East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 06/04/2025

001Yeah, I thought she's got this. All right, planning board. We are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. Evening everybody. Uh, welcome to the planning board meeting of the town of East Hampton for June 4th, 2025. We have uh six items on for our work session and about four or five others for our regular meeting. U so we have a fairly ambitious agenda. We'll jump right into it. The first site plan review is Estee Restaurant aka Surf Rider. Ava, that's yours. Will for the planning department. And I see the applicant is with us. So Will, take it away. All right. Uh good evening board. Um, so this is our second review of an application that was made seeking approval for a proposed restaurant, shed, decks, and parking on a site

002located on the southwest corner of Montalk Highway and South Emory Street in Montalk. Currently, the site consists of two separate properties which are proposed to be merged as part of this application. Combined, the subject property will be 22,138 ft in size. The site is located within the central business zoning district and is considered to be 100% cleared of natural vegetation for town records. Currently, the sites are improved with a cottage with deck, sheds, botchi court, wood fencing, pool patio, and concrete swimming pool. The pool and other existing structures are are accessory to the adjacent Sands Hotel located directly to the south of the subject properties. Following the review of the planning board on March 5th, 2025, the planning board issued written comments to the applicant regarding it remaining issues. First, the board requested the applicant

003provide a short environmental assessment form part one, which the applicant provided. The submitted SEAF Part One and Mapper summary report indicate the site may be home to endangered northern long-eared bats, which the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has specific protection recommendations for. Without any forest habitat occurring on either subject property, it is unlikely the development of this project will have any negative effects on the northern long-eared bat habitat. Second, the board requested the applicant submit a narrative outlining bar usage, hours of operation, and number of employees. The applicant submitted a narrative indicating no bar seating will be available. The maximum number of employees for the restaurant will be seven at any given time and the restaurant will be open from breakfast to dinner. The planning department finds these responses appropriate. Although no exact

004hours were specified, the applicant has stated the restaurant will be open for most of the day. Third, the board requested the applicant expand the drive aisle in the western parking area and the applicant submitted a revised site plan indicating the drive aisle in the western parking area will range in width from 29.1 ft to 24 ft. The town code requires a minimum drive aisle of 24 ft for 90° parking spaces and the applicant has provided that space which the planning department recommends is appropriate. Next, the board requested the applicant adjust the parking spaces in the eastern parking area to lie completely within the subject property. The applicant submitted a revised site plan showing the eastern parking area and spaces have been repositioned to be entirely within the subject property. The revised site the revised site

005plan depicts the parking spaces of the eastern parking area to be located entirely within the subject property, which the planning department recommends is acceptable. Next, the board requested the applicant provide the dimensions of the parking spaces in the eastern parking area, which the applicant identified on their revised site plan. The applicant has appropriately provided the sizes of these parking spaces. Next, the board requested the applicant submit septic system details to include profile drawings and calculation details, which the applicant submitted. The town consulting engineer found the submitted information insufficient and requested drainage designs be provided for the entire site including work within adjacent road right away areas. The engineer also noted the design calculations and specifications for storm water improvements were not provided and proposed grades and contours should be provided for the parking area adjacent

006to South Emory Street. The engineer requested design grades be shown be provided for the trench drain along South Emory Street and the great elevation for the northerly drainage manhole should be lowered. Next, the board requested the applicant clarify the calculations used for the second floor seating. In determining in determining the project density loading, the applicants utilize the standard figure of 10 gallons per day for the indoor seats require required by the Suffach County Department of Health Services for a restaurant, but utilized five gallons per day for the seats on the outdoor seconds story deck, which appears to be the figure required by the Department of Health Services for outside P patio dining. Provided these figures are acceptable to the department of health services, the planning department does not have any objections. However, both the board

007and the applicants should note that if the department of health services requires a calculation based on assumed generated sanity sanitary flow of 10 gallons per day for all seats indoor and outdoor, it will reduce the number of restaurant seats permitted on the property. The applicants are encouraged to contact the Department of Health Services with regards to this issue as soon as possible. Next, the board requested the applicant submit drainage structure details and calculations for the parking areas, which the applicant included in their septic site plan package. The town consulting engineer has indicated the sanitary improvements will require approval from the Department of Health Services. The board also requested the applicant submit details regarding storm water maintenance and drainage, which is included in the septic site plan package. The town consulting engineer has requested the applicant

008submit more information and make adjustments to the septic site plan package. The board also requested the applicant minimize light spill over property lines and specify lighting temperatures for the chosen fixtures. And the applicant included this information in their lighting photometrics plan. In the submitted plan, the applicant has stated has specified no lighting fixture will have a temperature greater than 3,000° Kelvin. Some light spill may occur over the property lines as depicted in the photoometrics plan and the planning board should discuss if this spill is appropriate or if the applicant should revise their lighting plan to further eliminate lighting spill. On their lighting plan, the lighting spill is only shown over the southern property line which is into the alley which faces the um Surf Rider Hotel which is owned by the same group currently. Next,

009the board requested the applicant provide a landscaping plan which was submitted detailing the amount, types, spacing, and locations of the proposed landings. The provided plan evergreen hedge screening along the northern and southern property lines as well as inkberry evergreen screening trees at the western border of the eastern parking area. The board should discuss if this amount of screening is acceptable for the proposed use of the site. Next, the board requested the applicant submit dimensions between the proposed buildings and structures. The applicant submitted a revised site plan with greater details. No dimensions between the proposed buildings and structures were provided in this resubmission and the board should discuss whether it wishes to wave this requirement or if the applicant should provide this information in their next submission. Next, the board requested the applicant submit details regarding

010the proposed parking circulation pattern and revised plans were submitted detailing the parking areas. The planning department notes spaces number nine and 14 and potentially other spaces in the western parking area. Those faces are the southernmost in this parking area here and here may need to be removed to provide a proper turnaround area at the terminus of the western parking lot. The board requested the applicant submit materials of the proposed structures and the new submitted elevations include those proposed materials. The materials proposed for the exterior of their new restaurant include Hardy Plank horizontal artisan sighting with the color to match the adjacent hotel, 4-in Hardy Plank trim boards or 4-in Azac trim with the color to match the adjacent hotel Marvin elevate doors and windows and a metal standing seam roof with the color to match

011the adjacent hotel. Finally, the board requested the applicant address the planning board's concern regarding depth to groundwater issues for both the building and sanitary system. And the applicant submitted testful data indicating groundwater was encountered at 2.8 ft below ground and the highest expected groundwater elevation is 3.8 ft below ground for the USGS Long Island depth to water and hydraologic conditions. We were in 2010. The town code requires a minimum separation of two feet between structures and groundwater and this is shown on the submitted site plan septic plans. In addition to the previously mentioned requests, the count consulting engineer has requested the applicant make the following changes. One, both cap tax map parcel numbers should be annotated on the site plan drawing. Two, there appears to be existing at grade and buried improvements on the site

012that would need to be removed. The removals and demolition work associated with the proposed application should be annotated on the site plan drawings. Three, a highway work permit would be required from the New York State Department of Transportation in connection with the proposed improvements required by relocating the driveway/curbcut along Highway. Four, a highway work permit would be required from the superintendent of highways for work required within the road rightway of South Emory Street and the on-site adjacent perpendicular parking stalls. A turn drain is proposed along the property line of South Emory Street which would involve construction activity and restoration within the road right away. The applicant should provide the above information and make the requested changes in order for a full engineering review of the proposed project to occur. The planning department has reviewed the

013necessary elements of site plan and notes the dimensions between all proposed buildings and structures while missing from the applicant submission are not relevant to the review of the proposed project and need not be provided and the planning board should discuss if it agrees. In conclusion, the applicant should provide the estimated hours of restaurant operation, submit drainage details for the entire site, including work and adjacent road rightways. Provide the design calculations and specifications for storm water improvements. Submit grades and contours for the parking area adjacent to South Emory Street. Lower the great elevation of the northerly drainage manhole. Add both tax numbers to the site plan drawing. Annotate structures to be removed and demolished on the site plan. And obtain highway work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation and the East Hampton Superintendent

014of Highways. The board should discuss whether it wishes the applicant to reduce the amount of light spill over the property lines and if waving the requirement of finished floor elevations and dimensions between buildings is appropriate. The planning department recommends the planning board request lead agency status on this project for secret review. Thank you very much, Will. Very thorough. Does the applicant wish to be heard? For the record, Lori. Yes. Lori Wilshire for land planning services representing Estee Restaurant and Marley Dominguez is here with um so yeah, we've uh gone over this as a team. We have some minor revisions to make on these plans which we intend to do very quickly and get them into you very quickly. Um the one thing that uh we don't think needs to be addressed is a light spill

015issue because that is literally spilling onto an unopen alley behind the restaurant which also illuminates the pathway for the people coming from the hotel to the restaurant in at night which is probably a safe factor. It's not going to have any effect on any other property own um there'll be no outdoor seats at all. I mean not outdoor seats, bar seats. Sorry. Outdoor or any bar seats. Uh and everything else is going to be addressed in a resubmission. You want to add that's the main stuff. Oh, I name our ladies and um the hours of operation. I know that was the other one. Um the honest answer is we're not sure exactly. Well, we'll probably open around 7 a.m. We're not sure when we'll close in the evenings. It might be a phase close. The

016outdoor areas will close earlier in the evening. We don't want outdoor noise now for our hotel guests that are close. Um, this is not there's no chance it's going to be like a 2 a.m. type of place by any means. We'll probably make it more like 10 p.m. Um uh but I wasn't sure if I submitted something that that was like I didn't want to make false promises, but what I can tell you is it's not like a 2 a.m. type thing. It's more like a 10 p.m. type of thing. But is that 9? Is it 11? I'm not totally sure. But um we see this more as a till sunset type of um location mainly. Particularly the roof. Um, and then the interior kind of a TVD. So, I think you were just looking

017for guidelines on that. So, it's Yeah, I I think I Yeah, I sent this to Lori. I'm not sure if they made it in, but yeah. Right. It's It's not our purview to dictate your exact business hours, but till sunset or slightly beyond is probably a decent answer, but I'll let Ava talk about that. Thank you. Welcome. And thank you, Lori, and thank you, Mr. Dominguez. Um actually your narrative I did read which was very thorough and you do have anticipated hours of operation on here so I think we can probably include that in the record. Um so unless it changes but it's exactly what you just cited. Um you guys came back with with a lot of things checked off. Uh obviously there's some work to be done still with the uh septic calculations

018and you know the feedback from the town consulting engineer. Um the seating the the um the calculation used for the second floor seating I know that came up last time as well. Um I I think that certainly as the recommendation from the planning board to work with the subcount uh department of health services to obviously clarify that. I would think that that will have some type of that may that may impact the septic. We we brought um TF engineering just gonna speak. I won't speak for David, but we brought TF Engineering here on the um on the seating. Well, I should probably let him speak. It's way above my pay grade. I don't want to interrupt you. Is it okay to No, just give your name. Yeah. Uh David Rhodess with TF Engineering. Uh we

019I just want to cover a couple of items as far as the indoor outdoor seating. There is no difference from the county standpoint whether it's an upstairs deck outside or a patio outside deck. It's just is it indoor or is it outdoor? And if it's indoor, it's 10 gallons per day. If it's outdoor exposed to the elements, then it's five gallons per day. And this is something we've done with Suffach County numerous times. And I don't see any difference that this going to go through. The rationale for that. I'm just curious. Well, the rationale is that in inclement weather, you're not going to be filling those seats, right? So you they're only going to be filled part of the time. During the rain, during the cold spells, you're not going to have people out there.

020Yeah. And a second item I'd like to mention, there was a lot of comments on drainage here. Later on in comment nine, Vinnie acknowledged he found the drainage calculations. They were on the septic. We're going to reformat them so they're easier to find, but they were there. They just uh they didn't find until they reviewed the septic site plan and then they found the the drainage calculations. Um [Music] [Applause] And I think on on item number seven, I think that should have some a little bit of clarification. It says that two foot of separation and groundwater uh should be present for all proposed structures. That technically should say leeching structures. When it comes to septic uh solid structures do not need to be two foot of separation provided they have proper anti-boyancy measures. So, um

021I think that's all. Oh, and one other thing is that we did talk to the uh superintendent today and what they led us to believe is that with the little amount of work we're doing between the edge of the payment and the property line, they did not feel that a permit is required from them, but we'll clarify that. So, that was the town super super Steve Lynch. Yeah. Well, it was his deputy. Oh, okay. All right. It was Steve Lynch's deputy that uh that respon that had told us that today. So that's what we're going to proceed based on that that is not required based on him. We'd like to hear from him on that. Yeah. Yeah. That's fine. And then as far as uh drainage, we're actually, you know, the on-site drainage runs into

022the road now. We're cutting the drainage off on the property. So we're actually decreasing any drainage that would be going to any public storm drainage. Are there any basements? Any basement on this? There's there's no basement. Okay. Thanks, David. Ava, anything else? Um on just on the on the lights village, I I did look at the the updated plan the like Lori said, it is aggregated right up on that southern alley. So I I I would agree with that. I don't think any further, you know, further review or revisions are needed in that respect. There's no lights village on the uh north part of the plan. Um, you know, there was some comments from the fire marshall that there was no ADA compliance at all listed anywhere in a in a memo. Um, and that

023was noted on in number 12 as well. So, I think that just needs to be addressed. And uh oh the if we wish to wave the requirement for um what is this? There was no dimensions between proposed buildings and structures. I think that that should be included. Uh just to confirm you know compliance with safety regulations and any setbacks. Um that's pretty much all I got. All right. Thank you. Anyone else have any other comments, thoughts, questions? I have one question. Uh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but last time you were here, you said there'd be a clear division between the pool and the restaurant. That's still polls. Yeah. Okay. It just looks like looking at more detailed plans, it looks like uh Yeah. Can I point it out on here? Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

024So, there's a fence here for one. Okay. Um, and then this is a walkway which was required uh from we required to have a walkway from the sidewalk to the entrance of the restaurant. So this is a a walkway here. Um, and then there's actually a door here which was also apparently required into the restaurant. There's no openings whatsoever on this fence line and there'll also be landscaping. Um, so we actually want this separate. So this is just for our our hotel like Okay. Um, so it's a it's a luxury of staying at the hotel essentially. So this is not uh public. So the only entrance is actually right here into the pool and then there'll be hedges all around as well. So there'll be a fence and hedges. So um hopefully it's a nice

025little oasis type of thing. Thank you. Okay, great. Anyone else any other questions or comments, concerns? Okay. Um All right. Let's go to the questions then in that case. Um, should the applicant specify the estimated hours of restaurant operation? I think you've done that to our satisfaction. It's, you know, use and general time frames that we're looking for. Given that, should the applicant Does everyone agree? By the way, should the applicant submit drainage details for the entire site including work in adjacent road rightways? Yeah, it might have been. It sounds like it's been done, but we need to to talk to uh Department of Highways about that. Get that ordered directly to us about that. Should the applicant provide design calculations and specifications for storm water improvements? Maybe that falls into the same category? Yep.

026Should the applicant submit grades and contours for the parking area adjacent to South Emery Street? I don't know. talking about that one. Yeah. Eric, did you have thoughts about that from earlier today? Are you with us? Uh, I do not see Eric in the participants. Uh, yes, I do. Sorry. Sorry. I'm under eh planning. Sorry. Um, the contours and grades. We didn't really talk about that earlier, I don't think. The grades. Yeah, we didn't talk about that earlier. The thing we talked about, um, I think is the, uh, elevations. uh the first floor elevations, but the uh grades and contours for the parking area um near South Eorry was requested by the engineer. Um that may fall in uh along the lines with the drainage and storm water calculations. It it might be on the

027provided plans. Um but we'll we'll check with the the engineer asked for that. We'll check with him and um you know if that information wasn't provided it should be provided because that's necessary to figure out how the runoff is going to um you know where the runoff is going to go from that area. Did you want to comment David? Uh they're on there I think. All right. Well no. So I see grades. So uh yes on the east side we are going to add some additional spot elevations to show the grades that are happening over there. That's why Denny was asking for. So we are going to add those details. Um there's also a comment about lowering the drywall at the entrance. Uh we the current design now has it going down at to that

028uh drywall and then coming back up to the property line and then going out. We did not have the two spot elevations that indicated that rise once you come off the driveway. So, we're adding those two spot elevations along with the spot elevations on the east side with the trench drain and the and the parking on that east side. Okay. All right. I think this next question is probably going to fall into the same category, right? Should the applicant lower the great elevation of the northerly drainage man? I think all of this is really stuff that we need to discuss with highway department and the engineer and sort of get to the get to the right answer. But I think you've provided most of what's required here unless someone disagrees. Okay. All right. Uh should

029the applicant submit a circulation pattern for the proposed western parking area? Uh probably it seems. Yeah. Sorry. Or can I? Yeah. Um there was the circulation errors on there. I think uh Dan had provided that but they were small. Um so make them larger. Um I think is that was that the the thing that Eric that's really what we're looking for basically right is just to make it clear what the circulation pattern is. The arrows were a little bit difficult to see. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean really um the way that that western parking area is set up. I mean it is somewhat obvious what the circulation pattern would be. you know, um it's two-way traffic uh in each direction. Um we we didn't really get into it in the discussion. Um but I do

030think the applicant should consider relocating spaces 9 and 14. Um simply because you know as you look at the site plan there uh anyone that comes to the terminus of that western parking area is going to need to either make a 10point turn uh in that lane if those spaces are occupied or reverse uh the entire length of the parking area. So, um, the original comment was more about the notation on the site plan, uh, showing the arrows of travel, but, um, I do want to point out while we're talking about it that those might be problematic. Um, most of the time what people do in a configuration like that is have spaces 9 and 14 be hashmarked and reserved as turn, you know, turning areas for a car that comes to the end of

031the parking lot. So, um I think we would want to see um circulation arrows. Um although that's a minor thing. The more important point uh I think to make is that those spaces could be problematic. I I'd be curious to hear y'all's opinion on this. Honestly, um I've certainly seen plenty of uh parking lots done this way that have kind of a a terminus, but I don't know if we need to have a U-turn. I mean, the U-turn wouldn't fit. We could I I would also say I don't know if we need to get rid of both parking spaces as long as there's one to pull in, reverse out of, and then do a T-turn essentially. I don't know why you need two. You certainly wouldn't utilize two most likely, but um I would think

032one because then you have 40 something feet, but um I'm asking a question. I mean, anyone have an opinion about this? Yeah, I have some I have I I do have an opinion and I do think it is a good idea to remove both because if you're pulling in and you know those two spots are are taken, you know, then you end up having to back out or as you know, Eric said make a 20 point turn. Um so I do think both it might be important especially if it's a restaurant and a bar and people have had you know a glass of wine or whatever and then hope well no I'm being you know realistic. Yeah. Um I I I would also just ask again if we designate one for that turnaround, why would

033we need to take away um both? Because it seems like 40 something feet would be enough to reverse. I think what he's saying is if you're in Yeah. If you I don't know what numbers there are, but if you're you're backing out, you turn into that. Yeah. So if you're in nine or 14, you have no way of getting out. So, what he's saying is that little area taken up by 9 and 14 lets you back into that space and then out. I think what Eric was saying, correct me if I'm wrong, um, but what he was saying, if we have these two parking spots and they're both occupied and Yeah. So, let's say all the spots are occupied. Yeah. Um, somebody drives in, then they get to then realize that both spots are occupied,

034then they have no way to turn around. But I do think Bruce's point is good as well, you know, because if you're in those spots, then you really do have no place to go. I I would think taking those spots out would be just a safety issue. I hate I hate getting into a parking lot or it is pedestrian. Well, that's the other thing, too, is like I mean, realistically, this is 20 ft wide and somebody could really just This is We'll never have anything in it. Um, so there's a 20 foot exit right up to the street here, which is 150 ft. It's not far um at that level. So let me just Richard well just um and I think what is saying is and I understand what the issue is if you remove

035one of the spaces in other words make it a nonspace then whoever's in the opposing space does have a place to back into or if you get to the end of the aisle and you could turn you do have you know in other words I don't think you have to remove both remove one as your to address uh your comment Jennifer um if somebody's here in the backing up like yeah they can't come well I mean they can cuz that's just flat grass but let's just say hypothetically we're not putting a wall here by the way um they could reverse to this empty space reverse all the way back and then come out okay all right listen there there are number of different ways we could cut this right and and I think I don't

036think that we're going to adjudicate this right now on the spot I think you know the thing to do is is to work with the planning department and come up with a reasonable so each you understand what our concern is right. There are a lot of hairy parking situations in M talk, right? And we don't want to add another one to them. So, let's just make sure everything's good. You can turn around if you get down to the end and there's no parking space. All of what we've just raised, but I think it's a matter of just working with with planning to come up with the right solution. And then the just the other part on that was because I didn't think about this frankly previously, but what are what I'd be curious to hear

037people's thoughts on just coming out here. I think because that was the original intent of these alleyways in the first place was I think we just would have to confirm with council as to you know who has right of way there and whose that's the question. Yeah. Right. Because you'd be adding I know it's your property behind but from what um the other town attorney was saying earlier today the all of these alleys in Montalk are kind of an un Yeah. sort of question. They're questioned, you know, so we'd have to figure out who's that whose alley is it anyway, right? A conversation with the planning department. I think we'll get to the bottom of all of this, right? So, let's let's just treat it that way. Um, yeah, that's good. Yeah. Uh, should the

038applicant confirm a two-ft separation to groundwater will be present at all proposed leeching structures? Uh, yes. Should the applicant add both tax map numbers to the site plan drawing? Yes. Yes. Should the applicant annotate the structures to be removed and are demolished on the site plan drawing? That's the engineers comments. Yes. Should the applicant obtain highway work permits from New York State Department of Transportation and East Hampton Superintendent of Highways? We talked about that. Yes. Does the board wish the applicant to reduce the amount of light spill over the property lines? I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's necessary. Does everyone kind of agree? Are we good? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it actually does provide a little ambient light in that alleyway. So, that's a good thing. Um, and then finally, does the

039board wish to wave the requirements of finished floor elevations and dimensions between buildings? Well, I think I saw finished floor elevations on Yeah, this I was just to clarify. Yeah, let's let Eric speak to that for a second. Yeah. Yeah. Just to clarify, that was uh an error in the memo. We actually meant to um amend that inversions when we were talking about it. The finished floor elevations, not to be confused with elevation plans are pro the finished floor elevations are provided on the elevation plans. So, the applicants have submitted that information. Um the dimensions between buildings is a codified requirement. Um that hasn't been provided. um there is a a good amount of distance between the buildings they're proposing, but um that you should determine whether or not you want to wave providing that

040information on the site plan. It's easy to add. It's easy to right. I think we're all feeling it's easy to add, right? Are we all feeling that easy to add? So, yes. Thank you. Um right. So, then the final question for us is do we wish to request lead agency status on this project? We do. Okay. Uh, can we do that, Eric, right now? Declare lead agency. Um, I mean, you can uh say on the record that you wish to declare lead agency status, but it it's somewhat um unnecessary because it's really a matter of uh sending out that request to the other involved agencies. Um, you know what I mean? So, you can't just declare it. You have to declare your intention to be lead agency uh and then send out the the required

041notifications. Um yeah. Okay. Semantics. Yep. All right. So we we have the intention to declare lead agency. Yes. All right. Good. Um folks, I think we're done. I think we're done for today for now with this one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, you know what else is there? All right. Thanks so much. Thank you. All right. [Music] Uh before we continue, I neglected to introduce our new deputy town attorney, Britney Toddano, who's going to be supporting us going forward uh here on the planning board. Uh Britney comes from the county and has a lot of experience in municipal law. She actually worked on the legal team behind the Suffach County Planning Commission. So, a lot of a lot of great experience. We're happy to have you, Britney. Welcome. Okay. All right. So, that we

042move on to the CUN subwaver review. Uh, Jen, that will be you. Will, that's you again. And is the applicant with us? All right. Great. Thanks. Okay. Well done. All right. So, this is an application seeking subdivision waiver approval for a property located on Springs Fireplace Road in Springs. If granted approval, this project would create two 20,000 foot lots, both having road frontage on Springs Fireplace Road. The subject property is currently 40,000 square ft or 0.92 acres in size and is located within the B resident zoning district. The site is considered improved or partially cleared per town records and is improved with a singlestory single family residence with sun room, shed and patio. Lot one is proposed to contain the existing residence shed and patio while lot two is proposed to contain a new residence

043detached garage deck and pool which are yet to be constructed. The site was originally created as two lots as part of the Clearwater Beach subdivision approved by resolution on February 24th, 1960. At some point, the lots were merged and this application seeks to revert back to having two lots. The lot is currently surrounded by residential properties on all sides with one vacant parcel across the street, all of which are zoned B residents. Following the review of the planning board on February 5th, 2025, the planning board issued comments to the applicant regarding several issues. First, the board requested the applicant submit a short environmental assessment form part one, which was included in the resubmission. The submitted SCAF part one identified the new sanitary system for lot 2 and the potential presence of endangered species on site,

044including the northern long-eared bat and piping clover. Given the existing habitat type, the presence of piping clovers on site is highly unlikely. Planning department recommends the applicant comply with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines to protect potential populations of northern long-eared bats. These guidelines include avoiding clearing and forest management activities from March 31st through November 1st in order to avoid unintentional harm. And to the planning board, planning department recommends the planning board assume assume lead agency status for this project. Second, the board requested the applicant submit more details regarding the proposed sanitary system for lot 2. And the applicant submitted a a response letter which stated the new sanitary system for lot 2 will be a low nitrogen sanitary system, Fuji Clean IIA septic system. Additionally, the subwaver map illustrates the location

045of the sanitary systems for both proposed lot one existing and proposed lot 2, which is hypothetical. The applicant has made application to the Suffach County Department of Health Services and there does not appear to be an issue with situating existing or future conforming sanitary systems on either lot. The town consulting engineer issued comments on April 11th, 2025 regarding the proposed sub waiver. No engineering issues were found in the review of the plans that the engineer notes a permit from the highway department will be required for work within the town road right ofway on springs fireplace road. The planning department recommends the submitted seaf part one is an acceptable form and recommends that planning board request lead agency status. If the board chooses to request lead agency status for this project, the planning department will route

046lead agency request letters to the involved agencies. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether it wishes to assume lead agency status for the for this application. And once the process of establishing lead agency status under secret is completed, planning department recommends this application will be complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. Okay. Thank you, Will. Does the applicant wish to be heard? [Music] Um, not heard. Good evening, everyone. Please name. I'm the owner. Um, I'm here to answer any more questions and see if you guys can give us more homework. Um, but you know, I basically we review everything and questions. All right. Stay close, see if we have any questions. Uh, Jennifer. Um, thank you, Will, and thanks, Mr. Cunn, for for attending the meeting tonight. Um, this seems to me

047to be fairly straightforward. Both lots will conform to the zoning code if you know we approve the subdivision and I think I do think it's ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. I don't think to discuss to discuss. Anyone have any comments? I agree. Thoughts? I agree. Um, all right. Do do does the planning board wish to let's say request lead agency status for this project? Yes. Does the board agree this application is complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing once lead agency has been established? Yes. Yes. Complete and ready. So there you go. No homework. No homework. No homework. It's still light outside. Plenty of day left. Right. Thank you very much. Okay. Great. All right. So, moving right along, we have the Brieos Padel Courts. Uh, and Ava, that's

048back to you. Will, that's your application. If you can be the the applicant is here. Is that you, Tara? Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. So this is an application seeking approval to construct three new Fidel ports, an Airstream camper to be used as storage, a storage container, sauna, shade pavilion with two decks, two sheds and turf in L of existing lawn on the subject property located on Daniel's Hole Road in Wayne Scott. The site is 24.2 2 acres in size and located within the special groundwater protection area SA County Pine Barons and is the only uh property within the town's recreation overlay district. The site is zoned A5 residents and is currently improved with a singlestory frame frame building, 10 sheds, a pool, four parking areas, a building on slab with six indoor tennis courts,

049a singlestory building on slab, an outdoor bar, a mini golf building on slab, a mini golf course, two platform tennis courts, a singlestory building on piles with decking, 18 outdoor tennis courts, three bidel courts, and a singlestory frame building with porch and wood decking. The site is bordered by vacant land owned by the towns of the north, west, and south and vacant land owned by Sepha County to the east. This project is a type two action pursuant to see and chapter 128 of the town code and no further secret action is required at this time. According to the town schedule of off- streetet parking requirements, the parking requirement for a tennis club is four parking spaces per playing court. This application proposes replacing two existing tennis courts with three newel courts with the sum of

050an additional new court. With the addition of that new court, the total number of parking spaces required for the site will be 249 spaces. Currently, the site provides 325 parking spaces, which is 676 more than are required by town code regulations. No new parking spaces are proposed or required as part of this application. In addition to the proposed pedel courts, the applicant also proposes to add an airirstream brand camper storage container sauna shaped pavilion with two decks with decks sheds and turf in l of existing lawn for the site. All these structures are proposed to be located in the eastern section of the lot aside from the turf in lie of lawn which is proposed to be located adjacent to the mini golf building in the southwest section of the site. Other structures appear on

051the site plan but are not listed elsewhere in the application materials and not shown on the most recent certificate of occupancy. These structures include an outdoor shower, two plunge pools, and a ramp. The applicant should explain the presence of these structures and provide dimensions of them for review if they do not already have approval. A lighting plan and fixture cut sheets were submitted demonstrating each pedel court will have four lighting fixtures. These fixtures will be downward facing and directed only at the playing surface of the courts. The lighting plan indicates the features. The fixtures will be solar powered and controlled by timer. The specification sheets for the fixtures indicate three different color temperatures are available with the lowest being 300° Kelvin. The applicant should confirm the fixtures will not exceed a lighting temperature of 3,000

052degrees Kelvin to ensure compliance with dark sky and town code regulations. The planning department has reviewed the elements of site plan required by town code and notes finished floor elevations and topography while missing from the applicant submission are not relevant to the review of the proposed work and need not be provided. The planning board should determine if it agrees. In addition to site plan review, the proposed project will require approval from the architectural review board. In conclusion, the applicant should submit details regarding the proposed outdoor shower pl and clarify the proposed lighting temperature. Board should discuss whether waving the above list of elements is appropriate for this project. Okay. Thanks, Will. Does the applicant wish to be heard? Morning, chairman, members of the board. I'm Tara Bberg from Lighthouse Line Planning here on behalf of

053the applicant. Um, well, thank you for your synopsis. Um, I appreciate it. Um, I don't really have a a lot to add. Um, unless you have any questions. We're basically the pedel that you approved last year uh was a success. So, which is great. Um, so they want to expand uh and take up a couple more of the tennis courts with new Fidel courts and then reorient the existing ones um due to the the way the sun uh shines on the courts. Um, and then in addition to that, um, as Will noted, they have a couple of accessory structures. Um, the Airstream is for storage. There's another storage container, a sauna, um, shade pavilion with the decks, two sheds. Um, and then the, um, I know Will had pointed out the outdoor shower, the two

054plunge pools, um, those are proposed as well. So, I'm happy to submit dimensions um, and the specifications that you would need uh, for the next review. Um, and the ramp, um, that's just a concrete man ramp meant to connect the existing to the proposed, and I can get you details on that as well. Um, and then as far as the lighting goes, um, the lighting proposed is the same lighting that was approved on the other podel courts and it is 3,00 Kelvin. Um, and I will submit that in writing as well. Okay, that's all I have. Um, unless you have any questions. All right, chair. Thanks, Ava. Yeah, thanks. Well, thanks, Tara. Um, I kind of just to reiterate what Tara said, the those additional structures that, you know, the details obviously are needed. They

055weren't cited on the plans. Um, the cut sheets for the the lighting did list three the three separate, you know, um, you know, proposed lights. So I guess just confirmation that you know the approved 3000 degree Kelvin lights will be um implemented and um I with regards to waving the um uh what was that the waving the finished floor elevation and the topography. I would agree this this site plan really it's not relevant that requirement. So I'm in favor of waving it. The courts are there basically foundation the courts. Okay. Um, that's all I got. All right. Good. Anyone else have any issues, questions? I'm just curious about the What is the process of converting a tennis court to a pedal court? You're still using the if it's a hard cord, you're still using the

056tennis court surface for podel. The tennis I think it's actually last time I was there, I think it's it's slightly elevated off of the tennis court surface if I remember correctly. But it's going from one type of playing court to another type of playing court. So it was determined that when you switch from one type to another type, you need the additional review. It does trigger parking because we're going from two to three, but there are 76 excessive spaces, which is like unheard of in this town. We could only take some of them, put them elsewhere. So, okay. I uh I there might be one day where you want to convert it back to a tennis court. I'm not going to call Pedell a fad by any means. That would just come back to haunt

057me. Uh but I'm just curious about that. Thank you. I have one question. Are these courts adjacent to homes? No, it's um I don't know if there's an Ariel, but it's would have been in the clubhouse. very deep. Well, the reason I ask is this is a significantly louder game than tennis is. Um, and I know that other other clubs have had issues with homeowners being So, what's so amazing about this site and why it's the only one in the So, if you look at the definition of a major recreational facility in the town code, it's like this giant definition that basically encompasses anything you could possibly imagine, recreation. And this is the only property in the recreational overlay district. Um, and it has significant clearing restrictions and it's in the the middle of the

058woods. So, it's kind of the perfect spot for it. Good. Good. Yeah. Just competing with the noise of planes and dogs barking at the dogs barking at our Seattle. Okay. Uh, if there are no other thoughts or questions for Tara, we'll go to the questions. Uh, should the applicant submit details and dimensions of the proposed shower, plunge, pools, and ramp? We've already said you would. I think we obviously need those. Um, has the applicant confirmed the proposed lighting temperature? And I will in writing, right? Obviously, the next time around it'll be in writing. Um, does the board agree to wave the requirement of finished floor elevations and topography for this application? Yes, we agree. Yes. Thank you very much. All right. Thanks, Tara. Thanks, S. All right. Okay. Next up is the Breakers Awning and

059Reed, that's you. Uh Will, back to you once again. Um and is the applicant present? Lori. Okay. Okay. So, this is a site plan application seeking approval for an existing awning awning over a deck on a site located on Old Mont Highway in Montalk. The subject property is 56,162 ft or 1.289 acres in size and is located in the resort zoning district. The site is considered to be 100% cleared of natural natural vegetation for town records. The site is currently improved with a restaurant, 12 one-story buildings containing a total of 26 motel units, a storage shed, wood decking, a swimming pool, pool fencing, and a concrete patio. The site is border to the east and west by other resort parcels, residential lots to the north, and conserved land owned by the town of East Hampton

060across Old Mont Highway to the south. The project is a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128 of the town code and no further SER action is required at this time. Based on the setback requirements for resort locks in the town code, the subject awning is in a compliant location. However, if approved, the site will have greater building coverage than is permitted with 8,424 ft allowed and 9,376 ft existing. As such, this this application will require a variance from the zoning board of appeals. Currently, the awning has string lighting on its underside to illuminate the deck area. The bulbs of the string lighting are not shielded and not dark sky compliant, and the town code prohibits unshielded string lighting. However, the board may choose to permit string lighting if the bulbs are fully

061shielded and have a temperature not exceeding 3,000° Kelvin. The applicant should either e either change the string lighting to comply with dark sky regulations or remove the string lighting entirely as the building coverage on site is greater than the permissible amount. This application will require a variance from the zoning board of appeals. The applicant submitted an application to the zoning board which was stated received on March 19th, 2025. Yesterday, the applicant submitted additional documents listing the materials and dimensions of the subject awning. The awning is built from a galvanized steel welded frame with acrylic fabric. The submitted photo contains labels identifying the dimensions of the structure and the planning department has reviewed the necessary elements of site plan required by town code and notes the following items while missing from the applicant submission are not

062relevant to the review of the project and need not be provided. The planning board should determine if they agree. Lot area and floor area for each floor of all existing and proposed buildings, structures and uses. Locations of all easements on, over, and adjacent to the site. Locations of utility lines, hydrants, fire systems, and fire wells. Parking dimensions, aisles, street approaches, general circulation pattern, traffic safety devices, sidewalks, curving, paving, drainage structures and specifications, parking and drainage calculations, existing lighting and locations of signs, fences, screen plantings, and exterior lighting, existing and proposed sewage disposal systems, and topography of the site. In conclusion, the applicant should clarify their plans regarding lighting for the subject awning and the board should discuss whether it wishes to wave the previously listed elements. The planning department supports waving the above reference site

063plan elements due to the minor n minor nature of the project. Should the board choose to wave these elements, the application will be otherwise complete. However, before the applicants will need to obtain the necessary relief from the zoning board before the site plan can be formally deemed complete and ready to be scheduled for a public hearing. Okay. Thank you, Will. One thing to add, uh we were able to locate and submit um fully shielded uh string lights and we submitted them so they will be ready for the next review which should come up pretty quickly because this is very minor. We still have to wait for the zoning board. Yeah. I didn't know there were shielded string lights. That's interesting. Okay, cool. Uh, right. So, that is you, Reed. Yeah. Um, I agree with uh

064Lori that this is uh this is a minor um application. I was actually out there this this past weekend. Um, what a great spot. A beautiful view. Uh, nice resort, well-maintained. I met with Andre who I believe is the property manager. Uh nice guy. He had told me that the awning has been up for about five years. It was put up by a previous manager. Previous manager didn't never submitted paperwork um to properly put it up. So that's why it's before us now. Um again, I I think this makes makes sense. It's not obstructing anyone's view. There no homes that are impacted by it. Um, so, uh, I'm fine with it. Um, when I was there, there was actually no lighting underneath of it. Um, I will say that the restaurant there, it was a

065Japanese restaurant last summer, I believe, and now it's going to become a Mexican restaurant. And I looked inside because the awning is directly adjacent to the restaurant. And I saw lights in there on a table. So, um I don't know if those are the compliant lights that they're going to put up here over the next uh few days or whenever it's approved, but um I'm not opposed to lighting whatsoever as long as it's compliant. So, that's my take. Gotcha. Okay. Any other thoughts, anyone? Pretty simple. Good. Yeah. Okay. So, uh really the only the only real issue is should the applicant clarify the lighting plans? You've already talked Lori about that about how that might happen. Uh it's sort of a remove or shield and you you're coming up with shield. So I think I

066think we're we're good. So the request has been made to clarify that. Um and do we agree to wave the elements of site plan that will enumerate it that are really not gerine to this? Right. Yes. And I think we all agree. Yes. Yes. So that's where we are. Lori, thank you. Okay, [Applause] thanks. Okay, so next up is the Scoville Hall generator and Terrace. And Bruce, that's you. Uh Chris, you're here. Good. That's your application. And uh who's Rick? Are you for Scoville Hall? Okay. Chris, please. So, this is the Scoville Hall and Generator site plan at 17 meeting house lane and I'm against it. This was last reviewed in July 24 of last year just to show where we are in the community. It's meeting house lane. You have the school nearby. Um,

067jump into the proposal itself. So the Scoville Hall operates as a fellowship hall for the first superior church and is available to rent for family and community events. Um the property zone B residential. It's 6 uh 4 acres and its current use is a semi-public facility as defined by the town code. The current improvements are the twotory and uh 6,430 foot building and 29 uh surface parking spaces. So going into the application itself, it was originally uh submitted to construct a brick patio, some fencing with privet both sides, as well as a concrete dumpster pad and a well pit to house a generator. Um it was also to relocate a shed which has since been removed and the application has been revised to only include um the 22 that excuse me 270 square foot patio

068um as well as some privet which is indicated here on the survey. There's no lighting um proposed and the existing lighting on site appears to comply with the town code. The applicant requested that this be treated as a minor site planned. Um, since the patio is less than 500 square feet and it's not a habitable structure, the planning department agreed and during the last review, the planning board agreed to wave the requirement for public hearing. Um, so the issues for discussion were during the last review, the board asked the applicant to indicate the area of the patio as well as some dimensions for the parking lots and drive aisles. Both those details were added to the plan. Um, and now the planning department finds the application complete and ready for approval and the board should

069determine whether it agrees. Thank you, Chris. Mr. Whan, Richard Well, landmarks for the SC operation. Thank you, Chris. Uh, seems pretty straightforward. Uh we do know we have to even though it's a bit silly, we have to get ARB approval for the terrace even though it's that great. That's what the code says. So uh hopefully you're ready for an approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bruce, what are your thoughts? Well, thanks Chris. Thanks Rick. Um I think this is fine with what 270 square feet of brick on grade and some credit. Okay. They're under coverage for the lot even with the massive parking lot. So that's right. Yeah, it's about the size of a dance floor, right? You can see on the floor something is needed outside the building even if it's very small.

070Yes, I'm familiar with it. I I think you're right. Absolutely. Okay. Uh any other comments from anyone on on the application? Uh if so, do we believe that this is uh complete and ready for approval? Yes, we do. Right. Okay. Well done. Have a good night. Okay. So, the last uh work session item is 68 meeting house lane trust lot line modification. Jen, that's you. Chris, that's you again. Uh and who is here? Is is that you Mike? Okay. All right. Chris. All right. So this project is also on meeting house lane. It's a proposed lot line modification between 608 meeting house lane and 7 Hollywood. The subject parcels are also zoned residents and are not in any town overlay districts or areas of important environmental consideration 608 meeting house lane. Uh lot one is

071improved with an existing 2,692 ft two-story residence gravel driveway and slate patio. Seven Hollyway lot two is improved with a 4,4 square foot two-story residence detached garage swimming pool patio and two patios with perlas. The latest certificate of occupancy for both properties are attached. And the planning department notes that the CO for um block one does show this pool um which has since been removed with a recent building permit. You can see here in the pictures there's no pool anymore. This is back in March. So that's no longer um an issue for discussion. So the application was made for a proposed lot line modification between the subject properties which proposes to transfer a portion of 68 meeting house lane to the adjacent 7 Holly way. Uh the area proposed to transfer is 3,246 square ft.

072Block 2 is proposed to increase in size to 26,789 square ft. Lot one is proposed to decrease in size to 20,620 square ft. Both proposed lot sizes comply with the 20,000 ft minimum lot area in the B resident zing district and the proposed modification would change the shapes of both parcels from rectangular to irregular polygons which I will uh discuss further. Going on to the issues for discussion pursuant to the state environmental quality review act. It's a type two action as well as chapter 128 of the town code as not subject to additional review under secret. Um, regarding informed consent, the applicant details that both parcels are owned by separate LLC's with the same principal members um given such written consent should be provided between the two LLC's to formalize um owner authorization of the

073proposal. So regarding the lot shape which I mentioned the proposed shape for both parcels does not align with the standard set forth in the town code section 220-1.09 09 part C of the code states the following pertaining to the shape and that's quote in general lots shall be rectangular in shape somewhat deeper than they are wide end quote the proposed modification would change the existing rectangular lots rectangular lots into irregular shapes which will likely complicate future development on lot one. The width of the center of lot one would be reduced to approximately 65 feet and the planning department finds that the proposal may make future planning of lot one more difficult which does not conform with the requirements of section 220-2.18 of the town code specifically part C which is quoted in our report the

074transferred area would reduce setbacks to the existing slate patio and residence on lot one. It appears that these structures will meet setback requirements. However, they should uh be indicated on the revised submission to confirm such. The planning department notes that the minimum lot width for the subject parcels is 100 ft since both parcels existed prior to December 1984. Lot width is defined by the town code as quote the length of the shortest line which can be drawn from side lot line to side lot line of a lot which touches the building line at any point end quote. Since the 65 ft width is proposed in a portion of the property which does not cross the building line as defined by the town code. This reduced width technically does not create a non-conforming lot width. The

075planning board should discuss whether they support this change and whether it will impact the future development of the subject parcels and the planning department recommends that the proposed configuration does not align with the town code and is not in the interest of good planning regarding existing structures. the sanitary system for lot one should be indicated to um in general and to confirm that the Suff County Department of Health Services setbacks would still be met by the proposed arrangement. Um we'd also like to see the water service line for lot one indicated and the electrical service lines indicated for both properties. Regarding other approvals, um the Suffach County Department of Health Services approval will ultimately be required if the board chooses to approve this project and it wasn't included in the report, but the fire marshall

076review was received today and there are no issues requiring further review from the Office of Fire Prevention. So, in conclusion, the application is incomplete pending the submission of the required items and the resolution of the mentioned issues. The board should discuss whether they generally support the proposal and whether it will impact the future planning for the subject parcels and the applicant should consider revising the proposal configuration to be more rectangular to align with the town code and it's not mentioned in the report but the applicant should also provide a rationale um for why they want this slot line modification and that's everything from us before we let you go and go to the applicant Chris I'm just curious what is the what's the uh square footage of the two property the two houses that are

077currently on the properties. Sure. So, lot two is improved with a 4,44 square ft house and lot one has a 2,692 ft house. For lot two, I would note that with the amending GFA um calculation, even if they were to be granted this additional space, they will not be able to expand their current GFA. And even with the current um GFA formula, they are beyond that threshold. Um so there's no way in this project existing or proposed that the GFA could be expanded on lot two without variance. So, could they build an accessory afford? Yeah. Can they build an accessory 600 foot affordable housing unit there? As long as they comply with the building and total log coverage. Um, that that's feasible if they meet other other um aspects of the code setbacks and whatnot

078or any accessory structure for that patio structures. Um, tennis courts very not likely just due to the 50 foot setback requirement. Um there there would be space for additional structures. Um all right. Yeah, that was sort of the reason for my question was figure out what actually is possible. A lot like this Mr. [Music] Silinski law firm 60 MK highway watermill for the applicants. Um first off I wanted to thank Chris for meeting us out of the property. We walked to the property last week with him. Uh we didn't we got his uh comments uh on Friday. Um I took a look at them over the weekend with my clients who uh engaged their landscape architect architect to take a look at it. Um the my clients acquired about a year ago acquired the 68

079meeting house property which is the uh property on the right. Um and in doing so, the goal was to use uh both properties uh somewhat in conjunction. Um so when you talk about proper, you know, proper planning and limiting of the um possibilities of future uses of that 68 meeting house site, that's exactly why we want to make these changes is because uh they want a limited use. That's why the pool was uh already removed pursuant to a demolition permit and and they intend to use it as a as a guest house. Um they are uh in the process of designing and redesigning uh the uh seven holly uh property uh for what's out outside of it. Um they originally had attended um if I can just point out um we originally were looking at

080um moving the pool from this area and placing it over in this area, moving the pool house there. Um I think the uh goals have somewhat shifted and I think that we're um after going through some design um design work with uh their landscape architect uh and their designers I think the pool is going to be redeveloped in this area with the pool house as well. So this jut which was designed to um you know we own both properties uh both properties going to be used in conjunction. Both properties will eventually you know when my clients are done with them you know whatever well she'll be they'll probably be sold in conjunction with each other. Um although they remain single and separate. Um so the in order to avoid going and seeking variances, what we

081wanted to do is shift the property line in order to allow for the proper setbacks uh for any redevelopment on this site as well as providing some additional square footage uh that they would need for this being their, you know, anchor house or main house as opposed to this which is going to be used as a a guest cottage and guest house. Why would you seek a variance? Why would you need to seek a variance? because you're moving because if the lot line was if the lot line was here. Yeah. If the lot line was here and we needed um we needed to put something in here. We originally were planning to put in this space here and they were considering doing something else over here. The extra square footage that this provides that shifts

082from this this line to this line helps us with the GFA. So something else would be like an addition or something. But in addition and and we originally were scheduled we originally were looking at putting a pool the pool in into this area as opposed to here and shifting it around but that's no longer that's no longer that's no longer the plan. Um so um um I do have a new schematic for the board to consider and sorry my golden skills and unfortunately we can't we're going to submit it. Um so the new the new plan shifts this line gets rid of this um gets rid of this jut to such a such an extent. It comes down it comes down and just shifts over once. Uh and it's it's much more in line with

083the original. So that's not an accurate picture that's up there. This this was what we originally submitted and we've and we've gone through after speaking with Chris and and receiving his feedback, we've started redesigning in order to, you know, try to bring more into line a the recommendations in the code. As as this board knows, the the rectangular the rectangular shape um standard in a code is only a recommendation. It's not some, you know, it's not some, you know, hard and fast rule. that needs to be done, especially when you're talking about something that's being held in conjunction with something else uh and is eventually and is used and owned in conjunction with a neighboring property. Okay? You know, it I will point out to the I will point out to the board that if

084was a hard and fast rule, this subdivision never would have happened because they wouldn't have been allowed to put into this, you know, this corner, you know, cut out this corner. Um they would have required this to be a rectangle here. So it's not a hard and festival. It's just it's just a standard. I think it's a standard that this board while keeping it uh under the under current circumstance and the circumstances presented to it are much different than um and not as uh such a consideration uh for the board for this. But you have to admit that that little wedge on the corner compared to that weird triangle jutting into lock one. There's a big there's a big difference. And yes, it's the code doesn't doesn't mandate that it's rectangular, but one what the

085example you you pointed out is really not that far from the code suggestion, whereas the other one goes way far out of the box. Well, I'll tell you that and that's for and it's it's partially by design. The design of this property is to keep is to keep, you know, by putting the the jut into this area is to keep development of this to keep development of this parcel up here in the north northeast corner as opposed to having it you be able to shift down and having additional things here. It actually it's it's done in order to partially sterilize the use of the back of that property. Right. So the new proposal is to move the lot line a certain amount at the top of the uh lot and then when it comes down

086towards the middle it moves further. It it moves less. It comes down it comes down in this it comes down in this fashion uh and then it it gets to about here. It jogs over and down straight down. Straight down. Okay. All right. a much much much less pronounced um shut. Okay, shall we say? All right, since we're not really considering that specifically because we don't have that in front of us, right? I think we should just comment on you know the intention and you know get our feedback about this this opportunity to sub generally right since we don't really have a specific proposal that you'd want to stand by. Well, this is your application. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm setting the tone here. Just so we can read mood lighting discussing. So we're not discussing

087I understand your intention. Um Jen, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sinsky. Thank you, Chris. um without seeing the next, you know, iteration of the design, you know, I can't say exactly, but I I'm not a fan of the intention. Um I think that if the in you know, I think that the town has recommendations for the shape of lots for a reason. Is it in the interest of good planning, which is something we ask ourselves? You know, I understand that the lots are owned by by the same owners. Um, and if the intention is to keep them together kind of in perpetuity, then why not merge it and make it one big um thing instead of because do because to do that would require a variance because at that if we merge them together,

088if we merge them together, you have two uh single family residents on one property. Okay. That's why that's why it can't be merged. And I I I just, you know, I I things happen and I while I understand that the intention is for the two LLC's to hold them in conjunction forever, families fight. People, you know, um and you know, if if lot the smaller the one that will be the smaller lot, is that lot one or lot two? If lot one is sold separately, then it's, you know, value is sub, you know, substantially decreased by the transfer of property to the other lot. Um, so I I just I'm I'm not sure there's a good enough reason to do this. you know, we obviously, you know, it's your it's your property and and but

089I in looking at this, it doesn't seem like it's in the interest of good planning or in the interest of good planning specifically for that one that one lot, but the lots are the lots still remain conforming. You realize they do remain conforming, but I think the planning department's point that the shape of the lots is, you know, it is a recommendation. It's, you know, it is the lanes. And part of the reason that the town has gone through the whole GFA rejiggering recently is to kind of avoid things like this where one lot in a neighborhood is overbuilt and the other lot is is is not. So that's my that's my overarching feeling. And without seeing an actual plan, it is kind of hard to to to say. Sure. Okay. So, let's have a

090discussion about it. Ava, do you have thoughts on this? Yeah, as presented, I I do agree that specifically that that lot one by doing this plan certainly would impact future planning, albeit regardless of like you said, if it's held in or the intent is to be held in perpetuity, if in the future that was not the case, that would become a very challenging uh planning decision. Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah, I'm trying to, you know, as weird as this shape looks, um, and I realize that, you know, we have this abstract recommendation in the code to keep lots rectangular in shape, but I'm trying to figure out what harm would that do. And I know you're going to change this the way you're uh increasing the lot size of lot one. I'm sorry, that's lot two,

091right? We're increasing the size of lot two. I'm trying to figure out what detriment could you could anyone come up with in terms of expanding GFA or any other uh violation of good planning that you could you could come up with that would would that this uh expansion of lot size allow you to do? Now Chris I think has already said that GFA cannot be increased in lot two right it's it's at the maximum now and at at the new lot size that you're proposing correct we can provide those numbers yeah um I I don't know if there's so that's that's out of that's out of consideration Chris answer answer the question please that is correct currently it's it's beyond the allowed GFA and come July July 1st. It will also be beyond as as

092the formula reduces in both lots just two just lot two lot one will remain in conformance um even if it loses that area and with the new formula we'll still be conforming with the allowed G and accessory structures. Sorry I can't see Chris. Um accessory structures. What's the potential for accessory structures on that? Um, it just depends on the the coverage amounts. Um, we only have the building coverages on the submitted plan. It's near capacity on lot two, but there'll be more room for additional building coverage if they are granted additional lot area. Um, but as far as the total lot coverage, I I can't speak to that without those numbers in front of me. Well, maybe the next time we review it with the new configuration, maybe we can get those numbers and Sure.

093We're glad they brought those numbers. You know, because that could be another way because what those what those numbers will show what those numbers will show is that this this property the GFA on this property remains conforming and the GFA on this property which is uh now uh not uh not conforming but uh pre-existing non-conforming. this pre-existing non-conforming will then become closer to conforming uh because you're adding you're adding more lot area but it would still be nonconforming under the old code or the new code GFA codes both of them so they can't build they can't expand that house even if they get approval from us to expand the lot correct but we don't know whether they can expand coverage and put some other accessory structure yeah on the lot so we would need to

094know that whether that's feasible and what they could do there because I would want to know how they could exploit this additional lot size so that we can make a determination based on that as far I would I would I would object to the use of the word exploit but sure sorry I take it back uh we could substitute any word that you feel comfortable with uh as far as the um approved as far as the size of the lot, you know, with this jutting out and your new uh configuration that you'll submit, it's I don't I don't really that really doesn't bother me because the outside dimensions are still, you know, rectangular. You know what I'm saying? Uh it's only the interior that expands. It's it's moving it's moving a line between right right

095inside. So I So in that as far as the code's recommendation for rectangular shapes, I really don't have a problem with with what you're doing. I like I said, I'm really more concerned how you can take advantage. Would you accept that word? I would say utilize is probably the best as maybe the best term at last maximally utilize this and and not violate good planning. So those those are my thoughts. Thanks Lou Reed. Yeah. So the visual doesn't work for me. I I think that's just oddlooking. Um I and I I don't really understand why because they want to do an addition or I maybe I didn't get that. But again, you said that a revision has been made. So, um I wouldn't be opposed to something perhaps a little bit more I don't know

096um a little less pronounced than Yeah. cut. Absolutely. Look, we're we're definitely willing to work. We heard Chris's comments. We put something together. Obviously, we can't submit it to you now. Um but we will in a minute that we're here along with the you know the dimensional uh request that the board's made. Anything else? Reed? Yeah. No, I agree with with uh with Reed. I think visually it's it's a little awkward. So I think there's a better solution probably to trade off um lot area. So yeah, it just be interesting to see what you guys come up with. Yeah, Michael, the the new line that you've drawn that we can't see, does that take less fewer square feet? Same amount. Same amount. It's the same amount because you you have to take the same amount

097because you that that keeps this that keeps this as a legal structure. Um, and we're trying to we're trying to take everything that's not needed here to put here and keep them conforming and and to keep it conforming. Yes. Curious to see the line that you've drawn. I would love to show it to you. It is council's first night here, you know, but I don't want to I don't want to risk uh I don't want I don't want to risk upsetting the apple cart. uh you know um but we'll gladly provide that along with the dimensional um requirements next time we're all right so you know work to do obviously right we as I was saying earlier you know we're really dealing with a concept here we're really not we're not dealing with your the

098thing you're actually going to ask us to to really you know but this is fine having your comments tonight having your comments tonight on the concept will greatly uh greatly augment our ability to provide you with a a plan yeah I think I think it's been useful to you But I and I just to kind of conclude on my own thoughts about this. I mean, I think it's an extreme accommodation to a very particular circumstance. Um, and you know, as others have said, you know, uh, if this is really about creating a family compound or we're going to do this forever and all, you know, things don't last forever. They just don't. And I think that anything like this that's this irregular is going to cause issues down the line, I think. Right. if that

099whole house is sold, you know, separately to someone else, it's a very peculiar situation. But it sounds like where you're headed is something that's a little bit more regular, right? It is. And when we look at that, I think some of us will have maybe a different view of it, but as it stands now, and I I don't frankly really understand the purpose still, the purpose is the purpose is to switch square footage into lot. Yeah. Why is the question I don't it's to accom it's to accommodate a redevelopment of the of the property um of the exterior of the property, right? Well, but right, you know, the plan you're showing us though doesn't really um Yeah. Yeah. doesn't address that, right? The pool is actually in a place where it could be without this.

100That's existing. That's the existing pool that But I thought you said that's where you were thinking of redeveloping it. They're still they're still they're still designing it. Okay. Um but again, it's this very particular accommodation thing that really bothers me a little bit. But if you if you look at it from a planning perspective, right, we are still maintaining this four corners and I believe this is I believe it was uh member Cortez's point uh Cortace's point is that you have the four corners of the uh you know it's still remaining a square going back to member folks's point if we could we would gladly merge the two together but we would lose the opportunity to have a single family residence and you know that's probably something the town code at some point needs to

101address uh when they're addressing all the other provisions of the town code. Um and um but that's you know that's you know maybe there you can have some you know compound zoning classification at some point in the future that would allow for that or hopefully you've gotten some good feedback from it lead us to the the next submission. Can we can we put the setbacks on your new Yes, we will. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, I think that'd be better understand. Uh, so these questions might be moved, but let's look at them. Does the planning board generally support the proposed lot modification? I think I know. Not yet. How about that? Does the planning board agree the proposal would impact future planning for the subject parcels? Yes. Submitted. Yeah. As submitted. Yes, it does. Agreement. Okay. Does

102blending board agree the revised submission should indicate the location of existing sanitary systems and water and electrical service lines? Yes, of course it should. Yeah. And I think, you know, the closer we get to the sort of re, you know, re-engineering the outside moving pool, that kind of thing, the closer we get to the reality of really what you want to do, the better of course, right? Um, just to confirm what you folks want, I think it'd be good to also ask, does the board want to see the total lock coverage and setbacks indicated on the Okay, great. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks, Mike. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. All right. Bye. Thank you. All right. Okay. Into our regular meeting. Uh we have a couple of approvals. Uh Ava, I think you've

103got Pinkerton Farm. Do you have that resolution? I don't have it actually. Okay. [Music] Got it. Got it. All right. In uh in the matter of the application of Pinkerton Farm site plan subcount tax map number 300-166-4-1.4. Uh I've reviewed the site plan approval and move to approve it. Second. Second. All in favor? You did. All right. All right. All right. Unanimous. Thank you. Uh 55 Wayne Scott Hollow Bruce. Uh all right. Where's that? I've got Okay. Is this right? Yes. Okay. In the matter of the application of 55 Wayne Scott Hollow LLC, final subdivision Suffach County T map number 300-197-4-2.1. I have read the resolution for amending their approval and uh yeah I move for it to approve. Okay second Jen thanks all in favor I unanimous. Thank you very much. Uh Glenn Valley

104Ava back to you again. The matter of the application of Glen Valley Associates LTD final subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-136-1-30.2. I've read the resolution amending uh previous approval. Yes. Yeah. Oh, yes. Yes. And I second I All in favor? I all around. She's good. Nice. Nicely done. Um, okay. Passing carry. We have one. Uh, Mason is not. Do we have Oh, we finished time. Yeah. Yeah, that was added. So, who's is that? Jones. Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones. In the matter of the application of Maidstone Acres number two, site plan Suffet County Tax Map uh number 300-38-4-1 uh.2 two for an extension of time for a period of one year within which to obtain a building permit or until July 26, 2025. I've res read the resolution and I move for it adoption. Second.

105All in favor? I have a question about the time. You said it for one year or until July this July. July 26, 2025. That should be July 26. That's not a year. Okay. It's either or either or. Okay. Oh. Oh. Or until July 26th, 2020. No, they didn't request in the proper amount of time. So, they were lapsed for quite some time. I see. So, it is only a year from their last. Okay. I see. Okay. So, that is correct. Okay. All right. No, good question. Did you second? Were you the second? Who was the second on this? We already We already went through, but now you you throw shade on the whole thing. I'll second it. Okay. All right. I think we're all good. Right. Right. With like it. Yeah. Shade. I just was

106curious. Um All right. We have one old file map modification. Um, Eric, this was really just a an issue of changing of the uh access to a different street than the one that we talked about last time. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So, this was discussed on May 7th. Um, I'm showing you the location of the property here in Springs. Um the town engineer and planning department supported the request which was just to move the required access point from Fort Pond Boulevard on the north here to Oaklair Street. Um however that was not what the applicant was proposing. They were proposing to move the access from Fort Pond Boulevard to Corbin Avenue on the other side of the property. Um the town engineer and planning department still have no issue with that. Um the

107town engineer did make a point that um driveways are supposed to be a minimum of 50 feet away from intersections. It looks like the driveway on a um survey for a proposed home was 45 ft away. So they just made the suggestion um to relocate it another 5T so it's 50 ft away from the intersection. But that is actually not really a consideration or condition for the planning board. Uh the town board approves or denies these requests. So, um it's a recommended condition that we'll forward on to the town board. Um we mentioned it for you, but our recommendation to send favorable comments to the uh town board still holds. Okay. Do we all have favorable comments of putting the access on Corbin Avenue instead of Oaklair Street? Everyone's good on that? Okay. All right.

108Thanks, Eric. I think we've dealt with that one. Um so, Tina, you joined us. Hello. So tell us about the planning applications best practice study. Okay, thanks Ed and hello planning board. Nice to see you all. Tina for the planning department. I am here to just do a brief introduction about a special study that we're doing. We've been working with Ed and he asked that um we give a short introduction so the board knows what's coming in the next couple of months. Um, so in January, not advancing. Hold on. Okay. Sorry about that. In January, uh, one of the first things I did after I got appointed as director was worked with council member Kate Rogers to ask the board to allocate some funding so that we could pursue a contract that has outside consulting

109experts involved in reviewing our planning, our site plan application process. Um, and what we're going to do with them is conduct a best practice study. Um, having worked in a range of settings for my career, I I realized how important it is to every once in a while just take a step back and a fresh look at what you're doing, what's working, what could be improved, and and document that and kind of learn and move forward with those things in mind. So, the goals of the work are very simple. Uh we want to enhance efficiency uh make the planning review pro process more streamlined both for ourselves and the planning department but also for the applicants and um ensure our approaches are consistent. Can you all hear me? I know very um ensure our our

110approaches are consistent, right? The same issue should be handled the same way in in all the cases, right? And and that doesn't bar nuance, but it you know there should be consistency in the reviews and we should have the tools that allow us to do that in a streamlined fashion. And so that's the intro. In February, we received the proposal from the consultant. In March, we um had the contract approved. And then in April we kicked off the work. So I'll talk very quickly about the study scope. It's really just two um phases of work. The first phase is a detailed existing conditions review with the consultants. They'll review the existing site plan rules and regulations, the forms, our written procedures, the instructions we provide to applicants. And then of course we're also talking some

111about open gov, right? because we did just launch an online system. So, we've just recently transferred our process onto that online platform and we want to make sure that the solutions that we come up with are cognizant that we have this new tool to utilize. Um, so they're going to review, document kind of the the baseline process and then summarize the observations like what are potential ways we could improve efficiency and and what would that look like and you know just to give an example I think one of the things we'll be looking at is how do we consider projects complete enough for planning board review you know a lot of times we end up asking for the same information twice or more times um whether that's a miscommunication or whatever it is, it costs

112the planning department time, you know, saying the same comment again. It cost the planning board having to repeat themselves and it it costs the owners time and money in the process because they're kind of waiting for this information to be produced rather than having everything together and being able to make a cohesive discussion. Um so I think we'll look to you know that could be one thing that we have new rules for what do we mean in terms of having a work session conversation um when the applicant's ready for a work session conversation I mean so task two is implementation right so we're going to talk with the consultant about their observations and findings see what makes sense right you know they're coming from outside I I'm sure everything that they want us to do

113will not be feasible, practical, etc. But we will work with them to find the highest impact improvement strategies and then work to implement them. Once we have ideas of what we want to do, obviously we're going to talk with the planning board about them. Um share with you our findings and the aspirations for where we want to go. I'm sure we'll also um talk to the town board about it and provide them with that information. Um, you know, there could be many different types like update review templates, update application instructions, update checklists for both ourselves and the applicants. Um, and just find ways to kind of clean up the process. You know, importantly, our our goal right now is that the work is going to be done in accordance with our code, but we are

114looking at the code and I would expect that there there may be some things that the consultant recommends may need to be tweaked. I mean, I think we all have ideas, right? we were talking about earlier today, things we could clean up in the code that would help us uh run things more smoothly. Um so we'll be open to hearing those types of things as well. And obviously those are longer term strategies, right? Um because code changes take time. Um so and I I do want to note, you know, that site plan review anywhere you go, not just in East Hampton, is a complicated process. It's lengthy. There's a lot of moving parts and a lot of requirements. So, you know, I don't think we're going to have a magic wand scenario where we poof,

115okay, this is, you know, it was complicated and it became easy, but we're going to have kind of a modernized um approach to how we conduct the process and it's going to help us be um supporting our goal of protecting the town's communities and natural resources. Right? So, that's really the ultimate goal. make make sure we're doing that in the most efficient way possible for ourselves and the the residents of the town. Um so that's really it. We just kicked off the work in April and within the next few months we expect to be back here sharing um the findings of the study. Good. Thanks Tina. Sure. You know, the part I just want to say the part the part that I find most sort of exciting about this is kind of aligning applicants expectations

116with ours, you know, and and really determining, you know, when is it appropriate to have somebody back for a work session or not? How complete, you know, do do they need to be, right? Because as as you pointed out, this is frustrating for everyone. The applicants often think that they don't understand what they were expected to produce for, you know, and we often are like, well, wait a minute, we told you already. And it just it's it elongates the process. It's frustrating and you know if we can figure out how to really make that that whole process sing in a very different way it would be huge for everybody. Does a open gov kind of address the the checks that the applicant needs to check off to before they submit something? So open gov um

117has like a list of documents let's say now that they have to submit when they initially make an application for various types of the applications that we offer. Um, so they have to have something, you know, is it complete, right? Does it have all the information? If you have a survey, does it have all the information that we want on the survey? That's the question. Um, and so while that has like the kind of highle process steps, we're talking about kind of the the nitty-gritty of the review and how do we make sure that our checklists are we have checklists now, but it's like how do we make them easy to use and and that level of detail that Open Gov doesn't go into. And how do we be clear? You know, I mean, I

118think we want to make sure we're being as clear as possible to to empower people to be like, "Okay, I know exactly what they want and I'm gonna do it right." Rather than anything else. Good. Thank you. It's a great effort, Tina. Thanks so much. I think this is going to be really good. Great. Thank you. Any other questions for Tina? Any other comments? Thank you, Tina. Thank you. Thanks. All right. All right. So, our final uh final move for the night is to approve our minutes from May 21st. Uh I'm sure everyone has read them end to end. There are a lot of them from last meeting. Uh I'm going to turn over to to Reed. He usually I looked at usually has something to say about I looked I thought they looked fine.

119I didn't see any issues. Wow. Would you like to propose it? Would you like to propose adopting them? Sure. I make a motion to adopt the minutes. Second. All in favor adopting the minutes. All right. Great. Thank you, Jody, for the minutes. Uh, and then one more. I make a motion to adjourn. And is there a second? Okay. So, lots of seconds. All in favor?