001The sound has been off. It's on my phone, that's why it wasn't working. And this dog is called today. Okay. Now I know. Okay, Town's Zoning Board. This is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Just want to let you know that you are live. You are recording. Phone lines are open. Go for it. Thank you, Matt. I'd like to welcome you to the East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of May 12th, 2026. Our first and only scheduled public hearing this evening is Gerald Scollin, 62 Franklin Drive in Montauk. Suffolk County tax map number 300-70-4-15. Description is to allow a pool patio to remain 15 ft from a front yard lot line where 30 is required. Relief sought is variances from 255-11-10, table of dimensional regulations, and any other relief necessary. A 15 ft variance
002to allow a patio to remain 15 ft from a front yard lot line where 30 is required. Zoning district is a B residence zone X flood zone. Secret class is type two. Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? Uh yes, you guys have jurisdiction over this hearing. Thank you. Member Berger, do you have a field inspection? You can see the posting. This has two front yards, so there should have been a posting on each street. What they did was save some paper by putting this one on the corner in between the two. The posting can be seen if somebody was going by depending which direction anyway. Next. It's just a closer view of it. You can read the time and date. Next. Okay, and my car I'm going to go back the
003other one or just my car was parked in the the driveway of the house. That's the main house and the pool is directly behind that. I just took a photo in between so next. >> [snorts] >> So I went in and I walked up to the the house entrance. They're sliders and took a shot. This is in the direction of Franklin. This is the patio that's um proposed well, they're looking for the variance and the wood wall and then you can see beyond that and you'll see closer photos of that the the hedging that looks like some kind of laurel type planting skip laurel maybe. Anyway, next I'm just going to walk around the pool. Now I'm standing facing south along the pool edge I prefer north side. Again, this is the the the concrete
004that's proposed to for the variance and [snorts] looking at the south side where there's some notation about um the planner can another not a variance being requested, but apparently if the applicant will remove a portion of of the uh patio. I don't know how much, so they can tell us about that, but you can see that well at the other end with some plantings behind that. And next I'm going to go to the first slide and just shoot from this is the south side. And out of the patio, the full patio that's a house behind it is on another street, and again just a a visual of some of the plantings that are to the south side. Oops. And next you see a shot across there, across the whole pool area in general. Next. And
005now I stood at the the eastern fence that's there and took another shot out at where the plantings are and that there's a a metal fence out there. Um which is actually according to the survey off the off the property, but um that's the area where the the variance is being requested. And you can see the houses across the street. And next. Um just supposed to show you that. And is that the last one? Okay. Um Oh, okay. Just I took just so you could see the the applicant's house is on the left and you could see the the houses across the street that would be the nearest impacted neighbors from that variance. And I think that's it. Okay. Just another shot of the house just for fun. Next. That's it. Oops. It was a
006sunny day. >> up for the one I didn't take at the beginning. This is the house from the front. Uh next. And then no more. [laughter] No more. Thank you, member Burger. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? Okay, so you don't have to get sworn in. Just state your name for the record, sir. My name is Andrew Goldstein from Akerman Partners. We represent Mr. Scollan. Um We've submitted a memorandum which details the legal theories of why people get the variance should be granted. Um And I guess I'd like to talk about what it is we want to prove, which is this 700 I don't think it's 736 cuz I think >> [laughter] >> that may have included the side piece uh that we're going to remove. Um and it's a
007patio which um has no visual impact as the pictures show. It's a ground level structure. Um The uh the purpose of the front yard setback with regard to a a pool patio is not noise. Uh for the front yard setback is is is uh installed to provide for public safety and traffic visibility. And as the picture shown, you there's there's plenty of sight line on the street uh [snorts] to allow for infrastructure and utilities to go in the front yard and that's been allowed here. Um The um the the the patio itself does not uh uh detract from the open area the open the open the space. I mean, what does I mean, there were hedges in front of the property, but um I mean, that's I don't think that the patio should be penalized
008for that. And uh there there's still ample front yard uh you know, in in the uh for the uh for the house. Um The uh with regard to the We spoke to Steve Lynch and uh he has no objection to the fence, and those uh plantings remaining uh in the village right-of-way. Is there something in the record that would reflect that from him? We have an email. We can provide that for >> Okay, that would that would be beneficial. >> provide that for you. All right, thank you. Um the um you know, this as it as I mean, what happened here was that he applied for he had a contractor apply for the building permit. And for the original patio, a wood patio, which was granted, notwithstanding the fact that the setback was not what
009it's required to be. Um >> [laughter] >> That building permit was reviewed was renewed twice. So, it apparently wasn't obvious to anybody that that the that the that the setback was inappropriate. Um The um >> [snorts] >> There's no effect of on neighborhood character or any neighbor. Um the um uh patio that he originally put in was wood, and it began to splinter. So, he decided to put in a hard surface, which is code, and and went to another contractor who told him apparently that, "Well, you have a have a building permit for a patio here. All we're doing is changing the material." Mhm. Um probably a mistaken opinion, and so he just went out and did it, which is why he got his was a stop work order issued, and he and he learned
010that his setback was inappropriate. Um There are there are no environmental issues on the property. Um he can't realize the benefit He wants obviously wants a pool patio to sit down on and uh lounge on. And uh he can't um he needs the variance in order to have it. And and and cuz the the pool is 30 ft away from the property line. So he wouldn't have any any uh uh patio. Um he uh uh There There There is an element of So that the the to remove it, he has gone out and and sought uh uh estimates. He's got He's um He says he's apparently he got Now it would cost $26,000 to remove the patio, be seeded, um and reinstall um irrigation. I have we have we have a letter from the applicant
011to that effect, which we can hand up. You You should We'd like you to submit that into the record. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. You can give it to our secretary. So um just to review, we meet all the criteria for an area variance. There's no This doesn't affect neighborhood character. Pool patios are are are standard equipment in the neighborhood. Um the the placement of it in the front yard really does no harm to the neighborhood or to any neighbor. As I said with the this piece on the side, which is 14 ft from the neighbor, is going to be removed. So that will meet the setback for the that neighbor. Um and whether or not this is self-created obviously is an argument, but it should not be dispositive here. So just for the
012record, the plans um approved at the time depict depict the pool patio where it was supposed to go. >> Yes. At 766 square feet. So, you haven't, uh, the building permit was issued in error cuz they didn't realize it needed a front yard. Right. But everything else you have submitted was done in compliance with the permit. Yes. >> Okay. I just want that on the record. >> Thank you. >> The patio that exists now is not larger than the one you were approved uh No, it was exactly the same footprint. >> I'm trying to make. Yep. It just differs in material. And on the side where you say it's 14.2, how much of that are you taking off? Is that part That's part of that concrete? The material will go here. >> You see a
01314 >> So, you're just removing the non-conforming section. Yes. To make it meet the setback. >> Okay. And how far back are you going with that? All the way to The pool patio. >> Just Just the Yeah, I think that should be 20 ft. Right. 20 ft. Okay. Okay. And I'm sorry, I couldn't quite see where your finger was going from this seat, but so you're taking out the portion that's the slate and then portion of that concrete. Okay, it's both both of those pieces that come together. Thank you. >> You're taking out the slate portion also? On the side. Yes. Yeah, so that it meets setback. Right. So, whatever's not meeting that setback. >> Okay. You're taking out the non-conforming section. >> I was going to make it conforming on that side of the
014property. >> Right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> I'd like to hear from the planning department. Jake, do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. So, Jake Kryston with the planning department. Good evening, board. We We have too much to add here. Um, this property is is in the Montauk Beach Hither Hills subdivision. That subdivision was created well before the adoption of modern zoning. So, many of those lots are small and undersized. Um, the area is intensive residential development. Development on the parcel is pretty typical of the neighborhood. Um, there are some freshwater wetlands to the east, but they this parcel does not fall within natural resource special permit jurisdiction. So, a stop work order was issued May 2020 for the construction of this patio
015without permit. Shortly after, building permit was issued to legalize this patio. The plans uh approved depict the patio in its current location. Uh again, this may have been issued in error as the required front yard setback here is is 30 ft, not 15. The pool patio also on that one side fails to meet side yard setbacks, but the applicant has offered to remove that section. Um, the pool and patio are currently screened from outside view by a wooden fence and some shrubs and screen trees as well. Um, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you might have. Any questions for Jake? The building permit was issued in 2020. Yes. Shortly after the stop work >> Yes, that's correct. Yep. >> And then this work was done at some time later. Yes. Well, so uh
016so yes, they this was, you know, they got the stop work order during construction. It was legalized and completed. And uh we're we're going to follow the chronology that was expressed here by the applicant's representative. There was a wood deck there probably at that time, and then more recently they've decided to change it to stone and that brings us to this point. >> Mhm. Okay. Thank you, Jake. Matt, do we have any callers? You have zero callers. Thank you. Would you like to say anything else? Thank you. >> [laughter] >> You're welcome. Member Berger, can we close the public hearing and record For the application of Gerard Scollin, 62 Franklin Drive in Montauk, tax map 300-7-70. dash 4-15. I'm sorry. Didn't you want the letter? Oh. Yes. Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, can we leave a
017day? >> it. We'll take it now. We'll leave it open for a couple of days. >> email. We'll just leave the record open for the end of the week and then you can just get it to us by then or something like that. If that works for you. Thank you very much, counsel. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, you know what I mean. Yeah. Okay. >> But from Steve Lynch. For the application of Gerard Scollin, 62 Franklin Drive Montauk, tax map 300-7-70-4-15. Make a motion to close the public hearing, leave the written record open until Friday, which is May 15th, I think so. >> May 15th. Uh for them to produce the letter from Steve Lynch. Very good. Second. Okay, concur. Let's move on to our post-hearing decisions. The first one is 42 OMH LLC, 42 Old
018Montauk Highway, Montauk, Suffolk County tax map number 300-21- 2-23. Description is to renovate and reconstruct portions of the existing residence and cellar and construct 513 square feet of first and second story additions, a new driveway, and reconstruct the existing first and second story decking on a parcel of land within the town's jurisdiction of coastal bluffs and freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255-420 and variances from 255-430, 255-440 of the town code and any other relief, a 20.7 ft variance is required to construct the addition 79.3 ft from wetlands, where a 100-ft setback is required, and variances of 85.5 ft and 16 ft are required to construct the additions and the pool fence 64.5 ft and 134 ft from the bluff crest, where a 100-ft setback is required. Member Burger,
019would you like to begin? Yes. Okay, we had this hearing on >> [snorts] >> Let me see, 21st of April. 21st of 21st of April. March, right? Um Oh, I'm sorry. No. Go ahead, Jerry. 21st of April. April, April. Okay, I had that on the other paper. Okay. Uh 21st of April. Um we had a revised cam from Brian Frank on February 19th of 2026. And the survey dated 1926, which we received on 11326. And there was a re-veg plan for this property for 42 Ohm H that we had from 11326. Brian's re-veg plan. Um we had a cover letter from Britain Bristrian 12125 dated um And Britain Bristrian and Anthony Pasca both represented the applicant. So, this one Okay, it's asking for the variance of 20.7 ft for additions from the wetlands. Now, these
020wetlands are the uh Well, there's there's multiple wetlands around, and also wetlands from the pond that is to the western portion of this property. Trying to get Where was I? Face with me for a moment. Okay. Yes, so the wetlands setbacks are from the the wetlands down toward the east and the land for the addition some of the additions also had minor variances not minor but a variance for the two-story addition down to the wetlands that are down near the top of the bluff. So the um there were a number of items being changed here. Basically this application is proposed to put the additions within the existing footprint of the house. Um they are also excavating out some stairways on the eastern side of the property um and they are building out in the basement.
021Um they're So there's also a pool proposed which is in NRSP territory but the pool itself does not require a variance. There is a setback of a setback for the NRSP for the pool fence to be 134 ft away from the wetlands to the east. Um a 16-ft variance for that. Um So the there was discussion about the actual GFA of this house. The house back in 1994 had a CFO and that CFO showed it Let me see. at a a GFA of 3,937 sq ft at that time. Uh they This is a a house that is um a pagoda style house. So the the the roofing and the roofing basically is the angles, the curves and looks like a pagoda. What the applicant is doing here that made them a little difficult with determining
022the actual GFA is taking the pagoda style out, pulling them in and making the as you can see on the survey, all the the corners are squared off and in they're also removing a number of stepping stone paths that you saw in the photos. They're not listed here on the survey, but they are all over the property there. So, they're reducing some of the lot area with that and they're also reducing a small part of the portion in the northern part of the house where they're taking out a a middle section of the second story line. And this part of the reconstruction. So, that that all the basic addition there is 20.7 largest addition to be 79.3 feet from the wetlands. Um and and 85.5 foot variance for the addition to be 64.5 feet from
023the blood crest to the south and all of that is noted on survey. Um They have been the owners since 2024 and also the owner of 34 Old Montauk Highway, which is a 34 acre property with extensive wetlands including the coastal pond that you saw in the photos. Uh the GFA Well, the GFA number was a little bit in question because again because mostly because of the pagoda styling of the house and they were having trouble calculating it. Um Mr. Pasca, but their plan is to make it conform to the the the CFO of 1994, which as I said was listed at 3,937 sq. ft of GFA. Um they're reducing the lots uh lot coverage by 552 [snorts] ft and total lot coverage by 1,058 ft. Um There was discussion now regarding um they do
024have a revegetation plan that the planner, Brian Frank, said is satisfactory [clears throat] for 42 um Old Montauk Highway. There was a lot of discussion then about 34 Old Montauk Highway, which is the same owner. A previous owner who sold in 2023 had done a lot of things on 34 Old Montauk Highway, including structures, a whole bunch of illegal things. Can we talk about 42 Old Montauk? Instead of 34? Well, 34 comes into play on it. Okay. Um you know, they they have offered to do a reconstruction of the 34 [clears throat] property as part of this or in conjunction with this, not exactly as part of it. Um and with the planner, the planner to basically said that he would like that reconstruction the 34 OMA reconstruction done before a building permit is given
025to the 42 property if this is approved. Um the applicants are in agreement of doing the restorations on 34, but they did ask uh to about a difference in a time frame possibly for that. Um, Britain suggested doing 25 ft of it and then and Mr. Pasca, and then doing the remainder of that um when the CFO is ready for the construction. The uh job on uh 42 Old Montauk Hwy. Uh, Brian was not really happy with that. He talked about coastal Now, these restorations and that it should really be done as quickly as possible. There is a a violation on the prop 34 property with the DEC. And um So, Brian is suggesting that they get this done as quickly as possible and uh that we could, you know, set some kind of timeline
026with the applicants for the property at 34. Um, so I am thinking that not the 25 ft, but that they that we agree that we they agree to the 25 ft and that we also stipulate a time frame other than at the time of the CFO for the building the project being done on 42 Old Montauk Hwy. And Brian stated these things can drag on for many, many years and it was critical to get that restoration done. So, I feel we should set some other timeline. 25 ft and then get the rest of that done on that property in a by the end of 2026 or the end of 2027, some some hard date on it and not tie it to a CFO because of the delays that we may run into many times with
027extensions of time. Um, as for the project on 42 um I I'm going to approve this project. I feel it does meet the NRSP standards. They have a a re-veg plan that has been approved by the planning department already from Grimes. Um, the pool is put in one of the >> [snorts] >> the northernmost locations and, you know, based on the small variances required, a very de minimus variances for the pool. And they're also reorienting the driveway that will be coming in uh further up the off the dirt road, but also farther away from the wetlands and the bluff crest. Uh, there's a IA system being proposed for this project also in that upper northeast corner of the property. I think it does meet the standards. Um, some things we will need because of the
028survey and this question about the GFA is an updated survey with the correct GFA uh to show the the walkways that they're going to be removing or did removing. And that the southeast corner um does show that it is in Well, they they stated that it is does not warrant the a pyramid via pyramid variances at all. So, something I guess showing that that are on the survey. Um >> [snorts] >> So, I am approving it. I think it meets the standards uh for that. And the big question, I guess, for for us to decide here what kind of date and stipulations we want for the restoration on the 34 LMH property. Member Yohannan? Oh, I sure. Sorry. That's okay. Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Yeah, I want to start by saying that uh
02942 LMH is a half-acre parcel um and uh lends to some of the constrictions that are going to be because that they had to work with in trying to design a project that would be approved by us at this time. I'm going to go through uh not all statistical stuff, but the factors that influenced my decision uh one at a time here. There's There'll be uh um >> [clears throat] >> no uh there's no increase in GFA from uh no increase from the 1993 CEO of GFA with this. There's some give and take as was described Burger. Some areas are going to be removed, others are going to be We're going to be squaring off some corners. Uh the squaring out of the corners at their house will not affect anything environmentally uh and it
030did not have a negative effect, so I didn't see that that was a factor in any kind of decision that would be a negative here. Um the pool does not require a variance, so I think it's an important point. Uh they found a place to put the pool, not a large pool, to put it in a place where of course everything on the property is requiring an NRSP, but the pool managed to fit in the spot where we could see it. There was a tiny section of the pool fence that connects to the house that requires a variance. I thought that was very much de minimus and not a problem. The IA system is as far away from the house as possible and it was and Brian Frank felt that the um the IA uh
031was in the most conforming location you might have found on the property, which I think of course is a possible. They're going to re-veg 25% of the entire lot area here. I thought that the re-veg plan was extensive, comprehensive as far as it goes and separate of the question of the adjoining lot and this lot itself, that re-veg plan which was acceptable to the planning department seemed to be uh robust and healthy enough that we can move forward with that. I can move forward comfortably with it. The total coverage here is going to decrease um it's actually being reduced. Total coverage is being reduced by a little more than 1,000 uh square feet. Uh there's no increase in GFAs. I said the lot coverage is going down 552 square feet. Uh it's 4,800 square feet
032of revegetation, which will bring this lot into compliance in terms of uh of coverage. Um The reveg plan, as I said, is acceptable. Um The DC wants to monitor their progress on the lot next door, which was mentioned. Uh that whole discussion for me, when it came up and Brian had from uh apprehension about it, Britain came forward and said they'd be willing to do 25 feet of the 50-foot buffer that'll be required at the end now and then go and work till they uh until we get to the uh CO. I understand the problems with uh the CO could go on forever. I thought it was a reasonable approach by the applicant to say we'll do that 25 on an adjoining lot, which is not actually technically part of this, do it now, and
033then like and then we'll move forward. I'm not as bothered as others may be about the idea that it's tied into the CO. I think it's a good point that COs can go on for a while, but I think these people uh that were in front of us, the applicants, and the quick to change show that they're interested in moving forward. They want to see it done correctly, and I think they're going to be anxious to see this work done. The house is in disrepair and needs work. I think it's going to happen uh quickly. Um I think that when we look at these properties, they're very sensitive. This goes down to the ocean. It's got a beautiful uh frontage there. It's surrounded by wetlands as you come in in all directions. Uh we're always
034looking for an applicant to make the best possible proposals to us. I think this was an excellent proposal. They found a way to improve the house, revegetate, get themselves a pool, redo a driveway with a minimum number of variances, a minimum amount of disturbance. And most importantly, and I think the planning department backed this up on this, is is there was going to be a minimum amount of environmental potential environmental damage here. So, I'm willing to approve the application and a whole and the portion of it that has to do with what are we doing about the lot adjacent to it. I'm comfortable with accepting Britain's recommendation. If it goes in another direction, I'm happy to enter into that conversation with others later. But for now, Council, I am approving this application in its entirety.
035Thank you, Vice Chair. Member Kylie. Uh I in looking at this, I believe the pool location is the best uh spot on the property. The revegetation plan is also extensive. And I I feel this application meets the criteria as it stands. Thank you, Member Mary. Yes, thank you. Um I agree with my fellow board members. Just a few points. I'm not going to reiterate everything that was said so far, but um you know, with respect to the variances and the NRSP for the um quote additions, uh I think these are not substantial additions. I think it was turned out they were like 100 square feet and and the term they used was, but it's going to be net zero to JFA because they're removing a bit as well. So, um I think they meet the
036meet the standards um for both the NRSP and the variances. Um and as has been said, within the existing Well, the the changes within the existing footprints. I don't find the um the [snorts] uh variance for the pool fence to be substantial and there's no other way to create a pool fence without a variance because the way the pool is positioned relative to the house and the way the fence, you know, attaches to the house. So, that also um is uh is something that I will approve. And then overall on the NRSP, as been said, you know, 4,800 square feet of the re-veg, bringing it back into compliance with the maximum allowable clearing and the IA upgrade, which is mitigation in this application, I believe. All in, so I'm approving the RSP for all the
037elements as well. Thank you. I agree with my fellow board members. I'm not going to repeat everything that has been said. I also agree with Vice Chairs recommendation with the one that Britain proposed to us regarding the buffer. She also brought up during the public hearing that the revegetation be restored. It says in the conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit, but from a construction point of view, I'd be happy if it's done by the CEO, but not necessarily prior to the issuance of a building permit. So, Which revegetation? >> The revegetation to restore the uh buffer adjacent to the pond. So, okay. Condition G. And I forgot to weigh in on that before I finished. I I think she's right about the construction going on, and I'm just saying I'm
038in favor of that being done prior to the issuance of a CEO. Okay, I I did neglect some statements from Brian Frank inadvertently on that one. He did testify that he is not satisfied with the revegetation plan that has been provided so far for the 3400 MH property, and that it needs to be much more robust. Um I know you think Britain's idea was good, but Brian was very very circumspect about that. Again, going back to his comments in other recent restoration projects we've had on other types of waterfront properties that just drag on forever and since this is a DEC violation, they still need to get a DEC permit for 34 and he is not satisfied. I believe he did say in town and end at the hearing that the re-veg for 3401 Main
039Street needs to be much more robust and before any building permit is addressed that that be submitted and approved by this board or their agent being the planning board. Yeah, I'm going to stand behind the comments I just made. 4201 Main Street is before us and again, I'm happy with the recommendation brought to us by the agent for the applicant. Um chair, I forgot to weigh in on that whole issue. May I just come back in? Mhm. Thank you. Um so I am I'm okay if if you just think about 42 in a vacuum, which we can't exactly, but I would be okay with the re-veg that 4800 square foot of re-veg being done as a condition of the CO. Um however, I on the on the 34 or the 38, whatever the number is,
040I do believe it did come up in the hearing. This is one suggestion from Brian. I think the applicant's agent were potentially amenable that that there the 25% re-veg, sorry, the 25 feet of the re-veg buffer comes first and then the other would happen later. It did seem like there was some meeting of the minds and I think it was important to Brian that we could say by the CO or no longer than X number of could be years, you know, like or or time into the future. And I would love if it's okay to hear from Council if that's doable and how that could be constructed, but I think that's a fair, you know, balance of what what is very important to the planning department from the environmental perspective and I don't think it
041totally undermine what the applicant is hoping or trying to do. Can I just say one thing about being clear about the 25-ft offer? The 25-ft offer came as an offer to say that they would be happy to provide a 25-ft buffer before the building permit, but that they would finish the other 20. Yes, we know that that was offered. And then the rest would come their offer was at the CFO and then the discussion from there is what's been taking place, but they did offer at that hearing that do the 25-ft buffer before the building permit. So, 25 not 50 was what their offer was. So, from my cell, that is for 340 MH. >> That's right, for 340. 4811 Reveg Plan Brian had no problem with and yes, the 4811 in the condition F
042is fine and that's as recommended. But they're two different reveges here we talked about. Mhm, exactly. Yeah. So, where does that leave us, Council? I don't know. >> [laughter] >> I I mean, I don't know what So, >> I'm approving it in its entirety along with the recommendations made by the agent. Okay. I'm That's my vote. Everybody might want to summarize for um in one sentence uh what Council needs. >> [laughter] >> So, they're having to watch the meeting again. And I don't know how the time frame is going to work. I I just don't see how it's enforceable, frankly. Like, what are we going to say? They don't do it, then the determination is what? I don't I don't know. Like if they don't do it in 3 years, they have to come back
043for renewal anyway. Mhm. So, I don't know what the difference is. I don't What I thought is enforceable is the CO because if they want to get a CO, they're going to have to have it done. >> That's the only thing. That's the only thing we have teeth on really. Yeah, and she seemed amenable to that, so. But that Well, Brian was concerned because of the urgency of it because of all the bad things have have happened on the other one and this applicant, since they're the owners of 34, also thought it should happen as quickly as possible in the event the CO takes years as said earlier, takes a long time to happen. Yeah, think he was concerned. Again, I think the applicant's agent, Mr. Pasco, was was very genuine, you know, he was
044saying, "We want to get these things resolved." You know, they are acting in good faith. It seems like they're going to want to do the work on this application that's in front of us sooner rather than later. However, I think we know sometimes that um you know, the concern is that the that it's granted um and then it's just extension of time after extension of time, not trying to impugn the you know, the the wholeheartedness I think that we heard at the at the hearing. So, I think what I mean, what if it Well, I don't know if Brian you know, what Brian thinks, but what if it was you know, by the time of CO or no later than the 3-year period when this um expires, when the zoning board expires. That's that's already
045there for protection. >> Well, I If it So, you're saying then if they don't reveg on the property that this isn't subject to the the that what? >> What? That they can't renew their permit? I I'm >> That will be the board the board gets to I'm not saying that at all. I've already said >> No, no, I'm just trying to figure out how this is going to work. >> feel so. I'm just I don't I don't know. And this is not I mean I I caution I mean I think there's a lot of case law and stuff like generally speaking zoning boards do not have power outside of the subject property. They can't require people to do things off the property. In this case it's slightly different because they offered it. Um so I
046just I don't know if we how enforceable this actually is in terms of Um Yeah, I was just trying to balance the urgency of Brian's I'm pretty much approving it as submitted. You know, I'm not I I don't think we have to belabor this. I think we all know how we feel. Um Vice Chair. Yeah, no, I'm I've I've already said what I think and yeah, I'm I'm there. If others have additional discussion I'm I'm not going to take part in it. >> No, we will not have additional additional discussion. >> just sympathetic to the planner and Okay, well that's okay. But we um all are entitled to our one vote and we each have put one in and So I as uh proposed the Jim I mean I if Jim if you're okay with
047it then so Jim's okay with it so they're okay with it as as submitted then we're going with that. No, I'm fine I'm fine approving it with with the the this 25% coming up front. Okay, but can we he was very strong on that that revegetation plan needed to be more robust. I think the applicant said they were amenable to that. I think they were open to it so that has to be submitted for with conditional approval. Yeah, then any condition of approval is approved by the planning department. >> All right, so I will have to upgrade the those have to resubmit the revised plans for both properties for approval prior to this. >> for both properties. He was Well, he was okay with the plans submitted for 42 already. Yes, that's where I'm needing
048to be more robust. That's the one that they need to submit. Okay, that's what I have a problem with cuz that's not before us. 42 is. Well, I'll just If they want to uh Yeah, it's they I kind of re I don't know how enforceable it is to establish conditions of approval on another property. It's When the property before us is 42 only. No, I I agree, uh but they offered to do it. So, if they're willing to I mean, they came to us after the hearing for 42 to discuss 34 also. As far as the re- notice >> or you know, I mean, I just have problems with that. Did they provide a revised plan for the other property? I've said how I feel. Can we move on? Um yeah. Let's Yeah. I'm fine
049with Well, we can we can get it sorted out. Okay. I'll I'll talk to the applicant. All right. The next application, uh post-hearing decision is Gerald Bed Throne, 195 Marine Boulevard, Amagansett. Suffolk County Tax Map Number 300-176-8-24. Description is to demolish an existing residence and swimming pool >> [snorts] >> and construct a 2,236 square foot two-story residence with decking, swimming pool, sanitary system, and driveway on a parcel of land containing barrier dunes and dune land. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit but pursuant to 255-4-20 variances from 255-4-40, 255-11-72D relative height, and any other necessary relief. >> [laughter] >> The following dune crest variances are required. Variances of 11 ft, 28 ft, and 38 ft are required to locate the residence, swimming pool, and pool deck including the pool equipment, 89 ft, 72 ft,
050and 61 ft from the dune crest where a 100-ft setback is required. And three variances are required to allow the residents to extend 3 ft beyond the relative height pyramid limit along the northern and western lot lines and a 2.5 ft along the eastern lot line. Zoning district is B-1 residence, VE flood zone, L elevation is 17 ft. Member Maring. Thank you, Chair. Um the public hearing held was held on April 21, 2026. Joel Halsey of Lighthouse Land Planning represented the applicant, and Brian Frank represented for the planning department. Um we had one member of the public, a nearby neighbor, um make comments uh during the hearing. Specifically, she was expressing concerns about how the construction work and the related trucks and vehicles will be staged um given that it's sort of a a a
051tight area, and also it's very close to a passageway um or should I call it a beach access passageway where there's a lot of activity. Um though um it is common for it is common for redevelopment application applicants on sensitive parcels to have a construction protocol submitted into the public hearing record that was absent from this application. Obviously, if the application is approved, I would like um that as well as a full uh there was also no um revegetation plan to be submitted as a as a condition. Um the survey we relied upon at the hearing was dated 9242025. Though there was a discussion of revegetation, significant revegetation, and an expanded scenic easement on the seaward side of the new development, that 924 survey in the file did not um show either um and I
052don't think we've gotten in any additional uh surveys since the close of the hearing. Um in addition, I do want to note the memo in the file for Mr. Halsey dated 41426 in which he detailed the comparison of the redevelopment with the existing conditions, and he also addressed the standards and and variance standards, and I want to say that I did read that closely and it is part of my deliberation and consideration. Um so, I know that the lot area up to the bluff crest is 12,140 sq ft compared with the total stated lot size of 17,849 to the tie line. I also note that this lot is 75 ft wide, and I believe it benefits from reduced side yard setbacks. The current development on the property is pre-existing and deeply non-conforming to bluff crest
053setbacks, and it does not comply because it was built prior to these stand to the FEMA stand standards. The new residence is proposed to be a two-story structure measuring 2,236 sq ft of GFA. That's just half a per It comes in just half a percent below the maximum GFA allowable. The property history card over time consistently defines the existing house to be a one-story residence with 1,402 sq ft of above grade GFA, and as such the new house compared to that would represent an expansion of GFA by 834 square feet or an increase of 59%. I do of course want to note that Mr. Halsey has asked us to include an additional 528 square feet of basement recreation space when we consider the new house related to the current size of the house. The application
054before us improves environmental conditions with a number of factors. One, by retreating the setback of the structures to the bluff crest from the existing zero feet to 63 feet where 100 feet is required, a very important improvement. Also, with the total new development, the residence structure itself will now be built 89 feet from the bluff crest, which is much more landward than the current residence. In addition, as per the survey, the proposed redevelopment will reduce building coverage by 21% and total coverage will be reduced by 50% and at a proposed 20-foot elevation, the new house will comply with I think actually exceed what were FEMA first floor elevations requirements that were in place prior to this year and it's half a foot shy of meeting the recently increased, I think it was this year, FEMA
055elevation requirements and the applicant asserts that they'll be grandfathered under that prior rule. Um and of course there'll be a new a new septic system that is as far from the bluff and um and the water as possible. Moreover, if approved, this redevelopment will bring meaningful revegetation of the property and as part of that, related to that, the applicant noted that the revegetation on the seaward side of the parcel will be restored up to being just 10 feet south of the pool deck and in addition, they are extending the existing scenic easements. I think are they adding another 25 feet? I actually got um >> I think it's a distance of 50 ft landward of the property. >> the the original the current one is 25, right? So, if they're adding 20 25. Also, all
056in I'm going to approve the NRSP and the three requested bluff crest set set back variances of 11 ft for the house, 28 ft for the pool, and 39 for the pool deck. Given that the proposed redevelopment improves protection of the protected natural resources with the more landward siding and the revegetation restoration of a meaningful portion of the long long disturbed dune land areas, I find this application overall meets the NRSP standard, specifically 255.551d, quote, preservation of natural resources, and 255.540k, quote, environmental protection. With respect to the variance standards, I find the 11-ft variance for the house to be not substantial and the other two to be moderate. For the most point, I find that these are the minimum variances necessary as the house really cannot be pulled any more forward on the lot because
057of the required front yard setbacks and also the best position of the sanitary system, which is in the very front part of the property. One could say one could say that a smaller pool or a pool smaller pool deck than what is proposed could improve the setbacks by a further amount, though I don't know that it would be enough to really make a material difference to the protected natural features and the benefit to the applicant of the current application likely outweighs any detriment that could be well, outweighs any detriment. I also find that the variances are mitigated by the increase in the scenic easement and the proposed revegetation. Um the need for variances are not necessarily self-created because so much of this lot is in bluff crest jurisdiction, um and so the benefit of this
058redevelopment could not be likely achieved with some something other than variances. I also believe that if these setbacks that these setbacks will general generally be comparable to others granted by the board of recent time along Marine Boulevard for lot redevelopment and I don't see granting these these three variances as having any adverse effect on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. I will say that I did look very closely at the variance standard quote whether the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and related I also look closely and consider 255540D compatibility. Is this redevelopment compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the community in general particularly with regard to visibility scale and appearance. You know, over the last 5 to 10
059years we've seen accelerating redevelopment trends in Beach Hampton on this side of Marine Boulevard demolishing smaller non-conforming houses pulling the development way up to the road and replacing them with much enlarged structures that meet FEMA but but are pulled very very forward. In totality, you know, this trend I think does create risk to the character of the neighborhood. You know, one day we could have a wall of you know, very tall houses pulled right up to the road but with respect to this application I still although I was cautious on the you know, this house will present as very tall and very pulled forward but again, I just wanted to say that but that the I do believe all the environmental benefits really outweigh any possible concern about that in this particular case. Wrapping up
060just turning to the three requests for the pyramid relief here. I do not find the standards to be met and I'm denying all three. The applicant indicated to us that they started designing the house at a time that the code exempted glass railings from pyramid and height requirements. However, the town board adopted the revised code on December 5th, 2024 to no longer exempt glass from having to meet those um uh height and and and uh pyramid standards. And so, it does seem that there was ample time for the applicant to adjust um the positioning um of those glass railings. The house itself, the structure itself meets meets pyramid. Um uh and so, during the hearing also, they did not identify any particular real difficulty that made it not possible for them to comply with the
061code relative to those glass railings. So, um I don't I think the the grant of the variance will cause an undeviable undeviable undesirable change in the neighborhood and create detriment to nearby properties. Elevated decking that exceeds pyramid, um you know, increases disturbance to neighbors and can increase massing of the structure. Um and we have in Beach Haven, you know, hundreds of undersized lots that I don't think setting a precedent of of granting um perhaps non-essential or or otherwise solvable um pyramid variances for um upper decking um is the right uh precedent to make. The benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, as I said, related to the variance. I think there are design options for them. The requested variance is substantial. Yes, I find them to be There's not just for
062a few inches. This is 3 ft and 2 ft that I believe runs all the way along the length of each of the three um upper story decks. And as I said, the difficult causing the applicant to request an area variance was self-created. So, I'm denying those three variances, but um approving the rest of the development of the application. Thank you. Member Burger. Okay. Um let's say right at the front that I too am going to approve this application. Um the for number of reasons, the um and the variances are not large. And there are several items about the house that uh I look upon favorably. This is a narrow lot that was already mentioned. Um and the house in its current configuration was pretty long. [clears throat] Um the footprint of the house now
063is going from 135 ft to 61 in the north to south direction. Um coverage is going down from 1,500 to 1,200. And total coverage is going down from 6,286 to 3,188. Those are all good things. Um the setback also for the house is going from 27 ft to 89 ft, which is a huge difference. It may not meet the 100% but it's a lot better today. And 60 ft from I'm not sure where it was the deck Oh, the deck is way down there. The deck is going to 60 ft uh setback from to the from the to zero, right? Yeah. Yeah. Zero. So, there's no no variance stated for that. Um the scenic easement has been accepted as going to 50 ft. And uh the the re-veg is going to, as Joel said, go
064back uh 10 ft beyond the scenic easement, bringing it almost up to where the new deck is proposed, which is a tremendous benefit. Um as for the pyramid variances, I too am denying those. I think that just the fact that you need three of them in three directions um on this property and the fact that this is a substandard width property that anything piercing the pyramid is going to be even more exacerbated in terms of the look of the house uh from the street and the the level. So, I am denying the three pyramid variances. And um other than that, I think it meets all the NRSP standards. We're having revegetation in all the setbacks, everything else, and uh I'm going to approve everything else except for the pyramid variance. Okay. Member Kylie? In looking
065at this application, there's a lot going on, but uh house having a a land with retreat and the extension of the scenic easement uh make it easy to approve as it is. I don't have as large a problem with the uh the pyramid at this property given the the surrounding properties, uh I don't feel it's going to cause an adverse effects, so I I would approve those. Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah, thank you. Um I need to start with the fact that the lot of 75 ft wide net inches into a lot of uh what we have to consider here. Um Um the town recommends [clears throat] retreat, and this is a a sizable as has been mentioned by other board members, it's sizeable retreat and one that we can easily praise and and and
066want to approve. I think the sprawl of the original house as mentioned by member Burger, uh you know, going from 134 ft to 61 ft it was mentioned by uh >> [clears throat] >> by the by by and Frank at the hearing, the sprawl was a real problem with the original layout of this. Not only retreating from the dune but we're compacting the layout. We are getting into the situation as mentioned by >> [clears throat] >> member Meiring that we have houses being pulled out to the road. We have a canyon effect starting to happen with houses that come out and we've had some that we just can't see the approval on it. This one is easier for me to approve because I think the south side of the house and what they are doing
067in terms of net improvement to the environment, the vegetation, the revegetation plan coming within 10 ft of the deck shows a real effort to vegetate as much revegetate as much as possible during the retreatment. I think all the statistics that were mentioned were were important and of course it gets a new IA and it gets the 50 ft scenic easement which I mentioned. Um I'm not going to repeat any of those. I do think we get back down to the I'm going to approve the NRS pay. I'm going to approve the movement of the house. The question of the the the pyramid variances is a tricky one. I think that who wants to approve pyramid variances in neighborhoods like this. Um I think when they move it back and they raise the house up, they're
068not quite as was mentioned by member Meiring, not quite at FEMA but they're 20 ft uh 6 in. I guess we could try to lower the house and we would get the pyramid but then we'd lose the benefit of what happens by trying to save us against the potential catastrophic storms which is the the point of trying to achieve pyramid. I mean uh achieve FEMA. They haven't achieved FEMA but it's a real effort to get the house to be taller than it is. And what does that lead to? That leads to the fact that they have a need of pyramid variance. So, as mentioned by Miriam, why not an alternative of lowering the house? I'm going to ask myself I'm going to ask you to say that. >> No, I didn't talk at all about
069lowering. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you inferred that if you lowered the house you might get rid of the pyramid. I'm sorry. But, I'm going to say if you lowered the house you can get rid of the pyramid, but then we put ourselves in a more vulnerable position for the house. So, the real question for the pyramid is do we want to deny the second floor, you know, the roof deck on this? Um the rest of the project was not a problem for the for the the town planners. I know Brian felt it was a positive move to see the house move to where it came to, to see the fact that we're going to get the vegetation protection. So, I am going to approve the the pyramid vary the pyramid variances only because
070I think that they setting of the house now is so far better than it was not only in the retreat, but in the elevation of the first floor that I am going to approve it thinking that it's there is really not an alternative other than to eliminate the second the roof deck on this, which I don't think was as bothersome to the planners as we've seen in others and it's not as bothersome to me either. So, I am going to approve this application entirely. Thank you. Um a lot has already been said. I I won't repeat, but there are a couple of points I'd like to make. Um the house as proposed will only be I mean 263 square feet larger than what currently exists. And um one of the things I I looked at
071a lot was the pyramid, but as was uh stated by the applicant, the pyramid variances were requested were not required at the time this application was made. And the town at one time did allow glass railings to exceed the pyramid line. So that's the code has since changed, but I don't feel that the structures as proposed are in keeping I think the structures as proposed are in keeping with the neighborhood. They are compatible with surroundings and will not change the character of the neighborhood. Now during the public hearing Rona Clockman called in and she had certain concerns and that is when Joel Halsey agreed to submitting a parking protocol and staging and I think that would be um an important condition of approval. So uh not to repeat everything that's already been said I'm going
072through my notes to make sure everything has been said but I am going oh they also there was no objection to the retention of the staircase. So I'm going to be uh approving this application in its entirety. May I say something? You brought up the parking protocol. When Rona brought that up we actually got into a more thorough discussion about construction protocol and saving the soils on site all the stuff we usually do put in a construction protocol particularly on in this area or any beachy area. >> I I I think and I I did check the meeting uh hearing Joel right there uh uh agreed to the parking protocol >> construction protocol >> Yes. So So I think that could be a condition of approval before the issuance of a building permit. >> protocol
073not just parking. >> Well Rona had called she was concerned about parking and the and the trucks that are going to be all over. So that's why it came up. I'm listen I'm agreeing to this application with the submission of a parking protocol and and staging because that seemed to be the concern. That's That's my vote. What was the initial concern and the vice chair expanded the discussion about saving soils and other things that got us to a regular construction protocol. And my approvals are conditioned on a construction protocol similar to like what we get on many other similar applications. There's a lot going on in a tight space. There's a lot of restoration that needs to be done and re-vegeta- um not re-vegetation, but um and it's, you know, taking everything out, bringing things
074in. So, I think it's very regular that we do a construction protocol as a condition of like I said at this point of the building permit. Um and same thing on a re-vegetation plan. So, that's how I see it. Yeah, so uh since I'm the one who did make the comment as Mem- Member Burger says is that uh Joel did respond to us that I had said if the house is to be removed in that disturbed area, is that where the soils will be stored? And he said, "Yeah, that would be the staging area for the soil." We did want to know about when the clockman wanted to know about parking and he did suggest that he would provide a plan for that. So, I did not include it in my analysis. I'm glad it's
075been brought up, but um I thought that Joel that night uh made a response to it and made it sound as if it would be uh you know, it would be included >> Yeah. in what they did. Now, if we need that to be specified in our approval, I'll go along with it without saying that we need to have that specified. We have to know about the storage of materials and the parking. Mhm. That's conditioned on the the approval because that was brought up that night. Good council? Yeah, that works. Next is 176 Deforest Road LLC, 176 Deforest Road in Montauk. Suffolk County tax map number 300-33-3-4. Description is to install underground propane tanks, reconfigure a driveway, and implement a revegetation plan on a lot containing freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special
076permit pursuant to 255-4-20 and a variance from 255-4-30 of the East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. A wetland setback variance of 18.8 ft is required to install the underground propane tank 81.2 ft from the western wet wetland where 100 is required. The propane tanks will also be 81.4 ft from a wetland to the south and 83.6 from a wetland to the north. Vice Chair Yohan? Yes. Thank you. Board will remember that this hearing was held on April 28th, 2026. We were working from a survey dated January 12th, 2026 by George Walbridge. The applicant was represented by Karen Hogue. The town planner was Morgan Slater. We did get a ledge landscape revegetation plan by LaGuardia Design dated January 8th, 2026. The most recent C of O on this property was from 2001. Do
077you remember that it's in a large 18-acre parcel? It sits down in a portion of the of Montauk that's got some of the oldest houses there. This is house was rebuilt after a fire to match precisely and exactly the house that sat there for over 110 years before the fire. The property has received ZBA approvals in 1973 and in 2013. And it had administration NRSPs issued administrative NRSPs issued in 2000 and 2005. >> [snorts] >> Uh in the TAM there's the comment that uh wetlands are found on all sides of this residence which causes a certain amount of constrictions to anything that you might try to attempt to do. There was a 15,498 square foot re-vege plan was proposed to bring the clearing limits from 76,486 to 60,988 where 80,000 is the max allowed. There
078was um there's a serious amount of bamboo around the pool area. It's been cut and not yet removed. The planning department has no complaint about that removal if it takes place but was not interested in pursuing it as a a necessary part of this approval as we move forward. A couple of things that come right out of the the TAM relative to the um the uh propane tanks. Um this is a direct quote from Morgan's TAM. The lack of a conforming locations for most structures on this parcel due to the extent of wetlands and it appears the propane tanks have been proposed in one of the most conforming places on the lot. Similarly, there's a driveway that currently is uh part up against the wetland is to be re-con- re-positioned. There's not much you can
079do as wetlands on both sides as you walk in but they are going to move it from 1.8 feet over a couple of feet and have that the new location of the driveway turnaround that's up by the propane tanks seems to be one that does the minimum amount of damage and potentially environmental damage. Seems like the lot is being well planned for in terms of what's going forward from here on out. The DEC has already issued a permit for the propane tanks to be and the driveway and the IA system upgrade have all been uh done. The applicant obtained an NRSP waiver and the Suffolk County Health Department for the sanitation system in installation which is complete. We had photos at night showing them there. Um I mentioned about the revegetation Um and the clearing
080numbers which have varied but have coming back and and are back more back in line. I didn't have a problem with this one. It's a it's a minor ask on a very large parcel. It does have and anyone who's been out to the site sees that it is surrounded by wetlands and so virtually anything you do would come into some sort of looking for some sort of relief. Given that this was the kind of relief that was asked for that was minor. I just go through this table just quickly. >> [clears throat] >> The variance standards 255-550 whether granted variances that are being asked for will cause an undue or change to the character of the neighborhood. I say no. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant be achieved by some method feasible for the
081applicant pursue other than the area variances given the location that that the entire parcel is under would be under jurisdiction. I say no. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. I say no. Whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions of neighborhoods. I say no. Then under 255-551 of the town code in order to be eligible for issuance of an area variance specifically whether the preservation of natural resources and all structures and uses other than coastal structures shall be located upland and located where no natural feature or system designated in 255-412 will be diminished in size, polluted, or degraded. I say yes, they've met that standard. Alternative reasonable uses of the property to determine not to exist. I say yes. Alternative designs and smaller building
082structures I think have been considered in finding the location. Then the applicant must also demonstrate on this one under general standards 255-540 Hold on. >> [clears throat] >> Under D compatibility, the site of the proposed use is suitable for one location is such as the town and is the site of that location the prior use will be in fact compatible with its surroundings. I say yes. And under K environmental protection, the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without any disturbance or disruption to important natural features. I say yes. I didn't have a problem with this. I think it was a straightforward ask and I think they did a good job in what under your constrained circumstances to come up with a solution in locating these propane
083tanks and re re shaping the driveway. So I approve it in its entirety. Member Burger. Okay, I too am going to approve this application. I think the setback variances of 18.8 and for propane tanks 81.3 feet from the wetlands is small and we went to visit this. I did go to visit the site also. It's pretty impressive everything around it. Um the certainly not going to change the character and the de minimus to the town overall from its location. And I think the mitigation of the revegetation is a huge factor and will meet With that, I think that meets the natural resources special permit standards also. The protection of that area. The driveway we do is not a big deal and I have no problem with that. I will approve this application. Member Merian. Yes,
084thank you. I'm approving this application. I have nothing to add beyond what my fellow board members have laid out. Member Kylie. I I feel like it's met the standards. I approve it as as it is. I too feel that the applicant has met has demonstrated compliance with variance standards and NRSP standards and I'll be approving the application as well. Okay. Yeah, we'll go on to other We're good, Council? Yeah. Good. We'll go on to other decisions. Ducati, 91 Waters Edge in Springs, Suffolk County tax map number 300-83-7-8. CO request. Thank you, Jake. Yeah, so this property um got a determination in 2024 to reconstruct a bulkhead and to allow existing slate walkways, fences, and AC units to remain on a parcel containing bluff and tidal wetlands. Um at that time, the board denied a request
085to allow an existing outdoor shower to remain. Um during the Planning Department's inspection of the property, there was some concern regarding the full removal of the south side uh outdoor shower that prevented us from issuing a memo to sign off on the CO. It looks like they just removed the enclosure, but the actual shower and drain and patio underneath it are still there. Um so, the board should discuss whether these conditions satisfy the determination or not. Are they asking us to to approve moving forward on a CO without removing the shower in entirety? >> Yes, that's what they're asking. So, they're basically not in compliance with our decision. Uh yeah, that's what we were So, I'm not going to be I would not be in favor of approving a CO. Um there was a decision
086made by the board and they didn't comply. That's basically it, isn't it? >> Mhm. Yes, it is. Okay. I think we had a lot of discussion in that hearing. I remember it very >> the two shower houses. Exactly. two shower houses. Yeah, I'm agreeing with my I think the option is to come in compliance with the board's determination and they'll be able to move forward. >> Okay. But other than that, I'm not speaking for the board, but I'm not going to approve a CO request. I'm not approving it either. All right. Next, I believe I'm up to minutes, Terry, right? Minutes approval. Draft minutes of Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. So, I'd make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Second. Concur.
087Concur. Concur. >> [laughter] >> Resolutions. SBMFG LLC, 4 Tyson Lane, East Hampton, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-189-6-9. Member Mary, I think this was yours, right? >> Yes, thank you. Just quickly, you will remember we really just heard this application, I think, a few weeks ago, and it was for variances to exceed total coverage, to allow a basketball court to remain inside our setbacks, as well as to um uh whatchamacallit generators. And um we were Let me see if I can remember. We were unanimous in denying the the the court court setback and the overage of the coverage, and then um I I dissented on the whatchamacallit on the um variances for these Sorry, I'm It's generators. It's hot in here. On the generators, I think everyone else approved them. So, um I read the
088resolution. I had made one quick I think um change that was missing that I was dissenting um in the But beyond that, um in the matter of SBMFG LLC, 4 Tyson Lane, East Hampton, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-189-6-9, I'm making a motion to approve the determination as written. Second. Concur. Concur. Next is Matthew Schechter and Cheryl Berman Schechter, 189 Fairway Avenue in Montauk, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-19-2-8. I'll take that one, Terry. No, that was yours. It was? >> [laughter] >> Yes, you can do what you want. Yeah, this is one This is one when they came in front of us looking for a pool and it was it required moving moving wet moving a septic system closer to the wetlands. While the pool was not in itself the biggest problem for us, moving
089the septic was potential for doing more damage to a town-owned CPF property to the west was one that we thought was a greater threat than any potential benefit to the applicant and it was denied uh unanimously by the board. I therefore I'd like to make a motion [clears throat] to in the in the application of Matthew Schechter and Cheryl Berman Schechter, 189 Fairway Avenue, Montauk, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-19-2-8 to accept the determination as written. Second. Concur. Concur. Next is Goose Farm LLC, 30 Wainscott Stone Highway. Wainscott, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-197-7-5. Member Kyle. This is a property that came before us looking to allow a garbage bin, AC unit, generator, landscape wall, deck, and fence to remain within the minimum wetland setbacks. Uh Well, in totality, it looks like a big ask, but
090they are in the most logical places and in some cases it has made the property better. Uh the applicant also offered to increase the wetland buffer along Goose Creek Mhm. which was uh a major Yes. part of the siding. So, uh You want me to make the motion for you? >> Make the motion, >> [laughter] >> yes, please. In the matter of Goose Farm LLC 30 Wainscott Stone Highway in Wainscott Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-197-7-5 I make a motion that you approve the resolution as written. Second. Concur. Concur. Vice Chair, do we have an adjournment motion? >> I'd like to make a motion to close the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals >> [clears throat] >> public hearing and work session for May 12th, 2026 at 7:52 p.m. Second. Concur. Concur.