East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 12/16/2025

001That's horrible. >> All right, ZBA, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. Welcome to the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals work session for December 16th, 2025. Uh we have three administrative applications uh in front of us this evening. Uh, first one is Zephris Partners LLC at 8 at 642 Old Malk Highway SUFF map number 300-71-1-6 and that's to legalize an exist existing coastal access staircase reconstruct a portion of the staircase in a smaller footprint and implement a bluff restoration on a parcel of land containing a Tyler. >> Yes, this one's pretty straightforward. there the there's a small section of the staircase that they're going to need to re uh change the size of in order to meet DEEC permits uh or

002to meet their DEC permit and then they're going to be doing a bluff restoration. Uh there's some f there's I mean you can see the profile of it. They're going to be adding quite quite a bit of sand. Uh it's 1350 cubic yards. You can see it looks it's you know they've had some erosion here. Um so they just want to uh work to replace some of that. Obviously reveate once once it's in. Um, but it's pretty standard process for uh coastal restoration and and stairs. >> Any questions, board members? >> No. >> Are we good to make a motion? >> Where is it? Is it >> It's in Mont. Okay. [clears throat] >> I have it done. Uh then in the u in the application of uh Zephris Partners LLC 642 Old Monto Car

003Suffic Highway Suffach County Tax Map [clears throat] um 300 said there 71-1-6. I'd like to make a motion to allow this application to proceed administratively. >> Second. >> Tinker. [laughter] >> Thank you. So next we have Trunzo at 1873 Mile Harbor Hot Creek Road in Spring Map number 300-77-5-11 and it's a bulkhead reconstruction. Dyla, >> yes. So this is a pretty standard bulkhead reconstruction. Um they are proposing to raise the elevation slightly on this one. Um it currently consists of a a dilapidated concrete wall. Um the bulkhead is proposed to be constructed seawward of that existing seaw wall um within 18 inches of it. Uh but most of that and most of that concrete existing concrete wall will remain. Uh the top of the bulkhead is currently at like between 7.6 and 7.8 ft above

004sea level. The new bulkhead is proposed to have a top of an elevation of 8 ft. Uh so a slight increase in the height. Um it is located just north of Hurland which recently completed bulkhead uh the recently completed bulkhead required a modification for asbuilt elevation of 9.4 ft. So that one also increased its heights lately. Um so they're doing something similar but not going quite as high as that one. Um we believe this to be a reasonable candidate for administrative review. >> Any conditions that we need to be concerned about? Uh not that I'm aware of beyond the normal conditions for uh replacement of a bulkhead. >> Okay. Um not to exceed the proposed, right? Because they make [laughter] bold letters. >> If it goes [clears throat] beyond 8 ft, they'd have to come

005back in for a mod. But yeah, we uh that we we want them to do what they're proposing to do. >> And going just to eight when Hurland is nine, that won't have an effect, right? >> No, no, that shouldn't have any impact. Okay. >> Are we good? >> Yep. >> In the matter of Tronzo 187 3M Harbor Hog Creek Road Springs, Suffach County tax map number 300-77-5-11. I make a motion that the application go administratively. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. Next we have STP Hedges LLC at 58 Hedges Banks Drive, East Hampton, suffoc map number 300- 35-1-18 to remove an existing foundation to regrade the area to the current adjacent grade and relocate the house to a conforming location on a parcel of land containing a bluff. That sounds good to me. >>

006Yeah, it's it's it's exactly what it sounds like. They're going to be taking the existing residence, moving it out of jurisdiction entirely, um, and then just regrading. Obviously, there's a foundation there, so filling it in, regrading it to match the existing grades. Um, and that's that's about it. It's it's exactly what we look for. >> And the property is not over cleared. And you'll work with them on rege and everything, right? >> Yeah. >> Mind the sound of that one? Anybody? Do we have a MO? Oh, that's me. So, I'll take that motion. >> Okay. In the application of STP Hedges LLC at 58 Hedges Banks Drive, East Hampton subcastmap number 300-35-1-18. I make a motion to allow the application to proceed administratively. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Move on to postering decisions. We have

007Marine 51 LLC at 51 Marine Boulevard. Navig 300-179-1-7. The size and location is 29,700 ft of 51 Marine Boulevard. Map of C view at Amaganz lot 37 filed November 3rd, 1967 is map number 4987 in Amaganz. Description is to replace an existing deck in place and in kind to construct a pool deck with gravel area where there is an existing patio. Relocate pool equipment. Install a gas line. Reorient the existing gravel stone driveway. Construct wing walls at the driveway entrance with re reveitate and regrade within the ve flood zone within minimum dune crest setbacks and on a lot containing beach vegetation and doom land is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the eastampton town code in three variances of 50.9 ft 8 ft and 32 ft from 255440 to replace a deck

00849.1 ft install gas line 92 ft and construct driveway walls 68 ft from the dune crest where 100 foot is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence V17 and AE10 and the secret classes type two member Miring. >> Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Um the public hearing for this application was held on November 18th, 2025. Um, we closed the hearing in the record that night and uh, I will note that no members of the public submitted comments to the record in person at the hearing or in writing. Um, as we're familiar, this is an ocean front lot towards the eastern end of Marine Boulevard um, in Beach Hampton. This property was developed prior to NRSP and setback and um, uh, Bluffrest setback zoning or other natural resources zoning. Um the

009house I guess there was a co issued um excuse me the house was built likely in um per the property card history buffs uh will hopefully enjoyed the copy of the 1969 zoning board determination that was in the in the file. Um the property changed hands in 2022 and has undergone um an internal renovation and I guess cleaning up of the external um uh siding and such. But there have been no additions or other structural work done um since that was uh purchased um or related to uh and they received they already received a co for that renovation work I believe on October 10th 2025. Eric Brown of Acriman Partners represented the applicant. Um he actually didn't make a sign a significant or lengthy presentation. He mostly reserved his comments um deferring them until after

010uh the planner spoke. Morgan Slater represented the planning department and her TAM is dated October 24th, 2025, which we all went through. Um, so there was a little confusion on the survey. So the most recent survey in the file was dated April 9th, 2025 from Saskus surveying and that's what we worked off of during the hearing. Um, but there were, I think, some gaps in the survey. Um, first of all, Mr. Brown had mentioned that the DEEC had required um some changes moderate changes related to structures around the Seahaw line. Um, also the this survey did not for some reason note the proposed final coverages um changing that were showed to um uh even though a survey from November 21, 2024 that's in the public hearing file um showed the final uh coverage changes and

011the um or not changing um and the and the uh uh final clearing. So I would I guess have been nice. I think we maybe are looking for a survey that brings it all together properly um as a condition of approval. Also in the file there was a five pound five-page document um and a survey based sketch construction protocol plan for martyrs dated 37205. Um [sighs] and there's more information also in the file about reveation. Um per the TAM um the temporary limits of clearing for the work are proposed to be 22,168 square ft which will then be re reveitated to final clearing limits of 8,356 ft. Um and that is a modest improvement over the existing limits of clearing which are 9,121 square ft. Um [snorts] the temporary clearing limits, this is what the

012TAM said, um the temporary clearing limits appear excessive given the size of that lot. However, most of the pristine dune land vegetation on the south side of the residence does not appear to be within the disturbance. A very big part of this application is reveation and although that 22,000 square foot number is large in terms of a temporary clearing um a lot of what is being rem removed are some natives. It's not a complete native removal. Um but also there's a regrading um and a removal of a lot of sort of retaining structures like railroad ties around certain areas. And there'll be uh you know the revge is really to renaturalize um some of that topography and um you know the the sort of contours on the front um and such like that. Um so

013and most much much of the other work deals with um in terms of the the uh variances um replacing mostly in place and in kind at the front of the property the pool and the pool patio. Um I think they've made a little bit of adjustment to some of that brick patio but it's I think becoming smaller maybe a little bit than what we saw. and then um replacing rebuilding in place and in behind the rear deck on the back of the house. Um the other um so I'm going to go through um and and talk about the variance standards relative and the NRSP standards relative to the application. Um so I'm going to approve the three variances. um the variances related to replacing the deck. That's the largest of the variance variances. Um but

014that as we said that's not self-created. It's replacing a deck that exists that was built a long time ago pre-existing nonconforming. Um don't see that that's a self-created issue. Um I don't believe this will create any incremental environmental issue. they are reveating a portion of the cleared area south of that deck um more towards the dune crest. Um so approving that the gas line is a dimminimous um variance and I think a utility change should be uh permitted. Um there are some driveway walls that are being um uh added. Um they're modest in size and you know those walls are kind of offset in my mind by the removal of other retaining structures. Um, so approving all of those in addition. Um, so I I was some I expressed some disappointment at the public hearing

015that, you know, we're coming away without any scenic easement over the, you know, June word seawward side of the property where we often try and and have those done on many of the other properties on Marine Boulevard. We see them. Um, also there's no septic. you know, it was discussed there's really no nexus in this application from getting them. Um the it would have been nice on a voluntary basis, but we not we are not in a position to require that. Um however, without new development proposed and a meaningful reveation plan to be executed, I find this application meets all the NRSP standards as well. So I will be approving the whole application contingent I guess on getting the new survey. There's one thing also in the revet plan that I would not really like

016to see which I talked about mulching pine needle mulching of cleared areas. I think the idea here is to reestablish the dune land. So I don't know how be how much of that was asked for but that sounds a little bit inconsistent perhaps but that's my only comment on that. >> Thank you Terry. >> Okay. Um I also going to approve this in its totality. Um, as already stated, the the variances for the the decking at 15.9 um and the gas line of 8 ft and 32 ft for the driveway walls. Um, none of those are the benefit to the applicant is clearly not going to cause any problem for the town or anything in the area. Um, they're they're not necessarily dimminimous, but they're not outrageously large either. Um there was some discussion on

017the deck whether it was 400 ft or 800 ft but um the applicants bought the property in 2022. So however it got to be that um was really not not relevant and they are going to replace the decking in kind and in place and in kind. Uh they're also restructuring that area of the walk, changing to sand walkways from wooden walkways on the south portion around the deck going down to the bluff and recontouring that. So it's a looks like a very nice uh restoral of natural dune topology in that area and also up by the pool. There were a couple of things um mentioned by the planner um going back to the reveg plan for martyrs. There was the planner only Morgan um said the only thing they wanted they removed from that was

018a black pine that had been put into it um that they don't want. So that will be removed. And um the Lwood reveg had both invasive and native. They're invasive and native plants that are going in that will be reveated with only native. All any area of disturbance is what they're going to do a reveation on with native plantings. So I think meets all the NRSP standards for this also. and um I'm going to approve it in its entirety. >> Thank you. >> Yes, I'm going to agree with my uh my fellow board members on this one. Um there were several points that struck out to me. One is it's a moderatelysized house at 1792 square feet. There was a CFO issued in July 7th, 1983 before the establishment of uh current environmental regulations for

019this property. Uh the initial development of subdivision was for the adoption of modern zoning regulations. All of these lend towards understanding how the house exists in the way it does. Um I think that they there's a on behalf of the applicant they did put forth the dune restoration plan and u and and also in place for the topography to the south of the residence to be reconformed bringing in some additional material after in an area that's currently disturbed to try to reshape uh the existing dune and extended a little bit closer to the house a little uh landwood from the seawwood side. I think the clearing limit here is being reduced from 9,121 ft to 8,356. The total lot coverage will decrease from 9,37 to 7,664. The footprint of the deck appears to be the

020same as it since 2001. The the tool deck existed at the time of 1983 CO, but apparently did not make it on the survey. At least that was the testimony of the night of the of the of the hearing. Uh the applicant will remove some invasives and we'll take out some black pines that are in the way of current work that's to be done. Um I think that in general it's the the given the size of the property and the sensitivity of the property and that's something that has to be stressed. anybody went out there. It's an absolutely beautiful location and a beautiful spot. But there is virtually very little work being done. Seawward of the house, removal of some uh retaining walls, a removal of some railroad ties and in their place this dune

021restoration project which I think is commendable from our point of view. I think that the um in in general it's a net improvement for the uh for the envir environmentally here. Uh and then let's see. I I like Mart's protocol. It seemed uh it seemed complete to me. And then one quote that jumped out at me off of the TAM here was uh the planning department does not anticipate the environmental impact of the improvements to exceed the impact of the existing structure. When you're out there and you see the scope of the work and the condition of the house at this time, I think that's accurate. And then to go into the standards, again, I'm agreeing with uh um [clears throat] with my fellow board members on this. Uh the NRFB standards I think are

022are u are met. I think the preservation of natural resources I say yes and the alternal reasons of the property and alternative designs I think that they've looked at how to best uh accomplish what they want to do with showing respect for the property and the environment here and then under the variance variances here on the variance variance standards I think that um all three variances to me are moderate and whether the grant of the variance will create an change no whether the benefits sought by the apple can be achieved by some other method I Don't think so. Whether requested area variance is substantial. No. Whether the grant to the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions and neighborhood. No. Whether difficulty caused by the applicant areas was self-created. Almost

023anytime people in front of us, it's basically self-created. But in this case, they're working with the limits of of what existed. And I think it's a it's a it's a reasonable request. And then finally under 255 540 compatibility I I think that is compatible and I think that in terms of environmental protection I think it meets those. I think it's a it's a reasonable project on an extremely sensitive parcel that comes to us that with with good planning and a backup of a solid landscape plan. And I will agree again with fellow board members that we'll expect an updated CFO to reflect some of these conditions that were mentioned. But I'm willing to approve both the NRSP in this and the variances at this time. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> These are minor improvements

024to the property as outlined in the technical analysis memo. They do not anticipate any negative impacts from this project. There will be a reduction in clearing and all disturbed areas are proposed to be restored as a reveation plan shall be implemented and inspected prior to the issuance of the CFO. All the improvements will result result in a decrease in total lot coverage and there is no proposed change in the building coverage. I feel this application meets the standards for a natural resource special permit outlined in 25551 variance standards outlined in 255850 and also demonstrates compliance with the general standards outlined in 25540 of the town code and because of this I will be approving the application in its entirety. >> Thank you. Um, I agree too. I vote to approve this application. I thought it's

025a well thoughtout application and uh will benefit from environmentally. Um, so with that good council, >> Mr. Chair, can I just add uh one condition of approval that I don't see in here that we often do see because this is doomland property that's being revged and restored. Many times we see where it says irrigation can be put in temporarily but should be removed after the plants are established because otherwise if you leave irrigation in forever it will destroy the sandy duneland nature. So I I've seen that in many other tams before wondering if we could ask for that as well. >> So temporary irrigation in the >> temporary irrigation >> for um >> for the as far as part of the revage. I am I I I agree that that there should be an allowance

026there, but I don't understand the nature of this planting. >> Yeah, I don't know >> planting plan to say that that's beneficial. Um >> I think we have >> I don't know what to say there. >> It's not my expertise. >> I mean, I've seen it in many TAMs. It's fairly standard. So, >> I agree. In the case of wetlands, I'm not sure here. Again, I'm not sure when or how these things should be replaced. >> Um, >> I mean, it's a very sandy duneland property, which is part of the character of it. >> You want to on that? >> I don't want to add anything to the record. >> Uh, we don't what >> what >> I don't want to add anything to the record. >> No, I agree. I agree. Um, yeah, I

027>> this is not an area I'm an expert in. >> Let's try to let's try to um put it this way if I can. I'm not disagreeing with member Mary, but maybe the conditions should be um that the final planting plan addresses irrigation that's approved by the town. that as a condition of the the reedge plan >> as a condition. Yeah. >> Yeah. And then >> so at least it's getting covered. But I again I'm not >> Yeah. Because there might be some >> So that the town I think the town should sign off on it too. And I think maybe the plan should the final plan should address that. >> I think that that seems I think that would work. >> Is that okay? >> I I've been told I don't have expertise on

028this. So I >> Yeah. I said I didn't have >> No, I know [laughter] you I know you weren't saying either. >> In my experience, I haven't seen that in any determinations I've written, so I haven't been doing it that long. >> I've seen them in TAMs. That's where I got it from that related to June Land. Again, I don't want to harp on it, but Mr. Chair, if the way you want to go is fine. We can have Yeah, I think we can put it in as a condition as the update the update the revge plan to just clarify >> address the >> irrigation lack or what needs you know they might not need it. >> They might not have any irrigation >> that's consistent with town practices. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Next

029we have Alcapra 235 Fairview Avenue in Montalk SuffK test map number 300-9-7-6.2 two siding location is 14,660 ft at 235 Fairview Avenue subdivision 7 block 2011 lot 6 map number 1017 in Montalk the description is to construct an approximately 270 ft deck addition 36qt hot tub outdoor shower new new window and door basement egress and to upgrade the sanitary system within jurisdiction and setbacks for freshwater wetlands >> [sighs] >> The relief sought is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and four variances are required for this application. Variances of 55.8 ft, 22.1 ft, 22.1 ft, and 18 ft are required from 25430. To construct a proposed decking 44.2 ft, hot tub 77.9 ft, outdoor shower 77.9 ft and window well 82 ft from wetlands where 100 foot setbacks

030are required. and any other relief necessary. Zon executive is B residence zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two and this was >> yes okay this hearing was held on November 18th of 2025. Uh there was an original TAM dated June 10th, 2025 which was revised on 10, 2025 by Tyler um after there was a memo received on August 6, 2025 from the agent who was Joel Hallie of late White House Land Planning. Um the original project had a pool that was in the proposal to be put in. Um we're working with the planners. Uh that pool is what was removed on August 6th and the subsequent uh subsequent survey which was revised on July 28th which we received on August 6th. Um in its place the applicants proposed the original one.

031We go back to the original one also had two egresses that were in the proposal. an egress door on the southern side of [snorts] the the house, which was currently a window, and they were going to enlarge that to be an egress door. On the other side of the house, on the northern side, they were redoing an egress window to make a 4x4 ft egress window. Um, additionally with the the removal of the pool, they proposed a hot tub on the northeasterly northern pretty much northern side of the house and a deck extension on that side also and a shower, an outdoor shower. And um, all of that was um was going to put in that same location on on the decking. Um the variances needed as was stated 55.8 for the decking uh 22.1

032for the hot tub 22.1 for the outdoor shower and 18 for the window well. Um I'm going to approve all of these where 100 ft is required from wetlands. Um, the wetlands involved here are the it's Peter's Run, part of Peter's Run. And when you look at the the photos and the documentation on this this property, [snorts] there's grading considerable grading that goes down from the house toward Peter's Pond. And it's consider it's considerable. Um and it also has um turf grass going right up to the shoreline of that stream. So um that kind of took away the uh the pool on the project. Um the TAM the the planners were recommending a 10-foot uh buffer which was proposed by the applicant in the update. Um, planners also felt that a larger buffer might be

033warranted for the the revised plan as 10 feet was kind of minimal. Um, I'm going to approve this application in its entirety. [clears throat] There's a couple of things though. Um the reveation actually will bring the applicant down below the clearing allowed for this property. It was 10,999 ft. Existing is 11568 and the proposed will bring it down to 10,135. Bring it into clearing conformity at least. Um else they did give us sketches of the egress on the inside and the outside view which are in the file. Uh those are dated 52824 actually and um I'm going to approve this application in its entirety. I think it does beat our standards. Uh the standards are not large. they you're not going to have any harm on to the town or any neighboring properties. Uh my

034biggest concern is this buffer. Well, it goes the whole length of the stream that's on the property. I think that I do want the additional five feet that was suggested by the app uh not by the applicant, by the planners. Um and we do need a new survey on this one also. The original project had a sanitary system upgrade in it. Um, which was not removed from the survey that we got on August 6th. Um, although they took it off the their proposal. Um, so we do need a new survey on that. And um, they objected at the meeting. There was there were no calls from the public, but they objected at the meeting to one of the ex the additional conditions number four, which I believe said to that leaders and gutters would be

035put on the entire house, and I'm okay with that. Um, so that's that's I voting to approve the whole thing. >> Ed. Yeah. Um this is another another one of the uh applications we've had along Peter's run and this was the most um startling to visit because as was mentioned by member Burgerer uh turf grass ran right down to the bank and over the bank right down to the open run of of the actually I think in the length of Peter's run this may be the most accessible spot to see what it really looks like most of the time it's going either under culverts through dense vegetation so this is was an important one right away. But in terms of the project itself, it it is a limited project in terms of scope. The 270

036foot a decking, the 36 ft square foot hot tub, it's a scaled a much scaled back project from the RA that was all noted uh uh by member Burgerer in terms of the history of the project. The 10-ft buffer became uh really the question for us is that the twin 10- foot buffer, what did it represent? And and I think if we go to the TAM again here, there's a couple of things that need to be said I think that I'm in agreement with. Uh one is that it says the [clears throat] current project is not something that the planning department is recommending for denial early on. And then say the current proposal likely represents the most reasonable location for an improvement of this nature. A hot tub and a small deck addition is much

037more in line with what the board might approve compared to other projects. And then the current proposal uh takes into consideration the constraints of the property attempts to limit the impact of the structure, minimize setbacks and minimize their size. The 10- foot buffer uh whether it should go to 15 ft as was mentioned by member Burgerer. It did represent almost over,400 square feet of additional vegetation and it is much better. It's much improved. I think it was suggested by the planner that given the scope of the project that was a reasonable uh request given the size of it a reasonable amount to to insist on that we see that and he didn't feel that we had to go beyond that. I I tend to agree with that and then um um yeah it I'm just

038looking here the number is 1433 square feet of additional vegetation. That's all a plus. I don't think this project is large. I don't think it's going to do very much damage to go to go to the standards 255850. Whether the u [clears throat] grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change the character neighborhood. No. Whether the benefits are for the applicant to achieve but more feasible. No. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. I don't think it is. Whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions. No. Whether the difficulty causing the requested area variance was self-created. Well, it is, but I think it's again a reasonable request on their part. And then [clears throat] under 255 NRSP standards um [clears throat] whether alternative reasonable uses

039of property determined do not exist. I say yes and alternative designs and telling smaller buildings. I think these I think this has been well considered in terms of both of those and 25540 in terms of compatibility. the site uh the site is proposed as you the the site of the proposal is suitable for the location of such a a request and whether or not that we've done our best to prevent the protect the environment. I think a smaller project uh and in scope and we gain some protection for really a vulnerable portion of Peter's run. So, I'm going to uh based on testimony that was already given by a board member support that and then with what I have to say, I'm going to approve both the NRSP and the variances on this application. >>

040Thank you, Jane. >> Oh, thank you. Um I agree with my fellow board members uh about the variances and the NRSP in terms of their meeting of the standards um which have already been cited. and I see the standards being met in the same in the same way. So, I'm not going to repeat it all. Um, I do think that the largest of the variances are probably in the best location um and not necessarily really self-created because of the pre-existing nature of the house relative to the to the wetlands. Um, and I also do think these are modest um, uh, modest additions to the property. Um, you know, I also was hoping for a greater buffer in terms of depth. I mean, is jarring, right? You know, you look at it, um, because the property

041slopes down, it's all loan lawn or sod. we are not able to secure a covenant of no lawn chemicals, no pesticides. Um, and so yeah, an extra five feet could be um would be better. It would be optimal, but I don't feel necessarily that that's something we can or I feel I can impose. Um although I don't I understand why member Burgerer um is is asking for it. So, um I guess I well I will approve this as um uh in entirety. I think we said that we also need a planting plan to be a condition of approval, right? We didn't have that. Is that correct? >> Um and uh again I just want to be clear the the uh condition to remove the issue of gutters and leaders we agree with. I think we

042still said that the new shower will require dry well, right? And then where did you leave it, member Burger? Like in the discussion you were asking about was a dry well required for draining of the hot tub. So I'll >> was kind of alluded that you didn't really require one. >> Okay. Um so that's where that's where I am on this. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> Thank you. I think this project has been significantly improved and the TAM was revised on by Tyler Borsac. The current proposal takes into account the constraints of the property which limits negative environmental impacts. An upgraded IIA system is going to be installed which will also reduce impacts. >> No, no, it wasn't. >> Oh, no. >> They they revised one where they pulled back the pool. >> Okay.

043and they they neglected to take it off the survey. >> Okay. Okay. >> And it's still in the notice which is the notice is incorrect. >> I I agree that I think a 10-ft buffer proposed along the entire length of the wetlands is sufficient since there is no protection there now at all. This will create 1433 square ft of vegetation and eliminates a nonconformity by reducing the pre-existing nonconforming clearing below the maximum allowable. I do agree with the recommended project conditions including number four which is I don't think the applicant agreed with that but I think the resident should be furnished with gutters and leaders as is stated in the TAM. Peters run is a vital and sensitive water course that provides the benefits of all quality wetlands especially the retention and redirection of storm

044water prior to recharge into the groundwater table. The value of protecting the area around Peters Run to the water quality of Lake Montto cannot be understated. [clears throat] >> I feel the medication being proposed meets the threshold for grant of this application and I will be approving this in its entirety. >> Thank you. >> I agree with my board members. Um you know I I always look for buffers too. So I understand stand understand that. Um however on this one that's when you have you have that Tam saying however a 10ft bver where none currently exists accounting for 1433 ft of vegetation and reducing the pre-existing nonconforming clearing below the maximum allow eliminating a non-conforming may be sufficient to offset the impacts. I would agree with the timing this one. >> Yeah, I understand but

045it's it's it was still reiterated during the hearing. So I I I feel that I too will uh approve the application in its entirety with the 10 foot buffer >> with the number four condition. >> Actually, I wouldn't wouldn't mind proposed buffer. Let's put it that way. and put that address. I I agree. I do agree with what Vice Chair Sey said perhaps about the gutters and the um because I [snorts] guess had there been maybe bigger buffer than but without the bigger buffer perhaps you're right that controlling runoff >> more more um robustly with those and things we those are pretty standard. I I know they were trying to say, "Well, it's not as dramatic in application as it was before." So, I I actually would agree. I didn't say it, but I would

046agree to retaining condition four. >> Um I don't know if there's a third vote for that. >> I think we could pull the board on that. Um Terry, what's your thought? >> I'm okay with removing it. >> With removing it? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I don't know they're in a position to enforce that anyway at this point, but I'm well with removing it. Right. I'm not sure. I'm not sure too. So I think I don't know with the amount of work that's requested. I mean I think >> I thought that was their rationale as far as Joel for >> Yeah. request. >> I would I would agree with the way it is. >> Okay. So we're going to do >> with eliminating it. >> So sorry 10 foot buffer. >> So you're

047eliminating that condition. That's recommended by the 10 foot buffer and then they're going to have to uh submit a revage plan. >> Yes. >> Uh and then drywall for the outdoor shower. I know that was >> Sorry. Drywall with the outdoor shower. Yes. >> Yeah. Drywall for the outdoor shower. And then the only other kind of thing was the drywall for the hot tub, but I don't know if that yet. >> No, it was iffy. >> No. And and we also need a a condition of approval for an updated survey, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> With the buffer sanitary system. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. I got it. Thank you. Next we have 33 Surf LLC at 33 Surf Drive in Amigan. Substant number 300-174-3-5. Size and location is 10,000 square ft at

04833 Surf Drive, Amagazit, Beach Hampton, number 1203, lots 36 through 40 and Amag. The description is to construct a 154.35T addition to an existing deck on a parcel within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. The relief sort is a natural resources special permit pursuant to and a variance of from 255430 of East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary variance of 80.1 ft to construct the deck edition 19.9 ft from a wetland where 100 foot is required zoning district B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 to secret classes type 11. >> Okay, thank you. Um the public hearing was held on October 28th, 2025. We did find a need to continue the hearing um to November 18th in order to quote cure defects in the notice. There had been a date typo, I believe, on the

049posting. Um and so we we did have that continuation. I'll come back to you in a second. Um the date of the most recent survey we worked um from during the hearing um is uh from Scaliz land surveying in Icelip and it was dated per the 1975 original co the ex the existing house um which is not being changed in this application but just for the perspective is 1494 square foot 4bedroom um and has an attached deck of square ft to the rear. Um, and so what was in that 75 CO appears to correspond with the existing attached deck that we see to the rear. Um, and then there's a very small deck on the deck steps on the s uh south side of the house that also appears on that survey. Um, sorry, just

050um the deck that will be expanded runs along the entire um rear facade of the house. Um, and it is elevated um off the ground. Um, though the land on the entire front and north side of the house is rather disturbed with gravel, pavers, a lot of ornamental landscaping and plantings um over the duneland topography. Um the re the rear of the house as my field report showed um the area really to the rear of the house to the most eastern property line um is fairly typical um sort of semi-authentic beach hampton character conditions of you know sandy um sandy soils with dunland vegetation scattered around and that will be preserved um per the narrative of the uh of the applicant. The amount of new decking proposed is a very modest 154 square ft addition.

051Um it adds 21% to the entirety of the decking um on the original house and the current house. Um the addition requires numerically a very substantial 80 foot v 80 80% variance to the wetlands abudding the northeast corner of the lot. Um the survey also does show that the deck addition um because that rear edition wraps around to the south side of the house to square off um some things that are on the south side of the house um is also non-compliant to wetland setback by a 23 20.3 ft although that no that is not a separate variance noticed in the application. Um, the original owner secured an updated CO in 2021 that appears to have been prior to their selling the property to the current owner's current applicant. Now, that 2021 Scaliss survey that's

052in the property um property uh existing conditions with the property history card showed um that had a note on it that said non-compliant wood deck removed as indicated on attached survey per inspection um dated 1027 2021. Um, so that was I I'm mentioning that now because we had a discussion as you come through the gate um on the northern side of the house there are a lot there's a gravel area and pavers. So there was some discussion if that was already legalized or not. um based on my the CO survey which talked about decking to have been removed which it was it didn't show any new you know gravel or pavers so I don't see that that is already um already legalized um on the November 18th 2025 continuation of the hearing Mr. John. Oh,

053I'm sorry. Forgot to say Miss Liz Vale of Greenberg Torres represented the applicant. No members of the public offered comments into the record either during the hearing or via written comments. Um on the November 18th, 2025 continuation, Mr. John Bourke appeared from Greenberg Tor on behalf of the applicant um and noted again that that old deck um is not being um rebuilt um and that they're awaiting a revision to the survey um gravel area and walkway um they they said are noted to be removed. So I guess um it was in question during the first part of the hearing but um was confirmed that it is being removed and [clears throat] um uh so that's that Jay Kushner the planning department um there his TAM was dated uh October 3rd 2025 um the talked about

054the uh small wetlands that are in um that will be most impacted by the extension of the deck. Um but um he of course affirmed that those wetlands are small but important as we hear many times um around uh applicant applications in this neighborhood. Um the lot size is 50% pre-existing substandard to the B residence zone. That's not that's certainly common in Beach Hampton. Um, the point was made and I agree that decking um on houses on these original houses is pretty much a standard uh standard um uh thing. Um, and uh, I'm going to, even though it is mathematically large, I'm going to approve that variance. Um, because uh, it's it's really a small part of the deck, you know, that moves away. I don't think it that the rest of the deck moves

055further away from that wetland. Um, it's bump the deck as exists is very shallow and there's not much moving around. The 6 foot I think depth added gives them more um kind of necessary living space back there. And I see it again as keeping uh um activity off those sandy soils um which I think has a net has a net benefit. Um the uh and then I so the it's yeah it's self-created in that they want an extension of the deck but as I said it's not a big a big extension. there's really no other way to create that extra living space without the variance um on on that deck. Um I don't believe it has any issue on character of the neighborhood. The decking still meets all dimensional setbacks. So don't think it will

056have an impact to the neighbors um or the surrounding character. Um I did you know one of the cases made is that the whole property at the back is screened and I'm not really taking that into account because screening can go away and also it's non-native arborvite so I didn't need that screening to convince me uh you know to to be there. Um I think you know the greater environmental uh um threat to that wetland is the bamboo that's running wild on the neighbors property. it's starting to extend onto this property, but we're it's not really um there's no nexus to um there's nothing they can do to remediate that. So, I'm approving the application um as I believe it meets the variance standards um as well as all the standards in the uh NRSP.

057Thank you. >> Thank you, Terry. >> Okay. Um I agree with member Miring on this one and uh as already stated the variance is very large but the the the benefit to the applicant certainly outweighs the detriment or any possible detriment to the town or other neighboring properties as already stated by Miss Veil and remember miring the almost everybody down in this part of town has decking. Um variances are significant but uh you know in the TAM the the the planners had no real uh objection to the the decking and and any environmental [snorts] aspects that it might create. They did recommend though that any areas that are cleared for the construction of the deck be reveated. Um and uh the the coverage I say it's very common. Um the excavation is should be minimal

058and considering the proximity to that northeast wetland the clearing limited and all areas disturbed reveated and the mitigation in the form of silk fencing which I believe they put in. >> Yeah, it's on the survey summary and >> it's I don't have my survey. Is that the updated survey? >> Oh, maybe it's up there. >> Maybe I'm thinking about a different survey. >> What's the date on that survey, Tyler? Is that >> because I thought they >> November 19th. >> Yep. >> Oh, okay. That you know, I was wondering about that. I thought they were submitting one, but I didn't see it. So, that's the one that also says the walkway will be removed and gravel. >> Yeah. This will be another one where we need a we're going to need an updated survey to

059note that. They also didn't tell us if they're going to reveate that area. So, I don't I don't know. That's kind of hanging out there. Sorry, interrupt. >> No, that's No, I didn't see the the new survey, so I was wondering if that had come in with that noted. Um, >> I don't know if they're going to re-educate it either. Do we want them to re-educate? >> It be part of the construction work, I guess. Um I do think it meets u the environmental protection and the natural characteristics of site the the use can be introduced here without undue disturbance or disruption to any other natural features systems or pro processes uh and without a negative impact to groundwater and surface waters. Um, so I'm going to approve this the NRSP and the variance for

060this. Um, and I guess with the condition of that if the areas get reveated that get cleared through the construction. >> Thank you, Ed. >> Yeah, [clears throat] I don't have a lot to add. Um, it did was calling for one variance uh required for the deck only. Uh the point was made by the uh owner's representative that um the property is surrounded on three sides by wetlands. So that um uh almost anything done on this property is going to require an NRSP certainly and and probably a variance. I think that case was made well and by member Miring uh for uh the existence of this type of architecture, this uh deck along the back of the house is pretty standard with these. The addition, the additional work there did not particularly bother the planning

061department to go to the TAM. Again, the requested variance although significant, but the planning department has not identified any long-term environmental impacts. I kind of agree with that statement. I think that I don't see where this uh elevated deck is is really providing a a particularly significant environmental danger. [snorts] I think the question of the gravel parking area and walkway now that this survey has been shown to us about the walkway being removed and was going to be vegetated, but I think also there's the complication of a 2021 CFO that was issued on the parcel. So, it did it did complicate that slightly. Hopefully this is a and then u there's no additional clearing going to happen on the site. Uh it's a house from 1975. It seems like a a a reasonably small request

062on a longestablished house. And without going through the standards, they've already been mentioned. Uh I'm just going to say I do think it rises to the level of me approving the NRSP and I also think that the variance standards here are are met by it. So I'm going to approve this application at this time. Thank you, vice chair. >> I agree with my fellow board members. This is a very modest addition to a pre-existing residence. They have agreed to limited clearing and reveating all areas disturbed by construction in addition to silk fencing to contain sediment on site to prevent wetland sedimentation during construction. They're at a proposed 43% total lot coverage where 50% is allowed. I think the project is minor in scale and meets the standards outlined in the code for variances and NRSPs

063and I'll be approving this in its entirety. >> Thank you. I agree with my board members. I have nothing else to add. That's good. We're good council. So yeah, so it's approved but so we you just wanted I just want to make sure for the condition so that >> the condition would be to revge what's what's removed >> what's been disturbed >> whatever gets disturbed >> right and >> after construction and the survey which is part of the coming anyway >> okay >> Mr. Mr. Chair, before you continue, I was not present for the next two hearings. So, I'm going to exchange places with John to come up for this one. >> Cliff Cliff. Yeah. 70 tonight. Some Gatorade tonight. Welcome. Welcome to the day is Mr. Thson. [laughter] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >>

064Uh, our next uh decision is uh Scott Aer at 70 Cliff Road, Amaganis of Map number 300-174-2-24. The size and location is 12,000 square ft at 70 Cliff Road, Montalk. The description is to demolish the existing approximately 1,500 ft² residence and associated structures and construct a new 2800 foot two-story residence with a 300 ft garage and storage, 250 ft of swimming pool, pool equipment, pool fencing, 425t of decking, outdoor shower, gravel driveway, 256 ft of entry porch, walkways, new sanitary system, and associated structures within jurisdiction of dune and dune and beach vegetation. The release is a natural resources special permit [clears throat] pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code is required for this application. The zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 and a secret classes type two. Member Mary.

065>> Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. Um the public hearing um was held on December 2nd, 2025. Um, we experienced some technical LTV difficulties um, in the midst of this hearing that night that caused a long pause in the action and also caused a bit of the planners um, testimony to be truncated sort of missing in the in the video that's up online, but his comments in the entirety are I just want you to know they're in the TAM um, and in the record. Um, Mark Thra appeared as the agent for the applicant, Scott Aer. um belief I believe he's an architect, though he did not announce his affiliation or specifically note his credentials at the hearing. Um we're working off the most recent survey in the record dated April 14th, 2025 by George Wahbridge and

066Mr. Tyler Borsk's um TAM representing the planning department was dated November 5th, 2025. There's also a document, a fairly lengthy document from the agent. I think it's undated, but marked as received into the file on January 23, 2025. Um, and I looked at this a lot. We looked at a lot during the hearing, so I'm calling it out. Um, it included a site analysis, site plan renderings. There's no page numbers in it. Um, but by my count on page nine, it shows the current and proposed clearing and coverages. Um uh and I think this they were I think one of the coverage is a little bit different than what's on the [snorts] survey. Um and according to the uh that document that was submitted by uh Mr. back there. Um the clearing uh is sorry

067um the clearing is 8,938 square ft which is just 1% from the max allowed and that is proposed to be reduced after reveation by 28 2820 ft or 32% reduction to clearing down to 6,118 I I think that clearing numbers are not noted on the survey we were working on. So again, we're going to need an updated survey. Um there's a reference to reveation materials in that document, but we do not have a full reveg plan CL plan. There's some notations about types of of properties to be um looked at, but it wasn't really clear how the gentle undulating topography in the front of the house would be maintained um as opposed to just sort of having a flat area um reveated with, you know, what sometimes can come out looking like like row crops.

068So, I think we need a a plan. Um the we we closed the public hearing and record on that night. There were no um public comments. Um the site plan I'll come back to that a second. Um, we had a lot of discussion about there there are more significant contours towards the rear of the property, although some of the dune land is more disturbed. And we had some discussion about how to protect those contours possibly. Um, it was indicated by a scenic easement. And we'll come back and and uh talk to that um when I get to my decision. Um, hold on one second. Sorry, I'm a little Okay, the the as I look at this application its entirety, this is a somewhat aggressive level of additional development on a lot that is 40% substandard

069to be resident zone minimums um in such a dense neighborhood. The applicant's agent made a statement that they were trying to keep within the character and minimize the expansion of the footprint. However, the addition to the in increases in building coverage and co to total coverage which I've already noted um there's also a very material expansion of house size. the application had been deemed complete as of May 21, 2025, which allows them to remain grandfathered um by the prior um co uh um max GFA code. Um that grandfathering ended on July 1 and the GFA as proposed will be expanded by 87% to that 2800 square ft maximum. Um, and you know, we often in this neighborhood, um, don't always see houses that max out because of the natural resources conditions on the property. The

070house is also going, I think, from three bedrooms to 5,000 square ft. And as you know, there's a 300T garage and also a pool. Um, so I I I I struggled a bit with the application. I looked at it um and uh you know the the balancing feature of the application which moves me closer which moves it closer to meeting the standards of the NRSP is the suggested 32% reduction in clearing post the reveation. Um, however, the again we don't really have a it's hard for me to really get a handle on how that will preserve the duneland character. Um, and so I guess with that 32% reduction and reveation, um, I can get to a balance of seeing this as just meeting the NRSP standards. Um although I did look very closely at um

071um D um preservation of natural resources. Um you know obviously it talks about diminished you know no natural feature should be diminished in size, polluted, degraded or lost. Um, and you know, one thing the applicant did not do particularly well relative to the standards is make the case that their their needs and desires couldn't have been met with some alternative, you know, smaller designs because that is one of the standards. Um, and uh, but all in I the big gap for me again is whether or not there will be a scenic easement on the back of that property to protect the contours. I understand it's not a large area, but it's that condition um combined with the revge hoping that plan is, you know, really authentic um that would allow me to approve the application.

072Without it, um I would struggle to approve it. So, I'm sorry to be there was um >> there was some tension in in my mind on this application relative to the standards. So, I'm going to leave it at that for now. Thank you, Terry. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I have to say I guess I feel the same tension. I've been torn on this one ever since. And um I I come down to the same thing and I wasn't necessarily all in favor of a scenic easement, although the planning the TAM did say perhaps a scenic easement would be appropriate to further mitigate. Um the the what bothered me in the plans that uh member Mering talked about the undated plans um the the the numbers and then on the proposed house that it's allowable

073for the 2,800 square feet for GFA and they're proposing 2800 square feet which is of the the current at the time the current GFA numbers from the old code prior to the the new implementations. Um, and I'm I have trouble also with the reveation alone [clears throat] being being enough to to generate my mind one an exact maxing out where 2551D says, you know, prevention pre preservation of natural resources and perhaps alternative reasonable uses or designs entailing a smaller building or structure. Um I do think uh I could approve this also if there scenic easement were to the possible along the south side. Um other than that um that I can't get past this 2800 GFA and I think it doesn't meet the the standards >> the so you're denying it. >> Are you sure

074if they don't get the you know the seed was recommended >> easement? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's what it sounds like. >> Okay, John. >> The newly proposed house meets all area standards. However, as the project is within jurisdiction of duneland uh and requires clearing dune grass, an NRSP is required. Cited in the TAM are restampton town code 255-412 which defines a dune as a natural resource and 255-4-15G which describes the crit the critical role beach vegetation plays in the preservation of duneland. During the hearing, Tyler, also known as Mr. Borsack, was asked if retaining and reusing sand was listed in the TAM's recommended project conditions. It was not, but I think it should be. Um, a question to the board. Um, regarding the proposed outdoor shower, would it benefit from a dry well? >> Yes.

075>> Yeah. >> I forgot to mention that in my comments. Um, [clears throat] and I uh do agree with my fellow board members that a scenic easement uh would uh would ease my path towards approving this application. >> Um, otherwise I I believe this is a a fairly well-designed application that although the house does max out GFA, the project will reduce clearing by 2,820 ft. In other words, 32%. >> [snorts] >> and I vote to approve it with these conditions that the reveation plan which only appears in the building plan be added to the survey prior to the issuing issuing of a a building permit. >> Um that this the sand be retained and reused uh and that there be a scenic easement on the south uh southside the rear of the property. So, um,

076with those conditions, uh, I would vote to approve the application. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I I really at the I will be repeating everything all over again. Um, I do want to say I think the applicant seems to have taken into account the constraints of the property which limits negative environmental impacts. I do agree. Um the improvements meet pyramid height dimensional clearing on the property will decrease once the reveation is complete which I believe was about 2,800. Lock coverage will increase from 1829 to 2325 where 24 is the max. Total lot coverage does not exceed 6,000 square ft which is the maximum where 4166 is proposed. I agree with everyone about the scenic easement. A planning department d uh recommended a scenic easement along the south side to protect topography. Even though it

077would be so small in size, the value would be hard to quantify. That's what's being said. But and the applicant's agent of course did not agree with it. But then again, the best form of protecting the dunes is to prevent disturbance at all. So I will go along with the rest of the board in terms of how they feel about the scenic easement. I do believe the project if those conditions are implemented. I do believe the project is in keeping with grant of an NRSP. Nothing in the TAM really equals detriment to the natural features. And I think enough mitigation, if the conditions of approval go through with the reef edge and the scenic easement, enough mitigation has been offered to protect the duneland characteristics of the property. So with those two things being implemented,

078I would approve the application as well. >> Thank you. I too agree. Now I I I take my balancing point uh test to this statement in the TAM with the proposed reveation as shown on the included building plans. The overall clearing of the on the property will be reduced and some of the lost dune vegetation on the parcel will be reestablished helping to improve the environmental conditions and mitigate any disturbance necessary for construction. So um I I think this is is a well thought out I know it's getting to be a larger house but it is a well thoughtout plan. I do agree um on also the uh the scenic easement being applied to the property as requested in Sam Tam. Um Mr. Chair, one thing I I failed to mention. I said I would

079come back to it is there's the the shower in the rear there in the middle of that sandy area. I I had wanted to say I don't think that is an optimal place for a shower would also now interfere um likely with that. So, one of my conditions, if I can make it, was to >> noted it could I'm sorry. >> If that shower >> Wasn't it noted though? You've got the jam up. Wasn't it noted it could be in a more conforming location? >> So, I meant to say that I I do think that that shower and what's next to it on the the pool equipment um can be more consolidated with the house and should be in a in a uh tighter, you know, to the house. Maybe it's on the decking or

080something, but just having a shower out by those contours and pool equipment back there, I that's not something >> I don't but I don't know how we can leave that up in the air. So, I think that um I think that unless the we address that the night of the hearing and had the agent say, "This is where I'm willing to put it." >> I think we either have to deny the shower or or approve the shower in its present location. Am I right? >> Had to think about that. as a separate >> I guess you could deny it and then they could come with I mean or you could >> Yeah. I mean I guess you could deny it there and they could come back for a modification to have it relocated somewhere else

081>> after the fact. >> Okay. >> I don't know where because it's you can't tell them where to put it because you don't know where the plumbing is, you know? It's not like it's not going to work. I'm not gonna I mean >> I'll I'll vote to approve it where it is. And do we pull the board on that? >> I would I would just I would deny it. >> I'd approve it with a dry well. Denise, >> I'd approve it with a drywall. >> Yeah, I'll go with the drywall. >> Thank you. So, last question. We need to know where that scenic easement is >> going. Surve. >> So, what were we thinking here? 10 10 well 10 foot because right now the pool equipment is 20 foot off the >> Yeah, it has

082to comply with setbacks. >> It should come to this contour line here. >> 12 cuts into there. 14 13 well on the side. I mean, if I remember correctly, like the contours really start to kick up on that. What is it? the souththeast corner of the property. >> Yeah. As long as we're not creating an aformity. >> I know, right? >> Go right along the clearing edge here. Should go to here. And >> by the way, [clears throat] the other thing is it on the survey and I missed it because it talks about pool fencing. It's noticed. I don't remember knowing where the pool fencing is. >> I think this is fencing in here. It's hard to see because it's written over and that's I don't know what that >> right. Will Tyler Can Tyler

083draw it on for us to see >> like going along that clearing edge on the eastern side? >> I don't know. >> You want an e the easement? I mean in theory you can put it closer to the pool equipment in outdoor shower supposedly 10 ft away. >> Yeah. But I mean in the past the board has done it. Yeah. >> Um that type of thing. >> Mhm. So what about to that 12oot contour line? Is it 12 foot? >> This is 12. Yeah. But it goes >> the pool. Yeah. Around the pool. >> Mhm. Well, if you would be like that and come up and out. >> Okay, you go. >> Just come up a little around the corner because that's where that dune land sweeps up. There was a picture of it in

084the field report. >> Really steep right here at the very south side. >> That's the steepest place. That's where it's most dramatic. >> Right. Okay. That one and not more up this side. >> I would put it five feet away probably from here. It sounds right. >> Looks pretty good. That looks good. >> Okay. I'm okay with that. >> Everybody. >> Yeah. I just I don't know how that's like an impossible thing for me to words. Um I don't have meets and bounds and bearings on all this because this is not a straight line. >> Well, it doesn't have to be. Why does it have to be? >> Because I need to be able to describe it. And this is just this isn't recorded anywhere, you know. This is not like >> Well, this is

085going to be in the record, right? >> Yeah. >> No, that's not. >> No, it's not. Why not? >> Well, can't we say according to the sketch? According to the sketch, >> I I'll just take a picture of it. Okay. >> Figure it out. >> Thank you. >> Do we need any language about Are we okay? >> Yeah, Tyler. Yeah, we just save that picture somehow. >> Sure. What what those things >> perhaps in the in how do we deal with this in the future where we where we have a TAM recommending an easement there should almost be something dealt with on that night >> like a sketch or you mean Mr. chair. >> The agent was reluctant to >> Yeah, but that's fine whether he's reluctant or not. But I think we should have

086a basis for for approving something. >> Well, I I think the TAM did say, you know, to protect the steepest contours, and I think that's what this does. >> Okay. Um, >> madam vice chair, could you pass me a lozenge? >> Sure. Thank you. I need a drink. >> Okay, move on to Nina Rachel Leerman and Rowena Lagambe or Guuel Trust. >> Very good. >> 39 Old Fires Place Road Springs number 300-24-7-45. Site and location is 11,698 square feet at 3905place [clears throat] Road Springs. The description is to demolish a portion of the existing residence. um 210 ft of decking and remove a concrete pond to reconstruct the existing deck, make alterations to the existing residence, and to construct a 94 ft addition. Additional decking, porch, patio, steps, new roof, a 334 ft detached garage,

087walkways, driveway, outdoor shower, upgraded sanitary system, associated structures, and within jurisdiction and setback of title wetlands and bluffs. a relief sword is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and eight variances are required for this application. Variances of 73 3T, 34.6 ft, 25 ft, 13.3 ft, and 10 ft are required from 25430 of the town code to construct a proposed decking and deck alterations 26.7 ft. Additions to the residence 65.4 4 ft, patio 75 ft, garage 86.7 ft, and outdoor shower 90 ft from tie wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required. Variances of 48.3 ft and 9.6 ft are required from 255440 of the town code to construct the proposed decking and deck alterations 267 ft with additions to the resident 65.4 ft from the bluff grass where

08875 ft is setbacks are required. One variance of 7.5 ft is required from 2 to 5172D of the town code is required to construct the addition a new roof line 7.5 ft outside of the town's pyramid regulation along the northern side yard line and any other relief necessary. The zoning [snorts] district is a residence AE flood zone elevation 8 and a seeker classes type two and this was in the vice chair's. >> Thank you. This public hearing was held on December 2nd. George Walbridge survey data revised July 16th, 2024 is in the record. House plans are prepared by Anne Sherry, architect dated 8222 and garage plans are dated 3824. TF Engineering letter is dated 12225 from David Rhodess and he addressed um concerns we had about the septic system. The applicant acquired this property in

089March of 2021. Alice Kulie uh attorney uh for the applicant from Matthews Kurs Kulie and Churon. There is a memorandum of law prepared by her in the record dated 112125. Shannon McAffrey was there. I believe she's Jewish planning. Tyler Borsac appeared on behalf of the planning department and a neighbor Aaron Seagull appeared and his main concern was the scale of the project. Uh there were no callers and the public hearing and record were closed. This property fronts on Gardener's Bay and is within the title wetland jurisdiction of Akabanic Harbor. This in itself is a unique location. We are actually dealing with two water bodies. In response to the TAM, the applicant reduced the proposed GFA by 173 square ft, reduced the proposed lot coverage by 218 square ft, removed all of the proposed decking on

090the water side, increased the proposed septic setback to the wetlands to 101.6 6 ft. Increase the proposed reveation by an additional 687 square ft and remove the covered deck roof above the deck. The applicant proposes to remove 140 square ft of first floor area on the southwest side of the house. Remove the existing roof and 182 square ft second floor. Reconstruction of the roof line to be more conforming with the pyramid law with a reduction of over 10 ft of nonconformity. Reconstruct the existing deck. Remove square ft of existing decking. construct a 529 foot addition to the house, removing the existing 47 square foot detached garage and constructing a 334 square ft garage in its place, removing the existing over 50-year-old cesspool and install a new IIA system. They're also removing the existing non-conforming outdoor

091shower and constructing an outdoor shower with drywalls in a conforming location. Okay, this took a lot of review and analysis on my part and initially when you look at this application to think about when denying an application as a board, we have to determine the factual basis demonstrating how and why the applicant's proposed project would adversely affect surrounding land and water. Before us is a minor increase in the size of an existing residence and construction of a slightly smaller detached garage. They're also proposing 6,046 square ft of reveation. The pre-existing non-conforming clearing of 11,698 square ft will be reduced to a conforming 5,652 square feet. So they are reveating over 50% of this property. This property is 100% clear. So this is a plus as well as the IIA system which will be an environmental

092protection as well. In my view this does not constitute an aggressive level of development. The proposal consists of a 529 square foot addition, a compliant septic system and a significant reveation plan. Now, the elephant in the room for me is the septic system location. The applicant's engineer has determined that the septic system is in the best location on this lot. The septic system after receiving uh the TAM was reconfigured and was then cited to maximize practical separation from Gardner's Bay and Aabonic Harbor. This location, in my view, minimizes potential impacts to coastal waters and advances the protection of water quality to the extent feasible given the constraints of the existing residents, the lot layout and the intervening paved roadway. We can't forget that we are dealing with two bodies of water, not one. I do

093feel this is a very unique situation, not one we see often. Terms of the pyramid, originally the applicants were asking for a 9.5 foot pyramid variance which has been reduced to 7.5 ft as part of the elimination of the roof porch in place of a flat pergola. So the existing pyramid nonconformity is over 17 ft and the reconfig configuration proposed will reduce that nonconformity by reducing the gable better conformity then than what is there that what is currently there. I think that the proposed expansion is in keeping with the surroundings and the character of the neighborhood and I feel it will not change the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. I think the grant of this variance will not cause an adverse effect on or impact on the physical and

094environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The applicants are in agreement with the planning department's recommended project conditions if this gets approved. In terms of the natural resource special permit standards, I feel natural resources will not be diminished in size, polluted or degraded or placed in peril. Alternative reasonable uses of the property have been looked at and in my view these improvements will not affect loss or potential damage to any designated natural features. After very careful review and analysis, I will be approving this application in its entirety. >> Thank you, John. Almost every aspect of this project requiring a variance is an improvement over pre-existing nonconformities. To me, the most important aspects of this application are the reveation of 6,046 square ft of a currently 100% cleared property with native grasses representing a 50% 52% improvement in

095upgrading the septic system to IIA. Uh Tyler in the TAM emphasizes just how sensitive the environment is in this area and especially the northern end of Aabonic Harbor which receives the least amount of tidal flushing and to which the proposed IA septic system is to be 101.6 6 feet from the harbor where a minimum of 150 ft is required by the harbor protection overlay district by this harbor protection overlay district 255-3-75 of town code says regarding an upgraded septic system in quotes it shall be set back a minimum of 150 ft from the upland boundary of all tidal wetlands including tidal service waters or if that is not feasible ible. It shall be set back the maximum practical practicable distance from the surface waters of and it specifically mentions Aabonic Creek. I do not believe

096there is a practicable further location for the septic system that would not require relocating or eliminating some of the proposed additions and even then it wouldn't be feasible to achieve 150 ft distance and would push the the IIA system closer to gardener's bay. I think the pain to the applicant to relocate or eliminate uh the addition outweighs the gain to the town. I revisited the site today to try to get an idea of how the proposed structures would fit within their built environment and the landscape and I believe they would conform to both. I see this application as a net gain for the town neighborhood and environment and we'll be voting to approve it. Um I'm not going to go down through the standards. So thank you >> Terry. >> Okay. I agree with my

097four board members. I went through the same um torture on January [laughter] 1st and I hadn't seen the property before the hearing. I did go out a couple of days after that and that's when I really felt this the constraints of it. I found myself walking on it thinking I was on the applicant's property and also all sudden I realized wait a minute I'm on the other guy's property because it is so narrow it is striking the 45 foot width. Um not going to reiterate all the things that changed in um the document from the agent dated November 21st, 2025. Uh vice chair Savaris did that. Um but that did sell me on the whole project. Um the the the reduction in the the nonconformity of the pyramid was also striking. >> [snorts] >> I

098do think the septic I agree with TF Engineering that it's in the best possible location it could be and [snorts] I don't see where there are many alternatives for this. Um I'm going to approve this with the modifications that they put in since June, you know, to the November document. I'm going to approve this in its entirety also. >> Thank you, G. >> Thank you. Um I agree with my fellow board members. Um, you know, when I obviously come to a project like this, you know, you really see this is a type of lot where relief, need for [snorts and laughter] relief really can just jump out at you. You've got in jurisdiction of two water bodies. It's an exceptionally narrow um lot. Um there's an existing sorry an existing pre-existing non-conforming house that they're

099trying to work with um and get the additions you know uh with that long hallway you know to get them out of nonconforming so all in you know that's balancing a lot of different um challenging levers and I did find that their thought around the whole application showed that they were trying to develop something that adds like I guess an extra bedroom. I think the total gain of square footage GFA is 422 square ft. This leaves the house somewhere around 1,700, right? 35 whatever number of square feet, which is still um generally a modest size house. But I think that they showed that process of doing as much as they can before they came to us for relief for the rest of us. And I think that's an important process. And you know that's something

100that the standards require us to make sure that they're um that they're doing. Um I did take seriously I mean we had the planner you know very significantly saying the addition could [clears throat] be made more compact or could be made smaller and that you could get the septic in a somewhat better setback. um you know on the to the water body to the west. That was number one. And then number two, we did have a direct neighbor who was very logical and you know did talk about the impact on the sightelines of the property. So I didn't just dismiss either of those. But two things you know that lead me to take that into account but approve the application. Number one, it really couldn't be established how much more benefit further away from that

101wetland that IIA could go. I do agree this appears to be the um maximum practicable practical diff um uh uh position relative to that those wetlands and I can't ignore that it is separated by a paved road from the wetlands and again though the um applicant is the next door neighbor um you know I took very seriously this still you know the improvement of the pyramid um is important and of course the reveation. This is what was 100% cleared property that now comes into conformance and it comes into H pod conformance. Is there an is this an H pod? >> It's yes it is. >> So it comes it comes into H pod conformance as well. Right. So um all in that balancing of all these things um I do believe that the benefits to

102the applicant outweigh any uh negative impacts to the wetlands um the the neighborhood character um or even the neighbors um themselves. And so I believe it meets the standards for the NRSP and the variances that those have already gone through those standards. We'll go through it again. So I'm approving the application in its entirety. >> Thank you. Um I agree. This is one of those properties that checks all the environmental boxes. It seems to be it's on a peninsula. It's got H pot. It's a harbor scenic area statewide significance on and on. Um, and it checks all the boxes for environmental. And I think this project does a good job um dealing with with each one of those components. Um, uh, and and I was enjoyed kind of seeing that because we looked at, if

103you board members, if you call that, we had one on Drive where we denied it because it we didn't feel it met the scenic area statewide significance. But this takes all that into consideration, I feel, and it's it does a pretty good job with that. So, um, I think it's a well thoughtout project. >> I agree. >> We're both to agree with it. >> Good. Council, >> Mr. Chairman, if I may, this is my last appearance as a ZBA member, and [laughter] I wanted to express my sincere gratitude to the town board for the opportunity to serve alongside such thoughtful, dedicated public servants as yourselves. And I'm especially thank thankful [clears throat] to my colleagues on the zoning board of appeals for the warm welcome you showed me um the patience uh you granted me

104and the generous guidance you provided as I learned to carry out this important work. Um I also want to thank the super talented professionals at the planning department with whom I've had the privilege of working alongside. And thank you Samantha, you're out there somewhere. [laughter] Charlie and Matt of LTV for always showing my good side. So, thank you. It's been an honor. >> Thank you, John. You too. Thank you for >> for joining us and in and your uh Mr. Thorson. [laughter] >> We appreciate you being here and we wish you best. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. [clears throat] >> Yay. Take this. This is the last appro last decision of the year coming up. >> You never know, John. >> Does that mean he can leave? >> All right. Next, we

105have Charlie O. FP LLC at 59 San Castle Lane, Amaganza subassmath number 300-152-2-28.10. 10. Size and location is 35,482 ft at 59 San Castle Lane Navig. Description is to demolish the existing approximately 2,382 ft residence and construct a new 3,910 ft two-story residence with a 600 ft garage. 637T swimming pool. 200 foot pool house. Pool equipment. Fencing. 1,830 first floor deck and porch. 1528 ft of second story deck and porch. 74 square ft of spa outdoor shower. A new sanitary system and to temporarily clear 6,64 ft of beach vegetation within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands and duneland and beach vegetation. The relief thought is the natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town eastampton town code and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a residence AE flood zone elevation 10 and the

106secret classes type two member Mary. >> Thank you. It's my pleasure to kick off the last postering decision of the year I think. So I will dive in here. Um the public hearing uh we heard just last week at our December 9th, 2025 meeting though there were several there were several elements we discussed during the hearing that needed need to be clarified and made well made clear such as um the construction protocol, the protection of excavated sands soils on the site, the final reduced number of temporary clearing, the um expansion of the scenic easement on the survey. Um, so those things all need clarification, but the board decided to close the hearing and the record, but condition any approvals on receipt and review of approval of those elements that I just named. Um, we were

107working off uh the most recent survey dated May 20th, 2025 from Wallbridge and a TAM prepared by Tyler Borsack, Mr. Borsack, if you please, dated November 12th, 2025. The agent uh the agent representing the applicant was Andy Hammer of Beyondo and Hammer. Also replicating sorry representing the applicant was Britain Bistran and as well present and we heard from briefly was Shaun Webb the architect from form arch design. No members of the public offered verbal comments or submitted written comments into the record. The 35,482 ft lot is only modestly 11% undersized to the A resident zone minimum in this subdivision. As discussed during the hearing and documented in my field report photos, though this subdivision begins only really one block east of the extensive area known as Beach Hampton that was subdivided in the 30s through

108the 60s um where we see hundreds of you know sub 10,000 square foot lots. By the time this subdivision um along Sand Castle and the three roads eastward was created, there was much more of a priority on cluster um I think it's called cluster subdivisions, open space protected areas, and much more focusing on going forward preserving the pristine natural resources of the area. Um, however, interestingly, the subdivision still predated the formal NRSP and other environmental codes that came into existence in 1984. Um, per the property history card, um, this house was built, I think, in 1981 with the 1982 CO, again pre-existing of those codes. As the [snorts] chair remarked during the hearing, quote, "This is one of the most pristine areas in town." And I agree with that perception. The TAM and the planner,

109Tyler Borset, notes, especially um uh especially the discussion, I'll just reference the whole narrative about the dune and dune lands on page two of the TAM into this um decision. It's obviously in the record. Um the you know it's very clear the nature and importance and quality and increasing rarity of the terrain and the flora and fauna on this property. Um it's noted that this area contains maritime dunland heathland habitat all noted as protective in the New York State Heritage Program. Um and one of the least common remaining types of this natural resource landscape in the state and the region. So there's virtually not one inch on this property away from the h the existing house and the driveway that isn't characterized by nearly near undisturbed and rare I'll use the word again pristine duneland.

110The application was deemed complete via a letter in the file on August 14th, 2025. So that was after the July 1 grandfathering period. So they are conforming to the revised GFA maximum allowance adopted earlier this year by the town. According to the set of architectural plans in the applica in the public hearing file, the current max GFA on a parcel this size would be 3,911 square ft. And they are coming in for the new house right at that with 1 foot to spare at 3,910. In addition, they're constructing a 600 foot attached garage, as well as a total of 3,358 square feet of first and second floor decking, which has on it a 637 ft swimming pool. So, under the proposed plan, that's a 64% increase in GFA. Building coverage expands by 85%. However, total

111coverage reduces just slightly by 2.4% 4% or 220 square feet. We spoke a lot about clearing during the hearing, especially given that the final clearing will increase by less than 1,000 square ft after the reveation, but the temporary clearing during the construction um especially during the demolition of the existing structures on the property and their removal. um that that temporary clearing is proposed to be 6585 square feet, an amount that the TAM and the planner characterized as um uh beyond perhaps what is necessary sort of I don't can't remember if he used didn't use the word excessive but [snorts] um they they took pause the the planning department took pause on that. The applicants agents noted that large amount again of the clearing is related to the sanitary um sorry um this there's a new

112sanitary system going in and that sanitary will be further significantly further from the wetlands than the current existing sanitary. um that sanitary will be basically decommissioned but will be left in place. It won't be removed. So that's that mitigates some of the potential clearing. Um in addition, we had robust discussion about how the excavated sands and duneland soils will be retained and protected on the site. especially important to be used in the reveation because of their existing seed banks um related to dune um lychans and other cover that needs to regenerate naturally but is hard to or almost impossible to actively reveate. Um, in addition, there was also agreement in the hearing that the scenic easement was to be expanded, not just by what the applicant first proposed, but by an additional amount per the

113recommendation of the planning department. And so from an environmental perspective, the most sensitive areas of topography and vegetation um will remain protected. Um, so there is mitigation here. the slopes are protected and the expanded scenic easement. Um I think we did hear during the public hearing that they'll add another so it's between 4 and 5,000 to the existing scenic easement. So that gets a scenic re e easement I think just up to about 15,000 square ft on this property. And again, it's was 5 5,681 square ft of proposed reveation, but it actually sounded like um that might need to be updated based on our conversations during the hearing. The applicant also did note that there was probably another that there was about a thousand square feet less of the interim clearing um that they could

114realize um versus what was in the what was in the TAM and on the survey. So that's a mild positive as well. So all in this is material expansion of structures on the site as an A residence zone. We do generally see larger houses with more open space do land around them than the smaller um structures we see in Beach Hampton. Um again, however, I didn't take the 65% GFA expansion and the 85% increase in building coverage. Um uh right uh um you know uh I I I considered that closely relative to the standard. It is prudent to be wary again about impact on character um or if we're setting a precedent for yet another way wave of expansion. Also, the TAM makes clear it's better not to excavate um if possible rather than excavate

115and then redo. all in. Um given all the increased scenic easement, the somewhat better interim reveg, the ultimate reveation, um uh I find that this application Oh, and and the uh upgraded septic, which is requirement, but it is being moved further from the wetlands. all in. I do see this application as making it over the hurdle um to approve the NRSP um on um again we need a lot of these things cleaned up in in another survey. Um you know they they didn't really address were there alternative designs entailing smaller buildings or other designs. They didn't address that. It could have I mean this type of project the chair also wanted to be I think very prescriptive around where that um uh that there's no clearing creep and that the fencing project liming fencing is

116there um solid um but uh you know there could have you could make a case when you first look at this application it will put in jeopardy those some of those or degrade some of those pristine dunlands but I came away from the whole presentation and discussion feeling that it met the hurdles for the NRSP and I'm approving the application. >> Thank you, Terry. >> I don't know what else to say. >> I struggled on this one too. Um it it is I do think it is a good application. It was well presented and all the additional, you know, the additional revitation, the additional scenic easements and the concern about the clearing, minimizing the clearing um was all all good. Um, I was concerned that they are maxing out the GFA on the house and

117that balanced against the but the other improvements that they were doing and committed to. Um, I too feel that it it meets the NRSP standards. Um, I I'm very concerned we didn't ask for a construction protocol about saving the soils. Um, so I'm still concerned about that and would really like to see how that's going to go. Um, uh, you to minimize the disturbance on all those, uh, all those species of plants that were mentioned in the TAM and, uh, on the, uh, protected pine baron, sand wart, and all that. Um, the what do you call the endangered species of of plant life. And um I guess I'm still concerned about that, but I think overall it was presented well. Um and I guess we'd like to see a more extensive construction protocol um conditioned

118I guess on it. I would really like to see it ahead of time, but I think we already said we uh may do it as a condition of the approval. I mean, I was like slightly uncomfortable appro I mean the survey really needs a lot of things added to it but you know I would love us to be approving this the final surveys when we're making decisions but we can do conditions right I don't know >> these protocols you know it's the execution that yeah we talk about all the time >> so the the condition number six it does talk about doomland soils being retained on site and I think that's the biggest concern we had for the construction protocol. >> Didn't they agree to where they it was a location that >> they mentioned

119there was talk about them use uh staging the sequencing the the septics using the septic area for that and then and back filling and then >> I thought they agreed to keep the soils on. I thought well they they did I guess it was just too much. I think we wanted to make sure those soils were available for the revge and for seeding, you know, the regeneration of what duelants are cleared as opposed to just filling in a basement. >> I thought so. >> Yeah, I'm going to agree with my board members. I think it's a well presented uh application. There were a number of things. I just want to go through the items that jumped out at me. One, first is there are no variances required, just the NRSP. So, when we start a

120large project, uh very often it's difficult to get to that point. So they start with a at least a positive in that area. I think also and it was pointed out in the TAM the project proposes a relatively similar amount of development. They're trading a smaller house with a large deck for a large house with a smaller deck. I agree with the concerns my fellow board members about maxing out the GFA. I think it's the part that squeezes the balloon here and makes us wonder, you know, what else could have been as an alternative. However, when we look at uh the whole project as we look at it as a whole, there are the things to consider. Um there was the concern about the temporary clearing. Could it be less? And it was pointed out

121that a significant part of that temporary clearing has to do with the septic system which is large. It's a tank and 12 12 rings and those rings take up space. It's um it's something that uh added to that number which was of course bothered us. Andy Hammer who represented them made a couple of comments trying to explain their position said that they had made every effort to see that the new house fit within the existing footprint and I think that's significant as well larger house but we don't see it expanding out into other areas. We see it largely not exactly largely fitting where the the existing project is now. I think um uh the lot coverage increases but the total coverage decreases. there's some sort of a trade-off. There is 900 square f feet of

122more clearing to consider. Um they agreed to uh the way I see it, they agreed to all the suggested TAM uh mitigation measures that night. They quickly agreed to that. I think that the discussion about staging materials was an active one. I think they quickly came back up and said yes, if we look at the septic areas to be the future disturbed area, we will put the septic in last. that was said by Britain Bistrian and we'll use that area to stage which was of some not some great concern for us because it's been pointed out both that night by the chair and others on the board and then tonight by my previous two board members who have spoken on this. This is a very very important site. It's got beautiful pristine dune. It's a

123we don't see a lot of this. We see disturbed areas with a minimum amount of dune. So very important that we know that they're moving forward with the kind of plan that's not going to be dumping it in places other than the places we've approved already have disturbed and that fits in with the septic. I think that's important there. Um the existing sanitary plan uh system being uh abandoned in place is always important. Less excavation obviously we did mention the excess soils there. the proc the construction protocol which at this point will have to be condition a condition of approval uh is still something has been pointed out by fellow board members. This is of great concern for us and they agreed to the things we discussed that night. I agree with the vice chair

124on that. >> Uh the temporary clearing is significant. Uh the scenic easement however that was agreed to uh as I think that the planner Mr. Borsac at the night said that it was significant. He used a figure of in excess of 14,000 ft which is about 40% of the lot. Uh this is a lot that requires a scenic easement to protect it very carefully and I think there was an effort on their part to come forward right away with that. Um, also there was a brief discussion, it was mentioned by the chair that uh when they see an adjustment to the uh cleared area so that we see that the protective fencing running down the driveway. We don't see that when you mentioned the term construction creep. We know that people will occasionally park a

125truck and put material where it doesn't belong. Uh that night of the hearing, I was reminded of a cranberry hole approval we had that shocked us after they were specifically told not to store on a portion of the dune land and had. So, it's always on our mind to keep that first and foremost. And on this one, it's a particularly critical site and I think it's important for us to uh consider that. Um yeah. Uh yeah, I think that's that really basically covers it. I think that um it was presented in a way in which I felt that the concerns that they knew we would have had been thought out. I think the hard point here is to do a project of this size on a sensitive site calls for uh strict controls and protocols

126already mentioned and I think I'm in I'm in unison with that. However, saying all of that, a well wellthoughtout project a little bit large in scope for us. Uh but I think it does rise to the standards to allow for me to approve this application and to think that it rise to the standards of the NRSP. So I'm improving this application along with my fellow board members. >> Thank you. Vice Chair, >> I agree with everyone. A scenic easement is proposed to protect most of the significant dune land topography. They're keeping construction away from the most significant topography on the parcel and minimizing additional temporary clearing. They have agreed to keep the soils on site in a sediment controlled environment and a staging area. The redevelopment is maintaining the structures to be within the footprint

127of the existing house decking, pool, and driveway. And they are leaving the existing septic system in place rather than removing it, which will result to less disturbance. The planning department has recommended the easement to include the topography to the north of the proposed residence and to the northeast of the existing driveway and I'm in agreement with that. They also reveitating approximately 5681 square ft of clearing for construction and they are well within what is allowed for GFA lot coverage total lot coverage and clearing. So the question becomes, has there been enough mitigation offered to minimize potential impacts and has the project been designed to minimize disturbance and protect the surrounding duneland and vegetation? The importance of this really cannot be understated. I feel in this case the project before us meets the safeguards outlined in

128our town code and I will be approving this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. Um, I don't have anything to add as far as the coverage of the details on the application. I do want to make a statement that I agree this is one of the most beautiful spots in this in this town and is the genesis for our natural resources special permit uh processes. So, um I'm glad to see um a well thought out even though it is it is a large project but um retention of the soils is key here. [clears throat] >> Right. Good council. >> Yep. >> Do we need a sketch? Do we have a sketch of this? That's it right there. Right. >> Okay. >> It should be attached to the technical analysis. >> Was that >> Yeah,

129that was done in advance. >> Right. But they agreed to add a little more to it during the hearing to what you proposed. So that's what's on that sketch. Yes. >> I don't think they added >> I thought he said he was adding they would add like another thousand square feet to the scenic ement based on what you recommended. I thought that >> easement changed. I think the clearing would be reduced because of the not needing to um do the sanitary system. I think that might have been what was ch the change. Yeah. But the easement never changed from what I remember. >> Right. >> Okay. I don't know. I don't know what else they would I don't know what else it would change. >> All right. Move on to other decisions. We have proto

130at 835 Malk Highway in Montalk Suff-52-1-10.3. It's a modification of a 2016 determination. Um [clears throat] I remember this one. >> Me too. Mhm. >> We took time, >> Tyler. >> Blow that up and not blow I mean make it bigger on screen. >> This one. She was going to be here tonight to to do it, but she uh she's out unfortunately. Um >> they had >> she did [clears throat] it. >> They had a approval in 2016. Um that was for the redevelopment of the parcel. >> Um there was a bunch of structures that were constructed uh during that process that were not approved. um that included a masonary staircase, a rock wall, and a gravel area. Um in 2020, there was an application to the ZBA which sought to legalize the staircase, the

131rock wall, and con and to construct fencing. This application was denied. Um the reasons are listed in the the memo that Morgan wrote. Um the application um then another application was submitted in 22. uh that was to allow the same staircase, rock wall, and gravel to remain with an additional 1,340 ft of reveation. That application was also denied. [snorts] Um so those three determinations are were included in the memo that was sent to you. Uh the subject modification currently in front of the board proposes to keep the stone wall and mason masonry staircase but is proposing to remove the gravel area and replace it with lawn and then to revisitate 638 square ft along the stone wall. Uh a fence is also included in the proposal for safety along the stone uh steep slopes. Uh

132the staircase is set back 53 feet from wetlands with the rock wall and gravel area set back 50 feet from wetlands. Uh because the denial in 2022 uh had a proposed reveation of 1,430 ft uh which is 2 792 ft more than is currently proposed. Uh increasing the vegetation in this application is something we would suggest uh to sort of to match what they were proposing previously. Um since these restructures since these structures require a variance uh which exceeds those approved in the 2020 to 2016 approval uh a public hearing uh with notice may be warranted if the board does not it does not deny the modification outright. Um if not a new application entirely um however you feel is appropriate. Um but th those are our thoughts on it that the the revet should

133be increased and possibly a public hearing be warranted not only because of the increases and variances but because there was also public um public comment at the time of the last applications. >> So board members, you know, I definitely remember member uh Burger definitely remembers this. I don't know if Ed Ed were you on there too. Um, and because of the um the the the few times that they came back to us in the denials, I would recommend that we do a modification with a hearing. >> Um, I don't know if I think that's it. >> I feel strongly about I don't know. I mean, everything Tyler said that's I mean this >> Well, it needs to go to hearing. Yeah, I don't even know if it warrants a hearing because >> I mean I

134would like to see the specifics of you know where this rev is head. >> Right. And I think the hearing is the public hearing is the format for doing that. >> Wouldn't the public hearing do that? Well, I I wanted to read the memo again because I I tried to print it my printer >> and typically the polic typically the policy with with modification if there is variances required or thing you have neighbors that need to uh be noticed and stuff like that. So I think that in my feeling that's the right way to go. >> I agree. The only thing I will bring to this board other than that is there is an opening. The the agent is required. There is an opening on January 6 to have this um modification with a hearing.

135There's a personal matter. Rick Whan is the agent is the attorney for this applicant. He has a very personal >> matter that's coming up after after that that might be prolonged. um and he is requesting that maybe we get try to get him on the January 6 agenda. So I would like to make that recommendation to the board. >> Okay. I I quickly scanned the the memo and everything and I don't know for me it doesn't jump out that it's really going to solve anything. We know the neighbor that was getting or garden was getting inundated. you know, the corner house next to Proto and none of this that I read sounds like it would really help that condition. >> And you'll still have that opportunity. >> I I have a question though because so

136if I heard the summary correctly, there were three elements, right? There was a stone wall, a gravel area, and what was the third one? steps right now. I guess you said in 2020 those were denied >> all of it. >> And then now but now they're coming back to basically overturn what a what a board decided not that long ago. >> So I just want to say we cannot I don't think we should try to deliberate or try to hear this now. I think our decision before us is are we because there's there's there's factors that are involved and even the planning department has has recommendations and whatn not on there. So I would rather table any kind of discussion we have on this make the decision whether or not we're going to modification with

137a hearing. >> The only reason I raised it is just that pro and con of going to a public hearing versus perhaps not approving it. But I I'm open to a public hearing. I don't if we're not denying this. I'm not saying we should, but like then I can think of no other way to proceed but a public hearing. >> Wait, we're hearing this and you want to suggest January 6th? Yes. >> I mean, that's awfully quick. And what do we have to even look at now other than a memo? >> Nothing. >> Well, they're going to come in and make a presentation, I guess. >> Yeah, you would get a packet probably. >> Do we have an agenda for this sixth already? How many things are on? Um, apparently apparently they looked into it

138and and Samantha has determined that there is an opening on the sixth. >> Yeah, she Yeah, they that's what they said to me too. I don't have there's no agenda drafted yet for >> the sixth >> fully. >> And the reason I'm just saying that is because of the the personal circumstance here. >> Right. Right. Yes. Personal >> Lori was Lori was >> Yeah, but I thought it was a current document with her name on it as the agent. >> So I think it was I think it was with the history of >> Well, that's why I wanted to read the home memo. >> Yeah. >> And I think if you have a public hearing, you'll get a packet before the public hearing just like every other public hearing. >> I would hope so. >>

139You'll have additional information. So, I'm I'm okay with going ahead to January 6th >> has a public hearing. >> Goes out at the end of this week, >> right? >> How does everybody feel about that? We're good. >> Yeah, I'm fine. If everybody's going to go to the hearing, that's fine. Certainly not going to approve the modification at this time. No, >> no, you can't. >> You can't. >> Um, okay. >> Okay. >> So, we do we don't need a motion. No, >> no, no. >> I always get confused on these other decisions. What needs a motion? >> Um, next we have Gardener's Island at Gardener's Bay, Eastampton, suffment number 300-203-3-1. And that is a boat boat basin enlargement. New bulkheading and dredging includes filing >> filling 109 square feet of wetlands. Board should declare

140application a type one action and seek lead agency status. I'll let Tyler go over it briefly, but exactly the decision we're going to be making this evening is whether or not we will declare it a type one action. Um and I think uh Tyler will tell us the filling of the wetlands will will put us into that category >> pretty much. >> Um and then to seek lead a agency. So >> um so there is a lengthy narrative as to the entire what the entire project is. It's it's a significant amount of work that they're proposing to do. Uh it involves um a boat basin expansion with new rip wrap, uh rock sill, low sill bulkhead, relocated docks, a new barge and ferry ramp, new retaining walls, dredging, [clears throat and cough] but I can

141show you that complete uh narrative if you'd like to see it. But really the the main purpose is that at a minimum tonight um the application is proposing to fill 109 square feet of title wetlands um as identified by the applicant. Um the filling of wins is a type one action pertunment to SRA uh in the town code. Uh so we're looking for the [clears throat] it to be designated as a type one action and also for the board to seek lead agency um and send out lead agency letters as part of that. [clears throat] >> This is definitely going to public hearing. >> Yes. Oh, absolutely. We haven't done yet process. >> Um the application has not been deemed complete. Um, there is a color photograph on the actual See, this is this is

142the full list of what they're doing. It's lengthy. Um, >> did we receive this memo? >> I didn't see it. >> I think it's just come up, isn't it? >> I haven't seen the >> This is essentially a a a visual of of a significant amount of work that's going to be going on. the [clears throat] the the minimum here is that it needs to be deemed as a type one action so we can start moving forward with the rest of the application and then the board also request lead agency probably just from the DEEC in this case but um whoever else might need to be you know a letter sent to >> yeah there'll be a letter of coordinated review right >> right yeah it will be a coordinator view >> okay >> well

143I think we should follow the recommendation of the planning department >> I agree I agree >> therefore I'll make a motion um on behalf of gardener's island gardener bay East Hampton suffix task map number 300-203-3-1 to declare the application a type one action and for the zoning board to be lead agency >> secondur >> concur >> thank you field trip >> yeah do we get a field trip oh that'll be a fun one yeah >> want to come back >> yeah [laughter] next year >> we might need a chaperone we'll call you Next we have Marina Christina Pedi at 501 Monttok Highway, East Hampton, Suffach, test map number 300-166-4-23. It's a neighbor request to reopen the hearing and this uh council. This is a a situation where we received an email from I don't think

144it's we didn't receive the email from the neighbor. We received the email from a person representing the neighbor. Is that correct? >> Right. Yes. um saying that they did not receive notice. So the question before us is was there was there proper notice to the neighbors. Uh so when I looked at the notices that were sent out and the code the code says that all notices are to be sent to the address that the assessor's office has on file. >> That address is contained in the assessment role at the assessor's office. And when you go check on the assessment role, the address that the mailing was sent to was that address >> was what >> the was the it was the right it was the address that was on record. So that's all that applicant

145can really do. They can't just you know you kind of got to take the word for it. >> Apparently there's another address. It's on the tax receivers files, but that's a different thing. Um, and then we do have it on the record that it was properly posted. >> Uh, yeah. Yep. >> So, what's your recommendation here? I mean, I don't really see a there's not much in there to reopen the public hearing aside from I mean, in terms of notice, like unless you feel like this person you want to give the >> this person their fair shake to talk to you, I it was noticed as far as the code's concerned, it was noticed properly. >> I agree. Board members, what's your feel? >> Also made it just like there was time. >> I think

146it was properly posted. It was promised. >> It was posted and there was a neighbor that came in, not even a direct but >> okay. All right. So, yeah. So, not going to reopen and uh then we'll get to the determination. Um, >> so how do we a letter will get >> leave it as the record's closed. The record Yeah, the record going to be notified. >> I'll let them know. >> All right. So, we have the minutes approval of draft minutes of December 9th, 2025. like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, December 9th, 2025 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Thank you. >> And before we have you want to walk >> Not all these on the agenda. I

147didn't get to A, B, or C yet. >> No, we took Oh, we got A. >> I don't think I did A. >> Thought we did A. >> We have D. >> Maybe I did. I don't know. >> G, and H. We have D, E, G, and H. >> I'm sorry. Say that again. D Brink and >> G E G. >> Yeah, we have 49 G road. >> I mean, because I read those unless I dreamt it. >> All right. Somebody want to make somebody want to make a motion on G Road? >> Yes. Make a Well, you remember this one, [laughter] right? Um, okay. So I make a motion for Jordan Brinken Inzle 49 Gold Road Bond Tax Map 300-010-06-05 to approve the resolution as written. >> Secondur [laughter] concur >> concur. We next

148have Marina Christina Peredi at 501 Montalk Highway East Hampton. That was Oh, that was number it was a gray area. It was the It was the laundromat [laughter] it said. Sorry. >> You want me to do it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, you'll remember this [snorts] was an application to uh legalize uh some uh additions, small additions to the small residence and the small cottage that were made prior to the new owner purchasing the property. Um, and that were not built with a um BP. Um, and there was no updated CO at the time of the hearing. So, we approved the application in full. Um, and I make a motion to in the matter of Maria Christina Peri, 501 Mont Highway, East Hampton, 300-166-4-23, and make a motion to um approve the resolution as written.

149>> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Thank you. What's the other one? We have >> 621. Lazy Point. Lazy Point. >> Okay. So, this was an application um up on a very significant large property um up off of Lazy Point Road to um a do an addition to the landward side um of the residence, fairly modest 600t addition, and some other a garage. and then to put in a tennis court further south south on the property. Um that met all setbacks. Um and uh uh so in the uh matter of 621 oh and it was a this was a um unanimous approval of of the whole application. Um so 621 Lazy Point LLC 621 Lazy Point I think it's Lazy Point Road. amig against it. Suffach County Tax Act 300-106-2-39.3. I make a motion to

150um accept the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. [laughter] >> Do we have a >> We have one more. >> We do have one more. >> Right. 66 highway. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Busy, busy. I'm against it. Night. Woohoo. Um, so 66 Montak Highway. Um, this was to well supposedly legalize an extra 7 square ft on a pool house, although I think we found out in the public hearing was already legalized under CO and to allow a small very small shed to um remain uh needed variances for setback and um and uh pyramid. Um, and this also was a unanimous approval uh by this board. So, in the matter of 66 Mont Highway LLC, 66 Old Mont Highway Amagance, Suffet County Tax Map 300-172-2-27, I make a motion to adopt the

151resolution at or accept the resolution as written. >> Concur. >> And then before you close, uh, I don't think we brought it up. At least you did. I didn't hear about the additional work session. You just want to say something next week. Did you bring that up at the start? I don't remember. >> No, it didn't come up at the start. It's on the It's on the agenda. >> Monday, we're going to have another work session. Just >> It's going to be at 2:00, right? >> 2 p.m. at Yeah. On Monday, December 22nd, right? Correct. >> Here. >> For resolutions only. Correct. >> No work. No. Yeah. It's just going to be adopting resolutions. >> Okay. >> Shouldn't be very long. >> No. >> LTV, right? >> LTVs knows that. Yeah. Everything. It's all going

152to be but we're we're gonna do the same as we always do. But yeah, so we're good. >> Before we adjourn, >> yeah, >> I would like to take a moment to thank Roy Delene for his 38 years of service to this town. He spent many years with the licensing review board and the zoning board of appeals. And as a board Roy, uh, we thank you for your years of service to this town and we wish you and your family happiness and success in your next chapter. Your presence will be missed on this board. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Roy. Thank you for being so supportive of us in this time and your service to this board. >> It goes above and beyond. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Now

153I'll >> like that scene in Blazing Saddles. You're right. [laughter] >> Now I'll adjourn. I would like to make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals on December 16th at 8:51 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur.