasons why we pursued having a mechanism to illegally do multiple residences in the town code is because we looked at all of the legally pre-existing non-conforming multiple residences in town and noted that um they were gobbled up by businesses who were looking for for staff housing. I guess my point would be that if those workers are again included in this um proposed use is that everyone be a resident meaning they live or work in the town. If they are someone that lives or works

112in the town and makes below the um the established uh line of 130% uh area median income, then why not? Why why not give them housing? It you know what I mean? It it gets them off the road. Yes, these might be mostly gobbled up by employers that are looking to put their employees in there, but I don't see the the negative to that. I know what you're saying which is that you know um a non-emp employer is going is not you know an employer might be willing to take the hit of the investment in the property and and doing this work um because they need you know to be able to house their workers and you know the average person for lack of a better term um would be priced out. I think that's

113probably true in in many situations just because of the cost of real estate here. But consider that, you know, there are a number of properties and areas in in town that have, you know, properties that are relatively small, around 20,000 square feet, have older structures on them, um, and could be candidates to do, you know, um, to basically do an interior change on the building and, uh, convert it into a multiple unit. I mean, you know, to that effect is also and also you have people that own those homes right now. They might want to live in one unit and rent out the other. It helps them live. It also provides a unit for somebody who may or may not, you know, be an employee of a local business. Um, it helps also in that

114situation. Um, and then, uh, the other, uh, example I was going to use is just, you know, and yes, we want to see more ADUs, accessory dwelling units in the town, but we have, you know, roughly 40 uh, homeowners in town who have applied and obtained permits from the town just to provide one additional smaller uh, living unit on their property. This, you know, that is permitted basically in any zoning district provided you meet certain criteria. this allows you to do a little bit more than that. Um, but you can only do it in the AHO. So, I would say, you know, we have people looking to add units not worried about sort of the investment um amount on their property. It can in theory uh allow someone who has an existing single family residence

115uh to divide it up internally and live in one of the units and rent out the the other um to a family. So, you're talking about a housing unit that is larger than than an ADU. Um, and you know, and then coming back full circle, you know, your your point is correct, though. I think that this will probably be most appealing to local employers. But again, I say, you know, if there's someone who >> Eric to answer to answer your question to answer your question, why not when you say, you know, these h housing units will be used by uh employers, you know, in I I've been told I haven't witnessed it firsthand, but I've been told that in Aspen, it's all wealthy people with huge homes, and there are businesses there that cater to

116those wealthy people. and the affordable housing is only inhabited by the workers that are needed for those businesses. Now, if that's the kind of community that we want here, yeah, you know, then go go for it. You know, this is what will will happen. But if you want a community where somebody rents uh an apartment or a condominium and if they decide to change jobs, they don't have to worry that they won't be able to live in the unit that they're living in or that, you know, the the pressure, the leverage is all owned by the employer as to whether or not somebody can stay in an apartment. Well, you know, that's a whole different type of community. than I envision this community to be. I think what we're trying to do is get ordinary

117people to be able to afford to live here, the children of people that have lived here for generations to be able to stay and continue the legacy of those families. And I think if we if we uh promote affordable housing that's going to be outco competed by by employers so that they can house their seasonal workers. I think we've lost a community that we all treasure. I'm gonna I think you have a really valid point and I think that there's a difference between seasonal worker housing and affordable housing and I think that the town should be very careful to make that distinction. Um I know from you know having worked in Montalk that there there is a very big need for seasonal housing. The way I think of this is that this would be for

118yearround employees, right? So each doesn't doesn't this include a provision, Eric, for the the tenant to have to be registered with the housing authority >> and if there's a residency requirement, would they have to show like year round employment? So, so for instance, you know, whatever hotel can't buy a house and just say they're renting it to their employees. They the employee would then have to get a a approval to live in that house and sign the lease. So, I I hope because I I don't think I think you're right. I don't think that's what we want. We don't want just the, you know, workers coming out every summer. Yes. for and then >> and then have the houses sit vacant. That's not a community. >> I agree. >> Well, it is a community, but

119it's >> not exactly. >> So, Eric, is that is that the intent that they would be year round residents? >> Yeah. So, um I I guess there's uh two things there. one is, and this is I I'm not a 100% sure where the town board landed on this, but I know um where we are right now. It would be um very much like um the other forms of affordable housing that we have in the town where the leases would need to provide for a minimum of one year. >> Um so you couldn't rent something out for a month. Um it's not for short-term rentals. Uh and there's a residency requirement. This isn't necessarily going to obiate the concerns that Lou has, but there's a residency requirement that it be somebody who lived or worked uh

120in the town of East Hampton, you know, at the time that they're uh applying for the permit uh with housing. So, and yes, housing would be required to review any new tenants that went into any of these units when they go in and would also on a minimum of a year yearly basis review permits. So, if some, you know, the landlord uh owner of the unit had a tenant um that they wanted to put in there, they would first have to get approval of housing. They would check that they meet the income restriction. They would review a copy of the lease to see that it was for a minimum of one year. They would review documentation related to proving that the the tenant is a resident. Um and then they would do that on a

121yearly basis until a new tenant is found. Um which couldn't happen sooner than um than a year. Um, so those are basically the restrictions that relate to it. It doesn't completely eliminate what what Lou was saying. Um, right >> but you know it is intended to be for year- round residents. >> Interesting. And I I mean I do think there is a need for workforce and seasonal housing, but I don't think this is the mechanism. That's my two cents. Michael and Ava, you haven't gone yet either. Sorry. >> I can't follow Lou. That's hard to follow. But I I do want to just I think it's important to to highlight that a a resident is not just someone who lives here, but works in East Hampton >> and >> may travel a long distance, may

122be in this room with us right now. Uh, but it's like but also says that that person has to have worked for five years before they're eligible. >> That seems >> That's what it says right there. >> No, no, no. It's >> What does that mean? >> That's based that's based off the definition of a resident that's in the community housing fund law. Um, it says that if somebody lived within the town within the past five years, >> within the past five years, not within a few. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Uh my final point is uh there is a it says there is a mandate as a change of use or new use of site. There's a mandate for low nitrogen sanitary. Common sense. Why can't there be also be a mandate for like solar

123or >> Yeah. >> or better insulated homes that don't require as much energy? Well, we are required by HERS right now to for every permit that goes in for a new house does have to get a HERS rating which is an energy report. Okay. >> So, houses now are hyperinsulated. >> Do they need solar? Is that a requirement? >> It used to be depending upon the house size. I think it was 3500 square feet solar or a tradeoff for geothermal or something like that. Okay. Well, I'd like to see solar on there as an option. >> That would increase your investment cost. >> I think it's sort of like >> exacerbate that issue. >> But so, back to this greater point though, I mean, who's buying these house? Isn't like their subsidies, government, the town,

124the county, the state are providing money to it's not like it's not the private investor, I'm going to make some money and, you know, flip this house. No, there isn't. And but you you bring up a good point. I think it would work better and we haven't talked about this. If you had some kind of housing trust or some kind of philanthropic organization that got involved because then you would eliminate that problem of return on investment. Well, we do. The town does have the um tax, the new tax that goes into the um affordable housing. So, people can get >> They're not plann Eric, correct me if I'm wrong, but the town is not planning on subsidizing any of these these multip >> these would be private, but you can apply for for funding from

125the town, right? So this is meant to be a mechanism in the code that doesn't discriminate between, you know, who the um the applicant is. It's meant to be something that, you know, any any private individual can do. Um what we're asking of the owner is basically a simple sort of landlord responsibility. Um we have ADUs in town. We have apartments within commercial structures. Um there's nothing that stops, you know, as as long as this use is permitted under our town code because right now, um you know, windmill, uh the Eastampton Housing Authority, the other housing corporations, uh that are out there, they couldn't buy a property and try to do a multiple residence uh of this time. They would need an AHL property. There's nothing that prevents them um once and if this use

126is created and properties are so designated where where it would be allowed, there's nothing that prevents them from buying it accepting um state or or county grants or anything like that or from the town um and building one of them. Um you know what I mean? But it's not I don't see that as necessary. I don't know. I see the prudence of that. If you're talking about a full-scale affordable housing development that's going to be 40 units and 40 different households right on top of each other, um I don't think you absolutely need the management, you know, abilities of a housing corporation like that when you're talking about a handful of units on a property. So, I don't think it's inherently necessary um that it be designed that way. And really the idea here is

127to create something that um the the the open market, the free market can can apply for um and that doesn't necessarily require uh you know government subsidies. >> I thought it was your question more about funding to do the projects? >> No, it wasn't a question. It was a comment saying that and Michael, you know, triggered it. It's there's no this is a private investment type of project. >> So without philanthropic contributions you're going to get you're going to it's in like it's a free market. It's a which you know it's good in many air. I'm all for free market and capitalism but with regard if we're trying to build affordable housing we're not and we're going to rely on private investment. I don't, you know, it's going to get outbid by establishments that have

128money and they're going to house their workers there. See, and again, there's no if you're a seasonal worker, like you're a doctor, not that's not a seasonal work, but you know, you're a doctor or a fireman, that's fine. But what if you're, you know, a dishwasher or a waiter and you work in Miami in the winter and you come here for the summer and the restaurant needs to house all of those waiters? They're going to buy these units and put them up. They're doing it now. They're searching for housing units to do it. So, if it's a free competitive market, they're going to win. And what you're going to and this is not going to solve the problem of affordable housing for yearround residents, children of people that have lived here for ages, that kind

129of thing. That, you know, I think that's an important point. >> I think it is. And I think I mean I do again I think there's a need for that. But this >> Yeah, I agree. There's >> it's it's >> But you need to separate. You got to make sure that you you if you think you're addressing one area, >> but it's going to get gobbled up by another area, you're not accomplishing what you set out to do. >> Do you think the one-year lease will deter businesses from purchasing or they'll just they'll just eat it? >> One year lease and you know, >> Joemo will live there six months and maybe it'll be empty for the other six months or maybe they'll put somebody else there. Yeah, I >> I think it's a bigger

130issue, right? If you own two acres, why would you >> why would you do this >> on two acres? >> I mean, even if you listen, even if you've got a 20,000 foot lot, why would you do this? >> Unless, you know, unless >> because you're not going to >> there's not enough space. >> The income you're coming back, the income coming in isn't enough to even maintain the property. there there are business establishments that have, you know, chefs or important key individuals that they need. >> so they're going to take a hit. It's worth it for them, you know, to buy one of these two of these units on a half acre. They'll have and they'll be able to put, you know, so Eric, it's two bedrooms or three bedrooms that you can and

131you can have you can have a person per bedroom or two people >> per bedroom. >> So you you can stuff four, six people in that half acre. It might be worth it for but it's not going to be worth it for a private individual or private developer to get into this business. It's just not >> so >> Unless there's an incentive, >> huge incentive. >> And I wonder, >> Eric, you mentioned that like 40 applications are before the building department now to build ADUs. Is that because they've gotten funding from the town through the >> No, the town doesn't have >> They're none in >> Yeah, the town The town proper doesn't have a um uh ADU construction assistance program yet. They're working on one. There is a um state grant program that the

132housing office is administering um that has given some grants but for the most part most of the ADUs in town were built by the property owner. >> Yeah. So, I mean it might be like that where there is a need for it and I I think the town has to consider putting more regulations on it to preclude the use by seasonal workers and I don't know that I have an answer. >> That's our comment. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that would be a good comment for the town that there has to be some >> very defined language about >> and I think those other couple of points that I made Eric I think if the board agrees we should include it too which is >> yeah absolutely >> you know that if you're going to

133build these it's got to be for a long time you know yeah >> 99 years times two that kind of thing and also if somebody's income rises during their residency, they can't be kicked out because they've they've exceeded the maximum rent restriction or cap. >> There has to be some sort of length like some sort of >> Right, Eric, do you agree on that one? >> Yes, I do. >> Do you guys all agree on that as well? >> Well, you could do the extend at least five years instead of one year. Shoot it to five or 10, >> right? But then mutually agreeable they could. >> But if you mean the the tenant extends it. >> Yeah. But you may want the flexibility of wanting to move out. You don't want to tie. >>

134Well, you openend it. They want to leave. You can break the lease. >> 60 days notice or something. Yeah. >> I mean, structure it so that the lease is only binding on the owner instead of both. I mean, the owner needs >> I don't think I think that goes against fair. >> We're talking about a private >> private uh business, private developing development. Yeah, I think the town board should discuss that like what happens if it is a business, you're living at your the you know, you're living kind of at the will of your employer and something happens and you lose your job, do you then also lose your housing? And I think you're right, that's a devastating >> Yeah. situation to to have to deal with, right? At the same time, you lose your

135job and your house because you don't we don't the town shouldn't become like a company town where, you know, >> yeah, >> you have to shop at the company store and live in the company house and >> Well, maybe this >> as in the old west, >> this zoning change. >> Yeah, maybe. Oh, maybe you know if if businesses are already gobbling up whatever they can in a legal fashion and you know going through that process that's process is already in place. The problem with that is that if you're going to make it a private enterprise, I don't know, Eric, do you think it would be legal to ex to exclude a certain faction of the community of the >> You already have your answer. >> All right. All right. >> I think we're I

136think we're treading on Yeah. Yeah, >> but you got our main points, right, Eric? >> Yes, I do. And I've been taking notes as we go along. >> Um, but I think overall, are we in favor in general of this new use with some serious >> I think the concept is fine. I think it's a ton of work that needs to be done. >> Yeah, there you have it, Eric. We agree. We like it, but a ton of work needs to be done. >> It looked good until we started looking into it. That'll be the last time you ask us for comments. >> Well, no, no, it won't. It's a code requirement. Um, but I just um bookend uh there. Um I will um draft comments for the board and send it around uh to

137the board to >> fabulous. And if they have any questions, tell them to call Jen. >> Only until Ed gets back. Um thank you. That was a really interesting discussion. I appreciate it. Um, moving on to our regular meeting, we have a board of review for weatherall which is is this are this is me to read. Jody, what am I going to do when you're not here to tell me? >> Wait, what's Jod? >> That's for after. Um do I agree with the whole thing? >> Just the highlights of address tax number. >> Okay. Gotcha. Um this is the matter of whereas the town engineer has brought before the board of review the request of Barry Weatherall for a building permit on premise located at 21 Delivan Street Springs. Suffach County tax map number 300-95-5-49

138for road improvement units. um clear and prune existing vegetation within the shoulder area of Delivan Street on both sides of the roadway. Starting at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Delivan, continuing along Delivan for 400 ft and starting at the intersection of Gardener's Lane and Delivan and continuing south along Delivan Street for a distance of 330 ft. Clean the existing catch b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b basins on Delivan Street and Gardener's Lane for a total distance of 4,635 linear feet as directed by the town engineer. Some paving. It is 4,500 road improvement units for a total of $22,500. Do I

139I say I have read the resolution and move for it approval. >> I have read the resolution and move for its approval. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I >> Okay. File map application. >> Um to be honest, I don't think I've ever done one of these old file mapations. Jody on how I did this one. Sorry. the streets the um text map number. >> Okay. Um in the matter of the request for determination by this board for road improvement units required. >> Is this the same one? This is the same. >> This is the same one. >> 21 Delivan Street. Well, >> 21 Delivan on the next page has Ralph. >> So, but but this also says 21 >> two different issues >> but two different owners. >> It is the same >>

140the same amount of it's the same work on both sheets. The format's just different. Yeah. >> Yeah, it's the same work. Clear improving the existing vegetation. >> A 400. Yeah, it's the same [Music] 90 ft. >> It's just a copy. >> It's the same exact >> It's the same thing. It's just the engineers paperwork or something. I don't know. >> Um >> second. All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> We're in favor of both of those documents. >> Lou especially is in favor of both of those documents. [Music] >> Okay. >> All right. Minutes. >> You read. >> I I looked Well, I looked at them, but I there wasn't really much there, right? It was a short meeting. It >> was a very short meeting. Anything. So, uh, we have read the minutes and

141we move further adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Before we end, yeah, I just want to mention that um, unfortunately tonight is Jod's last planning board meeting. She is retiring after 34.65 years. >> Jody. >> Yeah. >> Oh my god. So, >> miss you guys. >> Jody, I can't thank you enough. >> We're on the help in the last year and a half. I've not been around for as long as some of these others, but thank you. >> You going to still watch every Wednesday? >> Still bring candy. >> Yeah. What am I going to do? >> That's why she gave you the goodies today. >> Congratulations, Jody. Congratulations. read. >> Make a motion to conclude the meeting. >> I'll second. >> All in

142favor?