001Okay, ZBA. We are live. We are recording. The phone lines will remain off. Go forward. Thank you, Matt. I want [clears throat] to welcome everyone to the town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals uh work session for May 5th, 2026. Uh tonight I'll be sitting in for the chair who is out ill and we wish her well. Hope she gets well as quickly as possible. Uh we have six hearings tonight, so we'll start right off with the first one. Uh first one is SBMFG LLC at 4 Tyson Lane, East Hampton, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-189-6-9. >> Mr. Chair, please stop. Mr. Chair, please stop. Just 1 second. Give me a moment. Yeah, you're going to have to repeat yourself just for a moment. Uh but give me give me a second. Sorry about that.
002Excuse me. Okay, ZBA. My apologies for that. You are still recording. You are now live. Phone lines will still remain off. Please begin again. Thank you, Matt. Um >> [clears throat] >> I want to welcome everyone to the uh town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals work session for May 5th, 2026. I'll be sitting in tonight for the chair. Uh uh >> [clears throat] >> uh Savarese who is out ill and we hope that she uh gets well as soon as possible. Uh we'll go we have six uh hearings tonight, post-hearing decisions tonight. We're going to start with the very first one. SBMFG LLC 4 Tyson Lane, East Hampton, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-189-6-9. The size and location is 53,147 square feet at 4 Tyson Lane. Um the description is to legalize a basketball
003court built 19.3 feet from a side yard property line and two generators placed 5 feet and 5.4 from a side yard property line. The relief sought are variances from 255-11-10 and uh 255-11-88. The following variances are required. Variance of 30.8 feet to allow the existing basketball court to remain 19.3 feet from the side line side yard lot line where 50 foot is required. Variances of 10 feet and 9.6 feet to allow two generators to remain 5 feet and 5.4 feet respectively from the side yard lot line where 15 feet is required. A variance of 700 square feet to allow lot coverage to remain 21,959 square feet when the maximum allowable coverage is 21,259 square feet and any other relief necessary. This is zoning district A5 residence and X flood zone. And uh this was in
004member Mearing's um area, so please lead off. Thank you, vice chair, and shout out to our chair. If she's watching, we hope you feel better. We miss you. Um okay, the public hearing for this application took place on March 24th, 2026. Joan McGivern of Twomey Latham et al represented the applicant. Jake Kushner represented the Planning Department. Um there are a few iterations of the survey in the hearing file, but the most recent one in the record um I think that we relied on in the public hearing is dated August 15th, 2025. This one that that survey shows total coverage to be 21,959 square feet or the 700 square feet over the maximum allowable. I do want to note that there's also a survey dated just prior to that one in the public hearing file dated
005June 10th, 2025 that showed total coverage to be 20 21,264, which was just 5 feet less than the max allowable total coverage. Um and that survey did not show the 632 square foot slate stone patio on the east side of the house. I also note the memo in the public hearing file from Ms. McGivern dated December 3rd, 2025 that reviews the application and details um her addressing her addressing of the variance standards in her case to justify the setback violations of the basketball court as well as above the max allowable. And I want to affirm that I read this document and considered it closely as part of the hearing and my deliberations. This property on Tyson Lane, just off the south side of Further Lane, is 1.2 acres and it's 100% cleared as I believe
006it benefits from pre-existing non-conforming clearing status uh though the survey does not actually make that totally clear. The parcel abuts an Ag Overlay District and as such is per the town code 255-730 is within the was within the ARB jurisdiction for development permits uh a number of years ago, although as an aside, I do not believe playing courts are in their jurisdiction. According to the property history card included in the existing conditions conditions memo dated March 5th, 2026 in the public hearing file, the applicant, who I believe acquired the property sometime around 2012, demolished most all of the prior structures on the parcel including the existing 1,870 square foot house, a detached garage, a swimming pool, and 1,000 square feet of patios under lawful building permits issued in 2013. Subsequently, after the required ARB review
007and approval and under a building permit issued for six-bedroom house in May 2014, the applicant redeveloped the whole property, built a new residence structure. However, as the property card details, in 2018, it was discovered that the as-built didn't match the ARB approval or detail what was detailed in the building permit, and the applicant had to go through a process of getting the larger 11-bedroom house and other structures legalized post-construction. Importantly, there was a CO finally um uh granted CO 33632 for the house and some other features we see on the property. Now, um that was granted on March 27th, 2018 as part of the post-construction legalization. The survey associated with this 2018 CO showed total coverage then to be 16,104 square feet, well below the max allowable. The CO survey also did not show the
008basketball court, the 632 stone patio on the east side of the house, or the two generators that are before all of which are before us this this in this application. Interestingly, compared to the March 2018 CO, the first reliable aerial image in the file from July 18th, just 4 months after the CO, shows the basketball court, the generators, the stone patio that were not part of that CO survey. Now, I'm reviewing this history that's included in the public hearing record because it appears to me in my deliberations to be germane. We have an applicant who has experience and understands the need for permits and the need to comply with approvals. So, relative to one of the variance standards, the need for the variances requested appear to be entirely self-created, and I believe should be considered
009and in this case could legitimately [clears throat] preclude grant of some or all of the variances sought. So, with this background now brings me to the specific variances requested in the application, all related to the construction work that was done without proper building permits. One for the basketball court, which requires a 61% variance from side yard setback. A pair of 67% um side yard lot variances for generators compared to required minimum 15 foot setbacks. And a 700 square foot variance related to maximum allowable coverage. I'm going to take each of these three one at a time. I'm going to start first in my deliberation decision with the coverage variance. So, the maximum total coverage for this parcel per our town code is for 40% of lot area or 21,259 square feet. On a strictly one-dimensional
010numerical basis, it could be argued that a 700 square foot overage, which equates to just 3%, is not substantial. However, the request for this variance to exceed maximum total coverage, in my assessment, is very material and substantial for a couple reasons. First, the so the total coverage ratios in our code are generally fairly generous. So, so much so that it is not common that we see development on residential lots coming in close to maximums, let alone exceeding them. And second, as I understand it, variances to maximum total coverage allowance variances are rare to come up and are not frequently granted. The applicant demonstrated, and I can find um the applicant did not demonstrate and I cannot find uniqueness to this property that justifies granting a fairly rare variance for total coverage and doing so could
011spur or create or set the stage for more of these coverage variance requests and set a precedent that will that quote will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or will create detriment to nearby properties as well as to the town overall. The applicant's agent did not provide into the record any relevant comparable examples of when this board has approved similar max coverage variances. The applicant also did not provide proof of a true need for this relief or that they could not find a way to cure the overage while still enjoying all the benefits they seek of the various elements currently on the property. As the code states, the burden is on the applicant to prove benefit versus detriment as well as to prove why a variance is the minimum variance necessary
012at all. The applicant's basis for requesting this coverage variance seems to be twofold that they simply don't want to remove structures that they knowingly built without a building permit just after the CO was granted and this position does not in my view meet the area variance standards for granting relief. Also, the applicant's agent tried to make the case that the total coverage over over excess is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the building coverage is below the maximum allowable. With respect to this second argument, I also do not find that persuasive. It's clear in our town code that although there's interplay between what we call building coverage and total lot coverage, they have separate and individual purposes and intents. Building coverage generally has to addresses density and occupancy and to some degree intensity of use
013while the more expansive total coverage certainly is interpreted for the also the purpose of sustaining broader environmental quality, limiting impervious surfaces, flood mitigation, protecting soils, and limiting land disturbances. So though they complement each other, one does not mitigate the other and they are not interchangeable. If they were, we would only have one. So with respect to the standard, the area variance to be granted is not the minimum necessary with respect to coverage. That standard has not been met. In fact, a second version of the August 5th, 2025 hearing in the public file shows color-coded structures that create myriad opportunities to bring this property back into coverage compliance. So wrapping up on this standard, I also just quickly whether the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. I
014already answered that yes. Will the grant of the variance have an adverse effect or impact, sorry, on the conditions for the of the of the town? I already talked talked about why I think that's yes. The difficulty causing the applicant to request an area variance, as I said, was self-created. So all in this variance, I am denying. Sorry, I'm going in depth to the second variance request for the basketball court. With respect to the 61% side yard setback request to allow the basketball court to remain within side yard setbacks, I am also denying this variance for the following reasons. As I see it, it is not a viable applicant that it that is not a viable argument that an applicant who already went through the process of full redevelopment of the property did not know
015that this type of work required the benefit of permits and could somehow believe that installing a full-size basketball basketball court, let alone one that doesn't meet code, is lawful. >> [gasps] >> Though there is an unexplained mystery among the multiple aerials in the public hearing file of the parcel from 27 and 20 20 2017 and 2018, it's clear that the basketball court appears as well as a 632 stone patio in the April 2018 aerial just a month after the CO was granted in March of 2018. As we know and we discussed at many of our meetings and during most of our post-hearing deliberations, one, not all properties are sufficient in size or other characteristics to accommodate every feature or type of amenity. And also, two, variances to relieve a practical difficulty in complying or sorry,
016variances are for the purpose to relieve a practical difficulty in complying with the requirements of the town code. The applicant chose to build a 5,259 square foot basketball on a property without the necessary valid building permit in place did within minimum side yard setbacks. I looked it up and the size of this court actually exceeds by 12% the size of an official regulation-sized NBA court. It's clear that the applicant had and still has numerous options to enjoy the benefit of some type of basketball court that meets side yard setback but does not necessarily contribute to the coverage that meets side yard setbacks. Perhaps a smaller court, a half court, a different position of the court. Looking at the survey and scaling it, it appears that an orientation going east to west rather than north to
017south could solve this issue. So I answer no that this is not the minimum variance necessary and it doesn't meet some of the other standards, so I'm denying that. Finally, with respect to that, sorry, this is important. The applicant's agent has suggested that the setback violation isn't an issue because the impacted property abuts a prop the impacted property this variance requires abuts a property that is in a related compound and that the inhabitants of both parcels happily use each other's amenities. And they have said that they are willing to grant a covenant that will say that if and when the parcel is sold, they will remove the court. So they make the case that granting the variance won't create a detriment to the most affected neighbors. After considering closely, I don't find the offer of
018a proposed covenant as appropriate mitigation or solution. Variances run with the land, but covenants are not necessarily reliable in perpetuity. We see repeatedly covenants that are not properly filed, that are not fully enforced, that are disputed at some point, or covenants that are accidentally overlooked and they can be also modified by future town boards. So in this case, the variance requested does not meet any of the standards and for me, I think that should be the sole focus of the decision on this variance. And then finally, sorry, side yard variances for the generator. First of all, we learned that one of the two generators needs that needs a side yard setback actually serves the separate property to the south to Tyson Lane. I'm not actually sure I understand how lawfully I have jurisdiction to approve
019a generator on one parcel that's for use on another, but beyond that, the survey makes clear that there are ample alternative positions that both generators could have to meet setback requirements. Given, I understand that because of the way the house on two Tyson is set back, the noise of the generator will not necessarily create detrimental condition to the neighbor. However, the applicant didn't really explain the benefit of keeping them in this position. Again, had this been the subject of a building permit application, this probably could have been presented. These variances are substantial and are self-created. So on this one, I'm cuspy on this. I'm leaning to denying these generator variances, but I will say I'm interested in hearing how my fellow board members might might think about this and that is what I have on
020this decision. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> it's an important occasion [clears throat] and I wanted to be. I appreciate the effort. Thank you. Terry. Okay. Mine will be a lot shorter. >> [laughter] >> Okay. Thank you very much for the detailed history and everything. Okay, my decision, um I too am going to deny the variance of the 700 square foot overage. Um it comes Well, there's the basketball court itself, which is huge, the slate patio of 632 feet, and then uh the planner, Jake, had there was some additional slate walkways added that make up that other 68 square feet. Um and um I too we I'm This is an overage. Again, things were put in without permit. Um and then the basketball court I'm bringing that over to the the
021700 additional. So I'm denying the lot coverage. They get It does not meet the standards. It's large. Um It can Well, it's something that I don't want to do on a any kind of a basis. I don't know how many lot coverage variances that I've approved over the years. Um This self-created, as we know, and it could provide a perpetuity detriment to the town. And um I am approving it. I'm not approving it, rather I'm denying it. And then I'm also denying the setback the side yard back setback for the basketball court, the 30 31 feet. And uh it is a large variance. I think it also is changes or can impact the character of the neighborhood. And um it is in perpetuity. And um the thing I differ on is um the well, not
022necessarily differ on for the two generators. I think the the variance is there for 10 and 9.6 ft for the generators. I will approve. I think that you know, normally generators and air conditioners so we're a little bit not lax, but a little easier on for what they do. What these generators are huge as you can see in the photos, but um I I think they they don't they necessarily meet the standard, but I think they meet enough that if they would be uh it's extreme hardship to to rearrange everything they have on the generators of both two and four uh Tyson. So, that one I will approve. Thank you. Jim? Uh well, first I'd like to thank member Mearing for her exhaustive I I I don't think I could even come close to that.
023Um On the basketball court, I agree there there were different ways to tackle this and uh putting it in the orientation that it is is really pushed it in into the wrong spot. Uh so, I have no I would deny that. Uh the generators I agree with they're in the best location for the property if they were just more conforming, but that is I would put a generator in that's where I would go. Um so, I I'm okay on the generators. Uh as far as the overage, I I think that is something a property of this size that you know, you know, I I can't can't really approve that. So, uh and You're denying the two >> those and then And approving [clears throat] the generators. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Jim? I thought this
024was an interesting case on on some levels. First, I do want to thank member Mearing for her very thorough analysis of the the entire application. Um We come down to talking about let's start with the generators. I'll start there. I think the generators are in the wrong spot. I think though I will be willing to approve them because they're their own mutual problem in this case, one serving one, one serving the other. As was mentioned by member Burger, [clears throat] we we are flexible about generator and air conditioning locations when we think it's important. I'm not sure that this is exactly rises to the standard, but I I I can see approving those. As far as the coverage, I think the coverage was a very found a sound argument made about coverage. What we look
025for, what we what we do and don't approve. I agree with um >> [clears throat] >> member Burger. I can't tell you how many we have an approved, but I know that we are very careful about approving any kind of that kind of overage of that that caliber over 700 ft. I thought that the location of the of the tennis court was uh or in this case the basketball court was interesting. We have had in front of this board several similar cases where mutual ownership or family ownership of two parcels have encouraged one individual to put a swimming pool, a tennis court, a basketball court close to one property edge so they could [clears throat] be used. Um on every one of those cases, I know I have [clears throat] denied the application because this
026is in perpetuity and while it's owned by the fellow brother, sister, family trust, uh it may not be 5 years from now, 10 years now, 20 years from now. Uh and at that point someone would have to put with a put up with a problem that we allowed happen that's really out well outside of anything we normally approve. I think that the interesting aspect of this with the offer of the covenant. I um I I'm going to have to agree in balance that I don't know where we would stand enforcing a covenant 20 years from now. I'd like to think that it would be, but I do know that um if it was not to be enforced properly, we'd have let someone inherit this problem as I've said that goes on forever. It's in perpetuity.
027I think we have to ask ourselves every time we allow an approval of something that's well outside uh the normal standard, um why are we doing it? Where's the uniqueness? There's no uniqueness here to me. There's not There's not as if there's not an alternative. This could have been placed differently. I think it was convenient. It was convenient for them and I understand why they did it. They did it outside the benefit of a building permit which would have given them better guidance. So, I'm going to go very much along with my board members in denying the overage and the court, but I will approve the location of the uh of the generators. Are we good with that, counsel? Yes. Everybody just correct. I just want to make sure I get it exactly right. Everybody
028has denied the uh [clears throat] coverage and the basketball court. And I don't believe member Mearing Yeah, I'm I'm denying. I said I was leaning towards so I'm denying the generator variances. Yeah. Okay, just wanted to check. But so, the denied, but then the the generators are okay. Yeah. 3 3 1 and then >> 3 1. Sorry. Okay. I denied. Yeah. All right, let's do everything. Okay, thank you. Just give me a minute to find my next response here. Sorry. I'll read the next one in. And there it is. Sorry. Okay. Next on our agenda for tonight is um The Lichten Family Trust at 38 Surfside Avenue, Montauk, Suffolk County Tax Map 200-51-4-3. Size and location is 43,658 sq ft at 38 >> [clears throat] >> Surfside Avenue. Um Block 362, Lot 2. Uh description
029is to remove approximately 40 linear ft of sandbag seawall, allow approximately 122 linear ft of coastal walkway to remain, reconstruct a staircase to the beach and allow 104 sq ft of decking to remain within the side yard setbacks on a parcel of land containing coastal bluffs, beaches, and tidal wetlands. The relief sought is a natural resources special permit pursuant to the 255-4-20, a variance from 255-11-10, and any other necessary relief. A 4.5 uh foot variance is required to allow 104 sq ft of decking to remain uh 10.5 10.5 ft from the western side yard and lot where 20 ft is is required. This is zoning district B, residence BE flood zone, elevation 18, and X flood zone. This is [clears throat] SEQR Class 2. This was mine, so I'll lead it off. Uh Board will
030remember [clears throat] that we had the hearing on 32426, March 24th. We're working from a survey that was uh dated uh May 9th, uh 2025. Uh the um uh applicant was represented by Jackie Hubbard. Uh they also presented uh supportive information from First Coastal. Uh Kyle Hubbard uh who made a presentation of some of the technical side of what was to be planned there. The town was represented by Brian Frank. This was uh this is a three-part uh discussion, a pre three-part application. I'm going to start with the first and what I think is the simplest one to to examine, and that is the 4-ft variance for the deck that services an exterior door on the west side of the property. Um It was uh brought up at the hearing that there was an exterior
031door without an uh without an an an avenue of egress. While a small staircase could put in could be could have been put in, they extended the deck that existed on the back of the house westward, made a 90° turn, and allowed for a landing to step from the door come out so that that deck is now joined to another deck which makes it convenient and of course safe for them to exit the house. >> [snorts] >> I uh there was also the issue here if this had not been connected one to another to the pool, it might not have even come in front of us for a variance. I didn't think this was uh uh a a large ask in in in the sense that I think it did have a function. I don't
032think it did anything to increase the recreational area that might affect the neighbor nearby. I didn't find this to be a problem for me at all to approve. I thought there was a reasonable ask and I'm willing to approve that aspect of this application. Uh I'm going to jump right down to the water. We'll save the walkway to last. But this sea this sandbag wall that was put in without the benefit of a um of a of a building permit was very significant and I think surprised all board members who got to see it. It was uh quite tall. It's 40 ft wide. It was uh it was actually well constructed, but it was constructed in an area where um it it eventually uh decision was made to have it removed. It was not allowed.
033It would not have passed uh an approval from us had they come for us looking for it, I'm quite sure. But nonetheless, they agreed to that. They understood and immediately uh are going to get working on with with they get the approval get working on removing of that. And um the removal, by the way, was brought up by Brian Frank should not require an NRSP. It does at this point, but he feels that removals of of a violation should probably move forward at some people or another discussion. They were also going to rebuild and redesign the staircase to be um closer and more carefully uh uh positioned relative to the bluff. In this case, instead of coming up perpendicular to the bluff and extended well out into an area that is both used by by
034the public and by wildlife, but also is more prone to coastal damage from storms and winter changes, they would do something with a switchback. We had a the we had or I guess it's up here now. The we had a drawing that showed us how it was to be constructed. We did ask some questions of pre first coastal and Kyle Hubbard that assured us that how it was to be anchored, how it was to be constructed, and whether or not it fit within the parameters of what was approvable by the town planners. And they felt that it was a very solid suggestion and a solid way to go on trying to bring back the staircase and make it as conforming as possible. The sandbag wall is to be removed, the material from the sandbags is
035to be left in place, and an angle of repose is to be established with plantings and grasses hopefully stabilize that cliff in that location. Those three items moved through pretty quickly and easily for me. There's not a problem with those. They they all sound like both There's a an allowance for the deck, which I didn't think was a problem. And of course it's an improvement down on the on the storefront, which is where we we encourage. There was a slight question brought up and I think we'll allow this to go and see what happens when as they move forward here to do this, but how were they going to get access to this work? I know the access could be had from above. I did ask the questions about it was going to be handheld
036equipment. It could be done through the property. If they were to go ahead and try to come by access on pound across town land that they have to get the proper approvals along the way, and that would be in the hand of any kind of a building permit once it comes down that far. The last item is the walkway. The walkway was one that There's a walkway that extends from the developed portion of the property and a pool all the way down to the staircase. The walkway in examining it is 5 ft wide. We know that everyone knows who follows the actions of this board that all access to beachfronts, all access to wetlands are restricted to a 4 ft wide walkway. That's something that's been pretty hard and fast in the recommendations we've had,
037and many times we've had ones that do not fit those qualifications and we've asked them to be changed and be removed. There was a discussion about whether or not removing this at this point would do more damage to the surrounding the and more collateral damage to the vegetation there. Brian Frank felt that that it was hardy enough and it was stable enough that it would not be a factor. I think one other thing occurred to me when I was there, and that is that this is a 5 ft wide walkway that's built over runners that are about 4 ft wide. I think that they can take whatever choice they want here, but if we ask them to reduce it to 4 ft, it could be a rebuild. It also could be trimming down the walkway
038and replacing the posts. I think it's possible to do it without a great deal of work. I think it's essential for me when I look at the walk to say, if we are going to continue to require people to have a 4 ft walkway, allowing this one to be five merely because it exists doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't think it it's in character with what we want to see. I don't know if a true precedent would be established, but certainly it would be something referred to by many, many other applicants in the future about how we handled this particular case. So, in balance I I could read through the standards here, but I do think it rises up to the standard to allow us to approve the NRSP. I think that the
039I'm willing to approve the side yard deck, the staircase as designed, the removal of the sandbags, and replenishment of the bluff, require that whatever method they use, whatever technique, that the walkway is reduced to 4 ft in width. Terry? Okay. Thank you for that. Well, we'll start and say more to you on the 4.5 ft variance for the 100 sq 4 sq ft of decking. And when you go out to the house today, you don't really see where that is, but it was stated you could see you know, sliders that came out at one point, and then subsequent at some point subsequent to that the pool was put in, and uh so I am approving that variance. It doesn't really seem to be a problem to the house next door. It's not going to change
040the character of the neighborhood. It's a small variance. 4.5 for 20 ft setback. So I am approving that. And the whole discussion, thank you for the coastal structures and all. There were were a lot of There was a lot of discussion, and ultimately though the applicant should come in with what was recommended by the planning department, which made the the stairs consistent with all the other stairs along the surf, you know, the ocean, consistent with the way they look, and minimize the intrusion [snorts] out onto the sand. So I'm I'm fine with the NRSP on that. And um You already mentioned that if they were to come across town property that they would have to get permission from the Somebody said the town board at the hearing. I don't know if it's actually the town
041board or the building department, but some from someone. And and on the the walkway, it was stated back and forth on that on the side it's 5 ft walkway. Again, going to what has been done in the past, all the walkways are 4 ft wide. And I don't think we should change from that at this site. So I'm going to deny that or and um see that they make that the 4 ft. I didn't look under it. I don't know, you know, looking at the deck. I just see a 5 ft deck, and [snorts] there was I I believe some non I don't know if it was ACQ or but some non-natural wood things there, too. It's very much in your face walkway when you go through that. Um So I I too am going
042to deny that or not let leave. What is it for this? An NRSP for the walkway? Yeah. What is to remain? 122 linear feet of coastal walkway to remain. >> To remain. >> So you're Okay. So that 100 Is that That would be the NRSP, yeah. Yeah, the NRSP. So I'm going to deny the NRSP for that. And I think they should go to the 4 ft walkway. It was stated by Brian that because it was flat and that it wouldn't be detrimental, it wouldn't be a big deal to take that foot out on that walkway. Good. Mhm. Thank you. Jane. Thank you. I'll go in the opposite direction just to shake it up a bit. So I'll start with the removal NRSP for the removal of the sandbag seawall. I agree with my fellow
043board members that this is um should be approved. It meets the standards. In fact, you know, you go to that property, it's which is breathtaking, right? When you stand there and you look at, you know, coming off the cliff, and you look to your right as far as you can see, and you look to your left as far as you can see, and obviously I think this is the only sandbag wall [clears throat] that you can see in that whole area. So this is a very important moment that we have these applicants, you know, working I thought they were very engaged in the hearing and, you know, very willing to accommodate all things that the, you know, planning department said. So I think it not just meets the standards, it's actually an environmental improvement in
044having that removed. I agree with my fellow board members that the the 5 walkway should not be permitted to remain, and that the walk the walkway itself can remain, but should be at a 4 ft width because I think, as I said in the last application, I say it here, too, we need to be treating need to be treating similar properties similarly, and 4 ft is clearly a standard this board adheres to. And then finally, you know me, I'm usually very um uh not approving of side yard variances, but in this case I also agree I I think it's actually a stretch to say this is a extension of the pool deck. I don't see it as because of that. I see it the width of it makes it look more like a walkway. I
045don't think, you know, people the the pool deck is so large, I don't think, you know, revelry will spill over into that little zigzag, and, you know, disrupt the neighbors or, you know, be to their detriment. And it's there obviously for safe egress in lieu of a staircase. So I am approving that variance as well. Thank you. Did you get it all? >> [clears throat] >> Okay. As far as the NSRP [snorts] for the sandbags, I'm in agreement with my fellow board members. Uh Moving ahead with that. I approve that. As far as the variance for the deck and the side yard setback, again, I think it's inconsequential and it just looks like it belongs there. So, their case I think is [clears throat] well thought out and the applicant worked with the the board
046to get uh something that fits the area and doesn't project out too far from the beach. The walkway is I think it's precedent-setting if it fits like like go at 5 5 ft and could be dealt with appropriately. So, I have a deny on that. So, you're in line with the other board. >> So, yeah. So, basically, what I want to make clear is you're not the board hasn't denied the existence of the walkway. We're just requiring that it can become 4 ft. So, you're you'd be okay with an actual the approval it would be for it's a squat it's like a denial that it can remain as built, but it's an approval for one at 4 ft. >> That's right. So, so that would yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, it's like a it might read
047differently. It's going to read as like an approval, but at 4 ft. You know what I mean? Okay. I just want to make sure it's yeah. And surely with a condition. And surely I'm sorry. I forgot to >> than 4 ft. Yeah. Sorry, Charlie. I forgot to say in my that I actually I didn't say that I I'm also approving the staircase the reconstruction of the staircase. Just wanted to make that clear. I didn't say that. So, basically, everything's approved except for the walkway except for the 5-ft walkway. That's right. Thank you. Move on to our third decision tonight. It's for TMT Montauk Realty Group LLC at 261 East Lake Drive, Montauk. Suffolk County Tax Map 300-13-1-20. >> [clears throat] >> The size and location is 27,148.3 sq ft. Um the description is to construct
048a 458 sq ft gravel patio, a 107 sq ft spa with minimum wetland and bluff crest setbacks, and to construct a 1,100 sq ft one-story addition, IA system upgrade, and wall on a lot containing a bluff and tidal wetlands. The relief sought, a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255-4-20, variances from 255-4-30 and 255-4-40 of these Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. Wetland setback variances of 51.9 and 44 ft are required to construct the gravel area and spa. 48.1 and 66 ft from the wetland where 100 ft is required. And bluff crest bluff crest variances setback variances of 13.3 and 16 ft are required to construct the gravel area and the spa 36.7 and 34 ft from the wetland where 50 ft is required. This is zoning district A residence X flood zone
049VE elevation 9 Secra class type 2. This is in member Burger's Yes. Okay. This one this hearing was also on March 24th, 2026. Um we had a TAM dated 21326. Morgan Slater was the planner on this. Uh she was not at the hearing, so Brian Frank was at the hearing that night. [snorts] Um we have the survey dated July 16th, 2025. Okay, I'm sorry. My eyes just read that wrong. July 16th, 2025, which we received 12 2025. We have a re-veg plan from LCG Landscape Architecture. Um And we have a memo from Lighthouse Land Planning dated 31826, which we received on 32026, which um included a re-veg plan that re-veg plan uh and uh information about the spa drywell that the planner had questioned whether the um whether the drywell was uh would function properly
050as a drywell with the application proposed for the hot tub on top of an existing deck. >> [snorts] >> Um There was also uh a document included in that by Frank Felino, who's the architect for the application. Um explaining how he came the had a survey done and testing to the GFA maximum number and how that came about in the survey that was submitted for the application where uh town records [clears throat] for more than one CFO had shown that the the GFA for the this property was much higher. And um >> [cough] [clears throat] >> All right. So, I'm going to start with the uh the two variances for The hot tub is proposed to go on top of the existing deck on the seaward side of the house. Um this property is com-
051preexisting nonconforming and the there is it is preexisting nonconforming for clearing also, which is an issue in here. It's it's in an H pod on Lake Montauk. It's in the H pod >> [sighs] >> uh so, overlay district, which limits clearing. Um There are Okay. The the hot tub is proposed to be and you have the variances, right? Uh from the bluff crest 13.3 ft and from the wetlands the tidal wetlands 51.9 ft from Lake Montauk. Um Actually, the That's the that's the deck and that's the hot tub on the deck. On the other side there's the proposed gravel area that they want, which is 51.9 ft from the wetland and 13 .3 from the bluff crest. I might have given that backwards. The spa is actually 44 ft from the wetland variance and the
052bluff is bluff crest from there is 16 ft. So, both of these though are in would add to the nonconformity on this property. Um they do not they in my opinion, they do not meet the standards at all. They would change the character of the neighborhood. This is on Lake Montauk where the the lots on the the lake are this considered a front yard. And along East Lake Drive there are there are pools in locations, but very few of those are on the lakeside. And again, this board has denied in the past pools that were proposed to go between the house and the the water. Um Very few and if there are any, those would also probably be preexisting nonconforming structures. Uh there was also as relative to the spa, there was a 2008 um
053ZBA approval on a previous addition for this house. And um there was an approval given for a pool. Um provided it was in the upland and there is ample upland space on this property for that. The The additions went in. Um the pool was never built and that permit expired. So, um as far as that hot tub, which has the the size of it warrants that it has all the same dimensional variances and and the setbacks as a pool. So, I am denying the variance for the hot tub in its entirety. It will change the character of the neighborhood. Um it is a large variance. And uh there are alternate locations for it. There is ample upland. And um And the same for actually I'm for the gravel area. And I am denying those variances,
054too. They also Well, they're even as in the TAM, they they're not even allowing in their request for the gravel to be 50 to not be cleared more than 50 ft from the the bluff crest. So, they're within that area, so that's another uh detriment to it. And it also will change the character of the neighborhood. Um the variances are large. That, too, can be put in another location on the property. And um >> [clears throat] >> There is um Okay. Now, bear with me on this. All right. So, now the the other part of this So, that's these require an NRSP and variances, those two items. And they also don't meet the NRSP standards at all. Um the other part of this application and is to put an addition on the front of the
055house uh which is out of variance jurisdiction. The back of the house. Right. Front, back. Yeah. Okay, the back of the house. >> Um which requires an NRSP. It's still within NRSP jurisdiction. Um this >> [sighs] >> this addition will pretty much will max out the the house. It's a one-story addition. It will bring the total GFA to 4,313 ft where 4,314 is the maximum. At the time this application was considered complete, that was the the town code number at the time this application was being complete. Um since that time, you know, the GFAs have been reduced, but that's neither here nor there for this application. Um there was a question as to the amount of the GFA going back to some C of those multiple CFOs partic- and the one in 2008 that showed
056the GFA of this this house larger. Um as there was a testimony from Frank Felino who is the architect and he's the one that sent in he had a survey done and had verified the GFA of the current house which came out lower. Um so yeah, we we've accepted that, I guess. Uh Brian Frank did testify that sometimes the CFOs didn't quite match, although that this number was a large number to be in a a discrepancy on it. Um so the the addition it brings it to the maximum of of what it what was and it the as far as the NRSP standards there was a revegetation plan that was submitted for this project by landscape architect. And um it was deemed by the planner uh Morgan that it was not robust enough. Thank you,
057Tyler. It's up on the screen. And it was not robust enough and it was also not enough of the woody vegetation that we typically look for along East Lake Drive. This is not really a a sandy area, so beach a lot of beach grass that was put into this was inadequate. Um there was discussion with um Yeah, Tara Burke is the one that had submitted the memo and the plan. Um Tara was not at the hearing that night, either. It was Andy Hammer that uh appeared for uh Lighthouse Land Planning. And he had a whole lot of things to say that about um about how all of this should just be allowed. Um and then Brian Frank just uh kind of a little bit humorous um disagreed with everything that Andy had said that night
058relative to NRSPs and standards. Um This isn't an HPOD. The existing clear Now, HPOD limit, this is the pre-existing non-conforming clearing on this property um which allows it an HPOD it's a limit of 10,000 sq ft of clearing. This property has 22,233 sq ft of existing clearing. Quite a bit over. Um it it is pre-existing non-conforming. However, for an NRSP um it does warrant that revegetation uh could be done and ample revegetation. So, that going back to the planners this is um the reveg plan was offered at 4,300 52 ft, I think, which doesn't even come anywhere near close to reducing it to the 10,000 HPOD requirement. Um so that needs [clears throat] to be much more robust. Um I'm very iffy on this application. It's this is the type of application in the past
059that I have denied. Um because the the addition, even though it meets standard doesn't mean it meets the standards for an NRSP. I do believe that. I do believe with a robust landscape plan improved upon that um it could be approved. However, I know in the past I have because it's maxing out at the dimensional numbers and and it has it's a a property that has an NRSP. It's maxing out as though it's just in any other lot where an NRSP is not applicable. And [clears throat] many times that I have denied that. I'm leaning on this one to approve the the addition um for >> [snorts] >> a couple of reasons. Um I think it's it will max out the house, but um they they're offering the IA system. Okay, that's, you know, pretty
060common. And I will approve the addition if the reveg plan as submitted which is dated 3/17/26 that it was um be approved with the native native woody species more appropriate for the property and approved by the planning department before building permit is issued. And I would like another condition that uh regarding the GFA that if this application is approved that before a permit is granted on that that we have the chief building inspector of the building department um verify the GFA of the current house as it is today. Just to verify that Mr. Felino's uh data is is accurate. Um I do have reservations, but [laughter] I am approving the addition um on those conditions. But I have concerns. So, I'd like to hear what my fellow board members say. Jane. Thank you. Oh, thank
061you, member Burger, for >> [laughter] >> sharing uh thoughtful No, not rambling, thoughtful and thorough discussion of the application. Um so, just a very quick preamble here as context for my deliberation on this application. You know, the total land area of East Hampton is 73 miles, but including all our water bodies, the documented area of the town is 386 sq miles. And the East Hampton Town Natural Resources Department says we have 131 miles of outer and inner inland shorelines. And we're all very aware that water quality in many of our inner water bodies, especially, including including parts of Lake Montauk, not necessarily this section are being negatively impacted and compromised by development pressures as well as conditions such as warming trends. So, protection protection of natural resources, which include shorelines, wetland wetlands, and bluffs per
062Town Code 255 Article 4 as well as a standard for the Natural Resources Special Permit per 255-550 and 255-551 are certainly a centerpiece and a crucial pillar of this town zoning code and therefore core to the attention of this board. Um and you will never That's why you will never hear me say the words, quote, "Well, it's only an NRSP." Um [snorts] and, you know, I raise this I mean, this is something I think about on every application that's looking for wetland setbacks or bluff crest setbacks, but I think this application in particular really you know, brings this this the importance of this code home. Um and why again, you know, so as a board member, I'm asked to consider the unique circumstances of each application before us, but it is also crucial because there
063is so much shoreline and so many parcels in this town that do and will come before us potentially asking for similar relief to required wetland and bluff setbacks um that we handle similar properties in a similar manner. Um and I understand that if I as a member grant relief, I have to always consider how that interpretation of the code might cascade across other applications. So, regarding my decision on the elements of this single application I'm going to start first with the proposed addition to the house. So, as been said, the property has benefited greatly and therefore the current applicant continues to benefit greatly from the years of the pre-existing non-conforming location of the house relative to the wetland and the bluff crest as well as to the large pre-existing non-conforming clearing relative to H pod
064status standards, excuse me. The applicant's agent describes this application, I guess, overall as quote modest and I do not necessarily agree with that characterization for a house that has already been Sorry, for a house that is proposed to be expanded within 1 ft of the absolute maximum house size under the prior code and that also expands the building coverage by 39% and the total coverage by 2,400 sq ft or 40% So, I find this proposed level of development cumulatively and with this application to be somewhat aggressive for a sensitive lot fronting on Lake Montauk and in the context of the historic character of this area and and located in a New York State significant fish and wildlife habitat and as a component of the Peconic Estuary critical environment as well as in an H pod.
065And I just want to say again, the original 1,400 sq ft pre-existing non-conforming house has already been expanded by 112% over the years. The 600 sq ft detached garage was added and the current applicant benefits from prior approvals by the zoning board in the past to expand the house and the decking material. And as we know, the current proposal is to add another 1,100 sq ft addition on the landward side or the rear of the existing structure, although they're creating They say they want to create a more formal, aesthetically pleasing front facade, they call it the front facade. In addition street-facing facade. In addition, um this this is outside of the minimum wet This addition is outside of the minimum wetland setbacks, but is clearly in NRS P jurisdiction. Um The clearing on the parcel
066The clearing on the parcel, which is classified as pre-existing non-conforming Member Burger already went through it. It's 122% greater than the 10,000 permitted in H pod. And though the applicant has proposed 4,350 sq ft of revegetation as part of the overall application, that would still leave the property 79% quote over-cleared relative to the H pod zoning requirement. As we discussed at length during the hearing, there's a discrepancy in the size of the existing house. Decades of document documentation put the current GFA at 3965. Obviously, as was said, licensed architect Mr. Felino has, you know, affirmed that the size is different and of course they're not They say they're not applying for a GFA variance and that it will meet the max of the code. As often discussed by the planners and the Tams and by
067this board, the formula max GFA is an as-of-right issue. Applications in front of this board needing relief and special permits are not considered simple as-of-right and therefore the max allowable under the formula cannot necessarily be expected and may not be compatible with the conditions on the property and the standards of relief. So, as I reviewed and deliberated the entirety of the documents in the public hearing hearing record, um I also, like Member Burger, have found this request for the NRSP for this addition as cuspy um under the standards of 255.551B 1 and 2 and 255.540D and K. However, the residence does not appear does not require variances or other dimensional variances like setback relief from side yards or whatever, front rear yard. And I also do strongly factor in that the planning department did not
068find the house addition to be particularly objectionable or violative of the NRSP standards. So, therefore, that puts me on the approval side of the cusp, but only only if this approval is contingent on a minimum of that 4,350 sq ft of reveg. And as Member I agree with Member Burger that reveg as was required and requested by the planners must be improved to really create more beneficial and of course So, that reveg plus the environmental benefit of a change to the AR system seems to me just enough to mitigate um where I felt that this didn't quite rise to some of the NRSP standards. So, as I said, I'm going to I am going to approve the NRSP for the house addition. And I know Mr. Hammer tried to make the case that there's no
069nexus between an upland expansion and and the reveg on the water side. I I Sorry, I find that argument to be specious. Everything that happens on this property is in NRSP NRSP jurisdiction and affects, you know, potentially affects the court the the quality of the water. Um and then just quickly going through the other two standards Sorry, the other two variances, I am also going to deny both the wetland setback variance and the two wetland setback variances and the two bluff crest setback variances being requested for the 100 sq ft I'm calling it a pool cuz under our code anything over 6 by 6 counts as a pool, they call it a spa um to be put on the existing water side deck and the development of a new 458 sq ft gravel patio. Um
070after giving both very close consideration relative to the variance standards, as I said, um I will be denying those variances. With respect to the pool, um they're very substantial variances and I believe they will grant the grant granting of the variances will cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood and will set a new standard for relaxing natural resources feature protection. The benefit and desire for a pool or a spa is clearly able to be achieved by this applicant on this property and it's feasible on a landward area of the property. Um I know that it was said that they want to be able to sit in the >> [clears throat] >> spa and look at the water, but that does not rise, I think, to being compatible with, you know, the need to seek relief
071and the benefit outweighing the detriment. With respect to the addition of the dining court, also, these are very substantial bluff crest and and and wetland setbacks. Here again, the benefit to the applicant is stated that they want to be able to dine outside and enjoy the lake beautiful watershed view, but that benefit they say they're seeking is already available to them and it's and because they can dine on the patio. It's the placement of the pool on the patio that I think, you know, bumps them into saying they they now need another uh view of this view shed. Um that much gravel um can have detrimental effects to the water quality, to the bluff crest. It's not being mitigated um uh enough in in my view by uh the still the deficit to the H
072pod clearing. And I don't think it meets the NRSP standards or the variance standards. So, I'm going to deny both of those. So, approving the extension of the house, denying the water side variance requests. Thank you, Jane. Jim? I am I don't know if I can expand any further than that. I I do believe Lake Montauk is a troubled body of water as is said in the TAM and we need to do everything we can to protect that. That being said, uh as far as the hot tub and the gravel patio, they don't meet the standards. There are alternative locations for them. I think there is an adverse effect to wildlife and the environment. I'm going to deny those. Uh the addition I am in agreement with my fellow board members as far as approving
073it. I do believe the landscape plan is lacking in establishing the natural borders of the property and returning the habitat to wildlife there. So, uh that would be a requirement to move ahead with the the addition. So, to denial of the two variances on the water side >> Yes. >> and approval of the house. >> Yep. Thank you, Jim. [clears throat] Um yeah, I think this has been well covered by board members, but I want to make a few points. Um All along we have many applications come to us on East Lake Drive, ones with waterfront, and we have been pressed to make approvals for houses, redevelopments, uh various appurtenances, various accommodations, but the things that people want. We've looked at this long and hard, and it'll continue to happen. It's one of the more
074attractive port places in town. Older houses are going to be purchased. They'll be either reconstructed, renovated, or whatever. Uh I think it's incumbent on us to be careful what we do and don't approve when we come up and down East Lake and any of the waterfronts in the entire town. But we have had five or six or seven applications in the last four or five years on on East Lake, and we know what we run into on every single one of them. I think that the arguments that have been made by my fellow board members about the two potential um uh uh requests on the water side are good ones. I think as much as it is important to say that the patio is a potentially could do potential environmental damage, which of course it
075can, I think what's is important to me is just establishing that an unnecessary development on that side of the house is just not something that this board is that interested in entertaining. I think that uh the argument about whether the gravel is permeable and not permeable, whether or not we could do some other drainage, and whether the drainage would be effective. Those are all discussions that might be applicable in another portion of a different piece of property. But here we're asking to get closer to there, and I think it was already mentioned by member Meiring that it's not as if they cannot dine on that side of the house. They can dine on that lawn if they want to, but the idea that we're going to put a hard space doesn't make sense. I think
076that the hot tub existing is a temptation to say, "Well, it's already there." The problem with that is everyone wants a hot tub that size, which is not a hot tub, it's a pool by town standards. So if it was 6 by 6, it be different, but this is a pool. And we're looking at what the standards that apply to a pool, uh I don't believe I can approve and I don't only believe, I know I can't approve that. I don't think that that variance is warrants approving the variance, and I certainly don't think it warrants a agreeing to an NRSP. Relative to the addition, I'm also in agreement with them. I was not maybe quite as bothered as my other board members. I thought that it is maxing out, going to 413 4,313 square
077feet when 4,300 and and 14 feet is the max is a little bit of pulling a rabbit out of a hat, but it does come in underneath, and there's not reason for me to deny it. I think there is the question that was raised by member Meiring. Some parcels have already been developed to a certain extent. Where do we stop that allowance or extension on a certain parcel? Not all standards, not a one-size-fits-all standards are established, but we have to look at them individually. Nonetheless, with the 4,350 square feet of re-vege, if it's to be approved approved by the the our planning department, if they see that that it's more robust, that they should get the wooded plants that they want, I'll consider that to be the kind of mitigation that helps to justify the
078addition on the landward size, which I thought was well thought out in the sense that it did not require any other variances. We aren't looking at a pyramid variance, we aren't looking at that. So a potential development without variances requiring an NRSP on the off side of the house, on the landward side of the house, to me is one I can approve with the with the caveat that the planting plan will have to be approved by our planning department, but I am going to deny the other two the other two requests. I I don't think this is we're in the position here to readily approve uh hardening of spaces on water sides of houses unless we see a very good reason that it has uniqueness or has a feature that is essential for the for
079the applicant in order to enjoy their property. So I'm I'm in agreement with my fellow board members. Are we good with that? Yes. Council? Yep. So with that And our council, those three conditions that I want on it, are you good with that? With that, yeah. What the The well, we all said the re-vege plan, you know, has to be more robust and approved Yeah. by the planners, that the appropriate species of plantings, and um What else did you say? Well, we were saying that I think the building ultimately the building inspector should have the final say on On right? The current GFA of of the house. No disrespect to a licensed architect, but you know, I'd want I'd want to I think I would say that my approval [clears throat] obviously of that addition
080I is contingent on that being verified. On that. >> what you're trying to say? Yes. That that the current house meets the GFA that Mr. Felino um submitted. I mean that's the form That's what the but that's what the I mean that's what the building that's what they do. The building department will have to verify Well, that's every plan. Right, but Every I mean every set of plans that comes in gets reviewed. Right, and sometimes they go out there and look at >> No, they can't do that. That's not They're not qualified to measure the GFA of an existing house. Like architects draw plans. And they stamp them. I We don't They're not qualified. That They can't do that. They can't go measure the house. So the control here is that set of plans comes
081into the building department, a house is >> Building inspectors don't go out and measure GFA. That's just not what they do. I'm saying when they when the final CFO for any additions, a new set of blueprints comes in, it'll match those. A set of plans that are going to show what the and I don't know how they would go verify it in the field. I mean that would be not something that they are equipped to do. That's something that architects are equipped to do. I would only say that an architect has applied his stamp to the approval of this, and it uh it would be a professional uh mistake on his part if he were to Yeah, I I I just don't know that that's something Yeah, I understand, but I think, you know, the
082building department, no disrespect, they sometimes make errors, and I think it's just important to that it's, you know, sort of flagged to them. I mean, there's four decades. If if Mr. Felino is correct, and again, I'm not doubting him necessarily, then there's four decades worth of mistakes that have been made by the building department on that property history card. So I think that's why it's hitting us this way, but Well, I mean, that just goes to show that they can't do measurements. But Well, I think I think there was a possible explanation brought up by by Brian at the thing that maybe the lower area that does not count in GFA was included cuz it's approximately 700 feet Yeah. on the lower area, and he thought maybe that was being put in there incorrectly as
083GFA. I'm not in a position to make a comment on it. I'm saying it was just suggested by Brian that might be one of the explanations. So I mean, I I guess my question is what does the board want? Like you want So you're you want to have the building inspector go and measure the existing house to confirm it? Cuz the way that would be done is they would ask for as-built plans by the architect who and then they would be stamped, and they would show what the GFA is. Well, But we basically We get as-built plans for Well, it's not a plan. What's there today? What An as-built set of drawings is a set of drawings where somebody went and measured the existing structure and then drew it. Do we get that? I That's
084not I mean, it's in here, I think. It was in the I I I mean, this is the the in the They already submitted them. That exists exists >> It says it has an existing plus the addition. But I think every build every application that comes into the building department is, you know, screened for compliance with every part of the code, right? And so I think all we're saying is that Well, all I'm saying, sorry, not to speak for my fellow board members, is there is a discrepancy here. Yes, the architect is is affirming and, you know, putting his license on the line, but I think it's just important that this is flagged to the building department, and, you know, just double-check because who is to say if something were not to add up. I
085don't know if they need to go out to the site. Member Burgers might like, you know, others might like that, but it just um you know, I would not approve anything. I would not be approving anything that would I would not be, you know, we'd have to come back obviously and seek a variance to GFA, and that would be different than what I approved. So I would it would render my decision on this addition null and void. Can we [clears throat] say that we are approving We are approving what is suggested as the total GFA at this point, and if it comes back at any other time, we'll have to deal with it. If it goes back out and we find out that the GFA is wrong, it's not going to stop the the building
086permit process. Yeah. It will. So it will. So at that point, >> Yeah, I mean, if if they said the house is only 50 square feet, and then they show up and you're like, "Where's this other 5,000 square feet coming from?" Yeah, that happens all the time. Yeah. People do it like I know of a case somewhere else right now where they added a garage without a building permit and it stopped. I I I mean, the only thing I can think of that is very common as far as I'm aware is we could ask for the a as a condition to a building permit that they that the architect provides a certification of the you know, he measured and did a gross floor area of the and his calculation is this. And that would be
087verified. Well, but okay. >> I just said architect I I you I we do have to give those architects and engineers go to school for a very long time and they have a certification from the state of New York >> Mhm. that over that is frankly much more difficult than and harder to obtain than a lot of other things that we deal with. So, I Eventually you got to take you got to take these things at their at face value eventually. You can't You can't question every single document that comes in front of you. I think I think we have a professional who's certified that's the number and if it comes back later on at a a future C of O inspection that it's not, it'll come back in front of us, but I'm >>
088I'll just I'll I'll put something in there saying that the architect needs to certify to the existing gross floor area and that the existing you know, I mean, I yeah. I don't know There's only so much that >> It's the first time I'm questioning you, you know, on this kind of thing. Because of the the building department having you know, the other number for all these other towns or other applications. No question on anyone. [clears throat] Well, why don't you put what you said you would put in as a a stipulation and we'll move forward with that. >> Sure. I I you know, we can figure it out. They'll have to provide plans that show it, so. Okay, thank you. We'll move on to number four, Matthew Schechter and Cheryl Berman Schechter 189 Fairview Avenue,
089Montauk Suffolk County Tax Map 300-19-2-8. The applicant is over here. Page over here, hold on. I'm sorry. Oh, here we go. Uh the location uh size and location 101,111 for 1,111.61.6 square feet at 189 Fairview Avenue to Montauk. The description is to construct a 336 square foot swimming pool, pool fence, pool equipment, shed, bend, pavers, and to upgrade the existing sanitary system within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands. The relief sought natural resource special permit pursuant to 255-4-20 of East Hampton Town and uh two variances are required for this application. Two variances of 25 feet are required from 255-4-30 of the town code to construct a proposed swimming pool and pool fencing 75 feet from freshwater wetlands or 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence zone
090X flood zone. The SEQR class is type two. This was mine and I'll start it off. The hearing for this uh application was 331 26. The survey we were working from the updated was a 122 26. Although we did have a survey shown us with an updated um uh landscape plan landscape suggested re-veg plan on it. The representative for the applicant was Lori Wiltshire, the planner was Tyler Borsack. Uh the relief required here was an NRSP and two variances. Um >> [clears throat] >> This was a lot where that they'll start with the clearing. There's 17,148 square foot with 10,000 is allowed. It's been cleared since the 70s and so it's pre-existing non-conforming although it's well over cleared. Uh the questions here dealt with um the addition of this pool at the rear of the
091house. This pool that we looked at that was going to sit largely above ground. The argument was on behalf of the applicant that the pool would then by putting the pool in over an existing septic system, they would then add an IA system which would be a benefit environmentally to the project and to the to the parcel. Immediately to the west of this parcel is a town owned CPF purchased land that's set aside that is a wetland almost entirely. So, this this uh addition of the new uh septic system, the IA system would decrease its distance because of the need of having it to move further to the west would decrease the distance from uh the wetland by 40 feet at set at 41 feet down at at 80 feet and it'll be down to
09240 feet. So, by 40 feet less moving towards that. The argument on behalf of the applicant was that the the the water coming out of any of effluent coming out of here is very very low nitrogen level and it would do very little harm. It's a major improvement on the existing system and that was basically the argument to justify the pool in here along with a fairly decent amount of uh a vegetation. They're willing to do 300 and 3,502 square feet of additional No, no, I'm sorry about that. They the re-veg they're willing to do is 1,644 square feet. Uh and they would put a scenic easement over 3,502 feet over the buffer to the wetlands so that to protect it. Right now there was no buffer along the line. The vegetation that they had
093planned which you can see over there as marked out was in between the lawn area of the houses that exist now and the wetland that was immediately to the northwest there. Uh that was a major component of an argument for the them on the thing. They the concern that was raised by the planner was whether or not there was still enough nitrogen leaching out of an IA system that was going to have a negative effect on a very critical and component of the an interconnected field of wetlands that completely surround that area around the the golf course there. Uh whether or not this was an inappropriate level of development on a constrained parcel and the the key to the whole decision making on this really was the location of the septic system. Um There was
094a interesting response. Let me just pull it out here. Sorry, should have been out. Interesting statement I thought in the cam um Yeah. I'm sorry. I just put that someplace. Oh, here it is. Sorry. Give me 1 minute. And that is well, something that we have said before and heard before we're doing. That is the statement that not every property is well suited for every structure and in this case the existing conditions do not lend themselves to the proposed project. This is something that we have to deal with where we would say that there might be some other building nearby that has an addition, has a feature, has a pool, has a patio and it worked for them. We're dealing with snowflakes. Every property is different. Every property has to be examined. Some properties, although
095they might be allowed technically in the code to have certain improvements, are not fitted for those improvements. This is one of those properties that by placing the pool where they have it and removing and moving the septic system, they are now forcing the new septic to be side slid over very close to the wetland. That basically was what we were hanging on here is whether or not this is a net improvement for the environment by having an IA system or by putting the IA system closer to the wetlands, we haven't improved at all. Is it correct for us to take an IA system and allow it to be the the governing factor in our decision making here? If it's placed in a spot where we think it could have been placed better without the pool,
096it certainly could go in replacement of the existing one. And I think long-term one of the things about approving this with a scenic easement if we did, if they were ever to want to update a an IA system in the future uh you know, it could never it could never happen. We could never move it further back one way or the other. I think it was in the end there was a lot of discussion. It was kind of simple. We think that moving the allowing the pool which required the IA system to be moved much closer to the wetlands was an approvable or something that we could agree to. Would it would it benefit the property in overall? Will the town benefit? And are we going to do long-term environmental damage to the property? I
097thought in the end that the answer to that was clear. I thought that under 255-8-50 that under C whether the requested area variance is substantial, it is. And whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood. I said yes to that. I thought both of those were conditions on which swayed my decision. And I think under 255-5-50 one of the town code, D preservation of natural resources, there I think when we come down we read through that the All structures and uses other than coastal structures shall be located upland and shall be located so that no natural resource feature or system designated in 255 420 of 412 here will be diminished in size, polluted, or degraded. I think that's the fear here is
098that we have the potential of degrading an essential and important wetland. Then I think further down under 255-5-40 E environmental protection and natural characteristics of the site such a proposal may be introduced [clears throat] there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features. I think the answer is that they does have the potential to do damage environmentally to the surrounding wetland. Uh for those reasons it more obvious to me on this one than a lot of others that might have asked similar questions. The wetlands here are critical. The wetlands run directly on the edge of the property and as a matter of fact, on the property continuing across the way. For all those reasons, I'm going to deny this application. I didn't think it raises to the level of granting an NRS PA. Certainly
099didn't want to grab the grant the variances for the location of the pool and the fence, and therefore I'm denying the application. Terry? Okay. All right. Well, I thank you for that narrative. Um, Okay, I I too am denying this application. I'll say it right away. Um, and one of the read from the TAM, uh, the proposed relocate Okay, the permitted shed, bin, and pavers appears to be reasonable, um, located over 100 ft from wetlands and minor structures. However, an appurtenant such as a swimming pool located only 75 ft from wetlands, which also forces a sanitary system relocation to half the existing distance and less than 1/3 of what would be required for a new system is an inappropriate level of development on a constrained property. And as the vice chair already said, not every
100property is well suited for every structure, and in this case, the existing conditions do not lend themselves to the proposed project. So, this this application, as already stated, there is a an already standard septic tank system. Um, the agent for the applicant stated as an antiquated system. However, on this property, it it may not be an IA system that exists today, but on this property, there was a fire in 2012, and the septic had to be redone. So, it's may not be the latest technology, but it's not terribly antiquated, either. Um, and the only reason that that has to be removed is, again, because they want a pool to go in that location, and it can't go any in any other location on this property because of the proximity to the wetlands. It would just
101be more more close. Um, this isn't This is a very egregious application for me. This is, you know, somebody's kind of self-serving, in my opinion, for this applicant to be wanting a pool and then having a septic system that has to be 40 40 ft, roughly 40 ft, from the wetlands. Um, the TAM did say a robust, um, revegetation. This is also in a water recharge overlay district, which has similar constraints and limitations for I as the H pod, um, the clearing on this is also preexisting nonconforming at 17,148 sq ft, where the clearing permitted on a water recharge overlay district is 10,000 sq ft. So, even the proposed mitigation of the that they're calling mitigation on the, um, revegetation, still leaves it 5,266 ft over. Um, this is it's simply not enough, and the
102application is is annoying. You know, the the character of this neighborhood, there are pools in this area, um, but each one had been addressed, you know, this board, too. Again, on Fairview Avenue and [clears throat] other locations around here, we have denied some pools, and we have approved some pools. So, just to say that there are a number of pools and give us a picture of a couple of pools in the neighborhood, you know, doesn't say anything. Um, I too am denying this. In no way, shape, or form does it meet any standard. Um, It'll cause an under could cause an under vial change in the character of the neighborhood, or and I could just, you know, somebody would hear that we did this and say, "Oh, good. Let's go." And the benefit can be
103achieved throughout the benefit cannot necessarily be achieved for this applicant other than an area variance. Um, but again, it's it's just a pool. It's not enough right the structure, and it doesn't belong on this property. Um, it is a substantial variance, uh, substantial in terms of the the septic system, also. And this is certainly self-created. I'm denying the entire application. Jane? Thank you. Um, so my two fellow board members, um, already read two very important passages out of the TAM that I also looked at very closely, so I will not reread them, but they certainly, um, shape a lot of my deliberation on this application. I agree with my fellow board members in their interpretation of the application relative to the, um, variance standards and the NRS standards, right? We need both on this. Um,
104but the one thing I want to add here, because Mr. Wilcher made [clears throat] a particular comparison as very central to her support of, you know, why this application should be approved, and, um, she put some things into the file. Um, she raised uh, an application in a completely another area of town, um, it was called the Hirsch application. Um, and drew the comparison that if the board approved that, that's a direct comparable to this one. Now, I want to disclose that before I was on this board, as a member of the public, I actually spoke at that public hearing in favor of that application. That's not something that at all, uh, conflicts me on this application, but I want to just bring out I want to address the the the points that she made
105about the comparability, because I don't necessarily see it all. I understand the setback the variances were the same. However, the pool in the Hirsch application was an 82 sq ft plunge pool that required no in-ground that sat at grade. Um, and that in that application, the positioning of the pool in no way interfered with the IA. And by the way, I went back and I watched the hearing in preparation for this, right? In no way interfered with the IA new IA being put in the best location relative to the wetlands. It was also a smaller property. Um, and the I think in that case, the revegetation, the final clearing, came out to only 40% of what was permitted on that lot. So, I I don't find that a compelling I looked at it, of course,
106like, "Oh, all right, does this create a a reason that we have to, uh, approve this? No." And in fact, what we have here is potentially an opportunity for this applicant to derive the benefit of a water feature on their property, but potentially to do a very small plunge pool up on the deck that would not necessarily push a new septic system, what is it, 50 ft closer, you know, to to the wetland. So, that is important, you know, to me that there are it as has been said, this is an amenity. Not every lot can take all types of features and amenities, and in this case, I think there is a way, potentially, for the applicant to achieve some similar benefit without needing the same, necessarily, uh, um, creating the same issues. You know,
107it's it's hard to hear an applicant say, "Well, if we don't get a pool, you're not getting, you know, any of the some of the re-veg, or you're not getting the scenic easement." >> [snorts] >> Um, and unfortunately, that can't necessarily, you know, shift me to making, I think, a what would be a poor decision about granting a variance and an NRSP, um, for this. And, you know, as has been said, even with that 1,600 sq ft, this would still be way out of compliance in the water recharge overlay, which is so important to the town. And, you know, what I guess one can hope one day that good stewardship will convince the owners to revegetate, but right now I will forego that quote mitigation and deny the application. Thank you, Jane. Jim. Uh I'm
108in agreement with my fellow board members. Uh the septic system located 41.5 ft from the wetlands is a non-starter for me. Just it's it's not done. It can't be done. So on that basis, I don't know. Okay. We're all in agreement. We We good, counsel? Yep. Thank you. We'll go to our fifth hearing. Who's Farm LLC at 30 Wainscott Stone Highway, Wainscott. Suffolk County Tax Map 300-197-7-5. Size and location is 230,454 sq ft at 30 Wainscott Stone Highway. The description [snorts and clears throat] is to allow bin, an AC unit, generator, landscape wall, deck, and fence to remain within minimum wetland setbacks and to allow a bin to remain within the minimum front yard setbacks for accessory structures. The relief sought natural resources special permit and NRSP pursuant to 255-4-20 and variances from 255-4-30 and
109255-11-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. The following wet back wetland setbacks variances are needed where 100-ft setback is required. A 52.3-ft variance to allow the garbage bin to remain 47.7 ft from wetlands. A 35.9-ft variance to allow the AC unit to remain 64.1 from wetlands. A 35.1 variance to allow the generator to remain 64.9 ft from wetlands. A 24.5-ft variance to allow a landscape wall to remain 75.5 ft from wetlands. And then a an 18.3-ft variance to allow a deck to remain 81.7 ft from wetlands. And six, a two a 12-ft a 12.6 ft variance to allow a fence to remain 87.4 ft from wetlands. One variance of 33.2 is needed to allow the garbage bin to remain 46.8 from front yard where 80 ft is required. This was
110in >> [clears throat] >> Chairwoman's uh Sabreese's case, so I'll take the lead on it and uh get started. Uh the board of the hearing was in uh March 31st 2026. The survey we were working from was from 32625. This is in an H pod district. This is a piece of property that uh when you see the survey, you know that it's a not only a large piece, but it's a it abuts um the it abuts uh Georgica Pond and is bisected by Goose Creek, which is a tributary to to the pond. They were represented The applicant was represented by Jackie Herbert. The planner for this was Morgan Slater. There were an an NRSP and six variances were required for this. I've already mentioned Goose Creek bike bisects the property, so almost any activity near
111the house would have required CBA relief. It's a very constrained property based on the fact that it does have a tributary down the the heart of the property. Uh going through the items individually, the trash enclosure is uh set in a location that benefits the applicant, but it does not pose and and it does require two variances, one from wetlands and one from from side yard setback. But it doesn't pose an environmental threat in the view of the planners, and it seems as if that location, well screened from others, is not one that requires, in my mind, us asking us to move it. The deck that requires some work is built over a concrete patio that still exists below. The deck may be slightly larger, but that's an area that was previously disturbed, and I
112thought that that deck request was not one on the surface that was going to be I'll give the mitigation in a minute, but on the surface that it was going to cause me to want to ask for a denial on that. The landscape wall in the front is maybe the one of the hardest things to justify. It was put in by this applicant. It does require a 24.5-ft variance. It's only 75.5 ft from the wetlands. But it does enclose a certain amount of vegetation there, and that's going to require some mitigation for us to move forward. Similarly, the AC unit and generator are located They're out of sight and distant from a neighbor, so I don't think that the reason why in which if we look at the the intent for the original >> [clears
113throat] >> legislation on this, the the zoning is to protect neighbors from both sound and sight of these things. They are well located there, although there's something for us to consider. The clearing on this lot was at one point um 143,407 sq ft. It's now down to to 55,931 sq ft. Um Let me say that the building lot at the building and lot coverage are both well below the allowable. The key to this was the discussion about how we best can protect Goose Creek and an area that at this point was unprotected by any buffer vegetative buffer at all. There was a an approval for a dirt bridge that crosses that has a culvert through it that crosses Goose Goose Creek that takes it from one side of the property to the other. Uh there
114had been vegetation from the north down to the bridge to the bridge, and then there was some veget- protective vegetation further down at as you get to Goose Creek makes its way down to the pond. The area in between, which ran I believe 60 ft or so, was unprotected, and immediately the applicant was willing to protect that with whatever kind of buffer we thought was necessary. We We conferred with the planning department at the time, and Morgan felt that a buffer that was 10-ft wide that ran the length of the unprotected portion of the creek would be adequate. And that 10-ft buffer wound up coming into about 1,400 given the length of it, about 1,400 sq ft she thought of of vegetation on either side of the pond. Uh the owner did speak on their
115behalf and said that it's her desire that everything be brought up into as best it can be brought up into compliance, and that she was looking to do the very best for the property. That's a promise that we can always wait and see if it's going to be upheld, but she was immediately willing to be um a flexible about anything that we were willing to ask. Think that when we look at a property like this, there's a pre-existing conditions here, and I think that what we were asked for, none of these none of the requests that required six separate variances and NRSP seemed bothersome to the building department to the planning department, rather. The planning department didn't feel that there was a an imminent danger environmentally. Um and they were willing to go along with
116approvals here based on the reveg plan that was both suggested and approved at the night of the hearing. With that in mind, I feel the same way about it. I feel that there isn't anything here that cannot be deemed acceptable to me with an adequate and approved reveg plan. I think it's 1,400 sq ft approximately was something done that night. We'll see what it comes out to. The 10-ft buffer seemed to be a good idea. We all agree who went down there. It's quite a unique and beautiful piece of property. It requires absolute uh protection for the environment as best it can now and in the future. This seems like step one towards protecting it, seeing to that we get this vegetated buffer. I didn't think that any of the requests were ones that were
117threatening in any way environmentally. Therefore, I'm willing to accept and approve this application in its entirety. Jim, you want to go? Uh Thank Thank you, Vice Chair. You said most things that I was going to say, so um it is at first glance, it looks like a lot, but the property is so heavily constrained. Uh anything could trigger, you know, an NRSP. Uh the applicant offering to do the revegetation is is a plus. Uh the lot coverage has been reduced from 81,083 sq ft to 24,078, which was a major consideration, so I I'm in agreement and approve this as as as it is. Thank you. Jerry. Yeah, well, I'm in in agreement also. The only comment I'll make is I I thought we talked about a 10-to-15-ft buffer, but I do, you know, by the
118end of the hearing, it was a 10-ft buffer that everyone agreed upon. I was hoping for the other 5 ft, too, but I guess not getting it. But the 10-ft buffer um I do think takes care of protection from some of those other devices, particularly the generator, AC, and the wall. The garbage bin and the shed off in the corner someplace really I think is de minimis. So I'm approving this application. Jane. Yes, thank you. I'll just run through some of these quickly very quickly. The garbage bin needs the most numerically substantial variances for the wetland setback and the front yard setback. I'm approving these two. The bin is very minor, not substantial structure. And to me it seems like these two variances are actually balanced cuz if you move it further back from the
119front yard, you're getting closer to the wetlands. So, I think, you know, it's almost optimized even though it requires the two most substantial in the, you know, variances numerically. And they're not seen, you know, by the neighbors in that area at the end of the driveway is definitely most logical position relative to garbage pickup. The two variances of 35 ft for the AC units and generator, I think they meet all the NRSP and variance standards. I mean, they're very close to the area of existing existing development that right next to, like a set of iron concrete steps or whatever. So, I don't see any incremental environmental risk. I mean, I guess I don't know if there's a risk that a generator can leak fuel. I have no idea, but I don't not something that I'm
120necessarily taking into account. The variance for the landscape wall, I also kind of was like a little iffy on it, but it's like 1 2 ft high. It's in and what was I think already a disturbed area. And again, I don't see incremental environmental negative impact or detriment to the environment or to neighbors or, you know, to the character. The variance for the deck, we also established that it's it's not that the 18 ft is not substantial, but we established that it was actually built directly over I think a slate patio that it was part of the CEO and has been there for a very long time. And I also I I thought that discussion about the 10-ft vegetative buffer that was I guess 1475 sq ft protecting that very exposed area of the tributary.
121You know, at first you kind of look at the number, you're like, "Oh, maybe the buffer should be bigger, maybe it should be more." But I really thought Morgan, you know, from the planning department made it clear that this is something that has a lot more bang for its buck. Like that this she said is going to be very important to the protection of, you know, the water quality and ultimately the pond. So, all in, I think this is legalization of some minor structures, most of them not substantial variances. And, you know, we did hear from um the owner herself and, you know, we heard from her, not something you hear every day, that they're really, really dedicated to fully renaturali- renaturalizing the property. And you know, I think that they're acting in good faith
122and have come in you know, properly for these variances. So, I'm approving the whole application. Thank you. Thank you. We're good on this, Council? Yep. Thank you. Let's move on to our last >> [clears throat] >> decision tonight. That's for 10 Island Road LLC, 10 Island Road, East Hampton, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-93-3-14. The size and location is 30,485 sq ft at 10 Island Road, Hampton Waters, Section 1. Um the description is to replace a porch in place and kind, allow an AC unit to remain, relocate an existing existing wire fence, and replace and reconfigure windows on a lot containing tidal wetlands within the jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. The relief sought is a natural resources special permit pursuant to a 255-4-20 of the Town Code, two variances from 255-4-30, and any other relief necessary. Variances
123of 82.7 and 21 ft are required to locate the wire fence 17.3 17.3 ft, and allow the AC unit to remain 79 ft from tidal wetland where 100 ft is required. Zoning district is B residence, X flood zone, AE elevation 6. SEQRA class is type 2. This was also in Chairwoman Savarese's district, and so I will I will plead it out. Let me see what I have here. Okay, 1 minute. Okay. Um to remember the hearing for this was on April 7th, 2026. We're working from a survey that was April 29th, 2022. The representative of for the applicant was Elise Hergen. The planner was Morgan Slater. This required an NRSP and two variances. They had a shed that was announced at the onset of the hearing that would be removed that was sitting to the
124I believe that was the the east of the house, but either way the shed is to be removed. Um >> [clears throat] >> The house was built in 1990 96, and an NRSP was issued in 1992 for the initial construction of this house. This also is a house that's a waterfront property, so it had a scenic easement and a scenic and conservation easement at that time placed over the wetlands and a 25-ft buffer from those wetlands that prohibited any development or structures in that area. The last CEO was in 1997. The current owner is is since 2023. Um This property had 13 got 13,500 ft clearing where 10,000 is allowed. The planning department had no problem with the porch and the AC units. I'll go over those in a minute. Um They offered up reveg
125that will bring the lot back into compliance, another 3,500, so we'll get down to the 10,000. And then the issue of the fence, which is a major one on this, was that it was would be moved northward to provide a 50-ft buffer limit. That fence would come we would it would move significantly away. We had photos that showed and we had to go and visit the site. There was a fence that was right down in the wetlands that of course would require being moved. They also had a fence that cut through the wetlands. All of this was voluntarily on behalf of the applicant agreed to be moved back far enough that we would allow for that 50-ft buffer. And he would leave the fence along that edge. An interesting argument was a comment was made
126by the landscaper for the applicant that by leaving the fence along the edge of the actual buffer zone rather than existence back would help protect it from any kind of other development. That seemed to be both agreeable and advantageous to the planning department as we discussed it. The the front porch rebuild, which when you were there could see that it required that was reacting to it was an NRSP only on that, no variances. It was reacting to a a wetland that was across the road from this property, and not the primary wetland. Although we agreed at the time it might come in it's in NRSP jurisdiction. So, it did require an NRSP for us to approve that. So, we look at the we look at the the things that were being asked for, the porch,
127which was no problem to the planning department, was no problem for me. I think that the location of the unit was also in a location that did not seem to be particular It was up against the house, so we thought that was it was understandable. The offer on their behalf to offer 3,500 sq ft of revegetation to bring it back down into compliance and and this location. And the moving of the fence, which was the most critical part of this application, where the fence wind up being located and whether or not we would approve the distance it came in. I think the planning department I felt as well that a 50-ft buffer where one does not exist now >> [snorts] >> seemed like a a very healthy offer on their part. So, I didn't have
128any problem with that. Just to look at the standards quickly here for the NRSP 255.551. Under D, the preservation of natural resources, all structures and uses other than coastal structures shall be located upland shall be located so no natural resource feature or system designated in 255.420 will be diminished, polluted, or degraded. I think that it meets that standard. I think that also for NRSP standards, alternate reasonable uses of the property are determined not to exist. I think that by making the move away, that is an alternative to moving fences. I think that that was not a problem in the other two things, but the fence was the big one, and I think they did that. And I think the alternative designs, yeah, that that would come under the same way of thinking that let's see
129how we can reconfigure a fence to make it work. And then for the variance request, the applicant had to conform to 255.850. And [laughter] under uh D, variances 1A, the benefits to the applicant from the grant of the area variance outweighs any detriment which the grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, or welfare of the neighborhood or the town as a whole. I think it is the benefit does is greater for them than the potential damage to that. And the area variance were granted is the minimum variance necessary. I think that that in the answer to that I would also say yes, so that's also a positive. And then deciding whether or not the grant will cause an undesirable further down 3A, undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. I
130do not believe it will. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant achieved by some other method feasible. I think the only other method feasible is them to move the fence, and they agreed to that. Whether requested area variance is substantial. I don't think it is. Whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood. I say no. And then under 255.540, specifically K, environmental protections, the natural characteristics of the sites such as a proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features, system, or processes. I think the answer is yes, it can be. Uh I thought that this was a an application that had three features to it. The seriously most important one, I think, to the board,
131I know to me, was the fence. Where was it going to be located? How much protection could we provide for the wetlands? Where there was a almost none at this point. They had respected the '92 NRS P approval, but this was a case where we now got a buffer offered to us, and it was a substantial one. There was no argument over the 50 ft which I thought was very positive on the part of the applicant. So, I am going to approve this application in its entirety. Terry? Okay. Once again, I agree. Don't have much to add to it. The the biggest plus is that this is in an H pod district also, and they're bringing it with 3,500 sq ft into compliance for the H pod overlay district. Um on as far as the
132porch in the front, I I did visit this property also, and the porch needed work. So, they are doing a replacement kind. So, [clears throat] they're not even changing it at all. Um the AC unit, too, is up against the house, and uh >> [snorts] >> it doesn't pose any problem. I could see they're removing the shed. That's nice. Uh But, [snorts] um I don't see any problem with any of those those items that they're doing. And as I said, the biggest benefit is the 50-ft buffer. Um and coming into the clearing conformance for the H pod overlay. Um I won't repeat all those standards you just read, but um I agree. Okay. Thank you. Jim? Uh you know, I agree with uh you, vice chair, and and Terry as well. Getting the the buffer,
133getting the revegetation, and getting the the property back into compliance clearing, I can say it's a win. So, I I approve. Jane? Yes, thank you. So, I'm going So, with respect to the replacement in place in kind of the front porch, um it's outside of the wetland setbacks, and the applicant improved their application prior to the public hearing by withdrawing the request to or the application to expand the porch. So, I don't see how a replacement in kind um and in place will have any environmental impact or any detriment to the character or to neighbors. With respect to the AC, I also agree that I want to approve this. It's not a particularly substantial variance at 21 sq ft, and it's in a logical position right up against the facade of the house. Um and
134that is more than mitigated by the reveg the 3,500 sq ft reveg and the buffer as has already been said. You know, I look at this as this is almost more than mitigation. I think these two things actually really do improve the environmental conditions on this property. I think they're, you know, very important. And also, with respect to the fence, obviously it needed to come out. I think it's, you know, you know, it's still a variance, but it's makes sense. Again, the mitigation is there to protect it. I get the dog issue. And I also will say even with the fence, this property is more I think more than 50% unfenced, which I think it's sort of a nice thing to see in in a sensitive you know, environmental area where we so many times
135see, you know, corner to corner, top to bottom fencing, and that really impacts wildlife habitat within our natural areas. So, all in, I think it's a good application, and I'm approving the whole thing. Thank you. The elements it's not a whole thing. Yep, I'm all good. So good. Okay, thank you. We'll move on to >> [clears throat] >> interpretations and other decisions. No interpretations tonight, but another decisions. Before you read this in, I'm going to recuse myself from your on Shore Road. Okay, thank you. >> to go recuse myself from this one. Thank you. Tyler, we have Let me read in what we have. 22 Shore I'll wait for Jane. Okay. Um in other decisions, we have 22 Shore LLC, 22 Shore Road, Amagansett, Suffolk County County tax map 300-131-8-7. It's a request for a
136modification of a determination. Uh sure. So, this originally received a natural resource special permit back in 2023 after a number of applications on the property. Um the proposed modification is a request to include several changes that occurred when construction was going on. And I'll run through them. But briefly, there was changes to the driveway. There's new planter on the north side of the residence. So, walkways were widened. There's a new platform around the front of the house. Um fencing was installed in a different configuration. Um the swimming pool decking is now a patio, and the swimming pool was changed to a pool and spa in uh pool and spa in roughly the same uh footprint. Uh and the clearing limits the clearing limits are different than what was approved as well as an upper floor
137decking being enlarged. And to run through them more more specifically, the driveway was reconfigured >> [clears throat] >> from a trapezoidal shape with a wider mouth at the road to a narrow entrance at the garage into a much larger [clears throat] winding driveway that is now approximately 1,070 sq 70 67 sq ft on the parcel itself with a total area on and off the property of approximately 2,190 sq ft. The There's a narrative that was included with the modification that notes the driveway changed to accommodate existing grades and to improve safety and vehicle maneuverability. Um and will reduce the need to back into the roadway. Just to show you what I have here on the screen, I included this in in my memo. The the survey below it is the as-built survey. I included the
138area of the driveway that was approved, and this is the area of decking second story decking, and I'll go over that in a little bit. But, this was the driveway as approved in pink, and the driveway as as installed is this much larger winding driveway in in the in this general area if you can see that. So, it comes out from the garage a back up area, and then come and then out towards the road. So, you know, significantly larger both on and off the property itself. Um there's walkway changes around the end There's an entrance landing would have been which have been added. They were constructed as a more substantial stone. The steps leading to the driveway and up to a stone patio at the front of the residence along the western side of
139the house leading to the to the back decking. So, that's both this landing area here and the stone steps here, as well as the steps along the the western side of the property. Uh let's see if we have an as-built Yes. So, this is the the approved survey. You can see the steps were much smaller and more like just like sort of like little like soil dams along the way. No patio in front of the house. So, that's the difference between uh the as constructed and as as approved. Um the swimming pool fencing was approved to be, I believe, along the edge of this decking here. It was constructed down and around along the scenic easement. It does dip into the easement a little bit, but like a foot. They're proposing to put it along
140the easement edge. Um Additionally, the swimming pool patio was supposed to be a deck. It's now a patio, a minor change, I think. The swimming pool and spa that's here now is in the same footprint as the original swimming pool was. I'll scroll down and show you that. Um But, it was just a swimming pool at that point in time. So, it's like one of those spas that waterfalls into the pool itself. Roughly the same footprint, but again, a minor change. Um And the second floor decking is one of the more major changes that occurred. This pink area is shows the second story decking as it was approved. Um they have extended it out to line up with the edge of the house, and it extends beyond the patio below it slightly by a couple
141feet, probably. As you can see, that dotted line there would be the the patio below it. So, that's one of the more major changes along with the driveway. And finally, the clearing limits. There's some additional clearing down here that was not approved as part of the part of the approval. Our recommendation is they just revegetate with beach grass to to to fill this area in. And and and and to get back to what was essentially approved, which was essentially up to the those up to those improvements there. That's about all that I have. The board has received a letter from a neighbor detailing a number of things, and they're requesting a public hearing on it. So, that's really the question for the board. Are you comfortable with this as a modification right now? Do you
142want it to have be a modification potentially with a public hearing Um, uh, or no approval at all. Um, that's that's pretty much everything that I've got to sum up. How did this change? It was revegetation in this application, wasn't it? >> There was. There was a reveg. >> changes like the driveway in particular, how did that impact the revegetation? They There is I mean they did revegetation along the slope here, which was part of it. Along here they added some, um, I forget what they put along it. Hollywood juniper maybe along the the roadway here, um, to sort of block the driveway a little bit. Um, but that's in the road right away. It wasn't it wasn't part of your revegetation plan. Um, but yeah, because it wasn't on the property. Um, so the
143re- the revegetation plan as implemented down especially down here where it was sort of sparse, um, and they filled it in. It was implemented as as as was shown on the reveg plan more or less. I mean we don't, you know, nitpick as far as like exact location of a tree, but, um, the the the idea of it is there. They just didn't do it fully or, you know, beach grass fully around the swimming pool, but this slope was all redone. You can see that there's a there's a sand path here, um, in this green line. The surveyor included that in total coverage, so the total coverage is a little bit higher than it should be. Um, obviously a sand path doesn't count towards coverage. It's just clearing really. Um, but yeah, the as far
144as reveg is concerned, it's more or less ex- you know, what what what we would expect to see. In in terms of, uh, the footprint of the house, you said that the footprint of the, uh, proposed house approved, uh, is the same as what we're looking at now. We don't see hardscape beyond the existing, uh, the pre-approved, uh, the last approved plan. >> Correct, except for that that new second story [clears throat] deck, which overhangs, uh, That second story deck then just going to add to the total coverage? It would add to it would add a little bit to total coverage. So, anything beyond that dotted line, whatever, you know, 50 square feet maybe, uh, something like that, that would add that would add to total coverage certainly. I'm going to make a comment and
145then we'll poll poll the board members. I just want to say that, um, this, uh, an application for this, uh, particular project came in front of the board several times. There were denials. The project had to be changed, uh, reformulated, uh, redesigned. Uh, it was a, uh, a long process to get to the approval that got the house built that you have built out there. Uh, and that that was one that went back and forth with lots of conversation among board members. It strikes me that there are a number of changes here that may want to still be discussed. Um, but before I make from further comment on it, what is your feeling about what we're looking at? My feeling I I think we should have a public hearing. I think there was a lot
146of public comment on this with all the iterations as they went over time. And, uh, I think we should have a public hearing too. Jim, what do you feel about I'm sorry to Yes, but I'm not I'm not ready to say yes to this certainly. >> Yeah, there's a number of changes here. I agree. There's there's too many things to just let go. Yeah, I I I I'm going to join with that. I I will say that, um, right or wrong, this was a contentious, uh, application because so many neighbors were willing to comment on it. Uh, for us to tonight approve these changes without considering what the impact is on our original decision, I think it requires a hearing for us to then have it vetted by the entire board, five members sit here,
147talk about these changes. I will agree with, um, the assessment made by the by Tyler that many of these are are small changes. Many of things can be easily corrected. There can be some grasses put in, but I do think we're looking at a lot that has had a lot of scrutiny in the past and to have this many changes brought up to us for a, uh, modification without further review, I think would be inappropriate. So, Yes, I agree. Council, does that sound right to you? >> Yep, that works. Okay. So, um, do we need to make a, uh, motion for that? I don't think so. >> No. Okay. Then we're making making a motion to go to a to public hearing. I learned nobody wants to comment on it. No, okay. Tyler, you handle
148that now. Will you handle that with a letter? Take care of just letter to the applicant. Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah, it should be we're pretty caught up on public hearings, so it should be fairly soon. Okay. >> Okay. So, we'll we'll look to have that public hearing as soon as possible. That's the official comment on our behalf. Uh, we'll move down to extensions of time. June O'Sullivan at 1 >> We should expect that to be June 2nd. I'd say We should expect that hearing to be June 2nd. June 2nd, okay, thank you. Thank you, Samantha. Okay, thank you. Um, we'll move on to extensions of time. O'Sullivan, 130 South Forest Street, Montauk, Suffolk County tax map 300-28-7-34.1. This is an extension, uh, requested on a 2022 determination. Uh, yeah, so this is an an
149extension for an application that was for two additions, which totaled 442 square feet, uh, some decking, a roof overhang, and, uh, a staircase. We We reviewed the the file. The work has not yet commenced, um, and this is the first extension of time on this on this property, so we don't have any, uh, concerns with it. And what was yours? I don't know. I was just thinking I don't remember the Okay. >> There's a way to pawn there and all. Well, I'm willing to pass it on to start it. >> I do it. Yeah, extension of time. Jane? Yes, I'm good with this. Yes. Okay. So, for O'Sullivan at 130 South Forest Street, Montauk, tax map 300-28-7-34.1, I make a motion to approve the extension of time. Second. Concur. Thank you. We'll go to minutes
150of approval of draft minutes of Tuesday, April 28th, 2026. Member Burger? I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from for Tuesday, April 28th, 2026 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Second. Concur. Concur. Under resolutions, Diane Caputi at 126 Grant Drive, Montauk, Suffolk County tax map 300-45-1-6. Okay, that was mine and well, this is what we're seeing. You all remember this was a pool equipment denial of a variance, a variance denial. Um, and I think you all remember this. So, for Diane Caputi at 126 Grant Drive, Montauk, tax map 300-45-1-6, I make a motion to approve the resolution as written. Second. Concur. Concur. Okay, I guess I'll make the motion. Do you want to make a motion to adjourn, Jane? Would you like to do that? >> Sure. You're
151first to adjourn. I make Hold on. We got to look at the time. It was at 8:45? I make a motion to, um, adjourn the May 5th, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at 8:50 8:45 p.m. Second. Concur. Concur. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Matt.