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 for February 10th, 2026. Tonight is a scheduled work session. We have three post-hering decisions. And I will begin with the first one which is Nennet John's 74 Surfside Drive Malk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-51-4-12. Description is to restore approximately 70 linear feet of eroded bluff by placing approximately 1500 cubic yards of clean bluff compatible fill and construct a 4ft wide bluff stair. The restored bluff is to be planted with beach grass 12 in on center. A sand fence is to be installed at the toe of the bluff. Relief saw is a natural resource special permit pursuant to
002of the East Hampton Town Code. The zoning district is B residential zone X flood zone. Secret class is type two. Vice Chair Johan, would you like to begin? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Uh I'm going to uh say at the outset that um let me see the app the uh hearing was held on 127 uh uh 2026 just a couple weeks ago. All the documents submitted by the applicant are part of the public record and available to be reviewed. Um, this was a fairly straightforward application looking to replenish the base of the bluff where there had been considerable erosion and to rebuild a set of stairs that gave them access to the beach. A previous set of stairs was in place that uh extended well out uh beyond uh what was safe for the
003passage of people back and forth. It interrupted the flow on the beach and that was removed and they're looking to put a new one in. Uh they're looking to put 1500 uh cubic yards of uh bluff compatible fill at the basement at the base rather. Uh that area will be that bluff will be planted with beef grass, a sand fence to be installed at the at the bluff uh base to help you to help hold it in place. There's a new stair configuration uh which will have three landings. It's different from the previous design that extended out so far. These stairs are going to return back and forth on themselves, allowing to take less of a long run down from the crest of the of the uh of the bluff down to the base and
004it shortens that run and so makes it a more acceptable. This is an area that had a staircase before. This one is being moved slightly east to take advantage of a more secure setting. Um there was no real complaint from the the uh the planning uh department about this. It seemed like a pretty straightforward application. We did ask about how the sand was to be delivered. That was a question that was brought up and uh answered to our we to our satisfaction anyway that it would be coming in from the west along the beach and not any effort to deliver it through the property or over the top which was totally impractical. Anyway, there had been previous uh expedited permits on this parcel to allow for sand replenishment. They'd all been been approved in the
005past. There were no comments or complaints from the public. No variances are required on this. Uh as a condition of approval, a protocol as to how the sand is to be set and delivered was requested by the board and that's the condition that we'll ask be uh completed by them. Uh with all of this, I think it's fairly straightforward effort to save and stabilize the base of the bluff. the stairs are ones in which they're entitled to as ones that been there before. The design showed an improvement over a previous design. All of it was approved by the planning department. I really don't have a lot else to add. I think it was a fairly straightforward application and I'm going to approve it at this time. >> Thank you, member Burgerer. Um I'm in agreement
006on everything. I I thought though we discussed whether they need a DEC permit. This is a a title wetland in front. So I thought well going to condition on approval I thought we're going to have that they either receive a DEEC permit or a notice of non-jurisdiction from the DEEC and the access also like they were stipulating that the access of bringing the sand and the the decking in would um also they would get all permits required from the town or any other private entities if there are any involved in that role. as a condition of approval also. >> Absolutely. >> Um other than that, I agree with uh everything member Johan said and I too am going to approve this application. >> Member Mary. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I am in agreement with
007my fellow board members. So I won't repeat everything that was said. That's why we'll be approving the application in particular. You know, the reconfiguration of the stairs which um lessens its intrusion into like the public, you know, right of way on the beach is a good a good outcome. And again, sort of taking the input from the planning department that did not flag any particular uh concerns, environmental concerns from this project. Um and so I'm approving. I think it meets the standards for NRSP and I'm approving the application. Thank you. >> I agree with my fellow board members. I do agree that the stair design with the series of the three landings, which is why they're not protruding onto the beach. And my concern at the public hearing was about not exceeding uh the cubic
008yards of Phil and they they noted that the 1,500 cubic yards is the minimum amount necessary. So I agree with my fellow board members and I'll be approving this application as well. >> There's TAM has you know it says and applicant is required to obtain all additional permits or approvals as required by law. I can specify that you are in DEC or non-jurisdiction and um and any other you know sign offs from whoever. Thank you, council. Okay. Okay. Next on our agenda is Glenn Leech, 450 Oldstone Highway in Springs, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-103-2-8.10. Description is to demolish an existing square ft cottage/g and to construct a new 720 ft cottage with 200 ft porch, 375 ft porch attached to the main residence, a 200 ft swimming pool with 300t patio, pool fencing, pool
009equipment, relocate two existing sheds to install an upgraded sanitary system, clear 4190 ft of vegetation, and allow an existing ing stone wall to remain on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. Relief sword is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code and three variances variances of 50 ft 11 and 5 are required from to allow the existing stone walls remain 50 ft. Construct the proposed pool fencing 89 ft 89 ft and covered porch 95 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is A2 resident X flood zone secret class is type two. This is my application. So a district so I will start with the deliberation. All of the digital files are in the file, but this particular hearing, I
010want to make sure we're referring to the proper things because the board actually received some of these documents very late. So, just for the record, there's a new survey in the file from Tri-State dated January 21st, 2026. The square footage has been modified slightly in a submission made by Britain Bistrian on January 22nd, 2026. This hearing was held February 3rd, 2026. Most of the board members didn't get this information till January 20 uh I got it the day of the public hearing. >> Yes. Yes. >> So, um the public hearing the cottage was reduced from 720 to 680 ft. The cottage porch was reduced from 200 square ft to 180 square ft. The patio was increased from 300 square ft to 500 square ft, including changes to the teared stone steps. Now, I went through
011the digital file numerous times and I personally did not see any revised building plans with regard to these changes. They did submit the survey and they did give us a letter outlining them. But I as a condition of approval, if this is approved, I would like um revised building plans to be submitted into the record prior to the issuance of a building permit. If we're going to approve this, I want in the file what the board actually did approve. And right now, we have no revised building plans. I think the wetlands are an important element for a n for this uh natural environment, but several parcels in the are in close proximity to this property are owned by the town of East Hampton. I think the proposal before us is minor changes to existing improvements.
012A substantial part of the application is the demolition and construction of a new second residential cottage which will have an upgraded septic system. There was a question of regrading with regard to the construction of the cottage and relocation of the shed which appears to be minimal and not create negative impacts. I think they're raising the grade I don't know by about 2 feet. The fencing for the pool requires a variances of 11 ft to be 89 ft at its closest point to wetlands. The covered porch proposed to the main residents a very minor change to an already improved area. This is literally the inclusion of a roof overhang. Now, the upgraded septic system, this is, of course, it is required, but it's still going to be a very significant improvement to the property. The stone
013wall, I I don't even know if it constitutes to be wall. I don't know what I could do to even find it. It has been in existence for at least 13 years, if not more. And it does not really inhab inhibit the movement of wildlife, and it doesn't seem to uh have runoff issues. appear to be non-existent. The clearing in order to demolish the existing cottage and construct septic system, cottage, swimming pool, and patios and relocate two existing sheds. They're clearing 4190 ft, which will be reveated with a final clearing limit increase of 95 ft. A scenic easement around the wetlands on the northeast corner of their property and a buffer of 50 ft to help protect wetlands has been um agreed to. The applicant has also agreed to all the recommended project conditions which
014does include a reef edge plan and a scenic easement and buffer. I do feel that this uh meets the variance standards of 255850. I do not feel this will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Um I think this has been uh a very wellthoughtout application. Are the variances substantial? I think they are not. um whether the difficulty causing the applicant an area was self-created. Well, the improvements um yes, you know, we can always say yes or no, but there's no idea no uh reason to deny the application. The improvements are not even visible from the road. I think the upgraded septic system, minor changes to improvement are already there. So, I think for these reasons, I will be approving the application in its entirety. I do feel it meets the standards
015outlined in the code. Vice Chair Johan. >> Sure. Um I largely agree with what you've had to say. When you go down and look at the various things that we're being asked for here, we have the you know three variances and and um and NRSP. Um we start with looking at the uh the ask on the surface I think seems to be uh there's a lot going on here. We're gonna we're gonna move some shed around. We're going to take down a cottage and put another one up. We're gonna add a swimming pool in the patio. But much of it was out of jurisdiction and and mostly everything that was placed on this site as was mentioned by the chair I think was fairly well thought out. Placement of the um septic system for example
016improved septic system and as you say well while it's required is still an improvement on the property. Its location I think is a good one. I think it's the one that seems to make the most sense on this lot. the woodland I mean the woodland the wetland is uh on what was once an adjoining lot which has now been joined together here so that we have something about an inch uh I think it's about an acre and 3/4 and um so this that's at a at a distance about as far away from the improvements as as it can be um and then going down here um most of the temporary clearing is outside of jurisdiction of the clearing that is going to take place will be replaced as it goes The grading is fairly minor.
017Uh it's within near the shed that's to be moved and u most of the rest of what's and the and the new cottage. Most of the rest of that is outside of jurisdiction. The pool and the patio as I said is outside. Covered porch variance is minor with very little environmental potential impact. There is the potential for a little more water runoff but there is quite a buffer between that location and the wetlands. uh the wall which again was stacked stone was not significant although it does exist and it's something we have to consider. Uh the TAM felt that uh it was not going to inhibit wildlife movement or cause any uh more significant runoff and therefore was not a potential environmental problem in this location. The um applicant agreed immediately to the scenic easement
018and a 50-foot buffer uh around the wetlands. uh that buffer will be of the material is the existing wood lot that won't call for reveation there but it is a well-wooded lot. So uh that with the exception of approximately u allowing that scenic ement to be carved out by a corner of the wall was agreed upon by all at the hearing. Um the GFA and total lot coverage are both well below what's allowed on the spot. It's a modest scale of improvements when seen in a larger sense of what exists and what could potentially happen. We have a be an older structure. Haven't come to us to look for a complete redevelopment here. We're looking for ways in which to make this property more attractive to the applicant. I think as was mentioned by the
019chair, it has been well thought out. Um I don't got a lot else to think. Um, I think that um, while on the surface when it first comes to you and you see this amount of work, but then when you see the care that went into trying to make this work on the spot on limitations they have, everything seemed to be about as far from the wetlands as possible and all the mitigations that were suggested in the TAM were agreed to by the applicant. So, uh, I'm going to approve it and agree with the chair on this. I don't really have a lot to add. I think that it was a well thoughtout application on the part of the applicant. >> Thank you, Member Burgerer. Okay. Um well, I will repeat a few things, but
020generally I agree with my fellow board members. Um, as far as the the variances that are required, the 50ft variance for the the wall, which was barely visible from above the stone of the snow when I was out there, >> um, I think is really dimminimous in this case, and I dear would have no trouble getting over that. Um, the fence, the pool fence at 89 ft is also dimminimous and in probably the best location it could be. I'm going to approve that variance and the five the 95 the five foot variance rather for the covered porch also is the minimus. I don't see any of these things um changing the character of the neighborhood or >> needing to be looked at for anywhere else. the two sheds they're moving, they're taking out of uh
021interconformity, out of uh all out of jurisdiction. Uh I guess the one thing I thought about was the pool. I don't know how many other pools are in this neighborhood. However, um the way they have it positioned, it'll be between the main house and the the cottage and it's a 200 foot pool. It's small. Um the planner testified that the grading for this pool would be no more than about 2 feet. Um but no clearing additionally needed for that. Um so I ultimately I I am going to approve the pool also and I I think this does beat NRSP standards also. I think it's an excellent thing that they're taking two individual cess pools that now service the cottage and the main house and going to replace it with an IIA system that will handle
022both of those structures. Um, as mentioned before, in the recommended conditions, they agreed to the the scenic easement and the 50-ft buffer and surrounding the wetland, and they're going to reveate uh wherever they do need to clear for the project to be done. There will be a revitation plan. So, I too feel it meets all the standards of both the and I believe the drainage too looked like a pretty good plan to keep all the runoff um from leaving the property and being contained within the property and without harming the the wetlands. So, I'm going to approve the the variances as well as the NRSP for this application. >> Thank you, member Mary. >> Yes, thank you. I'll uh buzz through the three variances. Uh I won't repeat everything everyone said, but I do want
023to just be on the record. So I'll be approving the the 5ft wetland setback for that 35 square uh for the new rear patio um on the residence. Um obviously this is a numeric numerically not substantial variance and as we it was also defined at the hearing it's only 31 square ft or about 8% of that new patio that is even in the uh wetland setback uh area. So I I understand that you know they could have designed it away um and had no variances. Um, but I do appreciate there is an aesthetic benefit to them squaring it off with the side of the house. And when I balance it with the other standards, I find it meets all the all the standards um and it has no detriment to character, environment or uh or
024um um other physical conditions. So I'm proving that variance with respect to the 11 foot variance for the pool fence. Again, this is not a substantial variance. Um, and we it is in a cleared area already. Um, I just do want to note on the poll, the pool is completely outside of uh uh wetland jurisdiction. Um, which I thought was a a good thing. Um, but that's an aside right now. And with respect to the 50% variance for the stack stone wall again that's more substantial but I like my fellow board members you know see it as just stack stones and it's not highly visible and I don't think it's changing you know topography or anything on the lot. So that is approvable relative to the standards in my assessment. Finally overall with respect to
025the NRSP standards um I feel it meets all the criteria of 25551 and 25540. Overall, this is, you know, what 67,000 square ft lot. It's a little smaller when you subtract out the wetlands, but um we've got a total of 1,800 uh square feet of GFA um and a modestized pool um and uh you know, that combined with the environmental improvements of I thought the buffer the 50-ft buffer is very important. Um and you know, there is a lot of the the uh development is all captured on one size and um you know we have it's not a landmarked house but we have a hundredy year you know old very historical character property and I think that they've done right by the lot in protecting that character um and all in like approving both all
026the variances and the NRSP. Thank you. >> Thank you council. Are we good? Okay. Next on our agenda, Navy House LLC 132 Navy Road in Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-26-1-9.1. Description to demolish a 140 ft deck, a 155t portion of the existing basement, existing concrete pad area, and an existing play structure. and to construct 1580 square feet of first and second story additions, a 305t covered porch, 231 square ft of decking, walkways, 987.29 square ft of temporary clearing, and an upgraded sanitary system within jurisdiction and setbacks of bluffs on a parcel containing on a parcel of land containing bluffs, beach vegetation, and tidal wetlands. relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and three variances variances of 61.4.4 61.4 4 and 89 are required
027from 255420 of the town code to construct the proposed additions 88.3 ft covered porch 88.3 ft and walkways 61 ft from the bluff crest and any other relief necessary zoning district is a residence zone X flood zone secret class is type two member Burgerer would you like to start us off >> okay this hearing was also last week on February 3rd. Um, this is a parcel that has had a lot of things going on it for a long time. Uh, some of which are still not completed from previous approvals. Uh, there was an approval of a project for additions and some walkways and structures from 2018 on this uh, VBA approval. Um, this application has now been revised for to modify some of these the things that were previously approved and it is for a
028twostory extension on the westerly northwesterly side of the house. Yes. Um, first floor and second floor and then a covered porch over the first floor of the the addition. Um, also some uh decking changes and uh I think they're removing some of the decking in the rear of the house. I believe it is um it does it within NRSP jurisdiction as well as the formentioned variances. Uh the both additions on the west side require a 61.4 4 foot variance where 150 ft is required. This parcel is a larger size parcel and requires 150 foot from the bluff crest. Uh the additions and the covered porch are the 61.4t 4 foot variance in order to be 88 feet from the bluff crest and the 89 ft for walk 89 foot variance for walkways to be 61
029ft going out toward the bluff crest. Um as mentioned in the TAM these variances were are very similar. This whole project was very similar to the one that had been previous approval and uh I've been looking at it the the variances are actually a little bit smaller than requested in by a number of few feet um from the 2018 application. They're also proposing to remove a play area in the northwest side of the this house and um reveate in that area. Uh about 989 square ft of reveation cover that. It was recommended in the TAM that they there was a concrete pad right at the top of the bluff crest itself. And it was recommended in the TAM and the applicant agreed to remove the concrete pad in its entirety and also give us a
03010-ft uh reveated buffer along the line of the the bluff crest. Um all in all, I think this application is uh similar to the previous one but slightly better. Um there was the agent from the for the application was made a statement that the the variances for this bluff that it was unfair. I am not making my decision on anything that that was unfair. It it's what it is. Um the it also has a tradeoff in that and you can see it on this property that the size of this property allows for a lot more other structures that could be put on it you know without encroaching on anything like GFAS or any any other lot coverage issues. So um my decision is being based purely on the the amount of the the variances as
031requested in this and I do think the grants the variances will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Uh could they be achieved by the applicant some somewhere else? Uh possibly on the southerntherly portion of the house but again this is very similar to the location that was approved in 2018. um they are whether they're substantial. It sounds like a lot, but it still is, you know, roughly a little bit more than 35% of the the variance of the setback required. And um it there nothing it does not look like there would be any adverse effect or physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. the the buffer to the bluff crest and the removal of the concrete pad will be an an improvement in the environmental conditions on it as well
032as the reveation that they have offered on this application and I think it does meet the NRSP standards of 2551 that the natural resources nothing will be harmed in natural resources um with the this project um so I am approving the entire project. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Yan. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I'm going to agree with my fellow board member and thank you for reading all the um code into it. You know, the standards. I won't bother to do that. But I will say that my decisions ran very much along the same lines. I think very important was as a guideline that there was the 2018 approval and as was mentioned by member Burgerer. Uh if anything this new work is a slight very slight but a slight improvement on some of the
033conditions that were approved at that time. I think that um when we looked at this project and again this is another one like the one we just had there is a sizable amount of work. Um this is a large a somewhat large addition given the relative size of the house. The house is 235 square feet and we're adding a significant addition to it. I think that um it's placed in a it's placed in a manner that gives it the best possible location to benefit both the applicant and our interest at this time. I think important was the 10-ft buffer at the bluff. Obviously, we have a 10-ft buffer running along. I think also uh it's important to note that they they did agree to remove the concrete slab which we may or may not have
034had a nexus for requiring but was suggested in the TAM and they agreed to it. That's an improvement that I think we can all uh be satisfied that going to happen here. I think that uh it's important to note too in talking about that buffer that this parcel slopes away from the bluff and back towards the road. So it's it's not uh any any heavy downpours, any additional water that might land on the site is going to be making its way to the southerntherly direction and not a northerly direction. There is an effort here to um compensate for some of the clearing that's going to be necessary during that by adding 990 ft along the northwest portion of the the u the property line. Um they there was a question about how much this is
035cleared and what should be allowed and the it was entered into the record that based on the 2004 aerial uh 51,000 ft was cleared and that was going to be be and there was a CFO issued at that time and that should be considered the maximum allowed cleared on the site as it is the current lot is cleared to over 48,000 ft which would be far beyond what would be allowed but given that condition based on the 2004 aerial and what was approved at what was accepted at that time. I think we have to look move forward with that. The three variances uh all of them although you know there's the numbers can be substantial given the location of the existing house and the bluff are not u not unreasonable. I think the fact that
036that bluff also is stable at its base and has had it's it's well vegetated at this point that with grass coming up it and it just seems that the erosion rate of erosion there is uh very minimal compared to other areas we have to deal with in town. Um I don't know if there's anything else I want to add. I agree with the reading of the in the standards. I agreed with what was said about that uh the vegetation the bluff. Yeah, I think it's an application that uh you take a sensitive site with a bluff and location of the waters and you ask if you're the applicant, how are we to add on to it? I think uh and get what they want. I think it was a reasonable approach and I think it
037was a solid solid um application and I'm going to approve it in its entirety at this time. >> Thank you, member Mary. >> Yes, thank you. Um so we have an expansion of an existing residence uh up to the maximum 50% expansion allowed by code and that requires to 40% variances from the required bluffest setback um for the addition and the proposed covered porch porch. These additions are um the addition to the house is set back partially further from the bluff crest but um not it's not all uh landward of the house like we see in some other applications. Um but there are these variances um numerically are somewhat substantial at 40% but there are other constraints related to the topography of the lot the need to position the septic system um in certain in
038a in an area that's you know further away also from the bluff um more um over the applicant's agent asserted that the addition uh you know from an architectural uh uh positioning needs to align with whatever's going on internally with the existing house. So it it I can perceive these variances to be um perhaps the minimum variances necessary when I think about them in relation to the code um in on on to in total uh building coverage is increasing by,400 square ft total coverage is expanding by,00 square ft. Um and the coverages still remain substantially below the maximums. Um and I think of a lot a lot this size. This is not an inappropriate um size uh house from a from a total GFA perspective. Although I didn't note what member Burgerer said, which is
039there is a lot going on on this property and there has been addition, you know, a fair amount of additional development and expansion that's gone on pretty consistently over the years. The weak part, if I found one in this application, you know, does relate to the state of clearing. So, I know that in 2004 it was determined that 51,000 something is the uh 51 Yeah, 51,000 is the pre-existing nonconforming clearing verified by the natural resources department. Um, but that does, you know, compare with per code the 28,000 roughly or 29,912 ft that would be allowable. there's no nexus for us really to require that. But it did take pause a little bit because it is a sensitive site and perhaps it would have been nice if more mitigation was offered but it didn't happen and
040um obviously the creation of the buffer along the bluffest is uh not unimportant. So, but all in really we have a 2018 approval that exists from our prior board for similar development, similar uh variances. One variance is a little larger than that application approved and one is a bit smaller. Um and so all in you know a large part of my decision is also being guided by deference to that prior decision um as that board looked at very similar development and did not find and and found it to be uh compatible with all the standards of the n natural resources and the variance. So I too will be approving the application in full. Thank you. >> Thank you council. Um the the concrete pad and the 10 foot buffer would go in the recommended conditions
041as conditions of approval. >> Yeah. Is that where the play area? >> It would just need to be removed as >> prior to the co probably >> and the reveations in there for the play. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is it possible? I know at times we have wanted like a CNR uh on a pro on a property going forward. Is it possible that we could request a CNR that says no further future development would be done? Seaw word of this house. See uh see word um I >> you've done it in the past some >> I know definitely I've done um I would probably without having raised that at all >> prior >> uh at the hearing it see >> it needs to be raised at the hearing. I know we've done it with others.
042>> No, I just, you know, I I think it's a >> better course of action to have a discussion before you >> implement anything on someone. That's just my opinion. Um, yeah, I mean, if the if the board thinks that that's, you know, something that they want, we can, you know, I think there'd be a nexus there. Uh in terms of the in terms of what though just a seaw word of what the the existing deck or like where what are we talking about >> anything that exists today they're going to be removing part of that decking I think in the back >> I don't know one of the fellow board members >> the chairman hasn't did have we all done our decisions >> oh I'm Sorry. No. Did you jump ahead? >> No, no.
043You >> No, no. Finish. >> Finish this first. Um after this. >> I I No, no, no, no. It's okay. I >> I think I'll go after >> um I mean I would I I don't disagree could be important because but but then again, the house can't be expanded anymore, right? because it's at 50% max. >> Yeah, true. >> I mean, sorry, they're expanding the pre-existing by right by 50%. >> So, um that would mean I mean what would what would go there a deck or something but which would have to come back obviously to the board >> come back anyway. >> Yeah. Um so in this case I I don't know. I mean I wouldn't I don't feel strongly about it. Again I I'm you know the thing that I would love I don't
044have the nexus too which is for revenge but that's not going to happen. So >> I think that anything that happened seawward of the house now would have to come back in front of us for the same under the same scrutiny it has to appear now. And I would only say that uh had this been raised at the hearing, I'd be more comfortable with it because it would give them an opportunity >> to uh compromise with us, talk with us, talk about how we would place it. >> So, I think it's a good suggestion. I'm not sure it's necessary in this location. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Are we good? I agree with my fellow board members. You've covered this application very well. I have very little to add. Um I'm was uh things I
045had concern about was uh and they've agreed to remove the large concrete patio. The 10-ft buffer is going to be um a benefit to the site. The CO of 2024 does show that total clearing at 48,338. As I said that don't really have much to add and I'll be approving this application as well. One thing that I would like to discuss is about the 10-foot buffer. Is that something that you know it's not a scenic eastern? So, it's not like protected area, but it's a vegetative buffer that you want there in perpetuity. So, would that be something that you would want as like a I that's where I don't these buffer things I find. >> Yeah. we get a little I mean I understand the logic wanting a buffer but my concern is this is
046the >> what happens later >> I mean like you mean having it be an ement yeah I >> so could that be a covenant >> I think that could I yeah I I think that would be they agreed to the buffer so I think having a covenant saying that the buffer's got a ton of Yeah I'll take that >> then why wouldn't we just ask it to be a scenic easement >> um and >> well that's a different >> I see >> or conservation usement whatever we call it >> yeah it's there are different I mean a buffer you could you could amend it a little easier like a covenant you could I think that if for whatever reason you needed to change it >> uh in the future because of some change in the
047senior easements are very hard to change or basically impossible >> that's true >> but a buffer there could be some situ situation where it's like, oh, we need to fix this because of whatever, you know, you don't know, right? >> And this is a a potential area that will change because of it's a bluff crest, >> distances change and shapes change and things like that. >> And this is meant to just better stabilize that bluff crest so that a 10 foot buffer. >> Yeah. >> I mean, yeah, I subject to a sub well, there's already a >> um a foot path or whatever. There's They have stairs down. >> Yeah. Yeah, there stairs. So, subject to the stairs and all that. >> But yeah, I think I think having a >> just having it in
048writing. >> Okay. >> Recorded and then everyone knows that that's a 10 foot. >> What is that? >> So, that'll be the covenant for the 10 foot buffer. And >> all right. >> When does that covenant have to be filed? I always forget like sometimes sometimes it's tricky they don't get filed or >> Yeah, it would have to be filed. Okay. Okay. All right. Let me just write down what happened. All right. Thank you. Let's ready to move on. It will now go into other decisions. The first one is Drew Thompson 421 East Lake Drive on talk Suffach County tax map number 300-6-2-18 deviations in asbuilt conditions from 2024 determination. I believe they're trying to get a CEO. Tyler, can you >> Yes. So, this came in for a CO inspection. I went to the
049property, took some photos. Um, and there's, you know, there's some issues on this one. This was a board determination filed in July of 2024. Uh, to demolish the existing residence, construct a new 2300 foot residence, decking, uh, porches, stoops, uh, relocated a shed, a new driveway, and sanitary system within jurisdiction of wetlands. Um, so we did our CO inspection. Um, upon inspecting the the uh the provided survey and doing an on-site inspection, the applicants uh have raised the grade around the residence and beyond uh by several feet. Uh I included some photographs. I can scroll through them. Uh and this this is the asbuilt survey on the bottom uh and the approved survey on the top uh just just for reference. Um they show the retaining walls on the asbuilt survey which were not included
050in the approved plans uh and substantial regrading of the property uh which was never uh proposed as part of the original determination aside from some minor grade change around the approved sanitary system uh to the east of the residence. The asbuild survey labels the residents as having a first floor elevation of 8.9 ft which which would suggest based on field inspections at the surrounding grade as approximately 8 8 and 1/2 ft uh where at the time of the determination the existing grade was closer to 5T uh which is a significant departure from the approved conditions. Additionally, the front porch, uh the back deck and side stoops all required several steps to reach surrounding grade uh in the approved plans. Whereas the asbelt conditions have uh no significant steps down to grade uh from from any
051of the decking. You can sort of see those steps on the uh the the approved um you know significant steps here, steps here from the here and steps here as well which essentially are are almost non-existent uh in the the approved the scroll in on some of that silent greed too. >> I know the green is really hard to read. So you can see the steps here. >> There's several steps. I don't know if you can see that >> way in >> uh off of the stoop on the side. >> Okay. >> Uh off the back. This is the first floor deck here. And then the second store deck had had more extensive steps. Obviously, it still does. Um and then the asbuilt, >> those steps simply don't exist. And I can go to I
052can go to photos of that as well. >> They don't exist because they don't need them. >> Where are the retained? >> So, this is the side stoop. Obviously, it doesn't need steps. Um, >> this is the front entrance. >> No, no significant change changes from from the uh and the retaining the >> what? Okay. >> Uh, up to that retaining wall. >> And this is that retaining wall along the driveway. Um, from two angles, several feet in height. >> Wow. >> It's several feet. >> Several feet. >> Sorry. >> I I you know, >> That's along the driveway. And then on the asbuilt there was retaining walls on the other side too. >> Correct. You you can see it here. >> I didn't get any great photos of >> Oh, >> stop. >> But
053there's a lot of it on that side also. Where's he going? >> I don't know. >> It's I think it's just flipping on them. >> Sorry, my my paper. Oh, I mean, >> you can see retain there was >> there was a retaining wall along the sanitary system because they did need to raise the grade slightly around that that at the time, >> but the retaining wall now extends across the entire uh north and uh west side. >> What the heck? Hm. So, because this is um a request for a CO. >> Uh yeah, sorry. Let me let me uh >> yeah, >> finish up a little bit more. >> Why is this doing this? >> Um also worthy of note, uh the lot coverage was slightly greater, 70 square feet greater. The total lot
054coverage was 170 square feet larger. Um, part of that is there was like a a roof overhang over the side stoop, very minor. There's some pa connectings to from the driveway to the to the porch. Um, this decking on the south side of the residence is about 2 ft deeper. So, it is slightly closer to wetlands than was approved. Um, also slightly closer to the to the property line which is conforming still. Um, so that's where some of those discrepancies come into play. Um uh so this area of Lake Matuk experiences significant inland flooding at times as mentioned by neighboring property owners at the public hearing. So any change in the grade has the potential to exacerbate those flooding concerns uh and needs to be addressed by the board. >> The grade of the subject
055property has high potential to direct runoff uh as well as divert rising high tides and storm tides onto adjoining parcels exa exacerbating flooding concerns for surrounding parcels. Uh in addition to increasing uh flooding uh concerns on neighboring properties, the regrading and retaining walls has a high potential to divert runoff towards wetlands uh decreasing water quality and increasing the impacts that the improvements have on the surrounding natural features. At a minimum, uh, the planning department recommends that the applicant needs to apply for a modification of the original permit to include the regrading and additional retaining walls, uh, which would likely require public hearing for a new variance for the retaining walls within wetland setbacks. Uh, the board may feel that a new application should be submitted for the additional retaining walls and regrading. Uh, alternatively, the
056applicant could remove the retaining walls and return the property back to the grades as shown on the approved survey by removing the additional fill that's been brought in uh and going through the uh rather than going through a modification process. A modification process may be required regardless. Um, the sanitary system is likely higher than it was approved at. So, there may be a small retaining wall required around the sanitary system no matter what, even if they were to return the grade everywhere else. We don't know how much Phil was. >> We don't we don't know. We don't know what the We don't know what the grades are currently. We can assume they're around eight or more. Uh and and so we're thinking around 5T. Um but there's no way to know for certain. >> But
057the I mean there was a lot of discussion I think about the height of the house and the pyramid and the and that. So this even though it's been regraded, it has to these the heights have to be confirmed relative to what was natural grade, right? >> We didn't we discuss that earlier that the height is >> the height of the residence itself >> is in >> it's is it's essentially what was what was shown. I think it's um doesn't show it on there but it was a that hasn't changed. Um >> the the pyramid I don't think is has changed. That was I think that was field done in the field. I think they have to show that to the building department at a certain point. So I imagine the pyramid's not really a
058concern. Um the real concern is the amount of regrading and diverting and diverting water off of the property. The slope from the south side of this house down to the south is not insignificant. >> Yeah. >> Photo you can sort of see it. This would be your wetlands out here. >> Um so it's it's a pretty substantial regrading. Yeah. >> Absolutely. So it's not just to the neighbor's house, it's also to the lake itself, right? >> Yeah. And the wetlands in between Lake Ma and the and the property, there are some some wetlands in between which you do get impacted by tidal waters, but um are also just collecting runoff from the surrounding area. >> So I mean go ahead. >> No, I this is huge. Absolutely. >> This is huge. And you know they
059had two hearings to begin with. >> Mhm. >> And actually what I the thing I like is the suggestion that alternatively they can remove all the extra fill and the regrading and the retaining walls and get it back to what it was prior. >> That's a very good point because >> I don't see a modification. This is this is >> because it's a co >> totally egregious. No, no, no. I that way of thinking though, Terry, is so smart because because they're asking for a CFO, the planning department now will get back to them. So, there's two things in my head spinning around and it's close to what Terry just said to me. Um, they either bring this property back into compliance as to what was approved in our decision or we schedule another public
060hearing and it's subject to additional review, a new TAM. Mhm. >> And >> it comes before us as a new public hearing. >> No. All right. >> Or a new application. I mean, we can discuss that. >> Should revert it back. >> So, we would So, they're important having a hearing based on what this is today. >> Well, we'd have to they have the right to come before us. >> We can't not have a hearing. Correct. Somebody asked for it. >> They have Yeah, exactly. >> You can't just summarily dismiss something. >> Yeah. I think those are the two disagree. >> I think they really they have the option right now. They're they're going to know what we said tonight. They have the option of bringing this property into compliance. So, if I'm them, that's
061what I'm going to do. If I'm not them, then they have to come back before us for a new application, new Yeah. like a new public hearing. They have to we have to have a revised TAM and the board members have to have we have to know the amount of fill. There's so much we don't know. There's no mitigation involved here. >> I mean, we just can't say yes to this. >> I think it's just and they have the option of we're giving them the option of bringing the property into compliance. >> And if they choose not to do that, then they have to go to public hearing. >> Again, I think I think that along the lines of what was said by member uh Burgerer, um they have an option. They have an option
062to bring it to compliance and then qualify for CFO. >> Yeah. >> And it's in their hands. If they choose not to do that, they can take whatever other steps. But right now, far as I see is that they're asking about getting approval for a CFO and it obviously does not come to those standards and back on their ballpark. Now it's >> remove and repair and uh let's get back to the approval of a year and a half ago that it was mentioned by member Burgerer was a two-h hearing seti on this. We discussed it went back and forth. There was there was a lot of discussion on the parcel. So >> came on. >> These are this is a significant amount of work beyond that approval. >> Right. >> But yeah, I mean this
063is this is worse than the environmental conditions that existed at the time. So is everybody uh >> so do we feel that a letter can be done to the applicants either come into compliance or >> they just come into compliance come into compliance they decide they can't come into compiance exactly >> and it's in their their court they can decide what to do about it but they're not going to get a >> I can't speak for the entire department here court but it would be very unlikely that they could ever get the CFO based on what we see in the field right now. >> Exactly. >> That's okay. You okay with that, Tyler? >> So, yeah. So, yes, that some letter will come out from the planning department. >> Yeah. >> Easiest thing to do
064is be in compliance with what was already approved. >> Okay. Moving on to extensions of time. Edelman 24 Maidstone Park Road Spring Suffach County tax map number 300-38-4-4 extension of 2018 determination. >> This is a pretty straightforward one. It's a very small one of the smallest lots in town. Uh they got a variance uh back in 2018 uh for Pyramid and for like front yard setbacks and I think coverage. Um they're looking to finally do construction as far as I'm aware. Um there's no there's no contingencies in environmental no changes in environmental conditions. There wasn't an NRSP or anything like that required. It's just dimensional variances. Um we didn't see anything that prevented them from getting a an extension. >> Board members, everyone okay with this? >> I guess nothing's changed. >> Nothing's changed. Nothing
065environmental has changed. >> I'm okay with it. >> Okay. All right. Right. In the matter of Edelman 24 Maidstone Park Road in Spring, Suffach County tax map number 300-38-4-4. I make a motion that we approve the extension of time. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. >> Next is Trippy 7 Brisbane Road, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-30-3-3, extension of a 2008 determination. This one, >> Tyler, >> this one is a bit more involved. Um, no construction has taken place on this yet. It was originally approved for a 1,300 foot two-story residence. Uh, patio, decking, sanitary system, and clearing. Uh, it does appear that clearing from the adjoining property uh to the northwest uh extends well onto the subject property at this point. Uh, and there are stairs storing some items within that cleared
066area. there was a scenic easement that was required as part of the approval. Um and some of that clearing may extend into that scenic easement. That's sort of secondary to the to the main concern, but it's worth noting. Um additionally, um the approval on this property is more than 17 years old. Uh and the town code has changed since that approval uh was granted on the property. Specifically, the residents today would require modern low nitrogen IIA sanitary system. uh the zoning board at the very least uh should be informing the applicant that uh the sanitary census system will need to be updated to show uh that the project is even feasible in the current configuration. Uh the board may want to consider having the applicants demonstrate that the current construction is feasible uh to the
067issuance of an extension of time. uh if a sanitary system cannot be designed to fit in the approved location, a modification of the permit uh or a new application entirely may be required. Um so the board needs to examine the this extension of time closely determined how they feel uh with the request should be handled uh and what the best course of action is uh since it is you know getting pretty old at this point 17 years old and it is in close proximity to wetlands. The wetlands on the property are down here right up by the right the right of way. What were the >> What was the size of the house? >> Uh, 1300 square feet. >> 1300. So that's >> it was all >> new GFA does. Oh, well two new GFAs
068have passed. >> I don't think it would impact it at all. Yeah. No, it would I mean it's the the calculations is 7 and a half 7% plus 1500. So they they get it just based on the the flat number, let alone the rest of it. But it's all squished up here in the in the corner, sanitary in the back, really squished behind the house. So, you know, they, you know, having them at least show that it's feasible >> uh I think is is is >> reasonable at this point in time giving how given how old it is. >> The house needed or the development needed uh wetland variances, setback variances, did you say? Or >> I believe so. Yeah, I think it needed variances. >> I don't remember the specifics of how much how
069big. There's a scenic easement down here. Uh and then the wetlands obviously we're in close. You raised a really good point on the sanitary because you've got wetland setbacks and some conditions here that concept of needing to demonstrate that the development could still take place and it would be a septic system that would meet standards as well. Right? So >> terms of its size and elevation, it may not be possible. >> Right. >> So I'm not willing to extend this until um the applicants address the issues raised by the planning department. Yeah, >> I think they should come back to us. >> Now, the scenic easement, you said there's a scenic ement that was requested but not processed yet. >> It's required, but I don't think they've filed it yet. They haven't gone through the
070building permit process. So, I I don't >> Yeah. And where would that be? Yeah. >> Yeah. It's in like generally in this, you know, in this area. >> And you said it was being cleared more and stuff was being >> over the over the years. It's been more and more encroachment from the neighboring property from what I can. >> Are they in joint ownership or something? It's just a neighbor like it, but I don't know for sure. >> Looks from here like there's some structure on this parcel. >> Yeah, they're they're storing something on the property. Obviously, with the snow, I can't tell you what it is, but >> So, are we all in agreement that a letter should be forwarded? >> Yes. >> To the applicant. Okay. >> Demonstrating they can do it. >>
071Absolutely. Addressing the issue, all the issues outlined in Tyler's letter >> memo. Yes. All right. >> We will move. We don't need a motion on that. >> No, no, no. >> It'll be a letter sent by the um planning department. >> Langan 1843 Monttok Highway, Amigan. Did I skip? >> Migans. It's Suffach County Tax Map number 300-131-1-1. Extension of a 2021 determination. >> Uh this one's very straightforward. They're looking for their CO. They were in front of the board a little while ago for the rear decking rear deck or something. >> Yeah. So they're ready for their CO. They just need to get an extension of time. >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, for the I'm good with that. >> Yeah, I'm good with that. >> Yeah, I am too. >> Okay, I'll make a motion.
072Yes. >> Um, in the matter of Lang 1843 Monttok Highway, Amagansit Suffic County Tax Map 300-131-1-1. I make a motion to grant the extension of uh time for the 2021 determination to facilitate the CO process. >> Concur. >> Incur. >> Next. 35 Springwood Way LLC. 35 Springwood Way, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-74-7-29.2. Extension of a 2014 determination. So, this determination is getting rather old, but the the project is done and they're ready for their CEO. So, we didn't have any concerns with it. Look, they they look it looks good. The easement's been filed. Everything appears to be appropriately constructed. >> Okay. So, we're good to go on that one. >> None of the considerations from the other one apply to this. In other words, that they got their building permit in proper
073time and so we don't have to worry about updating any of the standard. >> Yeah, they they've been doing construction as of late. The one to the north was done in conjunction. That one was done a couple years ago. Uh this was just finally con finished construction. I think they're ready for their CEO. >> Okay. >> Everyone good with that? Yes. Okay. So, in the matter of 35 Springwood Way LLC, 35 Springwood Way Stampton County Tax Map number 300-74-7-29.2. I make a motion that we approve the extension of time. Second. >> Incur. Next is Michael Oonnell LLC 97 South Essex Street in Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-49-1-13.2 extension of a 2022 determination. >> Uh yes, so this is a relatively recent approval. I think it's their first extension of time. Uh I there's
074a typo. It says the environmental conditions have changed. That should say the environmental conditions have not changed. Um we didn't have any concerns with the issuance of an extension of time. This is a commercial property. Uh they got a permit to do a two-story uh 2,000 foot building with first floor retail and decking, a second floor apartment um and an unfinished basement. Um yeah, it's it's it's a fairly straightforward application in downtown MK. We didn't have any concerns. >> 97 South Essex. What's across street? >> The the new veterary place. That's the corner lot right next to the plant shop. >> Oh, at that Essex. Okay. Okay. I was on edge. Okay. Michael was on edge. >> We have a motion. >> Okay. >> Yeah. All right. I'll make a motion for Michael O'Connell, 97
075South Essex Street, Montalk 300-49-1-13.2 to approve the extension at time. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. Okay. Next is Edge Capital Management LLC 2128 Montalk Highway, Amagansit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300- 110-2-21 extension of a 2008 determination. Again, this is another old one, 2008. Um, but they have been doing construction on the property and the constru construction appears to be done. Uh, and they're looking for their CO. Uh, so we didn't have didn't >> didn't see anything that would prevent them from getting extension and then applying for their CEO. >> When I'm looking at this lot, it goes extends from the highway to the beachfront. >> Correct. >> So, it's this long, very narrow lot. >> Very long. I wouldn't call it narrow, but it looks narrow. Yeah, >> looks narrow because it's
076so long, >> right? Yeah. >> And the work is all complete, >> apparently. Yes. >> Okay. Is everybody okay? Do we want ready for a motion? I mean, if the work is basically done, I mean, it's done. >> I'm fine. >> It's done. It's ready for a co. >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, in the matter of Edge Capital Management LLC 2128, Montuck Highway, Amaganset, Suffach County Tax Map 300-1, sorry, 300-10-2-21. I make a motion to approve the extension of time of the 2008 determination. Second. >> Concur. >> Next is the minutes approval draft minutes of Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. Member Burgerer, do you want to make a motion? >> Looks good to me. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the East Hampton
077Town Zoning Board of Appeals for Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Resolutions. Men Bendigo Beach LLC to Bendigo Beach Road, Amiganit Suff County Tax Map number 300-152-1-11.1. Um, so you want me to Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just very quickly, this was um this is a modification uh uh resolution. Uh we just discussed it I believe last week. the uh applicant came back to ask to raise the house by I think about 7 in or 9 in or something like that. Um and we were fine with that. So in the matter of Bendigo Beach LLC to Bendigo Beach Road, Amigans at Suffet County Tax Map 300-152-1-11.1, I make a motion to uh approve the modification resolution. Second. >> Concur. I don't know who I got second there. Go ahead. >> Next is Hookasai LLC
07824 Sammies Beach Road, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-56-2-35.3. This also was a resolution amending determination and the proposed modification was to modify the determination to reflect a change in the approved plan specifically to allow the reconfigured driveway and walkways to remain as constructed. So I'd like to make a motion to approve the Huckasai LLC 24 Sammy Beach Road, East Hampton, New York resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Here you go. >> Give it to everyone. >> You're all in favor. >> We're all in favor. Yes. >> Dennis and Deborah Gates, 887 Springs Fireplace Road, Springs, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-63-2-9.2. This was in my district. This was um I think it was it was unanimous to approve um to legalize 144 square ft shed located uh 0.8 in from a
079side lot line and 1.4 ft from the rear lot line. Uh this was approved uh unanimously. I'd like to make a motion for Dennis and Deborah Gates, 887 Springs Fireplace Road in Springs. Like to make a motion to approve the determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Got it right that time. >> Um, Vice Chair Johan, would you like to adjourn the meeting? I'd like to make a motion to close the town of East Hampton's uh zoning board of appeals work session for February 10th, 2026 at 7:38 p.m. >> Second. It's encourage.