East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 06/09/2026

001All right, zoning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. I'd like to welcome everyone to the zoning board of appeals meeting of June 9th, 2026. This evening, we have a scheduled uh work session and seven posthering decisions. So, we'll get to the first one right away. Lee Cohen and Erica Fleshman, 23 Glenway, Spring, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-130-13.1. Description is to remove existing decking and to construct 273 square foot swimming pool, 286qt pool deck, pool fencing, pool equipment, a 450 ft accessory structure, 70q ft sauna, 330 ft decking, walkways, 460 ft driveway extension with EV charger, 405 square foot porch, grill area, window well, retaining walls, planter and an upgraded sanitary system on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. Relief saw

002is a natural resource special permit pursuant to of the East Hampton Town Code and eight variances are required for this application. It's now gone down to four, but I'll just read the notice into the record. Variances of 9875,66.5 5430 and 19.5 are required from 255430 of the town code to allow the proposed pool fence to be constructed to sauna 25 window well 33.5 decking 46 porch 70 and grill area 80.5 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required one variance of 42 ft feet is required from 255430 of the town code to clear vegetation 8 ft from the edge of wetlands where a 50-ft setback is required. One variance of 10 ft is required from 255 11110 of the town code to construct a proposed pool equipment 20 ft from the northern front

003yard lot yard lot where a 30-foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. zoning district is B resident [clears throat] zone X flood zone C class is type two member Kylie would you like to begin your deliberation >> yes as you mentioned this application started with eight requests for variance and we are now down to four with the sauna the grill the shower not being constructed [snorts] shower is being constructed on the accessory structure but the existing is being removed pool equipment being moved to a conforming location fence has been moved approximately 70 ft from the wetlands, further away from the wetlands. The driveway has been moved to the north away from the wetlands as well. Uh, additional drywall for the outdoor shower has been included. The abandonment of the traditional septic system which

004was adjacent to the wetlands is a is a big plus for me. uh and locating it to the north. That does come with a complication of a large stand of white oaks which are an important species in the area. Uh so that becomes a tradeoff to uh to get the updated septic system, but I feel that is what pushes me over the edge as far as approving this application. Uh the conditions of the reveation aren't quite clear to me, but I'd like to see a plan of that. I like to see the survey kind of updated to reflect what the actual requests are. The survey that was submitted is is very busy with revisions. So, uh, pending seeing that survey and a rebatch plan, I would approve this application. >> That'd be one of our

005conditions of approval. >> Okay. >> Before issuance of a building permit. Okay. >> Vice Chair. >> Yeah. Uh, uh, thank you for that, Jim. Um yeah, this is a this was an interesting one. It came in with the eight variances needed and a very active discussion about protecting the wetlands. Um go through a couple of things here. The wetlands were important for several reasons, but one was it was also described as being a vernal pool, which you know is seasonal and helps helps do helps protect any area uh with spring flooding and uh you know flooding and and shunt water that's uh uh rainfall. Um what they're offering is a new IA system. They removed a couple of things from the initial application which is just to help it make it a little more palatable

006to us. uh the existing outdoor showers to be removed in a letter later on where from uh we got one from Lori Wilshshire after I think it's dated April 17th where she said we will agree to the uh recommended conditions in the TAM and that included gutters and leaders and drywalls that although there was not necessarily a nexus for that I think they offered them just to show they're going to do as much as they can to keep the potential [clears throat] rainwater from causing us a problem working its way into uh the septic and bringing along with it silt and things that can possibly damage the um the the wetlands. Um they proposed a 1,001 uh 1,0T scenic easement. Um they agreed to us all the TAM recommendations. The fence did get moved from

007the edge of the wetlands to 70 ft away, they said, and and the planner said it might be closer to 60, but it's still a significant move. Um let me just see the proposed decking uh that they have will have a similar impact to existing decking was the appealing of the planner in this that it was not a major difference. The window well was also not a major concern which was one of the variances they required [clears throat] the wetland and the cornal lot constrict this uses on this parcel pretty seriously. the wetland on one side to the I guess that's the south and on the north of course where it's a corner lot so it has it's both to the east and to the north it's got front yards um there's a large increase

008in total lot coverage though 129% and the scale of improvement in general is quite significant um the [clears throat] clearing is going from 8100 square feet to 8700 square feet uh those are all significant Uh, I want to point out that there were two excellent letters from neighbors. I thought that it's always important for us to recognize that we not only read them, but we take them into consideration. I thought that the way in which the arguments for protecting wetlands were laid out could be used over and over again in other areas. In this case, the neighbors had had an active role in trying to clean up the wetland, maintain it, haul out invasive species. their dedication to it should be matched by our ability to help protect it. I have to ask myself the

009two questions about this is the amount of um mitigation [clears throat] that they've offered in terms of the septic system which is now moved much further from the wetland by the IIA system going to the northwest corner northeast corner. Is that enough to approve this based on and and the uh and the scenic easement that's offered over the wetland? Is that enough to uh approve this uh this application? I think a very good point was made by the planner when he said that at some point we have to ask is it too much u development on a parcel this size. I think it's marginally there. I think this is a tough question. Do we protect the wetland with this new uh actions on the part of the the applicant here? Moving as far as they

010can away from there with the driveway, with fences, with with a shower, with a septic, moving as far away as we can and then offering to put an easement in that area. Uh working as best they can. There was some discussion of what we can do about helping to [snorts] to uh stall the spread of u of bamboo. All of those are positives. On the other hand, when I look at what's going on in the north side, there's a lot of development. I'm very bothered as as was member Kylie with the idea that these really significant stand white oaks are coming down. All in all though, I guess I am going to line up with member Kylie and approve this based on the fact that we're doing the best we can to protect the wetlands

011in this location. I think there was some retrenchment on the part [clears throat] of the applicant, taking away a couple of the the requests they had in their initial. They tried to pair it down a little bit. I still think this is one that could have gone either way in my mind. I I don't like the level of development. I don't like the removal of the oaks, [clears throat] but I do think we're doing something here very positive to protect the wetland. And as was pointed out again by the letter and by our planners, the letters by the neighbors, it really has an active role in helping relieve flooding in the spring and keeping that as healthy and as pristine as we possibly can is certainly one of our goals. So, uh, with certain reservations,

012I am going to agree with member Kylie, and I'm going to approve this application. >> Thank you, member Burgerer. >> Hey, thank you. Um, well, I went through the same process and, uh, when I walked in here, I still don't know what I'm um, I think they've they've done a lot as already mentioned in reducing the variances. um and you know moving you doing some of the the revitation and improving the environment and I came up with the same dilemma I guess of is it too much as the corner had said too much for this size of a lot and ultimately I think in the variances that they did a a good job of reducing them and moving things out. But overall um in the NRSP status, I feel that the the addition adding the

013accessory structure is very large on the northern part of the property. in need a variance, but it does need an NRSP and I I think it it's that borderline area, but on my view is that it's it's too much. They they I think they 2551 that they could have uh preservation in natural resources. We know there are keystone oaks up in that area and the area of pool, but um ultimately I think this pushes it just beyond what I could accept despite a lot of good things that were done in this application. I think uh 255 that they're that they they could look at alternative uses and small entailing you know alternative designs with smaller buildings and structure and some other reduced yard to set that and I think so I'm I'm going to deny

014this application um based on the the NRS P standards. >> Thank you, member Mary. >> Yes, thank you, Chair. Um, so has been said this application improved at the public hearing removing four items completely um much improving the the variance for the pool fence. Um, and in the letter that we received from Lori Wiltshire uh that came in, we had left the record open. She notes all in that there's going to be 4500 square ft of reveation. Um, and that would include the the reveated buffer around the wetland and the scenic easement over it. So that's in the plus in the positive column, no doubt. However, there remains a significant increase as uh vice chair uh indicated in total coverage of 2600 square ft. Um which you know it's part of what creates the sprawl.

015There's a sprawl in this application. Um but still that total coverage is materially below the max allowed. The biggest additions, the pool, well, I consider to be the biggest additions, the pool, the pool deck, and the [clears throat] accessory structure. I think that's 450 foot or 435 do not need wetland variances, but obviously remain in NRSP jurisdiction. And that's part of what creates this sprawl because they're trying to get these items, you know, rather than keeping them closer or more consolidated with the House, they're, you know, they're moving them uh moving them north. Um the h the house itself is not being expanded. The the items that need the variances um those are substantial variances. However, the deck and the porch uh well the window well is not an issue. It's required egress. Um and

016it's really does not have an environmental uh detriment. The the deck and the porches they're expanding somewhat. the the the variances are are large, but they're really in place in partly in place of where there was already decking that you know wrapped around around the side. So, it's not a big incremental change to me in the environmental conditions on the property. Um, Miss Wilchshire said that, you know, she asserted there'll be no impact to character and no environmental impact. And just on the character for a second, um, you know, you can look, it's a large neighborhood. You can look around. It's very deciduous, right? A lot of oak. There's a there's a a very, um, how can I call it? Modest, you know, uh, uh, sense of character. Um, and this will perhaps when it's

017all said and done, it it may look somewhat outside of character. Um, with respect to the but it's not [clears throat] clear that's definitely going to happen. Obviously, I read closely the letters and the comments from the neighbors and I completely do uh respect them, but I do believe that between the revge, the buffer, the scenic easement, the moving the driveway north, obviously the upgraded septic system, I think the the wetlands are protected. So when it comes to all the variances related to the wetland setbacks, I believe they meet the standards for the variances as well as the NRSP. Um the in terms of the NRSP for the rest of the sort of development, I looked hard at it, but as I understand NRSP code, it relates really only to what are listed in our

018natural resources code as protected resources. And so the protected resource in this application is the wetland, which I've just talked about. You know, I think the issues are are mitigated. I love white oak trees. I think they're incredibly important environmentally, ecologically, um, to the character, and we really don't know how many are coming out, but it's it's going to be a fair amount. And that is problematic. I mean 25511 I think it's K1 which is embedded in the standards for 254 for natural resources does say to promote preservation of natural resources and native keystone vegetation species. However, it's still I think under the NRSP code, I don't think I can actually consider the loss of those trees as an element of a decision making on the NRSP full sc uh standard for this development. Um

019and the the last thing um the the accessory structure um Miss Mure also said there'd be no detriment to the neighbors. you know, putting a 450 foot accessory structure, you know, basically right at the minimum setback um can be detrimental to a neighbor, although we did not hear from that neighbor with with concerns in the public hearing. So all in I am also like some of the other board members feeling uh I felt a little fclempt about the application coming out of coming out of but um all in when I really do look at the standards and balance what's being done I'm going to approve the application in its entirety. >> Thank you very much Jane. Um I agree with um uh my fellow board members. I'm going to be approving this application as well.

020Uh I for me, you know, I always ask, is the mitigation enough to approve this? And at the end of the project, will the property be more environmentally sensitive than it is now? And I think in this particular case, the scenic easement being proposed with the 10- foot uh deep wetlands buffer and the 4,500 square ft of revitation, uh the new septic system, gutters and leaders. I think the applicant uh did make an effort to make this a better application going from 8 to four variances. So for these reasons, I agree with my board members and I will be approving this in its entirety. >> Madam Chair, I forgot to say one thing. May I just add? So um we in the public hearing uh we questioned the applicant about um plumbing potentially inside the

021accessory structure and they said no and they were like no toilet, no water. But we also do know that there is plumbing being brought to that structure for the shower attached to it. So, I didn't know if we need any kind of condition to make to make sure that it remains with, you know, because it would be very easy to tap those plumbing lines, you know, for something inside. So, I don't know if we could do a condition or a CNR or something. >> I think I think you do a covenant that like >> there won't be interior plumbing, >> right? Exactly. That's excellent. condition doesn't become a dwelling >> house against town code on top but you know it's just a belt and suspenders >> yeah I guess town code could change >> this

022is an excellent idea I like that idea >> all right thank you council are we good >> moving on the next is Gerard Skolan 62 Franklin Drive Malk Suffach County tax map number 300-70-4-15. The description is to allow a pool patio to remain 15 ft from a front yard lot where 30 is required. Relief sought is a variance from 25511 10 table of dimensional regulations and any other relief necessary. a 15 foot variance to allow a pool patio to remain 15 feet from a front yard lot where 30 is required. Zoning district is B resident zone X flood zone C for classes type two member Ber you can start the deliberation. Okay. All right. This one we had the hearing on May 12th. Um, it was an agent, Andrew Goldstein, that presented for the applicant

023and the survey we have from the hearing is March 3rd, 2026. Um, this property is in Montalk in the Hither Hills area and it fronts on two roads. Franklin Drive, I forgot what the other one is, Monroe Drive. Um the concrete pool patio is on facing the Franklin Drive side and it's a 15t variance to allow it to remain 15 15 yards where 15 ft rather where 30t is required. Um there's a story here on the uh pool. Uh initially the pool the patio had been a part was wooded and uh at one point the homeowner changed that to concrete. There were a series of permits that were generated for the pool and there was a an error either in the building department or in the contractor that was hired for the job. Um and

024they got the permit to approve the 15t uh setback and uh this was went unnoticed. went unnoticed from the the beginning and then in 2008 and 2009. Then in 2020 there was a they renewed the permits a couple of times. In 2022 and 2024 they built uh according to the plans uh from the wood to the concrete and used the same the contractor at that point also had advised them that they need to get another permit. But um regardless the the plans that were used were the same that were used and the error in the setback was just generated going forward again. Um so now they're here to get the relief for the for the 15 foot deck. Um, there's also a portion, a slight portion on the south side that wasn't noted to be

025removed on the uh survey, but it's it's only about a foot 14. And in that case, the applicant's not looking for a variance. They are going to remove the portion of the slate and the concrete so that it meets the uh 15t sideyard variance. So on this, I do think it it meets the meets the standards for it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood. We've seen the photos and there's much screening on this property as it is and the benefit can't be really done by another method. It's a substantial variance of 50 50%. However, uh I think in this case it's not going to have any adverse impact on any physical or environmental in the neighborhood and is it selfcreated sort of but um I'm not going to let that stop it.

026So I am approving this application. >> Thank you. >> Member Mary. >> Uh yes, thank you. So, I'm going to use uh I'm going to start with using the test standard that I often use or we as a board often use. If this application for 50% variance setback relief for a front yard pool deck had come to this board prior to being built or the permit issued, would I have denied it? And it would be very very consistent uh with my record about uh material setback uh side and front yard and rear yard setbacks. Um that uh the to to to have denied it and in fact just going through the standards um I actually don't necessarily agree. I I really the it doesn't meet any of the five variance standards as I see them.

027The variance is very substantial. It's not the minimum necessary. It's entirely self-created. This again, if this were coming to us, right, um before it had been built, it's entirely self-created. The benefit sought, which they said is having lounge chairs by the pool, could be achieved by other methods. And um I believe it front, you know, violating front yard setbacks for uh pertinances, pools, pool decks does have does cause an undesirable change to the character of their neighborhood. Now, by the way, Mr. Goldstein said we're not allowed to consider that. It's not in the standard. Um but the that that's he said that's not legally what front yard setbacks are for. But in our code in 255117 and two I don't know the other one. There's another one. But um it it definitely says that one

028of the reasons for setbacks. Now, with all that said, there seem to and by the way, this the the property history card shows us that this is the third time that this owner and applicant has done work that didn't necessarily meet code um without the proper review and approvals. So, you know, if I put everything else together, I would like to be denying this. However, the only reason I am going to approve it is it does appear there was an incorrect um building permit that you know was ultimately uh issued I guess to legalize this. And you the applicant has put in a letter. It'll cost him $26,000 to take it apart. Um and I don't have the wherewithal to challenge that number. So all in I just want to make clear I'm approving this

029but um not necessarily because I believe it meets the standards. >> Thank you. Uh member Kylie. >> Uh well I agree both my fellow board members on their their view of this but it looks like it was an unfortunate error that perpetuated itself over several years. And what we're left with is a decision that is is difficult, but I I I think we have to approve it at this point the way it stands. I will approve it. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> Yeah, thank you. Um there are a couple of things here that have already been mentioned, but uh kind of important. the building permit being issued for the pool patio and having put in was done in error and was not u in these cases it's hardly the uh applicant's fault that this

030happened. However, there is reason for us to occasionally uh say it doesn't matter what they what happened with that is still got a major effective because it affects the neighbor. In this case, the variance uh that was needed to adjacent to the neighbor was mentioned by member Burgerer has been removed because they're going to remove the the patio there. So, the most affected individual from this is no longer have a variance up against their property, a mutual property line variance thereforce to the roadside and on the roadside it's going to do a lot less damage. What is the point of the of uh the uh double setback? ractice point is to protect neighbors and and the neighborhood from noise and additional activity that might be intrusive on them. In this case, that additional activity is

031going to be road which is a natural buffer for the others. It's a factor in it. I think the basic factor is what everyone said. Um it's not going to affect the wetlands to the east. They were mentioned. Um there's really not a lot else to say that it's unfortunate and we see these things happen. But I I don't feel I can we can punish him, this applicant for the fact that the building permit moved ahead with it. I didn't see a lot of error on anyone's part. They built what they were told to build, found out it was illegal, and it needed to have some sort of had to come in front of us. So along with my other board members, I'm going to approve this application. >> Thank you. These are always tough

032applications. Um I I agree with my fellow board members. I'm going to be approving it as well. But one of one of the reasons I'm going to approve it is obviously the one of the permits was issued in error, but the plans approved at the time depicted the pool patio in its current location. So that, you know, helps me a little bit to feel better about approving this. And they're also agreed to remove the nonconforming section of the patio. The other [clears throat] condition that I looked at is uh and the TAM points it out is that the pool and patio are currently screened from outside view by a wooden fence and a line of screen trees bordering a front yard lot line. And in terms of total coverage, it's 3,945, which is well within

033the maximum of 5,081 that's allowed by the code. And I think this what's going on in this neighborhood is typical of what goes on in this neighborhood. Um, so for the all the reasons stated, I'm going to be approving this application as well. Let me put this somewhere. Okay, next is Natalie Bar, 14 Cow Hill Lane in Wayne Scott, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-197-1-29.8. Description is to allow an existing pool patio to remain 11.1 ft from the rear yard lot line or 20 ft is required. A variance is a variance of 8.9 ft is required from 2551110 of the town code to allow the pool patio to remain 11.1 ft from the rear yard lot line where 20 ft is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B resident zone X

034flood zone. Secret class is type two. Member Kylie, would you like to begin the deliberation? >> Uh yes. So 14 Cow Hill Lane was brought to us by Jameson McWills uh representing client. Plans were submitted on December 2024 and permit was issued February 10th uh 2025 and the work was completed and upon inspection I believe to close out the permit. It was discovered that the distance from the sideyard or backyard set line backyard lot line uh was incorrect. should have been a 20 foot setback. It they were thinking it was 10 foot. Uh they actually did build one foot further into the property the 8.9 foot variance. Uh one of the neighbors, Adrienne Sanchez, you know, expressed some concern and tried to get information was not able to do that as was Jameson. Um I

035don't believe any of this was malicious. It was it was again an error uh that was carried forward and um the client can't really be penalized for this I don't think so I I think you know I will approve this as it stands. >> Thank you vice chair. >> Yeah. Um we have a second one where we have a building permit enter into this but um building permit was issued uh mistakenly thinking that if it observed the 10-ft setback that would be typical for a building this case but since the patio extended on into the building it's an extension of a pool uh patio and of course that calls for double double setback. So double setback here was not met. It was mentioned by member Kylie they didn't build within 10 ft. They actually built

036out at 11 ft 11.1 ft which shows they were showing some respect for what they thought the building permit had offered them. Um I don't know what anyone did particularly wrong here. We discover later on that this is not um you know um it's not permissible by our current standards for anything attached to any patio and or deck attached to a pool. I think that the u that area that's uh in most in question here that does neighbor uh border on the neighbor who did come in and comment is well screened at this point and well protected. I think that um if this moves forward with an approval I think we should ask that that that screening be covenanted that it will stay in place so that we don't find in the future if there

037was other work that suddenly we have this pool area within 10 foot of the sideline. Um, you know, the buildings were permitted. Uh, the building permit was issued in September of 2024. So, it's not dating back that far. It's all seems as if someone went in, got a building permit for structure they wanted, built it, and then found out that they were, you know, at fault. Well, in this case, I think if we can protect that neighbor who was in, had the concern for the future, I'm happy to approve this application. and everybody can comment on whether or not they think the covenant is necessary, but I'm suggesting >> Thank you, member Burgerer. Okay, this is similar. I'm going to do more so I guess more or less. Um I too am going to approve

038this. Um this one actually is very similar similar. Um I think to correct this would be a much bigger task for this applicant as opposed to the previous one. But um again it was about surveys and originally the permit approval using a survey you know showed 10 feet on it and um no one picked up on that until September of 25 when Dawn Green in the building department noticed that the pool and all of this is attached. um directly so that it required the the double [clears throat] setback. Um again, I don't think this was self-created according to the agent. Uh the applicant homeowner was very upset that this occurred. Um, so I I am going to approve this if it was not self-created by the owner and uh with the screaming despite um the

039neighbor coming next door was concerned um not against this but on his side of the property I guess right now he has a driveway so it shouldn't be impacting him and his home. Um, so I'm am going to approve this application too. >> Thank you. Member Mary. >> Yes, thank you. I agree to approve this along with my fellow board members so far. Um, just a couple notes. Um, this was done with an approved building permit. Um, but that was again issu is issued in error. Um, now Jameson McWills did offer, she said they they could not meet a 10-foot separation between the pool and these other um between the pool deck and these other structures that were approved. Um, and I think she said that they were seeking maybe another way to separate it

040and tried to get an opinion um if you know maybe there's some way they could mitigate and separate but there no answer came. Um, so she's, you know, here before us for for the relief. Um, I I actually, you know, when I think about setbacks for pool decks, attached pool decks, I believe, you know, one of the purposes, key purpose is to prevent, you know, disturbance to your neighbor across the line because pools tend to bring, you know, noise and disturbance. But it's interesting because what's built behind this closer um you know to the neighbor is like is a pergola an outdoor kitchen. It's a lot of area where of course there'll be activity but it's almost like it's still almost like a bit of a buffer natural buffer you know between the activity right

041around the pool and the pool is actually set back pretty far itself um you know from that neighboring property. So, this one um almost gets closer to meeting some [laughter] of some of the standards than what I said in the last one. Um and I I don't know if it was confirmed as long as pyramid is met on that pergola. Uh then that's the only condition of my approval, but I'll be approving the application. >> But is the it's just a question. Is the pergola before us? >> No. Well, but it's the struct the structure is, isn't it? >> Well, >> yeah, if it but it would have to be pyramid. >> Yes. Yes. That I understand. >> I mean, if it didn't meet pyramid, then they would have to that wasn't >> varian. Yeah.

042I just wanted to note that because it came up at the hearing and I agree that we don't want another mistake. >> Oh, yeah. >> Thank you. >> All right. I I'm sorry. >> I'm done. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh I agree with all my board members. Um, again, this was a situation of a building permit um being uh submitted incorrectly. But I also want I'm going to also be approving this in its entirety, but I also want to indicate that the applicant um did indicate that the slate patio located 4 feet from the southern lot line is to be removed. And I'd like that to be a condition of approval. And I also agree with vice chair's >> um idea about screening to be a covenant. I >> think it was already removed.

043>> Yeah, it was already removed according to Jameson. She testified that it was removed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Prior to the >> It wasn't clear that night, but >> Yeah. Yeah. I wasn't sure. I didn't watch this. Um, >> are we good? >> I guess the question then is about the uh screening. What do you guys think? >> I would agree to the what the covenant you mean? >> Yeah, I would agree. >> Yeah, that's I would agree to uh I agree to the screening being >> the question is the length of it, right? So, we we take the length of the building and we add 10 feet either way and that's what the screening should be. Is that a fair assessment of what we can offer? Take a look at the building and

044make sure that >> right in there right in there. >> If you go either side of the building by >> I'm just saying 10 ft some number >> property line. >> Yeah. Something similar on the other end. Yeah. >> 20T. >> Okay. So that's what we covenant that there was similar height of the vegetation that now exists. We can put a number on it, but >> yeah, >> you know, 8 foot 8 foot screening, native screening, natural screening. >> Yeah, there's a hedge there now. I >> think that's good. That's we can do right now. >> Yeah. So that's Yeah, I'll Yeah, we'll I'll put a coven in for Yeah. existing screening to remain and, you know, maintain. Thank you. All right. Now, we're going to move on to Howard Morse, 24 Oyster Shores Road,

045East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-92-9-24. Description is to construct a propane tank and 328 foot swimming pool with associated pool fence and equipment and to allow an existing gate propane tank and AC unit to remain on a property containing title wetland. I'll read this into the record, but again there's many revisions going on with this project which I'm going to read into the record so we're all clear on what we're talking about. Believe sod is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 variances from 255430 and 25511 of the town code and any other relief necessary. Variances of 97.1 ft 49.7 ft are required to construct the pool fence and swimming pool 2.9 ft and 50.3 feet from wetlands and bearances of 100 feet, 58.9 feet and 47.2 2 feet to allow a

046gate AC unit and propane tank to remain 0 feet 20 41.1 foot and 52.8 ft from wetlands where 100t setback is required. Two variances of 9.5 and 8.4 are needed to construct the pool equipment and swimming pool 21.6 ft and 20.5 ft from the southern front yard lot line where 30 ft is required. One variances of 1.4 4 ft is required to allow the swimming pool deck to be 18.6 ft from the northern property line where 20 ft is required. Zoning district is a B residence X flood zone AE. Elevation is six. Seek request is type two. Okay. This hearing was held on May 19th. It was left open for additional uh information regarding reveation and Mr. Yuber appeared before this board. Now he submitted an excellent recap [laughter] of what of what happened and

047I'm going to refer to it now because it's very important that we include all this in our decision. Um, now the revisions are depicted. We can even pull up that survey. Is that the survey? >> The new one. This one. Tyler, do we want >> the one that's marked up? This one. >> Okay. So, he did submit a um revised marked up copy, but obviously it's going to have to be um that one. >> It's going to have to be um resubmitted. Uh prior to the issuance of a building permit because of all the um changes. So, the applicant has agreed to eliminate the proposed gate near the property's southeast corner and will instead extend seawward on the property, the existing 4ft wire fence that currently runs along the northern property southern boundary. And to

048be clear, that existing off property gate is going to completely be uh removed >> to stop the gates on the pond. So exactly. Thank you. >> The applicant also agreed, and I'm happy about this because this is why we left the record open because it's an H pod district. This will definitely benefit the entire property. He's agreed to expand the proposed reveation area and conservation easement area by 1575 square ft um immediately seawward to the FEMA flood zone boundary and he also depicted this on the markedup survey that he submitted to us. Now, this will um increase the re uh vegetated area from 7,039 square ft to approximately 8,614 square ft. Likewise, the the he's uh agreeing to a conservation easement area will increase from 10,884 square ft to approximately 12,459 square ft. based on

049the uh another all revisions, the proposed pool fence is going to be relocated so that the relevant portion of of it will run generally along the FEMA flood zone boundary rather than the wetland boundary flag number three which was originally proposed. So that's another revision he made. The design revision also eliminates the need for the originally requested 97 foot wetland setback associated with the proposed pool fence located near the wetland boundary flag. Now in terms of what's before us, the the applicant uh the total relief the applicant is requesting from us now is to he is um the approve uh the natural resource special permit approval for all existing and proposed improvements covered by the application including and this will be a condition of approval. the proposed reveation and conservation easement areas including the proposed

0504 foot wide pvious pathway. The existing and proposed 4ft wire fencing along the southern boundary seawward of the 100 ft wetland setback line and the proposed pool fencing and temporary silk fencing. the proposed inground lap pool and related dry well pool equipment enclosure and underground LPG tank to be located as depicted on the survey in the property's rear yard fronting on Oyster Shores Road. the existing abovegrade propane tank situated on the north side of the residence and the existing above air conditioning condenser situated on the north side of the residence. The er the area variances are for the uh existing propane tank, the existing air conditioning um variance for the northern end of the proposed inground lap pool. uh 82 ft variance for the proposed relocated pool fencing to be situated now nearest the wetland

051boundary between flags number one and two on the abuing Solomon property to the north a wetland setback variance for the proposed 4ft wire fencing seawward and a 1.4 4 foot northern sideyard variance for the existing decking to be utilized as a proposed pool deck. An 8.4 ft southern uh front yard variance for the proposed lap pool will be situated 21.6 6 ft north of the proposed the property's southern boundary and the pool equipment and enclosure to be situated 20 ft north of the southern boundary. Want to make sure I have all this. Now, prior to the issuance of a building permit, uh I think we need a finalized updated survey finalizing uh the vegetation plan and also I uh an update. We also very much need an updated survey be prior to the issuance of

052a building permit uh depicting the existing and proposed 4 foot wire fencing, the relocation of the proposed pool fencing, the enlarged reveation and conservation easements with related square footage calculations, the revised pvious pathway extension landward toward the FEMA flood zone boundary, and an updated vegetation plan depicting any enlarged reveation and conservation easement areas and a provided planting list. Now, what else? I think that there's been a very thoughtful approach to this property and I think that the revisions that were made uh I especially am happy about the additional reveation being in a harbor protection overlay district but I think there was a real concerted effort here to um meet the standards in the code of whether the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a

053detriment to nearby properties. I do not believe it will whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method. I think in this particular case, the applicant has really, you know, done that. He's really come back to us and has been very cooperative about what is in the best interests of this site in terms of the environment. Whether the regressed variance is substantial, yes, in some cases, uh, yes, but at the end of this project, I believe that the property will be more environmentally sound than it is right now. Will the grant of the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? I think not. Whether the difficulty causing the applicant to request an area variance was self-created. Well, you know that it

054that's is what it is. [laughter] It doesn't preclude us from approving or denying. So, and in terms of the environment, I think he did uh Mr. Yuber meticulously looked at alternatives regarding the property and I do feel um there's nothing in this application that's going to be a detriment to environmental protection. I'm going to be approving this application in its entirety uh based on an updated survey being submitted because there are a lot of changes. And I also want all of the um conditions outlined in the technical analysis memo regarding prior to the issuance of a building permit, prior to the issuance of a CO and additional recommended project additions. Now, I don't see an updated survey. >> I can add that >> prior to the issuance of a building permit, but that's the one

055we would have to add because there are so many revisions. on this property. So I am going to be approving it based on conditions of approval. So now who member Mary would you like to go? >> We'll take a shot. Thank you. Um let me go to my notes. Hold on a second. I just accidentally shut them down. Okay. Um, so we're often, you know, we we look very closely at variances for pools because, as we often say, they're what do we say? They're amenities, not necessities and such. Um, and a 50% variance from wetlands is substantial. However, as I balance everything in this application, and I won't go through them all again. and the chair just uh you know went through the different changes and modifications that were made you know responding to the

056TAM as you know part of the the what we requested in the public hearing. Um I I those are important. I'll get back I'll get further into those but you know the overall development on this property is still fairly modest. Right? This is a fairly >> moderate sized pool. I think it's not that deep. Um, and you know, it's not adding other new things except for uh pool equipment basically. So, and we'll I'll talk about pool fence in a second. Um, and so I do find that the mitigation um, and let me back up. It's not clear to me that a pool this size, even though it's a 50% variance, would necessarily have a large detrimental impact to Three-Mile Harbor. And of course, this is a very sensitive part of Three-Mile Harbor as we know.

057So, we're looking at this scrutinizing this application very, very closely. But of course, you know, this property is it has pre-existing nonconforming huge clearing, right, relative to the allowable in H pod. And although I would love to see it get even closer, you know, I'd love it to be below 15,000 square feet compared to the 10,400 max that's allowed. It still is pre-existing non-conforming and there's a there's a nexus here definitely with this pool and and uh the standards to get this this much I don't know there's a nexus to get it back into compliance probably not um and so I think the way it's been done um and the way it's uh you know that that extra rege sort of covers you know really b gets even closer to the location of the pool.

058Um, so I do believe this meets the standards um for the Oh, and one other thing. It did come up about an upgraded septic. I mean, that would have put this way over the top and would be important to the environmental conditions of 3M Harbor, but I don't think we felt in the hearing. I'll be interested to see what other board members think that there was a nexus to that. Obviously if there's any further development on this property right that would you know that would come into play. So I was a little disappointed by that but >> still they made a very good effort here. So between and I also just want to note I think the the planner had talked about what happened on the property. Oh by the way that's one of the

059reasons I'm going to approve this pool because a very similar thing was approved right not that long ago right on the neighboring property. Um, but one thing I just want to say with respect to the reveg, I think Morgan had said this was Morgan's, right? >> Yeah. Morgan had said that next door the reveation was being quote maintained but not naturalized. And so we're going to want to make sure somehow, you know, as much as we can in in the conditions that whatever is reveated, obviously it's going to be approved by the planning department as a condition of approval, but something, you know, we have to make sure that it really does naturalize and not just, you know, be sort of landscaped, if you will. Um so all all in I believe this meets the

060NRSP standards given the mitigation um the serious mitigation and I believe um you know the the variances for the deck um because the existing deck becomes now a pool deck and the pool equipment enclosure. I'm going to approve those as well. Well, I generally would love to, you know, see these be in more uh conforming locations, but actually I don't know that there is, you know, that you can meet the full setbacks um for required setbacks um just because of how constrained and they're, you know, close to the house and and I'm not going to make them take out another 15 ft of what's left of their deck because they're already taking out some of the deck. So, all in um I am approving this application in fall. One question I do have though, I

061I'm still I just want to make sure I'm clear on where the new pool fence is because I still, you know, looking at this marked up copy. So, I'm assuming that the pool fence is going to be in the area that's shown >> zone, >> right? definitely about the FEMA zone, but I guess it's going to end sort of where the current proposed silk fence >> proposed pool fence to be located along FEMA zone boundary to diagn diagonally to northern property boundary. >> So, so >> so that so I I I to me I would be approving a pool I would like to approve a pool fence that actually winds up being what that silk fence is. I would rather not enclose more of the property and I think it makes sense that a pool

062fence can be close to close to the fence. So, um that's that is that's important for me and my approval. [clears throat] >> I don't so if I could just >> member [laughter] >> early because want to make sure she was >> Yes. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. No, thanks. Um I I agree with everything that that both both parties said. Um I I do think the mitigation was great enough to to make it uh meet the NRSP standards for the overall project. I think we had brought up a question about septic, but um we said that this pool it's going to be like 8 feet wide and three feet deep didn't uh rise to the occasion. Um, I am improving this entire application. However, what I haven't figured out is exactly where this bull fence

063is going. He's got it marked from flag number three originally where it was 2.9 ft away and then he moved it here between flag two and one at 17.5 ft. Right, written in red. But I I don't understand where it goes from there. It doesn't make sense to me necessarily to have it go along the FEMA zone. It It has to go around the pool somewhere and I don't see where that is. So, help me out with that. Um because I was thinking that the pool fence could be moved in closer to where the pool is going to be located. is completely um and I'm I'm just trying to get a visual on how this pool fence is going around the pool that it's made to protect um which I don't see >> along the

064FEMA zone doesn't do that >> right >> um so I thought it could move farther farther in actually to increase the setback from the wetland flags to the north and then come down somewhere like where the deck starts perhaps But I still don't see how it gets to be a square fence around the pool. And that was my one one concern in a variance because it's still a huge variance from >> the new location. >> Vice chair. >> Yeah. Well, I think the fence is a is a question we can talk about. Um, I'll start by saying when you visit this site, you're struck by two things. one is how amazingly beautiful the spot is and number two was that it was um uh lawn cleared all the way down to the wetland. So your

065first reaction is something would have to be done about that and I think this application did something about that. So they came in to us with se proposal of 7,039 square ft of revage that's been discussed by three board members before me. um that increased that increased by another 1,575 square ft so that we wind up getting something in the range of 8600 square ft of revege. That's really the key to most of the discussion here that that area that buffer that's now going to be provided with only a walkway passing through is going to be very significant and a major change. Now, the other uh accommodations that were made by the applicant removing the gate, the gate was a concern of ours. What's the gate about, they immediately took it out, fine, we don't

066have to worry about that as much in terms of access and we thought other people might use the dock and boats, all these things we talked about. But once it's out, that's a that's a help for us and trying to determine what we're doing with this one. And I think that the pool [clears throat] is not excessive in size. It was mentioned by member Miring. It's three foot deep. It's 8 by whatever that is, 32 feet. Uh and it's it's an interesting uh concept of how to move forward. Get an get an get a a a feature you really want to see on a property and what can we do to give us the maximum amount of of mitigation. I think the mitigation in here is significant. I think what we get back when I

067we're done is yes, we have a pool that we give up and we do we very careful about pools on water sides of all structures but the mitigation here is significant in terms of the vegetation and that's basically what we're looking to do is to protect the harbor. Are we making a major or at least a large uh environmental improvement on this property? I think we are. I think it was mentioned also by member Miring and it was mentioned by the planner that night, Morgan, that the house immediately to the north had approvals for a pool at approximately the same location. There was questions about whether or not that applicant or that individual had kept up with their the promise to allow it to naturalize. It looked as if it was being uh cultured, I

068think she said, or maintained, which meant that they were in doing some weeding and trimming and it didn't go back to its native state. But in this one here, we're going to assume that's going to happen. We're getting a large gift uh in terms of of the mitigation offered in terms of the revge. I'm not bothered by it. The question of of uh defining where the the fence goes is one that can continue as a mutual conversation, but I look at this and I thought this was a net positive, particularly the protection of the harbor, which seemed to me to be first and foremost the condition I would be looking for when I visited the site. So along with my fellow board members, I'm willing to approve this application in its entirety. >> Thank you.

069Member Kylie. >> Well, I agree with my fellow board members. Uh this property is not developed nearly as much as its neighbors to the north. Uh this this body water is pretty important in the hot summer day. The tidal flush hour there is not fantastic. So any mitigation that can happen through reveation to slow storm water or uh any other water into that area is a plus. The application was well presented. So I have no problem approving this application. >> Thank you. So now let's talk about the pool fence. >> Okay. I went on to put in the conversation on the pool fence. Is it since it's going up against the FEMA line >> and now the ve all the that triangle of extra vegetation it says that's also part of the scenic easement. So

070right now is the pool fence going to be does there have to be a separation between the fence and the conservation easement? No. >> The code specifically exempts full fencing from easements subex. >> Oh I okay I forgot. Thank you. Sorry. So now, yeah, >> I think that's the fence line, right? >> What's the red line? >> That's what I just put in. >> Oh, use that. Oh, >> I mean, I had to connect it over here, but I'm pretty sure there's fencing here and here already. >> Where? >> So, I think I think they're just connecting it >> all together. >> That's That's what I thought. Yeah, I see it. >> The red You're you're talking about the red line on that survey that goes around >> sort of. You mean you see this

071here and this here? This is a wire fence that's already there. >> I think this circle line is the fence that they're proposing. >> Yep. >> And I know there's a fence over here. I' I've been to the property. >> Yeah, there is. >> I mean, it said this here is the the fence line as I mean the soul fence is the S. The fence they're proposing is O's. You can sort of see it running along here which is under the black line now. But >> but so fing [snorts] with the squares. >> Yeah. I mean you can look at it here. You can see the these squares >> and then it just sort of runs into the exist and that's the square one there. >> Sure. >> Up here. >> [clears throat] >> Maybe

072they're running >> outline what he's actually proposing. >> This is This is the original. So, >> so that this is what the original That's the original. So, squares. >> Oh, it's just going to run straight. >> It was run straight. >> So, instead of doing this, they're going to attach to >> cut it across. >> I think it already existed. >> Well, they're going to put this one in here, too. >> It's hard to see. It's on the property line. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I was looking at the Oh, see this the silk >> existing fencing here which I'm assuming they're just tying into >> Yeah, [clears throat] >> yeah, >> is this one >> is pretty minimal. He said square around. Yeah. I guess it went I don't know. [laughter] >> Yeah, that's it.

073>> Back to the corner of the house. >> So for me so friends and gives them plenty of room and but doesn't over block the property for wildlife and things. >> So how are you moving forward? [laughter] I I mean I recommend using the >> because I don't have a problem with what's been proposed but >> okay >> myself >> I would like to see it come down into the property and down to the like the into the house around so how does the rest of the board feel on what's being proposed >> it doesn't it it doesn't it it does meet the house and in both corners at this point we know this gate up on the northwest corner >> looks like in southeast corner is where it comes back and touches the house.

074>> Taking from the southeast corner out towards the property line back towards what was the original fence and then it's following the new diagonal for the right >> additional area inside the female. >> Oh, so I see on this on the bottom side where it attaches up around the front of the house where it says plant and gate. Is that where it's going back into the house? >> I think it's I think it's I think it's further east. I think it's on that eastsoutheast corner. Is that right? >> All the way up here that >> attaching is the gate is the fence attaching in the southeast corner of the >> I think I think the proposed fence comes in here. It comes in further up. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I mean there's an existing fence

075right there. I don't know if they're preventing to abandon that or >> Okay. Or it's maybe it's like >> Yeah, it's just a four foot wire fence. So maybe it doesn't qualify. I don't I don't know. I don't know the details. Bring that down. We'll move south and just come straight down and into the distance. >> What does the board think? >> So for me, >> I don't see it going across the >> I'm just I'm staying I'm staying in the same place. I think >> with um what's being proposed. >> Yeah. I I actually had looked at the fence and I didn't have a complaint about it. I understand what the conversation is, but uh I don't have a real problem with what it's doing now, >> but I what I'm judging here what

076I see. >> Right. Member Carly, how do you feel? >> I'm I'm fine with that. You know, that the revge was is the big thing for me. So, >> okay, >> that's is fine. >> Member Mary. >> Yeah, I'm still I mean, I understand what you're all saying. To me, using that line where the silk fence is makes the best sense. Um it gives them, like I said, it gives them room. um all around the pool on that side of the house and I'm so I just think that's the natural place and the best place for it to stop and then it leaves the rest of the property um open. So that's where I am but that's you know other people feel differently. >> I'm only one person. >> So it sounds like we have

077a free tune >> on what's being proposed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. For the three of us it is >> okay. So we'll deny the pool fence varies. >> Okay. Everybody else. >> So then Terry's going to deny the pool fence >> do you feel that way too? >> No. I mean there's there's no reason to because it's going to I don't need to make a >> I mean I'm okay with all the other kind of discussed and the NRSP and crime mitigation. >> I just want to be clear. >> There's a lot going on. I just want to be clear that there's no fencing at all south of the FEMA line. Right. >> That's right. That's right. >> Okay. That that's actually this >> very key, right? Like that that has to all be open

078for wild wildlife and blah blah blah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Are we good council? You >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, we'll move on to 65 Dunes Lane LLC. 65 Dunes Lane, Amaganit, Suffer County Tax Map number 300-129-2-21. Description is to allow approximately 400 square ft of pool decking to remain. Reconstruct existing first and second story decking. Construct 400 square ft of new second story decking. demolition and construction of a portion of the residence resulting in a decrease in G FA and replacement of windows and doors on a parcel of land containing barrier dunes, beach vegetation and beaches. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 variances from 255440 and any other necessary relief. The following variances from the primary dune crest are required. 75 ft variance is required to allow the

079enlarged pool deck to remain 25 ft. A 61 ft variance is required to con reconstruct the first and second story decking 41 ft and a 6ft variance is required to construct the closest of the additions 94 ft from the June crest where 100 foot setback is required. Zoning district is a residential ve flood zone, elevation 18 ft, secret class type two. Member Marian, would you like to begin the deliberation? >> Yes, thank you, chair. Um, so the public hearing was held on May 19th and the applicant was represented by Joel Hally and Richard Whan. Um, and uh, the application was well presented by the both of them. Um the planning board was represented by Brian Frank and his um TAM, his prepared TAM. Um no members of the public offered comments into the record at

080the hearing either in person or in writing. And the survey we relied upon um is dated November 13th, 2025, which included Brian Frank's um kind of highlighting marking up of what had been added to the rear pool deck by the prior owner of the property that was done without proper review or permits um at the time that we're now being asked to legalize. Um, and I also want to note the house is already compliant um with ve I think it's a ve um uh flood zone and the house itself as I understand it meets the meets the setback from the oh sorry forget scratch that sorry okay so there are three main parts of this application there's one there's the legalization as mentioned it's a modest amount of square feet of that extra pool deck

081that was done by a prior owners sometime between 2010 and 2013 and that requires a 75 foot variance as has been said from the primary doomrest. Um the second part is reconstruction mostly in place and in kind of that rear first and second story decking that's a 61% variance but again it's mostly in place and in kind there's just some like squaring off but net there's really no expansion. And then the third part is the demolition, reconfiguration and addition of structures on the landward side of the house. Most of almost all of which is outside of the doom crest setback requirement. So with respect to my decision on these three different elements relative to the standards. So, I'm going to approve the 75- ft variance to legalize um and allow that that extra square footage

082of deck expansion that had been done on the southern side. Though the variance is of course numerically very substantial um it is a relatively modest amount of decking um that has been in place again since for let's see from 10 2010 or 2013 and so far I don't think anyone can see that it has created any detriment to the protected natural features. Um I agree um that actually by having it squared off that way did does improve some of the safety and mobility around the pool. Um and most importantly the establishment of a major scenic easement. Um hug hugely offsets um I believe the relief requested for this uh to legalize this very modest uh amount although very close to a doomcrest. Um, so I'm going to be approving that variance. I believe believe it

083meets um the variance standards as well as the NRSP standards for the reasons that I've said. I'm also going to approve the 61 ft variance and the NRSP um for the reconstruction of the rear decking. again mathematically substantial but um dimminimous uh work uh done um you know to be done um because those those those decks have expand have been in that place again I believe for a very long time the footprint's not increasing um and I don't see how there would be any in in incremental detriment or problem to the natural feature um And actually even the the way they're positioned the work itself I don't think will cause you know any disruption um you know to the to the natural resources. I'm also going to approve for the stuff in the front um

084that one very not substantial 6ft variance um for uh one of the changes on the front side of the house. So most all of the changes in addition on the front of the house are landward. O obviously they're on the landward side nearly entirely out of the dune setback jurisdiction. They're also landward of the sea line. The house is said already compliant with FEMA. The changes they are making create no material change to GFA or even coverages. Um and there's no additional clearing required as the front of the house where these changes will be rearranged and made are already somewhat disturbed. Um and so for all these reasons, I'm approving the application in its entirety. I did have a question. We didn't talk about it, but based on the file, it looks like they're upgrading

085the septic system, but we never talked about it or anything, so that would only be I'm not saying it's necessary, but I couldn't I couldn't tell. Um, but otherwise, I another beautiful place to have visited as a member of this board. >> Thank you, member Burgerer. Okay. Um well I too am approving the entire application um for all the reasons already mentioned the 75 foot for the enlarged pool deck that has existed without issue to date and um as membering mentioned that the rationale uh to be able to get a very extensive scenic easement over this property. So that's a that's a big win. um IA system that uh does look like it's being done. Um and also um improving the 61 foot for the first story decking for the same same reasons. It's pretty

086much over what's already there going to be redone slightly. Um and the new addition in the front um is only 6 foot to construct the closest portion of it and then every the rest of it is outside of uh variance territory. Um, so the current actually at the end of this project where they're taking a lower level and they're putting in a detached garage at the end of all of this, uh, the GFA is actually going to be um lower than it was. Part of that is because town code has changed in how it's looked at. Um, but it's still a net reduction slightly and uh I think it meets all the NRSP standards. The the scenic easement that's provided uh and the pathway which would be allowed is there today. Um and uh the

087scenic easement is a tremendous um plus for the environmental conditions and preserving this property uh going forward into perpetuity. But I too think it meets all the standards um and approving the whole thing. >> Thank you, vice chair. >> Yeah, I'm going to agree with my fellow board members. Um I think that um what we saw was that some work is being done where previous work had been. U I think that uh was mentioned by mirroring the squaring off of the deck made logical sense because uh there was a certain you could see it must have been awkward trying to get around that pool as it was. I didn't think I think that the comment from the planner was that uh the um a small amount of work required a very large variance. It did

088require a large variance, but I didn't think this was creating anything that was more than a slight uh a slight a slight additional uh intrusion into the the setback. Um the of course the v the uh the conservation easement is the major thing here. We're getting easement over the property which is a plus. I think that the [clears throat] decrease in the GFA how often do we see some come in for improvement? a [laughter] a decrease in GFA and I think we also had a decrease in um the amount of existing debt goes from 2267 to 2195 75 ft but still it wasn't as if they were looking for a great deal more. I think there's something to be said for the fact that um there seemed to be at this point anyway fairly good

089stewards of the property. We didn't go in and see property here that would been mismanaged in some way or there's large storage areas cut out of duneland. I think that's important. I think the area from where the construction is going to happen to the ocean is absolutely stunning as was mentioned and has to be preserved and I think the easement helps us in that direction. Um let me see if there's anything else I just want to mention. I think that the the work done on the front of the the offside the landward side the garage the addition in the front of the house were things that um were seem very very a very reasonable request. I don't think there's anything else I want to mention here. The scenic easement again is the major thing. Uh

090but they did agree to the TAM any suggested cam tam conditions and I think it was well presented well thought out and it seems as and by the way this is a house that's been around for a significant amount of time. So it's fairly stable. It was pointed out in terms of stability that the house was built on pilings which if there were to be some large uh event uh that might endanger other buildings along the way, this one has at least a little better chance. So, uh, for all those reasons and agreeing with my board members, I'm going to approve this in its entirety. >> Thank you. Member Kylie. >> I agree. I think the application was well presented. The requests are fair and reasonable, and the scenic easement is definitely, you know, a

091bonus. So, I approve it in its entirety. >> Thank you. I'm, you know, have all the same notes as everybody else, so I'm not going to um repeat, but I uh think this was a very wellthoughtout project. I mean, how many times do we see a house getting smaller? Um, and I'm going to be approving it in its entirety. Okay. Next application is Mau Trust 96 Marine Boulevard in Amaganzit. description is to construct an 828 square f foot second story addition with a roof deck, covered porch, and an i8 sanitary [clears throat] system and to allow an existing 118 square ft deck extension with stairs, bin, generator, fence, and AC unit to remain on a lot containing a wetland. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430 255

09211110 255 11172D of the town code and any other relief necessary. Variances of 52 feet uh 52.5 ft 54.1 ft and 28.8 8 ft are required to allow the seconds story addition roof deck and front porch to be located 47.5 ft 45.9 ft and 71.2 ft respectively from wetlands and variances of 93.4 ft 67.3 50 37.3 32 to allow a split rail fence expanded deck with stairs generator bin and AC unit to remain 6.6 6 ft 32.7 ft 50 ft 62.7 ft and 68 ft from wetlands where 100t setback is required. Three variances of 12.2 ft 12.5 and 12.7 are needed to allow the AC unit bin and generator to remain 17.8 8 ft, 17.5 ft, and 17.3 ft from the western front yard line yard lot line where 30 ft is required. One variance

093is required to allow the residents to extend 1 foot beyond the relative height pyramid restriction along the southern front property line. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone, elevation 16, secret class is type two. Member Maring, would you like to begin our deliberation? >> Yes. Thank you. >> The public hearing was held on March 31, 2026, way back when it was cold out. The applicant was represented by Lori Wiltshire of Land Planning Services. Mr. Mayo spoke on his own behalf uh at the hearing. He addressed the purpose of or you know the benefit they were trying to accomplish. Um, no comments were submitted into the hearing record from members of the public. The planning department was represented by Morgan Slater. Um during the hearing we worked off a George Wallbridge survey dated March 9th,

0942026 and that had updated the prior March 5th, 2025 survey that showed the septic system being shifted um a few more feet towards the eastern property line. Um so what had come in originally in the application was for the septic to be 20.6 6 from the wetlands um and it was shifted to 29.8 ft um from the wetlands and that that is an upgraded IIA system. Also in the file, I want to note there was an engineers letter. I don't think we really I don't know if we talked about it at the public hearing, but it's in the file, so I want to note it dated February 5th, 2026 from Butchner Engineering and it accesses the existing house foundation quote foundation and property soils profile. Um and the his assess or their assessment was that

095that foundation and property soils profile can support a second floor with quote common reinforcement that would that should be expected. Um and this was an important uh opinion because this house was built in 1960 and I believe this is the original uh foundation. At the time of the hearing, we asked the applicant to explore still explore alternative options for the sighting of the septic system. Um the TAM made clear that this septic system while it's an improvement um obviously the type of is a great [clears throat] improvement relative to the cesspool still urged us to and the applicant to consider getting this getting the septic system and I guess what could be considered the most optimal or you know maximizing the wetland setback. Um so we had that discussion and we left the record open

096for that consideration. Um and Miss Wilchshire said they would go back and look at its ability to put perhaps be positioned much further further south on that eastern side of the property. Per that we received into the record a follow-up memo dated April 24th, 2026 from the agent um with also a letter attached from the applicant which did basically identify an alternative position further south um and significantly better distance to the wetlands. Um, however, that would require that the expansion trench be placed on the south side of the property currently where there's this um drainage system uh being proposed. So, the applicant did write a letter saying that he declines um wanting to make that change to optimize the septic system position relative to the wetlands because they don't want to clear more area. they

097want to keep whatever their privacy from the vegetation um and they don't want to uh change things beyond where they are. So, I appreciate that. It's not clear to me, however, how much of the vegetation on the property is actually native to the area as opposed to ornamental or other. Um and in addition, the right of way on the southern side of the property are marine. um that right away is densely uh vegetated and that would not be disturbed anyway. So, but I'll come back to this um in my deliberation. With respect to proposed mitigation, the applicant has offered to create a 1,56 uh foot scenic easement and a 5-ft vegetated buffer around that to uh try and protect the wetlands that are sort of on the northwest corner of the property. We had a

098lot of discussion about the bamboo and the invasive bamboo. Um they talked about trying to control it. They can't they're not going to take it out within the wetland because that would be a whole other process. Um and I think which would require SRA. Um but they talked about using a a root barrier outside of the wetland to begin to try and control. Okay. The full lot area is materially undersized, pre-existing, non-conforming to zoning minimum. Specifically, it's 47% smaller than the minimum 20,000 lot area of a B residence zone. So, just want to note the property parcel size X the wetland is is only 9,921 ft. So, this is a constrained lot with two front yards and most of the lot area if not all of it is in jurisdiction of the wetland on the

099north and the northwest corner. However, these constraints are not unique to many many other undersized lots in this neighborhood. Um, and thus when I think about, you know, what what should what could be approved, I also have to be thinking about the context of the precedent that it could set broadly um for other applications to come that have a lot of these same constraints. So, the application as we know requires 12 variances, eight of which relate to wetland setbacks. the others are area variances. Um, all in Miss Wiltshire describes or maybe it was Mr. Mayo who described what they're going to do as quote quite modest. And I understand that the footprint of the house is not being enlarged, but this is a very substantial expansion of development on the property. Remember, this cottage started

100out as 140 square ft. It was expanded 59% to the current GFA which is 1656. And now they are proposing to add another 820 square ft or 50% which will [clears throat] take the house up just 4% below the max GFA under the formula of the old code they're grandfathered under. And it takes them to the maximum that they'd be allowed to do relative to expanding non-conforming structures at that 50%. As the TAM says, quote, the 50% cap limit cap limit on further expansion of a house that is non-conforming to wetland setback quote is not guaranteed is not a guaranteed right to expansion. Um so the house currently does not conform with FEMA standards significantly. um doesn't conform the even though it's being expanded 50%, I guess the building inspector rendered a letter that said

101the value increase will only be 40% and therefore the building department has judged this to not require FEMA compliance. Um if they did, they would have to raise the house another 8 ft. the wetland the wetlands in this part of the town. Um this wetland uh was identified in 1993 and it was noted that this wetland continues to expand. So it's you know which is important in the neighborhood to see these wetlands continue to do what they need to do naturally um because it is important flood mitigation and it's important you know for environmental concerns. So let me get to uh the del yeah yeah the deliberation um relative to the variances. So the variances I hold on I just got myself a little twisted here. Um so the variances I'm going to approve are

102the front port variance which is needs to be will be 20 it's a 28.8 foot variance. It's on the south side of the house. It's not a large structure or a substantial variance. I'm approving the split rail fence which needs a 93.4 um variance from wetland, but I think that split rail has been there for a long time and I actually don't see a split rail fence as having any real detrimental impact to the wetland. Um I'm going to approve the variance requested. Um so they had expanded their rear deck without a permit. So they need a variance uh of 67.3 from the wetlands which is sub substantial um to to legalize it. Um it's large but it's been it's only 118 square ft that was added and it would seem to make sense. That

103deck was a little bit tight um on the back. So I don't believe that it will create much disturbance to the natural feature. The next three items require very substantial variances. Um, but I'm going to approve them. The generator, the AC unit, um, and, uh, what was the third one? Generator, AC unit, and the bin. So, they're significant. Uh, they need wetland variances as well as sideyard setback variances. And yeah, I do believe they possibly could be moved to the eastern side of the house, but I don't I don't again, I don't think these are causing much in the way of of harm either environmentally or even necessarily to the character that area where they're sitting is is is very well screened. So, I'm approving all of that. The variance is though that after assessing

104everything including that there's an upgraded sanitary system that they're creating, you know, a modest size uh um buffer and revge around the uh the wetland. I am denying the 52.5 foot variance for the seconds story addition and the 54.3 variance for the roof deck as well as the variance request for a pyramid variance for the second story that runs along the entire width of the southern property line. the application. Um, so I find that granting these var variances. Let me let me start again. The these are very substantial variances on a constrained lot. The benefit that Mr. Mayo told us is a compelling one. He's got aging parents. He wants to take one, you know, expand the bedrooms on the first floor. He wants to add some bedrooms to to offset the one he's taking

105out on the bottom floor and then add one more. Um, and that's that I but I do believe that that is a benefit that could be achieved by alternative or smaller designs. Um and this really would this is this is a maximum uh uh increase of of expansion and combined with the roof deck also which I'll I'll talk about um it it does not to me meet the standards of the variances or the NRSP. Um I do believe that um the increase in the size of the house will create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. It could also create detriment to neighboring properties. Um it's the adding a full roof deck also um that requires a pyramid variance um does not meet the standards. Again, they could have had a roof deck

106um and second story that didn't need that pyramid variance and still have pretty much all the benefit they want. The roof deck will likely cause a loss of privacy, which is a detriment to to the neighbors. Um and the benefit sought by the applicant, as I mentioned, could be achieved um feasible um with the smaller size of of development. the requested area variances are very substantial. Um the the um the grant of the variance I do believe will have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions. Um and the difficulty causing the applicant well it's not self-created because the whole house if you're going to expand the house is in jurisdiction. However, the size of the variances and and the degree of the development is a self-created issue. So, for that reason, I'm going to deny

107the sec the second story and the deck. I do think there could have been a better application that would still would have gotten them the benefit, but better meeting the standards and not putting such an intense level of development on this very fragile uh lot. >> Sorry to this a tougher one for me, member burger. >> Okay. um where I should start okay uh well there's a a lot of things on this application as we already know there's constrain lot um substandard um I took this in well a couple of different parts there was what I had is existing stuff which included the split rail fence the expanded deck the generator the um bin that I left off my list here I guess um AC unit which required uh variances and um they're here already.

108They don't seem to have you know generated any problem and I don't see in in looking at the moving those to the east side um with an IIA system going in I'm not sure that they could go over there either. So, um I was leaning toward uh approving those uh including the split rail fence which is 93.4 ft of a variance. Um then new things going in. We have uh 52.5 variance 5 foot variant for the second story edition to be from the wetlands um and 54.1 for the roof deck um and 28.8 8 for the front porch. Um and then of course in addition to the dimensional variances there is the wetland variances is the uh pyramid variance of one foot for the second floor addition in group deck. Um I think on this

109application um I am denying all the new things including the front porch um on these the variances and uh and the pyramid variance. I think we know that the the applicants were they have four bedrooms today. They were going to move a bedroom from the second floor and add it to the third floor. they second floor rather um and end up with a five- bedroomedroom house. Um however there I believe there are alternate designs in terms of an NRSP. I think there are smaller structures that could be added on on this house specifically for the the second floor edition in the roof deck. Um, aside from the bedrooms, they were adding other general living space that uh is included in this 828 uh ft of uh expansion. And um I think it does not meet

110the I think they don't meet the varian standards. I think they don't meet the NRSP standards of 2551. Um, I have a pro I know there's some mitigation here with the the IA system. Um, I actually have a problem where I I don't like the offer of a scenic easement that has bamboo in it. Um, so I don't know how I even, you know, I just that portion of it or I guess it would relate to NRSP standards. I don't see that that's uh an improvement necessarily at all for this property um to have bamboo inside the scenic easement. So overall, I am only approving variance-wise and ASNRSP since they haven't currently uh caused any issue the existing items that are in the house and I'm denying the rest of the application and denying the

111NRSP for it and including I don't I'm not sure how to do that to say denying the scenic easement because of the bamboo that will be located in it. Um, aside from the other the other mitigation of the IIA system. I guess that's not enough mitigation for me [clears throat] this application. >> Thank you. Uh, vice chair. >> Yeah. Um, as [clears throat] was said by member Burgerer, there's a lot going on here uh for us to look at. Everybody's uh two members now weighed in on the various and I have a couple of comments. It is a 10,000 square foot constrained lot wetlands uh bridging right onto the rear of the property. U the building that's that's uh proposed is mostly over existing footprint which is a positive. Um they've agreed to many of

112the recommendations in the TAM. Um the scenic easement however I agree with member Burgerer here it's less effective in this location. and there wouldn't be a lot of others. There is the fact that there is uh an invasive species in there that's going to continue to um to grow and to spread and to be very hard to eradicate. But nonetheless, I still happy to get a scenic easement. I just don't think it adds for a lot in terms of mitigation here. Um there's a the doodle in character was mentioned should be restored and whatever we get for a replanting plan should have some aspect of that and we'd leave that to the planners but to say that what comes in shows that there a certain respect for what was originally there. Um there was the

113uh whole comment about the building department deciding this was not 50% worth of work. Had it been, it would have triggered a number of things and but one of them would have been make it FEMA compliant and remember um as Jane said u [laughter] we I'm sorry Jane I was looking reading at the same time it's going it's going from 102 to 18 ft. >> So um you know it would have gone to that. Um but the fact there is no there is no uh increase in the footprint. There were a couple of other things here. I thought that if I'm going to go down and look at the variances, the rear deck variance, the generator, the AC, the bin, and the secondary edition, uh I am going to approve I'm not going to approve

114the roof deck or the split rail uh not and the split rail pins, the roof deck or the pyramid. I think that the pyramid, by the way, could have been solved uh in front of us by moving it a foot back. It's a 45. It's one foot high, one foot back would have done it. [sighs and gasps] But beyond that, I think the fact that this is a very tight lot and an area that you're suddenly adding a roof deck at an elevation here that I think the comment that it would affect the privacy of others around them, I think is a very real concern. The character of the neighborhood and this the sanity of the neighbors, but the the uh continuing having a certain constancy here. What this applicant came in front of us

115for was to accommodate a larger house for his increased family needs. He spoke and said how it was important to create space for his parents who've always enjoyed it but now have less ability to get to a second floor and they needed to expand out to invite other family members in. I am both sympathetic to that and um my decision making here reflects that. Um I'm not 100% sure. I'm I'm I think that the second floor uh deck was necessary. Member Miring did say there might have been alternatives that weren't explored, but I am going to uh approve this application except for the roof deck and the obviously accompanying uh glass rail. Uh glass rails have become an issue with us. We still have to be sensitive from the pyramid. They do count. This one

116would had to been moved, but beyond that, I don't I don't want to approve the roof deck. So, the glass rail is going to be a moot point for me. So, that's where I stand. I'm going to approve uh the I'm going to approve the variances that were requested for the ones I've already mentioned, the rear deck variant, the generator, the AC, the bin, second story addition, and the split rail fence. But I'm going to uh deny the roof deck and the uh and the pyramid for the rail. >> Member Kylie. >> Thank you. Uh along the same lines as uh member Johan, uh it is a small constrained lot. It doesn't matter what direction you go, you are in violation of something. So, um the fact that the the work is going to be

117done in the existing footprint is uh is a benefit. So, the the front porch, the fence, the rear deck bin, the generator, AC unit are okay with me. Uh the second story uh is is fine, but yeah, the roof deck in looking at that neighborhood, you are you're so close to one another, I think. And also a no on the pyramid variance. >> Thank you. Um, I actually agree with uh vice my vice chair and member Kylie. I too am going to be denying the roof deck and the pyramid. I think that the majority of the work is um adding to the second story and much of the proposed work is situated over already existing improvements. The footprint of the house is not going to increase. Uh they're not really proposing any change to the

118size or of the footprint or the existing foundation. They're seeking a modest expansion of a second floor which already exists over a portion of the home. The proposed porch is land of the wetlands. The bin, the AC unit, the generator, I don't think cause any detriment to the wetlands. So, I will be approving everything except the roof deck and the pyramid. >> Um, so do we want to see an easement or >> Yes. >> I want to see an accusement. >> Absolutely. >> I do. and the re and the rech all of all of the um >> all the conditions that have been listed in uh Lor's April 24th letter >> okay >> should be incorporated and all of the TAM recommendations >> and so basically the existing stuff is approved the >> it sounds

119like >> everything's deni everything's approved Except for the roof deck and the >> pyramid pyramid varian >> but >> correct >> but not three approved all that and then they approved some of the stuff but not >> not the not the second floor >> roof deck at the pyramid we all denied all five of us. >> Um I'm denying the second story edition also. >> Yes point and the front that's that's a 32 for approval right. Yeah >> two if you need it. I got it if you needed to. >> Okay. All right. Awesome. Thank you. [clears throat] >> All right. Okay. Very good. Okay. Moving right along. >> We're on number seven. [laughter] >> Marian Leier, 83 Cliff Road, Amiganit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-174-2-6. Description is to construct a 1,083 square ft

120of first and second story additions, 588 square ft foot attached garage, driveway, and IIA sanitary system on a lot containing dune land and beach vegetation. A natural resource special permit is being sought pursuant to 25520 of the East Hampton Town Code. The zoning district is B residence X flood zone 0.2 2 annual chance flood hazard area seek for classes type two. Member Maring, would you like to begin? >> Yes, I would. Thank you. So, this property is located on the north side of Cliff Road and this is an area of Beach Hampton that is greatly characterized by dunes, dueland topography and some very pristine dune and and and almost rare dune vegetation for that as backdrop. I I note that the lot size at 19,599 square feet makes this among the very small minority of

121all lots in the entirety of B Champampton that comes close to meeting um the the minimum for the the B residence zone of 20,000. Morgan Slater represented the planning board and the TAM was dated January 29th. The applicant was represented by Mr. David Barage who's the architect architect on the project and he noted you good. Okay. You noted that um he noted that it he was involved um with this house with the previous owners like 20 years ago from 20 years ago. Um he he didn't make a formal presentation about the project really nor did he discuss the project with respect to um the NRSP standards. Um, no plan was presented in the application or in the record to achieve uh the reveation and renaturalization of the significant swath of dune land that has been

122despoiled over the years by the applicant in contravention to the to a prior zoning board's approvals. Um though he did say simply that he will quote basically agree to whatever we the board feel is correct to take it back to the proper dune environment. I also want to note that there were questions raised at the meeting if the required CNRS um that were required back in the administr I think it's a condition of the administrative um uh permit uh in 20 2008 from the zoning board. Mr. Barage stated that they were um and I believe the board at the time asked for something to confirm that. I actually don't know if we received that into the record of verification that they were properly forwarded, but he did say under oath that they had been. Um,

123the survey we relied upon in the public hearing was the Saskus survey dated June 12th, 2025. I want to note that it was established during the public hearing that this survey does not fully or accurately represent the entirety of the plans especially with respect to the size and position of the driveway. Um and moreover obviously we have clearing numbers that do not reflect any of the necessary revitation, restoration, renaturalization of the property. No members of the public public offered comments um to the record. Um and even though the rear extension could have impact pretty direct impact on the neighbor to the west um there was no comment on that. So this application brings us a fairly substantial level of development on this lot. an increase of 48% in GFA between the twotory addition on the

124rear north side and onetory addition that wraps around from the north to the eastern side of the house. Um, this brings the JFA uh right up to the top of the maximum allowable under the prior code that we were told they are grandfathered for. In addition, they want to add a 550 square foot attached garage. All in building coverage is proposed to be expanding 93% with this project and total coverage is shown to increase by 40%. As presented in the application actually the clearing is proposed to increase another 500 square ft to 13,549 which would be just under just 8% under the theoretical maximum allowable clearing on the parcel. Um and that even though there is a massive critical need to reveate about 10,000 square feet of the parcel, the TAM makes clear and I

125as a board member uh are needing to uphold the NRSP standards agree with the TAM where it says quote the project presents a large expansion of residential improvements on a lot where most of the protected vegetation has been removed without a benefit of an NRSP and that the This this over this this incremental uh out of permitted clearing needs to be restored. This is in the TAM to the maximum extent practicable. Now, the 2013 CO showed clearing limits at the time of 3,36. And I believe Morgan said that is a good reference point to start with um uh to to start with uh when we think about the requirements of reveation and renaturalization. Um, in addition, we want to note that the applicant violated, I think, at least two of the conditions in the 2008,

126uh, administrative permit. I think it was conditions E and K. So, um, let me go to So, first off, I am going to deny the NRSP for the garage for two reasons. First, front yard attached or detached garages are generally not compatible with the character of the neighborhood. They're rather rare, especially at this size. Um, and the board, I believe, has denied a few in the not too distant past. Now, also, I just want to know, someone might come back and say, well, a 600 foot or a large garage was placed on a property within the last decade, a couple of houses down on the south side. However, I don't believe that was in the board's jurisdiction or NRSP jurisdiction. It needed no variances. So, I can't see. And that was also in the sideyard

127and not in the front yard on that property, I don't think needed reveation. The second important reason though why I'm denying this is adding that near 600 square foot structure on top of the expansion of GFA. This will go in the area of the property in the front that I as I look at the standards must be prioritized for dunland restoration and renaturalization. And adding this into the whole mix with the maxing out of the of the GFA is a bridge too far as I see it to be compatible um with the NRSP standard. Um adding that amount makes the job of restoring or reaching back to the 2013 CO conditions even harder. Um the uh I don't see the garage um is meeting uh in addition to the GFA increases me meeting 2551D or

12825540K. Um okay. Second turning to the proposed GFA expansion. I found this part of the application to be I'll just use the word cuspby relative to NRSP standards I just cited to approve development expansion maxing out GFA right up to the maximum allowable um that would be for an as of right permit on lands without protected natural features is generally not considered a given and also cannot be expected. However, I am willing to say that given the size of the lot um and that the largest part of the expansion will generally go in the rear of the parcel that ultimately slopes up to and abuts Route 27 where it's not really visible to people. I could say that it could meet NRSP standards as long as 10,000 square ft of dune land can be restored

129or as much as possible of that 10,000 sorry 10,000 square ft it just with providing like a 5 foot access passage you know around the house. Um, and so I I am willing to approve the GFA expansion, the House expansion. However, I'm having a problem procedurally right now because we have nothing to go on. We have we don't have the reb plan. We don't have a restoration plan. It's not marked on a survey. So, I actually can't tell you how much of this reveation is doable. So I'm feel like I'm on a little bit of shifting sands here or not on solid ground because I I I just don't have any order of magnitude of where the revge will come into. So that's where I am on this application. >> Member Burger. [laughter] Okay, this

130is the worst one. Okay, this is solely an NRSP. Um, and going back to like what was mentioned in the TAM and the clearing back to the I forgot the 3,36, but going back to what was in the TAM about the 2008 natural resources permit and where the applicants or the whoever is the owner now violated several of the it was looking for Um, yeah. No, no surf. No surf. No turf. No, no grass, all that. I had that here a second ago. Yes. Right. >> Um, anyway, that they did not do that. Um, Mr. Beeridge did come in and say that they had the CNR and he was going to provide it. I just looked through the files again now and I I don't see it. I don't see that anything was submitted about

131it. But, um, you know, uh, Morgan as she mentioned in the TAM that she she recommends that any areas not proposed to contain structures be restored to their native soil and reveated with duneland plant species >> with the exception of a 5- foot cleared boundary. However, um, I don't know how that factors into what they did since the 2008 NRSP. So actually in terms of an NRSP, I was leaning toward denying the entire application unless they could comply and make changes to with the 2008 >> in terms of the clearing >> in in terms of the clearing. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. >> Um, but I think this does not meet the NRSP and as member Miring already mentioned there are a lot of questions that and I missed this hearing that was the night

132of the accident but I did look at the hearing several times after that >> and um and I I I don't see where this meets the natural resource special permit standards at all on this. It's a, as stated in the TAM, a very aggressive development um on a non-conforming lot. And uh so I was denying the whole thing unless it could come into stipulated that it could come into the uh agreement of 2008 and >> vice chair. Uh I'm going to have to agree with [clears throat] member Burgerer on this one. I found this whole application to be lacking. Uh couple of things right away. There was an administrative NRSP granted. Subsequently in 2013, a COO depicted 3,36 ft of clearing uh which grew to 13,083. 10,000 ft of clearing on an area that we

133think has to be maintained as best as is possible with construction happening. This is not a little overage. This is 10,000 square ft of damage to duneland in an area as member miring had pointed out is precious for what's left in the Amaganton area. I thought the idea that they we would expect them to replenish beach vegetation that the the fact that this much was cleared. I don't believe this application itself was prepared for the the severity of this particular situation. I'm just going to go I know they've been read but they're staggering. I'm going to say it anyway. Total coverage is going up by 40%. GFA going up by 48%. building coverage going up by 93%. That's a large ask and we could make an argument for considering it if we thought that the

134whole application was right was moving in the right direction. There was no effort made in the presentation to talk about the 10,000 ft. I don't think this is a casual thing where we can say well let's see what the planning plan is. I think we need a real presentation here when we're looking for a little additional uh [clears throat] mitigation is one thing here. I don't believe what was presented to us attacked what is the real problem with this property. I think the property has to be considered one that has been severely damaged and needs a major uh plan in place that we can look at and start to talk about and approve and expect our planners to approve. So, I'm not I'm not in favor of approving any part of this because I just

135think in terms of an NRSP, it's a significant amount of construction on the house, both on the roadside and and of course in the backyard. It's it's a significant amount of uh work being done with almost no consideration for us or what to do about taking up uh you know, there's some sod not sad, but there's some grasslands in place. Dune was removed. It's a lot of clearing that didn't exist before. I can see what happened. They just pushed back towards the highway and took out as much as they could of the underbrush. Nonetheless, for me, this is an easy one. I [clears throat] don't think this rises to the standard even being considered to the NRSP. And if we just go to the standards for a minute 2551 under preservation natural resources, I don't

136believe that there's any effort been made here to preserve the natural resources at all. alternative reasonable uses of property determined not to exist. There are alternative uses here. There are probably a real discussion to talk about what's going on in terms of architecturally, but I don't want to go that far with it. I'm going to say right now you have to look for another way to approach this problem. Alternative designs again smaller buildings and then under 25540 compatibility. I don't think as was mentioned by meing in terms of design, we could have the discussion of the garage. I don't believe this is compatible amount of work in this particular neighborhood. And then environmental protection which again it goes back to talking about preservation of natural resources. I think the environment has been damaged in a

137way here that calls for a a major consideration by us on how it's going to be repaired. And I think they have to come back to us if they're going to come back and present what's going to happen first and foremost with that 10,000 ft that was cleared without any kind of approval. So uh I am emphatically denying this uh this application. >> Member Kylie >> uh I agree with vice chair uh that the presentation I thought was fairly vague. Uh the the statement will agree to any revge plan. However, the extent of the revge plan you have to present a plan. It's extensive. >> Uh and then just can't go on the word if we'll do this. So, I I have no problem denying this application. >> Thank you. Well, before we even look

138into what they're requesting, um there has been no consideration given to having this [clears throat] application even come close to meeting the level of standards that are in the NRSPs. There was not a uh they didn't even present a methodology to naturalize the property. They didn't even attempt to remedy the 10,000 square ft of unpermitted clearing to even be in compliance with a 2008 administrative permit. So before you even look at what they're asking for, they're in violation of NRSP standards because they haven't even addressed the violations that exist on site. So for all the reasons that have already been stated, um this absolutely does not meet the level to approve a natural resource special permit. A lot more work should have been put into this. There was really no consideration to the environment whatsoever.

139So I am approving this application in its entirety. >> I'm sorry. I am denying this approval of >> I'm denying this approval. I'm denying this application in its entirety. It does not meet the standard. And um I think we're done. >> You got that? >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> So I just want to be clear. I was saying I was denying the the addition. I was only saying that I can't you I would have considered it if >> if we had had a different president. >> Well, if we had had >> the things I just noted addressed prior to asking for something else, >> you would have thought there was thoughtful uh mitigation being given before they're asking for what they want. But this on top of what uh the violations that exist on

140the property. I mean >> it's the level of >> I was shocked when he said we'll do whatever you want. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> We still have to have that on paper. >> Yeah. There we go. I don't have together. Okay. Let's see. So where are we? Oh, good. We're done. Okay. So put this here. >> Yes. Other decisions oneac 100 deforest road uh unit 826 in montalk suffer county tax map number 300-32-.1-1-226 [snorts] modification of a 2018 determination. >> Uh yes. So Mr. Wlock's been in front of the board several times with extensions of time. Some of you might remember um this dates back to 2018. Back in 2018, he was approved a 925 foot manufactured home decking, relocate a shed, uh installed within uh uh NRSP jurisdiction of wetlands. Um the modification request

141is to install a smaller 835 foot manufactured home. Um no reduction in wetland setbacks. Um total lot coverage will be reduced uh by about 20 square ft. Um the environmental impacts for this modification are not in anticipated to be any greater uh than what was already approved. Um so we don't we don't have any concerns with this one. >> So it's a smaller house but it's not a greater setback. >> Uh correct. It's essentially the same setback because the um uh wells are on the to the to the east of the property. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I like this one. >> I don't have a okay with it. Everybody's okay. >> Who would like to make a motion? >> I would. I like this one. I remember this. So, the matter of WLAC

142100 to Forest Road, unit 826 in Montour, Max Map 300-32.1-1-226. I make a motion to approve this modification for the 2018 termination. >> Second. >> Concur. Okay. >> Next is Marks 85 LA Point Road, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-83-3-10.3. Designate an application for a wetland stabilization project. An unlisted action, >> right? Uh so this is obviously within wetland setbacks. Um but it's it's a a a coastal restoration project, so it doesn't need to meet setbacks regardless. Um it's the application is to use corer logs uh fill and and including fill of tidal wetlands. Um plans to stabilize a salt marsh on La Point Road. Um the planning department is recommending designating this as an unlisted action. Um the permit has already been issued by the DEEC. Uh so uh coordination will be

143limited but uh for now we just need to uh designate it as an unlisted action. [clears throat] Now, what in terms of process, how what is that? A how does that is it a resolution? How does that >> correct? Yeah. The board. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm going to make a motion to Oh, if everybody's in favor of this, I'm going to make a motion to approve that a resolution. If a resolution is getting prepared, do I make a motion? No. Right. >> Um, well, well, you can make a motion to declare that this >> is an on listed action project is an unlisted. It is our action and then I can draft the resolution. >> Okay. So in the application of marks 85 LA point road in East Hampton, I make

144a motion to designate the application for a wetland stabilization project unlisted as an unlisted action and direct council to prepare a resolution. >> Second I know I was thinking that I'm not sure actually. 57 Hampton Lane. These are extensions of time. 57 Hampton Lane LLC 57 Hampton Laneit Suffach County Tax Map number 300-174-7-9. Extension of a 2023 determination. >> Right. So, this one dates back just back to 2023. This is their first extension of time. They have a building permit issued for the work. They just need to continue and finish the work and get a CO. The >> work is underway. >> Yes. >> No. Okay. >> You can sort of see it in the aerial from last year. It's >> that first extension. >> Yeah, it is because it was 20 >> just it

145just expired. >> Okay. Member Mary. >> Yes. I just wanted I do want to disclose that I spoke in favor of this application when I back in 2023 um before I was on the board. I don't think that conflicts me to make me refuse from this, but I just wanted to mention it. >> You didn't think so? >> No. Okay. I don't think so. Okay. Good. Yeah. and I've walked by the house and it does they're pretty far. They're really close to being done, I think. So, um, okay. So, in the matter of 57 Hampton Lane, LLC, 57 Hampton Lane, Amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-174-7-9, I make a motion to grant the extension of of time for the 2023 determination. >> Second. >> Concur. Next extension of time is Wang and Capio 59

146Seaside Avenue in Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-32-4-24 extension of a 2015 determination. >> Right. This is an old one and it's a bit strange. They're uh [laughter] requesting extension of time. They've already request they've also requested a CO, but they haven't done any work associated with the permit. That's sort of separate from the extension of time. It looks like they reconstructed some decking different than what was there originally. We're we're dealing with that on that side of of it. But for right now, the extension of time side, they haven't done any of the work that they got their permit for. Um, so I I >> Yeah, it's it says in it said in the application to obtain a CO, >> but I they hadn't they haven't actually done any of that work. So

147I'm Morgan is working on it essentially. So this is their fourth or so extension. >> Uh it would have expired in 18. >> Yeah. >> So seventh. >> Yeah. >> Should we wait for more? >> What was their approval? >> We're just extending. >> Uh I can't remember. Um it's it should tell us here. um >> construct a 783 foot first and second story terraces and alterations of existing roof line within relative height pyramid uh restrictions on a parcel lane containing freshwater wetlands. But really the approvals was for pyramid. The wetlands are across the street I think and so like the driveway would be within jurisdiction but the house I think itself I think is not. >> So really it's just pyramid. So there are other issues on the property, but this is just an

148extension of time for additions that appear [clears throat] or terraces that appear to have not have been done. >> My understanding >> is that it's basically that there looks like the driveway comes off a flag or >> but I'm looking at a driveway on the adjoining >> they I think they have an easement with the neighbor to get I think the wetland's down here. >> Yeah, I see. >> To go around it. >> Yeah. Um, [clears throat] >> okay. >> I'm good with it. Who wants to make the motion? >> I would. I will. >> Okay, I'll do it. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion in the uh application of Wang and Capio 59 Seaside Avenue, Monttok, Suff County Tax Map 300-32-4-24 to approve an extension of uh the 2015 determination. Second concur.

149>> Concur. >> Next is minutes approval. Draft minutes of Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. >> Like to make a motion to approve draft, excuse me, [laughter] of Tuesday and June. It's constructed by Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Thank. Next, we'll move on to resolutions. 287 Oldstone Highway, I'm sorry, Oldstone LLC, 287 Oldstone Highway, Spring, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-83-2-21. This was Wasn't this the one where they filled the wetland? >> This was just >> and we we saw lead agency. >> This one was just a Yeah, that was just the lead agency and >> I'm making it a type one action. >> Yeah, that's all this was. I I I think >> I wasn't sure how we were going to do it cuz I

150drafted it. >> I sent it cuz we kind of just said it at the meeting. So, I just kind of drafted it. I think I sent it to just you >> to see if you and then but I didn't send it to the board >> because it was kind of just a not really like anything new. I was just drafting what you said at the meeting which well I just drafted the resolution as you guys made it at the meeting. >> Yes. And and what we did at the meeting was designated a type one action and we were seeking lead agency. Correct? >> Yes, that's it. Y >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Let me uh so let me find that in my mail. I was actually trying to look it up before and

151um can I forward it to the rest of the board? >> Yeah, I can send it to them. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. So, we're not going to do anything right yet. We'll wait. >> Yeah. Uh, I mean, truthfully, the way I had drafted it is I it could be it's done and it was dated I dated it for that meeting for last week. So, it probably shouldn't have been on the agenda, honestly. >> Mhm. So, do you want to table it or for another night or you want me to make a motion now? >> Um, >> because I mean that's all we did was designated a type one action. >> Yeah. I mean, I can read it to you if you want. >> Okay. I >> mean, it's only like

152two. It's very short. >> Yeah. >> I Yeah, that shouldn't have been on the agenda. Give you one second. >> Sure. >> I was trying to find it myself before. Okay. I don't know. Hard to look up on my phone. >> Let me move on to the next one. You find it. >> Gerald Bedrin 195 Marine Boulevard, Amigansit, Suffach County, tax map number 300-176-8-24. Member Maring. >> Yes, thank you. Uh just quickly, you'll remember this was an application for a complete redevelopment on an Oceanside property in Beach Hampton. um and the all the improvements that were they're being moved well forward um and really improve the distance to the dune land. Um and uh we were and and there there's also for a pool um we were unanimous in approving the house and then I

153dissented on the variance for the um uh pyramid variances but the other four members uh approved that. So um in the matter what you think >> oh I don't sorry I don't remember but maybe maybe it was a so it was it was not I'll just say it was not unanimous on the on the uh on the pyramid variances. Um so in the matter matter of Gerald Bedran 195 Marine Boulevard Migans Suffach County Tax Map 300-176-8-24 I make a motion to um approve the resolution as written. Second. >> Concur. >> Next is Smith and Griffith, 49 Mako Lane, Amiganit, Suffach County Tax Act number 300-175-6-21. >> Yes. Thank you. So again, this was an applica another read total redevelopment application um on Mo Lane in uh the same the same neighborhood although at a much

154uh smaller scale. It's uh to do a new house um in dimensions similar to what this board approved next door not that long ago and a deck and a small uh hot tub on the deck and I believe we were oh and an upgraded septic system and a reduction or shift excuse me of the driveway onto the property and to the south. So in the matter and we were unanimous I think in approving this application. So in the matter of Smith and Griffith 49 make Lane Migansit Suffach County Tax Map 300-175-6-21 I make the motion to approve the resolution as written. Second >> concur. >> Yeah. And I found the resolution basically all I can read it but it says whereas the town of East Tandem zoning board of appeals receives an application which among

155other things seeks approval to legalize the filling of approximately 1,300 square ft of wetland on the property to accommodate a driveway. And whereas the location of proposed action is 287 Oldstone Highway Springs and more particularly described on the Suffach County tax map is tax number 3000-83-2-21. And whereas the filling of wetlands is listed as a type one action in section 128-3-20b3 of the Easttown Code and is therefore subject to the state environmental quality review SRA and the regulated provisions of 6NYCR part 617. And now therefore, be it resolved, the ZBA finds as follows. The ZBA does hereby classify the action as a type one action and the ZBA does hereby seek the role of lead agency and that's drafted. Uh and I could I had a date that is basically what we said at the

156meeting. >> So I can just if that's okay. >> Can I make a motion to approve that? And yeah, you go ahead and >> and I'll just get it stamped. Yeah. >> Okay, good. So, in the matter of 287 Oldstone LLC, 287 Oldstone Highway in Springs, Suffach County Tax Map number 300- 83-2-21. I make a motion we approve the resolution as written. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> You hanging out with me? >> Do we have an adjournment? >> We do. I'd like [clears throat] to make a motion to close the Town of East Hampton zoning board of appeals work session for June 9th, 2026 at 8:56 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you, Matt. >> Thank you. Have a good night, board.