001All right, GBA. We are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to welcome you to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of April 7th, 2026. Our first public hearing is 10 Island Road LLC, 10 Island Road, East Hampton, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-93-3- 14. Description is to replace a porch in place in kind, allow an AC unit to remain, relocate an existing wire fence, and replace and reconfigure windows on a lot containing tidal wetlands, and within the jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255-4-20 of the Town Code, two variances [clears throat] from 255-4-30, and any other relief necessary. Variances of 82.7 ft and 21 ft are required to relocate the wire fence 17.3 ft,
002and allow the AC unit to remain 79 ft from the tidal wetland where 100 ft is required. Zoning [clears throat] district is B residence X flood zone, AE elevation 6 ft, secret class is type two. Counselor, is the affidavit of service in posting in order? Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit, and everything seems to be in order, and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. Thank you. I did the field inspection, so I will go forward. This is the uh official notice. Uh the property was properly posted. Next, please. This is the um a picture of the residence from the Island Road side. This property is on the south side of Island Road, and it abuts um Hedges Creek, and the property is in H pod and a coastal erosion zone. Next, please. This is the
003in place in kind porch that is before us this evening. Next, please. >> [clears throat] >> Now, I'm walking to the I think I'm on the west side. >> Northwest side. And it's showing the shed, and the AC unit is before us, but the shed with the survey that I'm looking at, and I want clarification that I'm looking at the right survey, April 29th, 2022, is showing that that shed is going to be removed. Next, please. This is the rear of the property. Uh next, please. Not before us tonight, just giving you a visual. This is uh one of the gates and the fence in question. Um it's hard it was really hard to get a good picture of the fence cuz it's it's very it's been there a long time, so it's very heavily
004screened. But, um the wire fence is in the buffer zone. It's going to be removed and relocated north of the edge of clearing, and I do have other photos that where I tried to get a better picture of the fence. Next, please. This is a actually I'm taking it from the rear of the property, but this um gate is for can also be seen from the front of the property. Next, please. This is again uh trying to give you a picture of the fence, but as you can see, it's very heavily screened. Next, please. Just the wetlands that exist on the property. Next. And just a picture of um the water body was very beautiful thing. I think that's the last one, Morgan. That's just one more shot. Thank you. Is there something on the
005service? No, no, no. I'm looking at I said April 29th. I just want to know I want clarification if that is if I'm looking at the right survey. Is there Is that the one you have? That's the one I have, too. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? Good evening. I'm Alisa Hergen, I'm the architect for the project. Can I swear you in? >> Please. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Um the primary goal of this application was to rebuild the uh front porch in place in kind, and in pursuing that, we that resulted in discovering these non-conforming zoning issues um that we've requested variances for um that the current homeowner had has inherited that was done by the by the
006previous owner. So, the application before you um that shed that you do see on that survey, uh since it's non-conforming, the homeowner is just going to have that removed. Okay. Um and then we are proposing revegetation of the over-clearing, and the variance for the fencing that you see, the fencing on the west side of the property, and and the one that's currently in that buffer zone to the south, they would like that's been there a long time, they would like to retain that uh for the security of their dog on the property. Uh it's also in as you can see pretty much invisible um because of the growth of the plantings around it. We are proposing moving that uh the fence on the south side out of that buffer zone further north for the clearing,
007uh and then the other variance is to let that air conditioning uh unit remain. Um and and Daniel from Alterra Landscape is here to address any issues or questions regarding the revegetation and fencing. Uh the reveg you do is going to bring it back into H pod. Say that again? Will the reveg you do bring this back into H [clears throat] H pod? Yes. Well, well, we'll let you talk when you come up there, anyway. That that's actually my question. So, wait, wait, wait, wait. The fence security The fence that you're moving is the one that shows on the survey as being in the vegetative buffer? So, we show it that dark line that that the cursor is on, that is the proposed location in front of the revegetation. So, currently that fence is is
008further south. >> Much further south. Much further south, yes. Right there. So, we're saying we're going to take it out of that buffer zone and bring it between where the lawn and the new area of uh planting is of revegetation is. Okay. Okay, so when you I thought you said before you wanted to retain the fence where it was. We retain a fence on the property, right. Um the one along the west property line, that we will retain or would like to retain where it is. Obviously, it's just on the property line. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the board? I need you to state your name, and I'll swear you in. My name is Daniel Sherman. I'm the uh landscape designer for the project. Do you
009affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Sure do. Thank you. Uh really just to address uh specifically the fence, we did move it, and we relocated there not only to provide security for the family with their dog, uh but also to really demarcate where the buffer zone is, and uh as you can see, we're revegetating to bring it within a 50-ft buffer, and without a very strong kind of visual demarcation, that line can often tend to wander in maintenance and lawn cutting and everything. So, we do believe that the fence serves a dual purpose, not only to strongly preserve the buffer zone, and also uh to allow additional security. Um the uh revegetation brings it within compliance, so that way there is uh you know, no longer an over-clearance issue
010with the property. We did choose plants that are salt tolerant, so they have an increased likelihood of surviving, and uh we chose to revegetate both the front and the back of the property uh just to provide not only maximum usable space for the client, but also provide uh buffer zones on as much of the property as possible. Thank you. Does the board have any questions? Is there a reveg plan already submitted? That we do have. Okay, that's [clears throat] it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'm fine. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Can we hear from the Planning Department? >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, Board. Morgan Slater for the Planning Department. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you, Morgan. Um so, this property is on the south
011side of Island Road, and it's contiguous to Hedges Creek, which is in the southern portion of uh Three Mile Harbor. There is a freshwater wetland across the street to the northwest, and the tidal wetlands of Hedges Creek to the southeast. The wetland setback variances for the fence and AC unit are needed from the tidal wetlands. The residence was constructed in 1996 after receiving Zoning Board approval in 1992. This approval required a 25-ft vegetated buffer from the wetland boundary and a CO was issued for the work in 1997 and that is the most recent CO for the property. Uh it is also within the Harbor Protection Overlay District which has more restrictive clearing limits and the application is proposing to bring the clearing into compliance. Uh the Planning Department does not have any major environmental concerns
012with the application though it does appear possible for the fence to be uh relocated to a more conforming location. It is proposed to run along the boundary of the buffer revegetation and the composition of the revegetation plan is sufficient to the Planning Department and it will result in long-term environmental benefits to this small region of Three Mile Harbor. Uh and I can answer any questions the board may have about the property or its history. Board members? The uh the rebuild of the front porch area, that's reflected uh that's uh reacting to the wetland across the road? Yeah, that's uh I think the setback is 110 ft from the freshwater wetland so it is within the jurisdiction of that. It may also be within slight jurisdiction of the tidal wetlands but it is beyond both uh
013minimum setbacks. Okay. But the still variance for the exist the porch it's out of >> There is no variance for the porch. It's just Natural Resources special permit jurisdiction. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, you said that relocate the fence could be put in a more improved location. So you're not really objecting or Um not necessarily. I mean the the point made about uh it preventing landscaping from encroaching into the buffer is a good point although you know one of the variance standards is you know looking at all possible uh locations on the property for it. Okay. But that new location is going to be further than where we have currently cleared. It's going to be back into the cleared area so the revegetation will take place on the uh water side of that. Yes, that's
014correct. I mean the existing location of the fence is not it was not never legal. So um it's not necessarily like an improvement because it is it was not really legal as so. >> [laughter and gasps] >> Thank you. Thank you, Morgan. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Matt, do we have any callers? Uh please stand by. Let me do a double check. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV making sure all lines are good and which they are and you have zero callers. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Would the applicant like to make a final statement? All right, thank you. I'm going to close this public hearing and record in the matter of the application of 10 Island Road LLC, 10
015Island Road, East Hampton. I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing and record. Second. Concur. Okay. Now we're going to move on to other decisions. 117 BVA LLC, 117 Bayview Avenue, Amagansett, Suffolk County tax map number 300-84-1-3.1. This is a preliminary review of the draft environmental impact statement and before we go further I'd like to read a short statement into the record. Tonight's review is limited to whether the Zoning Board of Appeals as lead agency will accept the applicant's DEIS as adequate with [clears throat] respect to scope and content for the purposes of beginning public review. The board is not weighing merits or making findings. The board members are to keep their comments limited to the completeness of the DEIS to provide the public and involved agencies with the necessary information
016to evaluate project impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures. I now will turn this over to the Planning Department. Thank you, Chairwoman. Good evening, board members. Um I'm Tina LaGarenne. Oh, okay. >> [laughter] >> First things first. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Um I do want to just ask that we let in Dr. Robert Young and John Armantano um who are on the team helping us with this application. Matt, do you have them? >> just need to unmute and uh and show video. Great. Give them a second. All right, Rob is up and running. And so is John. Okay, we can't see them. I don't know if we could change as long as they Can you guys hear us? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Rob,
017can you hear us too? I can. Okay, excellent. Okay, good evening, board members. [snorts] Again, Tina LaGarenne uh planning director. I'm here to introduce the discussion um about our completeness review for the preliminary draft environmental impact statement for the 117 BVA LLC application. Property is at 117 Bayview Avenue in Amagansett. You have our written report um and we have secured the review of a coastal expert, Dr. Robert Young, who is on the phone um a doctor of geology and a licensed geologist in three states. Our report explains the details that I'm going to give a brief introduction um to the content of right now and uh explain the context of the stage of SEQRA that we're currently at. As many of you recall in July of 2024 there was a final scope adopted for this
018application. Right now we are at the DEIS completeness review portion of the SEQRA process. A completeness review pursuant to SEQRA determines whether or not the preliminary draft EIS has adequately provided the information that was identified as required in the final scope. The SEQRA law has specific criteria for how this review must be conducted and the citation for that is within our report. And the section defines both the timeline and the content that's required for this stage of the SEQRA process. The lead agency, the Zoning Board of Appeals in this case, has 45 days um pursuant to SEQRA within which they must determine whether or not the preliminary draft EIS is complete. SEQRA also defines when the draft EIS is complete and that is when it contains what was required in the final scope, when it
019meets the minimum criteria of the sections in the SEQRA law that um mandate specific content for EISs, and when all that information is sufficient to allow for the public and lead agency to adequately evaluate project impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures. For the reasons set forth in the reports that you have from the Town Planning Department and um Dr. Young, we recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals find that as SEQRA lead agency the preliminary draft EIS is incomplete at this time and require that the applicant revise the EIS and resubmit addressing the specific list of deficiencies that we included in our report. Importantly, I want to point out that the completeness review we're offering this does not address our substantive comments on the analyses contained within the document. The report from the Planning Department and
020Dr. Young are generally confined to the issue regarding presence or absence of information and what was required in the scope and in the SEQRA um statute. The lack of comments or the conclusions does not imply that we agree or disagree with what's currently in the document. Similarly, even when the ZBA as lead agency adopts the draft EIS, you won't be adopting the conclusions. You'll simply be saying that the document's adequate for public review and lead agency review of the substantive comment. Once the applicant revises the document and resubmits, we'll repeat this completeness review process and we will use the list of deficiencies we issued this evening to determine whether or not the document's complete at that time. The completeness process will continue until the board as lead agency determines the document's acceptable for public review.
021At that time there will be public comment period and we'll recommend that the board convene a public hearing. If the applicant has questions about the details in our report, the Planning Department um would like to offer to meet with them and go through. We want to make sure that everything's clear and that they understand what we're asking for as they move forward. We're happy to explain the comments as much as they need. We don't expect the comments to substantively change from here as as we think um they're all set. So in conclusion, our technical reports provide the detailed reasoning that the Planning Department is recommending that the Zoning Board as SEQRA lead agency determine the preliminary draft EIS is incomplete and require the applicant to revise and resubmit. I'm going to pass it on to
022Brian now for a brief overview of the completeness comments. Brian is only going to give the highest level summary and then we're here along with Dr. Young if the board has questions. Unless there's any questions for me, I will pass it on. Thank you. 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, um, going to be as brief as I can. Um, the um, final scope that was adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on uh, July 16th, uh, 2024 provides the framework and format for the DEIS. That that really sets forth what the parameters of what the uh, impact statement is intended to um, include. Um, the comments that you have in the
023memorandum from the Planning Department follow the format of the of uh, the way the issues and the comments came up within the body of the document kind of from beginning beginning to end, but they can generally be broken down into into three large categories for for lack of a better word. One is kind of uh, the general um, clean up or organization of of the document and uh, the Planning Department believes that reorganizing the impact statement to follow the format of the adopted scope and um, reducing if if not eliminating the number of repetitions and redundancies in in presenting uh, the same information that was covered in in prior um, sections um, will uh, allow make it easier to find uh, the more substantive information, align it with the requirements of the um, uh, of
024the scope and uh, may make the document more concise, which is one of the goals of uh, of a scope and an impact statement is to is to have the the document focused on the on the areas of concern primarily. Um, the other broad category is is just uh, you know, more of a uh, better documentation of of the existing conditions and the history of of the property and that's uh, laid out in in uh, in a uh, memorandum as well. Um, instead of a summary of prior permits, it would be better to um, in include the actual permits and prior Zoning Board determinations and and instead of uh, uh, paraphrasing them in in in in their own words. Um, if invoices or plans from prior restoration um, efforts uh, are available or photographs, um,
025they they should be included. Um, many much of the information that was in there was was in available from the the the prior file and didn't didn't add much um, background to um, uh, to to the report. Um, if those plans are not available, then if that information isn't available, then stating so is uh, relevant as well. Um, and then the third and and arguably the most important um, category is providing more of the the substantive information in the analysis of of the applicant's preferred alternative and the alternatives in a manner that efficiently allows for a comparison. And I hope the uh, Planning Department articulated that uh, clearly in the uh, memorandum and I believe uh, Dr. Young um, uh, submitted comments in in in that category as well. Um, as uh, uh, Director Lagarenne
026mentioned, um, if the applicant does have questions uh, about any of any supplemental requirements the board may make, [clears throat] uh, the Planning Department will make itself available to um, try to answer them as best as possible so that um, if there is a revision to the impact statement, it's as uh, uh, clear and complete and matching of the final scope as uh, possible. And uh, that mostly concludes what I I wanted to share with the board tonight. If if the board does have any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. Uh, we've seen your document in the work that April 3rd uh, report that you put in, so we're familiar with your logic in this, so I don't have any questions ask. I don't have any questions, either. I don't, either. It was
027very thorough, more thorough than before, I'll grant it. I don't know if I went through the documents, but thank you. Thank you, board members. Thank you, Brian. Sorry. That's all right. Um, is there would you like to make a brief statement, Mr. Matthews? You're okay? Okay, just opening it up. Just um, not debate the conclusions whether deficient or argue whether deficiencies are No, I have no intention of doing that. Um, so uh, thank you. Good evening, uh, Madam Chair and members of the board. Brian Matthews, Matthews Cures, Cooley and Shoran uh, here for the applicant 117 BVA LLC. Uh, we also have uh, Mike Rousseau and Brett Rainer from Nelson Pope and Voorhees, um, Fortunian from First Coastal and Nick and Diana Greco, uh, the principals of the Anthony the owners of the property. Um,
028I mean, I think as much as our instinct is to get up to the podium and want to give a big presentation, we don't really think that that's what this is for, either. So, we were really here just to hear [clears throat] any comments and questions from the Planning Department, from the board. If there's any questions or clarity that's needed from us or the applicant or the the agents, we're happy to give that, but other than that, we're here to just kind of take it all in and they've already kind of already covered it. The only thing we really wanted to address, and I spoke about this with counsel earlier, was the ability to streamline the flow of questions and answers, but it sounds like we're all on board with doing that same thing to
029get this at its revisions, what have you, back in front of you as soon as we can and Excellent. That would be great. I have no questions, either. >> want to say you have the April 3rd comments from >> Yes, we we and we all got a chance to go through it today. Um, you know, for the first time, I'm sure we'll have a number We have a number of questions and a number of ones that'll come up further, but we'll direct those to the Planning Department and um, Dr. Young and whoever else. Thank you. Well, I have no further questions. I don't, either. So, that being said, I don't think you have questions, do you? I I I just wanted to clarify one thing that Brian said. I'm not going to do any material
030or anything, so just [clears throat] There's just one thing uh, member Mary wants to clarify. Frank uh, Brian. Frank. Brian Frank. Because sorry, Brian. Thank you so much. Um, I just want to the you said the most important substantive is the substantive analysis regarding alternatives, right? I saw what's in here, so I just wanted to clarify it's it's the alternatives that are in there already, or you're asking for more full sub analysis, or were there was there an alternative other alternatives that were not >> Well, there were alternatives [clears throat] that were required in the in the final scope. There are some additional alternatives that the applicant presented that um, weren't requested. I don't think any more analysis is required about that. I I you know, frankly, [clears throat] an offshore breakwater is not a
031practical alternative for a single property. It's not something that's really permitted in in New York State. It's um, it certainly didn't do any harm in including it, but it's not an example of something that's realistic that that needed to be included just just by way of example. So, um, just to kind of recap what I said a little bit earlier, that level of detail really should be uh, provided for the the project, which is the focus of the impact statement, and the alternatives that um, that are more viable and uh, to allow a comparison of of them in in terms of rendering providing the the same consistent analysis throughout so that the board can and and the Planning Department, I suppose, or any interested party, really, um, could compare um, the preferred alternative of the
032applicant to um, possible alternatives that um, that were identified in the scope and anything else that's um, feasible. Thank you for that. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in the matter of 117 BVA LLC, 117 Bay Avenue in Amagansett, I would like to make a motion to deem the DEIS incomplete. Do I have a second? I'll second. I'll concur. I concur. Thank you. We are Good night. Thank you. >> Thank you. We are now going to move on to the minute approvals, the draft minutes of Tuesday, March 31st, 2026. Member I have reviewed them with Samantha and I make a motion to approve the draft minutes of Tuesday, March 31st, 2026 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. I'll second. I'll concur. Concur. Resolutions. We don't have any printed though. They're not
033on our agenda. I mean, I have info and what what do you have? Uh, the ones that I sent to the board I have Evans. I have the information in my book. >> Evans uh, the Gardner's Marina one, the modification for Gardner's Marina, and then Did everybody see the Gardner's Marina one? >> Marina this morning. Can you ask that motion because I have to recuse myself. I have the information written down. Do we want to Is the board ready to Want to wait till the next meeting? Um did you read I saw that one. I saw two others. I saw Evans and I saw somebody in Saram. Was that Saram and Gallatin? That was another modification. Gardiners, I don't have that info but I'm sorry the modification that we we decided on already for Saram
034and Gallatin, right? That was the one we had to hear. It was a modification with a hearing. wasn't You're not saying it's a further modification. So, do we have the information in front of us? I don't have it for Um it is it's not printed up. I don't know to read in the Suffolk County tax map. Oh wait, wait. I have I can make a I can make two motions. I can't make the one on Gardiners but give me one second cuz I do have it in my book. Does anybody have Gardiners? For Saram Just one second. Okay, for Saram which is in Springs Um three Gallatin Lane Suffolk County I don't know what the tax map number Suffolk County tax map number 300- 38-1-12 That was to construct a second story alteration outside of
035the pyramid line from the northeast property line. The really the problem here was um the wrong metric was used the average grade instead of the existing grade. Elevations remain the same and there were no change in any of the drawings. So, I'd like to make a motion to um approve the resolution amending the determination as written. Second. Concur. Concur. I also have Evans if we want to go to that one. I missed that one. Do you want to wait? I looked at it. Evans I sent I did I think I sent that yesterday. Yeah, I read it. Is there anything If we if we want to if we want to push it we have time. I just Oh this was late. Do you want Do you want to wait Jen? You want to table It's
036okay. Yeah, no problem. Maybe I missed it. I was No, I I just sent it yesterday so >> No, I see that you did send it and I missed it. Yeah, the other one Gardiner I would have to recuse myself on that one so I don't have any information on that. So, maybe we table that one too. Yeah, we I didn't see that one. Yeah, he sent it but I We can do it on we have a meeting in two weeks. Okay, so that being said can we move on to an adjournment? Yes, I'd like to make a motion to close the town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of April 7th, 2026 at 7:01 p.m. Over. I will second that. I will I'll concur. Thanks Matt. >> Have a good night board.