East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 04/02/2025

001e okay planning board we are live we are recording phone lines will remain off go for it welcome everyone uh calling the meeting of the town of East hampen planning board for April 2nd 2025 to order uh we have a few items on for work session a couple for regular meetings and Boards of review and we're going to kick things off with a site plan review for Surf Club in mon talk and I believe the applicant is on Zoom tonight is that correct Lori are you with us I'm here Lori Wilshire for land planning Services representing the Surf Club 4 hope you recover quickly Lori thank you very much we'll see you in person next time so um all right and this is Chris this is you right yep all right so so we'll be

002going over the site plan for Surf Club four phased which is actually not a phase site plan but this is located at 20 Surf Side Avenue in Monto um and this is the second review of the application it's last reviewed in October the subject parcel shown here is zoned RS Resort and it is 6.22 acres and contains an existing Resort motel with 92 units the parcel is on the Atlantic Ocean it's partly cleared with natural T and vegetation between Southern buildings and the primary dun Crest given the properties East of subdivision map number 174 any work within 150 ft of the dun Crest will require a variance the parcel is within Coastal erosion overlay Zone one and FEA Zone PE uh the flood zone does not impact the subject units going on to the application

003itself subject units are highlighted there in yellow and the application has been submitted to expand and partially renovate the four units at the Surf Club for units 35 73 and 85 the project proposes enclosing existing patios with matching Footprints off the bedroom um to add a new bathroom and extend the existing bedrooms no changes are proposed to the second story of the units mentioned given the project area present building portion of only one story so you can see this is the existing patio and that will be enclosed um to add some square footage to the units and then unit 81 um slightly different they're proposing to enclose most of the entry patio here it's about 40 square ft to expand the existing kitchen and entry Corridor and that also adds 22 squ foot of floor

004area on the Second Story um within the expansion area so that's a picture that shows the what the finished product would look like so for the issues um for discussion following the last review the board issued written comments regarding some issues um and I'll just go over the three one by one so the planning board commented that the applicant will follow up with the fire marshall regarding emergency escape rescue openings um and they did do that they revised the egress and that was approved um by the fire marshal with their findings the second issue um was that the applicant will submit additional information regarding previous uh site plan approvals and I would just like to correct the report the applicant did in fact provide um references to 18 units on the property that had received

005and obtained uh permits for similar work that's um a correction on our end so we have no additional comment and I'll I'll reference one of the approvals in my conclusion lastly the board commented that an application must be made to the zoning board of appeals for the variance and natural resources special permit necessary and that application was submitted uh July 31st 2024 and it's been ruled complete so this application will move on to the zba um once it's considered complet at the planning Bo regarding the existing conditions on the site the planning department just notes this a little bit this is just a ramp to the beach um that was constructed and that will need a natural resources special permit it was um there was an existing one since been instructed slightly different form that's

006not really subject um to this application we're just making note of it um that that issue should be brought into compliance okay regarding the sanitary system there was some concern during the last hearing that there may be a large capacity cess pool that would need to be um upgraded for EPA standards however the survey submitted um indicates eight conventional systems on site and the project does not exceed any of the thresholds from the suffa county department of health services therefore there won't be any upgrades to these systems required for this work uh regarding the office fire prevention I already mentioned the erest has been approved and there's no other review needed from that department for the other approvals that this application would be subject to that would be the Architectural Review Board for the changes

007to the buildings as well as the CBA for the work within 150 ft of the Doom Crest as mentioned moving on to the necessary elements of the site plan which the board has the authority to wave for good cause the following items are missing from submission so for Item B they're missing uh finished floor and ground elevations for the proposed work but since the work is proposed within existing Footprints of the buildings and decks the planning department recommends these details not be required or item e the location of existing fire hydrants and utility lines is not shown the applicant did not provide an explanation on why these are not necessary however the planning department notes that the applicant confirmed that no changes to site utilities are proposed and this is uh worthy of considering to

008wave not see for item F regarding parking and drainage details the number of parking spaces required will not change with the proposal um however the layout of existing parking is not shown and the applicant should confirm if they have prior FL plan approval that has compliant parking provided for and for the drainage no new drainage structures are proposed um um specifications and methods for computing drainage requirements um are not provided and the applicant should confirm they have a compliant drainage system for the proposed work however for both the parking and the drainage this information has not been required in the past um so whether the site complies with town code storm water requirements that cannot be ascertained however the board should consider if it will wave this requirement since uh drainage is not sub substantially

009impacted and the parking requirements uh would not change information was also not required in Past reviews in conclusion uh the planning department notes that similar work has been approved on separate units for the subject parcel for example unit 22 was approved with the site plan and variance from the zba dated July 1st 2022 um for relief of the 150t dun Crest SE act that we've been talking about and the board should consider the approvals which should not require um the necessary elements of the site plan that I've already outlined so the board should discuss whether it will wave any uh or all of the elements mentioned and based on the minor scope of work within existing Footprints the planning department recommends that these details should not be required to be provided um the application's otherwise

010complete if the board finds that additional information is not necessary it should be referred to the zoning board for the required variances and that's for special okay thank you Chris very thorough uh Miss Wilshire do you like would you like to be heard yes so this is very similar to the I think Chris had 18 I didn't add up the numbers I just presented the unit numbers that have been gone through this uh process all of these projects whether they are conversions of existing atriums or uh infill to create a two-story um larger entry in Second Story office are all within the framework of the existing uh compound um on the interior side and they don't add to coverage and they don't change the footprint and they don't add to occupancy and they don't add

011to density so we're we're saying that none of the um utilities parking drainage apply as they have not on these other 18 units because nothing is technically changing other than some very very minor infill um that is uh basically backing up that Chris said to have these uh elements waved for this purpose um and then the other other only other revision that would be needed is to redate the plans from Land planning Services um because the date wasn't changed when we resubmitted and my question mark is can we use the a receive date by the planning board office rather than having to get plans revised again and having another meeting so I'd love to get this uh Team complete and ready to move on to the zoning Board hearing okay thanks Lori uh Mike this

012is yours right it is I am uh thank you Chris and Lori I comfortable with uh waving the item stated in here and moving this along to the zpa and the ARB too apparently okay right any other any other thoughts around the table I agree I age I agree yeah we all sort of agree this is pretty this is much an easy one uh I guess one of the questions I would have is what what about this the title and date question that Lori just brought up a moment ago about uh plans plans on the plans sorry can you give that to me again what was the issue requiring update Tina L Run for the planning department wasn't necessary elements but just revised plans um not have updated dates but I don't think that's an

013actual no I don't I don't think the question Tina is I didn't hear the question yeah I know so but the plans that LPS produced we revised them pursuant to the fire Marshall's comments to provide the egress window but failed to update the date on the plans and my question is can we use the date stamped received by the planning board rather than having to submit a whole 10 sets of three different units again I don't see a problem with that great just like typo yeah if the planning Department's good with it I think we're good with it um so thank you for that um so I guess we'll go to the questions um first one is should the applicant add the beach access structures to their site plan and to the zba applications I

014think the answer to that certainly yes address that yeah and let me add because I don't know if Chris mentions um we did talk with the building inspector about that that was um the building inspector's input was the Genesis of that I believe there's um Railways associated with the ramp that were new that um were considered structures railroad ties you I'm sorry um like railings railing rail railings Railways that's a little much for be access yes yeah Railway rail that would be a first in me um and that was his that was his determination well this was the conversation that I had with Joe uh this new access is actually a Moby mat and he didn't think that needed a permit at all however there are railings coming down the pike because we have some

015elderly owners here at this this complex who have requested them so they can access the beach holding on to railings and that has to go before the planning board and the zoning board and the ARB and I don't want to hold up this application for that because that Design's not even complete yet so the picture of the railings I saw was existing is that not what you're doing they got a violation and took them down Okay then if they're not there I I'm agreeing with you that you can move this and then submit for when you have plans on on the railings all right that that sounds like the right approach sorry we're g to strike that yeah we're going to strike that question it'll be a separate application down the line uh does planning

016board agree to wave the requirement for the floor and ground elevations for the proposed work to be provided yes yes does the planning board agree with the planning department to wave the requirement for the location of the existing utility lines and fire hydrants to be provided yes yes does the planning board agree to wave the requirement for the for the layout of existing parking and parking calculations to be provided yes yes does a planning board agree to wave the requirement for drainage structure specifications and calculations to be provided yes and does the planning board then find the proposal complete and ready for consideration by the zba I think we all agree yes so good thank you got up easy tonight Lori that was an easy one I have one more right thank you very much

017okay I am recused from the next uh application so I will vacate the room are you going to move to yeah do the resolution right after after it's a little tigh around here so the next as that LE the next matter up is Hampton 310 LLC barn and Chris I believe that is yours also and Bruce yours on our side all right so this is the third I'm sorry Chris may I interrupt is the applicant here sorry oh yes sorry of course no problem never mind all right so this is the third review of this application it was last review December 18th um it's located at 310 further Lane in East Hampton be the Tyson L subject property Zone A5 residential and is 8.02 acres and has a agricultural conservation eement in the favor of

018theic land trust and is within the town agricultural over districts the property is also within a Scenic area of Statewide significance and produce crown on site is not intended to be sold in um nothing is intended to be sold for conversations with the property manager moving on to the application so the site plan was submitted to relocate a 1,185 ft Barn from 10 Tyson Lane which is to the South to the subject property and 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 bar includes a sink for washing produce and a new IA wastewater treatment system and underground water and electrical service lines connecting to Tyson Lane to the east the applicant also proposes a prvious un

019improved driveway and parking area taking access from a proposed gate on the Eastern property line issues for discussion following the last review the planning report issued a written comment to the applicant regarding exterior lighting the board commented that the applicant should submit a comprehensive lighting plan um and the applicant did provide an exterior lighting plan and specification sheet they note that only three exterior lights are proposed for the entire project the planning department assessment is that given the lighting proposed coupled with the setbacks of over 80 ft and existing landscape areas a comprehensive lighting plan um should not be necessary and the light fixture proposed here is not fully shielded as required and defined by the town code in addition the plan did not specify mounting Heights and these should be included so should the

020planning board wish to approve the application uh for public hearing the planning department recommends that the submission of code compliant fixtures and specific mounting Heights uh be submitted for planning department approval uh prior to having the public hearing and and these details were um received yesterday by the planning department regarding the sanitary system the revised submission includes in IIA system as I mentioned as required by the suff county department of health services and the town Consulting engineer reviewed the proposed system and found it to be acceptable the revised sanitary plan indicates a proposed sanitary flow of 47.3 gallons per day the initial proposal only included a gray flow volume of 25 gallons per day uh with no sanitary flow given that no sewages to be disposed on site the applicant should explain why sanitary flow

021is now proposed um as a condition of approval should the planning board decide to granted the department recommends that it's appropriate to specify that no bathrooms are permitted to be constructed within the barn and that final floor plans demonstrating such uh be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit the other approvals that this uh project will be required to get are the Architectural Review Board approval um suff County department of health services for the proposed IIA system and suff County Planning Commission review is required for properties in the agricultural overlay District regarding the necessary elements of a site plan I'm just going to zoom in on this image for one of these uh first as I mentioned compliance with the town code General lighting standards must be shown with a fully shielded fixture uh

022which I believe we received yesterday and for item and elevation drawings of structures elevation drawings were not provided for the proposed gate the gate would be a replica of the existing Gates on the property uh which images were submitted of with Dimensions labeled therefore the planning department finds it appropriate to wave this requirement so in conclusion the planning board should determine if it decrees to wave the requirement for the elevation drawings of the gate and the applicant should provide details on the proposed exterior lighting once compliant lighting is uh reviewed the planning department recommends The Proposal is complete and ready for public hearing thanks Chris do you wish uh good evening members of the board uh Eric Brown aaman Partners thir folk Pano road for the applicant um as Chris mentioned this is the third

023time we've been in front of you guys uh on this project um I believe uh and thank you Chris for a thorough memo uh we did in fact uh submit uh a revised lighting uh details yesterday uh what we decided to do uh in contrast to the to the fixture that was shown to you we're also working for the same client across the street the ARB had uh approved uh fully shielded Dark Skies exterior lighting fixtures for that project we just have imported them over here and we're going to use the we're going to use this the same ones uh in terms of the bathroom there's not going to be any bath and we're happy to you know to you know reflect that in the uh you know in the floor plans as you know

024as a condition of of the hearing so we're we're happy to do that if you have any questions I know there's some new members here if you have any questions about you know how this thing got here or what it is I'm happy to answer them but you know other than that I don't have a lot to add thank you thank you all right thanks Chris thanks Eric um the only thing I had was the lighting I think that sounds like that's been taken care of yes and I don't really have a problem with a gate either um I think that same gate is located on the property three or four times around the perimeter so yeah the ARB has approved yeah g as other than that I'm I think it's we're good to go

025anybody else have any questions so I think given the fact that um the planning department has received the revised lighting plan and you've assured us that there's no bathroom to contribute to septic we would like to um schedule public hearing just the top part and then the date all right in the matter of application of Hampton 310 LLC Barn site plan suff County tax tax map number 300 d1896 D 2.4 um scheduling a public scheduling a public hearing for uh looks like Wednesday April 23rd 2025 at 6:30 p.m. um I've read the application and I move for its approval second faor thank you and I think point of order Michael just pointed out to me that we did forget to do the questions so um I think we kind of answered them but does the

026planning board agree with the planning Department's assessment of additional information must be provided by town code we sucessfully answer that that yes does the planning board agree to wave the requirement for elevation drawings of the proposed gate to be provided yes yes does the planning board agree that the applicant should provide a compliant fixture and mounting Heights for the outdoor lighting to planning department for approval prior to the public hearing being scheduled and you have done that thank Youk thank for time thanks have a good night you too I'll tell Ed he can reenter the chamber he [Music] reenter yeah this is good that today all right so our next application is Wayne Scott Holdings Michael that's yours will already in place take it away is the applicant here so this is an application that

027has been made seeking a modification to the way Scott holding subdivision to expand the previous L improved driveway access to a lot not part of the original subdivision but owned by the same family the subdivision is approximately 38.7 Acres or 1,687 656 ft in size and the pond lot to the east is approximately 20 acres or 87441 ft in size all lots are zoned 85 residents and are located within the harbor protection overlay District agriculture Cal overlay District a recommended Scenic area of Statewide significance and are on the recommended Community preservation fund list the subdivision is mostly cleared due to ongoing agricultural use of some of the Lots lot one is improved with the twostory single family residents detached garage swimming pool porches and wood decking while Lots two and four have driveways leading to

028lot one the pond plot is mostly cleared for farming as well but has a section of dunand vegetation and it southern part portion between waycott Pond and the ocean which is unlikely to be impacted by the proposed access modification the original subdivision was approved on March 9th 2018 and included a driveway running along the edge of the Agricultural Reserve area to the southern Lots located on the ocean the applicant seeks to formalize access to the pond lot with the spot ification this application was previously seen by the board on December 18th 2024 where it requested the applicant submit a new narrative outlining the description of the intended modification the applicant submitted a new narrative which stated the emission of the pwn plot and the original subdivision approval was an oversight and hopes to correct that

029with this modification planning department finds the new narrative sufficient and acceptable in his review the Fire Marshall noted a section of New York State Fire code which requires single dragways that serve more than four buildings of 2,500 Square ft or more to include additional Emergency Services access currently the subdivision does not exceed that limit however in order to ensure proper access is provided the planning department recommends as a condition of approval should the board choose to Grant it the access easement be revised to indicate that if more than four buildings over 2,000 square 2,500 square ft are ever proposed the fifth will require review and compliance with the fire code the easement should be submitted to the town attorney's office for review prior to record it if the planning board determines there is no substantial

030difference between this submission for final approval and the submission that previously received approval the board may choose to wave the requirement of a public hearing the board should discuss if it wishes to wave that requirement for a public Hearing in this instance in conclusion provided the board agrees the planning department recommends this application is complete and ready for a public hearing should the board wish to require it thank you will um can you just point out for the board where the actual access point to the pond lot would would be as far as I know they haven't really specifically committed to one but yeah so when I visited the site um it looked like the access was around here um it looks like that's probably where a tractor would go in to harvest the crops

031that are planted on that field um but no like actual access has been proposed as so this is just an application for permission to create that access right right right exactly all right so there really has not much changed since our last review of this in December except that we haven't more clearer narrative really right but Michael take it away well let's have oh we shall thank you so much please state your name good evening with Baldwin um SXF and Angel on behalf of the applicant um I think you know as the last time we were here I think the board just asked for a little more clarification with regard to um why we were here and I think um we uh submitted that in our letter so um I understand about the uh um

032the fire maral's comments and along with uh the request for the public hearing um we would obviously ask the board to wave the requirement um not only is it very similar to what was the previous subdivision but also um we are all our own neighbors um so I don't think there's really anybody that would be impacted that of public hearing would really help in this situation and so I think um we respectfully asked that the board wave that public hearing okay let's see what everyone has to say are you comfortable with the the fifth building comment here for the Fire Marshall so I think so I think the plan is that our existing the easement that we've already proposed that the town attorney's office has reviewed we would just add that additional language to that

033E I think fine great okay I'm uh I'm fine with waving the public hearing okay I am okay everybody feel that way yeah yeah um you know normally I I like to have public hearings but you particularly and this is you know an incredibly sensitive spot right across from a $56 million purchase which with cpf funds just recently so uh but in under the circumstances this is such a minor action there's really not not much purpose to a public hearing so I would agree with my colleagues here we don't to do that um the questions are pretty simple do we agree that the application is complete yes um do we wish to wave the public hearing requirement for this application it sounds like yes yes and the other thing we that uh you've already pointed

034out is is the requirement for the Fire Marshall if there are additional dwellings plac that puts it in place where it be need additional turnaround yeah you've got it thank you all right thank you very much okay so a subw review for shanster is next Bruce that's you Tina you're taking that for the the blending Department and is the applicant here for that application I'm on online right laor it's you yes that's [Music] right okay sorry thanks let me just get um the location up this is the application for uh shoner it is a subdivision waiver I am covering this for Dan brose who left town employment recently and I'm going to share the screen the subject parcel is located on baby Avenue in East Hampton just to zoom out a little bit show you

035where we are in town soon as the map loads this is uh 3 m Harbor Road Avenues right here um the application is to subdivide an approximately 888 acre lot having Frontage on Bay View Avenue and it is for two lots one of which will be be approximately 20,1 159 ft and the other of which will be 18,500 feet in size the existing parcel is within a old file map Urban renal study area map and was originally three lots that were combined into one the site is located in a b residence Zone and is within several areas of important environmental consideration including the groundwater management zone 5 and the the South Fork groundwater Protection District all of which identify the parcel's importance for groundwater protection regarding the issues for discussion the action is an unlisted

036one pursuant to secra the applicant should prepare the eaf and submit for the board's review regarding the context for the urban renewal um map so this is the existing urbal urban renewal map it shows the original Three lots that existed in this study area to be combined into one lot um number seven The Proposal would um create two lots and also claim um abandoned portions um rights of way to be abandoned um into the lot area regarding lot size and zoning requirements um regarding the lot configuration um these seem to be generally in confirmance with Town codes um requirements for the configuration of lot lines but as I referenced earlier the dimensional conformance of the properties is not complete um while they meet the width required in the B resident zoning District parcel 2 would

037be substandard with respect to those requirements as the minimum lot area is 20,000 ft and the current proposal is 18,500 for parcel 2 um one note we make to the board is that additional tweaks to the lot line could make parcel 2 a little bit bigger they had a kind of diagonal um approach it would make it bigger I don't know if that um makes the proposal more attractive but we just wanted to note that we do note that the applicant did not provide a narrative regarding the need for the variances um for the lot area and they will need to demonstrate that they meet the criteria um for area variances in 2508 255 850 which um which just included a short excerpt in the memo but the grant of the variance has to outweigh

038the detriment um which the grant of the variance will cause to the neighborhood or town as a whole and should be the minimum necessary in reviewing the application you know we did note that in the general area um to the west and the north minimum lot area um standards are met in this neighborhood then to the East and the South there are some some standard Lots um so contextually there's kind of a mixed bag here however the other concern is that adding density to an area through the grants of this variance could set a concerning precedent um without a you know showing the difficulty associated with what's leading to the request so the applicant would need to explain that better um the planning department recommends the planning board should carefully consider whether or not something

039like this is appropriate especially considering precedent um that it could set moving on to comments regarding the building envelope and site topography um we did know and the town engineer had previously issued comments on this to add two foot Contours they've been added but it does appear that some areas on the site could exceed 20% slopes um those have not been shown here and they do need to be as 20% area slopes or greater should not be contained within building envelopes so we would need to make sure we understand where those are if they exist and um building envelopes should then be proposed that avoids those regarding um some findings of the site visit I'll just um show a picture that Dan took there was a site visit conducted there are some structures on site

040that appear to be accessory structures the memo explains that accessory buildings should not exist on sites without primary um uses without principal buildings so as a condition of approval if the planning board wanted to Grant it um that structure would either need to be removed or a principal building constructed within a appropriate amount of time regarding access for the Lots it's pretty straightforward they both have front to J Bay View we assume access would be from there without any um other comments um there is some existing vegetation on the Lots Frontage with Bay Avenue there was also a picture in the report if the planning board were to Grant um and the zoning board were to Grant the um variance associated with this we would definitely say that we would recommend um an easen in

041this case to provide at least some mitigation um to the neighborhood regarding the increased density there is some existing vegetation that could be leveraged as we've talked about another applications um pursuant to the subdivision code all residential subdivisions require a 10% um easement along the properties boundary with public rights of way the planning board does have the ability to wave that when they feel it's appropriate regarding clearing uh no clearing information was provided on the survey it's not clear whether or not the Lots um currently meet the clearing guidelines of the town code that should be added to the materials and provided for the board's review if um clearance standards are not met again we would recommend a REV program to achieve those um water and sewer system information has not been provided uh suffi

042County Department of Health Services uh would be required to approve the application and there are other approvals such as suff County Water Authority so in conclusion a primary consideration for the board at this time is whether the lots are appropriately figured or if they would like to examine modifications because a substandard lot would be required in any alternative due to the overall size of the property and no justification has been provided to support that the planning department is concerned that the precedent set for the application could be concerning and encourage additional substandard lot variance applications and the applicant should shmit additional information in the form of a project narrative that supports the intent of the action and the planning board should consider if Scenic easements would be required in that case to mitigate the density

043proposed the application incomplete pending the additional information requested in the memo regarding clearing site topography information to demonstrate compliance with town code Provisions for water supply sanitary stor waterer drainage and um should the planning board ultimately find the proposed subdivision is appropriate a variance would be needed and a UR map modification would also need to be submitted to the town board and as the planning board knows you would also have to submit comments to the town board about whether or not you think this is appropriate that concludes my comments thank you thank you Tina appreciate that um so again just a reminder that we're really uh what our role is in all this is to determine if we think the propos the subdivision proposal is appropriate you know we're with ZB zba actually has to

044grant that variance and then we would have to do an Ur map modification so that's our role in this so that's what we're going to be focused on tonight is do we think it's appropriate Mel your is there an applicant hear first I'm so sorry I keep doing this over and over again off my game tonight Lori please talk to us problem so uh just to make you aware both of the roads low Street and K Street have already been abandoned the urban renewal map modification application was submitted to the planning board back in at least earlier than 2024 the planning department conclusion on that is that the proposed subdivision appears to be a minor change in urban renewal map while not significantly impacting the neighborhood the planning department has no objections to the modification

045of the UR map once the other requirements planning board and Zoning Board of Appeals approvals are met um um so Lori I just want to say I don't think the planning board ever saw that memo and I certainly didn't was it from Ryan yes and I thought I actually submitted it with the application yeah so I I think subm it again yeah no I I just the the comments were not the comments of the department and weren't provided to the board so I will submit this for the record not a problem okay who's Ryan Ryan I I don't think they got checked before they got sent to the applicant I I certainly never saw them I'm sure they were in the file but I didn't see them and I don't agree with what she just

046read right okay yeah we certainly so I I don't know who submitted that application it was before our time um but we will obviously be justifying all of these uh items about um a lot area neighborhood doing a narrative all these things are going to be justified to the zoning board of appeals um but the planning board has to weigh in on the um configuration and I think as the memo points out 150 square feet uh to shift 150 square feet between these two lots may make one more conforming but it'll also create um an odd siiz a shaped lot which is not consistent with this neighborhood so I would suggest that or we don't really want to create an irregularly shaped lot in this area um we will definitely be submitting uh we do

047have a pending zoning board application we will definitely be submitting a narrative um regarding the need for the variance the character of the neighborhood um the potential for precedent setting uh's the other one I just um right all three of those um the memo and the hardship sorry uh and the memo actually speaks to deducting the highway easement from lot area which I spoke to the surveyor today and that is not um how the code is written it's not a private easement so it should not be deducted from lot area um the surveyor will also be showing the any 20% slopes if there are any in adjusting the building envelopes whether they exclude 20% slopes or not otherwise it's showing building envelopes on the map um yeah the accessory structures can certainly be removed as

048part of an approval um each parcel will take uh separate access onto bayew Avenue um the scenic eement is not really objectionable however uh on bayw Avenue uh there is already or there will there is already a 5 foot wide 1200 square foot highway road widening easement in in effect um which would impact that potential Scenic eement um John bril will also be addressing the clearing and information and also water supply and noting that IIA systems will be required he's also made application to the health department uh we'll follow up with a Fire Marshall regarding safety and prevention and of uh fire safety and prevention um bosski will look into the water supply I said that already and I said that those other applications are already pending so um they're going to go off with

049the zoning board next I believe okay um all right before we hand it over to Bruce not Michael to lead the conversation just a question for you I know the narrative and those other elements that you spoke of are coming but can you give us sort of a preview what what is the rationale what is the justification for it's a very small lot area there for one of the Lots so after after the abandonment one of the Lots will actually achieve the 20,000 square feet that's required in the uh B Zone and the other one's going to be shy by 150 square feet which is a very small variance ask okay there's no other variance is required all right so and the uh the owner of this lot lives right behind it I believe is

050that is that correct on mure is that this is a family kind of partial situation a family situation I don't believe it lives here fulltime though I'd have to look that up okay all right so the and and the idea here Lori I presume is to build on these Lots pretty pretty soon is that correct uh it's estate planning at this point there's no uh intention of building anything at the moment but U there are there are additional family members that play here who um are gonna obviously uh split these yeah he's um he does not live here full-time okay there may be other family members that do but he does not all right other board members may have some questions so stick around Bruce all right thanks Tina thanks Lori actually Lori you cleaned

051up a lot of my questions that I had um obviously this is one of the larger Lots on Bay View when you look at the aerial there are smaller lots to the direct East um a lot smaller than than the 20,000 square feet they're roughly I think there's three or four on the same side of the road towards the east that are about 12,000 square feet um across the street there's also some some smaller Lots around that same 12,000 foot size um I think the design of the subdivision I think this makes the most sense um I'm really not in favor of you know doing a diagonal to gain you know what is it 150 square feet um it still makes parcel number two um undersized um you know if it stays the same parcel

0522 is only 1490 fet under the 2 20,000 foot Mark so I I think that's probably okay um like Lori said the road Frontage is the same for both which I think is great um we talked about the highway easement that was one of my questions whether or not that square footage is pulled from the calculations um Lori said it's not um one of the things that I do think we need to clarify or have clarified is the the 20% slopes on the Eastern lot um it's when you're there in person you can it's it's really really noticeable more than looking at the um the survey so I think we'll have to take a look at that and understand how um those slopes affect the the building and septic envelopes I think it's going to

053be I think it's going to be quite substantial there um the scenic easen along the road you know that's something we can talk about there is vegetation on most of the Lots up and down the road but it happens from the road Edge right on the road Edge into each property so a lot of that vegetation is is Town um vegetation so you know whether or not we we impose that on these Lots I think it's I did a quick calculation I think it's maybe roughly 14 square feet in so Ian maybe it's not a bad idea [Music] um and vegetation long that's all I've got thanks Bruce I appreciate it we're gonna go around on this one Reed yeah so maybe I um Bruce I don't this the right question for you but you're

054suggesting that the substandard lot size um is okay because some of the neighbors have smaller lots and that I mean I I don't know I worry a little bit that this might be press setting and I think you get into a little bit of a slippery slope once you start rubber stamping um lots that might not fit um the residence zoning District but that's just my two cents good I appreciate that Ava what are your thoughts no I was thinking along the same lines but I am familiar with that area and there are a lot of smaller lot sizes as well so it's kind of a slippery slope I guess um outside of that the questions Lori pretty much went through that kind of topped my head but okay yeah I have a problem approving

055the uh subdivision into two lots when one lot is substandard not only for the reason that the planning department gave and that Reed agrees with setting the precedent but you know don't forget this is in a area that's groundwater sensitive uh so there's an environmental factor with regard to density and with you know if we say it's not that much we should approve it that's a slippery slope not only because of the precedent but because you allow this one because it's not that much then you allow the next one because it's not that much and then when you add it all up it's a lot so we really need to and the other thing is there's really no justification for this when you have when you grant the variance and I know we're not it's

056not our purview to Grant the variance that's going to go in front of the zoning board but to Grant the variance there needs to be a justification and that justification has to outweigh any detriment that may uh occur because of you know of granting variance I don't see that in this case I don't see saying that it's just you know, 1400 1450 square feet under is justification so those are my thoughts thank you Lou Jen I I agree with Lou um I think that whether it's you know 1,400 square feet under the standard size or more um it's still under and I think essentially we're doubling the density of this lot in an area of you know some environmental significance yes there are lots that are smaller but I think this is kind of going

057in the wrong direction and if we as a board agree to start approving subdivisions that are slightly substandard we could potentially you know double the density of an area and I think that's not in the to use a muchus phrase around here not in the interest of good planning and I think Lou is also correct that there's no real hardship shown um in this instance Michael The Narrative is really important to me on this one because if they're building uh a house for their children or something that's a big difference than just building two houses that you rent out in the summer I I know a company that would would gladly build a house and rent it out in the summer right in this area so that the narrative is important to me and I

058appreciate fully the uh going under the standard 20,000 for a b residence it's worries some yes that's all thank you thanks Michael yeah I tend to agree with uh the majority of my colleagues on the board you know and again we know it's not up to us to Grant a variance the gbaa will determine that but um you know I think we're we're in a moment in the town now where we're really looking at quote overbuilding we're looking at you know large Lots on large houses on smaller lots and we're creating a substandard less than half an acre lot in this neighborhood that could these this could be built with two rather large houses right uh I Think It's tricky to build on the building envelope is tricky the the slopes are difficult this is

059going to be a tricky a tricky situation uh so I I I don't really support the application frankly but I think it's our job to determine if what's been drawn is you know something that we would find acceptable to send to the zba right so finding acceptable I guess means is this versus some other um you know some something else that would sort of alter the lot lines to create sort of a slightly different uh distribution of square footage um I guess that's what we're really looking looking at righta essentially is that yeah I mean does it comply with the sub wer standards of the code is it in the interest of good planning um is it complete enough to to send to zba right so I think even though you know many of us

060don't feel this this is uh wise or something that we would support I think we need to think about it in those terms right um so let's look at the questions then in that case does a plenty board find the proposed lot configuration to acceptable pending zba review or should alternative Arrangements be submitted for consideration tell us how to how to think about that team yeah do you do you want the lots to be a little more evenly sized and minimize the variance required or do you think having like rectangular Lots is more important than their size if for the zba to consider right we can't really yeah irrespective of the zba's variance like do you think this is the lock configuration just like the shape so you like or do you want them like

061the diagonal you could make one bigger and the other one smaller and there'd be a lesser variance is there possibility of a question like does the board support this application is that a bigger question or we not is that not our so we could ask that too we ask the configuration question first and and personally I don't think this is complete enough either to be considered by zba yet so right so I'm afraid that if we whatever way we answer that question it implies approval of the subdivis yeah all right so I think I think Jen's suggestion is is really yeah wise you know a significant one we should start with that straight off the bat and then think of look at the technical questions right uh which is really what the rest of them

062are so I think the question is you know do do we as a planning board support this subdivision no no no no no no no unanimously no he didn't answer Oh I thought you answered I thought that was a nod the other side is this is a it's a residential area there are a lot of homes and there are homes that are smaller than the 20,000 and again I I would really like to hear the narrative I think that is important I would like to to pipe in if you don't mind I think we should provide you with the narrative and I think that we should address the 20% slopes and I think we should address the scenic easement and I think we should address the clearing before we make a comprehensive determination as to

063whether or not to pass this on to the zoning board okay I think there's more information that we need before that happens right I think we're not complete yet I think so but what I'm I'm hearing from the board is that it would have to be extremely compelling because there's no support for something like this I think it's important for Lori and the applicant to understand that now yeah and that's what I'm hearing we're happy for you to to provide all that and come back to us right and take another look at it and the other thing I would because I I think the technical questions are sort of getting ahead of ourselves I agree okay I I agree I think at this point you know if Lor you kind of agree that you're going

064to answer the questions about slopes right yes uh you've talked about removing the accessory structures y we've looked at the idea of a Scenic easement uh clearing information right those sorts of things you've already talked about that I don't feel we need to go through the question necessarily right except that we agree that the additional details all these additional details should be provided um including water supply and everything else right we don't need to go through them one by one yeah but I think it should be noted for the record that the planning board is not inclined toward this application run all this by my client what's that I will run all this by my client and then I will respond accordingly okay very good good thanksor thank you Lori thank you all right so

065we are going to move on to Elite Tower Springs Fire Department re that is yours um Chris Chris gonna do this or you're gonna do this on Chris I'm gonna do this one okay and the applicant okay thank you I think we met before Tina okay thank you report okay this is the application for elite Towers Springs Fire Department located at 179 PT Palm Boulevard in Spring I'm going to zoom out to show you where this is regionally Fort Palm Boulevard you might want to share your screen oh okay so I can't just talk to myself then because that is easier having technical difficulties thank you Matt um this is the site location 179 Fort Pond Boulevard um here's Fort Pond Boulevard and springs fireplace road to the South um the Springs historic district is

066to the South here and aabon carers also located nearby the site plan application is made for the relocation of a 150t tall concealment or or stealth monopole um to be utilized for a personal Wireless facility and this is a tier three application per the town code I will bring up the site plan in a second oh no my my bookmarks aren't on this I will look for the site plan while I talk because my bookmarks did not survive the file conversion so the property currently contains a firehouse building and is within the neighborhood business Zone it's occupied by the Springs Fire Department um mostly cleared of naturally a caring vegetation so to provide some background um in comments in April 2023 the planning department and the planning board had previously indicated their support for the

067application I listed their visons in the memo I did not update these I just put these for historical reference that this is already what has been said this application proposes to relocate the monopole that's existing on site to more central location on the site that would not require variances and it's not within fall zone areas and um the subject property was also noted to be within proximity to avoidance areas as we all know avoidance areas are areas that we ask applicants to avoid if they can um and it does avoid many of those it also does have some opportunity site criteria on March 13th of this year the planning department had issued a incomplete letter to a submission from the applicant as everyone knows personal Wireless facility applications follow federal guidelines for review time frames

068and have to adhere to shot clock requirements right the time it takes they call the shot clock the time it takes people to review you have to turn it around quickly so the technical review was conducted and completed on March 13th and that was conducted by the planning department and citycape um our technical consultants for while the service facilities and today we're here talking about the site plan review criteria that are within the planning board's direct purview um so I will go through some of those now I'll start with showing the site plan uh so as you can see here the self model pole would be relocated to an area on site currently occupied by two parking spaces um there would be a equipment area conceal um contained within a chain Lane fence and then

069gate for the facility would be here so moving to the issues for consideration the first one in the report we sent to the board is for the visual analysis uh during the last review in April 2023 the planning department and planning board had indicated that extensive visual renderings were appropriate upon formal submission of the application um I did put a section of the code here regarding requirements on our code for balloon testing so a balloon test is uh noted in the code AS required that is a procedure that allows the um height of the proposed facility to be accurately captured within photo simulations we have recommended that the applicant conduct a new balloon test there was a balloon test conducted I think for the previous location of the existing pole which is up here in

070the upper right hand portion of the screen um we we requested a new one is necessary one because it's in the code um which is obviously the primary reason but also because with the new location we do want to have the accuracy that the balloon test offers in terms of uh visual simulation quality and the test also does provide notification to the community um about this facility going going in and allows them to see the balloon test the applicant has also offered via a letter they sent to take pictures from neighboring properties if the neighbors want to um which if people want to take that opportunity they should so the applicant has proposed six locations for um the visual simulations and in the planning department memo we offered additional ones and I'm going to bring

071that up now to go through with the board this is an important consideration for the board we do want to make sure that the V visual simulations uh capture a really good representative Suite of information to make informed decisions regarding the visual impact we have reviewed what the applicant proposed and read we added some areas in green the areas were added um due to gaps that we thought e from existed either because of existing residential developments like the ones added um to the north and west of the site or to the east and south you know to the east here is recreational area to the south and east is kind of the center of the spring historic district then we added another one and kind of direct view um from dra drive and natural areas

072that are you know popular for use and enjoyment of communities these are something we'd like the board to opine on determine if they agree that the simulation locations are appropriate or if additional or different ones are desired one note is that in the plans the um applicant submitted the full height of the facility was not shown the height of the poll as 150 ft but the height of the antennas on top of the polls wasn't shown so we do want to make sure that when the applicant is performing the um simulations they gather this accurately so we have you know 150 ft above ground level for the pole don't have a really clear Dimension here so we just want to make sure that we capture the full height of the facility in those photos moving

073on to Landscaping in the March 13th incomplete letter we did note um the screening and Landscaping requirements of the code the the applicant had suggested a waiver may be appropriate from the screening and Landscaping requirements and we did note that in the code it does say that existing vegetation toogy walls fences and other features maybe substitute substituted for required buffers if the planning board finds they achieve the same degree of screening as the buffers so we did suggest the applicant in the incomplete letter that they should provide the board with additional ground level um photos documentation to show how well screened the facility would be from the surrounding areas if no additional Landscaping was implemented we knowe um that the Springs Fire Department building is pretty much directly in front of the proposed new pole

074location and um obviously would provide some screening from you know points right across the street so that was the comment there regarding parking and and site configuration I noted in the intro that it looks as if four spaces are being well two spaces would be um removed based on the location of the new pole and two would be impacted with the location of the equipment Gates the planning department doesn't have an issue with this um there seems to be adequate parking on site I looked at all the historical imagery we have and there's never more than a few vehicles in the lot also we don't have parking requirements for firehouses or Municipal corporations which the fire district is one um so we don't we don't think the parking is a concern in conclusion uh the

075proposed relocation of the poll has previously been supported to be DET supported and meet zoning requirements the planning department and citycape have already issued technical comments so the shot clock I referenced earlier is fulled currently the planning board um should provide the applicate with the input request this evening um so they can make sure to address this on their next submission including the location of the visual renderings and input on whether the screening proposed is appropriate and that is enough for me thank you I'm sure we'll be asking some questions thank you Tina appreciate it does the applicant wish to be heard name for the record and name and address please spell your name yes it's Greg Alvarez a l v a r e z of a model Law Group Garden City New York here

076on behalf of the applicant Elite towers and the co- applicants uh Springs Fire Department and the uh Wireless carriers as well who are part of this application okay all right uh thank you very much for uh um having us again we were here almost two years to the day uh to uh to sort of kick off this process and uh uh in that time we have um interacted with the uh planning department to try to get this as close as we can and then finally complete um applications so that we can appear before you uh for a formal public hearing but um we appreciate the considerations of these questions tonight uh they just come up in our discussions to try to resolve them and again we just want to make sure that we provide the

077fullest and and most complete uh resubmission to to try to get to the finish line here so I'll just make a few points uh perhaps to help guide your consideration um so the three the three items that uh that were raised by Tina first first uh the simulations I just like to note uh like to um point out a couple of things regarding that because the process has gone on so long um we've actually um had a couple of iterations of our simulations which I think you may have in front of you this evening uh to take a look at and so the latest iteration which is the 2023 version um that was out of our previous discussion to make sure that uh um it was prepared in accordance in what we were discussing then

078so um the locations that were chosen at that time I think were um the historic locations we had used previously as well and they're from obviously different Vantage points and I just like to point out that uh those Sims actually are at the location at the new location they're not at the the existing location they're actually at the new proposed location so they do indicate um they are reflective of the what's at the height though of the uh current proposal yeah so as for the height I like to describe that as well maybe if we can go back to the plan the you want to look at the site plan yeah the uh the elevation just to kind of give you a flavor so um so when you look at so when you look at

079the pole as depicted and again a relocating the existing one um the the the top of the tower proper or I guess the the structure itself sits at 150 ft so that's actually the structure that will support all the antennas inside and also the antennas that will extend above the antennas that are above are usually of a whip design and actually there are they are if you narrow end on it perhaps a little bit more you can see at the top um they're what call that what we typically call whip antennas so they're just sort of a single right a single stick that that that that that heads up from from the top of the structure itself so when we do these types of analyses typically we take them from the top of the tower

080proper because it makes it easier for us then to um to plot it when we actually design it even though and if there are these whip antennas above it and how high are they um they're typically what 10 12 feet something in that range six sometimes six so so it does vary um it's really going it's really subject to the technology of the particular Public Service Agency here the fire department so um and and how high is the current the current monopole uh the current monopole is also is also 150 yes okay yeah so that's why the intention is to just strict you know basically the proposal is to it is 150 right the the current that's correct that could be yes so um in terms of where uh so again we are going to

081conduct this balloon test on the 21st and so we have we we have this available information so from the previous um from the previous analyses when we when we've been out there previously at that time we had installed a crane which is a little bit more stable here we're going to do a balloon to indicate that and um you and so part of the reason we're doing that as Tina mentioned is to abide by the the new notice requirements and allow the community if they're interested to come out and we have put in our letter which will go out tomorrow um to the adjacent uh Property Owners is to indicate if they do want photos taken from their properties as well to to get Vantage points that will be part of it as well great

082um so the direction I guess what we're looking for tonight is to make sure we understand the logistics of how we're going to undertake uh the analysis on the 21st hopefully the 21st we do have a rain date of the 23rd if if it doesn't work on on the 21st but to to to to to guide us to make sure that we're going to do that so that's obviously from the Vantage points that that we'd like that you know that you'd like to see um in addition um you know if we're if we're going to look at separate locations and then also the height that would be most appropriate um to to set the balloon at um we think the 150 Mark you know is will will provide people you know an idea of where

083where that height will be certainly the existing pole gives them a vantage point as well because it's going to be the same height but um we obviously will take that direction for you as to do that just one other point I'd like to point to point out because we do have this um prior information that has been generated um there there there are times if it's if it's a little windy out there with the balloon that sometimes it will it will oscillate a bit out there and actually sometimes it it it may be more than you know would be helpful for us to to take the photos and and and judge it so um we'd also ask for your input as well since we did take those prior uh photos from from the same position

084and if perhaps it doesn't go completely to plan on the 21st in terms of getting all of our Vantage points if we maybe could enlist some of those photos that we've previously taken because nothing's really changed in terms of again where the location is and we think not so much in terms of the surroundings to to give that representative U picture but we we we'll we'll listen to your guidance on on that okay okay uh and then as for the next point the Landscaping so uh we're we're more than amendable to take some photos we'll we'll take some photos probably as part of the balloon test to to probably end up uh simulating that as well now I did bring some representative examples I I I we didn't have a chance to to get it

085onto the screen but I do have some hard copies I can share if that's okay just to give you an idea of unfortunately we can't really review things that the department has hasn't seen in advance okay all right but you can certainly submit them yeah that's fine maybe I'll do that so these are just representative um views of of actually existing Elite sites that that give you an idea of what the Landscaping can look like so I think I have eight copies here and so basically um just in general what they what they will show is the fencing usually will will it will be screen like this usually we do like a green mesh type of finish to to make sure that it's fully blocked out and you don't do not see anything uh behind

086it um so the direction I think in terms of the Landscaping is just because the the code requirements seem to be specifically focused on making sure that for those facilities that may be closer to property lines that there is sufficient additional um Landscaping on the edges that that that's the purpose for it now not withstanding all of this we're having to put in more Landscaping it's just because of the location of the facility it's kind of right smack dab in the middle of the property um whether or not it makes sense to to put in um landscaping around the fencing as well um we we just like to see U perhaps maybe it's too uh early to to receive that feedback but if you do have any um thoughts on that as to whether or

087not we should show Landscaping at this point or maybe we just show it as fencing and see what the simulation look like we're also looking for that input as well just so that we can uh again present you the most robust record uh when we finally get to a public hearing we'll give you some feedback on that okay great and then finally as to the parking I I think we're I I think we're in lock step as well uh we're fine either way with that just the thing to point out um in terms of the two spaces in front of the gate the gate is actually designed so that there would not be any conflict with any of those parking spaces they actually open up and would open up um before you even get to

088the property line there might be a view on the detail of the uh equipment plan on one of the sheets that show you how the gates will swing out and they actually don't extend all the way to the parking area just just to if that flavors it at all um additionally it's probably a little bit earlier there and yeah you know the thing with the gates at least temporarily we wouldn't count those as Bots if they like have to be kind of vacated on a regular basis or it can't be utilized um but I see what you're saying I mean that's what we said impacted right I they're not taken away but some utility impacted yeah I mean once the poll is up and once the equipment is in generally how it works is a

089technician for each of the carriers will come out four to six uh weeks every four to six weeks um they'll pop in they'll be there they'll make sure everything looks good maybe they have to make some tweaks and then and then they'll be on their way and they can park anywhere you know that that's convenience so it it's not necessarily that would be you know anything that would be disruptive but barking your's a problem yeah either way I just wanted to point that out as well thank you um and I think that's that's really it for this evening um certainly we're here for any questions we have other Representatives here part of our team uh and U we appreciate your time okay stay closer may have some questions you got it read please read the

090discussion yeah so uh uh cell phone power applications can sometimes create some controversy this one is an easy one this is basically a simple um relocation um and I'm I'm still a little confused why it needs to be relocated although I've been told it it was put up without full approvals uh it didn't receive all the necessary approvals that is correct and I was also told um the fall zone is important um but again I've also been in formed that the these towers are so Advanced now that if the thing were to have a problem it collapses upon itself is that accurate yeah so the fall Zone's really not not really of significance but moving it back from that property line to the new location um is is not an issue at all um and

091uh it sounds like you guys have um the balloon test scheduled I think 150 feet is is um is fine um uh pursuant to the parking it's not an issue I was there this weekend um those four spots not not a problem whatsoever um and then the final thing is on the Landscaping um I do know you're correct that that this is in the rear of the fire department um but in that area back there um they do have picnic tables and they have family events at the firehouse so I think you guys got to do it nicely I mean I I don't think it needs to be fancy but I think some basic Landscaping would that's a fair point sure okay um so that's that's my take okay good yeah other comments yeah I

092just want to make sure because this this has been a contentious uh application in the past it's gone through so many iterations the fall Hazard Zone was a big issue but now that's been taken care of so it looks like now everything is basically done in terms of meeing zoning code uh issues uh I think the issues that were discussing the parking the Landscaping those are easily uh taken care of so I just want to make sure we what we're down to is the visual aspect of this poll and how it affects the surrounding areas so our decision is going to be based on how when we get those representations those drawings those renderings uh how we feel it's going to impact the surrounding area and our decision as to whether or not we approve

093this or disapprove it deny it is based solely on that one issue so I'm not asking a question I'm just you know wanted to reiterate where we are and if everybody agrees with me that that's basically what what we need to do at this point yeah are we having a public hearing again with I I would say a public hearing is required yes once the application is compl so that will get a lot of feedback from the surrounding neighbors I assume as to how they feel about the visuals right okay so I just wanted to make sure that everybody agrees that my synopsis is is full and complete okay so the the current poll on site will be moved that's correct is that correct and how old is that pole and is it the modern

094type of pole that if there's any trouble it would collapse upon itself yeah it is constructed about 10 or so years ago is that right yes and that's still considered a mon pole yes it was designed it's it's well it's designed in the same fashion um it's a uh concealment pole and that's you know certainly more um attuned to what uh poles uh should be uh built in you know as if they were built and constructed today uh to make sure that all the antennas and everything inside except for the you know the public service and how many cell carriers will be on that poll so we have uh four carriers that um are part that have joined as co- applicants to this application okay okay any other comments yeah I just have a question

095why is your um containment area so large why do you need like the equipment area yeah because each of the carriers they have their own equipments so a lot of this area will be filled in with their stuff that's on this plan basically we've a portioned enough space to account for all the carriers that are going to be coming in it's just that that'll that'll take place after the initial construction but we wanted to give you that I think we gave you Verizon perhaps and I think we gave you Dish as as sort of Representative of what their equipment looks like okay right okay um a couple comments so I actually uh have been around as says Lou for most of the history of this project uh and it's been a long one right and

096there's been lots of bad feeling and perhaps bad advice advice and you know Mis you know Mis different interpretations of the code and very difficult and complicated process so I'm happy that we're arriving at a place where we're very near a solution it's really great um but you know this is very important to the people who live in Springs there's no doubt about that right as much as everybody wants um good self service they also want to protect uh the landscape right and we're very near a Scenic area of Statewide significance right so these These visualizations are going to be extremely important extremely important to have fresh ones done to show this in the new in the new location well as you say some of them were already done but I don't believe the public

097has seen them so this is going to be a very important consideration for people in the neighborhood um and I think one thing to be clear about too is that I'm not sure how the equipment gets mounted onto the monopole but there have been other situations where we thought it was just monopol and suddenly there are sort of appendages and whatnot kind of at the top of the thing which completely changes its visual impact sure so if that's going to be the case we need to know that and we need to visualize it yeah right right that's why we we've we we have depicted it to give you as best the best information we have at this point certainly the fire department we can have up there typically with our polls we do offer them

098to any other uh First Responders or any other publication agencies that may have a use uh for them so what what we're trying to prop what we're trying to um depict at this point is the is the representative view of of their of the equipment that they typically use who right so it's the fire department and then uh at this point I think there no one else has committed to it yet so um so right now we just have the fire department that we well I I think we need we do need to depict what one of the common care is would would what kind of Hardware they would have on the monopole then understand what visual impact that has and I think we do need to clarify you know who's going to be using

099this pole my because my understanding perhaps it's wrong is that the 180t pole at Camp BlueBay is the one that's designated for emergency services and that it needs to be at that height to be effective in that capacity so I'm not entirely certain that that frequency is going to be available to Spring PR department on this poll they'll have sell service but different that's different Well Springs has their own equipment and they're going to be putting their own equipment on oh they do okay all right all right that's yeah all right so I guess then my comment boils down to we just need to be completely transparent about the eventual you know visual impacts of course of course and just just to be clear the um the other carriers so your Verizon your T-Mobil your

100AT&T's and your dish they're all going to be inside so they're all inside the pole all right so they are inside the only the only representation at the top that's only for the fire that's the whip go corre interesting so all okay everything's inside all right so it's inside yeah just want to be clear about that right we don't want a bait and switch here right no no no absolutely not and if you could see you could actually see it on the plans where it indicates where each of the carriers would go on that pole and it's all in contained inside they have their cabling they have their antennas they have any other Associated equipment that has to go on the poll that's that's going inside okay that's very good to know all right um

101good any other questions no nope all right thank you very much I think we'll go to the questions and wrap this up does the planning board agree with the planning Department's recomend recommended location for photo simulations or what CH or otherwise what changes are necessary yes yeah we agree I think we I think we nailed okay so right just to be clear so it's the six locations that the applicant uh has propos in red in addition to the green ones that the planning department pasted on this map right right right you know what I would actually ask for one other one all right there there the prior set of images had something farther up on Gerard Point like yeah like there yeah okay uh isn't that yeah I think that was a red dot is

102one there I know yeah I mean I think it's important that we you know stick pretty close to what was done before so people can see what the impact it was and is and so we would just ask Tina if you could provide us the the the specific locations for us because it's a little unclear on the map I see that you know they're they're pinged but just just you if you have you know maybe a little bit more description for us where we should take the photos from so another question how many feet are you moving this um it's 35t it's a little bit more than that is it really let's see sort of maybe Dimension this for you see the existing in the [Music] rear pretty close but believe me it's really yeah

103um let's see it's just outside the 150 foot fall zone uh from where the new location is so I'd say maybe 175 ft oh it's that far yeah no I can't be that much doesn't sound right but you know what no matter how far it is we need photo simulation maybe not quite 175 maybe like 160 or something like that right right now it is that's right so it is quite a further back yeah okay yeah I think you know maybe one one other question I had is when you put these like little tiny balloons big balloons how they go for 5 minutes 20 minutes so the code actually specifies so it has to be at least 3 foot in diameter and it's be there for four hours oh four hours okay okay so that's

104interesting all right yeah it's interesting to watch it it and is it what's the color of this thing have we picked a color yet we have not if there's a preference about this color right there how about red fair enough okay see these questions could get more questions yeah does the Plenty board agree the applicant should submit additional photo documentation to facilitate determination regarding if the applica application would be suitable for a waiver from the Landscaping requirements uh H I think we I liked Reed's point that you know it is right near that picnic area and I do think yeah I think that's absolutely so we need a little bit more information and detail on that yeah uh does the planning board agree with the planning department that the loss of up to four parking

105spaces is acceptable yes yes yes we all agree yes that's that's the case so that's it for our end I think so for now so we'll get back to work we'll get our resubmission in and hopefully we can uh continue to move this along excellent all right thank you very much all right thanks very much app and I just have one more question I think it was yes there she is okay our notice signs that's this is part of our noticing we have to actually post I think it's at the nearest intersection right so we'll do that perfect these will be up um we we'll talk about how to actually reflect it since it is a balloon test instead of a okay all right very good thank you thanks very much appreciate it all right

106so moving on to the regular meeting item there's only one now right y we did the other one the other one okay so we have the smart store extension of time ru in the manner of the application of smart store site plan suffa County ta tax map number 300-1 1841 d811 this is for an extension of time for a period of one year or until April 7th of 2026 um I've read the resolution and move for its approval second all in favor okay all around unanimous pass Carri okay all right so we have a couple of UR issues to deal with [Music] let all right so these by the way we didn't really talk about these much when we do them but they are Road access Improvement requests um where building permits have been requested

107but Road improvements are needed by the applicant to get the building permit underway so the first one we're looking at is the uh by the request of the Mogul project LLC Melanie Maiden for a building permit on premises located at 19 hawthor Avenue uh in East Hampton and uh the undertaking for the road work is 3600 Road Improvement units or $118,000 do I have a motion to approve I'll make that motion second all in favor okay all right wow but I've never been to a meeting before well you probably probably learned a lot right yeah seen them on TV but all right this is a whole different thing right yeah we'll get Michael to autograph agenda Town come and take a look next couple days okay if you're going to speak we need to have

108you at at the mic if you need if if you really care to right you don't need to thank you who are you uh my name is Ken moliski I'll probably be running the project for our company okay and uh where we're at now sass gave us the clearing Flags MH I added some stakes and we have to do the fence M around for clearing um but we're still a little ways away okay all right you now have approval to do the road all right so thank you does that have to be done before a permit is issued or before a CO or during the project I think it's post the bond yeah you post the bond and then before the SE is issued you have to submit better to get it done right yeah

109absolutely yeah yeah can't do it next fall in winter so you need to get the I'm sure that someone at uh this LLC understands exactly what has to be done for the bond but that has to be done first so okay okay yeah I don't deal with that I wouldn't do the work right away if you're gon right yeah you need you need to to get the bond to to be able to do this work and then you can do get the permit to do the work on the property all right just to be clear thank you thanks for to come back Ken yeah yeah we we like to have an audience have a live audience and I know Matt all right well there you go all right lumber yard okay that's right that's right

110good two jobs well thank you L take care yeah Matt up here okay guys let's get on to number two which is same kind of situation for side roads LLC Brian midlum uh for a building permit located uh at 17 Ocean Parkway in East Hampton uh Lots 53 and 62 map on map 451 Urban Neal map 451 uh urp 6 and East Hampton 15 and suffer County tax map 317-1 8.1 uh and this is for an undertaking that involves 5200 Road Improvement units at $26,000 a motion to approve I'll do it and second second thank you all in favor all right great done uh the third one is same same kind of scenario Beach House Development LLC marked Cardone for building permit on premises located at 7 Ocean Parkway East Hampton block one Lots 95

111to 110 curb renewal map 451 urban renewal number two in East Hampton 15 and suffi County tax map 300-1 11171 D2 5200 Road Improvement units again at $26,000 I make a motion to approve it do you okay great maybe somebody will all right all in favor let's do one more these guys are neighbors 17 right right here we go yeah line in the sandit splitting the road building I guess right uh this is for Beach House Development LLC again Mark Cardone 21 Ocean Parkway East Hampton block one Lots 37 to 45 M 451 urp 8 in East stampton 15 and suffer County tax map 300-17 d1101 this is again for 5200 Road Improvement units at $26,000 I make a motion Jen Ava second all in favor great perfect done lots of roads being improved tonight

112um Improvement unit2 it's a certain distance with certain dep yeah yeah a vasal New York State uh it's a whole thing ask vny cortell about it our engineer here uh let's see so other than that we need to adopt our very lengthy minutes from last week there lots of we as is on it for the last one I saw a couple things on there um did you yes Steiner Oasis um depicts a a complaint driveway that maybe compliant compliant and then uh number three n South Fern craftt um last sentence should that be revised application or revised app I I wasn't sure what the AP where revised App application right sure revised App application Jody is that right on removing the existing easement on the property that seems right anyone else have eagle eyes other

113comments or thoughts okay so a motion to approve the minutes as amended I'll make that motion I'll second it all in favor all right I think we're good there's one more motion toand who wants to make it I'll make a motion to Insurance second I'll second all right great all in favor