001All right, ZBA, 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 of February 3rd, 2026. We will have three scheduled public hearings tonight. The first one is Brian Crawford, 40 Agnu Avenue, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-31-2-33. Description is to legal legalize an existing shed, deck, and shower and replace an existing deck on a parcel within the jurisdiction of a freshwater wetland. relief sword 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 79.2 ft to allow the deck to remain 20.8 ft from the wetland where 100 is required. a variance of
00251.3 feet to allow the shower to remain 48.7 feet from the wetland where 100 is required and a variance of 72 feet to allow the shed to remain 28 ft from a wetland where 100 ft is required. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 11 secret class is a type two council. Is the affidavit of notice in order? Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Vice Chair Johan, do you have a field? >> Yes, thank you. Um, you'll see a picture of the uh poster here. Should we raise this issue now? >> Sure. I think we should. >> So, do we this uh this this notice here is for that just notifies that
003an NRSP is required on this property. This is not the official notice that should have been posted that would tell the time of the meeting and then it's an open hearing. I understand that that problem developed on our end and not on the end with the applicant. So there was some discussion today about moving forward with the hearing but leaving it open to allow for the proper signage to go up and be allowed for one week. So that'll be described a little more thoroughly, but we're going to move forward with the hearing. However, this is just a notice that the NRSP is required on the site. Next, I'm looking I'm going to look both ways on Agno here. I'm looking east just for the neighborhood. Looking west. Next. Next. Going to look west. Looking there.
004Next. This the house immediately across the way. Again, people know we we've done a lot down in uh in Dish, but this is the character of the neighborhood. Next. This is the house itself. Uh, we're going to approach it now. I'm going to walk up. The deck we're looking at is the deck in question to be rebuilt. You'll get another shot of it next. I'm looking now across I'm looking to the east. There's a house there. The dis the lot area between that house and where I'm standing is where the wetlands in that low spot is located. It's been described in the TAM. We'll go over that again about the condition of those wetlands. But that's the wetlands that we are measuring our setbacks from. Next, this is a picture of the deck that's still
005going to be rebuilt in kind and in place that's being asked for. Next, what about this is the shed that's behind the house. Uh, of course, this snow here is not going to you're not going to see some of what's on the ground that we were discussing, but this is the shed which is now sitting in the uh in the northeast corner of the lot. Next, here's a picture of the uh the outdoor shower. Uh again the Tam has mentioned that there was a shower in an earlier CFO. This one's a slightly different size. That's why it's in front of us. Is that all I have that? Yeah, it was a it's a snow covered lot at this point. But those are the three or four conditions. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Is there anyone
006here to speak on behalf of the application? Could you come forward and state your name for the record? And I'll have to swear you in. >> Hello. Could you state your name for the record? >> Brian Crawford. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Go ahead. >> Truth about what? >> Truth about your what you're going to say to us. >> I'm trying to get a >> We're just swearing you in to make sure >> you're just sworn in. >> You're just being sworn in for what you say is to us. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I thought so. Typical of our >> Well, I'm trying to build a deck. my my upper deck is rotting and uh I need to rebuild it. And then
007I realized obviously I put we've been in the house for 32 years and I built the shed the shower a little bigger and a deck down below. So I'm trying to legalize that or we can uh go on building the deck. So there a couple of suggestions in the TAM. Uh one was that there is there's the possibility to move the shed. The question was how is the shed built? What's it built on? Is it on a foundation? Is it on pilings? Is it on block? Do you know? Did you build >> um six by six >> CCA? >> Yeah. >> As a frame, but it's post not. The question is is there a concrete foundation under this at this time? Okay. And another question was whether or not that shower is uh does the
008shower have a a drywall associated with it. The TAM suggested it doesn't. Does it have a drywall to shower? >> Well, I think about 30 years ago it did, but probably now it's probably all filled up. >> Okay. Um, >> so we always ask we when we have a shower within jurisdiction of wetlands, we ask for having a a dry well put in to take absorb that water so that soapy water is not running down and have the potential to. So, one of the things we're going to be looking for and anytime we consider an application like this is and a shower stall, does it have a drywall? And uh then what are the options for us for you to move that shed to make it more within jurisdiction? Now, there's a couple of comments
009in the TAM. Have you read the TAM? Are you familiar with what's in the uh techn technical analysis memo? This piece of paper? >> Uh, no. >> Okay. Well, that in there there's a couple of suggestions made and we'll talk to the we'll talk to the planning department a little bit later, but there's a couple of suggestions about what you might do to mitigate what your problem is. Now, we see that we go back far enough here. There was a COO in 93 or 92. Yeah. And um at that point uh that shower stall existed although in a different configuration and the deck that you want to rebuild was on that earlier. >> Correct. >> Okay. So those two we have some legal justification for their existence. But the others were done without the benefit
010of a a building permit. So when you came in front of us like this, one of the things we're asking is what can we do to help mitigate the fact that you're asking for two variances? Now there's some variances on a couple of items that were constructed without the benefit of a building permit. Do you understand that? That's >> I do. But could I ask you 32 years ago was a different building there than it is today? >> In 1984 we established the town of East Stamp and established the environmental standards and they're the ones. So we have something predates 1984. We can have a different discussion, but the rules that that were uh in place to protect wetlands were fully enforced by your at the time your purchase of the house. So, yes. >>
011So, 1993, you needed to be 100 ft away. >> Yeah. Or you'd have to come in here for a variance for that. Now, we understand exactly what goes on in small lots in a lot of places in this town, especially in ditch places. Namagancet, it's virtually impossible to be 100 feet away, but we always look for the best option. The best option is what's always looked for here when we have these discussions. And in an area like this, small lots jammed together. We know what the problems are. But nonetheless, you would have been told at that time that you have to do the best you can to be 100t away. And if you can't be 100t away, what is the best possible location for these things? >> So that's where we're at. And let some
012other board members have a comment here. I just don't want to dominate. I just wanted to make sure you understood exactly where we're at and what we're doing, why you're here, and what we're looking for. Okay. >> What are you looking for? Tell me. >> Do any other It might be helpful if um you listen to the planning department and they'll be making suggestions as to what you're amable to. So, you haven't read the technical analysis memo yet? >> I don't think we have. Do you have do you have it there so you could read it while we hear from the planning department? >> He doesn't have any idea. You you don't have guys gave me an analysis to tell me what I should be >> well what we're going to do sir is um
013we're does the board have well obviously let's wait to hear from the planning department and listen to what our planner has to say and then we'll come we'll address more of your questions but now I think we should just hear from the planning >> document this document is produced ahead of time to give you an idea what the analysis was by the planning department you can take a look the planner now come up and speak >> I think the planner should speak now Okay, >> you can take a seat while the planner addresses us from the deisest one. >> No, that's just the agenda. >> I don't sent to the there was an agent on the file. Jay Kushner with the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but
014the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you, J. >> So, this parcel is a cleared and improved with two-story residence with decking, a shed, a shower, a walkway, driveway, and a sanitary system. The residence and second story deck were constructed pursuant to a 1973 building permit. The most recent certificate of occupancy was issued in 1993. It appears that the first floor deck and shed were constructed the following year in 1994 without the benefit of a building permit. An outdoor shower is depicted on the CFO, but it's in a different location and a different size. The parcel itself is part of a subdivision known and created in 1957 Oceanside at Montalk. It's in an area referred to as Ditch Plains. Ditch Plains is known for heavy residential development. Um, many of these subdivisions were created before
015the town's modern zoning and natural resources protections. So, many of the lots are non-conforming to today's code. There are several small wetlands scattered throughout the subdivision. The jurisdictional wetland here is on the parcel located directly to the east, the town parcel. Um, the wetland actually turns east away from the the parcel that the shed is on near the uh northern half of that parcel. The wetland is very disturbed. It has a small assemblage of of native species in the northern half but it's primarily dominated by invasive species my minute and Japanese knotweed. Uh it is a highly disturbed wetland. So again the structures um have been on the property since 1994. According to the building history uh a letter was sent in 1994 indicating the need for a permit. A lot inspection was submitted the
016following year um which confirmed the presence of a wetland highlighted the need for a natural resources special permit um but it does not appear that one was applied for at this time. So the second story deck reconstruction is um a reconstruction so it's exempt from wetland setbacks. The first floor decking really serves as a walkway um to the residence. It connects the driveway area with entrances on the front and um western side of the residence and the staircase leading to the second story deck. Um the shower again was originally on the CFO in a different location um slightly u different configuration if it's to remain a dry well um would be proper form of mitigation. And for the shed there are no conforming locations based on where the wetland is. there are more conforming locations
017um in the northwestern corner of the lot. So again, depending on that foundation uh see how feasible moving the shed is, it would increase setbacks to the wetland. Um but it has been in its place for for now 30 years or so. Um moving it would increase the setback to the wetland, but see how feasible that move really is. >> It doesn't appear it's on a foundation according to what >> Okay. Does the board have any questions for the planner? >> Yes. Oh, >> go ahead. >> Okay. So, um Jake, I'm looking at the existing conditions memo that you uh put together and it has the 1993 CFO and it has I believe the survey that's dated 1993 that was I guess relevant to that CO. So, I don't know if you want to put
018it up, but on that I'm looking at there's a shower, right? And then there's the wood deck in the front of the house that seems to still exist. It just says wood deck now. I don't know if it was a second story deck with no wood deck below it. >> That second story deck is the the original. >> That was the original. Okay. But it didn't show it didn't show the deck on the side the west side of the house on that. So that is that but that's not in contention at all. So that's part of the first that's part of the first floor decking here. That's >> Oh, you're saying I'm sorry. It's the first floor. Oh, I >> So the first floor decking wraps around on the side to the front of the
019house. >> Right. Right. Okay. Um so it's that whole structure that is >> and then the second story deck is above and that was um on the building permit. >> So obviously we're just looking at the variance that's close that Right. Okay. So, it sounds to me, so we can summarize for the applicant, that you're recommending that the shower have a dry well. >> Drywell would be good uh mitigation to prevent runoff from leaving the property, >> right? And that the shed could be relocated to the um northwestern corner of the lot. >> Yeah. If it's, you know, sturdy enough to it's >> potential. Have you any other suggestions for possible mitigation on this property? >> Um, no, we don't. The again the wetland is is pretty disturbed. Um some of these structures have been
020here a while. I don't think um that there's been increased environmental impacts um in that time that they've been there. >> Thank you, Jake. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? [snorts] >> Matt, are there any callers? >> Please stand by. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Making sure everything is line and clear and we're all set. And you have zero callers. Thank you. >> Mr. Crawford. So, as you've heard, the planning department is requesting that the shower have a dry well and that the shed, which doesn't, you said does not have a foundation. Correct. >> Correct. >> Would you be amanable to moving it to the northwestern corner of the lot, which is what the planning department is recommending? >>
021Uh, how far northwestern >> meeting it over >> to there. Yeah. Let him see >> into that garden. >> So, I'd have to cut trees down. Put trees there. I'd have to cut trees down. >> You want that? >> No, we don't want you to cut trees down. [laughter] >> Huh? >> We don't want you to cut trees down. >> Okay. You plan to recommend the other spot? >> Um, yeah. I'm think just pushed over as far, you know, removed from the wetland as possible. Um, if there's, you know, trees, we're not gonna recommend cutting the trees to move the shed. >> Okay. But Jake, >> I have a tree here and I have a tree here. >> Okay. >> Um, I could probably move it over, I don't know, five feet, four feet, >>
022but if I move it all the way here, two trees are coming down. >> Okay. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Okay. And there are also setbacks. So, you know, if if we're going to have you move that shed, it also has to be a certain distance from the property line. So, I don't know if you're aware of that. That would have to be done, too. Um, >> you guys tell me. I mean, I >> I I have one question for you, though. As far as the decking, you're replacing it in kind. You're not There's no intention to increase the size of that deck. Is that correct? >> Well, there was wanted to the the top deck. I wanted to make it three feet longer. Do you guys have that? >> What? >> No, I don't
023have that in the application. >> Well, I >> toward toward that wetland. >> No, the >> thing the whole side >> the front deck is here. I I gave you I I did a diagram for you guys and it was a three. >> So, this deck here, the second deck, I just wanted to come out three feet. >> No, >> sorry. The second story deck. Toward the street is toward the street. Correct. Yeah, toward the street. >> I'm assuming that wouldn't affect the wetlands because I already have a deck there. But I guess you guys are going to tell me whether I'm right or wrong. >> Then then I'm going to ask Jake again. Would that meet set back from the front yard wet line? >> Um I'd have to I'd have to double check
024on that. I'd have to measure that. >> Hasn't been We don't have >> Have you submitted this into our record? >> I did. I did I wrote um yeah I gave you a survey updated survey and I drew on three feet on the second deck. >> I have the most recent survey doesn't have that on it. No, >> I think uh [sighs] >> computer. >> So I mean when I look at the survey the deck already extends further to the front than the first story deck under its correctly right. I have to see if we have that in the record. >> Do you know? Can you tell me when you submitted it? Was it recent? >> Yeah. With the final survey. >> I think we even got a stamp or something. >> What's the date
025of your final survey? But this indicates here this thick line of the is that what you mean indicates >> what what's the date of the final survey that you are looking at because we have >> April 25th 2025 received the >> September 12th >> is this what we're looking at is this what he's talking about >> that received >> Jake >> the front part uh is this what we're talking about where he's extended it >> line there it's not really specific That's just indicating the line of the second story deck and the first story deck. I don't believe that's showing a increase there. >> I I don't know if we have the first story deck um below >> comes doesn't come out from the house far enough. So that line is just showing you where
026the first story deck is below that second story deck. >> So I drew something. You guys asked me what you wanted to do. And so I drew a line from here to here up and I just put three feet and I gave it to someone >> and um >> what you gave it to the building department. >> Yeah, we got a stamp somewhere. >> Yeah, stamp. >> That would be good if you had that. >> Can submit it in >> We would need this for We don't have it in our record. >> We have to leave it open for submission. >> Leave it open anyway. So I suggest that this is also if this would require a different variance. >> Mhm. >> Um if we're already leaving it open for this then we can just
027do a continuation and and and we got to repost it and just redo it. >> I think he and that applicant didn't even see the TAM apparently. I don't I don't know how but >> yeah we we would really have to leave it open to Jay >> you can be in conference about this so we can get this straightened out >> of course >> he'll understand exactly what we're looking for and you'll tell us whether or not we have a document that shows this three-foot extension we don't >> we have it somewhere >> yeah I'm saying we don't us up here on the datar >> survey that's of September 12th and it shows us exactly what that shows us. >> I know. I know. Poor guy. >> Okay. >> We're going to be leaving this
028Well, I'm not going to let the chair will tell. >> No, no, we are going to be leaving this record open >> and >> for the submission of the um extension to that deck because we do not have it in our records. >> Let me ask you this question. Would >> that may require another variant? >> Extend the deck. >> Yes. [laughter] >> Yes. >> All right. >> Throw it away. >> Okay. I'm not extending the day. >> Okay. So, you're just doing what's before us tonight. >> Okay. When I say >> leave it open for the proper posting and that'll have >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Does that help? >> Yes. >> Helps you a lot. >> Okay. [laughter] Um but we're going to keep it open for the posting. >> Right.
029Are we done? Do we have anyone else? That's it. >> There's no one else. >> That's it. Thank you, Mr. >> So, what do I do now? Well, go ahead. >> We're going to close the public hearing and record. >> You're going to have to um >> We're leaving it open. >> I'm sorry. We're going to close the public hearing, but it'll leave the record open. >> Uh you're going to have to repost your property. Did we bring the sign? >> Yeah, I think I got one. >> Did you get the sign? >> So, repost it and um put the date of >> Sorry. put the date of our hearing and what you you're requesting of this board and leave it up for 10 days and then uh we'll see if we get any neighbor
030uh participation from it. But you will have to repost the property properly and then we'll close the record. >> What date? >> Today would be the date of the hearing and you would have to mark natural resource special permit and variance. There'll be a check mark. you'll see it on the form and uh just post it for 10 days, get it up tomorrow and then the record will be officially closed and we can make a dec then then the board has 62 days to make a decision but more than likely it'll it'll be made sooner than that >> made sooner than that. >> That's just contact me. >> We will contact you. A determination will get rendered and we will uh file it with the town clerk and mail it to you when a decision
031is made. And what do you think the decision is going to be? Pretty good. [laughter] >> We can't say. >> You can't blame a guy for trying. >> But I will say eliminating the extension to the deck was a very good idea. >> Mr. Crawford, as far there's a care of someone on this is so if we notify you at do we notify you at PO Box 2487 or >> say that? Well, your agent is listed on here, but Bob Black, Robert Black. >> Yeah, he's my contract. Bob Black. >> Okay. So, the mail could go to him and he will let you know. >> Uh, they haven't told us that the address is >> Did you switch it to to our house? >> So, what is your >> 40 Avenue, Mont? >> Yeah. >>
032Oh, 40. So, that Okay. >> Oh, that's a mailing address. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Bob's in Florida. I don't know when he's coming about. >> Okay. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. >> We're done. >> Yes. The chair is Make a motion. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you both. >> And [clears throat] then in the application of Brian Crawford, 40 Agnu Avenue Monttok sub county tax map 300-31-2-33. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing but leave the public record open. >> One week >> 10 days from today with today's the 3rd till the 13th of February. >> Second. >> Concur. Okay, moving right along. That was fun. Okay, the next public hearing is Glenn Leech, 450 Oldstone Highway in Spring, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-103-2-8.10. 10. Description is
033to demolish an existing square ft garage and to construct a new 720 ft cottage which has now changed to We might want to mark our hearings now has changed to 680 ft with a 200 ft porch which has now changed to 180 ft. a 375 ft porch attached to the main residence. A 200 ft swimming pool with 300 ft patio which has now changed to 500 ft. Pool fencing pool equipment. Relocate two existing sheds to install an upgraded sanitary system. Clear 4,190 square ft of vegetation and allow an existing stone wall to remain on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. The relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to of the East Hampton Town Code and three variances are required for this application. Variances of 50 ft, 11 ft and 5t are
034required from 255430 of the town code to allow the exist existing stone wall to remain 50 ft. Construct the proposed pool fencing 89 ft and covered porch 95 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is A2 residents zone X flood zone secret classes type two. I also want to make a note for the board that we do have a new survey from Tri-State dated January 21st, 2026, which we did get with the changes. Council, do we have an affidavit of service and posting that's in order? [snorts] >> Yes, we do. Your eyes are all set uh for this. >> Thank you. This is my area. I did the field inspection or tried to with the snow. Um that is uh uh noting that the
035property was properly posted. Thank you. Next, please. This is um the two-story residence that exists on the property. It's I think it's about 1500 square ft. Next, please. This is the rear of the residence. Um next, please. This is the cottage garage that they want to construct to a new cottage. Um, and uh, from that area to the rear of the residence is where they're also going to be putting a swimming pool. Next, please. Uh, this is just another angle of Oh, I'm sorry. That that is a stone wall. It took me forever to find this cuz with the snow, I actually couldn't find it. But it to me it doesn't even constitute a wall. It was so hard to find. But it is covered in snow. But that is the that is the wall
036we are talking about. Next, please. This is just uh just a kind of near where this swimming pool will be. It's just giving you an idea of the property and what it looks like. It actually is very pretty property. Next, please. I think that might be it. Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> The applicant. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Chairman Zavis. Members of the board, I'm Britain Vistrian here representing Ben Lech and Lind Stephanali, his wife who's not here with us this evening as owners of 450 Old Stone Highway in Springs. He waited a very long time to present this application. So I know Ben is excited to be
037here in attendance this evening. He's an architect by trade. So he does a lot of standing at the podium himself. So I said this is a this is the East Hampton way do we do it. um parcels on the west side of Old Stone Highway across the street from the intersection of Quality Row. When we initially started discussing this project, the owners had two lots. Um if you can look at the survey, it was basically divided in half, bisected. It was 450 and 448 Oldstone Highway, which were each about three a 3/4 acre lot. as part of the upgrading of the septic system. This is like a long convoluted story and I'm sure you've seen it before where the town of East Hampton in the 1990s through early 2000s approved subdivisions and didn't send those
038subdivisions to the county for approval. So, this triggered having to retroactively get this subdivision approved and um got a very embroile. It was the four lots around them including the Liber Museum and it was a long process that we went through and in the end they um decided that it would just be easier. They electively chose to merge the two lots um 448 and 450 and exchanged their ability to make to build the residents on 448. I only note this because when we started this project, it was two lots and I do think that although it's not part of this application, it should be relevant history that shows the character and preservation intent of my clients and mitigation for the present project because that that's where this project started. Um, as noted in the TAM,
039the project was improved, the property was improved uh with a residence prior to the adoption of zoning probably around the turn of the century uh with a quite modest two-story residence and a cottage in the rear. The residence is about 1,200 square feet. It's actually 300 square feet smaller um than the TAM noted. Um and the C cottage is actually under the the current allowable dwelling unit size just slightly. It's it's 584 ft where 600 is the code minimum. Everything on the property is covered under the CO which less the stack stone wall which I believe was in place. Um the stack stone wall was actually there's a building permit in 2011 that was issued for repairs to the foundation. The foundation was stone when they poured the concrete foundation to repair that area. They
040took those stones and stack them where you see them. So they were native materials to this house and the co was issued after that in 2012. I surmised the stone wall probably just wasn't located by the surveyor because the stack wall with no mortar and no foundation there was a time where that didn't meet that didn't hit a survey. But if we need to get a variance for it to remain, it's part of the history of the property, um, we'd like to keep it. Um, [clears throat] the project in front of you is an application to propose items to modernize the property and create outdoor living spaces. This includes a porch on the main house with no proposed GFA additions, and accessory structures to include a swimming pool, patio, covered porch, all of which do
041not exist. The 584T cottage is to be completely removed due to its current state and be replaced with a 680 foot cottage which is less than we previously had approved uh had started proposed at 720. There was a you know as all applications there was a gestation period between the public hearing and now and as an architect the design was sort of evolving. So um it evolved in a direction that I believe is a is a positive and we're proposing to relocate two existing sheds. The proposed clearing, total coverage, and building coverage are all significantly below what would be allowed on this parcel. Further, the allowable GFA is 6,239 square feet, and that's under the the current code, even though this would have been grandfathered into the old code where we're proposing 1880 square ft.
042It's almost less than 25% of what would be allowable on this property. And it's only 96 square feet larger than the existing GFA. And that's basically to make the cottage a little bit bigger to meet code. And this type of I believe that this is the type of application we should be seeing on lots within NRSP jurisdiction. The house has never been added on to in [clears throat] over a hundred years. Never been in front of the zoning board. Um these are longtime owners. The project includes reveation, drainage control, an upgraded IIA septic system where two antiquated, if we want to call them septic systems, they're just basically brick cesspools. Um, two of them, one for the cottage and one for the house. It's lacking any primary treatment. It's not what we want to see
043um this close to to wetlands. There are two variances requested and both are relative to the existing location of the main residence um which is 95 ft off the wetlands. One is to to add the porch on the back which only makes sense to span the the distance of the facade. To cut it back 5t would just be a very awkward detail and the other one is to um provide a pool safety fence which is required by code. Neither of these additions impact the neighborhood. I don't even think you'll be a be able to see them from the street um because they're obstructed by the house itself. Although the variance is self-created, we feel that it meets the standards and it's the minimum required to meet the needs of the applicant. It also does not
044encroach any closer to the wetlands on the parcel than elements of the existing house like the north entrance stoop. All the other new accessory structures are compliant to uh wetlands and dimensional setbacks including height and pyramid. Um, all in all, I think this is a pretty tastefully designed and sensitive project, modest in size, significant mitigation, mitigation, and to upgrade the septic system that's at least 50, 70 years old. I hope it's not 100. Um, and to control [clears throat] the runoff on the site. I don't believe that any letters were submitted to the file in opposition and we accept all the mitigation um suggested in the TAM including the scenic easement uh to protect the wetland and also a buffer around it as long as exactly as outlined in the TAM. I don't have anything
045further to add if the board has questions for myself. I'm sure Glenn would like to see the front of the podium too if you want to bring him [laughter] up. >> Does the board have any questions? >> I have a question. I just want to clarify the septics. Today there are two septics. >> Yes. >> One for the cottage, one for the house. the distance between them. It's just it's septic is a creative word. It's just a cesspool. >> Cess poolool. And those are both going to be abandoned. That's going to be abandoned. And one system type you fill. You don't [clears throat] >> Well, whatever do to them. >> Okay. And the new system will handle the cottage and the house. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And that's shown um in the location of
046the map. >> Yeah. >> Out here the furthest. So, we put the the system here with a big pump system to get it up here to try and be as far away from here as possible. Still meeting the property. So, [clears throat] >> of um in that design in that location >> and the pool is 100 ft from wetlands, >> correct? >> But it's more than it. >> So, I was wondering how far from the pool is the the pool fence? I see it's 89 ft. It requires an 11 foot variance, right? >> Yes. >> It's hard for you to see on this. So the pool fence, this is the main house here. This is the pool fence right here. >> So that's the portion of it. >> So it's 10 ft from the edge
047of coping plus or minus. >> Okay. So it's it's basically up at >> so that you can walk around without >> No, I understand >> on top of it. >> Um [clears throat] Britain, good evening. Could you confirm the survey is a little bit busy on the on the west side. Um, could you confirm the setback of the the I think the pool the because we had this thing when the the patio is connected to the pool and then that patio is connected to the covered patio. Just want to make sure all the setbacks are meeting they have to be double right like the pool is. Is that right? >> I'm I'm sorry I got lost in the question. The double setback is the is the property line setback. So that would be um >>
048yeah it would be >> I mean I see the three red lines right that's the five 10 and 15 or the 10 15 20 but >> that's the 20 there. >> Yeah. >> So the answer is yes. The pool patio and the pool meet the sideyard dimensional setback. >> Okay. Got it. Thank you. Are we ready to hear from the planning department? >> I'm ready. >> Please. [clears throat] >> Good evening. Tyler Borsac for the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um, so the project is located on the west side of Old Stone Highway in Springs. Uh this project before the board is to demolish an existing cottage and garage uh and to construct a new 680 foot cottage with covered patio,
049[clears throat] swimming pool, fencing, pool equipment, uh covered patio attached to the main residence, relocate two existing sheds, upgrade the existing sanitary system, and to clear approximately 4200 feet of vegetation. Uh wetlands that are within jurisdiction of this parcel are recognized as a significant coastal coastal fish and wildlife area as part of the LWIP. Um the parcels within jurisdiction of several interconnected wetlands uh with the most impacted wetland located on the northeast corner. These wetlands within jurisdiction constitute an inter in integral part of the natural environment and more specific uh the hydraulic system. The application before the zoning board proposes some uh minor changes to the existing improvements on the parcel. Uh the most significant of which is the demolition and construction of a new second story residential cottage. The construction uh of this cottage
050and relocation of the two sheds is coupled with some regrading of the property within jurisdiction of wetlands. Any regrading within jurisdiction of wet wetlands requires careful review to ensure that significant changes in runoff are not creating adverse effects. Um for this application, uh the grading appears to be fairly minor changes around the proposed cottage and swimming pool. Uh raising the grade a maximum of about two feet near the proposed shed location. uh and it's well outside of the 100 foot wetland setbacks. Uh swimming pool and patio is proposed to be constructed between the existing residence and the proposed cottage. This is a sizable new addition to the property but meets the required 100 foot setbacks. The pool is shown to require some minor regrading but is fairly small 200 ft and does and does meet
051the required setbacks from both property lines and wetlands. The fencing for swimming pool requires a variance of 11 ft to be located 89 ft at its closest point to wetlands. Uh, and that's all within an existing cleared area. There's no clearing required for that. Covered patio is proposed against the existing main residence in a location that's very similar to an existing patio. This appears to be a minor change with the inclusion of a roof uh overhang and should have minimal impacts compared to the existing structure that it's replacing once construction is complete. The new covered patio is proposed to have a setback of 95 ft from wetlands to the east. Uh, but the area within the 100 foot setback is very small. It's less than 30 square feet. An upgraded [snorts] sanitary system is included
052with the application which is proposed in a conforming location to the west of the proposed cottage. Uh this sanitary system should be a significant improvement over the existing single leeching pole located 71 ft from Wellins uh just north of the main residence. Uh the stone wall in need of relief appears to have been constructed sometime shortly after the most recent CO was issued. Uh maybe it may have been there at that time, but it doesn't show up on the survey. Um the small stone wall first appears in the 2013 aerial images and is located 48 ft from wetlands. Uh it is difficult to quantify the impacts that the wall might have on wetlands given its limited size, its location uh in a previously cleared area of the parcel. Um the wall has been in existence
053for the past 13 years or more uh and does not appear to have any significant impacts on runoff towards or away from wetlands on the parcel. with the proposed sanitary system and reveation. Uh the question of additional mitigation was brought up in the assessment. We had recommended a scenic easement around the the wetlands um up to a 50-ft buffer in order to protect the the wet the wetlands and the vegetated buffer in perpetuity. Uh covering the the the wetlands and a 50-ft buffer would ensure that the town code minimum clearing uh to wetlands is always protected in perpetuity. Um and and and and is a reasonable uh mitigation for the construction that's happening on the parcel. Other than that, I can answer any questions that you might have regarding the application. >> Board have any
054questions? >> The applicant just agreed to that that easement, right? >> And the buffer. >> And then in terms of the buffer, the buffer is is it the estab it's it's a wooded lot. >> That secondary lot that now is merged is wooded. So that about constitutes the buffer. We're not talking about additional >> No, no additional vegetation. Yeah. The the 50 you can they even have the 50 foot line shown on there in blue. Uh, so it goes right up like right up to the edge of that wall on this on the I guess it would be the east side, but skirts skirts the clearing line as it is now. So >> we're not asking for additional planning. We're asking for vegetation to protect the buffer that now exists. >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. We're
055not reestablishing a buffer other than what they're proposing on the north on the west side, but um yeah, nothing around the wetland is is is going to be required. >> So the reveation in your recommended conditions, do you have reveation plan? Where is that for that? They are they're proposing to reveate some of the area that they need to clear in order to do the construction. Um but there [clears throat] was no plan provided. >> No plan yet. >> Yeah. Right. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. For the I just want to make sure I'm clear on the scene. So is it just over the wetlands and then 50 ft in all directions or how is that >> right? Yeah. I mean what? Yeah. Whatever or whatever's Yeah. I mean if they need to skirt
056that retaining wall not retaining wall the stone wall I you know that's okay. a minimal change, but yeah, generally a 50ft circle around the >> around the wings themselves. >> Okay, >> I have no more questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tyler. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak? You can come forward, sir. >> You can state your name for the record and I'll swear you in >> right at the microphone, please. Thank you. >> Sorry. Glenn Lech. I'm the owner of the property. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> I just wanted to add a little diddy that the stone wall somebody told me because the stone wall was the foundation of the house and then we took
057the stone wall out and somebody told me it was the ballast of a ship. >> Oh. >> Which was really interesting because if you look really close, you couldn't see it with the snow, but it looks like stones. It didn't come from this area, which I think is just an interesting story. When people come up to the house, I always tell them about the ballast. >> That's all. Thank you. Thank you. [laughter] Okay, >> Matt, are there any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Britain, would you like to make a final statement? >> No. >> He said no. You're welcome. In the matter of Glenn Lich, 450 Old Stone Highway Springs, Suffach County tax map number 300-103-2-8.10. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and
058record. >> Second. >> I concur. >> Okay. [clears throat and cough] >> Okay. Our third and final public hearing is Navy House LLC 132 Navy Road Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-26-1-9.1. Description is to demolish a 140 square ft deck, a 155t portion of the existing basement, existing concrete pad area, and an existing play structure. and to construct 1,588 square ft of first and second story additions, a 305 ft 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 and on a parcel of land containing bluffs, beach vegetation and tidal wetlands. The relief sought is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and three variances are required from this application. Variances of
05961.4, 61.4 4 and 89 are required from 255440 of the town code to construct the proposed additions to 88.3 covered porch 88.3 and walkway 61 from the bluff crest and any other relief necessary zoning district A resident zone X flood zone secret class type two council do we have a proper affidavit of service and posting Yes, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this. >> Thank you, council. Member Burgerer, do you have a field inspection? >> What's the official notice of posting? It was properly posted. Next, uh this just a shot down maybe road toward town and toward the beach. Um, next, this is a shot what I initially thought was the residence next door, but I think it's an additional
060structure of the residence that's on the the west side of this this property. Next, uh, now I've gone there's a gate there and I've gone through the gate. Um, and I just stopped. It's a very long line. It's a large lot. Um, and this is a view up the the left side of it going up toward the hill. There's a lot of uh very grazing [snorts] terrain up there. It goes up and then a little back back down by the house and then up again. So that is just a view all the way up from there. Next is kind of in the other direction. This house has a lot of history on it, a lot of things that have gone on it. A lot of structures. So I don't know which structure is which in
061this photo. This is just on the other side of that road. The the structure way in the back there was the house. Um, but behind and behind this structure, I don't know if this is the garage or an artist studio, there's a pool, there's a pool house. Um, and a lot of gardens and things like that that are on this property today. Next, um, that's another one. And I believe the house behind that is actually the neighbor to the east. Um, I don't know what that structure is, but I believe it is on the applicant's property. Next, uh, now this is a shot of the front of the house, um, as as it exists today. Um, next, now there's a lot of stone. So, there is a stone walkway that goes up this side of
062the house. And this is also the side of the house where the twostory extension is proposed, the addition rather, are proposed to be put in. And I'm going to walk to the back. There's a next this is an area there's an area on this survey that shows a play area um and you go [laughter] >> you could find >> well actually the deck sh I think I found some of it so it's somewhere in there [laughter] >> along with the heading to the uh the bluff next and this is the one where it almost looks like there's a zipline thing going there. So that's probably more of the uh play area again in that direction, nor westerly direction. Now I turned and this is the patio. Uh you can see where the patio ends on
063the left section where the snow line kind of goes straight across and I'm looking from the west side toward the east. Um, next, this is the the best I could see of the concrete pad that is near the the bluff crest itself. It there's a table that's all covered up that's on top of it, but this is the only area that had no snow on it. Um, next, uh, that's just a shot in the other direction of the house. I couldn't get back down there. The gates were like snowed in. It was treacherous. Is there another one? I think that's it. Yes. >> Thank you. Member Burger, is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do.
064Good evening, Chairwoman Sever and board members. First time I'm saying that. >> I'll be saying that a lot more, I'm sure. Uh Joel Hulsey on behalf of Lighthouse Land Planning representing Navy House LLC, uh the owners of the subject property. Uh the project before the board is similar to what was pre uh previously approved. However, the changes were substantive enough uh that it could not be modified. The original plan and subsequent approval was designed with the input of the planning department. The primary feedback from the planning department was was to propose the structures as far from the bluff crest as possible in the most landward location. Uh and this was what was done in uh in this the previous project and this particular project as well. Uh the addition was designed to incorporate maximum setbacks.
065It would work with the current layout of the house as it is not as simple as to design an addition to a house without kind of incorporating what exactly exists in the house. The room layout of the house currently. Um so that's how this this addition was was designed along with maximizing the setbacks. Uh the property itself is the victim of its own lot area and the massive bluff uh you know in front or yeah this would be the the water or the front yard of the property. Uh the town codes bluff crest setbacks on outer bays such as this are governed by lot area. A property with a lot area of less than 30,000 square feet only needs to meet a 75 ft setback. A lot area between 30,000 ft and 80,000 ft requires
066is required to meet a 100 foot golf crest setback. In addition to both those those [snorts] lots, there's the built-in exemption for lots that are less than 80,000 square feet, which allows for additions to be located land 50 ft from the Bluff Crest if they're located on the landward side of the residence. Uh I don't know if it's changed, and I guess Tyler can correct me if it has. Uh but when I had been with the town, the landward side of the residence was considered from the back from the half, you know, the the landward half of the resident's back. Um, well, I don't know if that's that's changed right now, but that's kind of how it was back, you know, when this code was initially adopted. Um, our plan right now would would most
067likely be considered an addition to the landward or that is mostly considered on the landward side of the residence. There is a small portion of the addition that's probably would be considered on the the seawward half of the residence. Uh the property does contain 80 over 80,000 square feet. So the Bluff Crest setback is 150 ft. Uh there is no built built-in relief in the code for a property of this size. Um but the largest of this property and the 150 foot setback is where this property is unique from the other properties in this area. The waterfront property immediately abuing the subject property to the west 140 Navy Road and the two properties to the east 128 and 124 Navy Road all have to meet 100 foot Bluffrest setbacks. Um, furthermore, all three of these
068properties could build residential additions to the landward half of the house and not require a variance. These additions could be closer to the Bluff Crest and anything proposed on the subject property. So, the house to the west and the two houses to the east can expand their houses without variances which would and those additions would be closer to the Bluffrest. Further east, 120 and 116 Navy Road and the properties beyond have to meet 75 ft setbacks. Had this property been similar in size to even the larger of the properties, a good portion of the project as proposed would be within a conforming location. To add to the uniqueness of the pro uh the developed property to the west and the two developed properties to the east all have houses that are closer to the bluff
069crest than the subject property and as stated could could have conforming additions closer to the bluff crest without the need for a variance. Further, the uniqueness of this prop to the uniqueness of the property is this topography. And as member Burgerer stated, you go in, you kind of go down, you go up, go down, and go back up. Uh the property drops off substantially south of the house. And although view is not a varian standard, it could be considered uh with the location of the residential addition. Should the house be moved back to a conforming location, the view from the residence would be greatly reduced. In fact, the only view might they might have would be the back of the houses east and west of this property and the front of the the property the
070topography as the property goes up. Uh the bluff is fairly stable as stated in the original uh as stated in the original and the current analysis memo prepared by the town. Uh as stated in that memo, the bluff crest is relatively stable with little erosion at the base along the bluff of this along this parcel. Uh there was a typo in the TAM uh that I need to correct the clearing on this property. Um, so that >> probably just confirm the grandfather clearing is not uh the 59,338 ft that is listed in the TAM. >> Uh, and if the board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> I have um I mean, you've read the TAM. It's sort of suggesting that the crest of the bluff is susceptible to erosion. Has there
071any type of reveation been >> We did. There was a 10-ft buffer that was listed in one of the conditions or re it was a recommendation in the uh the TAM and the applicants willing to do the 10 foot buffer and to remove the concrete >> concrete pan. >> The Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, have any what steps have been taken to not impact the bluff during construction? >> Uh all the the addition all the the Well, we'll have to Well, I don't even know if you would need uh project limiting fence or you you might want project limiting fence. I don't know if you need silt fence there. Uh because the property from the addition forward, you're still going uphill in this situation. >> So all the runoff is going to go down. >>
072Um there shouldn't be any impact of the bluff because I believe you know it's 88 ft from the bluff crust for that addition. So there shouldn't be any damage that's going to happen to the bluff crust in that location. the area that you're going to reveate the 990 square feet. That's an area near that plague area that >> that is in the play area. The play area, I believe, is to be removed. I thought it was to be removed. I guess it doesn't show that on the survey. >> Yeah, it says >> it does say to be removed. Okay. Has to be removed. And there's a wooded that's basically a wooded swale there anyway. And you're going to just add >> So, we'll do that reveation and then do the 10 foot. So which will
073be you know a greater reeducation than than what exists now on this plan. >> Does the board have any additional questions? >> No. >> Tyler. >> Thank you Joe. >> Thank you. >> Can we hear from the planning department please? >> Tyler Borsack for the planning department again. Um, this parcel is located on the north side of Navy Road, which is a fronting on Fort Pond Bay in Montalk. Uh, the project before the board is to constru the west side of the existing residence. Uh, a covered porch, uh, changes in decking, landings, walkways, and associated structures, and to install an upgraded sanitary system. The project, as proposed, is similar to a previously approved ZBA determination issued in 2018. Uh the subject parcel was in front of the zoning board of appeals in 2018 received an
074approval for a similar project which allowed the construction of a 1572 foot of additions covered porches, patios and and roof deck. By comparison, uh the proposed additions extend slightly further north while still uh still landward of the existing residence and they also eliminate a large deck and terrace that was that was approved on the landward side of the the the additions at [clears throat] that time. Uh the additions ultimately add roughly the same square footage to the existing residence and are in roughly the same location. The impacts to the natural features can be expected to be simil similar to those associated with the improvements approved in 2018. The most significant natural feature that is within jurisdiction of the project are steep steep bluffs along the waters of Block Island Sound that arise that rise from
075the elevation of approximately 4 feet at the base of the bluff to approximately 61 ft at the crest across a 95 ft horizontal distance of the bluff which is an approximately 30° slope. The bluff itself is well vegetated with little to no buffer along the crest. Uh the bluff the bluff is relatively stable with little erosion at the base of the bluff along this parcel. The crest of the bluff is still susceptible to erosion from runoff and improvements uh upland of the crest and all construction on this parcel needs to be carefully evaluated uh to not adversely impact the bluff through increased development and runoff uh from the areas within jurisdiction. The proposed improvements include a 1572t western addition to the existing residence along with a basement. Uh a 305 foot covered porch is uh
076attached to the first floor edition [clears throat] directly below the second story edition. Um along with the construction of uh of additions and decking, the applicants will need a clear small 988t area uh for the proposed construction which will be mitigated with 100 with a 990 foot reveation um along the north uh eastern edge of or northwestern edge of clearing. Uh this reveation is coupled with with the removal of small play area in the same location. Um we had also brought up uh potentially reveating the bluff crest with a small small vegetated buffer to help mitigate runoff along there and also uh potentially the removal of of the concrete uh uh patio area very very close to the bluffest which it seems the applicants are are in favor of which is great. Um both of
077those would help significantly with the with runoff along the bluff rest. Other than that, it it's a very simple application, I think, considering that something so similar was approved in 2018. Uh, so I don't have anything else to add. I can just make myself available for questions. >> Thank you, Tyler. Does the board have any questions for Tyler? The the buffer, the 10 foot buffer, it's just running all the way along. >> Yeah, just along just along the crest itself. Yeah. >> Yes. Right. Exactly. From property line to Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. order from clearing edge to clearing edge. >> And do you have a thought on the uh access down the bluff to the water? >> What >> optimal? I'm sorry. >> What? What? What? >> Oh, is there no >> That's ex That's existing
078there. >> Oh, I'm thought I'm looking at something that says stairs on here. >> No. >> Yeah, those are existing. The >> Okay, so there is access, right? >> I believe so. Yeah, but it's not this is not >> No, I didn't know if it it was changing at all or anything. >> Thank you, Tyler. >> Yeah. No, the stair stairs are existing. I don't think there's any changes for both. >> That's all. >> Are we good board members? >> No. >> All right. Do you know what the actual clearing is? Is was that a >> The clear the clearing got resolved with through the natural resources department, I believe, years ago now at this point. Yeah. >> Um it's it's correctly shown on the survey. I just >> they were going to confirm the
079plants lived. We don't know what happened with that. >> But we think that the clearing numbers now that are on the survey and the proposed are correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Matt, are there any callers? >> Zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Joe, would would you like to make a final statement? Thank you. Member Burgerer. Yes. Find first page. So for the application of Navy House LLC at 132 Navy Road Mont 300-026-01-9.1 and make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. Thank you Joel. All right, let's let me just put this away. We'll move on now to our work session. First one is an administrative application. Serest at Amigansit Corp. 2166 Montalk Highway, Amagansit, Suffach County Tax Map
080number 300-110-1-12 to construct a twostory 3,647 square ft clubhouse building, an innovative and alternative on-site freshwater treatment system, gravel walkways, and a new roof for an existing shed within NRSP jurisdiction. Yes, sorry. Um, so getting my notes. Um, so this is actually a two-phase uh development in front of the planning board right now. What the zoning board is what's in jurisdiction of the zoning board is the second phase uh which is this uh 3,647 ft building. That building will house bathrooms, a gym, and a lounge area. As part of that, they needed they need a sanitary system which is within jurisdiction also. Um and then some small structures uh back in over here. This is your 150 foot jurisdiction alliance. So a good portion of this building and a lot of the work over here
081is actually out of jurisdiction. Um just a portion of that building. Um why we're okay with it being administratively is there's an asphalt parking area between the building and wetlands. Um the area is already disturbed. Let me pull up the aerial. Um you can see the area is obviously already disturbed where that building's going to be going. Uh we feel that the impacts will be pretty minimal. Um no additional users are going to be uh introduced to the parcel because the the clubhouse will be for resort guests only. Um it's already cleared to native vegetation will not require any additional clearing within jurisdiction. >> No additional clearing. Okay. >> Uh yeah that's that's about it. Tyler on that aerial because it was very hard for me to see on the survey with the lake colors.
082So, can you just show us on this where this building is going? >> The building will be right here in this existing clear grally area >> and since there's some additional turf over here which is partially within jurisdiction um and then some clearing over here but that's actually out of jurisdiction. >> So, it's not visible from off the property or anything like that, right? Uh, I would be visible from Navajo Lane because obviously be viewing it that way. But yeah, I mean from Bonsk Highway be difficult to quantify how visible it is compared to the other buildings that are already there. >> And how much of this additional building is within NRSP jurisdiction? >> I'd say about half of it. It's hard to hard to guess, but that's your 150 foot line arc going right
083here. So around half, maybe a little more than half is within jurisdiction. Okay. Well, I think it's in a disturbed area and I don't have a real problem with it because I don't see that uh at least the way it's been expressed to us that it's going to present any additional environmental impact or danger. So, I don't have a problem with >> I I agree. I agree with the vice chair. >> Yeah, I think I'm okay with it. >> I'm okay with it. >> I'm sorry. Is it okay? We'll be going administrative only. Yeah. >> Would Yes. >> Would you like to make a motion? >> Yes. Thank you. Um in the matter of Serest Crested Amigans Corp 2166 Mont Highway Amagancet Suffach County Tax 300-110-1-12. I make a motion to allow this um additional
084um uh development to uh proceed administrative only. Concur. >> I concur. Next is a post hearing decision. Dennis and Deborah Gates, 887 Springs Fireplace Road, Springs, uh, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-63-2-9.2. Description is to legalize a 144t shed located 0.8 ft from the side lot line and 1.4 ft from the rear lot line. Relief sword is variances from 2551110 dimensional table 2551172D pyramid law and any other relief necessary. The following variances are required. A variance of 14.2 ft for the shed to remain 0.8 ft from the shed to remain 1.4 ft from the sideyard line where 15 is required. variances of 5'4 in and 9 ft 0 in to allow the shed to remain 5'4 in and 9 ft 0 in outside of the town's pyramid regulations from the western and northern property line
085respectively zoning district is A2 residence ZX flood zone secret type uh secret class is type two action this is my application so I will proceed council has availability to all the digital records so I'm going to go straight to my decision on how this application relates to the relief sought and the variance standards they are requesting. Granted, the variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. It's not even visible from the road. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method, the shed was moved to its current location upon the sale of development rights to the town in 2013. And behind this shed is agricultural land. Yes, the variances are substantial, but have will have no negative impact
086on any neighboring property and no negative impact on the applicant's property. This application will not have an adverse effect of impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. It is self-created, but that is uh that in this case doesn't warrant uh a denial. I feel this application meets the threshold for variance standards due to the unique circumstances and I'll be approving it in its entirety. >> Vice Chair. >> Yeah, there's not a lot to add. This is a this was a pretty straightforward one. Um when we have a shed on a property line, we look at the pyramids pretty closely. Uh everything here comes down to the fact that the development rights from the adjoining property was sold to the town. And so we're not looking at a future impact from a a
087residence that would be close to that property line possibly affected by whatever activity takes place there. I think you've already summarized what the imp what the reaction is to uh the code what our reaction would be. I I don't see any reason uh the actual location of it. We're looking for very small variances or variances and we're right up against the property line. the variance is significant but I think that it's a very small impact and I think that the detriment to the uh applicant in this case will be far greater to any potential damage to the environment. I don't see damage to the environment. I only see that um this the the actual condition of the neighboring property is unique and that the development rights don't exist. So I have no problem approving this
088application at this time. >> Thank you. Member Burgerer. >> Okay. I agree with my fellow board members um for the main reason of the agricultural land on two sides of this shed. So the variance the variances for the pyramid are extremely large. However, due the unique circumstances that the eggland is will be eggland in perpetuity um which would protect also from any future use or anything put onto those properties. And I think there was some discussion too. there was some trees around and things. It could be moved to a more conforming location, but I think the the moving of it uh actually where it is is is probably in the best place considering nothing will ever be developed near it. Uh so I too am approving it. >> Thank you. Member Mary. >> Yes, thank
089you. I won't repeat all that my fellow board members have said. I agree um with the chair's uh interpretation of how this meets the five standards of the variance. I will just stress as my fellow board members did because I'm a board member who often looks very closely at um these setback variances. But again, the uniqueness of the application is that uh on both sides of it, the development rights on the next next door the neighboring property have been uh sold and so we don't have the issue of it causing any detriment to the neighbors and it obviously will not be seen um from the road. So I'm approving in full as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Other decision are we good council? >> Yeah, good. Thank you. >> Other decisions. Bendigo Beach LLC
090to Bendigo Beach Road, Amiganzit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-152-1-11.1. This is modification of a 2025 determination. [clears throat] Okay. So, this is um a modification that came from Morgan. Uh it was originally approved back in January of last year. Um the modification request is to raise the elevation of the house by 10 in uh in order to accommodate for additional space required for utilities. Um the original approval was for an NRSP to construct the house with a 28T 7 in a 28.7 foot gabled roof. So the modification would only increase that up to 29'5. Um which obviously is still compliant. Um the revised building plans um are in the in the record and and a letter was written and stamped by the architect explaining why you know the need for the modified plans. Essentially
091they needed additional space for utilities. That's that's really all it is. >> Any questions? I don't have a problem with >> No other changes at all. Same footprint, same building slightly. >> Right. I mean the only I remember in the hearing I think this was one where very specific about they were saying you know it's it's the height of it is being restrained somewhat to not be seen necessarily from the water if I remember correct correctly but I guess the 10 in um wouldn't in your in your view that wouldn't make a difference to the visibility from the water or anything >> still conforming to max height I I don't know much yeah >> okay Yeah, I'm >> So, it sounds like we're all in favor of this. I'm in favor of it. >> Okay.
092Thank you. So, there'll be no motion. This will just be a resolution of many determination to >> Good night, Joel. Next, we move on to building permit/certificate of occupancy. Desenna 137 Edgemere Street, Montalk, Suffach County, tax map number 300-28-4-2. submission review to address previously identified board issues. >> Yes. So, I actually covered this for Brian at the back in October when it came in front of the board. The issue at that time is that the total lot coverage was slightly greater than what was shown on uh the approved survey and the the doc was an incorrect size. Um, so the ZBA at that point in time asked the applicant to address the total lot coverage increase and where that came from. The zoning board received a letter uh on December 11th um which attributes the
093total lot coverage increase to a driveway reconfiguration which is actually outside of jurisdiction, right? >> Which is where that increase came from. And I think we speculated that that was the reason at the time as well. Um, and the applicants have also reduced the dock uh to 4 foot 4T by 10 foot. It was 4 ft by 20 ft at the time which uh needed to be reduced and they've done that. Uh so those were the two issues um that were pending uh that that appear to have been addressed >> and the survey we have indicates the the proper size of the dock >> I believe. So yes. >> Well, it's hard to see the measurements on the survey, but um so does So what what happens now if we're okay with this? I mean,
094I assume someone still is going to go out and verify that doc. Is that what happens next? >> Uh I believe >> survey, but I mean I suppose Brian could I mean the survey the survey shows it correctly. uh which yeah an updated survey depicts the dock revised to the approved dimensions. >> Um the reveation required to establish a 50ft buffer to the welllands has been satisfactorily established which we already checked. Uh and the CNRs have been recorded with the county clerk. >> So this is an asbuilt survey is what you're saying. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Done. >> So it sounds like everything's in order with >> the measurements. >> Looks like Yeah, it looks like it's ready for the issuance of a CO. >> Okay. >> I don't have a problem with this. Okay.
095>> Yeah, I'm promising. >> Okay. >> Uh oh, I guess I'll uh >> So, we don't have to do anything with that, right? >> No, a letter actually gets >> Yeah, we would issue the letter. >> We would the letter. Okay. >> Okay. Minutes approval draft minutes of January 27th. Member Burgerer. >> Yeah. Took a look at these. They look okay to me. I make a motion to approve the minutes for the sell the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals for Tuesday, January 27, 2026. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. Next is resolutions. Goldman Trust, 51 East Lake Drive in Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-20-2-16. I forget who had this. Okay. Okay. I think we all remember this one. It's about a big invasive removal of bamboo and some other uh reconfigurations of
096driveways and things like that on East Lake Drive uh carport [snorts] and um this was a unanimous approval. Was there someone who didn't know? I think everybody >> so I believe it was a unanimous approval. >> Jose abstained I believe that's why. Isn't this the one? >> Yeah, Jose didn't vote on it. >> Oh, that's right. That's right. That was his first hearing. That that was his first night. So, um, so the four board members sitting here now all approved it. Um, so I do make a motion for Goldman Trust at 51 East Lake Drive, Montalk, Tax Map 300-20-2-16 to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Vice Chairman Johan, do we have an adjournment motion? >> We do. Um, I'd like to make a motion to close the Town of East Hampton
097Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing for February 3rd, 2026 at 7:48 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur.