East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 01/13/2026

001I want to be home by >> All right, GBA. We are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Good evening, everyone. I'd like to welcome everybody to the zoning board of appeals meeting of January 13, 2026. Tonight is our work session, and I'll swing right into the first administrative application. 96 Total Road LLC 96 Total Road Malk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-17-1-14.1 This is to demolish a residence and construct a patio within the jurisdiction of a bluff. Okay. So, the application is to demolish is basically fully out of NRSP jurisdiction except for a 35 square foot portion of the entryway walkway right here. That's a pvious walkway. So, it's essentially a demolition permit with a 35 foot patio within jurisdiction proposed >> minor street. No varian >> no

002variances. Nope. It's fully >> that's the only way it could be administrative. >> Yeah. So this green line here is the 100 foot setback in here. >> The current house is >> the current house. Yes. And then this is the proposed house with this is the 100 foot set back here. >> So the new house is fully out of >> Yeah. The house itself 01-14.1. Make a motion to allow this application to proceed administratively. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Post hearing decision. First one is Golden Trust 51 East Lake Drive in Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-20-2-16. The description is application is to excavate approximately 2,000 square feet of bamboo and construct a 400 square foot carport, 120 ft shed, enlarged driveway, 309 ft addition, which is no longer a part of the application,

003and the reconstruction of a cabana shed, driveway gate, and the reconstruction of a staircase to the beach on a parcel of land containing Coastal Bluffs, freshwater wetland uh freshwater and tidal wetlands. Relieved sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420. Variances from 255430 of the town of East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. The following wetland setback variances are required where a 100 foot setback is required. 80 foot variance to construct the carport 20 ft from wetlands and 83t variance to construct the shed 17 ft from wetlands. A 68.7 ft variance to construct the deck 30.3 ft from wetlands and a 26.6 ft variance is required to construct the deck 23.4 ft from the bluffest where a 50ft setback is required. Zoning district is a resident zone AE flood zone elevation

00411 secret class is unlisted. >> Terry, you like to begin? Yeah. Now bear with me since we got some new documents after the hearing. Okay. The hearing date was on 12925. Um we had um the application is to do a bamboo removal and we had a plan dated 1422 from Charlie and Sons on a protocol for the bamboo invasive removals. Uh we had a drainage plan actually we got a new drainage plan on 1218 2025 after the hearing when the board had requested some additional information and the possibility of moving the shed to a different location uh which was done but we'll get to that. Um actually I have a different uh Charlie and Sun bamboo removal plan dated 6624. one was a protocol and um David Kurs was the agent for it as well

005as Shannon Mcaffrey was involved and William um all right so on this uh you know it sounds like a good plan to me the protocol was good it was well presented Brian Frank was our planner on this and you know he had his concerns about it as we all do because we all know what bamboo does um so there were a lot of concerns about how that would be done the project will last over a number of years, Brian yesterday, and he couldn't find the digital one that approved this project for the invasives for bamboo um online at all. So, if they they may have submitted the wrong one in the digital file, there was um there was an approved one for the property at 55 East Lake Drive, which was the the owner, the

006homeowner that was originally going to be part of this dual project and has now you know, eliminated themselves from it. So, we do still need a an approved DEC permit 451. >> We can condition that on an approval. Yes. Um, what else I have to say about that? Um, not much. It's going to go on. It's very interesting. I hope it all works out. um at the David Kurs also in his submission when he began they removing from the project the deck extension which eliminated the variance for the bluff for the 23.4 4 ft for the bluff as well as the um the variance the wetland variance for that. >> Right. And so that left us with the two variances, one for the carport of 20 ft from the wetlands and one for the shed

007which originally was 17 um from the wetland. And in the new submission, the new survey that we also received just the other day, um we received it on December 18th, 2025. It shows the shed up farther north. They moved it farther north a little bit to the east of the walkway that actually goes toward the the house and the commander portion of the house. Um and the new variance the new distance from the the wetland is now 19.2. So the other things that they were proposing are to eliminate to upgrade to a an IA sanitary also seemed to be all okay with the planner was to only change the main IIA system itself and they're going to reuse the leeching portion of the uh of the original sanitary system because the wetland has been growing

008over the over those basically and keeps going. Uh they submitted the drainage plan. They they went over it at the hearing, the drainage plan, and um basically they sized their their drainage with a a whole lot of dry wells, which they showed us on the drainage plan submitted the other day. And all of them were sized in order to handle a there it was a 2in rainfall and they're spaced side by side so that they should take care of the entire area of the proposed parking area which they are proposing to enlarge. Um there was some concern by Brian on that. Uh they're also but it seems by the numbers that uh that those dry wells and that drainage plan should take care of should take care of the the water that will be coming

009down the driveway because it is anticipated that will be be happening. Um other things that they added um they are offering a an 8,440 square foot scenic easement. Um there was some testimony by Brian's not sure what the nexus of that is for it, but um they they're offering it. So um and let me see. uh overall where they're they're going down in total coverage by from a they there was a 26 2016 approved redevelopment on the property and uh which never got implemented and overall from 2016 for the they are going down 127 ft in total lot coverage um clearing they're estimating is going to go down by about 4,000 square feet overall. Um 676 feet some of the reveg 800 from the along the bluff top that's proposed for reveation 3,000 in the

010bamboo and um total lot coverage and clearing. Uh there'll be a 672 increase I believe in coverage for because of the shed and the carport. >> Um overall I'm in favor of this application. Um I I think I am approving everything on it actually. The carport and with the additional two feet in the shed it's not that exciting but um think I will approve that variance also. from the wetlands on that. So now all of this and everything I was rambling on about is included in document that David Kur said handed out to the entire board night of the hearing. Oh, and the I'm sorry, the steps down to the water where there were going to be changes made, they're only going to replace that in kind and place no changes to it at all.

011Just And then marit cabana now which is at the end of the house was going to be um also just re redone in place and the shower was going to be moved outside of the cabana. We just wanted to make it a little larger for storage. And all in all, I am in favor of that and uh I look forward to seeing how this B project works out. Very interested in that. >> Thank you, Member Burgerer, for that very thorough summation. Vice Chair Johan. >> Yes, thank you. Um I'm largely in agreement with my fellow board member. Make a couple of points. We did start with an active conversation of the bamboo the protocol the challenges of removing bamboo in this circumstance. There wasn't an effort an early effort by on behalf of this applicant

012and the neighbor to remove an additional couple of thousand square feet of it. Uh that apparently is not going to move forward but we think this is a very uh beneficial project to see the bamboo removed. We had the conversation about protocol as you said. We had u we had a presentation on behalf of it. We did hear back from Brian Frank who Brian was was adamant in saying that any place bamboo is uh can be removed we should be removing it. So I think the bamboo overall as an issue got a lot of discussion was a was a quick approval on my part of this is a the right thing to do the thing we should be encouraging others to do. We run into bamboo on a lot of lots and uh it is

013a bit of a curse. So I think we're we're headed in the right direction with that. I think there a couple of other things the the deck extension as was mentioned was taken removed from this that was one of our early uh concerns you obviously the variance on the on the water side of the house I think um we had an active conversation about a couple of things to do with the driveway the driveway coverage as you're coming in on the property there's a spot now where there's a temporary structure uh with a tarp over a framework that allows you to store a building store a car that's to be removed moved that area is to be reveated. A little more area is going to be added for them parking by the house, but as

014an exchange, it was a fair one, I think, in terms of the overall layout. The discussion of both the the um the shed and the carport. One of the concerns that was raised, I know one was raised by the chair um at that point was the vice chair um was, you know, how much damage are we doing? How much digging are we doing? And in both cases they've agreed that both buildings if they were to move forward would be to be constructed on sauna tubes. So we're talking about point loads rather than any long uh you know uh extensive ext excavation in that area. Those are all two uh positives in terms of that. Um the drainage was discussed. Drainage is important. Was pointed out because of the soils there by Ryan Frank that the

015drainage is very difficult in this area and so we had to have enough potential to collect that. Again, the applicant representative presented their statistics about what they felt was enough. But uh we did have to go back to uh Brian and ask you know what how you felt about this because this is a critical component of what we're thinking about approving here in terms of this particular lot. We've had other lots in the area. We know just how how hard it is for them to uh to to do anything with draining water. Um there is a reduction in uh in the size of the driveway. There's a reduction in uh and clearing. Um there's the increase in the building coverage. Uh there's there's a reveation at the bluff that's going to go on which is

016going to help. There's going to reve the area where we had some other uh they they that temporary building is to be removed. Um let me just see here. Um the deck varian with the sheds removed carports. Okay. So one of the thing is that that's a positive here for me. The 2016 approval was for a total redevelopment. This is not a redevelopment. This therefore we've seen considerably potentially considerably less damage to the property. That has nothing to do with the decision we're making tonight, but I do think it's an improvement to see that they came forward with a plan that's going to be less disturbing environmentally. That that's a that's a positive in my way of looking at things that it's not a complete development. I think there's the uh you mentioned the easement

017which is 8,440 ft. Brian said there might not be a nexus for that with the carport, but nonetheless on a property like this, I think getting a 54 8,400 foot easement is really critical. So it comes down to me for a discussion of the carport. Brian was pretty adamant that uh adding that hardened surface above is going to shunt water down onto the wetlands and it's going to be another factor to be dealt with and potential for for flooding. However, I do think the carport is overdisturbed area. It's over a pervious material and that doesn't mean that that water won't be shunt. But the u chair mccaffy made the point that they had allowed for that in their calculations for water coming from the roof. So if that water is to be be directed down

018into what is now proper drainage with all respect for Brian's position I think it was a strong one. I think that given the as was mentioned by member Burgerer, I think the entirety of the totality of this um application is one that shows us some give and take both on coverage, replanting, rev here, removal of the bamboo, the easement. All of these things lead me to saying that is this a net positive for us in approving what I think the only thing to me is that really takes a lot of thought here and that is the carport. I uh with a certain amount of uh reticence, I'm going to go uh and approve the entire application. My concern for the carport is not one that I don't take seriously, but I do think there was

019an effort to try to do something about compensating for this water uh in a proper way. So, um Madame Chairwoman, I will uh try to correct that. >> I will I will approve I will approve this application in its entirety. >> Member Mary. >> Yes. Thank you. Sorry, a little froggy tonight. Um, so I agree with my fellow board members um about uh approving basically the we have two variances to deal with here. Two 80 foot variances which are substantial. Um however I want to talk about um why I see the basis relative to the code standards to approve them. I won't repeat everything that my fellow board members have said just some highlights. So with respect to the shed um it is an 80 foot variance. They have made an effort to improve it

020somewhat in terms of the size of the variance. It was only a small I actually have a question with the new position of the shed. Is this wet is this variance now to the pocket wetland or because Brian made a big distin distinction between the new pocket wetland not that it's not important but it's you know the really critical um wetlands or all the others and I just don't have the old survey in front of me I can't remember if the prior position of the shed was actually a variance to some of the other wetlands does anyone recall >> yeah I think that I think that this is now is relative to the pocket wetland now in its new position. Yes. >> So again though it's a substantial variance. This is a >> uh this

021is a a um you know variance to a wetland which all wetlands we love and are important in the code but um still I believe that the mitigation and also it's a small structure. This is a 120 ft structure. I think it does create a benefit for the applicant as it they have no basement, they have no garage. Um 12 20 foot shed can create a benefit um that based on the totality of this application even though it's a material variance I do believe um is greater than any detriment that that the granting of that variance will create. With respect to the carport, I too listened closely to Ryan Frank. I I actually, you know, was a little surprised when I asked the question. Oh, so the overstructure is as potentially problematic as an impervious

022surfaces if it were on the ground. Um, and then he did say, you know, he was very specific. Yes, I agree with the detail especially that um uh vice chair Johan has talked about looking at the drainage plan and the applicant seemed very cognizant of the runoff and has done a lot um to really focus on the drainage plan as well. So, um, again, when Brian Frank says to a board, I don't think this is a good candidate for a variance, I take that very, uh, you know, I I take that internally and I really think about it. But all in when I look at the totality of mitigation in this application which has already been discussed but the drainage the upgraded septic system the removal of 3,000 square ft of bamboo the did I

023say the reveation already? um and the removal actually of probably what would have been the two more most problematic variances for the deck on the water side. Um I I think in balance um both I I these variances meet the standards um of both the variance standards and then everything else I think meets they and everything else meets the NRSP standards um uh completely. So I'm approving the application as well. Thank you. >> Well, thank you board members. Um, one more thing. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just want to say we can talk about it. There was a discussion a little bit in the meeting about how the um progress of the bamboo removal will be tracked. Um, you know, because they talked about a five-year thing. So, I don't Let's come back. I don't know

024if there's something that we want to like covenant or, you know, some sort of plan we want to require. I'm sorry. sevenyear plan for a a lot of uh my notes are things that have already been said. I'd like the public to understand how we arrive at these decisions because these are very substantial variances and it's important to me that people understand why we approve what we do when sometimes it seems like um an unapprovable application. I think the mitigation being offered in this application is significant. The bamboo area is going to be removed, reveated 3,000 square ft. It's going to be a 8,440,000 square foot scenic easement over the eastern portion, which if I understand correctly was not a part of the 2016 >> approval. The driveway um is going to be 226 ft

025less. The current coverage is going to be 127 >> Mhm. >> feet less. The clearing is 4,960 square feet less. Overall, the clearing will be reduced by se 676 square feet. Now, there'll be an 800 square ft of reveation along the top of the bluff. Uh rather than a lawn, it's going to go to native vegetation. Now, one of the things I and the shed concerns that I had at the public hearing were all addressed. But here's what really got me thinking about approving this application. The capacity of the dry wells is for a 2in rainfall event. And they noted at the hearing that there are six dry wells. Each one has a 42.24 cubic foot capacity. Now 42.24 cubic foot capacity equals 316 gallons of water. And there's six of them. So during a

026rain event, this is a beneficial since the discharge is going to be directed away from the wetlands. So this is a very significant um mitigation. So the mitigation has been uh designed for a storm event and in my view will protect water runoff into the wetlands bluffs and is in keeping with providing protection in an sensitive harbor protection overlay district. And this is for a natural resource special permit. Uh I do find that the proposed project will not result in increased runoff, erosion or adverse impacts to adjacent properties or nearby wetlands. I feel enough storm water management has been offered in the event of a significant rainfall and I do feel the applicant has proposed adequate mitigation measures including an on-site storm water management such that the potential impacts have been very sufficiently minimized. So

027based on the record before us, I do feel the applicant has provided sufficient mitigation to address the potential impacts and I will be approving the application in its entirety. Now you mentioned H pod and actually with the reeducation after this, this actually comes down under H pod where they were exactly at that max. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> And I do think the I think that the bluff side vegetation which I didn't mention much but I think that was significant in my decision- making. when you go down to the site, we've been there several times over the years and we can see that that will have a significant protective >> I see it right on the survey all the green places that are there that all good. So, um, council in terms of what member Maring

028brought up about monitoring the removal of the bamboo. Do we have jurisdiction? >> You know, and also >> I had discussed that with with Brian. I I wanted to bring it up whether we should have some kind of report like we have had on some other projects >> and first he did think it was a good idea and then he changed his mind. He didn't think it was really going to be of any value. But the one >> I just want to know if possible. >> I think I mean I think >> we could >> Well, so I so there going to be I wasn't I don't recall exactly what the >> Charlie Excuse me. Can you just point your microphone more towards you? Thank you. Um I don't recall uh >> exactly how it's

029going to >> Done. Yeah. >> Well, I have two documents here. I I I thought I mentioned, maybe I didn't. The land use document from William Bowman >> November X6. It says >> Oh, yeah. Because I have to go back >> 2025 and the Charlie and Sons pro protocol for removal. >> Have that. At the hearing, he did say that there would be a long-term progress and they would have to continue to remove. They've already presented that as their protocol. >> And Brian was very specific concern that he had was about managing the um the uh >> sticking with it. >> No, no, no. Besides that, the sediment control and I can't remember if that the cuz he >> he talked a lot about the risk that if they don't properly manage the sediment control

030fence and the filter that it can quickly get overwhelmed and he said it would have a very significant impact potentially onto the lake. So I that's kind of on like what what are we how are we specifying that monitoring um in the short run while they're doing it and then also if it's a fiveyear sevenyear continual removal of bamboo and things like that like how are we how are they reporting on it how are we tracking it so yes it's an issue jurisdiction but also the >> council is that in our jurisdiction I think we can. >> Well, I feel like they're going to be I have to >> I think the problem is who's going to do it? Who's the building inspector? Right. Well, there was a Yeah, I mean they're >> it's tough

031because they're not going to be getting >> I assume they'll be getting a certificate of occupancy before >> right >> this is done >> once it's done. >> Yeah. I mean, so they'll already have a CO. >> Seems to me after we we only have jurisdiction till they get >> once the CO is issued. >> Yeah. It's kind of >> probably should be a separate I mean looking at it I mean >> it would be easier to handle this outside of the the other stuff you know the construction and the that you know because once that's built it's built >> and then they're done. Um I don't you know I don't know if this has been done in the past. I I'm not >> we're breaking a lot of new grounds here. I think >>

032that's why I'm asking is it can we because I I don't recall ever really monitoring. Well, um I mean I guess we could write something in there that will say that, you know, it's is part of the they'll have to comply with their protocol and provide you know a written, you know, they can provide written notice to the board whenever going to be working on it and you know and then that way if we'll have some sort of >> I mean Mr. Mr. moment said it was going to be seven years at least. They're going to be doing stuff two times two two times a week in the spring and then checking to make sure that the root barriers they put on the northern boundary and inspecting that. Could we >> can we have them

033notify the planning department when >> when they're going to do that? >> Segments of the job are getting done. So there's followup. >> Yeah. >> They've given us a protocol. I I think most likely the main chunk the big excavation is going to be one that's where needing right to protect because that's going to be a substantial amount of work. >> After that if you read the >> you know bamboo removal area then they're going to go there every two weeks just >> just and then they're going to look and they're going to see a little bit of here a little bit of there. They're going to pick him. Yeah, >> it's not like they're going to be excavating >> truckloads of fill every two weeks. It's just >> more just keeping up before it

034goes crazy. I think I you know I don't know in a practical sense I think that I mean it behooves the to make sure that this gets >> um I mean we could say that the we could maybe I mean the silk we could ask for silk fencing to remain during the life of >> absolutely >> that I mean that's in our jurisdiction just like we do with other you know limiting >> fences. So why don't we do it? So we have all this like in the EAF right the summary of the mitigation which is kind of the other recommended projects it looks like they covered a lot of that the reveation plan is still going to have to be done right >> that's a condition of >> staircase reconstruction well summary of mitigation in

035the EF >> yeah and >> so they have to follow all the procedures in the summary of mitigation from the EF part three that we approve. >> Yeah. I mean, I think for the protection, I mean, I'm not a planner and I'm not an environmental scientist, but in the way I'm reading this, the management, >> like the the real main thing that we're going to be concerned about with, you know, any sort of silk buildup or washing out would be during the the big dig. >> And then throughout the rest of it's going to be more like a light work. I I you know I don't think having silk fencing would be as important. >> I mean I have >> seen in the past over many years >> um where there's been certain conditions that

036the planning department be given a week's notice when they're going to do the big dig. >> Yes. >> And be present to make sure everything's in order to proceed. I think we can handle it like that. >> Yeah. >> To safeguard what we're trying to >> Yeah. You can just we I mean maybe we just have >> updates throughout the life of the thing and then they send us >> I think they can and I I do know we've done that in the past where we notify the planning department >> when the work is going to commence and they go there and you know make sure it's all done. I'll work on something this week and then we can I'll send it to you guys and then we can figure out >> and I think

037the rest of it it's not it's not in our jurisdiction but it will be interesting for us as a board to follow yeah this remediation of bamboo because it's such a big issue now and this is almost like a >> a test case but I don't yeah it's probably not in our jurisdiction to require the annual reporting >> and condition of approval for permit for the DEC permit for this address. >> Okay, I'm going to move on to the next uh decision which is Patrick Brennan, 48 Agnu Avenue in Montalk Map number 300-2-37. Description is to remove walkways, gravel, and pavers to reconstruct exiting decking with proposed additions, construct a new driveway addition, and to allow existing stone patio LP tanks, e-unit, masonry wall, walkways, and brick patio to remain within setbacks of wetlands, rear

038yard, and front yard line setbacks on a parcel of land within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands. A natural resource special permit uh relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and nine variances are required for this application. Variances of 67 ft, 61.7 ft, 52.9 ft and 40.4t 4 ft are required from 255430 of the town code to allow the patio to remain 33 ft. LP tanks to remain 38.3 ft AC unit to remain 47.1 ft and decking to be con uh constructed 59.6 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required. Variances of 4 feet and 2.75 ft are required from 25511 of the town code to allow the C unit to remain 6 feet and LP tanks to remain 7.75 ft from the rear

039yard lot line setbacks where 10-ft setbacks are required. One variance of five feet is required from 25511 of town code to allow the existing patio to remain 9.5 ft from the rear yard lot line where a 15t setback is required. One variance of 0.2 ft is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the existing patio to remain 9.4t from the side line where a 9.6 ft setback is required. One variance of 7.5 ft is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the existing patio to remain 12.5 ft from the front yard lot where a 20ft setback is required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 12 seek class is type two member Ber you want to begin a 30 seconds time okay this hearing

040was last week on January 6th 2026 um at the hearing well there there was a survey is that up the night of the hearing Um, >> the most recent one. >> Is that the one that the latest one? >> Yes, it was revised uh December 20th. >> September December 20th. >> December. Yeah. Okay. I didn't have that that night, but I know it was up on the screen, but I can't read that. Okay. So, the December 20th 25 was the last um the last updated survey that we had on that. And also, I have a document called the planting plan that was received January 2nd. Um, basically it looks like that survey, but it's not an actual survey. It does have the planting plan. Um, other documents that we had in the file, we have

041the existing conditions. Um, it's printed. We have the planting plan. I got there was a a document that I have. I'm not sure who submitted this. It may have been the applicant. It's a a survey dated June 20th of 1991 for this property. It's a William Walsh survey. And we have a survey dated December 2002. The latest survey that is in existence at for this property at the time of the hearing. There was nothing in between 2002 and now. Um, we have a submission from Whan Filer attorney uh that was we received on January 2nd also 2026 written by Thomas Crouch um with their building their case for the various things necessary for the approvals. Okay. So, this is interesting, but uh 2002. Yeah. Okay. So, there's a lot of variances on this and um

042as everyone knows, it was we have a TAM too. Um the latest surve the latest CFO has just mentioned was in 2002 on this property. And the survey with the CFO shows that there was a couple of wood walkways and and a wood deck wood walkway on the western side and a wood deck on the eastern side of this property and a shed toward the northern side uh with a little wood step down from the uh the shed. It was a tool shed that was originally put in. Um and that so that was all legally done. Uh since 2002 when this happened, various things occurred over time. Um being that ended up with the all the variances required that we see on the application today. Um, and what happened was various things got wood walkways

043got taken out and a lot of hard surfaces and structures were put in, stone patio in the back, the AC, the LP tanks, um, stone patio on the the right, the east side of it. there was a brick patio um which I think actually had a legal beginning but then was expanded and that requires a front yard setback on the brick patio and um they now want to propose a a an added driveway space on the the western border of the property. So the this basically the applicant the owner uh bought this property in 2017. At that time he did not get a new CFO or anything. I don't know got nothing I guess as to what transpired between 2002 and 2017 when he purchased it. After he purchased it um he also made some

044changes to this property. the stone patio in the back um and the LP tank, the AC units and some additional stone uh stonework on the the woodlanding in the back on the west eastern side going toward the back beyond where it was originally approved in 2002. Um, in 20 they basically they got a stop work order from code enforcement and at that time what they were doing is the deck on the eastern side that had been approved in 2002 was on the survey. Um, there was a whole bunch of stones now um that were that are on the property. you could see them on the survey and they got a stop work order on that because they were doing this work without a permit. Um, what they say they were doing is uh replacing the

045original deck in place in kind to what was there in 2002. But then prior to now, that deck also got extended to the back on the eastern side back to landing in front of the accessory structure that's back there. Um, right now there's stone there and it's I was a little confused because the agent said that they put the stone there after they got the stone the stop work order to do the inind replacement of the deck. So, there's something odd there. But regardless, this stone is all illegal. the stone on um the LP tanks. They all require a lot of variances. Uh the the patio to the rear is 67 ft from the wet uh variance to be 33 feet from the wetlands. The gas tank and the AC unit. Well, let me let

046me finish with the rear patio first. The patio requires that variance from the wetlands. That same patio also requires 5.5 foot variance from the rear lot line and a 0.2 variance from the sideyard lot line on the western side. So that one patio requires three variances. Um, additionally, the LP tank requires a 61.7 foot variance to be 38 ft from the wetlands. The AC unit requires a 52.9 foot variance to be 47.1 ft from the wetlands. And I don't think they were down for um they were not down for setback requirements, but maybe I don't know if AC units might be different for that. I don't know. >> But um >> okay, so on all of those um none of those items were added with any um any building permits or approvals of any kind.

047And additionally on the northern side where the wetlands are, the original somewhere along the way some well actually was in the by the 2002 CFO survey, someone had put a stockade fence in on the town property to the north of the property of this lot and also cleared uh between the fence and their property line. And but that is not you know we don't get variances it's town property that is where the applicants are proposing to reveate though and that is the only mitigation that they offered for the entire project. Um, regarding those items that I mentioned, um, I am going to deny all of them. Um, both the the variances and the NRSP for all of those items. And I think they, you know, I can go through the standards. Go through now or

048let me go finish with the other items first. But I think they don't meet the standards either for the NRSP. The the case made by the agent. Is that me? Excuse me. >> I love the song. It is very soothing. >> Turn off completely. >> Why is he a song? >> Okay, that's a first. Love that song. Kumbayak was you. I'm sorry. Okay. >> Anyway, now that that must be up for you more. Okay. Yeah. the the agent for the applicant as described in the submission that they gave us on January 2nd seemed to think that simply because these items were there between 2002 and 2017 plus some that his client actually did including that rear patio that because they were there for a long time they couldn't possibly be harming anything and like it

049should just be okay that they're there. Um, I don't buy into that argument. Uh, as I said, I'm going to deny the variance for all those items that require the dimensional variances in the north side, north side, and I think they also do not contribute anything that deserves an NRSP. As far as the brick patio on the front on the south side, that requires an 8.5 ft 7.5 ft variance to remain 12.5 ft from the front yard lot line where 20 is required. Um, not outrageously big, but I'm going to deny this variance also. I think it's large enough. And prior to that brick patio being there, their driveway was there. So again, this got changed and now they want to expand the driveway on the western side. They want to add additional parking, but

050the parking was in in that area which the brick patio now encroaches on. I'm denying that variance also. Uh do that. Now on the as far as the the decking to on the east side um they want to resto they are going to remove all the stonework that was put in illegally and they want to revert back to the original decking that was on the 20 the 2002 survey. Um they had extended it up to the north side without a permit. However, um that pro part of the project I am going to approve with the NRSP and there is a variance for the decking. It it's a 40.4T variance for that decking to be constructed 59.6 ft from the wetland. Um and that's at the the more northerly portion of that decking where it does

051meet the accessory structure. But I am willing to approve that variance. um and the NRSP for that. How many do I have left? I had a concern also about the well they there was some talk too about as and the updated survey corrected it. Uh the planner was concerned about the 5- foot separation on that original decking to the septic tank. the applicants have shortened the decking in their proposal in their latest submission to say that they will start at five feet away from the septic. Um, and that's accounted for in the do the the survey that's up on the screen. And there was a masonry wall. Um, I am I don't think the masonry wall had any setback requirement. It was just it was for an NRSP. I too don't see that it looks

052harmful or is providing any detriment to the the neighbor neighborhood or so I I'm okay with the masonry wall remaining as it is. Um, I had some concern on the the they never talked about the western side of the house. And it's kind of odd because I the 1991 survey I mentioned that we have um actually showed concrete on the western side of the house only in the more front portion of the more southerntherly side of it. Yet in 2002 that was gone. And the 2002 survey shows a wood walkway and now it's a stone walkway again. But um that wasn't they weren't doing anything about that. I don't know what's required on that. But I guess I am okay with just leaving that the way it is with no changes on it. Um and

053I think that covers all of it. Um I know the the agent for the applicant stated they don't think it has any harm for it doesn't change the character of the neighborhood. The planner uh did state that it does change the character of neighborhood potentially and um as I said we don't know in the last 20 years as these things went in how anybody could say they're not causing any harm. We know you there's been much greater rain events, climate change and weather patterns changing and so I I don't see how anybody could say they they were doing no harm at all on this. Um I so I'm denying those variances. I think that patio should be removed. The AC units and LP units can be moved elsewhere on the property. And I think there

054should be reveation done where that patio exists today on the north side up to the property line. >> Vice Chair Yu. >> Yes. Thank you. Um there's two basic problems with the presentation on behalf of the applicant here in terms of mitigation and looking for approvals. I think uh one is that uh really there was a mitigation offer to reveate town land which is actually off of our lot. So we accept that but the recommendation if we accept that with the reation of the planner it's because they'll take on the expense of repairing something that of course uh was done illegally and it doesn't really have a lot to do with this application except for the fact that we'll see it get done. It'll be something that'll add a little more buffer and we can

055individually decide whether or not we think that's a a very uh useful mitigation uh to allow a portion or all of this project. The other is that I think the approach from the applicant's representative was to by and large say if something is in existence for an extended period of time, how much harm can it be? U the logic there doesn't work for us on the board very well. We're asked uh if there's a structure that's put within a certain distance of a property line, a certain distance of a an ecological feature, in this case a wetland, or could be a dunescape. Uh is this been put there illegally? Has it been put there beyond uh without a building permit been put beyond any CFO? We go back to the CFO being issued in 2002.

056There was an effort to show us some aerial photos saying that there must have been a deck back at that on the north side on the rear and there must have been a hot tub. uh we couldn't prove that and it certainly wasn't in any documentation. So I think that approach was one of saying that well if it's there how much harm is it? Well uh I don't think that's really the question here. The question is if uh a structure exists on a property that went in without the benefit of a building permit and if it requires a u a variance and in this case an NRSP as well then how do we judge it? that will put me much more in line with everything that's been said by my fellow board member here. I

057have some very differences of opinion. But by and large, uh the patio to the rear, which has been there for significant amount of time. Nonetheless, on the north side, is uh is something uh in in conjunction to the wetlands is far too close. It requires an NRSP. It it's something that I personally will agree that I cannot approve that. Uh I'm going to deny that. I'll go through what I'm willing to approve, but I do think that this is a a a kind of confusing small piece of property with a lot going on. It is a constrained piece. We know that's about a lot of the lots that we see in many of the subdivisions. This is a smaller lot and smaller lots are always going to have problems finding ways to put what they

058want for pertinances on their property. However, we have to deal with what we're dealing with and that is whatever the uh code is are given us as guidance. I would say that I I I'm agreeing that the repat the rear patio I couldn't possibly approve, but um the extension the decking and the extension to the shed uh going back uh there I'm willing to approve. There was a there was just an extension from one spot to another. I think there's some mitigation here in terms of what got planted in the rear. I've just already said it's not actually part of our thing. But still the fact that it's being done that the planner thought that that was significant okay some of that for me. I think that the wall at the septic system similarly as

059was mentioned by member Burgerer I don't see that as a a major problem. I will I will vary with her slightly. I don't know the benefit of moving the AC or the gas tanks is significant enough for me to ask them to be moved. I think we go back to the benefit to the uh applicant versus the um uh benefit to the town. I do think that the um I think that they as we've said, you know, all of this is put in the wrong spot, but I'm willing to uh approve that. And the stone walkway on the west, which was there I think as well. The one that uh I think that the rest of these that you were willing to turn down, I think it's the front patio that I have problem with.

060I do think that there's a a concern about changing the character of the neighborhood when I'm on the site. They are going to increase the parking slightly as well. So, that's an ask. The patio, the front patio, the one that's facing um >> the brick. >> Brick patio. Yeah. Spacing it. That that patio is one that um we're talking about the roadside patio. Yeah. The roadside patio. The roadside patio is one that uh requires a setback. I think that there is a danger of it being upfront somehow given on that lot and I don't have great logic for this except to say that examining it in place as it sits. I'm willing to approve that. And so in short, I know this is all confusing. That front patio, the sideline walkway going the um the

061uh gas tank and the AC and the western walkway which was that actually cited for us as a variant? It wasn't. And that's why and like I said, it was there. It seems to be partially there in 1991. Yeah. On the survey that's in the the record the west side. >> The west side. So yeah, that um I'm just forgetting about. >> So So it sort of in summation and those are the ones I'm willing to approve. But in summation, you have a small lot with a lot going on and not much opportunity to offer us mitigation. The only thing we can look for is removal because there's very little that can be done here. And what was brought up at the meeting and one of the board members said what additionally can be offered

062for mitigation. I think the planner and the presenter said there's not a lot you can do. And I think when you see a lot that's true there's not a lot we can do. We can't ask for a lot more in terms of vegetation. So they're going to reveate a parcel that's off their land as as part of a give back here to help us. I'm going to go so far as to say those ones I'm willing to approve. Of course the patio in the rear I'm not. And I think um you know I I just I just think that this this was a really confusing little lot with a lot to be asked for with not much justification for it and very little u remediation so mitigation. So is that confusing enough? >> We're going

063to go back through all of them. So I'm not >> So maybe at the end when you're done you can be specific about what exactly you're doing and what you're denying. I'm just going to go through and pull the board. >> Right. Exactly. Just pull the board. Remember Mary? >> Okay. So, um just sort of looking at the I want to just start looking at the broader context of this lot. So, this is a 7500 ft lot in a B residence zone. It's in ditch plains. It abotss meaningful and important wetlands based on the TAM and the testimony of the planner. Um the lot is already kind of very maxed out, right? It's at maximum building coverage. It's it's 15% from total allowable max coverage. It's 100% cleared. I'm not talking about the part that's

064even off the property. Um, and it not that there's an ex's to it, but it's it's a septic system that is not upgraded. So, we have a lot that is already um I don't know what to say sort of stressed and and kind of at a um you let me just back. It's it's it's pretty much maxed out. Um, and now there's a discussion about adding more things, getting closer to the wetlands, getting closer to setbacks. So, that's just a context I wanted to um bring relative to my deliberation. Um, I'll let me start with I'll take them one at a time. I'm going to start with the things that I will approve. Um I also agree with my fellow board members with respect to the right side or sorry the east side of the

065house. Um I am approving the NRSP to uh redo the what was existing decking in place and in kind and allowing also at the NRSP for the proposed extension running north. um extending that that ex pre-existing deck up to the accessory structure. Um it's it it's decking. It's not a completely impervious surface. It meets sideyard setbacks. Obviously, it extends to a pretty significant accessory structure that's been in place. So I don't think that the extension um I don't see it as creating some sort of material change in the environmental conditions or even the impact um on the wetland. So that that rebuilding and extension of the deck on the east in the east side yard I approve. Let me move now to the rear of the property. Um and I looking at the first at

066the stone patio and by the way everything at the stone patio um and the gas tanks these are things that were done without the benefit of permits. We have an applicant um who bought a property choosing not to get an updated it wasn't required but still chose to not get an updated CO and did things also other things without the benefit of permits. the stone patio um does not as I see it meet the variance or the NRSP standards. It um and it needs two types of variances. It needs the a significant wetland setback, a substantial wetland setback and it also does not meet rear yard setbacks. I think that there is a b if if the applicant seeks the benefit of some additional patio um in the rear there were definite there are definitely

067designs here that could meet the rear yard setback and could also um reduce the variance uh required. This is a very significant it's a large structure. I can't remember the square footage of it. Um but and it's uh completely impervious and uh so I'm deni it doesn't meet the NRSP standards or um the the variance standards as as I see it. And I'm going to talk about the front the front patio as well with respect to the standards and the issue of character. Again, this is a very dense neighborhood. There are probably 300 lots in ditch planes that are really all very substandard, pre-existing substandard to the zone minimum. And therefore, when it gets to things like setbacks, rear yard, front yard, we don't have sideyard issues here. Um, holding the setbacks to or very

068close to their requirements is very important. I believe to sustaining the character of this neighborhood um and not causing detriment to neighbors. So So the stone patio I'm denying the gas tanks the gas tank and the AC also put in without the benefit. I know this I know they're small things and but they again they need significant wetland setbacks. They need uh uh they do need relief from the sideyard setback. They don't meet setbacks and uh the planner said it. I see it also such there are positions there are many positions on this lot. It's not for me to decide which ones or redesign it where um the benefit of having those things could be achieved um and meet you know uh meet the standards and the setbacks. And then that takes me to the

069front brick patio as I just talked about in my view to meet the character standard and protect um the neighbors and the um I I do not see any case that was really made to support um a 38% or 35% um uh um variance or relief for a brick patty. patio in the front, especially when it also means that you're going to add more parking. So, um it does again there is room for brick patio or patio in the front that can create a benefit, but it's entirely doable by meeting the front yard setback. Um so, I am denying the brick patio as well in this application. >> Thank you, member Arendia. >> Uh thank you, Chairwoman. I just wanted to take the opportunity similarly to um uh my fellow colleagues here to talk in

070general about the property as an overall view. So recognizing again small property in an area that is already full of small properties and everything does have constraints on it with recognizing that we want to make sure that the neighborhood maintains its character and that to me is an important quality of any application that we recognize what the neighborhood is. You've made this purchase in this area because you liked it. So don't come in to try and change it all. With that said, um the the property in this this particular property is of particular significance because of the wetlands and they're the highest form of purity quality of freshwater wetlands in the area. These wetlands are also a key component in the Dutch plains watershed and provide essential habitat for both plants and animals. These are

071key elements to everything in East Hampton Town. These are important elements to the quality of life here. These are important elements to why we live here. And these are also important elements as to how we're going to maintain the ecosystem into the future. So with that said, the structures on this particular application are seeking relief for a mix of reconstruction and existing elements all built without the proper permits. A a point that's been brought up by all of my colleagues. And there's been no issuance of a new co since 2002. That being the case, I believe it's incumbent on the applicant to have investigated what had happened in 2002 and what had happened since 2002 before coming to us with an application that is requesting many variances on an already very constricted property. So while

072some of these variance requests are modest, there the overall relief sought is for multiple variance requests as I say on a very constrained property with a very close proximity to the wetlands. For those reasons and many of the other specific reasons that have been shared by my colleagues, I do not recommend the approval of this application for variances or NRSP. Thank you. We all know that a CEO runs with the land, you know, not the owner. But routinely, the ZBA considers factual content. Even though some of these structures existed at the time of the last CEO in 2002, the absence of an updated CEO at the time of purchase does not really legalize structures automatically. So, this application uh brought to light pre-existing conditions on the property that would have never even they would have

073remain unressed. So, now we're obviously trying to find an appropriate remedy and the terms of the town code to bring this property into compliance. The only thing I'm going to I'm going to make this simple for council. The only thing I'm going to deny on this p on this um application is the stone patio at the north end of the property. It's a substantial variance and will add to impermanmeable surfaces that are close to wetlands. Applicants have not as of the public hearing offered any real mitigation to offset those impacts. And given the extent of the wetlands on the property and the small lot size, I feel that the parcel does not contain sufficient buildable area to support the stone patio without increasing impacts to protected wetlands, which the code seeks to avoid, especially when

074no real mitigation has been offered. Um, I do not have a problem with the driveway extension. It's within uh and I don't have a problem with the masonry wall. I do feel the existing stockade fence, however, should be relocated onto the applicant's property as mitigate allowing its continued existence. It will help prevent encroachment on the town owned property. But for the purposes of the record, I'm just going to be denying the stone patio on the the stone patio on the north side. >> Council, >> yeah. So >> now one at a time. >> All right. >> Okay. >> So Denise, you had denied everything except I'm >> approving everything except for the except for the the and that business. >> Correct. I'm just denying that. >> Okay. >> Three of the variances. >> Correct. >>

075Yeah. >> Jose was a denial. Uh Terry you. Stone patio. >> Stone P. Well, >> we taking them one at a time. >> Let me just go through what's listed on the uh >> um so we have the first one is NRSP and nine variances. Variance u 67 to allow the patio to remain 33 ft which uh that's from the wetland. >> That's from the wetland. >> Yep. and L. So we'll just do that variance first. So that's the patio to remain 33. >> Is that the brick? >> The stone rear. >> Yeah, it just says patio remain 33 from the wet land. >> Yeah, that's the one. >> So that's got to be >> that's that's the rear page. >> That's the one at the uh Y. >> Yeah, that's 33. Okay. So the

076stone patio. So that's everyone denied that. >> I think everyone's denying that. Everyone denied the wetland setback periods. >> Five of them. >> Well, you're just talking about the wetland. I mean, denying that patio is >> Well, there's two variant. There's three. >> There's two variages for it. So, I'm just going to go through each one. >> Yeah. He's just going to deny it. He knows the whole board wants to deny me. >> I know. I know. We'll get to it, but there just I just because it's just going to be very confusing to write it out. And then I got uh 38.3 for the LP and and AC units to remain 47.1 uh feet. So that's from the wetland. So that's where the the gas tanks of the LP. >> Okay. So, are those

077>> Why don't you just pull us right? >> So, we got AC slash >> propane. >> Thanks. >> So, let's just pull the board. >> Yeah, let's just Yep. >> Jane. >> So, I denied you denied. Terry, >> did I uh I approved? >> I approved. >> Deny. Okay. So, you >> have three denials for that. I 3 0 or 3 32, sorry. Um, okay. And then I have decking to be constructed 59.6 from the wetlands. So that's the decking >> going up on the east. >> Yeah, I mean east going up to the east going to the accessory structure. Jane approved. >> Terry approved. >> I approved. >> Approved. >> I thought you denied everything. >> I did. I did deny. Yes, >> I uh chang. >> Okay. Okay. And then we uh variances

078of 4T and 2.75 ft for the uh so it's the LP and the >> the LP and the AC condenser. So they're they're slightly different variances but the same. >> Yeah. But it's a 32 I think for >> but yeah just it's the same same split. >> Yeah. I can line dimension. That's from the lot line. Yeah. That's from the rear lot line. I guess >> was it 3D >> and then I have a variance of 5.5 to allow the existing patio to remain 9.5 in the rear yard lot. Yeah, >> Charlie's reading the rear patio set. >> Yeah, so that's for that's the setback for the rear, but that's denied for the wetlands anyway. So I'll just read. Yeah, that's unanimous denial. >> Everybody denied five denial. >> And then one variance of 02

079is required. >> That's for that rear one also to >> to remain sideyard lot. >> Yeah. Oh, that's a Yeah. >> So that's a 5D also. >> Yeah. So that's the same existing patio, right? >> Yeah. It's from the side. >> Yeah. I think it's really really not doing it. Uh and then one variance of 7.5 remain from the patio remain 12.5 ft from the front yard line. >> So that's this >> right >> one. Yeah. >> Okay. I denied that. >> I denied that. >> I approved that. >> I approved it. >> I denied it. >> Okay. So three. >> So 32 to deny. >> Um and that's okay. And so that's >> those are all the variances and everything. And then >> well the NRSP >> but then there's the NRSP stuff. So

080there's like the driveway. >> I approved that. >> I'm okay with that. Are we all okay with that? No. Jose denied it. Joseen to approve. >> Okay. 41 to approve driveway >> and then it was like that masonry wall, but >> yeah, we're good. I present. I'm okay with the mason right now. >> So I think it's a 41. It's a 41. >> That be the same. So anything basically all the if there's something that doesn't need a variance but just an NRSP, >> it would be okay. >> Right. Okay. >> I think that's the only stuff. >> Um the only and >> all that needed in NRSP. Yeah. >> Yeah. Aside from Yeah, that uh >> and what about the stockade fence? Can we have that moved on to the applicant's property? Uh >>

081well, it's not our call to >> That's why I'm I'm asking council. >> They they offered it, >> but they did offer to do it, >> right? I mean, it's not legal where it is. So, >> that's how I feel. >> Yeah. >> And they did say he would. >> Well, >> yeah. I mean, I I would suggestation. >> Yeah. But I I don't know. >> I mean, well, they could put on their property, but they still need to get it legalized depending on the height, right? >> I mean, >> yeah. I'm I don't know what the height is. If it's six feet, it's fine. >> Yeah. >> Your fence on some >> Yeah. >> The things that were approved, what was approved by majority by board members. >> So, the only things that are

082approved are the decking on the east. That was four to one, >> right? >> And then the driveway and the masonary wall. Mhm. Well, I mean I I would make the case that my approvals on the things I did approve are conditioned on the mit on the movement of the stock stuck fence and the rege >> um that of the illegal clearing. >> Okay. So, >> so I can do it I can say it that way I guess. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I I figured that whatever approvals are given are the full mitigation's required that I mean the there's only very limited mitigation anyway. It's just the there's a project limiting fence and the revge. >> I'd like rege where the patio's going to be gone. >> Yeah, that's different name. They didn't

083offer that. >> They don't have to offer it. >> Oh, >> right. They don't have to. Well, we didn't do we bring it up at the >> uh Well, they were looking to approve it, so they there was no room to revge anything up. >> Uh >> I don't know. >> Okay. What are we good uh council? >> Uh yeah. Oh, the only thing I'm going to put on the record is the since the town I I brought this up to the chair uh earlier. >> Yeah, we talked about it. >> Uh town owns that lot to the north where they're going to be reveating. So, another condition that I think should be asked for is they would need to provide uh an indemnity to the town to allow their workers to go onto town

084property and do work. Uh an indemnity to the town and then also proof of insurance that they have sufficient the contractor whoever is doing it has proper insurance to cover any potential issues that could arise during just like any other activity that happens for town on private town properties. Um so that's what I would suggest. I I I agree. I I like that condition. >> Yeah. And also that revge was conditioned on approval, right, by the planning >> planners. Okay. >> Okay. All right. I think I I think I got this, but I will send it out to you to everyone to double check. >> Thank you, council. That was complicated. Okay. The next one is Julian Mazerki the third 44 Beach Avenue Suffach County Tax Map number 300-175-3-10. Description is to construct 966qt two-story

085residence with a 100q ft seconds story balcony, entry steps, walkway, driveway, drywalls, and new sanitary system on a parcel of land containing wetlands, beach vegetation, and which is proposed outside of the town's pyramid regulations. Relief Sword is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and six variances are required for this application. Variances of 97.2 ft and 91.5 ft are required from 255430C of the town code to construct the residence the proposed residence 2.8 8 ft and a second story balcony 8.5 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft setbacks are required. One variance of 112.9 ft from 255430B of the town code is required to construct a new sanitary system 37.1 ft from freshwater wetlands where a 150 ft setback is required. One variance of 49.5 ft is required from

086255430D of the channel code is required to allow clearing 0.5 ft from the edge of wetlands where a 50-ft setback is required. Variances of approximately 12.48 ft and 12.32 are required from 255 11172D of the town code to allow the residents to be constructed outside of the town's pyramid regulations 12.48 48 ft along the southern property line and 12.32 ft along the northern property lines and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is a B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 secret class is type two member Mary would you like to p begin? >> Yes thank you madam chair. Um, so we heard this application in a public hearing just last week on January 6th, 2026. I do want to note just a slight um discrepancy um with respect to the setback. The notice says the

087septic is 37.1 foot um uh setback and the survey it says 36.5. It's not substantial, but I just did did want to notice I'm going to speak about it at at the 36.5 based on the survey. Um, also there was a little bit of a discrepancy. We didn't we didn't really nail this down in the TAM and in the notice. This talks about a 966qt house. There is a portion of the TAM that talks about it as a 996 square foot house. Again, I'm going to be referring to this and and taking 966 as the correct GFA number. Okay. Um, the applicant was represented by attorney Richard Whan of Whan Fi Filer. One member of the public, Miss Laura Mitchell, um, a 40 plus year resident, uh, neighbor directly across from this property, from the

088applicant's property, appeared before us to offer comments to the record. in particular was concerned about the potential impact on her light and air because of the pyramid issues and also concerned about potential disturbance um to the road during construction. These are issues we as board members of course are considering and we did vet in the decision-m during the hearing and for the deliberation here. We're working off of that latest survey dated May 9th, 2025 from Wallbridge Surveyors. Also in the record were the most recent set of architectural plans um for a flat roof 966qt twostory um residence raised on pilings to meet the AE10 flood zone regulations. I note that the parcel owner and applicant um I is also the registered architect of the house plans. The plans there are a few sets of plans

089in the record. The most current ones are dated May to 2025 and I you know invoke that because this is the set of plans I reviewed very closely as an element um of this application and my basis of deliberation and decision-m. Also of note, there are two narrative documents submitted um that have been submitted into the record authored by Jeffrey Frier. Um the first one was dated July 2023. The second one was dated to uh reflect the changes that had ma been made to this application over time and that one importantly is dated June 13, 2025. Again, I reviewed these very closely and factored the contents of this narrative um into my deliberation. And then of course, we have the updated TAM from Tyler Borsack. Um um that is also of course foundational to uh

090the review of the application. The applicant's family we know owned this parcel in excess of half a century prior to the adoption. They bought it prior to the adoption of all natural resources and wetland protection codes. Um, as they stated at the hearing, the property was purchased uh for an investment. It was not made clear in the record, and it's not necessarily salient to our decision about why the owners chose not to develop the parcel for many years and many decades. Um, but again, um, it's not something I'm taking into account here. There are four key very significant constraints and characteristics to the to this lot that set a legitimate stage for consideration of relief requests. First, the small size the very small size of the lot putting it in probably the smallest quintile of

091lots across Beach Hampton at 5,956 square ft or 137 acres. This is a pre-existing non-conforming lot that's substandard to the B residence uh 70% substandard to the B residence minimum. Um it was established in the record that only only one lot on the entire beach street conforms to lot minimums. Um and that there are um uh I think it was also confirmed that there are 14 lots on the road that are um very particularly undersized, you know, less than.17 acres. Um the factor number two, the narrowness of the lot. We discussed this a lot. This is a 40 foot wide um lot compared with the 110 ft required. It was noted by the applicant's agent that this is one of 10 of the 41 lots of BJAV that to be only 40 ft wide. The

092third element is this lot is in an AE10 flood zone. So base floor elevation needs to be 12 ft. um and that adds to the potential pyramid compliance pressures um faced by the applicant. And fourth, the wetlands consume 49 plus% of this parcel. So the area of the lot excluding from the wetlands is only 3,6 square ft. Though we don't have the exact wetland percentage of other lots on Beach A in the record, we do know from data submitted into the record that both the applicant and the planning department that there are a number of lots especially on the west side of the road that are impacted and constrained by wetlands. Um and uh we have documented there are documented in the record a number of applications where uh wetland setback variances were required. um

093requested and granted. Okay. So, as board members, as I understand it, we have two very important factors to grapple with. One, there was a board denial via determination in 2022 of a prior proposed development applicant application that was for a 1,220 square foot um GFA. Um and that um asked also for substantial pyramid relief um and required would have required a lot of um variances. Some of the at the time the elements were actually in the wetlands and the other variances that were required at the time were basically less you know putting everything less than well except the septic system 2 ft from the wetlands. Um and also that application slightly exceeded building coverage. So in my deliberation, of course, I need to consider that prior denial and consider the need for deference to prior

094board decisions while also understanding and considering if the new application before us has transformed in a way that is substantially different or improved from the prior application to warrant a different type of decision. Um, in addition, I'm also looking at this second application that's in front of us. They made tweaks to the application um from when they submitted in 2023. They reduced the GFA again and um they uh improved one of the pyramid uh pyramid uh relief requests. And then the second big issue is we have a planning department analysis presented in the TAM and at the public hearing that raises multiple very substantial concerns about the currently proposed development relative to the required protection of natural resources. And to be more specific, the planning department in a way we don't generally see in this

095application expressed its definitive conclusion and recommendation to the board that this application should be denied. Um, and uh I I don't want to belabor it, but it is important just to cite a couple quotes from the TAM. Um, the >> in the record. >> Okay. Okay. I mean again, so I won't read it. No, I mean >> it's I mean I know sometimes No, I don't I don't have to. But um you know, basically I'll just refer people to you know what was presented. It's in the record. The Tyler Borsack referred to it as simply an untenable le level of development close to sensitive wetlands that will have substantial negative impact on the wetlands. Um and he goes on you know not just in the construction but ongoing and for a time time to go.

096So the question all in that I am focused on is do I have enough expertise to override or dismiss that you know very um uh specific recommendation and analysis. Now I'll just put the remainder of my comments directly in the context of the variance standards um of 255850D um uh both 1 A and B and also 3 A through E. I won't recite them because we know them and I don't take the time. and also putting my comments in text of the NRSP standards 25551D 25540K. Um and uh that has to do with the preservation obviously of the of the natural resources. Um and then did I also say 25540 K and A. So according to the table in the TAM on page 2 through three though the applicant modulated GFA between the denied application

097and the current application um by I think square ft. Um that's a that's an important thing. However, the mo even with the modification the this current applicant the variance requests remain profoundly substantial and not that different from that denial that denied application with respect to the wetland setbacks um substantiality of the wetland setbacks. Uh here my points of the four wetland setback variances requested for this new development all are between 90 1 and 12% to 99% variances. The setback of the resident structure to the wetlands is still exceptionally small margin 2.8 8 ft at the closest point and I believe 8.5 ft at the other end corner of the rear um facade structure of the house. Second, the proposed clearing and and by the way, those are um slightly better, but they're still very very

098very significant. The second um proposed clearing step setback compared to the denied application is still virtually nil at 6 in the SE system while considered in the best location also still requires a 76% variance to the wetlands. This means that we cannot even achieve what we generally think of as the absolute bare minimum 10-ft buffer to wetlands in addition to the substantiality. The narrative provide provided the two narratives provided by the applicant were very interesting and they cited eight different decisions from the ZBA made I think between 2002 and present for other houses on Beach Avenue. Um, and they showed us all the wet se wetland setback variances, all of which were many of which were substantial, but they were not nearly as substantial as this. They ranged between about 25 ft and 52 feet

099um uh uh variances. So, not nothing in the record shows that this board approved um a ser a structure to be built less than 10 ft. um from significant wetlands. And then with respect to the substantiality of the pyramid requests, um the dimensional number on the north side was the pyramid relief was scaled back by 3.43 ft. The other one actually um uh remained the same over the course of this application. They are better. However, looking at the pyramid diagrams in the architectural plan stated 5 to 2025 pages A8 and 9, the material majority of the volume and cubic feet of the second story um is outside the pyramid code um which gets to the issue of massing. Um I'm not singularly definitive on denying pyramid variances but um granting relief for this is basically

100quote satam granting dimensional relief such as pyramid violations are better justified when they are created and the relief allows for meaningful improvement of natural resources setbacks. So because of the substantiality and the unprecedented nature of the wetland setback I find this application does not meet the variance standards at set forth in 255 850D 1A and then 3A 3C and 3D and that it does not meet the general special permit or NRSP standards set forth in 2551. um in that based on the TAM and the extreme nature of the variances, the structures um will potentially diminish, pollute, degrade or place in peril the protected natural feature um the protected natural feature. Finally, I just want to address the other key variance standard with respect to 255850D1B which talks about minimum variance necessary um as well as

101NRSP standard 2551 D2 which requires that there are no quote alternative designs entailing smaller buildings or structures etc. Very interesting part of Mr. Whan's case supporting the application is he took us through design requirements in the code as outlined in 255167A. And though he it does say that minimum bedroom size is 70 square ft, that a twoerson bedroom occupancy requires 100 square ft of space, that the other room type is required. Um it it does not say that oh and it also does say that if if desired, two bedrooms shall always be permitted. But that code does not say that two twoperson 100 ft bedrooms are required and it doesn't say um that it doesn't put minimum sizes for things like kitchens and that other room. So it's a small house. The applicant defines it

102as bare bones. I do not want to deny the applicant the right that is theirs to develop this property. It is a legally developable property. However, do not find even with the work that Mr. Whan did around this design code did not prove and also based on the testimony of our planner do not think that they met the burden of meeting the hurdle that there are not yet other alternate smaller designs that could improve the setbacks somewhat. And then finally we didn't discuss it but the septic system was designed by the applicant. We didn't really question it, but they also did not provide any discussion about why that was the only design required and were there other designs that could have allowed the house to be moved further forward for forward. So, um I I

103find that the standards can't be met and I am denying this application in full. >> Thank you. >> Sorry to >> Thank you very much. >> I'm sorry. It's a tough thing. >> Okay. Um I'm basing Well, yes. See, Rick Whan ran the town code on us about minimums and that this couldn't possibly be made any smaller or we'd be taking the right to build away. However, um as Tyler the planner got on and you know refuted that statement, it refutes it in the TAM and as member Miring said, you know, the the counts on the numbers as Rick Whan had estimated the size of these things. He did not go to the smallest amount for the town code. And Tyler did remind us that 600 ft is the minimum lot size that they could

104have. And that both bed, excuse me, >> minimum house size. >> House size. House size. Um, and yes, looking at the plans on page A4, the two bedrooms could be made smaller. They were based on the twoerson bedroom, two brooms for the house. And as they already stated, the the kitchen, looking at that on page 83, I think it was, um, the great room could be made smaller. The kitchen could be made smaller and still have a buildable house. And, uh, so, you know, that we're certainly not taking away the right to build. Uh Tyler did reference one other house in the neighborhood or not Beach Avenue but on Ocean Lane that 600 square foot house uh twotory. Um I too have not well we're not big fans of pyramids but um we know on

105Beach Lane that almost any house these small lots is going to have some kind of pyramid perhaps. Um and we have granted them when they were necessary. Uh a couple of things in the in the TAM too about um everything I have to say is out of TAM basically of the the cut and fill estimates uh for putting the getting this uh property in that the grading that they would have to do for the sanitary. there there's no real documentation on how that was going to be performed. Um this house was uh well it it did state in Mr. Fry Rich's document. I said this is a modular house they were going to put in. The neighbor across the street did have concerns about how they're going to do that. But you know people that

106are putting in modular houses could do that I guess if they can. But again the basic thing is the 600 you know the size of the house and the rooms and as already stated there is no way we can get a decent wetland buffer out of this regardless and there would be allowances made for pyramid and other setbacks and I think the applicant made a a decent attempt at this but can be can do even better on this. I don't think it meets the the variance standards. Um, you don't want me to read out of the can. >> It still could be reducing the footprint size. I mean, there is so much. >> Well, like I think Tyler like really nailed this on the difficulties of this property and that it could still be smaller.

107It could be done. they but uh not at this level that there's still a lot more not a lot more but still more that could be done to reduce the footprint of the house. >> So I am denying this application also. >> Vice chair. >> Okay. Um a couple of things. Of course it's a small lot and uh we've had this in front of us at least I was part of a decision earlier that we denied a 12,200 foot house because uh we can visit a lot of lots in town. It's hard to find one that's more encumbered by wetlands and other restrictions here. This is a a difficult lot to build on and we know that the a land owner has a right to build there. So, we're going to all work together, them

108and us, to find a solution on how they can build a house that most fits the needs of the town. I'm going to go over a few things though. Um, one is that the owner does inherit the site condition. So, there was a conversation of the wetlands increasing from the time they bought it. This is a regular pattern throughout the town. As development happens, other lots find that their margins of wetlands change. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. It's a reality, and we have to deal with that in here. Perhaps if they had built 40 years ago, they'd be somehow being encroached by wetlands and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But they are trying to build now. And that's a reality they have to deal with. I think that all arguments that we used

109to defending the proposed structure were good ones by Mr. Whan. He made points about the town code, minimum living size and the ways in which this house could be constructed. Uh I think those were those are good good arguments. I think going through some other conditions other than the house uh the location of the septic, the driveway, any of these conditions, every the entire site obviously is requiring an NRSP are difficult if not nearly impossible relative to wetland setbacks. We know that going in. We also know the narrow the size of the lot. Another factor here that weighs heavily on what we're going to have to decide about this was the fact that this is we're going to be required to come up to AE10 standards. And so now we're dealing with first floor elevation

110at 12T. Zoan did point out that the surrounding topography varied between five and seven feet. So in theory, uh certainly something like 3 foot higher than it would have to be if a house was built based on AE requirements. That's true. Um I think an important factor for me in this is to ask this question. How big is the footprint of the house as proposed? It's 548 square ft. When we talk about making a smaller house, therefore we're not talking about changing any of the setbacks significantly because it's already mentioned by the board members. That's really not possible. A 548 square footprint. If we were to do a onestory house, that footprint would have to be enlarged to do a minimum 600 square foot house. So we are at the minimum that can be put

111on this site. Minimum footprint that can be put on this side and still do a buildable house. It would actually have to go up a little bit. I think if we did one floor, the second floor then becomes an issue here. we have these pyramid uh variances to deal with where the board is very um very concerned about pyramid variances. We uh we frown upon approving them. We very often don't allow them unless there are unique conditions or conditions that just can't be helped. One of the things that's led to us having to deal with pyramids though is uh uh houses being built to pyramid FEMA requirements heights. We've seen that on a number of other locations where significant um pyramid variances have been allowed by us because there is almost no choice building the

112house based on what FEMA has asked for here. When I look at this site, I ask myself a couple of other questions. It's easy to say for us, let's make it smaller. How are we making it smaller? We're not changing the footprint. We're not going to get any more distance from the wetlands. That's how I see it. So, we're going to decrease the size of the second floor. We're going to decrease the size of the bedrooms on the second floor as was pointed out by other board members and therefore we're going to take 20 square foot off of each of them and we're going to decrease the size of that floor. How is that benefit the town the environment and the neighborhood? I think it benefits the neighborhood by decreasing the pyramid variance slightly slightly.

113Not not that significantly because we still have a second floor. The town has encouraged in the past that when we have these sensitive lots rather than sprawl to build up now they don't build ask us to build up and and incur these large pyramid variances. But now we're on a site that I two years ago when we denied this I thought except for the fact that they have a legal right to build it's an unbuildable lot. It's just it's so difficult to build here. But it is a buildable lot and we have to face up to that. I agree exactly with the arguments from the town on this. I think they're right about wanting to make it smaller. I think they're right when they talk about the impact on the environment. I think we have

114to consider all the implications of another house in this neighborhood in, you know, being juaposed so directly to the wetlands. But I ask myself, what are the options? The options of making a smaller footprint don't exist. It'll be a larger footprint if it's one story. So, it comes down to am I willing to um approve this based on allowing these significant pyramid variances. Yeah, I don't like them. I don't like them at all. But I'm wondering where we go from here. We send it back, they come back with a smaller house with a larger footprint. Are we going to be happy that we've made a larger footprint? I don't know. And we'd have to consider that. the volume the GPA or the GFA would uh would be decreased and GFA is always a factor in

115our decision- making. I'm not sure there's a lot of else that can be done here. I'm really not. I the night of the hearing sitting in this looking at this the first time this is a denial for me. But the more I look at it, the more I look at the options that are available to the owner. I don't think that talking about the size of the variances is really a factor here because on this lot all I mean the size of setbacks and and the effect of the NRSP. I think that's going to happen with anything that goes on this lot. At some point something's going to have to be will be allowed to be built here. And I'm afraid that the next take on this is even a larger footprint. So reluctantly I'm

116leaning towards approving this. Why? I mean it's too big a house on too small a lot. But I don't know where the options are. I do think it was significant to say it would be a modular because I think collateral damage on these sensitive sites is always a concern for us building protocols. How we're how we're approaching a job, what what angle are we taking to uh complete the construction. The modular in a difficult spot, it was pointed out by the neighborhood could be placed in there. I think there's a minimum amount of damage there. So now we have an applicant who's come to us with a minimum footprint, a modular home. Um, and they're asking basically for me, they're asking whether or not it can live with the pyramid variances. Would I like to

117see a smaller house? I would. Do I think there's much improvement possible by asking them to come back with the new? I'm not sure there is. Therefore, I'm going to approve this. Not liking it. I don't like building on this lot. I didn't like it last time. I don't like it this time. But I'm not sure what else we can ask of them except to take the rooms on the second floor, make them smaller, and then I ask myself, what is the overall impact the environment in the neighborhood? How much good have we achieved? I don't think it's significant enough to send them back for another take on this. So, having said all of that, I am going to approve this application somewhat reluctantly because I'm the sensitive of the lot, but I also think

118the realities of what it's going to take to build a house here are evident to me. >> Thank you, member. Well, this is my uh second evaluation on a property and luckily I've had the opportunity to be challenged with two very challenging applications before us on my first goound. >> Baptism by fire. >> Yes. I don't want to become known as Jose the denier but there is a lot for this particular parcel property that is very very very challenging. Um I hear what my colleagues have said and uh in particular the vice chair here said something that made a lot of sense to me this evening but I still believe that there is an opportunity to squeeze a little bit more. I say that from having experience with smaller homes in previous life. So with

119that being said, uh apart from the actual GFA of of the of the structure, I also like to point out the fact that from the 2022 denial to the 2024 application, there is very little change, practically none. And I don't see that as a real effort to come back to us with an improvement. That being said, you know, in this very encumbered parcel, the requested variances are extensive, and there really has been no mediation proposed. We at the board, in my my short time here, see that everyone is very cognizant of what can be done, what can't be done, and how to balance it out. Nobody here wants to be Jose the denier, but we want to find out how to balance things out. And with the very no mediation that has been presented, I

120find myself yet at another difficult situation, difficult decision that um is uh currently a um a denial. Let me just continue on a couple of other points. The reduced GFA uh can be further the the the GFA can be further reduced to more closely adhere to the parcel parameters. Again, I say that from experience. the NRSP variances is very significant in a freshwater wetland. Uh a a key uh hot button for my for me is the wetlands and uh this variance could potentially harm the neighborhood water quality which having seen what the town has experienced in putting water manes in many areas of town to have potable water for all of our residents. considering the impact that uh the impact that wells have had from construction and other uh and other methods and other measures

121that have harmed neighborhood water quality. Uh um this is especially important because it takes into account that the request is for almost 100% relief. I think 100% relief is a very impactful element. uh were only a half foot clearance to the requested that a half foot clearance is requested instead of a 50- foot clearance. That's non-existent to me. Um the and this type of requested clearance uh could significantly have uh a an effect on the cumulative impact of the sanitary effluent. Um lastly, the relief from from the town's pyramid negotiation regulations, not negotiations, the relief from the town's pyramid regulations, again is 100% relief from both the southerntherly and northerly property lines. With these 100% relief requests, I am inclined to deny this application. >> Thank you. I want to begin by saying I have

122complete respect for the presentation that Mr. Whan gave us the night of the public hearing, but he is before us for a natural resource special permit and very substantial variances. And as a board, we are charged every week, not just with this application, with meeting those standards. and we base our approvals or denials on whether or not they meet those standards. And in this case, they don't meet one standard. The proposed construction of a 966q ft two-story residence on a 5,959 square foot lot requires substantial and multiple variances, including variances of 97.2 feet, 91.5 ft, where 100t is required by the town code. The magnitude and number of requested variances demonstrate that the proposal is not in compliance with the dimensional requirements of the town code and represents a very significant overdevelopment of this parcel.

123The lot is significantly constrained by natural resources. The proposed scale of the residence will result in encroachment into required natural resource buffers and setbacks contrary to the intent of the code which is to protect wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. The town code also addresses that the and the applicant has not demonstrated that the requested variances are the minimum necessary to afford reasonable use of the property. The proposed two-story structure in both height and footprint exacerbates the nonconformities and intensifies impacts on the constrained lot rather than minimize them. Additionally, granting the requested relief would alter the character of the neighborhood, undermine the purposes of zoning, and set an undesirable precedent for development on similarly constrained lots. In this application, the hardship is self-created as it comes from the applicant's proposal to construct a residence of

124a size and configuration that exceeds what the lot and its environmental constraints can reasonably accommodate. For these reasons, I feel that this application fails to meet the criteria for variances and an NRSP and I will be denying this application in its entirety. The applicant has really not demonstrated that the project could reasonably accommodate while minimizing impacts to these natural resources and the residence being proposed is in essence too large for the constraints of the property and not in compliance with one standard outlined in natural resource special permit or varian standards. So for these reasons I will be denying this application. Okay, let's move on. Are we good, council? >> Yeah. >> Let's move on to other decisions. Nina, Rachel, Letterman, and Rowena Boy Langumba Trust. I tried. 39 Old Fireplace Road in Spring, Suffach County

125Tax Map number 300-47 uh-24-7-45 modification of a 2025 determination. >> This is a >> Yeah. So, this >> we just did >> this one. >> It was brought to we just we just did this one, >> right? Yeah. It was brought to our attention when they got the determination that I don't know how this happened, but they the applicant never submitted before we close the public hearing the final um plans for the septic system. >> Yeah, >> they submitted a survey showing where it would be, but they never submitted the matching plans or updated to show it. um they they sent a letter that talked about it and talked about the date and everything like that, but the the plans just never for whatever reason didn't get submitted through open gov or I don't know

126Sam was out so it kind of got a little messy. Um but so this we would modify the con the approval just to strike the approved plans and then add a condition that they would submit um revised plans that match the survey uh that was approved to then uh so then that way we can they have to submit that before they could get a building permit and then you know the the planning department and the board can review the plan just to make sure that you're good. So that's what Yeah. >> So we we still don't have those plans. >> Uh they sent a draft to us, but since the records closed, I I haven't sent it out yet, but I will once they will. Yes, basically. >> So review this. >> So do we

127have to reopen the record >> to bring that in? >> Well, that's why we're mod we're modifying >> Okay. >> the approval. We're not going to determine >> because the the plans that we did approve in the are not the correct plans. So, I want to take that out and then there's a we're going to add a condition of the approval that they submit new plans and then they'll just resubmit the plans to you. >> So, it's condition of approval, not >> Yes. Yeah. Condition of the approval to submit the revised plans. >> Okay. So, we are we all good with this? Because we don't need a motion. We just need to say yes or no. >> I'm fine with it. We have no choice. Yeah. >> So, yeah, I'll have a I'll drop the

128modification for the next meeting for you. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, the next decision, Matthew, uh, Wheelen, 32 Tyler Road, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-68-12-5, modification of 2023 determination. >> Okay. So, the original approval for this one uh in 2023 was for some accessory structures. This is the approved survey. It was for this patio, a retaining wall which was right here, um, and a fence. And they were all I I think it's this fence. Um, all within the minimum wetland setbacks from this freshwater wetland over here on the adjacent lot. Um, what they want to do now is there was a um a mulch path that was approved over here. Um, that doesn't count towards coverage or anything. Um, if it was gravel, it would, but since it's mulch, it doesn't. Um,

129so what they would like to do is extend that mulch area a little bit. Um, and then just put in some stepping like stone stairs kind of, but it's like only a series of like three boulders really. Um, just because it's pretty sloped on this side of the residence. They haven't done this work yet. This is all uh proposed and they are also proposing an additional I think it's about 20 it's 25 square ft more of reveg proposed within the wetland buffer. Reage. >> Yeah. >> And but any changes in coverage or anything or >> No, it's we believe it falls under a pvious um walkway >> because of the mulch and everything. >> Yeah. The mulch doesn't go towards coverage or anything, >> right? Oh, that's right. Yeah. >> So, this is to accommodate

130a change in grade. >> It's just to be It's the existing grade. So, they're just putting the stones into the existing slope. These are the ones that squared off the p the decking or something. These guys >> it's this patio right here. Um >> which one? The one? >> The one that my I don't know if can you see that where my cursor is to the >> I can near the road to the south. >> Is that where where's the road? >> No, the road is right here. So this is um >> Tyler right here. >> And then it's in the rear yard. >> It's in the rear yard. >> Yeah, this is So the the north arrow it's kind of not oriented with north going up. This is a modification of our of the

131decision. Yes. Not the deter. Not someone like not just the written determination. This is >> Yeah. >> No, this is a modification of the determination. >> Yeah. >> So, the determination was that other decking you got on the side there. >> This uh this patio is the most substantial structure in that uh determination. There's also this retaining wall here that was approved. >> Okay. But they're not changing the grading or anything. I guess >> it's described I think that there's a more of a descript set in slope in this is the image. >> I can't see what is that a stepping slope. >> The it's described the boulders are being described as being set in the slope. >> Set in slope. >> Right. Oh, like Yeah. >> All right. So, we I'm I'm good with

132that. >> I think I'm okay with it. >> Okay. So, we don't need a motion. We'll move on to um member Burger, the draft minutes to make a motion to approve the draft minutes for Tuesday, January 6, 2026 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Second, >> concur. >> Vice Chair, will you adjourn the meeting? >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion then to close the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals work session for January 13th at uh 8:35 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Thank you. Thank you.