East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 01/06/2026

001Okay, zoning board, you are live. You're recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> I'd like to welcome everyone to the first meeting of the zoning board of appeals in 2026. We wish everyone a happy new year. I'd also like to welcome our newest member, Jose Arandia, who is joining us tonight for the first time. Welcome, Jose. >> Welcome. >> Kevin Gotti is uh going to be postponed at the request of their agent. So, we'll begin with Henry Proto, and I'll read the notice into the record. Description is the modification of a 2016 zoning board of appeals approval to allow an asbuilt masonry staircase and stone wall to remain to construct fencing to remove a gravel patio and implement a reveation within 100 ft of a wetland. A modification of the zoning board natural

002resource special permit and variances determination filed November 2nd, 2016. An NRSP pursuant to 255420 and additional variances of 47 feet, 50 feet, and 15 feet are needed from 255430 to allow a masonry staircase and stone wall to remain 53 and 50 ft from freshwater wetlands and to construct a fence 85 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft is required. Zoning district is B residence. Zone X flood zone. Secret class is type two. Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Uh, yes. I reviewed the affidavit and notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Vice Chairman Johan, do we have a field inspection? >> We do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, you'll see here, this is the posting. It was posted

003out onto Montalk Highway. Next, [clears throat] I've taken a look from right at the posting. I'm looking down Main Street. Uh, as you come down the hill and into town, I'm on the east end of town. Next, I'm going to look up the other way now and I'm going to see I'm looking out towards the lighthouse next. Uh, almost directly across just slightly to the uh the east of this house is the community church right there. And a few steps down is St. Theresa's Catholic Church. So this is that little corner people are familiar with if you know Montalk. Next I walk down. This is a house that'll come into conversation. This is the next nearest neighbor that's off his property. That's off the property, the proto property. Uh so uh this is going to

004be slightly down the hill. We'll talk about it next. So just looking back up at that from that spot, that's the house in discussion. Hard to see. We can skip it, but just show you. It's up the hill from the one there. I'm coming up the driveway. This is the house. Uh, this is that common driveway. Two properties, I think, in common ownership. This is the the house we'll be discussing today. The staircase off to the right. Next, here we are. Now, I've walked over to the staircase. So, now this is the north side of the house. This is the masonry staircase that's been noticed and it's going to be in discussion. You can see some of the stone that's going to morph into a discussion of the stone walls. You can see a little

005bit behind the wall that's there now. Uh we're going to walk up this staircase and take a look next. And I'm going to look at it straight on so you get an idea. Again, stones to my right, retaining wall immediately at my right, and then the stairs and the planters as you make your way up on the north side of the residence. Next, uh now I'm up here. As I'm coming up, I just taking a look at where this flattened area is. U as I've turned my way around at the bottom of the stairs. There's a second residence that's off to the east. And this is the beginning of a series of stones that margin the driveway at this point. Next, I'm halfway up looking down. Give you an idea of the size and scope

006of the project here that's involved in the staircase and the planters that are associated with it. Next, and I'm going to follow that stone wall. I see stones that are lined up and a gravel area. area of the snow now blocks the view of this the gravel, but that's all gravel beneath the snow. We're going to continue on looking at the wall. You can see it start to grow in size as it goes back and retains a bit of burm next um down there towards the rear of this now. And I'm kind of looking down again. You can see the gravel now through the snow and it's going to continue on for a bit. Next, now I've got a pretty good idea of the gravel area. Again, it will be discussed by the representative tonight.

007This gravel goes down. You can see the tops of a stone wall and a bit of the roof of the house below as you're looking down the hill. Next, now I've gone off. Now, uh the we're going to discuss the 2016 approval of this at some point. And one of the things that was approved at that time is that concrete retaining wall that was poured there to facilitate not only building the house but providing a platform for septic. Next, uh again, we can skip this. is looking down from that spot to give an idea looking down from where we are next. Now, this is part where that series of stones turns into more of a retaining wall. We have these larger boulders. They continue on. You can see in the distance the the poured concrete

008wall, but I've backed myself off further to the north. And now you see there's a series of stones. There's a fence to our right delineating keeping, you know, the fence in the property. But right to the left, those stones are something that'll be part of our discussion next. Again, I've gone down the other end to show you large stones. They continue on down. Not important what goes on past this point. But next, and then I'm turning around from here. Stone to my right, the retaining wall above, which really has something to do with the burm that you see up above and part of the natural topography. next. And that's from that spot. Just to give you an idea what the house is. I'm standing on the wall looking at the house. Gravel in front of

009me. Gravel continues on along the side of the house. Next. Uh, and now when I'm here, just so you know, walking back down, that's a second house. This is the house that actually is closest to the residence, but this is in common ownership. And I'm looking to the east. Next, uh just again just wanted to show you that this gravel area and the wall, this is all part of our discussion. Next, uh this by the way is a stone wall that might be referenced. It was referenced in a previous hearing at one point. There was in the 2016 approval an approval for a stone stone staircase, not wall, staircase to approach the front of the house. This was a previously approved and legal staircase, but this is not the one in discussion tonight. Next. And

010that's from there. Just looking back down from the front door of the house. This is all a legal part of what's on the property. This is part of the 2016 approval. Next. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Yes. Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, members of the board. Richard Whan from Whan Filer on behalf of the applicant, Henry Proto. Uh [snorts] Henry would like to be here tonight, but he had an engagement at Island, so unfortunately he can't be here. Um before I start off though, I have to say, Madame Chairwoman, it's been a long time. [laughter] You've got enough. You sure you want this? You sure you want this job? >> I am. >> Okay. [laughter] Um I do have some >> It's been

011a long road with us. >> It's been a long road. Um I do have some photos I'll hand out. The one benefit when I start remember photos are very good but mine are without snow. >> No taxes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> One more. Thank you. Yeah. >> Again, Richard Whan from Whan Filer on behalf of the applicant, Henry Proto. I first became involved in this project back in 2016. There had been a long battle, I guess you'd say, before I was involved between Henry and the planning department, primarily Brian Frank, uh really about the house size. And LPS was representing the applicant. I was brought in kind of at the last minute as the attorney and I think the train sort of went off the tracks a little bit in 2016 because the focus

012so much of the focus in 2016 which you know the board did approve the application was on the size of the house that not much attention was paid to details like how do you get to the back of the house? As the photographs show, the house is built into the side of a hill with a, you know, with a with a um, you know, under underneath garage that empties into the the common parking area, driveway, common driveway. And there are issues about how you get up and how you get around behind the house. And a lot of that was left unresolved. And I would blame pretty much everyone involved in that, the applicant, the agents, the planning department, the zoning board. Nobody really focused on that. So much of the attention was paid, you know,

013to the the size of the house and the and the sighting of the house and so forth. So, uh, in 2021, so what happened was when the house was built, at some point, Henry Proto realized, well, I have to be able to get up to the side of the house. You know, you've got an exit out there. You've got air conditioning compressors. I'll point out in a couple of the photographs, there is a propane filler. [snorts] There's a propane tank buried up with the fill with the fill tube up in that flat area where the gravel is. So he Henry had engaged an outdoor landscaping firm from Ambiganit. I'm going to not mention their name because I didn't deal with them directly. But according to Henry, they talked to the building department uh and said

014they asked can we put a stairway in where the stairs are and the building department said yeah sure you can do that. Well, when time came to apply for the CFO, the zoning board or the plane department, someone went and did an inspection said, "Well, there's stairs there." They were never approved by the zoning board. Why? I was not consulted. So, everything stopped. Lori Wilshshire made an application back to the board to try to legalize the stairs in 2021. That was denied. I made an application in 2022 that was denied. And if you read the 2022 denial, which is kind of why we're back here, is it leaves us in limbo. Uh, one of the other problems with the application was that the survey that was submitted to the board had this symbol that ran

015around everything from the west side of the property. We're on the north side and then all the way to the stairs that go down to the driveway with kind of these little, I don't know, little loaves of bread. Uh, and it was labeled stone wall, a rock wall. Well, as we'll see from the photographs, and maybe I can show the photographs. I just want to show the different there are at least three elements to the stone wall. So, all right, let's let's start here. This is this is directly behind the house north of meaning behind from the MK highway. Uh, as member Yuan pointed out, all this is gravel. All the gravel is proposed to be removed. That's one of the points of mitigation, the application. See this right here? >> That's the propane tank.

016That's the propane entry. The stairs we'll see in a moment are over there. Um, just advance to the next. Show the stairs. I think the next one, right? Yeah. Okay, there we go. So, when the propane deliveries are made, the propane tanks parks down the parking lot. The guy takes his hose, walks up the stairs, and goes to that propane tank. That's how he fills the propane tank. You take the stairs away, I'm not sure how he's going to get there. He can't go around the house. This hose isn't that long. Uh I guess he can clamber up a steep grassy slope. But you know, you really need to get access to that part of the house. And that was something that was not thought of at the time. Uh perhaps the owner should have

017gone back to the zoning board before installing them, dealt with it that way. That didn't happen. So we are where we are. Um also along the left hand side, I don't know that I would call this a stone wall, but again on the survey, all the rocks were referred to as rock wall. So you can see the line of stones. Uh remember member Yan showed those as photographs too. And let's I guess we can pull away from that from there. Those stones are not stacked on top of it. They're just single line of stones. When you get to the northwest corner of the property, this is sort of a retaining wall. I guess to some extent it's now holding up some of the earth there. Uh the area behind the wall is fully reveated. The

018DEC wanted to limit to limit the clearing boundary so they wouldn't go beyond that. The DC had asked for a split rail fence. For whatever reason, Henry preferred the rock wall and ran that by the DC and the Yeah, fine. Does the same thing. We're okay with that. So, the DC views that as a limitation limiting fac limit limiter on clearing. We're actually going to be reveating along not only removing the gravel, but they will be reveal. So, clearing will no longer even extend up to the rock wall as we propose it. Uh, okay. Next photo. I think it's just more of that to show you that. Um, actually, no. Go back. Is it one more? >> Well, okay. I think of two of the same, but um, okay, you can go forward [clears throat]

019and then uh, memory has better photos than I do, I think, there of the So, the third element, >> which one are you looking? >> Yes. I wanted now I'm going to go to the stones on the west side of the property. That's just another angle of those stones at the at the northwest corner. >> Yeah. So, that's a good and uh albeit with snow um uh Ed's photos actually showed a lot more of that of that of that rock wall there. So, uh that is acting to some extent as a retaining wall. If those had to be all the zoning board decision said in 2022 says we don't approve these things. Meaning that I guess to get a CVO you'd have to remove them. Remove the single line of rocks. Remove the double line

020in the northwest corner that we saw in the preceding photograph. Remove these rocks. All of them. Some of them. Not clear. Removing these rocks. And again, you saw the prior photos by member Johan. You probably would need a crane, which I assume you would have to park on the Montalk Highway road shoulder. I don't know how else you would get those rocks out of there. You would then destabilize the slope. I don't see any benefit to Kathy Beckman's property. I don't think there's a detriment right now, but whatever. Our proposal at the moment is to leave those stones as they are, not to disturb them. The gravel that you see there, not only would the gravel be removed, but as you can see, we have a landscaping plan kind of all around the edges of

021these rocks, all around to the north side of the property, that would be planted with Bayberry. I think we proposed 39 Bay bushes at 24 in height, something like that. So that's the proposed mitigation is to is to remove all the gravel. It's over 1,800 ft of gravel would go away. We would replant some of the property. The total amount of replanting is um approximately 638 ft. A couple salient points to remember. The house as built is exactly as approved by the zoning board in 2016 and the clearing is exactly as approved by the zoning board in 2016. Proto has not gone beyond the allowed clearing limit which went right to the edge of his property on this side, the west side. So, he's always stayed within his allowed clearing limit. Um, and now we

022actually would retract from that a little bit. again, we would remove we would replant with Bayberry approximately 638 square ft of of area. So, um that that's kind of it. I mean, I'm really asking for kind of what I view is a practical resolution of this. Uh I think it makes most sense, least disturbance, to leave the stones there. They're all native stones. They all came from the property while it was being excavated. They're not harmful in any way to the wetlands. And the same can be said in the stone care, the staircase. doesn't harm the wetlands. Uh it's about 50 ft from the wetland boundary. If you remove it, there is a chance that some of the runoff on the back of the property may go. Can we go back to the to the

023staircase photo? >> Yeah, I want to see that. >> The first photo, your drop of the wetlands in question, which are good wetlands, there's a hollow kettle off to the north of the property in the scenic easement. But this land begins to slope away almost right away. So if you remove those and you remove those and you remove those rocks, some of your runoff some of the runoff I presume is going to go down to the wetlands. So I don't see any benefit to removing that. Um it should have gotten permits the right way. It didn't. But leaving it now is basically harmless and maybe better than harmless. Uh in addition to which we're offering mitigation in the sense of removal of all the gravel and replanting some of the property with native vegetation so

024it doesn't all does not all become lawn. So there are any questions? I'll be happy to answer them. >> Yes. [clears throat] So I'll start with the staircase. Uh because obviously that's a a major element here in our discussion. You did say that the building department gave the landscape contractor approval. Is that a written approval? That was >> I've never seen a permit. It sounds to me like they were given a verbal okay as part of the building. >> Yeah. So when you when you say I'm going to do a staircase, it could have been anything. It didn't have to be anything substantial as this. I mean I don't know who ever was involved in the building department. doesn't really matter for this discussion. We don't have it on paper. What we do have here,

025and we brought this up in previous hearings, is a substantial staircase that was done. Now, originally when it was brought to us, it was said that it might have been done uh sort of by mistake or without the knowledge of the owner. It's this significant amount first time we were here that was said that this was done by the landscaper without full acknowledge of the the owner. We can go back and look for that. I think we'll find it in the hearing. But either way, this [clears throat] is a significant structure that was it was installed and done without zoning board approval, without coming back in front of the ZBA after, as you pointed out, a long and lengthy discussion to get approval for the original house. Now, I know what you're saying. They mostly

026discussed the fact that loomed over Main Street there, that it was so large. Does it have to be so large? Can we cut into the GFA? how is that platform on the roadside going to affect things? And nobody was thinking about the north side. However, that still doesn't re uh allow for someone to come in an area where they're not supposed to be going that way because we know that the GFA I mean the GF we know that the approval at the time did not approve a staircase here. So, if we're going to go back and talk about this staircase at all, a very sensitive site, a long-term approval, you've got to know you've got to come back to us and talk about it. You can't go moving towards the wetlands without doing it. And

027to say that it was done somehow without full knowledge, it's hard for me to just walk up that significant staircase and think that they weren't involved. >> Let me tell you what I know. Okay. Because there were hearing in 2021, >> right, >> that Lori Wilchshire represented the applicant on. I wasn't there for that. >> Yeah. >> In 2022, I do know what happened. I don't think Henry was present. And I don't remember. I may have >> given his what he told me, >> but I never told the zoning board that it was done without the owner's approval. >> What I I remember this. I told the board what Henry told me, which is that his landscaper went to the building department, asked them if this is okay to put stairs in and they were

028told yes. >> Yeah. >> So, whatever came through me. >> No, I agree with that. I agree with that. But, but it's been in front of us. I was part of the Lori presentation, so I remember that. But the point anyway, it's a significant set of stairs to talk about getting access to the rear of the house to come in and look for a sympathetic decision from the board knowing that this is a sensitive lot would have made a lot of sense. It didn't happen and we're dealing with what's here. I know, but we have to look at this as a very significant structure on the side of the house that was not planned to be. Let's go to the stones for a minute. as they long line the driveway and come up around and

029they all there and come through. Yes, they margined something and yes, they may fit in with you said the DEC approved switching from the split rail fence to the stone as a deterrent to walking your you know casually expanding out into the wetlands and that's fine here when it's doing this. But as it goes down further and we saw that it was a retaining wall for the natural grade. There's another conscious decision to change the topography on the property on a side of the house that's already been discussed as being sensitive. We go all the way to the back and we see those larger stones, which you point out correctly, are very large and going to be hard to remove if they had to be removed. They're still been put in there to create a

030platform because that's what they did. They created a large recreational space that was grass, went to gravel, was hoping to go back to grass. I think that's correct. I think initially it was grass and then >> Yeah. And then it went to gravel and it's come back. I certainly it's been gravel since I've been out. >> I think he's had gravel. I think you put in gravel connection with the beginning. Okay. I I wasn't there at the 216, but I certainly was part of 21 and 22. >> It wasn't shown as gravel on the plans. Yeah, I'm saying when the house was built, I think from the initial they had gravel behind the house. >> So, what the stone accomplishes though, >> but the stone accomplishes there is a change in topography. So whether or

031not now we're going to look back and say that stone is not doing any damage to the wetlands, it's actually protecting the wetlands. That's a possible argument you can make. We can talk about that. But the fact is on the side of the house where you did not get approvals for any additional work, stone was lined up, a platform was created to make more recreational space, I suppose, and a staircase was put in. These large as large ass Rick, you know that we're being asked to that. And what what the town is going to get in return now is the 620ome feet or 660 ft of reveation and switching from stone to grass, which is a conversation in its own. Um, I got to tell you, there's not a lot different from the last time

032you stood in front of us. When I look at this, it's not a lot different. Uh, I think I think your argument is that you've refashioned the argument to say we take this out, it may cause future environmental damage with erosion, but as you know and we all know, we've seen a lot of steep slopes that get well vegetated by us because we require the applicant to do that to protect the wetlands. So, this was a possibility of a hundred things could have happened. But what didn't happen was that the client, the in your case, your client, our applicant, came to the zoning board and said, "I'm going to make some changes on a sensitive side of the house. What do I have to do?" That didn't happen. And now we're we're being asked to,

033I don't know if it's the right term is forgiveness, but certainly acceptance of two structures that go well beyond the 216 approval. I will point out that where the stairway is in the front of the property, all that is within the allowed clearing area. So, >> clean air clearing. >> If the stairs come out, you're going to have presumably a lawn. >> Now, we understand that the impact is great if this if these things come out, >> but I don't want to hog. >> Thank you. Uh, but I'm looking at it from a different perspective. I'm looking at the the January um 20th 21 finding and determination which denied the allowance of the staircase and the rock wall and in their factors to consider for a natural resource special permit. I'm going to read it

034into the record. The board found that the proposed use may prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties as alteration of the slopes and infringement on the wetlands will alter the drainage patterns and the location of the standing water necessary for the pre preservation of the vital freshwater wetlands. And also the board found that the stone staircase and stone wall were massive structures and not suitable for the location and compatible with surroundings. So my question to you would be can you offer more mitigation or obviously the drainage patterns on this site are difficult because of the slopes and how would you control the drainage? Well, I think first of all, the original zoning board decision did not do anything to control drainage off to the north. We were allowed to clear to a certain

035point. Presumably, would it would put a split rail fence at that boundary so it wouldn't be further cleared. But other than that, if runoff ran off to the north, it runs off to the north. And although the zoning board wasn't aware that the applicant was going to put in gravel, you presumably thought it would be lawn. So, you'd have lawn and you'd have runoff in the lawn. some of it could go off into the wetlands. That was under the original approval. >> Now, previous um surveys uh showed uh dry wells around the property. And on the survey for June 19th, 2025, I don't see any of the dry wells there at all. >> There are dry wells in >> Is that a mistake on the part of the surveyor or >> do they no longer

036there? a drain. >> Yeah. So, the survey shows the one catch basin in the driveway. There's probably one on the neighboring property as well, the other part of the driveway. There is, according to my client, there is a catch basin. First of all, there's you'll see it on one of the photographs there in the gravel area behind the house. There's a there's a Yeah, this. He says that is a that is a drainage invert and buried in the soil on the west side of the house. Survey doesn't show it. The survey may not know it's there, but uh I actually think I got at one point an invoice from Ken Rousell who installed it. So there is a there is a dry well buried under the soil west of the house. So somewhere in here.

037I believe that was established at a previous hearing. >> Yeah, I think I think I brought that up. >> Board members, any questions? >> Um, well, the 2016 survey shows a dry well where the steps ended up uh being. You made a comment that um there was no detriment to the neighbor to the south uh to the west, Miss Beckman's house, but she did testify at that modification hearing that she was getting flooded and moss and lot of flooding. She as I [clears throat] recall went up. >> Yeah. I don't know she exactly said she was getting a flooding. She said that she was seeing more water and moss was growing on something. That's what she said. Her property is really cleared pretty far up the slope. So she's got a slope on her. You

038can see some of the topo lines that go west of our property. She's got grass going up the slope. So it's not shocking that she's got some runoff coming down off her own land. >> [snorts] >> I mean I don't see any when you out there I don't see any evidence that there's any significant runoff going off the and remember we will be going from gravel to actually in that area from gravel to a perimeter of native vegetation bay berry and that'll let grow. So there'll be a natural buffer this area as well as on in this area as well. If you look at the western and northern perimeter of the cleared area so that should also help to attenuate some runoff. >> Can I just one thing? Thank you. Um so the original and

039I was not a part of the board at the original or the past too. So, I'm been coming up to speed on this. Um, so the original 2016 approval for the house, um, the clearing, sorry, the coverage, the total law coverage that was approved based on that survey, I believe, was 3,195 square ft. The existing now is 5,478 square ft. So I would imagine the difference is related to the gravel, the wall, the stairs. >> But I just still want to un understand in ter and maybe this will be something for the planner as well, but I'm still trying to understand the topography. How much topography change happened with the gravel? Was it different than I guess what was approved? I guess originally you said grass was going to be in that area. So has

040there been that extra coverage that's been created with these elements? Was there further change to the topography? >> I don't know the gravel did anything to change the topography, but if you look at the 2016 survey and the current survey, Phil was placed west of the house. If you were to actually build what was approved in the 2016 survey, you would have a long grassy slope running downhill from the back patio of the house to the Beckman property line. >> Now remember, Yan is right. That gave the applicant [clears throat] sort of an outdoor pla platform, a yard basically they could use. >> But if you went back to what was actually approved, you'd have a long steep grassy slope going down to the property line. Very hard to control storm water runoff at that

041point, right? And I [clears throat] guess I would like to follow up on the chairwoman's question again about potential for more um mitigation and member Johan sort of mentioned that maybe we should have a conversation about lawn but >> well I mean I think most anything um >> the applicant obviously wants a wants a yard some yard. >> So what would you be open to? Uh, I haven't really [clears throat] discussed it with Henry beyond what we proposed. I don't know. I mean, are you looking for less yard? >> When you say yard, you've got a whole grassy yard on the south side where you have steps on the south side that go up to it from the parking area. >> Well, probably the patio included in your >> There's a covered patio on the

042west side of the house. So, that leads to like the usable part of the of the yard, which is over here. It also leads to the south part. >> Yeah. I mean, this becomes your usual yard area. I mean, you could play around with that. >> Yeah. Large area there on the south side. >> So, why don't we do this? Why don't we hear from the planning department and then come back, Rick, and see if we're open to something else. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Rick. [clears throat] >> Good evening, board. Morgan Slater for the planning department. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> So, the structures that we've been discussing were constructed without the benefit of a modification or

043um a proposal to the zoning board of appeals. Um they do require variances that are greater than any that were approved in the original determination. There have been two denials issued in 2021 and 2022 for the stone staircase, gravel, and wall. The current request involves keeping the stone staircase and wall but removing the gravel area. Since there were two prior denials for the masonry and stone structures, the difference between this modification request and the previous application should be distinguishable to warrant the reconsideration. Um the work on the west side of the house resulted in a significant grade change, some of which were not depicted on the approved survey. We've kind of touched on that. you know, the original 2016 application was probably lacking in detail to um grade changes and uh runoff control. The um

044the [clears throat] there also various dry wells that were depicted on that approved survey, you know, the detail or thought that went into the proposed locations of those drys. I couldn't really find a ton of information on that. They I just know that they were on the approved survey. It would be helpful if we knew if those actually were installed, I think. Um, regardless, there was some grade changes that are different from what was approved. So, even if those drywalls drywalls were installed in the exact locations that they were proposed, it may not be effective since the grade is actually a little bit different than what was originally proposed in 2016. Uh, [gasps] the applicant should address the concerns the board previously raised about the improvements, especially the runoff pattern that has resulted from them.

045Uh, that was a predominant reason for the prior denials. Uh the removal of the gravel area and the proposed reveg are an improvement to the environmental conditions on the lot. Um and the board needs to determine whether these structures meet the varian standards in order to be approved. And they may want to consider a drainage plan to determine whether any additional runoff mitigation is needed. And I do think that that is a conversation really worth having just because um the slopes are pretty intense over here and there has been prior testimony from an affected neighbor about runoff onto her property as a result of this development. Um and I can answer any questions the board may have. >> Thank you, Morgan. >> Yeah, excuse me, Mr. Chair. M madam chairman, sorry. [laughter] I'll get used

046to it about six months. Um yeah, one of the questions and it was brought up effectively by Rick is that the natural slope from the applicant's property down to the affected property that we have had testimony in the past about is naturally downhill. So it was always going to be that way and there was always going to be some runoff. My question is when the work that got done behind this house changed the topography and I think that re one of those stone drawings show stone photo showed that we were retaining a bit of a natural element that was coming through. It's not necessarily true and I can't say this Rick because I wasn't there in 2015. Not necessarily true that it was directly a downward slope that that kind of ridge came through. It

047was cut out. We created a flat. I'm interested in the planning department's take on the fact that once you change the topography this is part of the reason why we're not allowing you to go in an area that has not previously approved with the kind of vetting that goes on in this process. So we go out here the topography is now changed. Now we definitely do have a situation that we as got concern over but in 2016 when the approval was made behind the house may not have been quite as critical and the other thing about it is maybe that could have been planted out in native plants which would have done a better job of filtering some of this water than a hardcape than the hards there. So that would be my question to

048the planning department. What is your take on the effect of having recontoured a sensitive piece of property? And I think one of the reasons why we've been sort of adamant about this is that property that took a lot to get approvals on because of those wetlands and then on the most effective side this work was done. >> So it's not minor from a point of view of long-term planning or how we look at. So what goes on now if in fact this were to move forward with some sort of approval the gravel gets changed for grass and tell us how that's an improvement to the situation. >> I mean I think an assessment of the you know what the existing slopes were compared to what the asbuilt slopes are and potent you know runoff um

049you know I'm not an engineer but you know engineers are capable of providing that information. I I think that that could be appropriate in this situation to at least understand how much has changed. We do have the information with the historical topography so that we are able to do some sort of comparison with that information. Um you know I think it's definitely something worth looking at. Um and it's hard to say exactly what mitigation is appropriate I think without those parameters >> without the drainage plan. So one other thing in the line with that then member Miring asked what kinds of additional mitigation would the applicant been willing to do if we come on the inside of the wall where they're proposing [clears throat] grass is that an area where it's appropriate to think of

050other types of vegetation to reduce the amount of runoff. >> Yeah. I mean woody uh vegetation would absolutely slow down runoff more than grass. >> So one of the things [clears throat] that was brought up again by the applicant's representative is the last time they did not get recommendations from us. They just got a denial. We're sitting here now talking to the planning department about what we think should go on in the future. One of the recommendations should be in coordination with what our advice is. >> Do we want to suggest that a certain amount of this has to be replanted on the east side of the stone wall and is that going to be enough to begin to mitigate this whole situation? I think, you know, any increase in the woody vegetation, especially on

051the west side of the property, would be an improvement, but also um I think identifying the most problematic areas in the existing topography and using that as a tool to determine where, you know, the mitigation should be concentrated >> would be useful. >> So, I think we should leave the record open for a drainage plan, an additional reveation plan. we get that >> survey with the contours on today's you know and they the asbuilt doesn't have them now >> and then may I ask to the point that Martin was making so sort of suggestion that getting an engineering view of really what's changed how would we bring that into the >> record in ter like leaving it open who would provide that for us >> well the applicant would have to provide that >> right

052so and then could I just ask >> let's yeah I want to go ahead. >> No for sorry one more thing. >> Sure. >> So I I don't want to I'm not saying this is going to happen but if if this were to be denied >> one would think that would require the removal of either the steps the stone wall. So if the stone wall and its various parts were to be removed, what would have to, you know, would would there be a need, would there be an opportunity for a restoration, for lack of a better word, or I'm not quite sure what. >> Yeah, I'm not um I'm I'm not familiar with a circumstance, you know, where that was the case. I I think usually a denial just suggests that those structures can't legally

053exist there. um is that the most um out [clears throat] way to mitigate an issue? You know, usually the planning department would like to have some sort of involvement in any remediation um in an environmentally sensitive area. Um I think that that's a discussion worth having. I just don't know if we could reach that conclusion right now. >> That's helpful. Thank you. >> Anything else, Morgan? Are you good? >> Um no, but I'll be over here more questions. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak to this application? Rick online. >> Oh, are there any callers, Matt? >> Uh, please stand by. I want to just do a double check of the phone lines. >> And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Making sure that everything is good

054and it is. And you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Thank you, Richard Whan. Well, Filer again for the applicant. Uh, I think my client will hate this, but it might be best if if we hear from the department and rather than trying to do this on paper, it might be best to have a continuation of the hearing because having back and forth on paper is almost impossible. [snorts] A couple things occur to me. One is I'd like to hear from the department in terms of the revitation plan and if there's anything else they would want. The second thing I would say is one of the simplest ways of further protecting against runoff would maybe be to be installed another uh drainage structure. Could we go back to the photograph

055again that was on the side? I want to show that little drainage structure behind the behind the Yeah, this right here. That's kind of an odd grate. I assume that Henry Proto used that because it's surrounded by gravel and you can't do a recessed grade because the gravel will go into it. If you have grass there, then you know or even dirt then it's a different matter. Uh and perhaps we could put in an additional on the backside put in additional drainage there to make sure or you know to reduce any possibility that there's runoff onto the Beckman property which I'm not saying there is but you know that would to me be one of the simpler things to do. So I would be like to hear from the planning department in writing perhaps and

056then I have a chance to talk to my client and then maybe we can you know continue this at a date to be determined >> and I would like to see a drainage plan submitted on your part. >> Okay. >> And um >> do we do that do we want to do that in order >> in coordination with them? Okay. >> So how long would you need for that? >> How long will you take take >> to review it? >> Yeah. Well, if you are you want us to submit a drainage plan for it to do you want to comment another revitation or you want us to propose something? >> Um well >> I mean we have a proposed rev plan. >> Yeah. But I I think the drainage should be engineered so that might

057take a while. Right. >> Right. >> At least a month I would think. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's a continuation you know it's not like >> Yeah. I I I like to set dates by which we resubmit hard dates and then >> then you can decide when to reschedu hold another public hearing. >> Uh so how long would you need? >> I would say not less than six weeks to be on the safe side. >> Yeah. >> Will that engineering document have the survey that has the top >> and our survey the survey does have topography. I think our existing survey as well as the original one has to >> it has some on the on the side here. >> So this is this isn't missing any topo lines. This is accurate. >> It's

058pretty flat. That's why it's pretty flat. >> Yeah, that's why there's lots. >> Yep. [clears throat] >> March 3rd is a hearing. March 17th is a hearing. >> That's Yeah. Then at the 24th, February 3rd, there's a work session. Do you want to continue it on the 17th? >> I have a Oh, wait. Oh, no. Sorry. Town work session. Yeah. Sorry. Yes. There's just regular >> I don't think I'd want to do anything in February because I have a trial coming up in Riverhead. Supposed to start in two weeks. >> March 3rd. >> At that point, I should be okay. >> Oh, yeah. >> Because I got my client's got to hire somebody to do the engineering. >> We want to schedule the continuation for March 3rd. >> Yes. And I I want to is

059is there a request for something in writing from the planning department in response to the applicant submission or is is that something you would want Rick or is that something >> I thought we were going to have six weeks to actually submit. Well, today is what the next >> I'd like to see you submit um uh your reveation ideas and also a drainage plan and then the planning department can look at it. >> So why don't we figure six weeks to submit something to the board? The the planning department can review it between then and the hearing date. Sure. reharing date, continuation date, >> and we're thinking March 3rd as a continuation. >> I'm thinking yes. And that would mean if we continue to have that on that date, we wouldn't have to re >>

060And if you have to change it, what can you go over those dates? Six weeks. And then how much [clears throat] time for the planners? >> Is that about two weeks? >> Yeah, I could do a week or two. >> Third [clears throat] Morgan seems to think she has time. >> Do you Is that okay? That's what I thought. Okay. So, when would >> it's two things probably >> continuation is going to take place on March 3rd. >> I'm not going to jinx myself, Terry, but I think I might have >> the record open for six weeks for the submission of a revitation plan and engineering documents from the applicant. >> What's the six week date? >> Six weeks open. >> Six weeks put >> six weeks for us to submit something to you from

061tonight. >> That's February 17th. >> What date is it? >> And then it'll be two weeks. Two weeks from that is the third. >> February 17th. You said Charlie is 16. >> It's February 17th. >> Okay. >> February 17th >> for us to submit something, right? >> Yes. >> Till February 17th and then they'll have weeks to review and then the continuation of the hearing is March 3rd. >> And we it won't need to be renoticed, right? >> Yeah. >> So we don't have to worry about getting it to the star. >> Okay. Vice, you ready? >> You okay, Rick? You good? Okay. Thank you. Then in the application of Henry Proto at 835 Malk Highway Malk Suffoc County Tax Map 300-52-1-10.3. I'd like to make make a motion to uh continue this hearing until

062March 3rd allowing 6 weeks for an engineering report to be uh filed by to to the planning department by February 17th >> and a revitation plan. and a reveation plan to accompany that engineering report. >> Second by February 17th. >> Your submission is by February 17th. Yes. >> Concur. >> Who seconded it? >> I did. >> Okay. Concur. >> When it comes. [laughter] >> All right. Good first. Okay. Let's see. >> All right. Thank you, Rick. Thank you. All right, we're moving on to Patrick Brennan. 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, AC unit, masonry wall, walkways, and brick patio to remain within setbacks of wetland, rear yard, and front yard lot setbacks on

063a parcel of land within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to of the East Hampton Town Code and nine variances are required. Variances of 67 ft, 61.7 ft, 52.9 ft and 40.4 4 ft are required from 255430 of the town code to allow the patio to remain 33 feet. LP tanks to remain 38.3 ft. AC unit to remain 47.1 ft and decking to be constructed 59.6 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft setbacks are required. Variances of 4 feet and 2.75 ft are required from 2551110 of the town code to allow the AC units to remain six feet and LP tanks to remain 7.75 ft from the rear yard lot line setbacks where 10 foot setbacks are required. One variance of 5.5 ft is required from

06425511 10 of the 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 2 ft is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the existing patio to remain 9.4 ft from the sideyard lot line where a 9.6 ft setback is required. One variance is 7.5 ft is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the existing patio to remain 12.5 feet from the front yard lot where a 20ft setback is required and any other relief necessary. [clears throat] Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 12 secret class type two council is the affidavit of service and posting in order. Uh yes, I reviewed the affidavit and notice and posting and everything seems to be

065in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you J [snorts] member what? Thank you. [laughter] >> Member Oh yeah, that's right. >> Can you do your field inspection? >> Yes. Um well, this is the way I found it on the day I went to take the photos. I had been there earlier in the week. It was a little bit better. You could read it. Um, next, um, I did hold it up so we can get a picture. It was posted for the correct day and time, and I did try to stick it back in there. I don't know if it lasted. Um, but next. Okay, this is a shot. I just turned around from uh the where the posting is and took a shot of neighbors across the street. Next, u,

066now this is the house itself. and the front where the brick patio is is one of the variances that's required for the front setback on toward the street. And then I'm going to walk around uh we cover the area well around the whole house basically. There's a lot of decking that had been replaced with the uh imperous stones and are in various aspects of this application. So, next I'm walking up the east side and you see where some of the stone patt uh walkway is and the stone patio in front of that. Um this on the east side of the house going toward the back. Next, um oh, that's just a a closer view. I'm walk continuing walking toward the back. Uh part of this is to change this back into decking that will extend

067to where that uh accessory structure is in the back. Next, uh now I'm at that accessory structure on the right side and the back of the house and I'm shooting across. across is where the one of the other patios that's in question for this application is and uh shows where they're proposed to redo a deck and have it end at this wood platform in front of the structure. Next, uh now I'm in the back where the AC unit and the propane tanks are. Um [snorts] these are also in question for variances from the wetlands. mix. And it's a shot toward the north and the neighbor back in the back. U this is toward the wetlands. The next is a better shot into the wetlands. This is more in a northwesterly direction and the wetlands are

068in there. [snorts] Next, this is the brick patt stone patio rather that is in the back. um that is in question. It needs a dimensional variances plus large variance from the wetlands. Next, uh now I'm standing at that patio and shooting across where across from the west side to the east side of the the house. Next, and this is the stone walkway that's going down on the west side of the house. And um Not really sure if they're offering to change that back to what it was, but uh the agent can discuss that next. And that's just an opposite view of that same last stone walkway from the front of the house toward the back toward the where the shower is. [snorts] I think that's it. >> Thank you. Is there anyone here to speak

069on behalf of this application? [clears throat] >> Good evening. Thomas Crouch, attorney for the applicant, Patrick Brennan. Um, I don't know if I need to submit. I did come back out there. I think I must have just missed you on the second because I I stapled it back. I was checking like every day because it was real. >> You find it stuck in the cable wires. >> So, I have photos at like four o'clock on Friday. So, I don't know if I need to submit those or >> um So, yeah. So this uh you know this is a several patios and and decks. Um the the reason why this this all started uh when the applicant was uh replacing the deck that's on this this side right here u in 2023 and uh he got

070cited. We got a stop work ordered a violation for doing it without a without a building permit. Um, these pavers that are here along the side and right here are to be removed. They were just put there to, you know, to as a holding measure until we could get in front of the board with the deck. Um, so, you know, that's this that's the property as it stands now. Um, and we just submitted this survey today just showing the only change is to make sure that the deck has a 5-ft separation from the septic system, which is what Tyler requested in the TAM, and also to show this area to be reveated up here. Um, so yeah, this this property um has evolved over 25 plus years. Um, my client purchased it in 2017. Uh

071just to give you an idea of what's the last he purchased it without an updated CO the last CO was from 2002. Um can you show the 2002 CO survey? So, so this is what it looked like the last time it had a CO. Um, with a couple of additions. So, the deck stopped right here. Um, this was a gravel [snorts] parking area. And back here, there's no deck or patio shown. Uh, there's also curiously this fence encroachment, which this parcel to the north is a town owned parcel. That is where the wetlands are, and that's why we're here. Um, so this stock eight fence has encroached for at least 20 24 years. Um, and what's interesting is if you go to the uh, so I submitted like the GIS from 2001 going forward. So

072I but if you have those okay an exhibit um, >> or if you want to can you just pull up the historical aerials? Um >> I just said 2025 >> the board I guess I sent the board a bunch today too. >> Okay. Um so you can't show this historical ones. >> No, I don't have available. >> Um well, exhibit D to the letter that I submitted last week has all of them in order. >> Um do you have that that letter? No. >> Okay. Um, >> we have them in the file. >> Okay, we have the digital. >> Basically, if you look [snorts] at the 2001 aerial, there is a deck with little appears to be a hot tub on top of it right here. Um, I don't know why it's not shown on

073the co survey, but it's shown in the 2001 aerial. And then when you flip to 2004, it's the same thing. Uh there's a hot tub right here with with a deck underneath it. And at that point in 2004, this this deck here had been extended back to the accessory shed. Um so at that point over 20 years ago, we've got a hot tub here and a deck going back here. And then as you move forward in time, >> sorry, excuse me. And what's the date on that one that you're showing us? >> This one is 2025. This is the current. >> Oh, the current. Okay. Yeah. [laughter] >> So, um >> I don't see >> has existed, you know, throughout these uh throughout since 2001 at least. Um then as you move forward in time,

074this brick patio in the front was built around 2010. Um and this is all I submitted a letter last week that had each aerial over time. So, uh please review it. And then uh the AC unit and the two propane tanks were added by my client around 2020. And this stone patio was built about the same time as he got the stop work order for the deck. Uh he removed this deck here, built a stone patio that expanded the deck was probably ended about right here and he added about 150 square feet on the stone patio. Um, so the only two things he's he's done himself are the putting the AC unit and the propane tanks and then uh the stone patio. Um, so you know, just flipping to each structure. Um, the whole reason

075they started with this process is the deck on the side on the east side of the property. Um, it's generally in the same location as it was in the 200uh 2C co except for where it's been extended back to the shed which has been there since at least 2004. Um, the AC unit and the gas tanks have been in their present location since 2020. Um, I know Tyler mentioned the TAM that there was no alternative location. I'm not really sure where there would be an alternative location. uh every you know this entire properties within the jurisdiction of the wetlands. If you move those that AC unit those gas tanks to either side then you're probably creating a a visual and noise impact for the neighbors. Um so even in you know the TAM Tyler mentioned

076that the impact to the wetlands for those structures is minimal. Um so are we're requesting to leave those where they are. Um, we recognize that the stone patio is a significant uh is a significant uh structure near wetlands. Our proposal for mitigation is we're going to remove the fence uh put it back put it on the property line and reveate 600 square ft of the town owned parcel um that was requested in the TAM. Uh you know, I recognize that it's it's a town owned property. you know, I would say it's it's been there, you know, for 25 years plus. So, I think it's a significant bit of mitigation. Um, and then, uh, the brick patio in the front, I would just say that several of the neighbors have similar patios. They're not brick patios,

077but they're [clears throat] second floor patios for, you know, where there's a table and chairs. And so, I I think the impact of that brick patio to the community is not as minimal. Uh it's been there for over a decade. Um so you know and then oh the masonry wall uh one of the things that Tyler mentioned the TAM is uh this masonry wall. If you look I took a couple photos that I've submitted with my letter. It's about a foot high. Um it kind of runs into this hill here. Uh I looked at this the setting guidelines. There isn't a requirement for a five- foot separation for a masonry wall, especially something as I think as minor as this. So, we're asking to leave it where it is. Uh you can see the photos

078I submitted. It's uh not a [clears throat] significant structure. It's not a retaining wall. It does not hold back earth. Um so, yeah, I mean I I think most of these structures have been here for 10 plus 25 plus years. Uh the ones that my client added are the stone patio and the gas tanks and AC unit. Um we're proposing significant mitigation for the stone patio and the gas tanks and AC unit. I I just don't believe there's an alternative location that's not disrupted to the neighborhood. Uh so I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Okay. There's on the 2002 survey, there was a wood walkway on the west side and on the east side, which you've talked about that one. And these stones that were added, did you say they your client only ant

079added those temporarily because you got the stop work order? >> So, is that what you said? >> Yeah. >> You're talking about those papers? Yeah. >> Yeah. Those pavers were just there like he's going to remove those if he gets approved. Well, it says to be removed. Yeah. >> So, these will remain. There's nothing changing on the left side of the house. >> So, on the west side though, that also went in sometime between 2002 that the wood walkway got changed and these pavers got put in and all the stuff from 2002. Um, nothing went in with a permit. And I have to say, Thomas, I don't see a patio with a with a hot tub in the 2001 area. I'm looking at it. I really don't see see that. Um um let's see. There's

080a there's a deck on the northwest corner of the house with a white structure on top of it. You think that's a hot tub? >> I I get I think I don't know. I'm not certain. There's something there. That's only my only point to make there is a 2002 survey >> doesn't show it doesn't show anything there, but there was something there. And so my clients, you know, expansion of that is only about 150 square feet. That's the point I'm trying to make is that >> Yeah. Okay. >> There's been something there for a long time. >> Um >> I think it's a hot tub. It makes sense, but I don't know for sure. >> Okay. And then your somebody along the way you serped onto the town owned property and put the stockade fence

081in, >> right? >> and cleared in there and they're using it. Yet you you are calling this the extent of your mitigation in order to get all this other stuff approved. >> Right. So the the the fence encroachment's been it's on the 2002C co it's been there for 25 years um you know to remove it bring it back to the property line and reveate the town prop parcel that was mitigation proposed in the TAM. So I I you know we're uh complying with that I think is pretty significant considering it's 600 square f feet that my client doesn't own. um you know it's I recognize that it's you know town own property but it's still it's been there for a very long time and it is on the most recent co >> but when you

082say it's on the co I'm sorry to jump in but >> on the when you say it's on the co it's on a survey that was associated with >> that's correct >> right but I I know like for our board we're always told we can't approve anything or render a decision on something that's off the property. So, I guess I'm trying to understand legally just because it was existed at the time that that CO was granted that it was that's different than saying it was quote COed. >> That's correct. It's on the C. It's on the survey that the CO is based on is is >> Yeah. But the property, right? Yeah. Okay. still shows that, you know, we have a 20ear span here where a lot of things went in without any benefit of

083any permit at all and your client did buy the property. You know, you can't say it only counts from 2017 when he bought it, >> right? I mean I I think you know if we're talking about the character of the community and can something have a negative impact on the character community when it's been there for 25 years 12 years in some of these ca in for some of this stuff. >> Sure. >> There was no there was no co issued in 2017 [clears throat] when they bought the house. >> Right. No. >> Yeah. The most recent from >> I don't have any town documentation as to the condition of the house when they bought it. >> No, I mean we've aerial. Yeah. >> So, also did we address the the decking on the um

084east side of the residence which is being um which is located over the sanitary system >> which doesn't really meet >> county department of health. Well, >> so I I submitted a survey that showed that that >> there you look it's five feet. >> Okay. >> When did you just submit that surve because the latest one I had was September 10th 24 and then I have what you submitted the other day with the planting plan. It's a planting right. >> Yeah. The survey I submitted it today. We had trouble getting >> So your latest survey Tom that that indicates the is what date? What is that date? >> Submitted today. Um, >> oh, that's why I didn't see it. It's >> not in the record yet. >> That's why I didn't see it. Okay. >>

085Five foot step back. Okay. >> So, we [clears throat] need to get that into the record. >> Yeah. >> Can I Can I just stay on this east side of the house for a second cuz I I'm and I'm looking on the September 24th, 2024 survey. Um, so I just want to make sure. So, you've got the deck that jogs around the corner of the house, right, that they were replacing. And then the pavers are being removed to the south and the pavers walking north are being removed on the east side. Right. Then I'm looking at a notation on the survey with an arrow that says proposed deck. >> Right. >> So just I I'm still having a hard time seeing on the survey the extent of this additional deck that's going proposed on the

086east side. >> So yeah. So this is where the deck is now, right? deck is just like this. >> Okay. So that's so it's going that's that line. So that deck is being expanded by how many square feet? >> So it's the in this part it's the same as what's on the 2002CO. The only addition is what's going back to the accessory structure which has been there since 2004. So they were replacing something that was on the 2002C co running to about here but in you know been in existence since >> but you want you want to extend it north >> being extend well it also looks like it's being extend I guess I'm just confused who when was the deck that you said that was there was removed to put the pavers in. >>

087Yeah the the deck >> did that happen? Yeah. So, the the deck was this was removed in 2023 to be replaced and they got a stop work order in the middle of the process. >> Mhm. Oh, so what you're saying is what's on the survey now shown as deck is the part that was already replaced before the stop work order. >> But I guess it's confusing because it says proposed deck. So, >> so what you're saying is that every Forgive me, I'm just trying to It's not as clear on the survey as my eyes are seeing it, but So, you're going to restore the rebuild the deck in what [clears throat] was in place and in kind, but you're extending it further north. Is that what you're saying? To all the way to the accessory

088structure. >> Right. Right. So, we're we're placing in kind what was physically on the site. Right. The only the part that was legal on this 2002 co ran to about here. >> Okay. Is that on a that's on a prior survey, right? Can we see that on a prior I'm just wonder Okay. >> 2002 survey, >> right? >> Oh, back to the 2010. All right. >> All right. So, from there >> and then >> 2004 this was extended up. >> Okay. What's the Can I just What's the setback? I know [clears throat] decking attached to a house needs a greater setback, right? So, what's does Tyler just have reduced setbacks on this property? It is. Okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> It's only 60 ft wide, >> right? Okay. >> The original. >> All

089right. If we're ready, I'd like to hear from the planning department. >> Right. >> Thank you, Tom. >> If we have any additional questions, we'll come back. >> Okay. Let's hear from plann for the planning department. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. Um, so this property is located on the north side of Agnu Avenue in Montalk. Uh, the applicant is before the board for approval to legalize several structures including patios, walkways, decking, uh, a masonry wall, uh, and to reconstruct reconstruct existing decking and to construct a new driveway. Several of the structures do not meet minimum wetland, rear yard, sideyard, or front yard line setbacks. Uh the wetland pertinent to this application is on the adjacent town-owned parcel to the northwest. Uh the

090parcel that parcel was acquired by the town in 1997, but efforts by the town to purchase it go back as far back as 1974. Uh this wetland is an important component of the largest water course in Dish Plains wershed. Uh wetlands such as this one provide essential habitat to well dependent plants and animals with dense ve dense residential development of ditch planes uh surrounding it. The structures [clears throat] seeking relief are a mix of existing structures uh being reconstructed and existing structures uh built without proper permits in place after the most recent CO was issued in 2002. The various decking, walkways, and patios were constructed and expanded over the years since the 2002 CO with the patio at the rear of the parcel expanding as recently as sometime between 2023 and 2024. Uh according to

091aerial images, expanding such a cons a constrained property so substantially and in close proximity to significant wetlands does not in the planning department's opinion meet the NRP or varian standards. There are aspects of the application which are reasonable uh such as removing pavers and replacing them with decking that existed at the time of the last CO. Uh however, a stone patio at the north end of the existing residence is a substantial variance request which adds impermeable surfaces in close proximity to wetlands with limited buffer between uh and no real mitigation able to be offered which would offset those impacts. With the location of the wetland to the north, any additional development north of the existing residence is a poor candidate for an NRSP invariance. The patio at the front of the house is a better

092uh location as far as setbacks from wetlands are concerned, but requires significant front yard lot setbacks and may not meet the varian standards, especially a change in the character of the neighborhood. The driveway extension is similarly minimal impacting to to wetlands and that are within jurisdiction and likely an appropriate candidate for approval. Uh the masonry wall is within RSP jurisdiction. uh uh it's within jurisdiction but meets setbacks uh and is located in one of the more conforming locations on the property. Um other than that I think everything was discussed and I can answer any questions you might have. >> Any questions? >> We the the stone walkway on the west side um hasn't been in the discussion or in the narrative at all but that was also changed illegally somewhere along the way since 2002.

093Well, the 2002 is not up there. It did have a small wood walkway at 2002 on the west side also. So, that's also in jurisdiction for NRSP. >> Mhm. >> And >> I don't know about variances on some of that. >> The walk walkways generally are just would just be an NRSP. >> NRSP. >> Yep. >> But it's a variance. Does it need a variance to the wetlands at the Is that notice? No. Okay. Right. Papers don't probably good. >> They're pretty minimal. >> Okay. And the uh gas tanks and AC >> Yeah. I mean, obviously there are better, you know, >> I would say that there are better locations further south on the property that would pull it away from wetlands, but they're also at the same time small structures. Um >> but yeah,

094certainly there are there there are better locations. They're about the worst location you can put them on the property. Um, so >> see any benefit in taking them from behind the accessory structure and putting them between the house and the accessory structure? >> It would certainly pull them further away from wetlands. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Increase the setback a little, >> right? I mean, any any increase in setback when you're that close to wetlands is benefit. >> Um, again, they're not significant structures. They're not huge. >> Um, you know, 6x6 something like that at most. Um, so, uh, you know, it's hard to quantify a benefit, you know, how how much significant of a difference it would be, but obviously it would be better. >> Does the shower need uh any kind of drywall or

095anything? >> I'm not certain it I mean, it existed at the time. Um, >> been there for a long time. >> Yeah. So, I I didn't I didn't even really pay much attention to it. I don't >> didn't know. >> Yeah. The shower is not even a part of this application. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, I'm just about medication. Okay. No, no, we're not good. The [laughter] >> the reveation plan, the planting plan was stated that you recommended that as mitigation. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, we we had suggested that they, you know, that the historical I would I don't it's not a violation, I guess you can call it. Maybe it's not a violation technically, but the historical clearing onto the town property that as part of the application is to to remedy

096that that issue. um uh sort of bring you know a add a buffer to to to the wetlands which there is almost very little of now um and b to to uh to bring the the structures onto the property itself. There's not much room to do additional reveation. I mean there's >> what five feet at the back of the lot. It's not you you know you need space to go behind there especially with if mechanicals are back there. Um, so yeah, it it it's it's it's about that as much I think is as probably reasonable. Um, maybe a little bit more as possible, but not much. >> Are we good? >> Thank you, Tyler. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? >> Matt, are

097there any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. Do you have anything else to add? >> Yeah, I'm happy to consider additional mitigation. I I just like I I didn't I don't know where else we could do mitigation on this property. It's a very small lot. Um I'm happy to take suggestions. I just other than reveating the town owned piece, which is 600 square feet, I I don't believe there's much we can do. board members. >> Yeah, I haven't got a >> I think we'll just I have no more questions. >> No, I have no more questions decision based on this. We're >> good. We don't need anymore. I don't >> We're good. >> I think we're good. What you're proposing? >> Okay. >> All right. Um, thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you,

098>> member Burger. >> Public. >> We did public. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. [laughter] Okay. [clears throat] >> Okay. So, we're closing the record. >> So, for the application of Patrick Brennan at 48 New Avenue in Montto, tax 300- 031-2-37. Make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Okay, our next application is Julian Mazerki. Uh the description is to construct a 966q ft two-story residence 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 sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and [snorts] six variances are required for this application.

099Variances of 97.2 ft and 91.5 ft are required from 255430C of the town code to construct the proposed residence 2.8 ft and secondstory balcony 8.5 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft with setbacks are required. One variance of 112.9 ft from 255430B of the town code is required to construct the 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 255430D of the town code is required to allow clearing.5 ft from the edge of wetlands where a 50-foot setback is required. Branches of approximately 12.48 ft and 12.32 are required from 255172D of the town code to allow the residents to be constructed outside of the town's pyramid regulations 12.48 48 ft along with the southern property line and 12.32 ft along the

100northern property line and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 secret class is type two council is the affidavit of service and posting in order. >> Uh yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Member Maring, do we have a field inspection? >> We do. Um, may I just confirm on the question about the trustees needing to be noticed? Did the trustees need to be >> Have the trustes been noticed on this council? >> Not based off of the application uh paperwork that I received, but I don't believe the trustees own this lot. >> No, it abuts it this lot abuts the trustee property. So, I just as a

101notice >> may I speak on that property though? The trustees do not own the adjoining property. >> Okay. Oh, >> joining property is owned by the town of East Hampton, which purchased it in 1961 >> from the wife of Gilbert P. Smith, who was a co-owner, co-founder of Smith Bill Company. >> Thank you. >> The tax map says that the trustees own it, right? >> The tax map is wrong. >> And I will explain that only in private how that [laughter] happened. >> Thank you. Thank you. Because I looked at the taxing, do you have a field inspection? >> Yes, I do. Thank you, madame chairwoman. Um, so I'm standing on Beach A. Beach A is basically the easternmost road that of the area, the broad area we consider to be overall Beach Hampton. This

102is this lot is about halfway down from Bluff Road, you know, between Bluff Road and the ocean. Um, so this is my back is uh to across the street. You can see the notice there. Um, we'll zoom in on it. But one of the things that's brought up a lot is the narrow and small nature of the lot. So, literally you can just look at that. You can see the un the vegetated part. You can literally see both house neighbors house on either side. So, you get a sense of the constraint right away from this lot. Next slide, please. I just took a closeup of the notice to show that it was dated properly. Next slide. Um, I actually I did go on the property. I didn't really take photos of what's there. There's no

103leaves or anything now. It's it's rambly and uncleared with some with wetland vegetation on it. But when I did go on the property, just to show the proximity, that is the house to the north. um sort of a small uh small cottage and that they're clearing on their property. Um next slide. Um this was just a bit of a shot of what the conditions of the property are about halfway in. Next slide. Um okay, I'm a little out of order here. I did take I took some shots of some of the surrounding uh houses [clears throat] because there was a lot of discussion about the size of the house, a lot about character. This beach avenue is um defined by a lot of very small um cottages on various size but all undersized lots. Next

104slide. Okay, this is the house. This is the house directly to the south of the lot in the application. This is a much bigger house. It sits up on a block. Um, and I don't know when it was approved, but that's the next door neighbor. Next slide. Um, and then again, I just just to wrap up because there's not a lot of things to show on the property. This is just some we can just go through these quickly. Just scroll through. These are some of the close by surrounding cottages. This is a house that is across the street that I think was expanded. um at some point another small cottage close by. Just keep you just scroll through them for the record. Again, this is the character of the neighborhood. Okay. Y just see all

105[snorts] of them. I think that's I think that's it. Thank you. >> Is there someone here to speak on behalf of this application? [clears throat] >> Yes. Good evening, Madam Chairwoman and members of the board. Richard Whan again from Landmarks and Whan Filer PLLC. Um, I represent the owner of the property is Julian Mazerki Jr. Julian is here. I mentioned Julian because you'll hear his father's name at some point too. >> Before you move forward, what are we working off of as the Just want to double check the >> the last survey? >> Survey. The last survey um submitted to you is by Walbridge and is dated last revised May 9th, 2025. >> Thank you. That's what I was looking at. >> And the other thing that you should also be checking that's also important

106is um the plans from you know Julian is an architect. >> So there are plans from Missouri Architecture PLLC 10 pages A1 through A10 I believe dated uh May 2nd 2025. And those are also important. >> Thank you. Yep. >> The proposal, as you heard, is for a two-story single family residence with a GF GFA of 996 ft. An earlier application for a larger house was denied by the zoning board in 2022. The applicant then resubmitted in 2024. That proposal was further reduced in size before the applicant ever went to a public hearing. Um, that brought us eventually to the proposal before you right now. And if you look at the first page of the drawings I just referred to, A1, there are notes on that first page on the lower left that detail the

107most recent changes to the application proposal. I believe this is the sort of an application where the zoning board might be tempted initially to deny the application again. It's a very constrained lot. The planning department memo claims the house can be made still smaller and the wetland setbacks can be increased. Neither claim is true. I will demonstrate prove to you that the proposed house is as small as reasonably possible and that it is impossible to meaningly increase what lands he acts. Generally, it's hard to prove these things, but I'm going to do that for you. Background. First of all, the Missouri family has owned this property since 1972. Julian's father, who passed away in March of last year, and another man purchased this lot as an investment on October 26th, 1972. It's a legally single

108and separate lot. Uh it consists of lots four and five in block four of the match of map of Beach Hampton section 3, which was filed with the county clerk on June 28th, 1939. The property has been at least 50% in the Missouri family ownerships since 1972. That's more than 53 years. When Mr. Mazerki and his partner bought the property in 1972, the following circumstances existed. There were no wetland protections. I mean, none. The New York State legislature enacted the Freshwater Wetlands Act in 1975, three years approximately after Mr. Mazerki and his partner bought this lot. The town did not have wetland regulations until in the zoning code until 1976. Those regulations then required a special permit for the zoning board to fill wetlands. There were no setbacks. But if you wanted to fill wetlands,

109you needed a special permit from the zoning board. The current regulatory regime, which is a natural resource special natural resources special permit and wetland setbacks, was not enacted until December 1984 with the modern zoning code. Finally, the town did not enact a permit law until 1976. All that occurred after Julian's father and another person had already bought the lot. The wetland line affecting the property has been continuously refle by the town closer and closer to a potential house site on the ver on the Merurski property over the years. At least 20 foot of movement since 2000. We have detailed that in our application narrative. And just to be clear, we're not challenging the wetland line as it stands, but it is curious. It's a fact, curious fact that the wetland line has moved closer and

110closer on the property over all these years. Let's turn first to the question of house size. The town code has design requirements for single family residences found in town code section 255-11-67. And I'm going to detail them by subsection number. And you might want to just write down the subsection number. These are not guidelines or suggestions. They are requirements. They are zoning code requirements. 2551167A says in addition to the use rules for single family residences contained in the preceding sections, every such residence constructed, reconstructed, or substantially expanded after the effective date of this section or any amendment there too shall comply meaning it's mandatory with the following design requirements. There are three of note. Subsection A4, and I'm quoting from the code here, there shall be no more than one conventional bedroom for every 300

111ft of habitable flaria, except that two bedrooms shall always be permitted. Two bedrooms are always permitted. A5, there shall be at least one room which is not designed as a conventional bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, foyer, storage area, or closet. You don't have to worry about the last three of that. We only have one closet in the whole house, no storage area, and no foyers. We have a kitchen, a bathroom on each floor, and two bedrooms. We need one more room that's not one of those. We have a living room on the ground floor. That's a code requirement. [snorts] Finally, area for sleeping purposes. Every bedroom occupied by one person shall contain at least 70 square ft of floor. I presume they mean habitable floor area. The code is not clear about that. And every bedroom occupied

112by more than one person shall contain at least 50 square feet of floor area for each occupancy thereof. Meaning if you have a two-bedroom twoerson bedroom, you need at least 100 ft of floor area. Our two bedrooms on the second are both 125 ft. Just a little over 100 ft. I submit it would be totally unreasonable for the ZBA to require that a bedroom be only legally occupiable by one person. So, our two bedrooms are each designed to sleep two people, albeit barely. The minimum size for a twobedroom, two person bedroom, as I said, is 100 square feet. U just so you understand the whole second floor, which includes the stairway to the second floor and the bathroom as well as the two uh the two bedrooms is less than 450 ft in GFA and

113gross area. GFA is a measure to the outside of the exterior walls. In accordance with the town's design requirements, the house will have have one room that is not a kitchen, bedroom or bathroom. That's the first floor living room. That's labeled a great plan on a great room on the plans. It is not very great. If you look at the plans and actually there you have them on the left hand side. It dimensions that space. There are there are footage figures in there saying 15 ft by 22 ft. I checked with Julian that is measuring to the outside walls and includes the stairway at the top of the drawing and the and the b at the bathroom at the lower right in that space. The actual floor of the living room as you as you

114can see is a roughly an L-shape is only 220 square ft. That's the area of the living room. This is a barebones house. How tight is it? It has no storage. We have no basement, no attic, no shed in the entire house. There is only one closet. >> I'll coat closet underneath the stairs. That's the only closet in the whole house. >> Wait, there's no closets in the bedroom. >> No closets in the bedrooms. The only way you'll be able to store your belongings, including your clothes, in the bedrooms, is by putting in furniture like an arm war. In fact, if you look at the second floor plans, Julian is kind of tucked in armwire in behind each of the doors or chest of drawers or you could have under bed storage. There are no

115closets in either of [clears throat] the two bedrooms. Obviously, there's also space taken up by the stairs necessary to reach the second floor. We need a second floor because we're trying to we're trying to make the house footprint as small as possible so we don't physically intrude on the wetlands. The house cannot legally be made smaller in any meaningful degree. And I've just gone through the special the the the design requirements with code in the code for you. Every bit of space is either required by law, two bedrooms which are barely above the minimum required and a living room plus a kitchen, bathrooms on each floor and stairs to the second floor to comply with state building code as to width. There are not even foyers or hallways to speak of. When you enter the

116front door, which has to be up a flight of stairs because the first floor is elevated five to six feet above grade because of FEMA, we'll talk about that. You go right into the into the kitchen. When you go up the second floor stairs, when you come out the top of the stairs, directly in front of you is the bathroom door and the doors to the two bedrooms are to either side. There's not even a hallway to speak of. Even the bathrooms are minimal. The bathrooms are only 5 ft wide. The first floor bathroom is just a sink and a toilet. Only the second floor bathroom has bathing facilities, a tub with a shower head. At the back of the first floor bathroom, there is a utility space that would accommodate on the f or

117we're on the second floor there, but you can see the shelter tower at the bottom. At the bottom, that utility space 5T by 2' 11 in will accommodate a hot water heater or maybe an ondemand hot water heater. The house is heated by electric. Why? There is no room for an oil or gas furnace. Like I said, it's as bare [clears throat] bones as you can make it. There are regulatory constraints on the house placement. First of all, the house is forced back from the road, meaning towards the wetlands by the septic system. The septic system has preliminary approval from the Suffach County Health Department. Julian dealt with them over a period of years. They will not grant final approval, of course, until you've issued a natural resources special permit. The leeching field is in

118front of the house. We have approval from the health department to place the parking area for two cars, which is a zoning code requirement, on top of the leeching area. The leeching field will only be excavated about 1 ft deep. Um, and then that excavated material will be used as as top cover. We meet the health department's minimum separation to property lines, which is 5 ft, and to the building itself, which is also 5T. The building, of course, remember, is elevated on pilings. Julian was able to place the Norico IE low nitrogen septic tank on the north side of the house and you can see it there. Thank you, Tyler. Um, and but the distribution box, the distribution box and the distribution lines have to run from the Norico tank to the leeching field and

119those are between the leeching field and the house. So that forces the house and the stairs back a little bit further. We cannot get any closer to the street because of the space occupied by the septic system. Um there are also vertical limitations here and that's one of the reasons why we need permal relief. FEMA imposed a height requirement for the house. The the property is in zone AE elevation 10. That nominally means a first flooration of 10 feet but as you all know your state building code imposes an additional two feet of freeboard. So the first floor of the house has to be at a minimum elevation above mean sea level of 12 feet. Ground elevation at the houseight is between 6 feet and 7 feet. So the house has to be 5 to

1206 feet up in the air. Raising the house 5 to 6 feet above grade is therefore required by law. We have no choice. This exacerbates the permal situation and the lot is only 40 ft wide. The house has to be two stories to minimize its footprint so we're not encroaching directly on wetlands. We therefore need permal variances of 12.5 ft approximately 12.5 ft on the south side and 12.3 ft on the north side. Uh Julian has minimized the southside pyramid law of variance by stepping back the second floor and putting a 3ft 10-in balcony on that side of the house. By the way, that is the only outdoor recreational area on the whole property. There's no lawn, there's no deck, only that 3ft 10-in balcony, which is probably just wide enough to put a chair

121out there if you turn the chair sideways on the north side. The main encroachment to the perl setback is the stairwell to the second floor. Furthermore, Julian has compressed the house vertically. You all know that a flat roof house has a maximum height above grade of 25 feet. Your height cannot exceed 25 feet for a flat roof house. The top of the house, the roof, as shown in drawing A6, is 22.7 feet above grade. That's despite the fact we're forced up by 5 to six feet by the FEMA regulations. So, the house is as short as it can be, which also minimizes the pyramid law variance. Um, and as I said, the house has no outdoor recreational area other than the 3T 10 in um balcony that's on the southside outside the bedrooms. Want to

122comment briefly on the plane department memo. The planning department says that the house could be made smaller and the wetland setbacks could be increased. This is impossible. The planning department memo contains absolutely no analysis of the house design and no explanation as to how further reducing the house size could be accomplished. The planning department also says that construction on this lot would cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Now, there were some very good photos by member Marian that showed much of the character of the neighborhood. The Beach Avenue neighborhood is characterized by small houses on small lots. We are proposing a small house less than 1,000 square feet on a small lot. We're very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The Beach Avenue subdivision, which is really Beach

123Hampton section 3, the map of Beach Hampton section 3, is owned B residents. That requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. I counted there are approximately 41 lots on Beach Avenue today. You know how many of them meet the 20,000 square foot standard? >> No. >> One. [snorts] >> One. With this 1.6 acre lot, >> you know, merged lots. One out of 41 lots actually meets the zoning requirement for lot area. 10 lots nearly a quarter of the lots of Beach Avenue that includes ours are only 40 feet wide. You're not alone. There are nine other lots also 40t wide in this road. Potential environmental harm. This is really the nut of the whole issue here, okay? because we do need significant variance relief, wetland setback relief. The house is only two bedrooms.

124It's less than 1,000 ft JFA. It can only as a practical matter be used seasonally. There's no storage. You can't live in this house on a long-term basis. You could never use this house as a full-time resident. There's no you couldn't store your stuff. There's no space. So, it's a beach cottage and a beach cottage only. It has a footprint of only 548 square feet. And the total land disturbance, bear this in mind when you're thinking about potential harm to the wetlands here. The total land disturbance associated with the project, that means all clearing, all the space occupied by the house, the driveway, which sits on top of parts of the leeching pool, leeching system, uh the septic system, total land disturbance is less than 2,500 ft. Put that to you another way, that is

1250.057. 057 of an acre or less less than 117th of an acre. The house only extends back about 40% of the depth of the lot, which is 149 ft deep. The back of the house is less than 60 ft from Beach Avenue. Both of the neighboring properties, 40 Beach Avenue to our north and 48 Beach 48 Beach Avenue to our south, have improvements that extend much deeper into their lots. In 2007 on October 3rd, the ZBA granted a wet and granted to the house to the north for Beach Avenue granted wetland variances for clearing septic and house construction to allow a 1,646q ft new house on that lot. I'm not sure, by the way, that that house was actually built placed in the building, but the zoning board did in 2011 grant that approval. You

126know how close the septic system was in that approval? 36.6 ft from the wetlands. That's a half a foot closer to the wetland than our proposed subject system. That was approved by the zoning board in 2007. On the south side, 48 Beach Avenue. This house was built on June 8th, 2016. The zoning board granted six wetland variances and two pyramid law variances to allow the construction of a 1,85t residence. And I will note that both of those lots, 40 and 48 Beach Avenue, they both had houses back as far as 1962. So the zoning board wasn't just build allowing them to build on vacant land. They already had houses and they were allowed allowed to make larger houses. >> What what year did you say that the house to the south >> stop? That was

1272016. The house to the north at 40 Beach Avenue was approved in 2007. October [clears throat] 2007. The one to the south was approved on June 8th, 2016. >> I will wrap this up. >> Thank you. >> Let me get to my last page. >> Then I can get to my questions. not a full page [clears throat] to wrap things up. Julian's proposed house cannot reason easily made any smaller. He's done the absolute maximum you can do. And we went over this myself and Jeff Ryich who was involved. You know, there were times we told Julian, "We think you can make the house smaller." And to his credit, he did. And we finally came back. We said, "Yeah, I don't think you can go any smaller, Julian." Um, I think careful examination of the house

128plans will demonstrate that. As I said, absolute lack of storage. You just you can't make the house smaller under the code. Uh and for that reason, the wetland setbacks because of the house size, it can't be reduced. The footprint can't be made smaller. His septic system is what the septic system is. You cannot meaningfully increase the wetland setbacks. You can't do it. So, denial of the application would deprive Mr. Mazerki of the right to build a house on a legally single and separate lot that his family has owned for more than 53 years. The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution, which I do not cite very often, [clears throat] says private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The New York State Constitution, Article 1, Section 7 of the Bill

129of Rights, has the exact same language. A denial of the application would prevent construction of any residence on the property because we can't make it any smaller than this and we can't set it any further back from the wetlands. And that would amount to an unconstitutional taking of Mr. Mr. from Merski's property without affording him just compensation. And you know where that would lead to. >> All I have to say. >> So [snorts] I don't want to deprive anyone the right to build a house, but it's not it's it's easy to it's easy to say um this is too big for the constraints of the property. We can argue that because of the variances you're asking for um are very large. What I want to know because you're you're asking for a natural resource special

130permit. I don't see anything in the file about how this house is going to get built and how are you going to build this house without going into the wetlands and causing severe damage. So my approach is what is your building protocol staging area access? How is this going to happen? Because there's nothing in the file that indicates that. I believe there is actually now Jeff over the last couple years has submitted a lot of material more than one narrative in and I can't I didn't bring all the narratives with me here but part of our narrative that Jeff Ry submitted states that the applicant hopes to do this as a modular the preferred choice is you have to go in clear and be able to install the pilings. I don't remember if they're going

131to be installed helically or not. I don't know if they're helical piles, >> but the preferred approach >> is that he would be able to build the house off premises and then, you know, bring it in. Obviously, you got to clear the land and set it down on top of the piles. So, I don't know if Julian wants to add anything to this, but we do put that we did put that in writing in our earlier materials. >> It's in writing that you're proposing this is going to be a modular home >> that that it is preferred. I think the way Jeff Ry Rush wrote it is that it is what we hope to do. >> I don't know that the feasibility of it is fully examined because that requires some work and effort and

132have to determine it. But that was uh that is the preferred approach. >> Yeah. So >> if we if we had to stick build it then you know there is a proposed clearing boundary and we would have to adhere to that >> right. The clearing boundary and obviously that whole collateral damage argument is one we have to always consider when you're doing something this sensitive. So you I'm going to take it that your protocol is to approach it only from the driveway side the disturbed area with the septic. You're going to put in the pilings hopefully helically but maybe not but you might be you know there's going to be some protocol there. The pilings go in the whalers go in and somebody drops a house on top of it. Snip snip no damage around

133there. We don't go in. We don't see any damage out further into the wetlands. I'm asking that's your proposal? >> That is the proposal. The leeching field obviously has to come in >> after the house. >> Field is separate though. But but the idea that we're 2 point some feet from wetlands with construction which is an impossible way to work from that side of the house obviously. So we would be looking at something so critical to us to understand would be as was brought up by madam chairman what is the protocol you're suggesting now? I wasn't aware of it but when this conversation started that it was already proposed as a >> it is in one of Jeff's submissions. That's all. Yes, >> there are multiple so there's a lot to read. I real I

134realize that even I can't say I've read everything but he does have in there. >> What? >> But even that, you know, needs a certain >> safeguard. Well, you got to put the pilings in first. I mean, you're not one thing. You're not There's no foundation. There's no excavation for foundation. So, that does make it a little bit easier, I think, to not overdisturb the area. >> You are excavating for the Norico tank. And there is a you know water uh storm water catchment basin next to that. >> Those have to be excavated for >> but the I think the I think the cubic yardage for the excavation for the for the uh storm water drainage is like 15 cubic feet something like that. >> Is there you'll have your >> You just have to

135wait your turn. You'll have your opportunity. Um, sure. >> Um, I know that in the potential conditions of the applica of approval, I think number eight in the TAM is about the scenic easement. Are you >> Yes. Okay. >> Easement. >> Thank Thank you. All of the conditions are acceptable to us that are in the planning department memo if the board approves the application. The one thing I would ask you is on the scenic easement because you all know there is a required 10- foot setback on the scenic easement. I don't want us stuck in a situation where we grant the town the scenic easement and the building inspector says, "Well, I can't issue you a building permit. You don't have a variance from the scenic easement." So, what I would propose in that regard

136is that the scenic easement be of the condition of the certificate of occupancy because we will have a scenic easement within 10 ft of the house. So, we're okay with that, but again, I don't want it to to >> turn out to be an inadvertent obstacle to building the house. >> And then it's not on the it's not on the survey. I mean obviously the variance the the the biggest [clears throat] variance is measured to that north uh north corner of the rear of the house. Right. So but the where the the the wetland line moves away a bit right from the >> Yeah. The wetland line >> and what's the purpose of those steps that run off the back of the house? >> Good question. Um, we it only gives us a second means

137of egress in the house. We have to have two means of egress from the house. The house is elevated. So, we can't just come down a stoop. You have to act for stairs. And we don't we don't want to put it on the south side of the house because then it will be in the sideyard setback. We would need sideyard setback relief. So, that's why they come down towards the wetlands. >> Realistically, those steps are for an emergency, >> right? >> We have no walkway to them. There's no real reason to go down there unless there's a fire in the house. You >> It's gonna be just a very modest like And then do you It's not I guess you could probably scale it, but I couldn't do it on the little tiny survey I

138had. But the the southern rear corner of the house. So the other corner of the rear of the house. Do we know what the distance is of that to the >> to the what land? You mean to 2.8 ft? >> No, that's the closest. >> Oh. Um, the southoutheast corner. >> I'm sorry. Did I get that right? The the the corner. Yeah, the rear south corner >> is the other one. >> I It looks like >> like where the steps are. Leaving the steps out >> the corner of the house. And I'm judging this by looking at the sideyard setback. It's probably around 10 ft to the wetlands. >> Planning. >> Are we ready to hear from the planning department? Yes, thank you. [clears throat] >> Borsack by the planning department. Again, uh so this

139parcel is located on the west side of Beach AMP Avenue in Amiganset. Uh the project before the board is to construct a new 996 foot two-story residence with a 100 foot uh secondstory balcony, entry steps, walkway, driveway, drywalls, uh and no sanitary system and to clear up to the edge of wetlands on the parcel. This property is extremely encumbered by significant wetlands covering the back half of the parcel which extend onto the extensive wetlands system on the town property to the west. The uh beach has low elevations and high groundwater table and is set within the double dunes uh natural area of East Hampton. The wetlands on the parcel and within jurisdiction extend well beyond the limits of the parcel. Uh these wetlands can be expected to provide the same benefits as any quality freshwater

140wetlands, especially the attenuation of flood waters. Um the wetlands on this property and surrounding uh wetlands contain high diversity of obligate wetland species like cranberry uh which are indic indicative indic indicative of high soil saturation throughout the year including the growing season. The planning department had recommended denial of this application in 2022 which the EVA denied um and is again recommending denial of the current application. In the planning department's 2022 assessment of the project, it was stated that quote, "If the applicants were proposing a smaller residence, which met better wetland setbacks and removed the need for coverage variance, but still necessitated pyramid variances in order to move further from wetlands, the planning department could consider that a reasonable relief in order to limit the impacts on the natural features." End quote. [clears throat] The current

141application has reduced the size of the proposed residence by 266 square ft and eliminated the coverage variance, but still requires significant wetland setback variances in addition to the required pyramid variances. The application before the EBA requires some of the most substantial variances the board will see in some time. Uh the residents may only mean a setback of 2.8 8 ft to the edge of wellins um which will have substantial impacts on the welllands directly adjacent to the improvements. Clearing on clearing of the welllands itself has been eliminated since the last application but still requires nearly 100% variance for the required clearing which encompasses nearly all of the upland portion of the property. The planning department still feels that a 996 foot residence is an inappropriate size when considering that there is no buffer between the

142structures and the wetlands and the best location for the sanitary system is only 37.1 ft from the same wetlands. The structure will undoubtedly have unnecessary impacts on on these wetlands both during the construction period and over the long-term existence of a residence. The severity of these the constraints on of the parcel are extreme due to small lot area, narrow width and the extent of the wetlands themselves. Consequently, the property is best suited for a smaller residence in order to maximize setbacks and retain as much of a buffer between the wetlands and improvements as practical. The proposed development is simply an untenable level of development close to sensitive wetlands which will have sub substantial negative impacts on the wetlands through the construction of the residents, elimination of any buffer to wetlands, runoff generated from the parcel,

143addition of sanitary system less than a third of the required setback and reasonable expectation of long-term uh clearing encroachment into wetlands given the half a foot clearing setback that's proposed. The planning department feels that more must be done in order to reduce the impacts that a structure of this size would have on the surrounding wetlands. The applicants have pushed the residents to uh residents to the reduced 6 and 1/2 ft setback from the southern property line in order to better fit the proposed residence against the wetland setback and fit the sanitary system treatment tank between the residents and the leeching field. Being such a non-conforming lot to lot width and proposing a two-story structure which is required to meet FEMA first floor elevation standards of 12 feet. The pyramid non-conformity is also substantial on the

144property. Some pyramid non-conformity is certainly expected on on a non-conforming property. However, when coupled with the size of the residence, the nonconformity with the well and setback and tight fit of the sanitary tank, it gives the impression of simply maximizing the size of the improvements rather than requesting dimensional setbacks in order to to reduce uh minimize natural resources setbacks. The building plans note pyramid non-conformities along the midpoint of the the dwelling of approximately 12.48 feet to the southern property line and approximately 12.32 feet to the uh northern property line. Because of the flat pitched roof line, the required fe FEMA first floor elevations, uh non-conforming lot width and uh low property elevations, the pyramid variance requests are considerable. The planning department does not feel that the p that a path forward for this parcel that

145does not very likely include some pyramid relief. However, uh relief should be granted in conjunction with increased setbacks and reduced impacts on wetlands as part of the reasoning for granting such significant pyramid relief. Additionally, uh the applicants included a cut and fill estimate but have not provided any proposed grading which is noted in their cut and fill estimates. The plan calls for 238 1/2 square u cubic feet of excavated material to be placed along the front of the house to create a gradual slope and level walkway with any residual fill being distributed between the foundation piles. any regrading of the parcel and and then within such close proximity to wetlands has the potential to impact runoff on and around the property and should be part of the record so that the final conditions are understood

146ahead of the determination. Ultimately this project while reduced since the last application remains too large for the constraints of the property with no significant mitigation to offer. The project does not meet the minimum variance necessary and could be reduced in size to gain a similar benefit without needing to encroach onto the wetlands and allow for some level of buffer between the structures and the wetlands. The footprint of the entire residence must be reduced in order to match the severe constraints of the property and and the second story of the residence could also be reduced even further in order to not require such significant pyramid variances. In the ZBA's 2022 denial determination, the board found that the project did not match the constraints of the property, would have long-term impacts on the wetland, and was best

147suited for smaller residents to maximize setbacks and retain as much of a buffer as practical. The board found that the proposed the proposed use was not suitable for the location and was not in character with the neighborhood particularly with regard to visibility, scale, and overall appearance and that the project cannot be con constructed without undue disturbance of disruption uh or disruption of important natural features. The board needs to determine if the newly proposed project addresses those concerns raised in 2022. Planning Department believes that if approved, the the proposed project would be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because of substantial variances requested. Allowing structures to be constructed in such close proximity to wetlands without exhausting every possibility for alternative for alternative designs is a very poor precedent and could be utilized on

148other parcels in Beach Hampton area to reduce setbacks and encroach further onto sensitive wetlands habitat. Uh degrading the quality of those wetlands and greatly reducing the ability for the wetlands in the area to attenuate flood waters which already plague the neighborhood. It would be a change in the character of the neighborhood and the board's past practices to approve the proposed project when there are reasonable alternatives which could meet better setbacks with reduced impacts. Finally, uh the project will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the wetlands dune land and beach vegetation on the parcel with almost no beach vegetation left after construction and significant construction proposed up to the edge of the wetlands on the property. This project will have substantial short and long-term impacts on the wetlands and and in in the area that cannot

149adequately be mitigated and should be reduced in scope and size. And the question was brought up, how how can it be smaller? Well, the town code minimum for for a residence is 600 square feet. >> Uh the board has granted a few 600 foot houses on extremely constrained property. One on Ocean Lane, not far from this property. Uh Clark, I think is the name of that of that one. Again, very very constrained with wetlands. They they got them they got the minimum I think slightly more than that but it was like 650 or something like that. >> Um they they even mentioned when they went saying they couldn't make it any smaller and then went on to say that the bedrooms on the second floor are actually larger than the minimum of the town code.

150They're 125 not 100. So I mean right there they they could be smaller. Um 600 ft is is the minimum. I'm not saying that that's necessarily what's required for this property, but I think that's probably closer to what is more appropriate for the constraints of the lot. Other than that, I can answer any questions you might have. >> Anybody have any questions for Tyler? Just quickly in the front of the house, um obviously we have a driveway and there's septic field and stuff like that, but is there still an opportunity for some amount of revge on the property even if it's beach grass or just some >> Yeah, minimally over the sanitary system. Obviously, it's a it's a shallow super shallow leeching field. Um, so yeah, they >> is that something that we could or

151build into a >> Yeah, you could you could you could condition that uh you know the LA area is a able or rev with beach grass or something like that, >> right? And I don't know [clears throat] if you can't answer this question, but what would be a obviously we're never going to get this house moved much further forward, but if it were to made small like where does the distance from the wetland versus 2.8 8 ft become >> and I didn't do any analysis as far as if it was a 300 square foot >> footprint where that >> just lastly um the house to the south that's been referenced the one I guess 48 right yeah what do we know what the wetland setbacks were >> I don't I don't have that uh off

152hand >> okay >> thank you Tyler >> thank you Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the application. Come forward, please. >> Could you give your name for the record and I will swear you in? >> Right up there. Right there. Up there. >> Laura Mitchell, >> we'll pull the mic down to you a little bit. I'm sorry. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. Thank you. You can proceed. >> Okay. I have lived on Beach Avenue for 42 years. Uh I live in the house directly across the street. Uh my house was in one of the pictures that he showed. Uh I'd like to comment that uh he mentioned there are I don't know 20 or so lots that are

153uh 40t wide. Uh on those lots there are only singlestory houses. Nothing is two stories and a two-story house would block my light uh across the street. There's very few twostory houses on the street altogether. Uh I don't know why this man who's owned this land for 52 years is has waited until now to try to build something that is totally will look out of place and is unrealistic. The other thing he talks about it being a um modular house, our road is very small to the size of truck that would have to get down our road. And I don't know what position it would need to be in to drop a house on this land. It couldn't be that way. I mean, it's barely two cars can pass each other. I mean, it's unrealistic

154that you could have a truck that big that would be able to maneuver in this area to drop a house on the pilings. Uh, I think that should be definitely taken into consideration. I mean, we have had traffic problems every time anybody does any modifications. It's a nightmare. Everybody's parking all over every place. The roads blocked. and this would certainly fall into that. >> Thank you for your comments. Matt, [snorts] do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Rick, would you like to summarize? >> I'll wrap this up. Richard Whan again for the applicant Julian Mazerki Jr. >> Couple comments with regard to what um um Tyler said in uh December and the September 18th, 2013 decision, that's just about 12 years ago, involving 20 Beach Avenue. And I think

155this had to do with an addition, so it's not exactly what we're doing. The the zoning board stated that due to the proximity of lots in the Beach Avenue neighborhood, most if not all, second floor additions, they were dealing, I believe, an addition, not a two-story house, will require pyramid load variances. The reality is on Beach Avenue, the predominant way that you build Brian, I mean Tyler talked about setting precedent, the present is when you want to build a a lot down there, you need variances, multiple variances. Not all lots have wetlands. Those on the east side, I think, are a little bit less constrained. Those in the west side that back up to the town property, they have more wetland constraints. There are lots kind of going back up the hill towards Bluff Road

156that are above any wetlands. But pyramid law variances are a virtual necessity. The number of lots, by the way, is not 20. The number of lots that are 40 feet wide in the subdivision is 10. That's out of 41. So that's still about a quarter of the lots are 40 feet wide. Many others are only 60 feet wide. Okay. Uh you need parallel varian wetland variances. That's the nature of beach avenue. In terms of disturbance in the neighborhood, as uh you know, the previous speaker just said, trucks that carry modular homes have to be street legal. When I was down there posting the sign, there were utility luck trucks working. There was somebody working on a house renovation. I had to drive all the way down the end to turn around. You I'm not want

157to turn out somebody's driveway. It's right. It's not easy to maneuver down that. That's what happens on a narrow private road. Every time somebody builds, it becomes a congestion area. We can certainly get a modular house in there. That's the only concern. Um, as I said, the the reality is that the house can't be made smaller. When Tyler talks about ways to make this, he's ignoring the code. Okay? If you want us to stay out of the wetlands, we have to build two stories. If we have to build two stories, we're going to have significant perilous setbacks. If we want to build on one story, we have to encroach into the wetlands. We are entitled to two bedrooms. We are required to have another room in a house that's not a bedroom, a kitchen, or

158a bathroom. Those are all requirements. The last thing I want to say is Tyler brought up nine Ocean Lane. He said the zoning board approved a house in Ocean Lane, 600 square feet in gross floor area, right on two stories. And you did. I was not involved in that project. I think that was approved in like 2008, 2009, something like that. [snorts] But a couple years ago, I represent the current owner of the property. wanted to move his bedroom wall out by 18 in because his partner could not get out of bed without climbing over him literally. >> And the zoning board approved it. But as a result of that, I've been in the house and I have the floor plans and you know how it got approved at 600 ft in 2008 [clears throat]

159or thereabouts illegally. >> I think >> you didn't grant any relief. That house does not comply with the design standards that I told you in 2551-67. It does not have another room. That's not a bedroom. And the two bedrooms in that house are not 100 ft each. The second floor including the stairs and the bathroom is only 300 ft GFA. So the answer to the question how they did that and I'm not blaming any of you and I don't know what the applicant's attorney knew at the time. Doesn't matter. And they know they were filling wetlands. So there was a great incentive to min but they weren't near wetlands. They were filling a freshwater wetland. So they had a great incentive to minimize things. But the truth of the matter is that house does not

160comport with zoning. >> The board never approved that house. >> The board zoning board did >> Yeah, >> but they did approve that house. >> Anyway, all right, let's move on. >> You're talking about nine ocean nine ocean lane. Nine ocean lane, the twotory mini house that doesn't comply with. So anyway, >> we can't make the house smaller. A denial amounts to a taking of our property >> and we all know where that's going to go. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. Member Maring, can we make a motion to close the public hearing? >> Thank you. Let me just get my um Where's my Hold on. Thank you. No, I just need the text. I need the Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. >> Oh, there it is. Okay. All right. >> I got it.

161I got it. >> All right. >> I know. I got it. >> Sure. >> What was the one in your comment about the >> I I do I've noticed this and I want to get ahead of this before it becomes a problem with the scenic easement. If this is approved and there's a scenic easement >> houses can't be 10 feet from this structures have to be more than 10 feet from the scenic >> not all fences are exempted for that but but the house has to be 10 foot from the scene. Now the house predates the scenic easement then it's grandfathered. So all I'm saying is asking that you allow us to make the you know the filing of the you know the acceptance of the scenic easement a condition of a CFO. In other

162words, the house would be built already before this and then because there are situations that exist there that way, you know, the structure came in before the scenic easement was granted. >> Yeah. >> That that way we don't put the building inspector in a quandry. He's like, well, okay, you want a building permit, but you have a scenic easement and you're within 10 ft of >> the one thing I'll just say about conditions because a member Marian brought this up. One of the recommended conditions in the plane department memo is replanting any disturbed areas with beach. >> We'll plant anything doesn't have a structure on it with beach. The only structures are the house, the stairways, and the parking area. Everything else, anything else that's, you know, to be vegetated, we're happy to plant that

163with beach. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Would we? >> Yes. Sorry, just on that. Would we need a square footage for reg or we'll we can figure that out another time. >> Okay. >> Anything that's not total coverage, >> right? Okay. Basically, beach grass everywhere except for the driveway. >> Exactly. Okay. [laughter] All right. Very good. So, in the matter of Julian J. Mizerki III, 44 Beach A, I'm against it. Suffet County Tax Map 300-175-3-10. I make a motion to close the hearing and close the record. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. Good night, Rick. We have We'll move on to our work session for tonight and the >> We'll go to the minutes of approval. Uh >> ever since you ready? >> Yeah. Taking forever. Yeah. Exactly. >> Member Burgerer. Uh

164are you ready to ready to make a motion? Yes. Um I'd like to make a motion for to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, December 16th, 2025 for the Eastampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Second concur. >> And I'd like to make another motion to approve the draft minutes from the special zoning board meeting on Monday, December 2nd, 2025. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Vice Chairman Johan, would you like to adjourn the meeting, please? >> I would. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing for the town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals on January 6th, 2026 at, let me check the time, 8:40 p.m. Concur. >> Concur.