East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 03/24/2026

001Okay, zoning board, you are live. You are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. I'd like to welcome everyone to the East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of March 24th, 2026. We have four scheduled public hearings tonight. And I'm going to begin with the first one, which is Diane Caputi, 126 Grant Drive, Monttoque, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-45-1-6. Description is to allow equipment to remain 13.2 2 ft from the rear yard property line where 20 is required. Relief sought is a variance from 25511 table of dimensional regulations and any other necessary relief. The following variance is required. A variance of of 6.8 ft to allow the pool equipment to remain 13.2 ft from the side yard lot where 20 ft is required. Zoning district is the B resident

002zone X flood zone. Secret class is type two. Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Uh, yes. I reviewed the affidavit of service and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Member Burgerer, do we have a field in there? He's new to it. Sam, I think you're going to have to do the input again. I know. I know. >> Hey, there you go. >> We don't have Tim, are we able to show the photos on the screen? >> Yeah. >> Not doesn't seem to be showing up. Um, sorry. Just look read that. >> You know, >> I didn't write it down. >> Yeah, I can't remember. I'll let you know. >> Perfect for hearing passing notes in school. Thank

003you. >> Thank you. >> Let me get those photos up for you. >> Thank you, Jake. >> Of course. It's still not displaying properly. I have to go up. >> Are they on the other screen? >> I think so. Go to the podium, I guess. >> Matt, we seem to be having some issues with sharing the screen. >> No, you're not. It's up right now, but it will be up. >> Good job, >> Member Burgerer. >> Okay. Well, this is just a shot of the front of the house um at 126 Grant. Um next, this is a posting that was in front. Um, actually I found two postings in Frontier and I was a little confused as to why. I did discover later that there were actually two front yards on this. The other side

004is on Roosevelt, but it looked like Roosevelt was there was a house between the Roosevelt intersection and this house um until you got to the other side of the road. So, but this is one of the postings. It was posted. It was folded, but it was legible. Next, this is the other posting that I found. Um, next. And this is a shot. I just turned across the street. I have a number of shots of the neighborhood. This is hit the hills. There's a lot of hilly topog topographical houses and it's a mixed bag in terms of character. a lot of the old cottages and then new additional houses that were built and very varied in in nature. Next, uh this a shot down Grant Drive that that in this portion of Grant Drive, it ends

005up at the intersection of Roosevelt that comes off uh the old Montalk Highway. Next, uh now this is the driveway and I'm going to go into the property. The pool is actually just on the other side of the fence. So, in front of where my car is parked next. Uh, but before I do that, I took another shot of the the nearest nex next door neighbors on the same side as the the house on wet to the west of Miss Caputo's house next. And this a photo of the pool. And in the distance there with the wooded enclosure, that is the where the pool equipment is. And that is what is in front of us today for a sideyard variance. Um, so I'm going to go to that next. I just took a shot from

006there to the the fencing that the applicant has on the property. And there are some, you know, some arabite or something uh over there. They're not densely [ __ ] covered from the the neighboring house. There is a house right back there. And there are whole there are a number of houses that are kind of close to this this location. Um some of the ones that you saw earlier in the photos next. And that's another shot of some of that shrubbery and a little bit better shot of the neighbor on the other side from where this um pool equipment is is situated next. Okay. And this is the area. I believe there had been a a conforming location on this application when the swimming pool permit was was done. That showed the area where it was next.

007>> That's it. >> Yes. >> No, >> that's that's all that's in in the file. >> And you didn't take everything. >> All right. Thank Well, there's a couple more, but anyway, generally, let me just point out then since he didn't get the other shots, um, if you go straight through that property to those trees, that is where Roosevelt Avenue comes down. And so, that was the other front yardage. job. Even though the posting was the both they were both on Grant, but one should have been over there on on Roosevelt. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> Can you come to the Deis and identify yourself and I'll have to swear you in. Okay. >> Diane Caputi. I'm the owner of the house. Do you affirm to tell the

008whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. you can proceed. >> Yes. So, we had um discussed with the applicant about me presenting first here to just give a little background and then Diane be available to answer questions and >> provide some more background there. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Jay Kushner with the planning department. Good evening board. So, this um project is at 126 Grant Drive. It's a 16,647 square foot parcel. It's in the Montalk Beach hither hill section. Um, an area characterized by pretty intensive residential development. The parcel itself here is not within the jurisdiction of any protected natural features. Again, it's to allow pool equipment to remain 13.2 ft from the sideyard lot line where 20

009is required. The part parcel is partially cleared and improved with a two-story residence with decking, walking, driveways, sanitary system, shed, and the pool. Development on the uh subject parcel is pretty typical of the neighborhood. So for the pool, a stop work order was issued June 25th, 2024 for the construction of pool without a building permit. Shortly after July 9th, 2024, a building permit was issued for the pool. The plans that were approved at this time depicted the pool equipment in a conforming location. Um, instead they were constructed in that southern corner, thus requiring a setback variance because there are doubled setbacks for pool equipment and pools. So, it's currently screened from view by that wooden enclosure and the large screen trees. So, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions and then the applicant can

010speak to how this occurred. >> Well, the questions I have, Jake, would be for the applicant. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. I I guess my first question is um why did you not put it in a conforming location? Was there a reason for it? So I I I had a pool guy who um submitted the permit and he never told me that it was in a specific location that it was actually approved because I've never done a pool permit. And I didn't know he didn't get a permit until I got shut down because he told me he had a permit in the December before that. So they they shut down my project for a while because he wasn't paying apparently his uh workers comp. He was trying to get the project done

011without that. So that was all unbeknownst to me. I didn't really know that. So where I put the pool where I thought I could put the pool equipment I thought was in compliance because of the I thought it was a 10-ft setback. And honestly I don't really know where else to put it. Um, as you were saying, the property is, you know, it's like a very special property and I was trying to keep the integrity of the property because it's it's like the cat skills. It's like hilly trees and the property goes up and down all over. So, it's very hard to build any structure because there's not a lot of flat land. So, I tried to make it work for the land because I bought the property because it's beautiful. >> Yes. So anyway,

012then I came to find out after I finished the whole project that I was in in compliance by six foot. >> Does the board have any other questions? >> There was a there was apparently uh an approved building permit and on that building permit there was an approved location that was given to the pool. Uh >> I know, but I didn't know that that was even part of the permitting. He had never told me when he was building the pool equipment that >> My question is my question to you is is that new location the location you're in here tonight to try to get approval for was that one that was decided upon by the contractor or by you? Was that something >> Well, I told I I didn't he didn't tell me that had

013to be in a specific spot. So, I picked a spot that I wouldn't have to take any more trees down. I didn't have to take any hills down. And I had put you know I had built rebuilt this house 5 years ago. I had a fire uh uh and it burnt down. And it was a little house and I put a bigger house but not a very big house for the property size. >> And so I tried to do everything conforming. I had to revge a lot of property and then I had to add more revge. So if I I don't know where I don't even know where else I could put it between hills or taking down more trees or breaking into hills. It's just >> just I don't know what to do with

014it honestly. So it's in a really and the neighbor behind me those aravites they're actually leaning cyprus which is crazy that everybody puts them but they're big and thick in the summer and she we have plenty of distance. I mean the pool ran all summer last summer with no problem. So I I honestly I you know I brought pictures to show you with that tree in the slope. I don't know where I'd put it. If I put it if I move it six foot up it's going to I have take another tree down. The tree root of the tree I had to take for the pool was like the size of this room. So, I just don't want to keep hurting the property. >> Yeah. Now, on the permit though, the the pool, the proposed

015pool, >> I wish I would have known. >> The location was right off your deck there, right? >> So, if somebody could show me where that was, I could show you on the property. It probably wasn't even possible because I was trying to make it possible. >> Yeah. Well, there's no tree there where >> if you could if you tell me where. Seriously. I don't know where it was because I never saw >> story deck on the south side. >> So, that's a hill. Before the put stairs there because I couldn't get down the hill, >> but before the hill. But >> okay. >> Before what? Before the stairs were there. >> Excuse me. >> Before the stairs were there, you're saying? I mean, I knew somebody was on the property yesterday. Yeah. >> Yeah,

016but I didn't know that it was supposed to go there. >> Okay. He never showed you the survey. >> Never. And this was I've never done a pool before. I swear in my life I would never have a pool. And I want to shoot myself for putting one in. >> It hasn't been easy. It's just the concern is that this if this were approved, it's prop approved in perpetuity. So, you know, it'll go with the land and another owner will come in or another neighbor will come in and they may not be as >> well. I hope nobody takes the house ever, but helps keep it in my family for many generations. But, um, honestly, I don't know where else to put it. I'm I'm being honest. I mean, I would I would try to

017make him pay for it. You see, he didn't show up. He didn't do anything he's supposed to do, but the pool still isn't even working properly. It was a bad pool builder, >> you know, and I've taken the brunt of it now for almost two years. >> I had to even renew the pool permit because you wouldn't close wouldn't close the permit. So, you had to renew the permit. >> Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. Thanks. >> Appreciate your presentation. Thank you. Thanks. Do you have anything else to add? >> Uh, no. We don't have anything else to add from the department. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> Yes, you do. Stand by, please. And we're going to unmute.

018Last four digits. 1 667. You are live. >> Maybe not. 1667. You are live. >> Do we want to go on to the next caller? >> There's another. >> It sounds like we should. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It just muted that one. And let's unmute. Last four digits. 0497. You are live. 0497. You're live. Okay, let's uh let's mute that. And I'm actually going to unmute my line just to make sure that everything is clear. Just stand by one second. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Making sure that everything is good. >> Yep, we hear you. >> I hear everything good. And uh And do we want to try these numbers again? >> Yes. Let's try them one more time. >> Okay, let's do the first caller. 1667. You are live. Okay,

019we're going to go to the second caller. 0497, you are live. Yeah. Hello. This is Peter Peter Likton. Can you hear me? >> Oh, that's a different hearing. >> Yes, we can hear him. >> Yeah. I don't I I'm waiting for uh our our um permit to come up. >> I'm just on the line waiting. >> Oh, you're >> you're here for a different application. >> Thank you, Mr. Lipkin. Okay. Is there uh Miss Caputi, would you like are you >> would you like to add anything else to your presentation? >> Just one second. I'm sorry. ZBA U Peter, this is LTV. Which application are you for? >> Here for the next one. >> I think it's the third one. It's for the LIT >> Okay, perfect. Yep. >> Excellent. Thank you. Just stay on

020the line. >> Okay, thank you. So, Miss Kaputi, is there anything else you'd like to add? >> Member Burgerer, would you like to make a motion to public hearing record? >> So, for the application of Diane Caputi at 126 Grant Drive in Montalk 300-045-01-06 and make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> I'll second it. >> I concur. I concur. >> I concur. Thank you, Mrs. Caputi. The next public hearing is SBMFG LLC for Tyson Lane, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-189-6-9. The description is to legalize a basketball court built 19.3 ft from sideyard property line and two generators placed 5.0 ft and 5.4 4 ft from the sideyard property line. Believe sort of are variances from 2551110 and 2551188. Definition of playing court. The following variances are

021required. A variance of 30.7 ft to allow the existing basketball court to remain 19.3 ft from the sideyard lot line where 50 is required. Variances of 10 ft and 9.6 6 ft to allow two generators to remain 5 ft and 5.4 ft respectively from the sideyard lot line where 15 ft is required. A variance is also being requested for 700 ft to allow total lot coverage to remain 21,959 ft when the maximum allowable coverage is 21,259 square feet and any other relief necessary. Council, is the notice of public hearing? >> Uh, yeah. Can I review the notice and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this? >> Member Maring, do you have a field inspection? >> Yes, thank you, Chair. I do. Um, so just to orient, Tyson Lane takes

022its access off of Further Lane on the south side. And some may know Tyson Lane is like a U shape. So, um, and this this property and the one next to it are and others next to it are on the sort of south bottom of the of the U. Um, the property was, this is for Tyson Lane. You can see the address sign tipped over a little bit. There's the posting. There is another posting actually on two Tyson, which I got a picture of later. And I know sometimes we find postings like when things are on private roads or like off the main road. I know sometimes people post on the main road. That didn't happen. I don't think that's required. I just wanted to notice the postings are on the properties, you know, on

023that private road. Um, next slide. Um, I just took a little shot. I think this is looking uh west on Tyson just I'm standing in front of their driveway and this is looking west. Next slide. I think I'm looking east. Yep, that's east on Tyson. Just so you can get a a sense. Um, next slide. Okay, so I've gone on that gate was there where the posting was. I've gone through that gate. Um, and you have you can see it on the survey. This is the parking court. There's the house. Um, and I'm looking um I'm looking sort of souththeast at this moment. Looking at the house. Next slide. Um I just pivoted my body to looking to the west. This is the um western edge of the parking court. Um and then in the

024distance you can see the the blue um uh surface there is the um basketball court that's part of the application. And then beyond that is what's it called? A this references a pavilion or a um something else but it's like an open air open air structure. um to the I didn't really actually get a good picture of it, but in the corner that would be kind of uh beyond that tree sort of to the left of that um open air structure. I think that is where the two um generators are. I don't think I get a good picture of it. Um next slide. I've just moved a little more west walking along. So there's a driveway once you come into that parking court. Um to the right running to the west is another driveway that

025goes towards two site two Tyson Lane. Um I'll get to that later. So just a little closer look of the area around the uh court and you know there's spa there's uh open space between the large parking court and the beginning of the um the the basketball court. Next slide. Um yeah, just moving, you know, further away from the house and more towards so just another view of the court. Next slide. Um and so at once you get to the end of this driveway, um this goes onto another sort of private drive that's gated off I think the gate in front of that gate on on uh Tyson it says to Tyson Lane. Um, so just we're at the sort of eastern or sorry, western edge of the of this parcel. Next slide. Um, yeah.

026So I I turn my back. This is this other access road and the gate that has the address of two Tyson on it. Next slide. Um, all right. Now I've gone back to I gone back. I'm heading east. Now this is the rest of the driveway that heads east. This is part of the front facade of the house. I I took beyond the court. I took pictures of most of the property since we have a coverage um variance. So, I just wanted to make sure everyone sees what's on the property. So, now I'm heading west uh towards the end of that driveway. Next slide. And now I've wrapped around I've gone around that uh uh eastern facade of the house. I'm going towards the south side of the property. You can see there's a slate

027patio there and then there are these gravel like pathways. Um next slide. And now I've wrapped around. This is the rear of the house or the south side of the house. And again, I'm looking down again, you can't really see it here, towards the playing court, the basketball court. Um, and the property uh to the south is was just off the off the camera. Um, I think I have one more maybe. Was that it? >> Couple more. >> Okay. Oh, sorry. Yeah. And I've now just come around the house again. I'm kind of You can see the gate that I came in through in the distance. Those are the sculptures. Um, and there's the playing court. You can see the space between the uh parking court and the and the uh basketball court. Anything else?

028Oh, yeah. And then I just when I came out, I realized there was another posting in front of two um Tyson Lane. I That's it. >> Thank you. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> No, you go. Good evening board members. Um my name is Joan McGvern from Tumi Leam. Um at the outset I'd like to um note a couple of points. Um, first the board should know that the applicant takes responsibility for unknowingly building without a permit and is here to rectify that situation. Um, they're not going to blame it on builders. They they're taking responsibility and they've offered to Covenant to remove the structures for which relief is sought upon the sale or change of ownership of the applicant's property. Um the second point I'd like to make

029is that this is a unique situation in that the immediately adjacent um property to Tyson serves as um it's part of a family compound. The two properties share their facilities, which is how it came to be that the generator for two Tyson is actually on Fort Tyson and Fort Tyson has a basketball court, but two Tyson has a tennis court. Um, so they share um the facilities and as I said, the applicant has offered to covenant that uh it'll take the basketball court out and move the generators upon sale of the property or change of ownership. And the third point I'd like to make is that um the relief of 700 square feet for total coverage um should be um hopefully looked at in the context of the fact that there's 3,332 square ft of

030additional allowed coverage. Um because the existing coverage is only 4,650 square ft and the allowed coverage would be 7,972 ft. Um I also would like to point out that um again and in the slides you just saw the much of the roughly 500 square ft is comprised of gravel walkways which you saw and that are permeable and um another small amount you saw the sculptures u they're surrounded by sort of gravel pedestals um which are also permeable and that accounts for some of the additional coverage. Um in terms of the factors for evaluating whether to grant the requested variances, the first is whether this will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. And as mentioned, the immediate neighbor um is to Tyson and they've submitted a letter of support.

031And also as I mentioned they operate as sort of one compound. Um none of this is publicly viewable um because of hedges and the way the private lanes are set up. And the applicant as I mentioned before has offered to covenant that on sale or change of ownership the basketball court and generators will be moved and the basketball court removed. Um the second factor is whether the relief can be achieved by some other means and that would be no. Um short of ripping everything out um which would be costly. And with respect to the total lot coverage um much of that as I said is comprised of permeable walkways. Um and also if you it we propose that it is offset by the fact that applicants property is 3,332 ft under the total allowed coverage.

032Uh the third factor is whether the variances are substantial and I would submit they are. Um but the only affected neighbor is to Tyson which benefits from having the generator on applicants property and also to mitigate and hopefully not set a bad precedent. Um they've offered the covenant as I mentioned. The fourth factor is whether this will have an adverse impact or effect on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood or this area of town. It's respectfully submitted that the relief requested will have no impacts on this neighborhood or this area of town um which is quite um secluded. Lastly, there is a factor of whether that the relief sought was self-created um which shouldn't necessarily preclude the grants requested. And while the variances are self-created, the applicant, as stated at the outset, um

033appreciates the need for variance and seeks to rectify the situation by legalizing the situation and offering the covenant as I um previously described. >> Thank you. >> You have any questions? >> Does the board have any questions? >> No. >> Uh well, I have a question. Um, so you mentioned that the gravel pathways are about 500 square feet >> and the variance you're looking for for coverage is00 is 700. Yes. But you mentioned the gravel. So even if those gravel pathways would be removed, you'd still have a 200 foot problem, right? >> Not that you're offering to remove them, but if I offered it to you as a possible mitigation, we're still not going to come into compliance. >> Still not be compliant. Oh, well the other there's a about 150 square feet. Um some

034of it is accounted for by the gravel that surrounds the pedestals um that the sculptures are on. Um so there would still be a small problem there. So you don't have you don't have a direct path mitigation through removal of that we were asked for. >> No. >> Okay. Um, I I should Jake probably will mention it's a pre-existing non-conforming cleared property. So, >> right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You actually do have a question to clarify. You call it a family compound. Are they in same ownership to and >> um they're not >> they're in this not in the same ownership because that would create a single >> they lose their s single and separate status. Um but they are beneficially owned by the same entities. >> Same family. >> Real family. >>

035But is it a trust that owns both of them? >> No. >> So they're individually owned by the same families? >> Yes. I had one more question. So, I know you said that part of the uh overage on the coverage are the gravel walkways. >> Um but I'm just looking at an older survey predating a survey with the with the um playing cord on it. So, I see I mean those gravel pathways look like they've been there. If I'm reading this, what's the date of the survey? Uh 2016. Um have been there. Um but other things have been at so the the plane court came later >> came later >> um you know after >> after the um slate patio on the west side that I don't see on the 2016 survey you know and

036that was a point where this property was in compliance with um a and uh I think the the whatchamacallits the uh sculptures might have been there too. So, I guess I mean, you know, an applicant can try to solve a coverage issue any way they want. I'm just it seems to me it was the putting in of a slate uh um patio as well as the playing court that really, you know, took this over. I just wanted to make sure I'm seeing that correctly. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um Thank you. I'd like to hear from the planning department. >> You already got sworn in, >> right? So, this property is improved for the two-story residence with decking, driveways, the walkways, generators, patios, porches, and the 5,83.6 ft basketball court. The most recent

037certificate of occupancy was issued in 2018. The court was not included on the CO. The court is first visible on a 2017 aerial imagery. It's not depicted on an aerial image taken in the winter of 2018 and is depicted again on a image taken in April 2018. It's unclear whether the court was removed and replaced during this time frame. So the need for that total coverage relief really uh results from the construction of the court, the 632 foot patio on the eastern side of the residence and then the extension of that slate paper walkway on the western side. Um, so these hardships are self-created. The court was built without the benefit of a building permit. The requested variances are substantial. There are a couple factors to consider. The entire lot is screened from outside view

038by a deer fence and large privacy hedges. The generators do have an additional layer of privacy screening as well, further reducing uh view from neighboring parcel. And then um the board should consider that a letter was submitted in support of the application by the affected neighbor to Tyson Lane. They're with as the agent mentioned they're within the same kind of estate compound. According to the letter, the subject parcel shares facilities with two tit lane by mutual agreement. Um the b the basketball court and tennis court on both lots are used by residents guests of both lots and the generators on Fort Tyson service uh facilities on two Tyson. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions the board might have. >> Board have any questions? >> Not for me. >> No question. >> Thank you.

039>> Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? >> Matt, do we have any callers? You have zero callers for this particular application. Thank you. >> Joan, are you anything else you want to add? >> All right. Thank you. >> Member I may. I'm sorry. Sure. >> Um a question for Joan. >> Do you have anyone? >> Let her come back to the de I'm not known for my loud voice. Sorry. Oh, >> that's right. That's why we have the microphones. >> Yes. >> Um, so Joan, do you have any information or that you can share or knowledge of what happened to the basketball court in that period of uh uh 2018 with the two different pictures? >> No. Um, I was surprised and no one could explain it to me. Um the CO

040doesn't have the basketball court on it. Um it and I first learned of it when I received the TAM. So um maybe it was a dirt court >> um that they had mapped out and hadn't installed. >> Yeah. The reason why I asked >> because I the CO would have mentioned it. That's what I was surprised by. >> Right. But since the CO didn't mention the basketball court at all. No. Um, I was just curious because if there had been a basketball court that was removed, maybe there was something wrong with the basketball court, it could have been an opportunity to reposition it to not require the variance. >> I was just curious on that. Thank you. >> The poltergeist cover like a seasonal or something. >> Could it have been like a seasonal covering

041or something like that? Maybe I don't you don't know. >> I have been able to investigate and no one has a recent memory of >> history. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Can we have a motion to close the public hearing and record? >> Of course. >> Thank you. In the matter of SB MFG LLC for Tyson Lane, East Hampton, Suffet County Tax Map 300-189-6-9. I make a motion to close the hearing and the record. >> Second. >> Concur. Our next application is Lichton Family Trust 38 Surfside Avenue in Montalk Stuff County Tax Map number 300-51-4-3. Description is to remove approximately 40 linear feet of sandbag seaw wall. Allow approximately 122 linear feet of coastal walkway to remain. Reconstruct a staircase to the beach and allow 104 square feet of decking to remain within sideyard

042setbacks on a parcel of land containing coastal bluffs, beaches, and tidal wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420, a variance from 25511 and any other necessary relief. A 4.5 foot variance is required to allow 104 square feet of decking to remain 10.5 ft from the western sideyard lot line where a 20ft setback is required. Zoning district is a B residence ve flood zone 18 ft and X flood zone. Secret class is a type two vice chair. Do we Oh, I'm sorry. Is our affidavit of service and posting an order? council. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Do we have action? >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I guess they're coming up. This is a photo of the posting. It was clearly posted right on the edge of the roadway in

043front of the next to the driveway. Next, I'm just going to take a look up and down here uh so you can see where we're at on Surfside. Um, here I'm looking west next. I'm going to come back and I'm going to look east. And we've had other applications on Surfside. This is immediately Well, you can go back to it. You can go to the next one. I'm sorry, Brian. Yeah, this is the the H the house that's immediately across the road from the parcel in question. Next. Now, I'm looking at the house. This is the uh we're going to go down the driveway and come around the house. This is the house from the roadside. Next, I'm going to come along the property. This is that deck that we're still looking at one end

044of it. We're going to get another view of it. This is the deck that requires the 4.5 ft variance. Next, I've come down past it. I'm looking back. You'll notice on we have it on our survey. We'll see the survey later. It's a bit of an L-shape. It comes down the uh west side of the property and then crosses over a bit in front of these doors on the south side. Next, another view of it. Next, this is a walkway. Now, I've gone past the property, past the pool, and I'm looking down towards the ocean. You can see the ocean in the river. Here's a walkway that's constructed that goes from here all the way down to the beach, down to the staircase. Next, I just turned around in that spot just to give you

045an idea. There's the pool. There's the house. That's the layout from outside the pool fence as we work our way down to the ocean. Next, further down now you can see where the walkway gives way to the staircase. The staircase is in question tonight will be discussed but here we are walkway to platform and then we're going to see the switchback set of stairs next. Now uh we're going to discuss the sandbag wall. The sandbag wall there's a picture of it. You can see how extensive it is, the height of it. It's a sizable structure. Next, down at the base, we're looking at these stairs. One of the questions was brought up in the TAM. Is it necessary to have the staircase extend as far out onto the beach? You can see there's some space

046between the two runs, and there's also some space back towards the sandbags. That'll be discussed during the hearing, I'm sure. Next, just another shot to show you. Again, now I'm looking at the whole run of sandbags from I'm standing in the east looking west. Next, another group of sandbags just to give you an idea. This is a sizable structure. Next, I'm just going to take a look down the beach. I'm looking east here. You can get a character of the land in along Surfside. Next, going to look west. We're going to see some other houses obviously exist along this bluff. Next, now I'm just down at those stairs to get an idea sweep. If you'll see a house immediately to the west, the house of course that's got the shutters down is the house in

047question and the staircway is working its way back to the house. That's it. I just that that's the house that uh immediately to the west of probably the closest house to this residence and that's the one immediately to the east. Then I'm looking both ways. That's it. Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Uh good evening. I'm Hubard from Timmy Leam Shay Kelly Dum Corero here on behalf of the applicant um the owners of 838 Surfside Mount Talk. Um the application before you tonight uh is an amended application from initial application that occurred um in November 2024. Um the clients had originally received um a notice of violation from DEC for the sandbag you just saw in the in your pictures. Um they initially

048submitted their NRSP application, NRSP application at that um at the end of that year 2024 um to remove that existing sandbag uh reorient the the steps uh the stairwell um and uh re restore regurgitate and uh clean up the bluff and and regrading in that situation. Um after the review that occurred um I believe in 2025 February we received the um the next notice from the board after the review uh it was indicated to us that the the part of the deck in question also was in in Sepex and there was a hot tub at the time as well. The hot tub hot tub has since been removed. Um I don't I don't know if it was in I don't think I don't think you you probably saw the the space where it was when

049you walked through the property, but I believe in our um application exhibit G we have a picture of it as well as well. Um so we submitted this amended application in June of last year. Uh in at the same time we were working with DEC uh for an order on consent. Um we included that in our application as well for your review. Um I believe in July of last year we were told by DEC that because we have the order on consent we don't we didn't need need additional permits. We had been applying for those permits as well to remove this uh sandbag structure and as well as the reoriented the stairwell. Um in that time frame the um the order on consent was originally um scheduled to I guess our our our deadline for

050that was September of last year. Uh we we've been continuing to work with DEC and they're they're allowing us to um kind of remain in limbo while we work with the town to uh get these approvals as well before we remove everything. >> Um as discussed in our narrative, um I'll I'll just speak to the the deck first quickly. Um it uh has been in existence for some time. When when our clients bought the property, there's that the door that you you saw in your pictures on on the property that um exits to nothing essentially. it it had it had no way down from an elevated um exit and it's it's large and the clients um made this small section to ensure the safety of of their family and all that. Um and as opposed

051to putting a stairwell there, they just put a part of the deck to to close it off to make sure they could go in and out of that door. Um I know the the TA we we had applied for it as a 4.5 differential. I think the TAM listed as the same but has it as 20. Um the setbacks are extended because of the pool being part of the pool deck. Um if that wasn't the case, it'd be um within the setbacks. Um sorry, not within the setbacks. Um to to move to the other portion, obviously that the bigger elephant in the room is the the sandbag wall. Um we obviously are of course um applying to remove that. Um the clients of course acknowledge the the issue with it and are are um eager

052to remove it. Um as you can see from the photos it it is substantial and the the structure that uh the the stairwell relies on at this point. So to remove it we had to move all of it at the same time. Um we did have and First Coastal is here to discuss it too. We had First Coastal check the comp the composition of those sandbags. I actually have a letter as well and I wanted to ask um because I have I have the letter that I submitted um a little bit later or closer in time. I wasn't sure with the new process. I have copies of it. Should I submit it to you now or should I not do that? I don't know what the new system um bio physical copies to to provide

053to you. >> If you have them, you can provide them for this. >> So, I'll do that. And I also have um an updated proposal as well. Um, after looking at the TAM, our we discussed with our clients in First Coastal and um have proposed to reorient the stairwell in a in a a better I think more um >> the staircase >> the the staircase. Yeah. A more amen. >> So you're going along with the TAM's recommendation to redesign it to be parallel to the face of the block. >> Parallel to the face of the block. >> And do your changes also include having the lower section foldable or retractable? >> At this time, no. the um our our clients did consider that option but um found that it it wasn't feasible for their situation.

054Um they do have an older family member that also uses the stairs which is why we have additional landings as well. Um and it it was be too much um to have that concern as well. That's why there's additional stairwell. I'm actually going to um take >> sure you have copies around. >> Oh, so we're just getting this. >> Yeah, we're just in the middle here. >> Yes. I apologize. I submitted it yesterday. So I just wanted to Is it okay if I approach everybody? Thank you. >> Thank you. Have you given this to the planning department? Do you have a copy for them as well? >> This is in the file. So, as as you can see, the we propose um rather than have it be that that orientation that you saw um on

055our initial submission or amended submission um where it would still have been uh like a a switch back. Yes, thank you. switch back uh orientation. Now it'll just be straight down and much closer to the um the block. And again, I I apologize for the late uh submission, but we wanted to make sure we we got it in for the hearing. >> You'll get away with it tonight, but we do have new procedures coming up and you won't get away with it. >> I know. I apologize. I know it's uh I and >> under the wire totally understand. Um so I at at this point I know obviously you just received it. Um but we think that is a a good alternative to what we had initially proposed and we think it's a good um

056remediation of of the issue. Like we said the sand seems to be able to be all um placed there and I I can have first culture speak to that as well if you have any questions for them. Um, but if no questions for me, I can also let uh Brian speak too. >> Oh, what about the walkway >> from swimming pool down to the steps >> for the size of it? You mean? >> Yeah, the width of it. The width. >> The width. Um, we discussed that as well. Um our our thought would be that because it would require it to then us to then further disturb the area at this stage if we were to in the future maybe covenant of course if we rebuild the walkway at a future stage to to then

057obviously make it that that shorter that >> conforming with we understand of course other a lot of other um properties in the area have walkways um and but but this is over the normal It's also treated wood, isn't it? >> I believe so. >> Um, >> the existing walkway is not what you're proposing. >> You're not proposing treated wood. >> We have that document here. proposing changing. >> She was asking if the existing was treated, but >> when that walkway was built when was that walkway built per a zoning board prior zoning board approval? >> I know I read the property history card, but I'm blanking at the moment. So, >> no, I believe it was it was built um it it has been there quite for quite some time. hasn't it hasn't been built

058and I think before it even I think it was redone it 16 years ago. was previously there I believe >> though but not not on I think there was something there is something strange about the CEO for this property there it was the 2001 co I believe lists an old survey it didn't have an updated survey for some reason so there's a discrepancy there >> um in that CO >> do we have any other questions one just clarification question again because I I was on the property so you know I saw the little L-shaped extra deck that's in question that Right. So, I know you I know I read it in the memos and everything you're saying that well because all those all the shutters uh yes storm shutters down so I couldn't see what

059egress was on the side of the house or whatever but I still wasn't understanding because it's it's so you're saying there was just a door that opened >> and dropped off. >> Yeah. So when they they purchased the property it was was like that. It's it's very odd. I don't I don't know why it was constructed that way, but you that that picture and the picture we submitted to it, for whatever reason didn't have any way to >> get down from that that door. >> Um so rather than include another stairwell, they they just kind of cornered it off because you you can see >> in our submission too, it it used to be kind of there's a diagonal piece and they just added a little bit and headed around. >> Yeah. Um but like

060we but as we submitted in our um narrative that you know the the neighboring property it's next to their driveway. Um their house is pushed further back. Um there's you saw in the pictures today too there's significant vegetation. Um there be an adverse effect there. >> So thank you. Thank you. >> Will you be making a statement from First Coastal? >> I was just going to ask that. >> Question. I do have a question. >> Oh, we'd like to hear from you because vice chair has a question. >> Can you address uh state your name for the record and I'll swear you in? >> My name is Kyle Hubard. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> So, I was on the

061site and I see the way which is constructed and I'm looking at the drawing we just handed to and I don't see any driven pilings. You're planning on digging down. It looks like four feet. You're going to stabilize this staircase with if I look at this correctly. Let me open it up again. Looks like so the there will you know these will be these will be pylons. >> Yeah. >> You know similar to every you know the normal um construction of the staircase. Um I think we more just showing the >> uh 4 foot just is the width of the staircase. >> So that 4 foot is just the width of the stair. So, as far as the depth that you're driving them into the ground into the sand there, what what's the typical procedure

062there? >> Um, you know, you're looking at like 12 feet probably. >> So, you're you're going to then you're going to be hand driving. You're going to bring in an automated piece of equipment you handle by hand and you're going to drive in 12 feet. You're going to drive 20 foot poles in 12 feet. That kind of thing. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. So, that I'm just concerned about the stabilization of this removing the sand wall. You're going to be putting this this basically up against that removed area, but you are going to be driving these down then to some substantial depth. >> Uh yes. Um you know the if and you saw in the picture of the the neighboring property, right? Their staircase kind of comes straight down. I saw that. >> Um you

063know, so those would probably be you know 30 foot pile right closest to the bluff where it's got to then start and then they get smaller as they go down obviously as you lose your elevation. um you know so that'll be you know obviously confirmed in the field when they're actually installing. Um the other piece is that you know taking all the sand that is inside those bags using that sand right to to you know soften that uh steepness if you will on that um bluff face >> right >> and then reveating that. Obviously you're going to get you know additional support on those piles you know similar to what they're doing actually um with the sandbags now. So, that walkway is going to come down and it's going to land on something like a

0644x4 platform and then we're going to take and we're going to we're going to exit to the west. >> That's correct. Yeah. Well, yeah, exactly. Walkway comes down, right? And then turn Yeah. >> turns heads to the west. Yeah. >> Stairs go down. We've added the 4x4 um platforms, >> right, to separate um because the, you know, there's older older gentleman at the property has a hard time with stairs. This way we could spread it out. It was it was a lot of stairs. >> Probably 20 risers anyway, right? Yeah. >> Yeah, it was a good amount of stairs. Um, so this way, you know, it spread them out a little bit and you have, you know, a little bit of a place. >> I just wanted to ask a question about I didn't understand

065looking at the drawing that you were driving piles. Uh, I see what's out there now. I didn't see any driven piles. >> Well, so those piles are driven. They're just, you know, hidden amongst the sandbags and then driven further depth. >> Okay. >> Where the sandbags end, right? So it'll be the same, you know, essential configuration starting at the top and then working downward. >> Some three and a half inch pipe, something like that, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions, board members? >> Not right now. >> I'd like to hear from the Thank you, sir. I'd like to hear from the planning department. >> Good evening, Madam Chair. Board members, Brian Frank for the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the

066truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Um so this application has uh three elements to it and you've discussed them all. One is the um the sideyard varants for the L-shaped uh set of decking on the west side of uh the residence. It is attached to the pool. The pool setbacks were included in the notice to be conservative and over notice rather than under notice. It's I'm not exactly clear where the pool deck ends and the house deck begins and the setbacks would change. So, uh it was um conservative to just make sure that the notice was more inclusive and not an under representation. Um in terms of the eligibility of that for the dimensional variances, the board knows the standards, the the five parameters that are built into the town code as adapted from

067uh New York State uh town law. And I don't think you need me to to say very much about that. Um the coastal structures are the other element of the application. I'm going to put the the the walkway to the beach and the stairs kind of together is the coastal structures. Coastal structures don't need to meet coastal setbacks. It kind of makes sense that if you're going to have a staircase from a top of the bluff down to the beach, you couldn't have them meet a 100 foot setback or they it wouldn't be a coastal staircase. So, coastal structures are exempt from the coastal setbacks. But, we do have um some standards for them. the um standard for the for the town, and I I can't speak for the DEC, but in my experience with

068the DEC, which is pretty extensive, usually coastal access is limited to to a 4ft width under almost all circumstances. Um and this was a walkway that was um not included in the original um permit for the house. The house was built in 1986. I I believe um uh Jackie is correct. uh there's a 2001 certificate of occupancy and attached to it is a 1988 CO uh survey rather and that time gap between them is a little bit unusual >> a year or two between the CO and the corresponding survey is not uncommon um but that uh you know that that that's a pretty significant gap uh it's not 100% clear where when the walkway was constructed and I do have aerial photos that I provided in the file there the walkway may have been rebuilt

069and and widened, but trying to pick up a 1 ft width difference in the scale of our aerials is um you know, too much of an exercise to really be productive. Uh the bottom line is the walkway was constructed at a time when it should have needed an NRSP. Uh it wasn't included in the initial um um natural resources special permit that authorized the construction of the house. And therefore, I think the board has jurisdiction over it now. The area between the house and the uh the the the top of the bluff is flat. The vegetation on either side is is shrubby. It's not particularly delicate. And I don't think it would cause really any disturbance at all to um replace it with um a 4ft with um commensurate with what is done on other

070coastal access properties. As the board knows, board is expected to treat similar properties similarly. You've got a lot of waterfront property. Well, not a lot, but you've got a number of similar uh waterfront properties. Many of them have staircases in Surfside alone, let alone other bloodfront properties in the town. And um if you're going to deviate from that 4-foot standard, it should be pretty uh compelling and distinguishing um circumstances. And uh I'm respectfully not sure that you really have that here. The staircases have been um um they were probably built at the time of the walkway because there was always an escarment here and there's really no practical way uh to get down to the beach even even 20 years ago. Um the staircase, it's pretty obvious from the aerials that they have changed configuration

071a couple of times. They do get storm damage. They all they all do out there at some point or another. And this staircase had been reconfigured a couple of times since 2013 to its um current configuration around 2023. And the um configuration that um is shown on the first coastal plan tonight is uh acceptable to the planning department. Essentially, you want these structures uh to be as far away from the shoreline as possible so that they're um damaged as infrequently as possible. um having that lowest set of tre of treads uh retractable. It it's not um something that should be compulsory, but it is something that I'd encourage the applicant to continue to look at. It's really just we we see it more and more frequently. It's just a series of hinges either either two

072or three or sometimes four heavy duty hinges and that lowest set of of treads just folds up at the end of the season. Um, you'll notice at a lot of these properties, many of many people post no trespassing signs at the base of the stairs so that people on the beach don't get curious and go up to private property. And having something that folds up limits the potential for trespass. It also um gets them more out of the way so they're less likely to become storm damage and become waterborne debris after a storm, which um creates other messes for for everybody. So that's that's more for the applicant's consideration than than the board in my opinion. Um the sandbag retaining wall is something I want to address because there was um a fairly fairly lengthy

073email exchange that uh uh Martha included in the in the open gov post. So it's in it's part of the board's file. Um the planning department encouraged the removal of uh this retaining wall um right away. Um I you know I've been doing this for a long time. I've worked with um building and code enforcement remediating a lot of um non-permitted conditions and this property in my opinion wouldn't be any different. I can't speak for code enforcement or the building department. Um but both planning and natural resources have routinely worked with those departments in correcting uh situations. So, um, Martha wrote a lengthy email about the activities that require a natural resources permit. And yes, while it's true that digging, clearing, erecting, reconstructing, altering, blah blah blah, within a certain number of feet of a

074of a beach or a bluff clearly requires a natural resource, a special permit. The natural resource special permit standards when you read them are clearly intended to apply to things that are being put on the earth not necessarily removed. So um removing you correcting something that never had a permit in the first place and getting a permit a natural resources permit to do it is um a lot more work than than necessary. It takes more time. It takes the time of the board, your council for the determination, a coveted hearing slot, and um we're at the time of the year now where by the time you made a a decision, we're coming up on the ideal time to do this anyway. Late late winter, early spring is the best time for coastal restorations. You get

075the the tail end of the nor easter season. Hopefully, you don't get one uh in in midappril, but um that's when coastal restorations have the best chance of lasting the longest and getting the most uh the longest length of time of the growing season of beach grass. So, one way or the one way or the other, uh we're coming up on the time that this should be done, but uh the planning department maintains that um a natural resources permit should not necessarily be required um for the removal. They've applied for it. You're hearing it tonight. if you want to incorporate it in your decision, that's fine. But I will note and and um your your council is is sitting over here. I I worked with council and um while this debate was going on on

076another waterfront property that had issues and they were in a hurry to correct them and um removal should be done with a certain amount of environmental over oversight so that they're not done ham-handed and do more damage um in the remediation. Um but but this isn't necessarily the the the process to do it. And if you look over the years, I don't think you'll find any permits that were exclusively for uh applications that were made and issued for the removal of non-permitted structures in the first place. So, just just to get all of that on on the record. >> Um beyond that, if anybody has any questions, I'll do my best to answer them. >> You've already said you the planning department would approve the new drawing that we received here with the parallel set

077of stairs. Yes. >> Running from east to west. >> Yeah. I think the one question that the applicant should address before the record closes is is access proposed to come from um the applicant's property or um the road one of the road ends in downtown Montalk. If so, that should get um town board approval. That's um you know, if it's a an activity that's permitted by the board, that road end access should be authorized by the uh by by the town board. So, if there are concerns in terms of timing and safety to the general public, that could be addressed uh by the town board, which I I think go probably goes a little bit beyond what the zoning board can do. You >> mentioned that the work would be done with a pickup truck

078and no larger piece of equipment. At least that's what's in your document that the only vehicle on the beach would be need permission for it, but I'm saying there is no plan for anything larger than that. You're going to use the handheld driver for the poles, right? Okay. It's okay. The walkway, you said the woodw walk going down to the stairs does not appear to be a problem for you for them to change it or >> I don't think it would it result in undue disturbance to the area on either side of it. Like I said, it's it's it's vegetated. It's hardy vegetation. It's flat to gently sloping. Um I I I I don't I don't see that being particularly invasive. >> And then it can be changed to untreated wood. Yeah. Well, treat untreated

079wood is in is encouraged. I I will tell you I think it's a little less important in a in a well flushed area like the ocean than it would be in in like one of the inner harbors where you might be a little bit more concerned of the bio acccumulation of of things like CCO CCA or ACQ. But um untreated is encouraged because it sooner or later some of this stuff does end up um in the environment one way or another. Can I ask a question about the clearing on the property? Um, so obviously it's uh over clearared by 9,000 square ft. Is that partially because that counts the clearing on the bluff crest that was done when they put the sandbags in? I know they're going to reveate that part, but do you have

080any comments on uh >> I I doubt it. I would have to check the aerials, but I I expect that the from my review of the application, the clearing doesn't seem significantly changed from at least uh 2001 going forward. >> Okay. So, you're thinking Okay. >> So, I think it was always uh pre-existing to that clearing uh limit. Um to the best of my my knowledge, I didn't go back. The older aerials are not terrific. >> I couldn't read on the prior the old survey. I don't think clearing was even on surveys at that time. So I couldn't put anything. Thank you. >> Any Yes, I do have a question. So Brian, just for clarification for myself, you had mentioned earlier earlier in your presentation that the walkway uh was currently non-conforming and that because

081of the width uh and that if we were to approve that that could potentially encourage others who have non-conforming walkways to also submit applications for approval of those. And now we're talking about the fact that narrowing the walkway isn't really going to be that beneficial because it's very scrubby on either side of the walkway. >> So, um maybe I'm just confused as to >> Well, may maybe I didn't I didn't speak clearly. It's it it's not that it's not beneficial. Narrowing it to four feet would bring it in line with the board's practice. Doing that work is not going to be damaging to the area on either side. And if I if I didn't articulate that, well, that's on me, not you. >> That's fine. Now it's clear. Thank you. >> Do we have any

082other questions for Brian? >> No, I do not. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? Matt, do we have any callers? >> Yes. Let's go back to uh unmuting 04 se 97. My apologies. 0497, you are alive. >> Could you identify yourself? >> 0497. This is your application. All right, let's just try the next number. Unmuting last four digits. Digits 1 667. You are live. And one more time. 1667. You are live. >> Madam Chair, would you like to try these numbers again? >> No, I think that's enough. Thank you, Matt. Jackie, would you like to make a final statement? >> Sure. Um I I won't go back through um you know as Brian indicated Martha submitted a lengthy um

083discussion on this but uh again you know we we're just we're availing ourselves of what is required of us and our client for for the what we see as a necessary um portion of the application. Um, and as I said earlier, just removing the sandbags without, you know, cleaning up any of the other parts of this that we need to to rectify and uh change would probably cause some kind of structural issue anyway with if the bags are just taken out. And and and additionally, if we're going to use the bags, if you're going to use the sand in the bags to, you know, re um grade and re mediate the bluff, I I don't see how we could do one without the other. So that any that's what I'll say about that. But um

084regarding the 4 foot versus 5 foot um walkway I I would ask if if you are going to close the hearing with the public part of the hearing, can we leave it open to written comment for two weeks say beyond or >> for what? >> For additional submissions about the different things that came up in there there couple questions we wanted to South Federal Street. if if that would be okay. >> Bit far. >> We're having we're having a wonderful night with all our automated. >> So, so just to be specific, Jackie, you want to leave the record open for >> uh for the for the width of the just to if we do want to submit anything additional about the the width of the um existing walkway. >> Um I just so I'm clear

085that the access question is about getting the equipment on to to do this, right? So that we we can address that. we can in case there is anything to clarify that we'll address that as well. I don't know if there was anything to clear up, but um I will just reconfirm that. Um it's really just a I think I would really just like to discuss the just want to confirm and discuss with the client about the width and if we could submit something additional for that. >> Two weeks will be fine. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair, would you like to make a motion? >> Then in the application of the Liken Family Trust, 38 Surfside Avenue, Montalk, Suffer County Tax Map 300-51-4-3, I'd like to make a motion to close

086the public hearing at this time, but to leave the record open for an additional two weeks to allow for the submission of comments by the applicant referencing rep in reference to the walkways and possible access to the beach. Second. Concur. >> Concur. >> Thank you. >> Our final public hearing for tonight is TMT Malkque Realy Group LLC 261 East Lake Drive in Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-13-1-20. Description is to construct a 458 square foot gravel patio and 107 square foot spa within minimum wetland and bluff grass setbacks and to construct 1100 square foot one-story addition a s i a sanitary system upgrade and wall on a lot containing a bluff and tidal wetlands. Natural resource special permit pursuant to 254 is being sought of variances from 255430 and 255440 of the East Hampton

087Town Code and any other relief necessary. Wetland setback variances of 51.9 feet and 44 feet are required to construct the gravel area and spa 48.1 ft and 66 ft from a wetland where 100 ft is required. A bluff crest setback variances of 13.3 ft and this is a typo in the notice that's being corrected. A bluff crest setback variance of 13.3 feet and 16 feet are required to construct the gravel area and spa 36.7 feet and 34 ft from the bluff crest where 50 ft is required. Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Uh yes, everything seems to be in order for those burders is issue. Okay, there's some photos. This is the notice of posting. It was properly posted at the front of the driveway and the house is in

088the distance. Next. Next. >> Lex Brier. Next. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> Oh my goodness. My daughter can see that >> laid in a loop forever. >> You're filling in tonight. >> It's just a shot up the road a little bit to the the neighbor to the north of this property, the applicant's property next. And this Oh, well. Okay. So, um this is the house in the background. I'm going to go around the house. This area Well, go to the next one. It's a little closer. I'm getting too close. Um, this is the area that's proposed for the extension from the house. It's going to come out the cover partially the the current front entrance and wrap around over toward the area in front of the garage. Um, next, uh, this is shot of

089going toward the, well, toward the lakeside and to the back where there is a a hot tub proposed, which should be on the next shot. Next, uh, this is the existing deck today in the back that on which the hot tub is proposed to be put. And in the area just in front of this, it's not in the photo, but there is a dry well that came up with a question um from the planning department about the effectiveness of it. And I believe there was a response from the applicant on it. Um next, this is a grassy area on the south side of the house, south and west, and this is where there's a gravel a gravel area proposed. Uh they're calling it a dining area, but a crushed gravel area uh which is also

090part of the uh the variance and the RSP requests. Next, uh it's just a shot of the stairs. I believe there's really nothing in question about that, but I did take a photo of it. Next, this is a shot from that that area, the stairs. And just taking a shot back at the look of the house. It's pretty large now and three levels and uh just to give you a feel for that. Next uh this is the egress down to the lower level of the house as we approach back to the front where part of the question as to exactly where the addition will start. But next okay think I lost something. Well, this is an area of the well the upland part of the property which still has some considerable uh area where things

091could be proposed as it mentions in the TAM some things could be put onto the upland portion of the property and I think that's it. Is that it? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? Good evening. >> Good evening, madame chairman. Andy Hammer. Uh I'm here from Beyond and Hammer. I'm representing the property boned by TMT Malkque Realy Group uh located at 261 East Lake Drive. I know this is an unusual application and it's certainly on its face. You might say, "H how do we get here?" I I just want to take the time to explain some of this to you. Uh and and we can have a discussion about it. By way of background, I am pretty familiar with this property. This was owned

092by a a guy named Tom Guestler, gentleman in Montalk. Uh he sold it to this owner in 2021. So this owner has had the place for, you know, 5 years at this point. Uh he he and his family live there. Uh he has three children. Originally they had a couple of places, co-ops on the stretch. I forget the name of the the cooperative that they own. Uh but this is that's what they had before they moved into this house. Tom Guestler was a local builder out here. I know this because I have a set of ladder jacks in my basement that say Guestler Development Corp. on them. I don't know where I got them, but somebody left them at my house when I was doing some work there, and they're now mine. I might get

093a call asking for them. Uh, but I don't think he lives out here anymore. Uh, it was expanded and renovated extensively in 2004 pursuant to variances issued by the board. The determination of that board was dated uh November 2003. The application approved 1300 square f feet of additions. You know, fairly large additions, 174 square ft of porches, porches, 844 square ft of decking. Uh most of this required the Bluff Crest set back the deck that is there today. Subsequent building permits were issued as a as a right basically to finish portions of the basement, construct a garage, as well as construct a pool with decking on the property on the upland of the property. The pool was never constructed, uh, but it was located on the landward side, uh, of the house outside of the

094board's jurisdiction. That 2003 approval and the house that resulted from it created the existing house and it was designed to provide the ability to expand the house in a conforming location basically led to tonight's application 22 years later. Basically, the application was originally bifurcated. Uh, and that was kind of by design or maybe not by design. The applicant's architect who was here with me tonight, Frank Felino, prepared a plan to expand the residence. I wasn't really involved in that application. Uh, but I was aware it had been submitted. And if you look at the application dates, I think that was submitted March 5th. It was designed to be two hearings because the accessory structure were created after several months later. Uh, we submitted for those and it was combined into a single application at the

095request of the board as well as the uh the council at the time. The proposed addition meets all zoning setbacks including wetland and bluffest setbacks and it was grandfathered under the gross floor area limitation subsequently adopted by the town. Uh the hearing for that I believe was March 6th. I think these applications were processed by the board March 5th. So it well beed and obviously there was probably a couple month lead time. Once again I wasn't involved but I'll have Frank get up and and talk to you about the house because I wasn't you know I don't have all the background on it. Uh if as you remember the the law grant created grandfathered rights for anything submitted until July 1st of that year. So this long beat that it was probably in development from

0962024 uh long before that thing was even considered probably based on a couple of years of the owner living there and deciding what they wanted to do. Uh the accessory structure application as I mentioned was submitted months after. Um and uh I want to give Frank a couple of minutes just to address the house. I'll call your attention to the clarification of the gross floor area. I think uh uh Teresa mentioned that as well uh that was submitted as part of you know in response to that uh and the CO gross floor areas uh I think calculated on the CO exceed what's actually there. And maybe Frank can explain that to you very quickly if you swear them in and then I'll come up and do my accessory and I'll be as brief as I

097possibly can. Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Could you identify yourself? >> Frank Felino, architect. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh well, good evening. It's great to be here. Beautiful building. You guys are lucky to have it. Um I guess uh attorney wants me to just walk you through the the house what the the thinking was, the general ideas for the addition to the house. Um uh you can see by studying the site plan um that the house uh is set very far back from the street. It's about over 130 ft back from the from the front street line, property line. and it's at a very odd angle that doesn't really present a nice facade to the street. And

098that was something that as the owners were living in the house over the last four or five years really felt that they would like to correct that to give the the house a front. Um uh they were also looking to pick up a guest bedroom and and a and a quiet study area that's you know away from the water side of the house which is the the house is basically an open plan. So it's you know um they just wanted an additional quiet area towards the front of the house. So that was the the idea for the design was to square the facade of the home to the street so it really presented a front. Um the the addition, >> you know, you're showing that to us, but can you show that to so that

099everyone could see it on uh on that? >> How do how should I do that? >> It's fine. >> Continue. Yeah. >> Yes, it is. Oh, >> that's it. Yeah. Okay. Um I'm not sure how much of this is necessary. >> Uh there there you can see that the the front entrance the the octagonal study the front of the house is now square to the street. >> Um and it it mitigates the the odd angle that the house is currently laid out on. Um you want to go to an elevation. >> So now the top drawing is the front of the home. The entrance is is clearly, you know, demarcated. Entry porch, gable, um, and the new facade to the front. It's one story. It's, uh, the no interior spaces are over 15t high. Uh,

100it doesn't obstruct the second floor windows, the existing windows of the house. Um, do you have the renderings that were recently submitted? >> I don't I don't have them on the on this flash drive. >> Okay. I I have a couple of images I'd like to pass out. >> We have >> Yeah, I think the renderings are really explain a lot more. That's kind of what I wanted Frank to to go over is how this looks from the street. >> We did get a copy of that, didn't we? >> Today, thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Hold on. >> So just simply the upper photo is the existing home and that's really what's presented to the street to the entry when you come onto the property and the lower image would be the proposed addition

101to the front of the house. So the bottom picture the rendering on the left side of where the front entrance is shown is that you're adding on there too. >> So the addition the addition is on the front porch the current porch and then and then it turns parallel to the side property line. >> You're not going anywhere toward the south. >> No, we're staying >> we're staying, you know, within the required section. Nothing being added on the south. >> No, >> it's out there. >> Nothing at all. >> It looks looks odd here. Let me look at you. You said now what's You had a drawing up there and it showed 14 ft 11 in for the >> That's the the cathedral ceiling inside. >> Cathedral ceiling. How is that not What's above that?

102It's marked at 14t 11. Oh, the the tray ceiling flat flat section or attic, whatever you want to call it. Is there nothing up there? >> I'm sorry. >> No, >> there's like a little looks like a little widow's work walk on top. >> So on the left side over the entryway that would have a flat tray ceiling and that Koopa is is a decorative Koopa. So that's that's above that height, but that's on the outside. >> So it's aesthetic. It's not >> correct. Okay, >> Ryan, can you go back one more? Go back to the elevation before the Okay, >> that's the elevation from the road. Now I'm looking at that. >> Yes, >> that's the west elevation, >> right? >> And your question was whether or not they were adding all the way

103to the left on this. >> Well, on the one photo, it almost in the rendering it almost looks like something else was going to be there on the left side. >> Well, it is there, but I think that's >> but that's existing then is what they're saying. Correct. That's existing house >> and the Koopa doesn't count the going over. >> It's not It's not within the space of the house. >> The ceiling height is a 1411. >> Correct. >> There's a flat ceiling under the Koopa. >> Yep. >> I thought I saw something that called it a study up above that. Is that >> No, it's just a It's a large room, not as large as this. And that's the study. You know, it has a cathedral ceiling. Keep going. >> Um, I mean that

104explains the house. I don't know if you have any questions. Be happy to answer. >> Thank you. Does anybody have any additional questions? >> No, I'm fine. >> Thank you. I I do actually. Well, for Andy, too. >> Go ahead, Andy. You want to do your >> Yeah. Now, I'll do my spiel. Basically, I just want Frank to address the portion of the application that he submitted. It's kind of two hearings in one at the end of the day. Uh now I want to talk about the accessory structures. This is an unusual application. It's not the kind of application that I would I would submit to the board and expect you to look at and say, "Oh yes, this is perfect for approval." Uh it's a tough property to work with. Uh the 200 appro

105three with the approved expansion and additions to the property uh you know sort of set the house that you see before you now. There's no conforming lot area on the front uh yard, which I you know is the front yard of the the the wateride is the front yard to provide any accessory structures despite the obvious intent of the 2003 additions to retain the unique aspect of the property as well as this beautiful viewshed. Uh there's plenty of room landward on the on the side of the on the front side of the house where accessory structures would not be of value to the owner. the front of the house is within wetland and bluffest setbacks. Uh these areas also that trigger the need for additional relief. I explained all this to my client when he

106first came to me. I said, "Hey, you know what? You've got all this great property. You've got all this room in the back. You can do this as a right. You can pull there were build building permits pulled for pools." He said, "Well, I have no desire to expand in that area of the property behind the house that's currently developed in the proposed additions." And really he just wanted to seek some pretty minor uh in in you know minor accessory structures despite the need for relief from uh from all these important metrics under the code. Uh and basically he said I I want what I'm asking for to relate to how my family intended and has used the property not how we could use the property more intently. So the key to this plan uh

107uh is is you know there's one one structure little bit typically larger than a typical hot tub at 107 square feet. My client wants this structure for his own use and the family use and I'm sure this board has heard they provide important health benefits to people like me of advanced age and I'm realizing that now. Uh the to the tub hot tub is proposed to be constructed within the existing deck area at the same level. It will barely touch the ground. basically there'll be a you know support for it underneath but it won't touch the ground uh other than a structural bracing and it'll be elevated. Uh we even proposed a dry well and that was one of the other concerns is the dry wells actually proposed in the landward location and the plane

108department questioned whether or not it would be gravity fed. In fact it will be it will flow down to the drainage structure because of the elevation on this structure. So if you look at the two elevations I think the landscape architect submitted a letter I don't want to be you know uh uh go over that again. The second structure that he wanted to have was a place for his family to have outdoor dining. Uh, you know, like I forget what they call it, a dining court. It's larger and more informal than can be in accommodated on the existing deck. Obviously, that's the area that has the beautiful viewshed. Uh, so there are other locations you could look at, oh well, could you move it here? Well, you're probably not going to be improving the setbacks,

109but it's really about the viewshed. You could also dine just on the grass, I suppose, if you wanted to. Uh the structure is just quartz gravel constructed in a legally existing lawn and we even proposed a drainage structure that will actually improve the drainage conditions in the area. There's absolutely no contribution to any surface water runoff to the lake. As a matter of fact, it'll probably be overall reduced by the gravel structure as well as the capacity of the dry well. You know, when I spoke to him and have thought about this a lot in the continu in the continuum of structures, theoretically we're starting with lawn, legally existing pre-existing grandfathered lawn. The most beneficial use of the property uh in this location next to lawn would be native vegetation. And as part of this

110submission, we proposed a pretty uh significant revitation plan that targets areas on the lake side of the property that are pre-existing non-conforming to H pod uh because it long predates H pod. And we propose 4350 square ft of reveg in this area using woody vegetation, trees, grasses. You can see all of that on the LaGuardia plant. Do you have that, Brian? You can throw up. There you go. >> So, okay. >> So, so that's the proposed reveation plan that uh is part of of our NRSP for these structures. Continuing on the continuum, so you have grass, then you go, oh, the best thing is vegetation. Any hardened structure could potentially have uh additional impacts like say you did deck or patio, concrete, whatever. uh and that could be delletterious to the bluff crest and wetlands

111increasing surface water runoff coverage etc. increasing the intensity of the use adjacent to these important resources. In our case we picked the probably the one surface that is less impactful than any other structure I can think of crush quartz gravel basically uh and it has its own drainage. We're actually reducing surface water runoff from the property that would contribute well beyond outside the gravel area. We have 450 square f feet of proposed crushed gravel. Uh in addition, we're mitigating this by giving up nearly 10 times, you know, I forget, maybe it's 9.3% uh 9.3 times the same area and re vegetation on a property that is legally grandfathered in at the current clearing levels. This reveation would mitigate both the small gravel area as well as the hot tub on the deck, which doesn't result

112in any increase in lot coverage, building coverage, anything at all. Uh clearly there are alternatives that my client could build a sizable pool. He could build a hot tub. He could build a pool house and any other accessory structures on the lot in the area that is outside of this board's jurisdiction. I wouldn't be here tonight. This would be introducing a lot more lot coverage, total lot coverage, and as I said, wouldn't be in the jurisdiction, but it would also not trigger any form of mitigation uh uh that we're offering here tonight. the reveg asg the TAM notes is probably the single greatest benefit we can provide uh together with the additional drainage that we showed and at nearly 10 times the square footage of our small patio it's a great way to eliminate any

113potential impact and in fact improve the environmental conditions on the property the house and its addition meets all zoning setbacks the variance standards applicable to this project you know essentially target the hot tub built within the existing deck and the crushed gravel dining area uh adjacent to the house. Variant standards do say that the benefit to the applicant should outweigh the detriment to the general health, welfare, safety of the public. And in this regard, I would submit that we do. Building larger structures further from the wetlands, larger and more extensive essentially uh you know would would result in more coverage, zero zero mitigation. So this is an opportunity for for the board to bring this property closer to compliance with ACE pod that was as I mentioned was adopted long after this house was constructed.

114I would also point out that this board approved the additions to the structure in 2003. Granted this is a different board, different time frame, etc. Uh I think it's unreasonable to expect that everything's going to retreat from the shoreline after they built a fairly significant addition and renovated it in 2003. We have a situation I think that will be made better by our project uh and provide a shared benefit between the applicant, the town as well as the lake uh by ailarating some of these uh existing clearing conditions uh and I would respectfully ask the board to consider our argument and approve this. You know, I'm sure you're going to have questions. So, what do you have? >> Yes. Question. Hi, Andy. >> I knew it was going to be Jane. >> Well, it's all

115probably gonna be all of us. Anyone but Jane. Um, so I we have a property history card in the file in the public hearing record as we always do and I I studied it closely um as you knew I would. And so if I even start back in the 1966 co that outlines the square footage of the house and I snake all the way through the additional building permits for the additional things that were approved, you know, in terms of expanding the house and I look at all the cos including all the way up to the one that was done in 2021. everything on the property history card, which I believe is supposed to represent the official um size of a house, among other things, tells us that this house existing, not counting the basement,

116not counting the garage, is 3,966 ft. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, obviously, if you were to add,00 ft to that, this would house would exceed 5,000 square ft. Okay. So >> we have the re revised calculations that were done by the licensed architect with take off under the existing code. I can't explain why there are those discrepancies. I do know when a lot of those discrepancies arose, things weren't quite as pronounced as they are today. Uh I'm trying to remember when the town first adopted gross floor area limitations, five maybe probably even predated it. So I I don't think there was a lot of uh uh concern put on it, but I can't explain it other than to say it's clearly incorrect because our architect recalculated it and those are the accurate numbers that are

117in front of you. >> But I mean how but I still don't know how to reconcile because it wasn't one mistake. It's like was over all the series. >> It was parited. Yeah, it was parited throughout the building history. And that that was kind of one of the questions of the plane department, which is why I you know I don't measure square footages. That's why I had Frank's office actually call it out and measure it on the plan. And it does show that it will be compliant with the the town code limitations in effect at the time. >> Did did you seek any corrections from the building department? >> Uh no. Oh, as a matter of fact, if the correction to the building department will be if in fact this project uh, you know, gets

118a CO, it will read correctly because we have the correct calculations going into it, >> but it will certainly have to be corrected. We're not asking for a gross full or area variance. His plans actually represent exactly what we're seeking square footage wise. Have you submitted those uh the work that u >> yes it was a letter basically that was you know and it actually said hey this is the actual calculation this the square footage and I measured it none of these areas exceed 15t in height and bang by bang and we came out to the exact square footage that is proposed in this application >> sorry nothing inside the existing house has any double height >> that is correct no >> I I'm ask I'm sorry I'm asking >> and but it is strange

119to see such a large discrepancy you I I I must say I've been doing this a long time. I've never seen that before and uh but that's just the way it was and you know it was a different era back then. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody else have >> say you are proposing though if there was to move forward this would all be corrected the doc? >> That's correct. We cannot build more than the square footage we provided because it's close to the max. >> Obviously we have a problem if this doc if Frank's work is not accurate. So we have to have that. We're all relying on Frank uh because I I I can't calculate things like that. >> A lot of pressure. >> Thank you. >> Can we hear from the planning

120department now? >> Good evening. Brian Frank again for the planning department. So the property is on East Lake Drive and as you know uh the this portion of East Lake Drive is um within the Panic Estuary critical environmental area. It's a New York State significant fish and coastal wildlife habitat. It's part of a scenic area of statewide significance. The um shoreline of Lake Malk and Lake Montalk itself is a is is a protected natural resources. Um this application does have two elements to it. Um they should applications should not be bifrocated and create twice as much work reviewing the same property uh twice. Um and really everything um you know that's being considered for a property should be uh entertained under one umbrella. But it is practical within the body of that application to consider

121them separately and that's the way I'll I'll address um the accessory structures and the uh addition uh to the house. Um, with respect to everything Andy said, I I think that he um is wrong. Um, about everything. Um, obviously people love to be near the water. So, um, from the perspective of a homeowner, it's understandable. You want that dining area as close to the shoreline at Lake Montalk. Who wouldn't? You want to be in the hot tub with a view of of the lake. Who wouldn't? But we have setbacks to protect the resource and that's what they're there. These have minimum setbacks and I'd respectfully offer that these accessory structures don't meet any of the five variance standards that you have in the town code. The um variances are substantial. They're numerically substantial relative to

122uh the minimum setbacks that are required from from bluffs and wetlands. Uh there are alternatives. They're not the minimum necessary. and he told you himself there are conforming locations located in other portions of the property. Again, they're they're far from the minimum uh necessary. The wetland setbacks and the Bluffrest setbacks have not changed since the property owner bought this property in 2021. These were the setbacks that existed at the time. Andy mentioned the uh addition that um was uh approved earlier. It was approved on the landlord side of uh the um residence for a reason because that is what maximize setbacks from the shoreline. Let's remember what variances are for. Variances are to relieve a practical difficulty in complying with the requirements of the town code and they're enumerated in New York State town law

123and that is kind of um uh uh summarized into the town variance standards into the into the town code. So, um there are this this property benefits from being close to the shoreline. It has a view that newer residents don't have. There are properties that were built um in compliance with the uh wet wet wetland and Bluff Crest setback that are much farther from the shoreline and much closer to East Lake Drive. The price of that is that the conforming locations on this are on the Lamort side of the property. And this does change the character of the neighborhood. If you grant these variances, you're lowering the bar for what you're granting. There are a number of other properties right in this area that are similarly close to the shoreline. You'll see a couple of

124them have built accessory structures in the con in the conforming locations of the property or at least in an area that meets better setbacks. Maybe maybe some of them needed variances. I'm not doing a a lot by lot comparison up and up and down um the street. Um but clearly there are alternatives here. This is counter to the purposes of um what our setbacks are for and again boards are expected to handle similar properties similarly. So granting these variances for the accessory structures would um lower the bar and um would increase the nonconformity of the property. Um both the hot tub built into the deck and the the dining area. the the gravel area is a it is a structure. I'm not sure that Andy is is right about improving drainage. Crushed gravel, compacted gravel

125has a higher runoff coefficient than uh grass. I'm not an engineer and neither is Andy. I'm not suggesting you leave the record open for an engineer, but to suggest that because you're putting a dry well under the patio, you're making the drainage better is um optimistic. I'll put it that way. Um the addition I think is is a different story. The addition is designed in a conforming location. It meets setbacks. I think um Andy is forgetting some of the um the um mitigation that's built in that's required um both by the board's practices. Long before H pod was adopted, the board had required upgrades of sanitary systems. They're somewhat mandated by HOD now, but we shouldn't lose track of the fact that that there is a a a nexus between making a house bigger and

126producing more sanitary waste and putting an IIA system in the um eastern portion of the property the way it's proposed is mitigation. I have to uh and and runoff control. You're obviously going to have uh runoff control on the side on on the portion of the house. you're the code requires um um and the prior zoning board determination requires a roof runoff to be directed to subsurface uh dry wells to minimize surface runoff. I will say the reveation plan is is is disappointing and I say that because I I work with um Andy's office and LaGuardia Landscaping um uh very often. Um Morgan wrote a very thorough uh analysis of this application. That's who I'm I'm standing in for tonight. And the mitigation summary hasn't changed on this. We recommend woody vegetation more than grassy

127vegetation. A to keep out invasives, B to keep out mower creep. So the reveation plans should be predominantly woody and not as grassy as the plan that was up there. It's commendable to you want to take it up the sideyard properties to reduce the overall clearing on the property. that that's fine because you're reducing the overall clearing of the property, but the importance is in getting a better buffer to the shoreline. And in in that regard, this planting plan is not one that the planning department would recommend that that the board uh approve for the reasons that I I just mentioned. Um the other thing I want to mention about the accessory structures is nothing that Andy said if these if these structures were granted would preclude this owner or a subsequent owner for build

128from building outside of uh NRSP jurisdiction or in a more conforming location in the future. So really all you're doing is intensifying development within setbacks. Um I can't account for the change the discrepancy in the square footages. I will tell you as somebody who's looked at a lot of building plans and a lot of cos I have seen them not align a lot. I can't explain why. I don't know what the discrepancy is associated with this. It is possible though that that lower recreational area that's almost 700 square ft is square footage on the house but it's not counted as GFA according to the town code because it's in the basement. I don't know that that accounts for that discrepancy but it's possible. I do, pardon me, I do appreciate what the architect did by

129putting his stamp on a letter that says, "I've calculated the GFA according to the town code," which takes into account the uh measurements to the exterior walls, and I've calculated the the GFA to be um whatever it was, 3215 or or or whatever that number um was. Um that's uh that's pretty much all I wanted to to say in uh my presentation. If I can answer any questions uh from the board members, I I will. Well, if uh you know in in the TAM that Morgan had written, you know, you have even if the area of the lot where the gravel patios were rejucated, the non-conforming location of the residence and deck still does not allow conforming clearing limits with respect to that bluff setback and that the existing residence and deck leaves little room

130to extend the existing scenic easement or to meet the clearing limits of that. >> Well, that's correct. this this this house is always going to be non-conforming to um bluff and wetland setbacks and that area between the house and the shoreline the the ability to improve um that buffer as as Andy was was uh trying to herald with the reveation plan is limited and that also um indicates the importance of doing a better job in that in that area um uh with a little bit more robust plantings than um switchgrass and blue stem throughout most of it uh peppered with with the shrub jobs. >> If we look at the addition on on the landward side of the structure and uh it requires no uh variances, it's only an RSP on the addition. >> Correct.

131>> NRB. Yeah. But I'm saying that's what So anyway, when I look at that and and then I ask myself about adding on all these other conversations we're having about what's going on on the water side of the house, >> but it's fair to say that that's been uh designed and proposed in the best possible location here for addition of this size. There's no other place that this could have gone that we would have been had it in such an acceptable location. Isn't that fair to say? >> It's conforming. it's conforming to the town code requirements >> or you know notwithstanding the fact that it's pre-existing to the old GFA calculations in other other respects it's um conforming with the town code and that's why the planning department uh does not object to the uh

132addition but does object to the uh accessory structures as proposed. >> Thank you. >> I'm sorry you mentioned the sanitary system. Where is that going? And you have is that in the best possible location? >> It's uh north of the garage. I can >> of the garage >> and and is there any concern there about any runoff from that? >> I'm I'm sorry. >> So, is there any concern about runoff or things from the the sanitary system? You think that's in the best location? >> Um, it it's in a very good location. I could be a little bit farther, but um it's an upgrade. It's farther landware than the existing system and it's an IIA system. Um I think it's generally acceptable. >> Okay. Can I Brian, may I just go back to the um

133your comments on the revge, which I appreciate what you're saying. It's sort of the content of the revge, but can I just ask you to say because it I know the whole thing is pre-existing non-conforming clearing, but um how do you it will still be quote overcleared relative to the H pod standard by like something like 8,000 ft or 70%. So your view on that is you you just you're saying that if the vegetation itself that is proposed is more robust you're okay to leave a def such a deficit to h pod >> those aren't the words I would use but when something is >> I'm sorry I'm not I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but >> when when when something is pre-existing >> it we we would encourage bringing things into

134compliance as much as is practical rate a >> as possible. Could they reveate and completely comply with with H pod? Yes. Is there a strong enough nexus between a a conforming addition and doing that? I'm I'm I'm not so sure that I I feel comfortable telling the board yes. So if they more is better. I you know let let me let me be clear about that. But I also think that quality um is more than quantity. I would rather see a better revege in the areas that's proposed than um a less robust revge over more of of the property. >> And the scenic easement on the survey is already in place. That's scenic easement. Yes. >> Right. That was from the last >> I believe. So yes, it's not proposed. >> Are we good? >>

135Thank you, Brian. Is anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? Come forward, sir. >> You need to state your name for the record and I'll swear you in. >> Sure. My name is Jay Lavine. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. May May I ask questions? >> Of course. >> Okay. Um, my wife and I own the property just to the north of this house and I'm not knowledgeable about the topics that you're discussing today. So, excuse my ignorance, please. In in the notice that we received, there's a reference to um well, descriptions of the topics that you discussed today. And there's a reference to a wall. >> A wall. W A L L. >> But there's no discussion

136of a wall. And I'm just curious about the wall. It says um let's see. Um construction of a 1,100 foot one-story edition. A is is it a 1A sanitary or an IA IA sanitary system? I'm sure that's an important >> uh upgrade and a wall on a lot containing a bluff and a tidal wetland. So, I'm curious about the wall, number one, because I didn't see any discussion about a wall. Um, and number two, since it was just discussed that the sanitary system is on the north side of the garage and the garage is almost flush with the property line, that is the property line of our home. I'm just curious as to is there an alternative location for the sanitary system just because sanitary systems are kind of pick >> not quite >> I

137know that's not a technical term. So those are my two questions. A wall and two, is there an alternative possible alternative location for a sanitary system? >> Well, our planner, >> sorry for my ignorance. >> Oh, no, no, no. That's why we're here tonight. Our planner has uh already suggested that that the location for the IIA system is in the best possible location. And in terms of the wall, Brian, do you want to address that? location or an acceptable location. >> I didn't really know what was supposed >> acceptable isn't the same as best possible. >> True. >> I I I should clarify. I should come up there and >> Yeah, I would like you to do that, >> where is the wall? Do you see it on the survey? No, I didn't see I

138missed it. >> I'm sorry. Sorry, I'm not quite as familiar as I'm I'm sure Morgan would have just knocked this off the top of her head because she knows this application so well, but she was un unable to be here this evening. Um the wall looks like it's proposed on the south side of the um of of the uh driveway on the opposite side for Mr. Lavine's property. Um it looks like the sanitary system setback proposed to the wetland is 170 ft. H pod regulations require um systems to be located a minimum of 150 or as far as possible when they're when they're upgraded. If it's a tear down, that's different. So, in this case, this is a system that that complies. Septic systems are ick and this system is proposed not far from where

139the Lavine's system is located on on the survey there. It's it's probably a It's again it's a compliant location. It's more than 150 from the shoreline. It's an IIA system which are are better than the conventional systems for disposing wastes. It could physically probably be located um farther from the shoreline, but it doesn't ne it it doesn't have to be to comply with H pod requirements if if if that answers the difference between best and acceptable. And remind me the septic system in the ground is not required to meet a setback to sideyard. >> No, I believe uh that that the health there's >> Yes, it's required. >> That's jurisdiction of Suffach County Health Department. They're in charge of where sanitary systems Suffach County Health Department's in charge of where our setbacks from property lines

140and roads and things of that nature, but not that's really not our jurisdiction. >> It it it it meets it. It's 5T. >> It won't approve it. If it's not okay, Suffach County won't sign off on it. and it won't get there. >> Okay. I was just trying to make sure I understood you. >> It's 5T >> 5T if if I'm not mistaken. It's easy to look up. I believe it's 5T for the legion components and 10 for the tank from a property line or a treatment system. >> Okay. >> This is currently 15 ft if I'm reading that correctly. Just about 15. >> Um I I'd have to measure it. Yeah. >> The garage is 15t. >> If you have a survey and a scale, then you're doing better than me. >> Just reading

141what the survey says. You can watch me use the measuring tool in in the >> in the foxet that I'm not familiar with and I can embarrass myself like being on my phone. >> She sure has had enough. >> I hope she never knows about what happened. We can't tell her. She'll love it forever. I promise. >> Additionally though, if we were to ask them to move it further to the east, I guess it would not move it any further from the Lavine property line. So, it's not Mr. Lavine's concern. uh would have to be a complete relocation, not just moving it further to the east because obviously it's behind the garage as it is. >> Right. So we come up along the line, we wouldn't be any further than lavines unless it was redesigned

142to come out >> around I guess in the lawn and hold it. >> It it does moving it doesn't provide greater protection to the lavines and >> in in my non-sanitary engineer opinion, >> but but it would be further from our home. I could you could >> closed system isn't it now? >> Yes. >> Yeah. We also have at the mic so that it it picks up. >> We also have uh pretty strict uh clearances from wells on neighboring properties and we have radiuses drawn around all the properties and that that's the window where it really fits basically. That's a certain >> that's just about the only spot it could go. >> Sorry. Don't >> Okay. >> While you're there, can you explain the walk? Yes, that's exactly where I was going. >> That was

143the question. >> So, the the wall um the wall is was really a thought about creating a bit of a courtyard between the house, the garage, and the south side of the property. Um it's really not much more than a a schematic idea at this point. It could be evergreens. It could be other green plantings. Um it's just was an idea to create more of a a courtyard in the front of the house. How tall is that wall? >> Maybe five foot. >> Five foot. >> It's five foot. >> Five foot. >> A fence. A hedge. You know, it's >> a natural wall is different than a structured wall. >> Does that wall have three sides on it right now? Is that >> No, it's just a straight wall. >> Just that one side. Okay.

144>> I'm still missing it on here. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Oh, that is the wall. Okay. >> Any other questions, board? on the confine. >> No. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? >> Your turn on the >> back to line. Go online. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Let me ask one more question. Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank goodness. >> Okay. So, a couple comments on the wall. I I saw it on the plan. This would be whether it's a fence or a wall can be six feet in the front yard and you get the flip on these lots or whatever. So, so it is perfectly allowable. uh but it wasn't really drawn out and

145doesn't need a variance basically. I think it's allowable. Uh does need an NRSP where it's located. Uh it's hard for me to recover from Brian saying that I said everything incorrectly, but I'm going to try my best. At the end of the day, I do think there is no nexus between a conforming addition and requiring revge on the property. I think there is a nexus between varying a natural resource special permit uh you know variance and requiring some mitigation for that and that's basically what I what I was trying to impress on you. Uh I do think this is distinguishable some from some of the other properties. The modesty of this I mean it's hard for me to say modest but hey this is a gra a crushed gravel area. Uh you could have propo

146you know we didn't propose the Eiffel Tower. This is really as as modest a structure, if you could call it a structure, in an area that even Brian admits, hey, if you own this house, that might be exactly what you want, but the zoning board's the one that has to look at it. It's not based on is there a conforming location. It's a a variance uh analysis is based on a balancing. I haven't heard how this is going to cause an identifiable harm. I think we've tried to, you know, do the best we can. Yes, our reveation plan, the components of it, I can't speak to. I didn't, you know, that is proposed by our uh landscape architect. However, if the board said, "Hey, you know what? Resubmit a reveation plan that's more woody or

147get to Brian's approval, that's fine with me at the end of the day because the sufficiency the sufficiency of what's planted there isn't within my realm of understanding. But uh it is something that I think we could absolutely improve and get it to the point that Brian and I'm sure it's Alex Blueornne and I'm sure he's worked with him a lot and probably be able to you know come to some agreement as to what is uh appropriate there. However, I would say that you know this is really a benefit versus detriment. And is there a detriment? Well, I think there is an an improvement of overall based on having this mitigation that's brought into this property and in terms of having an aggressive application. Having a hot tub in an existing deck where it's barely

148touch, you know, barely touches the ground and having a dining corridor that is crushed gravel is about as dimminimous. And if the board were to deny, yes, the applicant can have much more, you know, uh, expansive structures on the north side of the house. That's really not his intent. Uh and I was thinking about this even today like well what if we said we wouldn't build anything else or we'd remove that. Is that really appropriate? You know I think this is what the guy has asked for because this is how what he wants at the end of the day. Uh and if the board finds that it causes an unnecessary detriment which I think is difficult to do on the record that's your your role at the end of the day. Uh but we're trying

149to do the best we can with what we uh what the owner wanted and he hasn't asked for any of these other structures because that isn't what he wants on the property and I think this is pretty modest at the end of the day. Uh with respect to the sanitary, you know, I think once you start talking about moving it vertically, I don't know if there's an appreciable difference, but it does more or less line up with Mr. Lavine's sanitary system in more or less the same location. And uh you know, could it be moved? Yeah, I suppose, you know, at a certain point you're going to need a, you know, an injection pump if you're going to move it that far. Uh, which I don't believe this system currently incorporates, but if that were

150something the board wanted, I think we could explore it and figure it out, you know, how to achieve another 10 or 15 feet, but I don't really see an appreciable benefit back from that moving that extra 10 feet. It's in a, you know, a good location, an acceptable location, I think, is what Brian said. So, other than that, any questions? I'm happy to answer. I just >> I have a question about the >> Yes. >> So what's going to happen if the if the access did not approve and the deal? >> I don't think there's any mitigation. I don't think there's any nexus between the two. A conforming addition and and reveation on a property. We're not doing any additional clearing for the the addition. It's all it's in wholly cleared areas basically and we're

151on the landboard side. We're going to be installing drainage, all that stuff. So, I would protest the inclusion of reveation to mitigate something that conforms to zoning. >> Still requires an NRS. >> Yeah. And you're increasing coverage. >> Yes. Coverage that's mitigated by putting in drainage, etc. be an interesting question. >> Can I ask you one thing I forgot to clarify the deck on the rear or sorry on the steward side of the house is that being reconstructed as part of this um in place and in kind or you're just dropping a spot. >> Well, there has to be structural enhancements to accommodate and I think we did submit that in our uh the the landscape architect, you know, just to actually >> but it's the exact same size the deck. >> There is no

152expansion whatsoever of square footage. It doesn't add to lot coverage. I think if you look at the surveys, we're well below building coverage, lot coverage, all those other metrics on there as well. >> I just didn't remember if you were demoing it and rebuilding it. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'm ready to go forward and close this application. Do we Oh, I'm sorry, Brian. >> I'm sorry. >> Uh ve very quick. I just want to point out um I don't understand what Andy's talking about the modesty of the application. When you talk about the quartz gravel, where is there any science or technical criteria that crushed gravel is somehow more benign than a cedar deck or a blue stone patio? I I I don't I don't see that. Um and and I I think the

153crux of it is um what what Andy kind of said. This is what the applicant wants. It's understandable to want to be as close to the water. It is not what the town code standards are. There is implied detriment to the resource because we have minimum setbacks for a reason. But again, that's not the variance standard and Andy knows it. The standard is the applicant has to demonstrate that they have met the threshold of that five parameter test. And in this case, it's it's kind of obvious based on what you have in the file that it's not clear that they meet any of them. Uh lastly, I I do think there is a nexus between revitation and needing a natural resource special permit. It's been a practice that the zoning board has been doing for

15440 years. How much is kind of a a a question. Um but to suggest that there is no nexus between needing a natural resources special permit and and and reducing clearing or improving a buffer to the shoreline when one is this deficient is not in keeping with the long-standing practice of this board and and where that goes that's uh yet to be determined but you can't reage your way out of bad variances in in my opinion. Thank you. >> Andy, >> anything to add? >> No. Uh, you know, I do think that the zoning board has been conditioning driveways shall be made out of crushed quartz gravel, not blue stone. So there is some correlation between the structure we chose with things that the zoning board has been requiring for 20 or 30 years as

155gravel improvements associated with driveways. Uh so I do think there is some tread on this tire that says hey this is a structure that has been imposed by the zoning board and seems to be pervert over a lot of the other structures that you could we don't pave driveways in NRSP but we will allow crush gravel. So, uh, you know, it's really up to the board to to perform the balancing test. Yeah, there is some sub substantiality to these variances, but I think you have to weigh it against the benefit and the detriment test on this one. And and I do think that the revge uh is was submitted as part of my application for the accessory structures because I understood we were asking the board for relief that was exceptional and outside of normal

156uh you know uh zoning setbacks. Uh it's up to the board to decide what what conditions they would apply to an NRSP on the the addition. But I would say that >> This is one application. That is correct. >> One application >> but it was bifurcated at that time >> basically. So uh you know for that reason they're different things but it's one application now. So we're reviewing it as a whole. >> Yes. Absolutely. So, but that's within the board's discretion and uh in terms of what or if any reveation would be assigned to any particular aspect of this, but it was promote promoted as mitigation for uh the variances that we requested. >> Thank you. Member Burger, we have a motion to close the public hearing and record for the application of TMT Malkque

157Realy Group LLC 261 East Lake Drive Montalk 300-013-01-20. Make motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> Second concur. >> Concur. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good evening. It happens. >> Your laundry is my second schedule. Second agenda. >> Oh, was it Did you Did I grab it? >> Maybe. >> Um, let me just quickly Oh, here's >> Okay. Oh, let me get Okay, we're going to move on now to the the post hearing decision of 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 on a parcel within the jurisdiction of a freshwater wetland. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430 and any other

158relief necessary. The following variances are required. A variance of 79.2 to allow the deck to remain 20.8 ft from a wetland where 100 is required. A variance of 51.3 to allow the shower to remain 48.7 from a wetland where 100 is required. and a variance of 72 to allow the shed to remain 28 feet from a wetland where 100 is required. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 11 secret class type two vice chair. >> Thank you madam chairwoman. Uh the board will remember the hearing was held on February 3rd 2026. We were working from a survey from September 12th 2025. Uh at the outset of the hearing uh we realized when doing the field inspection that there was an incorrect posting. It was determined it was not the fault of the applicant

159but nonetheless the property had to be reposted. What was posted was just a statement that is a property required in NRSP did not have hearing times and it was then subsequently reposted. I did check with uh our our with our secretary today about it and uh the documentation did was provided that we had looked for and so there was some question about that whether they had followed through correctly on all the protocol to get us to the point. We did go on with the hearing that night because it was not in effect the the problem that was put forth by the applicant. Um there was several aspects of the project that were discussed. It was just read in by the our chair uh what they were and what they were looking for. But quickly going

160through there were a couple of things here that uh had to do with the work that was done by the applicant and that he owned the property for 32 years. He stated he had did a little of this and a little of that. Now, he was in because he was looking to rebuild a deck at the front of the house and he needed to get some sort of approval for the location of several items that had been added over the years. One was that the original approval that went with the C COO in the House allowed for an outdoor shower and now there's an outdoor shower in a different place and a slightly different size. We questioned at the hearing whether or not there was a drywall. said at one time there was, but he'd

161be willing to added one now to see that there was a drywall for that shower. So, that shower then we would be certain that we weren't working with a formally either collapsed or filled uh drywall. So, that was one uh one um comment milling made by the the applicant in favor of what he might do to to appease our concerns. The other thing that we discussed was one of the other things we discussed was the location of a shed. The shed could never. The property is by the way con very constrained down in ditch. All those property sizes are small. They're all up against one another. We determined in the hearing there was no absolutely conforming site for the shed, but the shed could be moved. Technically, it could been moved further from the east

162to the west. It was brought up at the hearing, however, that um if in moving it to the west, unless we were willing to uh uh ask him to take down uh several trees that were in the way of moving it to a place that might be the the best uh the best location for it. Uh he would only move it about 5T. Um, we later on discussed this with the uh with the planning department at the hearing and u the feeling was that neither the shed nor the shower having been there for as long as they were were providing any real danger environmental danger to the small pocket wetland that's slightly to the east. So we could have asked him to do it. We can ask him to move it but taking down the

163trees was a concern at that time. Um, I mentioned there was 1993 CFO and work had been gone on from that 1993. It's part of an older subdivision and as I've mentioned it, they're all very very tightly uh all those prop all those properties are very much constrained. Um, there was a 1994 notice to the applicant that he needed an NRSP approval for work that was being done. The notice went out. There was no uh response from them. So there wasn't an effort to come back in to do anything about that. The survey uh that we that was accompanied that um the survey that accompanied the CFO was uh from 1993. So nothing had been done until he was into CS. He was also looking for a deck extension request. He withdrew that at the

164hearing because we realized we did not have documentation for it. he uh he had it in mind but it did not follow whatever procedures would have been necessary to get it on a a survey or get it to us in a form that we could consider it and that was withdrawn in the end um with the addition of the um with the addition of the the dry well for the shower um and the location of the the location of the shed being uh somewhat contentious. Should we move it and take down trees? Should we leave it and or should we ask him to move it then approximately 5 ft it could be done. The planner at that time um Jake said to us that he saw that there was no significant environmental impacts from the

165improvements as they sat now wasn't sure what the positive benefit would be for having us to move them. So I think the withdrawal of the uh request there was a verbal request we have in writing request for the for the deck extension. Oh, and the other thing about this is that that forward desk that he wanted to extend was be rebuilt in kind in place in kind and that's why he was in front of us because he wanted to do that work and realized he needed a permit. He needed an NRSP. So, uh it was a little bit of a confusing hero. I don't think that the applicant understood when he came to us exactly what he had to propose, but I think our conversations there went along the lines of deciding whether or not

166we wanted to see these changes made and if they were going to make any positive environmental improvement. It's uh kind of important to note that after the hearing we did not hear back from him with any other proposals. There wasn't any other conversation. So, we have to go on what was said just at that night. U I'm not going to have a problem approving it. I think they are small they are small changes to the property. I think the shed is the biggest question for us here and I think the shed uh moving the shed it was brought up by one of the other board members. Do we really want to see trees cut? The answer I think was no. We thought that there was probably a better environmental protection for the property leaving that

167vegetation and um that's about it. I mean it was a it was a very short hearing. I mean it was wasn't as short as it could have been but it was short because we didn't have a lot of information anyway. And uh I'm going to approve it. I I think it's a I think it was a bit of a muddled one, but um I don't see that we by approving this are creating any additional environmental strain uh on the wetland or on the uh in the neighborhood. So I'm going to approve it, Madam Chair. I want at this time. >> Thank you. Member R&D. >> Uh I was not here for that presentation. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. I have a question. I know we >> What? No. Were you asking? Oh, okay. Well, about

168the affidavit, you know that >> Charlie, we did eventually get proper affidavits and notice with >> I never I never saw one, but Sam >> had a comment. >> Um, they dropped it off that they had posted the property. So, I mean, it is a notorized document. >> So, you got an affidavit. Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can we have your decision, please? >> Yeah. member Burger. >> Yes. >> Uh okay. Basically, I agree with uh what Vice Chair Johan said. I am going to disagree about the shed. I think it is a very large variance. I think there was nothing definitive about, you know, exactly that some trees had to come down. They brought up depending on where they had to move it. Possibly there was a tree in the corner. Um, I

169do think there is a more conforming location uh along the stone walk somewhere in the area of the shower and I do not think that there are any trees on that property that are in that way or in the way of it. Um, I think it would improve the variance or the basically to something similar to what the the shower would have, which would breathe in the range of about 51 or two as opposed to a variance of 79 ft. Um, so I I agree with everything else that member Johan said and uh I will approve the other the other aspects of it, the shower with the new dry well and the decking, but I am denying the variance for the shed. >> Member Mary. >> Yes, thank you. Um so in terms of the

170variance uh for the deck um and the shower um I agree with my fellow board members and I will be approving them. Um and although they are substantial uh variances as I understand it from the hearing and also from the planner who said there didn't seem to be any material environmental issues and the fact that these structures I think have been there for like 40 years or something. I don't see any incremental uh problem with them and a dry well to improve uh or you know mitigate on the runoff from the shower. Um with respect to the shed I I I definitely listened to the applicant and he was concerned about having to take out trees and no one wants to see that. I think though what wasn't really uh made clear I think we

171would have liked more information because you know when you look at the survey there's a fairly large area there um in back and I think do we do we determine that the shed was on a it's not really there's no basement right it's on a foundation right so it's movable and um I also think the shed was put in more recently than the other things so I I think the the hurdle was met um that the shed could not be in if not to I don't think you could ever not have a a a setback variance but to improve uh to put it in a a less nonconforming position. So at this point I will als I agree with member Burgerer I will be denying the shed variance. Okay. There is nothing in the record

172that these structures have had any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or that there has been any disruption of important natural features. And there does not appear to be any evidence of negative impact to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. I do believe that this application meets the standard for NRSP and the variances requested and I'm going to be approving it in its entirety. >> Yeah, we're 22 on the >> denial on the shed. >> Yep. >> So my suggestion is saying we have plenty of time to do this. You don't have to finish this. You can come back later. So I would suggest to our fifth member that you should rewatch hearing, review the paper and then next week if we come back you can or

173the board can also think about it longer and anybody changes mind or not whatever and then the member can then issue this final determination. Um um we have an approval for back in the shower already. Yes. But just the chef. >> Just the chef. Yeah. >> You can do your whole you can do the whole application. >> That's what I agree with that. >> I agree. >> Okay. Do that. Okay. Good. >> So when would we like what's the timetable? does help. >> We have plenty of time, but I would uh >> we have a meeting next week. >> Yes, >> we have a meeting on the 7th. >> Yes. >> I just want to give him enough time to >> Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. We don't have a meeting till the 20. >> So,

174>> and that meeting on the 7th is going to be pretty >> big, right? >> Next week's meeting. >> Maybe next week's meeting. next week. >> Yes. >> Um the seventh we have one public hearing and then just the DEIS >> I don't think I don't think we I think we can put it on that night though because it's not that big an application. >> Well, it's only and you guys don't have to do anything. It's just >> it's just for him. Exactly. >> And do you feel that's enough time for you >> for the seventh? >> But you Yeah. Okay. Yes. >> We have more time. >> All right. Sounds good. >> Decide it's not enough. We can go to the following. Yeah. >> Okay. Very good. Okay. Next. Next is a minutes approval.

175Member Burgerer. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals for Tuesday, March 10th, 2026. >> Second. Concur. >> Concur. Next is the resolution for 186 OMH LLC 186 Old Montalk Highway Malk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-87-3-19. >> What was this was you, Terry? >> Oh, this was mine. >> Yeah. Um, I didn't get through that whole resolution. Did everyone else look at everyone was okay with it? I I did read it before, but >> uh do you want to wait till next week? >> We can wait till next week. >> Well, can we wait till next week? Yeah, I'd rather the time is there so we can table it for you. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Vice Chair, do

176we have an adjournment? >> I will. Thank you. Madame Chairwoman, I'd like to make a motion to close the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing and work session for March 24th, 2026 at 9:00 p.m. >> Second. Concur. >> Concur.