East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 04/23/2025

001Okay, planning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. Right guys, we're kickoff here. Um, good evening everyone and welcome to the town of East Hampton's planning board meeting for April 23rd. Um, we have a very ambitious agenda tonight which hopefully we can keep moving along very briskly. We've got two public hearings. We have four site plan reviews. We have a subwaver. Uh, we have a discussion about code change on our work session agenda and we have two additional items on our regular meeting. So, we have brought dinner with us and we're kind of ready to tuck in and see it through. Um anyway, the first public hearing is the Hampton 310 LLC barn, uh which is Bruce. Eric, you're here for the uh for the applicant. I am

002indeed. Indeed. Uh and I am recused from this matter. So, I'm going to leave this to J. I'll wait till Ed vacates premises. Make sure it's not the same. notice again. Yes. Stand by everybody. Sorry, I'm unprepared. Oh, Bruce. Okay, Bruce, you get to read. Yeah. And it's in its entirety. Correct. I believe it's in its entirety for this one. And I don't have All right. You ready, Jen? You want me to go? Go ahead, Bruce. Yes, please. Okay. Public hearing notice. Take notice that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall, 159 Panago Road, East Hampton, on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Hampton 310 LLC barn site plan to

003relocate a 1185 foot barn from Tyson Lane to 310 Further Lane. The barn is proposed as an agricultural support structure that would be used for equipment storage and the temporary storage of produce grown on site. The proposed barn includes a sink for washing produce, a new septic system, and underground includes a sink for washing doesn't make sense. Sink for washing produce, a new septic system, and underground water. That's twice. Underground water and electric lines connecting to the east to Tyson Lane. A pvious driveway is also proposed. The property contains 349 480,000 square ft or 8.0230 0230 acres and is located on the south side of Further Lane, East Hampton, and is situate in an A5 residence zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton and is identified on

004the Suffach County tax map as parcel number 300-189-6-2.4. Subject application is classified as a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act part 617 of the New York code of rules and regulations and chapter 128 environmental quality review of the town code. The survey prepared by Saska Survey Company PC dated revised January 19th, 2025. a set of plans prepared by Drew Bennett, PEPC, dated June 19th, 2024, including site plan C-1 and sanitary details C-2 and a set of plans prepared by Ferguson and Shamimian architects dated revised January 2nd, 2025, including existing and proposed barn and proposed barn plans. A 100 are available for inspection at the planning board offices, 300 Panagle Place, Sweet 103 East Hampton, New York. The public hearing will be held live and in person by the planning board

005and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing and will be televised on local TV, LTV, channel 2020, channel 22, and available for live stream on the LTV website. The public shall be permitted to appear in person, but may also provide comments on the matter being heard by calling 351-888 6331. Any person or party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by calling in to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning board, 300 Panagle Place, Sweet 103 Eastampton, New York 1137. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board eastamptony.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing dated April 2nd, 2025.

006Thank you, Bruce. Um, I think everybody knows the drill. It's three minutes per person who wishes to speak. Do we have anyone in person here in the room who would like to speak on this? Charlie. Oh, I'm sorry. And then Charlie, do we have jurisdiction over this? We I received some notice, but I did. Jody, did they ever respond? They They never filled out the date on the notice. See the notices? Yeah, sure. They left the dates blank. I'm sure it's fine. They did. They came in and filled out. Came in. I don't know. I have this one. You want the green card? I got that. You got I I actually I think this is the one. the eth that's the mailing separate there was a separate one for the yeah they just didn't date

007when he posted it yeah I know he came back I sent him back so I think same day that he had one person do the mailing yeah the mailing from our office I just wanted to make sure one second Yeah, we reviewed reviewed the affidavit of dose and posting. Everything appears to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. Thank you. Um and then a planner overview. I'm not sure which one of you has the application. Um we go over the whole project or No, I think you just give a brief product description. Yeah. So, um, sort of for the narrative that Bruce read, it's simply moving this barn shown in the yellow, um, from a property to the south to the subject property 310 further lane. It's an existing historic barn

008structure and being located through that area. They were putting in an AI wastewater system even though there's no sewage disposal. The county required that just given the um agricultural soil I preserve area um lighting details were provided. There's three lights on the barn. They're all fully shielded compliant parking area, driveway, that's all unimproved. They'll simply be driving across the grass. Um and yeah, everything seems good. They're taking access from the nearest point, which is directly to the east. Um the water and electrical service lines were rerouted to the east to limit the disturbance for the orchard to the north. So it's pretty simple simple project just moving the the barn uh to the location scene and they'll be able to use it to uh wash the produce grown on site. None of that's for sale.

009It's really just for the enjoyment of the owners of the property. Great. Thanks, Chris. Um, is there anyone in the room who wishes to be heard on this matter? Matt, do we have anyone on the phone for this matter? You have zero callers. Thank you. Thank you. Do we close public hearing? I make a motion to close public hearing. Second. All in favor? Six recusal zero. Thank you very much. And then Ed, we need Ed back or by see you later. Thank you. [Music] All right, welcome back. Back in action. Thank you. So, our second public hearing is the Marram Cabanas in Montalk. Uh Michael, you have that on our end. Um we get a review of it first from the planning department. Correct. We read it first and then review or how we read

010it backwards. We may have done it backwards. I've never done a public hearing. You read first. Okay. Public hearing notice. Take notice. A public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board at Town Hall 159 Panagle Road, East Hampton on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2025 at 6:30 or soon thereafter, as this matter may be heard to consider the application of Marram Cabana site plan to add five cabanas on top of existing decking. The proposed cabanas have an area of 72 square feet and are eight feet tall. The property is currently improved with four two-story masonry buildings, two sheds, a bar, paved parking, wooden decks, and a pool. The property contains 82, and 87 square ft, 1.885 885 acres and is located on the south side of ocean terrace Monttok and is s as

011and is situate in a B residence coastal erosion overlay district water protection district zoning district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of East Hampton and is identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel 300-49-6 6-26 subject application is classified as a type two action pursuant to the state environmental quality review act part 617 of the New York code of rules and regulations and chapter 128 environmental quality review of the town code a survey prepared by George Wallbridge Surveyors PC dated revised February 8, 2024. A set of plans prepared by is it Shunover or Skunover and Vanderhof Architects dated August 4, 2023 including site plan and cabana plans A1 and site plan with Bluff Crest line A2 a NSPS land title survey prepared by Bach and Clark dated revised June 6,

0122018. 18 and page 14 of 59 of the Ca dated June 7, 1988 are available for inspection at the planning board offices, 300 Panagos Place, Sweet 103, East Hampton, New York. The public hearing will be held live and in person by the planning board and will be available electronically by video and teleconferencing and will be televised on local TV channel 22 and available for live stream on the LTV website. The public shall be permitted to appear in person, but may also provide comments on the matter being heard by calling 351-888 3 wait 3518886331 or by email. Any person or party wishing to be heard with respect to the foregoing may do so in person or by agent or by attorney or by callin to the live stream or by written comment addressed to the planning

013board 300 Panagago Place Sweet 103 East Hampton New York 1137. We're almost done. Comments may also be submitted to the planning board by email to planning board at eampny.gov. All comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of the public hearing. Head crew chairman. Okay. Thank you, Michael. Uh Will, are you going to give us the lowdown? Need the lawyer first. Oh, yes. Do we have jurisdiction? Yes. I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything appears to be in order and this board has jurisdiction over this hearing. Thank you very much. All right. So this project is located at 21 Ocean View Terrace in Montalk. It proposes to construct five cabanas on top of existing decking at the rear of the site. The proposed cabanas will be 72

014square feet each and 8 ft tall. Several public comments were received from neighbors regarding the cabanas and these are available in the project file. The board should review and take these comments into consideration when discussing the application. Let me just pull up the elevations of the cabanas. So, they're pretty open and they have a fabric sort of roof. Is that it? Will Okay. Um, yeah, there's not much to say about this. Um so these cabanas are really more like pergolas actually right they're open structures. Um I think many people may have the view that a cabana is something like any closed structure where you might um you know change clothes or whatever you know or have uh storage drinks or that kind of thing. It's not that sort of thing. It's an open open pergola.

015Um, all right. So, with that, um, you know, as Jen said earlier, I'm sure we'll start with people in the room. If anyone has a comment, um, on it, please make that known. Uh, we have three minutes, good time for three minutes per comment. We'll go to LTV and see if anyone's online wanting to comment. I don't think anyone in this room is here to comment, I'm guessing. Okay. Uh, Matt, do we have anybody on on online? You have zero callers. Thank you. Okay, just like to make one uh request. They'd like to get these up for the summer. So, if it's possible at the next meeting to have it on for deem complete, end of public hearing ready for approval, maybe have the resol resolution of approval on. Okay. So, can I um Hi,

016Tina Laran for the planning department. I would just say Lori, there's some public comments in the file. That'd be great if you want us to do it quickly if you look at the comments and provide some input on uh responses so those can be presented to the board and they can feel comfortable that they're addressed. We'll do it right away. Okay. Yeah, good idea. They're they're in the file as you know, Lori. Yep. Um All right. So, we need a motion to close the public hearing. I'll make that motion. A second. Ava. All in favor? Public hearing. All right. We're done. Okay. Thanks everybody. So, we're going to move on to our first site plan review of the night, which is the Serest Pool and Shed. And Lou, that's you for the the planning board.

017And Chris, that's you. Um, and the applicant is Lori. Okay. Go. Yep. All right. So, this is the second review of the Serest Cool and Shed site plan. Was last reviewed July 10, 2024. give an overview of the property uh resort zone. It's about 7.7 acres and contains the pre-existing resort use. This is special permit use properties within coastal erosion zone uh one ocean rural zone partially within the local water rough revitalization program area and is also within a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. The uh background on the proposal itself uh project's been revised to expand the scope of work and proposes two development phases. Phase one proposes replacing the existing swimming pool pool terrace and pool enclosure fencing constructing two poolside pergolas. Also proposed for phase one is a 198 square foot shed

018a with an enclosure fence for pool equipment an enclosure fence uh for the existing shed and a 3ft 10-in tall retaining wall by the proposed shed. Also proposed are gravel walkways and phase one will involve replacing the existing lighting on the site to bring it into compliance with the town code uh with fully shielded fixtures. Meanwhile, phase two, which is shown in red on this plan, so the green shows phase one, red is phase two, um that involves the work that's with will require a natural resources special permit from the zoning board of appeals to ZBA, um but will not require any variances. Uh, this phase proposes a new IIA wastewater system, a turf area for games and barbecues. Um, a 3,647 ft twotory clubhouse building which will have a is proposed to have bathrooms,

019a gym, lounge area, and a covered patio. U, there's also additional walkways around the clubhouse building and lighting for the project area. So next I'm going to just go over the issues from the discussion that we had uh last July. So the planning board requested that the applicant uh provide details on the existing sanitary system. The applicant provided the location of these systems um the capacity of some but no additional details. Um and the planning department notes that the uh the proposed IIA system will only connect to the clubhouse building. Existing sanitary systems for the resort units and reception buildings uh will remain in their existing condition and the proposed density load for phase 2 is 475 gallons per day uh for the clubhouse building. town consulting engineer reviewed the proposed IIA system did not

020find any issues and the maximum density load for the entire parcel is 4,617 gallons per day. Um so we just ask that the applicant should confirm that the site will remain in compliance with that number uh when this flow is added to the project and in doing so consider the existing flow to make sure it's below that threshold. Um so the next comment was regarding the parking arrangement and the board just asked the applicant to provide some dimensions as well as the circulation pattern. Um the applicant responded with the dimensions for the parking spaces and arrows for the circulation uh pattern and the planning department wants to note that no accessible spaces are indicated where four are required uh by the Americans Disabilities Act. So the dimensions for the drive aisles also must be shown

021with the minimum width of 24 feet per the town code. And if the number of parking spaces decreases uh when creating accessible spaces and like the uh associated areas of applicants should confirm uh that their parking is still compliant with the town code by providing the requirements and methods used for computing such if they if they lose some parking spaces. In addition, the planning department notes that there's some parking spaces along the western property line within the right of way of Navajo Road and the applicant should confirm that they have permission for those spaces. If it's not established, it should be stopped from the highway department and the proof of such would need to be provided to the board. Um there's signage currently indicating that the spot is for hotel guests only. uh unauthorized users

022would be towed and given that there's also a public beach adjacent to the site. If those spaces are not able to be kept for the sole use of the property, parking will have to be uh revisited and and re-evaluated. Um submission indicates that the spaces are 9 by 20 ft uh long and that complies with the town code. Some of the spaces do differ in size it appears but the uh the parking layout is reflected upon the most recent co. So we don't we don't see an issue regarding the uh size of the existing parking spaces. Lastly on parking curb cuts uh should be indicated to show an accessible path to the pool area and that's uh in accordance with the town consulting engineers comments. Um board also asked the applicant just to indicate the

023clearing proposed. Applicant did that. So there's no further review regarding that. Uh applicant was asked to provide the finished floor elevations and ground elevation for proposed building structures. Um and they did so for most structures. The only ones missing were the walkways and the retaining wall. the um walkways given that it's nearly flat slope across the project area. We recommend that that be waved. We'd like to see that elevations provided for the proposed retaining wall. Um next was that they should provide the area of the proposed buildings and structures. They did that sufficiently for analysis. Next one was setbacks to be provided. They indicated that for the clubhouse building. the other structures appear to substantially meet setback requirements and no further issue with that. Um, next was regarding the lighting which I I brought up

024briefly. Um, we wanted details on the existing lighting. Um, instead the applicant's going to provided a comprehensive lighting plan for both phases one and two. Um, as mentioned, the existing lighting that's non-compliant will be fixed in phase one with compliant lighting. And the plan satisfies most of the requirements from the planning board guidelines. There's just a couple issues to be addressed. Um, just going to pull up the lighting plan as we move forward. So the western property line there are some foot candles measured above a maximum of 0.1 foot candles. Um so that should be revised to avoid light spill across the property and the only other issues were to indicate the mounting height and the type of control for the lights whether it be a motion sensor or a timer. Um those each details

025should be added and then the lighting plan should be sufficient. Um the planning board asked for elevation regarding topography um of the site. Some key elevations were provided on the revised submission and um the applicant should refer to the town consulting engineers recommendation that a grading and drainage plan be provided for the project area. If that plan's provided, it should provide uh sufficient information for us to analyze the topography and wouldn't be required across the whole the whole property. Um the last issue from the initial review was to provide elevation drawings and the applicant provided them for every structure uh proposed. So that that that issue's um satisfied as well. So moving on to the issues of discussion other issues environmental quality review act. It's a type two action pursuant to SRA and chapter 128

026of the town code. No additional reviews required for that. And then since the uh last review this this phase two um is proposing the turf area as well as the clubhouse building shown here and we just like the applicant to confirm that the clubhouse will be for resort guests only and not introduce new users to the site. Um the proposed turf barbecue area along with the other proposed structures for phase 2 are within 150 ft of the wetlands 200 ft for the IIA system. Um which will require the NRSP from from the ZDA um just make them aware of that and there's some hot tub equipment proposed within one of the enclosure fences for these sheds. There's no hot tub indicated on the other plans of this revised submission. So, we just want the applicant

027to confirm if that's proposed and indicate it accordingly. Uh, if so, regarding storm water drainage, um, there's not really information on proposed storm water management systems that provide adequate storm water infrastructure to achieve compliance with the town standards. Uh we note that it's advisable to minimize pave service to the greatest extent and um explore opportunities to reduce um imperous surfaces. And as mentioned, the town consulting engineer would like to see a grading and drainage plan to demonstrate that it's it's managed properly on on property. Regarding landscaping, landscape plans were submitted for phases one and two. Uh they just need minor revisions. Uh we want to see the location of the screening. So like the fences uh vegetative screening near there as well as the clear um symbology for each plant species plus the height and

028spacing of the plants. Regarding the engineer comments, there's a grading and drainage plan. Um, and also just wanted to have it demonstrated that there's an accessible roof provided u from the parking lot to the pool area just showing like curb cuts and that it will be made accessible for users trying to access that. And also um the engineer noted that construction details and specifications for the pool, terrace, walkways, other impervious services including pavement restoration for the parking area which the IIA system will go beneath um should be provided regarding the uh pool disinfection requirements. Revised submission includes pool plans which will with the with they included the required approval from South County Department of Health Services, but the size of the pool from the approved pool plans um must be reflected on the site plans

029for phase one. There's there's about a difference of 177 square feet. So, we just want to make sure the the pools is indicated consistently across the plans. Um and we just note that the the county approval expires in October 16, 2025 for the pool. Um office of fire prevention, the fire marshall issued some comments um regarding compliance with ADA. He first detailed that buildings on the there we go. So for phase one, this is the existing poolside building. It has some bathrooms in it and the fire marshall notes that um given that the work is around this primary function, the pool that those buildings should be brought into ADA compliance even if they are existing uh the work is required to provide accessibility to bathrooms for a project of this scope. And then regarding phase

030two, the fire marshall mentions that the second story of the proposed clubhouse building is not accessible and accessibility should be provided uh to that second story of the clubhouse building um drawings there. Chris, can I ask you a question? Sure. So there there is a small kind of pool house bathroom kind of situation now, right? Will that be demolished when the new building is built? Is that Yeah, sorry. I didn't make that clear, but yes. So, phase one involves the work around the pool. It'll remain for that. The um mechanical rooms will be broom swept since that equipment is moving by the sheds and the bathrooms will remain in place. However, per existing building code of the state, fire marshall mentioned that these bathrooms should be made ADA compliant and that's a specific code um

031for primary function that access to bathrooms and water fountains must be provided um for work like this. Yeah. So, yeah, second story of the proposed clubhouse building should be made accessible. And then just regarding the other approvals for the property, the architectural review boards required for everything except for the pool and the surrounding pool patio, zoning board of appeals uh for the NRSP that I mentioned for the work within jurisdiction for phase two. Um office of fire prevention for the ADA compliance that I went over. Suffach County Department health services required for the swimming pool in phase one and the propos proposed IIA system in phase two. and Suffach County Planning Commission reviews required um as well. So in conclusion, the applicant the application is incomplete pending additional details on proposed structures and compliance with

032the site plan and ADA requirements. The planning board should discuss whether they agree to wave requirements for ground elevations of the proposed walkway. The planning department recommends that the board must require a grading and drainage plan to demonstrate storm water management and ADA compliance. A revised landscaping plan should be submitted. Um moderate minor modifications are needed for the lighting plans. The applicant should revise the site plans in phase one be consistent with the pool size approved by the SCDHS. Lastly, the applicant should revise the plans to address the fire marshall findings and the town consulting engineers comments regarding ADA compliance. Okay, great. Chris, thank you. Um, so before we call the applicant up, just a note that Chris Duno, the architect, is with us on Zoom. Can you hear us, Chris? I sure can. And

033we can hear you. Okay. All right. Excellent. Um, I don't see palm trees in the background there, but All right. Okay. Um, Lori, are you going to speak for the applicant? I believe we both are. Okay. So, Lori Wil Planning Services and then Chris Duno with the Sunno Architecture. Um I could answer a few of the questions and he should probably address uh the others mainly pool size um ADA compliance and uh most of this is just revisions housekeeping revisions which we'll take care of. The clubhouse is uh for resort guests only. Um the pool houses is just a discrepancy. Chris is going to speak to ADA. Um then there's a density load compliance we'll have confirmed by the uh project septic engineer. [Music] Um grad grading and drainage plan with an ADA compliant route

034will be provided to the pool. Landscaping and lighting plans will be revised. There is no hot tub. We'll remove the note about hot tub equipment. And uh Chris, what do you have to add to that? Yeah, so apologies about that. There was a hot tub in our original design and we've neglected to remove the note at the pool equipment shed we after we remove the hot tub from the plan. As far as the dimensions go um and the size of the pool, the pool engineer dimensioned the interior edges of the pool and we dimensioned the exterior of the shell of the pool and the coping. So that's the differentiation there. we can easily change our dimension there. They are drawn exactly the same size. It was just that our dimensions were to a different place.

035Um as far as ADA is concerned, um our consultant u all all of the walkways and everything on the ground level are will be compliant. The um there's no second floor just to be clear. There is a roof terrace. Um however that use is identical to the use on the first floor. So according to our consultant it doesn't have to be compliant have to be accessible. So um as provided that you know any function that is given to the property is usable by uh someone that that needs accessibility. Um our property will be compliant and we can provide a report to further that. As far as the parking is concerned, um there is adequate room within the existing lot to reallocate the spaces and appropriately um designate the four spaces that are required. We can

036we can do that within within the zone. It just needs to be adjusted accordingly. There's there is no striping and there is no curb blocks. So that that can be properly addressed in our next submission. Okay. Yeah. I guess so. Blue, please discuss. Yeah. I think a lot of the issues are just u issues that need more information and once we get that information, it should be clarified. Um I do have some questions uh regarding well first of all the ADA that's an important issue for us all all the time. I don't understand why the second level, let's call it that, is not does not require ADA compliance, ADA accessibility. Whether it's a terrace or it's a deemed to be a second floor, it's still an area that's going to be used by guests. So

037why wouldn't u it be required to be ADA accessible? Not sure I understand that part. Um well we have on the first floor the same functions are available. This is just another seating area. So it's outside. There is an outside covered area on the first floor. There's an outside covered area on the roof. So, [Music] um because someone can we could if there were to if the guests were to have a birthday party, let's say on the at the property, they could do it on on the covered lounge or in the park, you know, in the other areas of the first level. It's not required that you have a function on the second floor. Okay. Well, if that's the case, that you know that that'll be the case. I just I just find it odd

038and I would like some clarification on that. Maybe the plan we'll ask the fire marshall to confirm that. I think that's what we need to do. Yeah. As far as the parking is concerned, there's the issue with uh the parking on Navajo Road where some of the spaces spill over into the right of way. Uh that's one of the issues on Navajo Road. The other issue is uh there's parking across Navajo Road for the beachgoers for the public beach that's located there. So there's a question about whether or not those hotel parking spots will be used by the public or what what will you be doing to prevent that so that we don't have a diminishment of parking spaces that are allocated for the hotel. So that's that's an issue there. Um and I'm sure

039you'll take care of the four ADA spaces that are required. Um, and the other the other item is the drainage plan. I think that's an important issue that needs to be clarified as well, and it's one that I'm sure you'll have all the information and data on that. Um, the septic, the last issue that I wanted to bring up. So I I understand that um you your mark on the plans where the current septic system is for the hotel units. Uh do we know do we have any information from the Suffach County Health Department as to what kind of septic system is in place? Uh right now they're conventional. So current. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. You can Chris. Go ahead. We're both Chris. Chris did theo. Sorry. So there's a traditional system in

040place right now. Um there we have a a new proposal for um a new system going in that that TF engineering David Rhodess has has prepared the um design for the system is a multi-phase plan. Um so our initial phase right now is will be addressing the new facility over the way that they set it up. Um there is a way that we do not have to do every building and every every leeching pool all at once. So they're looking at a a phased system over a few years to bring the entire property into compliance even though or for for the new newer systems, but that's not the intention immediately. So that is it's is it's the way that they set it up with um the DEC and with with with the other agencies. So

041um Okay. So I So what you're saying is that the septic for the hotel buildings will eventually be converted to the new IIA system eventually. But that's not part of the immediate plan, but that's part of the long-term plan that that is that is scheduled within our our uh our guidelines. Will that be Chris Stoker? we have that uh as part of the uh the uh approval of this plan of this. No, no, none of that's proposed for this work. So, I'd imagine um Christuna is likely talking about a project they have planned for the future, but that's not proposed for either. None of the compliance to this plan. No. And and none of those systems are being changed with this project. None of the flow is being altered for the resort units or the

042uh reception buildings. It's we're really just focused on the system tied to the clubhouse building. It's not going to change for phase one. So, they won't do the upgrade there, but when they put in the new building, that's when the IIA system uh is proposed and will go in. and Chris Duno. Um, so the the maximum density right now for the property is 4,617 gallons per day. Uh, do we have the information as to what the outflow, the current outflow is right now, whether it's under or above that number? I'm sorry. I Oh, thank you. Yeah, I' I've asked CF Engineering to address that question. We'll be submitting it with our response. Okay, great. All right, that's all I have. Okay, thanks, Lou. Uh, does anyone else have any questions for Chris or Lori or

043any other comments or thoughts? Okay, I just wanted to clarify the Navajo Road. So, are those do you know at this time if those spots that encroach on Navajo Road are town spots? No, they're not. They're dedicated to the hotel. Okay. And then across the street. Okay. Um they're dedicated by the town. By the town to the hotel. Do you have you have I've I've spoken This has been going on for a long time. Chris, I have to reconfirm with highway and I will do that. Awesome. Great. Okay. Good. Um I just want to clarify. So, Christristuno, you're saying that that eventually the IIA system that you're going to put in for the new building will also service the resort units. Did I get that right? No. No. He's going to expand. That system can

044be expanded. At some point, they're going to probably replace update the exist update the existing. Well, yeah, that's what I'm asking. But not with this. Yeah. No, no, no. I understand. not with this submission, but it it's part of what David was submitting to the county in a long-term plan. So, um Okay, David, your engineer. Yeah, that's right. David David Rhodess. Yeah. Okay. All right. Yeah, I just wanted to be clear about that. I wasn't I didn't know that until this discussion. There's not any there's not any other plans for the building units and or anything else at this point, but that was part of what we were working on with the with the county and with the other systems. I guess I'm speaking a little too much, but it's Oh, that's good. That's that's

045helpful. And what do we know exactly about? It's a conventional system currently, but what do we what do we know about it? We don't really know anything about it, right? And we're going to get more information is what I understand. Okay. All right. Which we we'll look forward to getting. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. I think we ask answer uh add that question to the list. All right. So, let's go to uh to our questions. Uh the first of which is does the planning board agree the applicant should provide the required ADA spaces and confirm that parking in the town right away has official approval for the sole use of the property? I think we've covered that and the answer is definitely yes. Right. Uh does the planning board agree the applicant should confirm that the site

046will remain in compliance with the Suffach County density load? And you've already said yes to that as well, so we're good. Um does the planning board agree to wave the requirement for ground elevations to be provided for the proposed walkways? I think so. Yes. Everyone's yes on that one. Yes. Yes. Okay. Does the planning board agree the applicant should submit a grading and drainage plan for the proposed project area which demonstrates an ADA compliant route is provided on the walkway to the pool? Yes. Does the planning board agree the applicant should revise the landscaping plans in accordance with the this report? Yes. Yes. I think we already heard you say yes to that. Does the planning board agree the applicant should revise the exterior lighting plans in accordance with this report? Yes. Does the planning

047board agree the applicant should confirm whether a hot tub is proposed and indicated accordingly? You've given us that answer, but yes, thank you. Does the planning board agree the applicant should revise plans to make the existing bathrooms adjacent to the pool now ADA compliant and the second story of the proposed clubhouse ADA compliant pursuant to the fire marshal findings? I think that's too we just reading the way the question is phrased. Yeah, we we we agreed that we would do some more digging on on that piece of it. So, I think the other thing is we we'd like to see some information about the current conventional system that services the resort units. Yep. And Chris, I think you also mentioned some drive aisle dimension uh questions as well. Yeah, just uh have the dimensions for

048the drive aisles um in the parking parking lot. Make sure it meets that 24 ft um minimum. Okay. Yeah. That would be a good question to add. I should So I have a question on that because in this memo we're referencing a SEO that has the parking layout on it and also mentioned that we were going to be okay even though some of the parking spaces aren't exactly to the required size. Would that not be true of as well since it's on the CO? I mean it seems to me that the CO is the sign off that everything there was kosher at the time. So, I mean, we're not really in a position since we're not building motel units or anything new here um of rearranging this site. Yeah, since we already have a co

049would be my point. Yeah, exactly. All right. Well, let's let's see. Yeah, we'll take a look at that and see what's actually on the co. Yeah, that answers that question. Chris, thank you. Lori, thank you very much. Thank you. I think we're good on Crest for now. Okay. Um, our next item. Thank you very much. Yes. Thanks, Chris. 5252 West Lake car charging station. And I see that our applicants are in the room. Um, Bruce, this is you, right? Will, this is this is your project. Um, so let's start with your review of the project. Will. All right. [Music] So this is a site plan application that has been made to construct two new electric vehicle charging stations, convert existing parking spaces into EV charging spaces, and site additional utilities at an existing multi- business

050site in Montalk. The proposed EV charging stations will provide EV charging for four existing parking spaces which are proposed to be converted to EV charging spaces available for access by a smartphone app as part of this application. The site is located on West Lake Drive in Montalk is zoned central business and is located within a New York state scenic area of statewide significance. Following the initial 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 information about traffic generation and average charging times. The applicant stated the average vehicle charging time will be about 30 minutes and parking in EV designated stalls will not be reserved for EVs only. It is expected the maximum trip generation per hour will

051be 16 which the site is unlikely to exceed. The board requested the applicant revise their plans to include the setbacks between all proposed structures and property lines and the applicant provided compliant plans. The board requested the applicant provide dimensions of the parking spaces and navigation aisles which the applicant provided. their proposed parking space and navigation aisle dimensions comply with town code regulations. The board asked the applicant to confirm if any drainage, grading, or changes to impervious surfaces were proposed as part of this project, which the applicant has confirmed there are no changes proposed. The board requested the applicant add more vegetative screening between the proposed utilities and the western property line, which the applicant appropriately responded to by proposing 7 foot tall green arbor lighting plants. The board requested the applicant clarify their lighting plan,

052which the applicant did, stating all proposed fixtures will be 3,000° Kelvin or less, and the fixtures will be controlled by a timer. some light spill over adjacent property lines was projected and that planning department recommends the applicant further minimize their light spill. In the previous review, attention was called to an existing concrete slab in the southwest corner of the property. Based on review of previous approvals, this slab never received site plan approval. For the last planning board approval, the area currently occupied by concrete was approved to be a planted area. In review of aerial imagery between 2007 and 2010, it was changed from a planted area to a concrete slab which was used for boat storage as seen in this aerial image. This area of the property is adjacent to a residentially zoned parcel. The

053applicant has clarified this slab is proposed to be removed as part of this application and will be replaced by grass. With this change, it appears the total coverage of the site will comply with the total coverage allowed in the central business zone. In conclusion, the board should confirm it wishes to wave the setback requirements for the accessory structures and the applicant should submit lighting which complies with planning board policy on light spill for planning department review. The planning department recommends compliant lighting fixtures and new plans be submitted for review as a condition of approval. As a minor site plan, a public hearing is not required. Pending these two matters, the planning department recommends the application is complete and ready for approval. The applicant should submit plans which consistently show the proposed condition of the site,

054specifically the replacement of the concrete slab with grass. Thank you, Will. Uh, does the applicant wish to be heard? Flip a coin. You don't have to questions or you're available for questions if we have any. Sure. Why not? All right. Good. Yeah. We just want to give you a chance and say your piece. Um All right. Bruce, lead our conversation. All right. Great. Thank you. So yeah, I think um you in terms of item number one, I think the traffic generation seems pretty pretty minor for um the four units. Um setbacks, I think we talked about that last time and and agreed to wave those. Um the parking lot configuration and stalls have been um dimensioned and and they look they look okay. Um traffic flow we just talked about. Uh, I think the screening

055is a great addition um along the the north and west side. It also looks like there's a new fence proposed. Maybe I saw that in one of the images. We have to fix the fence. Okay, so that's even better. Um, the lighting I think the lighting needs to be tweaked um along the there's a couple areas on the west side which got up to the residential property and along the north, you know, there's quite a bit of light still there. I think that needs to be um addressed and probably tweaked a little bit. And I think, you know, putting the the lighting on a timer um I think that's a great idea. And oh yeah, the concrete slab that looks like that's going to be removed. So, um that area will be reveated and I

056I think that's that's great. So, that's all I got. Okay, good. Thanks, Bruce. Anyone else have any other comments? On that last point, Bruce, the reveation, is that just going to be grass or is it going to be any plantings? Oh, come come forward, please. Yeah, it says grass. And just identify yourself for the record, please. My name is Mark Rusher, Wood Holler Energy Partners. Um, so we were intending on taking out the concrete. We obviously didn't know that was not permitted or whatever before we started the job. So, uh, we were I put on grass lawn back where I was. Okay. You think that's a better idea than putting shrubbery there? I mean, we wouldn't be opposed to planting it if that's what you if the board prefers that. It is adjacent to residential.

057You have a fence along that west property line, right? Stockade fence six feet high. Yes. Yeah. I think grass is okay. I think the grass is fine. Okay. Can I get a little clarification on the light tweaking if we go back to the illuminations plan since I'm up here? Um, yeah. So, that is uh something you probably should discuss in some detail with Will, uh, you know, offline. Okay, that's fine. I appreciate I don't I don't think the changes are enormous, right? There's a little bit of spill, but you know, and given that that this backs up to residential neighborhoods, it's important not to have that to avoid that. Okay. So, I think it's it's a pretty minor tweak, but you really work that out with Will. Okay. If you would do that. Yeah. Okay.

058Are there any questions while I'm up here? I don't think so. Let's move this thing along. We've seen you guys a lot. Um All right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, our questions are, does the board wish to wave the setback requirements for the accessory structures on the west side of the lot? Yes, I think we do. Yes. Uh, should the applicant should the applicant lighting, you know, propose revise lighting that complies with the planning board policy for planning department review as a condition of approval? Yes, we've agreed yes that that should be a condition and that you'll figure out exactly what that means by working with uh with Will and the planning department. Uh is the application complete and ready for approval? Yes. Yes. With the I'm sorry with the stipulation that the pad the concrete

059pad gets removed and grass planted and the lighting gets tweaked, right? Is that there's like a small tweak to the questions. We just we need them to provide the compliant lighting and for a consistent set of plans to be submitted. And if the board's okay with the planning department checking that and assuring that it's consistent with what you said, we'll put it on for resolution once we have those items. Yeah. Great. Yeah, I think that was sort of implicit in this, right? Yeah, that's right. Um the application is complete and ready for approval. So, thank you very much, gentlemen. Thank you. We'll see you one more time. Thanks very much. Um, all right. Keeping on the theme of EG EV chargers, the Marram EV chargers phase proposal is the next thing on our on our

060agenda. And Lori, that's you again, right? Is that correct? Okay. And Michael, you're going to lead our discussion about it. And Will, you're on with that. So this project proposes adding four EV charging stations to two separate concrete pads at the site located on Ocean View Terrace in Mahawk. Phase one of the project will include the construction of two EV chargers set back to back on top of a concrete on top of a separate concrete pad located further south to the site. Phase two will include the construction of two more EV chargers set back to back on top of a separate concrete slat pad located north of the chargers from phase one. And you can see here this is the area where the chargers are proposed. The EV chargers will provide charging for four existing

061parking spaces which are to be converted to EV charging only as part of this application. The site is 82,87 square ft or 2.603 acres in size, located on Ocean View Terrace in Montalk and zoned B residents. The site is improved with four twostory masonry resort buildings with patched porches, secondstory decking, paved parking areas, wooden decking, concrete patios, and a pool. The site is pre-existing non-conforming with respect to zoning as a resort is not a permitted use in the B residence zone. The project is a type two action pursuant to SECRA and chapter 128 of the town code and requires no further secret action. In an email, the applicant stated that the chargers are intended to be used by hotel guests and employees and will not create additional traffic to the site. The planning department recommends

062this is sufficient information on how the chargers will be utilized and the planning board should determine if they agree. Properties directly to the north of the site are residential and the new structures may be visible from at least one of them. However, the proposed structures are small are small both in size and height and are proposed to be located within existing parking areas. The board should consider whether the charger should be could be considered a visual detriment to surrounding properties and if so, the board may choose to request screening. The project proposes the conversion of four traditional parking spaces on the eastern side of the property to EV charging only spaces marking marked with signage. Currently, the site has 85 parking spaces, three of which are marked as ADA spaces on the survey. Pursuant to

063the town code section regarding off- streetet parking requirements, the requirement for motel and hotels is 1.25 parking spaces per bedroom. No additional traffic is expected to be generated by the availability of the EV chargers. As the applicant has stated, they are for the resort of for the use of resort guests and employees only. The planning board previously indicated EVA charging spaces need not be deducted from the total parking requirement. Therefore, the parking requirements will not increase for this site. No dimensions of the parking spaces proposed to be converted are provided in the application materials. Additionally, one plan shows the charging stations placed to the north of the curb while another shows them placed south of the curb. Um, I talked to the applicant um earlier today and they confirmed that they will be behind the

064curb to protect them from potential vehicle collisions. The applicant should confirm the dimensions of the parking stalls to ensure compliance. If the space dimensions will be modified, that should also be shown in the plans. The planning department recommends this project as a minor site plan as no variances are required. Health department approval is not required. The proposed work is approximately 30 square feet. No additional parking will be required and no public controversy has been generated at this point. The board should discuss whether the sighting of the charging stations may be considered a visual detriment to the neighboring properties and if not may deem this project a minor site plan. The applicant should refer to the town code to confirm all necessary requirements have been met with this site plan submission. No utility lines, hydrants, fire

065systems, or fire wells are depicted on the survey. The applicant should confirm if new electrical services are proposed for the installation for installation associated with the new charging stations and show this information clearly on the plans. The dimensions of the subject EV spaces were not submitted as part of this application. The applicant should specify the dimensions of these spaces in their next submission and confirm whether no lighting information was submitted as part of this application. And the applicant should clarify if any new or proposed modified lighting is intended to be included as part of this project. In addition to formal site plan review, the proposed project will also require approval from the architectural review board. In conclusion, the applicant should submit dimensions of the charging spaces, confirm if new electrical services are required, and clarify

066if any new or modified lighting is proposed as part of this project. Okay. Thank you, Will. Miss Wilchshire. Um, we have minor housekeeping to do again on this, but there are there's no lighting proposed as part of this project. There we go. All right. So, Michael, please. So, I love EV chargers. I have I have an electric car. It's a Chevy Bolt. It's great. It's fantastic. Um, this is for hotel guests and employees only. Is this free for hotel guests and employees only or how do you keep non employees and non- hotel guests from just driving down there and charging? Is there if it's if it's only for hotel guests, is there like a little code you can punch in and I'll find that out. Okay. Uh are these level two, level three? I'm I'm

067curious too about the infrastructure. Level two. Okay. So, there's a little colorful thing that we submitted four pages. Okay. And uh the the previous the previous uh agenda item uh they have their infrastructure in and it's about I mean I'm 6 and 1/2 ft tall and it's as tall as me one of these pieces. So, are you building that same kind of system here that it's they have this this 6 and 1/2t tall electrical component and then two other smaller ones and that serves all four of their and I want their parking spaces and I wonder how you guys are going to do this. I'm I did not understand the question. I'm sorry. The infra the physical mechanism to charge the the cars. Uhhuh. Oh, that there you Oh, I wish. Yeah, that helps. Oh,

068you didn't see that. That's what I meant by the little color handout that was part of the application. I think there's more there's more infrastructure than just this is just like the plug and the uh you know, these have credit cards you can put in and to so you can they charge you for this. It looks like there's a QR code or something on there. There is. Yes, correct. There is. Yeah. Or right. But I imagine that the the there's another component there's another mechanism to make this work. I mean for my you know for my car I just plug it into my house. Right. Right. No, I understand. But you have quick charge, you know, level two chargers and you have four. I just imagine you're going to have as as big a unit

069as the previous um the previous This is what they gave us. This this these this this right here is what they gave us. And it's not that much bigger than what's just over here in the town parking lot. It's just a pedestal with two two um hoses. I mean uh chargers, plugs connected to it. Yeah, I know where you're headed with that question. Yeah, it's I just I'm just curious where where the infrastructure where these mechanisms are going to go, right? I wonder I don't know much about charging stations, but maybe they had to put in like an electrical um like a Yeah, a transformer because they're separate from the building electric, but because Moram has its own electric, maybe it's coming off of They have they proposed two spaces right next to the hotel

070and the other two are other side of the parking lot. So, are they going to dig a trench? You're going to put some of the infrastructure on that side because that is where the visual. So when I'm s when I'm standing by the hotel on the two spaces, it it goes down. There's a hill. I can't see anyone looking north. Yeah. I thought it just right here and right here. These and these two. Yeah. I got to pay attention. They're calling it a conduit stub. Conduit stub. Conduit stub. I'm just nervous about how much electricity that's going to pull. Interested in how that's going to work. Maybe inside the building. So, so right. So, so there's a little door that goes to like a a supply office right off the parking spaces. I imagine might

071if they do it inside, they would do it there. So, you want to know where the infrastructure is going to be located? I'm not electrician, but it seems like 24. That sounds the gose, right? So yeah, this actually the schematic does that does. Yeah. More or less explains it, right? Yeah, cuz it's the the electrical room. Yeah. Yeah, we don't get the whole All right. Right. I think like Jen said, the other one's different because they're not But we're going to ask the story. We have a question that really gets to this issue. So, is that clear? That's good. And that's again the I I I was in error thinking I I don't find these any four of these spaces that that anyone north of the property can see these because the the the the

072driveway sinks down a little bit. So it's it's hard to see. Plus there'll be other cars that too. Yeah. Yeah. Good that you would think that's the best one. [Music] Um, that's it. That's all I got. Thank you. Anybody else have any comments? I have a comment. Um, pursuant to the use, I know the applicant has said this is just for the uh resort use. Does it really matter if it's open to the public for use? What's the disqualifier there? Or am I missing something? Well, they're not supposed to park in the Yeah, those four parking spots are expanding the charging. They're not the public is not allowed to park in the these these parking spaces are designated just for a hotel guest. Yeah. Yeah. It's not public parking anyway. So that's your liability. Okay.

073And and I know that they they're very guarded as to who they let it in. They have a guard actually. The question then about how they prohibit um Yeah. Yeah. You can't get on the property. It's a good It's a good question though because in the other I I parked right in there. Okay. Wow. During the season, you're lucky season. All right. The German Shepherds didn't come out while um char. But these are good questions that as we get more EV charging applications that we're going to have to really think about these kinds of issues, public, private, who's allowed, how it works, all that kind of You have the password now. If nobody else has any questions, we will go to the questions which are should the applicant submit dimensions of the EV charging only

074parking spaces and confirm their locations? I think we know what the locations are. It would be good to have a confirmation on the on the on the size of the of the parking spaces themselves. So, we're yes on that. Yes. Should the applicant confirm if new utility installation is required and update plans to show applicable utility lines, which gets to infrastructure? But I think there question is there isn't really right. There's no new no new utility installation required to power these things. Well, if you if they're level two, you got to put in the 240 volt 220 220. But is it already set up that way? is it's not a it's not a huge deal to do that. I'm just they could be 110 as well. Just takes longer. It's like I like level two.

075It's fine. So, but I think it is a legitimate question is you know is there any new utility installation upgrade to existing electric uh require like they're wiring everything right into a utility. Yeah. But I don't know if any of that is new service or existing or whatever. It'd be great to just clarify it. Does everyone agree with that? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Uh, should the applicant clarify if any new or proposed modified lighting is intended to be included as part of the project? We've talked about that. The answer is no. Uh, does the planning board agree this proposal qualifies as a minor site plan? We all agree on that? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, Lori. Thank you. All right. So, next up is the Lands End Marina. Uh, Ava, that's yours. And, uh, Tina,

076you're going to stand in for Brian Frank, right? Yes. Hello board members. This is the Lands and Marina site plan special permit located at 386 West Lake Drive in Monok site plans up here. Uh background information, the application is for site plan and special permit approval to expand the recreational marina at this location. Um there are currently 23 existing slips. The applicant is proposing an additional 29 boat slips for a total of 49. and also to build a new bath house um with three rest restrooms, locker space, a second floor storage office, second floor office, and to construct new 4t wide ADA accessible paths. A new sanitary system will also be constructed. An existing one will be abandoned and removed, and new fencing and revitation are also proposed. Excuse me, Tina. Hi. Uh, are you

077supposed to be sharing your screen? Uh, I was. Yes, I did. Thank you, Matt. This is the site plan for the live plans and special. I'm going to reread that all again so you can see it. The other image was better. Sorry, folks. Sorry, Dina. They know. I appreciate it. I didn't realize they turned the screen sharing off. Continuing, the property is located in the resort zone and is within the harbor protection overlay district. Uh, pursuant to see chapter 128 of the town code, the project is unlisted and the planning board did declare the agency in uh, January 2013. So, I'm going to start just going through the application status and the comments of the department. Um, the first thing I'll note is that the application has been reviewed by the board. uh many times

078over the last several years. There are large gaps in uh submissions from the applicant which is um the main driver and why it's taken so long to be reviewed. Um but it looks like it's getting close based on the most recent comments. So our first set of comments is regarding the sanitary system. Um everything that we asked for last time has been addressed. Uh the data on groundwater depths has been added to the plan. Um, the last small issue is that we are looking at sanitary calculations and want to make sure that the office use is included in the calculation based on Brian's review. It doesn't seem to have been. Um, so they do just need to update the plan to show that information. However, doing a quick calculation ourselves, the site would still be

079compliant with the uh Suffach County density load. Um the proposed flow would be 818 GPD and the allowed is 900. So the applicant just needs to confirm that. Uh regarding the dock construction, there was a little bit of inconsistency between the plan notes and the narrative issued by the applicant. Uh there's a note on the plans on sheet C1 indicating that uh preservative treatment acceptable for use by the town of East Hampton would be um applied for the good uh to construct the dock. However, the town is requesting that no chemically treated materials are utilized in dock construction and I do think that the applicant did mention that in their cover letter. So we just want the note on the plan to be consistent with what they've said. There are alternatives to treated wood that

080are utilized throughout the town for dock construction. There is a scenic and conservation easement hatched in red. Um I'm circling with my mouse here. The applicant since the last review has enlarged the area to be conserved in this fashion which is consistent with the board's comments and um we think this is appropriate. Regarding clearing and landscaping, the proposal is now um conforming to the allowed clearing on the property. There's a uh building determination building inspector determination regarding the non-conforming clearing on this property at 40,000 and some odd square feet and the clearing proposed is 39,000 ft below this value which is appropriate. They also have updated their reveation plan as requested in the last review. Uh the storm order calculations also look appropriate. We do just want to have this reviewed by the engineer, but

081it seems that those are also in good shape. The lighting remains outstanding. There was a comment on the lighting that was not addressed in the most recent submission. The plan um in this submission is still from April 2024. So we do need that addressed so we have compliant lighting. Um there was a small discrepancy regarding the size of the structures. that's um detailed in the memo. Basically, the bath house on the dubbies plans and on the engineering plans has different square footage. It's a minor uh difference. So, the applicant should just reconcile that and make sure that they've provided um consistent plans to the department. And then I note that the planning department is recommending a two-ft separation from groundwater for all their pride structures. Um and that that should be a condition of site

082plan and natural resource special permit approval. regarding um structures on the site. I'm going to zoom in a little bit. In previous discussions, the planning board has indicated their concurrence with the placement of the new structures on site. Uh there's a walk-in freezer, dumpster, and new bath house, as well as a proposed new sanitary system leeching fields. The issue with the first three structures is that we need to determine whether or not variance is required. We had discussed this at the last meeting. The applicant is profering. These are water dependent uses and we um believe a building inspector determination would be required for that. The issue is really whether or not a variance is needed. Again, the planning board hasn't um said that they don't want these facilities where they are. It's just whether or

083not a variance is required. A variance will be required for the septic system which is 163 feet or so away from the wetlands which are here um where 200 is proposed for a new system in the harbor protection overlay. The parking is compliant with respect to the number of spaces. That's been previously established, but we did attach two sets of fire marshall comments to the memo explaining that additional ADA uh compliance needs to be shown on the plans. I think the fire marshall looking for more details that just weren't included in the plan set. So to conclude, oh I'm sorry, one more um comment that we just made a note about construction that a very standard um requirement in the harbor protection overlay district is that project limiting fencing and sedimentation and erosion control measures

084be implemented. So we would be recommending that that be adhered to in this should the board choose to grant grant approval. In conclusion, the application's still incomplete pending the resolution of these issues. However, these do seem rather small and I would suggest that um the applicant should be ready for their ZBA review at this time. The planning board hasn't I mean aside from the ADA which needs to be addressed and we need to be sure we've got ADA compliance. I don't see anything vast vastly changing this that would prohibit the applicant from moving forward um with the process. So, thank you. Thank you, Tina. Does the applicant wish to be heard? Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Richard Whan, the Whan Filer, and Landmarks. Um, here on behalf of the applicants, and I'm

085also accompanied by Shannon McCaffrey from D East and also um we have Chris Miller and his sister Tanya, who are the applicants. So, everybody's here. Um, so first of all, this is an existing a no frills marina. And I mean no frills. It consists of a dock, 23 boat slips, and a dirt parking lot, and that's it. There is a house on the property, existing house, but that has nothing to do with the marina. So obviously, we want to surface the parking lot, put in bathrooms and a little marina office. Uh and then the other minor facilities are, you know, freezer station uh uh ice station freezer and uh and a dumpster for people that are leaving the boats and need to dispose of, you know, fish trash or whatever that's coming off the off

086the off the vessels. So, um I agree with Teen. I think that this is really fairly minor stuff that's left. Some of this was discussed in October, which was the last time we were before you. So let me just hit the the high points and what I might miss. Shannon will you know answer for you. Uh first of all concerning the health department calculations the density flow for the the um restroom building and office. The health department density flow regulations for marinas are based on the number of oaths and that includes all marina facilities. So we're not renting the office to a third party. It's not like a professional office. It'll be This is an office for the marina. So that's included in the density load calculations that the health department uses basically based our

087calculations on the number of slips. That doesn't mean it's only for slips. It's for all of the facilities related to the marina. So uh that actually was discussed in October. I don't know if we and I know I said the same thing. Basically, I don't know whether we submit anything in writing, but the health department calculations, the bent flow load calculations do include the marina office. Um, the dock construction, the engineer did not remove note two from the drawings there. The intention is to use non-treated lumber. Uh, and there's a note, as Tina indicated, that's not consistent with that. So this time around hopefully we'll remove the note but it is intended to use non-treated lumber and the note was inadvertently not removed. Um lighting I believe and and Shannon can confirm this. I think

088the only thing with lighting is and this also came back in October the lighting plan uses the term MH to denote mounting height. And the question that I think Brian raised back in October was you're not telling us the mounting height of the fixtures. We are, but it's just MH means mounting height. So I think that's all it is. So the information is on there, but it was, you know, not super clear. Uh the structures, the bath house structure, the discrepancy, and I don't know how you change this or we don't have to. DIY is using on their plans the gross floor area of the bath house building. the two floors gross floor area measured to the outside of the exterior walls. The engineer for health department purposes the health department uses essentially the equivalent

089of a habitable floor area which is measurement from the interior walls in and that is why the engineers figures are lower than the due east figures and I don't know that that I understand where the confusion would be on on the town's point of view but that is the that's the reason the figures are correct but they're for different things. Uh and lastly I think it's the last item really. So obviously we contend that all the structures including in our view the marina office and the bath house are all they're all marina structures. They're all water dependent. Certainly there should be no question when it comes to things like the ice station and the uh and the freezer and and the dumpster. Those things need to be near the docks. We have submitted a letter

090yesterday to the building department asking for an interpretation. As you know the garden building inspector is only here to the end of the week. Um so we'll see whether we get an answer back in time. If you we don't have micros we'll deal with you know how we'll deal with it because um you know I don't know how long we take to get a new interpretation. So hopefully we had an interpretation on on those questions and then we'll we'll proceed based on whatever he says. So, oh, and the last other thing, and again, Shannon may have things to add to this, but on the the uh the access, I think the only thing with the ADA access is we we weren't showing on the site plan, maybe because it's so too too cluttered. Uh the

091fire marshall wanted the depiction of the curb stops at the end of the parking spaces. think there's a notation that curb stops will be used, but he was suggesting it would be better to actually show curb stops on the plan because you don't obviously want cars to be able to go unimpeded into the ADA approved walkway. So, that's really what I have. I think Shannon wants to add anything or if you have any questions for me first. State your name for the record. Shannon McCaffrey, Dy's planning. The only other additional items that I would add is that um for regarding the fire marshall comments for the access from the ramp to the dock, we will um submit sporting documentation that were in compliance for that and that we can also add an additional note to

092the plan that the handicap spaces will be a um ADA compliant surface and not the gravel surface that the court surface that's in the rest of the driveway. And we also um evaluated the separation to groundwater for the bath house and we can um be in compliance with that twoft separation recommended by the planning board planning department. Right. Thanks. Well, thank you everyone. Thank you Tina and thank you Rich and Shannon. Um you guys really hit on all the questions that I had. Uh Rich, you mentioned that the um the office space for the sanitary is included in the calculations. I think just having that in writing obviously to you know so it's you know on the record that would be preferred. Um the I did see on the C1 that that that note but

093then your cover letter did indicate with regards to the uh preservative treatment it was in the cover letter from December that a note was added that no chemically treated wood would be used in the construction. So that obviously just needs to be updated on the C1. Um, with regards to the lighting, you said, you know, the MH abbreviation was used. Maybe just provide clarification that MH is mounting height. So, we're all on the same page. Um, with the the discrepancy between the new structures, you mentioned the the two, you know, principles that were the methodologies were different. Again, I think maybe just delineating between how those measurements were arrived at again in writing. Um, and yeah, with the parking and the access, you know, you just said that that would all be submitted to be

094ADA compliant. As for the fire marshal, you know, I think this is really like Tina said, just some general maintenance items here that seem to be all uh being addressed and we're all on the same page. So, any other comments? Thanks, Ava. Anybody else have anything to add or any other specific questions for anyone? Okay. um so we'll answer that u in writing those things that AA just pointed out we would as Tina indicated we would like to be able to while we submit that to you would like to be able to proceed to the zoning board so if there's a way to ext I think that's good I think that if you don't have the inspector determination it's going to be you know but submit you submit so you know but we need that

095because that's you know in order to know what we have to notice and things like that Joe Palmo knows we need it. Whether he's capable of getting it out by the end of the week, we'll find out. If he doesn't, then we have to decide how to hail it. We know what to do. Okay. All right. Good. Thanks. Um, yes. So, we'll we'll go through the questions then. Uh, some of which are moot based on this discussion, but let's go through them. Should sanitary flow calculations be revised to incorporate the second floor office and reconcile the difference in square footage of the bathroom house which includes the office between the engineer site plan the building floor and elevation plans. Uh I think that's being done being clarified right now being um same with number two.

096Should note two be removed from the from sheet C1 of the engineering plans regarding the dock to help ensure the dock is only constructed of untreated materials? Yes. And you already agreed that that's the case. Should the lighting fixture heights be added to the sheet L1 of the engineering plans? Yes. But we just we've agreed that your MH just needs to be clarified somewhere that that's what that is. Should the site plan be further revised to address the chief fire marshall's requirement for curb stops along the ADA access path and clarify ADA access to the floating dock? Yes, you've agreed to move forward with that, right? Um, does the planning board want to direct the applicant to obtain the determination from the building department regarding the eligibility of the bath bath house dumpster and freezer

097from the 100 foot wetland setback? And you're Yes, we we is needed and you're in pro process of doing it. So, I think we're in pretty good shape, right? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks, Shannon. Okay. So, our next moving on to our next application which is uh Ecoacres aka 199 bull path. I see the applicant is here. Um and this is Jen. This is you. Yes, this is me. Okay. Um so, we'll start with Tina. You're going to give us the rundown on this before we jump in. Yes. Thank you. The application is for 199 Bull Path, also called Eartikos. It is a subwaver located in East Hampton. I have the aerial image here. Um it's between Old Northwest Road and Bullpath. The application is to um sorry, I'm just going

098to switch to the math here. The application is to subdivide an approximately 6.722 acre lot which h which has frontage on both Bullpath and Old Northwest Road into two individual lots, one of approximately 54,000 square ft and one of approximately 59,000 square ft. Two reserve areas are proposed in addition to an access and utility easement um on the southern edge of the property line. The site is located in A3 resident zone and the water recharge overlay district. Therefore, an open space subdivision is required uh per chapter 193. The site is currently vacant and is located within several areas of environmental concern including the Suffach County Pine Barons region, groundwater management zone 5, and the town's water recharge overlay. I just noticed uh issues for discussion. Moving on to those. Following the November 2024 review, the

099planning board issued several comments and the memo goes through each of those and how they were responded to in the most recent submission. During the last review, the board agreed to subwaver overall layouts appropriate, asked that the plans be updated to show lot widths. um and setbacks and building envelopes. So the the latter one has been addressed. Everything that needs to be shown now is in terms of building over building envelopes and setbacks. The overall design was also agreed to as appropriate by the board. The next question we asked for clarity on who will manage the reserve area. The applicant has updated the map to show that they intend to dedicate the area to a homeowners association. um which is fine and compliant with code. We just note they have to ensure that they can

100comply with the requirements in code and that a draft homeowners association acceptable to the planning court attorney would be required as a condition of final approval. At the last review we spoke about um a revitation plan. Um in this memo we're just noting you know usually we try to get all these things done within a preliminary subdivision division application. Um but we had the applicant did provide uh responses to these comments already and said that they had asked that this be part of the final approval. I think that's also acceptable. Um you know lot two is overcleared per the town's regulations um as shown on the the subdivision. It's a small amount of overclearing but still it will be corrected um prior to an issuance of final approval which is appropriate. Um, regarding the status

101of the access road, um, we had noted in previous reviews that this wasn't really visible, but it is the located and it is visible from the road and the driveway is clearly shown on the subdivision map. The town engineer issued comments and I just want to clarify. He was just noting that if there are improvements necessary in the right ofway for the driveway that a highway work permit would be required. Um and and that's just a standard thing. So if there's any improvements that encroach into the town's property, uh permits necessary. The applicant was asked to submit a common driveway plan. Uh that's required per the citation in the report. We received that on uh Monday. We hadn't received that until now. So, I will send that to the engineer for review um with code

102requirements. The board had asked about uh water availability. The applicant had indicated that they were planning to use water from Bull Path and water main is shown on Bull Path and that's fine. But in this latest submission, there's a proposed well shown with with the setback from the sanitary system that's required for a well. So just want them to clarify what the proposed plan is. And we would just note one of the reasons we're asking is because if there is a water service from Bullpath to these properties, that's to traverse a very long distance and the any reserve area um easement would need to account for its existence and its maintenance and so forth. stormwater comments um are addressed. Um additional comments in both May and November, we had noted that the project's unlisted and

103requested an EAF um for the planning board review so we could commence with the coordinated review. That was not addressed until Monday. So now that we have that, it will be reviewed. And then lastly, in both May and November of the discussions on this, there was a lot of discussion regarding the history of the property and historical mining operations. There wasn't a lot of detail um discussed in terms of what had occurred and any site reclamation activities that may have happened in the report. I just note for the board's reference some of the information that they've recently requested on another uh application of former sandmine um which is more extensive and that's in the context of an EIS but nevertheless in the context of SER the board is obligated to ensure that environmental impacts are

104addressed and any identified environmental impacts will be mitigated to the extent practical um based on what we have in the file right now. It does not appear that there's sufficient information in order for the board to make that finding based on any evidence or information. So, we did want to ask the applicant to provide information if they can regarding that and if not we have to discuss next steps in terms of what other investigation protocols if there's no information existing that can be used to address this concern what other uh protocols we can follow to to address it. So, in conclusion, the application remains incomplete and we should be sure to address each item just to bring it to completeness. Thank you. Thanks, Tina. Applicants, Mr. Darbet, I actually have a uh question which I

105I submitted to the board um regarding gates in in uh driveways and it as as it turns out the next time I appear before the board, it came up. So it's on this that was a question I had for a completely different subdivision that happened 30 years ago. But on this particular application, it's again going to come up. So the code requires the building envelopes and we will we show the building envelopes on the property. At some point this applica, presuming this application is approved by the board, a covenant will get recorded and the covenant will say that all structures have to be in the building envelopes except for the driveway. So, I would hope and maybe it doesn't have to be decided tonight, but I want to throw out as a board that we

106would like that covenant, which is a private agreement that we record against the deed that tells everybody what could happen to the property in the future, that that covenant that we're going to record on this particular property only. I'm not trying to go back in history. But I would like the ability to put a gate somewhere on that property, provided it complies with town code. Um, I I think the idea of building envelopes is to um is to keep pools and garages and houses contained on a site. I don't think the intent was to tell you people that could never have a gate. So, throwing it out there, the planning department could digest it, think about it. But on this particular application, we would like the covenant that we will eventually record to allow for

107gates in the driveway. Okay. Um, I'm just going to respond to that. Yep. So, you know, we have been in discussion with the chief building inspector in his final days. You know, he's devoted, you know, energy to this conversation. You know, our attorney and Tina, myself and Jen and some others um and you know, we're very much aware of this issue and we are we'll you know, have further conversation about this soon. Yeah. Right. He I guess depending on how he decides it might not be an issue, but we'll see. Yep. Okay. We we note it. Okay. Thank you. Um uh what's the other one? Oh, uh so health department, there is a fire I I'm not sure the current status of it. We've been before the board for a while on this. When we

108originally submitted the application, the uh there was a fire hydrant in the street that had not been set up yet. So water was on on full path. It may be hooked up now. I'm not sure. Um our we have a pending application before the health department though to use wells rather than public water in this property uh because there is no public water on um the oldest right and um it's not really ideal to try to there's a lot of topography change a lot of I don't think the plan department I don't think the planning board would allow us to run public water through the city of easement uh so we're pretty hopeful that they're going to allow us to use wells that's probably how but we don't we'll probably have an answer within a

109week on been for them for a while. Um, what's the other question? Oh, um, you know, this hasn't been an active uh mine or whatever it was used for for over 40 years. 1985 was when it was last used. So, unfortunately, we don't have a lot of information to give you. We're a contract indeed buying the property. Right now, if we wanted to build on it, we could build a house. Um what we're asking for is permission to build two houses by subdividing the property. All of the areas at Warmind are are not going to be utilized. They're in an area um city easements. Um so I I think the purpose of seeker is to make sure that what we're asking to do isn't going to cause any environmental problems. I think that answer is

110pretty straightforward. um whether um previous activities of the site I mean mining is probably not ideal but I don't know what happened there 40 years ago so I'm not really sure how to this this has come up at previous discussions before the board um you know I guess if if somebody could tell us like we can't we can't make up the history because we don't know it um but if you if somebody could say this would satisfy the board then we we could probably try to provide it. We can provide that. We can provide that. Yeah. I mean I can pipe in. I I think the first step if there's no history available would be a phase one environmental site assessment, right? Which has to be construct conducted according to ASM standards, right? There's a

111certain amount of information that companies that prepare those must review and research in order to prepare their assessment. They also do like a site inspection to see if there's evidence of recognized environmental conditions that aren't um apparent in their records. And and based on that, if there's recognized environmental conditions that they find based on their site history research and the investigation, then you would do environmental testing to determine whether or not those conditions have actually impacted on-site soils. And if not, then you know that would be satisfactory. Yes. Yeah. It's not it's not an ownorous process. If we had that already and I submitted that would be enough for that. But I did I you know before we went to contract we did phase one came back uh with only one recognized possible environmental concern

112which is that it was we think there was things dumped here illegally at some point. Uh that's what so we use these for environmental which is recognized environmental company. Uh they came back and said they had no concerns other than the fact that some stuff had been dumped there and they did five test holes to make sure that whatever was dumped there hadn't leeched anything into the soil and it came back all clean. So we have submit that to department. Absolutely. That does seem like information that's relevant. Well, to be fair, I've been before the board for 15 months. This is the first time you've asked me for that. We've asked for information about site, right? You did not ask me for you could have asked for this in any of the three previous members

113or 15 months I've been here. You asked for it tonight and I I told you have it. Okay, great. Okay. Um All right. So, anything else you want to add? Well, I just um I guess my question is, you know, how do we get com and I don't mean this in an adversar I'm just kind of figuring out like where where we're headed. Um you know, if I have a phase if I have a phase one or phase two that's clean. Um what do we need to get I guess I ask what do I need to do to get deemed complete and have a hearing on it question. I was like we're close. Yeah, I think we're very close. So, Jen's going to lead our discussion and she'll go over there. Thanks, John. Thanks, Tina.

114Um, I do think we're close, John. I think that, you know, um, the fact that you have the test holes done, that was going to be my question. You know, what's what's in the soil kind of. Um, I think you're right. I think that the, you know, I I actually went today to the site and the curb cut is visible, the driveway is visible, the first scenic easement or reserve on the, you know, fronting old Northwest Road, it's all like dead black pines now, unfortunately. And then the two lots, the only, you know, the only thing is all of those lumps of dirt that are kind of like piled in there. So, and then it does look like the reserve section to the west is it's, you know, it's down like 25 ft from the

115natural grain. So, it has, you know, it's been mined, but you know, it's it's it's going to be deed to the homeowners association for the subdivision. So, I don't see that there's really any there's no remediation that needs to be done with that, right? I I I don't think um so I don't I don't have any real issues with it except for the environmental impact you know and you you've done that so you submit that that's kind of I have but I'll submit it. Um so yeah and we have been asking for the history by the way for this and that really is the the question under that question report is not the and and we did have a discussion last time about the history I thought we were pass it but I don't have

116the history. Okay. All right. So, I think we're clear now what it what it is that that First time it was asked for. I have had it for a year and a half. No one ever ask. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's the that's the history right there. That is the history. So, okay. Um, any other comments? I don't have any other comments. I'm sorry. Oh, me? No, I don't have any other comments. The rest of you, yes, you may speak. We Thank you very much. Does anyone else uh have a comment? No. Okay. Uh, all right. So we have only have two pretty simpleish questions. Should the applicant review the unadressed and or partial partially addressed comments issued by the planning department and planning board during prior reviews and respond to each comment in future submissions

117accordingly. And Tina you can help you know enumerate exactly what they are. We don't need to do it this second but you know there only there are very few things I think right and the question goes on right. So item one is the common driveway plan which was submitted on Monday um for the first time. Item two was approval for the driveway improvements of the rightway. Um as I stated that is just we could just require that as a condition of approval and it would that the highway work permit get sought by the um highway department SRA. Right. So we just got the EF on Monday again. Um, so we have to look at that and then the planning board will have to accept it if it's complete. If we need revisions to the EAF,

118we're going to send comments back to the applicant. I did notice that um there's endangered species potentially indicated as um existing on the site. So I have to make sure the natural resources department is aware and and can no um and then the site history um which we learned is available just now. So those were the four things. Um, okay. I think we talked about and that's it. So that's it. It's just those four really, right? There's four issues, right? And because question two, the reveation plan, I think we're all agreeing will be a condition of final approval, right? So nobody's testing that, right? On lot two. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Um All right. So it's not that heavy a lift, John. I don't think um Yeah. No, I think the the common driveway plan was

119we'll wait for the uh town's engineer look at it. Um the EF has been submitted and it was revised and submitted again. Um first EF I got was on Monday. Oh, okay. Okay. So that might be true. Um so I think um and you're going to submit your phase one information. I'll send my face one information. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. I think that's all we need. Great. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. All right. So Tina, you're you're still in the the hot seat there. We're going to talk about the code change, the creation of the tier one uh personal wireless. Yes. Thank you. Um this is a short uh presentation regarding proposed change to chapter 255142. Um it's regarding personal wireless service facilities. The town board um in a recent meeting indicated general support for the

120code change and as required in town code they're referring it to the planning board for comment. Um I won't take too much with your time. This is really this is really um driven by the need to charge appropriate fees for the review of personal um I can't even say it. PWSF. It's like such a mouthful. Um the fees that can be charged for these are restricted by the federal government and the town is currently not charging um consistent with those maximums even though the efforts we're expending are consistent with and exceed those. So this this code change is really to try to correct that to the extent that we can in accordance with the federal um regulations. So basically um we're proposing a change to the fee schedule which would necessitate a code change. So

121right now in our code we only have a tier one facility and we charge one fee of $500 and that includes activities such as collocations of um wireless infrastructure on existing poles, relocation of poles or new poles. However, we're proposing to create two tiers of the personal wellers facility in our code similar to the tier 2 um A and B structure that we have. We're doing a tier one A and B. Tier 1 A would just be collocations. Those are the much simpler only really looking at technical aspects of the installation. And the tier 1B would be the more complicated reviews that also um consider aesthetics and design of the new pole infrastructure. So the code change that would be necessary to do that is just to create the tier 1 A and B structure

122in our code. Right now we only have tier one and in the future we'll have tier 1 A and B. Um the other part of this this presentation which doesn't really pertain to the board because it's only a resolution uh fee change is we're going to be charging the right of way um fees. Right now the town's able to charge $270 for every pole that's installed in the right of way. But we're not charging it because it was never added to our our fee resolution. The town board has the authority to change that via resolution and has indicated that they're willing to do so. So um the actions type two it's really very minor nature and we are just referring this to the plan board for comment on this very very small change. Thank you.

123Thanks Tina. Yeah I mean it seems to me this is pretty much slam dunk right? I mean there's money that we're not charging. We could be it really is a lot of review that we do. Yeah. Good. Yeah. So, I'm gonna I mean I would just need to send comments on the board's behalf. Does the board generally think this is acceptable? Yes. Do we offer this is acceptable as written? Yeah. Okay. We absolutely find it acceptable and we encourage Great. Thank you. Right. Thanks, Tina. Okay. We just have a couple things left. The first is on a regular meeting. The first is an extension of time for Fort Pond native plants. Um I will read it in in the matter of the application of for pond native plants additions site plan sea county tax map

124300-49-3-5.1 extension of time I have read the resolution to call for its adoption second second plenty of seconds all in favor. Okay. Any name? Any abstensions? Pass car. Is this the next one the way Scotty one? This? Yes. Okay. Yes, it is. Yeah, it's right behind you. Kind of. Yeah. Close. Um. All right. In the matter of the application of adamadoo and kasitus minor subdivision, Suffach County Tax Map 300-197-3-10 extension of time. Um, I have read the resolution and call for it adoption. Second. Okay. All in favor? I Okay. Uh, final item is uh the adoption of our minutes from April 2nd. Has everyone read them? Does anyone have any comments, corrections? You didn't catch anything. Does it look good to you? Okay. All right. It looks good to you. I think we're in good

125shape. All right. Um, all in favor of approving the minutes of April 2nd. I looks like it's passed and carried. No extensions, no nays. Uh, we're good to go. You know what's next. Thank you. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor?