East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 04/21/2026

001We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. I'd like to welcome everyone to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of April 21st, 2026. We have four scheduled public hearings this evening and the first one is Bonik Rooster LLC 97 and 999 Akabanic Road in East Hampton. Suffach County Tax Map number 300-163-7-8.4 and 10. Relief sought is one variance of 4,126 square feet is required from 25511 dimensional regulations of the town code to permit parcel A to decrease its lot area from 45,665 ft to 35,874 ft where 40,000 ft is required and any other relief necessary. The description is to modify lot line between two properties marking making parcel A less conforming to lot requirements. The zoning district is a resident zone X flood zone. Secret class

002is type two. Council is the affidavit of services and posting in order. >> Yes, I reviewed the affidavit and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction. >> Thank you. This is my area. So, I will continue with the field inspection. This is the um notice that was posted on 97 Aabonic Road. Next, please. This is the one posted on 99 Acabonic Road, which has the house on it. And this would be considered parcel A. Next, please. Okay, this this picture sort of tells the whole story. I'm standing on the other side of Aabonic Road facing the two properties. The one to the right is parcel A which has the uh obviously the house on it and the uh one left to it is parcel B. And so if this is approved,

003you're literally looking at what they're going to be merging. Next, please. This is just again a shot of the house on parcel A. Next, please. This is the rear of the house. Uh there will be other pictures to indicate where the light line will take place, but this is just to give you a picture of what is appearing on the property. Next, please. I'm actually standing um on the there's a fence behind me and across from where I'm looking in front of this structure is exactly where the lot line modification will take place. Next, please. This is parcel. This would be parcel B. Looking at it from the Aabonic roadside and it's obviously cleared and there's nothing on it. Next, please. This is actually just another idea of this. I I'm standing like behind the

004rear of the house and I'm looking at a structure and right in front of that is where the lot line modification will take place. Next, please. The rest of the photos. Oh, this is just again uh this is where the lot line will take place. Next, please. Now, we're to the rear. Uh we're actually um probably uh behind everything and all of everything that you're looking at right now is going to be removed. So, the next series of photos is going to be things and structures that are going to be removed. Next, please will. Again, this is uh in the past it was uh where they house horses. This I believe will be removed. Next, please. This is referred to on the uh survey or site plan as a sun room, but it's actually a

005chicken coupe. And as far as I understand, that's going to be removed. Next, please. This is a carport. Uh that's the other structures surrounding it. Everything there will be removed, but I do believe they want the carports to stay. Next, please. Is that it, Will? All right. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> Good evening. Tom Osborne from Osborne and McGawan, DC, 135 Main Street Ham, New York. On behalf of the applicants who are right here in case there are any questions. So u we didn't have any problem with anything that uh the planning department came up with. So I'll just go through the standards for the area varants very quickly. >> Mhm. >> Uh number one, will the grant of the variance cause an undesirable change in

006the character of the neighborhood or will it create a detriment to nearby properties? Uh no, the neighborhood character is residential in use. That isn't going to change. uh the larger lot that needs the variance will be smaller but the other lot that does not need a variance will be commensurately larger and all in all the two lots will fit in better I think in terms of size with the neighborhood especially if you look at the tax map you can see that number two can the benefit sought be feasibly achieved by some method other than area variance no to make the smaller parcel larger by acquiring more acreage can only be realistically done as proposed otherwise purchasing neighboring property is not an option given the uh configuration of the neighboring lots. Uh number three, will the

007area variance sought be substantial? If not, why not? Uh the larger lot will be reduced in area to 35,874 square ft or 10.3% below uh the required 40,000 ft. Uh my opinion 10.3% in this case is not substantial. And again, the smaller lot is being made bigger, so it's becoming more conforming, and they they balance each other out. Number four, will the grant the uh variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or in the affected area of the town? No. Instead of having two houses very close to each other, uh, as could happen right now if nothing's changed, from the picture you saw, the the larger parcel has the house on it. The smaller parcel right next door is is um could have a very small house on

008it. You'd have a small house, another small house, which doesn't seem to be a good thing. Uh, so I think uh doing the lot modification would actually make that situation better. Uh number five, what reasons led you to believe this variant uh to to request this variance rather than to comply with the town code? Um the variance makes the smaller lot substantially larger in area by 77%. Uh making it much more usable in terms of the required yard setbacks and other area requirements while having a relatively minimal impact on the larger lot. but also eliminates the pre-existing setback nonconformities with respect to existing residents. Overall, the applicants felt uh that the balance of the equities was in favor of the application and request that the variance be granted. Do you have any questions? >> Is

009it true that you have to go back before the planning board for a public hearing? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> They basically they're waiting for us to make they said conceptually it's fine, but you have to rule first, >> right? Okay. >> And we're back there. We also have to go to the health department. >> Okay. which we're we're at the health department, but they're not doing anything until everybody else is here. >> I know >> that'll take forever. >> Any questions? >> Will there be access to the rear lot off of Akabonic Road? >> There is access uh on a common driveway which already exists. >> The driveway exists. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's not going to change. >> Thank you. I think we're ready to hear from the planning department. >>

010Yeah, I am. We'll all need to swear you in. Just state your name for the record. >> Uh, my name is Will Edwards. I'm with the planning department. >> Do you attest to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Continue. Thank you. >> All right. So, um, like you said, this is an application proposing to modify a lot line between two properties, making one parcel less conforming to lot area requirements. No substantial environmental impacts are expected as no additional coverage, clearing, paving, or increases in density are proposed as part of this project. This project was reviewed by the planning board most recently on October 22nd, 2025, after which it deemed the application complete pending review of the zoning board and issued comments indicating it has no objections to a

011lot area variance being granted for the proposed lot line modification. The present application, although proposing to cause new nonconformity in terms of lot area, will ultimately decrease the total amount of nonconformity between the two lots. The existing lot line does not permit the required setbacks for the residents currently located on parcel A, while the modified lot line would permit the residents to comply with those required setbacks. Both properties are currently zoned A residents and are neighbored by residential properties on all sides which are also zoned A residents. Parcel A has dated access to an existing common driveway serving it and adjacent lots and the existing residence utilizes public water. Parcel A is currently improved with a two-story single family frame residence, decking, patio, one-story detached garage, wooden decking, barn, leanto, tree treehouse with deck, metal

012container, sun room, shed, and gravel driveway. Partial B is currently only improved with an asphalt driveway and stockade fencing. In a cover letter dated February 18th, 2025, the applicant stated the existing fence, leanto, shed, deck, treehouse, buildings, and sun room are to be removed from parcel A. The relocation of the lot line would result in the existing residence being located with within parcel B while the other structures would remain on parcel A. And I can take any questions. >> Court have any questions? >> You do not. >> No, >> you do not. Do you anticipate any other complications if this was reapproved? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Is there any Thank you, Will. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >>

013I do not see any. So, let's just do a double check of the phone lines. Stand by, please. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV doing a test. One, two, three. >> Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. And you have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Tom, is there anything you would like to finalize? Okay, I have two things I want to say. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and record. >> Second. And I'd also like to I think this um application qualifies I'm going to poll the board. I think this application qualifies to be uh deliberated on this evening. Member Kylie, would you be able to make a determination this evening? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair? >> Yes. >> Member Burgerer? >> Um no. >> Member Mary? >>

014Um I it's not my preference, but if I'll go obviously if the majority of the board wants to do it, I'll do it. >> Yeah. I would like to go forward. So, the majority of the board would like to go forward and make a decision right now. And I'll start because it's my >> right now >> application. Parcel A will decrease its lot area from 45,665 ft to 35,874 ft where 40,000 ft is required. This is the lot with the house on it. Now, if approved, parcel B will now be a two-story residence, wood deck, and asphalt driveway. Parcel B provides ample space for the residents to now comply with every setback specified in the town code. The lot line between the properties will make one lot more conforming, which will be parcel B, and

015one less conforming to zoning requirements. You're in a sense decreasing the total amount of nonconformity between the two lots. And this approval will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not have an adverse effect or impact on the environment or the neighborhood. For these reasons, I will be approving the application. Member Kylie, >> I approve. >> Member Burgerer. >> I guess I abstain. >> Member Mary. Um, you know, when I first looked at the application, I thought, oh, well, why not have a 40,000 square foot lot, keep one conforming, the other, but obviously the it's the unusual shape of the two lots that seems to drive it, you know, to be more regular. Um um and I'm going given that the different standards but I guess given that the

016planning board has no objection um and I know they look at these um lot line modifications very closely um I will approve this uh variance request for the lot line modification. So council we have a four um board member to approve one staining. >> Yeah. >> So you can go ahead and get the resolution ready. >> We'll do. >> Thank you very much. >> Good night. >> The next public hearing will be Michelle Smith and Stacy Griffith. Let me get my public hearing notice. Description is to remove an existing one-story residence, decking, hot tub, shed, retaining walls, and associated structures, and construct a 1,495 ft two-story residence with spa, 415 ft first floor decking, 269 ft of first floor porch, 61 ft, second floor balcony, 339 ft, second floor roof, deck, relocated shed, AC units,

017outdoor kitchen, driveway, and new sanitary system on a parcel of land within the jurisdiction of setbacks of freshwater wetlands. A natural resource special permit, this is what's being sought pursuant to 255420 and five variances are required for this application. Variances of 60 feet, 47, 42, 41, and 22 are required from 255430 of the town code to construct a proposed porch and decking 40 ft. Twostory residence 53 ft, spa 58 ft, relocate shed 59 ft, and AC unit 78 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required. One variance of 52 feet is required from 255430 of the town code to construct the proposed sanitary system, 98 feet from wetlands where a 150 foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 secret class is

018type two. Council is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Yep. Everything excuse me in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. Thank you. Do we have a field inspection? >> Uh yes we do. Um good evening everybody. It's my pleasure to present uh the field inspection for 49 MO Lane. Um most people will know Makeo Lane is the kind of one of the main egresses into the area we call Beach or the dunes of Amaganset. Um this property is just just a couple houses south of Central Avenue. Um my I'm facing the existing house. You can see the posting. Um this is a very small one-story house, very comparable in keeping with a lot of the small cottages that still remain on Mako. Um there's a significant amount of vegetation

019on the front of the property with some very mature um uh vegetation as you can see. Um next slide. And you can see the posting there. I'll get closer to it. Next slide. I just um I'm standing in the same place, but I just shifted my gaze to the north. So, this is the existing driveway um gravel driveway. Mostly, a lot of it's in the right of way. And then you can see the house next door to the north. I believe that house um was the subject of a redevelopment application a number of years ago. And I think this board modified it not that long ago, but that's sort of an original house as well. That's the current neighbor. Next slide. Um, I just got closer to the posting. The date and time were uh

020accurate. And I'm going to go down that little wooden pathway towards the house. You can see there's there is some some, you know, bit of undulation and topography on the front of the house. We'll see more of that later. Um, next slide. Um, okay. I'm just getting a little closer to the house right there. you know, it's um the the part to the left I think was modified at at some point. I don't know if it's a full second story over there or if it's just a open o higher ceiling. Next slide. Um just some of the vegetation on the front of the property that's quite mature. Um next slide. Okay, I'm going the I'm on the south side of the house. Um this is a very small lot at 7,500 square ft. Even the

021small house is, you know, gets pretty close to the sideyard lot line. There's a, as you can see, a pergola, open pergola. I'm going to head um towards the towards the back. Um, okay. So, now I've come around the back of the house. Again, this is fairly dimminionative, you know, very low slung house for the most part. Um, there has been some more clearing um in part of the back of the property. It's in the TAM that you know there were some things that were added without I think u by the prior owners um that were not on the CFO. You can see the hot tub in the distance and things like that. Obviously everything's going to be removed. Next slide. Um again I'm just let I'm looking basically to the you know northern northeast

022corner of the property. There's that hot tub. Again there's more vegetation um in the back. Um, my back is to a shed um that's going to be demolished. I guess there'll be a shed more in the area that I'm proposed to be in the area that I'm looking at. Next slide. Um, yeah, there's a shed that's that's there. Um, next slide. Um, more as you get that there a stockade fence at the very back of the property. Not sure if it's exactly well, it's on the on the line. Um, again, more mature vegetation back there. The property starts to kind of slope up a bit. Um, I think the TAM says there was likely more dune land vegetation back here than what you see now. Next slide. Um, okay. That's the hot tub. That's the

023rest of the rear of the house. I'm moving I'm going to move around. It's going to be hard to get all the way around. I'm going to go back to the front, but um, you can see the property next door over that. I think there's a fence there. All right. So, now I've actually come back to the front of the house because I couldn't wind my way all the way through. It's going to be a little hard to see, but I thought this was a very interesting part of the property because um this um sort of the the northern um you know, the the the corner that comes off of Makeo Lane on the north side of the house. You can see it on the on the um the topo lines on the what on

024the survey. There is a fair amount of sort of dune land um uh topography that surrounds the sort of corner of the house and I I wanted to show it um because it is part of the character of the neighborhood. Obviously looks like this is where the septic is going to go. Next slide. Just a couple more here to sort of show that. So, what I did is I actually climbed up onto the very top of this little dune spot. It is, you know, not an insignificant um dune quality, dune land quality. I'm looking down again. I think this is going to be mostly excavated and flattened for the um septic system. Next slide. I think it might be the last one. Yeah. Again, I'm looking all the way up the the north side of

025the house and it's all, you know, it sort of it rises up to the to the northern property line. Anything else? Was that it? One last Yeah. shot just so you could see the neighbor. I didn't get it before. You can see the neighbor to the to the south. Um like a older two-story house and the vegetation. And I guess that's the area where an additional driveway is proposed. I think that's it. >> Someone here to speak on behalf of the application. >> Hi John Tarbet for the applicant. My client's here as well as Britain Bistrian who also um is helping with the application. Someone mentioned the neighboring application which had been neighboring property which had been before this board um in 2018 and again which mostly predated everybody on the board with maybe exception

026of the chair. Um but uh we came back last year for that property and did do a slight modification to add 100 square feet to it. Um, having had that experience with a property next door, same exact size, 7,500 square feet, the whole goal of this application was just to try to mirror that uh and propose something that was at least recently found to be in keeping with character neighborhood and and met the variance standards. All of these applications, as you know, when you have small lots with wetlands, you're going to have large variances. However, it's somewhat of a technicality without overstating that because um you're either hopefully improving or at least keeping the existing setbacks to you know, there's a house there already and you're not making things worse. You're hopefully making things better.

027We believe we are making things better. Uh some of the improvements that we have proposed include making the house FEMA compliant, getting a driveway as required by code actually onto the property and not in the town right away. Um the revge, everything on the property, those pictures was something that was planted long ago. We want to um revge that we do propose would be compliant with uh the planning department or or or the town code as far as beach vegetation. Uh we want to get that shed out of the corner which is the closest thing to the wetland. And of course the new septic system is probably the the best benefit to the um the environment because that would be proposed as far from the wetland as possible and be AI system as opposed to

028the current system which is directly behind the house, an old system. Uh as you saw from pictures, the house is dated. It's aged. it's time for an improvement. So, knowing that and knowing that we have a wetland uh at least one wetland nearby and just to remind the board, these wetlands without um diminishing the value of them, they are very very small wetlands. We're talking about wetlands are probably the size, you know, between us. Um that's one we're looking for a setback from. Not that it doesn't have hab value or habitat value, but it's it's not like it's a lake or a pond or this is a really tiny little depression in the ground which has collected rain water. And actually in one point uh probably 25 years ago it was it was not even

029considered wetland but now it is and it's it's got value. I'm not diminishing that but we do we should point out the difference between this wetland and and pristine huge wetlands. Um so anyway all these things that we're proposing will um approve on the property. I did take the time tonight just to do a quick little chart and just for the sake of comparison and we did this when we when we were preparing prep preparing the application but that's just for the sake of comparison the two properties to see how we we um we tried to align this property what was found uh reasonable and and compliant and granted variances recently. We tried to come in a little under that, make it a little better, and we hope we did. I saw the planning department

030is proposing that we um rather than do a 20 foot wide scene easement just generically across the back of the property, which in hindsight we could have thought out better. I think the planning department's right that >> So, you saw the new sketch? >> I did. I did. Yeah. >> And you're in agreement with that? >> It makes I mean, in hindsight, it makes more sense. I think we were just trying to uh mitigate or propose things that we thought would be helpful in making the application uh approvable. Uh that's probably a better idea to establish a buffer between any improvements in the property and that wetland. So, we're more than happy to do that. Um I will point out the board's aware. Um but this house at just under 1500 feet would be very

031in keeping with the rest of the house on Makeo Lane. I could provide the board with examples if they would want them, but uh essentially make a lane houses are between uh 1,500 and 2200 square feet. Some lots are bigger, some are smaller. Uh and this this would fit right into that into that uh general characteristic of the neighborhood. The only other thing to discuss is the hot tub. Um it what again it's a 6x6 hot tub because we went with what was approved next door. Um at least in that case the board found that it was and the setbacks are the same to to the same quality type although the wetlands are diff they're different wetlands believe it or not that we're seeking uh from next door but it's the same idea same small

032little pocket wetland. Uh there is a benefit to having some sort of water feature on a property. Obviously a pool would not fit on this property or be or be um don't think it should be approved. Uh it's too small property with too many subex but hot tub at 6x6 a tiny little hot tub. Um the TAM suggested that we we proposed to the board ways to miticate any damage to that. >> That was my question. >> Um I I do think it's I looked it up and a 6x6 hot tub is about 300 gallons of water. I think it would be completely reasonable to do a drywall that would hold 300 gallons of water so that if and when that hot tub were ever dumped, it didn't all get dumped at once and run

033off into the uh into the wetland. Um that would be >> help with the drainage. >> Yeah. Yeah. So um it is it's sand there, so hopefully there wouldn't be a a drainage issue, but I think a drywall would be very appropriate. There's other things we could propose, although I I realize that they're not um really enforceable, but you could you could do a covenant because we're going to do a covenant anyway on this property. We could add to the covenant. It's probably something to think about. um which is that if you could say something like if the hot tub were ever drained, uh no chemicals will be added for two weeks prior to it being drained or something. I understand it's not enforceable, but a lot of things aren't necessarily easily enforceable, but at

034least it's a it's a covenant that if the property were sold, the new owner would be aware of it and you hope people are good citizens, so you just don't add any >> and you're protecting your own property. >> Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, the drywall should do the job. Um and uh with the drywalls in place, I can't think of any any uh detriment to the wetland um from the from the hot tub. >> Thank you, John. Does the board have any questions for John? >> I actually don't. >> I don't either. >> John, can I just follow up on sort of what I was showing in the slide? So this board has has been sensitive in this neighborhood to pres when we have it to, you know, kind of keep that undulating doomland. Look, I

035understand you've engineered the septic in here, but >> um just was there any opportunity to have positioned the septic on the other side of the property or I mean I'm not going to >> too much but it's it's pretty striking the that bit of topography that's there and we do generally try and protect that. >> Yeah. No, I understand. Um, so one thing that we do, and you'll probably appreciate this because I know you've looked at a lot of properties over the last few years, is that when someone comes to you with a rebuild or redevelopment, you say, "Okay, get the engineer, start with that." Because the septic is the first thing that you locate. >> Uh, and then the house gets located after the septic system. Because we all know that everybody's going to

036say, can you make this start get your septic system as far from the wetland as possible. That's how you start all planning. So that's what we did. The other advantage of that corner, which um I understand there's a change in elevation, but we're talking about a really small area. Um and the advantage of that corner is that that also provides the most separation to groundwater, not only for the wetland on the property, but for the entire neighborhood. Um so, so there really wasn't anywhere else to put the septic system when you consider the fact that you want to maximize your wetlands and maximize your distance uh laterally and vertically and horizontally. Um, so that that's why >> a retaining wall around it or no, it's just got >> we were able to do it without

037retaining walls. >> Without I'm sorry. Okay. And then on the where you have the existing driveway now says existing driveway to be reduced. Can that driveway be eliminated and again just you know reveate that that part and then you have your new driveway on the other side because it it if you I don't know what part is being reduced but you know the whole front of the property starts to look like >> uh somebody will correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're I think you're correct that um that we should not that's on the town's right away anyway it should be it should say removed. Yeah. So I think I think that's a good point. >> All right. Um, and again, the whole point of this application was to try to, well, not

038the whole point, but we understood that you had to fit two cars on your property. >> So, uh, it's just one of the many ways this property would become more conforming, even though technically there are large variances being granted. The idea here is to, um, have this property be more environmentally sensitive than what's there now, and be more fitting with the charact when someone drives down the road, they say, "Oh, that's a nice property." as opposed to um that's that's an older home that needs to be fixed up. Um >> hey John, just Okay, so the existing driveway to be reduced is actually that portion is actually being removed. >> That should be removed. Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's on the town's right away, >> right? >> Not sure why it says that. >> Good.

039Thank you. >> Is everyone okay? I think it's time to hear from the planning department. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Jake Kushner with the planning department. I do. >> Thank you, Jake. >> So, again, this is a redevelopment in Beach Hampton. Um, Beach Hampton was that subdivision was created before the adoption of modern zoning. So, many of the lots are are non-conforming relative to today's standards. The parcels within the jurisdiction of three freshwater wetlands. The subject wetland in this case is in the southeastern corner of the lot 53 feet from the proposed residence. There's a second wetland located across Makeo Lane 139 ft from the proposed residence and a third wetland is located to the north across Central Avenue 103 ft from the proposed residence. So

040some of the defining environmental characteristics of the neighborhood include that um duneland soils topography um beach vegetation and then the Atlantic Ocean to the south. There are also small wetlands scattered throughout the subdivision. These are small kind of fragmented wetlands. Um they do provide habitat for flora and fauna and help protect against the effects of coastal flood. >> So al although the requested variances are large numerically um they don't appear unreasonable given the existing conditions and constraints. Um the parcel right now lacks you know that dune land. It's uh just established lawn. the proximity of those wetlands um puts the entire parcel into freshwater wetland jurisdiction um and it's very constrained by the location of those three wetlands. So, aside from wetland setbacks, the proposed residence and accessory structures do meet all other zoning requirements

041outlined in section 255110 of town code. Um the proposed building coverage uh 1465 is within the maximum 1500 allowed. The 442 square foot increase is mainly attributed to a slight increase in building footprint and some decking. Uh proposed total coverage 2530 is within the 3750 allowed by town code. The 547 square foot increase is likely attributed to the new proposed parking area and decking changes. Um the inclusion of a partial second story does increase the GFA, but it appears to be a reasonable redevelopment uh that is in keeping with existing improvements. As for the sanitary system, the current sanitary system is behind the house uh roughly 40 ft from the wetlands. The proposed sanitary system is proposed in what appears to be the most conforming location. Um it maximizes the setbacks to those wetlands. Again,

042as we mentioned before, the 20 foot wide scenic easement was probably not the most appropriate mitigation measure. Um, so that buffer consisting of native beach uh veg probably has greater or equal conservation benefit. Along with the buffer though, the lawn should be removed and naturalized to establish that duneland character of the neighborhood. Um and you could as depicted on the provided survey as proposed vegetation. The applicant should prepare uh and submit a declaration of covenants and restrictions prohibiting the removal of that buffer and the establishment of turf lawn sod ornamental veg. Um they're rem they're relocating the shed which is uh currently at like 15 ft to 59. So a pretty notable improvement in that setback. As for the spa, the spa um the existing spa was never a permitted structure. So, you know, it's

043not just straightforward kind of replacement. It requires a 42 foot variance to be located 58 ft from the wetland. Um it should be noted, you know, those wetlands are small, fragmented. Um a proposed setback of this size might not, you know, uh warrant consideration for some of those larger wetlands. Uh the applicant should show appropriate drainage and dry well. even though it's a small accessory structure, chlorinated water can have impacts to the wetlands. So, they should demonstrate how they're going to mitigate those impacts. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you might have. >> Well, member Miring brought up a point about the topography around the septic system. So if this was to move forward and the septic system went in the spot which you've already announced is the best possible location, we then

044follow that up with um some sort of planting plan and or you know recontouring that would run through your department. Is that too? >> Yeah, the revge you know would be approved by us and uh again to we want to establish that that duneland character. I don't know if that satisfies what you're saying, but I just wanted to follow up on your point what was going on >> and the where there was a proposed 20 foot wide scenic easement, but that so we're not doing the scenic easement, but that will all be reveated. >> Yes, I believe that was all proposed to be reveated as well. >> So even though we've added that certain section, what's already proposed is going to >> Yeah. All that green rev we want as well. >> Yes. >> Okay.

045Well, cuz they were two different colors. That's why >> there's a newer survey, too. Can you show the new pull up for you? Yes. >> But they're still going to include that 20 foot. >> Yeah. Okay. >> As you see it. >> Oh, we're keeping the scenic easement chairman. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes, that's what I'm saying. >> Okay. Oh, >> and we're including this >> and then that's a more heavily >> recommendation was Yeah. that buffer area and that 20 um foot scenic easement that is probably not the most appropriate mitigation measure and we were recommending that that buffer is likely more appropriate. It acts as a better buffer to the wetland. >> So you're taking away the 20 foot scenic easement that they're proper. >> Um it it might not be

046necessary given the size of the lot and location of the wetlands. >> Okay. So it won't be on there right now. It's still showing partially on there. >> Well, we just made the change today. >> I mean, why not keep it? >> Whatever. No, it was already proposed by the applicant, right? So, >> I mean, and then you have this buffer which I think you enhance the probably maybe it's like woodier more woody vegetation or whatever to really buffer that wetland. But >> yeah, so we wanted to focus that buffer over the wetland to, you know, act as a buffer to that wetland instead of just kind of on the back of the property where it's not really protected. >> No, I understand the buffer. I'm I'm down with the buffer. Don't get me wrong.

047>> But you know, just for the record, and this is a public hearing, I'd like to see how the applicant feels about that and then when we get to deliberation, we'll make a decision then. >> Thank you, Jackie. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. John, would you like to Britain? John, good evening. I think I need to be sworn in. Britain, do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. >> Um, I just wanted to note two things that I wanted to make sure that we had in the record. Um, was that one is the house is completely uninhabitable. Um,

048it was it's as you can tell it's in a a low place suffered from a flood. So, it's completely you can't even go inside. It's contain covered in mold. So the house for it to be habitable again needs to be removed. And I think that's important to note. This isn't an elective project. Um the second thing I thought would be helpful to note is that um to member Miring's concerns about the um septic system is that like John said, we started with how what's the furthest point, you know, from the bottom corner of the survey. What's the furthest we can get the septic leeching away? And that's literally the furthest point. And the reason that we designed it to be leeching trenches as opposed to um galleys or deeper pools was that we were eliminating

049that excavation. So you know on if you look at the septic section I don't know if Jake can pull it up but the septic section basically shows the existing contours to remain and that these leech the leeching for the septic you know gets trenched in a matter of you know less than a foot. So it was although it has some topography there, we tried to be as sensitive as possible in our septic design to get it the farthest from the wetlands and provide the the least amount of disturbance in that area. We are maintaining most of the topography over there. >> And so when you reveate like with beach grass and stuff on top of it will still have sort of feel. Okay, thank you for that. >> And that's the other thing the nice

050thing about the leeching trenches is that there are some um reveation material that you can put over them and and get that benefit. Thanks. Uh so as at the end of the day, we really we really don't care whether it's a scenic easement or a um covenant restrictions. I have had some discussions with the plan department or at least Charlie about uh the the best way to do this. And um again, when you deliberate on this application, we're not going to be upset one way or the other. Uh but there is some there's some discussion about how covenant restrictions might be a more appropriate way to do it than a scenic easement. Um, I guess Charlie could probably talk to you during deliberations about which one he prefers more. Um, we don't really care. We

051would we'd be happy with either one. But, uh, um, the nice thing to briefly, the nice thing about coming to restrictions as opposed to scene eman are forever and this board doesn't have the power to change in the future. So if 20 years from now someone were to come to you with a different plan and the conditions of the neighborhood had changed, if it was if it was um it was covenant restrictions as opposed to a scenic easement, those covenants restrictions could be changed by the future board allowing for redevelopment which met the needs of the time which we don't have any idea now what those needs would be. >> Whereas a scenic easement will probably never be undone no matter what because it would have to go to public referendum. That's the short of

052it. So, um, when I heard that that was what the plan department was thinking made sense to me as well. Um, but whatever the board thinks. >> Okay. So, if you're if it's not going to be a scenic easement at all, >> the remaining portion that's not the buffer, will that be reveated? >> Correct. I think the planning department is is suggesting >> instead of scenic ement. Yeah. So I think the idea here is if you walk the property there's there's very little uh even the mature landscape in the property was probably planted ac across that back fence line it's all tall trees and a straight line I think it's might be like Hollywood juniper in the front like I I think everything was planted the idea here I idea is to um is to

053bring it back to something that would be more what you would see so um >> everything I think I think the plan department's mitigation is fair >> thank you and we have the the whatever revge is going would be a condition of approval, right? There's no the planning department is not asking for a plan at this point. >> No, that can be a condition of approval. >> Yeah, I was just asking. >> No, I'm sorry. Same. That's going to be a condition. I just wanted to know. >> Okay. Are there any other questions? >> No, I'm fine. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Tar. >> Thank you. >> Would you make a motion, James, to close the public hearing? >> I will indeed. Thank you. >> Public We ask everybody. Yeah. >> There's no one

054from the public. >> Yeah. There's no one on the call. >> We did. >> There's no one on the call. >> Okay, >> we already did all that. >> Okay, we're ready. Um, please. In the matter of Michelle Smith and Cece Griffith 490 Mako Lane, Emagans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-175-6-21. I make a motion to close the public hearing and close the record. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Our next public hearing is 42 OMH LLC 42 Old Montalk Highway, Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-21-2-23. Description is to renovate and reconstruct portions of the existing residence and seller and construct 513 square feet of first and second story additions, a new driveway, and reconstruct the existing first and second story decking on a parcel of land within the town's jurisdiction of coastal bluffs and

055freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks at 255440 coastal setbacks of the town code and any other relief necessary. A 20.7 ft variance is required to construct additions 79.3 ft from wetlands where a 100t setback is required and variances of 85.5 ft and 16 ft are required to construct the additions and the pool fence 64.5 ft and 134 feet from the bluff crest where 150t setback is required. Zoning district is A10 residence NA. Secret class is type two. Council is the application and >> yes affidavit look good and the board has jurisdiction. >> Thank you very much. >> Member Burgerer. >> Yeah, I have to apologize right up front. This this posting was from December when the last minute the meeting got

056cancelled. Um member Johan, you were out there today, right? It was posted. >> Yes, it's posted. >> Okay. So, it was properly posted. Um, next, there's a very long driveway that I'm well that we'll be going through to get to this actual property. Um, next, uh, this just a shot looking kind of in the westerly direction of old Montto Kai. This is the old old Monttoque Highway. Um, next, uh, there's another posting that was on the other side, uh, further up, but, um, again, mine would be out of date. Um, next. So, this is the area where you come to the the gate. Where's the gate? >> You've already gone through the gate. It's >> gone through the gate. Yes, that's true. And now, this is in the parking area. Bear with me because I

057haven't seen this in six months and I know it's been basically has not changed as far as what's in the project itself. So this is in the exactly what direction I'm looking toward the parking area believe next uh now I'm standing at the north side of the house and you see the parking area there u this is north looking south and you see the garage there which will be uh readressed and made part of the uh part of the the actually well it'll still be a garage but it'll be reoriented because there is a pool in the proposal to the east side to the left side of this that will be in scope for the project and the driveway that we came in there is also being reoriented to go farther up the dirt road

058and then come into the property to access the driveway, the new driveway directly. Next, uh this is a shot looking down in the direction of the the westerly portion um in the direction of the the pond that is on the other property. Um and you see this is all grassy area and this is part of the uh reveation proposal that's uh in scope for the project. Um next uh this is the safe side of the house where there's going to be spite slight modifications. The house does need some work. There are things in disrepair. These are going to be changes to some of the decking and over the overhang and the roof and various things that'll be going on around the whole house. But basically within the footprint of the house as it exists today.

059You can see more lawn that is there today. And um that first decking is to be repaired. And if you were out there you can see where it needs. Um next uh this is another shot down. There's a lot of grassy uh these grally areas that are, you know, walking going around the property down to the the water uh both in the direction of the the ocean and the pond. Next, and this just another view of that in the direction of the ocean as you can see. And next, uh this is the souththeast side of the house looking in the easterly direction. And I guess it's where there are going to be first and story decks in the proposal and also that area for the first story uh more deck repair that's proposed. Next um

060not really sure which direction this is in right now. I believe it's to the east. Yeah, looking out to the east in general from the the property. Next And another shot of some of the walkways and the ocean in the distance. Next. And some more of these walkways that meander around the property. Next, this is on the east side of the property where they're proposing to change some stair, add some staircase. And um that's the best I could get at it for the shot. Uh there was some question I guess as to the um the planner has uh regarding some of the if there's a pyramid I think if it's in possibly in scope or not but that's that general side down the east side looking at the staircase where they're proposing to do a

061first and story first and second story deck with uh redone stairs next. And this is the area out in the distance on actually on the other property that had been cleared. Um it's a different different owner but well same owner but different owner. Um and part of this project has been uh that the the current owners are going to reveate this area which had been cleared by a prior owner. Um and when the current owner purchased the properties that clearing had already been there but they are proposing to reveate that also and um ultimately the clear the reveation that will be done on the original house on the the applicant's property itself for 42 uh will bring it into clearing compliance also. Right now it's grossly overcleared and I think that's it. >> Yeah. >>

062Thank you member Burgerer. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Yes. Anthony Pasca, Essex, Hector Angel, Vitalian Pasca for the applicant and Britain Pistrin is also here on this application. Um, if it's okay, I want to talk a little background about um what Miss Burgerer finished with, which was what happened before we owned the property, because that kind of leads us to where we got to and then where we're going. Um, we closed on this property in December of 23. The prior owner had only owned the property for a year and it was an investment company that they picked it up as a distressed property a year earlier. They refused to do any work. So, the the issues that you see in terms of clearing and some other things that

063we've already taken care of were done at least two owners before us. Um, we we knew all about it going into it because the the investment company that we bought it from said, "We're not touching it. We are not going to remediate. We're not giving you an updated CO." So, our client said, "Fine, we'll we'll tackle this project." And the large lot, which is 38 Old Montalk, the it's about 35 acres. is a half an acre which is 42 which is the subject property but the 38 MO highway had a whole host of problems. It has a a true scenic easement conservation easement on it and doesn't allow structures. It had fencing all around it. It had two buildings that were put up illegally. It had pathways all over the place. And probably the most

064egregious was a dock that they just stuck in the pond >> um without any permits. And my my understanding, I never got to see it, but was that they covered a lot of these things in camo, thinking that >> Google aerial imagery wouldn't pick it up, but it does. It picks it up. Um but for whatever reason, they thought camo would protect them. Mhm. >> So when we bought the property and closed in December of 23, immediately the the client knew that they were going to have to start tackling these issues and the first thing they wanted to deal with was the structures. Um, sometime in the spring of that year when the deed ended up getting recorded, I got a call from John Gel Nikki and Ian Scott Wilson were concerned that the property

065had changed hands and that we might not know there were problems. And I I assured them that we were already working on it. Um, they were happy to hear that that we took this on knowing that it was a project. Uh, mainly the big lot was the the bigger work that had to be done. And so over the next year or so, the client tackled the removal of all the structures, the fence and the dock and the buildings. And um the plan for most of that lot was to just let it reveate naturally. Um the one area that we they sort of kept behind was the area adjacent to the house because the plan was to renovate the house. And so we figured tackle the structures, get them off the property, let the revitation start

066there, and then we'll tackle the area next to the house when we put in an application for the house. And the application would naturally require an NRSP and we knew that we'd be standing right here dealing with um trying to finish up the project. the the the client's goals as far as the house is concerned is mainly renovation and architectural changes um not there's there's a net zero size change in terms of GFA um the very first plan that was noticed we noticed in incorrectly there was some design issues that it wasn't quite net zero so we we pulled that application before it went to hearing had the architects change it so that we could stand before you and say it's a netneutral um no square footage increase above the 1994 co which specified the

067the square footage we have the exact same square footage um but the client is trying to create a new design um mainly in terms of if you notice the has a weird octagonal shape where the corners are kind of chamfered. I don't know if that's an architectural term, but they they want to square out the corners so that they're normal corners. Um, and then the roof line you saw was kind of a pagod like thing with long overhangs that extend way over. They're going to bring the overhangs in and make it a more normal architectural roof line. Um, and so one of the the the questions that was raised, I'll jump ahead a little bit, is the there was a question in the TAM about do we need a pyramid relief? And when we looked

068at it, we determined we didn't because the the pyramid is being reduced. Everything about the roof line change is bringing it in and down. And so under the code, as long as you're not increasing the degree of nonconformity, you can make alterations without requiring a variance. So we don't think we need a um a pyramid variance because the pyramids actually going down, not up. Um besides the the house changes um the client is proposing a pool small 20 about a 26 by 26 square and it is doesn't require variances. It's being just outside of the setback line. So it's we were able to find a place for it on the property that didn't require variances. the the pool fencing is a tiny section where the pool fencing has to connect to the house and that

069section of the pool fencing does technically require a wetland variance from the the setback variance. So that is noticed as one of the variances that's needed. Um, of course it's got all the the normal bells and whistles that you would expect us to have on a prop project like this. new IIA system as far away from the wetlands as possible. Um, a substantial amount of reveation being proposed about 25% of the main parcel is being reveated. Coverage is going down even though the pool is being added. So even with the pool, the total coverage is going down by about a thousand square feet. Um, leaders and dry wells and all the things that you would expect us to have. So, um, that kind of covers the the project as far as the main lot's concerned.

070Um, but I do want to acknowledge we we went into this knowing that even though 38 Old Mont Highway wasn't technically part of the project, we had to deal with it. And that was something that, you know, talking to John and Scott and then later Brian, that was something that we we knew we were going to have to deal with. So there was there is a separate uh reveation plan that was proposed by prepared by Grimes put in this record to show the board what was planned. Um I know the TAM has some comments on it and we're happy to make the changes that are being requested. That's not going to be an issue. doesn't require your approval because it's um outside of this and not not part of the the subject property. But we

071have no problem with that reveation plan as approved by the planning department or to be approved by the planning department once they we make the tweaks to it being a condition of this the the 42 old Montalk Highway natural resources permit. We have no problem with that. Um the one thing that slight adjustment to the uh recommendation in the TAM that we would like to ask though is the timing of that. Um the for the main property the 42 Muk highway lot. The recommended condition is that the reveation is done prior to CO which is the normal way of doing it and of course we accept that. Um but for the adjacent parcel, the TAM suggested that not only do we get the building permit, not only get the plan approved pre-building permit, but have

072all the work done pre-building permit. What we want to do all the work at the same time because it's it's not just more economical, but from a construction project site, um it doesn't make sense to do sort of create an arbitrary line between the two. It's really one integrated plan. So what we are asking is that the condition be written in a way that it says our plan must be approved prior to building permit. The work must be completed prior to CO. So that's the one adjustment that we're asking for. And part of the reason I went through the the work that the clients done already before we even got to you is not not to say we don't need to be patted on the back for it. They did the right thing, but they

073had to do the right thing, >> but it shows that they have some credibility in terms of they will do what we say we're going to do. And so the only reason to say do the work before the building permit is if you don't trust that the work's actually going to be done, it will be done and it will certainly be done before the co. So that's the nature of the project. Um, as far as the relief requested, it's it's really related to those, you know, cornering out those um corners of the the chamfered part of the the property. for those whether it's 3x3 corners or 6x6 corners depending on which part of the house it is. Any little addition requires a variance if it's not already there. So we're not getting closer. I think

074in one spot it might be 3 in closer because of the angle of the the setback, but we're we're basically just squaring out the line. So, it's not going to have any impact um any negative impacts certainly in the context of the overall project that um has plenty of environmental improvements and uh all the mitigation that you would expect. We think it's an overall terrific project. Um and if you have any questions, I'm happy to talk about it. >> Yeah. Well, I I have a couple. Um, one thing I'm wondering is, uh, you have gone through um, the architectural planning and the engineering on this renovation at this point. You're comfortable with where you're going. Yeah. And in other words, professionals on board have taken a good look at the house and we know what

075percentage of work is going to get done because when you're there, you're obviously struck with the fact that it's in disrepair. So, we want to make sure that the project that's being presented to us is the one that's actually going to take place. Yeah. We're not going to get anything later on coming in here that we're going to be seeing some previous approval being asked to be amended right away. when you realize that the structure is not nearly as sound as you might have thought it was. If a professional's involved and you're comfortable with that is what I'm asking. >> The answer is yes. And and just to reiterate, we had a a slightly different version of this already noticed and ready for hearing. We pulled it voluntarily because we wanted to make a few

076changes before wasting your time and and going through this process. we didn't want to have to come back a second time when we realized we wanted to make a couple of little tweaks to it. So, um I think I hope that answers your question. >> Yeah. And then in terms of uh the lot that's to the west 38. Um so, as you say, you're proposing to do the right thing here and to see with the damage that been done by a previous owner is going to be mitigated with some future planning and and I guess what I'll going to say is that you've made your presentation on let's not have it be a requirement of the building fair. make sure it's requirement of the CFO and I would just we're going to ask I think

077we're going to want to know from the planning department what their argument would be for one or another. >> Sure. >> Because I do think um this is as you know it's an extraordinary lot. It's a friendly location and the fact that it had been so cleared and there had been some other things gone once we're involved everybody here is going to be very uh concerned that we we're taking the best possible path to get back to where we all think it should be. you know, so whatever that mechanism is, we better to make sure we're comfortable with it. >> That's why I brought up the fact that they have to date, the client has to date to get a violation notice. They they proactively dealt with these things. Um, and you can you can

078ask the the planning department, you can ask the town attorney's office. We we did not we never we never stood back and said, "Ah, but we didn't cause this problem. Why are you for The client went into it with open eyes and knew that this was something they had to do and actually did it before or most of it with the exception of the revitation near the house did the work before we even got here because we didn't want to come in and have you guys look at us saying well what have you been doing for the last two years? Um this was a problem and they they wanted to take care of it or at least as much of it as they could before getting to the area around the house. Does the board

079have any other questions? >> I do. I have one quick one. Um, so I just want to make sure the notice is still correct because I know you said you tweaked a little bit. So the construct 513 square ft of first and second story additions which you said is going to be net zero what you're taking out. So that 513 is still the right number to start. Right. >> And then, forgive me, I been staring at the survey and I'm trying to I see where it says proposed like second story edition, but where is what what's coming out? What's the five where on the east side? There's a 120 square foot section. It shows on Tony, >> why am I missing it on the survey? You have the plan. Maybe pop it up on the

080screen. No, it's >> You want me to make the switch? This is a part See this in gray over here? >> Yeah. >> That's the part the 120 square feet that's coming out to make up for the corners that are are going in. >> Oh, that gray. Okay. >> Okay. >> But but you're adding 513. >> No, I don't. It doesn't actually come out to adding 53. I don't know why the notice >> I just want to make sure it's noticed properly, too. >> The corners add up to >> 92 square feet. So it doesn't make that doesn't doesn't sound right. Um >> is the variance correct that that's being requested because a 20.7 >> distances are correct >> to construct the additions. Okay. >> All the setback >> hear from the planning department on

081those. >> I verified all the setback numbers. They're all correct. >> Um at least as far as I could tell. Brian, you may have a >> Yeah, I think we'll I think we'll uh listen to what the Brian Brian has to say. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> All right. Brian Frank. So funny. >> Good evening, Madam Chair, board members. Brian Frank on behalf of the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um uh I'm glad uh Tony shared some of that backstory about the lot next door. I had heard a lot of anecdotal information about what went on over the past 10 to 15 years. let's say uh from prior property owners. I didn't bring it into the into the TAM into the

082file. It wasn't really relevant beyond where the zoning board's jurisdiction, which are the wetlands and the bluff, which places um 42 Old Montalk um into ZVA jurisdiction. But I did hear similar stories about um activities that went on on the lot next door involving the camo nets that that Mr. Pasca mentioned as well as trails and bridges and clearing and um really taking uh uh you know some some liberties with that uh lot including down by the pond which I I'll speak about secondarily. I'd like to talk about you know the application at at 42 first. So the the existing house is about 4,000 square ft a little bit under there's no proposed increase in gross floor area. there's reconfiguring and and there are removals of square footage and the language in the TAM speaks

083about where the new construction is located. So, in in terms of the addition, that's where the there's new construction. But if the if the um if the phraseiology makes it sound like there's an increase of of 500 square ft and change on on the first floor, that's um unclear wording on my part. The plans show that there is no increase in GFA. It's basically uh a renovation and a reconfiguration of um the structure that's there now. And if I'm expressing that incorrectly now, I welcome um Miss Bistrian or uh Mr. Pasca to uh correct me. Um there is a reduction in uh the total coverage and coverage on the property. Uh lot coverage is reducing by uh about 552 square f feet. Total coverage is uh reducing by about uh 1,000 square ft uh a

084little bit more. The sanitary system is proposed in the most conforming location on the property relative to wetland setbacks in that uh northeast uh corner. Uh it's a little unusual that um well anyway it doesn't um we usually have north pointing up here. Maybe I should have rotated the survey uh on the screen. I'm realizing. And I apologize if that makes it hard to keep your bearings here. Then then again, I I I apologize. I I could have done that. I usually north is up when we're looking at the screen here. Here it's to the >> You know, I'm directionally challenged. This isn't fair. >> I I should have put the I should have made it easier. That That's on me. >> And you see the area that's um in outside uh that dashed green

085line. That's about a 40 4,800 square foot of reveation. And that is that that brings the clearing of this property into compliance with the uh clearing restrictions for a property of this size. And that revitation plan is fine and the planning department has no objection to that being uh implemented prior to uh a certificate of occupancy. Uh the swimming pool is uh for the most in a conforming location relative to um uh wetland setbacks and requires a bluff crest setback variance because this is an area of town that requires a 150 ft setback from the bluff. The bluff here is a little bit um unusual compared to the bluffs on either side of it where you usually have those um most of this area of Montalk has uh very uh nearly vertical escarments uh throughout

086the headlands of of Montalk point. But there are a few areas where you have a bit of a hollow. There's a little bit of a a hollow in the bluff crest. This is one of them. It is a little bit similar to um the the hollow, although this is much smaller than what you see at the uh I still call them the Warhol cottages. I don't care who owns them, they'll always be the Warhole cottages. Um but you'll see the same kind of phenomenon there in terms of a little bit of a a hollow in in in the bluff. Um so the Bluff Crest itself is up near the uh southern property line. Um and that necessitates the variance, but the construction is on the north side of the uh house. I I do want

087to switch over to the uh aerial for a moment if I can because it it kind of shows the clearing on on the lot next door. And uh and and you know I I do want to point out the lot lines aren't lining up correctly in this area of Montalk. They don't rectify well. So that blue rectangle that represents the lot, this property would more accurately be shifted to the to the right to to center over the improvements. But um you you could see the extent of clearing on um I I have it in the TAM is 34 Old Montalk Highway. Maybe I confused that with the lot area and uh it maybe it's 38 as as Tony has been um referencing it uh tonight. Um but that clearing that goes right up to the

088pond's edge grew incrementally over over a period of time starting around uh 2010 or so. It didn't happen overnight, became a little bit more conspicuous over time and and and more aggressive. Um, and the reason that the planning department recommended the the reveation occur before the building permit >> is because it's it's a pretty egregious violation. I I recognize it wasn't done by this owner. The owner is in inheriting this problem. Um, but I'm a a little bit concerned about waiting until the issuance of a CO to get it remediated because of the egregious nature of the um violation. And ultimately, nobody really has a lot of control over when these projects actually get constructed and closed out. And that includes uh Mr. Pasca and Mr. Miss Bistry. they the applicant could have every intention

089of uh breaking ground on this as soon as the permits line up, but this board sees extensions of time um for projects that are 5 years old, 10 years old, sometimes a lot longer than that. So, if the um recognizing the the desire to do this all at once, there is a lot of value to fixing this um violation as quickly as possible. It's not a permitted condition. It shouldn't be treated cavalerely and I'm not suggesting that the applicants are. It's steeply sloped down to that pond. It's all lawn and you know with a couple of clumps of invasive species. I there's some Japanese barberry out there. There's some Chinese silver grass, the mscanthus. The the these are problematic conditions. And um uh the dock that you could see uh on the aerial has been

090removed. I think the I don't know if the turtle haul outs are are still there. I only hope they were for native species and um you know exotic wildlife in a wetland like this is is often catastrophic, but there there's no way to know uh what's in there. Um so if it's not going to be corrected prior to a building permit, I' I'd like to see some other definitive timeline to fix this. Um the the revge plan for 42 is fine. It's a combination of um shrubs and grasses. And for for the that property, which is flat, there's not really much of a buffer that you're looking for to the to the bluff because the bluff is shallowly sloped and is for the most part naturally vegetated. But the more land is characterized by um

091stunted trees and dense shrubs. Believe me, I do a lot of field work in there. It's dense. It's impenetrable. was probably pasture 150 years ago. But that's not the character, the natural character of the areas around this pond. Now, the west side of the pond, similar ponds and wetlands in the area here are densely vegetated and that should be better reflected in the reveg plan um for this area and and it should be implemented quickly. I know this condition has existed in one state or another for more than a decade. But when you have a when you have a significant resource and this wetland is a significant resource um and and you know you have something that is damaging to that resource that damage should be mitigated as soon as practical. And so if it's

092not going to be prior to a building permit then I'll invite the applicants to suggest uh a I don't know a calendar year something. I I'd like to see it done as quickly as possible. But you do you do foresee a possible alternative to what you originally suggested. In other words, having it having it complete as to allow for an issuance of a building permit. They came up with another timeline. Is that something you consider? >> I I think it's reasonable to consider. Again, you know, I I think if the I I I think there is a little bit of flexibility recognizing that the owner acquired inherited this problem, didn't cause it, and I think that's grounds for some flexibility, but it is something that should be corrected um as expeditiously as possible. and as

093a subset of a larger renovation on, you know, I I I don't want to see it lost track of in the grand scheme of of of the construction for the renovation of of the residence. >> Understood. Understood. >> We don't have a plan yet for 38 at all. Right. >> There was a plan that was submitted the the applicant and and the plan should be beefed up a little bit. It's it's a little too grassy for a wetland buffer and a little too grassy for slopes. the steep in in our opinion. >> Okay. And they agreed to that. We heard that >> they're they're open to it is is what I've heard tonight. >> Any other questions? >> Yes, Brian. Um were you looking for any um easement protection at all anywhere in the reveated

094areas, especially the part that slopes, right? Part of that slope is on this property. Was there any of anything that you were looking for? >> No. As Tony had mentioned, the the lot next door does I I have the subdivision map. I I wouldn't mind sharing it because it's it's pretty weird and you don't get to see a weird map like that too often here. Really doesn't have too much to do with the application, but if you'll humor me for a minute, >> you're not helping, Brian. >> You know, we're >> Was that a no? I'm sorry. >> Let's move on. >> I'd like to see it. >> Let's stick to this. >> I'd like to see >> understood. Um there is an easement over that pond Mr. Pasca mentioned. There's an easement on uh

09538 Old Montto Highway. Uh it it is conserved. >> The the shape of the um property and the location of the natural resources in the planning department's opinion doesn't lend itself to uh a scenic easement. Scenic easements are best for um resources that are of high conservation value >> and when there is a a a proportionate impact from from an application associated with it. That's those are kind of the parameters that the planning department most frequently uses to recommend the location uh and and size and parameters of a of a conservation easement. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Are we good? >> I'm good. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Could one of you address um the work getting

096done um prior to a building permit >> versus a CFO? >> Why you >> So, okay. >> Um two things I want to note. Um for the record, >> I already got sworn in. >> I did get sworn in. >> Oh, >> only once. >> Um >> you could lie the second time. >> So, there's two things I want to note. Um we did receive not we previous owners received a DEEC violation for the clearing on 38 as well and part of um when I applied to the DEEC for the development permit on 42 um the DEEC said to us we want um all the structure you know we see that there was maybe in the middle of the removal of the structures and they said we want the um 38 to reveate to be

097naturalized um and we will be monitoring the progress of that at if we issue this permit on 42. We are also monitoring the progress of what's going on on 38 and its reveation. Um they said naturally res natural restoration. Um that being said, I hear um Brian's concern about you know the duration of time and honestly if we put a time limit a year like currently we're waiting build a year for a building permit. So I don't want to be stuck with a timeline that I can't satisfy because of a town you know progress. Um, so I was thinking just on the fly here, the depth of the buffer that we proposed on the 38 revge is about 50 feet plus or minus. And so I was thinking maybe we could draw uh some sort

098of organic line maybe at 25 ft and reveitate the first 25 ft adjacent to the pond um prior to the building permit and then finish the the balance of the 25 ft with the with the development of the of the house and the revge on 42. Maybe that would be a reasonable compromise. I think you'd see some benefit for the 25 ft. It would be implemented, you know, whenever we can, as soon as we can, and then um as soon as we get approval if we if we from this board and then we could do the rest with 42. And I think it would maybe balance both requests. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Yes. just um because the question came up about the the conservation easement when I had when we bought this property and

099I had to dig through these these uh covenants for this property. It was kind of weird. There actually at least two and I think one of them was modified different conservation easements that were put on this entire property. One of them was really a more of a private conservation easement between the subdivision owners where no building was allowed on the property and then later the town got involved and there is a conservation easement that runs to the town on the entirety of the the property. So if you add you sort of look at the two as a whole um 35 out of the 35 and a half acres are already in a very robust no touch conservation easement. So >> thank you. >> Okay we are ready to close this public hearing and record >>

100public would Joel like to already did that. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. Now for the application. >> Still there in the corner. Okay. >> The applicant of 42 OMH LLC at 42 Old Montalk Highway tax map 300-021-02-23 make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. Our final public hearing tonight is Gerald Bedin, 195 Marine Boulevard in Amaganit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-176-8-24. The description is to demolish an existing residence and swimming pool and construct a 2,236 square foot two-story residence with decking, swimming pool, sanitary system, and driveway on a parcel of land containing barrier dunes and dune land. Belief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 variances from 255440 coastal setbacks 2551 1172D relative height and any other necessary

101relief. The following donest variances are required. Variances of 11 ft 28 ft and 39 ft are required to locate the resident swimming pool and pool deck including the pool equipment. 89 ft, 72 feet, and 61 ft from the duncrest where 100t setback is required and three variances are required to allow the residents to extend 3 ft beyond the relative height pyramid limit along the northern and western lot lines and a 2.5 ft along the eastern lot line. Zoning district is a B residence ve flood zone 17 ft elevation secret class is type two council. Do we have a proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, we have the affidavit filled out of all the mailings. Uh the affidavit's not notorized, >> but it was done by Joel who's here so I think he can

102attest to it. I don't think it really if he's here, I don't really see it being >> So, do you feel we can go forward? >> I Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Member Mary, do you have a field inspection? >> Yes, indeed I do. Thank you. Um, here I am standing uh on Marine Boulevard. I'm looking at the uh eastern half of the front yard of this property where the existing driveway is. You can see the notice there. Um to the just to the east is um 189 Marine which was a redevelopment I think somewhere around 20 2020. Um and um next slide. This is just to the other part of the front of the property um that runs to the um west. Um this property, you can see that sculpture that is on this

103pro property and then you can see some signs there um towards the right in the screen. So this property runs directly up alongside one of the um public beach access um easement areas that's used, you know, frequently by the by the public. get a shot of that later. Um, and there is another house there just east of sorry, west of those signs. I'll be able to see it a little more when I get on the property. Next slide. Um, just got a closeup of the uh, posting which had the correct date and time. Next slide. I just turned my back to the property. This is I think 180 sorry 196 Marine. And I just put this is a sort of a cottage style home that's undergoing a very um you know uh thorough renovation I

104think under a NRSP admin NRSP um that this board granted just to a little bit of character across the road. Um next slide. Um and then this is just took a little closer view of the part of the front of the property. Um it's uh it's disturbed, but it it does start to slope up, you know, pretty quickly. It's kind of screened. You'll see that area kind of you can almost see the fence there is where the front yard deck and pool is. It's going to be um removed. Um okay, next slide. All right. All right. So, I'm going to head up the driveway um on the east side of the property. And you can see there's a retaining wall um that kicks in really right away from the front of the property because it

105does, you know, slope starts to slope up. And that is that retaining wall is supporting the pool deck and the and the pool that's there right now. I'm going to go further um down this driveway towards the existing house. Okay. So, I've gotten towards the house. I'm taking a little detour um to my right or you know to the west. So you can see the elevated uh pool deck there on the right and the fence that relates to that pool deck that's all going to get demolished. There's a lot of hardcape. The conditions on the property obviously is going to be rev and everything, but the conditions on the property are um pretty compromised and you know uh lots of ornamentals and hardscape and and things like that. Um next slide. just popped up onto

106you can see the you know expanse of the deck the pool um you can see towards the left part of the screen that is the house um that's on the other side of the uh the access easement that's the other neighbor to the west um and I I guess as the house pulls forward I think the new structure will kind of start to align more on a plane with the houses on on either side um again this is all going to be demolished next slide So, I just turned my back to the pool so you can just get a view of the existing house. The property is going to kind of continue to slope up. This is the um existing onestory um house. I don't know where there's some there's some double height in there,

107but I'm going to just head again. There's a lot of hardcape there. The goal is for me is going to get to be get behind to the side and behind the house. Um next slide. Um oh, sorry. This is just another view from the top of that. Another view of the neighbor to the east 189. Next slide. Okay. So, I'm coming off the deck, the ornamental. There are some frogs which I got very attached to while I was on the property. Um, next slide. Um, so that's the front door of the existing house. Um, to the right. Uh, you'll you'll see again this is all ornamental. is all going to be, you know, removed and things will be reveated. Um, next slide. I'm just going to pop to the right of that house. I couldn't

108go through it, but you can see that that um stuckade fence is what separates this property from the public access easement to the beach. And then there's just right now there's this sort of uh temporary um soft structure there for storage. Um I I couldn't go all the way through, so I'm going to go to the other side of the house to get to the back. Next slide. Okay, so now I'm on the um east side of the house. I'm going to go through a little gate. Um again, this property going to rise pretty quickly. This is the current western, sorry, eastern facade of the of the existing house. Next slide. Yes. So, I'm going to go up these steps that are going to take me towards the back deck and ultimately towards the doomland.

109Um, next slide. Oh, and you can Sorry, it's pretty tight. Again, this is also this is a nar fairly narrow lot. So, um, the h the existing house is pretty tight on to the, you know, they have reduced setbacks because of the narrowness of the lots. Next slide. Okay. So, now I'm getting towards the rear of the house. This is a very expansive um, you know, rear decking off the back of the house. Um, there's a hot tub just off to the left. You can't see it. You'll see it later. Next slide. Um, I just again it's really interesting to see how much elevation you get on this property. You know, very quickly I'm looking all the way back down in the very distance is Marine Boulevard. It's just interesting to see um you know

110that this is a big nice big meaty dune structure underneath this next slide. Okay. And just moved all the way back to the kind of southern part of the deck. Um that's in the back. Remember the pool is in the front. So, um, this is all going to be removed. Um, and there's some steps that start to go down to the beach. The the slides I'm taking here, um, do show some concerning, um, environmental conditions. This a lot of bamboo into this, uh, this part of the the upper part of the dune and a lot of regosa vines and stuff like that. But, um, talk about it later. Next slide. Okay. You can see there's a lot of the bamboo. I'm going to You can see the ocean a little bit in the distance there.

111I'm going to get a better view of it. Next slide. Oh, something's missing. Okay, that I just took something on the That was the the access. Were there any more, Brian? I thought I took better shots of the path to the beach. Oh, somewhere they got missing. All right. So, I had some slides of the where the where the bamboo kind of clears and there's more uh beach grass and then there's a once you get off those steps on not this off the back then there's just a you know sandy sandy path that runs to the beach. So, it's on the it's on the survey but sorry about that. I don't know missed couple. Yeah, I just wanted to show that that's the existing house there on the left and how close it is to

112the you know public access way. That's it. >> Thank you. The money here represent the application. >> Good evening. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. Uh good evening, Chairwoman Savveris and board members. Joel Hulsey on behalf of Lighthouse Land Planning representing the Bedin family, the owners of the subject property. Uh the subject property is 17,849 square f feet in size and is located in a B residence zoning district and is situated on the southerntherly side of Marine Boulevard. The property has 75 ft of frontage on the Atlantic Ocean Beach. Much of the property is located with the FEMA zone uh elevation 17 with a small area of the southern portion being within FEMA zone uh elevation 18. The project is to demolish all

113of the existing improvements and construct a new FEMA compliant two-story residence. The residence will be proposed 96 feet from the DNEST, which is a coastal retreat of 69 ft. The proposed residences to contain 2,236 ft of gross floor area, similar in the habitable floor area to what currently exists on the property today. The project as proposed is an overall benefit to the area. The existing house is a one and twostory house in areas. Uh the house was originally constructed as a 942 foot one-story residence with a full basement foundation below. However, a good portion of the lower level is more than 4t out of grade. It would constitute a story under today's code. No portion of the re residence conforms to FEMA regulations. Uh a building permit was issued in 1970 uh um to convert

114528 square feet of the lower level to a recreation area. So in the house increased uh to 1470 ft of habitable space. Then in 1990 a ZBA permit was issued to do two small additions of 123 square ft and 380 ft for a total of 503 square ft. The additions were constructed and seal was issued in 1991. Uh the house at this time would now be 1,973 ft with decking and a 512 ft swimming pool. The house as proposed will be 263 ft larger than what currently exists or ft. The pool will re will be reduced from 512 ft to 450 ft. And the decking is proposed to be 723 sorry 723 ft on the ground level, 249 ft on the first floor. And I'm going to try this again. It'll be 723 ft on

115the second floor. Uh the building coverage will be reduced by 320 square 324 square ft. I'm having hard time with the 320s tonight. 324 ft from 1,510 ft to 1,186 ft. And the existing total lot coverage will be reduced by 3,98 square ft from 6,286 ft to 3,188 ft. Uh best part of of this application is the retreat from the Bluff Crest. Currently, the structures are right up to the Bluff Crest uh zero feet away. The closest structure proposed will be the pool decking uh proposed to be 63 feet away and as I said before the house will be 96 feet from the bluff crest which only requires a 4ft variance. Uh the residents and all the structures have been designed to maximize the setbacks to the dune and maximize the encroachments to this uh

116coastal erosion hazard area line. The house is currently set back from Marine Boulevard as far as practical. In fact, the house will require pyramid variance from the zoning board of appeals. does require pyramid variance from the zoning board of appeals. A portion of the glass railings extends within the pyramid setbacks on both the uh the south side and the east and west side. A um at the time the house was designed, the application was submitted and glass railings were exempt I believe from pyramid. Uh and that's no longer the case. So that's why we are asking for the v variance today. Uh in addition to the land retreat of the residents, the project offers uh the below the listed benefits will be the abandonment of a non-conforming septic system that is undersized for the existing

117residents and not in conformance with Suffach County design standards. Uh the system uh uh the the house will be designed to meet all flood uh the FEMA flood elevation. Um, I do need to note that the house will be located um in a FEMA flood zone where when the the project was designed, the elevation was 19 ft. Uh, under today's FEMA standards, it would now be 20.5 ft. The house is proposed to be 20 ft above sea level. So, we are close to the new FEMA flood elevation. However, the application was submitted prior to the the FEMA uh elevation changing. So all those applications whether it be a zoning board, planning board, I don't believe ARB would matter here. Um for other applications uh or a building permit was submitted prior to the change uh

118we would be grandfathered into that FEMA regulation. Uh which we are only six inches below. So so we are close. I mean um and you can give us little six more you know height six more inches of height of the house. So, we'd meet the the current FEMA compliance, but we'd need larger pyramid variances for the uh the glass railings. Uh the project proposes uh new building conformance, New York State building code, and FEMA regulations. And um as stated in my memo recently submitted to the board, uh the project does meet the variance and natural resource special permit standards, which are in the file, so I will not read them into the to the board tonight uh for the sake of time. And if the board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

119Does the board have any questions? >> One quick one. >> I have one question. >> Thank you. So, um I I read your memo and you just went through the numbers again as sort of the house size over time. But if I may, just for the record, because we this board generally we look at GFA to GFA actual the way it's stated. So this is this is not my at all saying oh the new house is you know too big and expand but to the GFA of the existing house when I look at the two building permits not counting whatever habitable space there might be in the basement is 1,42 ft right now. So I just wanted to say that on the record. I understand the case you're making which is um okay there's a

120basement and there was a conversion to some recreation space but I think generally when we look at our applications we look GFA to GFA and we don't we even talk about the below grade >> but um that area if you were to the east side of the east side of the house is more than four feet out of grade creating a story which by town definition would be G gross floor area >> not on the property management card though. But anyway, >> so >> again, I'm not I'm not here I'm not just at all here disputing the size of the house, >> okay, >> that you are planning to build. I just >> Okay, >> wanted to say this is generally we look GFA >> Joel. The planning department is recommending increasing the scenic easement

121to a distance of 50 ft landward to the primary gym. >> I have a survey being prepared to show that scenic easement. >> Okay, now here's another question I have about the survey and this came up earlier. It it's very vague on the survey I'm looking at, but the existing conservation easement, does that extend to the dune crest? It's >> because the survey I'm looking at it's kind of confusing to me. Looks like >> But is it does it extend to here though? Which is the >> all the way back? >> Yeah. Does it come all the way back >> cuz it's it doesn't look okay. >> Goes from here forward. >> Okay. So, it does extend all the way up to Okay. So, I'm not clearly seeing that on this. I'm not looking at

122it right. It's hard to see it. >> Madam chair, what what survey date are you looking at? >> I am looking at >> 924. >> I'm not even >> Oh, that's right. 92425. >> Come on. >> Yes. You got it. >> Yeah. Same. >> Right. And it does extend to here. I thought this is what they want to make. >> That's what I want to make sure. >> Question. >> That's the question. >> Yeah, that's my only question. >> You know, the way in which it's marked, there's almost two different fonts. One's much darker than the other. >> Yeah. >> It was really hard to see. That's why we >> It was a very busy survey. Sorry. >> And also on that survey that's being prepared, we are, this doesn't show the the actual revge

123on the plan. Uh we are going to be proposing a revge pretty much reveitating the whole area up to about I think uh 10 ft off the proposed deck at the back uh on survey. So that'll show on the the uh survey with the scenic easement as well. >> Okay. 10 ft from where the new scenic easement would be. >> No. >> Can you just show me where you're talking about? Okay. >> So it right about >> Okay. Sorry point again, Joel. Where that's where the scenic easement starts right >> so 50 ft is probably going to be right about here. >> So we're going to go right about here. We're going to revge up to right beyond the CT. >> Okay. Very good. And I mean, we'll ask Brian about it, but Joel, I

124mean, how how are you are you going to tackle? >> We're going to have to tackle the bamboo. Is that >> Well, that's not going to get tackled tonight, though. It's not a part of this application. >> What? Well, it can't because this is a type two action and removal of bamboo, right? >> Is a whole other, isn't it? >> Not if you're not taking it out of a wetland, but um >> Yeah, exactly. So it's not >> So it would still be a type two, but I'll I'll speak. >> All right. Let let's let's let let's hear from the planning department if Joel is finished >> because I know there's certain restrictions with the bamboo. >> Uh good evening again board members. Brian Frank and the planning department from the planning department. I do

125want to apologize to member Miring. I did miss one of her emails with six lovely photos of the path and the o ocean. >> Those are the those are the big shots. You know, >> those were those were the best shots. sparkling sunshine. >> I blew it. I screwed it up. I apologize. My bad. Um I'm going to switch. The survey is a little busy. I do want to just the the value to leaving it up here is there was a prior zoning board application that did establish the scenic easement um at the time in in the area of the Doomcrest. The Doomcrest is just a little bit landward of the deck. So the the existing dune crest setback of the existing structures is somewhat negative. It extends seawward of the dune. The scenic easement

126allowed that deck in the easement to be repaired and maintained along with the staircase. Um little bit interesting. So just just for uh clarification because I agree that um the clarity on the survey especially when you're seeing it at the regular scale is tough. It's a little easier when you can blow it up on the screen, but this is uh this is the footprint of the existing deck. >> This is about the location of the doom crest where it says top of dune and this line with the meats and bounds in front of it is the easement line. So, this small area of deck is um seawward of the um is within the easement. If I can, I I would like to uh switch over to the aerial in instead of the survey for uh

127Mhm. >> at least a few minutes. Um, this is the subject property. As member Mirren had commented, 189 Marine Boulevard is a redevelopment. That's a uh that ad a joins it to the east. That was a demo and and a relocation landward. Um, for that construction, the existing improvements on the subject property are are fair to describe as as somewhat sprawling. Um, you can see the uh the swimming pool is what's located closest to the street. There's a gap, there's the residence, and then there's the deck on the seawward side of the house. All in all, the the north to south footprint or transsect of of the development is about 135 ft long. As I mentioned, it um is located uh adjacent to the Doomcrest. The the deck is seawward to the Derrest. The house

128is about 27 feet landward of um the dune crest. The footprint of the house is about 1500 square ft now. Um and it the application is proposed uh uh proposes a complete redevelopment. Um the setback increases is pretty significant in the in the opinion of the planning department. It's not wholly conforming to the 100 foot setback for structures, but the setback is going from uh 27 ft for the residents to 89 ft and from a negative setback Seawward of the crest to more than 60 ft for the deck on the on the Seawward side of um the swimming pool. Um the coverage is being reduced from 1500 square ft to um just uh a little under 1,200 square ft. And then there's a more significant uh reduction in total coverage that's going from 6,286 square

129ft to 3,188 ft. So e even though this application doesn't meet the 100 foot setback which would make it ideal, the setback increase combined with the consolidation of the um footprint of the improvements makes this a a a pretty good project in the in the analysis of uh the planning department. Uh the planning department does recommend adding to the scenic easement as noted by uh the chairwoman uh going 50 ft landward um of uh the Doomcrest. That is uh consistent with the other redevelopments that we've um seen on um and the mitigation incorporated into other redevelopments on Marine Boulevard. And the planning department does not have an objection to the retention of the staircase that unfortunately we didn't get to see because of my mistake. uh that exists uh on a short section of the

130property over the steepest slope of the property and the maintenance of the existing path that you you can see on the aerial. Obviously, you don't need the language about maintaining the deck that's going to be uh removed in in the new easement. Um there is some bamboo on on the property. Bamboo is a tough plan. We've discussed it in a in a number of applications. Um, you you can see where it has kind of reestablished itself on 189 on the lot next door. You can you can see it on the aerial here. >> I don't really recommend tying the bamboo removal to mitigation for this project. Tackling bamboo is a project unto itself. It would involve excavating the primary dune. It would I I I would not object to it if they came back later

131and said, "Hey, you know what? We want to dig out the bamboo, shake out the sand, put the sand back, plant beach grass, and then and then try to hold the line. >> I'd be fine with that. But tying this to the to the redevelopment when there's not a plan for that, >> I think is um you know, bamboo punches back. So, if you're going to punch it, you better stay on it. And that's kind of the bottom line here. So I as much as I I I I loed the analysis of it tying a pro it it's kind of a separate project and tying it to the redevelopment is a lot and um it again if they want to come back and and tackle it it's better for their view it's better for their

132it's better for the Dune probably >> still part of this application correct >> it it it does seem to do a decent job holding the Dune together I I hate to give it its props for that But that does seem to be the case. >> Um, so, uh, again, I I I they want to come back and say, "Hey, we like the idea. We're tired of mowing this and and or we rather have it naturalized." More power to them. But that is uh that is a commitment. And as was remember the um >> the house in 189, the original Sonia Henny house was kind of in that area where you could see the sparse area of um beach grass. Now, so um a lot of that was removed, naturalized. They did a great job naturalizing

133and I have photographs of that and the bamboo comes back. It it really it it's um it's a marathon, not a sprint. >> Yeah. >> Um if the Oh, and the footprint is going north to south is going from 135 down to about 61 feet. So that's a that's basically cutting the um north south span uh in half. Um, and that's uh the basis for the the planning department's recommendations on this lot. It is a narrow lot. It does benefit from 4/10 uh uh reduction and that does uh contribute to um uh the need for a pyramid variance in in the planning department's opinion. Um the board members have any questions I can answer. I'd be happy to try. The >> 75 width of this parcel is that atypical of these oceanfront lots over here.

134We have other ones that are 75 ft. I don't remember them being that narrow. >> There are a couple of others. The on Marine Boulevard there's not a there's not there's not a standard size. There is a lot of variability in the width of the properties on on Marine. I think the ones that are 75 ft wide are less common um off the top of my head. Uh so I I think you're correct, but but it is pretty variable. Brian, can can you um so uh the there is still a uh a 39 foot variance for the pool deck and obviously I'm not underestimating the amazing retreat to the front, but um there have been a number of uh redevelopments along Marine. I don't want to put you on the spot, but how is that

13539 ft kind of stacking up to like what the board's approved for pools and pool? >> No, that that's a fair question. I think the uh the redevelopments off the top of my head to compare this to are on wider lots. I think there were there was a little bit more of a more conforming location uh to work with. And I think that's 7 I don't know that any of those redevelopments have been on a lot as narrow as 75 ft. >> Okay. >> And then can I ask one silly math question? I must be missing something. I always thought when you calculate lot area, lot area is adjusted to go up to the bluff crest for the lot area for all the calculations. But this one's going to the tie line. Am I >>

136um that incorrectly? There's usually two area calculations on the survey. This is a busy survey. Usually, you get the total lot area, which is the lot area to the tie line, and there should be a lot area per code, and that's what the coverage is, and everything should be based on the lot area >> because I didn't see that on there. Yeah. >> Is it on there? >> It's a tiny teeny survey. >> It is on there. Um, thank you. uh you know and yeah there's there's a lot of information on the survey and there's not the heavyw weighted lines or the different colors right >> uh you know or the call out boxes that some of the other surveyors do to make some of the pertinent information pop >> all the calculations have been

137done on that number right okay thank you >> chair >> the pyramid request is uh strictly over the glass rail >> uh from what I recall I have the elevation plans here if you want to take a look at them >> I looked at them and I saying this I don't see anything else. But there's not another part of the structure other than the glass rail. >> Not not to my recollection, but um I I wouldn't it right now. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> You indeed do. So, let let me let them in. And last four digits, 837. You are live. Uh, good evening board. It's uh, Rona Kman, 184 Marine Boulevard. I'm the neighbor across the street and uh, like one one lot away. Uh, and I

138I have some questions about about the the area itself because I live here full-time and I know um, and I've lived here for 39 years. The house to the west used to be called the Phillips house. I don't know who owns it now. I think Hersh they had a house on the dune which they had to move back to the um to Marine Boulevard because of the fact that it kept flooding. So my concern is and we've had a couple of storms that have changed uh the coastal area tremendously. There's a drop now that's incredible on the beach. And if they are allowed to build this bigger house on the dune, I mean, I I'm I'm not quite sure why they aren't requested to build closer to Marine Boulevard rather than on the dune itself.

139That's number question number one. Number two, uh we have uh problems with areas that are small and evidently this lot is very narrow with staging of people who are rebuilding houses. And um it it gets to be a real problem on the street if they have no place to keep their construction trucks. So, my question is, I don't think you brought that up, but staging could be a problem for the house cuz they have no place to put any trucks except on Marine Boulevard, which makes it an obstruction. Anyway, those are uh two questions I have uh concerning uh this house. If you can answer them, I would appreciate it. I respect Brian. Um, I have the greatest confidence in Brian evaluating it to the planning department, but those are my concerns that I don't

140think I heard tonight. >> Mr. Holy, would you like to uh address that? >> Good evening. H Joel Holly again. Um, regarding the first concern, we are not rebuilding in the Dune. We're actually moving back. So I I don't know if I mis >> heard what the concern was, but the the the the retreat from the dune is 67 feet and the house is going to be 96 feet from the dune where everything's right on the dune. Now, uh, with regards to parking, um, I guess, uh, one of the things we could do prior to the issuance of a building permit, uh, once we find out who the contractor will be, we could submit a a parking protocol for this project, uh, in order to, um, to the board's satisfaction uh, as to see how

141it would work. I know that there is public parking down the street. If it was the off season, uh, we'd probably be able to use the town lot. Uh but that's probably that's an assumption. I don't know if that's actually true. Uh but >> Pamel's pretty far away. >> Yeah. >> So uh so >> that's pretty far. Yeah. >> So so I don't know if I addressed your concerns with the first comment. Um but I with regards to parking, you know, I guess we would have to submit some sort of parking protocol prior to the issuance of a building permit. That's something uh with the the amount of time it's taking for building permits, there's no way we can get a choose a contractor for, you know, nine months now. So, they're not going to

142they're not going to it'll be a while before we can choose a contractor, >> right? >> There anything we can do to show our power to condition that that we see that plan? >> Oh, the condition uh prior to the issuance of building >> I think prior to the issue prior to the issuance of a building permit park protocol would have to be reviewed and approved by the town board or by the zoning board of appeals. Um and that's something that the building department would require requires the memo from the zoning board of >> should that also include that storage of materials potential fill goes on previously discussed part of you know where the part where the structure was removed >> project limiting fence and all that as well too. Yes. >> Thank you. >>

143Okay. >> Matt, are there any other callers? >> You have zero additional callers. Thank you. I think we're ready this public hearing. >> So, okay. In the matter of Gerald Bedan 195 Bing Boulevard, Amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 300. Yes. Can't speak. 300-176-8-24. I make a motion to close the public hearing and close the record. Second 302. >> Oh, yeah. It's contagious. Joel. Have a good night. Now, we're going to work um move on to the work session. We have a post-hering decision where member Kylie is the only member of the board that will be giving us his decision on this application. The application is for Brian Crawford, 40 Agnu Avenue in Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-31-2-33. Description is to legalize an existing shed, deck, and shower and replace an existing deck

144on a parcel within the jurisdiction of a freshwater wetland. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks and any other relief necessary. The following variances are required. A variance of 79.2 ft to allow the deck to remain 20.8 ft from a wetland where 100 is required. a variance of 51.3 feet to allow the shower to remain 48.7 feet from a wetland where 100 feet is required and a variance of 72 feet to allow the shed to remain 28 feet from a wetland where 100 ft is required. Member Kylie, >> I had the opportunity to visit the site and I've seen the shed and the the type of wetlands and I I don't feel that the shed is impeding drainage or the growth of the wetlands.

145So, I I have no problem approving this application. >> So, you're in favor of the Jack and shower as well. Okay. Thank you, council. Do you have >> Okay. All right, let me get my notes on Caputo. Give me one sec. Okay, next decision will be Diane Caputi 126 Grant Drive in Montalk. Description is to allow pool equipment to remain 13.2 feet from the rear yard property line where 20 ft is required. Relief sword is a variance from 25511 table of dimensional regulations and any other relief necessary. The following variances are required variance of 6.8 ft to allow the pool equipment to remain 13.2 ft from the sideyard lot line where 20 ft is required. She sure question. >> Okay. Member Burgerer. >> The hearing date on this was March 24th, 2026. The TAM was

146202726 by Jake Kushner. Uh the survey that we had for the hearing was 7125. The application the application the applicant represented herself. Um there was no public comment on it. They requested for a 6.8 8 foot variance to for equipment to remain 13.2 from the sideyard lot line. Um there's a lot of history on this account. Um the applicant she did represent herself ultimately but she had uh put in a pool that was started without a permit. There was a stop work order. Uh there was a contractor that had issues going on with his licensing and other factors. Um and ultimately there had been a permit after the stop work uh with an approved location for the pool equipment. Um the applicant said she didn't see that and there issues with the contractor and all

147in all that she she was the one that made the decision to put it uh farther away uh which now required the variance the for the building permit there was a conforming location that had been on it um generally um I'm going to deny this variance I think it can cause an undesirable change in the character potentially. This is a very mixed area of things going on. Um, and the neighborhood changing and there are houses, there are at least three houses that are within range of the pool equipment where it got posted. I think it could potentially be heard and have detriment in the neighborhood going forward. Uh, can it be achieved by some other method? Yes, we know it can. There was an approved location and there's still an approved location that would be

148available to have that put in without any detriment to um any trees that were in the vicinity uh south north of the uh the pool equipment where it is today. It could be moved farther east. Um is it substantial? It's not the most outrageous, but it is still pretty large. And we do have double setback requirements for pools for a reason. Um, does it adversely affect the physical and conditions of the neighborhood? I think it could potentially. Yes. And is it self-created? Yes. So, I'm denying this variance. >> Vice Chair. >> Yeah, I'm going to uh agree with my fellow board member on this. I think that on the surface it seems like a small ask. After all, it's just a little piece of equipment. They do have a fence around it and there is

149some screening. Not that significant, but that between there and the neighbor, but on the other hand, there was building permit issued. The building permit showed a location. At the hearing, the uh applicant said there really was no place to move it to because there was a slope up against the house. That's very true, but that's not the proposed location that was put forth in the building permit. The proposed location was one that would have taken it further from the neighbor and it would have been uh been acceptable of course to the board but also it would have been following the builder permit that was issued. I have full sympathy for the fact that there was some discrepancies with the way in which the contractor subcontractor was working and I think that's unfortunate that you'll be

150asked to move the equipment. But I also think we have a responsibility to follow at least some portion of what we see as the natural chain of uh of events on these things. The building permit a location that's ignored and does go in within closer of another property. With all sympathy for them and the fact this woman who seemed, you know, distressed by the thought she'd have to move it, there is a location. It can be moved. I'm going to deny the application. >> Member Kylie. Uh, I'm in agreement. There was a proposed location. It was not put there and unfortunately it just was not done. It could have been done and it does affect the neighbors. >> Member Mary. >> Yes. Thank you. I agree with my fellow board members. Pool equipment, I mean,

151there's a reason for these double setbacks for pools and pool equipment. They make noise. You can't just screen that away. I do think that neighbors um have a right to be separated as much as the code um uh requires from from these types of disturbances. As was said and I agree, um there was finally a building correct building permit with a place. um the applicant who did represent herself really made no compelling reason or there's no unique circumstance here of why the uh actual setbacks should not be met. So I am also for the reasons that were laid out um relative to the standards denying this uh denying this application. >> I agree with my fellow board members as well. I will not repeat everything that's already been said. I will be denying this application

152as well. Okay. Next. Next is other decisions. Building permit, certificate of occupancy, extensions of time. Joyce 93 South Uclid Avenue, East Hampton, New York. Uh, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-49-1-13.3. extension of a 2022 determination. >> Brian, >> uh yes, Madam Chair. Uh the uh variance was granted to allow seven parking spaces in the rightway instead of on site. Uh the construction on the property is near completion. Um and they need the extension to keep a valid permit and close it out to get a certificate of occupancy. Is every is everyone okay? >> No changes to no changes to anything that was proposed and approved by us. >> No changes to anything that the zoning board granted. And I I don't know of any change, you know, this is something that required a site plan

153as well. I'm not aware of any uh changes with the with the site plan. Um but these are the parking spaces that the uh zoning board allowed to be offsite and in the uh in the road right away and nothing has changed with it. with that portion of the boards, you know, with that approval. >> Okay. So, in the matter of Joyce 93 South Uclid Avenue in East Hampton, I make a motion that we approve the extension of time. >> Second. >> Concur. Of course, it's not in East Hampton, but that's okay. >> Oh, it's in Mont. >> It's in month, right? That's correct. >> We'll put we'll mark that on the agenda. Make >> Make sure uh Charlie, that's on the resolution. Correct. Okay. Next is McMahon 21 Farington Place in Mtok Suffet County

154Tax Mount number 300-19-6-2.8 extension of a 2019 determination Brian. >> Um, as you mentioned, Madam Chair, it was a 2019 approval. Um, nothing appears to have changed. Um the environmental conditions are the same as when the permit was issued and the planning department doesn't have any concerns or objection with an extension of time. >> So nothing has changed. Okay. Is everyone all right with this? >> Yes, I'm okay with it. >> You want to make a motion? >> I will. >> Um then in the application of McMahon 21 place Monttok suffer county tax map 300-9-6-2.8 8. I make a motion to approve the extension of time. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Next is Vonz 15 cross highway amigans suffer county tax map number 300-127-2-35 extension of a 2001 determination. >> Uh this is a vacant

155lot on uh Cross Highway. Um it is uh the the planning department uh checked this property closely a couple of years ago to see if the wetlands have uh changed at all. Uh they have not. The environmental conditions remain the same. Uh the planning department doesn't have any objections to the extension of time. This is an original this is an approval that um originally the there weren't IIA uh systems uh available in 2001. So before they get a building permit, they will have to get a a new health department approval um for an IIA sanitary system, but other than that, the planning department doesn't have any uh concerns or objections to the extension. What >> about all that other stuff like the house and all that? Nothing has changed in town code that would impact

156any of that for 20 years. >> 25 years. the um the the property the house is still within the allowable um GFA. The development was fairly constrained there. The the survey I don't believe is attached to this uh the approval um but it it is fairly constrained by the location of the wetlands. So it was kind of uh squeezed in if I remember in this location. >> So we're good. >> I'm noting department's happy with it. >> I think they voted no. Would you like to make a motion? >> I'm sorry. So, I'll make a motion, but I'm going to vote. No. Okay. Um, in the matter of bone 15 cross highway, Amigansit, Suffach County Tax Map 300-127-2-35. Make a motion for the extension of time. >> Second. >> Incur. Incur. >> Next is >>

157And I'm I'm a I'm a I'm a no. >> Oh, you're a no. >> Yeah, I'm a no. So, I made the motion, but I'm voting against it. Did you vote? >> Sorry. >> You going to vote? >> Yeah, I'm going to deny it. >> So, it's a 32 Hay and Schwarz 44 Cliff Road, Amiganitis, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-173-2-18.1. extension of 2020 determination. Brian, >> uh, this was an application that granted, uh, additions and a swimming pool and a new sanitary system in 2020. Um, no work has been done on the property yet, and the environmental conditions are the same as when the board's determination was granted. >> Ryan, did they I I remember I wasn't on the board, but I remember this application. So, wasn't there like a large scenic easement that

158was put over part of the dune land? Was that actually filed or there wait that would come when they do the work? >> That would come when they do the work before they apply for a building permit. They'll have to meet the prerequisites which is usually to have the easement in acceptable form the council and they have to file it before they get a co. >> Okay. Thank you. Right member Mary. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, in the matter of Hayan Schwarz, 44 Cliff Road, Amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-173-2-18.1. I make a motion to approve the extension of the 2020 determination. Second, >> Concur. Concur. >> Next is Springmark LLC, 100 Running Made Drive, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-23-4-9. extension of a 2018 determination. Brian, >> uh, this was a

159redevelopment and no work has occurred. The conditions on the property are the same as when the board issued the approval. >> Okay. Board, is are we okay with this? >> So, I guess the question that you're raising now is that if we have a period of time that goes by, how do we know that there aren't new conditions from the building department? They should be adhering. Oh, that the one I'm was talking about was 26 years. >> Yeah. But I'm saying when one like this, that's the question we ask when we we do these. Are there any conditions would have changed that would give us pause to approve this? >> I don't believe so. No. >> And he's saying no. >> Okay. >> The environmental conditions on the property are the same. I'm going to

160assume that uh Tyler checked uh the GFA um and and that it's under. >> So, is everyone okay with this? I approve it. >> Okay. >> So, in the matter of Springark LLC, 100 Running Me Drive, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-23-4-9. I make a motion we approve the extension of time. >> Second. >> Next, we move on to the minutes approval draft minutes of Tuesday, April 7th. Member Burgerer, make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, April 7, 2026. We save the town zoning board of appeals. >> Second. >> Concur. Next are resolutions. Guard. Uh I'm going to let you take over here because I have to recuse myself. >> Okay. Uh resolutions for Gardeners Marina 35 3M Harbor Road, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map 300-93-1-8. This was um

161>> this was a a modification. Is that right? This was a modification. We came to us with slightly wider uh walkways. There was an additional change of the surface that was still permeable for part of the parking. Uh the building department, the planning department had no problem with it and uh we approved it. So uh I'm going to make a motion in the case of Gardens Marina 35 Three Mo Harbor Road, East Hampton Sepaganic Tax Map 300-93-1-8 to accept the determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Next resolution is Evans 76 Leon Road, Emit Suffach County Tax Map number 300-131-5-7. Member Mary. >> Yes, we'll recall that this was an application. I think we were removing some decking and doing a small 200 plus square foot of GFA um expansion on a small

162property um in what we referred to as the White Sands neighborhood out on the stretch. Um there was also a discussion that was agreed to of some there had been some overclearing and removal of native vegetation that was going to be reveated as well as an agreement to reveate anything that's disturbed um during construction. And this was a unanimous approval if I recall. Okay. So in the matter of Evans 76 Leon Road, Amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-131-5-7 and make a motion to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Vice Chair, do we have an adjournment? We >> do. Uh, I'd like to make a motion to close the Town of East Hampton zoning board of appeals uh, public hearing and work session for April 21st, 2026 at 8:46 p.m. >>

163Second. >> Concur. >> Good night, everyone. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. Have a good night, board.