East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 05/19/2026

001Okay, zoning board, this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. I just want to let everybody know that you are live. You're recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. I'd like to welcome everyone to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of May 19th, 2026. We have three public hearings scheduled for tonight. The first one is Natalie Bar, 14 Calhill Lane in Wayne Scott, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-197-1-29.8. Description is to allow an existing pool patio to remain 11.1 feet from a rear yard lot line where 20 is required. Relief sought is a variance of 8.9 ft is required from 255 111 10 of the town code to allow pool patio to remain 11.1 ft from the rear yard lot line where 20 ft is required and

002any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a B residence zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two. [snorts] Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Uh, yes. I review the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Member Kylie, do you have a field inspection? >> I do. >> This is the property at 14 Cow Hill Lane. Uh, it is properly posted. The posting is actually showing a little wilt from today's heat, but it was upright at one point. Next slide. That is the front elevation of the house. House faces north. Next slide. This is entering the gate into the backyard. Uh pool is an east [clears throat] west configuration. You can

003see the attached pergola and outdoor kitchen. Next slide. a little closer uh photo of the pool patio. And the pool actually has built-in cover, which is gray. And you can start to see uh the extension of the patio to the south. Next slide. And just a continuation of of that patio east. Next photo. And this would be the the west property line just showing the pool within the setbacks for the the west. >> That's it. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> Good evening. Uh members of the board, Jameson McWills from the Adam Miller Group. Um good to see you all. Um I am here representing Natalie and Brett Bar. Uh they're the owners of 14 Cow Hill Road in Wayne Scott. Um they've owned the property

004for over 20 years. Um and I wanted to just note I think this is yes, the most recent um updated survey is the April 27th, 2026, which is this one. Um specifically, I'm just going to note because it was raised in the TAM. Um there was an additional concrete pad right where he's moving the cursor around that has been removed. Um so we updated the survey that did have a um little ping pong table on it but not worth it. So we removed it. Um, so in December of 2024, the Bars builder submitted a building permit application to the town, uh, requesting a permit to demo an outdoor barbecue area, build a 918 square foot open pergola with outdoor fireplace and outdoor barbecue area, and a 500 square ft patio addition to all applicable codes.

005Um just a short two months later actually on February 10th, 2025, uh building permit number 77099 was issued for the same. Um and it was relying on a Michael Wix survey which was dated December 9th, 2024 showing the proposed patio extension and the proposed open pergola located 10 ft from the rear south property line. Um so I think we all realize now that those permits should not have been issued because they did not meet the double setback. Um after the work was completed per the approved permits um the bars submitted to the building department to close out the permits to get their CO. And it was then that the building department advised them of the following um which is from an email from Dawn Green dated September 2nd, 2025. um which it stated in part

006the pool patio/p pergola does not meet the required 20 foot setbacks for East Hampton Town section 25511 10 attachment 4.1 note 8 see attached which is the footnote in the dimensional table um in order to be single and separate it would need to have a 10-ft separation from the pool/pool patio um so was also then you So it wasn't them directly, it was their contractor. So they went back and forth a little bit and it was explained to them verbally that you know you had two options either well you had a few options. One of them was to do that to try to separate the structures but that it would have to be separated by 10 ft or they could remove the patio from underneath the pergola side of it. Um so as is probably

007clear now the construction uh was all permitted and built per the approved specs [snorts] um and both alternatives offered by the building department after you know the mistake was discovered um are not actually possible. The pool patio cannot be separated from the pool by 10 ft. Um if you you know looking at the survey and just sort of understanding the scale and the the how close the edge of the pool coping is to the covered portion. Um and the patio under the pergola also cannot be removed without you know removing the entire very expensive very you know wellbuilt structure on top. Um so they contacted me and we applied for this variance. Um, I also, just as a note, I personally requested an interpretation of the building inspector as to the application of that 10-ft

008separation. Um, whether that actually applies or not in this case. Um, but I never got a response. So, I was trying to find other alternatives. Um, but I got here first. So, we're here requesting the variance. Um, so just working through the variance standards. Uh the grant of this variance will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. This portion of the rear yard has historically been used um either by the prior barbecue area. So this was a sort of an upgrade. So the application was to remove a barbecue area and then build this. Um there were they have children so there was a swing set there at one point. There was other backyardy kind of things. Um, so in terms of using that portion

009of the property, I I think it always has been used in one way or another. Um, also specifically, um, to nearby properties, the adjacent neighbor to the south, I kind of looked through the historic aerials. Um, very recently, like that's always sort of been their driveway area was looked sort of like a dirt driveway, but more recently, the specific area um, abudding this exact portion of the yard was paved and it's now like a parking area. So really [clears throat] just 10 feet to the south and then a couple of extra feet. There's it's now being used to park cars. Um so I don't really think that that's a an area of the yard that could really have much harm based on this use. Um the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by

010some method other than an area variance. um as I discussed short of completely removing the previously approved asbuilt structure at this point um because we did try to consider some alternatives um the requested variance I don't know maybe it's substantial because it is uh almost half of what is required but clearly that was the accident that was made was because they were relying on a 10-ft setback um So that one it's up for debate. Um the grant of the variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Um there is no potential for negative environmental impacts here in my opinion. Um and the difficulty causing the applicant to request the variance was not self-created um in the sense that >> they would not have built this

011had they not gotten permits. My uh client is actually very meticulous, very careful. She was very upset when this happened. She went to every one of the inspections along the way with all the footings and everything. So, um it's not like we did this um without permits. They relied on the permits. Um and that's pretty much what I have. Thank you. Does the board have any questions? >> Yeah, I have one. Um you said twice said that this was built as per the building permit. So, if we were to look at the building permit that had been issued, this is in the spot that's on the building permit. It didn't vary by 2 or 3 feet. >> Well, good question. It varied by 1.1 ft in the right direction. >> So, you got an approval

012to be at 10T, but you're at 11. >> Yes, we do. Um, and that that should be in the paperwork somewhere. Um, the approved set of plans with the stamped approved WIC survey. And for whatever reason, how the construction ended up, it ended up at 11.1, but it was approved at 10 ft. >> And the distance between this covered patio and the pool, I was out there, it's uh it's probably only 10 or 12 feet now, right? So >> that's right. And that's why I was trying to um have a conversation with someone in the building department about whether that was the correct application of this 10-ft separation which is in two places in the code. One of them it is specific to accessory buildings. So in my estimation, it was possible that if we

013could have been allowed per the building department to separate the pool and the pool the pool patio from this by any anything less than 10 so that it was actually feasible on the site. We were willing to explore that more and that was potentially not going to work anyway because of how the concrete is poured and how the structure sits on top of it. But we were trying to find something easier, quicker, perhaps less expensive than going this route. Um, but I couldn't get a response on that question. So, it's still up in the air there. >> So, I think you're saying that if you were to get a response from the building department and let's say they said it's, "Oh, no, it's not 10, it's five foot separation." I'm just making that up. Yeah.

014um you would be willing to be able to separate them. >> Well, to be honest, that was what I was trying to ascertain first to know if it was possible, you know, sort of legally from the building department's perspective before we really got a formal answer out of like the construction slash slash not that we had an engineer involved, but somebody that did all those footings. Um, I don't want to say I I would say yes, we were willing to explore that. And I think my client, it wasn't her first choice for two reasons. There's children in the sort of like the stroller capacity, although you don't really stroll your kids around in the rear yard, but there's also a parent in a wheelchair. So, she really actually did not want to do that, but

015she was willing to if that was sort of the only option. But I did sort of get feedback that it really wasn't a good idea structurally. But still they we would have explored it further. But then we got this public hearing and I thought let's just try this because maintaining the status quo actually would have be preferable. >> I think we're ready to hear from the planning department. Thank you. >> Thank you Jameson. Jay Kushner with the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. So, we don't have too much to add here. Um, as Jameson mentioned, a building permit was issued in February 2025 for the demo of that outdoor barbecue area, the pergola, and the 500 foot patio addition. That patio is

016the um structure in need of relief. The structures were built according to the approved plans aside from that patio setback. They were approved at 10. It was built at 11.1. Um but it's a larger setback from that property line. Again, it appears this permit may have been issued in error. Um pools patios are require a double setback, which would be 20 ft in this case. Um the patio does meet all other dimensional regulations in the town code. Again, that slate patio located 4 foot from the southern lot line has been removed. Um and there's a large row of screen trees along that rear yard property line kind of screening this from you from the affected neighbor. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you may have. >> Do you have any idea how far

017from their property line the uh southern residence is? The residence on the southern lot is >> I'm not I'm not positive off the top of my head. [clears throat] >> Questions for Jake? >> No. Okay. Thank you, Jake. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? >> Yes. >> Come forward, sir. You can state your name for the record and I will swear you in. >> My name is Adrien Sanchez and I'm the owner of the south property of uh >> I have to swear you in. >> Sure. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Can you start again, please? So, my name is Adrien Sanchez and I'm uh the owner of

018the property in the south side of uh 14 coil and um I'm not opposed to the that varian I what I want to mention is I did approach to that building department when that um structure was being built because I saw some like I beams and stuff like that being erected on the on the back of the property that it was like way higher than you know I [clears throat] like it it is a massive paragola right now and um so I did approach to them and they told me that they have been permitted to it. I always thought that it was like a you know 20 foot setback for that and they told me that as long as it meets permit it will be okay and again I'm not opposed to to you know

019the application that they proposing as long as I think that every house in the neighborhood it will be treated the same way you know like uh with that with the same setbacks or the same things. I know that right now we don't have nothing as she mentioned before is a paved and we're using it for parking spaces but down the road you know I would like to do a garage or something like that there. So I don't know if um the board will consider it to you know if this goes through um to to have the same um let's say uh privileges you know with the remaining um houses in the neighborhood >> you're saying if you do the work you'd like to see that you would be allowed to have a 10-ft setback just

020as this would be they're petitioning for >> well it's not like Uh, I'm not trying to negotiate anything. It's just I'm I was I'm thinking that we should be treated in the same way if this goes through. That's that's all what I'm saying. You know, >> well, just for the record, every everybody that comes before us is not in compliance with the code. >> And the way we ascertain whether or not to approve or deny is whether or not they meet the standards before this board. If they do, they'll get granted. And you'll be you'll have the same privilege when you come before us >> if you need any kind of relief. >> Okay. >> You will be looked at the same way we're looking at this application this evening. >> Yeah. >> And if

021you meet the standards, >> you will get approved and if you don't, you'll get denied. >> Okay. Yeah. No, that and I support what she say, you know, like we tried to get an answer from the building department. It was really hard to get an straight answer from them. Mhm. >> Um, you know, they say like briefly say like, well, if it meets permit, it should be fine. Okay. Like I just think that it's really close to my property line because >> even the fence I think in one side of the property, the fence that they have is like over a foot over my property if I'm not wrong. M >> I think that in that farther end of the property is like uh that that actual fence is like 12 in over my my

022property. What you know I don't mind I don't mind it one more time but I think that all the houses on that neighborhood should be treated the same way. That's it. >> We appreciate your comments. Thank you. >> Show us where which property. >> Sir, I'm sorry. I I can't really tell from the survey how many property. So you're abuting Sorry, you're saying your property, the rear of your property abuts this property. Is that what you were saying? >> Uh yes. >> Yeah. >> Just want to make sure because there's a couple lots. Thank you. >> What is your address? >> 11 Bathgate. 11. >> Okay. right here. That's his house. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um and I I could add to the record the setback if you wanted a garage just so he's

023aware. It's 10 ft. >> Mhm. >> So it would be the same setback as this. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. And I'm not sure what we're going to do right now, you know, like we got the property and we're trying to figure it out first and stuff like that. But yeah. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. Umay [gasps] Jam. Uh Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Jameson, would you like to have any additional comments? I don't think I have any additional comments. I'm happy to. I I I hear what the um neighbor is saying and actually unfortunately he could have been the one that could have gotten the building department's attention before more of the work had progressed >> because clearly he noticed it and

024and was spot on that the >> that the permit was issued an error. Um but unfortunately, you know, we're sort of now all stuck with the realization after the fact that it's as built. Um but beyond that I don't have any other comments >> cited for the setback. It does meet pyramid. >> Um, >> it wasn't. >> You mean like the pergola meeting >> pergola? I don't know. >> Wasn't cited for it, >> right? No. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. How tall do you know how the tall the top of the >> uh I You know what? I probably could find it in the approved plans. Do you have them? >> Yeah. >> No. What is that? are the approved plans from the building department's file in the >> file even before us.

025So >> nobody as long as it's not more than 11. >> I can check the files if it's in a good idea. >> Yeah, it's okay. >> Okay, thanks Jameson. Member colleague, do you want to make a motion to close the public hearing and record? >> Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. In the matter of 14 Cow Hill Lane Wayne Scott, I'd like to make a motion. >> Got to read the Suffach County Tax Map. >> Suffach County Tax Map 300-197-1-29.8. The uh applicant Natalie Bar uh close the public hearing. >> Make a motion to close the public hearing and record. >> Make a motion >> And the record. You said that and >> second. Okay. And I concur. >> Concur. >> Thank you. >> Still calculating the 345. >> Yeah, exactly. [laughter] >> It just

026takes a little practice. >> Okay. >> Next public hearing is Howard Morris, 24 Oyster Shores Road in East Hampton. Oops. Let me go back. Suff County tax map number 300-92-9-24. Description is to cons to construct a propane tank and a 328 ft swimming pool with associated pool fence and equipment and to allow an existing gate propane tank and AC unit to remain on a property containing a title wetland. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 variances from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks and 25511 of the town code and any other relief necessary. Variances of 97.1 feet and 49.7 feet are required to construct the pool fence and swimming pool 2.9 ft and 50.3 ft from wetlands in variances of 100 ft 58.9 ft and 47.2 ft to allow a gate AC unit

027and propane tank to remain 0 feet 41.1 ft and 52.8 and 8 ft from wetlands where a 100t setback is required. Two two variances of 9.5 ft and 8.4 ft are needed to construct the pool equipment and swimming pool 21.6 ft and 20.5 ft from the southern front yard lot line where 30 is required. One variance of 1.4 ft is required to allow the swimming pool deck to be 18.6 ft from the northern property line where 20 ft is required. The zoning district is B residence X flood zone AE elevation 6 secret class is type two council is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Yes, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. I

028did this field inspection so I will go forward. Uh, as you can see, it was properly posted. Next, please. This is um the front of the residence. It also has a carport. And behind me is Oyster Shores Road. Next, please. Yeah, this is another angle. Uh, same thing, though. I just wanted to give you a sense of the structure we're talking about. Next, please. Okay, this is um an existing fixed dock with a floating dock beyond and it's also the location of the title wetland boundary. This is a view looking east toward ThreeMile Harbor. Next, please. This is a continuation of those tidal wetland boundaries and I'm still looking east toward ThreeMile Harbor. Next, please. This is to another location of um you can still see that fixed dock and we're still dealing with I

029couldn't do a panoramic. I should have but it's I'm just trying to demonstrate the whole wetland boundary uh that exists there. Uh next please. Okay, we're actually looking at the approximate location of the lapool. It's um also a view of the applicant's residence looking west of the approximate location of the proposed conservation easement. There's a lot going on here. Next, please. This is um again um just giving you a sense of the structure we're looking at. And this is um I guess you would say the front of the property since Three Mile is right there. Next, please. This is the uh portion of the um deck portion of the deck and twoft wide step is going to be removed to be replaced with the lap pool. So you're literally going to eliminate a section of

030that at the end and that's going to be the uh location of the uh lap pool. Next, please. Okay, this is the um location of the proposed This is where the pool equipment is uh enclosure is going to go. It's also the location of the proposed dry well. And this is the southern side of the residence looking north. Next, please. Okay, this was a beautiful, beautiful tree. [laughter] That's not why I took the picture, though. This is actually the area of the proposed location of the propane tank which is actually going to be left of this beautiful tree we're looking at. Next, please. Okay. I tried to get as best of view I could. Um, this is beyond the tree where you just saw there's going to be a a pool fence and beyond that

031is going to be a conservation easement that's being proposed. Next, please. This is again um a view of three mile and also there's a lot of open land in the rear here where um the conservation easement will be. Next, please. Okay, this is the gate that is before us tonight. Um, and uh I I'm I'm going to definitely have some questions about that gate. Next, please. This is the I think it's the wetland boundary view from the south side of the property looking north. >> Yeah. >> Next, please. This is actually the neighbor um the neighbor's house. Um and I think that might be my last photo, which by the way does have a pool and as you can see a very groomed lawn. Next, please. I think that might be it though. Okay. Thank

032you, Morgan. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> Good evening. Just identify yourself for the record. >> Yes. My name is John Huber, attorney for the applicant with the firm of Balsam Schmid and Huber. I have two of the green cards. I don't know if Mr. Collins would like those. >> Sure. >> Thank you, sir. [snorts] >> Okay, sir. Uh, I know your time is valuable. I always endeavor to be brief. So, tonight I'm going to shoot for 10 minutes and and move through this very quickly. Uh, I appreciate that the harder I work, the easier it is for you to do your job. So, when we made our submission back in, uh, January, I prepared a very thorough memorandum that digests all of the underlying circumstances, the NRSP criteria,

033the variance criteria, um, all of the evidence that we have. And so, my point here tonight is to hit the highlights of my memo. And if the board said, "Gee, something he said caught my interest," it's all in here. And you can go back uh at your convenience and take a look at that if you choose to do so. Uh so, good evening, chair and board members. John Huber of Boston Schmidt and Yuber, offices in East Hampton and Port Jefferson Village, attorneys for applicant Howard Morse, owner of the subject premises at 24 Oyster Shores Road. We request a natural resources special permit and wetland setback and dimensional variances to install a modest 8ft by 41 ft lap pool with related accessory improvements uh and to maintain minor existing accessory structures on the pre-existing corner waterfront

034parcel. For purposes of tonight's hearing, I'll just touch on the highlights of the memo. Uh at the outset, I'd like to emphasize three things for you. No wetlands will be disturbed. All proposed work is entirely within the upland areas and the application produces substantial net environmental benefit through extensive reveation and a permanent conservation easement. If I may, I want to go up to the survey and I can just orient you very quickly uh about the existing structures and what we're proposing and it might help to make a little sense as I move through this. So this is the proposed pool. Uh and what we're doing is in so to avoid disturbing any other portions of the property, we're removing a section of the deck and nestling the pool inside you. Up here we have a

035propane tank and a air conditioning condensing unit. One of the things that I will emphasize is here's the nearest wetland boundary on the subject property. The the real horns of this is that the wetlands on the abuing property to the north are where we have so we're 50 feet from flag number two for the proposed pool. Um the for example the propane tank is 52.8 feet from the wetland's boundary on the budding parcel etc. I think the propane tank that originally proposed for here has been relocated. One of the things that's interesting this is a corner lot so it has two front yards but since this is a budding three mile harbor this becomes one of the front yards. This is a rear this is a front yard. Uh one of the photos that you

036took uh chair was of this area where we're proposing the pool equipment. Uh it's it's nicely secured on the side of the house on the south in a well vegetated buffered area so there's no adverse visual impact. The drywall for the pool is here beyond the wetland setback. Uh the here's the proposed LPG tank to be buried in the front yard so it has no visual impact and it meets the setbacks. It's 33.4. So that familiarizes the board in some extent about the structures that we're proposing. One of the uh things I'd like to do at this point so I don't interrupt as I go forward. The TAM was very very well done and it it highlighted for me some of the extra work that I needed to do to present to you tonight. So,

037what I'd like to do is hand up to you. Um, I have one packet from Morgan and if I may, I'd like to hand these up to the board. I have five copies here. >> Could you give one to our secretary, please? >> Of course. Thank you, Mr. Ether. >> Thank you. >> And just so the board is is comfortable, I know you like to have all the materials. These are materials that were they're very simple and they were just to emphasize certain points that were made in the PAM and our responses and I will address those as I move forward. Uh this is a uniquely constrained waterfront corner lot. First developed in 1968, decades before the town's modern harbor protection and natural resource special permit regulations, the parcel is narrow and irregularly shaped, subject

038to multiple front yard setback conditions. It is consistent with historical development patterns in the neighborhood, and it's impacted by wetland migration from the neighboring Salomon property to the north at 26 Oyster Shores Road. Importantly, the nearest wetland flag on applicant's own property is approximately 90.3 ft from the proposed pool. So on our property, the wetland boundary is here. That's the is 90.3 ft. So we would only need a 10ft uh variance to position the pool at that location. 100 ft being the target for the uh weapon setback. Most of the variance calculations that I'm here to discuss are driven primarily by the offsite wetlands on the abuing Salomon property to the north. This distinction is critical to understanding the practical nature of the requested relief. We appreciate Morgan's thoughtful review and her April 23rd TAM.

039Importantly, the TAM recognizes several key facts favorable to the approval. The property presents a unique mitigation opportunity. The proposed reveation would provide significant environmental benefits. The proposed conservation easement is well suited to the site. And the application advances the restoration goals embodied in town code section 2551-11, which specifies the purposes of the town zoning ordinance. Consistent with the TAM, as suggested by Morgan, we have revised the reveg plan. Uh, and that's one of the documents I handed up to you. We've eliminated uh the little blue stem and the barberry with more woody vegetation. And for the record, I've handed up copies of that revised reveation plan. It's dated May 15, 2026. with the revised veg plan. I've also handed up some labeled existing conditions photo packets taken on May 8th when we posted the public

040hearing signs. Those photos depict there's a a very similarly situated swimming pool on the Salomon property to the north. And that's the first photo packet I've handed up. And that shows the pool that's existing. Um so if our pool's here, that pool is probably right about here. the photographs that I handed up to the board. You can see uh I I'll [clears throat] actually get into that in a little bit rather than dissect it at this point. But the remaining issues raised in the TAM primarily concern the magnitude of certain setback variances and whether alternative locations were considered for some of the proposed and existing structures. uh as you explained to the gentleman that spoke from the community, we have the criteria to satisfy for the area variance and I believe that we very nicely

041satisfy those. The the TAM correctly notes that some of the wetland setback variances are numerically substantial. The requested variances however are functionally minimal. And this is uh we have to wrestle with this often when we consider these variances because although numerically a variance seems substantial if you look at the practical effect of the structure as proposed often we find as in this case that there's no practical adverse impact. So in that sense the board's objective is to evaluate the practical impact and balancing of the benefits versus detriments. Here the practical impacts are minimal because the pool is unusually modest and low impact. This is not a conventional luxury pool. It's only 8 ft wide. It's uniformly shallow at about 4 feet. It's partially integrated into the existing deck and it's designed specifically for lap swimming

042and exercise. It has no meaningful vertical mass, negligible visual impact, minimal additional coverage and no wetland disturbance whatsoever. Existing site conditions already divi def defin define the developed area. The existing house and deck have occupied this area for nearly 60 years. One of the thing that's interesting is because we notched out the deck to locate the pool closer to the house, that converts the deck to a pool deck, which now triggers what is normally the double setback since it's a pool deck. It's 18 ft 18.6 feet from the northern boundary. It's not being moved, nor is its footprint being expanded. It's simply because we notched out the deck to put the pool in there. need for the variance for that uh deck. The pool is being tucked immediately adjacent to the to the existing improvements,

043not extending development outward into undisturbed wetland areas. The application includes extraordinary mitigation. Unlike many variance applications, this proposal gives back environmentally with 7,039 square feet of native species reveg as indicated on the reveation plan. And on the survey, this is the reveg buffer, the land word of the um white flags. And then we are also going to prepare and report county clerk's office a conservation easement which covers 10,800 square ft of the rear area back here. We're going to eliminate uh the maintained lawn near the wetlands. There will be no fertilizer, no structures, no clearing in the conservation easement. We have because of the native reveg improved runoff buffering and habitat enhancement. The TAM one of the things that the TAM does is ask whether alternative locations were considered for the various structures and the

044answer is yes. We worked very very hard to examine all of the alternatives and to exploit any opportunities that existed. Multiple alternative layouts and configurations were evaluated, including a larger traditional pool, a narrower pool alignment, relocating the pool farther south that would have set property line. So, we positioned it so that it would be 21.6 ft north of the southern property boundary. uh positioning the pool [clears throat] north more so it aligned exactly with the deck. But in order to increase the distance from wetland flag number two on the neighboring property, we shifted the pool as far south as we could to increase that distance. Now, the fencing which the uh TAM does address is the pool fence. The pool fence, which is a the New York State code requirement for safety, uh is here's

045the pool fence right along the property line. It's 2.9 ft south of flag number three on the Abuing property. Mhm. >> That's perhaps the most offensive aspect of uh the the proposal. >> No, >> the current design was selected because it minimizes environmental disturbance and maximizes wetland separation. In addition, the proposed pool is in keeping with existing neighborhood conditions. For example, one of the photo packets I submitted moments ago depicts the similarly situated pool on the Salomon property. This is that photograph. And the pool in that photograph is here almost identically to where we're posing it on our property. That's photo number one. Photo two actually is zoomed in a little bit so you can see. This is the pool on the side of that house at the rear. This is the wetland boundary flag

046right here, right adjacent to where their pool fence is. And then the final photograph in that package, just another perspective looking at the existing [clears throat] pool on. So this is our property. This is the Morris property. And here's the pool on the abuing property. And here's that fence that shows up in photo number three or photo number two. As for applicants proposed pool fence, it's legally required safety feature. It's low profile and permeable. It doesn't alter grades. It doesn't impede drainage. It introduces no runoff or pollutants and it sits landward of the proposed conservation easement area. So all of the proposed conservation the reveg and the conservation area is east. And here's the pool fence. So that's basically the the boundary, if you will, of all of the environmental remediation that has occurred at

047least. >> Well, okay. And it's considerably far from the pool, >> right? >> Well, let can please let you finish. Sure. We'll let you finish and then I definitely have questions. >> I'm sure that's actually the next point I was going to make. relocating the um fence substantially farther west from here to here is so they're giving up a lot of property back here that they have used for decades and decades as part of a conservation easement. The only access to there will be this 4ft pathway >> that to get to their dock. Relocating the fence substantially west would compress the already constrained usable upland area and interfere with the existing residence and deck relationship. Uh the fence itself has no ecological impact as for the gate that the property. So two things I wanted

048to do in response to the T. We updated the revet plan to eliminate the little blue stem and we are going to eliminate this gate here. Um the gate. All right. Which gate? What? >> So um so according to the plan at the southeast corner of the property, there was one eliminating. Okay. Good. >> Was the board wouldn't have jurisdiction over it because it's located on >> Yeah. So you're eliminating that. >> And that was just for maint for access. If if the residents here uh are out walking, they could go out that back gate and go stroll along South Pond, etc. So what we did is we relocated it onto the property so the board would have jurisdiction, but the TAM indicates some concern because the gate is here right at the wetlands, >>

049right? >> So I think that's a fair ask. So we'll eliminate the gate and that eliminates one of the variances that we were asking for. We also eliminated another variance by putting the propane tank here. >> Are they underground? >> Yes. Okay. This this proposed tank is underground. Okay. >> Right. >> Now, okay. As soon as you're done, I have a question. >> Okay. I am going to move along very quickly. >> Yes. I >> So, we're eliminating the gate at the southeast corner. With respect to the small propane tank and the air conditioner on the north side of the property here, um I want to underscore that they have been there in that location for a decade or more without incident. And I further bought the second packet of photos that I gave you.

050And what that shows, this is also taken just about a week ago, is how densely vegetated that northern boundary is that separates our parcel from the parcel to the north. And [clears throat] that basically that pool on [snorts] this northern property is located right in here on the other side of this vegetation. So in photo one that shows you the AC condenser here and the propane tank is on the other side of this fence. And then the second photo shows how densely here's the propane tank and that uh is for the hot water heater that they have hot water in the house and it's approximate to that densely vegetated northern boundary. The TAM properly notes the sensitivity of three Mile Harbor in the vicinity. This application directly addresses those concerns. Today, the site contains substantial

051maintained lawn extending toward the wetland. Under this proposal, thousands of square feet of lawn will be replaced with native vegetation. Fertilizers will be eliminated, runoff filtration will be greatly improved, and long-term ecological protection will be permanently secured to the recorded conservation easement. In practical terms, the environmental condition of the property after approval will be materially superior to existing conditions. This is an important point. The application does not simply avoid environmental harm. It affirmatively improves the site. The New York State DEEC has already reviewed this exact proposal and issued a title wetlands permit and associated variances. Uh the project is classified as a type two under SRA. While the town must independently apply its code standards, the DEEC approval remains persuasive evidence [gasps] that the pro proposal is environmentally manageable, mitigation is meaningful, and the wetlands

052resource will remain protected. for variances under town law 267B and town code 260 uh 255-8-50. The board must balance the benefit to the applicant against any detriment to the neighborhood or the environment. My memo carefully examines this balance summarized as follows. The benefit is reasonable. Applicant seeks only modest residential recreational use consistent with surrounding waterfront properties. The detriment is negligible. There will be no wetland filling, no grading in wetlands, no increase in runoff impacts, no meaningful visual intrusion, and no adverse neighborhood character impact. The improvements are consistent with outlying conditions in the neighborhood. Exhibit one attached to my memo [snorts] uh has pages of examples of outlying properties on both sides of Three-Mile Harbor that have similar conditions and and that have existed for decades. Uh the environmental upside is exceptional. The application creates permanent

053ecological restoration, conservation restrictions, and measurable reductions in nonconforming clearing. In many respects, this is exactly the kind of value added environmental improvement that should be encouraged. For all these reasons and particularly in light of the substantial environmental mitigation uh recognized even within the TAM itself, we request that the board grant the NRSP the variances and any other reading that you think is appropriate. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. First of all, um the one thing I'd like to bring up and discuss in terms of uh clearing limits is the fact that we're in an H pod zone. And of course, you know the importance of that. >> I do. >> It's primarily tied to protecting the water quality, ecosystems, and long-term coastal resilience in the town's harbors and ponds. So from the TAM you're reducing

054the clearing limits from 28,823 to 18,896 where the maximum clearing limits for the lot of this size is 10,423. Now you know the benefit of the revge on this lot it will provide significant environmental benefits. So would you be amanable to [snorts] let me get my survey on this um site plan before us? Would you be amanable to [clears throat] bringing additional um reveitation up to the FEMA zone? Di so could you increase it because there's a and let me just finish there's a lot of property between >> this area and the lap pool >> I see >> where we could actually increase because it's in a harbor protection overlay district we could increase this is just my opinion the reveation and if we would you be amunable to moving it up to and of

055course the silk fence would be move bringing it up to that FEMA zone. >> It's an excellent question. If I understand correctly, this little triangular piece here is what you're talking here's the FEMA zone. This is exactly what I'm talking about. >> So basically this is all the conservation >> all the way to here. This is the revege zone. So, if we added this little triangular piece here, it would bring uh the pool fence to here. >> You'd be that much closer to clearing limits. >> To be straight with you, chair, I am not authorized at this point to communicate, but my clients are exceedingly reasonable. And if they and like for example, when I read the TAM, I said, "Look, the board is going to be concerned about the gate." They said, "Look, if

056you need to get rid of the gate, we don't need it." Uh, I would be delighted to confer with them if you wanted to leave the record open. And then what that would result for me is I need to give you a revised revge plan >> and a revised site plan showing where the operative things would be. For example, I guess the pool fence would be located right on the line. And my particular concern is because it's in a harbor protection overlay district. So it would make the lot that more that much more environmentally sensitive. If you feel that this is something that would please the board, I think it's a reasonable certainly to consider and I would be happy to go and confer with my client and I could probably give you an answer

057as early as at whatever form you would like that response. um by Friday perhaps I can reach out to my clients and on as soon as possible to get their consent for that and I could submit the revised appreciate that. >> Does the board have any other questions? >> Uh no, it'll be reveg and the fence. >> Oh yes, and the fence obviously would move as well. >> Sil fence temporary and and the pool fence permanently to be consistent. >> I I'm encouraged. I think my client would agree to it, but I can't speak for them. I understand that the record and I'd be happy to approach them. >> Oh, thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Um would you go ahead >> one more? So, thank you for uh saying that you considered

058other alternatives to either reduce or eliminate certain variances. But could you just go through I mean because I could I'm not here to redesign this for you but I can look at the survey and you know so could you just talk a little bit more about what you considered course and why and it doesn't have to be at length but just you know specifically for a few of the key >> and I could refer you to also in my memo I have I think >> it's just pool design alternatives comparison table I gave all the so that's on page But I will quickly run through those. So a standard size pool 6 to 8 ft deep located further seawward in the properties east of the yard. So this pool theoretic I'm not espousing that this

059would have been viable, but the pool could have been a full fullsize pool out here. >> Clearly not optimal. Let's revise that. >> We'll take that one. >> Uh size and improve location. So, one of the designs I did mention to the pool rather than being here was out and up and abuted right up against. So, we said we could do a little bit better there. Let's move it down and in closer to the house um without the partial deck removal. So, then it would have been let's keep the deck out, I mean the pool out here a little bit. And then we said we could do even better here and get the 90.3 get up to that by notching out the deck and inserting the pool. Um, and then we settled on removing the

060portion of the deck and inserting the pool. So those were the primary design alternatives that we looked at. >> I think we're ready to hear from the planning department. >> Thank you, Mr. Yuber. >> Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. You're very welcome, Morgan. >> Good evening, board. Morgan Slater for the planning department. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. The properties on the corner of Oyster Shores and South Pond Road within the head of the harbor area of Three-Mile Harbor, and it contains title wetlands associated with the harbor. The application is for a swimming pool within minimum wetland setbacks, which warrants a high level of review because there have been few pools approved within minimum wetland setbacks since these regulations were established. The subject

061property and many of the properties on Oyster Shores Road were constructed in the 60s before modern zoning, which has resulted in many of these parcels being non-conforming to minimum wetland setbacks. The requested variance for the pool is substantial, but it is in the same ballpark as the wetland setback variance that was granted for the swimming pool on the neighboring parcel to the north at 26 Oyster Shores back in 2012. I do have a typo in my TAM on the address on that. I had it at 36 Oyster Shorts. It is 26 Oyster Shores. Uh that application also included a wetland buffer and easement as mitigation, though it does appear to be maintained and has not been naturalized. It's not really something that should impact, you know, the board's consideration of that mitigation on the subject

062parcel. Um, there's only so much, you know, oversight that we could have with these things. I think, you know, it does at the end of the day come down to the homeowners being good stewards of their land. Uh, that application, um, again, that was approved back in 2012. Uh this parcel is within the harbor overlay district and three harbor is a locally significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. So improving the buffer to the wetland with a 7,000t revitation would be extremely beneficial to the tidal wetland habitat. Additional reveation is worth considering since the proposed clearing limits are still more than what the minimum permitted is in each pod. The area is known to have water quality issues and one way to improve the water quality is to improve the tidal wetland buffers with woody vegetation.

063Um pulling back and looking at an aerial of this general area, you will see that a lot of the properties do have pre-existing non-conforming clearing uh to the tidal wetlands and that is definitely an impact on the overall water quality in this area. So it does present uh a good opportunity to improve um the environmental conditions in this little corner of the harbor. the revitation plan submitted uh it was revised to include more woody vegetation and some species that are more frequently found within and around the title wetlands but it sounds like that we may need to revise that uh again if we're going to include it uh the A flood zone just I mean I don't know if what the board would like to see as far as the submission timeline but if >>

064the the planning department would be okay with the condition of approval prior to the issues of building permit being a revate as long as the area is agreed upon on prior to a decision. Um, the pool area also needs multiple dimensional variances from the side and front yard and whether there are alternative designs that would eliminate or reduce these variances should be considered. I do um believe that this application does walk a pretty tight line between you know a proposal that may not be best suited for such a constrained lot while also proposing a large environmental benefit to the area. Um, it is a very tight balancing test. Um, >> other than that, I can answer any questions board may have about the property or its environment. Does the board have any questions? >> They

065do. >> What kind of septic system do they have? I don't >> I think that it's the traditional cesspool. Um, >> I think that there may have been a small notation about a [clears throat] sept. Oh, yeah. It >> says something about a flag down here. Yeah. >> So, it's a standard, >> I believe. So, yeah. And there there wasn't any notation on the building history about an upgrade happening anytime recently. the uh you you've had a chance to look at the building I mean at the landscape [clears throat] plant and you mentioned there's going to be maybe an accommodation now done if we change the the parameters of it but uh as far as the composition of the plants composition of the plants is this an improvement on something and you're you're happy with

066what we see here the backaris and the >> I mean it's definitely better like in the original plan there was some bayberry proposed like actually within the wetland boundary it doesn't typically like being that wet ground flow would be better suited to that specific area. Um I think that there is room for more woody vegetation on top of what was just submitted. Um it still seems like a majority of it is going to be grasses just for the sake of naturalizing the and acting as a better buffer. We do usually recommend a more woody vegetation in the buffer. [laughter] >> When was this house built? You may have said it. >> Yes. 1968 I think the building permit was issued for its construction. >> And your TAM says that the current owner acquired the property

067sometime around 2000. So I was looking in the existing conditions memo. Um but I don't see I don't think I saw well there might be historic but can you just how has this sorry has the clearing changed or increased over time since 2000? Uh I think that there has historically been clearing beyond the wetland boundary on the lot. There was a zoning board application or zoning board approval in 2002 that a I think a condition of approval was no more mowing within the wetland. >> Right. >> Um that doesn't seem to have been adhered to based on our uh site visits. >> That could be a condition of approval if we approve. >> And and what the chair suggested or asked Mr. for he to consider with his client. Um, is are you able to

068I mean I can sort of look at the but do you know what x number of thousand uh feet? >> Um I'm curious how much closer >> it looks like. I I can't really say off the top of my head. I mean it would probably be around ballpark at least a thousand I'd say. Um just based on the area north of the pathway that they're showing is 1700. It's smaller than that. So >> and Oyster Shores that's considered a rear that's a rear lot line. >> I know they take entrance, right? But >> yeah, it's it's a very like just the lot line situation. You know, it's waterfront and technically the that is the front yard according to the code, but then there's also it's also a corner lot which >> has just from that

069line. So, >> okay. >> If something >> from which the western or southern >> from the the western the oyster shore side. >> Okay. Uh I believe it's it's 30 feet for No, I'm not 100% sure if that would be rear yard or front yard setbacks. >> I'm fine. >> I am too. >> Okay. for me. >> Does the board have any Okay, [sighs and gasps] thank you, Morgan. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak to this application? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you, >> Mr. Yuber. Would you like to >> just closing remarks? Sure. So much. Um, so one of the issues my clients were I said, "Look, I you're going to have to deliver on this if we we want to

070propose." They said, "Okay, what would you suggest?" And in fact, I worked very closely with the planning department about two years ago to vet the ideas and that's what yielded the conservation easement and the revge. And I went back to my clients, they said, "Sure." [gasps] >> One of the things obviously one of the benefits of having the homeware is the the view of the water. >> So the woody vegetation I'll when I go back and talk to the client, I'll recommend that we also reveate this triangular piece. uh that up to the FEMA flood zone. And again, keeping that theme of woody vegetation. The only issue is in the areas off the back of the house, we want to keep that kind of low. So, we'll put the woody stuff that might tend to

071grow a little higher so it doesn't interfere with the view off the back of the house. But aside from that, my next move will be very quickly to contact my client, explain to them. We may need to crunch some numbers to say you you're picking up another I was thinking in that ballpark if this is 7,000 square feet. So just for argument sake north of this meandering pathway is 1,731 square feet. South of it is 5,000. So this area seems to approximate. So I you're about 1,500 square feet of additional weed veg. Uh, and at this point I'm optimistic they'll agree. How do we uh execute on that? I could write the board or contact uh and let >> Yeah, you would have to contact you would have to send a letter, you know, agreeing

072to this. Um, how much time would you need a week >> the most? I'll be supremely diligent uh tomorrow or the day after and I'll write a letter and not only what I will do if just agreeing to this and the parameters and how much square foot okay in yellow to show the additional revge area >> and I will explain >> and the pool fence this will also well >> yes move that as well >> pool fence >> yeah there >> well there's plenty of room >> right there's between there and the laptop that wouldn't be necessary over here >> it will increase the setback. >> Yeah, it'll increase the setback. >> Okay. So, I'll try to do a nice letter for you summarizing what relief we've eliminated, what we're delivering. And I thank you

073so much. >> Okay. Well, before you finish, do you know what kind of septic system this is? If this house was built in 1968, is it a tank? It's >> septic not field verified. >> Um, under different circumstances, I may have considered proposing, but this is not a substantial improvement to the property. Um and so I it's a conventional system. It's not a innovative system, a new one. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> So I'm going to make a motion in the matter of Howard Morris 24 Oyster Shores Road, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-92-9-24 to leave the record open for one week for Mr. Yuber to get back to us about the additional uh reveation we've requested up to the FEMA zone. >> Do I have a second?

074>> Second. I didn't know you were done. [laughter] >> Done. >> I concur. >> Done. >> I concur. >> Wait. Thank you, Mr. Yuber. >> See, I like to throw you off like that. [laughter] Mixing it up tonight. Okay, [laughter] now let me just get my act together here before I lose everything. >> Next application here. >> Um, this is here. What's going on here? Did I Okay, so I need this. Let me put this away. All right. This is Okay. The next public hearing is 65 Dunes Lane LLC. 65 Dunes Lane, Amaganzit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-129-2-21. Description is to allow approximately a 400 square ft of pool decking to remain. Reconstruct existing first and second story decking. Construct a 400 square ft of new second story decking. the demolition and construction of

075a portion of the residence resulting in decrease in gross floor area and the replacement of windows and doors on a parcel of land containing barrier dunes, beach vegetation and beaches. A natural resources special permit pursuant to 2554 20 variances from 255440 postal setbacks and any other relief necessary. The following variances from the primary dune crest are required. 75 ft variance is required to allow the enlarged pool deck to remain 25 ft. A 61 ft variance is required to reconstruct the first and second story decking 41 ft and a 6-ft variance is required to construct the closest of the additions 94 ft from the doom crest where 100t setback is required. The zoning district is a residential ve flood zone. Elevation 18 ft. Secret class is type two. Council, are the affidavits of service and posting

076in order? >> Yes, I reviewed the affidavit and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you, council. Member Maring, do we have a field inspection? >> Yes, we do. Thank you. So, uh, it was properly posted. Just to orient folks, this is Dunes Lane. Um, and this is a uh road, a dirt gravel road that comes off of the south side of uh 27. Right before right before you get to that neighborhood, we refer to as the White Sands neighborhood. And there's a road and I think there are six um lots that are clustered together. And as you'll see, it's very beautiful uh setting. Next slide, please. Okay. So, sorry if I'm getting close up to see the date and things on the on the posting.

077Um I'm looking at the driveway for the property. There's the posting on the right. You can see um that gravel driveway comes off of the road and in the in the distance is the house. And I'm going to get closer to the house. This is just a little uh view of the road uh heading west just to get a little more sense of the of the road. It's heavily beautifully natively vegetated. It was perfect time to be there, right? Because all the uh beach plum is in bloom and it's really stunning. Next slide. Um okay. Oh, this is my back is to the property now. This just gives you some example of the vegetation on the north side of June Lane. Next slide. All right. So, I'm just moving down the driveway a little bit

078closer to the house. You can now see the existing garage structure that's on the front of the house. I'll get closer to it. Um, but uh that's the area I think where there is much um different changes, right? The creation of a other garage I think further to the right and then an extension um of the of the house into some additional living area. Next slide. Okay, this is just a closer look at the front of the house. So, um it's easy to sort of compare this. There's plans and there's schematics so you can get a sense. The house is set very far back from the road. So, um uh it's it's whatever happens in the front of the house is, you know, well pretty much well screened and and well buffered and and far

079back. Um the lots are actually close together, which you'll be able to see. It's sort of clustered tightly. So, the houses, you can see the other houses, you know, pretty prominently relative to this existing house. Um, next slide, please. I'm going to go up the left side of the house there. So, I'm on the um eastern side of the house. I'm going to go towards the back. Um, so this is you can see the distance from this basically the sideyard line. Um, it's cleared, but it's, you know, sort of sandy. And, um, next slide, I'm going to go through that gate. See, there's like a gate there and the low gate in the distance. Um, and there's four um AC condensers on this uh left side of the house. And this is you can sort

080of start to see the seconds story decking in in the rear of the house. Next slide. Um, okay. And sort of again, this is a better look at the first and second story decking. And you can begin to see the pool and the pool deck um in the in this photo. Next slide. Okay. So, here is um my back is to the house and you can almost see the you can see the overhang of the the the decking there. [clears throat] So, I'm just basically close to being under it. So, that's the pool. That's the pool deck. Um it's, you know, surrounded on all sides by dune land and vegetation. I think I'm going to walk to the left corner there. Next slide. Um yes. So now I'm standing in the corner and it you

081can see on the survey I think it shows the difference between the existing pool deck now um and what it was at one point um I can't really I didn't pace it out but um and uh it's you know it drop it drops off and it's basically uncleared right around the the deck. Next slide. I say so I just I I right I turned I'm standing still in that little side corner of the deck and just now facing with my back to the house and my back to the pool out towards the ocean. Um as you can see from the survey there's a very long what um there's a major dune and a what do you call it? Not a predune a um secondary dune or whatever the word is sorry. Um and again, you

082know, heavily uh vegetated. Um I think pretty naturally vegetated. Um next slide. I did want to just show this is um sort of the um egress from the pool deck um which starts to take you down towards the ocean when that's described in the in the TAM. Um next slide. Uh yeah. So, you step through that gate, you go a little bit on a sandy path, there's steps down, and then there's a sand path. I didn't go I did not go all the way down to the water, although it was tempting. And um next slide. >> I would have spent the day. >> I know. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So, that's the that's the sandy path um that will head down towards the beautiful blue ocean today. [laughter] Next slide. Um, now I've just turned around

083just so you can get a sense of the dune land relative, you know, to the house. And, um, you can see a lot of that beach plum in bloom. Next slide. Okay. And just to complete my rounds here, I'm now on the western coming around the western side of the house. Um, that up, you know, twotory twotory decking. Um, I'm heading back towards the front of the house. Next slide. Um, now I just went actually on to the decking to head straight through. And again, there's decking that's going to be rebuilt uh in kind. I think we'll really narrow down what's being redone and and stuff like that. Um, and I'm just stepping going towards back towards the front of the house. Next slide. I think this will be the last one. Yeah. So, it's

084just interesting to see as you come to the edge of that deck, you can see um this. So, this area of the house, I guess, you know, part where it's sloping down. That's like I couldn't tell exactly where the garage is is going to be. Um, but that's, you know, the bulk bulk of the new work is going to happen sort of, you know, around that that front part and side of the house. I think that might be it. There might be one more. Oh, yeah. Again, just to come back to look at that driveway. I also wanted to get a sense of the h you can see the house to the um west here. Again, you can sort of see that the houses are are close together even though it's a pretty expensive area

085we're in. I think that's it. >> Thank you. Member Mary, is there someone here to speak to this application? >> Yes. Good evening. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, Chairwoman Se and board. I am here tonight representing the owner uh 65 Dune Dunes LLC. Uh Rick Whan is also here to help out uh if need be. Uh the existing residence is 6322 ft. Um as proposed, the house will be reduced by 593 ft and the final proposed house will be 5729 square ft. Uh I'm sorry I actually had my pages a little bit mixed up there. Sorry about that. The project as proposed may appear confusing. I just want to give a little history on the house and

086and the history of this house is just that. Um I'd like to start by giving some background regarding the design of the house. I was able to track down the original architect and speak with him. His plan was was to design a house that would withstand the test of time. Uh the house was designed above and beyond uh the required FEMA levels at that time and although it is not visible on the site that the residence is built on pilings and at the time was built compliant with the FEMA ve flood zone 17. This was in part due to the topography of the lot and to maximize the ocean views. In addition, when the house was originally built, it did meet the 100 foot duncrest setback. The fact that it does not meet the 100

087foot setback today is not a case of is not the case of erosion. It is more uh the case of an accurate delineation of the dune crest today. Upon visiting the site, you can see two ridges or dunes if you may in front of the house. Uh when the house was originally constructed, the dune deline uh the dune was delineated as the seawward ridge of that line of those lines. However, today has been flagged as the landward dune ridge. Uh this appears to be how the dune has been flagged in this area on the houses to the east and to the west. Uh I'm not here to contest the dune. I'm just giving you history as to how this house was built and uh what happened back in in the 80s. [gasps] Uh the architect

088did say that the building in this the building in this area at the um at this height where it was built made it less vulnerable to flooding. Uh so at the time of construction, it may have been lucky that the Seawward Dune uh ridge was flagged. If the house was built further back on this lot, it may have been more vulnerable vulnerable to flooding. As you move further from the ocean on this property, the elevation drops 15 to 20 feet in some areas. And that's a substantial change in elevation. In the area of the uh house, in the area of the house, the elevation is approximately 20 ft of 28 ft above sea level. And in the area of where house may have been cited to meet the 100 foot setback back then, uh the

089elevation is around 13 feet above sea level. Uh when the residence was built, the flood zone was VE13. Uh and what is very interesting uh about this residence is that the architect architect designed this residence to fit in as part of the dueland environment from the inside and out and that was the architect's vision at the time. Uh the existing residence uh is 6322 ft and as proposed will be reduced by 593 ft. Uh the final proposed house will be 5729 square ft. Um, and so as stated, the house was designed to blend in with the doing from the inside and out. And you have to actually walk inside the house, uh, the interior of the house to understand this. It's actually a little confusing when you go in there because there's multiple levels. Stairs

090go up, stairs go down. It's kind of flowy. U, it kind of to me, you know, kind of drive me a little nuts, but it did it does kind of feel like you're walking up and down. Um and this was to mimic the natural under unulations of the dune and formations. The existing residence contains a basement of 2557 square ft. In addition to the uh this level, there's an attached garage of 782 ft and a corridor uh which brings the the whole area up to 878 ft. The 8 this 878 ft is proposed to be removed. The newly proposed lower level will be be reduced to 216 square feet. The first floor level is now currently 200 2,947 square feet. The project proposes to remove 124 square ft of that existing lower uh first level.

091And with the addition, this total proposed first floor level will now be 3,040 ft for an increase of 93 ft. The second floor is currently 2,497 square ft. Uh the project proposes to remove two 232 ft and with the addition the total proposed on the second floor will now be 24733 square ft uh for a reduction of 24 square ft. Uh there will be minor increases in the coverage amounts. The proposed lot coverage will increase 463 ft uh which is now uh 4,842 ft. Uh it uh sorry it was it is now 4379 ft and will increase to 4842 ft. Uh the total lot coverage will increase from 800 8506 ft. It'll go from 11,318 ft to 12,174 ft. Now regarding the small amount of pool decking that was constructed without proper permits. This was

092done before the current owner purchasing the property. And unfortunately at the time of the purchase, it was the height of COVID and due diligence was a bit lacking. Uh it's not an excuse, it's just it was just a tougher time back then for everybody. Uh this is not a large increase in the size of decking. The amount of decking was only about 400 square ft. [snorts] Uh it appears to have been constructed between 2010 in between 2010 and 2013. And as you can see, the original deck uh on the survey, the original survey, it's a little bit awkward. Uh it didn't increase that much closer to the the dune crest as you can see. I mean the original deck was relatively close to the dune crest is as it is. It only increased, you know,

093five or six feet closer to the dune crest. So it's not a substantial uh decrease in the setback. Uh there was no way to really actually walk around that that southside deck without trying to walk a tight rope. As you can see, it kind of drops off in the dune in that area. So add and it created more usable space for the deck and you know although that's not a variant standard usable space it it it does make the you know you able to actually walk from one side of the pool to the other side of the pool on the south side. Uh we have reviewed all the town's technical anal we have reviewed the town's technical analysis memo and we agree with all the conditions. Uh the application does meet the demonstrate compliance with

094the variance standards uh as outlined in the memo I submitted to the board. So, I will not go into them tonight and I'd be happy to answer any questions if the board has any. >> Does the board have any questions? >> How how much of the increased lot coverage is due to driveway space, parking space? >> Uh, that I couldn't actually I do not I don't have an answer for that one. Sorry. >> For the drive for the >> You're reconfiguring the driveway. >> Um, I'm take an estimate, but that's I mean I could get get an answer for you on that one. I'd have to ask the surveyor on that one. Um, >> yeah. I mean, it's it's I'd say a decent amount is I mean, when you consider it's this the driveway is

095going over the sanitary and so that's part of the the driveway space. I would um >> existing >> that's possible. >> Yeah, I'd say probably at least half of the the lot coverage is is because of the driveway. I didn't even that. Thank you for pointing that out. That wasn't even a consideration of mine. So Joel, um, in terms of mitigation measures, the TAM is pointing out that the granting of a substantial variance for the existing pool deck could result in sufficient nexus for conservation easement over the primary dune. Would you be in agreement with that? Yes. Thank you. >> As long as it allows us the pathway to the beach. >> So, can I just square a little bit? So, the size of the garage you're taking out is what? And then there's a

096new garage, right? >> There's a detach garage. Yes, >> it's detached. Okay. Cuz Right. But um but what what is the size of the new garage? And I'm just trying to square how much garage space you're taking out and then how much? >> New garage can only be 600. It's only 600. Can only be 600. >> The one that's detached. Yeah. But what? So, but you're taking out that structure in front, right? So, is that all garage or that? No, there's little >> It's garage. There's a little bit of There's a little bit of habitable space in there as well, too. Okay. >> Uh you could they pull in like one car in the garage. It's kind of a weird design. >> Yeah. So just because the garage would never even though it's attached, it

097would not have counted to gross floor area or >> at the time at the time of the application being made garages were part of gross floor area. Uh this is kind of a new >> new thing in the town. >> 600 square feet not counting towards gross floor area. Yeah. Can I ask about the pathway to the ocean? It looks like it's avoiding. There's an existing uh platform and stairs. >> I think that's just a mistake on the survey. Um I actually Yeah, I only noticed that for the first time about two weeks ago when I went there just to check it out. The walkway does >> as it exists now. You walk down and go, >> but you're not going to you're not eliminating that. You're not going to >> No. Okay. >> Well,

098well, we'll have that updated on the, you know, the asphalt survey to show the the pathway. I think what happened is is some sand, you know, I think sand filled it in or something like that and their pathway changed. I'm not quite sure exactly how it happened, but it used to go I don't know. I don't I'm sorry. I I don't have the I don't I raised my right hand on this one, so I'm not going to >> I just didn't know. >> I'm not going to say anymore. >> Represented a change in design. That's >> I think it might be time to hear from the planning department. Thank you, Joel. Good evening, Madam Chair, board members. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Brian

099Frank on behalf of the planning department. So, I think a lot of the the background of the application has been covered by uh member Miring and by uh Joel Hollyy. Uh, as member Miring had indicated, Dunes Lane is a private road uh that's located uh in Amigans and on the Oceanside east of a of a much uh more densely developed neighborhood, a subdivision formerly called uh Malkque on the Sea. Um but this is uh an area characterized by uh larger or at least deeper lots and um a a very well-developed primary dune system. And that's what you have on this property. And I think you can generally break this uh application down in into three elements. There are the portions on the northern side of uh the the structure now where there's a a fairly

100extensive um scale of construction that's proposed in terms of what's being removed and and where new construction is proposed. Most of that uh complies with the uh town's 100t dune setback. Before I go any further, I should point out that a lot of those measurements that you see on there with the red arrows and that and that mark out of of where the increase of the deck is, that was that was me with the measuring tool. I don't want to make it uh appear that that's the surveyor. Maybe I should have used a different color other than the same color that the surveyor used for the for the addition. So, if there's any confusion there, uh I apologize, but this was marked up for the purpose of um uh getting some square footages and and

101accurate setbacks for the for the notice in particular. So, the one element of the of the application is where the new construction is proposed on the on the north side of uh the residence in mostly a conforming location. Another part of it are the uh first and second story decks that you saw in member Miring's uh photos that are on the south side of the residence. They're not quite being constructed in place in kind. They're very close to that. Uh they're actually um a couple of feet step back and a slightly different configuration, but to to describe it as being roughly in the footprint of what's there now is pretty accurate. If anything, it's it's a little bit smaller. And then the third element of the application is the part that requires the largest variance.

102That's that uh green area on the south and and on either side of the swimming pool >> where it's uh a very large variance for a a a pretty small structure. Um and that's u as pointed out in the TAM that's where uh there may be a sufficient enough nexus. This is a dune that does warrant a conservation easement. The planning department uh recommends conservation easements often when there is a uh high value natural feature and this dune is uh a high value natural feature. It is both habitat and natural storm protection. It's very well-developed. It's got some impressive undulations to it. You can see where the uh elevations uh rise from about 20 22 feet where the old primary doomcrest is to about 12 feet higher than that um closer to the uh deck.

103But the zoning board does have an obligation in in having a nexus between uh an application, a proposed action and potential impact and any mitigation that's associated with it. I'm I'm pleased that the applicants agree to the conservation easement. Uh the planning department doesn't have any uh objection to a retention of of the footpath there. That's very uh sensible. Nor a retention uh of the stairs that um are really only built in the in the steepest um slopes of that um pitch of the of the face of the dune. The footpath has kind of evolved to go around that. So, um, it really is the footpath goes almost straight east from the landwardmost portion of that deck until where it ties into the where the where the surveyor labeled it. And in that part, it's

104barely a path. Well, it's a path, but it's it's less a defined path and more of just a bare spot in in in the vegetation. And the rest of it is a a natural uh footpath. And again, the planning department does not have an objection to a retention of of either of those structures. Um, perhaps the uh the pool fence which is on there, the wooden fence that shown on the survey is uh a a natural boundary for where uh perhaps seward to that is is a good demarcation of where a conservation easement um could be established. And um beyond that, I don't have too much to add. There is a reduction in um gross floor area associated with this application, a slight reduction in building coverage and a slightly although larger increase in the

105total coverage and uh I think that was noted by uh uh member uh Johan and his uh comments to to Joel. >> Uh if the members have any questions that I can answer, I'll do my best. >> Yeah, does the board have any questions? >> Yes, please. I'm just looking at the existing conditions memo and so it said in ' 85 the house was destroyed by fire then there was a building permit in ' 87 uh for pool no deck so just pool coming I don't know but then obviously later there's a co that has I guess the deck that was before it was expanded so I just was curious like was the deck ever really uh permitted? >> Um, I didn't dig that deep into the into the forensics of of the um of

106the history of the property here. Um, I um I I I don't know. I I really worked off of that 2000co going forward for uh changes to the property, >> but it exists in the 2000 co. >> It does. I have a copy of that if you and you have a copy of that in your f in your file. And then the oh I'm sorry just the the de the decking on the rear first and second story replaced mostly in kind and in place but on the so obviously it attaches and wraps around. So the rest of the decking on the sides of the house not being touched. >> Uh to the best of my recollection that is not being touched. That's that's not there's there is a new construction there until you get on

107the north side of of uh that bumpout on you know what amounts to the uh east side of the of the residence. >> Yeah. Brian, you said you marked this up. So this that's I mean the survey I have is November 13, 2025, but it doesn't have all that bright green. So, >> well, the bright green the bright green for the addition in the driveway is the surveyors and the um I I tried to mark up where the addition was to make sure that we had the right setback was and I followed the footprint. There is a grayscale of where the uh old deck was and that's where I that's where I follow that is the survey that you did that on. >> Correct. the 2025 survey and that was really just to get a

108a accurate square footage of of what needs a variance. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, you said November 13, 2025. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Whan. Do you want to address the board? Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, members of the board. Richard Whan from Whan Filer PLLC representing the applicants. U this is a very confusing property u and very confusing house. Obviously, I don't assume any of you have ever been cited, but what Joel said about the undulating undulating floor plan is very true. Uh, and it's one of the reasons I let him take the lead on this because he's got a better grasp of this house than I do. Um, but the bigger picture, the house and the improvements, they're set back around 200 feet from the ocean

109beach itself on a high dune. Um, I think it's safe to say it's very secure from flooding. And as Joel indicated, it's also uh built on pilings. The pool deck that is in front did show, by the way, on the 2000 CFO as it was. Um, I've been on this property several times, most recently two weeks ago with Joel. And if you were to excise the green that the prior owner added to the deck, um, pointed to it there, it's very be very, very narrow, very constrained around the pool. So, while it's not any justification for what the prior owner did, I can kind of understand why they enlarged the pool deck because it's much more usable today than it was back in, you know, pre203 or so. Um, I I agree with Brian Frank.

110It's a very and I think member Marian could see that with photographs. It's a very nice property and it's a very nice dune. Uh, so the idea of putting a scenic easement over that dune, that's something we would agree to and I I agree with, you know, with Brian that that's justified. I would say that in addition to um, you know, allowing for the continuation of a stairway, the eman should probably allow, should it ever be necessary, such as what the town did at Ditch Plains or something. um if there's ever need to, you know, replenish the dune, rebuild a dune, it should allow for the placement of sandfill in the course of a dune replenishment project just in case that ever happens. But that's pretty much it. The overall, as indicated by um both

111Joel and Brian, the overall project reduces the total GFA of the house. I do want to make one comment about that and sort of an aside, but um the the current GFA of CL of course includes the existing attached garage When Anne Glennon was the building inspector, she made a determination at some point saying that attached garages were not part of GFA of a house. When I worked for the town, I revised I think I did the last prior revision to the definition of GFA. I have no idea where B where an came up with that idea. Clearly, a garage attached to the building is part of the building should always have been considered part of GFA. Now, of course, the town board has addressed it recently and has, you know, updated the statute and

112they now exclude the fix first 600 square f feet of GFA from an attached garage, but logically and the way the code read when I work for the town, an attached garage was part of GFA. So, we have included the GFA of that attached garage in the plans that you see today. So, um I really have nothing else to add unless you have any questions. One question is that it was suggested by uh Brian that uh the line of the fence would be the line of the scenic easement. Is that that line agreeable to you? >> Um yeah, let me take a quick look at it. [laughter] [clears throat] >> Yeah, right here. >> It looks like that maintains at least a 10-ft setback to the deck. Does it Brian? You know, >> um I'm

113guessing it does. It looks like it 10-ft setback as you know is the required code setback from a scenic easement. Uh >> we can condition that has to be a minimum 10 foot. >> Yeah. Let's see because if it be I'm pretty sure it is. >> Yeah. Well, we'll confirm it. I eyeballing and I'm guessing that's at least 10 feet. >> That's just an interpretation at this point. You're you're agreeing in principle. >> Is that Charlie? >> It looks like it's close to 10 ft. >> Yeah. So, I would say yes. I mean, I think that seems like a reasonable place to put the landward edge of the scenic easily. >> You agree, Joel? Where' Joel go? >> Where? [laughter] >> It's back in its corner. >> Thank you, Rick. >> Okay. Thank you, >>

114Matt. Do we have any callers? >> We have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Joel, would you like to have a final statement? Joel again. Uh, sorry I have nothing more to add. I just did want to confirm that that deck was on the 2000 CO. Uh, I was trying to find older versions of the CO or old aerials to show where the deck when approximately the deck I know it was there in 2010 uh because that's when the uh the enlargement took place. said I hadn't searched the deck be pre uh pre20200 because I've always been seen it on the co so I never really questioned it. Um so I have no real answers is the the ne the genesis of that deck. Um and um that's it. >> Thank you. Uh,

115member Mary, do we have a motion to close the motion? >> Thank you. Record >> in the matter of 65 Dunes Lane LLC 65 Dunes Lane Amigansit Suffach County Tax Tax Map 300-129-2-21. I make a motion to close the public hearing and the record. >> Second. Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Can I >> Okay, just put this away. I have a major problem here. I think I left something at home. That's right. >> Okay. We move on now to postering decisions. The first post hearing decision is Henry Proto 835 Montalk Highway and Montalk Suffach County tax map number 300-52-1-10.3. Description is the modification of a 2016 zoning board of appeals approval to allow to allow an asbuilt masonry staircase and stone wall to remain to construct fencing and to remain a gravel patio and implement a

116reveation within 100 ft of a wetland. Relief sought is a modification of the zoning board's natural resource special permit and variances determination filed November 2nd 2016 and NRSP pursuant to 255420 and additional variances of 47 ft 50 ft and 15 ft are needed from 255430 to allow a masonry staircase and stone wall to remain 53 feet and 50 feet from freshwater wetlands. and to construct a fence 85 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft is required. Zoning district is a B residence zone X flood zone. Secret class is type two. >> This is mine. >> Vice chair, you want to begin my deliberation? >> Yeah, it's going to take me a minute to get through and unfortunately my print out is not with me, but I have all my statistics. So, I'm sorry. The U

117board [clears throat] will remember that the we had two hearings on this. One on January 6, 2026. Another one we followed up on March 3rd as a continuation at 2026. We working from a survey that was from January 16, 2026. Uh the representative for the applicant was Rick Whan. The planner was Morgan Slater. We got engineering reports from TF Engineering on uh 21326 and 217, February 13th and February 17th. one was a followup. Uh David Rouge uh discussed a a drainage plan uh that was of major concern. I want to stop now and just go back a little bit about the history of this before I go into what how our decisions were made. This has been in front of us more than once. Um we have several board members here were part of previous

118decisions. We know that when it first came to us, it was for approval for a staircase on the north side. just one of the variances we're looking for approved an NRSP and a stone wall which was in contention whether it was a wall or a pile of rock but either way it was a structure that was from went from the west along the north side back down to the driveway that stone wall and the staircase were clearly built without the benefit of a a building permit and so we reacted to that in earlier presentations by the applicant where he was merely looking for a uh relief in that area and that was denied. Uh later it was represented with new representation and they came with some other ideas on how to possibly mitigate the structures

119that were uh constructed earlier. Along those lines, it was stated by the planner that one of the major concerns from previous denials was for the uh potential for the wetlands to have a fair amount of surface water runoff as well as the next nearest neighbor which was to the west. What can be done to ensure that we do the mess with the surface waters rainwaters as they occur? Uh if we go back to 2016 when the house was approved, we know that there was some uh effort to get it approved at that part on part of the applicant because it sits at the top of a hill and there were lots of challenges including how to best set a uh septic system. That septic system was eventually set to the south of the house with

120a six foot high or approximately six foot high retaining wall. [clears throat] And that retaining wall figures into some of the logic and the potential mitigation on this one here. um that history behind us, knowing that what was in front of us and knowing what had gone on and knowing that there has been some denials, this new one is being this new application has to be considered on its own merits. And with that in mind, uh the effort made by the applicant was to have David Rhodess talk to us about what can happen. And he made a what what was possible here to control as much groundwater, as much surface water as possible. Um he made a presentation at our uh uh January rather on March 3rd um meeting where he talked a great deal

121about the n of of percentage and and the flow of water from every angle on the house coming down driveways possibly going north to the wetlands possibly going west to a neighbor. Where was that where is the water going to go? How could it be controlled? What would be the potential to control it? They came up with several ideas that we had to consider. One was they would take the wall that was put up that we contended, you know, we was in contention with us was put up illegally and that wall had a a constant uh a patio or a flat area covered in gravel. They would remove the gravel for some portion. They gave us a a sort of unimproved landscape plan which will have to be improved if this was to move forward.

122And in that the gravel gets removed and they've suggested that 39 Bayberry might be planted there. And while you're doing that, let's take that is their suggestion. Take that area and pitch it upward so that instead of any water potential there getting out through the rocks over the rocks any way back down into the wetland or onto the neighbor, it would flow back towards the house. to control that water coming to the house. They would add drainage uh uh they would add drains in various places that would then go back to two existing dry wells that sit to the northwest basically of the house as it exists into the largest graveled area. That water then could be controlled in their mind. The water to the south the by David's estimation would flow then down against

123the poured concrete wall that was put in to retain the the septic system. His logic was that there was not really a chance of the sixt high wall that water would be retained. That water would then seep down through what is now you can see considered to be porous material. They talked about an additional drain down at the driveway because that staircase obviously is a hardened area and that hardened area would shunt a lot of water into those areas. There was a fairly uh it was an extensive presentation and a complete one as far as from the point of view of um of TF Engineering and what they considered to be a possible solution. We were asked to do it at that time. Uh the board asked whether or not the uh the town retains

124a uh engineering firm which we could send out TF Engineering's uh calculations and presentation and see what they would let them have their review. We received back from them. See if I get the dates right here. On uh on March 9th, 2026, >> I have it right here. March 9th, 2026. Yeah, we received back from them comments. There were seven comments here. Several of them I read through were already included. I think there was just redundancies about what David had, but a couple of the others were ones that um in review um and and we got a return back on uh uh from TF Engineering returned back on April 15, 2026. We received it on the 17th an agreement to the the LKMA which is our our consulting engineers their report. So there was not

125any difference. there might have been a difference in technique to start with but they were certainly um TF Engineering was not contesting any of the conclusions or released by LKM LKMA. So what we have here then is a couple of of situations to consider. One is the illegal structures that were put on the site. Um we certainly had a strong as a board had a strong reaction to those uh more than once. Uh they've been in front of us several times. Uh but with this new presentation they presented what can we do about mitigating water flow protecting the protecting the wetlands and protecting the neighbor where can that water go can it be done we all assert on the board here we're not engineers and that's why we wind up with two engineering reports to

126consider um they were both extensive I think they were comprehensive and the question for us now is with the mitigation suggested of controlling as much flood water and I think both these engineering firms now feel that this is uh well well in hand in terms of keeping the amount of flow from the the improved area to an absolute minimum since we have two forms of of confirmation on that. This seems like a successful effort to control water. And then one of the mitigation of u has yet to be approved but it it's heading in the right direction the buffer with the pitch back towards the drains hoping that any of the other areas that show the greatest concern for us environmentally will be protected. Is this enough mitigation to allow for this ex the sizable

127staircase that runs on the north side of the house and the stone wall which includes some very large stones and probably a three and a half to 4ft drop on the west side. This is one where I swallow a little hard on it because I think that what got what got done by the applicant without the after in order to get this house. They went through several takes with this board to get approval for the house knowing that this was under a microscope. They went ahead anyway knowing that we would care about this come CFO time. added the staircase, added the wall, added a significant amount of flat land that they could make some outside recreation area and cover it in in gravel. But I must say that if we look at this fairly and

128we come back around and say what is the net gain for the parcel for the town for the environment here if we're shunting water to places where we think it can be controlled if this mitigation of adding additional vegetation is something that is uh acceptable to the planners and I just want to read and I'm sorry I don't have my type notes but there's an important line here from the memo from um just one second. Oh, here it is. [clears throat] This is a memo from uh February 20th, 2026 from Morgan Slater's desk, and it says, "The planning department has remove reviewed this submission and does not object to the proposed mitigation as as planned." uh the planning board has looked at this uh I guess as objectively as they can looking at the mitigation

129that's proposed looking at the um the pertinances that were added to this uh they feel this mitigation warrants uh [clears throat] serious consideration by us. One other factor that enters into this and this was something that was raised by the chair I think at a previous case at one point. We ask ourselves they did not that the staircase was not part of a presentation in 2016. But if it had been would we have considered it a serious environmental danger? Would it have stopped that application? It would have gone through. We have no way to no way to answer that. We have no idea what the that board was thinking. But if we want to review it coldly now, as much as I find it uh frankly offensive that this was done, nonetheless, it's very possible

130that that staircase would have been approved in my mind because I don't know that I could directly associate that with potential damage to the north, which is slightly higher ground and uh with the protection that was already offered in the original approval. So, that's a long way around to say that [laughter] um understanding what we had to go through with this, understanding what they're looking for, um and looking for the NRSP approval on this. What are we doing to benefit the environment as a whole and the demands of the town as set out by the code? Have we achieved enough here? Have they achieved enough in their proposal to allow us to say that this rises to the level that'll allow for the approval of a an NRSP? Uh I think it does. Um I

131reluctantly say that and I also think that um if we look at the the the variances that are required for the staircase and for the wall that given what our net gain potentially here is I think that I can say it rises to the point that I think the mitigation is enough to allow for me to say that I will approve the variances. And I will say this is one where we had to be looked at as objectively as possible because there were many aspects of this application that did not set well I know with many on the board. So I'm moving forward uh surprisingly by approving uh this entire application. >> Thank you vice chair member Burgerer. Okay. Thank you for that presentation. [snorts] Um I was on the board in 2016. I think

132it was one of my first ones. Um [clears throat] I I agree with uh Vice Chair Johan on uh the the runoff the situation of the runoff um the information that David Rhodess had presented to us. He gave us the uh significant runoffs on his chart. I don't have it printed, but I have the numbers written down of uh the improvements after the revge um offer and what that will mean with the the runoffs to the wetland uh to Montalk Highway to 64 South Essex Street and to 68 South Essex Street. and the percentage increase of 216% increase will be held on site overall um in the runoffs. um that number or you know this is a very nice number um as member Johan had said you know LMK I forgot it right LMKW um

133you know really pretty much coincides with that slightly differently um so I agree about the NRSP um I disagree about the stairway I am still denying the variance for the the stairway. Um I think it was I mean it had been it was not in the original application. Um the original application was dicey as it was and um the board did approve that application even though the planning department even though it didn't recommend a hard denial on it. Um they still told us that uh it wasn't a great application, but we went ahead and approved it anyway. But um if that staircase had been there, I know I would not have approved it. I'm not going to approve [clears throat] it now. Thank you member Maring. Okay, thank you. Um I was not on the

134board for times when this came before them. Um uh so uh however I am going back and looking at um these elements were done as has already been said without the benefit of permits in an application that had had so much review um and so much consideration by prior iterations of this board but they were done anyway. Um, but I for me and and I definitely I I was impressed by the lengthy discussion about and the and the care when looking at the drainage that's being proposed and all the engineering around it. However, I just I go back to the denials from the prior board and I I'm looking at the sentence that the you know the board uh what is it? The board finds that the natural characteristics of the site are such that

135the unauthorized construction of these structures which was the retain the rock wall and the filling it as well as the uh stairs. Um it says co caused undue disturbance and disruption to important natural features which would be prolonged with continued use. During the public hearing, I did that we had the two of them. I did focus a lot on, you know, what has been done to the natural the topography, you know, the flattening out. Um, and there was really, you know, I think we did discuss that there were other flat areas that were created, um, that gives them space to use outside um, and such. So even with the concept that the runoff control and the drainage is mitigation to runoff, I don't necessarily see it changing in a way that meets the NRSP standards

136or the variance standards relative to how this was perceived by prior boards. So I'm going to deny the variance in NRSP for both of the elements in front of us this application. Okay, my turn. I carefully reviewed the seven comments and [cough and clears throat] observations submitted by LK MLAN Associates DPC on behalf of the town of East Hampton on March 9th, 2026. My approval of this application is conditioned upon the following. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit revised storm water calculations, including drainage areas DD7 and DD2. Those areas are all noted in the drainage and surface flow site plan, which as per the town engineers comment will deem the storm water retainage system to be adequate. LKMA has also noted that it appears a portion of the driveway

137is permitting storm water to run down the driveway out to Montalk Highway. This area should be expanded to be included in the drainage area calculations. There's also a portion of the property along the southern line between the flat yard and the driveway which should be also included into the driveway drainage calculations. My approval is conditioned upon no building permit being issued until revised drainage calculations and plans addressing these conditions have been submitted and proved and approved by the board's consultants. The drainage analysis provided by TF Engineering recommends that areas adjacent to the rock wall be graded to form a swale that will collect and distribute the storm water away from the rock wall and back toward the house. LKMA did agree with the approach, but noted that the volume that would be collected should also

138be considered when sizing the storm drainage pools. The yard drains and HDPE piping should be shown connecting to these structures as well. My approval is conditioned upon revision of the drainage plan to incorporate all runoff generated from the areas adjacent to the rock wall which are now to be proposed to be graded as swells. My approval is conditioned upon the applicant revising the drainage calculations to demonstrate that all storm water runoff generated from these areas has been incorporated into the sizing and storage capacity calculations for the proposed storm water leeching structures to the satisfaction of LKMA. Additionally, all of the proposed yard and drains and associated HDPE piping intended to collect and convey runoff from these swale areas shall be clearly depicted on the final drainage plans and survey subject to the review and approval

139of LKMA prior to the issuance of a building permit. The deck area should be identified where it is distributed to and included within the drainage calculations. LKMA re recommends that existing and proposed elevations be provided throughout the area of disturbance to show where the surface runoff will be collected and distributed. Roof drains should be shown connecting the house directly to DW2 and DW3. Soil boring date should be included on the drainage plans as well as construction details. I am in full agreement with moving forward with a natural resource special permit and variances as long as the recommendations made by LK McClean Associates and conditioned upon my approval of this entire application is the implementation of these submissions being made and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. >> Are we good council? Um,

140so >> so it and um let me just for the record state that member Kylie uh wasn't a part of any of these public hearings and is not participating in this deliberation. >> So So right now, correct me if I'm wrong, Ed approved it in entirety >> and I approved it. you've approved it subject to this condition. Um, >> subject to uh to the comments made by the our engineer >> and then >> very >> I'm denying the stairway the 47 foot and 50 foot for the stairway. >> Uh, but everything else is okay. And then I >> um I'm okay with the 15 foot for the fence. >> Okay. >> I don't know. Where's the fence though? It's a wall, isn't it? Uh, >> unless they're talking about the fence that the building department

141wants. >> There's a stone wall and a fence. Yeah, >> 47. >> The I believe the stone wall. I'm okay with the Wait a minute. Where's this? The staircase is the 47 foot. >> Yeah, the staircase is 47. >> Okay, 47 foot. I'm that I'm denying. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Uh, everything else. Okay. So, and then Jane, I believe, is just denying everything. >> I'm okay with I didn't say the I'm okay with the fence, but I denied the rock wall and the staircase. >> Deny staircase. So, for the staircase and that's a 22 decision, which means uh for the staircase that is a denial, >> right? That's a 3-1. Yeah, I'm approving it all >> based on the recommendations made by the mayor. >> No, but that means there's two people approving the staircase.

142Two people denying the staircase. It's a two two denial. So that means it's a de facto denial >> um for the staircase. Then the other. So then the uh the rock wall is approved >> and the fence is approved. Mhm. Mhm. >> So, but staircases is going to be denied. >> Okay. >> So, uh staircase [snorts] um stone wall three or that's for Oh, stone wall and fence. Oh, no. I'm sorry. at 31 and fence is for approve. >> Okay. Okay. So, all right. Uh I think that's it. Yeah, we're good for now. >> Okay. Thank you. So, we'll move on. The next post-hering decision is Nigel Curtis 393 Cranberry Hole Road. I'm against it, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-128-1-28.2. Description is to relocate an existing residence to a more landwood location and remove

143an 185 linear foot geocube sandbag on a parcel of land containing barrier dunes, beaches, dune, and beach vegetation. Relief saw is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code and any other relief necessary. The residence and decking are proposed to be from 12 ft to 5 ft from the Dukeest respectively to 32.1 ft and 27.9 ft where a 75 ft setback is typically required pursuant to 25540 coastal setbacks. Zoning district is an A residence AE flood zone. Elevation 10 secret class is unlisted. Member Mary. Yes. Thank you. So um the public hearing for this application consisted well this application consisted of two lengthy detailed and interesting uh and complex public hearings. The first one held on January 12th, 2026 and then a condition uh sorry a continuation followed on April 28th,

1442026 and that continuation you'll recall was for the purpose of um getting uh all the documentation um for the revision of the house retreat which I'll talk about in a second because the um right before we had that first public hearing. Uh the applicant reading the TAM and responding to it um shifted the location of where the house would be moved. I'll come back on that. Um and the other thing we needed was, you know, we the board wanted more methodology around the removal of the geo cubes, the restoration of the dune, um more about the process of moving the house and you know various actions about how things would be would be staged. Um, at both hearings, [clears throat] Mr. Andy Hammer represented the applicant, Brian Frank represented the planning department, and in addition,

145uh, Karen Hogue of Tumi Laam Sheay spoke on behalf of the direct neighbor to the west at 383 um, Cranberry Hall Road. I think the applicant that that property owner's name is Mr. Saul. Um, in addition, not in the first, but in the continuation, Billy Mack of First Coastal spoke to flesh out more about the uh protocols and the strategy for the geocube removal and the Bluff Beach restoration. Um, Mr. Curtis spoke briefly on his own behalf at the first hearing and [clears throat] he stressed that he was aware that the bags are deteriorating that he doesn't want this to be another 5 to 8 years of planning and he unders said he understood the matter of urgency to get the house um moved back as soon as they can. Um, however, he did stress

146that from his perspective, he saw no possibility of taking the bags down um first before retreating the house because of concerns that there could be an event and we we know where the water is sitting relative to these bags. So, that was his position. So this is an interesting and important application, you know, to retreat an existing house um on the north side of Cranberry Hole Road on this rapidly eroding shoreline. Um and to remove extensive multiple rows and multiple levels of geocubes that have existed for some time on the property. And you know, it's made clear as we know in the cart plan, this is one of the most quickly eroding shorelines in the town of East Hampton and was discussed the CART plan, the LWRP, the comprehensive plan, etc. all stress the need

147to prioritize retreat from quickly or uh volatily eroding uh coastlines. um the application was a a result I believe of a stipulation related to a prior or um article 78 and that's how you know this came came back to us the January public hearing uh so originally the the public sorry the application was to retreat the house both from I'm just going to say it's currently in the northwest quadrant of the property to retreat it more sort of to the southoutheastern quadrant of the property. Um, but as was mentioned, the TAM was very clear that the better location for the house would just to be really retreated forward, kind of putting it in that southwestern quadrant. Um, and there were numerous reasons including that the elevation on that side of the property is about 4

148foot higher than on the eastern side. It also would do more to conserve and preserve the um the dune land uh that's sort of untouched that pretty much untouched right now on the eastern side and also there's just a lot more scour um that's been going on on the eastern side and the as mentioned the applicant did uh uh agree to that and so had come back you know with the uh new uh thing and I guess you know the the way the application is noted um and was read again. I think it said that it would be uh 32 feet um from the Bluff Crest and I don't know the Dune Crest. I don't know if we have the exact number now. I think it might be 37 ft. Um so I think it

149improved also modestly in terms of its setback. Um the applicant also made the decision um to when he came back again to consolidate the driveway. Um and to also to note this house is also being raised to uh meet the FEMA elevation. At the first hearing, there was some back and forth about whether the new new standards of FEMA that looks for 3 and 1/2 ft of freeboard um versus 2 feet would be needed or if they'd be grandfathered. I think when they came back to us, they just agreed that they would do to to raise the house to be compliant with the newer FEM FEMA standards. They've made some adjustments to the roof to eliminate the need for um what would have been a height variance otherwise. Um, and the the front line setback,

150I believe, is is 30 ft. And they're also agreed to realign the walkway down to the beach um to make it horizontal. I know Brian Frank also um recommended that the bottom part of that stairway would be retractable. I don't know if that was agreed to by the applicant, but um we did agree that the reconfiguration of that uh uh the steps down to the water over what will be uh re re uh vegetated dune um and a bigger dune um is is the is about as good as it can be. And also it was found that the position of the septic system um as proposed now is in I think the op the best possible um location. Um the before I get to some of the issues that came up about you know there's

151a lot of different sort of complex issues to balance I do want to say I am approving for the house the retreat of the house um and the structures that that go with it. I'm approving the uh variance variances as well as the natural resources special permit for that. So, um this is the minimum variance. >> So, I'm sorry. So, so you're >> I'm just starting right now with the house. >> No. So, I'm just saying. So, you're going with the western portion that the planning department recommends. >> Oh, yeah. That's clear on that. Yes. >> So, yeah. What came back? The only thing I'm not sure about is exactly now the the variance to the changed a bit to be clear myself >> 40 is what I have written down >> but it's it's

152improved also you know from from the first application and um so so I'm approving the NRSP and the variances that the relief requested for the moving of the house um and where the driveway is positioned obviously the septic system and things like that. I think that this is not a self-created issue um in that uh the shoreline is receding um they're moving it about as far forward as they can and still meet those front yard setbacks and have room for the septic system. So I think it is the minimum variance necessarily necessary although it is still a substantial um substantial thing. I don't think the moving the house forward will have an impact on the character. In fact, it's not unlikely to believe that there hopefully will be more retreats. Um the board had already

153approved one um house retreat on cranberry whole road although it didn't it didn't happen. The house is not being made bigger. Um so all in I believe that it meets the um variance standards and in terms of the NRSP for this it improves the environmental you know conditions by retreating the house. Um and again I think it's compatible with uh you know with with the character. So now this dubtales into the removal of the bags and you know there are a number of things. So needless to say, the wish and desire and and everything from our planning department is to see those bags removed as soon as possible. Um and uh I guess obviously it's not clear, however, that we can compel um the owner to do that first. >> We cannot. >> Right. So

154I know okay thank you. Um so so therefore um you know the plan as is to stage the house moved forward and then as practically soon enough possible to remove the bags is um you know what is you know is the protocol right for the for the for it. um you know the I so I do believe the removal so let me just go back there's you know we have a neighbor that's very concerned um has asked for certain things that is not in our jurisdiction necessarily to or is not in our jurisdiction to um you know ask this applicant to uh restore property that's not on his property is on the neighbors Um those two those are something that will have to be worked out I guess amongst themselves. Um in terms of the

155timing overall we also can't compel the whole thing the whole application to if if it's approved right to take place ASAP because the application our approval would be good for 3 years and um there's still other permits to get and and things like that. Um and uh so so there are a number of moving parts the issue and and then still understanding even with all the protocol right exactly what's going to happen when these bags you know come out um and what will happen but all in the NRSP I know that the neighbor is concerned that the removal of the bags you know if not done a certain way will be a detriment to his property. However, just from the NRSP standards, um I think it meets the standards um because it it actually creates

156a very great environmental benefit to have that dune land restored, have those bags removed, get rid of the ongoing scour, all those things. So, um so I think it [clears throat] meets all the all the NRSP standards. So, I'm approving the whole application. Um, yeah, that's where I am right now. >> Thank you, Member Burgerer. Okay. Um, well, thank you for that thorough description. Um, okay. Per the planning department and with the change of the house structure going to the west, uh, the survey I'm looking at is January 16, 2026, the revised site plan. Um it it I'm approving this also. Um you know, Brian test testified that it is the best location for the relocation. They moved and they shortened the driveway. All the residential items in this are satisfactory. Um he did want

157I think on a CT1 sheet a slightly enlarged. I don't know if that was up there slightly enlarged on the east end protection more protection of the property. Um and so the um the the move back uh I I [clears throat] have in my notes written approximately 40 ft >> for the uh residence and about 30 ft for the decking. and I'm approving those variances as well as the natural resources special permit um for the house. Um as well I'm approving the entire application. Um already discussed was that we really can't say that we have that we could have the uh geo cubes removed before the house is moved. Obviously there's a danger with that and not safe. Um, there was some question I guess as to we don't even know exactly how many GEO

158cubes there are on this and all of that. I guess we'll I don't know if there'll be a plan for that. Um, that we would even be able to see before this all happens. Um, but I'm also in agreement, you know, with the changing the stairs to be parallel to the the dune itself. And overall I'm approving the entire application. I think it meets the standards NRC standards and the standards for the variances. >> Thank you. Member Kylie. >> Thank you. I will approve this application as it stands. I think it's best case scenario. It meets the standards. Uh I am a little curious about the deconstruction of the GO2 barrier. So I would like some more clarification on that and establishment. I have a speech I'm going to give about that. >> Okay. So,

159[laughter] >> she has a speech. >> Other than that, I approve the application as it is. >> Vice chair. >> Yeah, this is an application that's been uh this is a project's been in front of us before. There's been a lot of conversation. The geocubes is a uh hot button item for us in the town. Wherever they are, we want to know when they can be removed. These have been here for eight years. During that time there's been several efforts to see that they are removed. There was an effort on the part of the applicant to come with us with various other ideas. Finally, this idea has come for us and I agree with my fellow board members. This is a positive uh [clears throat] perspective on what to do with this very uh endangered

160and threatened spot. this location for the house. House is moving landward of course and uh as much as it can without requiring additional relief on the roadside which is a net positive of course the reduction of the size of the driveway as mentioned by member Burgerer. Um I think that uh the the location of the septic system location of the driveway location of the house is all in the best possible location. the the large issue here always was starting out was are we going to remove these sandbags I remember Kylie wondering you know just questioning how are we going to remove them I will say we did get a presentation and we did ask some of those questions and during that time we were told that the sand was going to be manually removed stayed

161in place and used to create a new angle of repose that would then be uh would be vegetated with the hope the hope that it would hold up for a longer period of time and that by with regular maintenance with additional sand and possibly new replanting when as needed. We would see some natural naturalization of that spot much superior um than having the geocubes. The geocubes have created scouring on both sides of this property. Their cubes created scouring to the west but uh the house that was just up the beach from them to the east creatively scouring on the serot side. But nonetheless, we see the effect of geocub dramatically in this spot. removing him as a net positive. I think that there was enough discussion for me to be satisfied that they are going

162to use the material there. The question was asked would more material be coming in. They estimated may not be accurate but it's a start that 200 200 additional yards fill would be needed to create this angle of repose. Whether or not there's another layer layer, excuse me, lower level of bags, that's just more material that can be used. And of course, if they have been excavated in, they might be needed to fill that anyway, that spot. Removing them technique-wise will be complicated. There'll have to be some excavation. I think we did what we can about asking for the right kind of professional advice in that area. I think that the other items that have been mentioned here as far as uh the elevation is I think important because it went from 7.8 ft and is

163going to be uh almost a 10-ft rise 17.5 ft. so it becomes FEMA compliant. Uh they were discussing making sure that it would be um the 40 foot from the bluff is important. I don't know the staircase being reconfigured. We've been down there on that staircase. It projects out into the water. It doesn't make a lot of sense. They're going to re reassoc reorient that. So, uh I'm going to agree with my fellow board members. I have to go over what they've already gone over. But I do think that this is a was a a contentious application the first couple of times we heard it. Here was a case where it came in and they found a solution that satisfies the needs of the town in this case and hopefully is going to satisfy uh

164them in protecting the house in the long term. So I'm going to approve the entire application. I think that it was one that was uh was needed on this location to have this kind of approach. So I'm approving it. >> Thank you. The contractor shall be solely responsible for the implementation, enforcement, maintenance during the duration of the construction. Any modification to the construction protocols or any changing site conditions throughout the duration of the construction shall be immediately reported to this board. The contractor shall at all times employ and maintain appropriate best management practices to prevent erosion, sedimentation, pollutant discharge and other adverse environmental impacts and shall ensure that all such measures remain effective and in full compliance with regulatory requirements and permitted conditions of approval for the entirety of this project. Geocube geocube removal and

165dune restoration mitigation. The removal of the existing geocube structures shall be conducted in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the dune system and prevents the discharge of sand, debris or geoexile material seawward of the mean high water line. The geo cube shall be opened in place allowing the contained sand to be released directly onto the adjacent dune. All release sand shall remain on site and above mean high water at all times and shall be graded, stabilized and incorporated into the existing June system. All geoexile fabric and associated materials, including debris generated during removal, shall be fully collected and removed from the beach and June area on a daily basis. Removed materials shall be transported to the upland portion of the property and placed in covered disposal containers and disposed of at an approved commercial disposal

166facility. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be installed and maintained throughout the removal process. Equipment access shall be limited to the minimum area necessary to perform the work and will avoid any disturbance to existing June vegetation to the maximum extent practicable. Once completed, disturbed June areas shall be restored and stabilized, including regrading and reveation. In conclusion, the construction protocol for the GLQ removal shall be strictly enforced. Residence location. The residence was proposed to be moved to the southwest corner of the property where it is was proposed there to comply with minimum street, rear yard, sideyard, and relative height and maximum height setbacks. It does remain the opinion of the planning department that the western portion of the property is where the residents would be best protected since this site is in an AE10 flood

167zone and the western portion of the property is located farther from the most severe shoreline scour. And I agree with this reconstruction of a walkway to the beach. As a condition of approval, the proposed beach access walkway shall be redesigned to accommodate the elevation changes associated with FEMA compliance and the northern terminus of the walkway shall remain oriented parallel to the dune. In conclusion, I am approving this application. I'm approving the landwood relocation of the residence, the removal of the entire goman coupled with the restoration of the shoreline as soon as possible and reconstruction of the walkway to the beach. >> Um, thank you. Uh, one thing I want to bring up and I, uh, think we should address it probably, uh, before we close tonight. Um, this was changed to it was originally an

168um, type two action, but then we changed it to an unlisted action. So, we need to do a secret. I don't believe we ever declared uh you know what the secret determination would be. I think we kind of just did but I want to >> So now it's an unlisted >> it's unlisted. We had the AF so >> so we would need to >> motion to >> uh >> this an unlisted action pursuant to the >> it's already that's already been unlisted. So now we got to you guys got to weigh in on >> Oh >> on the secret. >> Yeah, I know. I saw it that way. >> Okay. Can I >> So in other words, do we all agree >> or well is it are you going to adopt a positive or negative

169declaration pursuant to >> secret? Um yeah, >> planning department recommended a negative declaration. >> You have Yeah. in your EAF, you recommend that it's a negative declaration in the EAF >> and I didn't see anything I don't agree with in writing. >> No, I I read that it was a while ago. >> Yeah. This has just been going on for a long time. I think it was >> Oh, yeah. I mean, I agree that it's a negative declaration. >> Does the board agree? How does the board feel? >> Yeahative. I'm willing to agree to it being a negative declaration. I did. We did get it. I know we read through it a while ago. I thought we had acted on it. >> I thought so too. I can't remember now. >> I think I think

170what we did was we declared lead agency. >> Yes. >> I don't think we ever formally adopted a >> You might be wrong. I think you're right, Charlotte. So, is that all we have to say or do we have to make a motion to >> I'll make a motion to uh adopt the negative declaration pursuant to the EA, you know, and then to direct you can sign the EF. >> Okay. And can I ask >> can I do I do this now? Do you want me to do it now? >> Uh what to make the motion? >> Yeah. To adopt a negative declaration pursuant to seek. >> Yeah, >> I could do it now. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So in the matter of Nigel Curtis 393 Cranberry Hall Road, Amagansit, Suffach County Tax Map number

171300-128-1-28.2. I make a motion to adopt this as a negative declaration pursuant to SRA. >> Second >> concur. >> Secur >> and then Yeah. And then when I draft the resolution that will be in I'll put that in the resolution. >> And do I have to sign something? >> Yeah, we I'll we'll do that later. >> Okay. Good. >> Yeah. Madam Chair. >> Sure. Sure. [laughter] Sure. >> Um to your speech in the beginning section. Thank you for that. Um I just wanted to know so what you were saying is that they must report any >> any modifications to this. >> My question is is >> I just you know not everybody realizes that and and when you're in a construction job >> right >> and I'm aware of that often things change and I

172think in this particular case you know we should be really strict about that >> know what they're going to find. >> You know they have to come back to us. So my question is just extending that is is there a process where um there's any inspection that goes on by the let's say the planning department as this process is ongoing when they start removing the bags. So obviously we want them to report to us but what is the I don't know how long this whole restoration and removal of the bags will take. So I didn't know if there's any protocol for um actually continuing to look at what's [clears throat] going on when they're especially when they're working on the bags in the shoreline. >> Well, I think once they're issued a building permit, the

173building department will >> Ryan, does it does it require an inspection to see that the bags have been properly removed? Are we trusting that it gets in the building [clears throat] require notification to the board 3 days prior to the commencement of removal? >> Yes, we have done that in the past. That's the wording, too. We you generally do that on coastal construction. >> That's very good, John Brian. Thank you. >> So, I could add a I could add a condition as a condition. And you're right. We've done that before. >> Very good. All right. So, are we Are you good, uh, council? >> Yeah. >> All right. Where are we? Let me All right. Oh, well, we have one more. I'm jumping ahead. One more. One more. Okay. [snorts] Give me one second. We

174can we can push it if you guys want. You know, we don't have to do it today. >> I'm ready. Is everybody ready to do the next? >> Want to do it? We can do it. I just saying if you'd rather push it, we have time. >> Now, let's move forward. We're on a roll. [laughter] And the uh the next uh decision will be Michelle Smith and Stacy Griffith, 49 Makeo Lane and Amigansit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-175-6-21. Description is to remove an existing one-story residence, decking, hot tub, shed, retaining walls, and associated structures, and to construct a 1495 foot two-story residence with spa, 415 square foot first floor decking, [snorts] 269 ft of first floor porch, 61 ft second floor balcony, 339 ft second floor roof deck, relocated shed, AC units, outdoor kitchen,

175driveway, and new sanitary system on a parcel of land within the jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands. Relief sword is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and five variances are required for this application. Variances of 60, 47, 42, 41, and 22 are required from 255430 of the town code to construct the proposed porch and decking 40tory residence. 53, spa, 58, relocated shed, 59, and AC units 78 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 set foot setbacks are required. One variance of 52 feet is required from of the town code to construct the proposed sanitary system 98 ft from wetlands where 150 ft setback is required and any other relief next necessary. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 secret classes type two. Membering could you begin? >> Thank you. Um the

176public hearing for this was held on April 21st, 2026. Um the applicant was represented by John Tarbet. Tarbet and Lester and also um Britain Vistran um represented the applica the applicant in the application as well. Um, this is a small, sensitive, and constrained property in the Beach Hampton neighborhood on the east side of Mo Lane. And it's the the parcel is in jurisdiction of wetlands on three sides. The closest of which is the southeast uh corner of uh of the lot. Oh, the closest is to the southeast corner to the lot. These freshwater wetlands while fragmented and some are some of the wetlands are considered smaller. Nonetheless, these are very crucial to this neighborhood. Um perhaps you know this neighborhood is one of the most developmentally intense um in the town. Um, and these wetlands

177are very important for flood mitigation. Um, which is becoming more and more of a problem in this area, especially see it on Melo Lane, but also they support habitat character um as well. Um, and uh um, sorry, I said the flood mitigation. So this project represents uh a a material increase in or or at least um material yeah represents increase in the various town core zoning metrics of GFA building coverage total coverage and clearing with respect to GFA I don't we don't have an exact number what the house is I think it's about 750 square ft so although for 1,495 square ft which is the new proposed GFA Although that's often considered a modest size house, it is, you know, still probably somewhere close to a doubling of what was there. I do note, however,

178that that GFA remains 26% the max allowed under the code. Um, the footprint of the new house, excluding the decking, is roughly in the same location and roughly the same size. Um, uh, uh, well, it's roughly in the same location. However, building according to the survey, building coverage expands 43% um and at 1,465 approaches the max allowed of 1500. Total coverage is expanding 13% remains below the max. Um and that relates to the increase of the decking on the rear side of the house. The final clearing, I believe, expands to 3,671 up from 3,252. We'll talk about reveation that's proposed um in a moment. Um and I think the well the so we have we have a survey um did I did I say the date of the survey 9 to 2025. There was also

179at the hearing the survey was overlaid with an extra area of buffer um to be to be created. So I don't know if we know what the final revge number is going to be but you there is there is rege. Um one of the things that um I was concerned about during the public hearing um was what would be the effect on the um the doom. It's pretty significant. Not a huge area, but you know, really nice duneland topography on the south um sorry, on the on the north north uh east corner of the lot. Um I was happy when we heard both Mr. Torbett and Britain say that it's going to be a very shallow drain field. They're respecting the topography. they'll um beach veg you know on top of it. So that allayed

180um some of my concerns about you know uh impact to the natural resources and the and the character. Um this is expanding from two bedrooms to three and but the upgraded septic um is required for the development and that is also considered to be in the best location um uh that there could be on the setback. Um the other things that changed a bit, the survey that we have showed the existing driveway to be quote reduced in size, but it was agreed 100% that that will be um removed and the just the driveway will be on the south side um south side of the property. Um, I'm going to approve the variances and the NRSP for this project, but it'll be conditioned on the having to do with the um the scenic easement and the

181buffer. I'll come back to that in a second. So, in terms of the standards, um you know, this is uh this there are a lot of uh um so let me let me back up. I'm sorry. the [clears throat] the new septic, the establishment of a scenic easement, and that extra buffer um I think are enough to offset the potential detriments to the property um related to the expansion of the house and the expansion of the of the building coverage and the total coverage. Um the deck um the the the requested um uh variances are substantial. However, given how small the lot is and where all the um you know wetlands sit relative to it, um I don't know that it would be possible to reduce them significantly. Um, and given, you know, that this

182room, this the um, yeah, so I thought a lot about the little 6x6 hot tub on top of the deck. Um, but I don't believe that causes an incremental environmental issue. It's sitting over a deck. And again, I think the deck um, is probably in the best position that it can be. And so, but for me, the thing we had the conversation, so originally there's a 20ft scenic easement over the rear of the property. Um, and then on top of it, there's the So, my I I I want to see that scenic easement sustained as part of the approval, a condition of the approval, I imagine. >> I'm sorry, just so I'm clear. >> Yes. This is >> above the red. >> Yeah. So just on the on the rear, >> you're not just agreeing

183to the red. >> No, I'm getting there in a second. >> Okay. Cuz I just want to be clear on issue. >> So most of that red triangle that was called buffer. Most of that actually sits within the area that was going to be a scenic easement on the rear. It's really only a corner that sticks out. But I do think the protection of both this extra buffer as well as a scenic easement on the rear is important. um because the you know the the scale of the expansion of the house and the magnitude of the variances that are being approved. So the applicant not putting words in their mouth they seem very amendable to um retaining that 20 foot scenic easement and agreed to the buffer. I assume the buffer is the place where

184it's a it's a more substantial and woodier type of vegetation. Um, so I believe it meet the meets the NRSP standards and the variance standards and I think that was it but it's condition on keeping both the buffer and the scenic easement >> what >> no I was going to >> and then I guess it's still not totally clear on one survey it looks like that scenic easement was being reveated I don't know if it was just going to be with beach grass or what outside of that buffer area So obviously, oh, and I forgot about the shed. So the shed, I'm was a little guspy on it, but obviously there's a shed on the property now that is much closer to that that wetland. Um, >> but didn't they move it outside of wetland

185jurisdiction? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, >> so it's not really an issue. >> Is it outside? Well, they >> I think they agreed to move it outside of >> Right. But the only thing I was going to note is that it's close to >> No, but needs a variance from wetlands. >> Yeah. No, it still needs a variance and it needs an NRSP. Um, you know, I I I I think it's okay relative to stands. I do want to note that it is sitting close to the edge of the scenic easement. I think we have an ability to um reduce the what we often think of, you know, 10-ft separation. Um so again, I I think the protections on the radar of the property is important and um would be willing to allow the

186shed to sit, you know, close to that scenic easement. >> Member Burgerer. >> Okay. Um getting tired too hot here from the [laughter] room. So yeah. >> All right. Um okay. I think um well I I am going to approve uh I will be approving this application. I uh there were several things. Um they as Britain Bistrean and John Tbitz had testified at the that they started you know for the variance of the IIA system 52 feet uh variance for the IIA system that they started with that portion of the project and then worked their way down to all the other pertinances on it. Um, I think it's it's good that they will well on the spa. I was somewhat unsure about the spa for but they did offer then that they will put a

187drywill in um to take care of that some of the runoff if there's any runoff on it. Um and the spa being on top of the proposed deck. I am going to approve that. uh the the variance on the residents 47 ft it's I mean it's a very tiny property almost everything is in jurisdiction of wetlands one of the wetlands or another the 42 variants for the spa I'm approving um the shed I'm going to hold off on a second the AC system 22 variants I'm approving that the 52 foot for the IIA system to be 98 ft away. Um the buffer in the sketch that was added by the planner. Um I'm happy with that. I'm going to approve that. Um that actually the existing shed is going to be covered. That must move.

188Now they're moving the shed. Um I'd like the discussion of the scenic easement. It was my understanding that maybe the scenic easement was not going to be proposed and that all of that area in the gray would be reveated. >> That's was my understanding. >> And um now if we're going to keep the scenic easement um if that's doable to reveg and keep a scenic easement um then I am going to have to deny the shed for being 40 41 ft. uh mostly because I I will not approve a zero setback from a scenic easement if that's going to be a scenic easement. So then I will be denying the deck um or the shed. The shed. Yes. Thank you. Um other than that, I I think you know the the the reduction of some

189of the driveway that was in the town right of way is being moved onto the property. I think that's a big plus. the the IIA system itself, the reveation around the property where there's all grass now and going back to doom vegetation and they testified they're trying to keep the contours the way they are exist today as much as possible. I think that's all good. So, I am approving the NRSP and as I said, all the other things except maybe the shed depending on where we end up and >> member Kylie. >> Um, well, after looking at it is a heavily constrained lot. It doesn't seem like you can really go any direction without getting in trouble. So uh I mean I I think they've proposed as good of application as they can as it

190stands. So I will approve it. The shed I am confused honestly by it. But I at the same time um there is one existing on the property now. So relocating it from one side to the other. Uh >> they're working with the board. So I approve this application as it is. >> Thank you vice chair. >> Yeah. Um, I thought this was basically a good application. Um, this is a we're taking a house that remember was testified was unlivable. We all peeked in the windows and so it was. So they're they they're posed with the problem of getting themsel a resident. Now I know it's increased in size, but the 1495 square ft house is typical of the neighborhood. I don't think that's outlandishly large, larger than what's there, but again very constrained property. Um

191it's the size of the property and location of the wetlands puts any of these that come in front of us requiring sizable very often sizable um variances. I think that the IIA um the IIA system is absolutely one of the big pluses here. We get an IIA system in a very sensitive area. I think they put it as far away as they could in the best possible location. I think there was the testimony about using the shallow leashing fields in order not to do the least amount of damage and any depth. they want to reconfigure over. They're going to plant it out. I think they said the right things about that. I think that um agreeing to the uh the shaded area diagonally in the corner, which is going to do the best protection for

192the uh pocket wetland, was a positive, and I thought it was a good one. I left that meeting thinking that that area would have an easement and the other 20 foot wide that have originally been proposed would be planted without an easement. So, I did not have a problem with the shed because I'm happy to see the shed move from where it was to the other side of the property seemingly having setbacks dependent on the contingent on what happens with the scenic. I thought that the spa being 6x6 we weren't asked for an oversized swimming pool. looking at that. I think asking for that in this location as a it's a bit of a luxury for sure, but putting in a drywall knowing that we have a 6x6 that can fully go into one drywall

193without any spillage back into the environment is a positive. Um, let me just see what else I had here. Um, yeah, everybody's covered most of it here. I think the three wetlands really Oh, the lawn areas to be removed. this lawn area in the back. They agreed to the lawn area to be removed. We all noticed that when we were there and that that the revege across the entire 20ft back buffer was agreed to by the applicant that night. Um the discussion of scenic easement aside that 20 foot across the entire back property line was proposed. I'd like to hold him to that and I'm I'm happy to have the scenic easement over the shaded area. that discussion go forward. But I'm willing to approve this application and the NRSP because I think the net

194improvements of the u of the IIA system here and uh I think that moving the parking out of the out of the the town uh right away and onto their properties out there their cars will be out of the roadway I think is a positive. I thought it was a good application. and these are not easy lots to do anything with and I thought they took a look at the stuff that would be most important to us and tried to react in the best possible way. So I have no problem approving the uh the NRSP and the variances on this application. >> Thank you. I'm in the same corner as vice chair. Um I think the property what well I'm not going to repeat everything that's already been said. I have the same exact notes

195as everybody else. I think though the property is more environmentally sensitive now and the variance requests are not substantial and I think the application coupled with the mitigation has met the standards for variances and a natural resource special permit. So I will be approving the application in its entirety. >> So >> what are we doing? >> Are we doing the 20 foot wide scenic easement? >> I thought the I could be wrong because you know you get tired. I thought the night of the public hearing, Jake was the one who said uh he was in favor of the sketch proposed before us and that the rest of the area would be reveated. That was what I took away from >> that's what he did say. That's what I heard it was going to be. >>

196I would definitely be fine with that. I would go along with the I'm in favor of the sketch that was proposed by the planning department because Jake is the one that actually said he didn't feel the rest of it should you know could be reveated. So I I agree with the recommendations made by >> so then >> the planning department. >> So you want just so I know you're saying the CNP went over the red >> and then rev the red. >> Yeah. Well that's what that's what I agree to. I don't know what everybody else >> that buffer is going to be reveated too, isn't it? >> The 20 foot across the back. >> Yeah, >> it's going to be reveated. >> The question is whether the scenic ement extends over the buffer or

197what? Yeah, that was the discussion. Is it are we doing a recorded easement, scenic easement, conservation easement, or a uh >> yes, [clears throat] >> you know, a covenant restriction for a a buffer over the red area. And I know the agent drawing Tarbet said he doesn't care if it's a scenic easement or a covenant, but it's not going to be a covenant. >> Well, we'll leave that up to council, I think. >> Well, I got >> Well, I mean, >> okay. So, it's not going to be a scenic ement. >> I just need to know what's what. >> You guys just tell me what you want. Like, do you want this? These are the options I see. There's a proposed 20 foot wide scenic easement on that survey scenic easement. and they had to

198record it through the whole thing or a red area which would be a buffer. That's what the planning department recommended which is a buffer which means it's a coveted buffer. It's it's not a scenic easement per se but it's a vegetated buffer and it would need a revge plan and all that stuff. uh or some combination thereof. Like the it sounded like they would be okay with whatever but >> at the same time if it's not required it doesn't you know >> well even Mr. Turbet said that covenants can come and go but scenic easements are >> I did research on that. I I don't know. >> I'm going to go just so that we could move this along. I'm gonna go along with the recommendation made by the planning department >> which is which

199he just said but we're not going to keep repeating ourselves. The planning department said, >> "Yep, >> due to the small wetland in the corner, if I recall correctly, that the the the red area that's shaded on this survey, just dis just regard the easement stuff. Just the red area, that would be a buffer, >> which is not a scenic easement, a conservation easement, >> vegetated buffer. >> It's a vegetated buffer. There would be we could put a covenant. they have to file a covenant at the county to saying that that area will need to remain a uh a vegetated buffer with a revge, you know, and then um yeah, and then that would be that would be the and then they would still be reveging the property to get rid of the lawn, I

200believe, as well. >> They're revveging that whole 20 foot deep, >> right, >> area? Yeah. So, it's it's south to north. Okay. >> So, I'll be outnumbered here, but I still think there should be a scenic easement in addition, but that's okay. Other people don't want it. >> So, since it will be all revveged, then I will approve the >> shed. >> Okay. >> I saw that coming >> along with the other [laughter] stuff. >> Okay. All right. I think we got it. >> Okay. So, we are safe to move on. Other decisions. Hurland 183 Mile Harbor Hog Creek Road in Springs Suffach County Tax Mad number 300-94-1-2.1 as built modification of bulkhead Mr. Frank. >> Yes. Board members, uh, Hurland was a a application to reconstruct the bulkhead uh, in place in kind where

201the bulkhead height limitation. The bulkhead height was proposed at an 8ft elevation above sea level. They rebuilt it about 9 1/2 ft above uh, sea level. They also added a um a a bulkhead cap um two foot wide around the perimeter and they had an area of a staircase that was different from the survey. Um the planning department uh the zoning board discussed this um earlier in the year uh when it came in for a certificate of occupancy request uh requested a formal modification. uh they've made the modification request. Uh the planning department hasn't identified any impacts associated with the the change in the bulkhead height um or the other um deviations that I just described. They're otherwise in compliance with the conditions of the permit which required a revitation seawward of the bluff crest

202with beach grass untreated materials as per the SOP and H pod for bulkhead reconstructions and there isn't the planning department hasn't identified a reason why the uh modification would be problematic or should be denied. when was in front of us last was it for it going from 8 to nine and a half feet there was no discussion of the cap then was this in front of us to discuss the rate being raised >> yes and to be honest I don't remember if there was a discussion of the bulkhead cap at the time >> I don't remember it either but I do remember going from 8 to 9 and 1/2 ft and we were agreeing that it was not a negative in this situation >> that's the uh bulkhead cap and this is the revege uh

203um seawward of the bluff crest >> I'm sorry the cap is the that like boardwalk thing that runs around it Okay. >> I don't have a problem with this. >> The planning department doesn't have a problem with it. I'm fine with >> okay with it. >> So, okay. So, I'll make a motion. Make a motion. >> In the matter of Hurland, 1833 Mile Parker, Hog Creek Road, Springs, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-94-1-2.1. I make a motion that we approve the asbuilt modification of the bulkhead. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Next is extensions of time. 20 Wellers Lane LLC 20 Wellers Lane Amiganit Suffach County Tax Map number 300-152-2-15.9 extension of a 2023 determination. Uh so this is a property a flag lot off of the southern portion of uh Whalers Lane. The approval was

204for additions and to rebuild the swimming pool. There's been uh no work done on the property since the um zoning board's determination was issued. There are no change in environmental conditions. Um there's no reason to not extend. >> It's your first extension. >> Okay. >> Boy, time flies, right? >> Right. It does. Um should I make a motion? >> Sure. >> Okay. Uh with respect to 20 Whalers Lane LLC, 20 Whalers Lane, I'm against it, Suffach County Tax Map 300-152-2-15.9. Um I make a motion to approve the extension of the 2023 determination. >> Second. >> Incur. Concur. >> Concur. [clears throat] Next extension of time is Tormal LLC 250 Old Monarch Highway. Montalk Suffach County tax map number 300-87-3-4 extension of 2022 determination. >> Uh Tormal is on Old Montalk Highway in the hitherhill section

205of of Malkque oceanfront lot unusual shape. Uh the uh zoning board approval was to authorize the uh redevelopment of the property, the demolition of the house and swimming pool and construction of new residential improvements. Um, since the issuance of the permit, uh, the zoning board's permit, a building permit has been issued. The swimming pool has been removed. So, they're still kind of in the early stages of the redevelopment of the property, but again, the planning department hasn't identified uh, a reason why the extension shouldn't be granted. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Continue. >> House is still standing. >> Excuse me. >> The House is still standing. >> Yes, sir. >> I haven't gone any further than that. >> Okay. This was mine. Yeah. >> Anybody have a problem with it? >> I do not. >>

206No. >> Uh then in the matter of Turmal LLC 250 Old Monttok Highway, Monttok Sopag County Tax Map 300-87-3-4. Like to make a motion to approve the extension of time. >> Second. >> Concur. Minutes approval. Draft minutes of Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals for Tuesday, May 12th, 2026. >> Second. >> Okay. Concur. [laughter] >> Concur. Uh, Vice Chair, can you take over the next two because I was not uh part of the deliberation. >> See the other one? I see I see that I see 10 island >> here. These two. >> Well, you can do you can do TMT. >> Okay. I'll t give it back. >> Okay. >> All right. So, first resolution. Okay. 10 Island

207Road. >> 10 Island Road. I have it right. >> Okay. Good. >> Uh >> then in the matter of 10 Island Road LLC, uh 10 Island Road, East Hampton, Suffach County, TACMAC 300-93- uh-3-14. Oh, I should say. I didn't say what it was. This was one where we had um they were asking for a rebuilding of a porch on the road side of the house. that went down to the water. There was a question of a gate that was down within the within the wetlands being moved back with some additional buffer to be put in there. There was a corner of a deck which was over an improved area of of patio at one time. I guess that's not the case. This one's a strange shape, but anyway, the corner of it comes off there.

208We had to approve the corner of the deck, the p the potential entry patio in the front and moving the uh the stair the fence line back from the water's edge back to the house with a reveation. This was a uh uh unanimous approval. So then in the matter of 10 island road LLC 10 island road eastampton county tax map 300-93-3-14 I'd like to make a motion to accept the determination as written. Second concur. >> Okay. Next. TMT Malkque Realy Group 261 East Lake Drive. M talk. I probably all remember this was for an addition to a structure on East Lake Drive uh for an NRSP as well as a pool to be or spot to be located on an existing deck and a gravel area to be used as a family picnic area on

209a property on East Lake Drive. And those last two items would have been in variance territory and NRSP territory for um for approval. Uh this was a unanimous decision in which all the two variances were denied [snorts] and the addition was approved. Um and chair severe was not present for this. Uh so it was a four four to nothing uh approval. I make a motion on TMT Bonttok Realy Group LLC 261 East Lake Drive Bontok Tax Map 300-13-1-20 to approve the resolution as written. >> Second, >> concur. Concur. >> Vice Chair, do we have an adjournment? >> Yes, we do. I'd like to make a motion uh to close the town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals uh public hearing and work session for May 19th, 2026 at uh 9:36 p.m. >> Second. >>

210Concur. Concur. >> Have a good night, Board. You've been