East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 06/02/2026

001Okay, zoning board. This is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Just want to There we go. Just want to let you know that we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. Good evening everyone. I'd like to welcome you to the zoning board of appeals meeting of June 2nd, 2020. Our first public hearing, Kenneth and Margaret Farrell, has been postponed. So we'll move on to the second which is Green Hollow Real Estate LLC Hampton Racket 172 Buckskill Road East Hampton Suffach County Tax B number 300-184-3-11 and 14 relief sought is appeal of a January 14th 2026 determination issued by the building inspector pursuant to 255835A1 of the town code which concluded that the definition of playing courts encompasses the uses described in the request for determination. According to determination, courts such

002as those configured for pickle ball, paddle, and mini camp courts may be included within this definition. Zoning district is A3 residents, secret class NA. And before we begin, I'd like to inform the board the one jurisdiction we have before us this evening is whether or not the building inspections determination was correct. Um, we have everything. Our record is full. We've seen it all. So, I'd like everybody to focus on how is the building inspector's determination incorrect. So, council, do we have a proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Uh, yes. I reviewed the affidavit and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction of this hearing. >> Thank you. Is someone here to speak on behalf of this application? I am um Tiffany Scarado, 36 West Water Street, sweet 202 Sag Harbor

003for the property owner, Green Hampton Racket at Green Hollow. I do have a couple of speakers that I'd like to introduce before I speak. Um just to give you a little bit of context about the club. First person is Loretta from Project Most. Good evening. Uh Loretta Davis. I'm the community outreach director and I'm here on behalf of our fearless leader Rebecca from Project Most who couldn't be here tonight and we're in favor of the the project for Hampton Racket. So, I'd like to read this letter before I submit it to you. It's a short one. >> I'm sorry. Are you an attorney? Um, I actually am an attorney, but I do not practice. >> I'm not going to swear you in then. It's fine. I'll just Okay. Thank you. >> It's a long time

004ago. >> Uh, Hampton Racket and the Graham family have been pillars of support for Project Most for over 10 years. The late John Graham was deeply committed to the local community and youth development. Through this partnership, children in our afterchool and summer camp programs have benefited from professional tennis lessons delivered by highly qualified instructors at Hampton Racket. Teaching tennis was the primary activity, but these children were given so much more. Through the sport, they learned critical life lessons, built self-confidence, and experienced the value of sportsmanship and fitness. By providing access to official childsiz courts, Hampton Racket has ensured the local children have the opportunity to learn the game in an environment tailored specifically to their needs, making it affordable and accessible to members of the community. The impact of this collaboration extends far beyond the

005tennis court. Hampton Racket has been a vital venue for fundraisers that we now rely on to support our essential operating budget. These annual tennis events have further helped to launch and fund the John T. Graham Scholarship Fund. Created to ensure every child has the opportunity to play, learn, and thrive regardless of the family's financial situation. Following John's passing in the summer of 2024, his leg his legacy of generosity has continued through Monica Graham and the Hampton Racket community. We appreciate the community work that Hampton Racket donates to Project most and we're thankful for the children's court for our Project Most kids. Receiving t tennis lessons is such a gift and these lessons open up opportunities and experiences to kids who might not otherwise have the chance to learn the sport. Benefit events at Hampton Racket.

006The spaces provided for free raises funds for scholarships for children so that all children can attend Project Most regardless of the financial needs of the community. Um, I also have a book here from Hampton Racket um that was uh written by Billy Baldwin in honor of John Graham and it just shows you how much love he had for the kids. So, I'm going to hand >> Loretta. With all due respect, you can you can submit that into the record, but our jurisdiction tonight is how is the building deter uh determination made by the building inspector correct or incorrect? We're and I appreciate your presentation, but we have a long agenda, so we have to get right to the crux of this publication. >> Hoping this influences. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. >>

007Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this application? >> Specifically right. >> Wait a minute. No, no, she's not done with our presentation. This is an outside speaker. >> No, she's finished. Could you state your name for the record and I'll swear you in? >> Chris Carney. >> I live in >> to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, >> you can proceed. >> Uh, so my name is Chris Carney. I live at 19 Country Lane in East Hampton. I grew up in East Hampton. Uh, I have two kids in the school system here. I had a business in the village for 14 years and I've known Monica and John for about 20 years. I'm the founder of Soldier Ride and I'm the co-founder of the Wounded Warrior

008Project. Uh I'm here tonight on behalf of Monica and J uh John and uh the Hampton Raet Club. We lost John in 2024, but his legacy lives on with the many youth programs in the camp that he started and the hundreds if not thousands of children who he worked with intimately. I call John the Pi Piper of seven-year-olds. He had an innate ability to draw even the shiest kid out of their own way and onto the court. He thrived on hot summer courts surrounded by children. Part instructor, part entertainer, part trusted friend friend. John was a pay it forward guy and encouraged others to do the same, which is rare in our town. He never let finances determine a kid's ability to attend to go to camp, to attend camp. I've known Monica for about

00918 years. She has made substantial donations to many well-known charities from Soldier Ride to Project Most, as we just heard. Uh she also helped me uh personally, full disclosure, with u a charity benefit at Hampton Racket after my mom passed uh for fighting chance. Um most of Monica's generosity, however, has gone under the radar. She has anonymously funded cancer patients travel and expenses for treatment, assisted single parents with housing, help local families through unexpected hard times and tragedies. I know because I've personally acted as a conduit to many of these. Uh she's always um requested to remain anonymous, so I feel like in this type of situation, it should just be known what she does. It is impossible to quantify how much her anonymous gestures have helped this community. Over the last couple decades, since

010Jon has passed, Monica has become even more committed to continuing his legacy through Hampton Racket, uh through the camp and the various other ch children's programs offered this. I think it's important to know that this is not a propri proprietary organization. This is not a proprietary business that's being run. Um, it is not a grift. Monica is retired. She certainly did not open Hampton Racket to make money. And to be honest, with the way they pay it forward, breaking even would probably be a surprise. She started to give her brother a chance to do what he did best, to teach kids the love of the game and to grow the game within the community. Over the years, that ethic has made Hampton Racket a huge asset to our community. In my opinion, our town should

011do everything possible to encourage more behavior like that. Um, more individuals, like-minded individuals with the ability to pay it forward to do so. So, I'm incredibly thankful for your time. I know you're busy, but I um wanted to speak up on their behalf. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Again, I'm going to remind everybody if you come to this microphone, what's the jurisdiction of this board is how is the building inspector's determination incorrect? That is the one and only thing we are going to be looking at when we deliberate. >> Hi, my name is Merritt Bishamage. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Go ahead, Meritt. >> Um, I was a 10y year camper at Hampton Racket from age 3 to 13 and

012I grew up using the smaller courts when I was younger. And when I progressed to use the larger courts, I as my skill increased as I got older, I don't think I would ever improve in tennis the way I did if I didn't have the smaller courts to work on and grow my capability. I would have had to use the larger courts, which would be too large for my three-year-old self to run across the courts, and the nets would probably be bigger than I ever was. So, overall, the idea of me trying to play on a large court without the foundation of a smaller court wouldn't have made me excel as much of I as I had. >> Thank you, Merritt. Did anyone Okay. want to speak on behalf? >> I don't. Does anyone else

013want to speak on behalf or are you ready to speak, Tiffany? >> I am ready to speak, but I'm also going to show you a photograph of Merritt at 3 years old holding her racket at Hampton Racket playing tennis. >> Okay. I have a couple of procedural issues just to go over with the board and and council before we get started on the legal issues. Um, I have a couple of requests to incorporate both the 2018 planning board file as well as the current modification file from the planning board into this record. >> You're submitting this now. >> I'm not submitting anything. I'm asking you to incorporate those both of those records into this. >> Excuse me. Is this new to the record or >> is this already in? >> Is it already in? >>

014I don't know whether the >> So, you're submitting this now. >> This letter? Yeah, I just got it. >> What I'm asking for you to do is to incorporate. >> We are incorporating it into the record. >> Okay. Um, I would also like to include the record from town index number 201900749, which is the litigation file. I my other alternative to this is I can ask for time and have it all copied and submit it, but I know the town has sub has all of the copies of the litigation because they were a party to it. >> We submitted into the record. >> Okay. >> Was that Charlie? Are you okay with that? >> If >> I mean >> it was say someone can >> if they want to submit it, they can submit them.

015Yeah. Just have them submit. Just have them submit it. >> Yeah. just easier, cleaner. >> What? What am I doing? Sorry. >> You don't have to submit. Just submit one copy digitally online. >> Right. >> Okay. So, I will ask for additional time to do that just so I can gather everything up because it's a tremendous amount of documentation. I figured it would be easier to not transmit that, but if we have to. >> But does all of this documentation address what is before us tonight? >> It absolutely does. I haven't gotten into it yet, but it absolutely does. >> Okay. I would appreciate somebody getting into it. >> Okay. >> So far, we haven't. Okay. Um, the property known as Green Hollow Rock Hampton Racket at Green Hollow has operated for decades as a

016tennis and recreational facility serving the East Hampton community. >> I'm sorry, Miss Carlo. Can you put the mic just back up to your Sure. Thank you. >> Sometimes if you mess with it, it starts screaming at you. >> Thank you. That's helpful. >> Um, the property consists of approximately 5.95 acres and is located within the A residence district and has historically been used for tennis related recreational facil activities including instructional programs for children and adults. The facility has long functioned as both a tennis club and a location for organized youth tennis instruction and in most recent decades a day camp. As part of that operation, the property contains numerous tennis related facilities including regulation tennis courts, practice areas, recreation and food service areas, instructional facilities, parking areas, and accessory structures needed to support both operations.

017A significant component of the property's operation has been the provision of tennis instruction to children through organized camp pro programming and day camp. For many years, Hampton Racket has offered instructional tennis programs designed specifically for children. As part of those programs, smaller instructional courts, commonly referred to referred to by the town as mini camp courts, were established on the property. And just keep in mind that these are a single true playing court that is divided into four instructional areas for the day camp. These courts were not constructed as pickle ball courts. They were not constructed as pedel courts. They were not designed to expand the intensity of the tennis club. Rather, they were developed prior to 2018 as instructional facilities to allow young children to learn tennis on age appropriate playing surfaces. These instructional instructional

018areas predate the widespread popularity of pickle ball and other emerging racket sports. At the time these facilities were created, youth tennis instruction commonly utilized scaled courts designed to accommodate younger players who could not effectively learn the game on a full-size regulation court. Courts were therefore developed as an integral component of the children's camp and instructional program that exists on the property. In 2018, we received site plan review approval following an extensive review. We considered the planning board at that time considered an application relating to the continued operation and improvement of Hampton Racket at Green Hollow, which involved both the land long-standing tennis club use and the children's tennis camp use. The planning board conducted an extensive review of the property pursuant to the special permit standards, its operations, site conditions, and proposed improvements. The planning

019department participated extensively in that review. Among the planning department personnel involved in that review process was principal planner Eric Chance, who became familiar with the property, its history, its operation, and the physical layout of the facility. Ultimately, the planning board granted site plan approval and special permit approval in 2018, which legalized a number of site improvements and authorized the continued operation of the facility both as a tennis club and a children's day camp, i.e. ES semi-public facility use. After that 2018 approval, litigation was commenced by the neighbor Greg Gordon and challenged the planning board's determinations. The town vigor vigorously defended its approvals. The approvals including the operation of the facility and associated uses were reviewed by the courts and importantly the factual record before the court included the physical conditions existing on the property including

020camp operations and particularly these associated instructional facilities. The town successfully defended those approvals and the approvals were upheld. As a result, the town's approvals became final and binding. The town's successful defense of the approvals provided the applicant with every reason to rely upon the finality and validity of those approvals and that resulted in building permit number 60 68612 which I'm assuming is part of the file. I'm just to be clear the building inspector's file and the building department file has been made part of this file by the building department. Have they submitted their file for review by this? >> The building permit file. >> Okay. So it's it's made part of this record. Just want to be clear. >> The record is extensive and we've all read it. >> Okay. Following the approvals and litigation,

021the building permit was issued in 2019. The permit authorized the implementation of approved site plan and related improvements. That permit has remained active and has been extended by the town on multiple occasions. The continued extension of the permit reflects the town's acknowledgement that work authorized by the approvals remained ongoing and valid. In reliance upon the approvals, permit issuance, and successful defense of the project by the town, the applicant undertook substantial construction and incurred substantial expense. They did obtain a building permit pursuant to the site plan approval and commenced substantial construction. Significant site improvements were completed pursuant to the approved plans and permit, and the applicant continued to invest substantial resources in the project in reliance upon the town's approvals and actions. At all times, the applicant has o acted openly and in good faith and

022honestly with the town for years following the approval of the project. Town officials conducted inspections and maintained oversight of the property. Town personnel visited the site. They renewed permit extensions. They observed site conditions. They renewed reviewed ongoing construction activity throughout this period. Any instruction areas remained visible and openly utilized as part of the facility's operations. The town never issued a violation related to what they call the mini camp courts. The town never advised the applicant that the mini camp courts were unauthorized. The town never sought revocation of the building permit. The town never required removal of those instruction areas. The town never asserted that those recre that any of the recreational areas were inconsistent with the approvals that they had issued. The applicant therefore had every reason to believe that the town viewed those recreational

023areas and those instructional areas as part of the approved operation. In January of 2024, the applicant submitted an application seeking certain modifications to the approved project. The proposed modifications included the conversion of two existing legally existing tennis courts to pedal courts and to move a shed from one location to another. That is currently the modification before the planning board today. During that review process, questions were raised by the planning department staff concerning classification and the counting of certain courts on the property. Despite the fact that the site conditions had existed openly for years had been the subject of pri prior review, approval, litigation, and permitting. The planning department staff initiated a request for a building inspector interpretation regarding the definition of a playing court. On June 5th, 2025, the planning department staff submitted a request

024seeking a determination from the building inspector regarding whether certain facilities, including pickle ball courts, padell courts, mini camp courts, fell within the town's code definition of playing court. That request was not initiated by a formal vote of the planning board. No planning board resolution directed the request has been identified. No planning board referral authorizing the request has been identified. The request therefore represented a significant departure from the town's historical treatment of the property and a violation of the of town code chapter 50. On January 24th, 2026, the building inspector issued a determination concluding that pickle ball courts, pedel courts, and mini camp courts satisfied the definition of play in court. The applicant appealed that determination and here we are today. The present appeal arises out of the backdrop of years of town approvals, litigation, permit

025issuance, permit extensions, inspections, and reliance by the applicant. The applicant maintains that the town cannot now use a staffgenerated interpretation request to revisit issues that were previously reviewed, approved, defended in litigation, and relied upon through substantial investment and construction. At the outset, I'd just like to step back and frame for you what this appeal truly is about because I believe much of the discussion surrounding this has sort of lost sight of the actual issue before the board. This appeal is not worth is not about whether pickle ball courts are playing courts. It's not about whether pedel courts are playing courts. Not about parking, traffic, noise, too many courts on the property. It's not about whether the planning board may review a planning a modification. and it is certainly not an enforcement proceeding. The issue before

026the board is much narrower and much more important. The question is whether the town may utilize such a staff generated request for interpretation to revisit approvals that were granted years ago, defended by the town in litigation, affirmed by the courts, implemented through a valid building permit, inspected repeatedly by town officials, relied upon by the property owner, and ultimately vested through years of substantial construction and investment. Respectfully, we submit that the answer is no. This board should reverse the building inspector's determination because first, the request for the determination was not authorized. Second, the determination is being improperly used as a vehicle to relitigate matters already decided. Third, the planning department's analysis and the TAM, which I will also just point out is very atypical in such a circumstance of an appeal. Um, completely ignores the actual

027purpose and the history of the tennis club, the tennis camp, and those instruction in recreational areas. Fourth, the town is attempting to collaterally attack approvals it is previously defended and successfully upheld. principles of vested rights, fairness, administrative consistency, and municipal estable preclude the town from reversing course now. And finally, even if the building inspector's interpretation were accepted as technically correct, it would not support the sweeping conclusions the planning department would like it to make. So, as as it pertains to the the idea that this request for the determination was never properly authorized, before the board ever reaches the substance of the determination, it must address a threshold procedural issue. How did this determination come into existence? The request was not made by the planning board, the zoning board, the town board. The request was initiated

028by the planning department without a planning board resolution, without a planning board vote, without a planning board referral. There is no documented authorization from any town board or agency directing that this determination be sought. The planning department's response essentially argues that no provision of the town code especially prohibits staff from making such a request. Well, I would argue that town code section 50-4B specifically provides that the planning department is to provide the town board and planning board upon request with technical and professional analysis dot dot dot. Um, respectfully, they have used the incorrect legal standards and municipal agencies and departments possess only those powers affirmatively granted to them in the town code. The issue here is whether there is authority. The planning department exists to advise and ador advise and assist the boards of the

029town. It is not a board on and of itself or a body that possesses independent authority to initiate proceedings. This issue arose in the middle of a pending modification application, as I said, to convert two existing legal tennis courts to Bedell courts and to move a shed. It had nothing to do with the day camp use at all. This issue arose years after litigation and a years after substantial reliance had occurred. I would caution that the board be extremely cautious about endorsing a process whereby staff may independently generate interpretation proceedings affecting vested rights without proper authorization from the decision-making body that they serve. This is precisely why the determination should be vacated before the board ever reaches the merits. This appeal is not an enforcement proceeding. The planning department memorandum discusses repeatedly discusses the number

030of courts on the property. It discusses whether additional courts exists, whether approvals were exceeded, whether it's parking demands, circulation, neighborhood impacts, whether variances may be required. Those issues are not before the board. The building inspector was not asked whether a violation exists. They weren't asked whether an enforcement action should be commenced. They weren't asked whether the site plan was violated. They weren't asked whether the permits should be revoked. The building inspector was asked a very narrow question regarding the meaning of the term play in court. And those are fundamentally different issues. If the town believes that a violation exists, the town has a remedy. They can issue notices of violation, commence enforcement proceedings, and all of the other mechanisms provided under the town code, town and state code. The town may not transform a zoning

031interpretation proceeding into a substitute enforcement action. You do not need to decide tonight whether there are too many courts or a violation exists or whether additional approvals are required. Those are not issues before the board. One of the most significant flaws in the planning department's analysis is that it completely ignores why the instruction areas exist. Their memorandum repeatedly discusses these areas as though they were recently constructed facilities associated solely with pickle ball or pedel. That's simply not true. These courts were not created for pickle ball. These were not created for pedel. They were not constructed to increase intensity or evade zoning. They were built as instructional facilities for children participating in the approved camp use. Importantly, these areas predate the popularity of pickle ball by many years. When these courts were constructed back probably around

0322017, 2018, 2012, even older were constructed, pickle ball was not the phenomenon it is today. Pickle ball, from what I could gather, only came into real popularity post pandemic. So, the reality of this issue is much simpler. Children cannot effectively learn tennis on a full-size regulation tennis court. A six-year-old child cannot meaningfully cover the distances required on a full-size court. A seven-year-old cannot properly develop stroke mechanics while attempting to play on an adult-sized court. For decades, tennis professionals have utilized scaled instructional courts, reduced dimensions, and age appropriate facilities to teach children the game. The United States Tennis Association itself promotes modified court sizes for youth instruction. These miniature instruction areas exist because children are not miniature adults. These facilities are instructional tools, educational facilities, and part of the children's camp use. They exist to allow

033children to learn the game in an environment designed for their age, size, and skill level. The planning department's memorandum completely ignores that reality. The property contains two separate and approved uses, a tennis club and a children's day camp. A fundamental flaw in the planning department's analysis is it treatment of the property as though only a single use was approved and exists on the site. That is not what the 2018 approvals authorized. They recognize two distinct uses, as I said, a tennis club and a children's tennis camp approved through the semi-public facility portion of the code. The planning department's O memorandum acknowledges this when it states that the 2000 approval legalized and approved an ongoing children's tennis camp which represents a semi-public facility in addition to the tennis club use. The town's analysis improperly attempts to

034evaluate every court at every facility on the property solely through the lens of the tennis club use while largely ignoring the independently approved children's day camp use. That approach is fundamentally instruct is fundamentally flawed because those courts and instructional areas do exist for instruction not for any other purpose. >> Can you sum this up? Excuse me. Can you sum it up? >> I'm getting there. I hope so. Okay. Um So accordingly, the board should recognize that these mini camp in mini camp instruction areas are not additional courts to be counted against the tennis club, but are merely part of the tennis camp use. The town has known about this for years. They again they've issued inspections, have issued no violations to the property whatsoever. The point that these these issues have already been litigated cannot

035be overstated. The planning department really repeatedly suggests that these mini court areas for instruction were not part of the approval record and that is incorrect. They're part of the historical record. They're part of the litigation file and that's why I asked that those files be incorporated because they are those issues are drawn out. Mr. Gordon made sure that we addressed every single potential issue there was including number of courts on the property and that issue was addressed litigated and the town and the applicant were successful in that. Just one other point to make. I I'll try to wrap it up. Just one other point to make. Mr. Chance was involved both in the review in 2018 and the review in 2024. I throw my hands up in the air as to how He didn't read

036the file and didn't know that this had previously been done. Um, it's improper for the town to collaterally attack its own approvals. The law doesn't permit governmental agencies to repeatedly open settled matters until they obtain a different outcome. The applicant does have vested rights in this case under New York state law where substantial construction and expenditures have occurred in reliance upon those approvals. And I think that the appeal is not about pickle ball or pedel courts or playing courts. It's really about whether those mini instruction areas are to be considered playing courts. And our assertion would be no at on a factual level, but further than that, that we have been down this road. We've litigated this. We've answered all the questions. The planning board evaluated this as a semi-public facility, approved it in that

037manner, and that should not be disturbed. Thank you. I would like to now hear from the chief building inspector. Um, if Tiffany is done. Thank you. Rich, just state your name for the record and I'll swear you in. >> Richard Normmo, principal building inspector. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. First, I'd like to address uh Hampton Bracket's uh council with the suggestion that the building department and the planning department do not have the ability to communicate with each other uh without a a zoning board approval or a vote. The building department daily works with every department in the town. Each department is not a single entity as they suggest. We work together as in unison. I communicate on a daily basis with the fire marshall's

038office, the assessor's office, the planning department, code enforcement, the town attorney's office. We're all one entity. We work together. We speak together. We help each other. Uh to suggest that uh a department is gagged from speaking to another department is incorrect. Uh, I received an application, uh, uh, not an application, excuse me, uh, a request from Eric Shance for a determination on, uh, the the definition of playing courts, uh, after reading the definition in the town code, which states, "A structure or part thereof which is designed or used for playing courts, for playing sports, and consists of the playing surface of 375 square foot or more. All association associated netting, fencing, back stops, and other improvements shall be considered part of the playing court. Tennis courts, handball courts, raetball courts, volleyball courts, ice rinks, and

039other similar facilities shall be deemed included in this definition. I received the request because pedel courts and pickle ball courts were not included in that definition. With regards to my determination, the planning department requests for a determination on the definition of playing courts under the town of East Hampton zoning code section 255120. I've reviewed the section of code in question and the building department finds that the definition of playing courts is consistent with the uses described in your request for the determination. Such sports such as pickle pickle ball pedal padell courts and or mini camp mini camp courts may be associated with this definition. The definition of playing courts reads as follows which I just recited to you. The building department finds that these types of proposed courts for pickle ball, pedell courts and/or mini

040camp courts meet both the minimum size requirements and have the same intended purpose and intent as other playing courts which specifically listed in the definition. >> Does the board have any questions? >> I do not. >> You do not. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'd now like to hear from the planning department. >> Good evening board. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. >> Sarah, do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. I'll provide a brief overview of the property's history, explain the basis for the determination request, and outline the planning planning department's rationale for supporting the determination. So, the property comprises approximately 5.95 acres in an A3 residential zoning district and is surrounded by residential properties to the west, south, and east with the Long Island

041Railroad to the north. The last certificate of occupancy was issued on April 13th, 1995. A site plan special permit approval was issued in 2018, um, which is what is on the screen right now, with the following scope of work. to legalize a number of already built structures used in conjunction with the pre-existing tennis club use of the subject parcel, including legalizing one already built tennis court and removing another to keep the total number of tennis courts approved for the site the same 13. The applicant also proposed to legalize an ongoing uh children's tennis camp, which represents a semi-public facility, a special permit use, and to provide additional parking and a second access point. A building permit was issued for this work on November 7th, 2019, and has had several extensions of time issued since. An

042application was then made to the planning board in January of 2024 to modify the 2018 approval. The modification application was for the construction of two grass parking areas, removing a portion of the sand area, adding concrete walkways, adding gravel parking, relocating a shed, and converting two existing tennis courts to four pedal courts. The planning board held a public hearing on the modification application on April 17th, 2024. The public hearing window was extended to May 1st, 2024 due to the large volume of comments. Following the public comments given at the public hearing, the planning department conducted a site inspection which revealed structures propo proposed by the modification were already built. Other structures not on the site plan were present and therefore the public hearing was not based on an accurate proposed site plan. After this new

043information was submitted by the applicant in January of 2025, including a revised site plan dated last revised December 10th, 2024. The applicant's revised modification proposal is to replace two tennis courts with two padell courts. Although this appears to result in no net increase in the number of courts, an area on the site plan is labeled as one existing tennis court/minamp courts. And I can pull that up if if the board would like. Um and there are >> Yeah, sure I can pull it up. >> So this is the court in question. Uh let's see. So there appear to be four mini camp courts. It should be noted that a uh prior 1984 ZBA variance limits the site to 13 fulls size courts plus one practice court. Current code would otherwise limit the property to 11

044courts based on acreage. Previous website materials for the facility have also appeared to advertise the mini camp courts for general club use, adding to the uncertainty over their intended purpose. Accurately identifying the number of courts as necessary to assess other planning implications such as evaluating parking needs, circulation noise, and neighborhood impacts under town code se section 255660. These factors can only be evaluated through formal site plan review and where the number of courts exceeds the limits of what is approved through a variance application to the ZBA. At the planning board work session review on February 26th, 2025, the planning board discussed the restriping of the tennis court to four courts and agreed that additional information was needed to determine the status of the miniature playing courts as indicated in the follow-up memo dated February 27th,

0452025. Since the number and type of courts shown on the revised plans did not match previously approved plans, the planning department asked the building inspector to determine whether mini camp courts qualify as playing courts under 255120. The code defines playing courts as sports structures with sports structures with surfaces of 375 ft or more, including tennis, handball, raetball, volleyball, ice rinks, and comparable facilities. The planning board, zoning board of appeals, and planning department must determine what constitutes as a playing court to determine how many total courts are built so that the boards can accurately assess whether the existing and proposed facilities comply with both the prior ZBA authorization and limitations of the current town code. The determination is essential for evaluating the application against applicable standards including parking access and circulation, impacts to surrounding residential areas,

046and the extent to which additional relief may be required. A clear interpretation of playing courts ensures that the review process and approvals are consistent with the town code and intent of previous decisions. In January 2026, the building inspector issued the determination and found that these types of proposed courts for pickle ball, padell courts, and or mini camp courts meet both the minimum size requirements and have the same intended purpose and intent as other playing courts listed in the definition. Each mini court is approximately 1,000 square ft um which exceeds the minimum size threshold. Although these newer reports were not explicitly listed in the town code when drafted, their function and scale align with the defined category. Aerial images from 2025 indicates approximately 18 courts on the property uh would exist under this interpretation. Although the

047status of one court is unclear, court configurations have changed multiple times over recent years which has made it difficult for planning department and planning board to determine both what is being applied for and what the existing site conditions are um including the number of plan courts and what type. The planning department recommends that the building inspector determination is of sound reasoning and reflects the intentions of the of the zoning code. As an example, the interpretation supports the ability of the town to require that playing courts meeting the definition and code to be regulated by the density requirements in the special permit requirements of the code allowing review of adequate parking navigation and can be further reviewed in a manner that is protective of surrounding land uses. Consider that conversely if the interpretation had determined that

048these pickle ball padell courts and or mini camp courts were not courts, raetball courts would require parking whereas pickle ball and pedell would not require parking. This would be illogical. The applicant has provided no detailed reasoning to directly address why they feel the substance of the building inspector's determination is incorrect despite requests from the planning department and zoting board of appeals for the logic behind the appeal to be provided. The applicant has focused their submission for appeal on the following items. Uh the first point the applicant made in writing prior to uh the hearing tonight was that the request was improper by town code as it was not an action of the planning board. Um though the applicant references an inconsistency with the code, no citation to code to support the statement is provided. There

049is no code that the planning department is aware of that restricts um the request for building inspectors determinations to come only from the planning board. Further, the planning board agreed that additional information was needed regarding the miniature camp courts at the February 26, 2025 meeting and in the subsequent following follow-up memo. It is common practice for the planning department to request additional information on behalf of the planning board on an asneeded basis. Such requests are not unprecedented and are appropriate when additional clarification is required. The second point the applicant made was that the children's mini camp courts were a part of the approved site plan and special permit use for which there is a valid building permit. Though the applicant states this, the site plan approval does not show mini camp courts at this location.

050The 2018 resolution does not mention or authorize mini camp courts. A tennis camp use does not automatically grant authorization for a configuration of courts not shown on the site plan. The number of courts, regardless of whether they are to be used by the tennis club use or day camp use or both, contributes to the intensity of use, including the occupancy and parking demand. The existence of a special permit for a day camp does not authorize additional or reconfigured courts beyond those depicted on the approved site plan and does not exempt the applicant from demonstrating that the total activity associated with the number of courts on site meets the planning board's required site plan standards. Any expansion, addition, or alteration of courts requires updated site plan review so that the board can evaluate the intensity of

051use and confirm that the property will continue to operate within the limits necessary to protect adjacent residential areas and maintain adequate parking. The third and final point the applicant made was that the site plan was litigated and upheld by the Supreme Court as proper. Um the planning department notes that the 2018 site plan again does not show the mini camp courts nor does the resolution of approval reference mini camp courts. This point is therefore not applicable. Um furthermore the subject request before the planning board is a modification of this approval which seeks to change the sub substance of the previous approval. In conclusion uh the planning department supports the building inspector's determination. The determination is of sound reasoning and reflects the intentions of of the zoning code which states that the definition of playing courts

052should include structures that are used for playing sports and consist of a playing surface of 375 ft or more. The proposed courts in question including pickleball, pedell courts, and mini camp courts all meet the minimum size requirements to be included in this definition. The site is subject to a ZBA determination that allowed 13 courts in a practice court, which is in excess of what could be allowed based on the property size and applicable special permit standards. Allowing additional courts without site plan review or ZBA relief would undermine the purpose of 25566, specifically the standards requiring protection of nearby residential areas and adequate parking based on intensity of use. For these reasons, the planning department concurs with the building inspector regarding the interpretation. If the applicant wishes to have additional courts, their avenue is an application

053to the ZBA for a variance. Alternately, the courts can be removed and the one tennis court currently authorized at the location can remain. Um, I have aerial images and relevant application materials available for review and I am happy to answer any questions. >> Does the board have any questions? Um, actually I do. Sure. You said the Z there was a ZBA determination that allowed 13 plus one practice court. Correct. Is there an overall limit of courts that is established by town code? >> Um, currently the limit is two per acre and that's under current code. However, they are grandfathered under that 1984 approval. >> So, they are allowed 13 tennis courts plus the one practice >> court 14. But with this other determination, it would come up to a vac. Is that what you intended?

054>> Yeah. So, under the building inspector determination, we counted 18 courts as the mini camp courts are an additional four. And I can pull up an aerial that shows that >> believe you. I have to address this. Um, Tiffany Scarado submitted tonight. This is the first time I'm seeing this. And I would like either the building department or the planning department to address this. She points out the vested rights. Now, the applicant relied on 2018 approvals, building permit number 68612, permit extensions, town inspections, and the town successful defense of the approvals. So, would someone please speak to me about vested rights that the applicant is saying they have? Good evening, board members. Tina Logaran from the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do.

055Thank you. >> I can't speak specifically to vested rights. What I can tell you is that in our research regarding whether or not the mini camp courts were legal on the site, we did not find definitive proof of that. We did we did have a period where we were going back and forth with the applicant regarding can you provide us more detailed information on your position that those courts are legal and were in fact approved in the 2018 approval and we did not find that. So we did review the tapes of the planning board discussions. The planning board had mentioned the mini courts but there was no approval in the resolution. There was no approval on, you know, Sarah had the site plan up before. There is one court there where the four exist now

056and the ZBA determination only allows the 13 courts total plus the one practice court. Now, the applicant asserts that they were in existence. That doesn't necessarily mean that they were legal, right? So, I I can't I think the town attorney's office could speak more about the vested rights, but we found no evidence that they were they were legal. If the board would allow me, I do want to just respond to a couple of the things and just emphasize some of the um items that Sarah went over in her report. >> You know, first just regarding the powers and duties of the planning department, which is the section of code that the applicant referenced. So, it reads the general general powers and duty no I'm sorry general powers and duties of the department of planning are

057as follows to provide the planning board upon its request with technical and professional analysis of all subdivision applications and applications for site plan review that's all it says with respect to our responsibilities to staff the boards so they may discharge their duties on behalf of the town it doesn't enumerate the millions of tasks that we perform associated with That doesn't say I can talk to other regulatory entities. I do that all the time. Doesn't say I can use a computer to type reports. I I do that all the time. Doesn't say I can research, you know, other areas besides town code to discharge those duties. But nevertheless, those are things that the department of planning must do in order to support and provide the technical and professional analysis we are required to provide. Um, so

058having us be unable to do our job without the permission of an applicant or the board that we're working for for every activity that we do would be um a very difficult way to imagine doing business um as a professional and despite that the planning board did ask for more information regarding the status of the courts. So I I think that's also important. the mini courts. I just want to say again, we did review the record as best we could. We asked the applicant to provide the details and we did not see any information associated with their legality. We were alerted to their presence and their use not associated with the camp based on public comment and then did research um on the internet and found evidence associated with the site that shows them being

059used otherwise. not, you know, not associated with the camp use. And finally, importantly, a use approval does not automatically authorize specific structures. Right? To provide an example, we've talked about say a restaurant, you know, got built, if we let that use determine all the structures, we wouldn't have the ability to look at the restaurant when it changed or got modified or built an addition or wanted outdoor seating. But that's not the way that the code anticipates us reviewing uses. You know, we we approve a use and we approve an site layout associated with the discharge of that use. And that is the common um application of the code. If the applicant wants additional courts, there are mechanisms for them to get those approved in the town code. In this case, we do believe they'd need

060a variance from the um density standards. So, um, I just wanted to emphasize those and thank you for allowing me to do that. Chairwoman, >> thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the board? >> Britain, do you mean chairman, members of the board? Britain, >> I'm sorry. >> Could you state your name for the record? written Vistrian. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um I just wanted to make a notation. I have been working on this property since Monica's purchase in 2012. I think I'm have the longest standing tenure on it. Um so I did want to think of all the staff members as well. U maybe not Eric, but um there's a

061key component here that I want to make sure that's on the record. When Monica purchased the club, she did not purchase it with a co. She inherited a lot of illegal conditions from the previous owner. Wasn't a requirement. It's still not a requirement now. Um and so in 2013, there was a a citation um from the building department from at that time Tom Priato. He issued the citation. It was a laundry list of things all the existing conditions in that Tom Priato citation basketball shed shed obstacle course, tennis court. court was supposed to be removed as part of the zoning board decision and it is now four children's court no site plan no BP north side of the property along the tracks. So the the statement that there's nothing in the town record that says

062that these four children's camps exist. It's part of my May 3rd 2013 site plan submission to the planning board and the initial planning board application that was reviewed. I think it would be really helpful. Could you pull up an aerial? Do you have access to the aerials? >> Yeah. What what year? Um 2014. >> I have 2010 and 20. >> It wouldn't be there in 210. She didn't own it. I'm sorry. >> Try to pull one up. >> 15. The ones I have are 2010 and 2023. or I can >> well I can happily submit one for the record but my my my testimony would be that judging from a violation that was received in 2013 for uh the mini instructional areas and to date that they have been unchanged and if I need to

063submit if the town can't look at their own areas they take them every year 2013 to through 2026 these um children's camp uh courts have existed and I think it's important to note that it was in the it was in the planning board initial file that we received site plan approval based on that full dilation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brandon. >> Is there anyone else that would like to speak to the application? >> Come forward, please. >> Just very quickly, uh, zoning board, you do have one caller standing by. Thank you. >> Okay. Good evening, chairperson and board members. I'm Deborah Churron of Matthews Cursed Kohley and Chron. We're here on behalf of Gregory Gordon. He is the owner of a residential property located at 168 Buckskill Road in East Hampton. As the applicant

064and its representatives are aware, Mr. Gordon through this firm previously challenged certain activity and structures that were built without the benefit of permits before this board and in litigation. The technical analysis memo notes that when the applicant first submitted for a modification, the applicant tried asking to convert two tennis courts into four pedel courts. Realizing that legalizing additional playing courts would be a near impossible task on this property because the property is already overburdened, the applicant regrouped and is now purportedly proposing to replace two tennis courts with two pedel courts. The problem for the applicant is that in making its submission for a modification, it triggered review of its property again. And it seems once again that the applicant is having difficulty staying within the bounds of its prior approvals and within the bounds of

065the town code. As the technical anam uh analysis memo notes, there are apparently four playing courts where one tennis court is meant to be. Respectfully, this office had previously identified this issue to this board by submitting an aerial from 2023 that showed 18 playing courts when the CO when the CO only permits 13 tennis courts and one practice court. Over the years, certain courts have been lined or not lined and nets have gone up and have been taken down. The number of courts seems to have been a moving target, and the applicant has gotten cute with the branding, calling some mini practice courts or mini camp courts. And no doubt, it was the applicant's own confusing and vague language that caused Mr. Shance to reach out to the building inspector for a determination as to

066whether a mini practice court or a mini camp court would be considered a playing court under the town code. And it must be said that I do not see anything wrong with Mr. Chance seeking the guidance of the building inspector. In fact, our town code is very clear that the building inspector is the exact person who makes such determinations. Section 255-10-21 articulates the authority of the building inspector quite broadly. It says he shall have the authority to make interpretations as to the meaning and applicability of the text of section 255 which is the zoning chapter subject only to the authority of this board of appeals to review the same under provisions of article 8 hereof. So it doesn't say he can only make these interpretations to board members or to members of the public or

067to the planning department. rather he is bestowed with that ability to make interpretations. That's who our entire town looks to when we have a question about our zoning code. And it continues that his responsibilities is that he is charged with immediately investigating every alleged violation or prospective violation of any provision of this chapter of which he learns either by a complaint or otherwise and take those actions necessary to abate or prevent the same. The building inspector is also specifically charged with informing other local, state, or federal officials of violations or potential violations of laws or regulations bearing upon the same subject matter or conduct as this chapter and over which such officials have jurisdiction. Again, it seems to me entirely appropriate that Mr. Shance would seek the building inspector's council on an interpretation and I

068would encourage such efficiency on other applications in the future. If Mr. Shance had not proactively done so, he would have undoubtedly reached the same conclusion in as much as the building inspector's reasoning is sound and his conclusion is in undisputable. If it had occurred like that without the building inspector's involvement, the applicant might have applied for a determination of the building inspector itself, hoping for a different outcome. That being said, I have reviewed the filings and I have yet to hear tonight a convincing substantive argument as to why a mini practice court or a mini camp court is not a playing court. It seems to me that there is none. I appreciate that the applicant is working through the process trying to legalize the improvements on its property and I appreciate Mr. Chance's attention to

069detail and this board's time and attention. Thank you. >> Thank you, Deborah. >> Yes. >> Is there anyone else who would like to approach the board? >> Can I just clarify one thing? I'm so sorry. I when I spoke did not mean to say that the courts didn't exist. My statement was that did they legally exist? Which is a different thing, right? They might have been existing on the aerials, but that doesn't mean that there was approval. >> Thank you. >> Clarify. Thank you. >> Please state your name and I'll swear you in. >> Uh I'm Gregory Gordon. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. I I find this hearing sort of interesting and I also find what's kind of interesting is

070the fact that the number of courts has been a moving target in 2000 I mean the latest is in 2024 when they came before the board to get approval site plan approval to then get a building permit well they didn't get their site plan approval they didn't get their building permit they got their pidel courts I would suggest this whole thing could have been resolved if they'd gone about the proper process which is you get site plan approval, you get a building permit, and then you construct it the way it's been approved. Those last three Bedell courts uh were tennis courts were taken out, no demolition permit. Del courts were per put in uh without building permit. And as a matter of fact, at the time, they had a security guard there to make sure

071that no one came on the property because I said, "What's going on here?" The gu guard said, "No one's allowed here." Okay. I wasn't that interested in going anyway. But if if if you if you count even if you count the building the courts like that one piece of area that's a sand area right there in the corner with a little corner cut off that was a a volleyball court I believe. So I think that there been a numer it's been a moving target. They went they went from tennis courts to bedel courts. They went from uh youth courts I believe to picklebore courts. And I think that therefore the building department building inspector is absolutely correct. You know come up with a site plan approval get your site plan approval build it the way

072it's has been approved and I don't think there this would have been an issue and I thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the board? There's a caller, too. >> I know. Before you go, Tiffany. Uh, >> absolutely. >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> Yes, we have one caller standing by. Are you ready? >> We are ready. >> Okay. Unmuting. Last four digits. 8 1 7 0. You are live. uncoverions. >> And caller, this is LTV. Can you please mute whatever you were listening to to you for you to talk to us, please? Thank you. Caller 8170, you are live with the zoning board. >> Oh my goodness. >> Madam Chair, >> not working. >> Okay, I just muted them and you have zero

073additional callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Hi, Tiffany. Um, just to address a couple of the comments that were made. Um, and I I think this is a very important issue for the board to consider and be aware of. Again, the planning department has chosen to ignore the approved day camp use on the site. Special permit standards for a semi-public facility do not contain a regulation with respect to courts per acre. There is no such regulation. So, we have two different uses here. We have a tennis club that is subject to courts per acre and a children's day camp that is not subject to the courts per acre. Um just in terms of communication between the building department, the building department and the planning department, I would just say that it is really

074inappropriate to seek a determination that affects someone's rights on their property without the authority of the board upon which you are serving. And that is articulated in section 50, chapter 50, section 4B. Um, and again, I'll just say that we probably wouldn't be here and have this issue if if the planning department had done a very thorough review of that 2018 file, which is why I asked for it to be incorporated. Again, there are many references. It's not specifically in the planning site plan approval, but it is mentioned a number of times during the approval process. It was discussed, it was inspected, we discussed it at length. So, it's very important that the board take that into consideration. And again, you've heard all of my arguments. Um, I would ask for the board to keep

075the record open for two weeks for additional written comment unless there's anything else. >> And are you going to be submitting some additional records? Correct. Okay, good. Tiffany, I I know that you have submitted a lot of the litigation stuff already when you submitted a letter. So that's in the file, >> right? Those were what I did was take portions of the litigation files and the what I wanted to make sure that you had were the entire files although I gave you the snippets of important. >> That's why because I just want to make sure it gets in because I don't know if it's there or not. >> I don't I'm going to tell you whatever you did submit I read. Okay, perfect. I appreciate that. >> It's my weekend project. >> But one second.

076>> Can I suggest that? I mean, we can do two weeks, but we don't have a meeting on the 16th. >> You want to back it up three weeks then? >> Do you want to do three that way in case you need more time and just till the 23rd? Does that make sense? >> It does. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. You okay with that? >> Yes. Till June 23rd. Okay. So in the matter of Green Hollow Real Estate LLC, Hampton Racket, 172 Buckskill Road, East Hampton, SuffK County Tax Map number 300-184-3-11 and 14. I make a motion that we leave the record open until 623 for the submission of additional uh documentation from Tiffany Scarado and anybody else that wishes to participate in the uh public hearing. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank

077you. Thank you everyone. >> Okay. Let's clear our heads. >> I don't have any Gaddy with me. Sorry. >> Okay. Our next public hearing is Kevin Gaddy 273 Old Montalk Highway, Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-87-2-32. Description is to construct a 3,366qt two-story residence with 612 ft attached garage, 1 126 square ft of first and second story porches, decking and balconies. A 352 ft swimming pool, 200 ft pool house, 116qt pool patio, retaining wall, driveway, sanitary system and associated structures on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and nine variances variances of 29 ft 12 ft 10.5 ft 10 ft 6.6 6 ft 5.5 ft and 5 ft are required from 255430 of the town code to

078construct proposed fencing 71 ft retaining wall 88 ft decking 10.5 ft walkways 90 ft house 93.4 4 ft pool patio 94.5 ft and garage 95 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft setbacks are required. Two variances of 23.5 and 19.9 feet are required from 2551110 of the town code to construct the proposed porch 16.5 ft and house 20.1 ft from the front yard lot where 40 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is a resident zone X flood zone. Secret class is type two. Vice chair, do we >> we do? Oh, no. Wait, I'm going forward too fast. Council, do we have an affidavit of service and posting? Is it in order? >> Yep, we have an affidavit. Everything looks good and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank

079you. >> This site requires three postings. One on Elm, one on FUR. This is the one on Elm to start with. This the second posting on a telephone pole facing fur. And the third posting third posting is facing out onto the highway onto Old Montalk Highway. So it uh it has frontage in all three roads. Next here we're looking up. Uh fur towards Elm is going to go up on the right and fur continues. Next we get down below. I'm on I'm on Elm at this point and I'm looking up. You would try to get a sense of what the elevation rise is for the platform that's up on the right. Next. Uh, now I'm looking myself back up. Elm, uh, it runs up and it's going to make a turn off to the left.

080The property in question is on our right here as we we view this photo. Next, uh, I'm looking back up through that. I can see an opening all the way on the upper left. That's going to be adjacent property, which you're going to see from above. That's sitting to the west, uh, to the east of this property. Up there where that vegetation is bunched up is the platform up above. You'll see that there's a pretty good elevation drop here. It's dramatic and we'll get to see it again in another photo. Thanks, Nicks. Uh, now this I've gone up uh up the road and I'm looking back down. Uh, there was an effort to show that the property runs a a long ways up Elm Street and we're looking down into the wetlands that sits down

081below. This is going to be a part of the issue what we're going to be discussing. So, we're looking down there. The property takes off on the right here and runs up the hill. Next. Uh there I am coming back down looking back down at that property again from another VP viewpoint. Next, now I'm up on on the old highway and this is the area where uh the proposal is to build the residence that's in front of us. Uh this is a platform that uh sits directly off the road and you can see there a little bit of a gateway to keep people from coming in uh who are uninvited. Next, I backed myself up and I'm standing on the road and you can see that directly in front of me, the ground falls off

082dramatically. We see that in our topos. The topos are available and we see that platform which is uh which will come out in conversation here is basically filled. It's been pushed into a somewhat large platform that uh right in front of us and the house to the east that we had seen the lawn from the lower direction we can see out in the back. Next, now I've walked on the to as far east as I can on the property and I'm looking back. You can see that the entryway is off to your left. You see the highway. This is basically I'm basically out in the area where the swimming pool is proposed and the house would be in front of me from here. Next, uh I guess this is just looking down over the side.

083This is the area that when I got down a little bit, I'm on the east side of it. The area to my left will have require a certain amount of fill. We'll discuss that. That has to do with the uh the swimming pool projecting out into an area that does not have much support. Next, this just standing up back on the site here. Um it's going to fall off in front of me here, but next not very valuable one. Again, looking east, looking in the area, there's a small building to be here. Swimming pool would be to my left of this shot. When we look at it on the maps, you'll see what we're talking about. It's a significant amount of platform material that sits up above the natural uh grade. Next, >> that's it.

084Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Good evening board members. I'm Alice Kulie of Matthews Curse Kulie and Churon. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant Kevin Gaddy who's also here with me with his daughters. Uh I'm also with Shannon McAffrey of Dwy's planning and Ethan Zoeski of T Engineering. Uh this application was first heard by the board on October 28th, 2025. At that meeting, the board seemed genuinely receptive to the application, but raised a concern about the property's ability to support the proposed construction because of a presumptive or I guess anecdotal history of the property being used for the storage of fill and materials. After that hearing, the applicant hired Slack test boring to provide geotechnical soil borings and subsurface specialists to

085evaluate the soils. Based on these findings, TF Engineering provided an analysis of the best methodology for construction, essentially confirming the board's suspicions regarding the fill on site, and a revised drainage plan and revised septic plan were submitted along with that analysis. Ethan can present these findings and can answer any questions that you have on this issue. I do not want to discuss engineering issues because I am not qualified. Uh based on these findings, uh we think we have a good path forward. We don't anticipate that this methodology will have any additional impacts on the wetland. I won't go go through the whole varian standard again um or the NRSP standards unless of course you'd like me to. Uh but since it's been quite a few months we since we were here, I wanted to remind

086the board of a few facts about our application. Uh one is that if you exclude the areas of steep slopes and wetlands on the property, you get a usable lot area of 22,984 square ft. I talked about this at length last time because if this lot was formed now, this is how it would be formed. These areas would have to be excluded from lot area. So that would actually entitle us to use the 20 foot front yard setback making the house conforming. The house is proposed uh 45 ft from the edge of payment on old Montalk Highway which is consistent with the setbacks of the nearby properties as discussed at the prior hearing and it's also in the TAM. The improvements are proposed in the most conforming location on the site and the house is

087designed to be long and narrow to maximize the distance from the wetland in the rear. There is no evidence in the record that the proposed improvements would have any negative impact on the wetland. The sanitary system is proposed in the most conforming location. The proposed clearing is minimal. And I I think this is really important. Over 76% of the lot will remain completely undisturbed. Uh so while the house requires a wetland variance of 6 1/2 ft at its closest point, the majority of the house itself actually meets the setback. So only about 550 square feet of the house falls within that 100 foot setback. And if you have any questions for me now, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll turn it over to Ethan. >> I have I think I have engineering questions. >>

088Okay. >> How does the board does the board like to address any questions to Alice? >> I can always jump back up if you change your mind. >> Thank you. Just state your name for the record and I'll swear you in. Yep. >> Ethan Zoeski with TF Engineering. Do >> you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> So, as Alice just explained, we uh we had contracted with Slack boring test to have geotechnical soil borings done and then have SSI soil special subsurface soil investigations do a geotechnical analysis on it as well as our own. Uh what we ended up coming to the conclusion is is that the top layer of soil there is rather loose kind of indicative of uh fill. But what

089we had found through the geotechnical valuations is that if you go down to elevation 86 which correlates to 10 foot below the finished floor and 4 foot below the footing um there's actually good material. So what we're proposing is to dig down to elevation 86 throughout the entire foundation, then back fill with 4 foot of structural material, compact it in lift. So this way we reach optimal uh compaction and that's how we're going to actually construct the foundation. >> Excuse me. >> So obviously the concern at the last public hearing for me was um the structural integrity for the dwelling. Mhm. >> Did you address in your engineering report uh anything about the retaining wall? >> Uh we did not. >> Okay. Cuz that was I think we did ask for that but I don't

090think it we received it. I would like to receive that. And how much fill is would be brought in for the swimming pool because that's a tremendous rate >> that we did not take a look at. >> Yeah, that's that's a something that would have to be looked into. So we could leave the record open for any additional information. Okay. >> I'm also going to request um that our our town engineer look at these >> plans as well. >> Okay. >> I have a couple of questions. Yeah. I have a couple of questions. So, um you're going to come down to what you say is undisturbed soil. Bring in 4 foot of That's what you're saying, right? When you got down to something, >> more compacted soil, state. >> So, it may it may be

091fill down in that area. >> Yes. But it has a higher soil bearing higher soil bearing load. And you know that around the entire perimeter of the area to be developed, we know it in one area because it was in a regular surface that was had this fill dumped onto it. So we're not exactly sure where there may be more fill and you know how deep is the fill from the top layer right now. Is it 11 ft deep? Is it 13t deep in places? My question is going to be we're going to go down to what 8t below and then go four feet below that 8 ft below floor level. >> It's more so in some certain areas. So, we're going from elevation, I think it's 101 down to all the way 86. So,

092>> so we're going to come down at 86. You you're you're contending that there's fairly solid fill. Yes. And then from there, you're going to come in lifts with gravel 4 foot and you're going to say that the R factor there is going to be enough resistance now to take the weight of this structure. >> Correct. Inside the report we also stated as well, but we would we recommend an outside uh soil testing agency come in make sure that everything is compacted properly to the 95%. >> Okay. Now, what to what to what extent is that to be done around the entire perimeter of all the structures in the pool area as well as the house? What are you contending to do? The 4ft uh compacted area, the 4ft lift. You going to do four

093lifts for four feet. Is that going to happen under these other buildings? Are we we contending that are you suggesting that some of these buildings can be done without that? Is that going to be the entire perimeter of all structures? >> It's going to be whichever structure needs it. In this case, we looked strictly at the main house dwelling where we look where the borings were at each individual point. >> Right. So, so we have the main house to consider. Then we have the we have the pool to consider. We're going to have that at an elevation. It's also going to be over some fill. Not only that, we're going to be bringing in fill for that because it was already brought up by the chair that there is a there's a pretty good drop

094in the area where the pool wants to go. Right now, that's not up on the platform. That's out a little bit. And then that second building there also my my concern would be I don't know how stable any of that fill is, but it is fill. So, we know that we have to do something with it. So, we're talking about you're gonna you you're you're suggesting that we're going to follow the perimeter of the building with a technique that you feel is going to support the weight of this building, right? And how will that be done? You will trench down to a level and then work your way back up from that area. Right. >> Typically, >> now this building that I'm looking at and we can go out there, we can see it pretty

095much uh and coming in the uh westerly direction pretty much comes out uh near the edge of where this platform is. In other words, now you're going to you're going to uh you're going to excavate there, work your way up. What's going to retain the outside that rest of that material from sloughing or right down towards the wetland? How do we maintain this platform while you're doing that extensive amount of work? There's quite a bit of an excavation you're going to make. We make that excavation. How do we maintain the rest of that? Are we going to have temporary shoring there? What's going to keep this south I guess that's the northwest corner of that from just sliding right down that very steep embangment because you're going to be digging quite a hole quite a

096trench right close to where that the edge of this platform is. You know that right? You've seen that looking at the drawings. That's something for us to consider what's happening here in terms of a protocol to protect that a good amount of material that we know is fill. It's not natively there. So it's not part of a natural uh formation doesn't slide down the hill. So that's something you have to think about. That's something I want to think about. That's what we want to know what's happening. The other thing here is that if we are and and that's all the way around the site. That's all the way around the site. So we're going to bring this. We're going to take this out. When we're done, you're going to have this compacted area. And then

097from there, we're going to work our way up with footings and a typical board foundation, concrete for foundation. There was never any consideration of helicals or anything else to stabilize this at a lower level. There was some consideration of it, but after reviewing it, we kind of figured it's it's the same impact whether we excavate the additional 4 foot and back fill with structural or we go the helical piles for the basement. You still need to dig down to the bottom of the footing. >> All right. So, you're the engineer. So, you you feel that that that there it's one or the other would have worked that the compaction and all the helicals. >> Again, the concern would be this is a you know, it's an extreme not extreme. It's a large amount of excavation

098to get down to where you want to do what you want to do. you've even said so we're down far enough that you feel we're into something firm. I'm concerned what happens around the perimeter here that we somehow stabilize that because once you start digging to that depth, I don't know what you do to maintain the rest of that platform from wanting to just break off and slide down the slope. I think that's something to consider. And then back to the retention wall which is needed in areas here. It's really important what's going to happen in retaining all this fill that we're going to be bringing especially at the pool. You said that we've considered, you've considered uh what you're doing compacting underneath the house, but we haven't really looked at the retaining wall. So,

099from a structural point of view, how do we maintain this retaining wall is going to stay where it's supposed to be? >> What do you think? We're going to go down to something that's undisturbed where the footings on the retaining wall >> or we again, we can do the same soil boring test that we had. >> You're proposing to do the same thing on the retaining wall then. Yes. >> Okay. So that might be something that if we're going to be looking for additional information, we'll want to know more from a protocol point of view. What are we doing to ensure that this there is some sort of integrity to this wall that we can count on. We're being asked to protect the wetlands. We're being asked to see to it the large structure can

100sit up on a great amount of fill. We don't know how much. None of us do really, but there's a lot there. And then we have to worry about what is the long-term stability of this project if it were to move forward. Right. Well, that that's your goal. That's what you were hired to do and that's what you're presenting. But we we take what you're saying on value because obviously you're the engineer here. But I'm worried about the protocol of how this gets done without collateral damage. And I'm wondering what we do to ensure that that retaining wall has the integrity that it's intended to have. And I worry about the stability at the base. And you've said now you can go down and repeat the same technique. You're going to in lifts, you'll provide

1014 foot of gravel in order to make sure that retaining wall has some reliable future for us. >> Yes, that's something that we can take a look at. >> Okay. I'm not trying to lecture you. I'm just want to make sure we're all on the same base because these are the rest the the questions that are raised when I look at this. I'm looking at something that's unstable by definition. And then we have to ask ourselves, you're going to provide a method of stability for a structure, a large structure that's going to stretch out over a period of base. And we have to think about the swimming pool which is now can leave it sort of out over you know space that doesn't exist yet space we're going to create inside a retaining wall. So

102I think >> tricky project you know that >> it is a tricky project but in terms of process I I'm thinking what would be fair addressing everything that um vice chair just said we want to uh look at the structural integrity of the dwelling. We want to know how much fill is coming in for the swimming pool. I definitely think we need a construction protocol and we need some more information on the retaining wall. And I think what we do is you submit that documentation to the board. We leave it o open enough for you to submit that information and then we forward it to our town engineer. So as we go on, other people may want to speak, but this is where I think we're all going. >> Okay. Do you want to wait

103to discuss timing? >> I want to wait. I want to see if anyone's else is here to talk to the application. >> Is there anyone Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> Uh, you have one caller and still the uh the same one from last time. Let's give them another try. Last four digits. 8170. You are live. >> Hello. Are you there? >> Can you state your name for the record? Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can. Can I ask you what here? >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, this is Maria Moss. I didn't know that I was going to speak, so I don't really have anything prepared, but we sent you a letter. >> Um, we we

104our property is 16 Elm Lane, which is adjoining this property. So, we do have concerns, but I not prepared to speak, which I didn't expect. I was just here to listen. >> Okay. Okay, thank you. >> You're welcome. >> And you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Um, I'd like to hear from the planning department now. Terry, I don't need your help. >> Sure. Tyler Borsac for the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um, I don't have a lot else to add. Um the you know at at the last public hearing the plan department had noted a few aspects of the project that required additional consideration uh which included the uh the soils given the the parcel's uh unique history as

105well as the amount of regrading the volume of fill and the retaining walls required for the proposed swimming pool area on the east side of the property. Um no significant details have been provided about the retaining wall. There are a few details about the retaining wall around the sanitary system uh on the southwest side. um top of wall, bottom of wall really being the only part of it. But this the more significant retaining wall will be would be on the northeast side around that pool uh area. Um uh the changing of grades u significantly within jurisdiction of wetlands can have unintended consequences. Uh so any change in those grades should be clearly shown uh for the board to make informed decisions which the board appears to want uh to have. Um so I don't need

106to go into any great detail about that but uh it seems to be that the board is already requesting information that that the planning department would want the board to have. Um the questions for the board uh moving forward are have the applicants provided sufficient information in order to make an informed decision? Um is the size of the development appropriate uh and reasonable to grant relief? uh and also is the regrading of the parcel appropriate in order uh to construct additional pertinances within jurisdiction of uh protected natural features. Other than that, I can make myself a make myself available for questions. >> Thank you. Any questions for Tyler? >> I don't. No. >> No. >> Thank you. >> Do we want to talk about timing now? Well, any other questions for I'm going to >>

107We already had callers and does that, you know, does anybody have any more questions for Alice? >> Nothing's cheap. >> Well, we're going to move forward with ending this and getting the timeline down. >> So, how much time do you think you would need for what we're requesting? I >> think we're going to need four weeks. And then uh council, how much time >> should we allow for our town engineer? >> Well, I would say we should do it leave the record open till July 7th. That's the next meeting that will be within four weeks puts us to July 30th which is the meeting following the July 7. >> Okay. I mean, so are we keeping the record open strictly for written submission? >> Yeah, for what we requested. And then what I'd like to

108do is once we get your submission, I'd like to pass it on to our town engineer. >> Okay. >> But are we coming again to make a presentation or are we just doing written submissions? >> That will be necessary. Do you? >> I don't think so either. >> Okay. So, we're going to leave it open four weeks for Alice and then another additional couple of weeks for our town engineer. Okay. Got it. >> To leave it open till July 7th to include our submission from our or do you want to once we receive their stuff an additional time for Okay. >> I think another two or three weeks. So we should we open till July 21st. Yeah, we're going to give them till the 7th and then till July 21st for Arcan Engineer. >> Okay,

109Alice, are you fine with that? >> Uh, yes. Thank you. >> Okay, >> that it okay. >> Thank you very much. >> You ready, >> Vice Chair? You We're ready. Then in the matter of Kevin Gaddy 273 Old Montalk Highway, Monttok Suffer County Tax Map 300-87-2-32, I want to make a motion to leave uh closed public hearing but leave the uh public record open until July 21st to allow for this submission of additional engineering uh analysis and data concerning both the foundation and the retaining wall on this project. I think that's it. >> Well, the swimming pool, how much fill, and a construction protocol. >> A construction protocol and uh and an analysis of how much potential material additional fill has to be brought into the project. >> We'll actually do a letter. Okay. Thank

110you. >> Somebody's got a second. >> Oh, second. >> Concur. >> I concur. >> Madam Chair, before you read the next in, I would like to recuse myself from this upcoming >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, our next public hearing is Bob McKente, 22 Shore Road, Amaganzit. description is a modification of the zoning board's determination filed July 26, 2023, which allowed the construction of a 2,697 ft two-story residence with decking, swimming pool, new sanitary system, driveway, lower level parking, retaining walls, and associated structures. and to clear approximately 7,785 square feet of beach vegetation on a parcel of land containing dunes, dune land, beach vegetation, and tidal wetlands. Relief sought. A modification of the zoning board of appeals July 26, 2023 determination is required to permit several asbuilt structures to remain, including a new planter, changes to

111the approved driveway, walkways, entrance, patio, fencing, swimming, pool, and spa, and the seconds story decking footprint changing pool decking to patio and clearing limits. zoning district is B residence velocity flood zone secret class is type two council. Do we have an affidavit of service and posting that's in order? >> Yes, we do. And everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing and uh I'm just going to pass you each one of these from the and I will give one to Sam to >> Vice Chair. Do we have a field inspection? >> We do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this is there it for some reason you've got it posted twice on this property. I've got photos of both, I think. Do we include them both? Anyway, here's a photo.

112Yeah, there's two of them. So, um, you see that there were two notices put up that said the same thing. Anyway, this is facing down on Shore Road. Next, um, I'm looking here. I'm looking east on Shore Road. Um, you get an idea what it looks like. Next, I've turned. Oh, that's Now I'm looking in the driveway. I guess I've lost West on Shore Road. Uh, one of the things that we're going to talk about tonight is the configuration of the driveway and how it mends itself into Shore Road. Next, also there's been discussion now about the staircases to the house, whether they've followed the original approval. Uh, here's the staircase up to the house itself. Another one. This is the staircase that goes on the west side of the house and leads to the

113back. Next, I'm in the back. There was some uh discussion of the pool being reconfigured, but it's in its original footprint. But here's the pool with its associated spa that you can see that's off to the east. It's also worth noting that this is the patio that was uh cited as having been planned as being a wood uh deck, which is now a stone patio. Next, now I'm standing at the far end of that patio and I see that we see some reveations taking place. There are two conditions here that were mentioned in the TAM. One is that the fencing was not uh as per uh as as per approval. It's a little further to the south here. You can see it's worked its way closer to the dune. And that the area underneath where

114the umbrella and ses are is an area that was planned for reveation which is not at this point. Next, uh, I walked down a little bit just to remind everybody where we're at. We're looking west from here. Great sweep of the beach. Next, looking back up at the house from there. You can see that fence. You can see what it does. You can see the house in general. It's been recently completed structure. Next. Oh, just out of border center. I'm looking east here. That's the portion of the hotel that comes right out onto the dune. Next. And then just forget the idea of the patio. It's in shadow, but this is the area that's the largest portion of the patio. They have the, you know, table out there now. This was once uh scheduled to

115be wood and a wood deck and now it's a stone patio. Next, again, just a little closer up. This is that southwest corner and uh I'm sure the planner will talk about it, but this is an area that was meant to have reve uh recreationally. next. And then just one look here coming back out just to get an idea. We talked about the configuration size of the driveway. You see the shrubbery that's sitting out there that uh provides uh some sort of cover, some sort of screening for the structure as we say it. I think that's it. Is that it? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there someone here to speak to this application? >> Yeah. for the applicant. Silinsky Law Firm, Michael by Michael Silinsky, 860 Montalk Highway, Border Mill, New York,

1161976. Good evening, Madam Chairman, member of the board. >> Um, I've handed up to the board if we could just go back to the picture of the driveway first. Let's discuss that first. >> The last one or that one? >> That that one's fine. So the driveway the driveway originally Tyler if you could go to the next picture as well. So the driveway originally came out of here and went straight down uh which would have required backing out onto Shore Road uh from the from the residence. Instead, if you can go back to the next one, they moved the driveway entrance further to the east which allows you then to pull in and it has provides it for a turnaround. Um all of this is in uh the vast majority of the driveway is in

117the town rightofway. Um we have handed up to the board a letter uh from the highway superintendent, Mr. Lynch. Uh he reviewed the property with me uh today uh and provided the recom the letter that's before the board uh stating that he has no uh objection to the driveway in its current condition uh as it as it is today. Uh the vast majority of those of that area is in within the uh town rightway. As you can see, the property line the property line for the property uh comes here and the edge of the curve is here. There's a substantial area. This is where the driveway now comes in and wraps around in this area here. The majority of which is in the town right away. Um the next uh concern is if you can

118go to the picture of the front door. My client um installed this because there was uh they were having sloping issues. Uh they did the they did the replanting, but they were having sloping issues with uh it running down the the sand running down during any storm event into the driveway, which required um sturdier stairs being put in place. Um that actually help and hold back and preserve uh as it says in the uh TAM uh preserve the uh elevations that are there. And then it goes around and up into the up into the property. Do you have a picture of the west side? The west side of the property. >> This >> that one. Yes. >> So, this is around the the west side of of the property. And again, uh we put in

119more substantial stairs than what the original permit was uh to provide for holding back uh the dune and in order for safe passage. Originally, it was it was supposed to be uh 4x4 in step and step, but that was all washing out. Um, and this provides for safe passage and also prevents the change in that elevation as it goes back. Um, my client uh my client didn't do the original approval. He bought he bought the house after the approval was done. um he was on a misunderstanding when it comes to if you go back to the the deck or the patio in the back he was un he was unaware uh that a deck and a patio were uh considered different different things and different materials. I would uh posit to the board that the

120configuration of this deck uh as opposed to I'm pardon me patio as opposed to a deck poses no substantial impact to any of the uh uh ecological features at the site. Um similarly he didn't realize that integrating a spa into a portion of the swimming pool would require a modification or would require additional permitting. He would did not change the configuration or the size of the pool. He just installed within in the pool itself the hot tub feature. If you can go back to the chairs. Uh I spoke to my client I spoke to my client before the fence will be moved out out of the out of the clearing. That's a given. Uh similarly this will be uh these will all be removed. I had discussion with him earlier. These will be removed and

121that will also be replanted in beach grass as as proposed in the plan and that can be a condition of this board's approval for the modification. Um >> so you're agreeing to revge what wasn't done already from the previous >> correct? Yes. Yes. >> Um and and we will be moving the fence at you know back to the back to the line of the >> back to the approved the approved >> approved location >> into the approved location. Yes, it was just it's off by a foot or two. >> Um, >> does the board have any uh questions? Uh, the second story uh footprint overhang was a minor is a minor change. It's this this area here. It was it was cordoned off to go over top of the the patio as it existed. Again,

122a minor change does not uh does not change the um uh any ecological impacts to the site. Um I saw in one of the submissions to the board there questions were raised about uh the pyramid of this property. Number one, I would say that was out it's outside this board's purview when it comes to uh making this determination. I think in the TAM you'll uh the last sentence the TAM is basically the building department is ready to issue the CO that means that that uh the pyramid analysis has already been done by the building department um and while it is a close uh while it is a it's closed and it maxes out the pyramid on on the site it does not uh impede or require uh variance relief from this board uh and it

123meets the structures of the town code u >> and it's brought before us tonight. >> Correct. But it was it was brought before you. I just wanted to address it before you other members of the public. >> Are there questions from the board? >> You said uh earlier in your statement that the um the current owner of the house was not part of the application process. Is that right? >> Yes. He he bought the he bought the property in 2024. This approval, I think, is from 2023. So it was after So he bought it with an approved uh he bought it with an approved plan and then and and built it. He made of course these minor modifications. Um you know should he have come to this board uh before putting them in? Yes. Um

124with all that's going on in our building community right now. Um I think this is one of the uh things that uh there's nothing you know major here that provides any sort of ecological damage or anything other than actually benefit the ecology by holding those um holding those sands back and holding those uh the top topographical uh sand back and and maintaining those elevations. >> I have a question. You mentioned 6x6 stairs. Were were they presently there and then removed and then the stones were put in? >> Um I don't know if they actually even got them in. This was the original this was the original plan. It came around like this. Um it was totally unworkable. Um it's um it's one of those things that's uh may have looked good on paper during may

125have looked good on paper during a a submission, but once you're out in the field was completely unworkable solution. And then as far as the driveway goes, what was originally proposed versus what's there now? What is there what's the difference in square footage? >> This is this is what this is what is uh this is what was originally proposed. >> Yeah. >> And now instead it comes out here and goes around here. >> You can pretty much see where it goes. >> This dotted line here >> in the town. >> So the driveway is substantially larger. >> Substantially larger. But also the vast majority of it um The vast m if if I can not be interrupted, the vast majority of it is in the town highway right ofway. The elected official in charge of

126that has provided you documentation that says there's no objection to that. >> Well, he says there's no objection to the driveway apron. He doesn't say anything about the foliage and the shrubbery that was put along there. He went he went to the he went he went to the property today >> and looked at it and provided and provided me this this letter. He he wasn't the trees were there today. The driveway was there today. He looked at it all today. Um if he if you want me to provide a letter that includes all of those, I'm sure the superintendent will provide one if you want to leave the record open for that. Yeah, it does cause a line of sight issue when you go down that street. >> It's a straight It is a straight

127It is a straight street. If Can you go back to the picture, Tyler? They're looking down the road. We're talking about a We're talking about a straight a straight path down the middle of the road without curves. >> You're looking in the easterly direction now, right? >> Yeah. If you can turn to the >> look in the west >> again that's those are these are the trees and again it is a straight it is a straight line there's no line of sight there's no line of sight issue here respectfully >> does the board have any additional questions >> concern about the uh patio the pool that you're saying is no different with this imperous surface that was done versus the decking which is at least semi-permeable prior that there are no differences. There seem to

128be a lot of differences in terms of the the character of the way it blends in with the rest of the community here. How how how can a how can a atgrade patio affect the character of the neighborhood when we're t when we're talking about a modification that is on the on the seawward side of a house that's below the dune level. >> Okay. So I was extrapolating out on that. Well, I mean you see a problem with the impervious surface being replacing the >> we are we are within we are within all of the town codes for lot coverage, building coverage, total coverage. We we are not requesting relief from this board for any of those. >> And and also the stairs that were formally mentioned by member Riley, you know, that can be

129seen. And those two look like they were they they don't fit in with the character of the area. The original approved ones are much in keepings. Are we that's that's an aesthetic quality that that is outside the purview of this board. We're not here for variance relief. We're here for modification relief of an NRS pay. that is that is wholly wholly outside the purview of the board to make that determination when you're talking about character or neighborhood and aesthetic qualifications. We are not here. This is not a this is not a variance. This is not a variance where we're seeking to meet the test. This is an NRSP and what it relates to ecologically to the site itself. and the TAM once Tyler comes up says that they actually are helpful to maintain the elevations

130that are there. >> I would just say in reference to your comment, there was an approval. The approval included lots of different uh facets of the property. Now, there have been changes to the approval. Some of them are substantial. So it is within our purview to review what got done and decide whether or not keeping it within the original approval that you had is important to us for variety of reasons. There may not just be the character of the neighborhood. There be a number of reasons here for us to consider what got done versus what was approved. And as you know this was a site that took several attempts to get an approval. There was a lot of negotiation about well let's make this thing smaller, that thing smaller, make a walkway a certain way.

131So, I'm not making a value judgment. I'm just saying when you come in front of us with this many changes. We're going to look at every one of those changes and see how it affects whatever intention we had just two years ago, as you said, when we made the >> Absolutely. And and as any as any building project has, there are modifications that are made in the field that once you go back for a CO, uh you need to come back to this board, a regulatory board, and here we are. >> Okay. Um, you know, none of it I will I will say that none of the changes that were made impact or require variance relief are outside the dictates of the town code. They just need to be modified be based upon the natural

132resource special standards uh for this for this site and for the standards for a modification of a natural resources special permit. >> Any more questions board? >> No. Thank you. I'd like to hear >> My god, we have to stop. I'd like to hear from the planning department. We're going to talk after this meeting. All right. Tell Borsc for the planning department again. Um I won't go into extensively into what what the modifications about since it's been going gone over uh fairly extensively and I don't think I I need to go into it too much detail. Um I'll just note a few a few things that are noted in our memo to the board. Um uh the driveway was enlarged. Um it's now approximately 1,67 square feet on the parcel itself. Uh the total area

133is about 2,190 square feet. That's both on and off the parcel. Um as in reference to the change in the stairs, um when we were discussing the the issues with runoff, we were more referencing what the applicant was stating the purpose of it was, not that we were making a judgment whether that was that it was an appropriate use or or not. We don't really have an opinion on on the stairs themselves. um uh on it was just a reference to how the applicant uh referenced why they changed. Not that we felt that that was the that that was the intended purpose or one way or the other. Um the applicant referenced uh uh reveating which is what we had suggested they do. Uh they had also when they came in with the application referenced

134that they were going to be moving the the fence out of the scenic easement which they would have to do anyways. there's there'd be it'd be difficult obviously to to to put a structure in the easement when the easement references that no structure shall be in there. Um other than that uh the construction on the parcel overall is very similar to what was approved uh aside from the changes that have been referenced. Um no structures are closer to the Derrest than what was approved. Uh and the majority of the substantial changes to the approved plans have taken place north of the of the residence. Um, we referenced uh that not that the building department was ready to sign off on on a CO, but that other than these changes, >> the the the zoning board

135or could sign off to the building department that it's we think it's ready for the issuance of a CO or that that it meets the conditions of the the board's determination. Um, it's a it's a m just a just a minor uh uh just to correct, you know, what what the memo says. um that other than these changes, it is ready for the zoning board to sign off to the building department that it's it meets the conditions of their their determination for for a CO. Um other than that, I can answer any questions that you might have regarding the application. >> So, based on what I'm hearing you say, we do of course have to look at the fact that it was a natural resource special permit and now it's a modification. So, what I'm

136hearing you say is there really are no environmental >> not anything that's significant >> difficulties to the environment. >> Yeah. The change from patio to decking is fairly minor. They do have some drainage in the in the middle of that patio to deal with any it looks and it looks like from what I could tell that they had pitched it in towards that drain for the most part. Um there's obviously going to be always a little bit of runoff. There's no wetlands within jurisdiction. It's all just you know trying to limit the amount of impact that that rain events have on the stability of the dune area. Uh which it seems to be that they're addressing for the most part similar to what the original approval was at least. Um the driveway change didn't you

137know was while a significant deviation from the original approval. I don't know what kind of impacts that has on the area at the you know the base of that significant dune formation. It's not a primary dune but it's you know it's dune land nonetheless. >> Um there there was the increase in that second store story wouldn't really have significant impacts. I don't think it's like 26 square ft larger than this than the the the patio below it. I I don't know if there's any substantial changes there. I I don't know. You know, the question really is if this is what it came with in with at the original approval, would the board have approved it? It seems pretty similar to that original approval. I I think that's ultimately what what we suggested. >> Thank you,

138Tyler. >> No, excuse me. There's no footprint change here at all. >> No, >> the only footprint change would be that second story decking extending slightly beyond that first story. Changing from a deck to a patio did not change this. >> No, that's all the same. The pool and and the spa is in the same exact footprint as the original pool approval. Most of it's in the same area or relative areas as the the original approvals. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Come forward, sir. >> You need to state your name for the record and be sworn in. Uh, we brought some pictures of just to demonstrate. >> Could you state your name for the record? And you need >> Nicholas Gregory.

139>> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. You can proceed. Thank you. Help set this up. Yeah, the first one. So, my friend Jonathan, he's helping me with the uh photos. Um, uh, dear board members, um, I'd like to address the modifications that have been made to the new construction at 22 Shore Road, Amigansit that are not part of the zoning board's approved plans of the hearing on 42523. These modifications currently exist as of 5126 or today. Uh we request the following modifications uh be seriously reviewed. The purpose of the ZBA approved reveation plan is that the grasses and trees are to give some semblance of the natural environment that existed before construction. Over the years, this natural environment has been maintained and

140preserved by the inhabitants of our neighborhood. This is the property in Dune before construction. The natural resources special permit code states compatibility. The site of the proposed use is as suitable of one for the location of such a use in the in town. And if cited at the at that location, the proposed use will in fact be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with the regard to visibility, scale, and overall appearance. Environmental protection. The natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features systems or processes and without significant negative impact to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. Next card. As you know, this is the

141property today. The house has an entrance that belongs in the estate section of Further Lane. It is not recreating the natural environment that existed before and the natural environment of the beach community that we all live in. Trees have been planted to accent a modified driveway instead of being used to represent the natural characteristics of the dune that once existed. 22shore LLC might not have realized when buying the property that removing 20 truckloads of dunes was a special circumstance. That that one of the reasons the board might have accepted these special circumstances was that the natural characteristics of the property would be recreated with the least amount of disturbance. Sorry. So that's the driveway one. All right. Anyway, anyway, no, no, it's okay. So, instead of following the ZBA approved re reveation plan, this wall

142of trees essentially captures approximately a,000 square ft plus of East Hampton Town property to expand the property of 22 Shore Road. So, the property line is here. This is all driveway and trees. The ZBA approved driveway has now been doubled in size. Uh Tyler East Hampton's planner estimated in the work session that it is now 2,000 square ft plus. A large portion of the driveway modification exists in the right of way which does not belong to 20 shore 22 shore. This wall of trees that line and accent the driveway now enclose it. The builder has essentially walled in almost the entire width of the property, taking away the public right of way and expanding the north side of the property by some thousand square feet plus. Uh, thank you. These trees that almost run the

143width of the property are lined with brick curbing and irrigation. All of it which exists in the right away. To my knowledge, it is illegal to plant anything in the rightway, let alone irrigate what you've planted and have cement curbing on both sides of uh of the trees. Taking away this 100 ft right of way makes it imposs Oh, I'm sorry. We have a lot of children living in the neighborhood who walk to the beach with their parents. Taking away this 100 ft of right of way makes it impossible for them to get out of the way if a car is approaching them. Mr. Mcinty in a letter to the board has stated that he needs this expansion of the driveway so he won't have to back out of his property, citing improved maneuverability as

144well as safety. If the reveation plan was followed uh and out of the right of way, his sightelines wouldn't be an issue. There would be there would be at least 10 or more feet for him to back out. All the residents in the neighborhood back out of their driveways without incident on a on a daily basis. Yes. Thank you. Uh the ZBA approved reveation plan on the north side of the house has been substantially reduced to include a much larger stone landing with cement laid steps leading down to the driveway. There is also a cement and stone stairway running down the west side of the house. The structures that were diagrammed in the approved plan, as Tyler previously stated, were soil dam steppers, essentially steps set in sand. The size of the front landing and

145staircases looks to be four times the original approved size. The reasoning, as stated in Mr. Mcante's letter to the board for building these cement structures, was to deter water runoff during rain and to support the sand. I've lived in the neighborhood for more than 15 years and live on an elevated property. There is no runoff with sand. The sand simply absorbs the water and lets it pass through. But with these new solid sewn structures, cement structures, there is now potential for runoff that could essentially create a stream beginning from the top of the concrete structure flowing on down. Uh yes, Mr. Mcina's letter to the zoning board requests the planter and stair structure as a stabil stabilization measure to help control erosion. A dune is st stabilized with properly planted grasses, trees, and bushes. A

146wellthoughtout reveation plan easily accomplishes this. We hold on. We would also like to bring attention to the breakaway walls. >> Which are here and here. These are town code. They're supposed to be part of the part of the structure. Um this is from this is from uh the plan that was approved by the board. This built structure, the stairs, the planter uh sits in front of the area designated for the breakaway wall in the approved plan. This cement landing stair stairway structure blocks and makes any possibility of the wall functioning during a storm impossible. It would be reassuring to know if a breakaway wall even exists in the basement. Uh, yes. >> Could you sum it up, sir? >> Sorry. >> I mean, we're >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm almost I'm sorry. I'm almost

147at the end. Uh, we would like to point out that the roof line of the second floor has been changed and is no longer a straight line as approved. This approved roof line ran along straight along the pyramid. It now juts out. It's not straight down anymore. It's not a triangle anymore. It sticks out 6 ft. The approved uh but now the roof line has been altered. Breaks out 45 degree angle. It most likely breaks the pyramid line. Uh yes, thank you. 22 Shore LLC as mentioned brought bought this property with pre-approved plans from Young Developments. There were cond conditions set by the board in that variance. Even though Mr. Mcante's company and trucks did most of the construction, Peter Joyce was the East Hampton contractor on record on the building per permit. Mr. Joyce

148should have reminded Mr. Mcinty of the conditions of approval of this build. Modifications as mentioned could have been asked for uh from the town during the construction process to know what would have been acceptable and within bounds of the East Hampton Town Code. Instead, the changes were made and then asked for the modifications after the fact. Probably the reason I've been asked to represent the neighborhood at this hearing is because I applied for a variance uh more or less at the same time to build a second floor structure over the dune uh that sits in front of my house. The lo uh I had a reveation plan that included grasses, trees, and bushes to be landscaped in a natural way. The locations of the trees and bushes were very specific. The grasses had to be

149all planted a foot apart over the majority of the property by the thousands. But one of the most important details about the construction of my variants was that I had to file a covenant and restriction stating that I would never build on this dune. This dune needed to be protected by NRSP code. This dune exists across the street from the ocean. And if I ever sold the property, the new owners would assume this specific condition. 22 Shore LLC took away 20 truckloads of sand to build a basement garage with 16 ft high ceilings, an oceanfront sand dune, never to return. The determination dated 42523 states the following which have not been met. Specifically, these numbers 2, three, and five, which are the following approved reveation plan and the approved construction plans needed to be met.

150Uh, I'm not going to sit here and read, but it was the approved survey. It was the approved reveation plan, and it was approved construction plans, and all improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below below. If any condition of this determination is not met or is not met with within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and no effect. You have huge cement structures um that are taking up what should have been the structures, the cement staircases, the driveway. Uh, it's all taking up what should have been dune grasses, bushes, and trees that have all been pushed out into the road, making the right of way impossible. I think I think it needs a serious review and I

151think I think these structures uh shouldn't be existing uh for the reasons that I've stated. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to the application? >> Matt, are there any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Michael, >> um, would the board like a revised letter from the highway superintendent? >> I was going to ask that. Okay. Sure. Can we leave the record open for a week for us to revive that? >> Sure. >> And for um you know written response um to any other questions the board would have. >> No, I don't have any more questions. Does anybody have questions? >> No. >> We'd like to see the letter from the letter. >> Sure. I I I I spoke with Mr. Lynch at length

152about it. He went and viewed the property today. Um, you know, the question was not about, you know, limited to the aperture. >> Thank you. So, you'll be happy with it being left open for one week. >> That'd be great. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone, >> Vice Chair. Hold on. Somebody's raised their hand. >> We have one more speaker. >> No problem. Welcome. >> I need your name and you need to be sworn in. Hi. Uh, yeah. Go ahead. >> Your name? >> Lee Satinski. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Um, I'm just curious. Uh, we're getting a letter from the highway department. Yeah, that's great. Is does that person deter Is they do they have anything to do with the

153building department? Do we need a letter from the building department? >> Because it was built to answer that. There's extra stuff built on area that shouldn't have been built on what I gather. >> Oh, Steve Lynch has jurisdiction on something like that. >> He's highway. Yeah, >> this isn't highway, right? This is uh this is built. >> I don't know. I just cur >> construction matches the building permit plans. >> The slight modification that that we've seen, I checked it. Um they're different than what the zoning board approved, but they meet the building permit plans that were approved. Um and according to the building permit plans, it met met pyramid. So I >> the pyramid is not an issue. >> Pyramid is from the pictures it looks crazy, but the >> you're talking about the

154rightway. >> Yeah, the rightway. Um I mean it's great. I'd love to be able to build in the street if that's possible. You tell me. >> It's important to note that our jurisdiction ends at the property line. Very often we have applications in front of us where there's something beyond the property line. We don't have any jurisdiction to rule over that. Anything within that of course is our concern. Oh, >> I get it. But if we're looking for a letter from someone who's going to make a determination, is that person highway? >> It's not based on We're going to make our determination based on the code. >> Yeah. >> Not based on somebody submitting a letter. >> Just wondering. >> Okay. >> Thanks. >> You're welcome. >> We okay now? >> Yeah, we're good. Okay.

155Then in the matter of the application of uh Bob Mcatee 22 Shore Road Amaganca Supper County Tax Map 300-131-8-7, I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing but leave the record open for one week to allow for the submission of a letter by the applicant from Steve Lynch from the highway department. >> Second concur. Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> Good night, Michael. Okay, superintendent. Okay, next is our work session. Well, we're going to continue our meeting. So, if everybody could speak in the hallway. We're going to move on to the work session. Administrative applications. Fuller at 45 Industrial Road, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-27-3-4. Tyler, >> uh, yes, this one is Brian's. This is, uh, in regards to an existing retaining wall on the property. Um, here's

156an aerial of the property. This is over on an industrial road on Fort Pond. Um here's the existing retaining wall. It's a concrete retaining wall. Obviously, you can tell it's in rough shape bowing out. It's not doing great. Um this could have been an expedited permit, but given that we think this might be the first retaining wall replacement that we've had uh ever on for pond that we felt that public notice was probably important so that you know when neighbors see that uh this work is going on, they're not surprised by it. Um, obviously it's in rough shape. It needs to be replaced. Um, they're replacing it uh in the same location uh with a vinyl bulkhead as as as a more modern design. Uh, there are 4ft returns on either side since it since

157that existing concrete one does tie into the exist to the to the neighboring properties that have also have uh concrete retaining walls. Um, so the concrete bulkhead, I'm sorry, sorry, the bulkhead uh is being reconstructed. Uh, fiber is being used fiberglass helical pile tiebacks. There's no pilings. Um, it's 75 linear feet, 4 foot returns. Um, that's that's about it. It's pretty straightforward. Um, it's a bit unique because it is four pond, but other than that, it's a pretty straightforward uh bulkhead replacement. So, if this were to be approved, what's the what is our guarantee that it gets replaced uh in place in kind? I mean, it's obvious once it's out, are we going to have a survey that or coordinated? >> Anytime anytime an application comes in with a CO, we require an updated survey.

158Obviously, it's going to have to m line up with the the that existing bulkhead on either side. We would we'd be able to tell just based on that that it didn't line up, but um yeah, it would require an updated survey. >> Yeah. >> Okay. But it's not in place in kind, right? Didn't you say they're changing it to fiber? >> It's in place like kind. >> Like kind. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. It's no bigger. >> It's not gonna be concrete. It's not concrete anymore. It would that we don't, you know, that doesn't really make sense in, you know, with modern with modern engineering. But it's going to be the same location, slightly different material, but ultimately the same the same purpose, same height. >> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. >> And we don't know the

159age of it. We just know it pre-exist. >> It's old. Yeah. Yeah. I don't have a problem with it. >> I don't either. Neither >> do I. Can we have a motion? >> Yes. So for Fuller at 45 Industrial Road and Malk Tax Map 300-27-3-4, make a motion to allow this application to proceed administratively. >> Second. >> Concur. Next is 45 Hedges Banks LLC. 45 Hedges Banks Drive, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-35-2-3. Demo of a house on Hedges Banks regrade after demo. >> Uh yeah, that's that's that's all it is. It's they're demolishing the existing house. You can sort of see the existing uh very faint gray in here. They're removing all structures on the property and then they're going to be regrading it back to what they believe the existing grade

160was going in. So this red will be removal of fill. The green will be the will be the placement. I think there's a slight bit that will be removed but not any significant amount. It's going from so they're cutting 5589 and they're filling 5257. So a little bit will be removed from the property but not any significant amount. Um there's there's some evidence on the property that it obviously was lifted when they put the house in probably to get a better view and they want to return it back to what it was. It's not a huge amount of regrading, but um they want they want to do that as part of the removal of that house. Um no plans for a future house, but um there's no requirement of such. So um pretty straightforward overall.

161>> I do not have a problem with it. How does the board feel? >> I don't. No problem. Okay. >> No. So, in the matter of 46 Hedges Banks LLC, 46 Hedges Banks Drive, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-25-2-3. I make a motion that the application go administratively. >> Second. >> Concur. Post-hering decisions for Mayor Trust and Mary and Ladier are going to be put on for next week's agenda. So, we're going to move on to Henry Proto. All of us have made a decision on this already. The only person now that needs to make a decision is member Kylie on Henry Proto 835 Montalk Highway, Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-52-1-10.3. Description is the modification of a 2016 zoning board of appeals approval to follow an asbuilt masonry staircase and stone

162wall to remain to construct fencing to remove a gravel patio and implement a reveation within 100 ft of a wetland. Believe sought is a modification of the zoning board's natural resource special permit and variances determined file determination filed November 2nd 2016. an NRSP pursuant to 255420 and additional variances of 4750 and 15 ft are needed from 255430 to allow a masonry staircase and stone wall to remain 53 ft and 50 ft from freshwater wetlands and to construct a fence 85 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 is required. Zoning district is B resident zone X flood zone secret class is type two member Kylie. >> Yes. After reviewing all the information associated with this property, I believe that the proposed regrading and additional drainage work as proposed by the town engineer addresses the storm water runoff

163as as much as can be addressed. In addition, uh the implementation of the planting plan as directed by the East Hampton Town Engineer provide enough mitigation for me to approve this application in its entirety. I believe it meets the criteria. >> Thank you, member Kylie. Council, are we good now for a resolution? It's a three to two to approve. >> Do you want to say one more? >> Just one additional note on on on the drainage. I would like to see if they would be amendable to doing a trough drain across the driveway to catch >> Sure. council realizes what you're saying. >> Trough add a drain across the driveway going to be considered. Yeah. So to slow down the water. >> Okay. Next is interpretations, other decisions. Cotton 287 Oldstone Highway in Springs Suffach

164County Tax Map number 300-83-2-21 designate an application >> that filled approximately 1300 square ft of wetland as a type 1 action and seek lead agency. >> Uh yes, so that's that's pretty much everything the board's going to be looking at today on this. This is a residential redevelopment. It's on Old Stone Highway. Um on the there was on the eastern portion of the property over here uh there was uh a driveway established sometime between 2010 and 2013 by a prior owner um that is and what it did at that time it filled approximately 1300 square feet of wetlands um directing directly uh direct filling or dewatering of wetlands is a type one action uh uh according to the eastampton town code um type one action list. Um, so at this point in time, the board

165simply just needs to uh designate it as a type one action uh and then request lead agency and then we'll move forward from that point with the SRA process. Okay. So, I'm going to direct council to prepare a resolution designating the application uh as a type one action under SRA and we seek lead agency. >> All right. We'll make a motion. >> Okay. You want me to do that for >> make an official motion. Okay. >> In the matter of cotton 287 Oldstone Highway in Spring, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-83-2-21, I'd like to make a motion to direct council to designate this application as a type one action under SRA and the zoning board of appeals seeks lead agency. >> I'm sorry. Second. >> I concur. >> Concur. Okay, next. Howard Morris, 24 Oyster

166Shores Road, East Hampton, Suffoc County Tax Map number 300-92-9-24. Um, this is pretty simple. I'm going to keep the uh going to make a motion to keep the record open until today for additional materials that were submitted and also close the public hearing. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. Building permit certificates of occupancy Rosanti 121 Mulford Lane Amagans at Suffach County Tax Map number 300-106-2-4 to determine if a CFO can be issued. >> Right. So Morgan did this one. I actually went to the property with her so I know some of it. Um this was a structure that the board actually denied. It was right along this property line. They moved it. Um so it's it's essentially out of the board's jurisdiction at this point and they did get a building permit to do that. Um

167the issue with the issuance of a SEO is that they are about 500 square feet short of their uh reveation plan. Um and they're slightly over on their total lot coverage. This whole area back here is gravel. It's like a gravel yard. Um so if they were to do the 500 ft of reveation, uh that would likely bring them under the total lot coverage issues that they're having. Um so it was a bit more than we were comfortable just telling them. We wanted to bring it to the board uh to either agree or disagree with our assessment that they should do their extra 500 ft of pre vegetation is essentially what we're asking for. >> I agree with the planning department's assessment. I think >> they will do the 500. >> So that's still going

168to be a condition of their CFO is what you're saying. >> No, they're going to have to do it before they >> do it before we sign off on a sign. >> I'm sorry I said it incorrectly, right? Yeah. Okay. >> So we're good with that. >> This is the survey. The letter will have to be forwarded to them. >> This was the original approval survey, just so you know. It looks like >> this doesn't need a motion, right? Does this need >> I think a letter will have to be forward. >> We'll work it out when >> Excuse me. Extensions of time. KeLLC 23 East Lake Drive, Mtok Suffer County Tax 300-20-2-12. extension of a 2022 determination. >> Uh yeah, we don't have any issues with this one. Um this was originally issued in

1692022. It was modified in 25. The work is underway. Um so it's really just you can see that the pool is in. Um they've been doing work. Um so it's really just to continue just to finish the work and get a seal. >> And this is this lot. We see the line on there. All the other work done is on the adjacent parcel. >> Correct. So, what we're looking at here is just the what's the guest house, garage, and a pool. >> Uh, the original three buildings TZ 23 is that one the first one. >> It was to construct a one story uh residence, a garage, >> the greenhouse was >> Well, that was the whole thing. Yeah. So, the Yeah. So, swimming pool, a trellis. >> So, yeah, essentially >> everything that's there right

170now that's on the property right now. So, they're I imagine getting close to G going for a >> CO. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Yeah. So, for Kez LLC at 23 East Lake Drive, Montalk Tax Map 300-20-212, make motion to approve the extension of time. >> Concur. Sebass Acquisitions LLC 633 Ship Brick Drive. Am I'm against it. Suffoc County tax map number 300-152-2-8.3 8.33. Sorry. Extension of a 2018 determination. >> Uh so yeah, this was originally issued uh in 2018. Uh it was to construct a 60-tory residence, attached garage, pool, spa, uh decking, planters, uh accessory structures. Um no building permit has been issued. Uh they're just looking to to maintain a valid permit. Um you can see the property is vacant. Um, so, uh, 2018 it's getting on the older side, but

171not, uh, not to the point where we take any significant look at it. 2018's not 10 years old yet. That's usually sort of the tipping point when when things start looking at a little bit more more uh, closely, but no issues. The environmental conditions are the same. >> So, can we have a motion? >> Yes. Um, in the matter of Seabbass Acquisitions LLC 63 ship shipwreck drive, amigance at Suffach County Tax Map 300-152-2-8.33. I make a motion to grant the extension of the 2018 determination. >> Second. >> Concur. Harbor Marina, 39 Gan Road in Spring, Suffoc County Tax Map number 300-57-6-27.1 extension of a 2023 determination. >> This was yes position 2023. So, this is the first year they need an extension of time. It was simply to replace uh maintain and replace the existing

172bulkheads on the property um with a slight increase in the height. Um fairly straightforward application at the time. Um no concerns. They have no no work has taken place yet. They just want to maintain the valid permit. >> I don't have a problem. No problem. >> Yeah. >> Jim, you want to make the sure motion >> in the matter of Harbor Marina 39 Gan Road Springs Upper County Tax Map number 300-57-6-27.1. Make a motion to >> Approve the extension. >> It's to approve the extension. Just a second to read right from the agenda. >> I concur. >> Denise, did you want to recuse yourself from that one though? Didn't you mention? >> No. No. You know what? I don't have to. >> I got my marinas confused. >> Oh, all right. >> Too many votes.

173Minutes approve. >> Minutes approval. Terry, >> to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, May 19th, 2026 for the Eastampton Town Zon and Board of Appeals. Second >> Concur. Resolutions. Lichton Family Trust 38 Surfside Avenue and Montalk up against tax map number 300-51-4 district. >> And remember the board will remember that this is the one where we had several considerations. One was a deck that required a sidelot variance. Another was a staircase and a retaining wall of uh of bags, sandbags that had to be removed and reconfigured. And the third was the uh walkway that led from the house down to the staircase. We approved as a as a board both the uh the side patio, the side deck that was there and the staircase and the removal of the bags. We all denied the walkway.

174Uh and um that's it. Uh so then in the matter of uh Liken Family Trust 38 Surfside Avenue Monttok Suff County Tax Map 300-51-4-3 I'd like to make a motion to accept the determination as written. >> Second >> Curtis 393 Cranberry Hall Road Amigans Suffach County Tax Map number 300-128-1-28.2. >> Thank you. We'll remember we made this decision very recently. This is the uh retreat or moving forward of the existing house structure um towards the road um and to remove uh a the geo the layers of geo cubes and then uh restore and replenish and restore the doom. So in the m this was a unanimous approval. Um, so in the matter of Curtis 393 Cranberry Hall Road, amigance at Suffach County Tax Map 300-128-1-28.2, I make a motion to accept the approve the resolution

175as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Vice chair, do we have an adjournment? you do. I'd like to make a motion to um adjourn to uh adjourn the um town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for June 2nd, 2026. Uh there are work or work session or um our hearing public hearings. I'm sorry. Let me start again. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the public hearings for the Montalk for the Montalk Talk. I'm reading everything wrong. for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for June 2nd, 2026 at 9:02 p.m. >> Second.