001All right, zoning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. I'd like to welcome everyone to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of March 10th, 2026. Tonight, we have a scheduled work session and post-hering decisions. The first hearing, however, for Brian Crawford at 40 Agnu Avenue in Montalk, Suffach County tax number 300-31-2-33. The decision is not going to be made tonight because the applicant has still not posted the property and an affidavit has not been submitted. So, we will be unable to make a decision on that. So I'll move on to the next post hearering decision which is Jeffrey Slan and Melissa Sarin 13 Galladin Lane in Springs Suffach County Tax Map number 300-38-1-12 description is the modification of a 2024
002zoning board of appeals approval to allow additional pyramid relief for [clears throat] the asbuilt second story addition relief sought is variances of 1.4 4 ft and 0.3 ft from 2551172D of the East Hampton Town Code to allow the second story addition to remain 2.8 ft total and 0.3 ft beyond pyramid regulations for the northeastern and southwestern property line zoning district is B residence zone X flood zone member R&D would you like to start the deliberation? >> Yes, thank you madam chairman. The board will remember that the uh public hearing on this property was held on the 3rd of March 2026. During that uh presentation, we heard from a number of parties in particular the uh the architect who was responsible for this project who had a very reasonable explanation for why they were seeking these
003additional variances. uh and it had to do with a miscalculation on how to actually calculate the pyramid height for the particular property. Instead of it being an average between the the northerly side and the easternly side I believe it is uh it should have been from the lowest grade is where the um is where the measurements should have been taken from. So with that said, the application seeking the requested variance uh as the planning department also mentioned is really a minimum variance necessary and it's still adequate at preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the town as a whole. With that said, I I submit to approve this application in its entirety. >> Thank you, Chairman Johan. Vice Chair Johan, you can be chair. >> I got
004a promotion. [laughter] Um, >> congratulations. >> Yeah. I [laughter] want to agree with my fellow board member here. Um, this was obviously a a mistake made by the architect in making calculations. Couple of key things that were said by the architect that night. I think when we questioned him, the constructed addition is built to the specification submitted at the first hearing. I thought it was important to know that although there was additional height here, it wasn't because they made a change in what we had proposed. The drawing we had proposed what was built. Additionally, the first floor elevation was the same as proposed. The difference was as was mentioned already um that the the calculation was taken from the wrong height. I think it is a minimal request. I think it's a it's we get
005very often have these cases come in front of us where we talk about builder error. I think this is a case where this was an honest error that was made. I agree that it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood or cause additional environmental damage and I'm going to approve this application. >> Thank you. Member Burgerer. Okay. Not that much left to say. Um I agree with my fellow board members um for the same reasons Mr. Sherwood um you know explained how he made the mistake average versus lowest grade and uh I think it was also on the diagrams on the plans 7.6 six foot first floor height, which is a little bit less than normal. And um all told uh when it was built uh it added the additional 1.4 uh pyramid
006on one side and a very minor 0.3 pyramid on the I guess north side and two going to approve. >> Thank you, member Burgerer. Member Maring. Yes, thank you. Um I just wanted to um flash back to when this was first in front of us. Um the original application which I approved and again I just wanted to reiterate, you know, this is a very unique property, very narrow. It was a very unique situation. They had a flat roof and very low like 6 and 1/2t uh ceilings. And so at the time I think you know I believe that it met all the standards [snorts] for the variance um on the small variance the.3 that is dimminimous and that really um is uh if I remember that side doesn't even really impact another at the time
007of the first hearing the neighbor that was most affected by the 1.4 pyramid variance I remember that she was there and and was comfortable with it. We didn't hear from the neighbor again, but we also didn't hear any objections. Um, so uh all in though it's disappointing that perhaps the licensed architect didn't quite uh understand the way pyramid it is measured in the town. I don't see this additional request. It is basically like builder's error. Um and I don't see it will have any negative impact on the surroundings, the environment, uh the even even the neighbor. So I am granting uh approving both of these variances. >> Thank you. I agree with my fellow board members. I don't have anything to add. Everything has been um already stated. Although I will add that the elevation
008is remaining the same >> and there's been no change in any of the drawings. So that being said, I'm going to be approving this application as well. Council, do you have enough? >> Thank you. Next is Jonathan and Laura Evans, 76 Leon Road, Amagansit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-131-5-7. Description is [snorts] to remove 147 square ft of decking and to construct a 205 foot addition and 135T 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 relief necessary. The following variances are required. A variance of 27.7 ft to construct an addition 72.3 ft from a wetland and a variance of 34 ft to construct a deck 66 ft from a wetland. All where 100 ft
009is required. Zoning district is a B residence, AE flood zone, elevation 10, secret class type two. Member Maring, do you have a a decision? >> A decision to make. >> I think I can make a decision. Thank you. Um I think we all have spring fever, right? Um so yes, uh we'll remember that we heard the public hearing last week at the last meeting. The applicant was represented by Joel Hallyy of Lighthouse Land Planning. Um, as the notice said, this is a I think the house exists at about 1,600 square ft. Um, with the modest smallalish, so it's a relatively modest house, twotory. Um, and the addition takes it up to, I think, 1,89 square ft, which still puts the house uh beneath the maximum allowable GFA under the revised code. This application was not
010grandfathered under the old code. Um, so I see this as a modest um addition. Um and I think the variance for the uh the house edition um is is not substantial. The wetland in play as we uh learned uh in the TAM and in the he is is um on a neighboring property. It's a small wetland but you know still an important one. Um, but I [clears throat] don't I feel that this that variance meets the standard um for to be tucked into the rear of the house. Even though the lots are quite tight, I don't see it as having it's a one story and I don't see it as having a particularly um negative impact on the neighbors. Um, as I said, I think it's the minimum variance necessary um for even, you know,
011for a small expansion. I thought a little more about the deck. Um, the addition of the deck because they've removed two second story deck and now they're adding first story deck and that obviously gets a little bit closer to the wetland with a 34 foot variance. um but it's still uh modest and um so again I feel that it meets the the standards of the variance because we are also um getting mitigation um as we as was discussed in the TAM and at the hearing the prior owner stri the word stripped the uh the beach vegetation um back to the soils to the sand and What we did agree to um with the applicant's agent is that they are willing to reveate the part that was um that had been cleared. And tonight if if
012if this does pass completely, we should just make sure we understand exactly where that line is. So that will be reveated with beach grass and as well as with some other woody uh native vegetation that will you know help strengthen the buffer to the wetland and kind of restore the character on the the beachy character on the on the um the back of the back of the house. Um so I believe both variances um I will approve as they meet the standards and I also think it meets the standards for the natural resources special permit. I don't find this as having an environmental um negative especially with the reitation um and so I'm approving the application in full. >> Thank you. Member Burgerer. >> Okay. [clears throat] Is that everything? Um I to agree that
013um the [clears throat] the variances for the addition at 22 27.7 and for the decking at 34 ft um they're not exorbitant um and will not change the character of anything in that neighborhood. And um as far as the natural resources permits um I think it it does meet standard of 2551 for the preservation of natural resources. And again a large part of that is because the applicant is going to reveate uh with grass and woody plants what the prior owners had removed which to me is a large thing. Um, [clears throat] and they had a permit. I can't remember if I need to say that, but they had a permit for a pool. I guess that precipitated the previous owners doing the clearing and uh permit apparently an error for a pool, but the
014pool didn't happen and that permit is now totally defunct. So um to improving this application in its entirety and I think on the uh survey they they note the 50 foot wetland setback line that will cover the revitation up to that line. [snorts] >> Thank you vice chair. >> Yeah I'm going to agree with my board members. Uh there's a couple of things that influence my decision. Uh this is a constrained site. Most of the parcel is within 100 foot of wetland step back. Almost anything you do on this parcel would have required some relief from this board. Um the entire parcel falls within wetland jurisdictions. Um no dimensional variances are required on here. The GFA uh building coverage, total coverage, and GFA building coverage and total coverage all fall within conformity. Um it's a
015reasonable size addition 205 ft was described by the owner's representative its purpose to expand the master bedroom slightly and add add a bath. Uh 135 ft of decking as member Miring said is not excessive given its location. There was a removal of some upper decking 147 ft came out from there. Um they did have the permit earlier even though we now feel it was erroneously issued. They did have permit earlier for a pool that was never acted on. Um there was some issue about clearing on this bite and most of that was done or the part that's most objection dust objectionable dust was done by a previous owner probably in anticipation for the pool. This agreement to um reveate uh a 50ft buffer from the wetland seemed to be uh the key for this for
016looking for our approval. It was mitigation that we all judged I think are all judging here that was adequate. Um and uh the wetland uh is offsite of this location. It's a small area, valuable and important, but one that doesn't seem to have to worry about any kind of particular impact from this amount of work. And there was a small note from the representative that of course gutters and leaders will be added to the house. We're not looking at shunted water causing any potential damage. All in, I think that it was a reasonable request and that uh the mitigation was adequate for me to approve the application. Thank you, member Arendia. >> Uh, thank you, Madam Chairman. Um my I agree with uh everything that my fellow members have said and u most in my
017opinion or my thoughts was uh the most important was that the variances were not um while they were not minimal variances they certainly were within the adequate uh distance from a wetland to alleviate concern in my mind and the so from that aspect they do meet the standard necessary for this variance approval. Secondly was the reveation which I also believe is very important and the identification of the grass and woody reveation elements is highly appreciated. Without repeating what my fellow members have said I will also feel um that I'm moving forward with approving this application. >> Thank you. I agree with my fellow board members as well. Um, this entire parcel falls within a NRSB jurisdiction because of the wetlands. I also want to point out that uh our planner Jake Kushner did a very
018well-ritten TAM. I'm actually approving this application because of all the mitigation that's been outlined in the TAM and because that's being adhered to and it has been agreed to. This mitigation is very important because this entire parcel is only 7,500 square ft and falls within NRSP jurisdiction for all the reasons already stated. I will be approving the application as well. >> May I just ask one thing on the the language? So the we don't have a a square footage number of how much veg reveg where um you know like we're agreeing to it to the do we need did we need that? Um, and then secondly, did we have to specify I know they were saying that pool permit was sort of gone, but do we need anything more formal like where they're extinguishing it
019or >> Well, I think as outlined in the TAM, they have said that all areas disturbed by construction shall be reveated. >> Well, no, it turned out to be more than that, right? >> I know, but yeah. So >> now it's not >> I didn't know if he needed a >> he said that he just just >> gone. >> All right. I'm just asking. >> Yeah. Um >> well the only thing was for the revge the discussion was to the 50 foot setback line which is on the survey right >> I don't know what the square footage is but >> you know that's a a line >> but there was was there does the was there additional rege as well like because I mean >> disturbance from the because it says in the TAM this
020was I was I want to make sure we got you know what you guys want and what was agreed says all disturbed >> construction activities. Yeah. >> So I kind of recall at the meeting that might does that include that might be like more too, >> right? And just I think I think the idea and I you guys you know not want to put your word I'm not putting words in your mouth but it was the like the woody rege and all that would be kind of in the 50 foot and then they would plant some grasses >> outside of that areas that had been disturbed just throughout the not necessarily for this job but for over the course of the prior ownership. >> Okay. >> So I don't know where the extent is there.
021Um it seemed uh >> I mean we can ask for I mean was this is a condition of approval we can just ask for updated revge plan. >> Mhm. >> That's probably what I would and then we can hammer that out a little bit better. >> Yeah. I just wanted to >> just make it more clear on what's going to be planted and all that. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And now we'll move on to other decisions. The first one is Nigel Curtis, 393 Cranberry Hall Road, Amaganzit, Suffoc County Tax Map number 300-128-1-28.2 review of additional information and scheduling the follow-up hearing date. >> Tyler, >> sure. Uh, so Brian reviewed the uh most recently submitted plans. It included a construction protocol um and uh like a
022removal plan. Um as far as the construction protocol is concerned, Brian um suggested that it should be revised again uh to reflect the new location of the proposed residence uh and the sanitary system. Uh it should also include a site plan that depicts the area of temporary disturbance. Um and we're suggesting that they uh you know limit all disturbance to be like on the western portion where that residences be is and eliminate any any disturbance on the eastern portion of the property uh which is both the lowest elevation and also has some of the highest quality dune land um on the property. As far as the uh removal plan, um Brian is suggesting that uh access to the shoreline uh should come from the the the north of the proposed driveway um instead of on
023that eastern again that eastern side of the property to you know to avoid that clearing. Um the removal plan should be revised to include a site plan and profile of the proposed sand placement. >> Yeah. >> Um the removal plan proposes hand grading and states that um sand will remain on the dune. Um there is an elevation difference between 6 to 9 ft from the elevation of the beach to the top of the uh escarment. And I have a picture of that I think. >> Yeah. [clears throat] There we go. So, there's a significant elevation change um that they that they need to give us some more detail on how that sand uh is going to be brought from the lower elevations of the beach. Um will it be placed on the top of the
024dune as proposed? essentially, you know, we, you know, we feel that there's additional information as far as how it's going to be done, where it's going to go, um, and also how what is the volume of sand that they expect that to be. >> Um, so >> other than that, uh, re we're reaffirming the mitigation summary from our original technical analysis memo, um, and suggesting the possibility of a public hearing on April 28th. Um, and then the the information that we're requesting two weeks prior to that so we have it, you know, in in plenty of time to review it. >> So, I I agree with that, Tyler. I think a letter should be forwarded >> outlining the issues you just spoke about and um having a continuation on April 28th. That would give them
025six weeks from now to get back to us on what we're requesting. I think that might be sufficient time. >> So the record remains open. Right. >> Right. Because it it has open. So we're asking for their submissions to be in two weeks before then. >> Correct. Exactly. >> It gives them roughly a month from now. >> Oh yeah, exactly. >> And then the other thing that was brought up uh after our premeating today uh was that >> Okay, I'm good with there is the applicant submitted an EAF part one because we had the discussion about uh what this is for secret uh and so I think it was I believe you know depending on how the board wants to go and you know declare lead agency we could do that today and then we
026can send out the letters and then we'll be all ready to go if the board's ready to make a determination on the type you know if it's an I think >> so we would need to make a motion to declare lead agency >> yeah declare it a unlisted action and then declare lead agency See >> if that's a >> I'm fine with that. >> So the only motion we would have to make is um the one declaring lead agency and that'll uh Right. >> Yeah. Make a motion for that. Do a motion for that and then >> and that it's an unlisted action. >> And it's unlisted action. Yeah. >> But we don't need a motion for the >> no >> follow up the hearing date. >> No no send them a letter. Yeah, we're
027going to send them a letter and inform them of the outstanding issues. So, member Marian, would you make a motion to declare lead agency? >> Yes. Um, in the matter of Nigel Curtis 393 Cranberry Wholell Road, Amigans Suffet County Tax Map 300-128-1-28.2. I make a motion to uh declare this an unlisted action. [clears throat] We're doing that. That's a separate motion from the lead agency or there >> you can do what you do. >> Okay, that's right. Okay, so um [clears throat] >> ending what I just said declaring this an unlisted action and uh declaring the zoning board lead agency >> second. >> Concur concur. >> Thank you, member. >> Yeah, we'll send out the lead agency letters of Brian. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Next is Henry Proto. submission from the town engineer. Um, our
028record on this is actually already open. Um, we're recommending, we spoke about this at the premeating, and the recommendation was that we leave the record open until um, April 21st for the applicant to respond. And at that point, >> April 21st >> for the applicant to respond, >> adding a continuation or no, >> we're actually extending the record because it actually is already still open. They submitted this like one week later. So, >> it wasn't closing till next week anyway. >> So, whose application is this? What we're going to do tonight is ex >> Okay. So we'll need a motion to leave the record open to for the applicant to respond. >> Okay. >> I'd like to make a motion then in the case of Henry Proto at 835 Montalk Highway Malk Ser County Tax
029Map 300-52-1-10.3. >> Second. >> No, I didn't make a motion yet. I make motion. I didn't make the motion yet [laughter] >> to uh leave the record open until April 21st and to allow the uh applicant to respond to the town's engineering analysis. >> Second. Concur. >> Concur. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next is >> that wasn't a continuation, right? So you get the submissions make a decision. >> Exactly. We did close here. Okay. Yeah. >> I mean, I guess a determination could be made at that time. If we have more questions that we can go ahead and have a continuation, we can have that discussion then. >> Um, next is the minutes approval. >> Yes. >> To make a motion to approve the draft minutes for Tuesday, March 3rd, 2026 for the East Hampton
030Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. >> Concur. >> Resolutions for tonight are Julian Mazerki the 3rd 44 Beach Avenue Suffach County Tax Map number 300-175-3-10. Member Maring, have you seen this resolution? >> Uh, yes I have. Um, so I'd like to make a motion. U I I don't I can Should I just review what this is again? This was a >> Yeah, >> a uni I think this was a unanimous >> No, 41. >> 41. >> I'm sorry. That's right. Excuse me. A 4-1 denial of a um new development uh application on uh on a very one of the smallest lots um in town. Um and so I'm just going to make a motion in the matter of Julian J. Murski III 44 Beach Avenue Suffet County Tax Map 300-175-3-10
031um to accept the to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I think the last thing on our agenda is going to be the matter of Brett Lcalzo. >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you like to address that to the board? >> Yes. So, I I've sent you guys uh some stuff. We've had this this has been going on for a while. We had a discussion I think in December when Roy was still here. We had a discussion about there was article 78 here on this uh there was a denial and there was an article 78 filed and there was some settlement offer and then during the process uh the when the applicant was going to they realized that their uh paperwork for the septic system was out of date because the model
032that he had specked don't uh is no longer in production or something like that. So, he had to redo some stuff and then they they resubmitted the paperwork with the new drawing uh with the new specs for the the septics and the dra and the storm water stuff uh a couple weeks ago. So, we're just uh coming back to try to put a bow on this and finalize this uh settlement if the board is amendable. >> I'm amendable. How does the board feel? >> Have you all had a chance to look at this? >> Yeah. So, we just had we just had a technical change. It was Yeah, it was the same the same stuff just just I just added some dates. Change the new plans and just change the dates and things like that.
033>> You didn't change anything, right? >> Nothing substantive changed. >> I'm I'm fine with it then. >> I'm okay. >> Okay. So, I'll make the motion in the matter of the application of Brett Lasco, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-84-2-7 149 Mulford Lane in Amigansit. I make a motion that we approve the authorization of settlement in the Liscal's own matter. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Okay. And then once we're going to settle and then I'm probably the next meeting I'm going to have an actual determination like a settlement deter. So for like basically for the paperwork trail so that we'll have like all the conditions of approval and all that will be in there. So uh like there's going to be a revge uh a big scenic easement revge um and some other stuff.
034uh new, you know, new IIA system and all that. >> Okay. >> So, uh that will be coming soon. >> Very good. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> I'd like to make a motion um to close the Town of East Hampton zoning board of appeals work session for March 10th, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. >> Second. >> I concur. I concur. >> concur. >> 30. >> Have a good night, board.