East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 03/05/2025

001okay planning board we are live we are recording phone lines will remain off go for it uh welcome to the town of East Hampton planning board's March 5th meeting 2025 uh we have a number of work session items on um and a couple of regular meeting items as well Boards of review and old child map modifications uh we're going to go slightly out of order today we're going to start with the franzetti subway and Dan I think you're the applicant for friends Eddie okay yeah let's skip it we'll do it later and I'll cover if Dan's gone okay all right we'll come back to you don't go away I'm Gonna Bump you up okay we're gonna we're gonna bump you to the top uh all right instead we're going to go to two Plank Road

002and four Plank Road uh and Bill are you here for for that yeah okay uh Dan that's yours and it is uh Lou for the board I just yeah wait for a second we'll let Dan do his pitch um and then we'll let you [Music] comment all right well uh good evening there goed um shoting uh planning board so uh this the application s plan per applications for uh two Plank Road um the property itself as you can see here just give you some context um it's located on the Northern side of pank road in eastampton within the CI commercial industrial zoning District uh the sites themselves are nearly fully um uncleared of naturally curring vitation um and situated in uh several areas important environmental consideration uh these include South County Pine Bar region South

003for groundwater protection area sub County groundwater management zone 5 and the town's water resarch overweight District all which I identify the par importance of ground water protection and recharge of the whole town Soul Source aquer just give you some context you see the subdivision here um it's got an eight lot subdivision again all own to CI it's one of the few actual commercial industrial subdivisions we have uh within the town of eastampton uh that's also located within the water recharge overway District so it has very a couple of important considerations that we'll kind of go through throughout the evaluation in terms of the site plan itself and I'll take uh screen here now work there you go uh so the proposal itself is made to construct a new on story about 6840 foot service commercial

004building um which is on this specific property which is actually referred to as lot one within the terai commercial center subdivision uh the pros building is to be divided into four rentable commercial units each consists of an office space a bathroom in a large FL area accessible via an overhead door and a standard side entrance 14 parking stalls you can see are also proposed at a truck loading space uh to service these units uh in addition to a new I ODS system um to service the building ultimately one thing we want to know it is important to note that alongside this application a separate one has been um submitted for the four Plank Road for very almost nearly identical development you kind of see that here on the site plan um these both these lots

005are Pros to be connected VI a common driveway um takes access from nor the northern side of Plank Road um ultimately the comments are very similar and therefore we'll kind of um try to summ the job together however there's a few small differences that we'll touch upon at the end for the other application so in terms of the proos development itself um this is we uh unlisted action pursuance is uh secr in chapter 120 of the town code uh so to move forward on this process the applicant will need to prepare and submit a short forming at part one for review um we've indicated the memo that should be prepared using the DC's mapper and there's a link in there for resources how to submit that uh once it's submitted the planning department is going

006to review for comments and necessary revisions um for ultimately once it's found to be acceptable uh acceptable version is submitted to the planning board we are we will recommend that the planning board request complete agency status for this [Music] application now this application was um technically reviewed about January 24 as a preliminary St plan application uh so but there was a lot of comments issued to the applicants at that time um some of which have been addressed as part of this most recent submission there is a couple comments here that haven't been addressed um based on the review of the plans most recently and therefore they are repeated kind of throughout this evaluation but we did attach the prary evaluation and the those comments the back of the Z out for the board's reference and

007again if there any questions on those we're happy to address them as part of this review the other important note in terms of the context is again as I mentioned before this is located the ter commercial center subdivision um there is a lot of um conditions required as part of that subdivision really giving its location the water recharge overway District they were summarized very extensively during prary review in this evaluation you kind of started implementing them throughout the different sections so we'll refer to it often throughout this but um again those are all listed as part of the pr interview and attached if the board has any questions regarding so finally getting into the project itself the um so two special permits are required for this application uh one of which is service commercial and

008the other which is uh multiple industrial complex regarding the service commercial use so this is uh as we said it's special permanent has specific standards safeguards to the town code of how it should be established the only really standard that's um directly appable to this review um is that for the uh a specific standard saying that for um up to two service commercial uses can be permitted for every 20,000 ft of lot area so this lot itself is about just over 40,000 ft in size so therefore up to two four service commercial uses um can be um permitted on the site if the plan where F's acceptable for inst to note that there are a couple of uh considerations that are in the evaluation that kind of help determine that acceptability of about the service

009commercial but ultimately given the size it is something that could be permissible um [Music] [Applause] okay um but again as you mentioned before there's also the second uh special perent use as multip industrial complex so technically based on the town code definition any commercial lot that has more than two uses um more than two uses also as shared parking and sewage treatment is considered multiple industrial complex there are a bit more standards regarding that um um within the special perent code which is has been attached a lot of those are kind of more about the site development itself and basically the location acceptability of it U but there are is one specifically regarding the acquired density and again as we've indicated because of the service commercial standards um it is something that uh the project

010does seem to comply with this currently configured so ultimately the one biggest thing with this um is that because these service commercial units are proposed to be rented out at least as it's been indicated throughout the cover letter um we are recommending the appc provide measures to ensure that the Abes being per used and rented out are actually service commercial and fall within that scope think concern here is if they do if any activity is proposed that is without outside of that scope then you can't um then forward uses wouldn't be permissible only two uses will be permissible as is of right with the town code and that's something that we just want to make sure and it's important to consider as part of this [Music] application in terms so going towards the actual design

011and development itself um the plan depart review the site plan submitted plans respect to the dimensional requirements of the CI Zone and the water reacharge overway district um the project does appear to comply with uh nearly all of these we just had two uh a few minor comments regarding this the first one is with required setbacks so these have been provided in the application form they aren't indicated on the site plan itself as was requested during the prary review something that is required for the town code and should be added to the plans the other comment regarding this had to do uh with the lot total lot coverage requirements so these were requested during the prary review and the applicants have um complied with the request and submitted them calculations on the plan um what's

012important to note is while both these comply with the more restrictive requirements of the water tree shage overweight District uh the total lot coverage specifically is very close to the max permitted um it's proposed about 14,678 ft which is about 36.5% of the total lot area or a maximum of 16,000 ft or 40% of the total lot area lot area um is permitted so that's something that it's important to consider especially as we get into the later com garment design and parking areas Etc um they're they're bit close to what's there so potential changes might be a little difficult um as currently configured diving into the parking areas themselves so the pr project as you can see involves deving 14 parking spaces and one trck loading space to service the building uh you can see

013seven of these spaces are located directly south right in front of the building while there's another seven spaces located on the western yard um of the project site um so in order first in terms of the number of spaces proposed here uh the advant used the calculation of one space per Prim square feet of service commercial to calculate Demand on site now technically there is no service commercial uh parking requirement in the town code um however what uh four other site plans that have been approved for service commercial appear uh to have used the same requirement we referen specifically the development of lot five in this valuation which actually had a service commercial building at the exact same size they estimated the park requirement to be 13.7 which rounded up to 14 is the same

014estimate that the calcul uh applicants have provided for this site so given that there is past prent here and it seems to have been used in the past um something that we don't have any issue with however some of the board may just want to discuss to ensure it's appropriate um for this project site [Applause] the other common regarding parking had to do with the um more about the dimensional standards so one thing I was asked for in the last review was kind of making sure the spaces uh complied with the town code for dimensions and these don't really seem to be directly applied uh have been for on the plans and something that is required and should be revised here there was a um comment about the during the pr inter rview also about

015the setbacks of these structures so obviously see Drive Isles and park areas are proposed directly along the um directly along the uh property line here where a set minimum setback accessories yard setback of 50 ft is required so the board did previously um support the idea of waving the setback waiver which they are authorized to do Under the playboard skylines policy it has to be typically is the interest of good planning and there's a bunch of considerations that are involved in that um the however with this most recent application we did have a bit of a concern with the parking area and something that we are saying the board may want to P their response on at the moment just because of this but I'm going to uh specifically speaking you can see that there's

016these uh parking areas in the western yard and um proposed almost in tandem which means that one space is almost right directly in front of the other space and has only one point of access for that driveway um and this is something that we don't typically recommend in the town uh recommend um to be appropriate for sites particularly the potential conflicts site users and exiting ex exiting and entering the property um however something that we are recommend the plan board may want to discuss with the applicant just to talk about how they're expecting it to function and operate and whether or not it could be acceptable um for this project site um again generally speaking we didn't have an issue with the potential waiver of CX during that previous review but the concern with the

017parking areas and how they're going to function kind of became a bigger question um at least on our endend regarding the uh whether or not it' be appropriate at this time and I guess going alongside there um the actual uh sorry not there um going alongside with that comment there was also the comments about the actual how the access the site the common driveway itself so as you can see a common drivey has been proposed the access both these Lots as we discussed um this is something that was actually required for the toal center subdivision for Lots one and two which um as you can see here they successfully complied with um the um so while we don't have any issue with the comar Pro itself uh several comments were issued by the town consultant

018engineer who reviewed these plans regarding the layout itself uh really he had a few I guess the summarizing concerns promptly uh the he had a bit of a concern with the way it's currently configured with the alignment of the site plan itself so as you can see the way it currently looks um the common driveway enters mostly through the four Plank Road site and then moves Northern and then kind of goes through the cent of the light so there's a bit of an alignment change there um it's a little hard to tell here but a little bit of alignment change going through to the site whereas the town engineer recommended that it might be more appropriate andit that U that Arrangement be provided where it is more straight more of a 90° angle straight line

019axis into the site the only problem with this is and um this something the engineer brought up is that there is this light ement here which is supposed to for a pount Transformer um that was recorded as part of the subdivision and we don't really know have documentation at this moment regarding the restrictions of that easement it's something that we did ask during the prary review of the application hasn't since been submitted and therefore we're recommend requesting to be submitted again uh but the problem is what the engineer brought up was potentially if any of this area could be used for the driveway and doesn't you know doesn't have to be preserved off just for the pman Transformer you could have potentially avoid some of those concerns and make more of a straight line access

020um into the the site um and also help reduce some of the coverage that's on for Plank Road and make it more even between the two lots so that's where those comments come from and they are provided a little bit more in detail in the actual Engineers memo which is attached um and again I'm happy to discuss those further if it's needed um oh but something that we just recommend the board what want to consider tonight the last thing that has to do with this and this kind of H up before is um the actual uh dimensions for the drive aisles driveway termin areas doesn't really seem to be provided on these plans and something that would also help assess whether or not they are compliant with the town code standards and is required by

021the town code um so we are saying that those should be added to the site plan additionally it's an engineering comment um the actual location Eastman itself boundaries of it have not been deted on this plan and again just to understand where it's going to be located the exact dimensions and forance of it that's something that should also be provided on this plan [Music] so from there we go we had a comment about the traffic generation so the ter commercial center subdivision that created these Parcels um back in 1993 had a specific condition that the um the all the the overall uh vehicle trips per hour generation cannot exceed 200 trips per hour for the entire subdivision so this is including all the Lots within the subdivision so at the moment the lot the subdivision

022itself does contain about eight lots and on if you average that out ends up being about 25 uh trips per hour per site so the applicants have submitted traffic generation reports that ended up um ultimately using potent theoretic uh the use as general light industrial with the potential uh maximum jeez an estimating cars and employees of 14 which is based on the parking requirement and they end up finding an hour trip rate of Seven Trips per hour now The Talented Sol engineer found these um to be acceptable as well as us the one com we have is obviously this doesn't um and this is a little bit of deviation from the evaluation itself um the one thing we not is that right this gives generation reports just for the site itself but doesn't give it

023within the context of the subdivision itself so one thing that we could do to help support this decision the board may want to discuss is that we could try to look at the adjacent sit to see what the approved reports have been the generation trips of those just to make sure that this uh won't exceed that standard um it's something we originally again had a question about the app but again they want to have access to the appropriate information so something that we as the planning department could provide for them and help support to the board too just so they get better understanding of where this is supported in the context of this subdivision the one thing I will note is that that Seven Trips per hour is for each individual site so two Plank

024Road Willow Seven Trips per hour and so will um four Plank Road so ends up being 14 overall and that's uh yeah so I guess from there we'll move on from the uh kind of a side AIS and go a little some of the last details here um so training and storm water control so the proposed project um involves regrading the site to to create a roughly one to twoot slope towards the Eastern end of the common driveway area kind of see that here and the installation of several catch Basin again towards the entrance of Plank Road and the end of the Comm driveway proposed to kind of capture storm water um you know drains on site uh the town consult engineer reviewed these and the calculations which were proved on the other plans um

025and found them to be most compliant with the design standards and requirements of the town code the only thing that was requested at this time was the uh that earthqu Earth work calculations be provided to help in order to determine this accurately um otherwise um as mentioned and we'll mention later in this review it is recommend the plan board groundwater protection Poli stand be met for the building drainage excess ramps and loading docks this was discussed extensively the prary viiew and doing the sites location and water recharge over district and all these other important environmental areas so that we are recommended for this evaluation as well I'll touch upon this a little bit later on there VI when it comes to uh some of the clearing standards but um it is something that those we

026feel be appropriate and um at least when development of this site so alongside drainage there is also I mentioned before a new I system proposed to um for wastewater treatment on the site um the applicat actually provided a new sanitary detail sheet depicting the systems proposed and um and writing accurate calculations regarding St County standards So based on the the calculation provided it does appear that the proposed sanitary flow rate um at 276.50 just above it um does comply with the sub County ground water manag zone five which permits a maximum sanitary flow rate of 300 gallons per acre per day uh these are based these flow rates are based on the size of service commercial building at 6840 ft and classification as general industrial uses defined by subad Department Department of Health Services um

027again we found these calculations to be acceptable and also L the town consultant engineer who said the same ultimately it's just important to note that these systems will will be approved by sub County as part of this review process so apologies for that so going back to kind of what we talked about before with the water recharge overway District um and the groundwater protection policies so U along side we mentioned before with the coverages uh the water resour does have specific reg regulations regarding um clearing the development uh given that the site is zoned within the coral industrial district the applicant is permitted to clear up to 50% total area um current calculations have been provided on this plan which indicate the Cent proposed is 18952 Ft or roughly 57.2% of the lot area um

028again where the maximum 20,000 feet or 50% is permissible um so as we note again it does comply with the town code the only thing that's important that we want the board to take consideration is that this does leave very little room for uh you know potential errors future expansion or areas for outdoor storage should ever be comp contemplated so some the board may wish to discuss more detail with the applicant especially considered potential changes to the parking areas or drive aisles um it does seem it is a bit con strained as currently configured so um you know making sure that the proos project can meet this you know the building itself uh building itself parking areas Etc is important consideration for this project I want to add alongside that too is um during the

029prary riew we did um recommend that this build the development plans themselves be um designed to comply with the revised playboard groundw protection policy uh due to its location within all these important areas Environ of consideration and the water res District again adhering to these standards will help revent accident spills leaks or regular use of Cal industrial chemicals from contaminating the groundw resources and will may also help to ensure the pro project can meet the special uh the specific special per criteria set forth for both service commercial and multiple industrial complex which does include more of the environmental considerations um and this something the board agreed upon last time during the co interview but just some recw reaffirmed is part of the probal site plan review comment let's go on so going on to the

030last few comments um there were comments about Landscaping but this was something that was asked for during the pr interview be provided it doesn't appear that information has been submitted regarding this so again we recommend this something that does be provided for this site one thing we will comment and note about is that for other sites in the subdivision they were required to have heavy Evergreen screening about around the P Transformer as obviously wasn't indicated on this plan but something that we are just recommending to be incorporated to this as well again for that visual bar barrier but also just to be consistent with subdivision approvals in the site plan sorry site plan approval is in the subdivision um going on from there the applicat also include a lighting plan with their most recent submission

031um including the size dimensions and uh specification of the lighting proposed so we reviewed these and found almost the actual picture itself be appear to be primarily compliant with the town code uh the only comma really has is that the um does appear to be a bit of small light spill located in the Southeast quter or sorry the southern property line of the site now it's a little tricky because the the town code the general code for lighting standards does say that but first is essentially that no light spill could be um reflected over the property line basically saying zero foot candle should be here however there also are planning board policies and guidelines which say that up to 0.1 can be permitted which is shown on the site here now giving that this site

032again obviously currently they being develop alongs side of each other the light spill is a very small portion on the common driveway area we didn't find any um you know we had no objection to it originally as part of the site plan review process but it is something that the board may want to consider especially because other sites have um it isn't always often we typically permit any lights go over the property lines um so way the board way want to consider this um there was a bit of a and we'll get we'll get to the questions later a bit of a revised question too regarding the lighting um just a more clear clearly discussed appropriateness of the lighting as opposed to getting more comments about it and feedback um so going on from there

033the uh the one important part of this aspect project that was discussed on the F review is that um it was noted that this site is uh and actually the entirety of the subdivision itself is located within archaeological survey buffer zone um which is established for re way Scott um per the cultural resource information system which is maintained and run by New York State's historic preservation office So based on the site history itself and Jason wats it doesn't appear that a phase one archaeological investigation has been required for any of the Lots in the subdivision but the one thing that we will note is that um the survey itself W survey itself wasn't established at the um wasn't established at the time of those site plan approvals and was almost actually established along the exact

034same time as the most recent site plan approval so may not be a considered at the time um this is something that we are changing from the memo as well but given that the site is currently vacant uh you know vacant at the moment and is located within um uh the potentially archaeological survey Zone this uh that is typically the grounds in the past for the site plan 2 require the planning board to require that a uh phase one archical investigation be conducted so it's something that they may want to discuss um as part of this review process um again this is just revising what we said during the review saying it may not be required um just considering the site location what's there something that may want to be considered as part of this

035process um so going to the last few things um as we' mentioned before the engineer reviewed these plans and issued several comments which we've discussed the a couple things that we didn't address upon in the memo and are more Incorporated the engineers comments we are recommending uh that should be addressed and you know are attached to their viiew for the board's consideration um Fire Marshall comments or some of that else that we also haven't received at this time but will ultimately be required in the end and uh something that we recommend once they're received the advocate do respond to uh the comments accordingly um finally we did list other agencies that would be involved in this project uh such as the ARB sub count Department health servic sub County Planning Commission and for office of

036fire prevention there's a lot of details provided regarding in the application regarding where they're required but uh UL just want to make the applicants aware of that and finally there are are um we provided a list of necessary elements of site plans which um some of which were requested on the P review and some of which are new as part of this application um I won't run through those for you guys now but again if there's any questions on those these are something that we are recommend be submitted for future plans given that they are required by the town code so in conclusion uh so in conclusion so um obviously you see the way the site is um designs itself um we do recommend you know it's a highly efficient approach to developing this property

037um given that they applicant do appear to try to mitigate clearing and coverage in certain areas um however with several not issues between Pro common driveway area parking stalls navigation aisles and you know the listed Dimensions it's not possible to determine whether certain whe with certain whether the proposed project beats zoning standards require in the CI Zone and the water recharge over District as mentioned under the current regulation section uh again and dimensional performance the lot coverage sorry the lot coverage the total lot coverage and clearing calculations do leave little room potential error or future expansions with this site should they ever be contemplated so this does appear to be kind of one of the more critical points of the sub valuation determine whether or not the project site uh is suitable location for the

038building of the size and um and design but overall the project does remain in complete pen the submission of additional details is described throughout the memo um and I'm happy to answer any questions to the board have them great thanks Dan very much very thorough uh does the applicant wish to be heard before the board has its conversation would you like to be heard now or no I think you should have your conversation I'm not sure what I can add to that should we do them both in conjunction yeah we're going to be doing both did did we point out any differences sorry yeah so with four point roow and I can just show you the side PL quick there really isn't any major differences the one thing I will point out is that we

039mentioned those coverage comments before cover the total lot coverage is higher for this lot so where the other one was about 30 just over 36% total coverage is around 39.9% here where 40% is the maximum permissible so it is a little bit more constraint okay um the other thing that we noted too um and this was more mentioned during the prary review was that there's a dumpster area um shown here and kind of what is turn around area with fencing proposed there wasn't a lot of information provided about this and how this will function and actually design you know details about it for something that we Rec to provide as well okay so the second structure is more constrained because it's a bigger structure or a smaller lot no so it has more coverage and

040what we're assuming it is is because of the way the driveway is so the colon driveway is more in for Plank Road in this entrance area so that's where it seems to come from from but the building is the same size the parking spaces provided are exactly the same it's almost a reverse of the other site it's just small design changes that made it all right thank you welcome okay so yeah so we are considering both two and four together here for purposes of this discussion and when I mention the points that I'm going to mention it'll cover both okay they're mirror images so uh yeah I think the issues on both of them are not difficult issues that issues that can be resolved that just need more time with the applicant to figure out

041what to do on them there there are a few things that I think are important that I want to emphasize that I hope will become uh conditions of approval the first one is the groundwater protection policy standards that they be uh imposed and implemented and adhere to especially where this uh is located in the groundwater protection area um so I would have to go through those standards we all know what that means and sort of connected to that is that U this is important within that regard as well is that we need those assurances and also I would try to make that conditional as well that U these units be used us as service commercial and not anything more heavy than that type of use the other items I think the you know the setback

042uh waiver is something that I'm in favor of I mean the reason that um it's a setback from each other's parking area is so it doesn't affect anyone other than themselves so I think uh that's that's not an issue um the parking um it seems to be fine as well except for that issue with the tandem parking uh I think it's you know Dan and the planning department had a good idea I can't think of anything any other way to resolve it other than to designate each U of the two sets well there's three sets of two so each two parking spaces be designated to a particular unit so they would have to choose which units uh that that that's really the best that can be done there unless somebody has a brighter idea um

043and I also think it's important that the truck navigation are be depicted and designated and um the light spill I think is so minor uh also not only because the light spill itself is minor but the location of these properties I don't think it's going to bother anybody if there's a little light spill spill over the uh borders of the property so I don't think that's an issue um the other interesting thing and I don't know how you you correct this or solve this the subdivision calls for no more than 200 trips per day right and the other the other lots have been already developed so so that means that 150 of those trips have already been taken if you will so what happens if they do a traffic study and find out that the

044others are going over that this one will put it over 200 if they even if the if these two lots are within the designated 25 each what if that puts the entire subdivision over 200 what do you do then so do you do you have a traffic study for the whole subdivision is it 200 trips per day or 200 trips per hour per hour that makes a difference and when was this determined was this determined 1993 when yeah okay isue Bound by that it's odd it's a I think it's a odd condition and and that's why we said we we want to look at it a little internally originally we thought the applicant could but I think we probably are better positioned with with the data um Industrial uses are generally lower traffic generators than

045commercial and residential uh but so what we're going to do is we're going to look at the building sizes and what are developed like what kind of um uses are developed we'll use the it to do some chip generation and we'll let the board know how that pans out to your point though if right now the subdivision appears if we do conservative estimates and it appears to be 175 trips based on their trip generation they're still under you know they're they're way under what would be allocated if we did it evenly um so I think we want to look at it and be cognizant of what's going on just to be true to that subdivision condition but I don't I don't know that we should be that concerned yet let let's look at the numbers

046and these are the last two lots in subdivision right exactly um yeah and you know if there was a concern then I think we'd want to go out and maybe just look at what's the traffic like on this road do we think that an additional 14 trips an hour is going to do something you know and just one more thing and before I get to that before I forget I want to commend Dan on a great report but not only the content but the presentation tonight was excellent thank you um so you know I I visited the property I visited the subdivision I took a I drove into each one of the other double Lots so three driveways basically and it's such a mess it's so disorganized there's stuff all over the place cars parked

047on the road there there was this huge uh sort of greenhouse type of structure on the side of one of the buildings there were pallets out piled all over the I mean it was just one great mess and it's funny that you know we're talking about these items like the tandem parking problem and the uh the aisle for the truck when I went into each one it took me several Maneuvers to make a U-turn to get out because it was so constrained and so I you know I just bring that up because I I don't know what to do about that you know that's more of like I don't even I guess it's an enforcement topic it doesn't really pertain to what we're talking about here today what we're reviewing but I think I think

048it was such a mess that I did want to bring it up and just for the record okay thanks Lou uh what are your feelings on the phase one a archeological yeah that's right that was the other I you know I never really thought that much about that because the um from what I understand correct me if I'm wrong Dan there's been a study already done for the subdivision and it didn't really require any further uh review is that that's the way I understood I don't I didn't have a record of a phase one oh and I misread what you said in the memo didn't you say you the planning department wasn't yeah I originally said we weren't going to recommend it but I because it wasn't required other sites in the subdivision that we

049kind of revised that Lang which mostly just be yeah you want to yeah so um to screen whether or not a phase one archaeological site investigation is necessary we really do look at two things is it in a buffer zone and has the site ever been developed before and if the answer to First question's yes second questions no then we typically recommend it now just because one has not been historically done um conditions have changed since then because there's this new sensitivity that's been recognized on the Chris system with that Wayne Scott resource survey so you know it was contemporaneous with the last um approval who knows if it happened before or after they didn't catch it but now that that's there that's another kind of um indication of it being appropriate so you know

050we don't we didn't see that any was conducted changes in circumstances seem to have occurred and you know as a planner I'd always recommend it in this case well then I would go by your all right good why are you left oh no sorry um so actually like to hear from everybody around the table on on this one Reed we'll start at your end of the table yeah I I thought uh both Dan and Lou gave a very good report um I think the applicant these are relatively minor issues and I support the applications there was I'm a little confused because maybe I read it wrong I I thought the the memo had mentioned that um a dig was not recommended but but um at least one of the questions maybe we did change that

051did sorry about that okay yeah I went to R it sooner but okay nothing to add okay thanks sh Bruce yeah no I think I'm in I support it as well I guess the only question I have is is the um the easement for the Lipa is that something that can be adjusted I mean is the pad already there is that that that's sort of yeah that thanks for bringing that up you know if we can adjust it then I think we can adjust the driveway and I think it's a good idea to adjust the driveway so that it's more of a straight line but we need to find out if there are any utilities under that utility easement that need to access so I think that's a question it's a pending question yeah one

052of the questions we'll address whether we want to get information about that okay she stole my thunder right I was going to ask can that be moved can that pad Mount be moved to straighten the driveway out so I am I do I want I want to just mention that there's a whole list of uses from the 1993 Turnpike commercial center permissible uses uh and I would 13.24 I would recommend taking a look at it s the only is they they later revised that to also include service commercial in 1997 should be I think believe it was attached to the um but yes those are all still long I know lot of documents okay there thank you is that it okay Jen um I agree with uh just about everything I think that um you

053know it's a fairly standard application I have to say I don't think I do agree with the archaeological survey um I think that because of what hasn't been required of any of the other Lots it kind of puts a big like an undue burden on this this particular applicant I agree with you J Eva yeah I I I agree with the application again some minor changes and I I'd have to third uh in agreement with Jen you know as we stated these are the last two lots in the subdivision this was never a requirement and while it is a in circumstances I think it's just it's kind of that ship is sailed um so yeah so I think I mostly agree with Lou actually in his assessment of the brush um but I do think

054you know what one thing that occurs to me is that I mean there's so little margin for error here right this is so tight right I mean if you want to add you know a pad for a dumpster somewhere I mean you're really you're out of out of coverage here right so I'm just pointing that out that you know it it you we're always a little bit wary when we're pushed right up against limit but you know you are below it you know this is your decision to make but it's a little uncomfortable for me to put a 7,000 to 7,000 foot buildings on this on this site and leave no no room for error it could certainly help the parking situation too and avoid tandem if you decide it to uh in your your

055in your client's wisdom to to reduce all this so that's my so Box about that um and I do feel you know we're kind of in a mode right now where sensitivity to archaeological uh to things like doing archaeological digs has changed over the last couple of years there's been sort of a really shift in our thinking about it and we're doing it we're it's you know it is our precedent now to require when when the conditions the Tina mentioned are present and they are so I would support that um all right so with that we'll go to the questions and we'll see where that leaves us to just add two things said just to pick up on what you just said regarding the tightness of the site and and Dan's memo really got to

056it a lot of the dimensions and and like turning radius uh information wasn't provided in the plans so you know we're going to be looking at that very closely when it comes back because it's tight so if that doesn't work the applicant is after the next review going to have to do more revisions so I would just encourage the applicant if it looks like stuff is not working you know make those revisions now to to help you through the process because that will be a focus um the next conversation and then on the archaeology I just want to remind the board that as Secret Lead agency you'll have to make a decision that there's no potential significant adverse impacts to archaeological information so you know rather than basing it unprecedent the standard that you're looking

057for is that there's no environmental impact so um if if you feel like you can make that decision based on what you have for this project that's I think what you have to look at as opposed to what was done in the past when you say um no environmental impact on on what exactly like how archaeological resources like say that there's a old mid pile here with valuable information on how Native Americans lived in the area and during the construction it could be destroyed you know I'm just I'm totally making that up but those are the types of things that are found when Arch iCal studies are done so you know that I just want to remind everybody of the obligations under the state law right and with those obligations and the fact that we

058don't know right right you'd have to even though you don't have data you'd have to make the statement that there's no impact and you'd have to base it on something yeah gotcha all right how do the how does this site and buildings relate to the other two sizewise are those the other four buildings close in coverage percentages as this one or is this one bigger is this one smaller how was that sort of yeah I can I can look I don't know the coverages off the top of my head the only I do know though is for the flat five which this one um and it looks almost like the Jason is the same or um the buildings of are fairly similar in size this one's exactly the same and I believe these are very

059similar so um it is pretty consistent with the area the coverage is the question I'm not sure got okay okay we'll go to the questions should the app review the comments issued during the preliminary review of this application and respond to each comment in a revised set of plans accordingly yes should the applicant review the conditions of Turnpike commercial center subdivision and ensure that the proposed project complies with these requirements yes yes does the planning board agree that with the planning department that the proposed use should be classified as multi- multiple industrial complex and that the applicant should comply with the appropriate special permit standards yes does the planning board agree with the planning department that the revised planning board groundwater protection policy standards be met for the building and site design yes definitely questions

060uh does the planning board agree that the applicant should be considered for a parking waiver pending the additional information requested is that for the that was the yeah you guys set yeah so you guys could also um what's it called not a point on that tonight it's not oh yeah okay so we're good with that yeah okay should the applicant provide additional information with respect to the proposed parking areas including information pertaining to the adequacy of the proposed number of spaces 14 clarifying how the tandem parking spaces are anticipated to operate and whether alternative arrangements are being considered at this time I'd say yes yeah yeah okay um does the planning board find the propos site access and common driveway configuration to be acceptable or should alternative Arrangements be provided as indicated by the planning

061department and town Consulting engineer Alternatives ales yeah uh related to that should a copy of the Lipa easement be submitted to the board and clarification of the proposed structures within the easement yes definitely um does the planning board agree with the planning department that the traffic generation report be revised to acknowledge the existing uses within the subdivision and assess whether the anticipated trip generation will result in the subdivision exceeding the maximum threshold of 200 trips per hour so think you've done a lot of this work yeah say we could we could um do we revise this one we're we're going to do that we're going to that part instead yeah all right Department okay all right so I guess that's yes right okay I'm not that concerned about it uh should the applicant submit a

062comprehensive Landscaping plan consisting of natural vegetation for the subject property including heavy Evergreen screening around the pad Mount Transformer near the common driveway entrance yeah yes um if I for number I was just say really quick number 11 and 13 have to be revised too so 11's about the proposed lighting we originally were unclear about it and said it might be want to discuss with Council but really it should read the plan board is accepting of the uh the light spill as currently shown or should it be revised to not light spill for number 11 um say it again J sorry yeah it's like does the planning board find the I guess the proposed light spill over the southern property line to be acceptable or should the pl be revised to permit no light spill

063okay that would be number 11 okay all right so yeah I'm just do you have a comment about that I just want to yeah kind of a comment the question all one just if you could just for the record your name and address Bill Kelly with Morton Buildings U authorized agent for the applicant um on the light spill the light spill that's shown is spilling onto the parking lot for for a lot four yeah so you have Lake two spilling on four lot four spilling on five so to me that's that's irrelevant because and you know Dan did note that we're we're about to either agree with you or not right I'm trying to convince you to agree with it all right so yes the revised question is basically um how do we feel that

064the light spill is an issue lots a lot no you convinced us yeah nice job um was going to go the other way if you like yeah yeah was thank your ha um does the planning board wish to require that the mounting height of each light fixture be lowered to mitigate potential light spill and ensure conformance with the town code we always want to conform with the town code uh so this one yeah I'll clarify this one because uh I should have touched upon this my analysis the uh we did indicate that the mountain height I think the currently propos at 12 ft feet now there's no specific regulation in the town code regarding that mount height rather than just be appropriate not exceed 12T there was a playboard kind of guidelines about the looming

065levels and whether or not the appropriate Mountain height for different looming levels so basic on what they proposed an appropriate Mount height could be 10 ft if some we wrote in the memo and it could help mitigate the the uh potential light spill but something the board just may want to consider it's not something that's um again really hard s right so basically it's it's relationship to the other question right if we don't feel it's an issue we don't need to lower them does everyone agree with that and and for number 13 and apologies for all the provisions um this one should rather read does the planing board wish to require phase 1A archaeological uh investigation be conducted rather than the does it agree with the plan our previous recommendation on this I think there

066should be because yeah I don't just because we want to revise that statement because some you know if so is an analogy if uh sanitary uh syst systems requirements change there was a change of circumstance a change of requirement just because everyone else didn't do it or didn't have to do it doesn't mean that it's not important that this particular applicant do it so that's how I feel about the regulations have been revised since that time right you know well I think the area has been designated as potentially sensitive since then you know the area designated as potentially sensitive now because of some new information that was submitted to the state so it's it's not it's it's just information that's available um that may not have been available to those decision makers but is available

067now right exactly you know I think that information excuse me what is that information that's so there's a Wayne Scott resource inventory it was used to designate some areas sensitive on the cultural resources information um system yeah um and the state is The Entity that identifies the buffer zones and they do it based on proximity to other known locations that have been confirmed with resources so it's again it's a buffer it's it's not always you're not always going to find something most often you know a lot you don't sometimes you do but again you as lead agency you'd have to decide no impact right so we we would have to really be certain at this point that there's no impact and we don't have the information to to really be able to say that with

068confidence so um so do do we agree that we have to do the phase one archaological investigation no no choice have to we have to yes yes yes we have to for some of us we can note that you're abstaining from answering that question but we do we we're obliged to do that um should the applicant respond to the comments of the Town Consulting engineer per the memo dated February 25th 2025 yes yes um finally does the planning board agree with the planning Department's assessment of additional information that must be provided per town code 255 6-50 necessary elements of site plan yes okay all right thank you very much Mr Kelly that should give you a good two birds with one stone two and four all done all it's all here you'll get a memo

069okay thank you very much do you want to just do fretti really quick because it's like a it's a 10-minute conversation or yeah your attorney's not here oh he is oh there he is the extra attorney who came in okay great um so let's do that we'll take that up it's going to be a quick conversation let's see yeah I know I'm out of order today okay so this is the FR CTI Subway review um Dan you're on again for this and Jen this is yours right uh the applicant is here as I see and we'll start with Dan's analysis all right thank you there okay um prob keep this one relatively quick so um just as a reminder of board uh so this is an application to subdivide uh the original parcel shown here

07025 to into two individual Watts um one of which is about 28,000 ft in size other which about 25,000 ft in size um the property itself is in a unique circumstance that is actually split between the a residence and B residence zoning District um and when you refer to the plans this is actually where it's being proposed um subdivision line is proposed directly across um this lot was originally created as part of a SE Seascape Garden subdivision originally subdivided um as currently configured referred to Lots four and five within that project um however the property was reson to Cur designation in 1972 um and the Lots were subsequently merged under common ownership I believe believe in the 1990s um both L AR 100% clear natur curring vegetation and the neighboring Lots around it are all

071Residential Properties so in terms of remaining um discussion there's only a few property points to really discussed at this point um first of all the respect to secra so this is an unlisted action to secra in chapter 128 of the town code uh stor form part one was included in the original submission of this application um um however we reviewed way did that the mapper reir with New York States DC mapper wasn't included um just to help move things along this is something that we did um actually amend and add to the application for the board's review and the appli consideration however we did have several comments for revisions that were needed for the E one format this time um those are all listed throughout the memo and I'm happy to answer any questions um

072on them ultimately um but as a reminder for for the board the planning board did declare the agency status during the application's initial review so we're recommending that once the accept the EF part one is submitted uh the plan the planning board conduct their coordinat review of the application uh and the agencies to referred to uh and coordinated with include some Department Services and the zoning board of appeals now going back actually to the zoning board so um as we've indicated throughout a lot of reviews of this application uh several variances were required in order to permit the sub vision is currently configured one of them is a lot area variance for this Northern lot again as a reminder lot one is located within the a residen z District which has a minim lot area

073of 40,000 squ ft uh the map itself has it currently at 28263 s ft so water variance was required uh to create that lot as current configured second variance was a sidey guard setback variance for the existing solar panels so that they could remain 9.2 ft away from the property line where a minimum setback of 10 ft is required point8 setb uh so the zba this Tim went in front of the zba in September of 2024 um and the resolution is attached of them agreeing to Grant the necessary variances for the subway is current configured one thing it's important to note is the map that the zva reviewed um is consistent with the map currently submitted in the plan board's files which does remain unchanged the original application um recognizing that the applicat have received

074necessary variances for this application uh the plan board can now proceed with their decision-making process um in this decision making though we do recommend the board just take a re uh once again reaffirm their accepting this of the current layout is current figured we've attached a bunch of standards that are typically considered for Subway as as part of this application form which include comments about the property lines the allocation of open space uh spaces building envelopes and configuration of lot lines just um those are all there for the Board review and one of the comments is too is just reaffirming that they're accepting of it as currently uh presented so in terms of additional comments beyond that the only other comment we really had had to do with the a itself so as we noted

075during prary review uh sorry previous reviews um there is two access points proposed one driveway that's currently existing for the propos lot two and a new proposed access easement to serve lot one which is kind of located in U in the middle of both proposed property lines so although we typically do it is a general practice of the planning board to require common driveways um we do in in L of separate driveways we do know that this portion of Tas Lane does experience relatively low levels of traffic um and the surrounding Lots all appear to have individual driveways um therefore we recommend that we don't really have an issue with these setex as C proposed however uh plan board should app whether not they agree with that or um digal Arrangements if the plan board

076is accepting the propos access um ultimately an access utilities and setting for the rights of access proposal at one in inform Sy of the plan board attorney would be need to be reord as prary subdivision um this as we've indicated should also allow for that location of utilities which should be placed below ground um and uh as part the town code ultimately the name on the survey should be revised to just indicate access to utility easement um and we're recommending given how far along this is that this should all be required as of approval um aside of that the fire R office Rie the plans uh back in August 3rd 2020 three ter the information is sufficient not relevant neate uh further review for fire protection purposes um and ultimately I guess in conclusion um

077obviously the applicants have received the necessary variances as print the subware is currently configured and our real decision point tonight is the plan we're reaffirming whether they're accepting the Pro subware Design um at this time or if there's additional information needed um ultimately if if the plan board is accepting up sub waver um the only thing we recommend the application is complete pending secret review and a tiny minor edit for the access U show EAS that's there good thank you very much Dan does the applicant uh wish to be heard before we have our conversation yes good evening Mr chairman members of the planning board Richard whan from whan farler pllc um here on behalf of Nora Fran zetti who is the applicant and is in the audience tonight uh from those of you who

078go back to when this was last before the planning board this is an application to create a lot which Norah's daughter Megan and her son morg Norah's son-in-law and their and their children will use to build a house so as long soon as this subdivision is approved Megan and her husband are going to get a permit to build a uh modular house on lot one they are local Monto residents obviously uh Megan was born and raised in montalk and they have two kids now two kids now okay changes the original application we had one uh and so and they both work in B talk so it's really an affordable housing thing that is what we told the Z board and it's true so that's what this is uh you know all about really um the

079uh items raised in the memo I think there really three things I would address first of all we certainly will amend the eaf uh to use the mapper the only problem is the statement in question 13 is incorrect there are no Wetlands on the subject prop or any properties directly abing this property the is wrong so you want me to answer that incorrectly or do you want me to answer that in accordance with the DC's question in the second page oh I see I got you there are no wet LS on ad joining properties so you me you answer the way it's appropriate ly done is to attach the eaf mapper if you want to annotate that you've surveyed the area and the information's incorrect that's how you handle it um and then in the

080negative declaration will obviously V that and determine whether or not there's any imple to Wetlands which obviously there's not on the property but it's just a this is the procedure you know you use the mapper if it's wrong you put it in there and then all the information in the files what should be oh thank you as long as I can annotate yes I don't want to say something that's not true um also on S the planning board had not done even though the planning board was the lead agency the planning board had not done its secet review before the zoning board acted so when the zoning board finished their public hearing and they went and looked at the file they said oops nobody's done Seeker yet so the zoning board did uncoordinated review so

081the memo here talks about doing coordinated review involving the planning board the health department and the zba the zba already made a secet determination otherwise they could not have made their they could not have rendered a decision you still have to do squer but the only agency you're now coordinating with coordinating with is the health department we'll still send it to zba okay but they've already they've already they've already made a secret determination otherwise they we would not be here tonight yep and the only other thing is the access and utilties uh you know happy to change the map to say access utilities I will point out the plany board has now been reviewing subdivisions for approximately 72 years and access easement has traditionally meant driveway to get to a lot along with any Associated

082utilities and obviously any easement that I draft will include the right to the placement of utilities so you know if you want us to change it on the map we'll do that but traditionally we have used the term access e broadly to include both physical or vehicular access as well as utility access okay okay I see them distinguished now that's certain new thing but okay thank you very much um please uh thanks Dan for the thorough and thank you also for the even more thorough pointing out of all that um so I I think this is you know as as the planning department says this is fairly simple I support the application I think with the few changes you know we submitting the eaf and US declaring agency and doing sec I I think we're

083good anyone else have comments I have a comment okay I I support this 100% I I kind of share your story as well uh my little bit of my concern is uh can I cut my lot in half and and and build a house for my kids and have a two separate Lots you know wasn't it two two sep in the original subdivision I think one of the reasons that this did get an easier kind of threshold for review is that this used to be two lots and it is in a split zone so they they created one compliant lot there's only one lot that needs the variance so but to the answer to your question I think is no I don't think that in general if somebody came in here and said I want

084to make two lots that are not zoning compliant you know I I don't think that would sail through the review process similar would the applicant have to be to this well again this was two diff this was separate Lots they were U combined at one time in history I'm not sure why um and and they're split Zone they were combined I mean I mean you can't ignore that it's so we're look we're dividing it again yeah so you know I would just say yes I think that this does have some precedent setting I don't have the zoning board determination with me to to read through why they decided to approve it um but they did do we have it attached to the it's in the so it's in the the folder if we want to

085read that but I know that the past history was a good amount to do with it I I support this I support this in regard to your question Michael the reason the Lots were combined is because back in the 80s or was it 90s uh Nora wanted to put the barn on the vacant Northern lot and at that time you couldn't put an accessory building on a adjoining lot without a variance today you'd be able to do that because the Lots in the same name you wouldn't have had to combine the lots to build the barn the only reason they were combined was to allow the barn to go on the adjoining property and she didn't want to go for vars again I support it support this all right thanks very much I think we're

086ready for the questions right uh should the applicant revise the short form environmental assessment form as indicated by the planning department and prepare it izing New York State Department departmental conservation mapper yep we already agreed and you're going to annotate it Mr wh does the planning board wish to declare lead agency status and initiate the a coordinated review let's call it with involved agencies yes yes yes yes yes okay does the planning board find the proposed access as currently configured to be acceptable yeah uh if the planning board finds the proposed access acceptable should the applicant update the map to include an access and utility easement as opposed to an access easement along the boundary between the Lots one and two as a condition of final approval I would say yes yes yeah yes it's

087our thing thank you Richard okay thank you very much appreciate it thank you oh yes exactly so thank you next uh site plan review is for the Surf Rider restaurant uh and uh okay great and uh let's see all right so this is the pre the debut of one of our newer members Ava is going to read the discussion for the board so will this is your application take it away all right um this is an application for a proposed restaurant with shed de and parking on the corner of Monto Highway in South Emory Street in Monto currently the site consists of two separate properties which are proposed to be merged and when combined the property will be 22138 ft in size the sites are located in the Central Business zoning district and considered to

088be 100% clear of natural vegetation currently the sites are improved with a cottage with de sheds Bachi Court wood fencing pool patio and concrete swimming pool which are accessory to the S hotel located directly to the South these are the subject blots and this is the Sans Hotel so they are right next to each other the project is an unlisted action pursuant to secra and the applicant should prepare a short environmental assessment form once the seaf is submitted the planning department recommends the planning board request lead agency status the proposed restaurant use is permitted within the commercial business zoning District in the submitted floor plans two bars are shown without seating and the applicant should confirm if they will have seating and if so if they are accessory to the restaurant use here you can

089see on the first floor here's a bar with no seats and on the second floor of the roof area this is another bar with no seats shown in addition the applicant should provide the estimated hours of operation for the site the existing pool is to remain and the applicant should ensure it remains compliant with suffa county pool requirements for safety all proposed structures appear to be dimensionally conformant and the proposed improvements appear to comply with building and total lot coverage maximums the town code lists the number of parking spaces required for a restaurant as one per three permanent seats or one per each three p persons of rated capacity Plus one per employee per shift 16 indoor seats and 26 outdoor seats for the site are proposed which would result in 14 parking spaces required

090for patrons while the plans indicate 21 proposed parking spaces the applicant should confirm confir the number of employees per shift expected to calculate the parking requirements the site plan indicates the proposed parking spaces will be compliant with town code requirements however the applicant should expand the drive aisle to comply with town code the existing Eastern parking area over here on South Emory Street contains seven parking spaces which extend into the RightWay of South Emer Street the applicant should adjust these parking spaces to be fully located within the property and provide the dimensions of them Additionally the applicant should submit drainage calculations and drainage structures for the parking areas as none have been provided the site is currently and will continue to be served by the suffa County Water Authority the septic site plan lacks details

091typically provided including profile drawings and the applicant should provide these for review [Applause] the sanitary flow calculations provided also lack detail and do not match the proposed number of seats provided elsewhere in the plans the sanitary calculations appear to use the calculation for an outdoor or seasonal bar for some seating and the applicant should clarify if the second floor out door seating is intended to be used as a seasonal bar if the sanitary calculations counted the seats on the second level as restaurant seats the site would exceed its maximum flow limit no details regarding storm watera were submitted and the applicant should provide those for review the lighting plan shows spill over property lines with the greatest areas of spill on South Emory Street and Monto Highway planning board policy requires sight lighting not to

092spill outside of property lines but if the board determines the spill is minimal it may permit it may choose to permit such lighting the planning department recommends the applicant eliminate light spill the submitted fixture specification sheets indicate the chosen fixtures May admit temperatures greater than 3,000 lumens which is not permitted and the applicant should confirm the lighting temperatures no landscape plan was submitted for the site and the applicant should clarify the Landscaping plan in conclusion the applicant should clarify the proposed finished floor elevations and ground elevations at each building and structure provide the floor areas for each floor of the proposed buildings provide Dimensions between the proposed buildings and structures and submit a revised site plan depicting the circulation pattern drainage structures and drainage calculations the applicant should minimize light spill outside of property lines

093confirm lighting fixtures will not exceed 3000° Kelvin submit septic system profiles calculations and design details and provide the materials of the proposed structures the applicant should submit a short environmental assessment form confirm the restaurant and bar seating clarify the number of employees expected per shift expand the proposed Drive aisle in the western parking area relocate the existing parking spaces within the property lines and provide parking space dimensions for the Eastern parking area upon receipt of these items the plans will be reviewed by the town Consulting engineer and additional approvals for this project will be required from the ARB the office of fire fire prevention New York State Department of Transportation and sea County Department of Health Services okay thanks very much will uh does the applicant wish to be heard that's a surprise good evening

094again Mr chairman and members of the planning board Richard whan from Wellen farler pllc uh I will not be speaking alone okay uh Marley Dominguez who is a principal in the companies that own the business is here tonight and also Lori Wilshire from Land planning Services who submitted the application so uh either or both of them will have comments on on some of this so just brief overview for me it's a very small proposed restaurant 16 indoor seats 26 uh out door seats uh on a site that already contains a swimming pool the swimming pool will be continue to be used as it has since I think the 1960s or so or or earlier for the motel which is on the other side of the alley facing south Amberson Street um you know fairly straightforward

095application you know Will has summarized everything before you very well we know we have uh additional information to provide you but one thing I did want to point out because it's not in the memo um the basement there is a proposed Bas basement it is on the plans that basement would extend into the groundwater table in December the town board amended the zoning code to to now require as a matter of a code requirement that the bottom of any you know uh any any building now with certain exceptions like footings and so forth has to meet the two twoot separation of the groundwater so we would have two choices basically either we seek a variance from that requirement or we raise the building up currently the second floor I think even the parit is only

096at like 17t above grade so you know I'm sure you'll comment on that and you know we have obviously we'll have to uh deal with that now that that's not a code requirement so yeah okay and if you have questions I think some of them either Marley or Lori will probably answer them but shouldn't not be able to see who answers that issue of the basement how does the I know that that property is in a that floods a lot I don't think we're in a flood zone I don't think this property is in the flood zone I don't recall this being in the flood zone no it's actually in the like the lowest rating which I was if you're gonna speak you need to come forward just identify yourself for the record please my

097name is Marley Dominguez uh I'm a principal at the ownership firm um th this site the restaurant's actually even higher than the hotel uh and it's one flood zone risk level lower risk uh than the hotel it's actually this particular area is one of the lower risk areas I believe it was the 500 year is that if I remember correctly I think there's localized flooding on South emry like uh for storm water you know during heavy rain so you know that's one of the reasons we asked a bunch of questions on drainage um there's no sanitary profile so we are not going to try to engineer where it is but the sanitary system looks like you might have issues as well so that's why we um are asking for that info because I you know

098I don't think the hotel to the South and we talked with with you guys about this when they came in um to talk about that location there's no drainage there I don't think there's any drainage on this site now so well definitely something that's going to be looked at you bathroom are located in the basement yeah I saw that on the plans I would double check that not saying off the top of my head but usually South of monok Highway in the village of monok is a flood zone a which would be a special flood Hazard Zone Ocean Front would be a v a would be better certainly but I would double check that for compliance and sanitary especially with I saw the bathrooms down there okay so we'll definitely double check but as part

099of the reviews we do double we do check that and it does look like it's the 500 year but we'll double check because that's what we had in our GIS but let's just make sure we we look at that because I I know what you're saying is true yeah it's actually on your survey it's in it I'm sure but but I don't know you think that's relevant the flood zones change all the time they're being constantly remapped it's remapped every 10 years this is something Ava and I know quite well I I I think that area is uh yep yeah yeah so so X is not a flood zone area you don't have to re realize a base flood elevation above what it is all right before we continue just to say so the the

100applicant at this moment has the floor right to to provide their comments before we start our discussion so before we jump in yes do you have other comments that you want to make at this stage of the game you just responding responding to the floods on okay all right that's good that's great there's another question I can answer if that helps um some of the other questions I know were around the bar will will there be bar seats and the answer is no it is a very small structure we have very little storage um so that bar is an area where we're storing a lot of the products Refrigeration things like that it's not meant to be a walk AP bar if you look the main dining area is right against it there's no space

101for people to circulate around there it's really tight as is we want that to actually the dining area is already small as is we want that to remain a dining area um and that is not like a congregating nor will ever be a congregating area like you would see at like a more traditional bar this is more storage as much as anything and aesthetic we want it to look nice of course but um to answer the question no there will not be stools there at any point not and seasonal um okay it is a d there all right we may have more questions for you about that as we as we go along um so good so AA is gonna lead our conversation on this side of the table thank you well again for your

102memo and thank you everyone for commenting on the application uh you know mainly uh my questions were around the were around the seating which you uh reconfirmed uh to point really to all the other questions pertaining to sanitary and and parking uh I think we do need the employee count to you know confirm the configuration of the final parking requirements um and furthermore the um to go on to you know the lighting I think the lights spill over into MTO Highway obviously it's not going to be should not be permitted as for town code um and oh and back to the the parking on that Eastern side to reconfigure that parking so it doesn't go over into the into the street area um that's much you know the Landscaping plan the the items that will

103brought up in his memo obviously said that you would comply with that's pretty much what I have thus far anyone want add comment yeah I think we should hear from everybody on this one yeah started talking about the basement the flood zone the flooding density of the area I think that's going to be an issue uh so whether if they're going to raise the building we're going to have to take a hard look at that how that conforms with the work of downtown uh the other question I had was uh the alleyway who who owns the alleyway the alleyway is probably owned by 511 equities which is a dissolved Corporation 51 equities who was the successor to Monto Beach company all of those most of the alleys in downtown Monto were turned over to the

104town and I think the 1970s 1970s or 1980s uh say Andy might even know but um for some reason the Alleyways in this block were never deed to the town so I presume that they're still owned by 511 and 511 was dissolved about 20 years ago so lay claim to that out well we don't we don't like CL it but we have the right to use it as a property owner abing it we have the right to the use of it but we're not I don't think we're proposing to build anything in the alleyway now you mentioned that the Sans Hotel the previous iteration of this property uh they used the pool for the hotel use for so the hotel guests would walk across the Alle yeah go yeah and that's how it has been

105through decades um just back to the flood zone I think maybe we're all confusing like the colloquial term for flooding as opposed to an official flood zone I mean downtown Mok floods you know all the time so I do think that for me that is a big concern that the basement you know the bathrooms are in the basement and that it's less than two feet to groundwater um you know the maximum height is 30 feet right so this is only 17t I do think it could probably be reconfigured a little bit to adjust for that um because you also as a as an owner you don't want to deal with like the flooding and the septic problems and you know all of that it's just um I also I have a question so the pool

106what are you do what what are you doing with the pool area now so for the pool for this summer um we're changing nothing essentially uh we're we're changing the decking um the concrete was really kind of quite worn that's it and we're upgrading the mechanical course of it to me functions more properly aside from that we're not doing anything this summer um for uh next year we're just increasing the size of the deck space a little bit you can see uh to the right of the image um that's kind of like a Wellness deck and it's also going to be like a movie theater essentially uh for the public um uh and that's it uh on the deck um as far as the basement goes uh I would be very curious to get everyone's

107opinion on that I just learned about the change in the code a week ago so we kind of scrambled real quick to uh um look at what that would look like from a change perspective for one um we can absolutely move the building up to be uh above the groundwater U just by background my first job at 22 was a five slow Subterranean parking garage on the in Harbor and Baltimore so for me this seems like more simple I was in over my head 20 years ago but um yeah well absolutely we can certainly change that um to make it two feet above groundwater um we looked at that and if we kind of just if you imagine sliding the building up we'd be at 27 feet um uh which is still 10 fet roughly

108or 8 8T lower than the 3T lower yeah sorry and yeah sorry 3T lower than but 8T lower than the hotel so it's still kind of a step down um just for reference point um because I think the peak is 35t of flat roof 30 fet no no building yeah I think it's I think it's 35 don't don't quote me there but I'm I think that's what it is um uh so yeah we can just shift that up essentially but I think the way they we would do with the grounder and again this I'm curious your opinion Thinking Out Loud here a little bit but um we' probably have maybe a step or two down on that ground floor level um which would still be a couple feet at least above groundwater um and then

109that lowers the overall height of the building a little bit so we're still have some uh flexibility below below the few feet below um and we're kind of solving both issues on the top and the bottom I guess you could say Okay um so that's what we're sketching right now essentially thank you um I think that's that's really all my question I think yeah okay thanks Michael uh my question is about the eastern parking lot is that parking space for the hotel or for the restaurant no it's for the restaurant property this property say it again oh for this property that parking is be designated for this property not for the hotel okay how you gonna How You Gonna enforce that probably because it'll be used by the people at the restaurant and it won't

110be available a sign that says for restaurant parking only kind of we do that you want us to do something like that do that well I just imagine anyone in the area because parking such a premium would want to just park there and go to many other well we're probably going to have to slide it forward so it be on our property I mean it's indicated we're about looks like about 3T of this in the right way of South em so what it's on our property is our parking we can control it so another question unrelated to that so if I'm at I'm at the restaurant and I want to take my Jin and tonic to the pool deck can I walk out to the pool deck um I thought was blocked off isn't there

111wool there oh sorry to walk into the pool yeah the rest yeah the this is very important to us I mean we're Hotel owners first um uh the the pool will have a fence around it and it will be for hotel guest only um so you will need a wristband or whatever it is that we decide to do to make sure that people are identified as being hotel it is not for public use okay excellent thank you you can't go to the restaurant have lunch and then take a dip after notless you want to be the motel well you're Motel guest okay is that it Mike yes thank you okay Bruce um yeah just reer reiterating a couple things obviously the bathrooms in the basement and the water table you know that has to be

112addressed um I no problem raising the building up but obviously that's going to affect your ADA compliance so that's just something to think about um and the seating at the bar that was my other question you did answer that that may be something we might want to cify or because you know how things sort of shift yes that's it that's all I got all right thanks Bruce read and comments uh yeah thank you for your application um the only uh comment I really had and you allayed my concerns um in reference to the basement sounds like you're agreeable to move it two feet above the groundwater so I'm I'm fine with that so nothing else yeah of course did you think about having a sanitary system for both this property and hotel [Music] property Hotel

113property has an Antiquated system yeah um we are I can't commit on timing but we will have another application at some point in a not so distant future to upgrade the septic for the pool or for the hotel excuse me um uh there's a variety of things there uh the parking lot of the hotel appears that it's all gravel it's actually all asphalt um so that's I think a lot of people think that it's permeable it's actually not we'll change that to permeable so there's a few upgrades uh that I think are important to the town that we'll be doing um I don't know exactly when that application will go in but it's not like years from now it'll be sooner than later so what so are you you thinking of one unit for one

114SE no it'll have to be separate for a variety of reasons yeah different ownership structure the Lots actually although it appear is connected they're not connected there is an easement entirely separating so it is a separate ownership structure though um it's technically right now it flows up to the same ownership it is separate entities um and uh uh so I mean pragma it's the same um so it'll be marketed as one property one location one uh well I mean the other thing I would say our current intention is to hold this for a long long time not five years not 10 but you know pass it on to my children type of thing um so hopefully that never becomes an issue uh that comes up but um I think it's just more sound to have

115the flexibility of keeping them separate okay is that it good question yeah good question um yeah so there's some bit bit of work to do here as you know right and in Will's you know conclusions he outlines you know what the things are we need to be looking at and you know like others um you know I think the you one of the things I'm most concerned about is this groundwater depth to groundwater issue for the restaurant and what that actually will do to hi of the building if it's uh you know I like the idea when I first saw it that it was sort of low you know that really seemed very appropriate for the uh for the neighborhood so it'll be interesting to see what how you solve that problem what you come

116back with so we look forward to your your next submission I think you you've answered most of the questions I have and address what the what the board's comments have been so we'll go to our questions uh which are does the board agree the proposed work is an unlisted action pursuing the secr it is yes yeah okay um the applicant sufficiently specified the proposed restaurant will comply with town code definition of a restaurant not so sure Dina so I just to um to go back to something will touched on in the memo the sanitary calculations didn't match the narrative for the project right so the sanitary calculations had the bar sanitary generation rates applied to the upstairs seating and the restaurant sanitary generation rates applied to the first level so we were not sure I

117mean the narrative said one thing in the plan said another so we wanted the applicant to you know to explain what is the intended use maybe one of the things that we could ask for just a revised question is a narrative about how the site would operate right because it is a bit of an atypical situation with a restaurant on the same parcel as a pool and it's you know adjoining a hotel but there's no formal relationship there or there the ownership structure is the same or you know relationships there now might not be in the future um so I think it'd be helpful to have a narrative that kind of explain that and you know a restaurant is in the code the def you know the definitions in the memo a entity that has

118its primary purpose as food service like seated food service with drinks served with meals so if it was like actually a bar on upstairs that that's not really a restaurant exactly if there's no but I mean it they're describing is a little different so I think it just needs to be Crystal Clear how they're going to operate so we can make sure we got the use right so I think just address obviously we don't we don't Richard again the engineer David rhods who designed the cic is not here he might have and I'm not sure but this might the explanation I don't know the health department might have a lower flow rate for outdoor dining outdoor restaurant seats that would be my only explanation but we will we will get an explanation to you okay

119okay so I think what we're going to do is substitute this question for something more like you know you know will the applicant provide a narrative that explains the restaurant versus bar seating situation right words of that effect right does everyone agree with that yeah okay with the calculations with the calculations with the flow calculations is that good Jody you got that okay um should the applicant clarify the intention of having no seating is related at the proposed bar yes right we need to know that yeah should the applicant specify the number of employees expected on on the site per shift yes yes should the applicant expand the drive aisle in the western parking area yes yes should the applicant adjust the parking spaces in the Eastern parking area to lie completely within the subject

120property yes should the applicant provide dimensions of the parking spaces in eastern parking area yes should the applicant submit septic system details including profile drawings calculation details yes yes should the applicant clarify why the outdoor seasonal bar calculation was used for the second floor seating yes that's sort of related to the second question we came up with should the applicant submit drainage structure details and calculations for the parking areas yes yes should the applicant submit details regarding storm water maintenance and drainage for review should the applicant minimize like spill outside the property lines yes should the applicant specify the exact lighting temperature of the chosen lighting fixtures yes should the applicant submit a comprehensive site Landscaping plan yes should the applicant provide the finished floor elevations and floor areas of the proposed structures yes yes

121particularly now it is revised should the applicant submit Dimensions between the proposed buildings and structures yes should the applicant submit a revised plan detailing the proposed parking circulation pattern yes had thought about that should the applicant submit the materials of the proposed structures for review yes great thanks very much thank you thank you appreciate it all right uh time has come for 80 Firestone so [Laughter] soon we're just getting started yeah you went out for dinner and came back good to see you um I believe Tina is is pinch hitting for Brian Frank tonight and Lou this is going to be you right for the for the board okay yeah Tina it's up to you all right great s give me a second here I'm gonna try to pull up the aial and everybody else

122using this is so much better than me they already got it ready for me let me just share the screen hello board members um I'm covering this application for Brian Frank this is the application for 8 Fire Stone Road Bluff press Cottages located um on Firestone Road in montalk and I have the aerial image up here I'll just zoom out so you can see a little bit more orientation um where we are right on P pond so I will now switch back to the site plan this is a site plan special permit modification request the site plan special permit uh grants it approval in 2021 to facilitate the demolishment uh the demolition of four um Motel units with decking and construct four separate Resort units consisting of 600 squ foot on story buildings each with

123662 square foot unfinished basements uh patios roof decks and hot tubs the approval at that time also included the construction of a staircase from the bluff Crest to the Shoreline so right here's the bluff Crest line is eliminated by the town here's the staircase um what I'm showing right now is um the as built for the application um so the application at the time had required a variance um from the provisions of 255 1188 which requires resert units to be in mult unit structures it had required an nrsp for um the staircase and both were granted by the zoning board of appeals so this modification seeks to allow the as Bill conditions of the properties to remain so the applicant has described several changes that have been made to the site um from the approved

124site plan and those are summarized in a table in the memo so basically each of the units 1 a through 1D got larger right from about you know a little under 50 ft to 110 ft is the range of how much they were enlarged the patios were also enlarged to a greater extent from you know 300 on the lower end to 463 ft on the higher end um so according to the applicants narrative the increase in GFA was due to enclosing outdoor staircases and although roof decks were originally approved on all four units the only unit that has built the roof deck is unit 1A and the applicant has said in their narrative that the remainder of the roof decks are not going to be um constructed so they should just confirm that tonight um

125so I'm going to just switch so the board can look at what those changes look at or look like on the level of each unit so these coverage comparison diagrams that I'm going to just flip on the screen now show the increases um so the proposed is what was approved right just so you understand that and the existing is what was built so the Delta between those is how much they have been enlarged so the language here is a little confusing so this is with respect to coverage um building coverage is this first one I'm showing and then lock coverage is this second one I'm showing um the lock coverage that was approved was 9,600 square feet they've built lock coverage 12,000 over 12,000 Square fet however they are still below the allowable lot coverage

126in this Zone um which is almost 16,000 square fet is shown on this survey the planning department conducted a site visit and it appears that the site is largely constructed at this time and that the information submitted on the survey is generally accurate the other change um from the approved plans uh aside from the buildings are a little more minor nature they're proposing two new gates here C is fronted to Fire Stone Road it's not shown on this but the there's a circular type driveway Arrangement proposed so this is the Ingress and here's the egress it'll be a gate on either side they've also proposed a series of new um walkways through the site which are not that clearly shown on the survey but are clearly shown on the uh total lot coverage um diagrams

127here so with respect to the discussion the planning department does not believe that these would alter the conclusions of the negative declaration that the planning board adopted in 2021 the planning board determine if they concur with that assessment and the planning board uh should also determine if any of the proposed changes um would change their conditions of approval or and the applicant at that time should affirm their ability that they can still comply with the conditions of approval looking through them today it there's nothing here that seems inconsistent with those original conditions there do seem to be many conditions that still remain to be met they're not done with construction so that's important for the applicant to note moving forward um the applicant also confirm that there's no roof decks um still planned and um

128right so the staircase has been increased in length by 2 feet this is a Rel relatively di Minimus um change and we don't take an issue with it the last thing I'll note is that these are um and this wasn't in the memo but it's just a post memo note these are Resort units as as classified by the town code based on their size um but the sanitary calculations for them uh assumed no kitchens so you know if they did have kitchens the sanitary generation rates would be greater so just because of the size of them we may want to consider a condition of approval that indicates that you know these are assumed to not have kitchens obviously they' have to go back to the health department if they wanted to add kitchens um but

129did just as a kind of um belts and suspenders there and then of course the applicant should note that um ARB review is also going to be required for the the modified construction plans and the gates and um with that all conclude my comments or Brian's comments thank you good thank you Tina very much Mr Hammer would you like to be heard sure so Tina is pin hitting so am I I'm here because Joel couldn't be here tonight uh we're kind of at the end of a pretty long journey I have been involved in this and many of the points the whole thing with the variance attached versus detached very interesting story at the end of the day this was improved with four Cottages it's now improved with four Cottage is we don't really know

130why the code said that but at the end of the day the zoning board agreed with us that they would rather have less massing and separate attach structures I don't have a ton to add based on the memo that Brian did I thought it was pretty good uh most of these things are as built discrepancies the biggest change was the enclosure of what were you know uh staircases to access the roof decks there was only one roof deck built on unit 1A the rest of them there are no proposed roof decks I think if you go to the site the roof deck's kind of Superfluous I mean it's a beautiful view you don't need a roof deck to enhance it at anything uh so you know the changes to the unit sizes are very small

131Tina did point out correctly that yes the uh calculations include no kitchens there's no kitchens that will be allowed in these units for that uh for that reason uh I don't think any of the other changes were very substantive they're pretty nearly identical to what's uh was issued when I first looked at it you know we we did that color coated um exhibit just to kind of show you know draw your ey exactly where they were and you know it it's not easy to pick up but you can follow those drawings that's why we submitted it it's just to show hey here's the additional coverage a little bit different parking walkways Etc uh I would advise you you should go take a look at the site the Rev is nearly I think it's all planted

132right now we're going into the growing season right now it's going to be spectacular uh there was one thing I want to reference as Brian said there was an unattributed letter that's actually the way the application was submitted as a a modification form it says attach any other sheet so we didn't include that so it's not a phantom letter it was actually submitted by our office we kind of giggled about it uh and spoke to Brian about it as well um other than that I think the memo is pretty accurate the change the stairway I think they just did it based on the need to maintain that rise and run and and keep it consistent so it increased by two fet that's going to be in front of the zoning board uh no problem with

133the A or B all the the gates that you're talking about here are 4 feet or less they're very small but uh you know it's it's not inclusive it's just to trying to add a measure of of security for people walking up and down the street Etc uh but I think it's also unassuming if you look at the the documents other than not any questions you have happy to answer them if I can't great thanks very much so yeah so when I first looked at this I was alarmed because I thought you know just calculating the numbers in terms of coverage and GFA add GFA it looked pretty substantial to me and you know the question that popped up in my head was how come we approved one thing and then they substantially radically changed

134it uh so you know just to give you an idea of the you know percentages uh or numbers the U the buildings were approved at 600 square ft they went to 663 Square F feet not that great but still significant patios were at 578 square feet they went to almost about a th average of about a thousand so almost double um the the big one was the total coverage the approval was 9 9600 squ feet they went to 125 which is a 30% increase that's pretty substantial so anyway uh I had a conversation with Brian Frank about all this and he sort of talked me down off the ledge because um he said look he said yeah it's true they didn't do what they were supposed to do but you know the changes that they

135made really don't have any adverse impact or create any planning issues so um you know I I I agree now that you know there are times to stand firm on some of these applications because it's important to do that I think this is not one of them I think the site is uh impeccably built it's beautiful uh it's certainly uh an asset to the area um you have $2,000 per day to rent it um yeah so um that's that's really my you know I was alarmed at first because I don't like it when we approve something and they go ahead and do something substantially different but in this case it's not a hill that I'm going to die on okay thanks Lou any other comments from anyone I agree I agree too and I think

136Brian mentioned earlier too that we probably would have approved this as it you know as it end up being built so yeah I have a comment oh you got you got to talk me down though uh the the why are the patios so much bigger this is the this is covering something what can you explain like one unit 1D was from 578 to 1,41 that's that's huge it's a huge difference yeah is that right is that that's probably the one the one that is the largest but I think the thinking was the reason they built this site is they want to encourage the outdoor living areas and there was a lot of discussion when we were in front of the zoning board about having the landscape it's basically all Native landscaping and trying to encourage

137people to not encroach in it so I think that was one of the reasons is that said hey these are it's a beautiful site these are beautiful patios having these areas and and the walkways we're proposing are going to encourage people to not leave them you know there's very you know we we minimize the clearing there's an area in front but that's the thinking is that the patios were being designed to encourage people to stay within the boundaries and not encroach on some of the other uh landscaped areas that are netive landcape fair enough but who I still don't I understand the narrative but it just seems like a huge number just seems well I would also point out that the total lot coverage on this property compared to a residential property it's probably less

138than b residence lot at the end of the day so we're not talking about huge numbers the and I don't think any of the boards you know we well within our coverage limitations uh and outside of natural resource FAL Department jurisdiction on a lot of these things those coverages are you know you would compare them to other site plans I think the board would have approved it and not worried about the it's just because we're adding it at the end and I can't speak to that I wasn't involved in why it was done but I do know the philosophy was to encourage people to stay within the improvements on the property and and maintain the Integrity of the Native landscaping that's going in here which is substantial and beautiful when you see it you you'll

139be blown away I I was at least yeah beautiful thank you anything else Micha okay yeah you know I I'm sorted with on this when I first looked at it I went what um you one of the things that we as you know you know this Andy that we you know we don't love it when people come back and say well thanks for giving us permission but we did this instead right um but you know in this case I think you know the point is well made that this does not change negative declaration it does not change anything really we would have if you would come to us with this plan we would have said okay right you know which is to me the you know kind of ultimately the decision Point um so yeah

140I kind of agree that this is a kind of a net gain for the neighborhood and I don't really have an issue with with what what transpired here so we'll do the questions and the first is does the board agree that the modification is consistent with the original secret determination yes yes it is um does the board want the applicant to affirm their ability to satisfy the conditions of a site plan and Zoning board's conditions of approval yes yeah we don't exactly know what they are but of course conceptually yes should the applicant indicate their intentions for the three unconstructed roof decks yes yes should yeah they're not be yeah should we have clarify that I did that there's no way to access them but when they enclos those those stairways there would be no

141access but there is no intention to construct them I think they built one said hey this is pretty nice but do we need them on the other three units and the answer was no okay so how how can we affirm that Tina was there some way I think you could approve the building so yeah the building plans are not shown and we in the narrative we could just say that the scope was changed to you know not include Ro decks we could do that okay can we do the same with the kitchen the kitchen yes I see that I think we should right so we'll modify it to say you know the approvals changed to these siiz buildings these siiz patios no kitchens the gate you know like all the all the changes will enumerate

142okay great so final question is the modification request acceptable to the planning board y y now it is now it is same thing when I read okay all right thank you I apologize I didn't want to be here on a Wednesday night either so I don't like when they do this I what happens so uh we have a couple of items for our regular meeting you were here for nine blue jay aren't you I can't believe we missed that you were in the audience we were going to do do this first if you were here we we miss that you were because we made you sat through this two meetings to get to this point right okay all right so we're going to do you first H honorary member yeah yeah exactly I thought that

143might be you but anyway um all right so this is a resolution uh regarding the request of nine blue J LLC uh Stephano banti for building permit at that at the address of nblue j way in eastampton uh let's see what do we need to say here that we will the building inspector can issue a building permit for those premises and you are securing Road improvements for uh that undertaking and it is in the amount the undertaking is in the amount of $23,000 and these requirements should be subject to review one year from the date of this resolution or March 5th 2026 do I have a motion to approve or do I do that you think you do that okay you want a second I want a second I'll second it okay all in favor

144my name's Daniel fonty um with the builders over at on blue jay and we were wondering if it would possible to reduce the amount of linear footage that's on there it's 529 linear feet from Buck Hill Road intersection and it takes us well past the uh neighbor to us to our side and as you can if you're familiar with the uh the area and the over uh aeral view you'll see that there we never took any trucks or anything all down blue J way because it's impossible to turn around so anytime they came in they would have to back up to Bucks Hill Road and so the area of wear and tear of the asphalt stops essentially up to our property line furthest from buxco Road and we've done the pricing recently um and it's

145exceeding nearly double the amount of money that's currently in the um the bond for 23,000 we getting pricing of like 45 $50,000 wow and we're at the end of the project and as you would all know typically the budget's bit exhausted which is where we're at and we're at the point of getting getting ready for our CFO and we were hoping to get up to our property line which is just under 400 ft but that would also help us with our budgets and and keep it within that that realm of what the initial Bond was okay who determined that Tina so the the road assignments are produced by the engineer he does them by you know analyzing the length of roadway that needs to be built out within that map and kind of trying to

146equalize it among the properties in the map um have you raised this with the engineer I didn't see any comments because we we basically received the approval and then we were told we need to any any comments we would have to present here okay so yeah that's interesting because usually they go to the engineer first so who did you I'm get your number so you and I can talk but I mean what I'd like you to do is um email me the estimates you got so I can share those with the engineer and I'll talk with him okay um but again you know they're they're done based on a formula trying to be fair to everybody in the area that has to kind of that is along you're you're on Mon talk Shores here this

147is property right I I is this yeah so it gets us to like almost here yeah just shy that next intersection it's over here so we end up like way so sometimes they're not even like in front of your property you know like you at least even did some in front of your sometimes they're not even anywhere near your property they're just to to build out the road I I you know I'll I can ask him to take another look um and just confirm those calculations were correct but you know we don't do it based on pricing Al you know so I mean you should at least understand the formula that's being used we understand that we understand you know we have needs but we're also trying to stay within budget so we can get

148to the to the finish line so we just want to kind of present that case here and see if there's any hope to reduce that so we can't make you know many changes to the resolution so I think that's your best raise it up here in case there's any advice that right so I think you got what you need Y and I would say just give us your analysis and then you know you want to write your email address here and then I'll I'll be J to you so you can all right get this looked at so while you're doing that we'll move on to the second board of review which relates to nine front LLC Dina zanger for building permit for premises located at two athor Avenue in East Hampton um this is an

149undertaking that would be in the bond in the amount of $118,000 thank you very much um again these requirements are subject to review one year from this resolution or March 5th 2026 um and I call for a second on this resolution oh sorry thank you all in favor I right so long as we're on this pack PA let's do the old filed map modifications and uh just for the record what we've determined to do going forward we we have not typically been including documentation regarding uh filed map modifications and posting them with the other documentation for our meetings um but due to some comments from the public where we are beginning to do that um these are generally you know pretty low impact administrative actions but there are people in the public who are interested

150in the details of what they are so we are posting them and just you know a notice to the public that if there's comments about them we prefer to get them be prior to the meeting um so that's where we are with that so the first is the uh old filed map for map number 171 section 3 uh eastampton 3 uh this relates to Parcels of 21 and 23 Abraham's path and this really has to do with uh amending some errors Charlie is that correct and U yeah making sure that a couple of lots are not landlocked and removing something that shouldn't be on the map you know at a high level that's what this is about um I call for a motion to approve M modification I second okay all in favor have questions

151the we send it to the town board oh yeah oh right so that's that's the process Charlie we're recommending these to the town board for approval yeah yeah okay so then they're the ones that act on the change got it got it got it got it okay all right there you go um so does the planning board agree this application should be recommended to board for approval good uh and another one which is old filed map uh modification sha McGee 39 and 41 Roosevelt Avenue and East Hampton uh map number 877 urban renewal Parcels 18 and 20 block six slots 21 22 and 23 um so this involves Lots on Outlook in Rose and Harbor viw Lane and again this is an amendment an administrative amendment to uh to remedy a few inaccuracies on those

152maps and making sure that uh an abandonment of some W of ways are not uh creating a landlock situation so I'll call for the adoption of this amendment second okay and all in favor all right all right closing in on it here so I think uh Bruce you have a subdivision extension of time for mosswood mosswood yes I do okay in the matter of the application of mosswood P plinary subdivision suff County tax R number 300-1 157-21 15.3 and 16 um they're looking for an extension of time I've read the information in front of us and um look for it to be moved you get to get the date right oh the date um April 3r 2026 maybe I did not see that anywhere number three yeah there you go okay yes an extension of

153time for a period of one year or or until April 3rd of 20 26 one year or April 3rd 2026 right Charlie they get a year and a month for extension of time yeah one year or till April 3rd is that yeah that would be by the time it gets all right so it's to April 3D basically right okay unless they're done earlier yeah unless it's done earlier there you go okay um so I I do call for adoption yeah call for its adoption second second okay all in favor all right great and uh I think Reed you have a Jackson commercial one yes uh in the matter of the application at Jackson commercial site plan suff County tax map 300-1 16661 for an extension of time until April 3rd 2025 I've read the resolution

154and I move for its adoption 25 or 26 25 that's a month from now that's only a month from now it says it says the conditions of the board's resolution that say that too say 26 mes say need two months to get a see okay all right so that's correct okay all right do we have a second for that second okay all in favor I okay great and finally Beach Plum Resort deck extension in the matter of the application of Beach Plum Resort deck extension and outdoor shower site plan uh sub County tax map 30047 D1 d8 comma 9 it says I'm just going to read this based on the foregoing the planning board hereby extends the time within the applicant which the applicant must comply with the condition of the board's resolution in one-year

155increments within which to obtain a certificate of occupancy or until April 10 2025 okay is that correct that is correct that is correct I've read the uh res it's not a resolution i' read the application and I move for its adoption second second all in favor great hi all right good uh minutes everybody minutes I read them uh you have read them Jen I'm sure read them word for word I did up and down um any changes comments that's about from yeah there was one minor spelling under amend chapter 255 zoning um oh somewhat in favor instead of if favor maybe right oh yeah that's all I saw uh wait a minute yes not if in it's in favor right some in favor someone in favor okay all right um a call for for uh

156adoption of the minutes as amended second all in favor all right thank you Jody for that um would someone like to make the next uh motion make the motion to adjourn my God we'll count that as V yeah yeah we'll put that as a second and a first all in favor of men of Journey