001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. Thank you, Matt. Welcome to the East Hampton Planning Board meeting for July 9th. I'm Jennifer Folks, our vice chair. Our chairman, Ed Krug, is not in attendance tonight, so I'm filling in for him. Uh, we have a relatively light um agenda for this evening, so I think we should just jump right in with the Serest Pool and shed review. I see that the applicant is here. And Chris, I think this is not yet. Stay. Chris Stecker, please. It's yours. Go ahead. Thank you. So this is the third review of the SERS pool and shed site plan application. It's located at 2166 Montalk Highway, the eastern boundary of Anagansit in the town. The subject property is zoned RS Resort.
002It is 7.695 acres large and contains a pre-existing resort use which is permitted by special permit. The property is within coastal erosion overlay zone one and is partially within the local waterfront revitalization program area. The property is also within local and New York state significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Just to give a background of the proposal itself pulling up the site plan. The application was revised to expand the scope of work and proposes two development phases. Uh phase one is shown in green and phase two is shown in red on the screen. Phase one proposes replacing the existing 1,430 ft swimming pool with a 1,590 ft swimming pool, pool terrace, and pool enclosure fence, and constructing two poolside pergolas. Also in phase one is a 198 square foot shed with an enclosure fence for
003pool equipment, an enclosure fence for an existing shed, a 3 ft 10-in tall retaining wall and gravel walkways. Phase one will also involve replacing non-compliant lighting with fully shielded fixtures across the parcel to bring them in compliance with the general lighting standards of the town code. Phase two involves work that will require a natural resources special permit, NRSP, from the zoning board of appeals, but will not require any variances. Phase two proposes a new IIA wastewater treatment center, a turf area for barbecues and games, a 3,647 ft two-story clubhouse building with bathrooms, a gym, lounge areas, a covered patio, and additional walkways around the proposed clubhouse building. Additional lighting is also proposed for the work area in phase two. Since the last review, accessible walkways are now proposed in phase one from the accessible parking
004spaces in the town rightway to the office building and from accessible parking spaces in the main parking lot to the proposed swimming pool area. For phase two, seven drywalls are now proposed. Four within the main parking lot and three within the mentioned turf area. The grading associated with installing the drywalls in the parking lot will require an NRSP from the ZVA. Um, just a reminder, this project is a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act and chapter 128 of the town code. Type two actions are not subject to additional review. So, next I'm going to go over the comments that were made during the last review on April 23rd, uh, followed by the applicant's response and the planning department's assessment of each. So first the applicant was instructed to provide the
005required accessible spaces being four um and also should confirm that the parking spaces in the town right away have official approval for the sole use of the property. The applicant detailed that the revised plan indicate four accessible parking spaces and submitted copies of emails between the applicant and Kevin Cobb from the highway department indicating that parking spaces for the Serest Resort can remain. The planning department notes that the accessible spaces should be indicated as proposed um given that none currently exist and dimensions should be provided um for compliance with ADA standards. Details for proposed signage for accessible spaces must also be provided in accordance with those standards. The submitted copy of an email does not specify whether these parking spaces in the town right of way can be used for the exclusive use of the
006Serest Resort given such existing signage indicating guest parking only must be removed unless the applicants can obtain approval from the town board for such use of these areas or demonstrate such approval has already been obtained. We note that Navajo Lane is a town beach with parking spaces directly across the street from these spaces along here um that the Seess Resort uses. Two of the four accessible parking spaces are within the town right away. These spaces must be relocated within the parking lot unless confirmation that these spaces are for the exclusive use of the sequestr resort is provided. There is a certificate of occupancy from 2002 showing the subject parcel with its existing parking configuration and the number of resort units has not changed since nor is it proposed to change at this time. Accordingly, no
007parking calculations have been provided yet. However, for recordkeeping purposes, the planning department now recommends that parking calculations be added to the site plan so that it is clear how many on-site parking spaces exist as well as the number of units as conditions current uh subject to the current application. The next issue is regarding the sanitary systems and density load on the property. The applicant was asked to confirm that the site will remain in compliance with Suffach County density load and provide evidence of such. The applicant responded that there's technically no density being added to the site, so there should be no issue, but we will not know until it is reviewed by the Suffach County Department of Health Services. Planning department disagrees that no density is being added. The proposed clubhouse building, which includes bathrooms,
008a gym, and lounge areas, would have a density load of 5 gallons per day per occupant in accordance with the comfort station use in the SCDHS project density loading rates. In the previous MM submission, the applicant detailed that the density load would align with this at 5 gallons per day per occupant with an occupancy of 95 persons as detailed in the previous submission for the proposed clubhouse building. The total density load for this building was 475 in the last submission. Therefore, the applicant should explain their rationale for why a density load is no longer connected with the proposed building. During the last review, the planning department and town consulting engineer reviewed the proposed calculations and the proposed AI wastewater treatment system for phase 2 and did not find any issues. The applicant was then instructed
009to provide the details for the existing sanitary systems which are proposed to remain to ensure compliance with the SCDHS maximum density load for the subject parcel which is 4,617 gallons per day based on the equivalent calculated at 600 gallons per day per acre for this parcel. The details requested have not been provided and the applicant is reminded to do so for the planning department to review this issue. Next, regarding an ADA compliant route um from the parking lot to the swimming pool area, the applicant was asked to submit a d grading and drainage plan um demonstrating such an ADA route. The applicant responded that the drainage plan addresses this item and the planning department notes that the drainage plan does not indicate this path. However, it is shown on the site plan that I began
010this presentation with as well as the architectural plans here. Um, given such that engineer and the plan department reviewed that and find that suitable given that the construction details are provided. Next was regarding landscaping plans. The applicant was revised to requested to provide revised landscaping plans in accordance with our previous report just to indicate things like symbology as well as fencing and screen. Um a revised landscaping plans were submitted but there was no changes to the plans themselves. It was only an updated date. So we just asked and remind the applicant to provide such. Um next was regarding lighting. The applicant had some small revisions to make regarding light spill across the property line and the applicant did so with their revised lighting plans and we're satisfied with that issue. We do note however just
011going to pull the site plan back up. There are some existing lights that are non-compliant with the town code in the right of way. Um upon further review, we don't find this to be within the planning board's jurisdiction. So, we don't really make it subject to this review. However, we do encourage the applicant to work with the highway department to sort of facilitate bringing um some compliant lighting to that section of of the road. Sorry, I'm jumping around a little bit here. So, the next issue was just to confirm that no hot tub is proposed. The applicant did that in writing. So there's no further comment regarding the hot tub. Next 2.7 and 8 are regarding ADA compliance um which is reviewed by town fire marshall and the applicant was revised was advised to revise
012plans to make the existing bathrooms adjacent to the pool ADA compliant. These bathrooms will only remain for phase one and would be replaced by the clubhouse building in phase two. And during the last review, the fire marshall mentioned that the rooftop lounge of the proposed clubhouse needs to be ADA compliant pursuant to the building code of New York State. The applicant response included an email conversation between the architect for the applicant, a New York State code enforcement official, and the town's chief fire marshal, which addresses this issue. The submitted emails um did not address the issue regarding the ADA compliance for phase one. However, the planning department did receive an email from the chief fire marshall um indicating that the existing bathroom for phase one does not need to be made uh ADA compliant so
013long as it is replaced within one year of completion of phase one. So the existing poolside bathrooms will remain for phase one and then be replaced by the new building for phase two in which an ADA compliant bathroom would be provided. For the rooftop lounge um is shown here in this floor plan. The planning department is satisfied with the determination from the New York State code enforcement official and the town's chief fire marshal. Since the ground floor lounge provides the same function as a rooftop lounge, ADA access is not required to the rooftop u state building code. And then just regarding the project changes I already mentioned there's some new dry wells. That's really only the substantive change here and the ones in the parking lot as mentioned will require an NRSP. The town consulting
014engineer reviewed the application and found everything acceptable to address drainage concerns, construction details for the ADA compliant walkway and pavement restoration details for the parking lot um when they do the IIA system in phase two. Their report is attached and engineering approval is recommended uh pending the resolution of the issues outlined by the planning department. Same goes for the fire marshall. They've reviewed everything. um there's no additional review needed from them with the condition that the ADA bathrooms be provided within one year of completion of phase one. So just to go over the other approvals briefly, the application will require approval from the architectural review board except for the swimming pools, pool patios, and pool decks. The zoning board of appeals will need to approve an NRSP for proposed buildings instructors within 150 ft of
015the wetland, the sanitary system within 200 feet of the wetland, and the grading associated with the dry wells. Suffach County Department of Health Services approval is required for the swimming pool in phase one and the proposed wastewater system in phase two. Suffach County Planning Commission review is also required. And in conclusion, the application is incomplete pending the revisions needed to address the mentioned issues. They should submit a revised septic plan of sanitary calculations and details on existing sanitary systems to remain to ensure they will remain in compliance with the maximum density load for the subject parcel. Landscaping plan should be revised and the site plan should provide basic parking calculations and should submit evidence that the parking spaces within the right ofway are for the exclusive use of the serress resort if such provision has
016been made. Without such permission, the signage indicating that parking is for guests only should be removed at this time. The dimensions of the ADA spaces should also be provided. Planning board should discuss if they need further details on any of the issues outlined and whether they agree with the information requested by the planning department. Thank you, Chris. Chris Duno. Ladies and gentlemen of the board, my name is Christopher Duno. I'm the architect for the applicant. Um, as we ran through each one of the items, um, there there are not anything here that we have a problem providing a drawing for next week and updating our application. Um, we can take care of. We're still trying to get the formal letter from the highway department, but we'll get all that resolved and turn all of these
017things in. Um the only issue that we need to sort of bring up is the density discussion. Um David Rhodess of of TF Engineering is doing the planetary submission with the county and the county has uh said that there is no increase in density. Um the this is an accessory building for the occupants of the condominiums. So there are no additional calculations to do. Uh we're basing this on the occupants of the property and also on the number of facilities for the accessory building. So, we size the sanitary system for the number of toilets in the pool house, but the occupants can choose to either use the toilet in the pool house or use the toilet in their condo. It's the same load essentially on the property. So, there's there's not really any number for
018us to do based on density. Um, so, um, that's that's really the only issue that we have in terms of finding our way to completeness on this application. Great. Thank you. Um, Lou, this is your Yeah, I I agree with Chris. You know, these are all procedural issues that I'm sure you can take care of. the parking on Navajo Road, uh the uh the uh wise landscaping, all that kind of stuff on the clubhouse and the density issue. Uh well, first of all, the question I had about the clubhouse is, are we going to make the approval contingent on the clubhouse being used only for the guests of the uh of the resort? That's the intention. Yes. Yes. So that because I was concerned about that and uh you know if the if the county
019health department says that there's no increase in load you know they're the ultimate harbor authority uh the only you know I would question that you know from my own personal opinion is that you know if if it's one thing to inhabit a unit and use the toilet in the unit. It's another thing to spend more time in in the resort at the pool where if there was no pool, they wouldn't be there perhaps. But anyway, that's just a you know argument that I would make. But like I said, if the Suffach County Health Department says there's no increase in load, then we have to go by that. And as long as it's, you know, the approval is contingent on no only used for guests, then I have no problem. Thanks. Anybody else? Ava? No, I
020agree. Michael, just what I find is so interesting, not a big issue, is the sign, the parking sign. Is that going to be are you going to remove that temporarily or are you resolving that in the We're resolving that with the highway department. Okay. All good. Great. Yeah. I don't have anything additional to that. Your your explanation made sense to me about the density load. I I know for years um Gernies used to have a deal where you could almost buy like a a gas pass and use the facilities and this and that and you know this is an accessory building. You know, I guess if you were to open it up to the public, then you might have an increase in intensity, but it sounds to me like it's going to be you gota
021fence around it basically, right? Um, great. I I also agree. I think um I think we would have to wait to see that the county officially says, okay, there's no load. So, can you is there a way you can get a I can ask David to get a letter from That would be great. and then just the highway department, you know, working that out. So that's it. I have no other no other things. Shall we move to the questions? Thank you, Chris. Can I um can I just make a quick point? Sorry. Um yes, about the uh sanitary calculations. I believe Chris is correct. Um you have two different sort of categories when you're calculating sanitary flow. There's the project density loading and then there's the hydraulic loading or gray water. Um, it's indicated on
022one of their plans, Chris had it up earlier, that, you know, they are increasing graywater and, you know, they they need to they're designing their sanitary system to accommodate that. Um, I think he's correct that they're not increasing the generated on-site sanitary flow based off of the project density loading. Um, so it may end up being a moot point, but I would say that, you know, you have enough going on here and you have an increase in the hydraulic load that we should have full sanitary calculations. You know, those calculations might show um I don't remember offhand the number of units on the site, but the sanitary flows based on that. You know, it could say existing 70 units proposed 70 units, same flow for the generated uh project uh flow, but the hydraulic the
023change in the hydraulic load should be noted. Um I believe it is in the lower uh corner. Um or no, I'm sorry. It says it shows it right there. Um we should have that and you know, in particular because this project involves uh you know um revisions to the sanitary system. Um there's a sanitary system going in there. We everybody acknowledges that this needs health department approval. They're going to have to provide sanitary calculations for the health department. Um so I don't see the harm in adding those to the plan. Um particularly if there is no uh net change in it. Um I think just for recordeping purposes uh we want to have that on the plan. So that that's my two cents on the issue. I think Eric sounds good. I think that sounds
024that sounds reasonable. Chris, I if you have to provide them for the health department anyway. Um I'll have to ask David Rhodess about that. I don't know that there is actually a calculation for it, but can I Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm Eric I I'm not clear on the I I've not heard this mentioned before. The difference in hydraulic load and Yeah. So if you wouldn't mind giving us a little Yeah. So um think of a restaurant, right? So a restaurant the health department calculates it as 10 gallons per day per seat. So if you have a propert and then they base the allowable flow on the property by the size of the property. So, if you have a property that's only allowed 100 gallons per day total, you know, and you're doing a restaurant, 10
025gallons per day per seat, you can only do uh 10 gallons, 10 seats. That's the calculation based on the use and the lot area of the property and the the generated sanitary flow based on that use. A restaurant also, of course, um has food preparation. So when they're designing the sanitary system, there's a hydraulic load that goes into that or gray water they'll they'll call it. Um where that additional sanitary flow is factored into the design of the of the system itself. That doesn't preclude somebody from, you know, as long as they're proposing uses that aren't generating flow in excess of what the site is permitted. um that additional flow that's accounted for in the design of the system doesn't preclude somebody from you know getting an intensity of use that they would otherwise be
026permitted but it's part of the calculation of the design of the sanitary system and again I I say that you know um Chris might I believe he's correct that if they're not increasing the number of units on this site they're not changing the the project generated um sanitary flow but we have an update of sanitary system here. That information is going to have to be provided. It's important for recordkeeping purposes. I mean, earlier in um Chris's report, he was showing you the the last approved site plan that was from the 1980s, I believe. Um you know, when you go back and look at previous site plans when they, you know, when they come back in front of you, you want to have documents that have all the information that sort of memorializes what the conditions
027on the site are. Um, I don't think it would be that difficult to add that. Um, that being said, you know, if the applicants have some reasoning of of why it shouldn't be included, um, I think they could submit that. But generally speaking, we're not asking we're asking this more for recordkeeping purposes and to verify that they're not going to exceed the um allowable flow on the property or even increase it. um you know, we we just want to have that information on a plan for what is a pretty thorough um project and and redevelopment of the site. So, do so are we asking for two separate calculations because I don't I'm not familiar I've not been on the board forever. So, I'm not familiar with asking for a separate hydraulic. It's it's one as
028opposed to the flow, you know, the flow rate. the hydraulic for there's no restrooms or anything. Uh restaurants restaurant. Yeah, there's no bar. There's no restaurant. There's So yeah, I mean I was just using that as an example. Um but I believe in their calculations that's what they're going to do for an accessory um you know an accessory clubhouse uh with restrooms. They're going to use that that calculation of five gallons per day for the design of the system. It doesn't it doesn't detract from the allowable generated sanitary flow on the site based on the principal use which is a resort. Um but it is something that's factored into the design of the system. Um what I'm saying is that you know they they basically have that information. You're looking at it right now on
029that um calculation. We'd also like to see the project uh density calculations and have those memorialized on on the plans. What? Chris, I think you said they're not going to include the density flow for the clubhouse. They're notific. We are sizing we are sizing this. We obviously have to have a system to for the showers and toilets of the accessory buildings. So, um I mean I suppose that number could be generated as to what could happen there. Um, at the same time, you know, a tenant could take a shower at their condo or take a shower at the and the existing pool. It will be the same wastewater system that services both the units and the new No. Okay. So, I think that's maybe what we're getting. Is that what Eric? Is that what you're
030talking about? There's two systems. Yes. Um although I'm talking more the entire flow the calculations uh for the flow on the entire site but I think um it's something you know I'm not 100% an expert on what the health department will require. It's something that I think the planning department can discuss with the applicant and maybe they can submit something that that demonstrates that uh you know that it truly is a move point. Um we can work with the applicant. We'll calculate everything that David can put together as far as the available usage on the load and and what could be dispersed and what's allowable because the health department supersedes the town. Correct. Yes. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Chris. Um, any other comments before we move on to the questions? Okay. Planning board consensus.
031Does the planning board agree that basic parking calculations, existing number of on-site parking spaces and number of spaces required under current code should be added to the site plan? Say yes. Does the planning board agree that the applicant should remove the signage that indicates the parking in the town right ofway is for their exclusive use or provide evidence that the existing parking spaces within the town right ofway are for the exclusive use of Serest Resort? Yes, I think we're getting there. Right. Getting figured out. It's getting figured out this week. Um, does the planning board agree the applicant should provide dimensions for the four accessible parking spaces? Yes. Does the planning board agree the accessible parking spaces must all be located within the property if the spaces within the right of way are not for
032the exclusive use of the Serest Resort? Yes. Does the planning board agree that the septic plan and sanitary calculations must be revived must be revised to provide evidence that the site will remain in compliance with Suffach County Health Service, Department of Health Services maximum density load for the subject parcel. So yes, we were just discussing this. And does the planning board agree that the landscaping plan should be revised accordingly? Yes, thank you very much. Okay. Um, next up we have old file map modifications. Uh, two of them and Eric is going to lead us through these. Sure. Thank you. Um, so the first one is under the name Martinez. And I'm going to start off by hopefully showing you a sort of zoomed out aerial uh of where this is located uh in the town.
033It's near Wellbone Woods off of Three-Mile Harbor Road. Um I'll show you a closer aerial uh of the subject property. So um basically this is a request to modify the urban renewal map. uh it is not a project that is tied into another planning board application like a lot line modification or subwaver. And basically what's being requested and I'll show show it to you in more detail on a better illustration, but just to the left or west of this uh property line on this property, the applicants want to be able to um claim a portion of uh that area which is a a right of way. Um so basically um the engineer uh has done a report on this and I I guess actually I should first show you uh the existing UR map. So
034again, uh the parcel in question is parcel number 16. You are parcel 16. And I'm going going to um sort of jump back and forth between this existing map and the proposed map. Um so that you can see the proposal here is to uh this shading indicates portions of rightway that are to be abandoned to an adjoining property. Um so basically what's proposed here again this is existing. This is proposed. you'll see that basically what's uh you know proposed is is to claim this portion of right ofway. I'll jump back really quickly to the aerial so that you can see this area in question. Again um you can see for many years for many decades uh this has remained unopened um and has essentially been part of the applicant's property. Um so there's very little
035change uh to the actual you know there's you know basically no change to the existing site conditions but um more importantly when you look on this proposed map again you'll see that the access points for the adjacent UR parcels are not affected by this. That's the main thing that you worry about with allowing someone to claim a portion of right of way. Um the existing map already has permitted the lots uh which are UR parcels 13 and 14 on the other side of this ride of way to claim uh a portion of that right ofway. Uh it's an odd thing in that it was drawn where this is a 50- foot wide ride of way and parcels 13 and 14 are permitted to uh or have been permitted to take 20 ft of that 50-ft
036width. Um, so when this does go to the town board, uh, one of the questions for them will be whether or not they want to basically just allow the remainder to be claimed by the applicant or if they want to do 25 ft and 25 ft, which is more standard, letting each side of the rightway claim half of it. Um, so that's basically the request. The planning department doesn't have any objection to it as it's a minor change to the area. It's a section of roadway that has been used by this parcel and is not intended to be opened. There's no need to open it for any purpose and in fact that would just be adding more pavement in the area which we frown against. Um so basically again um this is just in front
037of you the planning board to send comments to the town board. The uh that is a codified requirement that you review it and send comments. And these codified questions are are at the end of the memo which are basically just do you agree with this change um and find it consistent with the UR plan. Thank you Eric. Um unfortunately I don't believe any of us has that memo. Oh okay. Apologies. Um it is it is a matter that's just in front of you for um comments to the town board. So, I think um provided you're in agreement with that analysis, um you know, you you could send favorable comments. Um I don't know the the questions. I don't know if you want me to go. There's three questions that the board has to answer. Let's
038Yeah, I mean, I think let's just go quickly around the room. Anybody with objections to this questions? Any Yeah, I got I got a question, Eric. Why did 13 and 14 only take 20, not 25? map. That's the way that the map was drawn. Um, which I'm jumping back to the existing map here. Um, that's the way that it was drawn where there was going to be uh 30 ft there. I don't know what the reasoning was um in the existing map. Every adjacent lot is provided adequate access. Um, there are no notations on the uh UR map that indicate why that's the case. I think it was just drawn that way um to leave a possible roadway, but probably with little consideration to the fact that that roadway isn't the adequate width. Right. Yeah.
039Okay. So, yeah, if you wouldn't mind reading us the questions, that would be um and it'll be the same for the next application, um the next urban renewal map modification, in case you you didn't get that one. Um it's does the board find the proposed change consistent uh changes consistent with the urban renewal plan? That's the first question. Yes, I think we have that. That's the other. Does the board does the board find that change requested is practical, noting the comments of the town engineer and planning department? I got Yes. And does the planning board recommend that the town board approve the requested map modification? Yes. Yeah, sure. No, thanks, Eric. Yep. So, the um next one is the is a administrative request. So, there's there isn't a specific private applicant here. Um, this is
040something where a UR parcel was found to be landlocked and an attorney for the owner reached out to the town attorney's office and said, "What do I do here?" Essentially, um, you know, the uh the map doesn't provide access for for my parcel. Um, the town attorney's office and town engineer and planning department took a look at this map. Um, you can see the general area of town there. I'll zoom in in a second, but took a look at it and realized that there were multiple um omissions and um things that needed to be updated and corrected to provide appropriate access in the area. Um so I will show you a closer in view and you'll see that this isn't just one parcel, it's sort of a strip of parcels here. Um so this is
041the existing UR map. Um, and basically what you need to look at are UR parcels 59, 60, 61, 62, and 63, which are in this sort of um, you know, kind of dagger-shaped uh, piece at the the top of the screen. So, um, the the lot in question um, that was asking was lot 60 um, or urban renewal parcel 60, I should say, more more accurately. Um, and you'll notice that 59, 60, 61, 62, and 63 do not have dots for their access point. Every lot, um, almost every lot in the UR map has that provided. And in fact, if you look on the southern side of Abraham's path there, you'll see that those lots are provided, those black dots for access. So starting kind of on the left here with UR parcel 59, the
042proposal is to add an access point here and then also to depict the northerly half of Pavilion Place, which is this right ofway that you see just to the south of that lot. Um depict it uh as an abandonment being completed. What you see here, if you see this top half of this uh shaded portion kind of in the middle of uh well underneath the lion portion of pavilion, um that has uh the top half of that has been claimed uh by lot 59. So we wanted to memorialize that and update the UR map while we're doing this exercise. Moving on to UR parcel 60. um that also has to be added a vehicle access point. But then there's also a reconfiguration of the area to be abandoned um and the access uh along Pavilion
043Place in this area. Um which I'll jump to in a second uh when you see the proposed map. Um so with parcel 61 and 62, we would just be adding an access dot, which is where their access is right now, um on Abraham's path. And then with 63 um we would be adding an access point um where the existing access is. Um but also this sort of far eastern triangular portion uh of this lot which is oddly shaped is um biseected by access for lots to the north. It's not under the ownership of the person that owns lots built on it. Um so basically the idea is that portion is not needed to be within the UR map. That would be removed from the UR map. So um with all of that in mind, I
044will jump to the proposed map. And what you will see here is memorializing that the abandonment um of Pavilion Place for lot 59 has been completed. Lot 59's access point has been added. It's over um on 3M Harbor Road um not off of Pavilion Place. uh UR parcel 60 has been added an access point and then you'll see this notification with this little arrow here below it is indication that that portion of pavilion places to remain open as a driveway for you are parcel 60. Um, moving on again, 61 and 62, it's just adding that black dot for their access. And then 63, um, you'll see is REM is adding that black dot for access, but then removing the eastern portion of that lot. Um, that doesn't need to be part of that UR um,
045UR parcel. So, that's basically the summary of um, what is proposed here. Again, this is an administrative um request. It's being done on the at the um request of the the town attorney's office um and will be brought to the town board. There is no planning board lot line modification or um subwaver application. This is just comments to the town board from the planning board and the town engineer um has reviewed this in fact formulated these changes with the town attorney's office primarily um and recommends that they be approved and we do as well. We think that this is cleaning up a map that has um well updating conditions but also correcting the omission of access points and um removing a situation where you have a landlocked parcel um that you know isn't isn't provided
046access under the UR map, excuse me. Um as it currently is uh is drawn. So thanks Eric. I have a question. Um, I noticed some of the other parcels on this map also don't have access points like 51, 52, 53, 56, 56, 57, 57. Yeah, I I noticed that, too. Um, I'm not sure if the proposal is to to add those uh at this point. Um, like I say, it's a a map modification that was, you know, brought um kind of by the the town attorney's office. I'll check with them. Um, I, you know, I noticed that as well. Uh, and I'm not sure if that was intentional, that omission, but I guess for now, um, the request is, uh, just what you see in front of you, which is the access points for, uh,
047lot parcels 59 through 63. Okay. Thank you. Any questions. So, this one we do have the we have the packet for. Does the board find the proposed changes consistent with the urban renewal plan? Yes. Does the board find that the change requested is practical, noting the comments of the town engineer and planning department? Yes. And does the board does the planning board recommend that the town board approve the requested modification? Yes. Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Now we're moving on to our regular meeting. There's a subdivision modification and that is you Michael Winscott Holdings in the matter of the application of Winscott Holdings final subdivision modification sub tax map 3000-200-2-51.2. [Music] two to revise the access easement to provide access for the neighboring parcel. I have read the resolution and move forward adoption. Second. Uh
048all in favor. Uh we're all in favor. Um, so the next one is subwaver Francetti schedule a public hearing and that and this one's me this is the one I have to read the whole one the whole no not the public hearing just the date and time okay in the matter of the application of Franetti minor subdivision Suffach County tax number 300- -13-2-18.1. This is a resolution to schedule a public hearing um to be held at Town Hall, 159 Pantico Road, East Hampton, New York on Wednesday, August 13th at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the said application. I have read the resolution and move for its adoption. Second. All in favor? I pass. The next one is site plan 80 Firestone Bluff Crest Cottages. Lou, that
049is you. In the matter of the application of 80 Firestone Bluff Crest Cottages, site plant special permits, subject county tax number 3000-17-1-5. I have read the resolution amending approval and I move for it adoption. Second. Second. Michael. All in favor? That is passed. Uh Verizon at Amigansit Fire District PWSF extension of time. Bruce, would you like to read this one? This is the fire district. The PW the um this is the fire district. Okay. in the matter of the application of Verizon at Amagaset Fire District tier 2 administrative PWSF site plan suffing tax map number 300-150-3-16.5 I have read uh this is for an extension of time I read the application and move for its approval second Michael all in favor I that one's passed and then the Verizon at 103 Flaggy Hole Road, PWSF.
050Reed, would you like to read? Uh, sure. I'd be happy to. In the matter of the application of Rising at 103 Flaggy Hole Road, uh, tier 2 administrative uh, uh, personal wireless um, uh, what does the SF stand for again? Service facility. service facility site plan suffing tax 300-37-2-1 for an extension of time uh until December 13, 2025. I've read the resolution and I move for its adoption. Second. All in favor? That one is also passed. Last one. Daniel's board of review for road improvements. This is a resolution for road improvement units on some place Gardner Lane 61 Garders Lane 61 Gardener's Lane. Thank you. Springs um Suffach County Tax Tax Map number 300-95-3-24. The undertaking is in the amount of $22,500 which is um 4,500 road improvement units at $5 per is 225 and
051it is clear and prune existing vegetation on both sides of Washington Street. Install one catch basin and two leeching basins 8 foot diameter by 10 ft deep uh with all the details in there. are paved 250 linear feet along Washington Street. And that is it. I have read this resolution. I move for it adoption. Second. All in favor? Last but not least, minutes from last uh from last time. Um I look good to me. They look amazing. They look good. So, can I have a motion to approve the minutes? I'll make that motion. Bruce, I need a second. Read. Great. All in favor? That one is passed as well. Last motion. [Music] I'll second that. All in favor.