East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 06/25/2025

001One second. All right, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. Uh, good evening everyone. This is the planning board of the town of East Hampton. Um, our June 25th, 2025 meeting. Um, we have a public hearing tonight on first on our agenda. We have four other matters for our work session and two other items for regular meeting. So, we have a few things to get through tonight. So, we will start with our public hearing. Jen, if you could read the notice. Sure. Public hearing notice. Take notice that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, on Wednesday, June 25th at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider

002the application of Mark's two-story infill site plan to enclose the entry patio 40.5 square ft to construct a foyer on the first floor and an office on the second floor. The property is unit three of the surf club and is located on the south side of Surfside Avenue, Montalk and is situ in a resort zone zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton and is identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel number 300-49-6-21. subject application is classified as a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act part 617 of the New York Code of rules and regulations and chapter 128 environmental quality review of the town code a survey prepared by F. Michael Heammer LSPC dated revised September 15, 2024 and a set

003of plans prepared by Diversified Design Associates Architects PC dated revised April 29th, 2025 including general notes list of drawings recheck compliance architectural site plan CS-1 general notes plumbing riser diagram light and vent calc notes and details Foundation plan notes and details A101 first/ second floor plan- roof plan A-102 second floor framing- attic framing plan- roof framing plan notes and details A103 strapping details A400 nailing schedule A41 and exterior elevations cross-section framing details A200 are available for inspection at the planning board offices 300 Pantigo Place, Sweet 103, East Hampton, New York. The public hearing will be held live and in person by the planning board, and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing, and will be televised on local TV channel 22, and available for liveream on the LTV website, www.ltv.org. The public shall be

004permitted to appear in person but may also provide comments on the matter by on the matter being heard by calling 351 8886331. Any person or party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by call into the live stream or by written comment address to the planning board 300 Pantico Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 111937. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning boardny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing dated May 21st, 2025. Ed Crew, chairman. Okay. Thank you, Jen, very much. Um, Chris, you're going to run us through what we're Sure. going to be talking about. Everything is pretty much covered uh

005with Jen's summary. It's an enclosure of the roofed patio shown here on the plans. Um, it's currently a roof deck and it would create a new foyer on the first floor and a new office on the second floor. It's approximately 40 and a half square feet of work area. Um, there's also some kitchen renovations, but that's not subject to this review. Not much else to it. Yeah, it's pretty straightforward. Um, is there anyone Do you want to council? Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Do we have jurisdiction? Yeah, we do. Notice, proper notice has been given. Okay. Right. Okay. Good. Yeah. That all has all been done. Thank you. Land planning services. Um. All right. Well, is there anyone in the audience? He will start here and then we'll go to LTV. Is there anyone wishing to

006comment on the MarkX twotory infill site plan hearing? 72. Okay. Uh Matt, is there anybody online on on the phones? You have zero you have zero calls on the line. Thank you. Okay. Um I think then let's call for the public hearing to be closed. I make a motion to close public hearing. Second. All in favor? Okay. Thank you very much for an uneventful public hearing. All right. So we're going to move into the work session. We are going to change the the order here a little bit. Um we're going to start with Southampton masonry storage bins. Okay. Uh just so we can let a certain land planner get on with it tonight. Um will that's you? That is you Bruce, right? That's me. Okay. Good evening, Gord. Um, this is a follow-up review of

007a site plan application made seeking approval for a change of use from bus storage and maintenance to a warehouse and storage yard. This project includes the construction of a gate, fence, dumpster enclosure, and material storage bins in the near the southwestern or rear property line of the site. In addition, the applicant proposes to legalize an existing set of storage bins and a retaining wall which are located along the southeastern property line. The subject property is approximately 44,877 square ft or 1.03 03 acres in size and is located in the commercial industrial zoning district. The site is considered to be 100% cleared of natural vegetation. And currently the site is improved with two one-story masonry buildings, material storage bins, retaining wall, and parking area. Previously, the board agreed to wave the setbacks adjacent to the residential

008properties for the proposed storage bins and retaining walls in the south of the site. Following the review of the planning board at its February 5th, 2025 meeting board issued written comments to the applicant regarding several issues. First, the board requested the applicant submit parking calculations, including the number of proposed employees. The applicant submitted a revised survey containing the parking calculations to use the calculation for a retail store and indicate the sites have three employees. However, no access lane dimensions were provided for the parking areas. The town code requires a 24 foot access lane for 90 degree parking spaces and the survey submitted does not have that labeled. The applicant should adjust the parking area to comply with this requirement code or otherwise add the dimension. Second, the board require requested the applicant propose screening between

009the parking area and route 114. The applicant submitted a new survey depicting proposed screening. The vegetation illustrated includes a planter box on the northeastern property line shown here in green and um and a small area proposed to be vegetated with junipers in the same area. It is unlikely this amount of new landscaping will have a significant impact on the use of the site from Route 114. And the board should discuss whether this amount of landscaping is acceptable or if the applicant should provide more screening. Third, the board requested the applicant indicate any new or modified lighting on the revised site plan and the applicant specified that no new or modified lighting is proposed. Fourth, the board requested the applicant submit additional details regarding the accessory structures. The applicant submitted elevations, materials, and appearances of the

010material storage bins, which appear to comply with town code regulations. The storage bins will be approximately 8 ft tall, 11t 8 in deep, approximately 78t 8 in long, and constructed from concrete block walls. Fifth, the board requested the applicant submit details about existing fuel tank regulatory compliance and safety protocol approaches for the proposed removal of the fuel tanks. The applicant submitted a notice of fuel tank inspection by the Suffach County Department of Health Services, which indicated one of the tanks had already been removed and no violations were found. Last, the board requested the applicant submit sanitary calculations to ensure the proposed flows have not changed and confirm the existing system in place is sufficient for the new use. In response, the applicant submitted a utility markout which did not include calculations for the sanitary system.

011The planning department recommends the applicant should supply this information to ensure the existing system is sufficient for the new use. Conclusion, the applicant should adjust the parking area to have a compliant access lane, provide sanitary calculations for the existing system to ensure it is sufficient for the new use, and the board should discuss whether the proposed landscaping is sufficient to serve as screening. Okay, thank you. Will, does the applicant wish to be heard? Yeah, I'm going to talk to one, but Catherine would like to speak to the screening issue. Um, we will submit a revised survey showing the 24 foot wide uh file behind the parking and we'll also submit the sanitary calculations. So, you're going to to move the parking forward toward the building in order to do that slightly. Okay. About it's it's

012not even it's 24 ft on all the way along. Okay. Just a question for you. I just have a quick brief. So, the space that's now between the head of the property spaces and the building, is that what what is is there a platform there? Is there's some uh overhead doors there and they want to be able to freely get in and out without having to deal with the cars. Oh, I see. Yes, they drive forklifts and [Music] Yeah, if you could please just identify yourself and your address, please. Catherine Tuscono um 1540 County Rout 39 Southampton New York. So, regarding the screening, um it's just a bit problematic because so many large trucks are pulling in and out and people go really fast on 114, not to mention the trestle right there. It's come

013to our attention that a lot of trucks come and then they don't realize that trestle and its height and then they back up on 114 and they actually pull into that whole front area of the of Southampton Masonry's yard. So, we're just afraid that if we put up more screening, it's just going to be, you know, an accident waiting to happen with with traffic flow and all that. Not to mention, it's now retail customers are coming in as well and parking and we also have a lot of deliveries. And then right next door as well, um I think there's Humble and Hedges and Iron Works. Everybody uses that whole front area. So I'm just afraid that if we were to put something off, it just would be a problem for trucks to turn around and

014everything. And like I said, people go really fast 114. So thanks for those comments. We will we will discuss that as a board. Um you want to lead our conversation? Sure. Thanks, Will. Thanks, Lori. Thank you. Um, not much to discuss here, I don't think. Um, we talked the last time about the storage bins in the back and waving the um, the setbacks for that just due to the change in in grade from their area to the neighbor and there's a really significant change in grade there. So, um, parking I think looks fine. I think it's a good idea to pull that closer to the building, but I understand that you do go in and out of the overhead doors on the the front side of that building. So, I think we can get that

015to code that would be fine. Um, the landscaping uh it's the proposed is pretty minimal. So, I would say either we get rid of it all together or do something else. I'm kind of in favor of just leaving it the way it is without landscaping. I mean, the one planter box shown on the top right, I'm not sure that's going to do anything. And then the junipers along the east property line, that whole line is heavily landscaped to begin with. So, I'm not sure what they're going to add to the to the property. Um, lighting I think's fine. That's fine. Fuel tank you guys have taken care of. So, I think that's good. And I guess yeah, to understand better your septic system, I think we need to know that as well. Other than that,

016I think it's I think it's What do you think of the safety issue with your landscaping? I think the more landscaping you add, the less safe it's going to be. You want to hear from everybody on that point. Actually, I just wanted to know you mentioned less. You didn't mention the safety issue, so I didn't know. Yeah, I think the more you add, the less safe it's going to be. Agreed. Yeah, I'd like to hear from everybody, you know, on whatever comments you have, but especially the one around landscaping. So, I I agree with what Bruce had said. Um, and uh I certainly know the uh I know the parcel, I know the place, and I do not think additional landscaping is warranted there. I think there is a a safety issue, and I think

017the applicant made a compelling case why um additional landscaping is not needed. You know, it is near that trestle. I think the visibility is reduced. I just don't think it's necessary. Okay. Thanks, Ree. Yeah, I I agree. I agree with what Reed said. I think the safety issue is more important in this particular case. Normally, I'd like a nice landscape buffer, but for this particular property, I think uh the safety issue overrides that. So, I'm in favor of not adding more vegetation. Okay. Jen, um with regard to the landscaping, I do not agree respectfully with either of you. I do think that more landscaping. Um I I'm wondering if there's a possibility of making the driveway a one-way driveway. I understand the need for trucks to get in and out, but that also brings up

018a question in my mind what the parking is for. If it's just a retail place, I know trucks are coming in and out, but then the parking spaces are for retail customers. you know, there then brings up in my mind a question about the, you know, the use of the parking lot. Um, I do think that I I'm very familiar with that area and the building. There is the trestle. I understand the need for safety, but I wonder if there were almost more of a this is the way you go in and this is the way you get out, it might be safer, like a one-way situation. Okay. All right. We'll come back to that. Um, Michael, I uh I concur with Bruce and my anecdotal evidence is the the cars and trucks going toward

019East Hampton toward the roundabout are already going, you know, let's say 50 on 114 and then they come to the train track and they they might slow down, but uh I I agree it's it's a rough spot uh there. So, I agree with with Bruce. All right. Well, my my feeling about this is that uh I don't love the idea of people backing up essentially into Route 114, right? You know, that that does feel that feels like a safety issue to me. I kind of agree just one minute. I do think that the the idea of screening per se is probably not necessary, but you know, maybe there is some way uh to Jen's point that we can split rail fence something along there and do a you know one way in one way out

020kind of thing which might be might be helpful. What I'm going to let Katherine address that let me say first about the backing into the highway. The reason for a 24 foot aisle width is so they can back into the 20 foot foot and go out head first, not backing onto 140. That's the theory. Yes. Yeah. I think people would be taking blood in their hands if they But I thought you mentioned trucks backing in and out. So I know Yeah. Go ahead. Facility oper. No, no, I was I was saying to the mic, please. Yeah. You know, I was saying that sometimes trucks don't know the the trestle limitations, you know, and so when that happens, they they do back up on 114 and a lot of times, you know, for them to get

021relief, people are pulling in and out. But back to you saying a fence or additional landscaping between customers and then a delivery and the large size of the trucks, what we would love to make it look prettier, too, just letting you know. Um but but unfortunately there just isn't enough room for these trucks to even turn around. And it's it's pretty narrow as well down the side. So they really heavily rely on the front area to to turn around so that they can pull out and communicate safely. Right. Yeah. You know, I mean listen, I mean I know that the access uh the 24 foot access is what we require and but I'm thinking of like an F-150, you know, pickup truck or something which is like 26 feet right itself, right? backing up and

022in and out. Um, I take the I take your point though. I take your point. We're just we're really coming at it from a safety stand and when the yard gets busy and there's a couple customers and then a delivery, it happens very quickly and so I think keeping it open is for safety reasoning. Okay. I just have one more question. Did deliveries come to the front of the building or do they go around back? they they come up to the front because there's, you know, and if they back up, they turn around there and then they back it up and then they can, like I said, you know, exit safely onto 114. So, they really use that front to turn around. It's the only large area, it's a single. All right. Okay. We've heard

023your comments. We've heard the the board's comments. Let's ask answer the questions. And I guess we'll need to sort we'll vote on the landscape question or screen question. Um should first question is should the applicant revise the parking area to provide a 24 foot wide access lane as required by town code? You've agreed to do that. Yes, absolutely. Should the applicant submit sanitary calculations to ensure the existing sanitary system is sufficient for the new use? Yes, you said yes, that will happen. Uh, should the applicant add additional vegetative screening or landscaping along the parking area at the front of the site? So, where do we come down on that? I think if we if everyone's position is still what it was when we when we started, I think we're at a four to to two

024vote here, right? To re to readress the front either either for offense or for vegetation. So, I think we're saying no, we don't need it. Got it. will ask for it. Okay. Thanks, Lori. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Back to our regularly scheduled program here. Uh the Franetti subdivision waiver application. That's Chris. Thank you. Uh we're going to go to Frenzetti next. Is that Chris or is that you? Will Chris? Okay. Yeah. All [Music] right, good to go. Please transi subdivision waiver valuation. It's located at 25 tacos lane and Montto shown here. Um the property is split between the A and B uh resident zoning districts. You can see that orange line there shows the boundary. The lot was created as part of the Seascape Garden subdivision approved by planning board resolution dated December

02518, 1963. And the property was reszoned to its current designation in September of 1972. Um, those lots are both 100% clear of naturally occurring vegetation and the neighboring lots are all residentially zoned. So going into the application itself, I'm just going to pull up the subdivision waiver map. So the application was submitted to divide the subject parcel into two lots. The existing parcel of 53,72 and a half square feet is proposed to be divided into lot one consisting of 28,263.29 29 square ft and lot 2 consisting of 24,296.77 square ft. The applicant submitted a narrative detailing that the reason for the requested subdivision waiver is to establish a vacant lot for the owner's daughter to build a house. Um, following the last review, which was March 5th, 2025, the planning board issued two comments, and

026I'll go over each comment as well as the applicant's response and the planning department's assessment. First, the applicant was advised to revise the short environmental assessment form, SEAF, part one. Uh pursuant to the planning department's comments, the seaf part one was revised to indicate that no portion of the proposed action or lands adjoining contain wetlands or other water bodies um regulated by state, local or federal agency and it was also revised to indicates that the site contains habitat for the northern Harrier and northern longard bat uh species. Department assessment is that it was revised as requested. There's no further issues with that. Um, second comment was the planning board commented that as a condition of approval, the map will be updated to include access and utility easement as opposed to an access easement along the

027boundary line between lots one and two. The applicant responded by revising the map so that the access easement is no longer needed due to the removal of solar paneling. The driveway can now be constructed within the boundaries of lot one. And the planning department's assessment is that the revised map is accessible acceptable. Um, and we note that a proposed driveway configuration for lot one is not subject to this review. Instead, it would be reviewed with a building permit application. So, going on to the secret of state environmental quality review act, the zoning board of appeals performed an uncoordinated review during its review which approved area variance as needed for the proposed subdivision waiver. ZBA issued a negative declaration pursuant to SRA on November 21st, 2024. And for the review of the proposed subdivision waiver, the

028planning board conducted a coordinated review for which a coordination letter was sent to involved agencies on May 14, 2025. Planning board received a letter dated May 19, 2025 from the Suffach County Department of Health Services with no objection to the planning board being deemed late agency. The ZBA did not respond within 30 days. Therefore, the planning board can move forward with its review. The planning department prepared the attached environmental assessment form EAF part two and three and a negative declaration is recommended. The planning board should review the EF parts two and three and determine whether they agree that the project will not cause significant environmental impacts and issue a negative declaration accordingly. Um just going over the ZBA determination that was used to uh facilitate this project. Two variances area variances from ZBA were necessary

029and the CBA determination dated November 22nd, 2024 approved these two variances. One being a lot area variance to permit lot a lot area of 28,263.29 29 square ft for lot one where a minimum of 40,000 square ft is required in the Azoning district and two being the side yard property line setback variance to permit the existing solar panels to be 9.2 feet away from the proposed property line between lots one and two where 10 ft is required. Planning department will note that the variance permitting the existing solar panels to remain within that 10t is no longer applicable since these structures have been removed. The subdivision waiver map reviewed by the zoning board included the proposed access easement which has been removed with the revised submission. Since the proposed access was not subject to the zoning

030board's review, planning department finds it appropriate to move forward without additional input from the ZBA. Recognizing that the applicants have received the necessary variance for this application, the planning board can proceed with their decision-making process. In conclusion, the planning board should reaffirm whether they're accepting of the proposed subdivision waiver design or if additional information is needed at this time. If no additional information is needed, then the board should make a secret determination and the application will be complete and ready to schedule for a public hearing. Okay, great. Thank you, Chris. Rich, would you like to be heard? Oh, sure. For the record, identify yourself, please. Yes, very quick. Um, thank you, Chris. um very complete memo. I don't think that much to say about the memo. There is one thing though I bring up. Just

031want to remind you state your name for the record. Oh yes, sorry. Richard Whan from the attorney representing the applicant nor frenzetti. Whan father PLLC. Uh just to remind you that a subdivision waiver is a waiver of selfful subdivision review, meaning you are not required to have a public hearing. If you want to have a public hearing, obviously you can do that. We'll have a public hearing, but um I just want to point out that public hearing is not mandatory. We did have a public hearing at the zoning board and nobody showed up in opposition. Okay, thanks. This is yours, Jen. This is mine. Thanks so much, Rick. Um thank you, Chris. Uh I'm going to consult our attorney on the need for a public hearing. Do we have the right to wave a public

032hearing in this case? And not that I don't believe you, just covering just covering. It's not super clear in the regulations of but it's how it's always been done. Okay. Gray area there. Um what's that? Okay, great. So, while while Britney's looking while council is looking into that, I think that this is um complete and ready to be scheduled. I think it's a weird situation where the um zoning AB kind of dissects the lot pretty much in the middle. And since the applicant already has a variance from the ZBA, I say go for it. Okay. Just start sorry start sorry start sorry start sorry start sorry start sorry start sorry start sorry to see the solar panels go. Hopefully they're going on top. Yeah. Yeah. They're they're old. They're dated so they're not at full

033efficiency. I don't know exactly for sure what their plans are, but they could easily put solar panels on the new house. That's why she decided she realized they're creating a problem and they're old, so they don't really, you know, they're not that efficient anymore. So that's why she Okay. Very interesting. Thoughts? Yeah, just one question. So the new property line is going back to where it was in the original subdivision, I assume. Yes, I think that is correct. It follows the original lot line. Yes. Any thoughts, Reed? I have nothing additional to that. Yeah, I've always been in favor of this application, so I remain so. Okay. And you're good. What uh All right. Well, what do we think about a public hearing, you guys? We don't know for sure that we absolutely need one,

034but do we do we want one? What's that? I don't see anything that mandates a public hearing in this instance and I don't town law for a minor site. Okay. I'd be inclined to wave the public hearing. Wave. I agree. Wave. Wave. Wave. Wave. All right. Think you got that one. So, let's let's answer the questions. That's one of them. Eric, can I add a point of clarity? I I would say just that um as far as the board's consensus on it, uh you might want to say that the town attorney's office will look into it and if the board has the ability to wave it, um that the consensus was there. And I I will add, you know, we certainly don't want unnecessary public hearings, but it is wellestablished policy of the board to

035hold public hearings, you know, even for subwavers that had zoning board public hearings. And we have had ones where um people have come to speak about the um the subdivision. Um it's not common um you know and if nobody showed up for the zoning board they they probably won't for this but it is something that you have done as a matter of policy and it does at times um bring public comment. So I just want to put that out there. Thank you very that's a point very well taken. So I think I'm sorry on that note. Okay. Whether or not it is mandated by the law. Okay. All right. Yeah. We we well we also vote on these things too, right? Yeah. We're going that's something that is our uh Yes. But I Yeah, but

036I'm just saying that we we actually are a little bit on the side of doing public hearings and not you know waving them necessarily. Although I think the the consensus here is that in this case we would wave it. I would propose just for all of us to consider that we change like per the point that Eric made change the last question to say that if it is permitted that we would you know vote to wave public right if our you know legal council determines that it's something that we can do. Um, does everyone does everyone concern that? I assume we haven't received any letters in favor or in opposition to this application, have we? I haven't seen anything. Okay. Um, all right. Any qu any public comments that we've received? Okay. Nothing yet. Um,

037does planning board find the application complete? I'd say it is. Does the board wish to make a negative declaration? We do. Jody, can we do that on the spot? Does that require a resolution on the spot? All right. All in favor of a negative declaration on this project. Okay. Um, is the application ready to be scheduled for a public hearing if one in fact is required? Well, no, let me rephrase that. Um, the application we we propose that we wave the public hearing unless we hear from the uh town attorney's office that one is mandated. Correct. All right. So, we're all good with that. All right. Good. Good. Good. Okay. Thank you. I'll wait. I'll wait to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Um All right. Will's back in the

038driver's seat for Wayne Scott Holdings. [Music] Okay. Um, so this is another followup application. Um, followup review. Uh this is an application that was submitted seeking to modify the Wayne Scott building subdivision by proposing to expand the previously approved access to a lot not part of the original subdivision but owned by the same family. If granted, this modification would preserve historic access to the pond plot which is located just north of the rest of the subdivision here via the previously approved driveway access. The subject subdivision subdivision is approximately 38.7 acres or 1,686 687,656 ft in size. And the pond lot is about 20 acres or 874,4001 square ft in size. All subject lots are zoned to A5 residents and are located within the Harper Protection Overlay district and agricultural overlay district, a recommended scenic area

039of statewide significance and are on the community preservation fund list. subdivision is largely cleared of naturally occurring vegetation due to the ongoing agricultural use of one of the lots and all lots within the subdivision are considered to be exempt from clearing regulations due to their inclusion in an agricultural overlay district lot one which on this survey is the unimproved is currently improved with the twotory single family residence detached garage swimming pool fencing porches and wood decking While lots two and four are improved with driveways leading to lot one. The pond lot is mostly cleared for farming but has a large section of dune land at its southern end between Waynecott Pond and the Atlantic Ocean which the applicants have specified will not be impacted by this proposed access modification. At its April 2nd, 2025 board

040meeting, the planning board requested the applicant submit a revised access easement which addressed the comments made by the fire marshal. The revised easement language was submitted on May 14th and a letter from the town attorney approving that language was received on June 18th. In conclusion, the planning department recommends the applicant has sufficiently modified the proposal and this application is complete and ready for approval. All right, thanks. Will meant to ask this sooner. Is the applicant with us? All right. I thought perhaps that was the case. Would you like to be heard? Really have anything to add any questions? Okay. All right. Well, stay tuned. Perhaps we will. Um, and this is yours, Michael. I have nothing to add as well. This is the third time this has been in front of us. Uh, it looks

041good. Uh, I think it's ready for approval. Okay, that's all I got. Does anyone have anything to add? Any comments, questions? Okay. All right. We'll get to our one and only question. Does the board agree the application is ready for approval? Yes. All around unanimous. Yes. Okay. Ready for approval. Thank you. Pardon me. Yeah. Mayor, please come to the mic. Just identify yourself please. Angel applicant um just procedurally before the adopting resolution. We we actually do have the resolution. We do. We do. Yes, we should have that, right? No, I don't have it. No, I don't have No, I think that's mine. There's a I saw it on the agenda. Yeah, I thought I saw this on the All right. We don't We don't have that for tonight. Okay. Wait, no. We don't have it

042for tonight. So, maybe the next meeting. Yeah, you can count on that. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Okay, the one you've been waiting for, 350 Panigo affordable housing preliminary. Uh, and Jen, that's you again. Eric is is is uh speaking for the planning department. Um, and the applicant is here as I see. So, this is a preliminary review of of a site plan. So, we will let Eric take the lead on this. Sure. Um, I'm going to screen share here so that you can see where the property is located. So, hopefully you can see an aerial um of the property. So, as Ed said, this is preliminary site plan application uh to construct a 47 unit affordable housing development on a 3.9 acre vacant parcel on Pano Road in East Hampton. Proposed are 24-bedroom units

043and 23 three-bedroom units in seven twostory multi-unit buildings along with associated driveways, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. Property zone A residents uh and is in the affordable housing overlay district. It's 100% cleared of naturally occurring vegetation. It's bordered mainly by residential property, but also vacant commercial property. Um, and then uh developed commercial property across Panango Road. Um, there is an otherwise active subwaver application for this property to divide it into three um uh residential lots. Um the planning board has already sent comments to the town board recommending that basically saying uh encouraging public acquisition to use the property for affordable housing. Um and then additionally the planning board previously reviewed a separate uh preliminary site plan application uh which is from the same owners but was really to review the concept of a new use called

044workforce housing development. Um basically what the applicants are proposing in this preliminary site plan application is the same use um but upon review it looks like the code uh under affordable housing development which is an existing use in the code um that they can meet that criteria and then therefore a new use doesn't have to be created. Um although that is to be determined as you'll find out as I go through this. Eric, I'm going to interrupt you for a second. We're not actually just for the viewers at home in particular, we're not seeing where the site is exactly. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I was just going to zoom in. I was just getting through that. Uh Yep. Zoom in and then um pretty soon I'll transition to um the preliminary site plan that

045was submitted. But as you can see here, um yes, it's known as the former Stern site situated on Pano Road uh in East Hampton uh near the intersection of um Panagal Road and Skin Hampton Road. So again, as a preliminary site plan application, this is a one-time review by the planning board of the general aspects of the proposal. And basically, the idea is for the planning board to give uh constructive comments to the applicants for a formal application. Um, in this case, we think what you should really focus on is the location and orientation of buildings, the location and configur configuration of site access, interior circulation and parking, the proposed ownership and management structure of the affordable housing development and then basically just summarizing anticipated concerns for the applicants as well as what information is

046going to be needed at uh formal application. So, I will switch the visual over to the submitted site plan. Um, the applicants are proposing an affordable housing development use, but with a somewhat unique ownership and management structure. Um, specifically, they propose individual units to be established as condominium units with units being sold by the developer to individual owners. And they've proposed local businesses. Um although I don't think any such restriction that only local businesses could buy them would be permitted under the Fair Housing Act. Um so basically um this model deviates from nearly every affordable housing development that exists in the town. Um most of those are operated by a certified housing agency or housing corporation like the East Hampton Housing Authority or Windmill. Um there is one exception though. There is an existing development

047that is condominium units and that's the Manor House condominiums which was a town uh sponsored project. Um so uh basically there there is a a model of a condominium development of an an afford a condominium affordable housing development. Um it's something that the board is going to have to discuss more with council as to whether or not the town code permits that. But um our reading of the code doesn't see anything that prohibits that. And again, there's an existing affordable housing development that is set up in that way. Um, another distinguishing feature of the ownership and management model is the intention to sell the individual units to local businesses in order for them to house staff with the unit owners essentially becoming landlords and the employees becoming tenants. This differs from Manor House um where

048although that is a condominium complex, the units are owner occupied. Um so uh it doesn't appear though that the code prohibits affordable housing units from being owned by multiple individual parties and rented to tenants. Um in fact to the contrary there is a section of the code that says in quotes here an affordable housing development may be owned by one or more individuals or corporations. Um, so I don't think that that combined ownership model that they're seeking is uh in conflict with the town code. Um, but again, this is something that upon formal site plan, the applicants are going to have to submit uh draft versions of all of their legal documents, explain how they're going to ensure affordability of the development, and that'll have to be reviewed by the town attorney's office. Um and

049then I I should say really the two main aspects of affordable housing that need to be enforced are the maximum monthly rent um which is capped at 130% of fair market rent in the town of East Hampton and the second being that the units created are for moderate income families as that's defined in the code which is currently 13 family up to 130% of median family income. Um, additionally, the board will need to review the details of a condo plan, a condo offering plan, um, which establishes how the site will be managed, how common fees and responsibilities will be addressed, and draft versions of that document should be submitted with a formal application. Um the and another recommendation that I would have for you under this model is that um any new tenants um be

050required that the unit owners be required to get a permit from the office of housing and community development. Um this is very similar to what we do for ADUs right now and as well for apartments over commercial structures where um anytime there is a new tenant or at a minimum yearly basis the owner of that unit has to certify that the tenants still meet the um affordability requirements. Uh I would recommend that that be a condition of approval. Again that would be a little bit unique because normally you have the Stampin Housing Authority windmill running the development. um and we know that they're going to make sure that the tenants um comply with the restrictions. So, another issue here is the maximum permitted housing unit density. The town code was changed recently both for senior

051and non senior affordable housing developments. Um although for senior affordable housing developments, the um restriction is 12 units per acre. For non senior, which this would be, the restriction is still 8 units per acre. However, the planning board is allowed to make an exception and allow up to 12 units per acre if certain criteria have been met and it meets all the other special permit criteria. So, it's important to view it that way. The applicants are proposing essentially 12 units per acre here um right up to that maximum. So, you would have to grant that exception. Um there are really three provisions when they're going above 8 units per acre um that have to be addressed. Um one is sewage treatment. the applicants are proposing sewage treatment, although we will need full um sanitary plans

052at formal. Another is that a traffic study is required to um gauge the the impact of traffic on adjacent roadways. That will be needed at formal. We don't have that yet. And then an economic analysis is required, which is really a um study of how many additional students are anticipated in the school district and what the burden on that school district is going to be. So all of that information needs to be provided at the time of formal. If the planning board is going to grant the exception and allow up to 12 units per acre. Obviously in the absence of that information, the board can't make that determination today. Um but you should have a conversation about the overall density um of development that's proposed on the site uh and offer constructive guidance to the

053applicants. So another um aspect of this that you know it's standard to review at a preliminary is the site design and general layout. Um so basically the applicants um have provided you know the the sketch that you see in front of you. Um, we're not necessarily against this general design, but and also, you know, obviously, especially at a preliminary, it's not, you know, the planning board isn't going to design the site for the applicants, but we did want to make um a couple of specific notes about the design. One is you'll see that a 40 foot wide scenic easement is proposed at the front of the site. Now I have to make a correction to the memorandum that went out um where ultimately the planning department uh says you know this area is mostly invasive

054species um you know it might make more sense to do landscaping and a buffering there um as opposed to a true scenic easement which is meant to remain in its natural state and often doesn't provide a lot of screening. Um so the the memo basically says you know don't do a scenic easement do buffering and landscaping um although it's a soft suggestion. Um, I do think it's probably more appropriate here to do a scenic easement as they proposed. Um, it can be reveated with naturally occurring vegetation in the natural habitat type and augmented with evergreen screening. Um, but just pointing out that that feature uh that they're proposing. Um, there's an existing access easement over the property that was created to establish joint access with the property to the immediate west, the old bank. Um

055they're proposing to utilize this as the access point which would also obiate them needing to get another curbcut permit from the New York State DOT. Um we feel that this is the appropriate access point u but note that the town engineer will review upon formal submission. Um we note the generally circular design of the uh development um which there are numerous other affordable housing developments in the town. Aabonic apartments, Springs Fireplace Apartments, Windmill 2, uh that have a generally circular layout and design. So, we're not against that at all. But, um looking at this sketch, um it appears that all uh interior lanes and parking speed uh spaces do meet the the code requirement. Um but we also know that parking spaces must meet the accessory structure setbacks. Um the board can't wave those. Um

056but the access lanes do not have to meet that. So actually guys as this is designed if you look on the western end the to the left of that sketch they've done it correctly um where even though that uh access lane is up close to the property line that is otherwise permitted by the code but the parking spaces have to meet the um the sideyard setbacks. So, sort of more to the point of the layout here, um I would recommend that um buildings in parallel rows may be a more efficient efficient use of space. Um particularly if you did rows of buildings with an access lane and parking on either side of that. Um I I know that there are constraints on the uh with the the shape of the property. Um but I do

057think that that overall would be a more efficient use of space. Um it appears that all of the units are proposed as twostory units. Um so meaning that it's not one unit on the first floor and then another unit on the second floor. The units uh themselves, the individual units have a first and a second floor. Um it would appear a more efficient use of space if they separated those up where there were second story units and first story units. It might not matter at the end of the day the unit is the if the unit is the same square footage. Um but just a a point for them to consider. Um as per the special permit standards, uh each unit must have a private outdoor space such as a patio uh or terrace. Um

058we don't have building or elevation plans for this preliminary application, but they will be required. Um roughly half the units are proposed as threebedroom units to the maximum size permitted under the town code, which is 1,200 square ft. um a reduction in the number of three-bedroom units um or a reduction in their size would would save some space. Um if you look to the center of the site, um eight of the units are situated basically right in the middle of the site surrounded by other units. Uh the board should discuss the appropriateness of this design with consideration of the fact that these will be residential units and that the unit owner should have a modicum of privacy. Um, a few of the units have been situated so that they face the sides of other units

059and in relatively clo uh close proximity to them. The board should discuss the appropriateness of that design with the applicants. Um, 11 of the units are situated in one row building that is parallel to Montalk Highway and Panagle Road. So, you can see that at the top of the screen. Um unless significant screening in the front is employed, this large building is probably going to be uh very um conspicuous from Montalk Highway and again putting them putting the row buildings in in particular this one uh shifting at 90° might be a way to to obviate that. Um calculations for a recreation area were provided and that is required under the special permit standards of the town code. Each affordable housing development needs to have a recreation area of a size determined by the number of

060units that they have. Um they've demonstrated that they meet the lot area requirement. However, they haven't illustrated where that recreation area is. Presumably, it is portions of the lawn at the center of the site. Um but it hasn't been set up as one single recreation area um for the benefit of the residents. So, um, one of the other things detailed in the memorandum is the information and plans that should be included at formal site plan application. Um, basically a formal site plan, building and elevation plans, a comprehensive site, drainage and storm water control plan. I also believe this will need a speed permit from the DEC. um a sanitary plan with calculations, profiles, all information, comprehensive site lighting plan, um comprehensive site landscaping plan, and then as I had mentioned previously, um if they are

061going to go above 80 units per acre and the planning board is going to allow them to, they must submit a traffic study, they must submit an economic analysis um of impacts on the school district. And then really the the final thing um listed in the memorandum and maybe the most important as far as making sure that this um somewhat unorthodox management um proposal is you know that we can enforce the affordability requirements is submitting uh copies of you know draft copies of all the legal instruments that are intended to be filed over the property including a condo offering plan covenants and restrictions anything along those lines. um that is going to cement uh you know that the development is going to be compliant with the intention of affordable housing and an affordable housing development.

062So um those are basically my comments. Um and again uh just at the end here reminding the planning board that this is a preliminary site plan. Um they're going to be coming in for a formal presumably. Um, so you know, any guidance you can give them as to what to submit and any questions you have um about this somewhat novel um proposal and type of affordable housing development uh that they should address at the formal. Thank you very much, Eric. The applicant wish to be heard? I'm sure you do. We hope you do. Hi, Christopher Kelly and Shay Kelly Dubin and Quarter for the applicant. Uh first I want to thank Eric for the presentation and for the work that he's done in helping us develop this concept. Uh we started uh I started working

063with Kirby Mark Antonio back in November of when he came to me with this concept of workforce housing and how we could possibly uh develop it in East Hampton and also incentivize the private sector to construct affordable housing. So, not all affordable housing would have to be publicly owned uh either by the town or by a housing authority. So, we realized we needed a couple of um tweaks to the law in order to pull that off. Uh one of which was an increase in density and we started talking to the town board about that uh very early on. Uh and that was came uh kind of in phases. uh as uh you know the density for senior citizen housing was increased to 12 units per acre earlier in the year and then I think just

064in April the town board allows for the 12 units per acre uh for all other affordable housing when there's sewage treatment which we've found a way to do when there's traffic study and we've signed up our engineer and they'll be doing traffic counts in July when one of the busiest months here and when there's an economic study that shows that the school district can accommodate uh the develop velment without undue uh strain. We're already in conversations with the superintendent of East Hampton Schools. We actually have a draft uh impact report already that I've shown to Eric. Uh so we're trying to make sure that it's in line with what he anticipated when he wrote that legislation for the town. So we've come a long way on this and um again I want to thank Eric

065for all his work on it. uh uh he has always been very concerned that we uh find a way uh well let me backtrack. The the other aside from the density the thing that makes this thing um u work um is to have it be able to be sold to employers. So employers are providing it to their employees either as a part of their compensation or as a as a rented item that's included in their contract. Uh and when we came up to we had drafted several different forms of the legislation with ERIC uh that specifically allowed because we thought we needed that specifically allowed employers to own these units. And we went back and forth. We had a couple of iterations of that and didn't find something that was completely satisfactory to the town

066board. And then we drilled down even deeper and we drilled down to that language that uh Eric cited and realized that there really was a pathway in the existing code for this type of ownership. So that we very clear this type of ownership units will be sold to employers. They'll be condominium units. By the way, as as a sidlight, so many of the um affordable housing projects here, or all of them in fact, um maybe but for the one that he mentioned, this condominiums, but all of them have what's called a a pilot agreement. They as a it's a payment in lie of taxes. The units aren't taxed. There's a lump sum that's negotiated and the and the housing authority of the town pays this lump sum into the the treasury because these are individually

067owned units. They will be taxed like anybody's house or condominium will be. So the taxes will be going and we we have already have estimates of uh what the tax revenue from of this number of units will be and what percentage of that will go to the school district. So, we've been thinking a lot of this stuff through. Um, one thing I'm very proud of in this application because it was a lot of creativity um is meeting Eric's concern or deal addressing Eric's concern about how we assure affordability. And when we drilled down, we found that the key aspect of affordable housing, the defining um factor, if you will, is who resides in it, not who owns it. And so if the people residing in the unit are income qualified as defined in the code

068by what I think it says 130% of median income, uh that's what makes it affordable. And so if we condition the use of these units so that the owners can only rent to incomequalified tenants, we've created an affordable housing project. And so I drafted something and I used as a form the um you know an agricultural easement or scenic easement that this board has required a zillion times over the course of years. And I'm calling it an affordable housing easement. And what will happen upon the grant of this hopefully the grant of this special permit is that we will record this affordable housing easement. That means in perpetuity only incomequalified tenants can reside in the residence depending on what HUD um uh income levels are determined to be uh affordable for moderate income families at

069any given time. So um we hope that does the trick. We also will incorporate into the condominium offering plan those same restrictions and the condominium board will be empowered to enforce those restrictions. And um that easement provides that the town as Eric mentioned must certify the town housing office will certify every tenant that goes into one of these condominium units. Certified based on income that they're qualified to be there. This is not to be used as this, you know, uh, second homes for the, uh, owner's niece or, you know, son, uh, over the summer. These, these are for incomequalified people only. Um, so I know that, uh, Kirby would be happy to address some of the design questions that were raised by Eric. There are reasons why this layout was utilized um and why the

070units are two story and so forth. Um but I'm very happy to answer any questions you may have about this project. Do we want to wait to hear from Kirby and then do our discussion working on it? Yeah, we'll see if see any questions though for Chris in the meantime about the you know the way that this thing is going to be pulled together operationally. I'll I'll my questions for when All right. Good. Anything specifically for Chris? Chris, you have 47 units. owners. Yes. Right. Who maintain who's responsible to maintain? A the property, B the individual buildings, who's right. So, as any condominium, there's a um a homeowners association. There would be they hire a management company. So, they there'll be a maintenance fee. We anticipate it'll be something like $1,000 a month per unit

071that goes into the kitty. They hire management company. Um so, that per they take care of the grounds. They enforce the the um building maintenance, the bylaws, and whatever house rules there may be in the condo. So, it's run like any other condo. I got it. I I that kind of leads to a question. Um, so if the additional fees are about $1,000 a month per unit, that adds to the rent and the affordability of it. No. Who's paying? That's paid by the owner. Paid by the owner. Okay. So, the owner is going to be responsible for two things here. Taxes and maintenance just and insurance just like any owner of a unit would be. And they rent it out and they're limited to who they can rent it to. And so I guess my

072my other question and Ed you um mentioned this earlier a fair housing act. So how can you limit the sale of these to a specific segment of the population? I can sell whoever I want to just like you when you sell your house you don't have to sell it to any particular person. We're we're not disc as long as you don't discriminate against against protected group then you're fine. And we're not discriminating against anybody. We're providing housing for business owners. So, can I ask? Yeah. I'm curious about you had mentioned something interesting. The 47 different owners. You could really have one owner of all units. You could have 20 whatever. My question would be, what happens if that business decides to leave town? Can they sell to other people? How does that work? Does it

073have to sell to another business? No, they can sell to whomever they want to with the proviso that the only people that can occupy that unit are income qualified people. That's the anchor of this whole project that keeps it affordable forever. Okay. So in the res here, Reed, and I think what we're counting on is the marketplace to to deal with this is that nobody's going to buy these units with the restriction that they can only put affordable housing in, affordable tenants in there, affordable qualified tenants, unless they have the the uh combinant benefit of them being their employees. Unless they're just angels and they want to house, they want to provide affordable housing, they can because the rent so even if one company owes 40 owns 47 units, they're they're still required the restrictions

074are still there for renting to only income qualified people, right? Yes, absolutely. We we have several people who've been who've expressed interest in bulk purchases. For instance, Southampton Hospital is one group we've talked to and they've talked about buying 20 units. We want to try to lock that in. But, you know, a school district or Bernie's or some or the town, I tried to talk to the town about buying units because of some of their openings. They have some other issues. But a physician can't live there, right? A physician couldn't presuming if he was. So, just so you know, a family of four, uh, the income maximum is 175,000. So, as long as you stay under 175,000, you're good to go. So, it could be a doctor perhaps. I think Jen, you got a follow.

075Just Yeah. One followup question. So the affordable housing, you know, determination is the renter, the occupant, not the owner. So like if Prada wanted to buy 10 of them. Yes. They're clearly not low income. So but it the so it's not the purchaser that has to be moderate income. It's the tenant. Correct. Okay. But on on that issue, since we this topic is being discussed, the definition in the code for affordable housing units has the restriction of the rental that you mentioned, but it also says that the maximum initial sales price does not exceed the following multiples. That doesn't apply if if that only applies if you're own occupied. That doesn't apply to a corporation that's um renting these to That's what you say. Well, the housing authority the housing authorities owns all these units

076and they rent them out. They're not a qualified is in the business of providing but that doesn't that's not provided for in the code. I well I think for me that opens up a whole new can of worms where it because if I'm if I'm a business owner I can re as you state in your narrative you say um according to this section and you you cite a section of the special permit standards the owner of the unit would not have to be the occupier of the unit and thus a third party Um, that's a third party, that is an employer, could purchase the unit presumably at a market rate or even at a premium rate as long as it was made available to and occupied to qualifying individuals and qualifying. Can I make a

077comment here just to because I think there's a there's a fundamental, you know, sort of economic truism here which is that the value of the unit is really going to be driven by the fact that it needs to be rented to. I thought about there's other factors that come up. Yes, you're right. And it's I did think of that that because the rental is maxed out, it's capped at a certain level that's going to determine the market value of the unit. But there but nevertheless, there are other factors that could come into play as to what would determine the market value. If I'm a wealthy individual, and I know Chris, you mentioned this in your remarks earlier that somebody could buy this and rent it to their niece or have it available and say no,

078they can't. Well, what if they say that they're going to have it for their domestic help? That would be perfectly all right because if they had it for the domestic help and the domestic the person involved qualified and go to the housing office and get certified as somebody who's uh income qualified to be in that unit that would be perfectly okay. It just opens up a wider span of people to circumvent the restrictions of affordable housing. Why is that? How do you see that? No, because the tenant has to go the tenant has to go to the housing office and get certified, show what show their income tax returns, show what they're getting paid and prove that they just like the same qualification that you have to go through to get into Gardener Point or

079Aquabonic Apartments or Avalone Apartments, you have to go through to get in here. I I I have to think about that more about different examples that that uh could come up where it could You have any questions? Try to stunt me because I've been thinking about this for three years and I'm happy that we would work it down there. I think I just want to piggyback on kind of what Lou was saying. I do think that [Music] it it just because it's such a different model, we're trying to kind of think of all of the possible ins and outs of the whole thing because there are some things that I, you know, had questions about, you know, who pays the common fees, blah blah blah. Um, and I will wait till the end to, you

080know, till Kirby speaks to get into some of my other questions, but I think, yeah, I think I have to think about all of the ways where this could work. What about the people who are already on the affordable housing list if they don't work for someone who We're not We're not a public agency. We're the private sector. So, we can sell units to who we want to. We're not taking any federal money. We're not taking town money. There's no county money. This is private money going in to build this housing. Right? They're doing it for a profit, right? This is not about the government providing a service. This is about private individuals, investors doing this for profit and they happen to be able to make profit by providing affordable units to qual incomequalified people.

081Yeah. And we want to we think the town should have more of that because if the private sector is working full steam on all cylinders and the town is doing the same thing, we're just going to have that much more affordable housing. Yeah, I think so. There is but there is no restriction of a of an owner buying a unit and renting it to his or her niece if that niece as long as but they also have to go through Yeah. They have to go to the housing office. They have to go through the housing office. make their application and be approved. What if ask a question about that? Is there a residency requirement? I mean, you have to be No. And there's no residency requirement in the what town of East affordable housing has.

082In fact, the opposite is true. You have to open it up because of the the various funding sources that the town has. You have to open it up to a much wider audience. You have, you know, we don't have that problem. we can restrict it to just East Hampton businesses, which is what we proposed in the original legislation that the town board bought that. So, um, we can choose to only market it to go after to seek out East Hampton businesses because that's the people we want to serve. And my understanding is that you've approached many of them and that they are enthusiastic. We've done a survey and and and Kirby will address that because the mix of two-bedroom units versus three-bedroom units is governed largely by what the demand has indicated. Okay. But like

083any developer of a condominium complex, once you sell all of the condominiums, you're out. You're no longer involved. Correct. So then then the people who own the condominions and let's assume it's 100% owned by various businesses in in East Hampton and again I have to think about this you know all the different permutations that could exist or happen but those businesses now are free to sell those to anybody who wants it. And I understand that in order for I understand that the occupant needs to meet income qualifications, but nevertheless, they're open to sell it to anybody who comes along or at any price that they want. Let me give you an analogy. Let me give you an analogy. So if you did a open space subdivision on farmland and you preserved 20 of the 30

084acres in an agricultural reserve and the farmer who developed that land decided I uh I can't farm it anymore. I'm moving to Florida. So what is he going to do? He's going to sell it to another farmer. But that farmer is going to be restricted and can only farm that property. They can't build because they've already built out the subdivision and taken the development rights off of it. Right. Yeah. So, he's he's limited by the restrictions that were created when he subdivided the property. Likewise, we're going to be limited the future owners of the units are going to be limited by the original covenants restrictions, the original affordable housing easement that makes sure that only income qualified people reside in the units. One more one more followup. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, no, I was

085just trying to wrap this part up. So, if um if Southampton Hospital purchases, you know, several of these units and turns around in four years to sell them, the people then who are living there, would the leases I mean, I'm assuming the new owner would, how am I, how can I say this? What happens to the people if they if the if the business leaves and their housing is leases leases leases always leases always govern how the unit so the lease and I think we went back and forth with Eric about this you know about whether it's a one-year lease minimum or how much time to vacate so let's say somebody um gets fired what does that person do we want to set things up so that there's at least 90 days before they have

086to okay move out y well those are all things that can be put in the offering. Let's shut one more thing. The other side of that coin is that the tenant is basically a surf of the the uh of the Okay. All right. On that note, all right, I'll read up on my Listen, these are all legitimate questions. We there's much more to be explored as we move forward with a formal application and we will be talking more about all of this for sure. But I think we should hear from Kirby about the site plan, how this how you came up with this, the the unit sizes, what that what that's all about. So if you can quickly take us through that, that'd be great. And Kirby, Mark, Antonio, I want to thank you guys

087for all the time and the attention. I want to thank Eric in particular for two and a half years of working together with Chris and I to uh bring this project to this point. Um as Chris just explained, there have been a lot of iterations on the legal side. I think he's done a wonderful job except I would add one more filter by the way because this is a private development and we will decide at least initially who owns these units. My initial filter has always been East Hampton businesses and very honestly from my work with so many businesses as you well know who I know need housing. Uh we're trying to uh be as um equal-handed as we can in terms of the types of businesses that will buy. Right now, just through some

088fairly informal surveys of people I know or people I understand could be uh looking for these units, we're overs subscribed on this project by probably 100 to 200%. Now, within that confine, there are people I know who will probably pop to the top of the list before some others. Southampton Hospital as an example has always been our primary number one client before this all started when the previous CEO Bob Chandler and I went to church together in Syria Harbor and served on the vest he complained constantly about the fact that you can't get a young doctor to come out here on a doctor's salary and live and that's before co so it always planted in my brain that well my god a doctor can't live here well now of course we almost no one can

089live here. So, the ability of businesses in general, whether they are the most essential, including the town of East Hampton, which we would love to see, open up the opportunity for buying units so that Eric might have to move back to East Hampton. Hi, Eric. But, um, we all understand, we all understand the parameters of what's going on. So, again, one more filter in terms of the overall selection process. East Hampton businesses, essential workers, and then trying to use 47 units as best we can to satisfy as many people as we can. Now, as to how we got to where we are with the plot plan, um we've had well over a year to work with um our PE David Rhodess up in Sag Harbor to go through this whole idea of this new idea

090of 12 units per acre. To my knowledge, outside of the 1950s motel in East Hampton in Montalk that are 40 units to the acre, there's never been a 12 unit to the acre project design that is meant to be subject to current zoning. So, we actually started in the same fashion that you did, and I have a few copies here for you. We started with a row, okay, an arrangement that we thought that would make some sense that would be basically speaking buildings that would be in parallel fashion that would march from north to south from Montalk Highway to the top of the property and that we would then use of course as much space as we had for the parking. I I just want to make a note Kirby you know typically we don't

091accept things on the night but but I think frankly in this case you know this this will be submitted this is this is helpful for our conversation tonight so I think we should we should again this is a discarded idea because as you can see I think when you compare my when you compare this imperfect but far more residential way of using 12 units to the acre versus this. Here we have buildings on top of buildings on top of buildings with parking in between. It really feels more like a like a factory than it does a place at the mic. It feels more more industrial than I think this guy does here. Now, we got to this after about six of those guys you've got in front of you tweaking it here, tweaking it there,

092breaking up the buildings. We also went through all of the iterations about one story versus twotory. Now, I've lived in New York City where of course you have apartment on top of apartment and I've lived in town houses where you have neighbors to the side. We all felt that if we can find the right mix of square footage, that having units that are duplex with neighbors on the side, number one, eliminates the need for getting stairs up to the second floor and landings. Also, all of which take up floor space, which is very tight in a 12 unit per acre development. When you have to start setting aside an extra flight of stairs on either side of a building and then landings up across the top, all of a sudden the privacy of the occupants

093is being interrupted quite a bit. Also, if you have a second floor unit on a first floor unit, you're going to have a balcony up on that second floor, which means it's going to be over your patio down below, which means the people downstairs and the people upstairs are going to be conversing on top of one another. And if I want to have a barbecue on my little deck, well, I'm going to be barbecuing right through the top deck. So, the two versus the one, the duplex versus the singles, first of all, just felt like a much more comfortable living arrangement and also simplified the whole idea of access to apartments on the second floor. Um, it also helped us solve what comes down to a linear feat problem of how do you put these

094units together? By having duplexes, our footprints for the two bedrooms are only 400 square f feet. 400 in the first, four in the second. For our threebedrooms, 500 uh 600 ft on the first floor, 600 on the second. So we now, although we have more units, we're compact. And believe it or not, when you start to shave 5t here and 4T there and 3T there, all of a sudden you start to find other ways of doing things. Now, when it comes to the units in the center, to me, we had to put them somewhere. We didn't want to stack everything to one big continuous rake. We wanted to break up buildings. The way that it's set up in the center right now, I think, is going to be reversed so that there will be an

095entrance in the center into the units and the balconies will face in the opposite direction rather than looking at one another. I think. Now, also bear in mind that we have about a $400,000 landscaping budget set aside for this property, even though it is beautifully landscaped right now with trees that have been growing for 50 years since Stern shut down. However, we want to make sure that we give as much privacy and screening to all of these different road buildings both from the road as well as the interior so that we can make as residential a feel as we can of it. So, right now this solution of eight in the middle and the rest of the round seems to be after many tries to be an attractive functional arrangement. One caveat, by the way,

096we've just hired our septic experts and they have pointed out to us that we actually overestimated the size of the septic field. We're we set up a septic field here that's a 15,000galon per day septic field where we only have an 11,000 per day septic need. So, we're in the process right now of figuring out how we can condense the um the septic field in the corner, which means that we'll probably be able to open up that ring a bit more to eliminate the issues you've mentioned about there are a few places where a building does kind of look at a building, one unit does kind of look at a unit, but we feel that we can gain some space and move our little Legos around and make it an even more open feel to

097it. Um, you talk about three-bedroom units versus two-bedroom units. All of our surveys have shown that people prefer three-bedroom units if they can get them. Um, I have diagrams, but I know I can't give them to you. Um, the three-bedroom units are really residential. 600 square ft on the first floor. Nice size living room and dining room, half bath, three bedrooms upstairs, a full bath for a private suite, a split bath for two of the others. Really nice. They're going to feel like place places you live in, not just a motel that you check in for the night. Um, and again, our primary purpose is to suit the marketplace, and the marketplace has been telling us that more threes than twos. Of course, since the average size of units is based at 1,000 square ft

098with a maximum of 1,200, the only way you can get those three bedrooms is if you have two bedrooms. So therefore, you have to do a balancing act between those 800 foot twobs and those 1,200 ft² 3bedrooms so that you meet the mean of a,000 square ft for the overall coverage. Um, what else I have here? Um while you're thinking I see uh so obviously this is a schematic plan right that the engineer has pulled together and my presumption is that an architect will be hired at some point to Oh yeah of course I mean and so this will be this will be tweaked we're really looking just how and also bear in mind by the way we're building modularly now uh there are a lot of issues about how you put modular units together

099for the best efficiency most houses that you build if it's simple house is going to be two or four boxes that get put together. But when you start to do these types of uh things, you will have boxes that are common from one unit to the other. In other words, your first floor may be two or three boxes, but your top floor may be two or three units sharing a group of boxes. It's really quite an interesting thing to see our engineers at our um modular guys try to figure out the absolute best way of making this jigsaw puzzle work within the confines of the floor plans that we have. So they've done a fantastic job. They also have to worry about transporting these things from Pennsylvania, which is where they come from. So, you

100have a lot of limitations about what can you get over the George Washington Bridge to get here, how big are your flatbeds, how many boxes fit on a flatbed. Everything costs you money. And believe me, in this world where prices are just going up on everything, we need to make sure that we're as efficient as we can be on the big things. So, we spent a lot of time trying to fine-tune the footprint and then the units and then the site itself and make it feel when you walk in there that you're home, not just spending the night someplace where you're getting out the next day. Kirby, I'm going to stop you there. Um, I think it's very important to have your perspective on how this, you know, developed, you know, from this to that,

101right? Uh, I think we have a pretty good feeling for for what you've got in mind and and that's helpful to know about the mix of units and how that came to be. I think maybe what we'll do just the interest of time is have our discussion have you nearby so we can ask specific questions about that piece of it as we as we go around the room. We'll hear from everybody. But Jen, if you can start our conversation. Sure. Thank you Kirby. Thank you Chris. Thank you Eric. Um, I want to state first that I am very much in favor of a project like this and the questions I was asking before are more about the legalities of it and and kind of playing devil's advocate about you know how it's going to work

102um on a you know because this is the first one right um initially when I was looking at the application I was thinking that it did not make sense to me to have twotory units um but I do appreciate the explanation that you've given and I do agree that living in a you know twotory unit is probably preferable especially you know especially out here in Eastampton you do want to feel like it's your home um and if the if it can be shifted and the circle can be widened and more green space you know in the center you know all of that is good. Where are you thinking of putting the recreation area? Is that kind of all of the green? Well, the recreation area, I believe, largely is going to reside in the area

103that you see right now. That is to say, the central area in the middle. Now, as we move our septic field further, we'll be able to enlarge that more and maybe even have some dedicated recreational area over in that nature. That's the thing that right now is mostly on our drawing board to try to see how we can condense that area. And the only other thing we would use it for would be open space. There's no more structure that we need to add. Um I love the idea of the modulars. I think that's a great thing. Um I'm leaning, you know, in favor of of the board waving the um eight unit maximum to up to 12 units because I do feel as though this is it's such a necessary thing, especially if the hospital

104and the school district and the town are to buy some of the units. You know, my daughter works for the town and it would be lovely if she could afford her own um house. Well, one thing if I if I could interject, of course, that special permit is subject to our putting in the proper septic system. Absolutely. Yes, we will. The traffic study, our traffic study, which is ordered and should be ready in about doing it right after Fourth of July weekend. We're not trying to cherrypick numbers from December or something. And then the economic impact study, which uh Chris alluded to. Yeah. Um, basically what it shows is that right now the enrollment of East Hampton Schools is declining to the point where the class that walks out on Saturday is the last big

105class. Yeah. It's about 280 kids. 10 to 12 years from now, you're going to be down to about 170 kids. And that's without any subtractions from people who currently have children here who may, for one reason or the other find that they can't stay here. So there's no additions to the population that we can see that are organic. And in terms of what we're doing here, all of our estimates, which include all of the Eastampton housing estimates from their own projects, is that at maximum we might have 30 or 40 children who might be attracted here. Of course, they could be spread across 10 grades. M so if you're looking at the addition of five or six kids per class when you're losing 25% of your population over this time frame that shows at least

106us and Adam seems to feel comfortable with it. We're going to get to this though really as getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. Um yeah because we can't even really discuss I shouldn't have even brought that up. Um, I do think it would be great for us, you know, this is preliminary, so I think it would be important for us to have, you know, a real narrative kind of written out with the the reasons for us, you know, who you have kind of on the hook to purchase these units. Um, where you see it going, how you see it laid out. Um, I have so many notes here, but you answered so many of my questions already. parking is all of that parking do we know, Eric? Is all of the parking necessary for

107that many units? Is that It's It's basically right up to the uh parking requirement. I can zoom in on the calculations if uh if you want. That's okay. I'm just curious. I was wondering if we could, you know, you could do away with a couple of spaces here or there depending upon who's who's living there. But uh you know, all in all, I'm in favor of the preliminary site plan. I think there are details to be worked out and kinks to be worked out, but yeah, thanks. It's a it's a really exciting project. Thank you. Good. Thanks, Jen. So, we want to give everybody a chance to weigh in on the site plan. Um, so Reed, we'll start with you. All right. Um, so I drove back there the other night uh to check it

108out and it's hard to get a sense uh because the parking lot that's still there is um in disrepair. and you see all the uh trees and the coverage. So, it's hard to The first shot you had of the aerial I thought was very helpful. It just shows it is a rather large um piece of land. Um I I I think that this fills a critical um need in our community. Uh we have a a small local business. We have several employees that struggle with this very issue. And when you talk about recruitment and retention of staff, um it's just so hard to find affordable housing. Um so that's very appealing to me. I I would feel a lot more comfortable with it if there was like a covenant tucked into this that would make

109it, you know, available to just East Hampton residents and not open to everybody. Um, I understand you have to qualify and I understand that East Hampton businesses will presumably own these units. Um, but it would be nice to to kind of have that guarantee at least for me. Um, I I had one question and Chris you mentioned this. I think you said 130% of the fair market um uh income is 175 grand. Is that right? Right now currently. Okay. Yeah. Just current dollars. And then what what is the 130% of the fair market rent currently? Do you have an idea what that would be? Um well actually the numbers that we'll be using will be HUD established numbers for affordable house. I just want to know what the rent I'm just curious. Yeah what the

110rent is for the I I forget offhand. Um, for a twobedroom, I believe it's around 2,900, I think, was that limit, but I I could be off on that. I think, Eric, I think the two bedrooms for HUD right now are about 2400 and three bedrooms are about 34. Okay. And then just a couple other things. Um, I think the layout, it seems reasonable to me. I I think it's much better than the previous design you had uh shown us. Um I I will say that you do seem like you're kind of pressing the outer limits on what you can pack in there. Um you know 100 almost 100 parking spots and 47 uh units is is quite a bit to to pack onto that parcel. Um but um I'm not necessarily opposed to it.

111It just seems like a lot. But that's really all I had. Good. Thanks Reed. And our intention is however we can codify it is to make sure my whole idea was that if you do it on a private basis we get to discriminate in the sense of choosing who we get to get into these units as opposed to public projects where you put names in a barrel and you pull them out more or less. I mean not completely. So as somebody who's um lived here my whole life 1960 I'm an old guy real old guy. Um, I want to make sure that this is a legacy to the town of East Tampa and as much as we can control it, we'll control it within the legal law and our codes will be per in perpetuity,

112they will run with the condominium. They will be embellished in town law as well. And um I feel that as long as we stick to what we're doing, we'll make sure that it's East Hampton uh businesses that own them and East Hampton employees who live here. And hopefully maybe by having this as sort of a little economic incubator someday, somehow real affordable housing for them as individuals will be able to be developed. And by being in something they can afford now, perhaps they'll be able to position themselves for something further down the line. All right, great Bruce. Um, yeah, you guys answered a lot of the questions I had initially. Um, I think one of the first things I was really concerned about was the density. Um, so I'm still sort of wrapping my head

113around um the sheer amount of people building parking on um on this lot. Um the traffic study I think is going to be super important because you have to figure if this is workforce so in the morning mass exodus in the afternoon everybody's coming back and that's you know that's kind of a a sensitive area right there. Um, I think you know as you dial in your septic capacity and you're you're able to push that hopefully push that right wing maybe out and expand your your green area. I think that would be really beneficial to you. a little concerned about the the recreation space especially with those two interior buildings, right? Um and then the other the other question I have, so you have less than four acres, so you guys are rounding up, right?

11447 isn't the real number. So 3.9 by 12 is 46 in change. 48 49 but 46 it's 468ish. So you're rounding up. So rounding up is one extra unit which doesn't sound like a lot but you know it's not a parking spot right? It it's it's an actual unit. It's 800 ft². It's 1,200 ft². It's an extra three people potentially. It's three extra cars. So, I think that's that's something that just came to my mind when I did rough numbers and thinking about your layout. Um, other than that, I think it's a great concept. I really I really I think it's great. So, your wife does. Mr. Hansen, not much more to add, but I'll echo what something Reed said that the demand that we all know, the demand for workforce housing is just uh

115is so much greater than the supply. So, this is a a important thing. And I'm glad I asked about the physician because I wasn't even going to ask because I didn't even think that. But that is also just so important. And right, a physician may be in this unit for, you know, two, three years before she or he moves on somewhere else. Uh, I also like that the they'll be paying taxes into the system. That's great. Uh, I just wonder about uh seasonal employees if if they come comes in for just the season and then takes off, the owner still on the hook. Leases leases year lease. Can I just jump in two things? Chris. Yeah, the seasonal. Yeah, that's going to be the employer's problem. That's something they have to figure out. If they

116don't have a worker, if they're not a year- round business, you know, it's not uh rowdy hall, it's uh some business that's closes in the in the winter. They have to figure that out, but that's their problem. They are feeling and what the feedback we get is they're happy to have the unit for when they need it during the season. Going to the question about the physician, our original iteration of this, the legislation was to make it for uh income qualified people and essential workers, an exception for essential workers in case they went above in income. And that was the legislation that got stalled. I'm hopeful that maybe the town board would revisit that so that doctors, policemen, you know, you could conceivably go over the uh income limit if you had a married couple

117that are teachers, right? They could be making $300,000 between them, which would make them not qualified for this. And that doesn't seem to make sense because the concept was, you know, we want to provide workforce housing for income qualified people, but we also need essential workers. We need doctors, we need teachers, we need policemen who may be a certain level of seniority where their income wouldn't would be too much. So maybe in the future, essential workers will be added to the list. Any further any comments on the site plan or on uh the explanations from Kirby? We're good. Sorry, Eric. Right, Lou? Yeah. Uh, first of all, you know, I don't want to get into an adversarial position. I like the concept. I'm all for uh providing housing for the workforce. It's a dire need.

118I know a lot of people in business here in East Hampton and it's a, you know, it's something that they sweat about all the time. It's it's very important and it's and I agree that it's an essential need and I also appreciate the fact that private money is being used to provide that. I think that's great. I also appreciate all the work that you've done and taking uh Eric into the fold and you know working with him. I've talked to Eric about this project. A lot of work has gone on you know in a cooperative effort. So, I appreciate that. But, and it's not a problem that I have. It's just something that I think is important that we recognize that I think what we're doing is we're taking a section of the code that

119was written for affordable housing and we're trying to fit it into this workforce housing. And I believe there is some issues there. They I'm not saying they can't be worked out and I know you've worked on these issues for a long time but I still think that you know we we have to make sure in approving this project if we approve it that a lot of these issues or these mostly legal issues are worked out so that we don't fit you know a square peg into a round hole. Um like you know we all it's not necessary for all of us to mention how much workforce housing is needed. Okay we all love it. We all think it's great but we also have to you know remember that this kind of system this kind of

120uh organization of workforce housing can be subject to abuse as well. You know, you mentioned seasonal help. What if an employer decides to pack a two-bedroom apartment with six or eight people? I'm not saying, you know, it's it's possible, but these are the things that, you know, I'm thinking about. And the big the big issue that I have is that affordable housing overlay district properties are very scarce. you count them on one hand. And I think what's happening here, and I know that it's not up to us to determine that, you know, you you bought the property. You bought it fair and square. Uh it's your property. You want, you know, you should be able to do with it what you want. But I still want to mention that I think what's happening is we're

121taking away from affordable housing for moderate income community yearround residents and putting it in play for for a different type of resident. Someone that's more transient, someone that's not really part of the community. They may be here for a year or two. They may be here for less than a year and the owner has to uh you know provide a one-year lease, but may not need them to be here for that. So, it's a different demographic that's going into these these units. And again, that's not something that we could change. you own the property. But I think it's something that we should think about when we look at all the different legal uh aspects of of uh this project. [Music] May I say um and thank you for your comments. Um the model of a

122landlord and an employee is basically consistent with all affordable housing projects. Somebody has to own the units in which they reside. Whether it's the East Hampton Town Housing Authority or it's a com an amalgam of New York State and East Tampa, whatever it may be. The whole idea is that you can't put up a 30 or $40 million project without having someone of means be the landlord. In our case, we're making the landlords themselves put up the money to benefit themselves through this model. So that the workers who right now very honestly as you say there may be somebody right now who's living in some place I won't say where where there's more people than four in that house where maybe there's a couple of families living in individual rooms where maybe there's a basement

123or an attic or a garage that out of pure necessity is being habitated by somebody who deserves better. But what are the alternatives? we're trying to provide one. Um, and the second thing is that we're not trying to co-opt the idea of affordable housing. We're just taking a small sliver of what's necessary. When we had the lottery for the new um, uh, units on ThreeM Harbor, there were 593 people looking for 40 units. There could have been 5,000 if you'd left the thing open long enough. Point of the matter is that I think what it's not your province, it's not our province, but I think there must have to be some other types of thinking about how affordable housing gets done in this town as much as what we've been able to take by a

124single property slice. I think ownership should be a part of affordable housing, not just rental, because you're always going to be behind the eightball when you're renting. You're throwing your money out that you should be saving for something else. I think that more opportunities need to be found throughout the town where land is appropriate for it might be able to be used for it because it all comes down to land. We were able to grab this largely because I saw a gentleman speak to you in December of uh 2024 23 where you told the applicant, "Why isn't the town buying this piece of property to do something with?" I said, "Hey, that's a good idea, but it's the only one. It's the unicorn." Yeah. Okay. Well, look, just to finish up. So, my only point

125is this. I understand your concerns and we're addressing a specific thing using the model of landlord employee with all the caveats that can protect them and I hope there'll be some of their opportunities both to do this and also maybe perhaps if we all could compare notes maybe some other ways where that big burden of affordable housing could be addressed through the private sector public sector something. Yeah. Well, we there's a lot more discussion that we'll be having. Yeah, I'll just finish up real quick. Yeah, just, you know, one last point on the legality. I I think what really needs to be done is that a new code section needs to be written that fits this type of project because there's a lot of issues that I think were sort of circumventing and skinning by

126that may become problematic and should be addressed. And lastly, just on the uh scale of the project, uh my intuitive sense is in agreement with what Bruce was saying. You know, I think the scale is really intrusive and obtrusive in that area in that 4 acre lot. Uh and Bruce explained it much more uh clearly than I could and much more professionally. But that's my my intuitive sense about the scale of the project. It's I think it's really it's going to be very very intrusive in that area. Okay. All right. Thanks, Luke. Um, so my opinion, um, I I think this is a I I support this project wholeheartedly. I re I think that the whole idea of private money coming into the to help us solve the affordability affordable housing problem is really, you

127know, genius. And if you guys can make this work and provide a model for others, I think we're really on to something. I mean, as Lou pointed out, and others maybe have said this, too, we we don't have nearly enough uh space in town allocated for affordable housing, right? And I'm I'm sort of hopeful that as time goes on and if projects like this prove to be successful that we can locate and reszone other pieces of land for this for this purpose. I think there are a few places around town that come to mind immediately that could easily be be reszoned. So I think as a as a general concept here I think it's very exciting and you know an incredibly interesting model for the future. All of the points that have been raised though

128about how we sort of shoeorn this into code and all of all of those concerns which are real do absolutely need to be addressed as time goes on. I think that it's, you know, obviously someone has to make some money on this thing to make it feasible. And I I would just intuitively feel I feel that you probably couldn't do this with fewer units on this site, right? Um I would rather see this than three more mega houses, you know, which is what this is going to be. Other you own it. You could if we say no, that's what's going to happen. That's you're already set for that, right? Um, it is a lot though to squeeze onto the slot. I don't think you have a whole lot of options in terms of how to

129lay out the slot. I think this basic idea is probably the right one. U, but this is going to take a, you know, a crafty architect, I think, uh, working with your modular builder to really figure out how to how to lessen the impact of of this because it is a lot. There's no question about that. Um, you know, I do, you know, I do I I am inclined if the, you know, if the septic system and the traffic study and the economic study and so on come back, uh, as we hope that they will, you know, not to get ahead of ourselves here, but it feels to me like increasing density on this would would have to be would have to be something that that would take place or this wouldn't be economically feasible,

130I'm guessing. You know, but we'll we'll get to that as time goes on. Um, so yeah, I don't I don't have any significant comments about about the site plan. I think this probably is is good. I like the townhouse idea actually as opposed to up and down. Um, so yeah, support the project. All right, so we have some uh questions that we have to discuss to come to some kind of consensus. I'm not sure we're going to have complete consensus on all these points at this stage of the game, but I think you've gotten a lot of feedback from everyone around the table. Um, do we have any specific comments regarding the proposed general design and layout of the site, including buffers, buildings, parking, and access? I think you've heard a lot about all of

131those things. I don't think we need to go through all of this in great detail, but some of the things that were suggested here as things we might want to come to consensus about are should a 40 foot wide scenic easement be situated at the front of the property um or some other alternate means of screening from the road. Yeah. Do we all kind of agree that there should be something? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Is this circular design acceptable or would we prefer a different general layout? I like the circular. Yeah, I think it's I think it's this is a good one, right? I think What do you think? And this is the engineers layout. This is not the architect's the engineers site plan. Yeah, it's going to look it's going to look different. Yeah, right.

132Architect. Yeah, we hope so. Are we feeling there should be a reduction in the number of units, size of units, number of stories, and or bedroom me number of bedrooms in some units? I don't think it's okay. I think we're good. Should any of the units or buildings be relocated such as the eight units at the middle of the site, 11 units parallel to the road to Mont to Pano Road, Mont Highway, or the units that face the sides of other units that's been addressed? Yeah, I think that's been addressed. I think you know as this design gets refined, we're going to we're going to see some differences there, right? And that you know that these are issues. It'll get better. It'll get better. Yeah. Right. Um, should one uninterrupted recreation area be illustrated on

133a site? Yes, it would be useful to have that right as we go forward. Does the board agree with the planning department that all the information and plan plans listed above information and plans for formal site plan application should be provided upon formal site plan special permit application. you know, we didn't discuss all of them, but obviously all those, you know, criterion are are in this and Eric's document. Does the board wish to wave any of them or acquire any additional items at this point? I trust Eric that it's it is what it is. I trust Eric's judgment on that. Yeah. Okay. Um, does the board agree with Let's see. Wait a minute. Does the board require any additional information to determine if the ownership and/or management structure proposed is compliant with the town code

134other than the submission of the aforementioned legal documents and review of those documents and the code by the town attorney's office. You know, I think you you've heard a lot of questions about about that that still are floating around out there. So obviously we do need to to address those with whatever additional information there is or whatever progress you made and you know working with the town on on those issues between now and and the time you come back with the formal everyone agree on that. Yeah. Yeah. Um so that's where we are. That's where we are. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much. All right. [Music] Eric, are you still with us? I'm here. All right. Okay. I think he's up to knowing. Okay. Um All right. We have another

135one more thing on our agenda, which is to talk about affordable multiple res residences as a proposed new use. Finally, um Eric has a brief presentation on this subject and take it away, Eric. Okay, so um I'll I'll walk you through this um fairly quickly. Uh and this is a present uh PowerPoint presentation that was presented to the town board in early March. Um, so you know, as everybody knows, the town board's been looking at, and we talked about them in that previous application, some code changes to facilitate the creation of more affordable housing, including um changing the density requirements. Um, one thing that came up was the fact that the the affordable housing development special permit standards have have a limitation where you can't have a property of less than three acres if you're

136doing an affordable housing development. Um so you know it was brought up that there are currently five properties uh that have the AHO designation but which are too small for an affordable housing development and there isn't another mechanism in the code for development of those lots. So we started looking at that with um these goals which one is creating a mechanism to develop um uh lots that are less than three acres with affordable housing and again there was a conversation about simply reducing the minimum lot area requirement for an affordable housing development. However, um again you know uh the affordable housing development is variously 8 units per acre, 12 units per acre. that's not going to make sense on smaller properties where you have the the um constraints of of a smaller lot. We also

137need to make sure that we're coordinating um you know whatever use we create or option on those smaller properties with applicable you know uh requirements of other agencies mainly the health department. Um, and then really what we wanted to do was try to create something that wouldn't just apply to those five lots that are sub 3 acres and have the AHO designation, but also create something that could be used on other properties if the AHO is expanded throughout the town. So, the affordable multiple residence is a use um and you can see the definition there on the screen. Um, obviously a working um working definition. Um I should have mentioned before too the town boards reviewed this idea twice generally have um support for it obviously with any new use um you know everything is

138in the details. Uh and this is in front of you tonight to to send comments to the town board because hopefully uh they can review this again soon. Um so sorry for that aside but this is basically in a way you can look at this as a mini affordable housing development. um smaller lots uh and permitting less density. Um it would only be permitted in the AHO um and it would uh allow us to develop lots of less than 3 acres and it would allow private owners to convert an existing single family residence to a multiple residence or build a new multiple residence on eligible properties. So, here are really some of the the most important kind of bullet point breakdowns of what we're looking to do and what the use is. Um, so basically

139the AHO, uh, you have a property that's AHO less than 3 acres. Let's say it has it's vacant or it has an existing residence. You could build a multiple residence. So meaning multi- you know multif family dwelling multiple units in it um either new or convert an existing single family residence again only allowed in the AHO would would require uh site plan and special permit approval from the planning board. This is meant this is envisioned as lots that will be in private ownership and that will be rentals. Um we would pro uh prohibit condos or co-ops. Um the next bullet point you see here which is uh tenants must be residents. That's something hold that thought. I'll get to that in the end. As this is crafted right now there would be a residency requirement

140meaning that the people that live in the units would have to live or work in the town of East Hampton. Again, you know, it would have to um conform to all of the uh requirements of affordable housing. So meaning 130% of median income would be the limit for the tenants and the maximum rent that could be charged would be 130% of fair market rent. They would have to file legal documents, covenants and restrictions over the property to ensure that that exists in perpetuity. And they would also be required to have an annual permit from housing. Um so at least as far as some of the dimensional requirements, multi-unit buildings, a maximum of four units per building. Um the minimum lot area would be 20,000 square feet. You wouldn't be allowed to do this on, you

141know, in quote substandard lots. That matches what the minimum lot area would be to get health department approval in in any situation. The maximum density is proposed at four units per acre. So basically a third of what an affordable housing development could be permitted right now. Um you'd have a maximum of 12 units on any lot. You can see I have some maximum number of people per bedroom, maximum number of bedrooms per unit. The zone the dimensional regulations would be based on the underlying zoning district. So basically all the rules that would apply if you were developing the property as a single family residence would apply. All of those setbacks, all the GFA um requirements. Um and then the there's a parking uh specific parking requirement. I should mention that those dimensional requirements basically lead

142you to something that would look very much like the manor house project on Akabonic Road that we talked about in the previous application which is 12 units um three four unit buildings um and on a property that in that case is just over 3 acres but you know the maximum size of one of these affordable multiple residence uses would look a lot like the manor house development based on those dimensional regulations. So just very quickly, uh I said previously there are five properties right now that have the AHO designation or less than 3 acres. Um most of them, one of them is right next door. Um 100 Panagu uh 100 Panigo Place, which is um Goldbergs and uh that that small shopping center. Um the Eastampton Healthcare Center next door to town hall there. Um

143really all of those five are not don't really have any development potential except for the one that's pictured in this aerial photograph um which is a uh church property in downtown Montalk. So I went through the exercise of crunching the numbers of what the number of units you would get on each one of those sites would be at four units per acre. You can see that in the sort of middle column there. Um on the far right is what you would anticipate as far as generated vehicular trips in sort of the worst case scenario. But really what and then if you look on the rows here the middle the middle property there 67 South Essex in Montalk that's really the only property right now that there's a legitimate development potential to add something. In theory

144they could do seven units on that property. um and the traffic generated would um really actually probably be less than some of the commercial uses that are otherwise permitted on that property. So um one other thing I wanted to mention, this isn't really for the planning board, it's more for the town board. Um but we would hope to see the AHO expanded in the future if this use is adopted um and expanded onto smaller properties, meaning ones less than 3 acres. It's something that's called for in the comprehensive plan. the Hamlet report and that picture that you see in the inset is taken directly from the Hamlet report. Um the community housing fund project plan and the community housing board um are all you know things that that have called for some type of mechanism

145for multif family housing in the town of East Hampton. Um so just giving you a little bit of the benefits here of this. It would result in additional affordable rental units. It could provide legal house uh workforce housing created by the private sector including local businesses. Again, this is a model where it's envisioned someone would just own uh a residential property. It would be given the AHO. They would become the landlord. They would be required to rent the property. They would have to rent it to individuals that income qualify. Um you know, interesting point here is that this does somewhat mirror the real estate trends in town. All of the legally, so again, you know, most of almost all of the zoning in the town of East Hampton is single family residential. All of the

146legally pre-exist, well, not all of them, but many of the legally pre-existing multifamily residences were bought a while ago by local businesses so that they could house their their work staff. So, we're envisioning something that is a mechanism mechanism in the code that is mirroring what you know the economy and and what the the real estate trends are in the town in in sort of in real life. Um, less intensive than a full-scale affordable housing development. Um, again, limited only to the AHO and as we sit here today, there's really only one property that could do anything with this. Our hope would be that the AHO would be expanded um you know and that this use um would be a ver a viable option on those properties. So I'll give you the um slide here

147which is next steps. We're this again was a PowerPoint that was prepared for the town board. We're essentially at that third bullet point which is referring it to the planning board for comments. Um I understand that you might need more information on this. I did prepare a memorandum um for the planning board uh that asks you those questions sort of you know what are your comments to the town board? Do you need additional information? Um two things that I also wanted to touch upon with this. This is very much featured in the the memo that I I sent to you um but it wasn't in that PowerPoint presentation is the town code actually does right now have a use that is essentially this use but with almost no dimensional uh restrictions no affordability requirement and

148it is not um certainly restricted to the AHO. It's basically permitted in every single uh zoning district including residential zoning districts. It's known as this is a uh brevity is done on the side of this use. It's called change of existing single family residence to two family or other multiple residents. Um so again it's a use that I think most people don't know exists in the code otherwise you'd be getting applications for them. But basically, almost any residential property, it's permitted through a special permit in almost every single zoning district, um could come to the planning board and if they get a special permit, could build a 2unit, 3unit or 4unit, um multiple residents on properties of 20,000 ft², 30,000 ft², and 40,000 ft uh respectively. So 20,000 for two units, 30 for three. Um

149and it has no affordability requirements. um and basically no dimensional requirements. So I view um the affordable multiple residence uh as something that is very much commensurate with the use that exists in the code but with needed guidelines and restrictions and which will um provide affordable housing in the town. So, I wanted to let you know that because regardless of whether or not this use is adopted and replaces that that old use, I'll call it, or if that old use is revised or or removed from the code, um that is hanging out there um as sort of an alternative option uh to people as we sit here today. The other thing I just wanted to touch upon um because it came up um was sort of brought to my attention um by the town attorney's

150office after I had written that memo is just that um worked into the the provisions here as a residency requirement. It largely mirrors what the community housing fund residency requirement is, which is uh a family that currently lives uh in the town of East Hampton, has within the five uh last five years, or someone who currently works within the town of East Hampton. Um that might be difficult to enforce. I think that's something that's going to have to be talked about um by the town board the next time this comes in front of them. uh because this will be sort of a new uh wrinkle for them too. Um but you should probably discuss that aspect of this as well uh for specific comments to the town board. Um whether or not you feel that

151there must be a residency requirement. My thought on it is that as long as someone income qualifies uh and you know is someone in need who needs a unit and as long as they're not being charged over the the rent that's deemed an affordable rent that um that there you know the need for there isn't 100% of a need for a residency requirement. Um but so basically that's my summary. This is the idea of um creating a new use in the town code that will allow us to utilize smaller properties that are are in the affordable housing overlay district um and um add some requirements of affordability and dimensional regulations to them that you know um prevent them from being ownorous on surrounding properties. So, um, with that, I I leave it to the planning

152board and and again, really, this is in front of you to consider what you know, what's been presented to you, um, and offer comments to the town board about it. Thanks very much, Eric. So, if I understand this correctly, you know, the uh, this basically applies to one parcel in town at the moment, right? There's only, you know, the the the core idea of this is really only applicable to one one parcel of its AHO designated at the moment. Did I get that right? Yeah. I mean, technically, I guess if you wanted to phrase it, it's it would be since it's permitted in the AHO, it would be allowed on the any of the I think really at the end of the day, it's about 30 properties that that uh or excuse me, 25 I

153think that have the AHO designation, but obviously a lot that's three acres or more is going to do an affordable housing development where you can get 12 units per acre. They're not going to do a use that's only four units per acre. So, it's really only those five that are less than 3 acres right now because they can't build an affordable housing development. And then of those five, there's really only one that realistically you would look at and say is, you know, even a candidate for this. And keep in mind that property too actually already has existing um improvements on it. So, they wouldn't be able to get the full yield because there's already a generated sanitary flow. Really, what I want is for this use to be adopted and the AHO to be expanded.

154Um, again as directed by without that I mean it's it's nice it's great but without expanding the AHO there's really nothing to it. But you have to but explain to me again the last bit. Maybe I was blanking out here but did you say that anyone with 20 30 or 40,000 square foot lots who has a single family residence currently can create a multif family? Yes. Multiple residents rather. That's in the code. That is in the code. Yeah. Yeah, if you look at the use table, um changing a single family residence to a multiple residence is is allowed by special permit in B residence, A residents, A2 residents, A3 residence. Um I think it's actually every zoning district except for waterfront and um one other commercial one. I believe that that was meant to be

155struck from the code in 2007. Um when we revised it to have the provisions for uh accessory dwelling units, ADUs, I couldn't find anything to that effect. There's nothing on the record as far as um in the town board resolution findings of facts that that code change didn't include striking this section of the code. Um so it's in there as we sit here today. Are there special per is there a special permit that you would need to abide by if you want to take advantage of that code section? Um well it doesn't matter because both of them but either the existing code section or this one that I'm proposing the existing special Yeah. Um yeah they would need a special permit. They would need to come to you guys to the planning board. Um but

156actually um just for since I I have it up here um hopefully you can see this I have uh from the memo um that these are the specific special permit standards for that use. If you look at them you will see that they are not overly restricted. That's interesting. Basically says uh you can convert a building or build a new one. There shall be no subdivision. Uh and then it says um the well there's actually provision in there about ex executing an easement where if it reverts back so that it can revert back to a single family residence. But really the more important things are point um five there which says uh no uh change to a multiple residence um shall be granted um unless the lot is at least uh or to three apartments

157unless it's 30,000 ft². no change to to four apartments unless it's 40,000 ft. So basically there's there's not too much restrictive in there. There's nothing that says it has to be affordable. Um there's nothing that gives any special dimensional regulations. Um you know it's a pretty open open book. All right, Eric, when are we expected to make formal comments? Not tonight, I presume, right? Are we we were able to ask additional questions and take time to absorb this? When do we when do we have to do that like formal time? You're not under any specific timeline. Uh I tried to phrase those questions in the memo to sort of guide you along, but uh I totally understand it if you um don't feel confident in sending comments um you know just after this meeting and

158I know it's late um you know in the meeting. So I would think it's an important it's an important concept. It's late. We've been through a lot tonight, right? Um, you know, I I don't feel comfortable particularly making formal comments to the town board. That's what matters. What do you think? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I am. Yeah, it's true. No, I agree. I agree. Yeah. I think uh we we need a little bit of time to think about this. Um should we go through the consensus questions though? I mean, I think maybe they're broad enough. Does the board find the draft code provisions acceptable or are there any other specific pro provisions need to be added, amended, or removed? So, that is definitely something we need to talk to. Yeah. Do we need additional information

159regarding this proposed new use before sending formal comments? I think we might. Um, we need to sort of formulate what that is. Agreed. Yeah. Does the planning board support the creation of this new use and what specific comments would the planning board like to send? Okay. Well, I think we I think we generally support it. Uh, and I think we need to figure out what our comments are. So, we we will take this up again. Eric, I have a question for you. Yeah. Eric, what what are the guidelines that the town board uses to uh allocate certain areas as affordable housing overlay for this for this new use? So, it is um detailed actually in the comprehensive plan. Uh they're not there's not a ton of them. Um but I know there aren't a ton

160of them existing, but when they want to create new ones. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, I meant um there's not a ton of um specific sort of codified uh criteria for a site to meet um to be eligible to to be uh to have the AHO added. It's um uh public water uh adjacency to um uh uh goods and services um close to public transportation um that the lot is of adequate dimensions and and you know size and shape uh to to handle an affordable housing development. Um, so you know it usually those are the things that that we focus on when a a property is going to be you know newly given the the AHO designation. The reason I'm asking is is there any reason for residents of East Hampton to worry that all of

161a sudden their next door neighbors are going to have two and three and four multiple unit housing houses go up next to them. I would say that uh technically right now under the code uh they can um and this use would be only limited to the AHO. Yeah, I'm thinking of in the future for AHO purposes. Yeah. I mean that's the um the first of all the fact that uh you know there's only a limited number of properties now um and the town board would have to make that designation on a specific property. I certainly don't think there's any um going to be any effort to do this uh you know an expansive townwide um increase in AHL properties. And anytime the town board does give that designation to a new property, it has to

162be noticed. There has to be a public hearing. There has to be an environmental assessment of the impacts of adding that AHO. Um those neighbors would be notified directly. uh as well as a notice requirement for you know a general notice requirement for a public hearing. So um you know first of you know you were the board was even saying you know the sort of step one is creating the use step two is expanding the ahos um there would need to be a public hearing and environmental review and will be um by the town board for adding this use there would need to be one uh every for every property and every time that the AHO is expanded uh and all of that would be done through a public process. So, um, you know, it's

163not as if you created this use and then tomorrow your neighbor can do it. Your neighbor has to be reszoned. Um, they have to meet the criteria. They have to come in front of this board and obtain a special permit. Um, there's plenty of safeguards there. Let's handle it this way. If we don't if you all agree, let's take take the time to really, you know, go through your memo carefully individually and maybe what we can do is formulate questions if we have them to to have you address, you know, next time. And Jody, can you uh aggregate people's questions on this subject and then we can pass them on to Eric. Jim, what do you think of that? I think that's a good idea. Okay. Thanks, Eric, so much. Interesting. Very interesting. Um, all

164right. Just two quick other things. Bruce, do you want to read in Scoville Hall? Absolutely. In the matter of the application of Scoville Hall terrace and generator well site plan uh Suffach County Suffach County Tax Map number 300-171-5-2. This is this is a site plan approval. I have read the findings and determination and move for it approval. Second. All in favor? I I That looks like it's unanimous to me. All right. Great. Thank you. And the the minutes. How about the minutes? I I looked at them, guys. They looked good to me. There was one change. Uh the number one uh halfway down in the paragraph, uh consider removing space. I I think you meant spaces 94, right? That's all I saw. Yeah. All right. Okay. Do you want to go for adoption as amended?

165I I recommend. All right. I I move for the adoption of the minutes as as amended. Second. All in favor? All right. One more resolution. One more motion. You're going to make a motion. I'm going to make Okay. To adjourn. All right. Only favor.