East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 03/03/2026

001We'll see what happens. >> All right, zoning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. I'd like to welcome everyone to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for March 3rd, 2026. We have three public hearings tonight. And the first one is Jeffrey Sloan and Melissa Sarin, 13 Galladin Lane in Springs, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-38-1-12. Description is the modification of a 2024 zoning board of appeals approval to allow additional pyramid relief for an asbuilt second story edition. Relief sought is variances of 1.4 ft and 0.3 ft from 2551172D of the East Hampton Town Code to allow the seconds story addition to remain 2.8 8 ft total and 0.3 ft beyond pyramid regulations from the northeastern and southwestern property lines. Zoning district

002is B residence zone XEX flood zone. Council, is the notice of public hearing in order? >> Yep. I reviewed the affidavit of uh notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Member R&D, are we able to go ahead with a field inspection? >> Uh, just need a few minutes. >> Okay, Morgan, thank you. We just have a little technical problem that we're trying to work out. If you just be patient, >> I thought there were other pictures in the file. >> Yeah. >> What am I thinking? because >> I don't have the font because we put it in file. I don't >> you put in They don't put it in the digital file. >> Yeah, they don't. >> They don't. They put

003it in. Something I should think about is >> I thought they were supposed to be going in there for the last nine years. I know. >> Yeah. No photos. You have the memo. You got the memo. >> Yeah. >> Oh, is there an exist? Was there an existing conditions in the file here? >> No, I'm looking put everything back in. >> I didn't I don't see one. Go ahead. And if it gets worked out, we can always put them in the end. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Okay, Morgan, we're going to proceed. And >> we may be able to do at the end. >> We Exactly. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Yes. >> Land planning services and I'm also here with David Sherwood, the architect, and with

004the applicants. Um, but really this is a very >> um Yes, of course. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, so this is a modification, a very small modification for an asbuilt improvement where as it turned out when we did the uh asbuilt survey, it turned out that the pyramid variances that were applied for were using the wrong grade. And so with that, we we're going to need an additional 1.4t of pyramid relief on the northeastern property line. And then we'll also need 0.3 ft of relief on the southwestern property line. And David Sherwood is here and he's going to speak to the how this came about and also why it's not as bad as it sounds. >>

005Thank you. What >> can you uh I'll swear you in. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. And just identify I'm >> David Sherwood. Um, so as Lori said, um, this has come about because I used unfortunately the average natural grade instead of the lowest point, uh, grade reference. And, uh, in doing so, the grade on the southern side of the house is about a 16 in, probably higher than the grade on the, um, northern side of the house. and using the the average and not the lowest, I ended up coming up with that that difference. Um, and I just want to just point out something that I'm not sure a few mitigating, you know, factors that may help in the decision. Um, one is that

006it wasn't it's not really a second story addition. The second it's always been a two-story house. It just had a flat roof. Um, and what we did is we took the roof off and just put a pitched roof rafter on top of the existing wall. So, um, in doing so, the old roof, the flat roof was 2x10s, 2 x 12s. So, that was coming in, I mean, just imagine this coming in sitting on the wall. And then the new roof is coming in with a uh a pitch rafter. And believe it or not, the fascia on the new roof is actually lower than the fascia on the old roof. Um, and so using the vertical metric of measurement for pyramid instead of a cubic, um, we're actually more conforming than the the old flat roof

007was, which is crazy. Um, but that's that's one one thing that, um, I noticed when I was digging into this to try to figure out, you know, what we what we needed to do, how how to address the situation. Uh the other thing is that the um existing house uh was built >> 78. Okay. Yeah. Um so it was built at a time when you know we weren't doing 9 and 10 foot ceiling heights everywhere. I mean actually the first and second floor ceiling heights are 7 foot six. They're not even 8 foot wall plates. So, you know, the fact that, you know, we're sticking up higher than um was uh initially allowed um we're not really, you know, we're not asking for an egregious amount. Um so, I'm here to answer any questions, but

008I wanted to just, you know, explain that that's how it came about was really using the the wrong metric for um the grade. Not I I used average natural instead of lowest. And then um the fact that in reality our fascia in our roof is actually lower than what was there. >> Yeah. When you were in front of us uh before we were given a set of building drawings of your drawings to consider was the structure that's now constructed following the plans that were submitted at the last time identical. >> And is the first floor elevation uh the same as what you proposed? It's the same elevation and same floor elevation, wall plates, everything identical. All we did was took off the flat roof and put the pitch roof after. >> So, there wasn't a

009change. It wasn't a change of any of the drawings. No. >> So, we go back and look at those sets of drawings and we look at what's in the field. We're going to find they're the same. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Yeah. It was It was just that miscalculation of the grade. >> Thank you. >> Does the board have any other questions? >> Yes. Just very quickly, I want to refresh from the last hearing which I remember well. Um the the the pyramid uh um p piercing um that is it it runs the whole roof line. I can't remember. I know I know it's on the side. >> The house goes into the lot. So if we're running parallel yes it's the the whole northern wall as you'll see on the left hand side of that

010drawing. >> Thank you question >> Morgan. Are we ready to hear from the planning department? I think it's Jake's, right? >> Oh, for the planning department. Yeah, I can I can I can talk. I can't put pictures up. >> That's okay. >> Sorry about that. Morgan Slater for the planning department. >> Do you affirm him to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Um I think a lot of it has been covered. Um I think um what the architect had to say really um gets most of the picture. Um the basically it's double the amount of pyramid relief that was granted on the uh north from the northeastern property line and then there's a slight um 0.3 foot I think additional period from the other property line. Uh

011the plan department doesn't have any concerns environmentally with the changes. Um it's really uh just a dimensional variance request but if the board has any questions about the history of the lot I'm happy to answer them. >> Does the board have any questions? I do not. No. >> Okay. Thank you, Morgan. Does anyone else wish to address this application? Matt, do we have any callers? >> Uh, let's just check the phone lines real quick. Stand by. >> And this is just a double check. This is Matt Chapman at LTV. Everything sounds great. And you have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. We can make a motion to close the public hearing and record. Do you want to leave the record open one day to try and submit your photos? >> Let's leave it open

012for one day. >> Okay. Sure. So, why don't you make a motion to do that? Make the motion to close the public hearing and keep the record open for one day for the submission of your photos. I make a motion to keep the public record open for one day >> and uh >> I'm sorry the public hearing >> close public hearing and keep the record open for one day so that we can upload the photos. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. Thank you. >> Okay. Just write that down. open one day. Okay. The next public hearing is Jonathan and Laura Evans, 76 Leon Road, Amagansit, Seph County tax map number 300-131-5-7. Description is to remove 147 square feet of decking and to construct a 205 square foot addition

013and 135 square foot deck on a parcel of within the jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks and any other relief necessary. The following variances are required. a variance of 27.7 to construct an addition 72.3 feet from a wetland and a variance of 34 feet to construct a deck 66 ft from wetland all wear 100 is required zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 secret class is type two council do we have a affidavit of service and posting that's in order >> yes I reviewed the affidavit notice posting and everything seems to in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Member Maring, can we have your field inspection? >> Of course. Thank you so

014much. Um Oh, where did it go? >> Let me get that pulled up for you. >> It disappeared. >> Ah, okay. Thank you. So, um I tried to wait as long as I could before this hearing hoping that more snow would melt, but I did go the other day and it was still fairly snowy, but we'll get the gist here. Um, so we're in what we lovingly call the White Sands neighborhood. Um, and this property on Leon is more towards the eastern end of uh of that, you know, that road in that neighborhood. Here is a photo of the posting. It was properly posted. The dates were accurate. Um, next slide. Oh, and before you go, I'm sorry. Go back just one second. I'm sorry. And you can see in the house, the house is

015somewhat set back. That's the driveway. That's the existing house. The additions won't be happening on the back, so I'm not going to focus on that too much. Next slide, please. Thank you. Um, so I I didn't take a lot of shots of the neighborhood because there was so much snow and everything and it was hard to see the houses, but this I'm just on Leon looking east and at the end of this road. It's hard to see in the photo, but that's where you get to the big um town reserve that abotss this neighborhood. Um mo many of the houses are small and they're also somewhat set back from the road. Um thank you. Next slide. Okay. So here's just a better shot of the front of the house. Um there's a second story decking

016that runs a lot of around the house. You'll see. Um I'm going to in the next slide I'm going to be starting at the right of that car. The car you see partially. I'm going to head towards the back. Next slide please. All right. So, as you come up the driveway, as I said, that car is now to my left. There's a stone pathway, uh, you go past the steps up to that deck. Um, and then along the way here, there's, um, uh, I think the AC compressor, the tanks. Um, as you get towards the back, there'll be steps down into the I guess crawl space. Next slide. Oh, I'm sorry. Go back one second. You can see obviously on this, you know, this is a very small lot and you can I imagine those

017trees probably mark the uh the property line to the west. Go next slide. Right. So now I'm just about to round to the back as I mentioned really on on still on the same side of that house. There are steps that go down and you can start to see the uh the deck the elevated deck that will be in play in this application in the in the rear. some of the snow back there had melted and so as the TAM talks about the conditions of the of the property was that prior to this owner buying it um much of the property had been quote it said stripped down to the soil so it's sand under there but I couldn't really get a look at the whole condition um and I think you can see the

018neighboring house to the rear um in the background there next slide >> that's it >> no that's not I sent you two I sent you two sent you others now I need the other slides because um that really gets to where >> that's all I received today. >> I'm going to resend this to you. >> Five photos today. >> No, you've seen two emails. I split them up because I really do need to see them. So, we can come back. I'm going to resend this to you. May I have a moment? Chair, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman. >> Well, we'll proceed. And in the meantime, you can forward the photos. >> Okay. cuz we want to be able to see the the back where >> I've been to the site and council members been to the site.

019>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the Okay, thank you. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Good evening. >> State your name. >> Oh, sorry. Joel Holy. Good evening, Chairwoman Sever and board members. Joel Holsey on behalf of Lighthouse Land Planning uh and uh working for Jonathan Evans, the owner of the subject property. The project is a modest addition to a modest residence. The proposed addition is only 205 square ft. The project includes the removal of 147 ft of decking and the construction of a smaller 135 foot deck. The project will not increase the bedroom count. The 205 square feet will essentially just allow for the master bedroom to have an onsuite bathroom and more closet

020space. In a nutshell, the existing bedroom will be converted into a bathroom and closet space. And the addition will be the bedroom uh to the uh south of the the house. And it's a simple and small project. Uh per the TAM, the subject parcel contains duneland soils and most likely contain beach vegetation in the past. uh 2008 lot inspection notes that the presence of beach vegetation on neighboring parcels uh had and noticed there was be beach vegetation on neighboring parcels and based upon the available aerial imagery the subject parcel appears to have been cleared and stripped to the bare soil between 2020 and 2021 and as membering said uh that was prior to the current owner owning the property. Um and it should be noted that the current owner did not do that work. Um,

021furthermore, that appears that either there was a no natural resource special permit memo issued on this property or the town made a mistake in 2020 with this property because in November of 2020, a building permit number 6,000 or 69,993 was issued for the construction of a 213 foot gunite swimming pool in the southern portion of this property with 160 feet of decking. Uh, the clearing appears to have been done in advance of the pool construction. the pool was never constructed and the property was sold to the current owner. Um, and that's uh so the previous owner had probably done the clearing imagining that they were doing something that was legal at the time. Uh, either like I said either there was a no nurse letter in place or there was just a mistake in the

022issuance of a building permit. Um, we are happy to comply with the conditions of the technical analysis memo. Um however that the one condition that states that all areas disturbed by construction activities shall be reveated with beach grass planted 18 inches on center and comes with three or more in staggered rolls in accordance with a board approved reveation plan that indicates the location size and um I just don't feel that's always been a typical uh requirement but in order to to submit a plan basically saying the same thing I don't know I mean the plan's basically in the condition uh the all the areas are going to be reveated with beach beachgrass and 18 inches on I've never known a a a reveation plan to be required for that basic of a of a condition.

023Uh so I you know we're more than happy to do the reveation. I just would hope that we would strike the the reveation aspect of that condition out. Uh beyond that I have uh submitted uh to the board um why this this project complies with both the variance and natural resource special permit standards and I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have any. >> Does the board have any questions? We do. if I may. Hi, George. How are you? Um, so, um, if I understand the TAM correctly and I look at the edge of clearing, um, needless to say, even from, you know, where you extend the extension on the back and then adding the extra deck to the back, there's still a, you know, it's a small lot, but there's still um

024a a material part of the property that's stripped of natural vegetation. And I understand that it happened prior. >> Yes. However, I it you know there's no obviously this is not triggering a septic upgrade so we're not getting that mitigation. Um would would you would your client be not amendable to restoring and reveating part of that rear? You know, there's very little. >> I I believe that's kind of what the the the TAM wanted was to reveate with >> I'm just trying to understand why. It's not a big area, but it would be very important. >> No, I believe that's that's kind of what we're we're going to be doing. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I thought I thought it just said disturbed by construction. >> Oh, I you know, I Sorry. And that's where I

025was getting and I kind of I took that as being the disturbed area that was done for in the by the previous owner. So, I I think we're I think we're both going to do this. I think we're both on the same page. Just maybe a different book. But yes, we're gonna we're going to be um we're going to be restoring all those areas with with beach vegetation with beach grass. >> Yeah. Sorry about that. >> Anybody else have questions? >> Yeah. Joel, can you just repeat what you said about this pool approval? That When did that happen? >> Yeah. In 2020, uh there was a building permit issued. Uh the building permit was number was 69,993 and it was issued for a 213 foot gunite swimming pool with 160 ft of decking. Um I

026couldn't locate a no nurse letter on this property. So I'm not quite sure how that building permit was issued. Uh it again it could have been one of the permits that just kind of fell through the cracks and got issued. >> Okay. >> Is that permit still active or was it >> withdrawn? It's gone. It's gone. >> It's done. history. >> They should have built They should have built the pool when they had that lottery ticket. >> Okay. No pool. >> Thank you, Joel. >> Yep. >> We're ready to hear from the planning department. >> Chief Kushner with the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. So Joel gave us a good background of the project here. It's a 205qt edition, 135 square

027ft deck. So the property is cleared and improved. It has a two-story residence, decking, walkway, the driveway, outdoor shower area. The last CFO was issued in 2020. Um the parcels with if within the jurisdiction of a freshwater wetland, it's located on the parcel contiguous with the southeastern corner of the subject parcel. You can see here 23.6 uh ft from the property line. The subject parcel is in the Monte subdivision south of Nepi State Park and um the Nep stretch there. Some of the dominant natural features of the area are the dune and beach systems found along the Atlantic Ocean. There's a town nature preserve to the east that contains a DC class one freshwater wetland. This falls well outside of the jurisdiction of the of the property here. Though the subject wetland is one of

028very few, if not the only wetlands in the subdivision. It's on a privately owned parcel. It's very small but contains uh an assemblage of native species. cranberry and high bush blueberry likely acts as a buffer to the effects of coastal flooding. So again, it contains duneland soils, most likely contain beach vegetation in the past that was stripped under a previous owner. So the proximity of the wetland is a major constraint on this parcel. The entire parcel falls within um natural resources special permit jurisdiction and much of it falls within the required 100 foot setback for construction near a wetland. Um, it's non-conforming to the wetland relative to those setbacks, but it does conform to the other dimensional uh requirements outlined in town code. GFA, building coverage, and total coverage all fall within the maximums allowed

029by town code. Um, as for potential mitigation, the disturbed dune land area should be naturalized with native beach vegetation to help reestablish dune character of the property. Um, the applicant should submit a declaration of covenants and restrictions prohibiting the removal of this buffer and the establishment of turf, lawn, sod, or ornamental vegetation. The addition should be fitted with gutters and leaders to contain storm water onto the parcel. Um, project limiting and silt fencing should be used to contain sediment on site during construction and any dune soils excavated during construction should be retained on site. Um, as for the building permit, I believe that was uh issued in in error. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have >> you uh the applicant has agreed to the mitigation of of uh re the the

030uh reveation. Can you define what that is? I mean what are we talking about? >> Yeah, the department thinks like up to that 50 foot setback line would be a a reasonable place. It kind of eliminates the non-conforming clearing that goes into that wetland setback. Uh so we think that'd be an appropriate >> show to us. >> Yes. So right up here up to that 50 foot setback line. >> 50 foot >> right up here. That would provide a buffer to the wetland >> from the rear property line you're saying. Well, part of it's not cleared on the back. >> There's the 50ft wetland setback line. >> I understand. Yeah, >> that area there buffer um while also kind of removing that non-conforming clearing into that 50ft buffer of the wetland. >> Um also Oh,

031sorry. Go on. >> Is that all duny right up to the wetlands or >> Yeah, it's like secondary duneland. Well, the wetland is not Oh, okay. >> It's not on the uh on this parcel. It's on a neighboring. >> It's on another >> propert. >> So, we we see many properties in this neighborhood and I think my fellow board members will remember also that yes, there's sandy dune land, but I think we often see in the rear of properties more woody vegetation. So, I just want to you're talking only beach grass or should it also especially if you want to buffer closer to the to that wetland? I mean what >> then? Yeah, Bayberry would be um another great plant then to use as well for the woody aspect. So combination of bay berry and

032beach grass would be suitable and appropriate. >> And what's your opinion of the applicant's request for us to um sort of wave that condition of a right of the approval to have the revge plan is is um appropriate because we can inspect the revge um during our following. But I just want to make sure it's clear. It's not just beach grass. You're saying it's beach grass plus some other woody. >> Yes. >> Were you able to get my photos up? >> Um I can take a look now. >> I don't know if you want, but I can. >> Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. Joel, would you like to have any final comments? You're good. >> Can I

033just clarify one thing with Joel since Sorry, very quickly. I think I think this is the right answer, but the decking that you're removing is second story decking, right? And the new decking is obviously first story decking. >> I have I have to double check on that. Okay. Um, >> no, I believe it was a first story decking and part of it's going to be under the portion that would be under the new addition is to be removed. Is that correct? >> No. >> To the right of No, >> you are correct. It is. It is second story. Yeah. Second story. Yeah. Second story decking. >> Because you're cutting that out. Yes. >> That's where the addition is going and then you're at So it's not like you're just taking existing first floor decking and

034replacing it. Okay. Thank you. That's all I want to know. >> Thank you, Joel. Joel, one other thing we we did define just now by the the Jake define for us what we're talking about reveation. >> There's no lack of clarity on your point. >> No, there's going to be woody vegetation and beach grass. >> All right. There are um just for the record I do want to there are a number of files uh pictures in this so I don't think we have to leave the record open. >> Okay. >> So I think we can just want to close it. Okay. >> Yeah I think we can close the public hearing on record. >> Um all right good. Um in the matter of Jonathan and Laura Evans 76 Leon Road Amagansit Suffet County Tax Map

035300-131-5-7. I make a motion to close the public hearing and the record. Second. >> Concur. >> Okay. >> Our next public hearing is Henry Proto 835 Montalk Highway, Montalk Suffach County. Tax map number 300-52-1-10.3. Description is the modification of a 2016 zoning board of appeals approval to allow an asbuilt masonry staircase and stone wall to remain to reconstruct fencing to remove a gravel patio and implement a reveation within 100 ft of a wetland. Relief sought is a modification of the zoning board's natural resource special permit and variances determination filed November 2nd, 2016. A natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and additional variances of 47 feet, 50 feet, and 15 feet are needed from 255430 to allow a masonry staircase and stone wall to remain 53 feet and 50 ft from freshwater wetlands and to

036construct a fence 85 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft is required. Zoning district is a B residence zone X flood zone. Secret class is a type two council. Is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Yes, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction. >> I did not do appeal report. >> Oh, okay. So, we can proceed. This is continuation. >> Is there anyone here to speak to this application? Good evening, madam chairwoman, members of the board. I was I was waiting for the comm the committee report, but I realize there is none because we did it on January. >> We did it. We did last. Exactly. So So I'm Richard Whan from Whan Filer PLLC. I represent the owner

037and the applicant who is Henry Proto and I am accompanied by David Rhodess, professional engineer from TF Engineering. Uh and David will describe the drainage improvements that are proposed in connection with this modification request. So just a brief refresher since we just did this about about two months ago. Um the there was approval of the existing house in 2016. The house was built in accordance with that approval. It matches what was approved of the clearing boundary of the area of disturbance that was approved in 2016 is exactly what the applicants done. They basically matched the area of clearing and disturbance in 2016. Um, but what he did is on the norththeast side of the house, he built a uh, as the hearing notice indicates, a masonry stairway to kind of get up to the side

038yard that's on the north side, north side, I guess. Rear side, rear yard, sideyard behind the house. Uh, and then there are also some stones. I hate to call them hesitate to call them stone walls because that's kind of how a lot of this confusion started. But there are stones all of which were excavated from the property when the house was being built and excavation was done for the house and the house foundation and some of them were used on the north side of the property in lie of a of a post and rail fence which the DEEC which issued a freshwater wetlands permit for the property had wanted to delineate the edge of clearing and instead they said okay you can use the stone and then on the western side of the property where

039is there's a slope that goes downhill towards the neighbor uh there are some stones imp placed in that bank. So the there was a determination of the board that I was not involved in in 2021 and then there was a modification request in 2022 that I was involved in which based in which the board basically denied the existing staircase on the north side and denied the quote unquote stone walls. The staircase part is pretty straightforward. We understand the board didn't approve that. Uh the walls are much more complicated because it was very ambiguous as to what was or wasn't a stone wall and what was to happen with them if they weren't approved and how we might remove them and what we might replace them with. So that's why we made this modification request and

040what we've done to kind of induce the board to take another look at it is to you know u improve the mitigation if you will. So the applicant put in gravel in connection with the house construction. It wasn't specifically said whether he could or he couldn't. Number houses in M had that, but he proposed he put gravel in the yard. Much of the yard, all that gravel is proposed to be removed. Some of it will be replaced with grass, but some of it a buffer on kind of the west and north sides of the property will be replaced with um will be reveated with Bayberry. We show we have a plan um with certain number of Bayberry plants. That's basically our proposal. So it would reduce the actual clearing on the property. The clearing on

041the property right now is matches what was approved by the board. So it would be now lessened by it would drop from 8,454 ft of clearing to 7,816 ft of clearing. So we're lessening the lessening the amount of clearing. We are proposing a 4ft high fence on the western edge of the property. sort of a and unnecessary it is, but you know, so I guess you don't tumble down the slope to the west. Um, and finally, we are proposing, this is where David comes in, we're proposing to enhance the the recapture of surface water, storm water on the property. Two elements to that, and I'll let David elaborate on it. First, we're going to tip up the western edge of the property, increase the grade kind of at the western edge of that slope by

042about a foot, I believe, so that any water in that area flows kind of back eastwards towards the house and the patio on the west side of the house. And in that area, there are existing two buried catch basins that were put in by Ken Rosel. And so, we're also proposing to put in two drainage grates that will be piped to those catch basins. So, I I think I should let uh David Rhodess explain it further from here. he can tell you more about how we going to capture more of the potential storm water on the property. So, unless you have any questions for me, >> David, I'm not sorry. You can do that. I'm sorry. >> Don't worry. >> Sorry. >> It's all good. >> David Rhodess, TF Engineering. >> Do you affirm to

043tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um, so we did do a presentation that Last time I was here, there seemed to be a lot of confusion about what was approved under the the previous ZBA approvals, what was existing and and uh you know what we're proposing now. So what we did was we did a diagram that shows uh diagram one that's the existing conditions. So those were the grades that existed prior to any work happening. Now, if you look at that diagram, you'll see that the wa it's kind of a hill and the water flows off in the different directions. You got water flowing off to the wetland. You got water flowing off to the Montalk Highway. You have water flowing off to 64 South

044Essex. And then water flowing off to 68 South Essex. Okay. So then diagram two was this is what was permitted under the ZDA. >> One minute. I'm going to try to zoom in so that way the board members can see. >> Okay. >> The bet >> you're talking about a little bit better. >> Top center. >> Yeah, the top center one is uh >> So that's what we're talking about right now. That's what we're talking about right now. That one there. >> So this is this is what was permitted. So um in in this case, you know, we still have the you water flowing to all all four directions. one um well five directions now because we we've got water going to the wetland, water going to the highway, water going to 64 and then

04568, but then water remaining on site that was caught by the roofs and put into dry wells. So this is what was permitted and I'll go back a little bit later and compare that to what we're proposing now as reme uh remediation. So the third diagram we can this is what got constructed and I we didn't really focus on this because this is what the current conditions are. So we don't care about what's existing now. We want to compare it to what we're you're going to get when it's all done. So then the next diagram is is diagram number four. And so um so so again we've got the uh on the four we got the same basins here. We've got the the water going to the wetland. We got water that's flowing out to

046the Monta Highway. We got uh uh um water flowing to 64 South Essex and 68 South Essex. So, um, now if we go back to the the permitted plan real quick. So, the main changes to the plan, if you look at the plan that was permitted is the the westerly uh property sloped all the way from the house all the way to 64 South Essex. That's what was changed. Also, the septic system was proposed to slope all the way from the house down to the Monta Highway. And then on the uh south side, the uh house was uh sloping from the house down to Monta Highway. And and on the north side, from the house all the way to the wetland. So, you can see from the house we're going all the different directions. Um

047now when we analyze this number two we had a contributing area to the wetland of 12,363 square ft going to the wetland. Okay. We had out to Monta Highway. We had 2,85 square feet going to Montac Highway. um to 64 South Essex. We had 3,53 ft going to South 64 South Essex. Uh and we had 599 going to 68 South Essex and we had 2,147 that was being captured and put into dry wells on the site. Does that all make sense right now? Okay. All right. Now, we'll go look to the the the remediation. So, what what are we changing in the remediation? The the two big changes that we're making are the west side, as Rick said, we're going to slope it down to towards the uh Bayberry and then we're going to tilt

048it up. So, any flow that's going from the house down towards the Bay Area is going to get stopped by that reverse slope of the Bayberry. off right up against the wall. And as that as that slows down, it's we've we're putting two area drains that are going to capture it and they're going to put it into the dry wells that were installed as part of the original design. Okay. The second, >> excuse me, are those drywalls on the north side of the property, the ones you just describing, >> the west side, right? Right there. Okay. Two and three. >> Yeah. >> Um there's three drywalls on there. There's one in the driveway, >> drywall one, and we got drywall two and drywall three. So, drywall one takes the driveway. The drywalls two and three

049take the roof drains. >> Okay. So, on on the proposed uh reveation, two and three are going to take the roof and this westerly drain. Okay. So the the two things that are changing are the gradient on the west side plus instead of sloping the the sanitary wall down that was built level. So now that no longer runs off the property, whatever lands there infiltrates into the sand and goes in. So that so that reduces it down. So when we look at the reveation plan and we look at the the numbers um as as we said that the approved plan going to the wetland was 12,363 the uh it was 11,118 square ft during the reveation. So that got reduced by about 1,000 square feet. Okay. Um, going to Montac Highway, it was 2,85 ft

050and now it's uh reduced down to 1,293 square ft. Um, the big one is the the west side that was 3,53 ft. That was flowing down to 64 South Essics. Now the only thing going there is anything downhill of the wall and that's been reduced to 912 square ft. um no change to 68. There was no grading on on 68 South Essex. So there was no change in contribution. And then uh what was 200 or 2,147 square feet being retained on site under the approved plan, we're now capturing 6,775 square ft and putting it into dry wells. >> That corresponds to the 216% that you talk about. That's that's the 216% increase of retained water on the property. And so so we did do it in the last page. You know, the the reduction in

051area contributing to the wetland was 10%. The area uh going to Mont Highway was reduced by 38%. Uh going to 64 Essex was reduced by 73%. Um and no change on 68. And then all that reduction going other places was now captured on the property for an increased retention of 216%. So all the area to the south of the uh of the dwelling uh which has got the separate in it behind the retaining wall which you pointed out is the retaining wall was built at a full height of six foot above natural grade or so something in there. So that area is not going to get any additional drainage because you're assuming that anything falling there is going to have permutation. It's completely flat with a wall that sticks up about 6 in. >> You're

052assessing there's no real danger of water runoff there. >> No, no water would run off there because you'd have to have a a very heavy storm to fill it up high enough to then over top the the wall. >> Thanks. >> Does the board have any other questions? Um, I I guess maybe just to have the applicant or agent address this because this came up in the first part of the first hearing and I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this. So, if I'm comparing I'm looking at diagram two, the permitted plan surface flow and then diagram three, the post construction. So as you say the clearing line is is basically remains in the same place right but if I'm reading this correctly you know what happened because of these stone walls sorry whatever

053you want to call them right the the the topography of this property has been very altered right because if I look at two uh it was supposed to still retain a whole lot of the topography and the slope And now we have these large flat areas, not just the one in the front, but the one in the rear. And so I'm just can you address that because you know this was an NRSP uh application and maybe the clearing was expected, but it's just like a whole other property now. >> Yeah. So I first of all, Richard Whan again from Whan Fire PLC. So I I understand member Maring's question. Um I wasn't involved in the application when it first started back in 200 Well, it was going on for several years before it came to

054hearing in 2016. And the focus at the time, I know this because that's I got involved sometime during that year. The focus was always about the size of the house. There was a dispute between the planning department and the applicant about the house size and everybody was focusing on that the GFA, the gross flurry of the house. And I think what happened is in the course of that focus and if eventually I guess there was sort of a compromise that's what the board approved nobody and I mean on the the applicant side the zoning board side the planning department side nobody paid attention to a lot of the details. Um you know was it practical was it sensible to have this steep slope running downhill in all directions from the house including where the septic

055was supposed to be installed. Um, obviously the applicant wound up filling a good part of the west side of the property, west of the house and west of that that covered patio. Um, you know, none of which was really discussed by the board at the time. It wasn't strictly speaking wasn't approved. Uh, nor were these walkways to get to the house. I mean, for example, on the north side of the house, we have a propane tank and propane inlet pipe, which you have to in the absence of the stairway, you'd have to go up the propane guy would have to go up a very, very steep slope to get back to where the propane inlet pipe is. And actually on the south side of the part of the parking area, too, there's a stairway going

056to the south side of the house that was never approved by the board either, even though it's within an speed jurisdiction. So, a lot of these details were just kind of overlooked. The applicant got bu building permit. They got a building permit for all this stuff. Um, and it was built as it was built. So, all all I can say with with that is I think there was a lot of stuff that in retrospect should have been examined more closely, you know, by the board, by the applicant, by the planning department. The focus was elsewhere. >> So, >> I want to ask a question about something you said earlier tonight. Um you said that the uh the approval that they received in 16 for the amount of clearing on the property is exactly what we

057see. >> Yes. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. Well, you'll see it on David has overlaid it on his plan, the outline of the clearing. >> Yeah. >> There's a tiny sliver where the parking area is very small where the parking area is just over the approved clearing line. You'll see it's it's a straight line with a you know angle in it. um on the northwest side where part of the quote unquote stone wall is. The applicant did even clear to the the actual limit line. So yeah, he's very very much very very very close and actually slightly under the allowed area of disturbance. So we we've had a long contentious conversation about stonewall, whether it's a stone wall or just a retention of some sort. When I'm standing on the west side of the

058property, I'm looking at what I have to call a stone wall because the grade drops so dramatically. The ris list list of stones that progress their way up from the parking lot along the north side are just a list of just a row of stone. >> Yeah, in most cases just a single >> and you've already said that they were approved in replacement for a split rail fence >> by the DC. But dealing with the west side of the property, what I want to make very clear now, I want you to make clear to us is that that wall that we see running there, which was not approved, but is in exist along the approved clearing line of the lot. >> The the approved clearing line ran to the property line and the wall is

059actually to the east of the property line. And if you go to the edge of that wall, you'll see a deer fence. The deer fence is on the neighbor's property. >> That's Kathy Begman's property, I guess. Um, so yeah, I like Can I just point out here? >> Sorry. Sorry, I was pulling up the approved survey. I faked you out. Sorry. There you go. >> That's the clearing the approved clearing limit line. That's the See this right here? And then right along the western property line and pretty much along the south property line, too. And then you can compare, you can look to the right. on one of David's drawings, I guess it's he showed it again on on drawing five, he sh he kind of overlays the existing and proposed improvements with that. Yeah.

060And you can see >> the only place they transgressed was a little bit right here. >> But here and here go to the to the >> right. Thank you. the fence you talked about being placed uh on I guess it's on the retaining wall for the septic. That's the existing retaining wall that was >> that. Yeah. And that was that was actually approved. You can actually see the retaining wall. >> I know the retaining wall, but I'm saying is that you'd mentioned earlier tonight and it's been mentioned in past hearings that you're agreeing to add a fence at the top of the wall to keep people from tumbling over. There's a there's a fairly good size drop, not there, but out on the Yeah. Out there. That's >> I believe the fence on the retaining

061wall is already there. >> no, it's not there. It's not there. The building department. >> Yeah, the building department. >> The building department has said that it has to be put there. >> Okay, that's my point. >> Well, we're actually proposing one here as well. >> Okay, that's what your that's my point is your discussion is that >> this one was already present. Yes. >> My only point was going to be that the other one would be required as a condition of a CFO rather than you offering it as some sort of mitigation. >> Yeah. Around the retaining wall for the septic, the building department because of the drop off has already said that a ret a fence has to be installed. >> I didn't see it. It's not in the place, right? Is it

062Terry? >> It's not in place yet. No, I walked over. I walked over. It's not in place yet. It may be required. >> I can't remember right now. >> Yeah. >> No, it's not not on top of the wall. That's okay. It's a different issue really. >> Um, >> can you I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Can you remind me I've lost track a little bit. I'm sure it's in somewhere where there are scenic easements over this property or >> uh should be shown on the on the survey. >> Yeah. Right. I'm on the diagrams here so it's just not shown right. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. There's a substantial scenic number. Yeah. We didn't discuss did we discuss widening them at all last time there? No, >> I just can't remember. Okay, >> we're not going

063to be going to that area. So, >> okay, >> there's no next >> I guess they set it at a 25 foot set back from the >> Well, thank you, Rick. I think it's time to hear from the planning department. Thank you. >> Morgan Slater again for the planning department. Um so in reviewing the his lengthy history on on this lot, um prior denials were issued uh largely because of the concern with runoff on this lot. So I'm kind of just going to rehash, you know, some of the conversations that we've had. Um I think you know the board had requested that the some sort of engineered mitigation for the drainage pattern which is exactly what the applicant submitted. Um you know I'm not an engineer so I you know take everything that I say

064with a little bit of a grain of salt. um a reduction in the amount of runoff coming off of this property is, you know, meritable and it it's kind of up to the board if it is sufficient mitigation for the asbuilt structures that were built without, you know, the the right permits. Um I think um the well it's the same amount of drywalls that are being that the amount of drywalls aren't isn't changing. It's just additional drainage that is being installed to actually correctly direct the storm water into those dry wells to retain it on site. Um I I think David Rhodess did a good overview of, you know, the work that he provided to you guys. Um I'm happy to answer any questions the board has about the history or any concerns um that

065you have with the um mitigation. Uh the planning department doesn't really have any objection to what is proposed at this time. >> No objection to the proposed mitigation. Okay. Yeah. The only thing I'm going to ask for, and I don't know if two weeks would be sufficient, but we do have a town engineer that we can uh give this uh drainage calculation plan to to make sure that um it's sufficient mitigation. And I'd like to have his opinion in the record as well. So, I am going to ask that the record be left open for at least two weeks so we can have a response from him. >> Okay. Oh, was one thing that I want to add that I did not put in my memo to the board because I did add some additional

066recommended conditions of approval if an approval is granted. Um, just when during any sort of ground disturbance happening on the property for the installation of the mitigation, we request that there's um wire reinforced silt fencing along the slopes. That way any runoff, you know, during the installation of the additional uh infrastructure, it it doesn't impact the uh downslope uh properties. >> Thank you, Morgan. Anybody have questions for >> I just want to ask more question to David if it's all right. Thank you. >> The the existing we're going back into existing drywalls. We're not adding any drywalls. >> That is correct. Usually usually when you design dry wells there's a lot of extra um add because you you know they only come in certain sizes. So when you you need this much but then there's

067extra. So we were able to accommodate that with what was already in >> I'm going to ask the question. Do we know that these are 4x8s or 4x4s? >> Yes, we contacted Roselle who uh went back in the receipts of what they sold them and what they installed and told us exactly what was installed out there. >> Okay. So, you you're I just want to make sure that because we're not going to have a second review of this, you're comfortable with the size of the existing drywalls because it's going to be taking a lot more capacity than they were originally planned for. >> Yes. But it is also grass which doesn't take you know it's you know grass is used usually at 0 2 coefficient versus one for like pavement or or or road or

068um roof. >> So it's it's it's while it is more drainage it's it's a fifth of what it would be if it was roof. So um and and yes you know the calculations are actually on there on there on the lower right hand side. So, um, we feel confident based on what we're told on the sizing and the calculating that they're properly sized. Okay. >> I'm sorry. All totaled there are four or six. How many? >> Three drywalls. >> Three. >> There's one. There's one drywall over in the driveway >> that's receiving surface and then there's two that in the original approval. We had one drywall on each side to take the roof drainage. Brazelle ended up because they found good sand on one side, they put both of them over on one side and

069then just plumbed all of the plumbing over to them. >> And then that area, I'm sorry, we've already stated it, but I just want to make it clear. The area that we have on the northwest side, you're going to change the grade and create a swale that goes back to these drainage pins. Is that it? >> Yeah. On the on the west side, this naturally flows down this way. >> Yeah. And so as you come down there, we're going to tip it up right when we hit. >> So I'm going to create a little swale in there to make retain the water. >> So any water flowing down hits it and then any water that lands there flows towards those area drains. >> Yeah. I know this is on the drawings, but I wanted to

070hear from you. >> I know exactly. I'm I'm asking for the record. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> I have one more question for Morgan before >> I'm sorry to cut you off then. >> That's okay. >> Morgan Jane has >> I just have one more question for you. I'm sorry and forgive me because I have not seen something like this before. So I just want to clarify on the record. So if I just zero in on the wetlands for a second. So the the mitigation that's proposed will reduce the uh runoff towards the wetland by 10%. And in addition, we have three new variances to the wet wetland setback variances that we're being asked to approve. two of which are substantial. So, can you just hone in on your view and assessment

071about the environmental impact relative to the wetlands? The area so the area where these structures are now um the closest being the well the rock wall and then the stairwell they are in areas that were proposed to be disturbed. Um I think that the largest impact to the wetlands from the project can is mostly the significant regrading that happened um that impacts that impacted the runoff pattern. Um you know we now have engineered mitigation for that runoff pattern that was a result of this work. Um so you know the um engineer drainage it's saying a 10% reduction in the surface water runoff into the wetland but as David Rhodess mentioned in his report you know a lot of it is going to be percolating back down to the groundwater. >> Um I think that >>

072something that to to keep in mind with any development is just a cumulative impact of it with other development that's happening in the area. Um you know Montalk has poor drainage generally. Um, all development in some way has an impact on the runoff patterns in a neighborhood. If there's wetlands in that neighborhood, those wetlands aren't impacted. >> The goal is to mitigate that runoff as much as possible. >> And also, for the record, that's why we're going to be asking for an analysis by our town engineer. He would be the person that would be able to answer this question. >> Yes. So, he would probably do a little bit. Yeah. He is an engineer so I'm doing the best I can but you know when it comes down to you know formulas and and runoff

073it's >> the important thing about this is the runoff on the property >> and then on the vegetation so proposed is grass and a sun bayberry h is have we seen how much the of this bayberry buffer is there's going to be or do you have any thoughts on reveation? Um, I think the revitation is an improvement. Um, it is the the proposed clearing limits are going to be less than what was approved back in 2016. Um, so it's an improvement to the environmental conditions on the lot. We're happy to see woody vegetation with, you know, corresponding with the correct uh size and spacing the quantity to that. I think it's a um we do need a little bit more detail on the reveation plan before any before it's implemented. Um that was one of

074the conditions I think I recommended in the memo. >> Um so just a little bit more detail to that, but um the uh Bayberry area should have mulch beneath it. It shouldn't be grass beneath the Bayberry area. Um and then the gravel is going to be removed and anywhere that's not reveated with the Bayberry is going to have grass. >> Thank you, Morgan. >> Matt, do we have any call? Um Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Rick, would you like to make a closing statement? >> Yes. >> Richard Whan again for the applicant. Uh just to deal with a couple of things. First of all, on the reveation plan, um if you want anything more than what we've submitted, I guess you would should let us know

075that now. But we have indicated the area that would be reveated, the number of bay, the height of the bay is planted, which is 24 in. And yes, there would be mulch under them, not grass. Um, right now there is approximately 1,852 ft of gravel on the on the property on the yard. All of which would be removed. The re reveation area according to my figures is approximately 638 ft. That's the Bayberry. >> Um, the total clearing um, as Morgan just indicated, the total clearing on the property will drop. She didn't give the number, but I gave it earlier. From 8,454 ft to 7,816 square ft. Um, what else? Oh, um, a question by member Maring in terms of the reduction in uh, runoff. That 10% figure, that's reduction in the amount of surface water

076runoff. Remember though that what goes into the catch, you know, into the buried, you know, catch basins, dry wells, >> that will eventually recharge into the groundwater. So, we're not anticipating that there's less water flowing into the wetlands. It just won't be flowing overland to get there. >> Um, and finally, with regard to um, you know, your desire to have the town engineer weigh in, we're confident in David Road's design and his calculations, so we have no objection to that. >> Oh, thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Can could you just repeat that total clearing number? You said >> the total clearing numbers they they're moving from >> 8,454 ft now to 7,816 square ft. So it's a decline of more than 600 ft. Well, actually I believe it's the same as the Mount

077of Bay 638. >> Great. Oh, thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So who did you? Okay. >> So we're going to leave it open for two weeks for >> the town and dinner. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion in the application of Henry Proto 835 Malk Highway Malkque Suffer County Tax Map 300-52-1-10.3 to close the public hearing but leave the record open for an additional two weeks to allow for the review of the TF Engineering drainage plan by the town engineer. Second. Incur. >> Incur. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay, moving right along. Next, we have our work session. We have a post-hering decision. Put my glasses on. 186 OMH LLC. 186 Old Monarch Highway. Montalk Suffer County tax map number 300-87-3-9. Description is to demolish an existing residence and construct

078a 3,137 square ft two-story residence with basement 348 ft of decking, 743 square ft stone terraces, a 583 ft detached garage basement, sanitary system, and a new driveway on a parcel of land within the town's jurisdiction of Coastal Bluffs. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 2554 20 of the town code. The residence has been proposed 78 ft from the crest of the coastal bluff and more than 200 ft from the bluff toe. Zoning district is a residence zone X flood zone secret class type two. Is this member ver will you begin the deliberation? >> Okay. The hearing was on January 27th of 2026. Uh the applicant was represented by Tumi Leam. Karen Ho specifically was at the hearing. Um we have a memo of law at the time for January 21st,

0792026. Uh the surveys that we had at the hearing were dated 21225. It included a a survey of the current conditions, a site plan, and septic didn't call it septic, but it was other things uh that related to the septic on that survey. Um it's an interesting um application. We do have some other Oh, we'll get to that. Uh we did The architectural plans that we had for the hearing also were dated 22025 from Bates and Massie and um construction protocol. The hearing was left over for construction protocol which we did receive on February 18th of 2026. Um yes, this application They were um the property itself here. The property itself um has existed and um has is outside of the range necessary for a toe bluff toe uh variance since it's greater than 200

080ft away from the toe of the bluff in this area. Montto. Um, and the the NRSP jurisdiction in this area is for 100 ft up to 100 ft away from the Bluff Crest which is noted on the survey at the uh 55 foot contour line. Um, and from there to the house uh it measures at 78 from the house. So it does require the uh NRSP. It's an NRSP jurisdiction. Most of the house a lot of the house is not in jurisdiction. Um part of the let's see the applicant uh is moving the house. One of the positives of this is that they they are reconstructing the house 14 ft more landward from that the uh Bluff Crest that's noted and um they they are going to rev some of the the offerings of the

081the application and they're going to revge everything after construction. Um, this is a a pretty assertive application called we have the site plan. They meet all um dimensional requirements for this project. Um, it is pretty assertive as I said um on their clearing. They're going to go clearing. The maximum clearing that is allowable on this property is 11,612. The current clearing on it is 4,691 and their proposed is the 11,612 on building coverage which is currently square ft. They're going to 2,962 square ft where the maximum allowable for this property is 3,96. So, not much shy of the maximum. And on the total lot coverage, the maximum allotted is 7,741 here. And they're going from 3,541 up to 6,773. also um taking advantage of the maximum allowable at the time and this is under the

082the old codes but that's neither here nor there. Um the the application well we got the construction protocol. There's a lot of grading on this application that is um outside of any jurisdiction but they are going to do a lot of regrading. They're going from, I believe it's a two-bedroom house today to six or seven bedrooms. Um, they provided the construction protocol. Much of this application is revolving around the construction protocol because of the the regrading that's being done and the the care necessary to have this project happen, have the construction done. They did submit a very thorough construction protocol in my review of it and I'm not an engineer either. Um it looked very good to me. I have a couple of comments to make on it. Um, one thing during the hearing the

083um, I think the architect when we were talking about um, someone I believe the chair came up with a question about the the reveation and how it's going to hold the hill and um, hold the grading and the applicant's architect whose name I have here somewhere explained that they were going to be using this uh celltech system. It's a plastic system and they submitted uh a file that we do have in our record of how that works. Um oh it was Aaron Wild from uh Bates Massie I believe and that I did he said it would be reflected in the construction protocol. One thing I did not see any notation of that happening in the the construction protocol. >> Yeah, it does. It was there. >> I' I've noted it here. Um, it's under slope

084stabilization, page 22, item 2.4.15. >> All right. And we do have the the other file for it. Okay. Thanks. Um, a couple of other comments I have. They it does look, you know, like they've addressed the traffic or safety control that we run into on Montalk Highway and on the property and going to protect the property during the construction period. Um they did have in the construction period they mentioned like that work would be done Monday to Friday and then some on Saturday although they did note an exception that is in the town code that might take advantage of. Um the other thing I did want to note about that is um in page 11 on the construction protocol the 2.2.6 they have a uh under material storage they have anchored top is recommended and

085I think that should just be required rather than recommended in it. Um, overall it does look to me like they have covered this application quite nicely. As they've heard us say many times before, this is the plan, but we have to make sure that the plan gets executed to the way that it is written. And I'll let other folks speak more to that if they'd like. Um, so overall, I think it's it's an assertive application. I think they have covered all the bases and I think it does meet the the standards of 255420 that the the bluff crest and the application that the project would get um it does meet the standards to protect that that bluff crest. So I am looking to approve it. >> Thank you member Burr. Vice Chair. >> Yes. Thank

086you. Um these are the ways in which I looked at this project. Um first this is a total redevelopment of existing houses to come down and a whole new project is to be installed on the site. This will require an NSP and I think significantly no variances. They worked hard to get this put on the spot with only an NRSP being needed for approval of the project. The project is more than as was mentioned but I'll mention again this project is more than 200 feet from the toe of the bluff where 125 is required. It's 78 ft from the crest of the bluff. The project is land of the coastal erosion hazard area sea line entirely which is of course a plus. 184 and 188 are two project two structures that sit seawward of this

087house, this parcel at the top of the bluff. And both both of those projects 184 and 188 received previous approvals for those projects from this board. Um one I think it was 188 was most recently done was before the board only three years ago, four years ago and that project is complete. They both sit on the seawward side of the new of this project at 186. The new house uh represents a retreat and will be set 14 ft further landward from the crest of the bluff. We're always looking for that. Any potential retreat is always a positive. The new structure, while greater in GFA, is not as tall as the existing house. So, it shouldn't it shouldn't uh pro it shouldn't um uh be a problem for anyone looking to consider what kind of obstructions

088there were inside that the existing house is actually taller. They proposed to build a 3137 foot residence and a,000 foot of deck and terraces and 583t garage to the north to replace the 1728 foot structure. It's in comparison to similar applications we have out on Wantok highway all of which are sensitive all of which have taken a lot of time this one is uh significantly I think simpler and more straightforward than some tormal comes to mind a couple of years ago where we had a somewhat similar grade to deal with and uh a similar location relative to the uh shorefront at the board's request the architect for the applicant provided a building protocol that addressed several important points and conditions that were raised by this board at the public hearing we spent a fair amount

089of time talking about and it was mentioned by member Burgerer that the protocol was significant um from the protocol related issues raised by the board at the public hearing were all to be discussed. I'm not going to quote from there but I want to point out as was just mentioned now several places in there with things that we raised that day were addressed in the protocol page three item 1.2 two confirming the location of the top of the bluff. They got that from the Rainer Group memo of February 4th. Pages four and pages seven, items 1.4 and 1.7 deal with um listing storm water management objectives. We're worried about what happens to the water that's coming down. How are we going to control it? Uh page nine, item 2.1, parking, loading, and general access. This

090was also addressed by member Burgerer. Uh we have to worry about the conditions at the highway. How do we unload? How do we park? We discussed that that night. Uh, page nine, item 2.1, parking, loading, and other. Oh, I read the general access. Page 10, item 2.2.2 and items on page 11, items 2.2.6, material storage, and stockpiling. Where are you putting all this material? It's a tight lot. We don't want to see it out in the road. Where is it going to be? Uh, page 14, item 2.4.2, demolition, and sequencing. We brought up sequencing in that we remove the house. we move. Do you start the garage first? No. They're going to do the house, work their way northward, use the garage area for storage. That was mentioned in the in the protocol, which is

091something we addressed that night. And then uh the one that was just brought up again uh before by member Burger on page 22, item 2.4.15, slope stabilization. They mentioned the Celtech product. They had had success with it in the past and they could move forward. Um and then on page uh 24 item 2.5.4 I think this is just a recognition on the part of the applicant and their construction team that failure to adhere to these and other town standards could result in a stop work order or the inability to receive a CFO at the completion of the project. As was mentioned by member Berger we very often state what we want to see happen here. This is the fact that that as a result of our request they produced a protocol. I've listed those areas

092I thought were most pertinent to our conversation. If those are not followed, it could lead to uh stop work order certainly and that could be a problem. Um I thought that the architectural plans here reflect a desire on the part of the applicant to gain full use of the parcel uh without creating conditions that would require variances. I think that was pretty clear. As a result of the planning as a result, the planning department does not anticipate any significant environmental damage. That was a direct quote from Brian Frank who represented the town on this. The proposed structure I believe is in character with the current architectural state of the neighborhood. It's a flat roof but so is 184 and 188 which are immediately juxtaposed to it. Uh the same building and landscape team at the

093night of the thing I asked if there was a builder. There hadn't been but now in the uh protocol it mentions that the builder is men at work and that the landscape designer on this and work the landscape installer will be James Grimes. That's the team that worked on 184 and 188. And I think that um the fact that that same team is in place hopefully an understanding of the sensitivity project already exist within the team and we can rely on a certain amount of assurityity in that area. Overall, I feel that this was a thoughtful plan and response to the demands that the town might propose for the project and I feel it does rise to the level to approve an NRSP. when they come in front of us, we're always looking for applicants

094to come before the board having considered the code restrictions to regulate construction and development here in town. This is one where I think it was done. I think there's a lot of opportunity on a small constricted lot and a larger structure to have gotten themselves looking for variances. We're not being asked for variances. We're asking for an NRSP at a house that's located further from the bluff than two existing structures. And I think we we we always expect all projects to consider the impact they may have on the environment in the neighborhood. I believe that this one does address that. I think therefore that this project is one that I don't have a problem approving and I'm going to approve it in entirety at this time. >> Thank you. Member Mary. >> Yes. Thank you.

095Um so the applicant um you know has uh designed this so that the new development shifts 14 ft landward. I think of the existing structures. Um, and they also said they're trying to preserve, they're not moving even further back. I think I believe they said because they're trying to maintain and preserve the more mature woodlands that come, you know, come off of old Mont Highway. Um, and they also did say that they've tried to limit the height above natural grade and they asserted the structure will quote hug the landscape. So, I appreciate those three elements. Um, however, I also agree with member Burgerer. Um, I think she used the term assertive redevelopment. I might call it aggressive redevelopment, you know, on a property that is within NRSP jurisdiction and that's characterized by some very interesting

096and significant topography. Um, and again, I just want to go through these metrics very quickly because I did have to really take them all into account um, and weigh them against the standards for the NRSP. So, the GFA is increasing by 82% to max out under they were grandfathered under the prior code, but they're maxing out that um, as of right, you know, that GFA that would be the max for a as a right permit. Um the bedroom count also goes from I believe 2 to six. So that's a great increase of intensity of use. The clearing um is increasing by a multiple of 2.5 times um and also maxes out to uh you know the the clearing maximum ratio. the building coverage we talked about. I mean, it's a very big expansion, 158% expansion

097of building coverage and takes us just 4% from the max allowed under the as of right permits. The total coverage um is starts to bump up against the maximum as well, just 12 12 a.5%. Um it's up 91%. And I'm not sure how much of the property in, you know, square footage is being regraded. So all in that certainly made me take pause in my deliberation relative to the NRSP standards. However, with respect to the NRSP, I also understand that the bulk of the new structures is well outside the NRSP jurisdiction. Um and of course we know that on this stretch of old Montac highway, this property like the others benefits that the required setback um uh that would involve the protection of the natural resource is to the toe of the bluff crest and

098not the the toe of the excuse me of the bluff and not the not the the bluff crest. So I just just to run through I think I think had more of this been within NRSP jurisdiction I might have had a harder time um approving this but when I look at the standards under 25540 um you know compatibility um it's true this is a very large development but as or has already been pointed out it is not all that different from the type and scope of development that is going on around it with respect with respect to 255440K environmental. Again, much of the new construction is outside of the NRSP jurisdiction. Um, with respect to 2551D, um, yes, there are alternative reasonable uses of the property that probably did exist, but we're not, it didn't

099even come up that we would ask for this to be um, redesigned. you know, there could have been uh perhaps a little less, but all in um I'm on the uh relative to the standards. I will be approving the application. Obviously, like I said, if it had needed other types of variances or something, it would have been would have been a different story for me. I agree um with my fellow board members that it's very very important to have the right language in that there can be there really should be no overages um versus what we're approving and if if it I think we are bringing this but um and uh do we see a reveation plan on this or we're still waiting for that as a condition >> condition so that's that's where I

100am on this one Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. So, um I agree with my fellow board members. There's I'm not going to repeat everything that's already been said. I think uh vice chair brought out very pertinent points from the building protocol. I think the environmental the protection of the site is not going to change and the storm water runoff will be controlled and managed during and after construction. So I too am going to be approving this application in its entirety. Council, do you have enough? >> Uh, yep. I have a question. >> Okay. Considering that they are going to the maximum on certain things in this project, could we put a condition add another condition that if any or a state statement to the effect that if anything occurs any

101changes occur during the construction period that they come back. work is done. No. >> Yes. That is the process. If something changes >> then that they come in before that work is done. >> Rather than after. >> What? >> Before rather than after. Exactly. >> Actually, this has come up before. Terry, you'll probably remember this where there was a discussion about actually adding language in our determination that states if there are any modifications. We've had this conversation. >> We did that. >> Um that they that the applicant know that they they have to go through a process and come before us for approval. So that might be something we talk about making standard language in our decision cuz I mean some people may not know that. >> Anyway, are we good? Can we move on?

102>> Yeah. >> All right. So other decisions building permit CFO Maram 21 Ocean View Terrace Monttoque Suffach County Tax Map number 300-49-6-26 Morgan. >> Okay. So this I think this was a 2024 approval from the board. um they are now coming in for their CO. Upon review of the file and the asbuilt surveying conditions, the planning department picked up on some discrepancies between the approved and what was built. Um so this is the approved survey. Um it was for five cabanas um on the north side of the pool. The dune crest is kind of goes through some existing structures. This is an extremely non-conforming lot, pre-existing non-conforming in downtown Monttoque. Um, and it was basically just for the five cabanas. So, the asbuilt conditions, let me pull them up. It's hard to tell because um

103there aren't setbacks shown on the asbuilt survey, but the cabanas were built slightly more south, which is closer to the dune crest and therefore needs a slightly larger variance than what was approved. There was also an additional shed built over here. Um the slate patio over here is slightly different. There's there's various differences that did not receive approvals or they were built in different places than what was approved. Um this is really just a CO discussion. Um so it's just a matter of if the board believes a CO can be issued for the asbuilt improvements. Um I do have a um also have a survey that shows the two kind of on top of each other so you can really see the um differences cuz you know if you're it's it's just easier to see

104it this way. So so the red is what was approved and the green is what was built. Um they also squared off the deck over here. Uh I believe this is all concrete over here. So the deck was expanded over the existing concrete. um still an expansion of a structure that would require a variance um that was not requested. Um so really it's just kind of up to the board on if a CO should be issued on this and um I suppose the applicant or or you and you may want to advise the applicant on whether it needs a modification or a whole new application. Um just something for the board to discuss and and we'll advise the >> Well, I mean I'm gonna start because absolutely we're not going to issue a CFO because

105our CFO should reflect what the ZBA actually approved and this may not just involve this board. I mean this is a shed additional variances. This could be ARB. This could be planning board. So I'm going to recommend I mean in terms of process they should have come to us for a modification with these changes and we'd have said yes or no to them. So that's my recommendation. No to the CFO and the process is in terms of changing your decision to come to us for a modification. I I'm having I thought we talked about this already. Wait, I'm sorry. Didn't we didn't Morgan, I don't know if you were here, but I'd have to go back. I thought we actually discussed this and we as a board agreed. >> Oh, no. I don't think I'm

106discussing this. >> Not this particular one, right? >> I'm sorry. Very similar. And that's why I'm confusing it because we did on that one say we wanted to it would require like a modification >> which is why we should be consistent in what we do because it was recent. I know what you're talking about. >> Um but that's my recommend. >> My recommendation is that we ask for a modification and absolutely no to the CO. >> Could you zoom in on that a little more? >> Yes. >> A lot more. So, this is the bulk of of the differences really. Um, there, like I said, there's kind of smaller and more various uh differences, but I think that's something that we could get more into upon a a more thorough review upon a modification submission.

107>> And you also said they built another structure that would need a whole other, right? >> Built another shed. >> Green lines is what is built? My question would be if they've built another shed, isn't it going to require a whole new application? >> I know, right? That's exactly correct. >> I mean, I I'm not know what the legal answer to that is, but it's not merely that the cabanas are slightly south of where they were proposed. >> We have another structure on the site. >> Exactly right. >> And I think the chair is correct. I think this was a subject of site plan at the planning department. Sorry, the planning board, excuse me. So, right, that would require other thing here. >> Yeah. Um, and the vice chair's point about the shed requiring another

108public hearing might be relevant, too. So, maybe we start with um >> Denial of the CFO and uh I don't know, Morgan, can we word it that they can't bypass the process by changing everything and then thinking you're going to get a CFO? So, the correct process would have been for them to submit a modification. Does everybody agree with me? >> And that modification, I think, would require a hearing because of the variances. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> I agree. >> So, I think that's how we we're going to proceed. >> If everybody agrees. I >> agree, >> Madam Chairman. Yes. Um uh would that require it to start with us, the ZBA, or have to go back to >> Well, right now, we just have to deal with what's before us tonight. So, in terms

109of our process, um we'll begin with with uh denying the CFO request >> and asking for a modification and see where that brings us. >> Yeah. Then they'll have to deal with >> and the other boards will >> deal with the planning department and if they're going to have they're going to have to go to ARB and planning the planning board approvals as well for site plan, a modification, and a new approval for the ARB. >> So, we could probably do them at the same time. Mhm. >> Um it's commercial. >> I don't know. I mean, >> yeah, it's just going to have to go through the process again, >> right? >> Okay. >> It's tough when there's multiple boards. It's not an easy There's no like real chain. >> So, in terms of the

110process, uh the planning department will forward a letter. >> Yeah, we can do that. >> Okay. Thank you. Let's move on to an extension of time for Cohen 26 Middle Highway, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-165-1-1. This is an extension of a 2016 determination. Um Tyler prepared a memo for this one. Uh the original approvals from 2016 for an existing garage that needed um some dimensional variances for setbacks. This is just an aerial of the lot. I believe this is the garage that got the relief. Um on the extension time application they submitted they said that the purpose of the extension time was to uh get a C maintain the valid permit and get a CO. So hopefully that happens soon. >> I'm sorry they built it already. So they just >> it

111was so the original approval was for an existing garage. So there was never you know it was after the fact they were seeking the relief after it was built. So that's what the determination was for and that's what they are trying to extend so they can get a seal on it. >> What what why are they extending? Why is it taking so long existing garage in 2016? >> Probably just didn't finish the paperwork because it's already built. Yeah. >> So they just People do this all the time. it's already built. So, they just say, "Oh, okay. I'm done." They get the ZVA and then no one tells them they got to go through the next step and they never do anything because it's already there. So, they don't care. >> But they'll probably try to

112sell the house and now they got to get it all cleaned up. >> The planning department has no problem with this moving forward. >> We do not. >> Does anybody have a problem with it? I don't have a problem with it. >> No. As long as hopefully be the last last, right? You know, it's close. >> One can only hope. >> Okay. Okay. So, in the matter of the application of Cohen 26 Middle Highway, East Hampton, Suffach County, tax map number 300-165-1-1. I make a motion that we approve the extension of time. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Smoke desk was approved. >> Member Burgerer, can you address the minutes? Make a motion to approve the draft minutes for Tuesday, February 10th, 2026 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Concur.

113>> Now we're on to resolutions. The first one is Joselyn Lion's Head 154 Isle of White Road Springs, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-23-1-32. We approved this was a resolution modifying an extension of the determination. Um, I just want to make sure I don't read that. The expiration date of the determination is now blah blah blah. The New York State DEEC had raised questions on the validity of the current permit and this application has been extended multiple times and three and there seems to have been some scriveners errors in the resolution. So the proposed modification is to clarify that the germination dated July 12th, 2011 and filed July 13th, 2011 is valid until June 13th, 2026. Also to correct the date on the most recent extension on June 10th, 2025. So, I'm going to make

114a motion because I think we all approve this that we um approve the resolution for Joslyn Lion's Head 154 Isle of White Road in Spring, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-23-1-32 to approve the resolution modifying the extension of determination as written. >> Second. >> Coner. >> Conquer. Next is Nanette John's 74 Surfside Drive, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-51-4-12. >> That was mine. >> Okay. >> This one, you'll remember u was a request to replenish the toe of the bluff with,200 yards of sand. There's also the replacement of a staircase and a less uh impactful design, one that was going to incorporate some back and forth uh essing of it. So, it did not extend as far out onto the beach as a previous one had. Uh we had no problem with it and

115four there were four voting members that night and we voted four zero for the approval. Therefore, I'd like to make a motion in the application or the case of Nanet John 74 Surf Dai Drive, Monttok Suff County Tax Map 300-51-4-12 to uh accept the determination as written. >> Second. concur. >> Next is Navy House LLC, 132 Navy Road in Malkque, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-26-1-9.1. Yeah, this was mine. If you recall, this was for an addition to the house. um the removal of a concrete pad that was put right at the top of the bluff and uh a play area all of which was on the snow at the time and um the the addition this was a unanimous approval also four board members in attendance and um that's it they can make a

116motion to approve Navy House LLC 132 Navy road bond tax back 300-20 26-1-9.1. >> I'll second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. >> Next is Glenn Leech, 450 Oldstone Highway Springs, Suffach County Tax Mountain number 103-2-8.10. This was mine and the description of the work approved. I believe this was a unanimous decision by the four of us to demolish an existing 584 ft cottage garage and to construct a new 680 ft cottage with 180 ft porch. 375T porch attached to the main residence. A 200 ft swimming pool with 500 square ft of patio pool fencing pool equipment. Relocate two existing sheds to install an upgraded sanitary step system, clear 4,190 ft of vegetation, and allow an existing stone wall to remain on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. I make a motion to approve the

117Glen Leech resolution as written for 450 Old Stone Highway and Springs, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-103-2-8.10. Second. >> Vice Chair, can we adjourn the meeting? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Woman. Um, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the Town of East Hampton zoning board of appeals public hearing and work session for March 3rd, 2026 at 8:10 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you, Matt. Have a good night, board.