East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 05/21/2025

001The next game starts at 8. All righty, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are off. Go for it. Thank you, Matt. Welcome to the planning board in the town of East Hampton's May 21st, 2025 meeting. We have a very ambitious schedule tonight. We're hopefully we can move things along briskly. Um so we're going to just jump right in. Our first matter tonight is uh the Devon Yacht Club. And Michael, that's yours. Lisa for the planning department. Uh I see the applicant is here and accounted for. So please um good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Lisa Lori and I'm a consultant to the planning department and I've been reviewing this uh Devon Yacht Club application for well more than a year, put it that way. And um

002I I know that uh some of you are new, so I'm going to just briefly go over um the application, but um uh I I believe everybody knows where it is as it's been an establishment that's been in this town for about a hundred years. Uh the yacht club um along Bendigo Road and Abrams Landing Road and uh the uh Gardener's Bay. And just as a bit of history as to how we got here tonight, the last time the planning board discussed this, there were a number of items that still needed to be done in order to be completed. It's a large project with many elements. Um, and it has also been described somewhat like a jigsaw puzzle. So if you move one thing, you know, you encroach on another thing. And so the planning

003board and the department um have been working to get this to be the best application it could be. And the applicant has come in with a number of changes to improve things. But after the last time the planning board looked at it, which was March of 2024, um we didn't really know how to best advance the project because it needed 20 variances. And so before the planning board could really sign off on it, um you needed to hear what the zoning board um was inclined to do because if they were only going to give 10 variances, then the application wouldn't be able to go forward the way that you were looking at it. Um so the application was sent to the zoning board of appeals for their preliminary impression. It was not their final or

004official hearing, but it was a hearing, what we called the preliminary hearing. And that process took a little bit longer than uh we expected. Um but along the way, the application was changing to make in in responses to the comments that were offered um uh by the planning department and the zoning board of appeals. So we have the benefit of coming back to you now with an application that has continued to change in the direction to um protect the environmental resources. Um and as I said the applicant has changed the application has changed a number of times in this direction all for what we um consider improvements. Uh so in order to give you a an a little bit of a hint of what the uh zoning board of appeals said, we provided you with

005their April 22nd, 2025 um memo and um they generally um considered the application favorable and um as it was presented and they're acknowledging that there have been adjustments ments made um positive changes and that there are probably some other things that still um needed to be tweaked and done. They referred to some things as sticking points. There was not a vote taken as we didn't really want one until there's a real application, right? Ser has not been complied with and you know the application needs to be a formal one. But they were giving a positive indication to the planning board so that you have an indication as to how to proceed that these 20 variances are likely to be granted. Um they had some specific comments um concerned about the intensification of use as the

006gross floor area is increasing and uh I'll remind the board that whereas the gross floor area is increasing um the the building coverage that is the footprint is not increasing it is decreasing by a couple of hundred square feet. So the gross floor area increases on really the second floor. Um and the ZBA offered some comments about how um potentially to consider um a a um you know stop gaps against intensification of use. The applicant has already offered a covenant uh to the town restricting the membership to 400 which is what it has been in in their rules and regulations. I don't know what they're called for quite some time. So that wouldn't increase that and they're about at that membership level now. Um so they're um offering that it will not increase in intensity

007even though the square footage the gross for square foot footage is increasing. Um the zoning board offered some other um things for uh your consideration. Um there was in terms of drainage, there was uh one ZBA member who um really wanted a lot more information on the drainage to see that it was going to work, how it was all going to happen. There's a lot of fill being proposed on the site um that will actually help improve the drainage situation, right? Because the the property is so close to groundwater conditions, in order to have the minimum separation between groundwater and the bottom of the sanitary system and the bottom of the um drainage rings, they need to bring in fill. Um but there's a lot of elements as to how all of that's going to

008work. They have had a preliminary drainage plan. The engineer looked at it and asked for some more changes to it. Um but kind of minor things. And in fact, in his memo tonight, he says that, you know, all that he has requested has been complied with in terms of his earlier memo. Um, but there are a lot of things going on on this property. So that we're we're still not at um a complete um acceptable plan yet, and I'll go into why later. Um there's a lot of fill that's going to be um brought in in order to meet that separation to groundwater. Um and the the amount of fill has been a concern to the planning department um because we want to make sure that it's a very constrained site. You're between wetlands and

009the dune and there's you know not much room to wiggle. Um the application the construction is proposed to be done in two phases over two consecutive years in the off seasons. And so there's like even more limited area where the the field can be stored, where the construction debris can be. But they've been um working on a construction protocol, SWIP plan, and a number of other things kind of laying all of that um out. Um, and in response to the planning department's concern for the amount of fill and the amount of disturbance that could bring, including the amount of truck trips, the applicant has several times um, kind of sharpened their pencils and looked at areas where they can reduce the amount of fill, for example, not having to raise the tennis courts as much

010as originally proposed and some other things like that that won't affect the drainage or the sanitary system, but other areas that had originally been proposed for higher elevations and um and we you know commend those changes. The ZBA was also um looking at alternatives um while they also acknowledged that uh the property is not a vacant site and there are things that uh you know they're not new buildings or new uses that are being proposed. Um and so the the zoning board um acknowledged that the property the use can continue to operate under the existing environmental conditions which as we've acknowledged don't have proper sanitary or drainage or some of the other mitigation that's being proposed. So while planning department and maybe even the zoning board have pushed to see are there alternatives that would

011be more protective of the environment um the zoning board was cognizant of the fact that you've got an existing site and and development and that needs to be weighed in consideration of what other alternatives you might um look at. Um in terms of the uh FEMA um the zoning board uh commended the application for meeting the FEMA first floor elevations and the construction standards and even in um in anticipation of perhaps sea level rise having other impacts on the site. the uh buildings are proposed to be constructed on pilings which is in conformance with FEMA, but um the way that the buildings are proposed to be constructed would lend themselves to be raised in the future should that be needed um to you know anticipating a sea level rise. And there are a couple of

012other things that the zoning board said that they're not going to be taking a look at. they're deferring to the planning board for looking at some things and um the architectural review board for other things and on the last page they were you know itemizing a number of positive features of the application al together. Okay, so that's what the zoning board wanted you to know. Um and so uh where are we today? Okay, so the application um has been deemed to be a type one action pursuant to SRA and so that requires a full environmental assessment form which the applicant has provided and then the next step because it is a type one action you need to coordinate lead agency with all the other town agencies and state agencies that are involved. So what we're

013recommending is you commence that process now to establish lead agency. The planning board has been going over this all the aspects of it and we believe that the planning board is the best board to be um the lead agency as a result. There was a revised site plan May 13th which corrected an inadvertent error in terms of parking lot um aisles and things like that and that has all been corrected. Um that in so doing the um the application uh has improved and has responded to one of the planning departments concerned for some time in that yeah if you could point out that area that the entrance way the proposed entrance well there's actually two entrances but one of them that exists today and is proposed to be used for the for in the reconstructed

014site is really just about one foot away from the wetlands to the south. That's an existing condition. So, the applicant really has every right to continue it as it is. But we brought up that concern that what's going to happen now is a rather large demolition and construction project. It doesn't really exist. We're going to have a lot of stuff with fill and other things and digging up in order to get drain structures and so forth. And we um acknowledge that just a one- foot setback from the wetlands gives no room for error in case anything else happens. And so they have come back and added an additional 2 ft in that area. And we applaud them for it. And again, that is responding to something that we have asked for for quite some time.

015And that's in this new plan here. The clubhouse sanitary layout has also improved um as they've got the closest leeching pool now 72.8 8 ft from the freshwater wetlands whereas it previously was 71 ft. Um the drainage and grading plan uh I'll get into a little bit more what the um consulting engineer said. The amount of fill um has been um reduced. Um we just need some clarification. There were some numbers about how much fill there was going to be in one plan because there's a construction plan, there's a sweat plan, there's a whole bunch of things. We need everything to all um agree upon themselves. Um and the flag pole platform, you can maybe point to that um which is on the dock um had been a concern um as a as the potential

016in fact impacts on destabilizing the dune. And so that has now been reduced to a 4 foot by four feet a 4 and 1/2 ft area. So that's pretty dimminimous by comparison to what had happened. And again, we applaud the applicant for responding to our concern about that and um what it might do to the dune. Um in terms of the intensification of use related to the gross floor area, um as I believe I said um before the it's the gross floor area that's increasing, not the um building coverage. and that's largely due to the second floor. The largest increase in gross floor area is for the clubhouse which is 63% increase. And the applicant provided a uh plan showing like a breakdown of where that increase was proposed and compared it to the existing

017building. And really what it showed was 1,600 square ft of increase of usable area for guests. The other areas that are proposed to increase in making compo comprising that 63% increase were really for kitchen expansions to to make it more usable. It's a very old building and it doesn't meet standards and it's very hard for the chefs to stand up from what I understand. And there's other things that are needed for ADA compliance, fire compliance, um having some storage, having u you know offices for the staff. So that's not really increasing the capacity. The real capacity is about 1,600 square feet which is you know not that 63% expansion is not represented by the 1600 square ft. The lighting plan has been revised. the reveation and dune stabilization um plan um is uh acceptable. We

018may be looking at it a little bit more. Um the septic loads, we had some questions that we just want to confirm uh the applicant and the uh health department. The workshop, we had a question about it being connected to sanitary, but it is confirmed that there won't be any plumbing in the workshop. and then the SWIP temporary erosion and the sediment control plan and the construction protocol. So, we've got a lot of things going on here um as are recommended and required uh for this type of site. When there's more than um an acre of disturbance on a site, you're required to do uh the SWIP. So I've got um the planning department has a number of kind of minor things uh that are indicated that you know need to be corrected or or

019um clarified. The consulting engineer um it basically finds uh all of this to be acceptable as well. Uh but with the drainage plan prior to recommending approval, the design must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the DEEC and the speedies for general permit for construction activity. Um there's um a couple of other questions about um the [Music] um construction protocol. Um but here's something that we're going to suggest for further evaluation and and conclusion later. You know, that doesn't mean that the application is incomplete. The um as the engineer pointed out, the um the adjacent roadways that are going to be providing access uh to this site are classified as rural collector streets and the condition is fair to good. And with the number of uh trips proposed just for the fill and not for

020the demolition debris and for the you know the other construction vehicles um that um is quite large. Um the applicant has um responded to that earlier concern saying they'll discuss it with the highway superintendent as to whether there should be a bond or something for that um you know to take care of in case there is any sort of um disruption um to the roadway system. Um we appreciate that. We feel that the planning board should be kind of in the loop for what that's going to be. So we would, you know, also want to be consulting with the highway superintendent and maybe if it is determined that a bond is required, make it maybe a condition of the planning board approval rather than separate for the highway department. Um, and I mentioned the things

021about the SWIP plan and the temporary erosion. So there are a bunch of, you know, more minor things that need to be corrected. And I think I've spoken long enough, but I'll be happy to answer any questions. Um yeah, I thought it might be useful for the board and for the applicant to kind of hear your view on what the process looks like going forward from tonight. Great. Right. Okay. Good. Thank you. So, um what we're recommending is that uh the planning board say we've got enough to deem this application complete for starting the SER process. So that would mean you would, you know, take the EAF part one and the the application and route it to all the involved agencies and ask them if you could be lead agency and tell them why you

022think that you could be and the way the secret regulations are written is um an agency has 30 days to respond. So the way that we've kind of you know a lot of times the agencies don't respond. So what do you do? So we say, "Hey, if we don't hear from you within 30 days, we're taking it." Okay? So that way it ends the process rather than wait, you know, forever for somebody to answer who might not be likely to. So after that is done and we believe that no other agency is going to want it, um we will then go forward um with the planning board would be the lead agency and then the next step would be to do the environmental assessment form. it's part two, three, and you know, make the secret

023declaration. Once the secret declaration is made, the application is complete. It could be ready for hearings. So, the next hearing would be the one in front of the zoning board of appeals because you're going to want an application that is already it it'll meet zoning if the zoning board gives all the variances, right? So, it'll come back to you as meeting zoning and then you'll have your public hearing then. So this one so if those agencies respond in less than 30 days that we can we can begin absolutely and we would love for that to happen. Is that just a fantasy that never happened in my time in a girlfriend? we will, you know, do what we can and I and I agree, you know, we hate to actually have to build in those 30

024days unnecessarily, but you know, some of the agencies that we have to route to just never do. Sometimes they come back, the health department sometimes comes back with with comments, but a lot of them won't. And and so just to just to say that the you know the things that you mentioned that need to be addressed in the meantime can be in the process of being addressed during that 30-day period, right? Yes, we believe so. We we believe that these are not, you know, things that insurmountable. Okay. And we've been working with the applicant to kind of get it this far and and we believe that it'll continue. Good. Thanks, Lisa. Okay. I I just wanted to clarify two things that you said because I'm not sure uh I say it the same way as

025you did. Uh the first one was you said that the zoning board uh said that they were most likely to approve the variances. Now I watched that meeting. I watched all three meetings, but I think it was the last one where they had that discussion and one or two of the pl the zoning board members used that language and it was immediately u disputed by the other members and they had quite a conversation, extensive conversation about it and they wanted to make sure that they didn't give the message that we're likely to approve these variances. That's not what we're doing here. I think they went and again this is my paraphrasing and interpretation, but this is what I got out of it. They what they said instead is that they were they got positive feedback

026from the applicant. They made headway. It was it was heading in the right direction, but they were they were low to reach the conclusion that they were ready to approve the variances. That was my takeaway. Yes. And I'm sorry if I um misrepresented it. They don't have a complete application. They weren't voting on it. They weren't saying we're going to give these variances. But what the planning board and the planning department was asking, do you think it's in the realm of being approvable? Um, what I I failed to mention, but I put in the memo, one zoning board member wrote kind of a disscent to this memo that the rest of the zoning board agreed to, saying that she didn't um feel that the zoning board should be saying it has a likelihood of approval

027at this point. Another member was very concerned with the drainage plan, wanted a more full explanation of it and understanding of it. And as the consulting engineer hadn't yet signed off on it, she wasn't comfortable with going forward with it. But the the what I described is the memo that the zoning board actually sent. So while it was the meeting, there was a lot of discussion. they had to go on to several meetings to finally um reach their conclusion. I'm I'm only stating what the final synopsis was in the form of that memo. Okay. And the other uh item that I wanted to bring up, you mentioned that the maximum membership is 400 and that the current membership is almost at that number. I just wanted to clarify that. I think I read somewhere that

028the actual and maybe someone can confirm it here. The actual current membership is at 360. So there were a number of things and and the applicant is here and they can clarify it. But my understanding was although their cap is 400, they actually never want to reach 400. They want to leave a little bit of room for wiggle for when a family member then wants to join also. also say like they're adult children now that are no longer part of their parents' membership. So, they keep a little bit of that leeway always open. Um I don't I don't recall they'll tell us whether66 or 380 something. I don't want if if it's if it's true. I don't want everyone to get the impression that they're almost at maximum that there is some gap there between

029current membership and maximum that there is the possibility that they could fill that gap. That's all. Yeah. Sure. I'll let the applicant to that. Yeah. Yeah. Is that is everyone any other questions for Lisa while she's up there? Okay. All right. Great. Name and address for the record, please. Hi, Richard Warren of Science Southampton, New York Dear Club. To answer Mr. Cortez's question, the club operates at a membership of about 360 and they save the room that extra 40 from 360 to 400 to deal with family members um who at the age of the family ability to be a member and also if there's a divorce husband and wife they divorce they have the ability for the husband and wife to actually have their own membership. So, if a family member is already there operate

030coming to the facility and they're using the boating or they're using the tennis or they're using the dining or it's a divorce couple that's using the the dining or the boating or the tennis or whatever it might be. They may have a couple more members, but it doesn't change the intensity of use because they actually want to keep that buffer there so they can deal with the the needs of a club. So, it's not as though they're going to bring in 40 new people that are sitting here that aren't members of the club and all of a sudden there's an intensity of use. This is for the people that are already there in the facility that are using the facility, but there's a reason why there may be a separation membership. So that that's why

031they have that. Um, so we've been working with Lisa to try to address the questions along the way. This this application is has been in the town for three years. It's been a been a process. So, we're trying to see if we can get through this process hopefully um sometime this fall because it's going to take about a year for the club to arrange for the construction because this is a tight construction window. So, we're working very hard. We provided a very extensive environmental assessment form. It's about this thick that Lisa has and that I think you probably all have it in a in a zip drive or something. Um, so we've been trying to actually address all the issues that raised that might be raised. One of the things that was helpful for zoning

032board of appeals members and I do believe a couple of the planning board members showed up is that we offered the opportunity for people to actually walk the site with us and actually see what's going on there because sometimes it's hard to look at understand what's going on. Walk through the building, see the kitchen, understand why, you know, some of the space is getting bigger because the kitchen is so undersized. And this is an old facility. The clubs have been around for 108 years. Um, has all cos allowed to operate exactly the way it is right now. There's no in plan change in the intensity of use, no plan change in the type of uses that the club has. This is about trying to preserve the legacy of this club. Um, so we we have

033Lisa's memo. We have the memo from Bidding Godello. Uh, the engineers of town is hired. We'll be working through that over the the coming weeks to try to get this done. I can tell you the New York State PEC does not want lead agency because I met with them last week and I mentioned it and they and they smiled smile said no we don't want it. We were hoping and um I know the zoning board of appeals doesn't want it because they mentioned that when we had our conversation back then. So the the number of agencies that you need to for declaring lead agency is kind of getting smaller, but you actually do have to get something formal from them. I think that, you know, we could help try to coax out um some responses

034for them if necessary because we do want to try to keep this moving as as best we can. Good. We do have some have some time constraints on the part of the club. So, if any of the board members actually want to go see the facility, walk through it with the plans in hand, we can actually understand what's going on, I'd be happy to make arranges to do that. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thanks, Michael. Thank you Vori and Mr. Warren. Uh the applicant has presented this proposal to the planning board multiple times to the ZBA over three meetings to the East Hampton Town Trustees and to the Amigansid Citizens Advisory Committee. Have I missed anyone? Building department a couple of times been to the ARB. So well after what what I found after each

035presentation you have responded to the comments and you have um you've come back with a change a modification an improvement uh uh and the same is here today and uh I counted five a positive change in Lisa's memo so that's you're you're doing great uh and I think the Amigansit CA a member of the Amigansit CAC asked about solar panels And are you going to that's not a mandatory thing but are you going to do you put any solar panels on this site? So the intention is to put solar on top of the staff housing. Okay. So there is intention to do solar. They're doing the evaluations now that they have intended for solar amigance at CC will be very happy to hear. I appreciate the environmental sensitivity of uh this confined space and the

036necessary precautions that need to be in place for construction and demolition. But I look at this site and I encourage you all to go to it. And right now today it is an environmentally sensitive area. The staff housing is is practically sitting on a wetland. So when it rains and the water comes up, it is it goes under the building and the septic system. I have no idea what's going on there. Uh and and you're still planning to restore this wetland and remove that staff housing. Yes. The intention is to remove the staff housing which is in that little green bubble down off of Bendigo Road. Um we have there's 26 people that live on site right now. Staff people. They live in a dormatory building there. There's a cottage and then there's an apartment

037above the the clubhouse. And they're all going to be merged into a single staff building that's now more central at Yellow School. Right. And the wetland is is more or less parallel with Bendigo. And even on the other side of Bendigo is a wetland too. There's a significant wetland in that area. And if you go to this site, but probably a ticket if you took it down now, but I'm still shocked when I visited in in the off season that inside the building under a long roof is this temporary 2x4 wall they put in to in case there's a heavy snow load, they want to prevent it from collapsing. So, this building and this site inside and out is uh ready for some renovation. Uh the the ZBA member expressed concern about the drainage, one

038of them. And this is what the uh the uh town engineer said. Uh prior to recommending approval of final acceptance, and Lisa said this, I'm just going to repeat it. Uh proposed drainage design applicants, design professionals must demonstrate that the design also satisfies the criteria requirements of the DEC and Speedies. Will your will your design satisfy the DEEC? How different is the town's drainage standards than the DEEC's? Um, we're going to be our expectations are going to be getting DEC permits. We have a letter from the DEC freshwood wetlands division that say they're in favor of this project. So, so and we had a meeting last week with coastal erosion aspect and that's going before a group of people and they felt positive relative to that since we need some coastal erosion rel. That's great.

039Finally, when I when I I this project and uh when I first was going over it and I started the the uh town's coastal assessment resiliency plan, this is in line with that. And I wrote in my little notes that it jive to use a sailing term. Why not? Uh and in the note in the in the in the letter on the website, it says sea level rise will physically transform East Hampton. And it is this is a an important project to get ahead of all that. So, thank you. And I think and I turn it back to you. Okay. Thank you, Michael. Um, yeah. So, let's hear from everybody on the on the uh around the table today because I think this is obviously a really important and impactful project in many many ways.

040I just want to make sure we're all kind of lined up and kind of we know where we're headed. So, Reed, we'll start with you. Yeah. So, uh, just to be fully transparent, I I am a member of the Devon Club. Um, but I am confident. I can be objective and fair. I have no hidden bias. Um, and I've expressed this to council. Um, I think we are the appropriate lead agency. Uh, I'm comfortable with what I've seen thus far. Good. Thank you, Bruce. Yeah. No, I I would agree as well with Reed. Um, I think this is a great step. It seems like we're heading in the right direction. Um, you know, I love the idea that we're going to get back over anacre rebge. I think that's great for that area. Um, yeah,

041I I'm in favor. I like it. I like it. Good, Jen. Um, I agree. Um, I had the pleasure of taking a tour last fall or last late summer with you. So yeah, I mean the the building um you know the buildings that are there now are very old, very decrepit and not really up to any sort of environmental standards that the town is working towards. So um is this project in the interest of good planning as we ask all the time? Yes. Um 100% I think so. And I think as everybody has said already and I'd like to reiterate the fact that you guys have come back with, you know, responding to every suggestion that the planning department has made, I think is very positive. So, thank you. Thank you. Great. Thanks, John. Lou,

042yeah. Um, I'm in a dilemma with this uh project. I've struggled with it. Uh I haven't decided yet, but I'd just like to share the items that uh I'm I've been struggling with. You know, on one side, uh, the proposed renovation provides a not insignificant environmental improvement improvements over the status quo. The new IIA system, the relocation of the structures to more conforming locations and so forth. However, with those upgrades, the setback variances are still huge from the wetlands. Huge. I mean, look at the chart. the the U structures are just being moved slightly on a percentage basis. It's almost dimminimous. Um and they're all and that's from the wetlands, the dune crest and the sea line everywhere. And as we all know, it's very constricted. So they have no option but to move very

043uh in small increments. Plus the GFA is increasing by 43%. The clubhouse by 60%. And I understand the clubhouse part of that is the improve the kitchen and it doesn't really affect density but still it's a huge expansion. So what it comes down to and this is where the struggle that I've been dealing with is do we expand or reduce? Now I understand and I empathize with the applicants desire to make this as prominent and as useful and as beneficial to their uh membership as possible. But on the other side, there's the question of good planning. And I think good planning requires not just coming up with the most deluxe, prominent expansion, but maybe to consider a more quaint and discreet type of uh renovation. So, I think that's that's a choice that should be

044we should be considering. I know that they've come, you know, on a lot of these jigsaw puzzle questions. They've moved in a positive direction, but it's minimal. It's really not that much. And um I think you know the way this thing has gone is that they produced a plan and the only question has been whether or not the drainage should be done a certain way, whether the u uh the fill should be done a certain way. We should you know minimize deplatform with the flag pole. These are all small things. I think the question that I want to consider is do we expand it as much as possible which is what the applicant wants to do or do we come up with a different plan that's a lot smaller maybe not what they want but

045I think it's better for the town in the long run with good planning. So those those are my thoughts. Thank you Eva. Um well I I am in favor of this this plan. I I do think that it's it's utilizing and preserving the legacy of this club and doing it in a you know in a fashion that is current. Um Michael, you had some really great points. And uh to one point that wasn't brought up. I actually do live right down the street from the club. Very familiar. Been there many many times. Lisa, you did bring up the um the uh the roadways and the potential bond with the highway department. I do feel very strongly as a resident with young children in that area that that is something that if we are lead agent

046that we are definitely in the loop with the highway department um because I think that's very important there that's a heavily residential area and those roads are very narrow with no shoulder and to have trucks going up and down and with the bridge being out on uh Cranberry Hole that's going to be a very wellused um Abraham landing is going to be a very wellused road. So, that would be my one major concern for the project. Okay. Thanks, Ava. Um, yeah, I you know, I we've been saying kind of all along really since we began evaluating this project that this is a really commendable undertaking, you know, and and it's an important one for the town. It sort of sets the tone, I think, for other other organizations to really look at their sustainability, right?

047and to look at sea level change in a real re very realistic way. So it's a model as far as I'm concerned and what we've been trying to do low these many years we've been all talking about this is to make it better and better and better and I think I agree with what others have said that each time that that you present we're getting closer to something that kind of meets um you know really meets our requirements right um so I I commend you for responding as as in the way that you have I think it's a really great thing but there's still some work to too. As we see, we're not quite there yet, but we're getting close. Um, so yeah, I think that, you know, we need to sort of proceed with

048uh establishing ourselves as lead agent and we have a few items to kind of go over with you now for things you might be working on during the time when we're proposing to be lead agent. Um and you know there'd be more opportunity for discussion as we go on and have a full application and begin the secret process. We'll have more discussion about you know some other aspects of the site plan. So let's just focus on what needs to be done now. Okay. Um so the questions that we have for the board are is the application ready for the planning board to commence the process to establish lead agency? Yes. We're all in favor of that. Right. Okay. Should the applicant consider additional methods uh and tools to assure and guard against intensification of use

049of the property facilitated by the increase in GFA? I think we'll all agree on that, right? Yeah. Okay. Covenant is a good Yeah, we can we can discuss the details on that as we go forward. I was going to say details are important. Yeah, details will be very important and I think we've had these conversations with you, Rick. Right. Yeah. um you know the restriction on membership you know maybe some other uh dining patron limitations you know since there's going to be some additional dining area I I believe on the second floor maybe something like like that but we'll that's that's a shift of dining that's on the first floor to the second to the second floor yeah that's exist existing dining that is closer to the street and the configuration we wanted to improve

050the setback off of a planning road So, we took the casual dining that is currently there and Can you come up to the microphone? Sorry. Sorry. The um the casual dining that they have that they call a snack bar that is on the I guess the north end of the building on this drawing. It's this side of the building. Um it comes almost right to the property line. So, in order to improve that setback, you know, and and reduce the degree of nonconformity of the building, we took the casual dining there and moved it up upstairs. Okay. Yeah. So it's not actually an increase in any facilities per second just right and we you know we don't have to you know determine all these details at this moment but you know just as an example

051of some things that would be beneficial to us to hear from you about how to how to assure there won't be intensification of these. Um should the applicant provide additional vegetation to stabilize the reconstructed doom? We'll all be in agreement on that right? Yes. Um, should the applicant provide additional information to clarify the septic load figures for the de for the development and compliance with Suffach County Department of Health Services requirements? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No doubt about that. Um, should the applicant make changes, corrections, and responses to the consulting engineer and planning department assessments, including the recommendations pertaining to SWIP, construction protocol, and the erosion and sediment control plan. Yes. Yes. So, I mean, these are all things that really can be tackled starting now, especially the highway, you know, getting in contact with

052the highway, which is part of that piece of that last bit. Yeah. All right. So, you need to actually adopt a resolution to request lead agency status. Well, we commenced the process. You know, we've agreed that we were going to commence the process to Shouldn't they adopt a resolution? Resolution. It's not a resolution. I I I'm unaware of that part of the process. They could go ahead. They've agreed to do it. Okay. I don't know that they need to do it by resolution. I'll check with council to to make sure that I mean, they just you just voted for it. We don't have a resolution. Okay. All right. So, as long as long as you got Yeah, we're not declaring lead agency yet. We're just starting the process. But 30 days starts now. 30 days

053starts now. Well, as soon as notification goes out, yeah, like not now. Now, nowish. Thank you very much. Thank you. If anybody wants to do the site, just let us know. That was really helpful. Yeah, I highly recommend so we can just be in touch with you directly. Just contact me and I'll I'll make arrangements and we'll meet at the site and I'll walk you through or if you can't get him, call my office. All right, great. Thanks, sir. All right, thanks very much. Thank you. Okay. Uh, so the next project is the subdivision subdivision review of 55 Wayne Scott Hollow. I see a number of supporters of the East Hampton Fruit Pantry back there. Um, hi Sharon. Who is representing? Yep. So, I am representing 55 Wayne Scott Hollow as council. Eric Chance is

054ours. Eric. So, Eric's going to start with his presentation. Great. Thank you. Okay. How is everyone? All right. Hi. Okay. Let's uh begin. This is a request to modify the final subdivision approval of 55 Wayne Scott Hollow. Um the board knows there was a very recently a previous modification request that related to um fences and gates within the agricultural easement. This is a separate request. I will show you the property here on an aerial photograph. You can see it's on the western end of town, south of the highway. I will zoom in. Um, basically the point of the request is that there is a garage, an accessory structure, um, on the property that they have converted to a barn and want to keep as an agricultural structure. In order to do that, they need to

055modify um or remove condition of approval number 12, which says the applicant shall remove or relocate to one of the proposed lots all of the existing on-site structures, which are labeled as quote existing structures to be removed on the final subdivision map prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy on any of the lots. So basically, um, and I'll switch over to the approved final subdivision map and zoom in a little bit for you. Um, basically what you will see is at the center of the a reserve property, um, which is lot number eight or center front I should say. Um there were uh a sing was a single family residence metal containers two of them and then a garage uh 733 ft building identified as garage. The residence and the metal storage containers have

056since been removed but they want to keep the garage. So um zooming out a little bit um this map has been filed um as evidenced by again going back to the aerial and you can see that the um separate lots uh are all there and then the subject area here is the a reserve. Um so uh again um you know the request here is to remove condition of approval number 12. Um, this seems to be in keeping uh with the intention of creating an agricultural reserve. It's also in keeping with the language of the agricultural easement that was filed over the a reserve. The a reserve is in private ownership of the original developer, but there's a affirmative farming easement over it um u you know issued um to the benefit of the town. So,

057um, one of the things the planning board always has to consider, again, this is a modification to remove a condition of approval. Whenever you're considering that, you need to consider whether or not there's a legitimate change of circumstances um that you know uh necessitates a change uh from what the previous board approved. We would um highlight that at the time um those structures the the residence the garage and the metal storage containers were all non-aggricultural structures. Um hence there was a discussion at the board level about what should happen. The board knew setting it up as an a reserve and the condition was to remove everything that was in the a reserve. Um they have since um you know want to repurpose this building this garage building as a barn an agricultural structure. Um so

058that is a different situation uh from what was presented to the board earlier. And then probably more so is the um as far as a change of circumstances goes, the subsequent filing of the agricultural easement over the property uh which has language in it that specifically says that all of the existing um on-site structures can remain in place in kind. Um and it says that they can be expanded or added to or additional structures can be added if all of the necessary approvals under the town code um are obtained in this case. Um again this subject request is just a modification to remove that condition of approval. Um we feel it makes sense. Actually technically the applicants could take this garage move it across the street get cos on all the properties. they would have

059met the condition of approval to to remove it and then they could come back in and request to move it uh right back on the property. Um we do note and um hopefully you can see it on this aerial and when I zoom in here it will become evident. Um obviously this main building that you see is the garage or barn but obviously there are other structures in the a reserve. Um we had a note in the memorandum just basically for the board and for the applicant saying that you know if the way the code is worded you don't need any and the way the a easement is worded you don't need any approvals if you're not touching this structure not changing the exterior doing absolutely nothing to it but the way the code is

060worded um basically any change to the building is going to require at least architectural review board uh approval uh exteriors um any associated accessory structure. So, even adding some gravel around the building for a parking area uh requires site plan approval. Um it seems likely that the applicants will be back in uh in front of the planning board for a site plan approval. Um that is however um irrespective of the modification request that they're making. And in fact, um, you know, you couldn't enable a site plan application without granting the mod the modification request right now or them removing or relocating the structures. Um, again, this is an a reserve and and it has an a easement over it. Uh, it's intended to be actively farmed. So, it makes sense to have buildings that are

061agricultural buildings. So, we support the modification request. We made the note um you know looking at the aerial that uh it does look like there might be other issues um other structures that might need other approvals um and you know the applicant is um made aware of that but the basically the bottom line is that uh the department supports the modification request. Thank you Eric. Applicant just name and address for the record please. Absolutely. John Borquin of Greenberg Trow, 2317 Main Street in Bridgeampton, appearing on behalf of 55 Wayne Scott Hollow LLC. I also have the principal here available with me tonight. Um, so I just want to acknowledge that Eric and the staff report did a very good job of giving an overview of this application, so I'll try to keep my comments brief.

062Um, by way of quick summary, the subdivision was approved by this board in 2017. The application before you now is to amend item 12 of the approval resolution. That item obligated applicants to remove or relocate all of the existing structures in the aggreserve area prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy on any of the subdivision lots. And as was discussed at the time of the subdivision, there were multiple buildings and structures on the reserve area. All of one have since been removed. the one that we're discussing tonight, which is the garage. Um, the point of the current application is to strike item 12 at the resolution so that that applicant can convert that garage into a barn. So, the easement area is, as Eric mentioned, encumbered by an easement for with the town of

063East Hampton, which was entered into subsequent to this planning board resolution. Um the language of the town easement states that the applicant can continue to use repair and replace non-residential buildings and structures within the a easement and it further it says that the applicant can construct and erect new buildings reasonably necessary for agricultural operations. So globally the town recognizes the importance of agriculture and related agricultural improvements to the town's well-being. I'll point you to town code 1341. At the state level, the agriculture and markets law states that local governments should exercise their power in a way to not unreasonably burden farm operations with an agricultural district in which this property is cited. Um, and as Eric gave a good discussion of, I understand that this board has a policy that changes in circumstances are looked

064for or considered um, in warranting um, or in amending prior approvals. Um, the staff report and Eric's presentation correctly identified the two change circumstances here. First off, the board's previous discussion of the structures was at a time when the structures were all in non-aggricultural use. The present application before us now is to convert the remaining structure into agricultural use consistent with the the spirit of agricultural easement. Um secondly, subsequent to the planning board's approval, which was early in 2017, um the town entered into its agricultural easement, which is I believe July of 2017. And that easement specifically states that existing structures may remain and that new agricultural buildings can be constructed. Um lastly, as the staff report correctly states, site plan approval is not needed for this structure in the A reserve. Um that's at

065page three of the staff report. So to pull this all together and to give a concise overview, amending the approval to allow the conversion of this garage into an agricultural barn is permissible under the recorded easement. It's within the spirit of the town code, the state's agriculture and markets law, and this board's policies. What's more important and what's really crucial, however, is that the barn and the farm that it will support is a vital supply of fresh and local produce to the East Hampton food pantry, members of which are here in support tonight. Um, this pantry provides food to over 1,000 people across the town of East Hampton, including children within the school district. Um, members of the East Hampton Food Pantry provided several letters and support, which I see are reflected in the record.

066I do have one additional um one signed by John Kent Coaleno. I'm sorry for butchering that which I'd like to add to the record tonight. Um just some minor objects here and there. Um ARB approval. I spoke with um both Mr. Collins um and the and Eric this morning. Um the language in the staff report implying that ARB approval is needed for the barn isn't exactly spoton. uh architectural review board review would only be required if there were exterior changes to the building, none of which are proposed right now. Um and as for the new fencing in the easement area, that fencing, if it could be considered new, is not part and parcel of tonight's application. And if any further review is needed, ARB or otherwise, um I would discuss with the applicable board's attorney,

067that the Agon markets law in some cases actually preempts local zoning. In any event, that is outside the scope of our application tonight. Um so for the above reference reasons, we respectfully ask that this board adopt a resolution modifying its prior resolution of 2017 to remove paragraph 12. Um, we also respectfully request that any resolution approve the existing barn and fencing as uh together as part and parcel. Okay. So, um, I'm available for any questions and I know that this is a public meeting and not a public hearing, but if you would like to hear from either the applicant or the members of the East Hampton Food Pantry, um, I know they would, um, love to answer any questions or give input. We, you know, we've read the letters that have been submitted. I think

068we we understand the importance of the food pantry. Um we understand the case for sure. Yes. So thank you for that offer though. Um so we Bruce, I think this is your application and just a reminder to the board that we're only here to consider one very narrow thing which is do we strike uh item 12. Item 12. Thank you very much. Item 12. That's really it. you know, any sort of further downstream uh applications that might be made or site approvals that might be needed for other things are really not going to be considered tonight. Just that one thing. Thank you. I I appreciate the clarification and the understanding. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, John. Um I think this is pretty straightforward. I really don't have much to comment on this.

069They've pretty much covered everything that I was thinking about and uh I think it just makes sense. Yeah. Anyone else have any other comments? No, I don't. I support Yeah, this is pretty straightforward. Yeah, guys. Yeah, we do have a couple of questions to uh to answer here, but start with it's not a jigsaw. Yeah, this is not a jigsaw puzzle like our favorite, right? Uh, does the board agree to remove condition of approval number 12 in order to allow the pre-existing garage building shown on the approved map to remain if converted to an agricultural building? Yes. Yes. Does the board find that a change of circumstances is present? I think we agree on that that we're repurposing a garage as an agricultural building, a barn. Uh, is the modification application complete and ready for

070approval? We all agree? Yes. Good. I think we're done. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Wow. We never get involved. Wow. On behalf of all the people we serve. Yeah. Just for some boring housekeeping, who should I hand the letters of support up to for the record? Yeah. Planning department? Mr. Collins. Oh, Jody. We know it is. We know that. Thank you. Thank you. All right, let's keep moving along here. Our next uh application is a subwaver review for the Shunster property. And let's see, Chris, that's you. Bruce, that's you for uh for the board. Uh the applicant is here, Lori Wilchshire. So take it away, Chris. Thank you. So this is the uh second review of the Shsterster subwaver subdivision waiver application. It's located at 20 Bay View Avenue here in East

071Hampton. Um just to reference sites north of the affordable housing in the town as well as the history and sand mine is also nearby. Um the property zone B residence is located within several areas of environmental consideration that includes the South County Pine Barons groundwater management zone 5, the town water protection district and South ground special groundwater protection district. Um the site is also partially cleared of natural vegetation for the town's records and as seen in the area imagery. The existing parcel was a originally compromised of three parcels. Just going to pull up the map here showing those lines um as part of the Olympic Heights section 2 subdivision filed May 3rd, 1912. These parcels were subsequently abandoned and consolidated under common ownership in September 2023 as required by its designation within an old file

072uh map study area. The former lot lines are shown on the proposed subdivision wave map along uh with the former lines. I'm just going to pull up their proposed map here. So going on to the application itself, the application has been made to divide the approximately 38,668 square foot parcel into two individual lots, one of which would be 20,159 square ft. That's parcel one. And parcel 2 is proposed to be 18,59 square ft. The property is 240 ft of frontage on Bay View Avenue in East Hampton. And from the last review, the majority of the board was not supportive of the application since the proposal would create a non-conforming uh parcel could establish a precedent for similar proposals. Um, and that would be parcel 2 given the minimum plot area is 20,000 square feet. So

073going over the comments um from the last review, I'll go over the planning board's comment that was issued to the applicant followed by their response in the planning department assessment. So first the board asked the applicant to submit a narrative that supports the purpose of the project to demonstrate that area van varant standards um could be met. and a narrative was submitted explaining that the owner purchased the three vacant parcels which eventually merged um automatically. The narrative details the land owner intended for the parcel to remain as separate lots for the benefit of his children to develop the property with their own homes. Also detailed is that the proposed lot area of parcel 2 of 18,5009 is only 1,491 square ft less than the required um 20,000 that ends up being 7.5%. Um reference was

074made to when a non-conforming lot was approved in 2018 in the matter of the application Henry Dmer for the zoning board of appeals determination detailed that quote due to the old filed map study many of the lots within this area of East Canton are substandard in size proposed lots would be similar in sizes to others in the neighborhood. End quote. The applicant narrative details that this established a precedent. Reference was also made to the lot sizes of the surrounding properties and the narrative details that 17 of the 23 parcels fronting Bay View Avenue are less than the required 20,000 ft and the average lot size for the street is 13,428 ft. The narrative concludes by mentioning the applicant is based application is based in hardship and requests the board inform them when to make the

075required revision. So the planning department's assessment of this is that the board should review the submitted narrative in its entirety and determine if additional information is needed. So, we note that the ZBA will need to apply its standards to the variance application and that makes it impossible for the planning board to determine if the variance standards can be met as the ZBA's decision and public hearing process will determine this. Um, however, the planning department offers the following for your consideration and discussion. So firstly we we agree with the applicant statement that the scale of the variance is not substantial and that it's 7.5%. The board and the applicant should refer to the attached section 255850 of the town code which details the ZBA standards for review of an area variance request. Also section 255860 of

076the town code details limitations on certain variances that the ZBA considers. Although this section of the code is primarily a consideration of the zoning board, it's relevant to this application and the board should consider part B of this section which is quoted in the report. But um to paraphrase it basically says the intended benefit of upgraded zoning requirements is sometimes defeated by creating non-conforming laws by variance which is found to harm the health, safety and general welfare of the community and against public policy. The code also details that the ZBA quote shall not be compelled to grant any such variance solely based on the size of adjacent lots, the average size of lots in the neighborhood, or any other similar narrow consideration. End quote. Next point is that one of the primary purposes of the

077old filed study map was to combine substandard lots for the purposes of orderly development and the property that was originally a combination of lots from that 1912 subdivision. Redividing the um proposed merger of these lots would be um contrary to the urban renewal map which is an established comprehensive plan by the town. And lastly for this point regarding the reference to the ZBA approval from 2018 for the application of Henry Dmer which granted an area variance to create two non-conforming parcels. The planning department notes that this did not create non-conforming lot areas. Instead it created non-conforming lot widths. So the planning department does not um think that this appears to have established a precedent for approving uh substandard lot areas. So going on to the next points two through six. I'm going to just go

078through them together since these were like technical details we asked for and the applicant is yet to um provide additional information. So number two was the applicant should confirm the presence of steep slopes greater than 20,000 uh 20% excuse me throughout each uh property and revise a map to indicate these areas. Point three was to show proposed building envelopes which avoided the greater than 20%. Point four was to um submit a revised map that depicts a scenic easement or similar mechanism um to preserve the vegetation along Bay View Avenue. Point five was to indicate the clearing both on the map and with calculations to show conformance with the town code requirements. And point six, the last point was just to provide details on the water supply and sanitary system for the project. Um, as mentioned,

079the applicant did not provide details, but requested that the board inform them when to coordinate the required revisions. Uh, the planning department's assessment is that the applicant was informed after the last review to provide the details mentioned for consideration. And we do have some con some feedback for points four and five uh regarding the scenic easement and clearing. So pursuant to the town code um all subdivisions are required to um to provide a scenic easement or reserved area for at least 10% of the total lot depth of the subject parcel. Um this may be waved by the planning board for subdivision waiverss. Um however this image here shows from a site visit um that several mature trees are along the road that could be preserved by a scenic easement. Um therefore the planning department recommends

080requiring um such an easement especially when the proposal is uh adding density to an area which would uh currently only be allowed to be improved with one residence. And then for um clearing, we just note that if the existing clearing is not conforming, that a reveation plan should be reviewed as part of this application. Uh and if it's only the proposed clearing that's not conforming, that could be reviewed um prior to a CL being issued. Going back to the other issues that are not related to the planning board's uh last discussion, state environmental quality review act uh still an unlisted action pursuing to SRA and we advise the applicant to submit a short environmental assessment form for review. Uh as mentioned um before submitting this application, the applicant did file an old uh filed map

081modification now on November 2nd, 2023 to the town board seeking approval for the changes to the old filed map. And that's basically for the project um that we're talking about today. And it was to modify the map as such. You can see the three lots that were existing and they just proposed to have it merged into two since currently it's only one parcel. Well, we find that appropriate that they have submitted. We just note that uh prior to that moving forward they they should obtain approval from both the planning board and the the zoning board for the required lot area variance. And the uh at that time the town consulting engineer did review the uh file map modification request and provided several comments for topography dimensional regulations uh review agency requirements all of which will

082directly impact the proposed subway. So these reports also attached. And then during the last meeting, the memo that was issued to the applicant mentioned that the removal of existing structures uh would be made a condition of approval. However, the board did not um discuss that in their last review. So, we're just bringing it into consideration again that there are some existing structures here. Um it would be in line with past policy to allow that as a condition of approval. However, the planning department just points out that given that there is no sing uh principal building on this or contiguous property um that there is really no mechanism to legalize these structures. So, it would uh make the most sense for that looking to move forward with doing this uh promptly since there is no way

083to legalize these um structures. The engineer did not review the revised um submission just given that it is solely the narrative. Um but once these details are provided, there will be an updated report. Um the fire marshall did not find any issues uh with this project near fire hydrants and there's there's no other review needed from that department. And just going over the other approvals required, that's the zoning board for the lot area variants, the Suff County Department of Health Services for the final subdivision waiver map, the town board would need to approve the urban renewal map modification, and one addition uh from the planning report is that the Suffach County Planning Commission review is also required given the parcels within the fine bearings. So in conclusion, the application's incomplete pending the resolution of the

084mentioned issues. The planning department remains concerned that if this application is approved, precedent could encourage additional substandard law variance applications and undermine the intent of zoning in the neighborhood and townwide. However, the board should review the applicant's narrative and determine if additional information is needed to formulate comments to the zoning board and the board should also discuss whether scenic easements uh should be required along the road. That's everything. Good. Thank you, Chris. Very thorough. Lori, yes. Name, as you know, name and address for the record. Lori Welchure with Land Planning Services, 231 Pantiggo Road in East Hampton. Um, I believe you've all read the narrative we submitted, so I don't think I need to read it verbatim. I will just point out a few pertinent facts for the media, the the watchers, people out there.

085So, as we said, the Shonsters received three tax bills for these properties until this year when the three properties merged as a matter of zoning. Unfortunately, they were unaware that the lots should have been titled in separate names. I did attach copies of the tax bills for you, city. That is in fact a hardship they did not anticipate when they bought the three lots for their children. And now it's one lot with four children. As you know, I pointed out there were four now young men born and raised in East Haven in East Hampton and wishing to return to their community to become a part of it and participate in it and contribute to it. Um, as I mentioned, the neighborhood 17 of the 23 lots on this road are less than required 20,000 square

086ft. The average lot size on Bay View Avenue is 13,428 square ft where the shster variance request is for 18,59 square ft but it is just 14 and whatever Chris just said 149 91 oh good memories wow very good and um I think I believe this is a reasonable application based on hardship and that is the that is the argument We would be presenting to the zoning board along with uh explaining their standards and why we feel that this hardship should be corrected by a small area variance to enable at least two small homes to be built for these four boys. And that can be done by the accessory apartment law. So you could have a house with an accessory and a house with an accessory and that enables all four of the boys to

087live and work in this community and raise their families. So that is my pitch for moving forward with this. I realize none of the other details have been attended to. I didn't want to spend the client's money revising maps or anything until we knew if we were moving forward. So, that is it. Thank you. Reasonable. Thank you, Lori, very much. Bruce, I believe this is uh Yes. Yes. Thanks, Chris. Thanks, Lori. Um I think we all read the narrative. I I can totally sympathize um with that. Um I think it is important to understand that this was three lots. However, two of the lots were extremely small um even before the acquisition of the um road abandonment. So just something to keep in mind because it wasn't three large lots, it's actually two small, one

088large. Um again, you know, it's a small variance like Lori said. um there doesn't seem to be a precedent for this type of um variance yet. So, you know, this is a tough one. You know, you go down the road that like Lori said, there's a lot of small lots along that road. So, it sort of does make sense. Um, I think we do need to understand the slopes on parcel two in um in sort of what that does to um the building envelope because I have a funny feeling that building envelope is going to be very small. Um, with regards to the scenic easement, I think the 10% comes up to maybe 14 ft of the front yard, which you know, we saw in the pictures that pretty much all along that frontage with

089the exception of a small parcel on the west side, it's all has has mature vegetation on it. So, I think the scenic easements or what's there should probably remain. Um, 14 ft isn't isn't that much anyway, which is it's basically almost what's there now. Um, that's that's that's pretty much it. Okay. Thanks, Bruce. So, I think, you know, to the point you just made about not wanting to invest a lot of time, energy, and money in completing this application, uh, depending on sort of how we're inclined, uh, it will be up to the WBA, of course, eventually to grant this variance or not, but I think it would, this is a good time for us to really take a little bit of a straw hole around the table as to how we're feeling about uh,

090about this and what we might say to the ZBA about it. We would need to have a complete application with as you know right with with all the items that have been mentioned. Absolutely. Let me just mention one more thing before you take your poll. Um the concept of asking for a scenic easement only exists with this subdivision application. If it's developed as a single lot that disappears there's no saving those trees or requirement to do so. Okay. Fair enough. Is that correct? There was a high perform with the clearing um property and given that on aerial imagery that it might need to preserve those trees, but that's nothing that we can determine without seeing the the boundaries of the existing clearing. Okay. I agree with that. Okay. All right. So, let's let's sort of

091take a Can I ask Lori a question, please? Of course. You know, Bruce made a good point. uh may be something that needs exploration because it would affect the decision as to whether or not we well we won't grant it but CBA will but if the slopes are such that you can't build a house on one of those lots then all of this is a waste of time understood but from my experience dealing with 20% slopes on subdivision maps I don't think those lines are close enough to really make much of a dent perhaps in the back right corner of lot two surveyor will confirm that. Okay. But that that's a consequence that your client is going to suffer in case I will have the surveyor assess it before we even make the changes to

092the matter. All right. So I a question about the accessory structure. Isn't there a lot size requirement for an accessory for affordable housing accessory structure? 20,000. It's okay. All right. Okay. So, there could be one on but there have been variances granted for life. Okay. I know. But, you know, if you want to do a a house with a grandmother flat, you can get some relief to do that. And another really big point and Katie's here and she can probably speak to this. When you have private property and it's creating affordable housing, that's a really big boon for the community. I mean, may not always be in the Showster family, but there'll always be small lots with small houses in a neighborhood of small houses. So, it's um it's a benefit to the community. Thanks

093for the pitch, Lori. Intensity though. I heard it is an intensity though. Just think about Well, we're all going to have an opportunity, I think, to comment on where we stand with this. Um Ava, we're going to start at your end of the table. Yeah, I I'm kind of I'm kind of torn myself. Um, I think there's still several unknowns and and Lori, I I I completely understand your point that, you know, have all come together. Um, I'm familiar with this neighborhood. They are there they're there are all small lots um clearly indicated. I am just a bit concerned of again setting setting a precedent. So, um I know I'm I'm middle of the road. I got that study yesterday. Okay. All right. Yeah, I I was influenced by the fact that 17 of the

09423 lots are less than 20,000 square feet and the average is 135 or something like that. And I know we don't look at those standards for giving a variance that's a ZBA standard. But you know just applying those here in our discussion I think that uh the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the area. That's my feeling. and that the uh the you know the undersized lot was not selfcreated by the applicant. It wasn't something that he did purposely. So given those standards, I'm inclined to uh approve this or to uh send a message to the ZBA that uh I I would be in favor of their giving of the variance. Thank you, Lou. You're welcome, Jen. I have questions. So I'm I'm torn also. Um, I think for us as a board

095maybe to understand this, I'd like to go back to the urban renewal process a little bit because I think the narrative is not entirely um it's not like a lot in a regular neighborhood, right? So, the the the lots, we're calling them lots, but they were really I don't know what's the proper term, Charlie? The urban renewal parcels. Well, it's urban reneur renewal parcels and then there's separate lots within the within within each parcel. So this map was designed in as an urban renewal parcel that needed all of these pieces to be one buildable lot. Am I correct? Is that am I describing this? So, so the fact that it is one buildable lot, I think somewhere along the way, whether it was, you know, through the through the building department or deeds or, you

096know, when they were purchasing it, I'm pretty sure, you know, my my ex-husband's a builder and we have he has built on a ton of these little urban renewal strips throughout in this neighborhood specifically. So when you're buying that, you understand that each little strip is not a buildable lot and that it has to be combined to be buildable. So I just taking, you know, kind of looking at it from a bird's eye view. This was never three separate buildable lots. Correct. But they were up until last year or 2023 sent three separate tax bills, which But that doesn't necessarily mean I understand your point, but that can confuse people that own the property. Each strip gets its own tax bill. That's correct. Yes. Yeah. So I I think just to so that we all

097understand it was never three buildable lots. Okay. Um, that being said, I am sympathetic to the to the, you know, to the hardship narrative, but I do I think my overarching thing is that it does set a precedent that the urban renewal process might be up for reconsideration in a larger scale. And if every single one of these lots then gets looked at in the, you know, in the light that it was three lots that now can be, you know, they were combined and now they can be redivided again. That to me sets a precedent that I I think we want to I you know, I think we want to avoid. So I'm not inclined. Okay. I just want to say there is nothing else in this neighborhood as large as this parcel. So there's

098nothing in this neighborhood that's going to follow suit and say, "Oh, let's do the same thing they just did. question. So, so if this was if these uh urban renewal lots cumulatively combined to uh to be 40,000 square feet and they wanted to subdivide it into two lots of 20, there would be no problem. So, you know, the whole thing about, you know, there being three lots and is the the the issue here isn't that they were urban renewal lots that became one. The issue is that when they did become one, they're shy by,400 square feet. I I Yes. But I think the urban renewal maps were not That's not true because when they combined the three, it was actually smaller and then they they got into strips strips of the abandoned road on the

099east and the west. Is there any way to get like 10 extra feet of that? No. On either side. It goes to the other neighbor. Yeah. That would do it. Yeah. No, but my point is had it been 20 20,000 square feet, they would I'm sorry, if it would have been 40,000 square feet, they would have been able to subdivide this and it would have been no issue. So it has it really doesn't it doesn't matter that it was a urban renewal three parcels or three lots I think for precedent in my mind for well that but that's not withstanding the urban renewal lots the precedent issue stands anyway. Yeah. So that that's a valid reason. I I agree. Yeah. All right. Let's keep Is that is that Yep. That's Michael. I am not torn.

100I I think the ZBA will grant the variance and I think they should. Okay, we'll put you down as a yes. You might as well terminate the discussion now. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Bruce, further thoughts? Yeah. Listen, I think we're only what 1500 square feet shy of achieving 20,000 square feet. So I I don't have a problem with this. Okay. Yeah. I mean, obviously there's a lot more information that we should try to understand at some point, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there, I guess. Okay. All right. Good. Well, I think I'm a reasonable person and I do have sympathy uh for the applicant. Um but I I do think this is precedent setting. um you know, you green light this, you're gonna have other hardships coming straight out. So, well, you

101know, I'm close and come on, come on, I got this situation. Please, you know, give me a break. And I just don't think that's in the interest of good planning. So, I would not be in favor of it. Okay. Thanks, Rita. Uh yeah, I kind of come down where Reed is on this. Um, and I, you know, I'm very compelled by the, uh, sort small lots provision that was entered into Chris's report, right? That we don't really need to consider what else is in the neighborhood. That the, you know, the point of upgraded zoning requirements is to, you know, eliminate those kind of comparisons, right? That, you know, that they're they're made for a reason. And, um, yeah, I just I I I think it is precedent setting. I really do. And not just for

102this neighborhood, but for others, right? Um, you know, there are many other neighborhoods in town that, you know, have similar kinds of issues. I can, you know, imagine that we're going to see this sort of thing much more often. Um, I I would not support it. You know, personally, I think this is not not in the interest of good planning. I really don't. So, the only one I'm not clear on is Ava where you Well, I No, I I'm I'm in agreement with with Ed and and Reed. I am. Okay. I My concern is is the precedent and I'm glad you brought up the point. I should have said that. Not just for this particular area. There's tons of these type of subdivisions in all of East Hampton Town. And that I I agree. So,

103all right. So, we're split here, but we are, you know, more on the side of no than yes. But again, this is really not a binding thing. This is just our information for you to consider and moving forward. Right. Yes, of course. Well, I have to obviously approach my client about are we going to spend money revising the maps to complete this process if we don't have the support of the board? If we don't have the support of the board, are we going to get endorsement of the zoning board variance? So, right, it becomes a very tricky animal to move forward with. So, I need to speak to him. I knew he was supposed to be here tonight, but he's not. So, I will do that and then uh I will get back to you.

104Okay. Thanks, Lori. Thanks, Lori. Computer questions. Ah, questions. The questions are uh does the lending board need any additional information from the applicant regarding the reason supporting the granting of the required variance? Do we understand the reason? I think we're good. So, no. Does the planning board find that the requested area variance for parcel 2 would have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and or undermine the intentions of zoning and the old filed map study by creating substandard lots. That's what we were just discussing. I think we're split. I think it's the same poll that we had. Yeah, it's the same, right? Four to three. Yes. Uh, does the planning board find that a scenic easement area for at least 10% of the total depth of the subject parcel

105should be required? I think we agree on that. Yes, there. Yeah. Okay. Does the planning board agree it is appropriate to review a revge plan as part of this application if the existing clearing does not conform with town code? Yes. Does the planning board agree that removing existing accessory structures should be made a condition of approval? Yes. Yes. Does the planning board find the proposal to be in the interest of good planning? I think we go back to our straw poll. All right. You got what you need, Lori? Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much. All right. So, now we're going to move ahead to the Pinkerton Farm. Is that what's next? Yes. Ava, that's yours. Chris, that's you again. Uh, is the applicant with us? Uh, you don't have to. Just just acknowledge that

106you're here. We'll ask for you in a second. Okay. Uh we're going to start with Chris's evaluation. Thank you. Um this should be a quicker one. So a site plan application was made at 92 spring close highway to legalize the existence of a 681T pergola and 1,200 square ft of raised planter beds on gravel. Um just going to pull up the plans. So just for reference, that's the pergola and those are the raised planter beds that we're talking about. So upon review, the pergola and raised planner beds are actually not subject to the site plan review. The pergola is considered a reconstruction in place in time and will only need approval from the architectural review board. Um, meanwhile, the brace planner beds were not considered structures, so they won't need um any approval. No ARB

107or building permit. They are okay. So, we're really only just talking about that travel area um situated there. And during the last review, the planning board waved their requirements for a public hearing since this meets the requirements of a minor site plan. Um during the last review they asked the applicant to submit some details on lighting given there was new lighting cited at some of the barns. Um the applicant responded by removing the lighting um altogether. So it's not really an issue for discussion anymore. And the planning department notes that the additional um site plan submission requirements were waved in the previous review. And that's like the location of fire hydrants, layout of parking and drain structures um and specifications and computing computations for requiring those. Um we attach the agricultural easement to this report.

108Uh it's not really applicable to the work proposed but just for the applicant reference for future work. Um and as mentioned the ARB approval will be needed for the per walkways. Um, and the planning board, the planning department finds this application uh complete and ready for approval, and the planning board should determine whether it agrees. Thank you, Chris. Would you like to have a word? Uh, yeah. So, my name is Harry Pinkerton. Uh, 92 Springfield Highway, East Hampton, 11 937. Uh, but I mean, as you can see, everything's done and you guys have seen the been the pro uh the property and seen everything. Nothing's changed since except taking the lights off. So, I mean, I would just hope we can go through and get a CO for the barn and the rest of the

109property since nothing's changed and this has been going on. And it is beautiful. You guys have driven by. Yeah. Yeah. All right. That's all I have to say, but yeah, I would like to just kind of close this out and finalize this. Okay. Okay. Well, our, you know, our purview here is pretty limited tonight. Miss Ava, please. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Mr. Pinkerton. Um, I looked at the prior memo. I was not here uh when it was the last reviewed, but the lighting was the only issue. You've certainly complied. The photos uh you tell the tale. So, I I would say that this is uh complete and ready for uh approval. Okay. Unless anyone else disagrees. Anyone else have any comments on the farm? Okay. Well, our one and only question is, does the

110planning board fund the application complete and ready for approval? Yes. Unanimous. Great. Went first. Good. Thank you very much. You have a good night. Okay, we're picking up some speed here. So, let's go to ThreeM Harbor Affordable Housing Modifications. That is Will uh and Lou [Music] and All right. So, this is a modification application that was submitted proposing several minor changes to the previously approved affordable housing complex located on Fremile Harbor Road in East Hampton. The modification proposed to add a rail to the sewage treatment plant retaining wall, make minor changes to the meandering path for ADA compliance, add western arbory plants on top of the STP retaining wall, and on eastern white vine plants in front of the STP retaining wall. The original project was approved by the planning board on October 20th, 2021,

111and several modifications were previously approved for the project on June 29th, 2023, November 11th, 2023, and August 16, 2024. This application was last reviewed by the planning board on January 15, 2025, but the board agreed the application was complete and ready for approval pending planning department review of a revised landscaping plan. which is shown on the screen. The area of focus is this sort of circular area. This building is the sewage treatment plant and the plants that they added are highlighted in yellow. The revised landscaping plan was submitted on February 19th, 2025 and subsequently reviewed by the planning department, which now recommends the landscaping plan has been sufficiently edited to screen the retaining wall. In conclusion, provided the board agrees, the planning department recommends this modification application is complete and ready for approval. Okay. Thank

112you, Will. Uh Lou, uh doesn't the applicant go? Oh, I'm so sorry. I just need to say, "All right, that was enough." Yeah. Good evening. I'm Katie Casey from the East Hampton Housing Authority, uh 316 Aabank Road, East Hampton. Uh I don't want to fix it if it's not broken. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank the board for all the work that went into this project and uh I'm hopeful that you'll find the modifications acceptable. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Katie. Now, Lou, this is the final piece of the jigsaw. The picture is now complete. We're done. It's ready for approval. Okay. Anyone else have a have a thought they'd like to share? You want to agree? I agree. All right. So, let's move right to the resolution. You have it. You

113got it right. Go, go, go. In the matter of the application of Three-Mile Harbor affordable housing site plan special permit modification for Suffach County Tax Map number 10 0122-7-9, comma 20. I have read the resolution amending approval for its approval. Second. All in favor? Thank you. All around unanimous. Good. Twice in one day. I know. Good. Good. That's right. That's our new standard. When do we get applause? Right. Great. Thanks, Katie. All right. So, we're now moving to Head and Eastbub LLC. I see the applicant is here. Uh, right. Will you want to run through this? And who me? Oh, it's you. Okay, Eva. So, this is an application that was submitted seeking to legalize an existing chicken coupe and chicken run/ enclosure. The site is 110,98 ft or 60,111 ft excluding access and agricultural

114reasons. Property is located on Townland Farm Lane in Springs and is zoned A2 residence. Currently, the site is improved with a single family residence with covered porches, second floor porch, detached garage, patio, generator, shed, pool house, swimming pool, and the subject chicken coop. The site is considered to be partially cleared according to town records. At its previous meeting on May 7th, 2025, the planning board agreed to wave the public hearing requirement as well as several items listed as necessary elements of site plan and town code, but which were not which were not relevant to the review of this application. Comments from the fire marshall dated April 28th, 2025 have found the submitted information sufficient and no further review necessary. As a condition of approval, the planning department recommends the applicant submit the final approval by

115of the project by the architectural review board. In conclusion, provided the board agrees, the planning department recommends this modification application is complete and ready for approval. Thank you. Well, Ava, as we said last time, over Yeah. Yeah. You you took the trouble to be here, so you should speak. Evening. So, I won't I won't trouble you except to say I hope you legalize the chicken coop, the child co project. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. As as we stated in the last review, I I think we're all in agreement that this is ready for approval. Any nos further for me? Resolution. Uh yeah. So the question first is is the application ready for approval? Yes. Yes. Okay. We do have a resolution, right? Got it. Let's do it. Uh in the matter of the

116application of head and east fub site plan suff county county tax map map number 300-63-2-14.52 I have reviewed the site plan approval and move for its approval. Second. All in favor? I all around unanimous. Great. Thank you. Bring on the chickens. [Music] All right. Great. So, we're going to move into our regular meeting. We have uh you know a number of approvals and public hearing schedulings and modifications and so on. Starting with Glenn Valley Associates. Uh so you have that resolution Ava. Yes. Y just I'm sorry. Just read it. Yes. Yes. uh in the matter of the application of Glen Valley Associates LTD Suff County Tax Map number 300-136-1-30.2. Uh I've reviewed the conditional final subdivision approval and move for its approval. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I Okay, pass and carry. Um, all

117right. So, then moving on to the MarkX twotory infill public hearing scheduling. Jen, for the public hearing, do I read the whole thing? Uh, you know what? No, we just need to provide basically just the date essentially. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. In the matter of the application of Mark's twostory infill site plan, Suffach County tax map number 300-49-6-21. Um, the application has been made and we would like to schedule a public hearing. A public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town Hall 159 Panico Road, East Hampton, New York on Wednesday, June 25th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider said application. The public hearing will be held live and in person by the planning board and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing

118and will be televised on local TV LTV channel 22 and available for live stream on the LTV website www.ltvh.org. The public shall be permitted to appear in person but may also provide comments on the matter being heard by calling 3518886331. Any party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by callin to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board 300 Pantico Place sweet 103 East Hampton New York 111 1937. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eamptonny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. Do I have to move for this one's adoption? I have now read that all

119and I move for this to be adopted. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. All right. So, uh, we've done heading east. We've done three mile harbor affordable housing. So, we are on 552 West Lake uh car charging station. Bruce. Oh, that's me. Um, that's this one. Okay. In the matter of the application of 552 West Lake car charging station site plan, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-5-4-15. I have read the site plan approval and move for its adoption. Second. All in favor? I. Great. Let's move that one forward. Right. Good. Um, all right. So, we have a couple of urban renewal matters and an old file map modification. Uh, Eric, are you with us? Yep. Okay. Do you want to just run us quickly through ANF first? Um, sure. Um, I'm set up for Savaris.

120Can we do that one first? Oh, yeah, sure. Sure. Absolutely. Um, so I'm just going to screen share with you quickly um to show you where the property is. You'll see that it's um up in Springs. I'm going to zoom in quickly. Um there's two lots here that are the subject of the modification request. Um you'll see in the memo that um there's a mention to the fact that um you know when you have a UR map modification request, the planning board's involvement with that is to send comments to the town board. It's ultimately the town board's authority to grant or deny um UR map modifications. Now, sometimes you have your own applications that also involve a UR map modification. For example, Shonster that we were just talking about has both, but sometimes there is

121a request that only is a UR map modification. There is no subwaver or other application. Um, and this is one of those. Uh the planning board's uh role here is to send comments to the town board. Uh it's actually codified as far as what the um comments are supposed to address, whether or not the proposed changes are consistent with the UR plan. Uh whether or not the proposed change is practical, uh and then meaning can it actually happen in real life. Um and um does the planning board recommend to the town board that they actually approve the the map modification? So, um those are the things that you're charged to review this for. Um you have and then I guess uh just quickly what I'll show you is the change itself. Um which is propo

122a proposal to relocate the access points um as they're shown. You can see the two highlighted parcels here. They're 110 and 99E. This little dot here indicates where the access is to be taken. This illustration indicates that there's a culde-sac at the end of the road. And then these two lots are supposed to take direct access off of that culdesac via individual driveways. What they want to do uh and right now I'm going to switch to the proposed is claim this this hash marking indicates that they would claim that portion of the rideway as their their property, but they would basically and then move that um uh access point for each of those lots up to where it it hits the culde-sac. So, it actually allows them to have a little bit more lot area

123and actually makes both lots a little more conforming to minimum lot area. It doesn't substantively it doesn't really change at all the um access pattern. In fact, if we zoom in here um on the aerial, you'll see that the these areas are their driveways right now. Um there is a question just as far as how the um proposed change is illustrated as to whether or not it would actually give them a portion of the culde-sac. Um we'll work on that. Again, this has to go to the town board for a public hearing for consideration of the modification. We'll make sure that we're not, you know, um allowing them to claim portion of a roadway that that needs to be used. Um but these lines uh that you see on um the GIS are not exact.

124So, um, we'll figure that out. But basically, the spirit of the request wouldn't change and just again going back to it, it's proposing to claim this small portion of right away and then the resultant change to the the access. So, planning department and the town engineer have no um issue with it. The planning board should determine if it agrees and um answer the questions uh that are included in the memorandum. Great. Thanks, Eric. Great explanation. Yeah. and and thanks for reminding us what our charge is here in this kind of circumstance. Uh so the questions then that come up around that is does the board find the proposed change is consistent with the urban renewal plan? Yes. Yes. Does the board find that the change requested is practical? Noting the comments of the town engineer

125and planning department? Yes, we all agree. Yeah. Does the planning board recommend that the town board approve the requested map modification? Yes. Yeah. Good. All right. Great. Thanks, Eric. Yep. What do you have te up next? Uh we have uh Anf Associates um slashfindola. Um and that property is located just to the south of the other one. Um also in Springs, but off of Harbor Boulevard and Park. Um I will zoom in and you will see that it is a vacant parcel. Um, this request is very similar to the last one and it involves changing the access points that are illustrated on the map. You can see the current access point is required to be off Harbor Boulevard and what the applicants are proposing is just to change that to Park Street. Um, so the

126planning department and the town engineer had no issue with this. Um, it's not any substantive change to the existing traffic pattern in the area and the lot is vacant. So it's not as though it would be inconsistent with development on the subject parcel. So um you know we recommend that the planning board send comments to the town board supporting the modification. Okay. Thank you for that. So we'll ask the board. Does the board find the proposed changes consistent with the urban renewal plan? Same question. Does the board find that the change requested is practical? Noting the comments of the town engineer and planning department? Yes. Yes. Does the planning board recommend that the town board approve the requested map modification? Yes. Done. Good. U is there a second step for this one, the road improvements?

127Yeah. And just to be clear, that's um it's the same property as the last one we just talked about, 120 Harbor Boulevard. Um but this is a road assignment. Um this is the standard um procedure that needs to be gone through where the town engineer reviews the old file map and um assigns essentially work um that has to be completed before a building permit could be issued on the lot. It's a requirement of most urban renewal parcels to get uh building permits so that we can finish roadways that uh impact those lots and provide access for them. Okay. All right. So we have a resolution here um regarding this project uh let's see uh yes we'd like to resolve that upon completion of the revised work shown on the UR form number 2-1976 dated May

1281st 2025 building inspector may issue a building permit on said premises or in the alternative you may issue a building permit upon the town board's approval of an undertaking secured by a certified check or other shy acceptable to the town board to secure the appropriate number of road improvement units required set undertaking is to be in the amount of $22,500. These requirements may be subject to review one year from the date of this resolution or May 21st, 2026. Um so I call for the adoption of this board of review. Looks good. Looks good. Okay. I agree. Everybody. All right. Good. Let's do it. Let's adopt this. All right. Great. All around. All right. Well, we had the minutes. Yeah, we have minutes to adopt. We will next at the next meeting have uh Tina talk

129to us about the best practices study that's about to start with AKRF to try to streamline our internal processes and how we communicate with other boards. This would be an interesting and I think very fruitful project, but we'll learn more about that next time. In the meantime, adoption of our minutes. Just saw one thing. Me too. Let's see if it's the same thing. Just the one. Just Oh, you saw two. No, two. Two. Shouldn't it be two? Oh, I saw um preliminary is I think on the first number one marks towel. Shouldn't that be Mark's Oh, two story. Yep. And then on the second page, preliminary is spelled wrong under windmill HDFC. Missing your head over there. Woohoo. All right. Well, yeah, you guys are tough. Chad GPT, didn't you? Um, all right. So, a

130call to approve the minutes as just amended. Second. All in favor of doing that. I I Let's go next. What's the next step that we take here? Usually motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. All in favor?