001e okay planning board we are live we are recording phone lines are uh excuse me phone lines will remain off go for it uh good evening and welcome to the planning board of the town of East Hampton's uh meeting of March 19th 2025 um as you can see I am zooming in tonight and my doctor insists that that is for your Health and Welfare those of you who are in the room um so I apologize for that I'll be back at the next meeting um so what we're going to do tonight we're going to mix the schedule up just a little bit the agenda that's in front of you we have two sub waivers and a site plan review which we're going to review first we're going to go to the regular meeting subjects and
002do two resolutions from there and then come back for the waycott commercial center discussion which will happen in in I would say probably 45 minutes or so from now so that's how we're going to proceed uh and very happily our vice chair Jennifer FS is willing able and ready to jump in and lead the discussion on the first three items I'll leave it to you Jen thanks Ed um feel better and thank you for considering Everybody's Health and wellbeing here um the first matter we have on for the work session is a subw review of Steiner Oasis um and that is Chris I believe is the applicant here no thank you go ahead sorry I can't see you because of the post post in the way all right uh good evening today will be the
003first initial review of the subdivision waiver application Steiner Oasis LLC this is located at 77 toil from Lane in East Hampton and the property is outlined here um the subject parcel is within the B residence zoning district and is in groundwater management Zone V historically the subject parcel has only been subject to eastampton Village zoning restrictions and the existing improvements are indicated on an eastampton Village certificate of occupancy dated October 3rd 2008 uh that's attached to this report so going on to the application itself so subdivision waiver application is made to divide the existing parcel uh into two lots along the town border with East Hampton Village so one lot will be entirely within the town and one will be entirely in the village uh lot one in the village would be 4,642 square ft
004and lot two in the town would be 25,7 19 Square ft both lot siid is conform with the minimum lot area requirements of their respective uh jurisdictions for this application the town will review compliance for lot two and eastampton Village will review lot one for its own requirements the approval from both the town and Village planning boards will be required prior to the approval being finalized with the suffa county department of health services and the East Hampton Village planning board has completed its initial review of the application and their planner report is attached moving on to the issues of discussion for tonight for the State Environmental Quality review act the project is an unlisted action action pursuing to seekr in chapter 128 of the town code the East Hampton Village planner report suggested that the
005village assume lead agency status um as an involved agency the planning board would also be a candidate for lead agency but for an action so minor in scope the planning department does not recommend it is necessary to object the The Villages The Village serving as lead agent alternatively the planning board could seek lead agency or conduct its own uncoordinated review for the action since it is unlisted if the village serves his lead once the coordinated review materials are received the planning department will review and if comments are necessary on the short environmental assessment form uh they would be sent within 30 days of the date the letter is received the planning department recommends that it would be acceptable for the village to serve as lead and the planning board should determine if they agree next
006moving on to the sub waver requirements of town code the board must um consider the town code requirement that it is a policy of the planning board to require Reserve areas in all subdivisions although this requirement may be waved for minor subdivisions so the planning board should consider if they will wave this requirement in this case given that the subject parcel is fully cleared which is considered pre-existing non-conforming to the town regulations since the clearing was permitted in the village given such the planning department does not recommend that the board consider requiring the applicant to Revit any portion of lot to the subject property um the revised submission must also indicate the adjacent land owners requirements moving on to the issues for zoning um the existing improvements on lot two are considered pre-existing non-conforming have
007been legalized through the mentioned uh CFO from the village given such the existing garage and walkway along the rear property line will not be required to conform with the pyramid law setbacks or the town's limitation of 600 square ft maximum for an accessory structure the applicant has advised that changes to these structures if or when proposed May trigger the need for variances from the zoning board of appeals and that pre-existing non-conforming structures may only be expanded in accordance with the criteria listed in the section a code referenc in this report regarding the existing Swimming Pool and Patio these accessory structures appear to comply with the 20 foot required setback from each property line um and per town code there would be no front yard setbacks since the parcel does not abut any Street would note
008about any Street the applicant has advised the town code prohibits accessory structures and buildings from being constructed on a lot without a principal building or use unless the lots are contiguous and in commmon ownership the applicant should explain if the Lots will remain in common ownership and if common ownership ceases the applicant is advised that per town code that within 9 months of the change in ownership either the existing improvements the swimming pool and garage uh should be removed or a building permit shall be uh made with the inspector building inspector for a principal structure on lot to the next issue is uh regarding the proposed access which is proposed along a 20ft wide access easement um which with does it conform with the town code and that easement is shown here in green so
009the existing driveway however is not located entirely within the proposed access easement and does not comply with the dimensional requirements for common driveways um it must have a minimum improv width of 14t with 2 feet cleared on either side and these Dimensions must be provided within the boundaries of the proposed access e also the driveways missing an emergency vehicle turnaround at the end of the driveway as required by town code and the planning department notes the existing Stone driveway is approximately 10 ft wide given such the applicant must revise the proposed access easement and driveway configuration to comply with the requirements mentioned in this report next issue is regarding um utility lines an existing water supply line for lock 2 is not shown and should be indicated if there's a service line in place for
010the existing swimming pool and the submission indicates electric serving lines existing electrical lines in red from the house um going to the existing garage and pool equipment Pit and the planning department um recommends that the proposed acts yeah it's recommended that these service lines be removed and that future service lines would be located within the proposed easement um we recommend that the proposed access easement should be revised to be a proposed access and utility easement and the planning board should determine if they agree for the sanitary system blot 2 does not have any sanitary system um there's no principal building your pool house that would require such system and any review of the sanitary system on lot one will be subject only to The Village's review regarding drainage and storm water control the drainage system
011for the existing swimming pool should be indicated uh town code requires them to be equipped with dry Wells so the applicant should indicate the existing dry Wells and provide their specifications along with the uh capacity for the swimming pool also per town code the planning board may require the applicant to provide drainage structures on a common driveway if the Improvement disturbs natural water courses or recharge areas or significantly increases R off to adjacent properties and we'll note that once a revised driveway plan is submitted the town can Consulting engineer will advise on if the applicant should provide um drainage structures the Fire Marshall findings um indicate the proposal is within 1,000 ft of public water and fire hydrants that provide adequate supply for fire protection purposes and no other reviews needed from that department other
012approvals the applicants advise that the following additional approvals will be required suffa County Department of Health Services approval for the final subw subdivision waiver map the suff County Water Authority approval will be required for connections to existing infrastructure for water services approval to lot to the subject property and the suff County Planning Commission uh review is required since the parcel is within 500 ft of State Road and the boundary of the town of East Hampton and East Hampton Village in conclusion as another entity intends to serve as another entity being the village intends to serve as a lead agency for secra the board should determine if they agree or if they wish to proceed in another fashion until secra is completed a final decision cannot be made the applicant should submit details on the drainage
013system for the sewing pool design details of the common driveway including the required turnaround and advise the board regarding whether the Lots will remain in common ownership lastly the proposed access easement should be revised to include a compli and driveway and turnaround area as mentioned and to include utility service lines which should be rerouted within the boundaries of the EA that's all thank you Chris just theate wish to be heard thanks ma'am hello uh Dan Weaver from walbri shers on behalf of uh the applicant um thank Chris for the memo and for the board for the opportunity to be here um we can address a couple of these things um pretty quickly they Chris brought up in the memo um the driveway and drainage plan are in the works um I kind of wanted to
014get this designed before both this board and the village planning board to make sure that you know the kind of the easement location was you know acceptable before we spent the time and the money on the drainage and driveway plan but that is in the works um we are going to relocate the utilities into the easement so that's not an issue uh there is no water line servicing the pool so there is no existing Water Service into the what will become you know lot two the rear portion of the property um so yes a new water line would have to be run up the easement um it is the intention of the applicant to for the lot to remain in Comm common ownership so um you know that issue is is is that's the plan
015you know obviously that could always change and that could be addressed in the future if necessary um dry well for the pool we're going to have to find that it's an old pool um so we will locate that Drive well and we will get a detail together for that um but as of this point we don't exactly know where it is because it's been there for quite some time um that's basically all I have and unless there's any questions from the from the board uh thank you thanks Dan um and thanks Chris for that um this is my I think this one is my project so uh I think it's pretty straightforward I think it's a strange situation to have a one lot that's in both the town and the village and they since both
016Lots um meet the minimum lot size requirements for their various jurisdictions I don't see any major issues with it I and I don't given the you know given where it is and the fact that it is totally cleared I do agree with the um planning department that we don't really need to require any um open space or Reserve area for this particular lot I Dan I do have one question I'm sorry I meant to ask it earlier um does the applicant plan on building on that second lot anytime soon even if it's you know remains in common ownership they're not sure at this point it's more for estate planning at this purpose to to you know figure out the best use for them for the lot but um they do not have a plan okay
017at this point so so tin you can you got just so I'm clear if it remains in common ownership they don't need to file a permit within the n9ine months that Chris stated okay that's kind of all I have does anyone have any yeah I have a question about the uh reserved area and why it's not shouldn't be mandated just because it's all cleared is that is that in the code that good question I mean the the reserved area there's a reason for it whether it's cleared now or not it would be better if it was Rev the reserve area for a sub waver is within the board's discretion to wave you know for a full subdivision the code language is stronger it says shall require a reserve area for this it's it's wable um
018because this lot had approvals like a CO from another jurisdiction that allowed the clearing um it was our Baseline that it didn't need to be required that doesn't mean that the board can't require it should they deem it appropriate or necessary yeah I just don't understand why it should not be required just because it's already cleared there's a reason why that that's in the code and it doesn't matter whether the property is cleared or not there's there's a good reason why it should be reserved so so the way I think you I don't know I can't look at a good reason for me to base my decision on not allow not you know waving that requir the way we I usually consider an easen is um for preservation right purposes and in this case there
019is nothing to preserve you could create some habitat it would be kind of very um targeted in nature um but you know if there was like an existing stand of trees here um natural understory we would probably say yeah you know preserve that but again it's up to the board really if they feel it's it's important would there be a like a size of an easement that would be suggested by the department so for road yeah for Road Frontage it's 10% the depth of the property um and then the reserve area requirements I don't know them off top of my head I know they vary for open space depending in on like an open space subdivision depending upon the zoning District I don't remember what they are off the top of my head here okay
020does anyone else I I I think it's a really good question and I yeah I'd like to chime in on that if I oh sure I'm so sorry Ed I almost forgot you were there How Could you um yeah you know I'm very familiar with this property I used to live uh right around the corner from it it's you know it's very much a village like location right um it's not out in the country it's uh you know sidewalks and curbs and all that kind of thing and um the the way that this property is situated it's pretty discreet you know as you can see the road Frontage on toysome Lane is pretty short and the second lot that will be completely in the town is pretty much um invisible from uh the adjoining Street
021which is Wireless Road so you know and there is actually quite a bit of wooded area behind it as well as you no thank you yeah you can see that here um so I typically I'm with Lou on this that I really I like to see Reserve areas wherever we can have them but I'm really not seeing in this case where it's viable um you know because there really isn't anything natural to be conserved or preserved here in my view so that's just my two cents thank you Michael nothing nothing I agree with Ed read I'm I'm fine with it I support the application I agree I support the application um if there are no other questions maybe we'll move on to the questions no the comments rather move on to the questions um does
022the board agree the proposed work is an listed action pursuant to secra and agree The Village may serve as lead agency yes yes yes will the board wave the requirement for the subdivision waiver to include reserved area I think we're six and one yes [Music] yeah um does the board agree the proposed access easement should be revised to a proposed access and utility easement yes yes does the board agree a revised minor Subdivision map should be submitted that indicates a compliant driveway and turnaround area within the proposed easement yes great so thank you everybody um moving on to the moram cabana's Ada ramp is the applicant for this year oh lovely um this is oh this is will but Tina is covering for will tonight thanks Jen um good evening board members this is the
023site plan for the moram pool Cabanas uh this application was seened by the board um several months ago and recently in January of 2025 reced from the zoning board of appeals on nrsp and variance the application is is for pool Cabanas which would be developed on an already existing pool deck um and it is for five of them and they'll have an area of 72 square feet um our recommendation is that this application is complete they have their variance and they were complet before they went to zba we had originally thought this could be a minor site plan due to the small nature of what was being constructed but because of variance that ends up being required uh the code does not permit uh that to proceed as a minor site plan so um we
024do have a schedule public hearing notice for the board should they agree that the application's complete ready for that okay thanks Tina thanks do you have any um so this is kind of a more of a formality than anything else um can we move right to the singular question mine it's mine oh I'm so sorry the power is going to my head I have nothing to add do you support this appliation I support this application let's you ready to do the ready for the question question other questions there's one question one does the board agree that this application is complete and ready for a public hearing yes yes then in that case we can schedule the public hearing um for the planning board of the town of East Hampton in the matter of the application
025of moram V site plan sctm number d26 scheduling a public hearing a public hearing is hereby scheduled to be held at Town hall9 Pano Road East Hampton on Wednesday April 23rd at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard to consider the said application I have read this and I move for its adoption second all in favor I also you were you're learning I was told I could do that man I'm gonna leave thanks Lor darn it all right um and then the last before we move on to Wayne Scott commercial center the work session the last work session is nine South pencroft and I think the applicant is here and Tina are you doing this one as well I'm cover yes great go for it okayer thank you again this
026is the application um f c subdivision waiver located at 9 9 South F place in mon the property location is up on the screen and highlighted um this is West leak drive and South for cross Place intersection I'll just zoom out so we see around where we are in on talk and will take a while to load so I will move to the survey um the application is seing to create two lots both having road Frontage on South burc lot one would be 20,000 Square ft and lot two would be approximately 27 some, um the site is in the B residence zoning District previously the location contained a single family home that has since been demolished um moving on to the issues for discussion the project is in unlisted action pursuant to secra the applicant
027should prepare the short eaf part one utilizing the mapper and once that's acceptable we recommend the planning board be the gen regarding dimensional conformance as I mentioned the sites in the be residence zoning districts where the minimum lot area is 20,000 Square ft both proposed Lots currently comply they also comply with the lot width requirements in the code moving on to discuss the subw uh requirements regarding um open space design standards we just talked about there is the reserve area requirement we spoke of earlier that can or cannot be waved by the board and there is for sub wavers specifically a suggestion that the board considered easements totaling not less than 10% of the lotep and fronting public roads in order to preserve um views and habitat according to section 220 404 the planning board
028can choose to W this requirement if feel it's necessary the planning board should discuss whether or not they want to require ements here um the land is mostly cleared on M one there are uh extensions of vegetation along the road Frontage on the second proposed lot and um those may be worthy of pres preservation but we also want to talk about those in the context of lot access which I'll get to in a minute regarding the building envelopes as shown on the proposed subdivision you can see they are um in the blindes here and these areas shaded in the yellowish color are areas that exceed 20% slopes based on the analysis conducted um by the surveyor in the code it is prohibited to have the areas with 20% or greater slopes within the building envelope
029so we're suggesting that the applicant uh do some revisions to this in order to avoid those areas especially where they can around the margins of the site there are some area of steep slopes that couldn't really feasibly be removed from the building envelope it seems uh so we're not suggesting that but I mean around these areas where the slopes currently um project into building envelope we suggest that the building envelope be revised to avoid those areas regarding access for the Lots um no access for the Lots was depicted on the survey and we would like the uh applicant to discuss their plan for Access a little bit each lot has Road Frontage um making this something we wouldn't normally um Zone in on but because of the placement of lot two and kind of the
030physical characteristics we think some thought about this may be prudent as I just said there's a lot of steep slopes on the Frontage with South burra especially on Lot 2 and the other thing at play and you can see it better on the aerial image I'll just go back to for a second um the intersection here with West Lake Drive is this kind of irregular triangular section so we we are concerned about putting any access closer to that intersection not that the applicant has suggested but but just we're we're trying to plan an appropriate spot we think that the site distance there may be challenging and then there is this triangular shaped intersection so putting a lot access here may also um not be ideal in terms of traffic flow um so we would just
031like the applicant to talk about their plans for Access also in recognition that the steep slopes are there and driveways aren't supposed to exceed a 12% grade so we suggest that they consider a common driveway with lot one lot one does have um a easier slope and already cleared area along the frontage of South Ferncroft and if they don't want to pursue a common driveway and the planning board doesn't think that is necessary the second option would be for them to propose where they think it's best and we have the engineer look at it and and get their input on um safety and grade and those types of things the other thing I'll mention it's later in the memo but I'll just bring it up now we had asked the applicant for additional information regarding
032this this note here that didn't make um wasn't very clear cut easement line per Westlake Drive acquisition map we weren't sure if this was a some kind of burden on the property that may impact the options that they have for Access or building envelopes so we did request that they provide more information on that as well so we can be sure to consider it with the access discussion regarding the water supply and sanitary systems um the proposed sub waver suppos be served by public water and of course IA assistance would be required for both Lots other agencies involved would include suffet County water authority and suffet county department of health services so in conclusion the applicant should submit a short environment a mental assessment form adjust the proposed building envelope of laot two and clarify
033the intended access for both thoughts um thank you thank you Tina you wish to be heard good ter Bur here on behalf of Lighthouse land planning um on behalf of the applicant thanks Tina for um going through B's memo appreciate that um secra we have no problem doing the E part one we'll submit that uh she can go through your motions after that um the subdivision waiver requirements as far as the open space goes um it's typically been at least in my experience uh the board most commonly waves the requirement for uh subdivision waivers due to the small lot sizes this is B residence um it's also a as Tina pointed out in several different examples a tricky intersection um so requiring some sort of reserved area along the front um or Scenic keys that
034might be problematic the lot was actually completely cleared in 1952 um so some of these slopes uh especially the ones in the middle of the envelope are probably not natural features but I'll get to that later um but the whole lot is cleared as a or at least they along the frontage as is pointed out in the memo um so I'm not so sure what it would accomplish uh given the site distance the small lot sizes with the um with the subdivision waiver option of um not including the reserved area there or the scen easement um as far as the building envelopes go um like I said the the code actually requires that steep slopes that are natural features be excluded from building envelopes not all steep slopes over 20% um the ones in the
035middle were previously graded um they're not a natural feature uh the ones along the property line in the front and fern craft and the ones in the rear could be part of a natural feature so we'll certainly come back with a revised subdivision map that excludes those slopes um we may need to Traverse a small portion of it for Access which I'll get to next but we're happy to come back with a revised envelope that accomplishes the intent of the code um and then as as far as the access goes um we actually didn't submit an access on purpose because we wanted your feedback um due to the tricky location and um we will certainly work with an engineer to come up with a common driveway um I know our client would prefer to separate
036driveways um you know it's a it's a tricky area so we'll work with an engineer we'll come back with a common access um we're pretty confident that we can keep it below the 12% slope requirement that's in the code um but ultimately we'll have to work with an engineer on that and then bring that to you for your review um and then as far as that cut easement goes um we did do quite a bit of research on it it was from an old 1952 map from uh the DPW that had to do with that intersection and they actually took land from one of the neighboring Lots um tin if you could throw up that area that I think that would be helpful for this thanks um so they took land from this lot to
037create this cut here um and that map was never filed so we sent everything to Charlie uh Andy and Charlie have been going back and forth um looking over that and I think it's resolved but um you know let Charlie speak to it yeah I I talked with Andy briefly and I also spoke with Dan we were the surveyor and he agreed um basically it's a it's a map but it's never been filed on so the easement is never actually on record it doesn't encumber the property and I think Dan Weber even said he after his review with title companies he would be willing to or he will take it off the map because it shouldn't be there right so we'll come back with a revised map that eliminates that cut easement um and also
038shows a common access that avoids uh the vast majority of the slopes and keeps it under 12% um that's it thanks ter yeah um yeah there there's just a few points that I want to bring up regard to the reserved area the 10% buffer wouldn't it uh in this case wouldn't it make sense to create that 10% buffer along the road because of the steep slopes you're not going to build on that anyway so why not have that easement there well it would be outside the building envelope so yeah we wouldn't put any structures anyway you know that's what he's saying right what she's saying is whether you have the easement or not they're not going to build there anyway it just it reduces lot area um it's it really wouldn't accomplish anything here it's
039a sub waver which it's at least for my 25 years been most common practice of the board to wave that requirement for sub wavers in this situation 1952 or 62 aial it was all you say it wouldn't accomplish anything what does it you what is what do it usually accomplished that it wouldn't accomplish here wouldn't a buffer along that road where I I understand it can't be built anyway right why why can't we have it I mean that's up to you to decide but in my experience when there's sight distance issues it's usually not something that you want to remain in a natural like you want to be able to you know do something there if you need to right um I mean you wouldn't want heed I don't know I'm just thinking if the
040vegetation goes super high and you can't see around the corner and then you can't do anything with it which is seems like in that area I mean that's for you to decide but it seems like in that area it might be an encumbrance that might work against the intent yeah I don't want to do I don't want to push for something that's going to be uh counterproductive or counter to good planning but I don't know I just uh I can't think of any good reason why not to have that easement I don't know if you've given me any and you know I'll leave it up to the other board members to discuss yeah we're happy to speak to our client about it um but I do think one second I do think that we have
041to figure out the access as well yeah that was my I think they go hand in hand the access cannot be in lot lot one the one closest to westle drive because of the steep slopes so I think you need a common driveway that starts uh at the uh the other end of the L Tu you think you mean l one so Andy Hammer I'm I'm also here with teror two things on the common driveway I wouldn't want to have a common driveway that enters all the way on the I guess that's the north on that map and have them drive by another house to get into it we're going to try and get it as close as we can to the common boundary lot and I think we can do that and maintain a
042a 12% slope that's kind of one of the reasons you know if you Scenic eans typically Pro protect natural areas nothing in this area is natural it's not natural vegetation whatever is there is grown up from you know from a lack of mowing I guess from uh and and those slopes may or may not be natural but I suspect if even if you look at the aerial this area was Reg ated it's been improved since 1962 or thereabouts so there's no natural community that we're protecting by putting a seene easement there what you would want is a buffer between this and the road I just don't know if this a great location for that because of the sight distances you know you're kind of on a corner you're going to be shielding a driveway that
043may or may where it comes out you're going to not reduce their sight distance to the right or to the left by about 20 ft if it's the the width you know that might be more of a safety issue then it would you know if this were a natural area and it was vegetated and had natural you know that undisturbed areas I think it would make more sense this one I just think if if I were coming out of a driveway there and I had 20 foot Scenic easements on either side that we're going to grow up I I it might actually reduce my ability to safely make that turnout onto the road so that that's why I would suggest this isn't a great location for that there might be other areas we could look
044to uh you know to you know provide buffers that would make more sense but along the road front which is probably one of the more difficult ones out this section this is the clearing line here so this is all cleared at present um this is a telephone pole and there's more telephone polls that all go through here with electric service so oh there's you know utilities within that area if I could just interject I think I think it'd be important for us to like see what the access plan is have our engineer look at it and like give us their opinion on whether or not there are s it's really intertwined that's why we weren't too striding on it either here like the access being safe and compliant is like number one and then and
045then depending on where that is maybe we pick this up and say okay does something make sense now no I I agree totally I think we still need to look at the other elements of what's going to happen with both Lots before we decide on The Bu I'm not that you know I'm not that strongly feeling that it's got to be the buffer there but uh yeah I think we need to look at all the elements and you know if we do want to make sure that the areas of natural slopes or steep slopes if we don't know that they're natural don't get Disturbed an easement would be a good way to do it right so if at the end of the day they don't have to be disturbed and they're not in the building
046envelope it might be a no harm no foul right that you're not going to disturb them anyway we want to make sure that happens and they get preserved in that way but I think let's see how it shakes out before we let's look at a comprehensive plan that's all I have does anybody else have any comments um I also agree we should kind of wait and see um thank you Tara thank you and Tina thank you should we move on to the questions okay um does the board agree that this work is an unlisted action pursuant to secra yes does the planning board wish to request Scenic easements along the roadway I think we just discussed that and that's a TBD yep TBD should the applicant modify the building envelope of lot two to avoid
047areas of steep slopes I say yes and Tara just to clarify I think we're not talking about those two little ones in the center right Tina yeah just the stuff that kind of is on the road for no problem um so that's a yes um should the applicant submit revised plans depicting the access points for the proposed Lots yes should the applicant submit the requested information about the existing easement on the property I think we satisfied that thank you guys um so right just before we move on to way Scott commercial center we have a sub waiver resolution um that's yours do you read it you read it see I'm learning sorry Michael in the matter of the application of cak and Decker subdivision waiver suff County tax number 30 0- 32-4 d221 comma 22.2
048I have read the resolution amending approval and I move for second all in favor I okay so that's all of us and then the last extension of time is for trust Michael would you like sure oh my goodness uh in the matter of application of the conic landan trust request for extension of time one year increments within which to obtain a certificate of vcy or until December 4 2025 I've read the resolution I've read the extension of time and I move for its adoption I'll second that all in favor all uh Jen I'm gonna have to abstain from that vote great um thank you everybody I am now going to recuse myself from the next discussion and turn it back to Ed thanks D thank you guys a moment to organize um so Tina do
049we have Peter and Dan with us and is the applicant in the room if you give uh excuse me just one second if you give everybody some time on Zoom they're just clicking in now okay okay yeah so there they told me they're joining we have one member of the applicants team and hello and we do not have the other yet so let's give a minute while we all get collected are you sure okay is it Mr tinsel or since I can't see the room Mr tinsel or Mr Egan who's there Mr tinsel is here okay great welcome he said thank you um okay so we also uh just had our members of our consultant team join us Dan Russo from White asman and Hannah um secret Council and Peter fro and Gwen fichi from
050akrf who are working with us on the Eis um Peter is going to put up the presentation and I will get started I guess I'll stand up since he's going to work the presentation for me uh so this is the application for the Wayne Scott commercial center preliminary subdivision and the objectives of the presentation for tonight are summarized here Peter and I are going to um split this presentation up I'm going to review with the board our recommendations for why a supplemental draft Eis are um have been made and why it's required in this instance and then Peter is going to walk through the scope of technical analysis that we are recommending is necessary in the supplemental deis to provide a um just really brief intro to that a key objective of our discussion today
051is to describe why we're recommending the Eis as required and present the contents the scope that we're talking through with you tonight represents the culmination of a series of discussions with the applicant Town staff and each party's team of consultants and attorneys the draft scope has been targeted at issues where the planning department recommends new analyses are needed in order to um fulfill Seeker obligations and compliant with the Seeker criteria for when supplemental Eis are necessary it has been informed by public comments and involved agency comments and they're incorporated as necessary for the Seeker eggs it should also be noted that the draft supplemental scope does not include discussion of all items it doesn't include discussion of all the substantive or technical comments on the draft Isis that will eventually be discussed in the final
052is um those are not forgotten they will be discussed when we when we get there if the planning board agrees our recommendation secret requires that the board adopt a positive declaration and scope for the draft supplemental and we've prepared a draft combined PDA and sbis scope for your adoption this evening um so now a summary of our current status with respect to the environmental review for actions where an Eis has been prepared Seeker requires that a statement of findings is issued and that the statement set forth the decision that the board makes and the conditions upon which it is based in April 2023 the planning department issued comments where we noted that we did not recommend the planning board could issue a statement of findings that was compliant with what Seeker requires based on the
053analyses contained in the draft disis we' we've copied the SR language onto this slide secer requires that the lead agency certify and I won't read the whole thing but I'll just emphasize that last underlying part that you certify that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions of the decision those mitig measures that were identified as practicable our observations in April 2023 were that in order to comply with these requirements additional technical analysis was required we noted that due to the state of certain analyses in the Eis as well as changes to circumstances related to the application the supplemental deis was recommended as we reviewed in January when we spoke with all of you about this project subsequent to that memo the applicant made several un
054um several unrequested submissions to address the comments and we had a dialogue with them to work through their submissions even though they were not requested and this took a significant amount of time at this point we've developed a targeted supplemental scope that focuses on key technical analyses still outstanding for the board's review before I leave this slide I'll just remind us all that often the bottom line in Seeker is summarized as you're required to take a hard look at the relevant environmental impacts and identify mitigation related to those impacts and that responsibility is a key principle um guiding us as we continue to move through this application and we we think the supplemental Eis is necessary in order to achieve that bar on the next slide I'm going to uh just focus a little bit
055on the supplemental Eis itself this is a very important issue Seeker has a narrow set of circumstances where a supplemental Eis is appropriate and and they're listed here these are taken from the Seer law directly it's when there is a change to the project there's newly discovered information or changes in circumstances occur and they are related to specific significant environmental impacts not addressed or inadequately addressed in the draft the decision on whether to proceed with the supplemental is a really critical one and must be linked to the importance of the information and the present state of the analysis in the Eis related to those factors the information that we've ascertained is missing from the deis is of critical importance to determining whether significant adverse impacts willar and if so how they can be appropriately mitigated
056um and they relate directly to the secret categories that allow a supplemental Eis to be required on the next slide I'll talk about the procedural elements of a supplemental Eis for cases where a supplement is required it's subject to the same procedural requirements of the draft is including scoping preparation of the draft completeness review and public comment and then responses to public comments received in the form of a final Eis we're going to follow all of those procedural steps here with respect to the first step which is scoping the secret law exempts a supplemental is from public scoping and we're not recommending that public scoping be required in this case I understand that the board's typical practice is to invite public comment especially when matters could be controversial as this application certainly has been and
057in most cases that makes perfect sense however in this case we make this recommendation that it's not advised because the board has already received a significant amount of public comment as I stated when I started the supplemental scope has been developed by incorporating comments from the public and involved agencies along with the um technical review of our Consultants the planning department as well and all that has been combined to results in the as well as a review of the analyses that the applicant submitted after the draft dis and all of that has resulted in the supplemental scope you see before you now that addresses the gaps in the record related to the secret criteria for when an Eis seis is warranted um and because the comments have already been received in incorporating repeating public comment
058um would not be advantageous in our opinion I am going to note that since the scope issuance which was um February 28th when we issued the draft scope we have received some public comment some of the technical comments we received were submitted last year and those were considered in the formulation of the scope um where they were related to the areas the supplemental Eis is going to cover thus our proposed analyses are not conflicting or missing out on on these types of inputs one area where the public comments are not fully aligned with our approach is with respect to the Hamlet plan alternative which public comments are encouraging the board to continue to emphasize we've received uh two public comments specifically requesting um that the Hamlet plan be emphasized so here I'm going to pause
059a little bit and speak about the Hamlet plan the comprehensive plan map that was the Hamlet plan is a concept plan that considers a mixed use zoning and public park and is a concept that was never implemented into the town's zoning code the Hamlet plan alternative that is in the E is not the same as what wasin the comprehensive plan the Eis Handler plan identifies lots that are offered for public purchase like um public use Park what have you within five years of approval of the subdivision though comments were made by the planning board and the planning department um to the applicant to make the Eis alternative more consistent with the HL plan many times throughout the draft disis process that was not done but the Eis was accepted for public comment um to move
060the process forward it's critical to remember a few things you know just noting what I just said uh first the Eis hup plan alternative would not compel the lots that are offered for public purchase to actually be purchased you can't compel an action from another party as part of a a secret decision but the second thing that's very important to notice too is that but we are also going to be discussing all sub um substantive public comment in the final Eis stage so we're we're pausing for the supplemental scope for the things that we're saying are deficient that meet the secret criteria that doesn't mean we're not going to continue to discuss these other substantive issues that have been raised within the context of the final Eis but what we are saying is that we
061don't think that's an appropriate Focus for the supplemental Eis that we're proposing to you this evening next and as Peter will discuss more later the scope does require that the subdivision map or Alternatives continue to be improved in meaningful ways that are compliant with town code these are the things Peter will discuss later they're with respect to things like storm water buffers existing uses wastewater treatment and other matters the scope requires development of a plan that's more consistent with the planned Industrial Park special permit requirements as you all call the identification of the planned Industrial Park special permit was a change of circumstance after the draft disis was accepted um a few years ago subsequently the zba ruled that the planned Industrial Park permit was required which did change the regulatory framework that's applicable to
062the project and so that special permit criteria and how it relates to the proposal was never assessed and we are going to be asking that it be assessed now and addressing the special permit criteria could enhance the compatibility of the park with the surrounding area and Peter will discuss more about that later finally I'll note that the scope we developed is targeted and specific during the supplemental deis completeness review phase we will be analyzing the submissions very carefully to be sure that all that has been requested is provided in a thorough and uh complete manner once the applicant fully submits what's required the drafts supplemental Eis will be subject to public comment and all public comments again both those from the original draft Isis and the supplemental draft Isis will be responded to in the
063finalis finally um just to on the next slide conclude the introductory comments I'm making I'm G to pass it on to Peter to bring you through the technical details but first this first bullet um kind of goes back to where I started our recommendation is that we cannot comply with the substantive requirements of secra and produce findings that will achieve the goal that certifies that the actions one that avoids or minimizes adverse impacts of the maximum extent practical and and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized by incorporating conditions of the decision those mitigation measures which were identified as practical the additional work we're proposing to undertake has to do first um ultimately it's the board's decision and we'll now talk through the details thank you Peter thanks Tina um so as Tina said
064we are um the planning department is recommending um that the board consider two actions tonight the first is to require that a supplemental deis be prepared um that would be the adoption of what's known as a positive declaration or pause deck in Seeker terms and the second action is uh to adopt a scope for that supplemental deis um which is basically the outline of the the required contents for that supplemental U both documents have been combined so there's one single PDF um and both uh there's a resolution um in front of you that would allow adoption of uh both of those actions so starting off with um I'm going to run through the document um briefly if you have questions please feel free to ask um so starting off at the first part of uh
065what is before you which is the positive Declaration of why uh in sdis s is required so going back to those criteria that Tina spoke about um there were certain changes in circumstances related to the application that directly impact and implicate uh the potential for one or more significant adverse impacts and one of the largest uh changes in circumstances is the zba decision that the subdivision itself is a planned Industrial Park special permit use um as required by that special permit um it requires a quote overall plan for the use which incorporates adequate and suitable designs for infrastructure off street parking access drainage landscape buffers and screens um the original subdivision um application was not designed with the with the benefit of needing to comply with those criteria so it's very likely that uh some
066project changes uh would be required in addition as Tina mentioned there is new information that has been provided um as well as new information that is required um that again directly implicate the potential for significant adverse impacts one um one area is that some of the existing uses on the site don't uh currently have certificates of occupancy they may lock site plan other required approvals um prior uses on the site um were not necessarily described in the Eis such um that may implicate impact areas such as storm water Andy contamination um with respect to storm water um there is a need to provide um a storm water pollution prevention plan um that demonstrates compliance with the New York State DEC General permit as well as um an analysis of a positive drainage system on the
067site with respect to traffic um a new traffic study was presented to the board um by the applicant subsequent to the the deis in 2023 um subsequent to that there were actually additional traffic counts that were taken so um that is new information to consider as well and then um with respect to subsurface contamination the suffa County Health Department identified the need um based on the analysis in the deis for further site characterization um the planning department and others have identified the potential for prior and existing uses to have the potential um to lead to contamination on the site and that potential was not um adequately addressed in the deis with respect to Wastewater and nitrogen loading um the analysis of the potential for a sewage treatment plant again was not adequately uh addressed in
068the deis the noise analysis um was not adequate in the de and the need for a clustering alternative um that is more consistent with the comprehensive and Hamlet plans as well as now um the planned Industrial Park special permit um it was noted as as being needed in the deis so for those reasons um we are recommending to the board that they require a supplemental deis and that the scope of that disis be limited to these areas as Tina said the other environmental areas that were the subject of the deis and much um agency and public comment still need to be addressed in the final Eis however um they don't rise to the level of requiring additional um analysis in a supplemental so the issues that are up here um that you see before you
069um will be addressed in the final Eis comments will still need to be addressed and the board will still need to make findings but we really wanted to have a targeted um e that is the um requirement of Seeker so that is the why um why we are requesting and recommending that you issue a positive declaration and then the what is what are we recommending be required and um the scope that was uh published on the website um and distributed to the board at the end of February lists the contents that we are proposing um for the supplemental Eis and they are limited to those topic areas so um instead of putting up slides that repeat verbatim the uh text in the uh proposed scope I just I'm going to run through some of the
070highlights so if you're following along um on page s um it begins with a description of the project and really there are two components of the project um that we refer to throughout the scope the first is the subdivision or planned Industrial Park um and we we need to kind of have a again a full understanding of that as well as what modifications are required to that subdivision um those are listed in um attachment a and then how those how that subdivision conforms with the requirements for the planned industrial park and in attachment B to the scope we described certain um modifications to the subdivision that should be considered um and incorporated into the subdivision that we believe um are more consistent with the special permit criteria and to the extent that excuse me one
071second this is LTV Pete yes this is LTV uh you stopped sharing your screen is that on purpose yes it was I have no more slides thank you okay thank you go on please thank you um to the extent that one or more of those recommendations are not um able to be incorporated into the subdivision um the Eis requires that they be considered that they be analyzed that there be a discussion of them and that's especially true with respect to the concept of clustering um in the design of the uh 50 Lots um or 48 New Lots um so to speak and then the second part of the project um really has to do with the site plans for the existing uses proposed to remain on the southern say third of the site or quarter
072of the site um those uh those uses do need to have a site plan approval um and we need to understand what's on the sites now what's being removed what's being added where the access are how each of them are complying with screening and all the other criteria that are applicable um to site plans um moving and then I guess at the end of that first uh project description chapter WR a list of all of the approvals that are required and we we understand them pretty well for the most part on the planned industrial park on the site plan side um less information was available in the deis so we're looking for more of that information um on in the seis um moving on to storm water again we broke this down into a section
073related to the subdivision the plan Industrial Park first and then the the the site plan for the existing uses so with respect to the subdivision um the scope requires that a preliminary Swift be prepared consistent with State and uh Town standards that maintenance for the systems be described and one of the one of the items that is in here is is the towns engineer the planning department um has continued to advise the applicant that they that they believe a a positive drainage system is required for this site and that positive drainage system is subject to a different design standard in the town code and the Eis needs to analyze that those different systems um again the town engineer um and planning department say that the positive drainage system is required the applicant has disagreed with
074that what we need in the Eis um at bare minimum is a comparison of those two systems so that we can understand the board can understand the environmental impacts of one system uh versus another um so separate from Code Compliance we need to look at the environmental impacts of that um when we get to the site plan for the existing uses to remain again this is simply we need to understand what the storm water management systems are proposed to be for those site plans and how those storm Water Management Systems uh comply with the the required state and town regulations moving on to traffic um as we said there was a uh new traffic study that was provided in 2023 um the the planning department and and planning board's Consultants have reviewed that uh provided
075comments uh last spring um to the applicant that's been discussed several times um so we're recommending that that new traffic study which Incorporated some of the comments and recommendations that the department your traffic consultant the public had on the original traffic impact study in the deis that can serve as the base this 2023 um traffic study and and be updated to reflect the comments from your planning consultant as well as a few specific um items that are mentioned in the scope and kind of highlighted um which have to do with the calibration and validation of the Synchro models um an analysis of different um trip generation factors uh the potential for diversions cuts um Etc none of this is necessary um kind of new information that um is being requested we just need to kind
076of continue to follow up and and kind of get all of it into one place and consider it um holistically as well as kind of you know understand the implications of this new analysis um with respect to subsurface contamination um the applicant did prepare um what is what what was called a white paper um back in the summer of 24 um that that did cover some of this additional information that was requested though other pieces of this information were not in that white paper um but basically what we're recommending is that this chapter of the seis kind of go Soup To Nuts on this issue um starting with a very detailed site history from before the site operated as a mine through it time as a mine the other uses that were on the site
077have been on the site are currently on the site and understand uh what those uses are and what the potential for those uses to have resulted in um subsurface contamination would be we then want to move on and understand the investigations that have already happened on the site um in a little little more holistic way so there have been um um obviously subsurface testing over many different testing periods and and times for different purposes um by different you know overseen by different entities and we need to understand kind of look at them all together you know what what has been tested what parameters where on the site what methodologies and compare them all to present day standards so that we can again understand what really is known throughout the site and moving towards a a
078more holistic look um of potential issues that are on the site um we know that the dec obviously went out um did an investigation um made a determination um with respect to um a certain program that they administer the planning board obviously has a different standard and different role and so we need to understand what the impacts of the proposed project are when we're talking about subsurface contamination here we're talking about the movement of 50 acres of material around the site and the regrading that's not something that's contemplated um by the dec standards and the dec program that had already evaluated the site so you have the authority and responsibility to take a look at what the impacts are with respect to this action um and that's why we're seeking um this additional information and
079then from there we have this more Pome picture um of what is known on the site what's unknown and we can um we've requested and required that applicable mitigation measures uh be developed um based on what we know and what we don't know um so again I think it's it's relatively um straightforward though it is um quite full so than complete in terms of what it is requesting um with respect to uh Wastewater groundwater nitrogen I'm now on page 18 um the applicant did submit again a white paper on this issue um some of this uh information um that's requested wasin that white paper and obviously just should be ported over some is some new information that is being requested um we need to get some of the modeling assumptions that were in the deis
080corrected um we need to compare the assumptions from these models to other um sources such as the suffa county subwatershed plan we need to take a good look at the E rather than needs to take a good look at the potential um for a sewage treatment plant to be constructed and operated um on this site to serve this project um that is a potential mitigation measure that may or may not be feasible on this site um and may or may not be appropriate and the supplemental needs to uh pardon the pun flush that out a little bit more um we also need additional um information on the models that were used to determine the nitrate um transport and potential nitrate loading to Georgia kond uh We've identified and discussed with the applicant several uh kind
081of critical assumptions um and data points that uh this supplemental needs to own in on and from there once we get that information and understand the potential for the nitrogen loading to uh georgica Pond then we can and the supplemental needs to analyze the potential water quality and ecological impacts so first we need to make sure the data um we're we're confident in the data the assumptions the results and then the actual impact analysis with respect to noise um the the original deis um did not have um much of an analysis on the potential impacts of noise um the applicant um had agreed to and actually has performed a noise study um the scope of which was coordinated with the planning department and its technical consultants and it includes new noise measurements an analysis of
082operational impacts um traffic impacts and Construction level noise impacts and um the applicant again has provided that noise analysis um we have made um as a planning board's consultant some technical comments on that analysis um to advance um the completion of that chapter and that analysis um in the Eis so those are the main sections of the Eis that we are um recommending to the board uh happy to answer any questions or go into more detail or stop droning on from a TV screen in your meeting room which I appreciate the uh the courtesy of being on thank you okay um thanks very much Peter thanks very much Tina uh for a thorough but not too detailed overview of where it is that we are are and what we're what you're proposing as u a
083scope for an sdis um so before we have our discussion as a board Mr tintle would you like to be heard good evening F good evening Tina I'm here uh John tinle um the applicant uh so a couple things um this whole process uh has taken two years it's been well discussed uh we have reviewed the uh scope and uh have no problems with the scope but I'd like to provide a little of my perspective so we spent five years uh developing the deis that was deemed complete over two years ago and the circumstance that brings us to the supplemental is the planned Industrial Park which has existed in the code for uh decades there have been several CI subdivisions that have gone before this board and it's never been required and the first thing
084I did when it was suggested was look at the application for a planned industrial park and tried to fill it out the answer would be na not applicable to most of the questions because a planed Industrial Park imagines the future uses as as if I was going to be planning buildings and uses along with this subdivision I implore the board to look at this application and attempt to fill it out now there's nothing in that application and there's nothing in the plan industrial park that we can't comply with or uh align with the subdivision uh but there's also nothing in there that triggers all of this additional review now we're going to do this additional review we've actually completed a lot of the work over the past two years uh and with that uh it
085has been a lot of time uh we've gone over this scope uh through the the last uh year and a half that led to the meetings that we had in the spring in that last meeting I was assured that I would have this scope in September here we are 6 months later in those meetings we did speak speak uh about the planned Industrial Park uh concept and the concept of clustering and now Peter has mentioned the word several times and I I've tried to get it out of him of what they mean by clustering because I'm sure the board has a clear idea of what clustering is when that word is used in the subdivision and in that context you're creating open space you're making your lot smaller you're you're keeping the same yield shrinking
086the size of the lots and creating open space so the memo that we received after the close of comments after the deis was deemed complete and we had a public hearing came in the spring of 2023 weeks later oh and much of that uh discussed this cluster on and on and on about clustering clustering clustering Weeks Later our same planning department put this out about the Springs Corridor and the bistrian mine they' gone on about discussing the uh desire that they would have to create open subdivision in that in in that subdivision and now I'm going to read directly from it although benefits could ACR from allowing open space subdivisions on CI owned properties they are not permitted with little flexibility the regulations for the subdivision of Ci's own land results in a grid style
087development surrounded by a thin strip of open space meeting the minimum 10% open space requirements that is what you have before you they keep measuring clustering it's a buzzword that they cannot articulate in the last meeting that we had together I begged Peter to tell me what he meant by clustering and he just merely kept repeating the words so we will work diligently on this uh supplemental and uh hope to provide all the information that's requested um but we also hope that this process can move along at a swifter Pace I appreciate your time thank you very much appreciate those comments um and and I want to assure you um Mr kennel that this board is also very anxious to move this project along um I and I thank you by the way for also
088uh offering us all tours of the site so that we could actually get our get our eyes on on what is um on what the site actually looks like to get our eyeballs on it from the inside that was very helpful so thank you for for cooperating on on that and thank you very much for your willingness to um you know to to continue on and do the work that's called for in the supplemental uh review I will point out one thing uh and that is that the acceptance of the deis back in in 2023 was uh acceptance for completeness it was really not uh accepting it in terms of substance but it was accepting it for completeness for purposes of moving things forward to a public hearing um so you know much of what's
089being requested here has been requested before I do think that the that the scope of this supplemental is actually very focused and very targeted and you know hopefully we can work together your questions about clustering can be answered that we can work together with the planning department and our Consultants to you know get to get to the right answers I thank you for your patience and uh appreciate your working working through this with us um so I'll ask the board if there are any other comments or thoughts about uh where we go from here and uh whether or not we need to require an s deis and whether this is the one any comments or thoughts about anything that's been said in Peter and Tina's presentation or Mr tinal I'll kick it off you know
090I I appreciate what Mr tinle had to say and I sympathize with his frustration certainly if I was in his shoes I would not enjoy uh all the time that it's taking uh and however having said that this project is not just like any other application that comes in front of us this is a huge Monumental project and by using those words I don't mean the size necessarily the 50 50 unit 50 lots and 70 Acres I mean what it will how it will transform a key area of the town in terms of environmental impact noise traffic uh sub subsurface contamination we need to find out more about what's going on there so there is a lot and I think the public the the citizens of East Hampton want us to do a thorough job
091in estimating what this will mean for the town so I think we would be remiss if we didn't dot every eye and cross every T and I think that's what we're trying to do we have professionals looking at it certainly I will do my best to be fair and judge what's in front of us but my uh my my uh plan is to adhere to make sure that we make our decisions with good planning in mind and for the citizens of East Hampton and c and that means you know Mr tinle as well so I want to do this in a fair way so that uh we can move forward in a rapid Pace but a thorough pace so those are my comments thanks Lou anyone else have a comment before we go to a
092vote no I agree with what um what Lou just said I think um our supplemental requirements are pretty focused um and it's um items that we typically require anyway so um yeah I'm I'm in favor yeah I I I do not feel that the requests or the composition of the supplemental is unreasonable okay I I also agree with the other board members um and wanted to Echo what Ed had said earlier um Mr tenel was very kind of you to show us the property I'd never been back there before it's not an everyday occurrence you see 70 con contiguous Acres owned by a family here um and I know it's been your family a long time and I do um I do support your right to uh repurpose that land for another use um I
093I heard your comments not just this evening but last time I get the impression you're fine with the scoping you just don't think it's fair um that's basically the the impression I had this evening um but I I will say it is a very complex application there are some serious environmental concerns and um I think that this is the appropriate way to go with no Corner cutting so yeah I agree with with the board and Lou I think you articulated it perfectly uh we have a duty to the town our constituents of the town of East Hampton and to you Mr tintle as well I think this scope is extremely detailed um and we're we're moving forward uh I I think this is the way to move ahead which I know has been obviously a
094major frustration for you and uh I think we have the the board in place to facilitate that and do the right thing okay thank you board um so we we'll actually vote take two different votes the first um do we want to adopt a positive declaration and require n sdis first and then we'll vote on whether this is the the scope we want to adopt so uh let's go around the table do we want to adopt a p DEC and require at a supplemental deis we'll start with you Reed I think that was the decision yes supporting yes yes yes yes okay and then secondarily do we adopt the scope that's been outlined uh in the documents that were presented by the planning board and our Consultants um and addressed tonight Reed yes yes yes
095yes yes okay unanimous in both cases um Ed it's this is Dan um the board had before it a draft resolution solution that incorporates those sentiments yes um and uh just just thought appropriate that you site to that and yes I will absolutely do that next stand thank you but I wanted to you know get an actual vote on those two question from the board um so yeah so we'll go to the resolution which you have in front of you uh in the matter of the application of wngs Scott commercial center preliminary subdivision suff County tax map 300 -1 192 D2 d6.2 to 6.7 issuance of a positive declaration and scope for its supplemental draft environmental impact statement um I will just make a note that the um that the resolution itself is quite lengthy
096and goes into the entire history of the project um and uh in indicates in some detail what it is that we'll be addressing which we've already discussed tonight so the res res olution of a planning board of the town of East Hampton issuing a positive declaration and scope for a supplemental draft environmental impact statement for the preliminary subdivision application entitled waycott commercial center I have read this resolution and I call for its adoption second okay thanks Lou all in favor of adoption I okay unanimous all around passed and carried thank you very much uh one will note that there's one recusal and that Jen is recused from the project uh thank you very much thank you all wait a minute are we gonna do the minutes minutes uh yeah all right we didn't do the
097minutes earlier when Jen was right okay um I assume everyone has read the minutes are there any comments Corrections no to me okay then a motion to adopt the of March 5th okay a second okay all in favor okay passing all right I think that's a wrap thank you very much uh thank you Mr Tiel and we will Carry On from here motion to you know what Roose I make that motion all right all in favor I think you're all thanks everyone all right thanks have a good evening