East Hampton Town Planning Board Meeting 06/17/2026

001Okay, planning board. This is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Just want to let you know that we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. Uh good afternoon everybody and welcome to the East Hampton Town Planning Board the regular and work session of June 17, 2026. Uh we have a public hearing. We have six matters on for work work session. Uh since two of them have been adjourned which you might have seen on the on the notice on on the window. So East and 400 H Creek have been adjourned by the applicants and we have several items for a regular meeting as well. So, we're going to jump into it. Uh, the first thing is the most holy trinity cemetery site plan, special permit modification, public

002hearing. Uh, [snorts] that is will for the planning department and read for the board. So, do you want to read it? Um, notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held before the East Hampton Town Planning Board on June 17th, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. The application is Most Holy Trinity Cemetery site plan. Special permit modification. The size and the location of the [clears throat] application 39 acres located 200 Cedar Street in East Hampton. Uh the description uh the application is seeking approval to modify site plan special permit originally approved on November 16, 2005. The modification proposes altering the condition of approval requiring a non-disturbance buffer to permit removal of invasive plant species from the southern property line. >> Okay, thanks Reed. What else do you want to add to that? No, >> I'll

003add um this is an application like you said seeking approval to [snorts] modify a site plan. The property is zoned A5 residents considered improved and partially cleared located within the Suffach County Groundwater Protection Area in the New York State Cultural Resources Information System identifies the site as a historic cemetery of East Hampton. The site is currently improved with cemetery plots, an irrigation system, driveway, sheds, a column barium, and a pump and I have all of the public hearing uh documents available. >> Okay, so we have uh proper notice. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Um all right, so is there anyone here in the room today that wants to be heard on the Most Holy Trinity Cemetery site plan? Okay. >> If you would just state your name and your address for the record, please. >>

004Hines, 18 Timber. Most Holy Trinity Church is in favor of This resolution would grant permission to the church to remove invasive bamboo and cane from the restricted area. It is very beneficial for the church to remove the bamboo and cane out of their holy and sacred cemetery. The church is thankful to the planning department and planning board for drafting and considering this resolution. >> Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Okay, Matthew, do we have anybody uh on the phone who wants to talk about Most Holy Trinity? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Okay, I make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. All in favor? I. >> All right, the public hearing is closed from Moly Trinity. All right, so our first work session item is the Surf Lodge stage

005site plan. Um Sarah, that is you for the planning department and John Thorson, you're subbing for Lou on that one today. Okay. So, I see that the applicant is present. Yeah. All righty. Good evening, board. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. This is the second review for Surf Lodge located at 183 South Edge in Montalk. The applicants are proposing that the existing stage be removed and the new stage will be constructed on the existing deck in the same general area as the existing stage. A plexiglass acoustic barrier and sound absorbing materials are proposed as part of the plan. As a reminder, the subject parcel is zone E residence and contains two legally pre-existing non-conforming commercial uses in the form of a restaurant and motel. It is adjacent to Fort Pond and the entirety of the

006property is situated within the Harbor Protection Overlay district. It should be noted that the property was the subject of a stipulation of settlement between the owners and the town of East Hampton in June 2016, which required a number of specific conditions and improvements, some of which are still applicable. Um, so following the review of the planning board on March 25th, 2026, the planning board issued written comments to the applicant regarding several issues. I'll review the issues, the applicant response, and planning department assessment. I'll also mention that we do have one of our technical consultants here from AKRF. Um I believe he's attending via Zoom to answer any board questions on the sound study. So the first planning board comment um was that the applicant stated that they would submit documentation as a response to the

007comments of the town's consulting firm AKRF regarding the sound study. The board will refer this documentation once received to the consulting firm and based upon their recommendations will determine any changes to the sound study or an updated sound study are required. So the applicant worked with AKRF and submitted several addendums to the original sound analysis. Um and based on AKRF's June 1st, 2026 memo, the applicant has provided the following responses and documentation. So the applicant provided supplemental material showing measurement locations and supporting octave band data. The applicant confirmed that the R3 measurement location was taken on access to to the sound system and was used for sound source input. The applicant clarified loudspeaker model and elevation which should be verified after construction. The applicant confirmed that all amplified equipment will use the house controlled system

008with a limiter. The applicant confirmed that outdoor music will not occur after 8:00 p.m. and the applicant provided information supporting the limiter commissioning procedure including verification protocols. So AKRF has concluded that the applicant has adequately addressed all prior AKRF technical comments regarding the sound study and modeling. AKRF recommends post construction verification requirements as conditions of approval to verify model results and allow for adjustments to be made if modeling analyses do not show values consistent with predictions. These are as follows. The first is post construction sound measurements. So within 30 days of stage rotation and limiter commissioning the applicant shall conduct sound measurements with the sound with the system operating at maximum output. Measurements shall be taken at representative residential locations including at minimum 11 industrial road 26 Elm Place and 65 and 165 Edgeir Street

009as well as at town approved on-site control point accessible for future compliance monitoring. Final location shall reflect worst case conditions identified in the sound sense model. The second is a limiter requirement. The house sound system shall include a limiter prior to loudspeaker output. A shared digital signal processor may use a single limiter. Otherwise, a separate limiter shall be installed and commissioned using the same procedures required for the stage system. Third is a model verification and limiter adjustment. The applica the applicant shall update the acoustical model to incorporate post construction measurement locations. If measured levels exceed model levels, limiter thresholds shall be reduced by an equivalent amount. Fourth is a limiter commissioning report. So within 10 business days of stage rotation and commissioning, the applicant shall submit a report to the planning board documenting measurement results,

010limiter threshold adjustments, and verification that limiter controls are accessible only to the surf lodge manager or owner. And finally is additional amplification. No amplification system other than the house system and its limiter may be used without prior written town approval following technical review. With these conditions in place, AKRF concludes that potential noise impacts have been appropriately mitigated and that the technical components of the acoustic report have been sufficiently vetted. The board should determine if the above AKRF recommendations should be conditions of approval. The town must also evaluate compliance with its own noise regulations out as outlined in chapter 185 of the town code under section 185-3 noise standards. The co the code specifies that for residential districts which surf ledges in the limit at the property line is 65 dBA or when sound has an

011octave band sound pressure level in decb which exceeds the values listed for each octave band. The applicant indicated at the last planning board meeting on March 25th that they have an a music entertainment permit. However, according to 185-4, such a permit does not provide an exemption from complying with the noise standards established under 185-3. Under the stipulation of settlement agreement with the town of East Hampton, the applicant does have also have a modified music permit. A piece of that stipulation specifies that live music is only permitted between May 15th and September 15th. And during such period, live music shall be permitted only five days per week, Wednesday through Sunday, and on Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day. Live music shall be limited to two hours per day and under no circumstances shall live

012music be performed after 8:00 p.m. However, the stipulation does not otherwise exempt Surf Lodge from complying with the other provisions of the noise standards. According to the acoustic report and I'll scroll to this. So just as a reminder um this red line shows the existing stage and you can see where the proposed stage and this is a more granular look at what the stage would look like. All right. So here we go. So accord again according to the acoustic report the existing noise level at the property line exceeds what is allowed under town code. As seen on figure four, existing model noise map for stage system sound levels. Sounds at the property line appear to reach or exceed 85 dBA exceeding the 65 dBA limit. So as you can see this figure shows the existing

013noise contour map. Um you can see the location of receptors and approximate noise levels at the property line. In table five of the sound sense report which shows the sound level reductions from the stage system. It is shown that the proposed plan sound level pressure is reduced at each receiver location and that the proposed stage would would result in dba levels of less than 65 dBA at receiver locations. The closest receiver locations with reduction values noted at residency, each of which are over 100 ft away. While the planning department recognizes that the decrease in DVA at receiver locations is an improvement, there's no data for noise level changes at the property line where projections still appear to be in excess of what is allowed for code as seen in figure 7, the proposed model noise

014map. So, as you can see on this map, um the noise levels at the property line are still over 65 dBA. With that, the applicant should confirm their approach to compliance with the town of East Hampton Town Code. The second planning board comment was that the board agreed um that the requirement to show dimensions between each building structure and use can be waved. Um no response was necessary and this comment is addressed. The third planning board comment was that the board agreed that comprehensive lighting and landscaping plans can be waved. No response was necessary and this comment is addressed. And the fourth planning board comment was that the applicant should provide an updated site survey clarifying parking and showing all existing proposed existing and proposed structures. No updated survey has been submitted clarifying the parking

015and all existing and proposed structures. Um a site visit was conducted on June 4th and a new seating area on on an existing gravel surface on site was observed. The applicant should explain the usage of this area and the planning board should consider how this relates to an approved use on site. Additional restaurant seating would require additional approvals and may not be permissible based on on-site constraints and the stipulation of operation. The seating may need to be removed if it is not in compliance with approvals. Secondly, there is non-compliant unshielded string lighting which is prohibited under town code section 255183. The string lighting should be removed. It's probably hard for you guys to see, but it is in this photo. Not sure if I can zoom in. Here we go. So, that's the string lighting

016in question. It's just unshielded. With that said, if the applicant wishes to propose lighting, a lighting plan should be provided for the board to review. Finally, we'd like to make a comment about stage design. Um, so at this time, it's not possible to determine whether the proposed stage materials are reflective. Um, the applicant should clarify whether the finish could cause a glare or become a distraction or nuisance for people on Fort Pond. In addition to other approvals noted as required during earlier stages of review, the planning department understands that approval from the state liquor authority may also be required for this application. The applicant should determine if this is the case and if so confirm um approval will be sought. The applicant has or the application has been referred to the office of fire prevention

017and no further review is required as per the memo provided on 352026. In conclusion, the planning department notes that this application is incomplete at this time and advises the applicant to submit revised or additional plans in a response letter. The planning department agrees with AK with the AKRF recommended conditions of approval and the planning board should determine if they agree. The planning department notes that noise code compliance at the property line remains a concern and that the applicant should provide their compliance approach for that condition. The applicant should also submit an updated survey, confirm if state liquor authority approval is needed, submit explanation associated with the new seating or structures or remove them. address the non-compliant string lighting and clarify if the stage materials are reflective. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions. And again,

018John from AKRF is also here to address any questions related to sound. >> Thank you, Sarah. John, do you want to introduce yourself and maybe you have some comments to add to Sarah's analysis? >> Uh, sure. Uh, my name is John Baldesano. I'm a senior acoustical consultant at AKRF. Um, I've been working in the industry for about a decade now. uh and have a master's degree in architectural acoustics. Um [clears throat] don't really have anything else to add to Sarah's comments. I think she did a good job addressing everything. So I'm I'm mostly here to um help to answer any questions that you may have. >> Okay, great. Thanks, John. Does the applicant wish to be heard? >> Yes. >> You know the drill name and address for the record. Evening. David Kur from Matthews

019Kuron, 241 Pano Road, East Hampton. Here on behalf of the applicant. I'm also here with Bonnie Schmida from Sound Sense who is our acoustic engineer to answer any questions that you may have for her. Um, we did submit earlier today a response memorandum to the questions laid out in the planning board's most recent memorandum. Um, so let me just walk through those pretty quickly for you. Um, all the mitigation concerns that are requested by AKRF and included in the planning memo of post construction testing and limiters and whatnot is all acceptable to our client. Um, and that steps into the next question of the sound at the property lines. As part of that post construction testing, we would also have to show compliance with the town code sound levels at the property lines in order

020to, you know, obtain any sort of final approvals for it. Um, so we feel that that's, you know, we're accepting of all those conditions and, you know, that would show that it's compliant with the sound study as well as with the the town code. Um, stage materials. Um, from what I'm told by Architect, these are non-reflective materials. Um, any of the sound deadening material is mounted on the inside of the BAM shell essentially. It's not on the exterior of it. So, um, we don't anticipate that there'd be any sort of glare or reflection off of that. Um, state liquor authority, if that approval is necessary, we would of course have to go get it. So, we're um, you know, we don't disagree. I'm just not sure if it is or is not necessary. We've reached

021out to the our client's SLA council um to see, but at this point, we don't know the answer to that, but if it is, we would of course obtain it. Um and the final question, oh no, not the final question, parking. So, I know we've submitted a survey that shows the parking that was approved by the prior site plan. There's lines for these spaces. However, this is not a lined and paved lot. This is a area of gravel, crushed stone, crushed shell. So, an updated survey isn't going to show line parking spaces and the number that's there. It fits in the area that was laid out. Um, the CFO that was issued for the property is [clears throat] based on that same survey. didn't show the actual location of those parking spaces. They're they're there

022in the gravel. There's not lines. There's not um bumpers or anything of that nature for that. So, I feel updating the survey to show stuff that we can't show something that's not there. There are no lines. There are no demarcated parking spaces to to lay out to show on the survey. >> Right. I'm going to ask our director of planning what what do we typically do in a situation like that where it's really an unmarked lot where we want to be clear that there's adequate parking. It is a bit of a dilemma, right? >> Hi uh Tina Lran for the planning department. Um, it is tricky and I think that my preference would be we don't really allow things like this. Like if they're going to have a crush stone parking lot, they should have

023curb stops because that does delineate parking. Um, but that said, we do have conditions, especially for older sites where stuff like this was permitted and they just saw how many um spaces fit and kind of drew it. It's it's kind of imaginary. Um, I think our concern about the survey, we want to make sure that we have an updated survey that shows the structures that are existing and proposed. There were new structures when um, Sarah conducted her field visit. So, I think it was more geared towards we just want to be sure we know everything on the property when we're considering this. >> Okay. >> Um, so the parking I think is imperfect, but since they're not changing it, I don't know that we have a a strong impetus to force it. if they would

024like to offer to cube stops that would be great but you know I don't know that we can require it. >> Got it. Thank you. Is that that's pretty clear I guess. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Um and in that regard to uh the additional structure I know they showed seating in that sand area and the the string lighting. Anything that wasn't part of the prior site plan approval we're not proposing. So if there is anything of that nature it's going to have to go. And I agree. I understand that's going to be the board's position on it as well. We're we're not pursuing variances or any sort of other site plan approval for the the seating area for those structures. They're they're going to have to go. We understand that that's there was

025a site plan that was approved and uh those aren't on it. So, >> okay. >> Um I think that addresses all of the boards. two additional questions that you were kind of going through all of them. I was just curious on the on the uh non-compliant lighting and uh the question about the uh clarifying the use of the seating with the outdoor gravel area. >> It's going to have to go. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. >> Okay, good. >> You know, the non-compliant lighting obvious it's it's non-compliant. It's going to have to get replaced with compliant lighting or be removed. But as part of our application now, we're not proposing to keep that lighting or any lighting at this time. >> So your only point of contention would be on the parking basically that

026>> Yeah. I I just don't I don't feel the need to update a survey to show something that's not there. >> Okay. >> Um in that regard and I think any of the the seating area, the lighting that's not being proposed, that would have to get removed as part of, you know, any approval. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Thank you, John. >> Yeah. Um Sarah, thank you very much. Um very thorough and it pretty much answered all my questions. Um so, uh the applicant agrees that the what prevails here is the town code 185-3 that the sound level shall not exceed 65 dB at the property line. which kind of raises a question for me about these receiving locations. I don't want to get technical at all here. Just wondering why have receiving stations

027off property when what's really unless it's possible that the sound could be louder further from the property line. Um, I see that that may be possible on industrial road behind Surf Lodge where if you I mean what's the property line behind Surf Lodge at the the edge of Fort Pond. So I I guess we need to measure decibb not only at the property line but maybe at some of these receiving stations. I just didn't understand uh why is it possible that the sound level could be higher further uh from the property line. So it's just keep it uh non-technical simple for for us non-technicians please very brief please sound sense 39 industrial road in Wayne Scott uh we do that for two reasons one's there are times when there is a reflective aspect so that

028you get what's called super position >> so so it is possible then that the sound could be louder further from the property line than at the property line >> it is rare but the other reason we do it is because in uh out of respect for the neighboring area, we feel it gives them a sense of relief to know that we will be there taking readings and that confirm that it meets the conditions. >> Okay, >> that answers my question. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> John. What else? That's one. >> That was pretty much it. >> Does anyone else have any comments on the Surf Lodge stage? My only concern was the sound, but I think you guys I think Duty Vancer that you will test it and make sure that

029it doesn't exceed town [clears throat] code. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um if I may, the modeling analyses and the reports show a pretty significant level of exceedence at the property line. So I would be interested just as a followup. I think it's great the applicant's willing to test and and monitor this issue. I'd be interested in understanding if additional attenuation measures are going to be needed um or what methods they'll utilize to bring it down >> uh prior to issuing an approval because once everything's in, I think it'll be very difficult to bring it back into compliance. I'd rather do a little bit more study now and and find out what needs to be done, >> right? So, I think that's what we're looking for, right? is how that's meant to >> Yeah. How are

030you going to do it? >> How are you going to do that? Get it to 65. >> Turn it down. >> First of all, I want to say sometimes it's tricky because when you're taking readings, there's also cars going by. So, we will make a concerted effort to validate the position. But the main issue here is the limiter. And I've done these several times before. And the beauty is that this is not a physical limiter where they set it, put a plexiglass cover on it with a lock and then someone breaks the lock and goes in and changes it. This is actually something that's digital. It is part of the system. And so consequently, once I have validated everything, then it's in the system. >> Okay, good. Well, you know, we thank you for working

031so well with John and AKRF on this and um you know, we look forward to what you have to say about how you're going to mitigate the property line noise levels, right? That's probably what we need next. So, we have questions. [cough] Excuse me. Does the planning board agree that the above conditions of approval recommended by AKRF should be implemented to address noise concerns? And these [clears throat] include post construction sound measurements, limiter requirement, model verification and limiter adjustment, limiter commissioning report, and no additional amplification. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, does the planning board agree that the applicant should clarify how they intend to comply with the town code noise limits at the property line? >> Yes, we just said that. >> Does the planning board agree that the applicant should clarify the stage materials?

032Have you done that? Have you told us what it is? >> Plexiglass. >> He said it wasn't. He said it wasn't >> non-reflective, >> but we don't know what it is. >> Plexiglass. >> Okay. All right. >> It is plexiglass for sure. >> Part of it. Yes. The the one edge is plexiglass. >> Yeah. >> The side. >> Yes. The the one side by the sand area is plexiglass. The rest of it is white material of some sort. >> Okay. Just let us know what that other material is if you wouldn't mind. Okay. Uh, does planning board agree that the applicant should confirm a state liquor authority approval is needed? You're going to do that. We know you're going to do that. Does planning board agree that the parking should be shown as existing on

033the survey? >> I think it does already. >> I think it does. And I think it we should also I I do think there is a need for a final survey or an as you know a current survey that shows all of the structures, >> the additional structures, right? Yeah, I would agree just for the record if those if those other structures and the lighting are going to be removed, I think having a current survey for the record is should be >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. And we've kind of agreed that we really don't need to have uh parking spots delineated. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And does the planning board agree that the applicant should clarify the use of seating within the outdoor gravel area? >> Yes. And you've said you're going to remove it.

034Uh, does planning board agree that the [clears throat] non-compliant lighting should be removed and if new lighting is proposed, a lighting plan should be provided for review? >> Yes. >> Shielded lights. Yes. >> Okay, that's what we have for tonight. Thank you. We'll see you again soon. Thank you. You know, you've got it sounds like you you've got a nice back and forth going with John at AKRF. So, thank you for working with him and please continue to do that. >> I like it. Thanks. All right. So, the next application is the Highlands at Devon final subdivision modification. Uh Will, that's you for the the department and John, that's you for the board. >> Okay. Um so, this is an application seeking a occupation of the final subdivision titled the Highlands of Devon, which was

035approved on December 7th, 1994. This modification is seeking approval to change a condition of approval affecting lots one, two, and three, which requires all buildings have only natural wood, shingle, siding, and roofing. The original subdivision created five parcels from originally 10.7 acre parcel, four buildable lots, and one reserved area. The parcels are zoned A5 residents. are partially located within the New York State significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat, partially within a scenic area of statewide significance and are located on Cranberry Hole Road in Angit. Currently, lots, three, and four contain improvements while lot two in the reserved area remain vacant. Public hearing was held on June 3rd, 2026 and no comments were received regarding the proposed modification and the board closed the hearing on the same night. The fire marshall reviewed the proposal and issued

036comments dated February 5th, 2026 and found the submitted information sufficient and no further review necessary. The planning department notes the applicant will be required to submit a draft amended declaration of covenants and restrictions to the planning department and town attorney's office as a condition of approval before filing them with the county clerk. Conclusion provided the board agrees the application is ready for approval. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh is the applicant here for this application? >> Yes. >> Oh, that's you. >> Okay. Do you have anything you want to add to that? No, I wasn't planning to. >> Okay, that's fine. Uh, John, >> I'm okay with proceeding. >> You're okay with proceeding? Okay, let's ask the questions. >> Any other comments, questions, disagreements? Okay. >> Oh, yeah. Here we go. Here we go. Here

037we go. One question. Is the application ready for approval? Yes. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Done. >> And we have a resolution too. We do. That's exactly right. >> All right. In the matter of the application of the Highlands at Devon, final subdivision modification, SUFFK County Tax Map number 300-151-2-9.1 and 19.2 and 19.3 and 19.4 and 19.5. I read this resolution amending approval and move for its adoption. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I can carry on. >> Thank [snorts] you all. >> All right. Okay. We're moving on then to 41 South Elmwood LLC site plan special permit. Will, this is you again. And Ava, you're subbing for Lou on this on this application today. This is an application seeking approval to construct a new retail store with an apartment

038above on South Elmwood Avenue in the parcel is zoned CB central business is considered fully clear of natural vegetation and is currently vacant. Property has no history of prior buildings or structures but currently has shipping containers stored on site which are proposed to be removed as part of this project. The first floor of the building is proposed at 996.4 ft and the second floor apartment is proposed at 597.5 ft making the total gross floor area of the building 1593.9 ft which is 124.6 ft less than in the initial review of the project. A new IATS septic system and four parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the site with three additional spaces proposed in the right way of South Elwood Avenue. The property is 3,977.5 ft in size and not loc located within any

039town overlay districts. The surrounding land uses are all commercial with retail and office being the primary uses. The lot to the immediate west is vacant and currently used for the storage of trailers. Another lot to the west is a town municipal parking area with 39 parking spaces. Following review of the board on October 8th, 2025, comments were issued to the applicant regarding several issues. First, the board requested the applicant amend the application to comply with the special permit guidelines for apartments within commercial structures. The applicant stated there is not sufficient outdoor space on site to have a private outdoor area for the apartment tenant, but the site is within walking distance of outdoor spaces in downtown Montalk, including beaches to the south and parks to the north. The planning department finds with the proposed site

040layout, there is not sufficient outdoor space to provide a private area for the tenants. However, the board and applicants should consider reconfiguring the site as detailed later. Next, the applicant updated the plans to include a washer and dryer in the apartment. The planning department finds this acceptable. The applicant stated the apartment entrance is as far from the commercial entrance as possible. The planning department agrees that the board should discuss. The applicant indicated the apartment tenant parking space is located in the most practical location away from commercial spaces and the planning department agrees. Next, the applicant stated screening between the apartment and commercial use is not possible, and the planning department notes the current site layout leaves little room for plantings. Second, the board agreed because another business to the east will abut the proposed building.

041A sideyard setback does not apply. Third, the board agreed the applicant should comply with the required 10ft front yard setback and the applicant revised their plans accordingly. Fourth, the board agreed the applicant should submit the sanitary profile and details regarding storm water drainage and the applicant stated the only location drainage can fit on site is between the sidewalk and the structure. The planning department finds this response insufficient as the town consulting engineer also requested a comprehensive site grading and drainage plan. Additionally, the applicant should submit a sanitary profile. The sanitary density calculations have prov have been provided on the site plan and comply with the rates specified by the SA county department of health services. >> Additionally, [clears throat] their proposed density flow of 180 gallons per day is less than the maximum permitted for

042the lot of 300 gallons per day. The proposed septic system can tolerate 550 gallons per day, which the planning department recommends is sufficient. Fifth, the board stated the applicant should utilize head in parking [clears throat] and the applicant revised their plans as requested. Sixth, the board requested the applicant provide plans for improvements of the alley. The applicant stated improving the alley would be an ownorous and expensive requirement for a property that has never used the alley. The town consulting engineer also requested plans showing all improvements within the alleyway be submitted if it is to be used as access to the site and rear parking spaces. This requirement is standard for any application which proposes using utilizing an alleyway as adequate access to the site must be provided. However, the board and applicants should note it

043is standard to require improvements to the alley only as needed from the nearest town roadway to the edge of the subject property and not for the entire length of the alley. Seventh, the board requested the applicants should submit revised plans including dimensions of the parking spaces and aisle behind the parking spaces. The applicants revised their plans to include these dimensions. However, the planning department recommends an alternative site layout may be more effective. Eighth, the board agreed off-site parking in the right ofway of South Elwood Avenue would be appropriate and the applicant revise their plans to include three spaces in the rightway. Two standard and one ADA accessible. Ninth, the board requested the applicant extend the existing sidewalk access across their site and submit plans for it. The revised plans indicate the applicant intends to extend

044the existing sidewalk across the front of their property. Next, the board requested the applicant submit comprehensive lighting and landscaping plans. The applica applicant submitted a specification sheet for one lighting fixture and noted there is not enough space on site to warrant a landscaping plan. The planning department finds the applicant's response insufficient as no comprehensive lighting or landscaping plans have been submitted. The board requested the applicant include the location of the proposed dumpster on their plans and the applicant included a garbage enclosure area between the building and rear parking area adjacent to the tenant parking space. However, this garbage area would be blocked when the tenant space is in use. Regarding parking, the applicants revised their plans to include headin parking spaces as requested. However, this layout includes a large area on the property behind these

045spaces which meets the requirement of town code for a drive but results in additional and substantial lot coverage. An alternative arrangement of this parking area may be more beneficial for the entire site and it is noted that most site plans in downtown Ma proposing to utilize an alley to the rear for access are permitted to use the alleyway as the parking aisle. The planning department recommends the applicant shift the rear parking area approximately 20 feet to the north, leaving four feet separating the edges of the parking spaces and the property line. This layout will permit an area behind the building to be landscaped and used as an outdoor space for the tenant, may reduce the amount of total coverage proposed on site, and would meet the required dry width. Additionally, this space reserved to the

046apartment tenant at the rear of the site is located directly adjacent to the garbage enclosure. And this location would result in the parking space being blocked when garbage removal occurs or the enclosure being inaccessible when the space is in use. It may be more appropriate to relocate the tenant parking space to space number one at the rear of the site on the opposite side, which would also give it a more direct route into the apartment. The board should discuss these recommendations and determine whether agrees. One issue not mentioned in the memo is the size of the proposed AVA parking space at the front of the site. The plans to pick the space at 8 feet wide where a minimum of 10 ft is required for an 18 foot long parking space. The applicant should revise

047their plan and ensure all parking spaces are of compliant size sizes. Regarding use of the site, the applicant originally described the use as dry retail, but in the new plans, the septic density calculations for a wet store with food was used. Additionally, the proposed floor plan for the retail space is left entirely open aside from the restroom. In the town code, takeout food stores and restaurant and retails are separate uses and although both are permitted in the CB zoning district. The applicant should review both definitions and indicate which more closely aligns with the proposed store. Additionally, takeout food stores are permitted to have 16 seats indoor or outdoor as a right. Should any seats be proposed at this time, the applicant should revise their site plan to depict their locations. In the future, should the

048applicant wish to move seats outdoors, they will be required to obtain site plan approval unless a designated area is established at this time. Regarding the apartment, it must be affordable and registered with the Office of Housing and Community Development. As such, the planning department recommends as a standard for all such site plans, a condition of approval, should the board choose to grant it should state the apartment must remain affordable as defined and required by the town code. >> Okay. Thank you, Will. Is that it? Oh, there's more. >> Keep going. There's more. >> Keep going. >> Good. >> Yeah. Regarding the alley, the board previously requested the applicant submit plans for improvements and the applicant stated the task was too expensive to place on one applicant. Planning department recommends the applicant submit plans detailing improvements

049to the section of the alley which would be used by the patrons of the site as was already requested by the board and town consulting engineer. A requirement for plans showing improvements of alleyways to be used for access is a standard requirement and has been required on similar applications. Regarding the sidewalk, the applicant revised their plans to add a sidewalk connecting to the adjacent sidewalk. However, the plans show the proposed and existing sidewalks are not exactly aligned and the proposed sidewalk is outside of the front property line and within the right of way. The planning department recommends the applicant revise their site plan to include as much of the sidewalk within the property as possible while also aligning the sidewalk on the neighboring property to prevent pushing the front parking spaces into the lane of

050travel on South Element Avenue. The board should discuss whether the applicant should relocate the sidewalk to align with the neighboring one and if it should be kept within the subject properties. The town consulting engineer requested detailed plans for all walkways and the board may wish to seek additional comments from the town engineer on this specific issue among others. Planning department recommends the applicant submit comprehensive lighting and landscaping plans utilizing native plants and suggests the area of grass lawn at the front of the light alite also have native plant landscaping. The board should discuss whether the applicant should include more landscaping on the site. Regarding drainage, some details about drainage and storm water were provided, but further details are required to ensure proper drainage will be available. The [snorts] town engineer requested the applicant submit comprehensive

051drain draining and drainage designs for the site as well as the portions of South Elmo Avenue and the alley right away proposed to be used. The submitted plans were routed to the town consulting engineer and his comments were received on April 30th, 2026. The applicant should submit the information requested for further review by the engineer and planning department. In conclusion, the board should discuss whether the retail entrance at the front facade and the apartment entrance at the rear facade are appropriate, if the applicant should modify the rear parking area to comply with planning department recommendation. If the applicant has sufficiently explained the proposed retail use, if the sidewalk should be realigned and located on the subject property, and if the applicant should include more landscaping on site. >> Okay, done. Right. Okay, great. Thanks for

052very very thorough report. Well, thank you very much. Um Joel, I bet you have some things to say about what Will's brought up. [clears throat] Good evening board. Joel Hson have the empty. Um I'd like to start off by saying we're pretty much going to comply with everything that was in the memo. Um so regarding the shipping containers that it's basically say that they're on site. It's only a small portion of the shipping containers that are on site. It's actually the neighboring property right >> that's encroaching this property. So it's not this property shipping containers. Um, we are more than willing to shift the uh the upper uh parking 20 ft to the uh the north. Uh that was a great idea. That'll actually open to the point it'll open more space between the you

053know between the building and the uh and the parking area. We just didn't propose that in the beginning because we didn't want people backing into the alley. Uh the the engineer is working on that plan right now. Um the tenants space, we will move the tenants space as as recommended in the uh the board's uh sorry the planning department's memo. Uh as as you know, there's not much room for screening. We can try to screen the parking space. Uh the one issue we're going to have with the parking space uh redesigning the parking spaces. It was recommended that we move uh we uh increase the setback between property lines of four feet uh from east and west property line. That's going to knock down one parking space if we do that. Uh because we won't

054have enough room to fit four parking spaces in there. Um does have to do that. >> Um so the four feet was um between the edge of the property line and the end of the parking spaces just so it's the full 24T for the drive width >> on the alley. >> On the way, not the side alley. Sorry, I misunderstood that. Sorry about that. >> Okay. Uh so don't need to worry about that. Uh right now uh we are working on the sanitary profile drainage is being developed. Uh we discussed the parking uh the alleyway improvements. Sorry I was under the impression that the board wanted the whole alley improved. >> Right. >> And so the fact that it's and I just went there the other day. There are two crater sized potholes right right

055as you enter this this property. So it it would be beneficial for them to you know fix that one little area for the uh the tenant and the uh the uh patrons. Uh the sidewalk will be straightened out now that we're going to have a little bit of room to, you know, we'll move that room back. The reason why the sidewalk was proposed off the property like it was is we didn't have the the building coverage to work with. Now, by rearranging the parking in the back, that opens the building coverage to move the park the sidewalk onto the property, have one straight sidewalk across the front of the property. It lessens the space between the building and the uh and the grass that was proposed, but we'll we'll put some new uh in there

056as well. Part of the comprehensive reed education plan. Uh we revised the uh parking space so it is more ADA compliant. Uh with regards to the the the store wet versus dry, uh the the property owner wants to leave that kind of open to to decide what kind of tent he can get into the place. uh he doesn't want to leave it restricted to just a dry use when he can fit a wet use in there. That was one of the red, you know, one once it was reduced in size to a certain level, he's now got to consider whether this is worth building for him and a wet use would probably be more valuable in the town of East Malk in the village hamlet of Montalk, sorry, rather than a dry use. Uh so

057at this time, I would say that we are going to go for a a wet use on that site if I had to pick a ch pick a choice. Okay. And we're good to go on that from >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, I don't believe uh I think I addressed all the questions, but we are willing there's nothing in the in the planning department's memo that we have an an objection to other than that four feet which I misread. Uh so, now that that's all understood, I think we're good to, you know, we'll develop that, submit it, and be back in front of you hopefully soon enough. >> Okay, good enough. Eva, >> thank you Joel. you just really went through my questions. Um, but I'll briefly go through some of my comments.

058I also agreed that I thought the planning department's idea for the revised parking, rear parking was beneficial to everyone involved. Um, also with regards to the alley, uh, obviously the improvements just for this the, you know, proposed section should be required. um you know the technicality that you know of the sidewalk you addressed now that that gets is going to be pushed back. Uh my one question is if if this is a more so going to be for a wet use Tina is there is there anything that we should be thinking about for conditions of approval with regards to will will that maybe change sanitary load um anything like that? Thank you. >> Yes. So they did do the updated sanitary plan based on the wet use. So they do local density which is fine.

059>> Um you know retail a wet use that they're proposing is like the same parking requirement as a type of retail right so they're not opening a restaurant just like a takeout food store >> coffee shop. So the parking requirement is the same. I think, you know, it's important just they have 16 seats. Maybe we'll make sure to note that in our um approval. If there is a wet use, they're limited to that. That's in the code, but it's always good to be explicit. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Do you intend on having seats? >> Um I would let me run that by the uh the property owner, but right now I would say yes, we do intend to have 16 seats. They're probably going to be on the inside because there's no real

06016 seats, >> right? Yeah. We'll let you know about that. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I would agree. I'll have an answer for >> um and then you know again the technical you know uh lighting plans, landscape plans. I know it's a very small area of grass in the front. Um but um I did look at you know if you look at the adjacent businesses there just there's nothing. Um [laughter] you know if you could fit a little something in there probably uh would brighten everyone's day. [laughter] That's pretty much all I got. Yeah, I think you you hit all my points. So I Does anyone else have any further comments, questions? >> Anybody else? >> Yeah, I've got a question. Joel, where is the sidewalk on the adjacent lot to the right? Is it in

061the rightway? >> It's It's this right here. >> Yeah, it's that. So, is that on their property or in the rightway? >> I believe it's on the rightway. All these properties line up. >> Yeah. >> So, >> actually, sorry. >> It looks like it's sort of straddling >> kind of a little Is it okay? So you'll just I think just align it. >> Yeah. So you don't have to put it fully on your property, I don't think. >> Yeah. No, you know, just >> again that was done because we were over coverage and we reduced the building as much as we could. So but now we're not over coverage much less under coverage. >> You know, sidewalks that align with each other are a major problem in Montalk as you know very well personally. Right.

062Okay. >> All right. We have questions. >> I just have one more comment really quick. The garbage enclosure is it really is it on the adjacent is it on the west side of the building or is it actually really close to where the the parking layout is or with the >> it's basically the square. >> I couldn't really tell in the plan. >> So it's Oh, it is in Okay. It is in there. All right. >> So you might change that slightly if you move everything back toward the alley. Right. So >> we'll look to see what you creatively come up first next time. Not me. >> That's all I got. >> Selling a design. >> All right. So, we're going to ask some questions. Does the board agree because the proposed building will directly

063abide another business to the east. No sideyard setbacks are applicable. >> Yes. >> True. >> Yes. >> Should the applicant modify the rear parking area [cough] to comply with the planning department suggestion? We talked about that. >> Yes. You're going to do it. Yes. Should the applicant clarify if they're proposing a dry retail store or takeout food store? You know, we know that you're going to tell us when that you're you can accommodate either, right? And you're going to tell us when, you know, >> um should the sidewalk be realigned to connect to sidewalks on neighboring properties and be located on the subject property as much as possible? And should plans illustrating these improvements be submitted? >> Yes, we agreed that. Should the applicant provide a comprehensive landscaping plan as previously [snorts] requested by the

064board? >> Yes, I think you agree that you would be >> planting some stuff. So, please let us know what that is. Should the applicant add more landscaping to the site plan? Yes, you agreed to. Should the applicant provide a comprehensive site grading and drainage plan? >> Yes. Should the applicant submit a detailed sanitary profile? >> Yes. We have more questions. Don't go away. Should the applicant submit detailed plans for improvements to the alleyway and South Elmwood rightway as was previously requested by the [clears throat] board? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. >> Should the applicant submit a comprehensive site lighting plan as previously requested by the board? >> Yes. [snorts] >> Yes. >> Should the applicant submit detailed specifications for curbing, drainage, pavement, walkways, fencing, etc. as requested by the town engineer? >> Yes. Should

065the applicant clarify if any outdoor dining is proposed as part of this project? >> Yes. But I think you've said probably not. >> Okay, Joel. We'll see you again. >> See you soon. Thank you guys. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next is Haven Hotel Renovation Site Plan. That is Chris for the planning department. That's Bruce. That's you. The board. And I believe the applicant is here. Is that correct? Okay. Chris. Thank you. Uh, good evening. Chris Decker from the planning department. We'll be going over the Haven Hotel renovation site plan in Montalk located at 525 and 533 Westlake Drive. Just showing the property here um towards the docks in Monttok. Taking a closer look. The board last looked at this at September 10th of last year. Um and the parcel when combined would be 1.1

066acres. The properties are in the resort zoning district and are also within a scenic area of statewide uh significance. Um properties near the Block Island Sound with the nearest portion approximately 150 ft from the nearest tidal wetland and about 67 ft from the nearest uh Bluff Crest. So I'm just going over a background of the application itself. Um, it was submitted to reconstruct an existing 9,775 ft twostory motel building in place in En in construct a [clears throat] new pool, spa, cabana, and bathroom building and accessory structures for the proposed pool area um that would go on the vacant property. The existing motel has 29 units which is not proposed to change and the proposal involves merging the parcels as mentioned. Um 533 Wesle [clears throat] has currently improved the motel an existing swimming pool

067that would be removed um and 22 parking spaces. The existing parking lot is proposed to be reconfigured to bring all spaces within the property boundaries. Um, currently 13 of them protrude in the rightway as shown on this plan. And in total, the proposal offers 29 parking spaces, including two accessible spaces. And that would bring the site into conformance with its latest site plan approval from 1978. Two nitrogen sanitary systems are proposed and the existing septic would be removed. Now, I'm just going to go over the comments from the board's last review in September. um and our analysis of the revised submission. So, the planning board agreed that the revised submission should include a certified survey for both properties, setbacks indicated for accessory structures, distance to the nearest fire hydrant, circulation pattern for the proposed parking

068areas, as well as elevation drawings for the proposed dumpster enclosure and gates to the swimming pool area. The planning department notes that most of these items were addressed accordingly. However, the lot area is not shown on the survey provided for 525 West Lake and elevation drawings are still needed for the gates to the pool area [clears throat] and the fire marshall also requested additional details on ADA access um to this area via ramp. Also, the revised submission is missing details on the accessory structures in the pool area. Um these were provided in the last review. It's elevation drawings of of some of those accessory buildings. We just want to make sure they're included in the next goround so we have a complete batch of architectural plans uh for review. And then just one thing missing

069from our memo is now that the setbacks for all the accessory structures have been provided um the board should consider whether they will reduce the required setbacks for some of the accessory structures. So, the board has the authority to do that by section 255-6-63 of the town code. Um, and that's only for accessory structures that are proposed within setbacks. So, first I'm just going to go over the criteria that the board must consider and then I'll just show you all um which structures these are. So the board must consider the size and shape of the property, the proximity to residential property, the potential for coordinating development with adjacent property and the extent to which lessening the setback might aid in such coordination and lastly the degree to which buffering and screening is necessary or can

070be provided. So the there's two items um for the board to consider. First would be these patios within the pool area. They're shown as circles. um they're proposed peace gravel patios and you can see they range from about less than a foot.8 ft to the property line to about 20.3 ft. Um and this is off of Westlake Drive. [snorts] So although these patios appear adequately screened by privet and natural vegetation that's in the right of way between the road and and the property line, the applicant should also consider safety measures like perhaps proposing a fence um to protect users from potential accidents in the adjacent street. Um but the applicant should also confirm how these patios would be used and that's just something for the board to consider in their discussion tonight. Um the next

071item is regarding the dumpster enclosure and that's proposed closer to Wells Avenue. Um so that has a 30 foot setback requirement. That's what's required on both front yards um for the patios as well as off Wells Avenue and it's proposed 5.8 ft um from the front property line and 10 and 1/2 ft from the side property line where 15 ft is required. Um the planning department sees this as an improvement from existing conditions. Currently their dumpster enclosure encroaches into the right of way. Um but we do know there is an existing residence east of uh that property line. There's one apartment and two motel units in a existing building. However, the applicant does propose multiple trees in this area. I'm just going to pull up the landscaping plan from the previous submission. It's very slow

072in loading, but um I can pull it up later if the board would like to see it glitching out, but basically they proposed maple trees um some evergreens in this area that the planning department believes would screen it from the adjacent residents and it is 10 and a half ft away. Um just bear with me for a moment. That seems this is like a really large file, the landscaping plan, so I think it kind of throws my computer a bit. Just give it one second. Reopen it. All right. So, that's the information for the board to consider whether they reduce those setbacks and and going over the code. And if there's any questions at the end, happy to help with that. Um the next was that the board agreed the applicant should provide existing and

073proposed floor plans um for each unit and the number of bedrooms indicated. And we just note that the revised submission only included proposed floor plans. However, the applicant has now confirmed that the number of units 29 is not changing and the motel would remain with only one unit exceeding the 450 square foot maximum of the town code and 27 units would remain below the 325 square ft minimum of the town code. And the applicant submitted an analysis to support that these are considered legally pre-existing non-conforming to current regulations. and the planning department town attorney's office reviewed this matter and recommend that as a nonconforming structure that predates modern zoning the project can proceed as uh proposed with respect to unit reconstructions and the submitted information is uh sufficient for review purposes of that matter. Next

074is regarding um setbacks and natural features. So the board agreed that the setbacks should be indicated from the bluff line across the subject parcels and then the post meeting memo um to the applicant detailed that the planning department's review of plans revealed that the setback from the edge of the beach which is a different regulated feature was not indicated on the survey and should be added to the revised submission. So, the applicant detailed that the setbacks from the nearest bluff line are now indicated and that the planning department's 2023 verification letter stated that a natural resource special permanent NRSP would be required for construction and clearing within 100 ft of the bluff crest, the June crest. The submitted plans show that setback and all activity has been maintained outside that area. However, the planning department

075notes that the town code considers a beach as the land between the base of the bluff and a body of fresher salt water and the full definition of the beach is included in our memo. But NRSPs are required within 100 ft of the bluff line. Um, but it's 150 ft from the beach. So, while this proposal does not need an NRSP from the bluff, we need to identify the edge of the beach to determine whether an NRSP would be required for that. And our memo includes some directions uh for the applicant for how that can be located either by their surveyor or the planning department can prepare a map um which could be transposed for the revised submission. Um lastly, there's a scenic easement on the vacant property. We just included a reminder to avoid

076disturbance to that area. as proposed. We don't see any issues that would require any unique conditions. Um, but we just included that as a as a reminder that it should remain in its in its natural state. Next was regarding the drive aisle in the southern parking area. We recommended that it be moved to one way. They've done that and added some directional signage which we find acceptable. Um, next was the board agreed that the sanitary calculations should be revised to align with submitted plans and the applicant should demonstrate that they have a grandfathered uh density equivalent of 3,100 gallons per day. the we note that the sanitary plans included in the engineer set of plans um do not match another set of plans included in the submission that appear to obtain preliminary approval from the

077county health department. Um there's a slightly different layout as well as um well that's main mainly the layout and the other thing is both consent plans appear to include an error um in the calculations that they've submitted. So, motel units that are less than 400 square ft that have k without kitchenets have a uh equivalent of 100 gallons per day versus when you're greater than 400, it's 150 gallons per day. And their submitted calculations include four units that are greater than 400, whereas their floor plans show that only um one unit exceeds that. So, we just want them to revise it to make sure the proposed floor plans align with the uh sanitary calculations and revised plans should be submitted to the planning board and the county health department uh to make sure that they're

078consistent and and conforming. Um all that being said that given that they received preliminary approval from the county health department, we find that proves um sufficiently that they are grandfathered with 3,100 gallons per day for the density equipment. Um, next is just that the board agreed that the town consulting engineers issues should be addressed and the applicant provided the total uh limit of site disturbance which is 41,625 ft. That confirms that a storm water pollution prevention plan would not be required by the county health department. Um, the applicant also adjusted the location of leeching galleys to avoid dis conflict with the dumpster enclosure. drainage calculations were corrected and the curb cut slopes um were reduced. The consulting engineer in the planning department are all satisfied with these revisions. Um the last comment from the last

079review was regarding noise compliance to submit manufacturer sheets. The applic did so as well as provided a letter from a project engineer and the planning department is satisfied as far as noise compliance goes. Um, but that letter did detail that the pool equipment, some of it would be located outside of the pool equipment structure and that's not shown on plans. So, it should just if that's the case, they should amend the plan accordingly and provide details on enclosure fencing if that's going to be proposed for some of the equipment. Um, next is the fire marshall just had some comments about um ADA compliance. versus these seven parking spaces. The fire marshall recommends wheel stops to avoid parked vehicles from blocking this walkway. Um, also there's a sign proposed in the middle of the access aisle

080that should be removed to not impede any access through there. Um, and yeah, that's that's everything as well as the access to the the pool area, um, which I've already mentioned. So, in addition to the fire marshall, additional review will be required by the architectural review board for approval, um Suffach County Planning Commission, the health department for the sanitary systems pool and spa, the town highway department for the U curb cut and if they choose to do any work in the rightway, just not really the board's perview, and also the zoning board of appeals if it's determined that an NRSP is required. So in conclusion, the application is incomplete. The applicant should submit a revised survey for the vacant parcel, provide the missing required submission items, address the fire marshall comments, and the applicant should

081identify the edge of beach and indicate the appropriate setbacks from that feature. These sanitary plans should be revised as well as your calculations. um you want to know more about that pool equipment just details on if it's going to be outdoors board should discuss these issues determine whether they agree and lastly just the patios um within setbacks the applicant should just explain how they'll be used and should consider safety measures to shield the users from from the street and the board should consider uh whether to reduce the setbacks for these patios and and dumpster enclosure and that would just be a question to add to your list um at the end of your discussion. >> All right, a little bit of work to do. Uh Britain, are you going to speak for the applicant? [clears

082throat] >> As usual, name and address for the record, even though we know who you are. >> Good evening, chairman, members of the board. I'm British representing 533 Westlake Drive LLC, owners of 533 and 525 Westlake Drive in Mont, which is the site of the existing Haven Hotel. I'm joined tonight by Tiffany Scarado, is the land use attorney on the project. Um, it's been a while since we've been here since, um, I believe it was in September of last year. You resubmitted in November, but haven't been calendared until today. So, um, I thought I'd give a little bit of a, uh, background just because it's been a while. Um, it was constructed, this hotel was constructed in the late 1950s and over the following 25 years, units were added to the property resulting in the

083current configuration covered under the 1983 co. The current owners propert purchased the property in 2024 and their desire was to renovate and modernize the hotel as it has fallen into some disrepair over the last 40 years. The parcel is two-thirds of an acre on the corner of Westlake Drive and Wells Avenue Monttok and the per the owners also purchased the adjacent vacant lot 525 which is also zoned resort with the intent to augment the hotel with additional amenities with that halfacre lot. Um the project in front of you is in renovation of the existing 29 unit motel as well as a relocation of the swimming pool and construction of new accessory structures to include the hot tub, cabana, pool equipment shed and additional patio areas. Just want to say thanks Chris for the comprehensive review

084memo. It was great. Um I think we can sort of categorize most of the comments as being resolved with it's a renovation or merging it with the vacant lot. Each of the items that were outlined are very easily addressed. Um I will note the thing about the beach is a little confusing because we did submit a verification to the planning department which came back and said you need an NRSP if you were within the setbacks to the dune crest and the high and the wetlands and then to come back and say you know you also have the beach is the natural feature. I actually haven't seen those three items listed and it would have been helpful if that was on the the verification letter because we did that about a year ago. We're happy to

085have the beach located and put the setbacks on the map um like we did previously with the book. Um in terms of the septic, so this is a little complicated. The existing hotel haven hotel lot is a standalone lot because of when it was constructed and has not does not have a modern health department permit. So the the way in which you go about grandfathering density is to apply to the health department to upgrade your septic system on your existing property with the existing hotel as it is. We that received a permit and that that permit is the grandfathering. So that grandfathering of 3,100 is to put a new septic system on that one lot. As you see in the proposal in front of you, we're putting a new septic system that was going to

086carry the caban as it's going to be on two lots. that's going to be a new health department application and we can't really do start that efficiently until we have a secret determination from this board. So that's the reason why the plans look different because they are different. Um in terms of the um size of the units I believe that was a carry the existing there are four existing units that have that 150 gallons per day and we'll correct that on the future um site plan. ADA pool access that's easily dealt with. Um, and we would just ask the board to uh sort of reduce those setbacks which is within your power. The patios are surrounding a pool. They're for sitting outside of the pool. You know, this lot could have been developed as a

087standalone. We could put another, you know, housing units or um, you know, a food service use or something as a standalone lot. they've chosen to just sort of get all their improvements out of the town right away. The parking lot, this approved site plan is in the town right away. We're correcting all those issues. We're spreading onto this lot and, you know, doing better improving on the site planning that was done in, you know, the 1950s. So, we we would just ask that the board um consider those uh patios as a pretty simple, passive use of of a lot that could be used a lot more aggressively. Um, in terms of putting up fencing, [snorts] I just don't know about that aesthetic. Um, I think we would rather have, you know, to protect those patios.

088This is a really nice sort of scape as you drive down. I'm sure you all you look at the water and you we'd like to have [clears throat] this sort of like nice open landscape site and I don't know if putting a even a 4ft solid fence is something that they want to do. So, we'll look to to solve that protection issue with a with some sort of landscaping, some sort of, you know, green solution. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Otherwise, um, if you want to direct questions at Tiffany or me, I'm happy to address them. >> I think we're good. My question is who who decided on the round pool? I think it's great. Right. You >> remember in the 80s when the kidneyshaped pool was really cool? You always like build those houses

089and the kidneys are like >> Yeah. Round though, this is like a whole new thing. I know. >> I don't know. But I I I honestly think it's driven by the the the strangeness of the lot. You know, as you can see, um I think it's almost maybe over a third of the lot is in a scenic easement. So that really impedes your ability. And you know, the building itself is sort of a strange shape though. So they were just trying to make the the prominence work. And they landed on round. >> It's good. >> I like it. It's cool. >> Bruce, so Britain, before you leave, I have one question. Um thank you for your narrative. It cleared up a thousand of my questions. One question about reconstruction. There's a reconstruction note somewhere. There's

090a renovation note somewhere. And then there's a lifting. >> Yes. So onite which page it's on, but it's bubbled um on this submission. >> So are you some of it? >> It very specifically outlines onethird of the existing building is to be kept and renovated. The rest of the 23 horizontal or one/3 >> one/3 vertical. >> Okay. >> 2/3 are reconstruction. We're keeping >> enough of the building that it's not a renov I'm sorry. Too much no too little of it that it's not a renovation, but it's not a demolition and new construction. It is a reconstruction. Okay. And then there are new found that building is going to live on a new foundation. >> Sorry. >> It's a little it's a little of >> it's a little convoluted. Um there's a really good narrative

091um that I had the architect address um I believe it's on the maybe the the first floor plan, but it's in the set that you have. >> Gotcha. [snorts] Okay. >> It's in that bubble. >> Yeah. All right. Cool. >> Because it was it was one of the questions in the beginning and was it was hard to How do you classify something that's all three? New construction, reconstruction, and renovation. >> Right. >> All right. Cool. That's great. Good. Yeah, your narrative was great and I I I appreciate you taking time to >> rifle through all of this stuff. Thanks. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> And I think I think your narrative actually answers a lot of the questions that the planning department had and the issues that they're looking for. >> Yeah. >> Because when I

092read the memo, there was things you needed and I think it's I think it's >> I think they've taken care of. >> Yeah. When we go through the questions, I think we'll identify if anything is missing, right? >> Yeah. So, let me just say All right. >> Yeah. I mean, it's all little stuff. Uh the dumpster I think is in is in a decent location. I >> agree. Yeah. >> Um you fixed the parking which I think is great. Um the pool equipment obviously that needs to be addressed. Um and the ADA ramps and stuff I think you >> So the ADA ramp is fine. The access is fine. What is detailed the ADA access to the pool and to the spa? >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Yep. >> But that's easy enough.

093>> And that's all I got. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any comments or questions for Britain? >> Okay. Then we'll we'll answer our questions. Does the planning board agree that a revised survey should be provided for 525 Westlake Drive? >> Yes. Yeah. We think you're we're going to need it. Does the planning board agree that the architectural plans should be revised to provide the missing elevation drawings and details for proposed accessory structures? >> Yes, we need those. >> Does the planning board agree the revised submission should indicate the 150 foot setback from the nearest beach? >> Yes, we do need that. Does the planning board agree the sanitary plan should be revised with a consistent layout and calculations that align with Suffach County Department of Health Services flow rates for the proposed motel unit

094sizes? >> I think that's been done. >> Yeah, you've said that already that you're going to do that. Um, let's see. Does the planning board agree the applicant should address the fire marshall's comments regarding ADA compliance? >> Yes. >> And those are our questions. Do we want want to talk about Yeah. waving the setbacks for the >> Yeah. Why is that not on here? >> That was in addition. [clears throat] >> Okay. [snorts] >> All right. Why don't you describe what's up, Chris? >> So, I guess first I would ask, does the board agree that additional safety measures should be provided for the patios um near Westlake Drive. So, that that was the first question we thought to ask the board. >> Added question. Okay. >> I don't feel Go ahead, John. >> I don't

095I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it would add much safety. You know, a little even a 4ft fence isn't going to really >> be safer pool. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's I think it's being redundant personally. >> It's a quiet street. >> Yeah. It's pretty quiet. >> I don't think we need >> a green solution would be nice. >> A green Yeah. >> Yeah. But Yeah. >> Some beautiful shrubbery. >> All right. What's our next question? Um, just does the board agree to reduce the setbacks that would otherwise be required for the patios and the the dumpster. >> Patios and the dumpster, right? That's it's basically those two things, right? >> Okay. >> I'm fine with that. >> I'm fine with it. >> I'm fine with a >> It's your night,

096you guys. [laughter] We'll see you again. >> All right. Let's see. Yeah, this is the problem with paper. It gets all screwed up. >> Um, all right. So, Springs Brewery site plan special permit wrap up. >> Chris, that's you and that for the department and it's Ava for the board. >> You've been waiting for this all night. All right. Thank you. Um, as mentioned, this is the followup um wrap-up review following the public hearing that was held on June 3rd. Um, Springs Brewery site plan 847 Springs Fireplace Road property zone neighborhood business. It's a quarter acre and contains a one-story building previously used as an auto body repair shop. The applications to convert the building into a brewery and it involves two land uses. The wholesale retail beverage distribution use would provide would apply to

097the rear portion of the building which is proposed for beer brewing beer only and would not be open to the public and the beer brewed would primarily be sold at wholesale. Retail use is proposed to apply to the front of the building which would be for customers to purchase beer mainly to go with limited on-site consumption proposed in a tasting room. The building inspector determination dated October 22nd, 2025 confirms these are the appropriate use classifications and the proposal also involves remodeling the existing building with some facade changes and interior alterations. New septic new uh low nitrogen system is proposed as well as a water service line. Prior to the public hearing, seven [snorts] letters of support were received. At the public hearing, 11 different members of the public expressed their support for the proposal and

098one member expressed concern over the adequacy of parking, traffic safety, drainage, and water quality. We'll go over the public concern by topic with the planning department's analysis of each comment. Regarding storm water drainage and water quality, concern was expressed that currently the road in front of the subject property floods after rainfall and that the submitted site plan was based off the North American vertical datim of 1988. The planning department notes that the proposal involves a slight decrease in total coverage that would bring the subject property to conformance with the 70% maximum of the town code. Also, the proposal involves converting most of the areas currently paved with asphalt into gravel um which would increase permeability uh for storm water infiltration. The department finds the proposal offers an improvement to existing conditions and the applicant went

099beyond town code requirements um to improve the permeable asphalt. Regarding the use of the 1988 elevation datim, the planning department notes the official vertical datim of the national spatial reference system for the US mainland. The town consulting engineer also reviewed the proposed drainage and sanitary systems and found them acceptable and the proposed leeching galleys for the low nitrogen system meet the minimum twoft separation from expected groundwater. Um, county health department will also review the sanitary plan and their approval would be required to obtain a building permit. Regarding parking requirements and traffic safety, concern was expressed whether the town conducted an adequate review of the number of parking spaces and expected traffic. Um, the member of the public believed that five parking spaces were not enough and expressed concern that the nearby intersection and the adjacent

100rideway is dangerous due to parked cars speeding and turning vehicles. The planning department notes six spaces are proposed which meets the minimum requirement of the town code for the proposed retail store and the wholesale uh distribution use. The retail store uses 720 ft of the 2717 ft building and only 385 ft of that is devoted to the tasting room of 12 seats. The proposal includes six parking spaces, four of which are required for the retail store and the additional two parking spaces are required for the wholesale um beverage distribution use which would not be open to the public and would only have one to two employees working at a time. The plan department notes that although there is concern about the popularity of the proposed brewery, it would be abnormal for the board uh to

101require a traffic study for a small retail store and no study was ever recommended during this review process. The planning department and the planning board have previously found the number of spaces acceptable and the town consulting engineer and fire marshall also reviewed the proposed parking access and did not see any issues. The draft resolution of approval includes a condition that would require the retail store to operate in accordance with the submitted narrative, which would limit the number of seats to 12, require purchases to be processed with individual point of sale transactions, and prohibit the store from operating as a bar tavern. And I just note the narrative is actually included in the list of documents to be approved uh in the resolution that's prepared for the port's consideration tonight. Additional approvals would be required from

102the architectural review board and the county health department. And then in addition to the conditions already mentioned, the recommended conditions of approval are that the planning department inspect project limiting fence um between the retaining wall and adjacent properties prior to a building permit being issued. The applicant must pay the application fee prior to the issuance of a building permit due to an error. It was not paid um during the review period. And lastly, no garbage or other items uh shall be stored outdoors. So, in conclusion, the board should discuss the public's concern and determine if they've been adequately addressed and if the application is ready for approval. The planning department recommends that with the conditions noted, it appears the application is ready for approval. >> I realize you do do not know the answer to

103this question. And how does the member of the public who spoke on these topics get that narrative? >> Well, this is posted finalized the Friday before the meeting. Um, >> so that that would be how they would >> so they need to know though that there was a response and to go there to look for it, right? >> Yeah. We don't individually send copies of our reports to members of the public. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, [clears throat] do you get the idea, guys? It was it was a a great public hearing. We had a lot of people speaking in favor. It was very it was really great to hear that. I do slightly have the idea that some people think it's going to be something other than it than you intended to be. So just

104be careful right about that. We're not going to, you know, scope creep into something that's more like a gathering place. Um all right. So do we agree that the public's concerns Did you have anything to add about this is your application? >> No, I just I I agree. I think there's a lot of excitement around this application. You guys had a tremendous amount of support. Uh I think that speaks volumes uh about you as individuals and community members. Uh I agree with the planning department's response to the concerns. They were valid. Um so hopefully that constituent is uh happy with the response and I think we're ready to move on. >> Great. So therefore, does the planning board agree that the public's concerns have been adequately addressed? >> Yes. Okay. Does the planning board agree

105that the application is ready for approval? >> Yes. >> All right. I think we have a resolution. Is that true? >> Shall I read? >> Yeah. >> Okay. In the matter of the application of Springs Brewery site plan, special permit, Seth County Tax Map 300-62-3-26. I've read the site plan and special permit uh and move for its approval. >> Second. All in favor? Hi, >> Captain Carrie. Good luck, guys. >> Thank you. >> All right, so there's still more. Um Oh, yeah. Right. Uh we are going to discuss some >> changes in I know we need to [clears throat] all get up, right? Um changes that were made by the town board to the rent restricted employer housing program. I think is going to take us through that. >> Yes, thank you Tina L from

106the planning department. I'm covering for Eric Chance who's on vacation um and uh wrote this report for the planning board. Very quickly, um the town board is considering a change to the town code that would add a new use titled rentrestricted employer sponsored housing development. The code needs to be referred to the planning board for comment. Uh this code was previously reviewed by the planning board in March and the public um the town board had a public hearing in May 2026. After the public comments were received, the town board had an after hearing discussion and requested a few changes to the law. They're mostly minor in nature, but they wanted to send it back to the planning board for review of the changes. So I'm going to go through those. Um I will say that

107the previous comments u that the planning board made did not result in changes being proposed for the legislation including in increasing um the income cap for tenants and decreasing the minimum lot size. But the discussion among the town board was that you know we should monitor how this progresses and that those changes may be something to consider in the future. So the first change is um and I have the section I'm not going to read the sections out but you guys have my reports. I'm just going to summarize everything. The first change is to require a minimum lease period of one year. The original draft of the legislation did not include um any requirements for minimum lease terms, but there you was concerns um registered about the potential transient nature of the development. Adding a

108one-year lease period was thought to be a benefit. The second change in the report um the page is to clarify that multiple entities are permitted and may be required in fact to help meet the uh third party management requirements that are in the job legislation. Um we wanted to make it clear that there may be more than one third-party consultant or a manager involved in the um you know supporting the site owners. A big requirement a big mitigation measure associated with this development is having a third party manager to ensure that the property is managed in a way compliant with code and special permit provisions. So we wanted to be clear that there may be more than one company working for the operator for that purpose. So that's change two. Change three also is related

109to that same issue and just notes that um tenant income verification is is thought to be a very important element of what the third party management uh management company might do. It is a specialty. So, you're going to need to seek somebody out who who does that. So, the the law has been adjusted to reflect that. Change four uh is a change to the legal requirements. We are asking that the developer file with the town the condo offering plan. The condo offering plan is the required document to be submitted to the attorney general's office and really is the guiding document that determines how the condo will be operated. So, it's thought to be important that the town has that document on file, you know, in addition to all the legal requirements we'll have to ensure

110that we've got transparency that what whatever is was happening on site. And we also require that anytime there's a change made to the document, it be submitted to the town. And then the final change is just to clarify that fees will be required uh for the permitting of this facility. The town charges fees for all its administrative permits. So it we just added that explicitly because it hadn't been mentioned. The town board has the authority to you know create fees by resolution. >> I'll have any questions happy to answer. [clears throat] >> That's it. Okay. Great. >> Yeah. I have a question. Um percentage of the minimum size of 125,000 square feet. That's almost three acres. And I'd be curious to know um maybe you could remind me how many parcels currently qualify that overlap

111both uh the AHO as well as the LPL attempt. >> There are two. Um so there's not a lot. One of them is developed with an affordable housing development already. Um this is not a use that we think is appropriate at outset to be widespread. Um so we didn't want to like have a wide swap of area. you know, people are always free to seek resonings and those are town board discretionary actions. Um, but yeah, it's a small number of parcels to start. >> So, it' be one basically >> all of this is for >> it's all creates a mechanism in the code to allow these. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> I've got a question about the third party property management company requirement. Is that just like any standard uh property management company that

112you know manages states out here? Does that envision that type of entity or some new entity? >> So there are entities that specialize in affordable housing development administration and there are also entities that like help you know market rate condos. Um we've asked to have the third party entity submitted to the town for approval. So we would look at the qualifications and and be sure that the folks proposed to operate the site meet the the standards that the town is hoping to see. >> So there are local entities. >> Yeah. I mean I think there's local and and regional. >> Gotcha. Okay. >> Do you know one question about the fees? Um, is there do you know if there's a P structure or is that just an arbitrary will that be arbitrarily calculated based on

113I don't even know what it would be based on but >> uh the town um sets its fees to cover its administrative costs right so that's how what what you do to set them is you analyze how long it takes to look at the specific issue what type of staff time what what levels of staff need to participate the board um meetings and such and then you'd set the fee based on estimates of those efforts. >> Okay. >> So my comment is really relates to reads and I these are comments that I made earlier and I guess these were not included and I guess the feedback is maybe they will be in the future but yeah I I think smaller lots should be considered. I think micro projects could be extremely beneficial and really work

114out. Um, I also think that the 130% of AMI is probably too low. >> I agree. >> I I agree with that. >> I think, you know, that you know, easily [clears throat] if you've got two people making 100 grand a year or 80 and 70 or what, it's it's not going to work out, right? >> So, I want to >> resubmit those comments. [laughter] >> I will second that. >> I'll second that as well. And I I it is disappointing to hear that the lot size hasn't been considered kind of as you said and you said it's you know I think smaller lots would be so beneficial and I agree about the income as well. >> Are there any comments with respect to the changes? >> What's that? >> Are there any comments with

115respect to the changes that are >> I don't have it. >> I don't have any. No. So, I will draft a um comment letter that reiterates those two comments and send it to you and um you >> Okay, great. >> Thank you. >> All right, we we're closing in on it here. We've got Bonic Rooster modification resolution of approval and Ava, you're going to do that first, Lou. Matter of the application of Bonic Rooster lot line modification subcount county tax number 300-163-7-8.4 and10. I've read the lot line modification and move for its approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Um and then we've got what else do we have here? Wayne Scott Wombles. Bruce. >> Yeah. in the matter of the application of Wayne Scott Wombles 2 site plan modification Suffach

116County Tap Tax Map number 300-197-3-2. This is a resolution amending the approval. I have read the resolution and move for its approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. President Gary. All right. So, anybody have any issue with the minutes? >> No, they look good. >> No, Katie's perfect minutes. Right. >> Gorgeous. >> Nice. Nice minutes. All right. So, let's a motion to adopt the minutes from second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. >> That goes fast. >> Have a good night, board.