001e okay planning board we are live we are recording phone lines will remain off go for it okay okay good evening everybody and welcome to the town of East Hampton's planning board meeting for February 26th 2025 we have uh four items on for work session we have a presentation from the planning department on the zoning code changes for GFA we have one item on for uh regular meeting and we had a couple of uh Ur map modifications and a board of review which are not going to be on the the agenda for tonight they'll be on next week um so we will start with Tyler borac from planning giving us the lowdown on the new code changes for GFA good evening uh Tyler BAC for the planning department um so the town board is going
002to be holding a uh public hearing on March 6th for some code changes or really one code change um and the purpose of tonight's discussion is for the planning board to provide them with comments or any comments that you might have in regards to that change um I'll briefly go over the sort of how we got here and then what the change is and then uh make myself available for questions if there are any W the discussions going on um you may remember a few months ago I was in front of you uh discussing a whole Suite of changes uh this is sort of going to be similar to that but this was sort of the impetus for the next change that's that that's being proposed as well um that Suite of changes is going
003into effect on March 1st um and as part of that discussion um members of the public and the town board discussed uh possibly looking at the maximum gross floor area allowances uh and reducing those numbers to help address um overdevelopment that's going on across town um so the current uh change to the town code uh is proposed to be a reduction of the current uh maximum allowance of gross floor area which is 10% of a lot of a lot or the lot area uh plus another 1,600 square ft and they want to reduce that down to currently proposed a 7% uh of lot area and, 1500 sare fet on top of that um so 3% across the board plus another 100 S ft off off off the uh off the top that's the proposed change
004uh it's fairly straightforward I included uh some information in to the board as long as well as a graph but essentially what this shows is lot areas on the left side and then what would be the maximum allowable gross floor floor area on those lots based on that lot size um the existing as it is now is in the middle and then what the proposed would be plus um what that reduction ultimately uh ends up being but it's fairly straightforward as far as code changes are concerned um so I'll just make myself available for questions I have question so just to confirm this would not apply to basements correct correct and this also would not apply to attached garages do I have that correct the the change for uh the uh attached garages code is
005changing March 1st and what they're doing with that is any anything any attached garage that's over 600 ft anything beyond that 600 ft would count towards go Flor area so if you had an 800t attached garage 200 ft would count towards your gross floor area the basements are are not included whatsoever Tyler you said that the propos you use the word proposed uh change the proposed formula by the board is 7% plus 1500 correct square feet is that really the proposed change or is that something that is being considered which which I think is a there's a difference it's the number that's in the public hearing notice excuse me it's the number that's in the public hearing notice for the for the town board and what does the notice say about that it says 7%
006plus 1500 square F feet has a proposed change I I mean I don't yeah that's that's what that's what would would go into effect if they agreed with it I suppose that that the dimensional table would then read that number right but is the T does the town board right now if they determined have they all voted that that's the number that they want or is that something that's floating around that's the number that they were comfortable going to a public hearing with I have a question about the basement so do you mean just unconditioned basement or any basement whatsoever does not count towards gr Flor area thank you yeah they didn't move forward with any of that uh side of the the the co changes that were discussed thank you which is a nice
007compromise for people can have basement but there are a lot of people who live in flood zones and that sort of thing that don't have basement not everyone can have a garage but you yeah if there other uh accessory structures is this the overall GFA cannot exceed these numbers is that is that correct the accessory structures don't count towards your gross floor area numbers that's just the habitable space in your building essentially um okay in your residence um anything like a a detached garage or attached garage less than 600 s f feet those wouldn't count towards your gross floor area they stud they have their own yeah artist Studios wouldn't count they have their own calculations that are based on lot coverage and total loot coverage really that's the limiting factors on those and 600
008ft for accessory structures across town yeah presume that was the answer but just want to be sure did you have a question I have no questions thank you one quick question about the attached garage are we the considering attached garages completely attached to the house or Breezeway has to uh yeah anything that would would would attach it to the residents I'm not it's it's a building issue I'm not 100% so not but that part of it has already been discussed and that's been approved um yeah that's that's that's sort of in the past the only thing we're looking at tonight is the change in the grow SC area maximum okay you know I have to say that you know looking at the at this earlier today I was sort of struck by you know how
009much difference it makes the 3% in 100 square fet makes a really big difference particularly as you get up into um half acre and acre lots it's a significant difference right I think this is going to be impactful the percentage change affects it has a larger effect the larger the lot yes right that flat number really affects the smaller lots more so by reducing that 100 square F feet that affects the smaller Lots not significantly because you're only taking 100 square feet off but that percentage really starts to impact the larger Lots yeah exactly okay so we are providing our com these comments to to the town board for their discussion about this is there anything else that people want to note to the town board about this formula or these numbers yeah I just
010you know I want to get back to the 7% plus 1500 versus the 7% plus 1300 which is what the ground zoning code Amendment group suggested and they came up with that number after uh almost two years years of uh deliberation discussion analysis and I think that 7% plus 1500 was sort of arbitrarily chosen by the board because of some comments that might have been made at the work sessions public hearings where they felt that they needed to compromise and they threw it out there as something that maybe they could consider but I think the more realistic number in my view uh and the more valuable number in terms of how it was arrived at is the 7% plus 1300 now you might think you know what is 200 square feet that's not much of
011a change but it could make a big difference in areas like ditch Plaines areas in Springs and other parts of East Hampton where the the're predominantly smaller lots and if you maximize the coverage on those lots by adding 200 square feet it makes a huge difference and the other comment that I wanted to make is you know I think this this problem has been has surfaced over the last several years and it's really taken town by storm in terms of interest and and concern that what is happening is the the uh character of this community is slowly gradually changing and if we don't put a stop to it with a firm number with a firm action it's just going to continue and it's going to we're going to lose what we all treasure out here
012so it's very important and I I'm very adamant that we don't go with the I would I would recommend to the town board that they do not go with the 7% plus 1500 I think 7% plus 1300 is the minimum that they can go with so I would say this you know I can't speak for the town board but of course you know public comment uh feedback that was that was given during the process of coming up with this you know was taken into account for sure uh this this is the number Tyler that is going public hearing yes I would suggest that anybody and everybody including you who has a different view of what this should be you can speak as a private citizen um right but today we're speaking as a planning board
013were we not yeah we are to make comments yeah we are so it's also included there but I would encourage everyone else to make a comment at the at the hearing as well and you you can include yourself in that any other well I respectfully disagree with Lou um first of all I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the um committee that was formed to Grapple with this issue as well as to the planning department and to Tyler um it's not an easy issue I think a lot of local communities are are faced with this um but uh I mean this really impacts a family like mine I have a relatively small lot you can see the reduction sizes but I've done the math on this and I'm going to take a 20%
014haircut if this goes into into action and I I think it's an infringement quite frankly upon property rights so I I I'm not in favor of it okay okay I don't think we need to come to a consensus here I think we're just simply you know giving our individual comments then I think I'd like to just weigh in um quickly I um respectfully disagree with both of you um I think that you know as Reed said I do you know we do a Deb of gratitude to the working group that came up with these numbers and to the town board um I think this is a substantial decrease and I think that the 7% plus 1500 was was reached after you know feedback from many different groups I do think you know Reed you do
015have a point it does substantially impact families like ours that live you know on smaller Lots um so I think the 7% plus 1500 is a fair a fair reduction in the GFA and I think the town board I think the town board should adopt it I agree with Jen can I just pipe in for one second um I do I do just hi Tina Lan from the planning department just one thing I I really hope all the board understands this one spreadsheet is one of the Thousand that Tyler put together looking at different iterations of how to accomplish this in a manner that's as balanced and fair as we to come up with so it certainly wasn't you know something that they picked out of the sky right it was months of deliberation among
016the committee significant amount of public comment at public hearings and it represents a compromise right trying to balance all the different perspectives that were um provided and you're never going to get perfect so it's good to hear this but I just want to assure everyone that a lot of different scenarios were carefully examined and this is where everybody ended up you know trying to do the best thing in a difficult situation where we have to do something for overdevelopment because we do see the impact that it's uh having on the town but we also have to balance that with the rights of property owners and you know everybody wants to enjoy their property so so that's with you yeah thank you and We Know by the way and appreciate that there's been a lot of
017work on this for a very long time so why is there any reduction for a 6,000 sare foot line or 10,000 foot why doesn't it start at 15,000 uh there's believe that even those are being overdeveloped yeah I think in some ways it's more important Frank you can't you can't apply a formula selectively you have to apply it to the entire town you can't say that Lots below a certain square footage are exempt from this zoning code we have to apply the formula to everybody you can't say that it starts at 40,000 ft lots and anything below that you can't apply for that's illegal is it illegal yeah we had looked at um different formulas for different sort of ranges of lot sizes we do it we do it for clearing right we had we
018had looked at different formulas for different range of lot sizes and didn't make it work it it didn't we didn't It ultimately didn't have any traction on it's kind of how we did it before when it was in a zones there wasn't a formula based on the lot right we did look at different ideas um but ultimately some reduction across the board would that we felt was was uh Justified okay any other thoughts that anyone wants to express to the town board on this okay are you supportive Bruce no okay no I'm not okay all right so I'm not sure who's documenting this is it you Tina thank you very much um I'm just going to come to come back sorry so if I'm hearing there's no consensus um among the board members so usually
019what we do is we send the town board a memo that represents whatever consensus was reached if we don't have consensus here what we'll do is say you know two members had this perspective and maybe we could just see what the perspective is so at least we can give them the feedback but we'll say that the planning board as a entity did not you know come in favor or in opposition have opposition so let's just be clear about how how this struck out so I think Jen and I are are we're in favor in favor of this as proposed Michael I'm somewhat in favor I'm like on the fence I think you know okay uh I gather that no I'm not Bruce and Reed and Ava feel that it's restrictive and L feels the opposite
020which is it's not aggressive enough I think they should go with what the group The zoning code Amendment group came up with okay which is different than this okay yeah all right I think that's where we stand T and we'll we'll send those comments on beh of the board thank you okay thanks everybody appreciate that Tyler thanks very much for your work um all right all right so our next matter is the Southampton Hospital freestanding emergency room uh will I believe that is your yours and Jen go to you for the board and the applicant is on Zoom I want to point out by the way for everyone's benefit that it is the practice of this board to require applicants to be here in person for most applications uh there certain extend wating circumstances where
021we allow people applicants to appear via Zoom uh there are two of those tonight and this is one of them so do we have uh anyone online for this application Matt I believe you're looking for Robert Ross and yes he is on yes hi good good evening everyone I'm Robert Ross I'm a vice president at stoneyb Southampton Hospital and I believe our engineer should be there in person oh okay is Anthony there yeah yes all right so he could speak to the technical aspects of what we're doing and then if you have any other questions or you'd like an update on what's going on with the facility I'd be happy to uh give you that information okay we just wanted to make sure that you were here first of all um yeah the process is
022the that our planner will kind of review his memorandum and then our board member Jen who's the committee on this will start the conversation Among Us um we'll give you an opportunity to actually respond to Will's memo after he's done before it returns to the board okay thank [Music] you so will he good evening board um so for this project uh modification has been submitted seeking changes to a previously approved special permit application the original project sought to replace two baseball fields and accessory structures with the new freestanding emergency department and outpatient Diagnostic and imy Center this modification proposes to make minor changes to Landscaping add fencing change the location of the sanitary system and modify the trash and closure area the property is located on Pano Road in eastampton and is considered 100% clear
023of natural vegetation it is currently zoned CI commercial industrial and has been improved with the previously approved pre standing emergency department and outpatient Diagnostic and imaging center with Associated structures including parking generator and ambulance port pursuant to the inspection request submitted by the applicant on October 4th 2024 an inspection was condu conducted by the planning department on November 15 2024 the inspection revealed the work had almost entirely been completed according to the approved plans aside from the area surrounding the trash enclosure west of the enclosure the curb had been modified to enclose left space and a white vinyl fence was erected on top of the curb enclosing a majority of the space between the trash enclosure and Transformer Pad to the south in addition only one dumpster was observed at the time of the visit
024and it was unclear if the location was intended to house two two dumpsters as shown on the previously approved plans the applicant stated these changes were made according to instruction received from the S County Department of Health Services after the site inspection the applicant clarified that the sanitary system had been moved from the location previously approved by the planning board to north of the trash to the north of the trash enclosure to the area currently enclosed by the white vinyl fencing adjacent to the trash enclosure the applicant stated the location was due to was changed due to instruction from the scdhs the sdhs also required the new sanitary location to be enclosed by a fence because the location of the sanitary system was required to occupy an area which was previously approved to be vegetated
025the area has been left unvegetated to preserve access to the sanitary system for maintenance purposes the planning department notes there are no planning issues in the submission and due to to the minor changes to the site plan which were required by the scdhs the planning department recommends this modification be considered complete okay um does the applicant have any comment or wish to be heard at this time about anything that that will is said um not at this time I mean if you have any questions about um how we arrived here okay great all right that's fine so we'll just we'll have our discussion at as a board and what you're available for questions yes if we need you and if we have them you'll come up to the podium all right absolutely Jen um thank
026you so much will for that uh I think this is a fairly straightforward modification um I do have one question about the color of the fence but that's not really within our purview but um it's a very very white fence but I do think that uh you know there's really nothing not much for discussion on this one I think let's get this place open yeah anybody else total agreement everybody in agreement yep yeah yes okay we want this open for sure you know that sign says April 2025 that's you know now right and and just it's Robert Ross again just well I appreciate the comments that you have made and I also appreciate the fact that you basically allowed us to put this application on this amendment on very quickly uh there is an urgency
027here as far as time is concerned uh we cannot get approval to open it uh from the New York State Department of Health until the Sound Town issues the certificate of occupancy and we're hoping that with your approval tonight that will happen in the next couple of days uh there's still work that needs to be done in there uh just to give you a little update you can have an emergency depart without a laboratory and the process to get a license for a laboratory is very long uh we've been dealing with that uh for a couple of months now all the lab equipment has to be tested the state has to send us certain chemicals that they call reagents to be able to perform these tests and the tests have to go to uh back
028to the uh Department of Health so there's still a lot of pieces here to try to get this opened uh we are still hoping for the end of April certainly the first week or second week of May uh it's an incredible project I hope that you guys have gone past it uh driven past it while I know there's a fence there and you're really not supposed to go in but uh we're so excited about bringing this to East Hampton we've worked on this project for so many years already and uh you know we submitted a grant in 2015 to the state of New York uh to assist us in building this they gave us a $10 million Grant 2015 it's now 2025 and I have been telling people lately that the replacement World Trade Center
029in Manhattan was built faster than this project so we really really appreciate your assistance we hope that you guys will approve this tonight and the planning department can then get to the chief building inspector tomorrow and in the next day or so we could get the uh we could get the CO so thank you all for your assistance okay and thanks for your comments we appreciate it I will say that once it broke ground it actually did happen pretty quickly you know all things considered well you know we were lucky with the weather you know we really didn't have a frost Frost where they could do work we wanted to get you know the found all the all the stuff outside done so they could work on the inside you know this is a very
030complicated project to build anything in New York state that has to uh go through the New York State Department of Health it's not like just putting four walls up there's so many requirements and so many things that have to be done to meet code so we're just incredibly anxious to get this thing open get the we're going to help you do that right now great thanks okay so we have a couple questions we have to answer as a board the first is does the planning board agree the modifications made to the site plan pursuant to suff county department of health services approval are appropriate yes yes all around yes okay does the planning board agree this modification is complete yes okay everybody unanimous all around okay so uh we will up sorry you want to
031do that oh yes yeah so we will do we have a resolution tonight actually to move this thing forward normally there'd be a week Gap we have a resolution tonight so jck so planning board of the town of East Hampton New York in the matter of the application of Southampton Hospital freestanding emergency room site plan suffa County tax net number 300-165 d522 uh I have read the resolution and move for its adoption second okay all in favor okay passor car s thank you very much thank you gentlemen good luck thank you guys see you there soon okay for the opening party for the opening party I meant of course the whole board I love hospitals um okay he let me make sure this is correct okay uh right so our next sub waiver review is
032citak Decker uh and that is Chris ster and that's Lou that's you for for the board uh so Chris please right good evening this is the second uh review of the CID and Decker Subways are modification of 63 and 65 Seaside Avenue in Mok um just to give a context on the properties the are both Zone B residential 63 Seaside Avenue is 33329 ft77 acres and 65 Seaside Avenues 3262 ft over 74 Acres Seaside Avenue is a dirt road with public water access and New York State Department of Environmental convers Conservation uh freshwater wetlands cross both properties and access 263 Seaside Avenue cannot be establ lished without crossing the mentioned Wetlands those are indicated with this dashed um sort of blue polygon crossing the properties um these wetlands are also regulated by the town and
033indicated on the submitted survey dated October 14 2022 um and the boundaries have been verified by the planning department so in regard to the application just to give a background U to the board the modification application has been made seeking a relief of covenants from the conditions of approval reported under the sub waver approved Aug 10 1977 specifically the applicant seeks to relief the requirement for the subject properties to only be served by one common driveway to serve the two lots again the subject properties are 65 and 63 uh Seaside instead the applicant intends for 63 Seaside Avenue which is the vacant flag lot to share an existing common driveway and brid that are presently serving um 59 and 61 Seaside Avenue to North that driveways um circled in yellow currently um 63 Seaside Avenue
034is not served by any driveway and 65 Seaside Avenue has a small driveway um with direct access to the street and that's circled in Red so during the initial review the planning board uh unanimously agreed that the proposal is in the interest of good planning and the board also determined that a change in circumstances was established by the implementation of restrictions for developing near Wetlands since the subject Parcels were created um the planning department notes there is a pending natural resources special permit application to replace the bridge for the subject driveway and the department is awaiting revised construction plans for a Steel Bridge and construction protocol details um so that would be an improvement to the subject driveway so following the review of the board on August 28 2024 the board issued a written comment
035to the applicant as follows quote the board will agree to the proposed modification provided that the property owners of 59 and 61 Seaside Avenue give formal consent to 63 Seaside Avenue um and this must be shown by all party signing a common driveway declaration before 63 Seaside Avenue can take access from such driveway um the applicant responded by submitting notorized consent letters signed by the owners of 5961 and 63 Seaside Avenue granting said permission and the planning Department's assessment of such is that it finds these submitted letters to be satisfactory to consider the application complete and ready for approval however the consent should be finalized by all the parties signing a common driveway declaration as a condition of approval uh before taking accessed other approvals that the applicant is advised upon is from the zoning
036board of appeals and nrsp natural resource special permit will be required to clear or grade and build any structures for improvements within 150 ft of the nearby Wetlands the zba approval is not subject to this application and will only be required prior to constructing an addition to the subject driveway importantly the ultimate driveway configuration should seek to minimize wetland disturbance so in conclusion the planning department finds the application to be complete and ready for approval based on the formal consent of the necessary Property Owners the board's previous determination that the proposals in the interest of good planning and a change of in circumstances has been established there are no there should be no further issues to discuss as mentioned a common driveway declaration signed by all parties would be a condition of approval and the
037planning department notes that the resolution of approval would modify language from the original Subway approval from 1977 the resolution would modify condition B which states that access to the subject Parcels is limited to one common driveway um between 63 and 65 Seaside Avenue the attorney's office will also need to approve a copy of covenants and restrictions to be recorded against the parcels that would share a common driveway uh that being 5961 and 63 Seaside Avenue to ensure the access is maintained in pury that's all thank you very much Chris uh Miss Wilshire applicant do you will wish to be heard no let you want to have a question for me okay we'll see if we do I mean this is a no-brainer for me it's one of those uh situations where the requirements of the
038code in this case the change of circumstance and sort of complies with the common sense solution so I think it should go through they should do this it's in the best interest of the area W everything else so I'm all for this plan okay any other comments okay Bor yeah sorry so property lines are going to change no no the only thing that's changing is that it would take access from this driveway highlighted in yellow and the requirement for 63 and 65 to maintain a common driveway would be eliminated from the original approval is do you guys require the survey to be updated to show the common driveway um that would happen when they construct the driveway itself this is just to give it the permission to use that driveway got it okay any other
039questions or comments okay yeah I mean this really feels like the absolute right thing to do there's no question about it we've already determined that the neighbors have now said yes I think we're we're ready to go here um so the question we have is does the planning board find the application complete and ready for approval yes yes all around right 70 you are ready for approval so thank you very much Lori than Lor okay [Music] my oh it is okay so right Hampton's racket is our next our next application Hampton racket at Green Hollow that is will your application and Michael that is you for the board right um and the applicant uh is Tiffany scarla oh Brit's here okay so yeah just give us a moment we'll do our usual thing right will
040will present then you can speak Tiff is on Zoom oh oh Tiff's on Zoom that is correct okay please let her in I am here I am hi everyone welcome Tiffany um so all right well an application has been made to modify a site plan SL special permit approval for 172 buckville Road in waycott to construct two pel courts in place of two existing tennis courts approval for a site plan was issued on February 28 2018 to legalize several built structures and the existing tennis camp use the scope of work at the time involved the construction of two grass parking areas removing a portion of the sand area adding concrete walkways gravel parking and relocating a shed the building permit was issued for this on November 7th 2019 and has had several extensions of time
041since this modification was first seen by the board on February 22nd 2024 and had a public hearing on April 17th 2024 following public comments at the hearing the planning department visited the site which revealed structures proposed by the modification were already built and other unapproved structures were present on site revealing the public hearing was not based on an accurate proposed site plan a newly configured modification proposal was submitted on January 2nd 2025 the site is zoned A3 residential and is located within the suffa county groundwater production area and the suffa county Pine Barons the site is surrounded by Residential Properties to the west south and east and abs the Long Island Railroad to the north the last certificate of occupancy for the site was issued almost 30 years ago on April 13th 1995 the public
042hearing regarding the previous version of this modification was held on April 17th 2024 that modification proposed Four pedel Courts to replace two existing tennis courts multiple members of the public provided comments and the applicant provided their response to those comments on May 15th 2024 due to the substance of these comments the planning department conducted an additional site inspection after the hearing several issues were identified including the proposed pedel courts already being built following the site visit the planning department Town attorney and applicants met to discuss the project and determine the application required further modification before the planning Court could issue a resolution for the project the applicant then submitted the present modification which is the subject of this review the current modification proposes two pel courts over two existing tennis courts Turf areas gravel areas
043to the east and south of the P the pel courts chain link fencing to the north and west of the pel area and Planters lining the path to the south of the courts the planning department recommends a new public hearing is necessary based on the changes to the site as the first public hearing was based on inaccurate information and not adequate for decisionmaking purposes site visits were conducted on April 15th 2024 and July 2nd 2024 and it revealed a number of issues on site including the presence of un unapproved structures and potential potential additional uses on site a third site inspection was conducted on January 24th 2025 which revealed many issues raised in previous reviews had been rectified one of the remaining issues to be addressed is the presence of a shed just south of
044the northern property line between two large tennis court areas on previous plans this shed was labeled as to be removed yet the most recent site visit this shed remains and on the new the newest survey this shed is not labeled as to be removed the applicant should confirm if this shed is to remain or to be removed the changes made to the site plan for this review showed the number of Courts on the plan has been reduced to the amount previously approved on the site 13 due to this consistency in the number of Courts parking requirements will not be required to increase as part of this application during the public hearing one of the comments received stated some courts on site were being used as pickle ball courts based on the recent site visit and
045most recent survey four mini courts are on site though it is unclear how they are intended to be used during the previous site visits no usage of these courts was observed the board should discuss if these courts should be considered playing courts the area of the courts and questions was not provided on the survey however the planning department estimates the entire area is approximately 6,840 sare ft meaning each of the four mini courts would constitute a plane Court under the town code definition if the planning board wishes to consider the many courts as full planing courts the parking for requirements for the site will increase south of the sand area the newest survey depicts a building labeled as a shed this shed was not part of the original approval and details regarding it have not
046been provided in the submission at the site visit in July 2024 this building appeared to be operating as a sauna and the applicant should clarify the use of this structure also during the July 2024 visit the area surrounding the shed had decking lounge chairs sofas and other amenities which were not listed as part of the application were shown on the submitted site plan at the January 2025 inspection these amenities had been removed the applicant should specify the plans for this area for future summer seasons at the public hearing on April 17th 2024 several comments referenced the existence of a restaurant on the site and based on planning department research a restaurant called V Cafe previously operated there however the restaurant was not observed during the site visits the 1995 certif certificate of occupancy indicates the
047site has a club house with kitchen facilities though no other mention of this Clubhouse is present in the building history because it is not clear whether whether the restaurant use is consistent with the approved use on the co the planning department recommends as a condition of approval should the board decide to Grant it prior to building permit issuance the applicant should seek a determination from the building inspector regarding whether the operation of a restaurant on site is illegal should this use not be consistent with the clubhouse with kitchen facilities authorized on the co additional site plan approval to legalize the use will be required although the tennis court special permit standards prohibit restaurants as an accessory use the chain link fence is present uh just north of the pel courts and is shown on the
048submitted site plan this fencing was not approved as part of the original approval and was not indicated as part of the proposed work in this modification the applicant should clarify if this fencing is intended to be permanent in conclusion regarding this modification the applicant should explain the presence of the shed previously labeled as to be removed the proposed use of the mini courts presence of any restaurant on site and whether the chain link fencing is intended to be permanent thank you will miss bistrian good evening chairman KW and members of the board I'm Brit drian here representing green Hollow Tennis Club Inc I'm joined virtually as you saw by tiffan Scar who's the land use attorney um for the owner I know there's a I think all of the members on the board um maybe
049have not seen this application except or maybe read in your first pure you might have um recently so I think it's important that it's got a very long history um so I just want to quickly outline that so that we can all be clear where we where we are presently and where we've been I submitted the site plan application to this board in September of 2013 12 years ago for a handful of additions that were added to the property prior to my client's ownership and after the last Co was issued in 30 years ago in 1995 so they purchased the property with additions one of them was an extra tennis court we came in for site plan approval to legalize some of the addition and to remove that tennis court to make it consistent with
050their original site plan approval building permit um sorry site plan approval was obtained in 2018 this included a handful of minor items as I just mentioned but the largest was for the removal of the tennis court and the addition of a camp use and recognizing a use Camp use had been on the property but it had become a special permit use and we wanted to have that listed so uh Camp use was added and accessory structures relating to that use sheds for storing of items um and we one of that part of that 2018 site plan approval had of the tennis courts converted into four miniature tennis courts for the children's camp use that was approved under the site plan approval there is a current building permit to legalize that we do not have a
051CO because we're here in front of you asking a modification so I don't know if it's appropriate to go back and reopen something that has planning board approval and a building permit that's the point I'm trying to make about that that um Camp Court um a building permit was issued all the work was complete under the site plan approval when there was a desire there's a change in the tennis community I'm sure we're all aware of it padell is now very um desired so they wanted to add an application was submitted to modify their site plan approval before we got the co to convert two tennis courts into Four pedel Courts that was the application you saw in 2024 this went to public Hearing in April of 2024 and from April 2024 until October the
052club was embroiled in all sorts of personal and business issues that usurped all of the owners energies I don't want to get into too much detail um it's not critical just to know that it existed and although I'll note that two of The Sibling owners got critically ill last spring which led them to handoff management of the club for the summer of 2024 season that's the Inception of a lot of the things that were came up during the summer a management company came in because the owners had to address a personal issue sadly um John Graham my client passed away just after the summer um um and so they have his sister who is still the owner of the club wants to get this completed restore the club she spent $650,000 in the last few
053months removing everything that was put on the site by a company that was not the owners they are completely uninvolved at this point her desire is to complete this as succinctly as possible the site it's completely restored adhering to the 2018 approval less the conversion of those two tennis courts to two padel courts and the relocation of a padel shed that was on the western side of the property to an area adjacent to the clubhouse so basically the only change from what you previously saw was instead of four pedel courts there's two and the shed was moved from one side of the property to the other um the there was a suggestion of a new public hearing if the board feels so compelled but I don't know if when you look at the differ between
054our April 2024 proposal and today the public hearing would be based on two less pedel courts and the relocation of a shed the board feels that that's necessary I guess we'll accept it but we really would like to get this wrapped up and be able to get a CE for the summer season so that we can finally get out of this very long process um the club The Shed that um will had mentioned that was actually on our original Co initially in the 2018 site plan they had desired to remove it it's there it's on the co I don't really need approval to to stay there it was to be removed but if we want to remove it we can remove it but it was on our previous Co um in summation it's our position
055that this application is complete with the scope of the work for the modification um the whole restaurant issue it it every Club I looked at South for Country Club I looked at Mont talk Downs I can read from their cosos none of them actually reference a restaurant they say um um hang on so South Fork Country Club says you know 415 screen lower level main floor interior alteration storage shed blah blah blah to an existing Clubhouse No ref no mention of a restaurant facility every other club that I looked at has Clubhouse on their um Co I'm assuming I mean I've been to mons and had dinner in their Clubhouse I've been to Southport and had dinner in their Clubhouse I don't it's not a restaurant per se as it is a clubhouse I believe
056the reason that this Co in 1995 differs from those is that this property the building that is a clubhouse was originally a single family residence so it the previous Co said single family residence with kitchen facilities and I think they just carried that when they converted to a tennis club to clubhouse with kitchen facilities and that's why it differs from the other ones that were built initially as club houses other than that I'm I know there's a lot of questions and I could probably clarify anything I just probably be as brief as possible before we turn it over to Michael to lead the conversation I just have one question for you who is the family going to resume management of this in future so the previous management company is not going to be involved the
057management company from April of to October of last year is completely is there a new management company or is it the family Resto to back to the family okay it's the single individual Michael please tell me the history again of the oh I'm sorry did you have a question for specifically I need to recuse myself from this application forgot that exactly all right due to professional ties uh I have a conflict of interest with this so I will remove myself please we'll call you back in sorry I forgot that tell me the history again history again of those min so when the the the grams took over the club there had been a camp use in in use since the 90s in the 90s it wasn't a special permit it was just something you had
058a tennis club and you you ran a camp and you had a tennis club subsequent to that it became a use that was defined in the code so we wanted to specifically have a the recognition that it was not only a tennis club with a clubhouse that it also had an accessory Camp use as a special permit use so we we obtained that approval from this board in 2018 and that included some of the the autant that are more associated with a camp a playground min mini courts storage Etc so the question before us though is is that one plane surface considered Four Courts I don't believe that that's actually in maybe I can get Tiffany and Charlie but if you have site plan approval and a building permit on an item is it actually
059under it's not under this modification are are we reopening a discussion that was approved I think just as a as a point we do have a building permit and are vested in that building permit by having having commenced construction and our almost near construction as Britain said we only came in for um the modification that was the last item was the padel courts um so this was well under construction we've had a building permit for it for quite a number of months now if they have a building permit for it that it's already I have to I don't have it in front of me so I'd have to look at this stuff I can't I mean I can take a word for it but I'd like to see the well I I I personally see
060just one plain surface and not Four Courts because you know my daughter has done tennis lessons on a regular tennis court and there'll be 20 kids and three instructors and that so i' see one plain surface and that's something we can all talk about to see how uh the the restaurant it's not a restaurant it's a kitchen and what and and it's a full surface kitchen so when kids go to Camp there my children actually went to Camp there they have warm lunch um members of the club have a glass of wine and chicken fingers after playing tennis it's a it's a typical Clubhouse use seasonal it's there's no absolutely no indoor seating or there's no dining areas it's it's picnic tables and stools okay I just I want to say I'm going to interrupt
061Michael for a second it has been a restaurant right in previous Summers it was vcafe right and anyone could go and have dinner and there were tables outside on the deck it was a restaurant open to the public right so how is that different from the clubhouse at Monto Downs I mean I think it's it's not a it doesn't operate as a restaurant when the club is not when the tennis club is not operating I think I can just speak to mon talk Downs very briefly um that's a very different situation because it's a New York state Run Golf Course and that's a concession run by an outside company and um so South Fork let's sou so South Fork members of the public I don't believe can go into South Fork and have much right
062no no so yeah something we need to clear this one up on the restaurant at this point just as a as a point and spoken to the owners um they're not going to be allowing PE members of the public to to eat at this facility it is for members only okay okay Michael I'm sorry okay that's all right um well also in this memo is a building inspector uh determination required for the restaurant or no it's if it's if they're saying that no only members can go then that's not necess Neary I would say that's probably right right if if you're we're completely transparent with the fact that the things the way that this club was run in the summer of 2024 was completely out of the owner's control even thinking of 23 however it
063was V there and there was a there was some joint management prior to that it's been shaky for a few years but the intent is to run a clubhouse for the members of the tennis club right I think all we're looking for is is knowing what's going on there that's I think all and and those are my comments yeah and sorry I didn't address the chain link fence the chain link fence has always been there it was the original tennis court fence it was not something that we've recently constructed so it just remained that that was a Tenn the pedel court went on a court where there was a tennis court so the chain link fencing was on the original site plan it's been there since the courts were built in the 90s okay so
064it's not new thank you what about the number of Courts how many courts do you have there's 13 as per the co the less so that includes the pickle ball courts that year I think that there was somebody looking at a court not knowing the camp use of that court and assuming that it was too small to play tennis there is no pickle ball court on this property there's padel courts and Tennis two padel courts correct you had four but you reduced it to two is that what happened we had proposed four correct so you still have you're still within the 13 allowed courts yes and the shed I read somewhere that it was being used as a sauna it multiple sheds on the site yeah they're they're all used for storage of items what
065they were used for I mean if you go to the site as that is noted in the in the assessment every shed is being used as a as a shed today and I think the the shed in question is 6 by six you know it's like I I don't want it's 8 by 10 even need a permit for a 6x6 Che you do yes you do yeah don't go to my house yeah yeah I mean to to Michael's point we just want to make sure that everything that is happening is noted right I mean that's that's really what we're yeah and it's stacked with furniture or whatever I mean it's a nice looking shed make it into a sauna and if if the board wants to make a condition of approval that all the sheds
066on site are used for storage of accessory items for a tennis club we'd be happy to we don't really care we just want to know you know we just want to know we're not we're not trying to cor I can't tell you I can't speak to what was going on there and and you know there was a lot of other stuff going on okay all right other comments okay I guess the big question is whether the board would Overlook the public hearing for the relocation of a shed and the reduction of pel before we before we go there though hold on one second maybe you're going to answer the ask the same question to court number courts yes I was going to ask about the number of Courts because I think can you put that
067back up will the number of courts in does anyone have a map I can't see I I think the biggest question I have is 1 two 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 so 13 13 but the one tennis court with the mini courts does look like the the way the lines are outlined does look like a skall courts so does that count as Four Courts I think we're we I think we need clarification maybe from the building inspector as to what so that's what I was driving it that we have site plan approval for that court and a building permit for it so I don't know if legally we're going to unless you want to that's a question we we have to answer we have to get that answer which which cord
068are you talking about is that the one to the right this one where it's one Four Courts on that four many courts and can you bring up that I think you have a picture will will has a picture Four Courts that could be used for pickle ball so the issue is yes if they if they if they have if they make available pickle ball course four of them that means that you're going to need more parking that means that the total number of Courts is more than 13 which brings up the question of par so that's that's the Crux of the issue yeah and how do we know like Michael said you can you know it's the same the same area but then if you take that area and turn it into four court so
069you have each pickle ball court has four players so that means the number of people that attend so the pickle ball there is if you look there's no pickle ball on offered on this property that Court was approved as part of our assem public facility and the camp use under this board in 2018 so that's the assurance that you have that Court was created for a children's camp use right so that was I think right so just I I think we just need clarification if it's four courts or one court because that what she saying it it was approved for fourt in 2018 it was approved as a tennis court being converted yes it was approved as this as a mini camp court for the special permit use so and at that time this board
070approved it and did not say that it needed additional parking because it was one court that was being used for the camp right okay I mean if that's the case Charlie and we have a building permit we just don't have a COO because we're here for the modification if that's in fact you can it's a thick file okay uh yes so my other major concern was the restaurant but I think we've you've you know informed us that there will not be a restaurant other than you know kitchen facilities and some food being served to members right and we can also make that a condition of this modification the kit is used is for the clubhous and for members of the club people do miss that I know so can I I'm sorry can I type
071in for a second um because I did look in the previous file and I I wasn't able to find I did find a reference to the conversion of the site to semiu facility which allows the camp use but not like specific reference to the mini camp ports and reason we brought this up I just wanted to remind the board is uh because it's a public comment right so we're really just trying to be responsible in um understanding what the public comments we getting at and and what what's going on at the site if it's not it's there looking at the 2018 site plan there's not four many courts shown um I just I will double check if these dates are right and if you have something different we'll definitely look at it but so just
072so that's there the use was you know a camp but I I don't see the Four Courts there if you look at the Aerials they were there and I'll find I know the file there was some issue with this file in scanning or something and I have a thick file on this so I could definitely pull up board minutes where where we had lengthy discussions with this about this particular issue yeah right just a clarication yeah that would be great if we could do that I'm curious how many members belong to the club is the membership number capped is it just open to anybody in the summertime I don't I don't know I it's not it's not open to anybody there is I know there's an application process um I all my guess it's not
073a heavily traffic the camp is is is utilized well I'm actually very happy to hear the Gram's families taking this back over to manage um there was a lot of you know feeling that this could really get out of control you know that the last management company was had a reputation for um certain kinds of uses that probably are not compatible for this kind of a site of the neighborhood so that is that new a lot of remorse for you know obviously they had to dedicate Monica had the sister had to dedicate her time to keeping her brother alive and had to not run the club and you know didn't it didn't without over said it didn't go well but sure that they'd like to see it back especially in John's honor okay all right
074so let's just clear up the the couple of issues that we've discussed um and we can come back and get this whole thing resolved um in the meantime we'll answer the questions which are does the planning board agree a new public hearing must be held because the first public hearing was based on inaccurate information how do we feel about that well I think there might be a benefit to holding it only if only to explain all of the things that we just heard tonight um because you know now we know about the restaurant now we know about the you know pending the you know receipt of the site plan from 2018 I think now we understand a little bit more about it and maybe if the public hears it again it might be it might
075be beneficial just for you know so that's a yes that's a yes a long very longwinded yes it's a good yes yeah yeah I agree I think we should have a public hearing for a little bit of a different reason I think the Public's been involved in this throughout I think we've gotten a lot of good comments from the from the uh public to shut them out at this point I think would be unfair I think it would be good to hear from them again yeah I tend to agree I think that that's right there's been a lot of misinformation about what's been going on and you know a lot of uh yeah a lot of misinformation and sort of speculation about what's happening and isn't happening so I think it's be good idea to
076clear the air so that's a yes okay I'm not sure what a another public hearing will bring us we have a lot of information already but sure I would say yes let's have a public hearing okay yeah I agree I think it'll clean clear up everything that we've sort of talked about over the last year y for sure read yeah I'm fine with it I'm sure they're itching open for the summer so if we get them up again they're they're kind of going pretty much as they would be right this isn't really going to hold anything El they've done all these improvements already yeah um so it looks like we're 60 with one exstension for a public hearing um get back do we wish to consider the miniature courts full plane courts under the town
077code definition and Britain and Company are going to be looking into what was approved the site plan that was approved in 2018 what it has to say about that should the applicant seek a building inspector determination if a restaurant is planned to operate on site and we have heard there will be no restaurant on site and their willingness to make got a come exactly and their willingness to Covenant that that will be the case going forward so I think we're good we'll see you next time Britain thank you okay so um why is everybody here what are you here for tell me so we before we get started on this next application mobile okay so just so you know this is not a public hearing and in fact this is a preliminary site review um
078so this is a highly preliminary discussion about what the applicant's intentions are so there's really there's not typically an opportunity here for the public to to speak at this stage of the process you're always welcome to make written comments to to the the planning board um I have agreed to let one applicant speak after we've had our conversation but may if I've made a mistake by doing that and everyone else wants to speak I'm gonna have to resume so are we good to listen or what what's your intention all right I'm going to assume that you're not here to speak um but there you know you you'll have plenty of opportunity to app I promise you it is not on tonight I'm so sorry um when will it next week next week same time same
079place glad I raised my hand yeah thank you sorry about that all right so Chris take us through the baa application thank you Chris suer from the department and this will be the preliminary site plan evaluation I'm sorry doing this blue no uh you're the applicant you guys okay thank you good you go this is the preliminary site plan evaluation for Bola amaganset located at 130 Main Street amaganset the sub parcel outlined here on the aerial map is 24752 Ft or 57 acres and is in the Central Business zoning District the parcel is also within the amig historic district and is therefore subject to the specific guidelines under town code I'm going to pull preliminary site plan application has been made to consider redeveloping the existing filling station and Repair Garage into a retail store
080and take out food store while maintaining the existing Filling Station use the retail use would include aola convenience store and Tim Horton's would be the takeout food store within the same building both businesses are considered formula businesses under the town code and are therefore subject to the specific standards and safeguards for those uses with three uses on one parcel The Proposal would also be considered a multiple business complex which requires a special permit as well the project involves expanding the existing on , 379t on story building to 2376 ft and building a 21t tall canopy shown here the heights to be confirmed um 1,943 1.5t canopy over the existing four pump islands and eight gasoline dispensers the proposed expansion includes facade changes pull up the elevation just you guys context as we go the proposed
081expansion includes faade changes with added windows and reverse cable roofs for the main entrance and four Windows along the roof facade also proposed is curving that would add 14 parking spaces to the site currently there is no strip parking on the parcel so the um current amount of parking spaces is unknown some existing structures are proposed to be Lo re located including a generator tank vent risers propane storage cages and the vacuum and compressed air station the three existing fuel storage tanks underground tanks the underground propane tank three single fixture light posts and a business sign on the street corner are proposed to remain the project will require variances from the zoning board of appeals to zba and I'll get into that in a moment preliminary site plan applications are not subject to the State
082Environmental Quality review act secret upon formal submission the project would be considered an unlisted action pursu to seekr chapter 128 of the town code given the proposal includes a retail use on the same parcel as a filling station use variance would be required per town code and it is recommended that upon formal submission the planning board requests lead agency um for this project for preliminary site plan applications just a reminder per Tong code quote the purpose of preliminary site plan review is to enable the applicant to examine a forthcoming site plan submission with the planning board prior to the applicant committing substantial effort or expense toward the plans and details necessary for a formal site plan application end quote the board should provide its overall comments with respect to the overall development plan including site
083layout proposed uses and density adequacy of parking and whether the project as proposed is in the interest of good planning the preliminary site plan is a one-time review to provide this overall guidance to the applicant going on to the issues relating to the project itself the change in use the proposal involves changing the existing uses from filling station and Repair Garage to a filling station take out food store and Retail Store as mentioned per town code definition for filling station which is included in this evaluation no convenience establishment or other retail store can be located on the same parcel as a filing station given such the applicant should determine whether they will seek a use variance from the zba for a filling station and Retail Store to be on the same parcel the applicant may
084also consider dividing the parcel between these uses however some restrictions May prohibit the parcel from being divided into conforming Lots which I'll touch on in a bit should the single parcel remain intact The Proposal would be considered a multiple business complex as I mentioned which is another special permitted use in the commercial business zoning District now moving on to the dimensional conformance and variances um that would apply to this project upon formal submission regarding the principal building the white here shows the existing building and the gray shows the area of expansion let see if I can zoom it in a little bit the existing building is non-conforming due to a portion of it being within the 25 ft rear yard setback requirement and the planning department notes that per town code 255 860 the zoning
085board has limitations on granting variances for expanding non-conforming buildings the zba cannot Grant variances that would increase the gross floor area GFA of the non-conforming portion of a non-conforming building by more than 50% unless the variances would meet the following condition under that code the zba quote shall be authorized to Grant a variance or variances which would increase the gross floor area of a non-conforming building in the following instances end quote the applicable instance for this application is likely quote if the variance would increase the gross floor area of the non-conforming portion of a non-conforming building by no more than 300 ft and quot the submitted plans did not identify the area of the existing building which is non-conforming and upon formal submission this must be provided the planning department measured this area at approximately
086450 Square ft therefore the maximum expansion of non-conformity of variant could Grant would be 300 Square ft for the subject building as per the town quote I just the town code I just quoted the proposed building addition is approx o imely 15 1/2 ft from the rear property line where the minimum setback is 25 ft required the area of non-conformity for the proposed addition appears less than 300 Square ft as approximately 270 Square ft therefore a variance from the zba does not appear to exceed the cap in the limitations under town code and an area variance would be required to approve the nonconforming portion of the building addition that does not comply with the setback requirements for the principal building upon formal submission the applicant must indicate the existing and proposed areas of non-conformity of
087the subject building next would be the accessory structures for this dimensional conformance and variances the proposed canopy again on the North End of the property is within 2.8 ft of the property line where 10 ft is required given that the structure would be considered an accessory structure the planning board has Authority Under town code to reduce the necessary setback during sight planine review should the board decide not to review reduce the mentioned setback and area variance would be required to approve um said setback of the proposed cany other accessory structures are proposed to be relocated within 25 ft of the required setback from the rear property line to the South these include the tank vent risers propane storage cages the generator on the east side of the building and then you have your air compression
088air compressors and vacuum stations which are located along here the formal submission should indicate setbacks for these structures and propose screening for the planning board to consider reducing the necessary setbacks the applicant must provide information related to noise generation for the generator vacuums and air compressors provided the applicant can meet noise standards and provide adequate screening from adjacent properties to the accessory structures mentioned not including the proposed canopy just see ones that I've mentioned it may be appropriate for the planning board to allow the reduced setbacks and I know the adjacent land use to the South is commercial and is also zoned commercial business the proposed total coverage so moving on to coverage the proposed total coverage is not included in the submission however it appears the project would exceed the 80 % total lot
089coverage permitted in the commercial business Zone under town code and this figure should be included upon uh formal submission to determine whether the variance would be necessary regarding use and additional area variances for the project as referenced earlier per town code definitions a filling station and Retail use cannot be on the same parcel therefore if the applicant wishes to maintain the single parcel use variants must be obtained from the zba in order order to Grant the use variances EBA must find that their proposal is consistent with the standards in town code 255-8506 return is substantial and has been established by competent Financial evidence end quote from the materials submitted with the preliminary site plan application compliance with these standards is not evident as there is an existing building on the parcel business on the parcel
090that has been in place for many years in addition it is noteworthy that per formula business special permit standards in town code quote only one formula business shall be permitted per building or lot except for a lot containing a legal multiple business complex a multiple business complex may have 50% of the permitted or special permitted businesses be formula businesses end quote with three uses proposed for the lot and two of them being formula businesses in additional use variants would be required to have more than 50% of the businesses on site B formula businesses alternatively the planning department notes the applicant could seek to subdivide the parcel and in that case area Evan variances would be required to legalize non-conforming lot sizes and setbacks the minimum lot size in the commercial business zoning district is 3,000
091square ft which would apply to the retail and take out food store uses per town code a filling station is required to have a minimum lot size of 20,000 Square ft and maintain a street Frontage of at least 100 ft along the highway given the existing lot size of approximately 24752 ft the positioning of the existing building and the positioning of the existing building it is not likely that two conforming Lots can be created dividing the parcel may also create dimensional conformance issues with respect to setbacks for the accessory and principal structures the applicant should review chapter 20 220 subdivision of land in the town code and determine whether they will divide the parcel upon formal submission in this case an additional use variance will still be required to permit two formula business businesses in
092the same building on the subject parcel per town code only one formula business can be permitted per building or lot except for a lot containing IL legal multiple business complex um the next issue is regarding lot coverage in general so I'll go on to that the proposed lock coverage is 17.2% approximately 4,257 Square ft which complies with the maximum lot coverage of 50% in the commercial business Zone and this only applies to the building in canopy upon formal submission the applicant should include the proposed law coverage in square feet and provide the existing law coverage the lot size should be confirmed with a certified survey upon formal submission regarding the total coverage which applies to all structures the applicant did not include any information per town code the maximum lock coverage is 80% in the
093CD Zone which is approximately 19,0 81 ft for the subject parcel the planning department is unable to determine the proposed Total Lock coverage since it is not clear where the Landscaping is proposed to replace existing asphalt particularly along the Eastern and Southern portions of the parcel it appears that some Landscaping if proposed is proposed but the existing underground propane storage tank and storm water drain will remain as proposed it appears the project would not comply with the 80% maximum Total Lock coverage the formal submission should clearly indicate landscaped areas where existing asphalt will be removed so that area can be omitted from the total lot coverage calculation the formal submission should exist indicate the existing and proposed Total Lock coverage as mentioned an additional area variance would be required if it cannot conform these requirements
094moving on to the special permit standards which there are a few for this proposal since the proposal involves expanding the existing GFA by more than 50% the project is considered substantial expansion by town code therefore the project is subject to specific standards under the town code given such the board should consider the general standards for special permit uses and the specific standards and safeguards F filling stations to determine whether the proposal is in the interest of good planning also the proposed Bola market and Tim Horton franchises are subject to specific standards and safeguards for formula businesses under the town code which I will detail and are attached to this report as discussed if located on the same parcel the entire proposal would be considered a multiple business complex compliance with all three special permit standards
095being one for The Filling Station giving the expans substantial expansion two the formula business and three multiple business complex those all have specific special perit standards and the general standards will also be required to consider so the board should consider the impact on specific existing uses particularly the adjacent St Thomas Episcopal Church to the west and the Nickels Livery stable building to the South also the board should discuss whether the proposed use is compatible with its surrounding particularly regarding visibility scale and overall appearance regarding this specific standards and safeguards fulfilling stations under town code no church shall be located within 500 ft of the site driveways must be located at least 20 ft from any side or rear property line and all pumps must be at least 50 ft from any building structure or Street
096line all three of these conditions are violated by the current and proposed nature of The Filling Station however given past approvals of the station and the Fire Marshall finding no issues with the proposed site plan the location of these structures mentioned should be satisfactory the planning department notes that the four existing pump islands and eight dispensers are proposed to remain in their existing locations the submitted plans are missing the required circulation diagram to show this quote how a number of vehicles in excess of the maximum number which can reasonably be expected to be using the station at any one time will be serviced at the pumps and how adequate room for such vehicles to cue within the premise will be provided without adverse effect on entrances exits or off-site traffic flow end quote site navigation
097is an issue with the proposal and is further discussed um under site navigation lastly the formal submission should include should confirm that at least one pump intendant will be present to provide full service as required by town code regarding the specific standards and safeguards for formula business as mentioned under town code only one formula business can be permitted on the subject parcel the planning board should consider the mentioned standards and discuss whether the businesses are quote designed in a non-obtrusive manner to preserve the community's unique Rural and historic character end quote the design should support the town's rural semi- rural character and unique qualities of the amag historic district lastly the design must be unique must use a unique visual appearance that is consistent with the character of the town and not homogeneous with the
098formula businesses designs and other jurisdictions the board should discuss whether changes to the exterior facades would be appropriate to make the application more compatible with the surrounding Community the planning board should also consider specific standards and safeguards for multiple business complexes under town code which are attach this report the applicant should review this section of code prior to making a formal submission with the intention to make the proposal compliant next is the historic district guidelines since the subject parcel is within the amens at historic district is subject to specific standards the guidelines contain General regulations for the amance historic district and specific guidelines for the subject parcel itself the town code encourages wood facades on commercial buildings however the existing proposed the existing building proposed for expansion is Brick ultimately the Architectural Review Board the
099ARB will decide whether the proposed facade is appropriate due to the conversion from a Repair Garage to a retail store changing the facade to align with the district guidelines may be appropriate the proposed facade includes beige for the decorative columns and reverse Gable portions of the roof facade the elevation drawings do not specify the building material the planning department notes that the town code encourages natural shingle siding or siding painted white along with white trim as appropriate finishes given such applicant should consider using natural wood that is not painted or is painted white per town code regulations for development on the subject parcel quote any site plan review should have the goals of maintaining the open space west of the building removing intrusions from that space and enhancing the visibility of nickols Livery stable from
100Main Street end quote also quote any changes should be reviewed to enhance compatibility with the historic district end quote given such the board should consider whether the proposal would negatively impact the adjacent chur Church to the west and the nickols Livery stable building to the south in particular the board should discuss whether the proposed canopy would have a negative visual impact on the historic district the planning department recommends that renderings depicting the proposed canopy from different Vantage points within the hor historic district be prepared upon formal submission to facilitate this review regarding signage the proposed will includes eliminated signs on the front facade and the West Side facade of the building town code states that exterior internally illuminated signs are prohibited in the town the sign may be illuminated by an overhead light which complies
101with the town code General lighting standards ARB approval will be required for the signs upon formal submission next is parking a long presentation The Proposal includes 14 parking spaces including the one required uh Ada accessible space the submission used the appropriate minimum parking space calculation for the retail and take out food store use which would require the 14 spaces however the submission did not include the necessary parking for The Filling Station use per town code filling stations must provide a four space queuing line area for each pump which I'll get to and one space per employee that the applicant should confirm the number of filling station employees that will be working at one time and add the necessary parking space or spaces in the formal submission regarding the dimensions of the proposed parking space each
102space is 9 ft by 18 ft which does not meet minimum dimensional requirements and the formal submission should come into conformance with said requirements next is the site navigation and traffic so the proposal does raise issues of site navigation and traffic the plans must demonstrate that access across the property will not be disturbed when the pumps are in use as mentioned a four space queuing line for each pump dispenser must be provided and indicated with Dimensions to ensure que and lines do not spill off the subd parcel so that would show by each dispenser you'd want to see that four cars could be lined up um for them all without impeding access to parking or across the site also mentioned the applicant must provide a circulation diagram that meets the mentioned standard s to show
103how the site will operate when the number of vehicles on site exceeds the maximum number Vehicles typically expected to be using the site at any one time the Que in line should provide adequate space to maintain conforming Drive AES to the plan parking spaces the planning department notes access to the Ada space may be limited with a queuing line forming at the nearest gasoline dispenser per town code of minimum withd 24 ft must be provided for all drive aises for parking spaces at a 90° angle wh said aisle the revised plan should indicate the drive aisles for the parking spaces and ensure they do not overlap with the necessary queuing lines for the gasing dispensers the submission includes a fuel truck delivery plan where the truck would effectively block off four of the eight gasoline
104dispensers applicant should explain whether an alternative delivery route plan can deliver fuel without reducing access to the dispensers also the proposed dumpster enclosure which is to the east of the building here um would have limited access when those nearby parking spaces are being used and the applicant should consider an alternative location that would not reduce access for garbage trucks empty the dumpster it is noted that part of the requirements under town code for a formula business is the preparation and submission of a traffic study with specific information requested by the planning board the board has the authority to wave this requirement however the planning department recommends that such study be required in this case the site location experiences heavy traffic and trip generation associated with the proposed use must be thoroughly analyzed in that context
105the study should also consider Peak seasonal traffic conditions and include existing conditions traffic counts representative of these of those conditions finding Department recommends that a scope for the study to be submitted for review before it is talked to facilitate agreement on the scope of analysis analysis required and the methodologies to be utilized by said study moving on to Landscaping comprehensive site Landscaping plan should be submitted the Landscaping plan submitted is missing some elements the location of existing Landscaping including lawn areas should be indicated the symbology used in the plan for each plant species should be added to the Landscaping plan key planning department notes that columnar sweet gum trees plan Planned are known to have invasive roots and fruit while the plant species is not prohibited is recommended that another species be considered the proposed
106flowering annual should be should provide a specific botanical name common name for the proposed plants and they should be indicated in accordance with the standards listed in this report as always the applicant is encouraged to use native vegetation wherever possible for new plantings regarding the proposed lighting a comprehensive site lighting plan which meets all provisions of the town code as well as the planning board guidelines for exterior lighting should be submitted the submission includes a lighting plan which is missing some necessary details lighting manufactured or supplied product information sheets that include photographs of the fixtures and indicate the photometric distribution type quote full cut off and quote of the light fixtures are missing the color temperature and degrees Kelvin must be provided and cannot exceed 3,000 de Delvin also missing as a type of control
107for example motion sensor timer um time lighting plan is missing a key that meets the requirements listed in the report and must include symbology to indicate the different fixture types regarding the three existing single fixture light posts there's two along the highway and one along Eng Wells Highway um they are spilling light across the property line where the foot candles must not exceed zero um these lights should be removed or altered to come into conformance with the code and all exterior light fixtures must be fully shielded as defined by to code regarding noise generation touched on this but the applicant must provide manufactured specification sheets with sound deci with sound data in decb a and corresponding analysis for the exterior equipment for the generator vacuums and air compressors that are proposed be relocated the information
108is needed to show compliance of town code noise standards and the rear setback should be indicated for each noise generating element next regarding the covenants and restrictions for the properties pursuing to the special warranty deed recorded March 3rd 2011 future development is restricted by the following covenants and restrictions which are applicable to the proposed work for the deed quote all buildings constructed on the property shall be constructed on grade and shall have no living working storage or parking areas below grade end quote also applicable is quote if at any time a new building Foundation is installed on the property that prior to commencing any construction related to the New Foundation grantee at its Soul cost shall install an impervious liner under the New Foundation to act as an effective Vapor Barrier end quote the applicant
109is advised to review the deed and ensure the impervious liner meets the standards outlined within and development follows the requirements under the engineering and instit tional controls portion of said document any development on the subject parcel must prioritize using engineering controls to prevent the migration of vapors and liquids containing contamination into any buildings underground utilities or storm water runoff our next issue is regarding environmental remediation um the potential for environmental contamination is an issue on Parcels with filling stations and repair garages the applicant should detail whether any soil studies or remediation efforts have been conducted on site and what work was completed if applicable the applicant should also specify whether environmental remediation will be part of the formal submission prior to soil disturbance it must be ensured that the on-site soils are not impacted by
110petroleum or other potentially hazardous substances that may be on site and that workers performing construction will not be impacted by such the planning department notes that soil testing in areas of excavation is likely warranted if no data on these matters is available the applicant should also demonstrate compliance with applicable regulations for storage of hazardous materials either existing or proposed any facilities to be removed must be addressed in accordance with applicable regulations and the applicant should provide documentation that demonstrates this next regarding sanitary system the submission did not include details on the existing or proposed sanitary systems this is not necessary for preliminary application however the planning department notes that upon formal submission the applicant will be required to install or upgrade the current system toow nitrogen system the work will be subject to suffa county
111department of health services approval and must comply with the town code regarding engineering comments the town Consulting engineer reviewed the application made comments in regard to the following for trading and drainage which is also not necessary for preliminary applications engineer notes that the application would need to demonstrate and provide calculations to verify the existing drainage capacity conforms to design standards of the town code and is adequate the engineer notes that should additional drainage be proposed improvements should be clearly annotated on the site plan drawings also for the proposed canopy and building storm water runoff should be directly piped into storm into drainage leeching structures and the piping should be indicated on the plans the engineer also made common Garden the sanitary system proposed parking and exterior lighting which are addressed elsewhere in this report um
112the engineers report is attached um and readily accessible regarding the office of fire prevention the Fire Marshall findings indicate the proposal is sufficient or not relevant to necess necessitate further review of four fire protection purposes regarding the Americans of Disabilities Act Ada the findings indicate the exterior plans are ADA Compliant and the interior plans will be subject to the building permit review for other approvals the applicant is advised that upon formal submission additional approvals for this project will be required from the ARB the Architectural Review Board the review is required for all commercial structures which require site plan approvals except for parking lots and driveways the review will include the proposed changes to the exterior color of the building signage exterior lighting and other Design Elements the applicant is advised to review the amag historic
113district guidelines office of fire prevention Fire Marshall must approve for interior compliance with the Ada for the building permit but no additional Fire Marshall review is needed for the planning board review would be needed from the zoning board the zba an area variance would be needed for the proposed Edition within 25 ft of the rear property line set back to the South the proposed canopy within 10 ft of the property line to the north if it's not waved by the planning board an area variance may be required for the total lock coverage if it exceeds 80% the use variance and special permit variant to allow more than 50% of the businesses to be a formul business would be required if the parcel is not subdivided an additional use variance would be required to approve a
114retail establishment on the same parcel as a filling station if a subdivision is pursued an area variance or variances will be required for non-conforming lot sizes and setbacks and an additional use variance would be required to approve two formula businesses on the subject parcel um s County Department of Health Services approval would be necessary for the sanitary system and suffa County Planning Commission um review this would be subject to review given the subject Parcels within 500 ft of an agricultural district and along a state road lastly before going to the conclusion then okay we're going to skip the necessary elements this is long [Applause] enough okay in [Laughter] conclusion during the preliminary site plan review the planning board should consider whether the proposal is in the interest of good planning the proposal would require multiple
115variances from the town code code including potential potentially from youth standards special permit standards and area requirements it is not clear from the current application materials whether the project is likely to meet the variant standards the guidelines of the amag against a historic district and whether they can be adhered to for this application will also be a key issue the proposal includes adding two New Uses which are both traffic generators to an already congested area of the town this must be carefully reviewed in a thorough traffic analysis to determine if significant impacts to the roadway conditions would occur the information submitted was insufficient for the planning department to determine um the feasibility of the parking layout and whether it will conflict with the necessary queueing lines the formal submission should clearly indicate compliant Drive AES
116parking spaces queuing lines to ensure sufficient space as part of the preliminary review the planning department recommend that the board relay its overall comments uh overall site layout proposed uses density other key elements as mentioned the board should consider the mentioned sections of the town code to determine whether the proposal is compatible with the surrounding community and in the interest of good planning last thing the board should consider the visual impacts of the proposed canopy and whether it will impact the visibility of the adjacent Nichols libery stable building the board should also consider the design of the building facade and whether it is compatible with the historic district and Hampton's rural semi- rural character the applicant is advised to review the comments provided and specify what variances will be sought upon formal submission and upon
117formal submission the planning board should seek input from the ARB early in the planning process regarding the amaga historic district guidelines and whether the proposal is appropriate thanks for your patience take a breath thank you so much Chris that was a very very thorough analysis and we typically do not go into this much detail with the preliminary site review but we thought it was really important to for you to have some some very thorough guidelines and guidance as to where you may need to go next I mean I think the conclusion you know pretty much calls into you know summarizes pretty nicely the sorts of things you need to think about um so I will call you up if you'd like to to make any comments I don't expect you to know I'm sorry R
118I'm thinking of the guys in the back oh the guys in the back hang on okay um obviously we don't expect you at this point to respond in detail to joal Chris's points but your name and your your business address please good evening for the applicant Matthew inber from the law firm of brown Alman and Deo 538 Broad Hollow Road Sweet 301 Melville New York uh just before we begin I would like to thank the board for considering uh B's preliminary cyan application I'd also like to thank the planning department for its very comprehensive evaluation of the project um will consider you know the comments in the evaluation as well as from the board and any comments that the public may have upon formal submission um our project engineer Nick Bushi of High Point engineering
119is here and he would like to uh address up some of the uh comments in the evaluation memo and uh could walk you through some of the uh additions and improvements that b is seeking to make for the record Nick MMI PE fivepoint engineering office located at 1860 Woodman Road Sweet 600 Melville New York 11747 um I would just first like to thank the planning department and board for this uh memo this is one of the most welld detailed responses and I wish every town would provide something like this um a few items that I I don't want to you know I'm going to keep this brief I don't want to go through every single item there is some items that I just feel are important that you guys uh should be made aware of
120um the first item that I just would like to discuss is the Environmental remediation as well as the sanitary system um so per suffer County Department of Health uh standards we have to go through What's called the waste water management review uh that is for your septic system part of that review it's required that we get a no further action letter from the office of pollution control part of that no further action um requirement is you will have to test what they call the uic's your Underground injection control Wells uh that is just a fancy word for dry Wells where your your rain water goes so all testing of soil will be required on site as part of the application um that's something that is not driven by the town that is driven by the
121county as it is under their jurisdiction um regarding the Landscaping so we took a look at what we were looking at for our existing and proposed coverages um as part of this application there is going to be a 20% % increase of green area on the site uh behind the building you'll see we are removing um some of those items and that will all become green space um the applicant does do Four Seasons Landscaping so he is regularly and actively changing out uh Landscaping throughout all of his sites which he has over 200 within the area in the New York metro area so that is something that they take pride in um and then to just kind of wrap up everything that we saw um I did just want to speak quickly to the issue
122of the principal building and the area of non-conformance the area of non-conformance right now is 577 square fet that area is that 25 any portion of the building within the 25 foot rear yard area as part of this expansion which is the area shown in Gray it's a 234 square foot of increased non-conformity that is a 40.5% increase so that is allowed to be part of uh the application and to be considered during the zoning board um like I said I wanted to keep it brief I just want to throw a couple facts out there um we understand there's a lot of people here um and I'm sure you guys have a ton of questions so if there's any please feel free okay any questions or should we turn this to Michael to lead our
123discussion can I just I Tina from the planning department I just want to address something that gentleman just said regarding the environmental remediation as the secer lead agency in an environmental review the board absolutely does have the authority and the obligation to review whether or not on-site contamination may be a concern and to understand whether the proposed testing soil removal disposal handling practices are in accordance with appropriate environmental guidelines so I just wanted to um put that in the record there right thanks t so I would like to begin with a couple of examples of of businesses and their architectural Styles the first is the Burger King in Southampton and it is do you know it it's it's Driftwood gray it's asymmetrical it looks like it could fit anywhere in Southampton it it's doing its
124best to fit in the other is if you ever go to Stratford upon Avon where Shakespeare was born there's a rows of buildings that I went there years ago and I swear it said Ye Old McDonald's and it was in the Elizabethan architectural style it fit in so let's come to Bola in amaganset and let's start with the the canopy so if you go past you go through amaganset and uh you go past the IG I think it's called marketplace now and there's a Shell gas station there with a canopy where the clear the clearance is 14 feet it looks to be maybe 18 feet this is a massive accessory structure now there it's 20 something feet off the road you guys are proposing Less Than 3 ft from the sidewalk and you're I guess
125you're going to ask us to to wave that requirement I don't think we're going to wave that requirement so that means 10 ft does that even cover the the one of the the sets of of pumps there I don't think so so yours is also 21t your principal structure I don't even think is 21 feet this is this this corner is a it's a conspicuous spot it's the beginning of the historic amaganset it is an important spot all these people and there's more people than in this room that care about this uh about the idea of subdividing this sply I live in I live in waycott and and near us is a Speedway that did do that they subdivided it the front is is pumps the back is you get your milk or Slurpee or
126something that is a rectangular lot much bigger than this you already are just what we see you're already subjected to multiple variances special permits to to try to subdivide would just be more variances and permits you're you're putting 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag my recommendation is to take every paragraph of Chris's excellent memo to Heart it is a great memo I don't think I've seen a better memo here it's fantastic those are my comments Ed thanks Michael let's go around the room Bruce yeah I'd have to agree with Michael I would have to say that this corner I don't think is the beginning of the historic district I think it occurs further west yes well context beginning of the shops yes beginning of the shops but I think in context look
127at the bigger picture right what do we have across the street to the South we have historic building the church behind us to the South we have the Livery stable across the street we have Miss Amelia that starts the historic say Main Street downtown of amig so visualizing the site coming in the canopy I I don't think fits at all being three feet from the property line um the building architecturally I know we really can't talk about architecture that's really not our purview but thankfully it does say we can comment on it in our memo architecturally I don't think this fits into the site the town the Main Street um at all um get into nitty-gritty circulation through the site looking you know at your site plan circulation I don't think works either um and
128again you know I just think there's too many uses like you said 10 pounds and 5 pound bag um I think my only other question was here understanding percentage of building non-conformity I think they addressed that um that's it for now okay that's Bruce what were your thoughts um well first of all I thank the applicant and I think every application deserves a fair review and I think we're just giving some guidance this evening um you know I see the first sentence and in the conclusion uh the planning board should consider consider whether the proposal is in the interest of good planning and I don't want to be discouraging but I'm not so sure I think this is a heavy lift quite frankly uh I think you're asking for quite quite a bit um you
129know Joe Potter once said to me he said you know read it unless it's winter time you wouldn't know if you're in Madison Wisconsin or Madison Georgia I mean everything in America is kind of becoming you know everything's the same and we got something really special here and I think we really need to keep it special and protected and and I again I think that this is um an overreach that's my my take on it good thanks Reed Ava yeah to kind of you know jump off what Reed said in the interest of good planning and as a resident of amansa myself uh you know this is a big lift a big ask for a main entry point of the village mainly the Hamlet of amaganset and during the you know high traffic time of
130the year which now has extended every year month into a month um anyone who travels Eastward past Brent knows that from that light onward it's crawling and this is not a big lot and this is a lot of stuff going on on a small small lot and Michael I liked your reference of Wayne Scott where that is a much larger space and it's while it is also on a very well-used uh you our well you know traveled thoroughfare um I just see the the traffic alone being a major major issue here and the parking to have a a convenience store or take out take out place in addition to the gas station and filling and I I just don't see it all fitting all together personally I much sense thanks AA L okay I made
131some notes and you know excuse my I'm going to not be that brief I want to cover a lot of things um as a preliminary site plan application we are expected to provide comments pertaining to various elements of the site plan and to determine whether the project as proposed is in the interest of good planning I cannot stress it strongly enough that in my view this project as proposed is the antithesis of good planning it's more suited to be placed on the side of the Long Island Expressway as a truck stop than to be at the Forefront of the historic district of this quain buol section of Main Street migan furthermore it violates numerous town code restrictions and standards to which it is subject to namely a filling station use cannot be combined with a
132rental use this project has two retail uses numerous variances to setbacks of the main building the fill pumps the canopy coverage multiple formula businesses on the same lot the project is also subject to a number of town code standards which in my view it fails to meet a number of them for example section 255 540 special Permanent General standards the compatibility the proposed use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and the community in general particularly with regard to visibility scale and overall appearance it definitely does not meet that standard section 255 550 special permit specific standards with regard to filling stations setbacks proximity to church historic buildings driveway setbacks and pump setbacks all in violations finally formula businesses the formula business must be compatible with existing surrounding uses
133and designed in a non-abusive non obtrusive sorry manner to preserve the community's unique neur Rural and historic character the approval of the formula business shall be consistent with the policies goals and standards of the comprehensive plan including but not limited to consideration of the following goals all of which this project does not meet a maintain and restore where necessary East Hampton's rural semi- rural character B protect the natural and cultural features identified in the comprehensive plan C protect historic buildings hamlets neighborhoods Landscapes Scenic Vistas and it goes on and on three three for the formula business with a designated historic district the planning board shall find that said business shall comply with the preservation goal set forth in the town code for that specific historic district the formula business shall not contain the features or
134attributes of the formula business except for the service or product I could go on and on because we've been here a long time I don't want to extend this but this is a nonstarter I can't again like I said I can't stress that enough those are my comments okay Lou thanks um yeah I have a couple of comments I I agree with everybody's sentiment that I I don't think that this project fits in with the historic district of amaganset I think you know for the town you know a town that has spent so much time and so much energy and preserving open space and Scenic Vistas to have this as the entrance to amaganset Hamlet is just like L said um a non-starter I also don't think that there's any hardship proven for changing you
135know for proving that you need the change of use into the the retail um and take out food there's you know it's a it's a very successful filling station and and um filling station and get and a garage and I think Ava is also correct you know the traffic implications are just you know kind of mind-boggling when you think of of adding two additional uses to that very small lot um so yeah I I agree those are my comments okay thank you Jan so we'll have to Echo most of the comments that we've heard around the table I will say that you know Reed makes a good point that we you know every application that we receive deserves a fair Shake but you know this is so inconsistent with our code you know there it's
136just one challenge after another after another uh and youth variances are really difficult in this town right that's not up to us but you know we take them very very seriously you know formula and you know as you have heard and I'm sure you knew prior to coming here formula businesses are something that are they're discouraged and kind of approved only in very special circumstances so this is as other people have said a very heavy lift indeed um and if you choose to continue to pursue this um you've got an extremely thorough uh outline here of what needs to be done it's a lot right and I'm not sure that you know the zba is going to be up for the number of variances that are required here I mean any way you want to
137go with this is going to require a complicated set of variances um and I am certain that there is going to be a lot of uh discussion in the neighborhood about about this as well um so with that we'll go over the questions and then if you still want to talk M clapman I will let let that happen but first we're going to go through our questions does the planning board agree with the planning Department's preliminary assessment of additional information that must be provided per town code 255 650 necessary elements of the site plan yes right should the applicant provide the necessary details on the plans to determine if the proposal complies with the 50% gap for non-conforming building expansion yes yes should the applicant demonstrate compliance with General special permit standards specific standards and
138safeguards and the amance at his dark District guidelines yes does the planning board consider the proposed canopy to be a potential negative aesthetic impact within the EST district and should Alternatives be considered to ensure this is minimized yes yes does the planning board agree that a traffic study scope be provided upon formal submission does the planning board agree that rendering depicting the proposed canopy from different Vantage points within the historic district be provided upon formal submission y okay does the planning board agree that a noise analysis analysis including indicated sibs be provided for the generator vacuums and air compressor upon final submission yes does the planning board agree that a revise comprehensive Landscaping plan be provided upon formal submission yes does the planning board agree that revised comprehensive exterior lighting plan be provided upon formal
139submission yes does the planning board agree that total coverage calculations be provided upon formal submission yes yes does the planning board agree that the existing and proposed areas of non-conformity in square feet for the building be provided upon formal submission yes does the planning board agree that the number of filling station employees be provided in the formal submission yes does the planning board agree that compliant parking spaces and drive aisles be indicated upon formal submission yes yes does the planning board agree that details on pasted and proposed environmental remediation efforts be provided upon formal submission yes and finally does the planning board agree that details for the proposed sanitary system and drainage structures be provided upon formal submission yes yes okay so our our questions kind of covered a lot of the detail but I
140realized we should have put a question just to summarize does the planning board think this is in the interest of good planning and agree that the proposal is something they would want to entertain I mean I heard a lot of was when I was listening to the question saying this is really Superfluous because this is such Beyond The Pale yeah that we're getting into detail that I think is unnecessary well we we provided the detail because we want the applicant to understand how much was was uh needing to be addressed with what they provided but yes the overall concern and you see it peppered throughout our review is that it is not consistent with our code in several different you know several ways that are really fundamental to the way the code is set up
141um you know it doesn't look to comply with the special permit standards or the variant standards so I I think you know having some something in the record that goes out to the applicant that communicates the board wants to see kind of some fundamental changes is also agree so shall we add that as a question yeah you know so the question should be do we feel as though this this uh application is in is in the interest of good planning right I guess that's the question right okay we'll go around the table is it the interest of good planning no I I I made that pretty clear no I don't absolutely not no no sorry I answered for read I'm sorry all all right um all right thank you gentlemen sorry it was a rough
142one um Rona three minutes okay we have a Tim two seconds okay just state your name and address please for the record it's Rona clotman uh 1a4 Marine Boulevard and amaganset and as chair of the amaganset citizens advisory committee I would like to commend Chris Tina and this board first of all for allowing me to speak even though it wasn't it was a minary hearing but it was it was like the best thing I could hear the best words I could ever hear was what everybody said on this board and what the planning department said so thank you very much is that quick enough that's good thank you so much I like that yeah yeah okay thank you all right not a public hearing guys all right but if you want quick comment you'll have
143to make it from the podium but quickly please name and address please hi I'm Victor Gelb I'm co-president of the amaga village Improvement Society uh 99 Hedges Lane amaganset um I would just like to point out to the board that at a preliminary meeting you have representatives of both the concerned uh citizens advisory committee and the abis to express our the vision that this is not an appropriate project and thank you very much for seemingly to agree with us it than sure your comment all right I think we're done on that one right um let's see we have minutes to approve from our last meeting we're not doing these tonight yeah yeah yeah we did South anthon already we did that resolution exactly uh has everyone reviewed the minutes are there any comments suggestions recommendations
144thoughts changes are you gonna do it okay make that motion move to approve second all in favor approving I all right thank you thank you he's back so we'll see you tomorrow yeah you guys