001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are off. Go for it. Okay. Good evening everyone. Uh, and welcome to the planning board of the town of East Hampton's May 7th, 2025 meeting. Um, I believe before we uh begin the meeting, I wanted to introduce some folks who were on Zoom. Do we have uh Eric and Jen? Matt? Yes. Yes, we do. Hello, Jen. Hello, everybody. Hi, Jen. Hello, chair and everybody. Um, yes. So, our vice chair, uh, Jen is zooming in tonight from Wisconsin, and I'm pleased to say that Eric Shance has rejoined town of, uh, the government of the town of East Hampton, which is really kind of thrilling for all of us. You may remember that he was most recently director of housing and before that, um, the assistant
002planning director. He has a long history with the planning department. He had a very brief retirement from us and is back as principal planner, which is really great news. Great news for us, great news for Tina. It takes a little bit of pressure off of her. And Eric is going to be our principal leazison for the planning board uh heading forward. So, we're really happy to have you, Eric. Welcome back. Thank you. Happy to be back. Great. So, we have a very ambitious agenda tonight. Uh we have what? one, two, three, four, five, six, seven uh matters for review. We have some old filed map modifications. We have a proposed code change. There's a lot going on tonight. So, we'll jump in with our first matter, which is the MarkX twotory infill. Um Lori, I
003think that's you're the applicant there, right? Okay. And Chris, this is yours. And Jen, I believe this is your matter, right? Yes, it's me. All right, good. A little bit of a delay there. All right, so take it away, Chris. All right, thank you. So, as mentioned, this is a Mark's twotory infill site plan application. This is the initial review. Uh, the subject property is 20 Surfside Avenue in Montalk. The property is zoned RS resort and it is 6.22 acres and contains an existing resort motel with 92 units. The parcels on the Atlantic Ocean and it's partly cleared with natural dune vegetation uh between the southern buildings and the primary dune crest and it's also within coastal erosion overlay zone ocean literal zone. So, getting into the application itself, the proposal is for unit three,
004um, shown here in the the pinkish red color, uh, far off from the dune. And I'm just going to pull up the construction plans. It's so a little easier to speak to. So, the proposal is to expand and partially renovate unit 3 at the surf club in Montalk. Uh the project proposes enclosing the entry patio which is a roofed uh patio about 40 and 1/2 square ft to construct a foyer on the first floor and an office on the second floor. Uh kitchen renovations are also proposed but not subject to this review and all work is uh proposed within existing footprints and the total block coverage will not increase. So going into the issues for discussion of this work, uh the project is a type two action pursuing to the state environmental quality review act
005and chapter 128 of the town code and type two actions are not subject to additional review. Regarding the sanitary system, the survey submitted indicates eight conventional sanitary systems on site and the uh parcel does not contain a large capacity cess poolool. Um the proposal doesn't exceed any thresholds from the Suffach County Department of Health Services. Therefore, none of the sanitary systems will be required to get upgraded from the office of fire prevention. The fire marshall reviewed the application and did not find any issues. No additional reviews required from this department and uh fire marshall report is attached. Same goes for the town consulting engineer did not find any issues and the engineer report is also attached. Um the applicants advised that the additional approval required would be from the architectural review board for the changes
006to the existing structure. And then moving on to the necessary elements. The planning department has reviewed chapter uh 255-650 and notes the submission is missing some information which is normally required uh for all site plans and this includes the finished floor and ground elevations, property line setbacks, the location of existing utility lines and fire hydrants, parking, drainage and sanitary details as well as topography of contours or key elevations. Given the minor nature of the proposed project, the work that the work is proposed within existing footprints and the fact that the board has waved these elements uh for similar applications on the property in the past, the planning department finds waving these items to be acceptable and the board should determine if it agrees. So, in conclusion, similar work has been approved on several other units
007in the property. Um, the board should consider these past approvals, uh, which should not require the applicant to submit the items outlined. And should the board decide to require any of these items, uh, the board should specify which items they will require. And as mentioned, the planning department recommends that these details should not be required to be provided. The application is otherwise complete and ready for public hearing. The board should determine if it agrees. Thanks, Chris. Lori, do you wish to be heard? Yes. So, I'm having an email conversation with the planning department today, and it is crazy that we need to have a public hearing for 40 square feet of infill that will not be visible to anyone except perhaps units four and five. We already did this project at unit 22, Handler, and
008a public hearing was waved by the planning board. You can see I I submitted a copy of that to the planning department. There are 35 adjacent neighbors to the surf club and 29 certified letters that need to be sent at $1968 each or $570.72 in postage to do a certified mailing to all of these neighbors. Not to mention LPS's time to drive to Montalk to post the property and to attend and represented a hearing for something that has already been previously approved at another unit on the same property. I am asking the board to please wave the public hearing even though this is technically habitable space and it doesn't qualify as a minor site plan. It was waved on unit 22 in the past. Okay. I am aware of your concern about that and we
009will take that up in our discussion of the project. Um so Jen, would you like to lead our discussion? Sure. So um you know I do think that this is a very minor change. As Lori just said, it's a 40 square foot um renovation of an existing unit. Um I don't think that there are any issues for us really to discuss. I do agree that we should wave all of the elements of site plan that are usually required for this. I don't know how everybody else feels about a public hearing. Um but I am inclined to move to wave that as well. I think I think it's important to note the minor site plans part of the town code requires the uh public hearing and there's no mechanism to wave that requirement. Interesting. How did
010we do that? Yeah, I'm sorry. How did we do that before? How did we do that previously? So, that that would have to be reviewed. That information was presented to us today. Um, there may have been an error with the past review, but as it as it stands, a minor site plan uh section of the town code um which is needs to be a minor site plan for the public hearing to be waved. And one of the conditions would be that it's not a habitable building or structure. Um given it's habitable, it can't wave the public hearing. Interesting. Has there been any public comment to date on any of the um changes that have been made thus far on any of the other units or on this unit? I can speak to that. We've represented
011most of them that have been converted either the atriums or the intel projects. There's never been a public comment from someone inside the the facility or outside the facility. And for the most part, absolutely everything that goes on here is not even visible outside of service club itself. Okay. Thank you, Lori. Thank you, Lori. Um, so there are two new sheriffs in town. One of them is Charlie, our our uh our new planning board as of this year, planning board attorney. and uh and Eric, it does seem excessive. I agree. But if we need to conform to the letter of the code, we need to do that. So, I want to hear from both of you about the public hearing issue. Nobody, this is the first I'm hearing about it, so I need to I
012was not made aware of this until just now, so I have to do some research. I can't just answer it right now. Okay. Yeah. The the wording Yeah. Yeah, the wording of the code is that um in order to be waved, the proposed or wave the public hearing, the proposed structure can't be habitable. Um and this is habitable as Chris said, we can go back and look at those past applications and see if we made a procedural error in in waving the um public hearing requirement, but the code seems pretty clear. Um we went over it. I will say that I think just like we the you know the department recommended waving a lot of the site plan elements if it was eligible to have a public hearing waved we would probably recommend that you
013do so um given that it's so similar to those other applications and very minor but as we read the code it clearly says that if the structure is habitable you can't wave the public hearing um maybe that's yet another thing in the code that needs to be changed but it seems pretty clear um you know we'll notice the public hearing in as timely a manner as possible required by law and um try to get it through the process. But uh we don't see the code is saying that the the board has an option to wave the hearing. So there's two potential remedies. Um I believe a foyer is not considered habitable and we can change the office to a closet just revise the plans. That's not habitable. Um, the other option is to only notify
014neighbors four and five, which are the ones that actually can see the door. That's going to be the only visible change to the facility. I don't know. Charlie may have to weigh on that as well. Yeah. Well, I think that's the case. Yes. Um, so Charlie, if you can, you know, discuss this with uh with Lori in the coming days, we can sort of figure out if there's a way around this. I think we all kind of agree that it's sort of excessive under the circumstances but we you know but we do need to conform to to the code. Uh there may have been a mistake in the past um and we need to going forward you know cue to what's what's the code. So let's figure out if there's some mechanism to to avoid
015it. Can I can I make a recommendation? Um you know the board only has uh two questions at the end of the memo. um basically determine if um would wave the the well I guess what you should say is whether or not you want to wave the site plan elements and then if so then it would be appear to be complete and ready for a public hearing. We'll go through the process of scheduling the public hearing um getting the notice ready. Uh that would mean um probably a hearing on um well you would have to schedule the public hearing on the 21st. I believe you could have the public hearing on the 4th of June and then um a resolution would be uh the 25th of June. Um I will say so and then what
016I was going to say is in the meantime if Charlie finds that this doesn't qualify um or you know can qualify for an exemption we'll we'll tell the board and we'll put it back in front of you um soon. But I will say too that if there is um if there's going to be amendment of plans or or things of that sort um you know that that's probably going to cause even more of a delay of submitting that having it reviewed getting it in front of a in front of you again in a work session. So I think um the thing to do is to move forward with scheduling the public hearing and we'll just inquire behind the scenes as to whether or not it's totally required. And then if it turns out it's not
017totally required then at our you know whatever the next available meeting is after that can we review and then you know approve it make a motion to approve. Yep. Okay. I I think that's a good plan. But for tonight we can actually uh answer the two questions. Yeah. forward. So the first one is does the planning board agree with the planning department's recommendation to wave the items required by town code 2556-50 the necessary elements the five things finished floor and ground elevations property line setbacks location of existing utility lines and fire hydrants parking drainage and sanitary details topography with contours or key elevations. Are we all good with waving those requirements and circumstances? Okay. So, that being the case, do we find the proposal complete and ready for a public hearing if there is to
018be one? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, in the meantime, we'll take Eric's advice and we can get something scheduled for a public hearing and in the meantime, you can pursue some other options uh through Charlie. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Lori. All right. Um, our second item uh on work session is subway review for McDonald Griffin and Shannon, that's you, right? Um, Jen, that's you again. And Chris, it's you again. Yep. All right, Chris. All right, thank you. This is the McDonald Griffin subway at 981 Springs Fireplace Road in East Hampton. This is a third review of this application. It was last reviewed October 9, 2024. Uh just to give a context on the site, the zone B residence is 1.25 acres and is adjacent to several areas of environmental consideration. These include a scenic area statewide
019significance, the Aabonic Harbor critical environmental area, New York State significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat and Suffach County Groundwater Protection District. parcel is partially cleared um as indicated on the submitted subway map which conforms with the town [Music] code. So the proposal is to divide the 54,494 ft existing lot into two parcels. Parcel one is proposed as 29,069 square feet with frontage on Springs Fireplace Road and parcel 2 is proposed as 25,425 ft. The proposed lot areas do require revisions um which I'll get to. The site is currently improved with a two-story single family residence um which is reflected on the most recent certificate of occupancy from 2023. So, next I'm going to go over the comments from the last review um when the planning board issued comments on several issues. Go over the applicant's
020response as well as the planning department's assessment of each. So, first the planning board uh commented that the revised map should address the town consulting engineers regarding storm water drainage site access and required survey uh clarifications. and the applicant responded by submitting a revised common driveway plan which I'll pull up here. So access rights for the common driveway must be formalized as a common driveway easement and the width does comply with the 20 foot minimum from the town code. The proposed uh common driveway must be indicated within a proposed access easement and the area of that easement uh must also be indicated. The town consulting engineer notes the proposed common driveway is missing the required emergency vehicle turnaround area at the end of the driveway. Uh this area must comply with the standard details indicated
021in chapter 220 of the town code. And once a compliant common driveway is proposed, the applicant can submit an access ement including course descriptions of the common driveway. The course bearing shown on the common driveway plan must be revised to match the subdivision waiver map. And then regarding storm water drainage, the uh engineer details the drainage design for the common driveway has been amended to provide subsurface uh storm water containment within some plastic catch basins. As these uh catch basins are proposed are unacceptable since they are primarily designed for lawn or landscape areas and not what we want to see with paved traffic bearing areas. So the applicant should consider revising the drainage structures based on the engineers report which includes details on uh what sort of structures would work. The second planning board comment
022was that the applicant should revise oh the applicant should work with the planning department to meet specific reserve area requirements set forth in the town code. The applicant responded with a revised planting pan plan uh based on feedback from the natural resources department and plantings have been added in the area of the proposed uh scenic conservation ement where the width is uh lessened. So the planning department satisfied with this revision and the board should determine if it agrees. The revised uh revitation addresses the board's comment to provide more vegetation or the proposed seam easement is narrower due to the existing IIA wastewater system sort of shown in this area. The applicants just added more vegetation to sort of thicken it up where the the easement is more narrow due to the system in place. The
023last comment that the board issued was to revise the short environmental assessment form part one uh per the planning department comments and the revised uh form was submitted to indicate the other required approvals total acreage to be physically disturbed and details of parcel 2 is proposed to connect to Suffach County water authority public water and the planning department is uh notes that it was revised as as requested and the planning department's just correcting the record um to state that Suffach County Planning Commission review will not be required as it was stated in the last review. Moving on to um subdivision waiver requirements that are sort of required for any subdivision waiver. Revisions are needed to comply with the town code. The proposed lot area for parcel one is 29,069 square ft. However, the calculation did
024not exclude the area of the proposed scenic uh conservation event, which is approximately 4,60 square feet. Also, for parcel 2, the flag lot, um the lot area must not include the flag strip and therefore the proposed lot area for parcel 2 should be 21,771 square ft. The subdivision waiver map should be revised accordingly to indicate the accurate lot areas. Also, the proposed common driveway must be within a proposed access easement um which should be indicated on the revised map and this configuration must be revised to satisfy the comments regarding the required turnaround area. The applicant and the board should note that the required lot area for yield of two parcels must be demonstrated in doing this. This must consider the required improvements with the turnaround area, 20 foot frontage for the rear lot and all
025other requirements mentioned. It appears the applicants can design the subdivision waiver in a way that avoids the need for a variance, but proof of such must be provided to the board. Next, um it was mentioned the last review that the applicant intends to remain keep the utility lines that are serving parcel one. Um these would cross the conservation easement and the easements's been prepared um to reflect the fact that those utility connections will remain. Meanwhile, parcel 2 will have its utility lines within the flagship strip. So there's no need for a utility easement to be recorded um for either of these properties. the location of the proposed IIA sanitary system is acceptable and um that'll require county approval once it's u actually proposed for construction. Um, regarding existing structures during a site visit April 23rd,
026a couple weeks ago, there's a unapproved shed observed and this is in the portion of the property where parcel 2 would uh take access and it would also appear to not meet setback requirements. Um given that it doesn't have the benefit of any permits, the applicant should just explain whether they will remove this uh shed and just provide a timeline for that removal um if they are going to do that. regarding the engineer comments. Um he had some additional comments um building off what I already went on over um and that's simply that the location and distance of the nearest fire hydrant should be indicated on the subdivision waiver map and the proposed buildings uh building indicated on the subdivision waiver map needs to be removed since the final pl should only show building envelopes.
027The uh fire marshall reviewed the application and did not find any issues. No additional reviews needed from their department. The other approvals required to be the Suffach County Department of Health Services for the final subdivision waiver map. And in conclusion, uh the application is incomplete pending the revision of the common driveway and proposed lot areas. The board should consider whether the proposed reeducation is acceptable. The area of the proposed conservation easement and access easement should be indicated and subtracted from the lot area for parcel one. Um the same regarding the flag strip being produced from the lot area for parcel two and the applicant should explain whether the shed will be removed. Um and the applicant should submit revised plans and a response letter based on the the board's feedback. All right, Chris, thanks very
028much. Shannon, do you wish to be heard? I always forget to say this. We know who you are, but please, just for the record, identify yourself. Shannon McAffrey, Dwy's planning. Um, I'm here this evening with Mayor McDonald and Garrett Griffin, the property owners. Um, I will just run through Chris, good job of going over the memo. I am going to leave the turnaround comments for the end because I think that's the most that we can discuss about. Um, regarding the drainage, um, TF Engineering is working with the town consulting engineering to determine, um, whether the catch basins, they are designed to be outside and not the improved surface area. So, they believe that they can be the plastic, but they're going to work out that detail with um, Vinnie and whatever they come to, we'll
029submit the updated plan um, either keeping the catch basins as is or revising them to the metal grates. Um then reg regarding the subdivision map, um we will have Gary Ben. He's actually already updated the map to exclude the scenic easement. I do want to note that the flag strip is excluded from the lot area. If you just scroll down a little bit, Chris, there's um in that table it has area excluding access strip. So that's where the um sand adhesive removal will be as well. Um then regarding the shed that will be removed, we do request that the board allow that to be a condition um to be at the signing of the map and we'll have that removed by then. Um and then we also have the map to be updated to show
030the distance of the higher joint. Gary Benz has already taken care of that item as well. Um, regarding the turnaround, we have decided, we designed this subdivision to only have a 100 foot common driveway strip to give access to lot one just to keep the rural nature of this area. And so, in order to do the turnaround, if we you keep the access strip just the same amount, it'll take up, it's actually larger than the 100 ft. Um, and the turnaround would go across the existing driveway, which you're not allowed to park on a driveway. So, we then get into the issue of lot one not having parking. So, we're wondering if there's any way for the planning board to wave the turnaround requirement given the short distance of the common driveway um easement. Okay.
031And so, and we do note that this we did submit this previously to the engineer and this is the first time this comment came up. So, we kind of want to work with the board cuz I feel like we've all kind of agreed that this is a good design. Um, and so I have a schematic, but I know that we can't really show it just to give a visual. Um, okay. All right. Well, we'll we'll discuss this. Thank you, Jen. Your comments, please. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. Thanks, Shannon. Um, I I think that, you know, I I I'm very happy to see that the applicant did, you know, place more reveation in the scenic easement. I think that's important um to keep the rural nature. Um, I'm a little confused about the turnaround. So, if
032you're saying, and my apologies, I'm working off my laptop, so I don't have my paper packet with me. Um, so Chris, just if you could use your cursor and explain to me where where the town where the planning department kind of wants the turnaround to be. So typically that'd be at the end of the driveway. I can pull up a diagram here sort of showing like by lot two, right? Um, my understanding is it would Eric can correct me if I'm wrong, but it it would be around the border between the two properties at the end of the driveway. It's a believe the code states the terminus of the the driveway um the common driveway. So, right portion where it's no longer uh where no longer Okay. And then how does that impede the parking
033for parcel one? That's where I'm just So, Shannon, I'm sorry. Would you mind coming back just to kind of explain that to me? So the layout isn't typical where parcel one has all the road frontage. We actually are proposing a flag strip and over the first 100 ft of the flag strip is the common driveway eastment. And so that's it's not the common driveway doesn't go all the way to parcel 2. It ends 100 ft into that flag strip. And so at the terminus of the common driveway, the turn back would really fall right on where the existing driveway is now. And so if we add the turnaround all the way down at the end and extend the common driveway any further, there's unnecessary clearing that would need to be taken. And so really, it's
034a common driveway that then has a private driveway to lot to. So Chris, can you point out where where the turnaround would be under the the current configuration? Yeah, Shannon's right. I'm corrected. So typically the common driveway would go all the way to the second lot, but given that the common driveway is going over the flag strip of parcel 2, it really ends at the point in which parcel one is no longer using the common driveway since once you get beyond that, it would sort of just be the private driveway um for parcel 2. So in reading the code I would imagine that the turnaround area would appear and you see this diagonally hashed portion of the strip. So based on the code showing so that would be that only that first 100 ft is
035the common driveway and then the rest of it is a private driveway not requiring a turnaround. Correct. That's my understanding. And so also it wouldn't really benefit I the turnaround's really for emergency vehicles. Yeah. I mean they would be like 50 feet into the driveway at the turnaround backing all the way down. And so just with the layout it doesn't it's not really feasible. Doesn't make sense or logical. You know it doesn't make logical. Doesn't make sense. Yeah. Can I uh chime in a little bit? Absolutely. So, usually, I mean, the most uh sort of orthodox or common thing to do is to extend that common driveway easement all the way along the flag strip. You can't count the flag strip as lot area for the rear lot anyway, so you don't lose anything as
036far as lot area um by extending that easement. What most people do will be to extend the easement all the way over the flag strip and then have that little um L-shaped turnaround be at the terminus of the the easement in the common driveway. The reason for it, couple of reasons. One is exactly what Shannon's talking about if then you end up having the the turnaround space right near one of the residents or close to one of the residences and not the other. but more so um and I understand the idea of wanting less pavement um and not wanting to extend you know a wider common driveway spec as opposed to an individual driveway further into the property. But you have to keep in mind that um emergency services are looking at it from the
037other uh direction of they want a code um mandated wide access that is not obstructed that gets you as close to that residence that's going to be on that back lot as possible um so that they can get a a truck in there if they need to and then have the turnaround be there um so that they have the benefit of that that added space and maneuverability. So, um, there isn't anything in the code that says that, you know, you can't stop the access easement where it's shown on the map here in front of you and have the turnaround area be there, but it is better for emergency access to the rear lot. And it's also better for that front residence to not have it end there and have a turnaround. Um, and again, as
038I mentioned, um, you don't lose anything by stopping the easement in that location halfway down the flag strip because it the flagship portion can't count as lot area anyway. So, that that's my two cents on it. What was the logic behind the the short common driveway? Um, we did that because that way, you know, there's no real point in parcel one being able to traverse the whole flag strip. They only need access into the existing dwelling and 100 feet seems pretty reasonable um for them to be able to access their property past the scenic easement and not need to go all the way to the back of the property. And so that's why we were keeping at 100 ft and I also I we understand the whole emergency service. Um I think it is also
039important to note that the fire marshall has reviewed this application now twice and didn't bring up the turnaround. It was the engineer that brought it up. And so, speaking of the emergency service turnaround only, aren't they able, if there was a fire truck that had to come in and go all the way to the second lot, wouldn't they be able to turn around in the driveway of the second lot? I think there it all depends on how that driveway is designed. I don't think I can. It depends what truck they take back there. Right. Exactly. I mean, there are common driveways. It's also we're I mean, the deepest the lot is is 300 ft. I we see have common driveways that are well over 500 ft. Um, now you're right, Lou. There will be a
040driveway of some kind on parcel 2, right? We just don't know and it's hard to uh guess. Yeah, I will say from very recent experience having a common driveway and then a driveway off of it um without a turnaround it has been really difficult for ambulances um to get into the you know where I live personally and um so I you know having experienced it very recently I do see the need for emergency services to to be able to get in there, right? So, I I'm wondering, would it be possible, Shannon, for the applicant to extend the driveway to the property line of parcel one and then do the do the turnaround there. I just, you know, you don't think you're going to need it, but then when you do need it and the ambulance
041can't get in on a snowy day, you really are, you know, you then you think, oh, that's why they suggested, you know, Chris, what what are the required dimensions of the L portion of the turnaround? It's just you just pull that up. So, it's about 50 feet deep and 12 feet wide. So, that's that's not that much. Um 50 ft I mean that's 600 square feet 50 feet from from okay the edge of the edge of the driveway into the property right and what's what's the what is the uh what is the width of the property um parcel one's width is 163 feet so it's about a third of the property third of the property this is a dilemma right I mean I think we all understand the need for emergency vehicle ult to to
042be able to navigate a situation like this. But it does really seem as though a huge portion. This is a very constrained site as as it is. Right. It is. Um and it would also require you to kind of extend the common driveway. Right. Another major change. Um what flexibility do we have, Charlie, on something like this? Um I mean, I'm in the fire department and I would I know that the guys can back out of that driveway as long as it's wide enough. They don't need a turnaround. They can back out. But that's not a code thing. That's just anecdotal, right? It's only 300 feet. It's not This isn't These guys can do a lot more than that, right? That's true. It is only 300 feet. And that's to the way back of the
043lot. Yeah. 182 parcel, too. I I I I think that I don't I need to look at the code more, but to me that that's really designed for like big long multiple multiple houses, multiple units. Like this is kind of like there's many houses that have longer driveways than just a single house. Yeah. Yeah, listen, I mean I I we don't want to create an undue burden here and the fact that the fire marshall hadn't really flagged this with the engineer someone who did, right? Um I think we really need to be clear about what we're required to do here, right? If there is any requirement, and I would sort of say that if there's not a hard and fast requirement for a turnaround, I I I personally think that we should consider waving, right?
044But we're going to need to find that out. Yeah. Yeah, I I will tell you I'm looking for the exact code section. Obviously, it's, you know, not has to be doing that at a meeting. Um, but I'm because this came up on a a subwaver um a number of years ago, I'm almost positive that the code gives the planning board authority to wave um you know, like with an open space subdivision, you can vary um lot dimensions, lot sizes, things like that. The code gives you authority to wave a lot of different requirements of the subdivision chapter except um those related to road widths um cotman driveway widths their their length um turnarounds and pulloff areas. I can find that for you, you know, obviously not right now. Um but I'm pretty confident that the
045board doesn't have the authority to wave the turnaround requirement. Okay. All right. We'll get to the bottom of that right between Charlie and Eric. I'll coordinate with Charlie and Chris. Yeah, that'd be good. All right, great. There are a few other things we need from you anyway for another next visit. So, we'll have that determined by that time. Okay. All right. Um, if it's not required, since these are the other details are pretty clerical, is there any way we could schedule the public hearing based on those submission items if it's not required? We'll we'll make sure this happens quickly, but let's wait till we have an appropriate answer to this question. I think that's vital before we move forward. Thank you very much. Um, all right, Jen, anything else? Any any or anyone else on
046the board have a comment? No, not that was the only one for me. All right, good. So, we have we had a few questions to answer. The first is does the planning board agree the revised reveation plan is acceptable? I think we agree that it is the barbell plan. We like it. Um does the planning board agree the proposed common driveway configuration should be revised to indicate the required turnaround area or not depending on the answer to the question requirement. Um and storm water structures uh in accordance with the engineers's comments. You've agreed to to look into that, right? So we're all Yeah. So that's a yes, but you're looking into it, right? Does planning board agree the proposed lot areas should be revised as noted above so it really reflects the actual lot areas
047as we discussed? Yes, sir. [Music] Um and you've addressed the shed, you've addressed the fire hydrant issue, I think we're good to go. Thanks, Shannon. Thank you. All right, moving on. The next subdivision review is the Glen is Glen Valley Associates Limited. Uh, and that Ava is you Eric for the uh, pling department and is the applicant. Okay, great. All right, Will. Oh, Will, that's you. Go for it. Um, I have I have Glen Valley. Oh, you're just I see you're just driving. Okay. Right. You're driving. So, um so, uh this is a follow-up submission. The board last reviewed it on December 4th. Uh as an application, um for a property, um a property that is roughly two and a half to create two lots um each of just over 40,000 square feet. Um, are
048you fro is Eric frozen? Looks like I lost you. Well, that was fun. Sorry about that. There you are. Sorry, I I clicked on the wrong thing. But, uh, anyway, so getting getting back to it. Um this is a lot um that is about 2 and a half acres um proposed to be divided into two lots um each just over 40,000 square ft. This is in the A residence um zoning district as well. Um so again 40 Excuse me one second. Can you share your screen again please? Oh yeah. I'm sorry about that. Hopefully now everyone can see the now you're talking. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Sorry, technical difficulties and uh you know learning curve here with everything. Um but anyway, so uh at the last review the board detailed a number of issues
049the applicants have addressed. um all of them. Um the main comment though was that uh the engineer had comments um specifically two of them of revisions that needed to be made to the map. One was to add monuments at the change of course direction um which helps surveyors identify where the property lines are. Uh that has been added and then uh the old map had hypothetical building locations and sanitary system locations because both you know this property is entirely vacant. Those need to be removed for filing of the map with the county. Um that has been done. Uh the planning board already agreed to wave the public hearing. Again, this is the final um subdivision uh stage of the public hearing was held the preliminary. Uh the fire marshall signed off on this. Uh health
050department approvals been received. This isn't an urban renewal map. the planning the town board had originally approved the UR map modification with the incorrect lot area um lot areas identified for the two lots. They've since corrected that and got an amended approval from the town board. So basically, if the board uh agrees, then it appears that it's ready for final approval um with just some standard conditions of dedicating the highway uh widening easement um and transferring the reserved area to ownership of the the town. Okay. Thanks, Eric. Would you like to speak? Please identify yourself. Name Ryan Lassio with the Adam Miller Group. Um I have nothing further to add. I just want to thank you all members of the board of staff, county attorney's office for getting us here. Appreciate it. Any questions? I'm
051happy to answer them. Okay. Thanks, Brian. Um, all right. And again, Ava, this is yours, right? Yeah. Uh, thank you, Brian. And, uh, thank you, Eric. You know, I was on this at the last review. You know, they came back with all the answers, and I don't have any further comments on this. It's pretty open and closed. Okay. All right. Good. Anyone else have any thoughts? All right, good. Um, and Eric, just because there was a public comment to this effect, is there is there some potential issue with the way the ownership of the properties reported that we might want to flag? Yeah, my my understanding um how I read the public comment was that they were just concerned that some of the documentation that's being filed or has been filed um has been under
052the uh wrong owner name. um the ownership entity is not Glen Valley Associates Limited on under um certain property ownership records. Where where it's necessary to clarify the current owner um of the property, uh we will uh and the town attorney's office will make sure all the legal documents have the the correct property owner and correct applicant. Um I will note that, you know, approvals run with the land. Um, a lot of times one entity will begin an application uh and ownership or or entity names will change during the process. That usually doesn't change the application name. So even though this is Glen Valley Associates Limited um final subdivision, um you know, it's we don't change the name of the application as ownership name might change. So I don't think there's an issue there. Um
053the public comment was a prudent one in that um you know the town should make sure that the paperwork they file has uh correct ownership information and and we'll do that. All right. Good. I'm glad we flagged it. Yeah. I mean that's proper answer. We had made a clerical error on at least one of the commissions that I believe we had addressed but we noted and we'll address it. All right. Great. Thank you. Thanks Brian. All right. We don't have much in the way of questions here. Does the board agree that all previous outstanding issues have been addressed? satisfactorily. Yes. Yes. Is the application ready for approval? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay, we're good. Thank you guys. We're making great progress here. Uh all right, our next pro next project is heading east of Bob LLC
054site plan review. Ava, that's you again, Will. Uh that's you for the board. And is the applicant with us? Joan. Great. All right. Will. Okay. So, this is an application seeking to legalize an existing chicken coupe and run. The site is 110,98 ft or 2.5 acres in size or 60,11 square ft excluding the access and agricultural easements. The property is located on Telmage Farm Lane in Springs and is zoned A2 residence. The site is improved with a single family residence with covered porches, second floor porch, detached garage, patio, generator, shed, poolhouse, pool, and the subject chicken coupe and run. This site is considered to be partially cleared according to town records and the project is a type two action pursuant to SRCA and chapter 128 of the town code and requires no further secret action.
055The site was initially created by the Hilda Town subdivision approved by the planning board on March 31st 1995 with the subject property being referred to as lot six in that project. The subdivision contained contained a covenant which requires the approval of the planning board prior to constructing any building or structure within the agricultural use easement area. And that agricultural easement covers sort of the eastern half of that property. The planning department recommends this project be deemed a minor site plan as no variances are required. Health department approval is not required. The proposed work is only approximately 35 square feet. No additional parking will be required and no public controversy has been generated at this point. The board should discuss if this application may be deemed a minor site plan which would permit the board to
056wave the public hearing requirement. No lighting information was submitted as part of the application and the applicant confirmed that no lighting is proposed or existing on the chicken coupe. In addition to the formal site plan review, the proposed project will require approval from the architectural review board. Finally, the applicant should refer to the town code section necessary elements of site plans to confirm all necessary elements have been met with the site plan submission. The planning department notes some items missing from the applicant submission are not relevant to the review of the proposed project and recommends the board wave the requirement of them. the planning board should discuss if they agree. These items include dimensions of property line setbacks to the subject chicken coupe and run, layout of existing and proposed parking areas, existing and proposed
057sewage disposal systems, and existing topography of the site. In conclusion, the board should consider whether this application may be deemed a minor site plan and if the public hearing will be waved and if waving the above listed elements is appropriate. Should the board agree to wave the required site plan elements and public hearing requirement, then the application will be complete and ready for approval. All right, great. Thanks, Will. Joan, would you like to be heard? Will did name and address? Joan McGiver, um 33 West 2nd Street, Riverhead, New York. Um Will did such a good job. I don't think I have anything to add. There is no uh lighting planned. Um, the chickens don't like lighting, so only during the winter. Only during the winter. Um, barking really isn't an issue for the chickens. Um,
058it's in an agricultural easement. Um, the owner asked forgiveness. It was a COVID project of a child and um, we hope to legalize it. Thank you. Thanks, John. Ava. Thank you, John. Thank you all. I was going to ask with if it was built during when it was built. Makes sense. Um and the lighting that was really my only question. I presume there was not, but um I I agree with the with the memo. This is a 35 square foot legalization of an existing structure. It's obviously to me a minor site plan. I think we're good to move forward on it. Everyone's agreed. Any other thoughts or comments? Jen, anything? No. Okay. My only question is, will they sell fresh eggs on the street? It's in a residential district, so I think not. Okay. All
059right. That was the right answer, but the wrong answer. Um, okay. Great. Well, we only have a couple of questions. Uh, Will has already outlined them basically. Um, and let's see, here they are. Should additional exterior lighting be proposed? Should the applicant submit the information detailed above? We're saying there is no lighting that we expect to be proposed or required to be proposed. Does the board wish to deem this application a minor site plan and wave the public hearing requirement? Yes. Yes. Jen, are you okay with that? Yes. Okay. Um, does the board agree to wave the requirements of the following site plan elements, layout of existing and proposed parking areas, existing and proposed sewage disposal systems, existing topography of the site, and setbacks? Yes. Yes. You all agree? Yes. Yes. I see you nodding,
060Jen. Should no additional exterior lighting be proposed, is the application complete and ready for approval? Yes. Yes. Yes. Um, so I guess we are is we're ready to go on this one, right? Since we've said it's a minor uh minor site plan and we're waving the public hearing, it's ready for approval, right? Okay. All right. Good. Thanks. Thank you so much. And the chickens thank you. All right. Uh 267 acic subwaver review. Uh, so Jen, you're back on for that. Will, that's yours again. Um, and John and Shannon, I think you're Are you both on this or No, I think Oh, you're just a Oh, just an interested party. An interested party. Okay. All right. Good. Um, well, so this is an application that has been made to subdivide an approximately 1.208 208 acre lot
061having frontage on Aabonic Road into two lots. One of which will be approximately 28,621 square ft in size lot one and the other will be approximately 24,000 square feet in size lot two. The site is currently improved with a singlestory single family residence, a shed, septic system, and driveway. All of which appear to have been approved per the most recent certificate of occupancy dated November 28th, 1979, with the exception of the shed and fencing. This site is zoned B residence and is located within the Pine Barons region and the South Fork Special Groundwater Protection Area, two Suffach County designated natural resource and groundwater protection areas. Additionally, the site does not appear to be related to any previous subdivisions and is considered partially cleared of natural vegetation according to town records. The planning department recommends the
062short environmental assessment form is an acceptable form and will issue lead agency request letters to the involved agencies including the Suffach County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Following the review of the planning board on January 15, 2025, the planning board issued written comments to the applicant regarding several issues. The board requested the applicant submit a revised short environmental assessment form which the applicant provided. Second, the board requested the applicant add the size of the easement to the reveation plan as well as clarification on the perimeter evergreen trees located along the southeastern property line and add the name of the preparer to the plan. None of these changes or clarifications were made in the newly submitted materials. The applicant should make these changes and submit the revised plan
063for review. The board has previously requested the applicant submit this information at its January 15, 2025 meeting. Third, the board requested the applicant revise the storm water drainage and management plans, add an emergency turnaround, and revised the section details to be consistent throughout the application. The applicant submitted a revised driveway, road, and drainage plan. The revised common driveway road and drainage plan was updated to indicate the typical storm storm water drywall detail piping was 15in diameter HDP pipe and an emergency vehicle turnaround area was provided at the end of the driveway as were requested by the town consulting engineer. However, the revised plan does not address the engineer's request to specify the drywalls are 12 ft deep. The applicant should make this revision and submit the finalized plan. The board had previously requested the applicant
064submit this information at its March 1st, 2024 meeting, its July 24th, 2024 meeting, as well as at its January 15, meeting. The board also requested the applicant revise the survey to read access and utility easement as opposed to only reading access easement. The submitted revised survey has not been edited to address the board's request, and the applicant should make this change. The board previously requested the applicant submit this information at its March 1st, 2024 meeting, its July 24th, 2024 meeting, as well as at its January 15th, 2025 meeting. Lastly, the board requested the applicant clarify if the existing shed and fencing on lot one will be removed or legalized. And the applicant did not provide this clarification. The board previously requested the applicant address these structures at its March 1st, 2024 meeting, its July 24th,
0652024 meeting, as well as at its January 15, 2025 meeting. In conclusion, the applicant should submit a revised reveation plan, revised common driveway, road, and drainage plan, and revised survey. The applica the application remains incomplete, and the applicant should ensure a response is provided for each listed item in order for the application to be deemed complete. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Tor. I did not. Okay. Uh, so just summarize the letter we dropped off. First off, we submitted the um so one of the one of the requests from in January was that we revised the access easement to say access and utilities and we did that and we dropped it off on um March 18th. I have a copy of the cover letter that was stamped by received by the planning department. So,
066as far as the uh change in Saska site plan to say access and utilizement, that was done in um I dropped off another copy today, but we dropped it off in March. As far as Drew Bennett's site plan, um that was dropped off in January 31st, so two weeks after the uh the meeting. And he did revise the note. It uh he wrote, it says it right on there. I called him today. I got to understand it's right there. So it says one there was the engineer had asked that the um driveway and um drainage plan have a note regarding drywalls and he put that note in there depth depth he has four 8ft drywalls rather than two 12T drywalls. Okay. So then as far as the revitation plan goes on the January 15th memo
067to this board and at our discussion that night the plan department recommended the changes could be made um it's condition of approval. So then today it was surprising to see them say well the plan's not done because in January in their memo the planning department's memo as well as our discussion here we said oh those those are simple changes they can be done as a condition of approval. Okay. So, I'm not really aware of any open issues. Certainly, if there are any, they're super minor, it could be addressed um before the record closes or as a condition of any approval. Okay. All right. Thanks. Uh let's see, Jen, this is you, right? That's me. Uh thanks, John. Thanks, Will. Um it sounds like there's some confusion about what has been submitted and what hasn't. So,
068you know, if the planning department does have all of the stuff um that John has dropped off, then I think there really aren't any issues to left to discuss. Unless I'm missing something, Jen, I did miss the shed. That that that that was Yeah. So, that was also something we discussed in January and it was the I mean, the planning department's memo that they wrote in January says as a condition of approval of the shed to be legalized or removed from the property and we agreed in January. So, they're using it tonight as a reason why we're not complete. But, um I would just ask in the interest of fairness, we just stick with what they suggested in January was that it either be legalized or removed. Yeah. as a condition of final approval. I
069I also recall that conversation. So, I mean, I do I think this is fairly complete. Can we can we just make sure you know, John, obviously, can you work with the planning department to make sure that they've received everything and get this updated and moving along? Jen, you're showing up on the screen. I want to look at I want to look at you when you're talking, but I don't know which camera to look at. Sorry. I know you're looking at me, Tarbin. I know it. Um, you know, no, that they even if we had not submitted these things and and we did and we have proof that we did and I'm happy to do it again, things get lost. Yeah. Um, it it it's I would I mean, just as a general comment, this stuff
070was the engineering plan was submitted on January 31st. Um, Saskus' revised survey was submitted in March. The plan department would would just reach out and call me and say, "Hey, we don't have something. we could save these types of, you know, instead we get we get a memo on Friday afternoons after five o'clock and then it's and then there's no one it just it would just be so much bit more efficient for the board if we just had a open line of communication with the planning department, not just me but any applicant um because these are tiny things that all could be addressed and then not discussed and hearing you guys go all go home earlier. So, okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for your comments. I appreciate it. Um, anyone else have any comments?
071No. No. Okay. Yeah. No, I think we need to really understand where there's a disconnect here. Um, you know, if we can validate, you know, that we have everything that uh Mr. Tarbet says we should have, I think we're in pretty good shape otherwise. So, let's just do that in the next few days. If you can just be in touch, John, the planning department, we'll make sure everything gets taken care of. Yeah. Does that mean we just come back for another memo? another hearing where we discuss edits to Yeah, probably. Well, it's so much better to the my actually passed away during this process, right? Like his wife is trying to finish this process to sell these lots. We were here in January and we've been waiting to get back before you since then. Um,
072and we submitted everything. There's there's these are all tiny things which you don't need them to deem the application complete. The engineer signed off. The town's consulting engineer already signed off on the highway. He he just said that there was nothing in January. There was nothing in January that would have tried us being deemed complete. Now here we are. Do we have an option, Charlie, to uh to make these conditions of approval? Well, he's John's still got to get an urban renewal modification. So Well, that's true. Yeah, you do need that. That's going to be weeks, too. And that's just a separate thing. Yeah, I know. But that that's a separate thing. In January, they told us in in the writing in the memos going back January and be before that the planning department said
073it would be forward to the town board. They actually said it be a meeting in February. It just never happened, you know. So, these months just tick by, you know, and it's it's rough um for my client. Yeah. But um you know, you could deem us complete tonight and if if there's something the planning department wants, I can give it to them before you have a hearing. What are our options here? Chair, what is Eric on board? Eric's on board. Yeah. What do you think, Eric? I'm here. Um, yeah. I mean, unfortunately, you know, we need to verify that those changes were made on on plans. John, I I apologize if you submitted those and and you know, we misplaced them or or didn't see them. Uh, we'll take a deep dive tomorrow. Um, see
074what was submitted. um go over the list of incomplete items and you know you you and I can discuss it um and you know hopefully we can get you a quick turnaround and get you back on the next example. Sorry to interrupt you. I just want just taking the SAS site plan for example the only comment in January was that the access easement should say access ement and utilities eman. So we only had to add the word utility to the ement and we did it um and we submitted I have proof I submitted it. I have a you know plan stamped my letter when I dropped it off. Um, you don't need that, right? You wouldn't need that to be deemed complete. That that could always be a condition of approval that the the map
075say these are such I hear you. But you want to bring a map that is as complete as possible to a public hearing. Um, you know, some of those changes, you know, it's appropriate to make them um before deeming the application complete. So, um, let me, you know, just for me personally, I'm coming into this application late, um, so I don't know all the conversations that were had, but, you know, let let's, it sounds like there was a mixup as far as what was submitted. Let us, um, do our due diligence and look through what was submitted and figure out where we are and we'll get back to you and I promise we'll put this back on um, as soon as we can. I think that's the best we can do, John, is just to
076expedite the process. disappoint tonight, but uh if I could just get my last word in, give me that. Um the the Drew Bennett plan um that was actually signed off on and like your consulting engineer said it was fine, right? It was he said, "I'm happy with it." He said, "I just suggest you add a note to the which we did." Um so it's not like there are elements missing from the application. These are all just um edits of what we made. Uh, so then to be here five months later, so frustrating, but I I I I you know, I see the I see the cards. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for your patience. Uh, all right. Well, I think we know the answer to the questions. Should the applicant submit a revised reedge plan
077including the size of the easement, uh, intention of the existing evergreen perimeter plannings in the southeast and add the name of the preparer? That apparently has been done, right? Sounds like it. Yeah. And it should be. Should the applicant submit a revised county driveway road and drainage plan specifying drywalls will be 12 ft deep? It sounds like there's an alternative that's been proposed at 8 ft. Four at 8 ft, which we'll need to determine if that's adequate. Um, should the applicant submit a revised survey indicating the easement is an access and utility easement? Sounds like that's been done, right? So, all right. I think that's where we're at. So, if you guys can follow up, I'm sure he will follow up with you in due course and we'll close the gap between what has been
078uh received and what was sent. All right. Uh, Windmill HDFC, Inc. preliminary site view. Michael, that's yours. Uh, Eric, I think that's yours. and the applicant is in the house. Okay. So, this is a preliminary site plan application um to build to add 20 roughly 600 foot affordable housing units to an existing 40 unit uh senior onlyly um affordable housing development. Uh the units are proposed in the form of multi-unit two-story buildings. The site has been developed since the mid1 1980s as an affordable housing development. It contains 10 individual buildings with four units of roughly 600 square ft each as well as a community center building, associated accessory structures, garden law, lawn, walkway, um other improvements. Uh the site is basically multiple cottage style buildings spread fairly evenly throughout the interior of the lot. Uh
079property zone A residents and um within the affordable housing overlay district. It's not situated in any um uh in any special environmental zones. I should note here, there's an error here. It says it's 100% cleared of naturally occurring vegetation in the memorandum. That's not correct. Uh it's partially cleared. Uh and the surrounding land uses are to the north for single family residences. Uh hopefully you can see those on that aerial. um uh as well as the manor house affordable housing development to the immediate south town senior center a church and a highway yard for the village of Eastampton across Akabanic road. So um as a preliminary uh site plan application um this is an opportunity for the planning board to give comments to the applicants about the general concept uh that they're going for here.
080And with this application, the most important uh is really the location of the new housing units and buildings, the potential displacement or removal of existing buildings and structures, parking and sanitary issues. Um obviously the specifics of those will be figured out at the time of formal application. Um but all of those are important to considering where these new units um could go on site. So I should mention that this application was facilitated by a code change that occurred last year. Um previously the effective limitation on the num the density of units in an affordable housing development was eight per acre. The town board changed that first to be 12 units per acre for senior uh affordable housing units which uh applies here. Um and then also changed it for all affordable housing um units. So,
081uh, this site when it was developed, the effective limitation was 8 units, uh, per acre. They're just over 5 acres, hence the 40 units. Um, now that we're going up to 12 units per acre, they can do the 60. Um, also not relevant to the bo the planning board's review, but just to give you an idea that the town um has supported uh this project to let you know that um a $338,000 loan from the community housing fund was granted last year for soft cost, which is, you know, planning, engineering, um architecture. So presumably um this application but basically you know a um indication of the town board's um desire to help these applicants uh expand this facility and add much needed affordable housing units. So um what I'm showing you right here is uh
082what you can see is option one um that they've submitted. They've submitted three options. What I'm going to do is uh just quickly full screen here um so that I can go between them. So, what you see right now is option one. Um, what you'll notice here, the community building is in orange. The new units that are proposed, again, two-story buildings are shown in yellow. So, you'll see option one includes most of the units um being at the center of the site, but then a number of them being in this western portion of the site. Option two um requires the removal of one of the cottages, but puts all of the units towards the center of the property. And then option three places all of the new units on the western end of the property.
083Also, um same with option one requiring no removal um of existing cottage buildings. So, the applicants have stated their preference for options three and option one um which what you're looking at right now again is option three. I'll go to option one. Um both of these include units in the western end of of the property there. Um they've said that option number two is the least desirable mainly because it removes um there's a garden or recreation area right behind the community building um it would require removal of that uh but also that it um would require displacement of residents uh because um in particular one of the cottages would need to be removed. So um and again they said option two which you see in front of you is their their least favorite. Um, option
084two or a variation thereof is the favorite design of the planning department. We say that for three very specific reasons. And what I will do is go to option uh number one for example. So um that blue dash line that you see around the perimeter of the site is a scenic easement boundary. Um to my knowledge and we've done a lot of digging on this and um I believe an attorney for the applicant did as well. That easement was never filed. It was required as part of the original site plan approval. Um basically the idea there was that the previous planning board said you know save for the southern portion of the lot where there's the access road and parking. So obviously there's no reason to have an easement. Um the remainder of the perimeter
085of the site should be um protected by a scenic easement. Um, again, that was never filed. So, what you see here on this option, if you look in the western end of the site, you'll see that um a number of the units are proposed to be within the boundary of what would be the scenic easement. They're not violating the easement because it was never filed. However, um ultimately when this comes in for formal site plan um application, the planning board, you know, this current planning board should enforce the requirements of the previous planning board. Um I will the second reason um that we favor and I'll go back to option two just really quickly. The second reason that we favor this design um in a way um well doesn't completely render the issue of the
086scenic easement mood but if there is a desire to place units within that area where that easement was supposed to be. Um you should note uh that that also demarcates the required setbacks uh for an affordable housing development. The setbacks are 50 ft. They go by what is required of the multifamily resident zoning district. So again, you're looking at option one currently, skipping quickly over option two and option three. Those place units within the required setbacks and require variances. Um we don't want to design something that needs variances. Um so I go back to option two here again. Sorry that I'm jumping around a lot. Um, and actually what I'm going to do uh for a second is just stop share so I can show you the um aerial again. I apologize for that brief
087delay, but you should see it now. Um, and and this is somewhat of a far out aerial. I have another one that zooms in closer, but if you look to the western end of the site, um, that right now is largely in its natural state. There's a walkway and some other minor accessory structures there. Um, but it's in its natural state. It's an uncleared area on the property and it provides a um a good buffer to uh Springs Fireplace Road. The town um recently commissioned a corridor study of Springs Fireplace Road with one of the goals being um further, you know, site changes that could be done to beautify uh that corridor. Um also included in that is consideration that areas that act as buffers right now should not be removed. So um we don't
088see the reason um and then I guess you know the other point to make um here is that and I'm switching back to the site plan now and specifically option two when we get there. Uh let me just full screen this again. Um, so going back to option two, um, what, um, so I I think the, and it says this at the end of the memo, this should be viewed as a redevelopment of the property and not just an effort to to fit 20 units on the site um, and not disturb, you know, the existing improvements. I totally understand um the wanting to keep as many of the existing buildings as possible. Um a number of them actually were renovated recently using um community development block grants. Um so uh you know I understand that
089but at the same point uh you know the new units need to fit on the site and um this development pattern is you know obviously twostory row townhouse style units are different in their appearance than the cottages. most, you know, I I think that what needs to be considered here is that there is room here to put all 60 units that are permitted um under the code on the property. It might necessitate the removal of more of the existing buildings. Um but so be it. Um if that's what's needed to get a proper site layout, there's also an option here um upon formal where the applicants could propose to phase the development. So, as you look at this option two here, you'll see that that row of town houses to the right requires the removal
090of one of the cottages. I'll scroll back to option one to show you where that cottage is. Kind of scrolling back and forth. Um, you know, these might need to be removed, but they could be done in phases. So, if you look at the option one drawing for getting the units in the western end of the site, there's the town code permits a number of units to be built. Um, and if you look at those centrallylo units, those are where the current recreation area is. Those could be built. Um, residents from one of the cottages could be moved into those units. And then new units could be built where one of the cottages is. Another cottage could be removed to facilitate the um reserved area requirement. Uh, excuse me, recreation area requirement, which I'll get
091to in a second. Um but just very quickly um parking uh there seems to be a slight discrepancy in what the required number of parking spaces are. Um it's nothing major that can be resolved at the formal. Um also wanted to just mention sanitary system because that plays into the lot configuration as well. Um they're not required to provide sewage treatment here. uh being in the groundwater management zone that they are, the health department will permit individual sanitary systems. Uh they obviously all the new systems have to be low nitrogen systems. Um but they can do individual systems instead of sewage treatment. The existing um sewage treatment that's uh for the property is very antiquated technology. Um my understanding is that it has had some functional operational problems recently. So, um, the applicants should strongly
092consider providing sewage treatment. Again, that is not a requirement. I understand that that's extremely expensive. Um, we're just putting that out there. And obviously, full information about the sanitary system needs to be provided at formal. And the applicants um in the lot layout are going to have to consider where uh the the sanitary systems are going to go and where their leeching fields are going to be. Most of that leeching area is currently underneath um that recreation area, that garden right now. So, um just jumping to the recreation area, that is a requirement of the special permit standards and it's um it dictates that there needs to be an open space for, you know, common use. There is one right now um in that garden area. Uh and it's dictated by the number of units
093and a certain square footage. Um, so there needs to and based on 60 units that means that there needs to be a 4,500 ft recreation area. Again, that is not a huge amount of land and could be facilitated um by removing one of the cottages. Um, what I'll do right now is I'm going to jump back to the option two that was submitted. So, if you look at that orange building, which is the community building, um, right to the right, if that cottage were removed, um, and then the four units that are in there are added to the the rows of town houses might necessitate removing another one of the cottages. But if that cottage just to the right of the community building is removed, you can adequately fit um, a recreation area that could
094be a garden and an open space that's right at the front of the site, right near the community building. um right at the entrance to those rows of town houses and would probably make sense. Um not saying that the applicants must do that um but it's a consideration and really what I'm getting at here is that there is room on on site to redevelop this property and get to 60 units uh without violating um the scenic easement that's supposed to be there or needing variances for for lot um for uh setbacks. Um so again another point just to make is that you know these are twostory townhouse style units. Um the existing aesthetic on the site is scattered one-story cottages. Uh the formal site plan is obviously going to need ARB approval. The applicants should
095provide as much information as soon as possible as far as renderings and and uh elevation plans and floor plans uh so that the ARB can give them good guidance early in the process. Um obviously as a preliminary site plan application and a one-time review. This application is a type two action under SRA and no further review is required. The formal application will uh be an unlisted action most likely but will require secret review and we listed in the memorandum the involved agencies. Um so basically in conclusion um again preliminary site plan application a one-time review trying to give guidance to the applicants over the general um configuration of of the site um and go through the the options that they submitted and and point them in the right direction. And again, um, the planning department,
096as we always do, uh, recommends that you that a design, um, be, you know, that the the design eventually be one that honors the boundaries of the scenic easement, doesn't require variances, whether they be yard setback variances or anything else. um and doesn't remove that existing natural buffer on the western end of the site which is extremely constrained anyway and actually is was supposed to remain open for um for emergency vehicle access. That configuration has since changed. Um but just point of note there. Um so that that's basically our advice on this and I'll I'll leave these options um up on the screen. Uh, I'll leave option one up uh and I can toggle through them if the um the applicants uh want me to do that. Thank you, Eric. Uh, sir, would you like
097to be heard? Name and address, please for the record. Brian Lester, Cover Lester, 132 North Main Street Treaty, San New York. Evening. Uh, I read through the memo. I appreciate the comments. I think one of the the main considerations here is that we brought a team together before we got to this point in order to develop these options. Um engineers, finance people, etc. Uh one of the we considered phase development as well as removal of certain buildings and whatnot. Um two big considerations there is one the impact it's going to have on our residents. Our residents that are older um moving them is a can be traumatic for them. So, we're trying to keep them in residence. Um, the other issue on phase building is financing. Um, the financing thing that we seek here, they
098don't like phase building. They want one shot, get them up, get everyone in. Um, they they would seek phase building as two separate um constructions and they have a minimum amount of number they will um fund. So, we need 20 in order to get the funding. if we break it into seven and seven or whatever, you know, 10 and 10, it's going to be a funding issue. Um, and that's why we're proposing it as it is. Um, the options, the two options that that are preferred. The area where the scenic easement is or the variance may be required that backs up right to the um current senior citizen center. Um, and so it's not a residential property there. It's also an air a property that's going to be abandoned at some point by the town
099and I know there's been some discussions about that um adding to senior housing. So keep in mind that may be a development that will then building there will help build next to it uh if what discussions have been had come to fruition once the senior center is built hopefully soon. Okay. All right. Good. Thanks for those comments. I appreciate that. So before we turn it over, Michael, just I want to just reiterate what Eric said, and this is a preliminary site review, right? We're only here to provide some direction. Uh hopefully develop some consensus as to which of these options we most prefer. Um and you know, what kind of what what sort of things we'd like to see in the formal submission. So uh we're kind of operating at that level tonight. So Michael,
100thank you. it seems to have just become far more difficult to uh make a decision on this. Uh but thank you Eric and uh Mr. Lester. Uh I appreciate the great demand for these units as well and uh 20 units will just be a fraction fraction of the demand. So I'm interested in a smooth planning board uh process. So the scenic easement I I I look at that and I think there are two options when you come back for formal and one is do does the planning board require that they submit the original approved easement uh scenic easement but I look at that and I'm I'm thinking specifically of the northern border with the stockade fence that runs along that border and there are uh a handful of oak trees and not a lot of
101screening. So, if we uh if we go with the with the original scenic easement, uh you have to make it the the uh naturally tell me if I'm wrong here. It's a naturally occurring habitat type which is a a deciduous woodland and it would stay like that which is not a lot of screening. Uh the second option is to have a modified uh easement and have uh there'll be landscape buffer along that northern property. Uh right along because you have that again you have that six-foot stockade fence that looks rather stark and if we want to uh respect the previous pling board that shouldn't have been cleared, right? uh recreation area and sanitary system was addressed. Uh something I want to talk about is, you know, my grandparents lived on the second floor uh of
102a two-story development like this and there was no elevator. They did well for many years getting up and down those stairs, but at some point they didn't. And I wonder if that is something that you're Yeah, we're not proposing. Can you come to the podium? Building concepts that we haven't submitted yet aren't talking stairs. It's a ramp system across the uh across those twotory the upper story apartments. Um a ramp to get to the second floor of Yeah, because they're they're built they're kind of sunken down. We're trying to keep them in line with the the cottage that that we have. So they're not huge and so they're kind of sunken down and have a ramp to get to the second um story. So it's more on that side, more of a ground level on
103one side. So they're almost both on ground levels um once we get into those concepts, but we certainly have taken that into consideration. Fantastic. Right. Fantastic. Including the first as compared to a two-story resident. So we're trying to Okay. mitigate that. and uh you know I buried the lead and we look at these options uh I don't know I don't know which is the best option uh [Music] we'll get to you uh I I would like to have seen yeah as as Eric pointed out the the the recreation area in your plan Uh, and certainly that when you come back, I I really think we should uh see that on I'm not sure if you're going to come back with three options or maybe there's a fourth option to consider, but uh I turn it
104back to you. All right. Thanks, Michael. Thanks very much. So, I do want to hear from everybody on this one since we're meant to come to some consensus. Um, Jen, we'll start with you. Amazing. Um, thank you. Thanks everybody for Thanks Eric and thanks Brian and thank you Michael also. Um, I also kind of came in with a bit of a different conclusion than the non-conclusion I now have unfortunately. Um, I my initial thinking was that keeping all of the units in the center of the property seemed to make the most sense. Although I was concerned about, you know, displacing people who are currently living there and thinking that that's probably not a good option cuz, you know, it's it's terrible to move and when you're older, it's probably even more. I mean, I'm old
105enough and it's hard for me. So, you know, my thought was the the it was kind of twofold. While I like the units in the middle of the property, I didn't like the idea of displacing someone. I did not initially like the idea of any units on the western end because I felt like that they were sort of isolated from the rest of the community and I didn't love that. But now with the comment that the senior center is the adjoining property on that side and it is town owned property and perhaps that could be developed that that kind of changes my mind a little bit that it might be more of a a very long-term plan. um wherein the scenic easement wouldn't matter quite as much if the property just to the south were
106going to be developed for a similar use. So, I don't know option. I don't know. All right. It sounds like you're you're go leaning toward this option that's on the screen right now. Three. Well, if I mean, if we're going to take like a really broad view of what the town's general plan is, then this option three might be the best because a it would be less of a disturbance for the rest of the the community during the building process. And if the town indeed does have the idea of perhaps turning the current senior center into more affordable housing, you know, I guess the question is, is it in the affordable housing district? I'm assuming it is since it's this literally right next door. It It's not. It's not. Of course, it's not. Um Yeah.
107So I mean I don't know if so if but if if the town is not considering using that property for a similar purpose then I think putting them in the center of the property would be the best bet because I do feel like that is the you know it would include them it would include these new units in the community as a whole and keep the scenic easements you pristine to the extent that they are. All right. So you So tell me where where I know I I I think it's obviously it's a very much needed very much needed addition to this property. And I guess given the information that we have at now my my vote would be for option two which keeps all of the units kind of in the same area. And
108I would also like to see the recreational, you know, recreation plan as we move forward. But right, given the information we have now, option two. All right. Thanks, Jen. Bruce, me. All right. Um, originally I was thinking option two was the better solution. Um, I'm a little concerned where the septic fields are going to lay out in that option. It's the buildings are very tight together. Um I was thinking to respect the scenic easements and the setbacks. However, listening to everybody um before I'm leaning towards option one. Um I think it preserves some of the eastern portion of the property. Um, and with three units towards the west, I don't really have a problem with going across the scenic easement. It does not look like it's a big infraction. Um, and understanding that it does
109back up to the senior center, you know, I I don't see that as an issue. So, I'm I'm back to option one. Back to one. Okay. Yeah. Reed, uh, I I think more affordable housing in the town is is a huge plus for our community. Um, I have a question for you. You tripped me up a little bit when you were talking about your opposition to to option two. You said something about you might not qualify for funding or something. What What did you mean by that? Yeah. So option phase two the way that uh it was proposed by the planning department was to phase the construction so we could keep seniors in the current building that's there build the the left complex first move those seniors into that one and then do the right
110complex that's going to have a funding in but we we research that issue and they'll they'll see that as a two construction plan and we don't have enough units in any one construction to maintain financing on that. So that creates a funding issue and we've hired people just to look at the funding as you can imagine on a project like this. Okay. Thank you. Um I I think the planning department has put forward a rather compelling case with three specific reasons why option two is the most sensible option. So that's what I would go with. And I like the idea of the recreation area being um you know towards the front near the uh common driveway. So that would be my choice. Okay. Yep. But I think with option two, wouldn't we have to get
111rid of one of the cottages to make that fit? Clearly at least one. At least one, right? As many as three perhaps, actually. So yeah. Okay. So in in option two then one of those existing cottages would have to be removed at least. At least and then if you want to add the recreation area back in which we need to that would be another one we'd have to remove. Right. Right. Right. Right. So two Yeah. And there's possibility as Eric was describing it earlier. There might be one to the right to put to create the additional units uh that would you losing by taking out the second cottage. You might need to reduce eliminate a third one right at the property line. But it should be nice and properly done, right? I mean, you could
112put affordable housing all throughout that entire parcel if you wanted, but it it I mean, I don't know. I think you really should go about uh go about No, I agree. I agree that the proposed is a better is a is a more efficient use. Yeah. The clustered the way it is now obviously is not that efficient. So, Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks for Well, while I agree that option two appears to be the most efficient in my view, and I'm not an accountant or a banker, I think from a financial standpoint, it would create a major burden which does not appear to be feasible. I think you'd have a a possible domino effect with septic and you these are the existing structures. I'm familiar with this this whole community. The existing structures are not in
113the best repair. They was made comment by the planning department that the septic is already having issues. I think this would put an undue burden again without knowing what the ultimate plans are. Initially, option one to me was the more favorable option. I agree with with Bruce on that, right? You mentioned that, right? Um where you're cutting into that western parcel a bit, but you're still preserving some, you know, the the vegetation there. It is close to the current senior center which again in the long haul will not be there but it is town owned property so TBD as to what that will you know be developed as. Um but I'm wondering Brian if if that option say were to go full full board would that be considered phased? Do you or do you even
114know that just because it's it's separate? No. No it wouldn't be considered phased because we were constructing the whole all the units all at the same time. Okay. Yeah. We've discussed that. So since we're just we be doing all the units and the expansion of the uh center the red building there uh it wouldn't be phased but construction be current at the same time. Yeah. And thank you. And also with option one again it's proposed that you would not be eliminating any existing structures and to me personally I think that to not disturb the current residents that would be more preferred in my view. Um, so that's my comments. Thanks, Ava. So, you are option one would be my preferred option. Okay. I I I do want to uh clarify just real quick and and
115Brian could correct me if I'm wrong, but option one, which is up in front of you, um would require uh the at least unless there's something creative that I'm missing, but would require the removal of a cottage if they're going to comply with the recreation area requirement. Um cuz basically the middle unit new units there are being put where the the garden and recreation area is right now. So if I go through you know option two obviously we talked about you got to remove a cottage for this row to the right. Option three is I believe the only one that would um and again it was stated as the applicant's uh preference but it's the only one that allows you to leave that recreation area uh and not need to remove any of the existing
116cottages. So, I just want to be clear on that. Yeah, I I think if we could put back option one, um I have to measure the area between the two buildings to the right of the proposed. Um that might give us some recreation area and then um by the current rec center area. Well, that's parking in there, but uh I got to measure that area to see how much square footage we have there and then we'll have to see. But I I understand the issue and we'll take it. We'll look at it and and figure out exact placement. No, you believe that is possible? I think between the two the essentially the second and third building coming off Abraham's path on the north uh side of the property, we might have enough room there. Um
117but I have to measure it out, but it's it's our largest area. Yeah. Okay. I'm I'm also for option one. I'm very strongly in favor of option one and I'm definitely against uh option two, which is the one that's being proposed by the planning department. Uh, I think squeezing all of those, uh, buildings into that area is just what I I understand what the planning department is trying to do. They're trying to preserve the uh the scenic easement, the setbacks. But by doing that, and and I know there's value to that, but by doing that, you're sacrificing so many other things, so many more important things. You're eliminating space. You're getting rid of u you're getting rid of existing cottages and you're jamming everything tightly into that uh middle middle ground. As far as the
118western portion, I think, you know, building maybe a third to 40% of it on the eastern side of the western portion is not really going to be that that much of a detriment to the buffer. We still have some kind of a buffer. As it stands now, it's not much of a buffer anyway because it's not exactly a silven forest, you know, right now. I mean, there's just I mean, if you've been there, you know, you can see right through it. And the other thing is recreational area. I you know that's kind of a a misnomer for what's there but what's important is space and uh whether you call it recreational area or it's just open space uh I think that's important and and the planning department's plan interferes with with uh that open space.
119So, um, yeah, I'm definitely for option one. I'm glad that there were two other, uh, board members that may can I just pipe in one more time, you guys? Sorry, I did not understand that option two would get rid of as many current units. So, kind of the net gain would be so much less. Um, we still they be replaced, right? They be replaced. Yeah, there still be 60 units on the Okay. Sorry. Okay. Are you sticking to two, Jen? Option two. Yeah, I I think I'm sticking to option two. Um, all right. Well, I am for option one, actually. Uh, which is interesting. I' I've run the whole gamut tonight. I started out strongly buying two. uh because I think you know that there there are many good good reasons why two would be
120the ideal situation under you know ideal circumstances which me meaning that financing were not a problem because clearly option two requires a phased approach right and that would really kind of mess up the whole financing structure um and the additional cost of having to replace units that already exist so I think it's sort of a non-starter from that point of view as much Eric as you You sold me hard on it earlier today. I think I'm gonna I moved I moved away from two. Uh I actually went to three for a minute thinking let's move everything new to you squeeze it in on the western side. U because you're right. I mean that area is not a beautiful silven forest. U but it's you know it's not bad though. No, it's okay. It's all right.
121And I like the idea of you know seeing an undeveloped land as you come up spring fireplace road. But it sort of felt like it was the least intrusive, you know, in a lot of ways. It would leave everyone else in place and it would allow you to kind of keep the garden that already exists, you know, meet that requirement. Um, but um, as I've listened to everyone else talk about it, I've moved three to one. Um, because I I do think that there is an opportunity to to to replace the garden, recreation area, whatever we're calling it in in that area. Brian, that you pointed out. Um, and you know, I think that it it serves it serves all ends here to me, right? It preserves more of the of the, you know, the
122scenic easement to the west. Uh, it requires no real upset to people already living in the place and it provides an area, it seems, to be able to provide for the for the uh recreation area. So, I I feel good about one. I have one question comic because I don't have you marked down here because I'm all over the place. What if the senior center becomes more affordable housing? So you have a affordable housing complex. Why not go with option three if that potentially is the case? So it's all, you know, it's all together right there and you won't need to disturb any of the rest of of the uh Yeah. I mean, the only problem is it's not zoned for it now. We can't anticipate what might happen to that site, right? We need
123to act might on today's know what we know today, right? But we're also trying to see into the future. But that's something we can't predict. That's what I was thinking too, Michael. Like if if there's the potential for that current senior center to be turned into senior housing, that would be right. Then the easements maybe less of issue. I mean, this is all kind of parking lot there anyway. I mean that could be but you know again we can't we really can't base our you know our advice on anything that's could happen. It's total speculation at this point. Um all right well we we haven't come to consensus but Michael you haven't really you winner. Yeah one is the lead. What are you are you going to go with the winner [Laughter] or my money
124on the winning horse? Uh the the tally was four for option one, two for option two, and then Mike, I think. Yeah, exactly. I I got it written right here. All right. So, you're undecided. Yeah. Okay. All right. I wish we It's tough. Could have had consensus, but what are you? They all have they're all positives to it, I think. And if if the argument is let's put let's put like option two have the because there are different they'll be a different architectural style, right? So let's put those all together in for option two. Let's kind of you can make the same kind of case for option for option three. have them all have the same architectural style and I don't know it's it's just they're all in the same area same architectural style but
125now if you go for option two option one rather you have this architectural style jumping over these other units that is undecided right I you know listen I mean I think that a gifted architect will make sure that there's a some consistency And what is the danger of some of these? The ARB will have their input into this. So yeah. Yeah. Now the issue with two again is the is the cost of it, right? To have to lose units and having to phase and losing potentially losing fun. But there's no phasing in in option three. It's all one shot. It's all the So are you three? Is that where you are? If I had to pick uh I would go with three if I had Okay. All right. Well, you know, I I listen, I
126mean, I think this has been useful. I think you kind of understand why this is a difficult decision for us and that each of them has each of these options has their pluses and their minuses, right? Um I think you kind of get where we're coming from. Um so we're not going to get any closer to unonymity tonight, I don't think. Um so we'll ask the questions then. Does the board favor one of the submitted uh options? Uh we don't we see how the vote turned out which is four for one, two for two, and one for three. Um let's see. Yeah. So I don't think we need to answer the rest of that qu question. Yeah, the rest is not applicable. Yeah. Right. If if it were option two. Okay. Should information pertaining to
127parking, including but not limited to existing number of parking spaces, required number of spaces and proposed spaces as well as location and dimensions of all parking be included in the formal submission? Yeah, I think we all agree it should be and we would expect it to be. Um, should information pertaining to both existing and proposed sanitary systems be provided as formal submission and should the applicant contact Suffach County Department of Health Services as soon as possible to determine what type of treatment may be required? Absolutely. Yes. Absolutely. Right. Should a recreation area of at least 4,500 square ft as required by the special permit be included in the form of submission? Yes. Yes. Um I know that you wanted to speak. We're we're not accepting public comments tonight. This is a preliminary site site uh
128review. So there'll be plenty of opportunity to comment as moves forward. Email too and email to the planning department. Um okay. Um Brian, I hope you got some good input. Yes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thanks very much. All right. Okay. So, let's see where we are at. So, we do actually have I'm not sure why this disappeared from the agenda, but we do have the very brief discussion of site here, right? No, that's a resolution. Well, there's also, you know, there was also a we need to approve it first, right? We need to Yeah. I I think we're not there though because I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. The first part is is is the application ready for approval, right? We don't have anyone really to disc I think we all remember what the project
129is and I think we all agree that it is ready for approval. Yes. Um so we're good on that. So we can actually go let's just go straight to approval. Um um we we have uh two uh UR map modifications as well. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I thought you know typically when we do this we go straight straight to the uh let's the approval resolution. Here we go. Ready. In the matter of the application of Marram Cabana site plan C uh SCTM number 3000-49-6-26 concerning adding five cabanas I've read the application and move for its approval. Second. Second from Bruce. All in favor? I are you an I? I'm an I. All right. Great. All right, good. So, back to our regularly scheduled program. We have the two URL map modifications. The first is David
130Cohen, 136 Town Lane and 9 Royal Street. Uh, did you have some comments about that, Eric? I I do. Very brief ones. Um, I'm sorry. I was just trying to uh set up uh visuals. Um, did you on Maram Cabana's uh did you note that health department approval wasn't required? Oh, we didn't. And that is true that redo that as amended. As amended. Yeah, I think you Yeah. Well, just to be clear, um the planning department included a condition in that resolution that uh the applicants obtain health department approval. That's not needed for that project. Um so that condition uh should be struck. All right, let's let's take a redo on that. I just I think you need just need to say the name of the thing and uh as amended and we're done in
131the matter of the application the mayor of Cabanas as amended. I have read the application move for its approval. Approval as amended. As amended still seconded and all in favor. Okay. I All right. Great. Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot about that. No problem. Sorry I'm slow on the draw. That's all right. So, did you have some comments about the Cohen? Uh, we we've actually spent time on this in the past at 136 Town and 9 Royal Street. Did you want to make a few comments about that? Yeah, I mean, just very briefly that you received uh comments from the town engineer. Um, freezing there. Um, can can you guys still hear me? Sorry. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, sorry. Um, but anyway, uh, so with, uh, Cohen, uh, Cohen, this is, uh, the
132UR map modification that's required. Uh, there was a lot line modification application um, as well that, um, this just mirrors what was already approved by the board. Um, and you can see the existing and proposed there. So that that was all I wanted to point out was that you have an engineer's memo saying that there's no issues and this is really a format getting the UR map modification to match the lot line modification that was already approved. Okay. Uh right this seems like a pretty much open and shut case here. Our uh consulting engineer has approved it. The planning department has approved it. Um is there an actual resolution for this Jody or what do we need to do? just say everyone's read the memo. Do we agree with it? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Everyone agrees.
133Yes. Supports it. Okay. Great. Okay. And then the other UR modification is the Steven Allen property at 9 Oaklair Street. This is a really simple moving of an access point from Port Palm Boulevard to uh to the side street at Oakclair Street. Uh, couldn't be easier. I've read it. It seems perfectly viable, reasonable. Does everyone agree? Yes. Yes. [Applause] Okay. So, we're down to the proposed code change. um the extension of the outdoor dining program pilot uh which has expired and a town a code change is really required to uh memorialize it but in the meantime it needs while that's being considered it needs to be extended. Eric was there any other anything else you wanted to add to that? Yeah, just um briefly and uh Tina um presented this to the town board recently.
134This was a program we created during COVID to um basically give create an administrative permit process where restaurants and takeout food stores could move some of their approved indoor seating um to the outdoor portion of a property provided they got a a permit from the planning department. It was adopted um to be a pilot program that expired after the first year and the town board has been renewing it on a yearly basis. Um we're asking that it be renewed for three years at this point. Um really for a couple of reasons. One being as you mentioned to sort of clean up the code. Um there are some inconsistencies in there. There's actually two code sections that govern the program. We want to just um make sure that that is uh you know better written. Um
135and then also um you know we we want it to be extended now and and soon because um if it is no longer um available to to property owners, restaurant owners, takeout food store owners, then um they'll be left sort of hanging as far as the process to move their seating for this summer season um which is approaching rapidly. So um you know we we the alternative under the code which is the only other one than this um administrative permit is to come in for site plan um to to relocate their seating. So um we have this administrative process that's a lot easier um and we'd like to extend it for three years so that we can um formalize it and make it you know something that doesn't need to be uh you know uh
136extended on a yearly basis. So, okay. And and I should mention this is um you know, planning more comments to the town board. Uh just going to say that, you know, this is a town board decision. We're just commenting. So, um you know, personally, I feel like this has been a great program. Absolutely. Um and I fully supported continuing and totally behind the three-year extension while code gets uh modified. Yeah. Anyone else? Agreed. Three years. Not that I'm against it, but why do they need three years to extend it? Is it going to take that long to change the code? Hope hopefully not, but you never know. You're just giving yourself a big buffer then. Yes. Yeah. That's basically um All right. So, we all we're all supportive of that. I could pass those comments
137on to to the town board. Thank you very much. Um, all right. So, we have approval of the Hampton 310 LLC barn. I am recused, but this is just uh I will not excuse myself since this is just a vote for approval. I'll abstain from the vote. Um, and who has the resolution? Yep. All right. In the matter of the application of Hampton 310 LLC Barn site plan, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-189-6-2.4. This is a site plan approval to re relocate an 1184 ft one-story barn from 10 Tyson to the subject property. I've read the resolution and move for its um approval. Second. All in favor? I [Music] I refused. Well done. So, there we go. All right. I think our last uh bit of business here is to review and approve the minutes
138from our last meeting. Are there any comments, changes? I saw a couple things. I don't mean to be the one, but you've already you've already done that. All right. Well, number on number one. Um the second to last sentence, um I think that should be hot tub instead of hot tub. And then um hot tub. Yeah. And then on number two, u I guess the last sentence there that uh lights spell over property lies should be property lines, I think. And uh that's all I saw. Okay. Um, I'll make a motion to approve those minutes as amended. As amended. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Second. Second. All in favor? As amended. Okay. Jan, you're an eye on that. Okay. Unanimous. Uh, what's next? Make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Second. Favor. I. Great. I. Thanks.