East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 01/27/2026

001Okay, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals January 27th, 2025 public hearing night. In light of the um inclement weather we're having, we're going to try to get this done as quickly as we can. The first public hearing tonight is for Dennis and Deborah Gates. The relief sought is variances from dimensional table 255172D 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 8 ft from the rear yard line where 15 ft is required. A variance of 13.6 ft for the shed to remain 1.4 ft from a sideyard lot line where 15 is required. Variances of 5'4 in and 9

002ft 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 lines respectively. zoning district is an A2 residence zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two and this is my area so I did the field inspection and the first >> I'm sorry >> I'm way out of it here one second the affidavit of service and posting in order >> uh yeah I reviewed the affidavit notice and posting again everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing Thank you, Charlie. Okay, this is my area. So, I did the field inspection and the first photo, as you can see, shows that the property was properly posted. Next, please. This is

003the um the house that uh is existing on the property. Uh I think it's a twotory. Next one, please. This is another angle of the same house that exists on the residence. Next, please. This is the shed in question. The property behind it is um designated as protected agricultural land. Uh next, please. I had to do this. This is the nicest one of the nicest field inspections I've ever done. I had little creatures following me all over the place. This is uh where the sheep are. There's a bird sanctuary I was sorry not to see with the cold weather. Next, please. He followed me throughout my entire field inspection. Next, please. This is uh the property that exists behind the shed that's in question. Next, please. This is a copy of the barn. It's not

004related to this application. I just took the photo to get a sense of what exists on the property. Next, please. This is the existing garage which is uh right next to the house that you saw earlier. Next, please. >> That's it. Thank you, Jake. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> Hi, Rick. >> Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, members of the board. Uh, Richard Whan from Whan Filer on behalf of the applicants, Dennis and Debbie Gates. Uh Debbie sometimes Debbie Miller Gates. Uh Dennis Gates is with me tonight. Um I did submit the uh uploading to the portal photo sheet with four photos. Didn't show too much different from what the chairman chairwoman indicated there, but I don't know if you got that. I didn't usually hand things out, but I

005just uploaded this time, so I don't know if we have those. But anyway, um I guess the important thing is the the shed is kind of pinned into its location by vegetation. There's a nice size white pine in front of it and then there's a uh I don't know what the shrub is to the east, but somewhat impedes if you were to try to remove the shed. >> White oak in front. >> Yes. >> You said white pine. White oak. >> Um yeah, the show we hear talking about I don't know. Where's white pine though? It's >> a good tree. Thank you. Anyway, the uh the location is the site of the historic Miller farm. Millers in the mid 1800s owned about 350 acres in the Springs. Obviously, they're one of the early families in

006the Springs going back at least to the 17 mid 1700s. Springs was settled around 1730. We know where the Miller's there by the 1750s. Dennis's white wife um is a Miller. That's Debbie Miller dates. Um, by 1916 they still owned the Miller still owned about 180 acres in the Springs. By 1972 though, they were down to about 50 or so acres. And in 1972, the family sold off the land just to the northwest of the field, not including the field that had joined this property. And that was subdivided 1973 as the Miller Farm subdivision. It was kind of groundbreaking for the time. It was very low density. It was only six lots and 25 1/2 acres and they preserved about 16 acres of pasture through the use of scenic easements which kind of an historical

007anomaly I believe was the first time that scenic and conservation reasons were ever employed in the town on the Miller farm in 1973. So the location of this shed is an historic rural bukallic area and you know part of the object of my photographs was to kind of show you the shed looks like it belongs there. Uh there are no obvious property lines. There is a fence just behind the shed on the right hand side which would be the northeast side. The property line runs just norththeast of the shed but there's no fence there. Uh, so you really can't tell it you're at a property line and it doesn't matter very much because Debbie Miller Gates owns the preserved farmland. >> So, first of all, the shed is 144 ft in size. It's 12 x

00812. It's only 9 ft tall to the roofidge. It was on the adjoining property to the northeast kind of property wraps around. So, northeast and northwest. It's a 4.56 acre adjoining parcel that's owned by Debbie Miller Gates. And in 19 uh sorry in 2013 the Millers sold the development rights or I guess Debbie did sold the development rights to that property to the town. At that time Debbie Gates mother's house was on that adjoining property. So the house was removed as part of the sale to the town for the development rights and the shed was on the property was really associated with the house and that's this shed. It's you could probably you might be able to classify today as an agricultural shed, but it's really used for household tools and equipment and so forth

009in connection with the gates residential property. So for that reason, when the town bought the development rights, they wanted the millers to remove the shed or move it off the development rights parcel. And Dennis did that by using rollers and a tractor. And he moved it about 50 to 60 ft from its original location, not very far. Uh you can see on aerial photographs where the shed used to be. So it got to where it is right now. They weren't thinking about property lines because they own the adjoining property, but technically there's a boundary property line there. The adjoining property is owned by the gates but is now preserved land. And so we have if they want to get an updated CFO, they have this issue with the with the setbacks. Um so that's the

010backstory to it. That's how the shed got to be where it is. It is used for household equipment and tools and so forth. Um and um in my opinion, very attractive shed. You can see that from the aerials I mean from the from the photographs that I submitted and that that chairwoman SE submitted. So there are there are five standards for the grant of an area variance. Uh number one does the with the grant the variances be harmful to the character of the community um affect the ambience of the community and so forth. And the answer that is absolutely not fact as again as I said the shed looks like it belongs there. Um, and if you were to move it, and I'll deal with that later, it would probably have a greater impact on

011the character of the community. Uh, are there physical or environmental conditions that we be impacted by the grand variance? No. There are no sensitive areas here. The shed does not impact on anything that is environmentally sensitive. The land is flat. Um, and it's a basically a utilitarian use that really kind of in historic terms in old East Hampton would have been situated at the back corner of your property. Uh, are the variants substantial? I contend they're not substantial at all. Nominally, they seem to be relatively large variances, but you have to look at the context. The shed is a very small structure, 144 square ft, 9 foot tall to the roof ridge, um, you know, measuring perminal variances from a joining property, which again is really owned by the same people that own the shed,

012uh, is, you know, kind of silly. So I would I would say that these are not in light of the minor nature of the structure, these are not large variances. And finally, the last two questions, the last two standards for an area variance are kind of the same thing. And that is could you avoid the need for a variance by some other method? So Dennis and I when I went to visit the property, Dennis showed me around, the only place he contends that you could even consider moving the shed to would be down the driveway and off to the west side of the driveway, southwest side of the driveway. that would be inconvenient for its use because as um the chairwoman saw when she was out there, the locus of activity on the property is

013kind of north of the house. The house has its door, its entrance on the north side. There's a porch there. The shed is just northeast of the house. The garage is just to the west. The sheep paddic is right nearby. And of course, the gates then go into the joining property where there are barns on the agricultural land. They're all there. So to move the shed down the driveway would be inconvenient. In addition to which you couldn't do that just putting on on rollers and doing it the cheap way by just using a tractor. You would have to get a house mover to move this thing to extract it from its low current location and move it down the driveway and in, you know, to a place that would meet the setbacks. And I think

014also, you know, you should have, I believe you received a a letter of support from the neighbor, the bakers. uh their only view as far as I can tell through to the gates pasture land, the preserved farmland is in the location to which the shed would be moved. So they're in favor of the grant of the variances because you know when they wouldn't want to see the shed moved to block their view. So uh all those things said I think that uh the benefit to the applicant outweighs any potential harm to the neighbors of the community. There are only two residential neighbors that have joined. Um, not counting the gates, the miller's own preserved agricultural land. One of those people has submitted a le letter of support. So, I would ask that you grant the

015requested variances. >> Thank you. Does the board have any questions? >> Only uh that the property in both directions, you're looking for variances on two property lines. property adjoining that is both in both directions is owned by the Miller's >> so it's one parcel that wraps around >> that's my only question >> okay >> one quick one >> um aside from the issues that you said about the concept of moving it down the driveway it would be inconvenient for use but isn't there scenic easement over the whole driveway so would they even be allowed to move it into the scenic easement >> I think there I think there's a scenic easement Um well actually show here >> there is. Yeah. Yeah. >> Here. So the the prospective location and there are trees. >> Yeah. >>

016Throughout the property. Yes. >> The location that Dennis was talking about was around. >> Oh, I see. >> Not not It's a good point actually. But >> outside the scene. >> Thank you. >> And that is I measured that's about 150 ft down the driveway and then you got to move it in off the driveway. So again, that's not something Dennis could do. You'd have to hire a house to do that. Is it possible that one of those other properties could change hands in the future? >> Um, so there's a house here >> and then this is the neighbor who submitted the letter of support. They have a view through this area. So if you move the shed, not that the shed is unattractive, it's not. >> But it would potentially obstruct their views. >>

017Are we ready to hear from the planning department? >> I'm good with it. Thanks, Rick. >> Thank you, Rick. Rick, >> good evening board. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Just introduce yourself. >> Jay Kushner with the planning department. So, we don't have too much to add here. I think we got a pretty good background of the parcel history. Um, again, the property that's most um impacted by the requested relief is owned by the applicants, the gates. It's used for agricultural purposes, their horses and goats and things like that. Um, as part of that agreement, um, future residential, commercial, industrial uses are prohibited on that parcel. Um, it's strictly for agricultural purposes. So, I think there's just a that's a consideration.

018Um, as well, the board should also consider the size of the shed verse the magnitude of the requested variances. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions you might have. >> Do we have any questions? >> You don't anticipate any environmental impact of this? >> No. >> Negative environmental impact. Okay. >> Thank you, Jake. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? Matt, do we have any callers? >> Uh, let's do a double check. Hang on one second. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. All lines appear to be open and clear. And you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Rick, do you have any closing comments? >> Okay. So, in the matter of Dennis and Deborah Gates, 887 Springs Fireplace Road, Springs 300-63-2-9-9.2. I

019make a motion that we close the public hearing and record. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. >> Thank you. Thank good night river. Okay, now the next public hearing is that of Nanet John's 74 Surfside Avenue in Montalk Suffach County tax map number 300-51-4-12. Description is to restore approximately seven 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. A sand fence to be installed at the toe of the bluff. relief sword is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code. Zoning district is a B resident zone X flood zone secret class is type two council is the affidavit of service and posting in order.

020>> Uh yes, I reviewed the affidavit and notice and posting and everything seems to be in order for this uh hearing and the board has jurisdiction. Thank you. >> Vice Chair Johan >> um took this photo today obviously um after the snowstorm and um you can see that it's properly posted and I'm very happy to say it survived the wind and the storm of the weekend. Next. So, these photos, this was before us as a potential hearing a while back. And these photos I took many months ago, but uh nonetheless, that was uh we'll walk through these quickly because this is just coming into the house. This is a as you're standing in the road, the driveway. I'm looking up the driveway. There's just a growth there. It doesn't doesn't enter into the decision. Next,

021please. I come up to the house. This is approaching the house from the north side. Next, going at some staircase to go around towards the ocean. Next, this is the back of the house. I'm just turned my way when I get up there. Look back at the house. Next, now you can get an idea from the house. Same spot. I looked at the house. Now, I'm looking out at it. We're going to go to the far corner and look where the staircase had existed. Next, now I'm down here again. They've got a fence there running along the edge. Beyond that um was where the staircase was went down obviously it's a beautiful portion of the town a beautiful sweep of the beach but this is the location where the staircase had existed next is that

022all I have okay thank you >> it's a beautiful photo is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application >> hi Alice good evening board members I'm Alice Kohley of Matthew Curse Koulian Churon here on behalf of the applicant Nette John's. This property has quite a bit of history with NRSPs mostly to restore and protect the bluff as much as possible. In 2019, my client received an expedited uh administrative NRSP to restore 70 linear feet of eroded bluff and to repair the then existing beach dares in place in kind. Uh First Coastal was hired to repair the stairs. They were unable to because the area on the property where the stairs were meant to be repaired was too severely eroded to support the stairs and a new set of stairs were constructed. Not

023consistent with that approval. In the spring of 2024, ordinance enforcement notified my client that because the stairs had been severely damaged by the winter storms that year, they posed a safety concern and my client probably had the stairs removed. The applicant then reapplied to construct the beach stairs. And that brings us to tonight. As a latoral property owner with ownership to the mean high water line, my client is entitled to have reasonable access to the ocean. Beach stairs have already been deemed a reasonable improvement for this property since they have been approved for this property in the past and similar stairs have been approved on nearby properties. I think the primary consideration here tonight is whether these stairs, this construction in this location on the property meets the standards. And we submit that this project

024is consistent with 25551D preservation of natural resources. First, the stairs are proposed in the safest location on the poss on the property with the most stability. The prior location of the stairs was uh very close to the neighboring property line to the west. Uh and the top was in a location that was so severely eroded that constructing them exactly as they were would not be feasible. Second, they were designed in such a way that they will protrude minimally onto the beach. I met Tyler Borsack on the site in 2023, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong, Tyler. And it seemed that the biggest objection to the stairs at that time as they were constructed was how far they did protrude onto the beach, the public right away, which is certainly understandable. With that concern in

025mind, the current configuration was designed. They're quite high at 38 feet and were designed in the sort of serpentine pattern with a series of landings so that they don't protrude onto the beach and end at the edge of beach grass. Uh this is a much smaller footprint than the prior stairs. The bluff restoration is designed to slow erosion as much as possible and is expected to provide some protection to the property. Uh, as stated in the TAM, the currently proposed stairs more closely align with past EBA approvals and there is no evidence in the record that the proposed stairs would have any negative impact on the bluff. Uh, all the conditions mentioned in the TAM are acceptable and I thank you for your time. I'm available if you have any questions. Does the board have

026any questions? >> Well, I do. Uh, we're talking about 1500 yards of sand coming in there to do the restoration. How is that going to be delivered? How will that be? How will I arrive at the site? >> Uh, that is a good question and I uh don't have the answer to it. >> Okay, because the access is maybe from a road that's to the west of there, which means you have to cross in front of other properties. It's going to require some DEC approval for driving on the beach. It's going to require possible approvals by the other land owners along the way. These are all considerations. Maybe not in front of us right now, but that's something we have to ask. What's going to happen here for you to bring in 1500 yards of

027sand? It's not a small amount. That's a significant amount of material. >> I can ask First Coastal to put together a construction protocol to submit to your record. They've done this on this property a number of times in the past. >> I I think the the uh conversation about replenishing the bluff is one that was one consideration and we can take that at its face value that it's it's a net positive possibly depending on how we all decide to look at it. But the idea that it has to come in down the beach is a problem First Coastal is going to have to uh address, that's something that you have to ask yourself. It's not going to come over the bluff. It's not going to come through the property of of Miss Jones, right? It's

028not J. James. It's not going to come that way. So coming down the beach is something that uh is going to require some other approvals. >> Yeah. You know, I'm just I'm just not certain. I I don't have that answer. But uh you know I I know um when they had to remove the stairs that was obviously from the beach but with as a health and safety concern. >> I don't know if that went came in front of the removal may not have come in front of us but >> No, it was an emergency. >> Yeah. Emergency. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. That was actually I'm in the same court as that. That was how will beach access occur. But also um is uh 1,500 cubic yards going to be the minimum necessary is do

029you anticipate any additional? >> No. >> Okay. So that was calculated by engineer. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Board members, any questions? >> No, I'm good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tyler, for >> sure. for the plane department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um I don't have much else to add. Um there were three prior um expedated and administrative permits on this property for similar work. Uh repair the existing stairs and uh do a bluff restoration. I believe they all took access from uh the the road and just down in downtown Montalk um as well in those cases from what I remember. Um and then uh again uh you know improper stairs were reconstructed, extended well onto the beach uh and became became a

030hazard to to the public and so they were removed. Um and that that leads us back to where we are now. The stairs that are currently proposed are much more in line with what had been on the property in the past. Um so we don't have any concerns about that. It seems like a fairly straightforward application. Um but I can make myself available for questions. >> Thank you. Board members, do you have any questions for Tyler? Has a planting plan been approved? >> It's just it's just beach grass. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, >> I'm good with it, too. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to participate in this public hearing? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Yeah. Would you

031like to read the leave the record open for protocol in terms of each access? And >> yeah, I I'm not exactly sure. I'm going to ask council is that is are we in a position to question that or is that the question what their their their need to get a DC permit in order to come down the beach? That's really not within the jurisdiction of what we're deciding right now, is it? >> I have a suggestion if you don't mind, Charlie. Um, I I was going to suggest that we uh submit a construction protocol with regard to access as a condition of approval that's acceptable to the planning department and uh Tyler can review it. >> I think I think Dexit just keep moving forward. I'd be happy that it's condition of approval. >> I

032agree. Thank you >> for the DEC though. >> Well, the DC is a different problem, but you know, they have to know how they're getting access to it. Is everyone in agree? I agree with that as a condition of approval. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, it sounds like uh Matt, I did do the callers. There aren't any. >> Okay. So, I believe we can close this public hearing. >> Should I? >> Yeah, I did. Thank you, >> member. >> Okay. Then in the application of N. >> Okay. Then the application of Nana John 74 Surfside Tribe Monttok Suffach County Tax Map 300-51-4-12. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record at this time. >> Second. Second. Concur. >> I concur. >> Okay. Next. Okay, the next public

033hearing is 186 LLC 186 Old Montalk Highway, Montalk Safa County Tax Map number 300-87-3-9. Description is to demolish an existing residence and construct a 3,137 foot two-story residence with basement, 348 ft of decking, 743 ft stone terraces, a 583 ft detached garage with basement, sanitary system, and a new driveway and a parcel of land within the town's jurisdiction of coastal bluffs. Believe sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code. The residence has been proposed 78 feet from the crest of the coastal bluff and more than 200 ft from the bluff toe. Zoning district is a residence zone X flood zone secret class type two council. Is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be

034in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. Thank you. Is there someone in the audience to speak on behalf of the applicant? >> Oh, I think we should do a field question. >> Thank you, member Burgerer. Okay, this is the official notice and posting. And bear with me. I took a lot of photos. I didn't know how many I mean the storm was coming. So, u next uh this is view as you go down. It's a long driveway that's shared with other properties and you can see how it goes up and then it will go down precipitously. There's a lot of topology and grading on this property. Next, um, okay, so the first mistake I made was parking in the wrong place. This is not the parking area for the house that's in

035question. The house is the one that you see there in the photo where I'm parked is actually an area where there are two other houses, which you'll see a little bit of um to the south of this actually toward the ocean. Um, but this is a shared driveway as you can see. And this is the gravel parking area at the bottom of the uh the survey. Next, so this is one of the houses that are on the southern end in front of the the applicant's home. You see some drainage there going on. Um next, uh I just took a a shot back up the driveway again just to point out that there's a lot of changing grade on this. Uh next, um there I believe there's something in the documentation for an access uh to

036the beach and these are stairs that appear to be leading down to that. They are across from the parking area where you saw my car next. Um now this is just a shot from that same parking area. It shows you you get a little piece of the house to the right and the left. Both these houses are suddenly in toward the ocean from from the applicant's house and that's their staircases and things that lead down to there. Next, this was just a shot cuz it was beautiful. >> Um, next was pretty. Okay, now I'm walking up since I parked where I parked. There's a on the there's a proposed removal of steps that go from that parking area up to the house that these are the steps and that's how I went up to it.

037Um this is leading up to the first floor of the house in an area somewhat where I believe the sanitary system is going to be is proposed map next. Uh, so this is another shot as I get to this is the way the house looks today as it exists today. Two stories. Next, um, now I'm going toward the, uh, the driveway side of the house. I'm just going to walk around the house bit and so again, a lot of topology and other stuff. Next, retaining walls. Next, uh, so this is a shot from the app the side of the the east west side of the applicant's house. Again, you can see how the driveway is down. That's the next neighbor, nearest neighbor to the west on of the property. Next, um, now I'm walking toward

038the toward the north. You can see the retaining wall is a number of that. in this little pond in this area also that is in disrepair but it exists. Um and started here toward the gravel parking area in the back. Next um this is just an example in that along again along the driveway area. I don't know if this was always there or if it was created but again the differences in grade and uh that appear on the property. Next. And now I'm standing in the parking area. the parking gravel parking area that's noted and this is the actual entrance to the house. Um, this is the where I should have parked. Um, and you can see the retaining wall. Some of that retaining wall on this the right side is proposed to be removed

039next. Uh, now I just turned and I'm facing toward the east. I think it's either the north or the east. Um but you again more retaining wall more grade and I believe this is in the area where if it's north where the garage is proposed twotory garage. Next um this is another just example of a lot of topology on this property. Next >> um my face lost myself here. Um, well, this is out. I'm out in the driveway actually here now, I think, and I'm shooting in to show the entire area where you enter and where the parking is proposed. Next, and this is a shot shooting back up to the toward Balk Highway, the north side, and this the east east side of the uh the west side rather of the property. Next, I

040think there was something else. Okay. And now this is just another shot from the driveway area uh that just shows a little bit more of the house and the uh the topology that's in that immediate area there with the parking area to the extreme left there. Next looks like a duplicate. Next and some more of that. I think that's it. He's the last one. >> Thank you member Fer. Is there someone here to speak on beha behalf of the application? >> Yes. Good evening board members. Karen Hog from Timmy Leam. On behalf of the applicant here with me tonight are also Paul Massie and Aaron Well, the project architects from Bates Massie. Uh this application we believe is is pretty straightforward. And I actually have an an aerial um of the area which I think

041may be helpful for the board if I can. >> Thank you. Thank you. The house with the circle on it is the existing house. The application seeks an NRSP pursuant to town code 255-4-20 of the town code as the residence is proposed 78 ft from the crest of the coastal bluff where NRSP jurisdiction is 100 ft. The proposed house is more landward than the existing house and won't be as high as the existing house. It's more than 200 feet from the toe of the bluff. There's an oceanfront house at 188 Old Malk Highway between the subject property and the toe of the bluff. 188 Old Malk Highway received a ZBA determination back in 2021 for the demolition and new construction. And you could see the the house in the photo that I distributed. This project

042is to demolish the existing residence which was built in the 1970s and construct a new 3,137 square foot two-story residence with basement decking, terraces, a detached garage with a basement, new sanitary, new driveway, and other improvements. The project complies with the town code's requirement for lot coverage, building coverage, gross floor area, and clearing. We submitted a memo law last week addressing the NRSP standards. Um so I won't go through them all in detail and at this time I'd like to just turn it over to the project architects um to discuss the ex the proposed residents in the project. >> Thank you Bates Massie Architects. >> Good evening. I need to swear you in. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Could you say your name again? I miss

043>> Aaron While just as I think the technical analysis memo sums it up well and Karen uh provided the the broad scope. Just a little more specific on it. Um the retreat of the new house versus the proposed house is 14 ft uh landward. Uh we're balancing the landward placement of the house uh with the idea of preserving as much of the uh natural buffer to the north from Old Malk Highway. There's that's the most native woodland there in front of the house. We're trying to preserve as much of that as possible. So rather than uh retreat any further to the north, uh we're trying to preserve that and sit as much as possible within the existing footprint of the house. Um, as Karen mentioned, it's lower than the existing house. Uh, the roof is

04420 foot above natural grade where 25 foot is allowed. Um, it's it it's very it's going to hug the topography as low as possible. Uh, we anticipate using grimes landscape of Montalk to reveate the property when complete. Um, construction access will be via that the existing right of way. uh no other cut to old Montalk Highway necessary all from that right away. Uh Rainer Group is doing the civil engineering. They've designed a sanitary system and drainage system that will um of course manage all the storm water and prevent runoff. Um and as the technical analysis memo states, the bluff is beyond the property and the proposed developments um shouldn't have an adverse effect upon. Available for questions. So, you're going to demolish the house from the driveway we saw, which is the proper driveway. You're

045going to come in from the north. You're not going to disturb the woodland up at the roadside as best you can, right? You have an area you're going to clear for the garage, which is north of the house. You're going to take the demolished house and pull it out and take it out to the road. Now, you're going to start new construction. You're going to have some excavation to do. >> Yes. >> Full basement. What's that material going? Is that going to be part where is that going to go back where the parking is now? Is it going to leave the site? >> It will be leaving the site. There will be some >> site. Okay. And then we're on the old highway and we know what happens with traffic out there, right? So your

046plan is that Do you have a contractor already involved? >> We do not. >> Okay. Well, the contractor will be made aware of the fact that it's important for us not to be parking on the road as best we can. Obviously, that happens occasionally. We've seen it, but it is a concern on the old highway. You know that. We see it all the time. So, we kind of have some space in a disturbed area. What will be the order of construction? Will you do construct the house? leave the garage area open and then do the garage. It gonna be done simultaneously. What are you thinking? >> That makes sense in terms of phasing to use that clearing for park uh construction access. >> So, and parking and and and delivery of materials >> work sort

047of north, excuse me, out of the site as they go. >> We start thinking about impact on neighborhoods and how we protect neighbors. We're always asking ourselves where are people going to park? Where going to deliver? Where are we going to store materials? What happens to fill that you might be reusing later on? You've got quite a bit of work going to be done here recontouring this lot. >> Um >> there's some soils on there. It's hard to tell if they were part of a burm in 1973 or when they did it. It looks as if it's that way as it works its way up the driveway, but they're going to go anyway. You're going to redo those. I see the series of retaining walls that you have around. They're going to replace everything else

048that's there. All 6x6 is all that goes, right? So I think when we look at this that you're we're going to retreat. You're going to make a house that's about the same size. It's larger. >> It's larger, but you're going to use about the same I meant about the same disturbed area. We'll see. We can have that discussion. And then once we go protocol-wise, you're going to allow an area that can be used for storage of materials, delivery of new materials, storage of soils, and then parking as need be. >> We can do that. Yes, that would be what we'd be looking for in terms of a protocol long term here because as you know, you're fully aware of the area and what goes on on the old highway and some of the projects we've

049had had a lot of feedback over the fact that we haven't done a very good job of keeping people on the lot. So, that's something that we're going to be very concerned about in terms of the protocol. Um, other than that, uh, I look through this stuff, but all the information about the septic, the septic seems to be in the the best possible location given all the other work and I see the drainage calculations for the area of the parking lot anyway. Um, there is quite a bit of slope here as was pointed out by member Burgerer. This is a there's a lot of topography on this lot. Uh, natural and then you're going to create your own. So this is a this is a project that um uh has got a lot of facets,

050got a lot of moving parts, you know, we're looking at all of them. >> So in terms of vice chair's point, um there is an extensive amount of great regrading going on around the new improvements. So how are you going to manage the runoff during construction to prevent the off-site discharge or erosion? There'll be a sil fence um around the any disturbed area um and we can yeah >> and how many dra drainage structures are there and what what is the capacity of what they will hold in the in the event of a storm event >> how much of a >> it's been calculated but I don't know the calculations off hand >> how much would that actually hold in each what's the capacity of each drainage structure >> this county >> I mean 2

051inch rainfall doesn't really tell us a lot to have been designed for 2 in. Yeah. two two inch rainfall danger capacity. >> Oh, so that >> and how many drainage structures are there? There's >> throughout the Okay, >> that that contains a lot of water, but 42.24 cubic zone that holds about 318 gallons of water. >> All right. Thank you. Does um Okay. can. Well, I'm done with the drainage. Um, >> yeah. Okay. The house today is two levels. Um, now you're creating you're going to be cutting out another level underneath where the existing house is. >> Yeah. The existing house has a crawl space. The new house will be a full basement. >> A full basement. And in that basement, you have an incredible amount of things going on there. A lot of living

052space. >> The theater. >> Yes, there is a theater. >> Rooms for staff and No, that's above >> that's on the lower. Oh, that's on above. Yes. >> Uh the basement is within the footprint of the floor above. Um so it's not projecting beyond in any way >> where those stairs are coming up today is basically where you're going to be digging digging underneath it. >> That's the height. But yes, the the the grade will remain there, but the basement will be behind the existing slope that you're seeing in front of the house, south side of the house. Does the board have any other questions? >> I I do. Go ahead. Um I'm just looking at the survey. Um on the clearing, so the allowable clearing is 11,612 and your proposed clearing is 11612. That's

053the final, but is there a temporary clearing that's larger than that? And what is it if >> Right. The construction clearing is the final clearing. Uh we have we do not anticipate needing more than that for construction. >> Okay. And forgive me if I missed it. We have a revge plan and I'm not even sure I saw the pro the protocol. >> We have not developed a revage plan yet. We would work with Grimes to do so, but we have not developed one yet. >> And do we have a full construction protocol? Forgive me. I feel like I've we do. How do I I'm looking in the file and I never I guess I must have >> I don't think we have one. >> We don't have one. I don't believe so. >> So I

054feels like that would be important to have. >> So what native vegetation or stabilization measures in these uh regraded areas to prevent erosion are you willing to take? >> We have used successfully a product called slope grid in the past. I have some cut sheets I can supply. It is a basically a st sl slope stabilization uh system that's one. >> Thank you. That's okay. >> Um on other steeply sloping sites, it's been successful for stabilizing the slope temporarily during construction and then you plant it after and it it basically supports the plants until they can root and hold the soil themselves. >> I'd like to have this um entered into the record. I'll leave this for Sam. >> Sure. >> And make sure that other members of the board get copies of this. Okay.

055>> Yeah. >> So, I'm sorry. Are you saying that would be the construction protocol? >> That's what you're saying. Okay. >> The reveation plan. No, that's >> we can include that as part of the construction. That's >> part of the revge plan. >> So, when are we >> is the board wanting to see a reveation plan now? Do you feel that that's necessary? >> But I do think we have to establish a protocol mentioned about how you might phase it where you'd be depositing soils where materials might go. I think those are things we ask standard especially in projects of this sensitivity. So I think that we'll be looking for a protocol which you can produce fairlyable. That's makes sense. >> So we can leave the record open for that. >> I think we need

056we'll need the protocol minimally. Everybody else can decide if you feel you see the landscape plan ahead of time. >> I think it's important because of the terrain and the slopes of the property. >> I have one more provide that. So is So we're going to leave the public hearing open for submission of the construction protocol. >> Yes. >> Okay. We're not done yet. >> I have one question. So I'm looking at um in the Beats Mazi plan. I'm looking at page A103. Um, and you've given us this is the floor that has the bedrooms on it, right? And so, well, first of all, the survey says sevenbedroom equivalent house. The your plan shows six. So, I just want to know is this a six or seven? First of all, >> I think they're counting

057this space as the seventh. These are bedrooms. This is a a communal space, >> right? >> So, they're counting. So my question and this is a little bit of a code interpretation so I don't want to overstep here but uh on page A103 you mark things staff bedroom one staff bedroom 2 the lounge then it's guest bed 1 2 3 and four and obviously this is being presented as a quote single family residence this is a residential district that allows right but when I look at our code and the definition specifically of single family residents um inside the sections of the code the definition of family and what's not family. I I am just trying to understand how this actually fits our code with respect to the actual definition of single family residents um and

058what uses are allowed versus prohibited. My understanding was cooking facilities largely dictate that which we only have one of on the >> um yes I'm definitely aware it's one cooking area only but um the definition there the code gets pretty specific about what is considered a family and what is not. I won't go through it all. Um and uh yeah when I review reviewed the code it just jumped out at me. I I understand the cooking part. So maybe you could address that or I don't know if we need a building inspector. >> I honestly don't think that that that's relevant. I mean the definition of family as part of this application and the number of bedrooms. Um you know the the number of bedrooms are also a standard that the health department goes by

059in terms of approving any sanitary system. But you know you can have a small family and have you know a large num large amount of bedrooms. I don't I don't see how >> I'm not questioning the number of bedrooms. that's a design choice and the you know it meets GFA right so >> right um >> I again I'm just citing I'm looking at the code and I'm citing what it describes as what constitutes a single family residence use and what doesn't so that's what I was referring to I I won't >> Does the board have any other questions >> I do have one question of the architect again just is um we we're talking about concrete foundation here because you think that you've done a soil analysis. There's not a lot of fill there from

060previous construction. You're going down deep enough anyway. Is that it? So, there'll be no pilings, no helicals, anything like that. Okay. >> Port foundation. >> Thank you. >> Karen, are you done with your presentation? >> Yes, I am. And and we will put together a construction protocol and address the board. >> We're gonna hear from the planning department now. So, they might >> Okay. Few more. So, we're not done. >> Sure. Can we hear from the planning department? Madam >> chair, board members, Brian Frank on behalf of the planning department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um so this is uh this is a property where the zoning board has seen a fair number of applications in in recent years. Um along the lines

061of uh some of the the issues that vice chair Johan brought up are some of the issues that have come up in some of the other applications. Um you can see from this aerial this is an oblique aerial um photograph. Both the lots to the south were um uh reconstructed or or uh demolished and redeveloped um with natural resources special permits. I believe uh Karen cited one of them is uh 188. I'm not sure which one is 188, but you could see tax map lot 20 is under construction at the time of this photo and lot 21 to the uh west had been completed at this time. This property is north of it. Shares a common driveway. This is the hither hill section of old Monttoque highway where um the setbacks are measured from the

062toe of the bluff but jurisdiction is still taken from the top of the bluff. So it's a 100 ft Bluff Crest jurisdiction. In addition to these two properties, the zoning board has reviewed applications under the name of uh Tormal Plate um and uh Dairo that all involved constructions along with the two properties to the south of this that were essentially along or uh see of the Bluff Crest and on the Bluff face. And this application in that regard is a little bit more simplistic than those. The Bluff Crest is uh south of the property line um and bisects about the southern third of uh the house. Uh it exceeds uh the bluff post setbacks. So the the planning department has not identified any um potential adverse impact to the protected natural features which is features

063which are the bluff uh bluff face toe and the beach seawward of it in conjunction with the application. It does involve a redevelopment that is going to increase uh clearing coverage, gross floor area and total coverage. And there is obviously extensive grading is um is evident from the proposed contours on the um survey. Um so the level of detail that the board um wants to request to demonstrate compliance with the purposes of of zoning consistent with some of the other construction protocols. There are um public safety issues with the number of construction um vehicles that are parked on Old Montalk Highway. Um much as the property here um is is not flat, the old highway itself undulates and there are areas of poor visibility and when you end up with numerous work trucks on both

064sides of the road, there is a there is a safety uh concern there. Um the soils here are relatively well drained. Um, if you take a look at the test hole information that's on the survey, most of the uh soils are silty sand. Sand is a well- drained u material, this isn't an area that we have um clay lenses or perched wetlands. Um nor do we have some of the drainage problems that we have. There are a couple of areas of of the old highway here that do have some some drainage problems a little bit unique. Um the drainage as uh was referenced has been designed to accommodate the 2-in rainfall which is the uh standard um for mostly comes up in uh uh site plans and subdivisions but it's it's relevant in single family

065construction as well. Um so it is important to ensure and and I think that the questions that the the board members asked along the line is to ensure that the uh construction can be accomplished as proposed without impacting the uh adjoining properties and um whether the board uh chooses to leave the record open and request a construction protocol that can be incorporated into the approval or um conditions their approval on a construction ruction protocol that they approve, I I think is a a matter of choice for the board. Uh beyond that, if there are any questions that I can answer about the application, I I will do my best. >> Board members, any questions? >> Now, the house is almost maxing out of GFA the time of this application. The houses that are in front

066of it, what how large were they? They look small. >> I'd have to I'd have to look that up. I don't know how small they were. Um I I don't know is the short answer. I >> I would say the board should focus on this property and this property only in their deliberations. >> Well, we often look at context of >> you know I understand but I I think >> character I mean it's a standard. >> Yeah. I think that I think just because they're owned by the same people, I I think that's I don't know what they're getting at here, but I think we should focus on this >> as far as the application goes. >> Thank you. Those two houses suddenly are not owned by the same people. >> Um I don't know.

067And we whether they're there most of the applications we see are in are in LLC's whether they're a a common principle involved. Um, you know, we we base our recommendations on the individual lot and the impacts that um may occur from that from that. >> Any other questions for Brian? >> None for me. Thank you. >> No. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to participate in this hearing? Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Karen, would you like to summarize? >> Yes. Thank you. I'm I would respectfully request that um that the public hearing be closed and conditioned upon an an acceptable construction protocol. Um I think that you know we can put that together and demonstrate to the

068board that this will be done in a um in a manner with the board would be satisfied with but you know we are happy to come back if the board has questions regarding that protocol. So, why don't we leave the public record open for the submission of a detailed construction protocol and if we have any questions or additional information that we need, we can deal with it then. How much time do you think you'll need? >> Um, I don't know if 30 days I I think is is plenty of time to get that together. >> Figure out what the next >> Okay, that works. We have a meeting on February 24th. >> The 26th, which is >> about 30 days. >> Or March 3rd. >> That's a little more than 30 days. >> Let's shoot

069for the 24th. And if we need more time, we we'll request it, but I'm sure we can get it done within that time frame. >> And if we need to continue the hearing, we will advise you then. >> Thank you, >> Burger. Okay. So in the application for 186 MH LLC at 186 Monttok highway in Monttok tax map 300-087-03-19. I make a motion to close the public hearing and leave the written record open for receipt of a construction protocol until February 24th. >> Second. >> I concur. I concur. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Next is the application of Nigel Curtis, 393 Cranberry Hill Road, Amigansit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-128-1-28.2. Description is to relocate an existing residence to a more landward location and remove a linear foot geocube sandbag on a parcel

070of land containing barrier dunes, beaches, dune land, and beach vegetation. I just lost my place. Relief sword is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255 420 of the town code and any other relief necessary. The residence and decking are proposed to be moved from 125 moved from 12 feet and 5T from the tune crest respectively to 32.1 ft and 27.9 ft or a 75 ft setback is typically required pursuant to 25540 coastal setbacks. Zoning district is a residence zoning A residence a flood zone elevation 10 secret class is type two but council we did bring up earlier that we would have a discussion on whether or not >> yes >> it would be unlisted. >> Yeah. Well, yeah, we have that discussion. >> Is the affidavit of uh >> purpose and posting in order,

071council? >> Uh, yes. I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything uh seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Remember Mary, do you have a field inspection? >> Yes, thank you. I do. Um, so I visited the site last week to get ahead of the snowstorm. So I'm standing on Cranberry Hall Road, my facing the property. I have a I have another photo probably come up later of a little closer of the posting, but it was properly posted um along uh the highway. You can see the house, the existing house in the distance. Now, um, as of today, we received several documents into the record that show the house actually being moved, uh, basically in this area in front of the house. Um, when I took

072the photos and everything, the house was going to be moved to the, uh, sort of other corner of the lot. So, the the photos I took really focused partly on what the last application was. Okay. So, um, as you go in that driveway in front of that house, as I understand the application with the new survey and such we got today, that house is really coming forward as opposed to being shifted over. Next slide. >> Um, my back now is to the house. This is just the north side of Cranberry Hole Road, right across from uh the property in question, just to get a little sense of the context and the beauty of the natural landscape in this area that we're all familiar with. Next slide. Um, okay. So, I've gone on the I can't

073even see my photo. I've gone on the property and I'm basically continuing down um continuing down the driveway that exists. Next slide. Um this is the existing front facade of the house. Again, this house is not being rebuilt. It's being moved uh basically as is. Next slide. Um okay, so this is towards the eastern side of the house. There's a garage tucked under there. Um this is the area on the sort of eastern side of the property um that has more sort of undisturbed natural resources on it. again. Now I'm getting into a couple photos of where the house was had proposed to be moved. Next slide. Um, yes. Sort of, uh, I think, yes, I moved further east and you can actually start to see down to the water. Next slide. Um, now there's

074a I think where I'm standing is still on the property. There's topography and then it slopes down into duneland. It's easier to see from the aerials. Brian could probably actually say exactly where the dune land ends on this property and continues on the property to the east. You can see the eastern uh neighbor um for context as well. Again, this area will still be in play because I think of the new position of the driveway, but it won't be disturbed by the house as it's now proposed. Next slide. Um okay, this is sort of more of that area. I'm looking right now at the current house that will be moved forward. That is the eastern uh facade of the current house. Next slide. Um this is just a closer. This was meant to be in

075the beginning. And just so you can see I didn't get the it was properly dated and the house is also uh actively for sale. There's a for sale sign hanging out there as well. Next slide. Okay. Now I've come around kind of cut my way through. There was no access to the back of the prop. No easy access to the back of the property. So I skirted down around the western rear of the property. You can start to see the geo cubes, the western most geo cubes coming into play. I dropped down onto the beach and went to the rear of the house. Next slide. Um I popped up onto the rear deck. Um and then this is the walkway down to the water. Next slide. I went down those steps and you can see

076that the base of the steps is basically in the water at this point. Um, okay. I went down onto the beach. This is these are the geo cubes on uh more towards the uh western side. Um, and then that you can see the western neighbor um directly uh impacted. And then next slide, these are the geo cubes continuing and going east. And then you can see in the distance, we saw that house in another photo, the eastern property owner, which also has geocubes around it. You can sort of see them in the distance there. That might be it. One more anymore. Oh, I'm sorry. Just again looking back up at this house with the geo cubes, the three levels there. Next slide. And that I meant to get this. This is the house across the

077street um on Cranberry Hole. That's I guess direct neighbor. Um I just took that as well for context. I think that's it. >> Thank you. >> Is there someone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. >> First time. Congratulations. Richard A. Hammer from Biano and Hammer. I'm here representing Nigel and Monica who are actually here with me tonight and they're in the audience uh for this project on 393 Cranberry Hall Road. I'm going to try to be brief, but I'm also going to try and be a little bit thorough because there's a lot going on here. Uh I don't know how many me board members will recall this, but there's a long history surrounding this property. It's kind of in limited value for the consideration of

078our current application, but to the extent that the prior application history is relevant, I would ask that this record be made available to the new board members just so you can review and and understand how we got here tonight. Quick summation, at least for purposes of tonight. Previously, this board had denied the application to allow the geocube structures that you see along Gardener's Bay to remain. Uh that was a resolution dated November 2021, November 16th. The owners challenged this decision in Supreme Court. I really haven't been a participant in the litigation, but I have been aware of some of the pleadings. This application was submitted as part of a stipulation that will either result in a discontinuence, basically, you know, the litigation will go away or a continuence if this application were to be denied

079by the board. My office was contacted at that point, hey, can you submit this application? Uh I wasn't really involved in discussion of what was proposed or or you know hashing out how this was going to be done. Uh my office received the TAM for this project just after Christmas. Uh and we've been working diligently to provide as much of the requested information to accommodate the concerns raised by the TIM or the suggestions. Uh and I think we made major changes to the project. One of which um member Miring noticed tonight. uh you know, these applications for erosion and structures in in areas that are prone to erosion are very difficult applications and they're probably my least favorite application uh to deal with. Uh but I think we've really tried to be as accommodating and

080cooperative with the town uh as possible. You know, I I never predict that Brian and I are going to hold hands and sing kumbaya out of the board. We might not want that anyway, but you know, we're really trying to be here in a cooperative fashion and address whatever concerns we can. As a snapshot, the town's current sea regulations basically would favor a retreat from an eroding natural feature, which is what we're proposing to do here. A central part of this application involves the removal of the existing geocube structural and to relocate the residents depicted in the plans. These were submitted paper copies today. It was admitted to the portal Saturday. I think the architect sent him to us Friday and then we had a snow day. So, there was a little bit of delay,

081but basically this was all done and is consistent with uh the TAM. I was trying to keep Brian in the loop and I sent him a bunch of this stuff so we can get his comments tonight and see if we uh have other things we can address. Uh we also uh the the original plan proposal was to relocate the resident to the east side of the property. We proposed this because at the time it made a lot of sense. we could construct a new foundation, lift the house, move it onto the new foundation uh in in one move basically. Um, a little bit simpler. The TAM suggested moving this house to the southwest of the property, which our updated drawings now uh depict. As per the TAM, this is the location that's best protected from

082coastal erosion. Part of which is resulting from the interaction of the uh the geocube structural im immediately to the east, which I should point out um has no legal entitlements to exist in its current configuration either, but it does provide some form of benefit to this property, particularly while it remains. Putting the house in the southwest corner would make sense. It just requires us to move the structure to the proposed stone driveway you see on the plans. Uh while we demolish the old foundation and build a new foundation land of the existing house and move it onto the foundation. I did submit a letter from Davis House Movers addressing this project. I expected them to be much more elaborate and they were kind of like, "Oh, this a tiny little house. We do this, you

083know, we do this in our sleep basically is kind of my my read of it." They said, "It's a small house. Uh they uh elevate this on a unified hydraulic jack with dollies that basically they can roll the thing uh wheeled cribs, move it and set it on cribbing temporarily before it's moved back onto the foundation of the west. They've moved thousands of these houses apparently. I spoke to the woman and she was like, "You're asking how we do this? This is what we do for a living." Uh but they they didn't think this was going to be a challenging move at all based on the size. Uh they will also continue to use part of the driveway and garage on the structure detailed in the TAM if we moved it to the west. This

084space became more inaccessible uh for its use. Our new drawings show the relocation of the residence to the west and we lined it up 35 ft from the western property line that the TAM suggested 30 ft. That is our neighbor who also intervened in the litigation and also submitted some letters tonight. Uh we wanted to provide enough clearance from the pyramid line on this property and provide a little bit of a buffer to that property line. The house will be moved back about 34 feet from the existing structure. I just scaled that from the survey. Um and from the bluff line shown on the survey and realign basically it's kind of oriented this way. We're going to realign it on a north south axis as we move it back. Uh the plans also detail the

085new elevation of the stairs at 17.8 8 in above sea level and how we're proposing to realign the walkway to utilize the existing coastal access that that apparently is underwater depending at what time type of tide you were there. Based on this new location, we also submitted a revised septic plan prepared by TF engineers that relocates the proposed sanitary in in accordance with the health department code. It'll be oriented along the front lot line along Cranberry Hole Road and achieve the greatest possible setback to the surface waters at Gardener's Bay. We removed the outdoor shower from the plan. It was a long feature on this property. We couldn't find it on the CL and we just thought we'd simplify it and remove it. Uh, one issue that has arisen is the new FEMA regulations that

086require 3 and 1/2 ft of freeboard. Prior to January 1st, we were only required to provide 2T of female uh freeboard. So, our new drawings show compliance with the new FEMA regulations as we understand them. But I really don't have a straight answer on how this applies, when it will apply, how you get grandfathered in. I think we're kind of working through those. You can see the small roof feature. It's actually like a top of a dormer. It's not part of the gross floor area. Uh violates the overall height limitation by 1t 3 1/2 in, which you know, FEMA requires 18 additional inches. So, we're a couple inches under, you know, we almost fit uh before we fit with this new requirement. Uh we don't fit by one foot, three and a half inches. Uh

087I'm not sure exactly how this impacts our proposal, but you know, I did speak to the clients and they said, "Well, we think we could remove that feature, you know, which would significantly drop the roof height. It's a little tiny. If you look at the drawing we submitted, it's like a little triangle of the top. And we think we could remove that and reframe the roof well below it. So, it might be an easier fix than I thought it was going to be. Um, uh, depending on what the board's position or what the building inspector's position is on how it's going to affect us. So, that is certainly what we're willing to do. The TAM as also asked for more information on GEOQ removal activities. Uh based on the limited time I had, I did

088call Billy Mack from First Coastal. He was the one who designed and installed these cubes years ago. The actual plans for those are part of the the zoning board application previously. So you can reference them. It's kind of like one row and then two rows stacked on top of it. Uh these are the existing cubes. They have not been altered or amended in any way. Uh what he told me is they're filled with beach compatible sand that was trucked into the site. Removal of them is simpler than I would have thought. They simply cut the bags to release the sand and use an excavator arm uh you know to basically remove the the fabric uh and throw it in a dumpster. It's not a huge project uh just to remove these things. Uh I don't

089have time to get a full proposal from him to do this work, but I can submit his email to the board. Uh and and this is one of the things that's raised in the letter that was submitted to you today. You know, when we're talking about type two versus type unlisted actions, one of the things the neighbor is suggesting, and I don't think it's a bad suggestion, is that this also include a bluff restoration plan that's unlisted removal of geocubes, installing geocubes, that's all type two action. So, what what the neighbor is saying, well, this should be unlisted because we want to expand the scope of what you applied for. And I can't disagree with that at the end of the day that, you know, having a bluff restoration plan that's going to incorporate these

090the removal of these cubes and basically a recontouring and maybe an addition of some uh sand to this area to reestablish a natural shoreline that's consistent and will remove the scalloped effect there. Not a bad idea, and I'm happy to do that either as a separate application, a condition of approval. Basically, I'll take the board's lead on how you want that to happen. and I just didn't have time to get it in front of them tonight. Uh, but it does sound like reading his letter, what they want is after these cubes are removed, everything recontoured with the addition of more beach compatible material so that we create a regular uh shoreline. The shoreline would have to add to match up to the existing geo cube, you know, the extent of the geo cubes uh and

091just be contoured in such a manner that we'd be able to reestablish and plant that area. And I'm happy to do that. uh just didn't have time to do that for tonight and and how that affects coordinated review versus non-coordinated review uh is something we'll have to work out uh between the attorneys and the board and and what makes the most sense. Um we don't really have any issue with the proposed conditions and mitigation of the project outlined in the TAM. We are working on our DEC permit that was submitted uh also by the neighbor. I think we we submitted that as well. Uh basically my reading of the DEC's uh letter was hey kind of get your East Hampton Town permits out of the way first and then coordinate and then we'll work with

092you. So if we're going to coordinate review as an unlisted that might be the opportunity to do that. Uh but you know the the DC's procedure and their uh application is a little different than the towns. However, I do think having both agencies coordinate and and being in favor of something would be helpful uh in terms of moving that project forward. Uh I really don't know how to address the height issue other than removing that feature from the the plans which would seem to be the easiest. We weren't trying to create an issue at all and FEMA when we realized the new changes and and how it would apply um you know changed the the optics of this thing. Uh however we were fully compliant with all tone zoning uh dimensional regulations other than bluff

093crest and wetland just because of the the nature of the pro property. Uh but you know I do think you also have the the stated relief of and other relief necessary that we could look at and if we if we did cut it off it would pretty much eliminate entirely. As I said we're trying to be accommodating as cooperative as we can. We hope the board will be project. We think it will achieve numerous goals. remove the geocube structure uh resolve the litigation and provide a meaningful environmental benefit to this coastline and also provide a measure of protection to the structure. One thing I did want to point out is yes you you took a picture of the for sale sign. Nigel and Monica are here tonight. I think they're just out of money at

094the end of the day. This is a very expensive project. Uh and their hope is that you know that this will allow them to move on and find somebody who will complete this or or accept the It's irrelevant anyway. >> It's it's irrelevant at the end of the day, but this isn't a a power play. This is somebody who's really trying to do the best they can with what the what hands they're holding right now. So, I I I think it' probably be easier to have Brian speak because No, >> I actually have a couple of questions. >> Whatever questions you have. Sure. >> So, we know the GEO cubes have been there for seven years. So, the chances of them completely falling apart when you do go to lift them is very probable. What's

095your methodology with that sand? When it does fall out, what are you going to do with it? What where will it go? Other than just drop down where it is. >> It's going to drop down where it is. >> But I mean, can't you put it on the top of a dune or use it in some other benefit? >> Well, I don't think you would want to retreat the shoreline on further. We're our proposal would be to remove the geocubes and allow the material. It's going to spill out. It's not going to it will basically recreate the shoreline exactly where they're removed. Uh so what a good proposal would be I think and I would defer to Brian in terms of what he'd want to see but would be a recontouring and perhaps uh you

096know an augmentation of the the material that's there to create a natural shoreline that we could plant with beach grass or maybe some core logs or or something else that would actually provide some structural stability while this reestablishes itself. That's the best effort we I think we can make based on the removal of these of trying to stabilize that shoreline in its current location. >> Now the other question I have is we know that there's going to be excavation on the beach and page eight of the protocol as pointed out in the TAM notes that there's really no detail on how much sand will be excavated from the beach. So, I just feel that a more detailed assessment of how much more is going to be necessary. >> I'm happy to provide that. I'm not

097sure how where where it's getting excavation on the beach. The geocubes I think they were thinking would need to be dug out. In reality, I think they're going to be winched out from on top of them basically. So, I don't think they need when they set the geoc cubes, they actually excavated the beach face, put them in to create that that row of the bottom bags, but I think those will just pull out right from the top. Basically, once you cut them, they'll come right out. Those things have also been exposed to sun and seawater for seven years there. If you there was another picture that showed the uh the Serotaa property as well. Those are geocubes are you know literally when I was there they look like you could poke them with your finger

098and they would fall apart basically. So I don't think removing these geocubes is going to be that difficult but I'm happy to get a protocol from the person who installed them for >> the I just have now has there been any kind of a beach restoration plan? >> A beach restoration plan? No. That's what we're talking about developing. You know, this has all been about geocubes were installed, geocubes are going to be removed. And and what I think would make sense would be like either the board continuing this hearing, if you're going to change the secret type, you know, let's make it an unlisted if that's what the board would like and we can submit this beach restoration plan that has all of these components. Basically, add to the scope of our project. And I'm

099okay with that because I think it makes sense. >> I think it does, too. >> Does the board have any questions? I do. I have a couple of things, but this is a kind of a touchstone project anyway. A lot of conversation about geocubes. The uh applicant has been in front of us. There's been give and go a long time. Obviously, uh the discussion of the removal of the geocubes has been pointed out by the chair is it's essential to us understanding how this is moving forward and I think the sensitivity of it really requires that we get some sort of additional uh assessment from uh you know, first coastal you know before we move forward. My other question though, the thing I was going to bring up and and you can't speak for Davis.

100This house I can see where we now we're moving it to the to the west which is an improvement that from the original based on what the recommendations were. However, it seems to me that's going to have to be moved uh to the south and the east in order for the new foundation to go in. Take a look at this because I can see that the new foundation is going to be over part of the existing foundation. >> Oh, that's correct. So, it's going to have to go east and then come back. That's not the problem. That's not the question I really have. So, we're going to see this come over and go east. They're going to put a foundation in, >> right? And then they're going to move it back on the foundation. At

101that point, this house will be back 35 ft where whatever the number is now, going to be 47 feet from the bluff. Right now, when we go to remove the the geo cubes, we have some room to work. We're talking about bringing in an excavator, reaching down. the discussion and I'm sure Brian will have somebody say, but the discussion of what happens to the sand and how it's handled and how we we repair whatever kind of excavation has to be made there. We know there's geo cubes buried. There may be more than one row of them buried. There's lots of things we can't exactly comment on, but we're going to have to make sure rely on the protocol, but at that point, uh, we're going to access this by bringing a machine out, sitting there

102with a little more room. There's no room now to work on the bluff to take out the geocube. Geoc cubes stay till the house is moved and in place. >> Right. >> Yes. >> There's some some repair done to the land where the half house had previously sat and then the geo cubes are removed. That's pretty much the the procedure. Yes. That one other question I have and I'd like Brian will comment on a couple of these items here. This new FEMA regulation, are you going to be subject to that based on the timing of all of this? I mean, are you going to be required to go up that additional 18 in? >> I believe so. I I reached out to the build the chief building inspector to see how they're interp because this

103is a you know just it's only been 27 days so >> it hasn't come up a ton yet um >> it is they have submitted plans already >> so there's a question if it's grandfathered in it's not really a question for us to decide that's really the building inspector's determination but >> if he says they're grandfathered in then they can go don't need a variance if they're not they and they need to either get a variance or chop it down. >> I I do think that if I were the land owner and they're here tonight, I would probably comply with the most frustr, you know, if FEMA is projecting this based on climate change or whatever else is is driving this, I would want to comply with the new the new regulation uh because I

104think it's safer. The difference of us complying and not complying is basically a little ridge line with a little tiny corner. And I think we could just agree to remove that. I can probably get architectural plans that show the removal of that and which case we'll be fully compliant. >> Well, that's something to do with grading in the end anyway. We're moving it closer to the road an additional 18 in additional amount of grading. I think we'll get that clarified either through some >> if they're going to raise it to the female. >> They're going to raise it anyway. Okay. that we're not cutting. >> There's also one point that I forgot to bring up before. >> There is an outdoor shower on the north side, and that seems to be new. We took it

105out. >> Oh, you did take it out. Okay. Cuz I've been away from this relocated. It's been there a very long time, but we just couldn't find where it would first arose, whether it was >> Excellent. Very good. That's excellent. Off my list. >> Um, >> thank you. May I um so uh a couple just a couple things. So given the house is moving east and then west and then so um question I asked in the last application the limits of clearing the proposed final limits of clearing are not that much different than existing but um do we know how much I don't see on the new survey I don't think I see a limits of clearing so do we know >> it does show proposed limits of clearing and it's a little bit more

106like 50 square feet. It's very small. Part of it is because our proposed there's a lot of that property that is cleared right now. Even though it has vegetation on it, it has, you know, some of the the uh ornamental pines, etc. That area is already cleared basically. And if you look at our proposed survey, uh you can even see the area eyeballing it, moving this structure to the uh east, it almost fits in that area while they're constructing the new foundation. That's one good thing. and our limits of clearing shouldn't be affected. You know, it's not like we're right up against it. We still have a lot of that beach vegetation that's well outside of the area that was proposed uh uh that's not cleared right now. >> And you're going to run the

107driveway according to this in from that souththeast corner. >> We're getting rid of it from the the west. >> Right. And may I just ask because it makes it sprawl a little bit more and I'm just thinking about the bit of topography and the and the beach vegetation that's there now that maybe I mean is was there an opportunity to consolidate that a little more? >> I think we could consolidate it. Uh you know it wasn't affect >> per se. Uh one thing I would notice note is that there is a driveway that you're driving into. So, you know, that might be I don't think a lot of thought was given to it other than well, you'd want to drive in and have access to the driveway, but we could we could consolidate that a

108little bit more if it made sense. >> And then back to FEMA for a second. I'm looking at the new it it's a new set. It has the um the drawings and it has uh the levels, the floor plans, right? So, um, as I understand it, the basement, which is not which is under the minimum FEMA height, can't have any living space, right? It's just storage and a >> very strange house >> because the reason I'm asking is because now it says garage converted to bedroom. So, this would be in the lower level. That would not be female. >> That's actually the first That's the first story. Nope. I'm looking at page A103, proposed basement plan. So, which in the prior set of plans, it just said garage, but I just wanted to double check.

109>> Are you sure you're looking at the current plan? Because the current plan, >> that garage is actually on the same level. And the owners are here. They can probably elaborate more. >> Okay. >> And we had it proposed to the east. you couldn't use it as a garage anymore because it was going to be up in >> I'm looking at the plans dated January 23rd 2026 we can come back to it and maybe it's just a typo >> yeah the ones just submitted >> just submitted >> yeah so I was looking at it just because it said converted garage bedroom three >> yeah that it should be remain as garage basically that's the uh you know that that is the reason this makes sense in some respects >> yeah when we leave the record

110open, but that's another, you know, January 26. So, I personally haven't had an opportunity to >> review that. So, that's going to be the board is entitled to >> time to review and get back how they feel about it. >> Okay. >> I think I' I'd like to hear from planning, but I are we is the board uh >> questions. >> Yeah. >> I'd like to hear from the planning board uh planning department right now. >> Board or department? I'm making I'm promoting um Brian tonight. >> Good evening again, Brian Frank >> Peanut Gallery. >> Um so Andy uh Andy did a a a good job summarizing the history um and the fact that this hearing is at least in part part of a stipulation of settlement. I just want to add to the fact

111that there was um SRA followed for the retention of the GEOQ's application and that decision did come after the preparation of uh a positive declaration and an environmental impact statement. So there is a lot more information about the history of the house and the geocubes in that file. I think uh Andy uh referenced the suggestion that the the board review that information um to have the the full picture of um the history. Um this application is to remove and relocate to to relocate the house landward and remove the geo cubes. Um the relocation of the house landward is something that the planning department strongly encourages. It is consistent with the town code, the LWRP, the comprehensive plan, and the uh coastal assessment and resiliency plan that was also made part of of the comp plan

112uh to to relocate landward in an erosive uh situation. Um the planning department does believe that the western portion of the property is a little bit more resistant to erosion than the eastern portion of the property. The elevations are about 4 ft higher. Um I'll go back to the aerial in a moment, but the um scour effect from the um uh GOQ Brevetment on the adjoining property to the east is um un unmistakable. I think it's it's pretty obvious from the aerial photos. you have a slew of aerial photos in the impact statement files that kind of uh basically all all the photos that we have going back to um prior to the construction of the um uh GEOC rebetman in in 2018. Um and there was a time when this section of shoreline was

113not um one of our hot spots for uh coastal erosion. Uh the lot is also a little bit deeper to the west. So, the setbacks uh the coastal setbacks increase from 32 to about 40. Um the uh walkway to the beach is something that wasn't on the original certificate of occupancy. Uh structures like that are coastal access structures. They don't require variances. Um the most recent revision that you have uh does account for the elevation changes that it takes to get down to the beach. part of leaving the record open. I do think that once you get to wherever the the dune crest or the edge of whatever is established here, it's probably a good idea to turn that staircase parallel to the face of the dune instead of perpendicular. As uh member Miring noted

114in in her in her photos and Andy referenced in her in her presentation, uh the seawward edge of that staircase right now is seawward to mean high water. So the the the lowest section is intersecting interacting with the tide. looked like at least some of the the boards had been uh replaced. Uh turning it um parallel to the dune um to the to the face of the dune leaves a little bit more beach. I'd encourage looking at a a staircase where the seawwardmost section retracts up. This way when there is a storm that's less likely to become waterborne debris that uh uh damages either this property or the uh adjoining properties as it as it becomes um you know uh flatsom. Um, but that's kind of more of a of of a minor point. The

115most important elements of this application obviously is getting the house in the safest location on the property and um getting a better understanding of um exactly how the um geo cubes are going to be removed and how the shoreline is going to be uh naturalized. Andy uh address the shower. I'm not >> I I think it I'm I'm still not clear whether that that the shower is removed from the application or if it's relocated somewhere else on the new house. >> Um just as a as a point of of information anywhere on the house, it would require a variance as a new structure. There's no place that could meet the 75 foot uh doomrest setback that we have um in this area. Um the we're coming up on the time of the year that's going

116to be ideal to do this work, especially the the shoreline work. Best time to do any type of coastal restoration is um in um early enough in spring where you're late enough to escape hopefully the noraster season, but in the beginning of the growing season so that as you as you um stabilize any any doom that you reestablish on this property, any beach grass has the long longest duration of growing season that that it has a chance uh to establish. and that's variable, but late March, early April is is probably the best window um for that for that beach grass growth. Um I do think you need a lot more detail about um how those geocubes are are going to be removed. I I don't think it's as simple as um the conveyance from uh

117Billy Mack over the phone. Um you definitely have the the this this revetment spans the width of the property. That's almost 200 linear feet. About 185 linear feet. They are stacked at least three high. And in at least in one section, we know that there's a in the western portion in the area of the stairs was evident in member Miring's photos. It was also evident in in earlier photos. There's a row that's in front of the seawwardmost row. It's also kind of evident or appears to be evident from the um uh from member Miring's photos of the western return that there may be two rows of of sandbags here. Um I'm not looking to put anybody on the on the spot here. The other sandbags that I've seen, the other reetment structures that I've seen

118exposed over time, all of them have been two rows. And I think the prudent thing to do is to base the removal protocol on the assumption that there may be twice the quantity of bags and twice the volume of sand that is that is shown on on the plan. Andy referenced the plan that was uh approved by the DEEC in the town back in 2018. It did show one vertical stack of um three tiers of uh cubes um that the structure is supposed to consist of. I expect that it's more than that. The lowest level I is definitely below the beach level and requires excavation of the beach. You can't start restoring um the beach until you get that lower level out. So, the idea that you're going to lift a bag, cut it, let

119the sand spill out doesn't seem to make sense because the top row of bag is on top of at least two more layers of of of bag at a lower level. And you've got to get to those lower le you've got to get the bottom of the structure out before you can start filling in what you excavate from the beach. Um, that sand should be used to um naturalize the the dune and the beach as much as possible. It's a little bit of a tight squeeze here between the dune crest and mean high water. Typically, uh, dune restorations, generally you try to put the sand above the mean high water line so it doesn't start sloughing off immediately and that may result in a pretty steep an unnaturally steep slope of uh the beach here.

120Um, I'd like to see all that material put along the the doomcrest or the beach as much as they can, including maybe even putting some on the escarment that's left when those geo cubes come out. The dimension of those bags is 3x3x3. So, where the doomcrest is now, you know, it's kind of right on top of the bag. So, the doom crest is going to come back by 3 ft at least just by removing those bags out. And as much as you can infill that um uh that cavity that's left by the removal or cavity trench, whatever the right uh uh uh term is, um as much as you can naturalize that area that's excavated, that should be encouraged. If the volume is greater because there's more sand uh than anticipated, then I support putting

121at least some of that sand right on top of the escarment where it's not going to be um interacting with the shoreline and may provide a little bit more um coastal protection to the to the new house. But you definitely need a plan that indicates what type of machinery is going to be used, where that access to the shoreline is is going to come from. The idea that you're going to be able to do all of this from behind the dune, I think is unlikely. You've seen the condition of the bags. Um, in member Miring's photos, Andy referenced the fact that they've been exposed to the elements for at least 7 years. I think they're their integrity is is probably pretty limited and um they may fall apart when you when you go to lift

122them out. I think they're going to well anyway, I think their their integrity is has probably uh diminished over time. Um the the secret classification was a little bit of a surprise on this. It's uh ironic. We did seek for the um the the uh revetment to remain and the it's been postulated that we should be doing it and considering it an unlisted action uh for the removal um which I hadn't considered. um that doesn't really change the substance of the application, but it does change the procedure. And if it allows uh uh coordination with the the DEEC, that might be a benefit to everybody. I I did see a copy of the uh incomplete letter that the DEEC provided uh that I think was submitted by the adjoining uh neighbor to the um uh

123West, and I I was a little bit surprised that it doesn't say anything about the GEO cubes. It has some questions about the design of the house and some calculations for for coverage, but um um didn't didn't seem to seem to raise that. And I I I found that a little bit uh uh surprising because it is close to the shoreline here. Uh it it seems like it's something that is uh also within uh title wetland jurisdiction even though ironically it's landware to the coastal erosion hazard line. this that that that that's a whole another thing that uh don't get me started on. >> That's my line. >> Uh the sanitary system is pretty straightforward. I think it was pretty straightforward when the leeching field was oriented to to go from the on-site wastewater treatment

124system to the west. They've basically flipped that. It's in the land most location. It could be in um you know what we expect to be uh clean sand. um might be the most straightforward uh uh aspect of the um application. Um I don't have an objection to the house meeting the new FEMA regulations. Um but we do have the same questions about um what is vested and this application was deemed complete before the end of the year. um the we haven't really gotten the guidance from the state about what their mandate is in terms of how we're uh applying this. So um again, I'm not going to block anybody from uh or or discourage anybody from uh making their house as resilient and and as safe as as possible. But um we still have questions

125about what is actually required beyond um the 2T of freeboard above the base flood elevation that the state building code had required until the end of last year. They did add 18 in of more of additional freeboard to account for um sea level rise and um that's kind of the the crux of the application. Um I uh would echo member Miring's comments about the driveway. I'd like to see the driveway, the driveway is about the same footprint of the house right now, and kind of returning it to roughly the square footage that's there now would leave more of that uh uh duneland vegetation that is um uh pristine in the eastern portion of of the property. Um and I I I think that's it. Uh, I think that's all of the the the comments that

126I have. I I do think because of the nature of this application. No house has been moved on Cranberry Hall Road yet. We do have an approval for one that was issued a number of years ago that hasn't been acted upon yet. So this is a you know a bit of an important application as well as the opportunity to get rid of um those um those geocubes from the shoreline which um uh you know in in short erosion control structures don't solve the problem, they move the problem. And you you can see that uh from the aerial photos. You can see what's happening in this stretch of shoreline where there are a number of these. and um you know that's uh you know they're the removal of of these geo cubes should be encouraged and

127facilitated uh to the fullest extent possible. >> So can I just drill down on that for a second? So I'm reading the bottom of page two of your TAM. Um the planning department supports land relocation of the residents, the removal of the entire geo cube revetment and restoration of the shoreline as soon as possible. So this is the question it just sort of came up. We know that a board can grant an approval if this is approved. Um but you know someone has three years and then can renew approval. So what real realitywise is is can the can the zoning board >> specify or what would you specify as the timing of the removal of the geo cubes? >> Well in agreement with you >> in the recom you in in the recommended project conditions

128you actually address that but you don't really give it a definitive time frame. You say a definitive time frame should be established for the removal of, >> right? >> So maybe um wherever this goes, we be more specific about the point member Mary is making because it's a good one cuz you're saying late March or early April is when this should get done. So we should actually uh be a little bit more detailed about exactly when this should take place because you don't really requires the condition. >> Sorry. It it also requires a building permit, requires a DEC permit before they they can do things. >> Uh early April would be ideal, but I and and I don't know uh I don't know how to answer that question. I don't know what the zoning board's

129compulsory powers are. You're you're a quasi judicial board. Your role is to approve or deny things. You're not an enforcement um institution. Um, >> but my question is in your condition that you've put in here, could you be could we be more specific? You be more specific about the time? >> I think that's up to the applicant to address. you know that the the applicant has the obligation to meet the requirements of the other uh permitting agencies, answer the questions that the DEEC have, >> get in the queue for the issuance of a of a building permit, and then when all of that is done, >> I don't know what compulsory mechanisms there are to act on the permit, especially, you know, the the sale of the property is not really relevant. These these permits

130run with the land. So, it's not like, well, this is a, you know, this is a great guy. It's a lousy application, but he's a wonderful person. Let's give him the permit. Or the opposite. It's a great application, but guy, the guy is such a jerk. We we're going to, you know, the permits run with the land. So, whether whether it's the Curtis's or or whoever succeeds them and the property is is kind of irrelevant. The idea is to get the ducks in a row so that this could actually be implemented. and whether the that is something that the court ends up intervening because there isn't action. Um that that's a little bit out of my wheelhouse to to address. >> Thank you, Brian. >> And then also just a small thing in the TAM

131it says some portions of the application uh some of the part of the project require may require an approval from the East Hampton trustees. So what is that like what part would need that and where do we bring that into the process here? >> I always defer to the trustees on their jurisdiction. >> Okay. >> So I um I don't remember the trustees being an active participant in the GEOC application. >> Um and um I'm actually surprised I I put that in there. I'll be honest with you. >> That's right. But because they did they get no they didn't get noticed for this application >> they may have um well no the bay is the bay is um >> state waters I don't know that they've claimed jurisdiction >> on this >> I thought it

132was just DEC >> I don't >> myself >> I don't well we >> any more questions >> okay go ahead >> yeah a couple of things um one is about this idea of timing um they get an approval I don't where we'd have any jurisdiction to be telling them limiting a time period and this has to be done within it. I mean where does that come from? I don't know if we have that legal we're in a legal position to do that. In other words, if uh approval gets granted on this and they decide to move forward with the project, there's lots of moving parts here. There's no guarantee it can be done in any more than just a normal a normal procedure on any of these things. We see we give approvals and we

133see the work doesn't progress for two years. they have the approval. They have three years to get started. So, we have that and I don't know exactly now legal can talk about it and all that. I'm more interested now to talk a little bit about um what happens about the removal of the geocubes which is one of your major concerns. We have 350 bags there. Maybe, you know, if it's 185 feet and they're three foot, three foot high, 182 rows, 350, something like that. That material, even if it can be preserved carefully and used, it's probably not enough to do the restoration of that bluff. We need to know exactly what has to be cut back. In other words, we need more information. We'll need a plan. We've just we've said that. And then and

134then the planting on that as well. So now we need we need to a full estimate by whomever is going to do the work on what it's going to take to utilize that sand as best they can. The removal is critical. What do we utilize the sand as best we can? Whether it gets dumped above and put down below. Again, there's got to be a a protocol, right? And I think there's going to be more material needed. Now, am I wrong with that? I mean, we're only talking about 400 yards of fill in these bags. Well, that that that would be, you know, more fill to restore the beach would be something to consider as part of a of a separate application. I would certainly encourage that. Um, >> but the IDE, this application is

135about removing the geocubes, getting the sand that's within them on the beach or the dune in the best way possible and moving the house landward. Anything beyond that is kind of uh a little bit extra. I wouldn't close the door to that. If the project sponsors say we want to add to the volume of beach compatible sand to make uh something viable again the distance between the geo cubes and mean high water is is pretty limited right now. it and you you need you know ideally you've got a slope that's really not more than 45 degrees generally you want it more shallow than that I don't know that you can even I don't even know where a 45 degree angle from mean high water you know it probably intersects the escarment now so you're you're

136going to kind of do the best you can with the volume that you have plus you're going to fill in the part that's obviously um subsurface right now the uh the that that lowest row of sandbag that's uh lower than the the elevation of the beach right now. >> So, one of the things we're asking the applicant here and the representative is to come back with us with more detail on what's going to happen on this on this removal of the beach and also what are they going to do for a planting plan going forward? Is that correct? >> I think the planning plan is you'll keep it simple just just keep it a beach grass 12 in on center. That's what they covered the uh geocube with uh initially. That's what we would encourage

137of anybody on Cranberry Hole Road who wanted to augment their dune. Um that this is not the spot to um uh get artistic or creative. You know, keep keep >> plan comes back to us and says we were looking for 30 or 35 degree angle. You said 45 would be the maximum and we would then see what was needed to create a 45 degree angle. I'm just looking in terms of procedure here. It's possible we get something back. Here's a planning plan. is going to require more fill. You're saying that's going to require another application going to be tied into this one with approval of the planting plan. The planting plan was going to require, I'm going to speculate here, additional material to create the angle we're looking for and to do what's necessary in

138this very delicate area. >> I think the the low bar, the baseline is taking the sand that's there >> and putting it on the beach, >> naturalizing it as much as you can. If the applicant chooses to go above and beyond and add, I'm I'm happy to look at that, but that's really not what was what's on the table right now. The the the >> two chief elements here are moving the house back and getting rid of those geo cubes. Anything else is is kind of a bonus. You got to do something with that sand anyway. It makes the most sense to put it on the beach as best you can. And I don't know what that looks like yet because we really don't know the the volume. And that's really up to the applicant

139to design something that is doable. Not something that just looks good on paper, but that is something that is is doable. >> Well, I'm agreeing with you and I'm saying if that design comes back to us and requires more sand, are we asking them to come back with a separate application? Now we see what's going on rather than tie it into this application. We're not in a position to say that whatever plan comes back could then be uh moved forward with your approval if we had that. >> I I think you could, but I I my my only uh my only comment would be to don't do anything that that slows down the implementation of this. If they want to add sand, if the if the board is amendable to doing that as a modification,

140whether we do that separately as an expedited natural resources application, I think there are a couple of different ways that that that we can go with that. But um I I think right now there's uh there's enough complexity to kind of fill the board's plate in >> Okay. So if if the project moves forward uh there this house is going to be lifted and moved a new foundation goes in is going to be popped in. We've already discussed it with Andy then at that point they're going to remove the geocubes. The geocubes are not coming out before the house moves. >> That's basically we just told >> or should they? Well, I'm asking. Well, I'll tell you the reason why it's going to be difficult. Because there's no space right now you get machinery on

141the water side of the the the building. That building has to be moved back just for you to get access to the beach. I think when you're out there, that seems obvious to me. That's the first question. If it's not moved, it's hard to work on the beach. So, I think in terms of procedure, what I see moving forward practically, the house moves, the house gets placed, we take work on the geo cubes. Now, that's not meaning this April. That means whenever that work gets done by this or another potential applicant or another owner of the property. >> Well, I I don't know if I I I mentioned it. I I I think the best place to access the shoreline from is from the existing driveway. It's in the middle of the property. It's an

142area that's going to get disturbed and need need to get restored anyway. It stays away from the low elevations to the east, which is where the original access uh was from. you can see on the 2018 aerials where the where the machinery access uh the the shoreline in the eastern portion of the property and >> um and anyway I I think these are the moving parts that the applicant has to nail down and get in front of the zoning board. >> I've written them all down. So >> we just mentioned it all be done from above. So when you from above if you're going to do the whole 180 ft that house has to move. Now, if we're going to have a different approach, if we're going to get a piece of equipment on the

143beach or something else, that's not in front of us right now. That's not been proposed. >> You know, I I I recognize that First Coastal has installed a number of these. I don't know how many of them they've removed, but I know they've installed a number of them. And um with with respect to them, I would be surp I don't see any way that you can do this from just the Lambert side of the dune. I I don't see how you're not going to have a small excavator at least on the beach. So, one of the things we've asked we've asked is that we're going to get more information and that information will be something we have to consider about not just the removal material, how it's to be used and how it's to be

144accessed. >> Yeah. Machinery access. >> Well, two important just just to clear this up because we we need to move on. Um, we need an assessment on how much sand is going to be excavated on the beach and we need a methodology on the geocube removal. Does anyone else want to add to that? Does and I haven't sat for one of these before. So obviously we have a construction protocol from TF Engineering but do we need an additional actual protocol from a coastal engineer as well to really go through it show us you know I mean are we setting what the angle will be beforehand or I like it sort of feels like >> my opinion is no you don't need one >> you don't need that. So, and then can I ask about the

145um the structure? I guess it's I don't know if it's a structure now from the house all the way to the beach access, but I heard what you said about moving it horizontally. So, you're stepping down from the house, but can't I mean, does it have to be a built structure? Can't it just be a 4 foot wide path? >> I think when you get to the edge of the dune, you're you're going to have a you're going to have a drop off. You've got about drop off now. So, okay. And then one last question. Once all this work is done, is there a scenic easement needed or uh um preferred for some area uh seawword of the house? >> I don't know that that's practical on this be work potential work being done and

146things like that. >> Okay. Okay. >> I think that's it for me right now. >> That's right. Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else here to appear on behalf of the application? >> Good evening, board members. Karen Hog from Timmy Leam. Um here on behalf of Lewis Saul, who is the property owner to the west at 383 Cranberry Hole. Um, based on today's submission of revised plans and the discussion that the board has and some of the comments that Brian made as well for additional information, we would ask that the board actually keep the public hearing open so that we can review the materials timely and provide further comment if needed. >> We'll be requesting our own things. So, the record will definitely be left open at the hearing. >> Thank

147you. >> We're not closing anything. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to speak on behalf of the application? Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you, >> Mr. Hammer. You came all the way. >> I'm going to have to swear you in, sir. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Thank you. Could you identify your name for the record? >> Nigel Curtis. And my wife Monica Mitchell is here, too. Um, I just wanted to say a couple of things. One, about timing. Um we are um very aware of the fact that as everybody's discussed that the bags the geocubes are deteriorating. We know that this is not a plan

148for five years. You know wait five six seven eight years. They're going to they're going to break up. So we we we understand that this is a matter of urgency to get the house back as soon as we can. So that's the first thing I'd like to state. Um, second thing I'd like to say is um that we believe however the bags are taken out, they need to be kept in place until the house is moved just because they're protecting the house at the moment. >> We there's not a possibility of taking them down first. It has to be the other way around. So that the only things that's holding the house in place at the moment. >> That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. So,

149>> so and in terms of keeping the record open, I personally would think it would make more sense to have a continuation. We can submit the addition. >> No, I think what we're going to do is um give you time. Tell us how long it's going to take for you to submit uh what we're going to request. Okay. >> And then we'll make the determination as to whether or not >> we'll have it passed on to planning and let them look at it and we'll make the determination ourselves as to when how we move forward. And then how will the secret affect factor into this? >> Yeah, that that we want to talk about with council. Yes. >> Well, I do think like you know the continuation would cover you under the secret because you

150would renotice it as now an unlisted and that would at least be built in. >> So let me ask you know I'm like a shower addict. So there is no shower on this property. >> There is no there's plenty of showers outdoor shower. No, no, no. No outdoor shower from the >> There's no outdoor shower anywhere on the property. >> There currently is one. >> There currently is and it is being removed. Yes. >> And is being removed. So you wouldn't have to get a variance. Okay. Fine. >> And I did want to point out that uh me member Miring showed that if you look at the plans, one of them is incorrectly. I think it's a foundation plan, but if you look at the floor plan, it does show that garage area with a

151car in it basically on that same set of plans on the first floor. Just looking at the Yeah, exactly. >> No, I was looking at the basement plan where it says it's a bedroom. That's all my question was. >> Okay. Sorry. But no, it is not. It's the garage. >> Okay. Okay. So, I just want to summarize and board correct me if I'm wrong. Um, we want to leave the record well everything open for an assessment on how much sand will be excavated from the beach and we also want methodology methodology on the GOQ removal. What else? Is there anything I've left out? >> I I would think you would want the plan that shows the reduction in the driveway. the overall >> the driveway reduction I had that which I think we can do

152as well if you're going to go for a height variance or >> that we have to wait >> oh >> you know we don't know the answer but I will try to explore that with our architect >> if that would be one of the things we work out in the next couple of weeks to see if you need a variance for that or if you're just going to >> sort it out >> cut it down. >> Yes, >> it's either new plan. It's either going to be we're going to cut it or we're not going to cut it. And Right. Exactly. Uh you know, but uh I also would like the opportunity to >> relocate the stairway parallel as Brian suggested uh to access. But I don't think you you do need a structure there

153because otherwise you're going to fall 7 8 ft to your death. Maybe not. >> Are we going to need a new survey? We're going to ask for new survey. >> Oh yeah. >> Say that again. said there are so many more geo cubes that may not even be >> well I would you know the problem with the geoc cubes is I'm not an expert on geoc cubes I don't think anybody here is and Billy Mack who installed these I mean he has photos of what was there I would like to get him to give me the protocol the plan and tell me exactly how they're done I will say that having an excavator that prior application that you had for uh uh that that house on old Monttok highway I was I might not have

154been in that photo but That excavator arm digging that foundation was terrifying to me. It was a guy sitting on the perch and it was digging the arm the articulated arm on that thing was digging 40 50 feet down. So I think you can do a lot from the top of the bluff without but I will get it from the horse's mouth. We need we need some sort of you know accurate protocol >> exactly how this is done and what the end result should be and and if it involves additional fill being brought in that I once again a continuation would be good because then you can renotice it as type two and we can show that we're going to you know recontour it or whatever in that same >> how much time do you

155think you'll need? >> Well, let's see. I I would ask for a minimum of 30 days I think would be sufficient. Uh and at which time the board can re you know renotice it for a continuation. >> If you need more you could let us know. >> Yeah. Okay. And that would be fine. But uh you know this isn't we're not recreating the wheel and hopefully the people that I'm contacting have the answers that I need. In terms of timing I did want to point out yeah we need the DEC we need a health department permit and if you submitted a building permit today talk to me when you think you'd get it. So uh you know I mean we have other issues at play here too. So uh you know I think probably best

156case scenario is next March or April is maybe feasible. Uh but yeah we have a lot of things in order and I don't think you want to rush into this at the end of the day. We want to make sure we have a good consistent plan that's comprehensive in all its scope and it's going to result in what everybody wants which is this house is protected, relocated, the beach is stabilized uh and these things have been removed in a manner that's going to be consistent with the neighbors interest and and trying to reestablish it uh as best we can in natural shoreline. >> We're going in a positive direction. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Is there anybody else to clarify? >> Member Burgerer has a question. >> No. Well, not from Andy necessarily. We have

157Sterling who's representing 383. Karen was representing >> same person. >> The same person. >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. >> All right. Okay. So, we >> Who's to conclude is the engineer. >> Do you want to ask council about timing for SECR? Does that impact? >> Well, we we talked about it ear do we >> for for what? I'm sorry. >> The timing for secret. Do we wait for >> Does that impact the timing of how long we're leaving this open? So we have 30 days to >> if it was unlisted then they would need to just do a coordination letter right notice it >> and the do the short form. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> Um which we can we might do as part of our submission anyway. >> Yeah. >> I don't think it

158actually affects the substance of the application but procedurally it will create additional steps with the coordinated review. Uh I I I'm of the mind that it might be good for everybody to go that route just to avoid a pitfall potentially. >> Absolutely. >> For unnecessarily. So >> if you get the short form in Andy, I'll talk to Charlie's. All right. I'll start the lead agency coordination now. The 30 days. >> And then what did Orion need in terms of time? >> No, no, no. He'll when he submits, we already handled this. When he submits his documentation, it's going to get handed on to planning and they're going to we're going to see whether or not we're going to go forward with the continuation. Okay. >> Member Maring, are you ready to >> I think I

159am. Yes. And are we asking >> are we are we getting a new Mr. Hammer? >> Sorry. Can I Are we getting a new survey as part of what we're leaving this open for? >> No. Well, he's making changes. >> It might it might show a revised profile. >> That's all right. All right. Okay. I'm just >> Yeah, >> I think I'm ready. Are we ready for Okay. Uh, in the matter of Nigel Curtis 393 Cranberry Hall Road, Amigansit, Suffach County Tax Map 300-128-1-28.2. I'm going to make a motion to leave the record and the hearing open. What's my 30-day date? >> 30 days. Is the date >> the doing the 24th? >> February 24th. >> Okay. Leave leaving open for 30 days record and hearing till February 24th for receipt of um at least

160the uh a detailed protocol around the all the issues related to excavation geo cube removal de dunes and beach restoration um a um >> reduction >> yeah I'm getting to that. Yeah. Um a submission from the applicant um uh with some modifications to the application as discussed including a driveway um what are we calling driveway reduction >> reduction um and any other additional submissions that >> relocation of the stairwell >> right yeah >> that too >> um and re that's why I was asking if needed and relocation of the stairwell. Um, that's that's the motion, correct? >> That's the motion. >> Potentially >> and potent that, >> right? >> Okay. And and if necessary, additional um revised building plans. >> Second. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you Karen. Have a good night. >>

161We'll work uh move on to our work session. The other decisions it would be LLC 24 Sammy Beach Road East Hampton Suffach County Tax Map number 300- 56-2-35.3 modification of a 2023 decision. Didn't see anything on this. Oh, I think I have something on it. Let me show it to you. >> I lost. >> So, do you mind if I do it from here, Madam Chair? >> Oh, absolutely. >> If you could blow that up as long as you can be comfortable. >> Your comfort is our >> Make it bigger. >> Yes, please. >> A lot bigger. I may have to get closer. There you >> go. Is that better? Because it's like huge on my screen right now. >> That green is terrible. But anyway, >> it's as good as it's going to get.

162If I have to step closer, I will. >> That's better. So this is Hokasai which uh my apologies to them if I've mispronounced their name but this was an application that um >> was somewhat involved at the time. It was uh simplified to be an approval to um uh remove 705 ft of existing driveway and uh reveate it allowed them to construct uh 406 ft of new driveway to access the garage. I don't know if you remember this application. There were retaining walls that um were were built very close to the wetland um that needed to get removed. Um the uh garage was enlarged to the uh west over here. This is the scaleback version. This is what the zoning board approved. Um, as built, there were changes to the um to the walkway and

163the driveway as shown on um I guess it didn't. So, this is the asbuilt change that they're they're looking to um keep. Um they had had these changes shown on a reveation plan, but the revitation plan was really about the um the the vegetation and was it's really not the right vehicle to uh propose changes in the the structure to uh the planning department doesn't have any objections to the asbuilt changes, but it does require a modification of the zoning board uh approval. Is the new are the changes further from wetlands or >> they are now further from wetlands than they were what we approved. >> So I'm sorry. What is the actual change? >> Forgive me. I'm I wasn't around for this application. So >> yeah, I don't have a memory. >> So the

164the spur of the driveway always went towards the wetland. It was cut back from what was originally proposed. Um and as built they uh flipped it. >> Mhm. Okay. So just >> there are some minor walkways that were uh in included >> but they're minor changes. They did differ from the approved survey and um pardon me require the modification. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think it's an improvement. I have no problem with it. >> I do too. I agree. I'm >> okay with it. Y In the matter of Huckasai LLC, 24 Sammy's Beach Road, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-56-2-35.3. I make a motion that Well, no, I don't think we need to make a motion because it's a modification. >> So, we'll just wait till we get the resolution. >> I'll just

165draft the modification. >> We'll just move on for it's a resolution to be prepared. Okay, good. The next is Slanam and Sarin 13 Gallatin Lane Springs suffocated tax map number 300-38-1-12 modification of a 2024 determination. >> So this was an area variance approval on Gallatin Lane in Springs. Um the original approval uh granted a variance for a second story addition that required 1.4 feet of pyramid variance from the northeast uh property line. The construction is completed. The asbuilt conditions actually require another 1.4 ft of relief. So a total of 2.8 ft total beyond the pyramid line. You can see the Oh goodness. I didn't mean to do that. >> Sorry. Hey, I don't know why the house does that. It's crazy. Um, you can see the height difference here. And that was not me. >>

166I don't know if that's a Foxit thing or if it's >> on everything. >> I'm going to blame Tyler. >> Yeah, >> he's not. >> Uh, I apologize. And it also uh the asbill conditions require um a real dimminimous a fraction of a foot.3 feet of pyramid relief on the um uh southwest side which was not originally part of the application. So um the planning department uh is bringing this to the board. You might want to have a hearing for this to give a a neighbor an opportunity to be aware of the changes >> and um comment accordingly since pyramid like other dimensional reliefs are are a big part of them are are there to protect uh neighboring properties. >> Is this a builder's error or is this just a a wrong elevation? >> Uh

167the same thing but >> it came from uh the use of uh using average grade on the property line rather than um uh natural grade as required by the code. I remember this and I remember it being a very very tight lot and the neighbor is close. So I I would agree to want to have a hearing. >> Oh, I definitely think we should have a public hearing. >> Okay. >> Vice chair. >> So do we need >> Oh, yeah. I'm with you. No, I'm with you. I'm sorry I didn't say anything. >> Okay. So, um >> we're actually going to um deny the application for a modification. We're going to deny the modification request and we're going to uh schedule it for public hearing. >> Okay. Do we need a motion on that? >>

168I don't No, I'm not sure. I don't Do we need a motion on that, do you think? >> I don't know. I'm uh Are you >> We don't do these >> taking an action. Are you denying the modification or are you >> Yeah, we are denying the Well, I mean, in the past, I always did letters saying we denied the application, but if you want to proceed, you need to go to public hearing. It was a letter, >> right? That's what >> that's how I always did it in the past. I don't know if it's changed the process, but that's how we used to do it. Probably not, right? So, we can do it that way. It's fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We'll just send them a letter. I mean, >> yeah, >> they're going

169to have to I mean, it's up to them how they want to go forward. >> Rip the house down, >> but they don't need to submit a they if you tell them that it's denied, they might either think that they have to remove it or they have to make a whole new variance application. No, but in the letter that I used to send and it was a template. It used to say uh we not entertaining your request for modification and we're our recommendation is that you go for a public hearing. >> Sorry. And this is built this is built already. >> Yeah. Built. >> It's more about neighbors and things like that. >> Okay. So, I was told that the draft minutes um on here they're dated as January 13th, but I think it's it's

170supposed to be 13, but it's 16. >> 13th was a Tuesday. >> So, for the minutes approval, draft minutes of Tuesday, January 13th. Member Burgerer. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, January 13th for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Resolutions. Um, Nina Rachel Letterman and Rowena Lumbai Arguz Trust 39 Olds Fireplace Road Springs Suff County Tax M 300-24-7-45 Council. I'm having a blank on this. I know that they didn't submit. >> They we didn't include in our decision. They referenced the updated septic plans to match the um what the survey showed, but they never actually formally submitted the plan. Um so we're going to add a condition to their approval that there is no approved septic plan currently and

171that they have to a condition of approval is to submit the plan that matches the survey which they they have prepared. They're ready to do it. They just >> All right. Thank you. just to get that into this file. >> So, in the matter of Nina Rachel Letterman and Rowena Lambulus Trust, 39 Old Fireplace Road in Springs, I make a motion that we approve the resolution as amended. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Next is Matthew Wheeland, 32 Tyler Road, Montalk, Suffach County tax number 300-68-12-5. >> Which one? Who was it? >> Oh, I don't remember who it was. >> Wasn't me. >> This was the thing about something about an additional corner of the decking or something. Um, I don't remember the details on it, but I think we all approve things. >> Yes, we

172did all I >> um I think it was just for some additional to be contained here and it was a unanimous approval. So the Matthew Wheeling 32 Tyler MTO tax map 300-68-12-5 make a motion to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> I concur. >> Vice Chair, do we have an adjournment? What about Kevin McDer? >> I don't have that on my sheet. >> Oh, are we still doing that? Yeah. >> I mean, >> I think Sam added it. >> Can I read that? Okay, that's not on my hoping to see. >> I remember this. I read the I saw I saw Charlie's. >> Okay, the next resolution is Kevin McDermott, 70 Shore Road and three Merrills Road, Amigansit, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-84-3-17 and 18. Okay, this was Amigansit in Lazy Point.

173This was an application that was shifting a lot line and creating one lot that was, I believe, substandard. Um it came to the attention that there was a scrivener's error um related to the size of one of the one of the two lots and that has been corrected. Right Charlie? That's the only thing in this resolution. Okay. So I'd like to make a motion um in the matter of Kevin McDerm at 70 Shore Road and three Merrills Road and Mcansit Suffet County Taps Map 300-84-3-17 and 18. Uh, I move to approve the uh resolution as amended. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Vice Chair, would you like to adjourn the meeting? >> I would. Um, then I would like to make a motion to close East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals uh um public hearing

174for January 27th, 2026 at 8:49 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur.