East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 12/09/2025

001All right, zoning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. And welcome everybody to the town of Eastampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for December 9th, 2025. [clears throat] We have one cancelled public hearing this evening. Rosemary Caputo at 165 South Fairview Avenue in Montalk SuffK task map number 300-28-6-3 that's been cancelled and then we might have a second one that's canceled based on notice right or no notice um and that is Jeffrey and Kim Wheelen at 170 Marine Boulevard sub task number 300-176-4-12 is it my understanding that that has not been noticed or posted >> I I don't have any affidavit or anything. I don't know if anybody's here. >> Anybody here representing um Jeffrey and Kim Wheeland? >> No, this is you have

002no records. You have no records of posting or or mailing. >> No, no, I don't even think they picked up their according to Samantha. I don't think they picked it up. So, and this is the second time at least that this has happened. >> All right, we're going to move on. Um so the first public hearing this evening um is the applicant is Goldman Trust 51 East Lake Drive in Montalk SuffK tax map number 300-20-2-16. The size and location is 33,287 square feet of 51 East Lake Drive in Monttox. [clears throat] The description is is application is to excavate approximately 2,000 square ft of bamboo and construct a 400 ft carport, 120 ft of shed and large driveway, 309t of deck addition and the construction of a cabana shed driveway gate and a reconstruction of

003a staircase to the beach on a parcel of land containing coastal bluffs, freshwater and title wetlands. The relief s is a natural resources special permit [snorts] pursuant to 255420 variances from 255430 of the town of East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. The following wetland setbacks are required or 100 foot setback is required. An 80 foot variance to construct the carport 20 ft from wetlands. An 83 v foot foot variance to construct the shed 17 from wetlands. A 68.7 foot variance is to construct the deck 30.3 ft from wetlands and a 26.6 foot variance is required to construct the deck 23.4 ft from the bluff crest where a 50ft setback is required. The zoning district is a res a residence zone AE flood zone and elevation 11. The secret class is unlisted. Um,

004are we going to deal with the the the EAF part one today? >> If you guys want to do you can do that now or and then Yeah, I would I would probably do it now. >> Okay. At some point, we're going to have to determine posit or negative. Board members, have you reviewed that? And are you ready to make him >> Yes. >> a decision on >> I'm ready. Part two, three. >> No. Oh, is it part one? >> Part one. The one the applicant submitted. >> Just a part one. >> No, it's the whole thing. >> We have two things. So, it's the whole thing. >> Yeah. Why are we doing it now? >> We're going to do it. I think we can do it now. Are we ready to do >> I'm

005ready. Yeah, I'm ready. >> You make a motion. I would say recommended >> to make a motion. >> Yeah, I was going to make it. >> Go ahead, jerry. Make a motion for Goldman Trust at 51 East Lake Drive, Montro, check 300-02-16 to approve the EAF and make a negative declaration to a secret. >> We have a second. >> I'll second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Um, whose application is this? Mhm. >> You want to I got the Do you want me and I got the postings for this? >> Oh, sorry. Posting. Yeah, we can sidetrack. Okay, >> we got you. Got [laughter] >> Okay, this is a proper posting in front of the property. Has a little driveway down to the house. Next. A closeup

006of the posting. There it is. Okay. Next. Okay. Um I'm walking down the driveway toward the house and there's this cleared area you come to and it's the first area that's noted on the survey to be reveated. [snorts] And then I'm going to continue down the driveway. Next, uh this is a shot of the other side of the driveway where there's still some uh silt fencing and stuff put up from the previous applications that have gone on on this property. Next, um, this this is a an area that was cleared and I believe is on the the proposed reveation for this this next uh, now there's the front of the house and this is an area where they're proposing a carport and a change in the driveway, the parking and a shed. that is proposed

007to be put in next. And this is more in the direction of in the distance there's a utility pole that you can see back there. That's the indication of the property line around the property line of the property to the north and this one. And as you go into that um and then look toward the north and the west, you will see where the the bamboo starts. that's supposed to be removed next. Okay, that's walk toward that and closer to the property line. Again, that's the utility pole. You can see there. Now, I'm going to turn to the the west a little bit where you can see the bamboo is prevalent. Next, there's some of the bamboo. And next, I'm going to save more of that. Uh I'm back at the front of the house.

008And again, just shooting over in the direction of the bamboo that's proposed to be removed. Next, uh this an area of the front of the house and we're walking toward the western portion of the house. Um next and [clears throat] again at the front at the western portion of the house and turning again is more of the prevalent bamboo that's on the project. next [clears throat] and say shot in the direction you see continuing bamboo and west lake Montalk the west eastern side of lake bond next uh this is the staircase that's in disrepair and this is proposed to be replaced in kind next and it's another area just shooting down more toward the south the south end of the property next and it's a shot of the the house itself from the I'm standing

009now by the fence that saw in the previous picture and see some of the work that had been done um already that about windows and doors see that's on there was a permit for that and this project has been ongoing for a while next Uh just another shot of the fence that was in kind of disrepair near the lakeside. Next shot, you can see the hot tub that's supposed to be replaced on the corner there, the red reddish cover and down looking down the driveway from the western side of the property down the driveway. Next. And now we're back at the parking area where the carport and parking area and a shed is proposed to be put in. And I think that's it. One more. Again, another shot up the driveway of the the sil

010fencing that's in place on the south side. >> Thank you. We have the agent, David. Good evening, chairman, members of the board. David Kurs from Matthews Kurs Kulie and Shorron, 241 Panagle Road, East Hampton here on behalf of the applicant uh Mr. Jonathan Goldman who's here with me as well as uh Shannon McCaffrey from DIY Planning and Dr. William Bowman of Land Use Ecological Services. So let me just pass out the presentation I have prepared. This way you have it in writing as well. >> Thank you. All right, before I get started, I'd like to point out one significant change that has been made to the by the applicant. Um, the 309 foot deck addition on the Lake Montalk side of the house has been eliminated. Uh, that eliminates the needs for a 26.6 6

011foot bluff crest setback variance as well as the 68.7 ft wetland setback variance. So uh you know in consultation with the client after reviewing the analysis memorandum that has been eliminated from the application significantly reducing the relief that's being requested. Uh yesterday, DWI East also submitted a drawing that compares the layouts of the existing driveway with the proposed driveway and the driveway that was approved in 2016, I believe. Do you have that available? This way there's no confusion on what was and wasn't approved. It's a a nice visual. makes it a little little easier. Um, also a drainage plan was submitted yesterday by due east which provides dry wells uh that will capture the runoff from the shed, the carport and the existing driveway. So that eliminates uh any runoff concerns for these proposed structures

012and the proposed reconfiguration of the driveway. Uh the property is bounded by Lake Monttok to the west, east lake drive to the east. Uh eastern portion as you saw contains significant wetlands, freshwater wetlands that run along the northern property line. Uh in addition, a small wetland had developed over the leeching pools from when the that was upgraded in 2016. Uh first we'll address the bamboo. So, uh, we recently re-evaluated the square footage and it's closer to 3,000 ft² than 2,000 ft of the stand of bamboo. Um, this is going to be removed and reveated in that area along the property line. Uh, to be clear, this bamboo removal is only on our property. I know there was mentioned in the TAM that the neighboring parcel was also looking, but this is only for our property.

013Um access for the bamboo will be taken uh along the south and west sides of the house in the area of the existing lawn on the Lake Montalk side. So there wouldn't be any disturbance for the equipment to get around there to remove that bamboo. Um the existing bamboo does not support native habitat and does not provide any environmental benefit. Um with me tonight is Dr. William Bowman of land use uh who can to address the benefits from the bamboo removal and answer any questions that you may have in that regard. Um a protocol was submitted by due east that I believe in October November um that Dr. William Bowman had prepared. So if if you don't mind, I'd like to turn it over to him for the bamboo removal and then I'll rejoin. Uh

014good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board. Uh William Bowman uh principal ecolog land use psychological services. >> Can I swear you in? >> Sure. >> I swear terms tell the truth, the whole truth or nothing truth. >> Yes, sir. >> Um uh land use psychological services, 570 expressway drive south, Medford, New York. Um um as as David indicated, uh the application will involve uh managing about 3,000 square ft of bamboo along the northern property line. Uh this bamboo management will provide ecological benefits by establishing native vegetation that will provide better wildlife habitat and food resources. um and converting that rather out of place bamboo stand to a habitat more typical of the dense shrublands found in found in Montalk. Uh bamboo uh management can be can be a chore but um uh the upside

015of pro of switching that 3,000 square feet to native native vegetation is is well worth it. Uh bamboo grows remarkably fast, forms those dense stands and uh really dense root network that out competes and uh excludes native vegetation. Uh the successful management of bamboo at this site will require removal of that extensive risome mass. Um and then follow-up maintenance for several years to control any uh new bamboo shoots. Uh the first step in that bamboo management would be cutting all the chutes to uh to ground level with a motorized uh pruning saw or or hand tools. Uh the ryome network would then need to be excavated out uh to a depth of about 24 in um and replaced with clean sandy uh sandy soils to be consistent with the surrounding wetlands and overall uh project

016uh site. uh the restoration would area will be graded um so that the post- project elevations don't exceed the existing and that the site provides a gradual slope from east to west to allow drainage you know towards towards lake Montalk. Um as David noted uh the existing bamboo stand does cross the property boundaries and is present both on the property to the north and the subject property accordingly. that uh the bamboo is not being controlled on the property to the north. Um accordingly, a root barrier about 150 ft in length will need to be installed on or close to that northern property boundary uh to minimize potential for the bamboo ryomes from the neighboring property running onto this restored site. Uh that root barrier would consist of a high density uh plastic uh sheeting installed

017you know uh a minimum 22 in into the ground and then sticking up out of the ground by a couple inches. Um that first phase of bamboo management, the cutting uh uh excavation uh fill fill replacement and um root barrier installation would need to happen in the in the dormant season uh between November and and the end of March. Uh bamboo has a pretty short period where it's actively growing um uh when it produces new shoots. Um during that period of new chute growth in April and and and early May, um the removal area would need to be, you know, in inspected and any new shoots cut or or better yet um carefully dug out with a shovel to get both the new chute and any connecting bit of ryome. Um then uh subsequent to

018that uh you know maintenance through that first uh spring you know uh uh shootute growth period um native plantings would be installed in that 3,000 square ft. A plant schedule was um uh was originally submitted with this application but we'd expect it to be uh to be changed. Uh we would want the um the native plants to be installed to consist to be to emphasize you know native shrubs. Um um as I said the bamboo area would then be replanted um in midmay to early June. Of course you know all that the uh the the sediments and the ryomes that are removed would have to be taken off site as David mentioned. They be loaded around the front of the house, brought to the existing driveway, dumped directly into a rolloff container, and then transported

019to a licensed uh disposal facility. Um there would be no temporary stockpiling of the material um on any soil surfaces um and certainly no reuse of of the materials on site or or offsite. Um due to the excavation this the work area the restoration area would be surrounded by a heavy duty silt fence. That's a silt fence with the uh kind of that heavy wire mesh backing um to prevent any uh erosion and transport of sediments towards Lake Mtok. Um due to the aggressive nature um and persistence of bamboo long-term maintenance of the site would be expected for several years. Um in the protocol we anticipated five uh that would be necessary to ensure successful eradication and establishment of the uh native native vegetation. Um so that maintenance would involve maintaining the site um or

020maintaining the u restoration area um you know twice a week in that spring growing period to look for new shoots and and and remove them if they're seen. Um also looking at inspecting and maintaining the root barrier. Uh the riseomes from the neighboring site to the north could try to grow over top of the root barrier and so you'd have to cut them off at at that point. Um but as I mentioned uh with that successful uh uh maintenance um uh 3,000 square feet of additional native vegetation could be established that vegetation is adjacent to the wetlands adjacent to the bluff and would provide a significant uh habitat improvement. So with that, if the board has any um uh specific questions about the removal methodology, >> I don't have any questions. >> Thank you. Bamboo.

021[clears throat] I have questions. >> Thank you. Um as part of the project, our client is also proposing a septic system upgrade. Um the existing septic tank would be removed and replaced with an IIA system, an IIA tank. Uh the pump station which is my understanding is failing or failed will also be replaced. The leeching pools will not be replaced. They are existing. We don't need to disturb them or remove them in order to install the tank or the pump system. So that little wet land that has formed over that will not need to be disturbed. Those tanks are uh those leeching pools will not be removed. Um, moving next to the cabana on the north side of the house, um, where there's a currently a shower, bathroom, and storage area. Um, that that structure

022will be rebuilt in kind in place. Um, the exterior dimensions will not change. The interior layout will be modified slightly so that there will be a little more storage. Uh and the shower will be moved to the outside eastern wall of the structure. So it'll be an open air shower on the eastern side of that structure uh instead of being enclosed inside of it. So there will be no footprint change to that. No additional square footage or floor area decking or anything like that. It'll in place uh reconstruction. [sighs and gasps] David, is that the structure that was on the side of the house on the north side in the photo? >> If you're looking at the house from the road, it's on the right hand side. I believe you walked under uh the overhang

023>> that structure there. Yeah, it's on >> is that the one in your picture that Okay. Uh in addition to the bamboo removal and reveation that's coming with that uh as further mitigation, our client's proposing a scenic easement over the eastern 100 ft of the property absent the driveway. So there would be a 8,440 ft scenic easement that's being proposed over the eastern portion of the property. Um to affectuate that, the parking area that was noted as when you first walk in on the right hand side, that's going to be relocated uh up closer to the house. Uh it's currently uh approximately 2 ft from the wetlands. It will now be approximately 6 and 1/2 uh from the wetlands uh and 20 from that new pocket wetlands and 25 foot from the eastern the larger

024eastern wetland. So this um provides additional continuity for the scenic easement and for the wetlands and the um native vegetation. So if you see here, this will all be removed. So that way the scenic easement covers that whole square and this area here will be replanted with native vegetation contiguous to the wetlands. Where's pocket wet land on there? >> It's right here. >> Yeah, it it's formed over top of the leeching pools from when they were installed a few years ago. I believe 20 20 the area. Uh so um we have that chart that shows the three driveway configurations. We can pull that up. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. Uh the current proposal reduces the driveway by 226 square ft. Um when compared to the what was approved in 2016, that driveway it was

025456 ft larger than what we're proposing now. So we're less than what's there and less than what was previously approved in 2016. Uh we understand that that small wetland was not present at the time of the 2016 approval. Um at however at that time the board approved coverage of 7,891 square ft, building coverage of 2312 ft and clearing of 15,498 square ft. as part of the current application proposes 120 square 127 square feet less in total coverage and 4,960 square foot less clearing uh in addition to providing substantial scenic easement that was not part of that 2016 approval uh through the reveation of multiple areas on the property overall clearing will be reduced by 676 square ft. So, in addition to that uh parking area that's being reveated, uh there's that area that was shown

026in the first photos where the um like popup shed was the like carport that will be reveated and there's approximately 800 square ft along the top of the bluff that will also be reveated uh from lawn with native vegetation. So, um there's been significant it will be significant revitation done at the property in addition to the 3,000 square ft that will be um the bamboo being removed and re reveated with. So, uh we feel that this this benefit to the property and to the environment and the neighboring wetlands uh is is a significant uh mitigation for the request that we're making today. >> Can you do me a favor and clarify the total lot coverage? Um, you're saying it's decreasing. >> The survey is saying it's increasing. >> Which survey are you looking at? >>

027Maybe am I looking on the right survey? >> 31st, >> I believe. >> This is showing it decreasing slightly. >> Oh, maybe. Okay. So, maybe I'll pull that up. I might be looking at the wrong one, David. So, let me u let me pull that up. the >> all right. Thank you. Which one? >> October 31 10:3125. >> Okay. Yes. The the coverage is increasing. The building coverage is increasing. Total coverage is decreasing and clearing is decreasing. >> Got it. >> But that doesn't include because you're now removing [clears throat] 300 some odd square feet of deck from the application, right? So that's not reflected. No, this this application does not include that deer this these numbers. There's no deck on this survey >> already. Okay. >> So, that's already been removed from that that

028number. >> I thought you just made that decision. Sorry. >> That's been made since the analysis memorandum came out and was resubmitted. >> Is there any other questions at the moment? Um, >> are you are you finished? >> No. >> Oh, good. I'll wait till you're done. >> No, no, that's quite all right. [laughter] [clears throat] >> Um, as we just mentioned, the the carport and the shed do increase the building coverage um by 672 square ft from what's existing, 572 foot from what was approved in 2016. >> [snorts] >> However, any runoff from these structures will be captured by the dry wells that would be located in the driveway and adjacent to it outside of the the scenic easement. Um, so no no detriment will come from any sort of runoff from these structures.

029The carport is open on three sides. um and is going to be over the existing pvious driveway that will be a new I believe quartz but still pvious driveway underneath it. So um it's mounted on sonot tubes uh so there's no foundation under it per se. It's essentially just being built over the pvious driveway. >> Uh the shed >> Oh, I was that was my question. The >> Okay. The shed is proposed at 128 ft. It's uh 16 by8. Um it's right adjacent to the parking area. Um the existing residence does not have a basement or a garage. Uh it does have a crawl space, but that is not readily accessible for any sort of storage. Um the small storage area that's part of the cabana is not enough for, you know, standard um storage

030for exterior stuff here. Um kayaks, stuff like that as well. outdoor equipment um can all be we we need space for that. Um so this location provides the maximum convenience and utility for our client while dealing with the constraints of having wetlands on all sides of this property. Um it will be set back 10 foot from the pro scenic easement and the area to the east of it uh will be reveated where that uh carport that car structure is still is currently sitting that was in the picture. Um again any runoff from this structure will be captured by the dry wells. >> Did you have a question about this? >> Does the shed have footings or is there any excavation involved? >> Uh there would be. Yes. >> How could you talk about that a

031little bit? >> Typically would only go down three ft. >> I didn't >> um the plans that were submitted do show it uh on footings. Um, but we'll we can do that on sauna tubes as well uh to minimize the disturbance for it. I >> I think that would be more appropriate. >> Yeah. So that way we could eliminate the the need for the disturbance for any sort of footings for it. So we'd be happy to uh make that change and we could obviously submit drawings as necessary. >> What's the total capacity of the dry wells that you're talking about? Sure, [snorts] David. >> I believe I have it. >> It's a two. >> Who is the engineer? >> It's a 2 in. >> Oh, thank you. Yes, it says it's a a 2 in

032rainfall event. >> Thanks, Shannon. >> I got it. >> Uh there's six drywalls and each one has a 42.24 cubic foot capacity. And we do not have the engineer is not here with us this evening. Uh but that was designed to capture um not only the runoff from the carport and the shed uh but the entire length of the driveway uh and the parking area by the house. So, if you see, I don't know if you can tell in that picture, there's, I believe, four drains down the northern side of the driveway as it comes in, uh, that are all linked together into these, uh, these drywalls. >> Pretty thorough. >> Are we done on the driver? Can we go back to the shed for one second since we're on it? So, it's a small

033structure. Um, but was there I think I'm looking at at the right site on the survey, but given that it is a small structure, was there another way to optimize the position, you know, between its utility and getting it further from the wetlands or >> Well, part of the issue is the driveway is 150 ft long, right, >> to the parking area. So, we do need area there to be able to turn around. um as well as have a car or two parked at that time. So that's why the the shed is brought right up to the side of that parking area. Um you know anywhere north of that you have the additional wetland and the um sanitary system. Um so that really provides you know we felt the mo maximum convenience and um utility

034for our client while also not putting it any closer to uh the wetland. >> You know unfortunately there's wetlands north, south, east, and west. So >> I'm sure that you stared at it all very closely. just here. >> Questions here. >> Oh, I'm almost done. Oh, [laughter] >> so just uh I'll just run through a quick little summary here then. So, the benefit we're providing here as part of this application, decreasing the total coverage by 113 square ft, proposing an 8,400 square foot scenic easement, relocating the parking area that's 2 ft from the wetlands, and reveating that area to provide continuity for the native vegetation and wetlands. Uh, reveation along the bluff crest. uh removing and reveating the 3,000 square feet of bamboo, decreasing the overall clearing on the property by 676 square feet and

035adding adding a upgrade to the septic system to an IIA system as well as providing drywalls for these proposed structures and for the driveway. Um this project is consistent with 2551 of the town code. Uh due to the wetlands located on adj on and adjacent to the property, any improvements would require natural resources special permit. The application locates the proposed structures in the most appropriate places outside of any wetland and has shown that no wetland will be degraded or lost to allow for these structures. In fact, with the installation of upgraded sanitary system, this 8 8,440T easement, 113T decrease in total coverage, 676 ft decrease in clearing will be a net benefit to the wetlands and the community. Um to this end, there's no evidence um in the TAM that um that this these proposed

036structures will have a negative impact on uh the wetlands. So um the grand of this variance will not produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood or community, will not create a detriment to nearby properties. properties will benefit from all of the mitigation that we've been proposed here uh for the health of the wetlands and native communities. Um there is no feasible alternative methods to achieving this benefit. Uh the lots constrained that was noted uh in the 2016 approval as well. Um the proximity of the wetlands on and adjacent to the property. There's no way to avoid uh variances for any sort of structure on this property. Um the carport is over a pvious driveway already an area that's been previously disturbed. Um the shed as we have mentioned that you asked that could easily be

037on uh on sonot tubes to reduce any sort of uh disturbance for that as well and so is the carport on sonot tubes. So it's a minimal disturbance and any sort of runoff from these structures is captured by the dry wells. >> [clears throat] >> We understand that variances will can be considered self-created but however such self-creation is not dispositive. Uh I think we've shown that these variances are minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty um for our client uh without impacting the surrounding wetlands. Um, again, I did mention there's no garage, there's no basement um for storage. So, um, we recognize the property was constrained and I believe that this application has, uh, done its best to fit the requirements in of our client while also providing a net benefit to the wetlands in the

038neighborhood. So, um, I'm done. If you have any questions for me? >> Yes, I have a couple, but did you have >> Okay. Um, so And I guess I'll ask we'll hear from Brian as well, but I am curious and I don't have the expertise on this, so that's why I'm asking. So you got an emerging wetland or a newly sourced wetland that is partially over leeching fields and those will remain. So I I guess I understand not wanting to disturb the new wetland, but can you address um at all what the impact? Again, we'll hear from Brian, I'm sure, but I just wanted to get your take on um you know, leaving a leeching fields under wetlands. I don't know if that creates any potential. [clears throat] >> I I mean, from I'm not

039a I'm not a scientist. I'm not sure if I um but I I >> Yeah. So Will Bowman, Landy Psychological Services. Um, as you're aware, the town of East Hampton defines uh wetlands based on the types of plant species that are present. So uh wetland indicator plant species have uh developed on this area. Um we um we've attempted to you know maintain uh that area um uh and provide setbacks um as feasible from that area giving more u when given the choice we're trying to provide se greater setbacks from the natural or the original wetlands but uh still protecting that area of natural vegetation that has uh developed on the on the s on the on on the uh leeching I want to move I just want to move this presentation keep moving it through.

040It's gone pretty long. Um but I think the question was dealing with more about the removal and the process of removal. Am I right? And whether the disturbance the disturbance to the wetlands. So are we removing the plants or you're abanding the >> No those wetlands are staying as as they won't they will not be >> the uh the leeching field the leeching things will just be abandoned and left there. >> No no they they'll they'll be they'll stay there. they'll function. You know, the plants developed on top of them, so we're just leaving them as as is to provide habitat over top of the original structure. >> Yeah, >> I see it. Yep. >> My understanding there's the wetlands over top of the leeching structures does not create any issue for either the wetland

041or the leeching pools. I think that's your your question. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? I would like to hear from planning. >> Brian, >> good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. Brian Frank on behalf of the planning department. >> Brian, do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. >> I do want to spend a minute just on the secret issue to make sure the the record is is clear. Um, the planning department supports the negative declaration. I'm glad the board issued one. Um, as you know, a lot of the residential components of um, this application are type two actions under SRA. Um, the excavation in a regulated freshwater wetland is an unlisted action pursuant to SRA. That makes the whole project

042an unlisted action. And that's why you have an EAF. Um, you have a part one prepared by the applicant. you have a part two and three drafted by the planning department for the board's consideration and the planning department does recommend a negative declaration um because the planning department believes that the elements of this application uh that don't meet the NRSP or the variance standards don't require an environmental impact statement to um evaluate those those impacts and the eligibility with those permit standards. So the the planning department supports uh the negative declaration that was issued by the um uh board at the beginning of the hearing. Uh so this property is improved with uh about a 2,800 ft house. Uh the property was um uh extensively renovated back in um 1984 and received a certificate of

043occupancy in 1985. The board saw this property most recently in 2016 when it was uh approved for a redevelop largely where it is uh now new house, new sanitary system that was by a prior owner. Uh that application has not been acted upon. So the the the con so the structures approved in in that application don't exist on the property right now. Um as David mentioned and as the um EAF notes, this house is essentially surrounded by wetlands. You have freshwater wetlands uh to the northeast and south. Uh you have the tidal wetlands of uh Lake Malkque to the west. Um East Lake Drive has a lot of areas of extensive freshwater wetlands largely as a result of the very high uh silt and clay content in the soils there. There are are a number

044of places along East Lake Drive where the wetlands um are located on the east side of East Lake Drive. They're often culverted beneath East Lake Drive. And there are a lot of I don't want to say a lot of places but there are numerous places if you know the area there are a number of places where there are um freshwater seeps that uh um discharge into Lake Malkque whether you call them seeps or drains or um seasonal uh water courses uh whatever there is flowing surface water that flows into the lake uh both to the north and the south of this property. I don't know whether this was this house was uh built on a a natural high spot around those wetlands um or if it was filled. Doesn't really matter. There are a lot

045of places on the east side of um East Lake Malkque in those Morlands there where you have um high spots. You have a lot of knob and kettle topography and those knobs rise up above the wetland. The vegetation on them and the soils are totally different than when you slope down to what's around them. So, this this could have been uh a natural high spot that was built on um back in the day. And I I again, it doesn't matter too much, but I think that's a little bit more likely than the whole thing was wet uh and and filled in. Nonetheless, the soils here drain very very poorly. And I think that's evident if you take a look at the uh sanitary plan. A lot of a lot of silt and [clears throat] clay

046in the soils. and um silt and clay don't drain. That's why we have uh um perched wetlands, wetlands above the true groundwater table and the slopes here are what contribute to their flow down to the the base of the wershed which is um the harbor. Um the wetland that formed that 500 ft wetland uh formed around uh 2020. Um whether that was as a result of soil compaction um or some other factor, it it it's kind of hard to say, but silts and clay as fine grain particles compact very easy and that reduces their uh their porocity uh and their permeability even more. And that's probably what attributed uh to that area developing. The standing water in there was persistent uh well into the growing season of 2021. it became colonized by um more wetland

047plants than not wetland plants. And that's why um it was kind of hard to do anything but designate it as a wetland because it really did uh meet all the criteria for it. Um about the sanitary system just before I forget to mention it. Um there's no other better place for it. So the idea of um digging out the bleaching [clears throat] pools which would eliminate that it be hard would basically you know eliminate that wetland and that wetland is not the most important wetland to protect. The most important wetland to protect on the property is Lake Malkque followed by the wetlands uh to the east and the north and the south which are connected to the tidal wetlands in Lake Malk. So, um that uh that isolated 500 uh uh square foot roughly uh

048pocket wetland as it's fairly described is um worth some conservation, but it is secondary to the more extensive wetlands around um the property. Uh I' I'd like to address the um uh bamboo removal first. Um as uh David and I believe uh Will had mentioned I'm I'm not aware of any habitat benefit provided by uh bamboo um bamboo is often broken up into two types running and clumping types. There are a lot of genre out there. There are a lot of species within a several different genre and the running bamboo have become a real problem and um nobody should ever plant them ever. um [clears throat] the bamboo that you see between along the northern property line, whether it's 2,000 square ft on the applicant's property, a total of 3,000 square ft. It does, as

049evidenced by um uh member uh Burgerer's photo, it does wrap around. It's along the shoreline there. It's it it it's some tough stuff, too. It's it it grows in almost everything. Um it does form it grows rapidly. It forms these dense monoultures that crowd out everything else and every year it just spreads and spreads a little bit more. And I can show you half a dozen examples um east of in Montalk alone, probably a lot more than half a dozen examples if I really looked. So um it it's a problem. There may be some environmental uh benefits uh carbon sequestration, maybe some soil stability, but um I wouldn't really call those I it it doesn't outweigh the loss of habitat that occurs every year as as these stand spreads. They're a problem on private property.

050They're a problem on pro public open space. It's damaging to all kinds of subsurface infrastructure. It'll push its way through concrete foundation and metal piping and and and it it it's really really persistent stuff. There is a DEC permit that has been issued for this project. Um the DEEC that the wetlands on the property um don't show up on the DEC what mapping system even though the wetlands in the eastern portion of the property are pretty much identical to the wetlands on the on the east side of East Lake Drive. It's, you know, the same plant and soil assemblage biseected by the road, but it's not mapped by the DEC. So, the DEC's permit is is strictly for uh a a title wetland permit. It's an article 25 permit. Um the planning department's greatest concern

051with the removal of the excavation of this bamboo is the sedimentation of uh Lake Mto. Again, fine grain um sediments get suspended in water very easily. They travel farther than coarse grain sediments than than sand or gravel does. So, it's the planning department's opinion that in [clears throat] conjunction with the bamboo excavation on here, diligent sediment management is crucial to protecting in particular the the um tidal wetlands of the lake. Um the sediment control can easily get overwhelmed in a heavy rainstorm when the when the soils are loose and it's going there's there's no other there there's nothing that can substitute for the project manager, the owner, somebody's diligence in keeping track of when that happens. removing the sediment and um replacing the um sediment fence with its wire backing when it becomes structurally um

052compromised. Um if that happens, then I don't see much of an environmental impact from the bamboo removal. And if it doesn't happen, there's a there's a big impact on on the lake. Um the revitation plan initially, the the one that you have in the file is a a nice plan for other projects, but the bamboo uh we'll see who wins here, the persistent of the owner or the persistence of the bamboo. I know the bamboo is not going to give up. You know, it's going to keep spreading. It's on the property to the north. The um uh the barrier that uh will describe will maybe stop it. it'll slow it down at least for some time. Um, but because of that, I think even though the idea of of trees and shrubs in that area

053is commendable, you want something um that's going to allow, you know, if if you have woody vegetation in there, when you do get shoots of bamboo mixed in with them, and you will, they're going to be hard to remove. So, um I don't know what the best plants are, but they're probably uh grasses and sedges that also uh uh grow aggressively. They've got to be native, obviously, [snorts] and and have good coverage because I have a feeling you're going to end up disturbing them at some point in the future, un unfortunately. Um but again, the habitat there is so uh negligible that it it's hard to quantify an impact from from its removal. And that's why the planning department doesn't object uh to that portion of uh the project. Um the driveway has been uh

054revised consistent with the recommendations which was uh in in the EAF which was to kind of keep the square footage of what you have uh there and reconfigure it accordingly. So eliminating that parking area in the eastern throat of the driveway and adding it to the cleared area is is a a rational good use. The planning department doesn't have any concern or objection. uh to the to the plan. It it you know, we talk about pvious driveways a lot and this is an appropriate location for a pvious driveway, but there's always any any surface any improved surface that's not vegetated does have a higher runoff coefficient. Um it it's not even grass does. Uh you any anything beyond the native woods do. So um you are you do have some runoff from this driveway. It's

055it's unavoidable with with gravel or anything else. And again, that water is draining into uh a dry well that's going into poorly drained soils. So, um the engineering plan looks sound. Uh the engineer designed this for a 2-in rainfall um and to capture the runoff from the driveway, but we get a lot more than 2in rainfalls these days. We get multiple rainfalls. We get them in in successive periods. And it is it is reasonable to expect them to get overwhelmed periodically and unavoidable unless you're punching all the way down uh to sand. And that's one of the reasons that the planning department thinks the uh carport is a poor candidate for a variance. These constraints on the property existed before the applicant bought the property. They they've been well established on this property for a

056long time. Uh those variances are numerically substantial. um basically an 80% reduction in uh setback to increase coverage in an area that has poor drainage. Now the elimination of that carport allows the shed that's proposed to meet a much better wetland setback and that shed is a stronger candidate for a variance because of its small size and and and square footage uh than than the carport. So you're saying leave the shed where it's proposed? No. If no, I'm saying if if the carport is not part of the application, there are better locations. And and part of your variance standards is variances are supposed to be the minimum necessary to relieve the practical difficulty and an absence of alternatives um that either eliminate the variance or or require a lesser variance. And in this case, I

057think the elimination of the carport allows uh the shed to be relocated in a way that makes it a stronger variance candidate. >> So Brian, are you saying that the if if the carport is eliminated then the gravel underneath it would not be there? It would be more would it be vegetated because I think we really just cover over >> No, the driveway is the driveway. But adding a adding a truly imperous surface, a roof over it, just adds to the um drainage problems of this project. >> Even though this impervious is not on the ground, you're saying just having the covering up above changes the dynamic. >> Yes. >> Okay. I didn't understand. Thank you. >> Um shrubs for the other areas of the revitation are appropriate. I I don't know that we have

058a a a detailed revge plan for um the area of that northern pullover that's proposed to be reveated, but that should be matched to the surrounding vegetation to the extent possible. Some of the other um and and the same is true for the area that houses that um tempor that tarped garage that temporary structure um that's shown to be reveated. Now, that irregular area proposed for reveation um uh just east of the house, it's hard to see how that could be naturalized in an area between the um driveway and the and the house. And again, reducing reducing clearing is always commendable. I don't know how practical that is. And if that ends up being eliminated from uh the reveation, I don't really have an objection to it because I think it's going to just be

059hard to naturalize something that's in that in that location. Um again, this the uh I I think it's uh laudable that they proposed the scenic easement in the eastern portion of the property. I can't tell you what the nexus is between that scenic easement and the structures that are proposed uh farther to the west. It's commendable but in its intent. Um but I'm I'm I'm not sure what the what the nexus is there. Uh I think that that's pretty much uh the points that I wanted to make in this application. If anybody has any questions, I'll I'll do my best to answer them. How does this application compare or relate to the 2016 uh decision by the zone board? >> I I think it's apples and oranges and that's why I didn't get into a

060a detailed comparison in in the assessment. Number one, that the 2016 project was was never implemented. Number two, I think it it's always difficult to compare a complete redevelopment of a property with adding accessory structures to structures that are that are already there. >> However, the constraints of the property were considered back then and as they are now. >> Yes. Um there are there were it's is does the mitigation this time around offset those those those differences those increases and I that's I understand it's it's difficult to and maybe that's what we're going to wrestle with. I' I'd have to answer that question. I would look at the setbacks that were approved in 2016, the overall clearing coverage and the continuity of the uh and and contiguousness of any reveation that that was established at

061the time and and even, you know, factor out that that 500 foot, you know, pocket wetland that didn't exist at the time. And and that's that's the best way to compare those uh those differences in benefits. And since I didn't do that, I I I don't want to give you an answer off the top of my head. >> Is that Is that information in the record already? It Okay. The existing conditions. >> Oh, that just went in today, right? I didn't see it. Okay. And then may I ask what happens that 2016 um approval you said was done by a prior owner, but it's it's that application is aside from not being acted on, is it defunct? Has it been abandoned? Does it still run with the land? I'm trying to like >> I wouldn't

062call it defunct or abandoned. At worst, it expired and in that case they they could apply to extend it. The conditions changed on the property with the addition of that wetland. So >> I don't know that that's the best candidate for for another extension, but that's that that's the status of the application. I would say it's it's expired. Is there something that this applicant can do that as mitigation to say sort of I don't know how it works but like it's extinguished like it it can't be it can't come back it can't be resurrected. >> Uh I don't think so. I I I I mean they they they could apply for whatever they want to apply for. >> They'd have to apply again. You're saying they would have to >> to extend the the 2016

063application or make a new application similar to it. Okay. >> Something like that. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> So, Brian, um obviously concerned about potential impacts with runoff controls. Is the um mitigation being offered to install drywalls enough to prevent potential impacts with erosion and runoff controls? I mean, is that enough or should it require like additional fencing? I mean, >> I I I think it I think it's enough to mitigate the the driveway redevelopment and I think it's appropriate in conjunction with the driveway redevelopment. It doesn't have anything to do with the um bamboo removal. That's its own >> that's almost a separate project, a separate activity with, >> you know, especially because there's nothing structural being proposed in it. >> It it's kind of its own animal. And how do you feel about

064um the suggestion that sonot tubes uh be installed under the shed and carport to maximize this uh to minimize disturbance? >> There's less there's less disturbance from any type of post foundation than there is from a poured concrete slab where you've got to compact it even more. But the impact is really from the roof. You know [snorts] that adding imperous surfaces from from in increasing the roof surfaces on the property. >> Thank you, Brian. the um the the bamboo problem and it will be a problem for them going forward. Um it's nice to say that we'll keep on top of but I think you point out accurately I was thinking while I was make they were making the presentation that planting anything in that disturbed area is looks like a loser to me because any

065movement by bamboo into that area is going to have to be removed again. And so you plant a plant that now is being invaded by the bamboo. That plant either is disturbed or removed. So it seems as if if this is to move forward or even partially move forward, they would have to make a bit of a statement long term about how this maintenance is going to happen. I mean, as long as there's a thousand feet of bamboo on the other side, you're not stopping it from coming over. Like you say, that uh that that plastic shield they're going to put up will do something, but not long term. not long. >> Well, you have to you have to try to uh reveate it with something to stabilize the soils. Um, you do have a

066water course that runs through it and uh I I did mean to say that um I I agree with Will's uh proposal that a meandering water course of of variable width whether it's 2 ft wide or up to 2 ft wide and a foot deep. But you what you don't want is you don't want a straight channelization. You don't want a straight channel that runs uh right to Lake Malkque. So, you want something that that meanders a little bit, but the only way to hold it there is to have vegetation that stabilizes the soil. Otherwise, it's it it's going to kind of gully and and try to straighten itself out over time. >> Yeah. So, I'm agreeing with what you said earlier, and that is that it does call for grasses rather than woody plants.

067I mean, it just it bamboo as you pointed as a nightmare. all of them on talk wherever it's happened it takes over and we're leaving a significant amount on another property they can't control that at all and uh they'll do the best they can but I see this as a long-term maintenance problem for them not one that's going to go away not one that's going to be handled in any easy way right that's what we're basically saying about this >> yeah I I haven't seen um I' I've seen bamboo removal projects where the bamboo came back like 10 years later and kind of oddly so it is going to be a long-term Yeah. >> Management for this property. >> And as far as the uh there's that uh the far west, there's that reveated area

068that was added that's that's giving us something of a significant buffer down to the down to the tidal wetland. That that additional area that's added to the west. >> Uh yes. Yeah. Because I believe I believe all or most of that is lawn right now. >> It's all lawn now. Yeah, it's all lawn now. So that'll be reveitated there and then we just have access down from that uh the staircase. One other question I had, I know it's not in front of us, hasn't been mentioned, but I was wondering how much work has happened to the house since the 16 uh ZBA approval. It seems significant to me. I was on site several years ago because we had an incident to go down and examine that maybe in 2000 or 21 perhaps and um the

069house is significantly different look to it than it has now. Has that been through a series of building permits? >> Um, yes. There was building permits issued for windows and door. I didn't include any of the photos in in the in the file, but the first time I went there, they were uh redoing the siding and they hadn't started on any of the window and doors yet, but I believe it looked like it was all exterior. There were new vapor barriers up and and that was the If you wanted those photos, I can get them to you. They don't really show much except stripping the siding and and in the process of replacing. >> We have photos from an earlier an earlier take down there where we talked about >> a completely different condition in

070the exterior of the house. It's it's completely uh it's been renovated significantly. The exterior. Okay. >> A facelift for sure. >> Yeah. Yeah. A little more. I don't think that cabana was there section. I believe the cabana was >> was it there? >> Yeah. I I I'd have to take a look at the survey that you approved in 2016, but I I believe that has been there. >> Yes. >> Any other questions? >> No, I'm fine. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this application? >> Matt, is there anybody online? >> Stand by one second, please. And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV. Just making sure that all lines are open and clear in which they are. And you have zero additional callers.

071Thank you. >> Thank you. >> David, you have any closing? >> Yeah, we got a few comments from both people. >> Just keep this short, please. It was a very long uh presentation and we rarely want to move on, so just please keep it short. Hi Shannon, how are you? >> Shannon McCaffrey, Dwy's planning. >> You swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. Um I just wanted to address quickly Brian's um comments regarding the driveway and the runoff that it creates. Um the Rainer group in designing the drainage did account for a factor of safety. Typically uh gravel driveways are designed with a coefficient of 75 and they designed the runoff with a coefficient of one to account for the poor draining soils. So there

072is extra drainage to account for that. And also I would just like to reiterate that whether there's the card port or the gravel driveway, there is drainage being accounted for and directed into drive wells. It would be the same thing because the driveway layout is needed to allow for um trucks or other vehicles to turn while the resident is still parked in the parking spot and so that they don't have to back all the way out the driveway. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, short, >> short, very short. Um, I understand the concern with the location of the shed. Uh, we'd ask that that if you do, you know, we can take a little further look at that, possibly, uh, come up with a alternate location for that that would increase the setbacks. Um, I

073don't feel it would be necessary for us to come back for that. I think if we left the record open for a written submission with a revised plan for the shed, possibly that would uh be sufficient. And that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Excuse me. You know, I I didn't see online. Maybe I missed it. The DEC permit under Goldman. I saw them for what looked like the property to the north that were in the file. You know who got >> I don't know. Do you know? >> I saw some incompletes on >> they were submitted. They they were submitted. Okay. Will they >> David? How long do you think you'll need >> uh to keep the record open? >> Just uh I think two weeks would be sufficient. >> We

074have another motion to keep the record open for two weeks. Okay. Um, should we leave it open longer because there's going to be a >> It's probably going to have to go into the new year >> into the new year, >> right? For the next meeting. >> What? >> January 6th is the the first meeting in the new year. >> We only have one more meeting >> uh work session next week. >> Do you I mean, we only need two weeks to put in the written submission. So whatever you guys need for for your scheduling purposes is fine by us, but that's fine. That's all we need. >> Okay. January 6. >> All right. [clears throat] Brian, >> no. He probably wants to say it. >> I I don't have any objection to the applicants

075trying to uh uh provide amendments to the application. But if I I do want to say if and if that's what the um submission is limited to, then I think that's fine. But if there's kind of a a length sheet lengthy kind of new argument, then I do just want to remind the board that you have the right to uh reopen the hearing, continue the hearing. If it's kind of cut and dry, but if there's a whole substantive legal argument about why this should be approved, then I'm going to respectfully ask you to consider um uh reopening the hearing so that a complete record can be made. >> Thank you. Okay, >> I appreciate Brian's concern. That is not my intention. [laughter] So, if you literally for two weeks for alternate possible alternate locations for

076the shed, no legal submission, no memorandum, that's that's all we're looking for. Thank you. >> So, if you want to limit it to that, we're happy with >> Thank you. So January 6 with the application of Golden Goldman Trust at 51 East Lake Drive in Montalk 300-020-02-16. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Move the written record open for uh updated submission from the applicant regarding the shed. >> I'll second it. >> Concur. Thank you. Thank you. >> I think January 6th. >> No, it's January 6. Chad January 6. Our next application is Charlie Of LL6 at 59 Castle Lane. I'm against it. Suffic math number 300-152-2-28.10. Size and location is 35,482 ft of 59 San Castle Lane Amiganit. Description is to demolish the existing approximately 2,382 foot residence and construct a new 3,10

0773,910 ft two-story residence with 600 ft of garage, 637 ft of swimming pool, 200 ft of pool house, pool equipment, fencing, 8 1,830 ft of first floor deck and porch, 1528 ft of second story deck and porch. 74 ft of spa, outdoor shower, new sanitary system, and to temporary clear 6,64 square ft of beach vegetation with jurisdiction of freshwater, wetlands, dune land, and beach vegetation. The relief saw as a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a residence AE flood zone elevation 10. The secret class is type two. Remember Mary? >> Yes. Thank you. Um okay. So I visited the site for the field report just to orient everyone. Sand Castle is we're all familiar with the Beach Hampton neighborhood.

078This is the development that's just to the east. So uh Sand Castle is the next road after Gilbert's Path. Um so just to orient um and it was subdivided in larger lots than we're used to in other parts of this area. Okay. So um towards the very end of uh um Sand Castle, you get to a small culdeac that you can see here. Um and there are properties that uh come off of it. Um I think this is the just the view of that culdeac. Next slide. Um, this is a picture I'm looking You can see the house that exists right now on this property in the distance. Um, the dune land rising off of that culdeac. You can see the it was properly posted. Um, on the vis visually visibly um on the street

079there's the driveway is to the right of that post in the photo. Next slide. Just a closer uh view of the notice. The date was correct on it. Next slide. Okay. So, I'm going to head up the driveway um towards the house. Most of my photos, I'm obviously going to show you some of the existing structure, but since that's proposed to be demolished um and there's issues around the clearing, the temporary clearing. So, I'm going to really show the conditions of the dune land around the existing structure and in areas that I think will be um disturbed. Next slide. Um all right. So, I'm got up the driveway. I've turned my back basically towards the house just so you can see it. I'm shooting back towards the that culdeac. Um you can see the dune

080land on the right. Next slide. Okay. So I'm at the top of the driveway. This is a pretty full shot of the existing structure. Um and the uh there there in the plant. There's a set of plans that shows the new footprint over the existing uh footprint. You can't, this picture doesn't capture it, but to the right of where the house is, there's a fairly, you know, sizable decking area with the pool. Next slide. Um, and then I just I get took a little bit of shot of that decking. Obviously, the pool's closed up. I guess I'm looking east um across the end of that decking. Next slide. Um, again, just looking back towards the um existing house. Next slide. Okay, so now I've come outside of that decking. I'm on kind of the western

081most side of the existing pool decking. Um, and basically any time you come away from the structure of the house, you are right in mostly pristine dune land with protected dune vegetation. Um, and so you can there's a little bit of clearing here, but it's mostly uh intact. Next slide. Um, again I'm head So I think I just turned my back in the other direction. So the pool fencing would be to my back and I'm looking more west. You can see some of the topography and the duneland here. Next slide. Um, again now I'm a little more on the southern side um of of the house. And by the way, this is not an oceanfront property. The houses you see in the distance are actually the houses that are on the eastern end of Marine

082Boulevard. So this subdivision kind of uh tops out, you know, beyond like north of Marine Boulevard. Um next slide. This is and you can see again all this dune land is directly around the existing structures of of the house. Um and in the survey I think uh a lot of this will be cleared temporarily or um dep depends where you where you look at the new structures going. Next slide. Um uh yeah I stepped back from the house again. Now I'm going to come around the east side of the house. Next slide. Um more dune land. I looking east I believe to an adjacent property. Um, this is very close up to the house, this topography and the the vegetation. Next slide. Um, yeah. So, I'm looking back towards the house. The the part the

083right side of the house is um getting closer to back where the front was in the driveway. Next slide. Yep. So, I'm more vegetation right around the existing structure. Next slide. Um, it's just how the east side facade appears. Um, and then to the very right of the photo will be kind of back to the front of the house and the vegetation there. Next slide. Um, that uh might be it. Is that it? Are there more? >> Thank you. >> Well, I don't know whether Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I just continue again. Just trying to shoot as much of the dune land that will be um touched more than obviously the existing structure. Anything next? Yep. Next slide. Um I just took a view from up on the up on the higher deck again to

084see some of the neighboring properties for context. Next slide. And then just another shot. I didn't catch it up front, but that's the a shot of um of Sand Castle uh Lane part of it. That's it. Yep, that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Andy. [clears throat] All right. [cough] >> [laughter] >> Good evening, Chair Richard A. Hammer. I'm here representing Charlie OFP. They're the owners of the property at 59 San Castle Lane. We're seeking permits to redevelop the property with a new residence pool, pool house, decking, other improvements depicted on the proposed plan and notice in tonight's hearing. I'm also here with uh Britain Bistan and Sean Webb, the architect. just if I you have questions. I don't have uh I can't complain about the prior hearing. I should never complain about people talking

085along at zoning board hearing. So, I'm going to keep that uh been here a while. Uh so, I'm going to try and be quick and address a few points. The lot, as uh member Mering pointed out, is part of the Dunes at Nepi subdivision that was approved by the town in 1981. Most of these lots are similar in size, about an acre in size. I think it was a clustered subdivision, so some of them are smaller, so you could get larger reserved areas. Uh, looks like this house was built right after the subdivision was approved, probably around 1982, thereabouts. Uh, it's a little different than some of the areas to the west and beachampton where you have these small non-conforming lots and a diff totally different area basically. Um, it just has its own character.

086You'll see the larger houses protruding out of the duneland, etc. Uh, I wanted to recognize the only relief requested here is an NRSP associated with the beach vegetation. All of our proposed improvements meet wetland setbacks and all other zoning requirements uh and are proposed out of jurisdiction. I think member Miring's photos, we really value the uh uh dunescape on this property. I mean, it's a really unique area. It's something you don't see anywhere else in the town. Uh, it's a lovely landscape. We made great efforts to preserve and protect it with our planning. The existing house predates the town's NRSP regulations uh probably in 1982 and these things were adopted by the town right around 1984. As I recall, this might even have been one of the subdivisions that led the town to to regulate

087dune vegetation basically at the time. Uh my client did have the opportunity to seek to grandfather this application in the prior gross floor area limitations. We did have an act active application at that time. Uh but we really didn't have the interest in maximizing gross floor area on this pro on of the residence. We thought the prop proposed design was consistent with the natural aspect and we didn't want to overpower it with the structure. We made great efforts to fit all of our proposed redevelopment within the limits of clearing and disturbance of the existing house in accordance with the NRSP regulations. Uh and this is the graphic that member Miring was referencing. This is just a colorized version where you can see the red is the uh the outline in red is the existing improvements

088and it's kind of got that funky arc deck right here that'll make it stand out. The overlay in blue is what we're proposing to put over it. So, uh it largely follows it as much as we could. Um current sanitary design to code using an AI system is sort of a variable outside of our control. The sanitary system will expand in size uh as well as you know the the area that it occupies based on the shallow groundwater system we're using. We're proposing to reveate all these areas to disturb to accommodate this at the conclusion of construction using beach vegetation. All the metrics of the town code are being complied with our lot coverage is incre uh is increasing over the existing structures. I think that's explained very well in the TAM that we're removing

089lot coverage, putting in or total lot coverage and putting in more lot coverage. Basically, larger roof surfaces uh cuz the house is getting larger. Uh but the total lot coverage as a whole is actually decreasing from the existing development by a few hundred square ft. Uh our clearing will be about 900 square ft more than currently existing based on our ability to use the envelopes uh efficiently. I I would agree to all the suggested mitigation from the planning department has suggested, including the expansion of the scenic easement to the north and northeast of the existing driveway. That's certainly a lovely area that should be protected as part of the entrance to the property, and it's also visible uh from the the areas off of the road frontage. I did want to discuss the sanitary system.

090Abandoning in place is a very beneficial uh suggestion. Basically the existing sanitary would be pumped out, cleaned out and filled with clean sand and just left to remain in on site. The actual removal of the system, the rings etc would um bring lots of additional disturbance to the site. Uh and is worth noting the existing so system is located within the minimum required wetland setback where the new sanitary system was proposed on the west side of the dry uh residence. It's also proposed in a relatively flat area. You don't see the undulations in the topography in that area and it was done to maximize the setback from the wetland. It complies with all setbacks. It's also a logical location adjacent to the building envelope that will not require further clearing outside of what we intend

091to be a closely followed edge of disturbance. It also will be an area that is easily serviceable if they had to come and maintain the system, pump it out, etc. It's right next to the driveway. I should also mention that the New York State DEC issued a letter of non-jurisdiction on the project. Uh I have it here with me, but I think it's also in your files and I can submit it if you need it. Other than that, I'm available to answer any questions you might have. >> What's um happening with the disturbed or excavated soils? >> The disturbed or excavated soils, it's largely clean sand basically. I think we >> What? >> Yeah. What's happening during construction? What's the protocol you're going to? Because typically, I mean, this is delicate dunes. So, we want

092to are we maintaining the the soils on site for reuse? >> What's going to happen? Where are you going to store them? >> Okay. You guys have >> Yeah, sure. [laughter] >> 6,000. >> It's a lot of It's just a lot of clearing and I and I think that needs to be addressed on this property. Good evening, Britney. >> You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. Um I know in preliminary discussions with the with the contractor, we had discussed um because you we are removing a house and removing a foundation, there's going to be some areas that need to be filled in. Um and as well the septic system because the existing system is pretty extensive using reusing that sand on site and

093pumping and abandoning the septic. a lot of that sand can be used there, but the intent would be to keep it all there. Um, and we'd be happy to as a condition of approval, you know, do a cut and fill or or construction protocol as a condition. >> So, I think that the concern, well, there two concerns when you we're dealing with properties like that. This what happens to the soils and reuse of the existing soil so that the the vegetation on its own can grow back to see the that m that's maintained in the soil and also the maintenance of the duneland character of the property when completed right we want to see those rolling topographies and stuff which I think you're maintaining I think I think you're setting out so those are two

094major concerns that we h always have when you're dealing such a pristine >> location like this because it's one of the most pristine in the town >> and it's definitely beneficial to the applicant and to the project as a whole to keep those soils on site. A sand is expensive. I can speak from experience on that one. Um to keep through use there the soil that we have to back fill the new foundation. The new foundation is a little bit larger. Um I think that's the that would be good practice to do that. So, however we want to memorialize that and any approval, we'd be happy with it. Either as a construction protocol or all soils need to be stockpiled on site in in a certain location, maybe we could identify where that is. Um,

095probably make the most sense over the septic and do that last. But we'd be h I'm sure there's some logistical um construction protocol document that we could we could hash that out. >> So, just following up on the chair's um thoughts, um I I think we've learned in similar applications that one of the reasons you want to protect the soils or the sands um is because they have certain >> like horizon, >> right? um that will regenerate. You know, there's there's vegetation there that you just can't plant. So, I guess that you wouldn't necessarily want to use that for filling in the basement, right? >> Well, I believe that you're talking about are the top layer. So, you know, and and traditionally on on projects like this, I've seen conditions that say >> excavated soils

096will be retained on site in a a sediment controlled area uh for reuse on the site. And clearly we would use the topic [clears throat] to create the undulating topography and the lower levels would be more applicable for back filling. But I don't think we would object to stockpiling maintaining them on site in a sediment controlled area. And if we do have to remove any of the soils at the conclusion of construction, we would come back to the board and and explain that for the board's approval. But I I don't think we're going to need to looking at the the cut and fill, you know, just the aspect of the site. It's all clean sand. And I our intention wasn't to >> Yeah. And staging becomes an issue, too. But maybe maybe uh with what

097Britain says, you you you stage the septic at a later point or whatever. >> Yeah. The septic area >> staging staging sequencing is is an issue. So the the TAM does question the scope of the 66,584 square ft of temporary clearing. Um and you know we've gone through this on other applications too. So can you address I mean do you have a 64% increase in GFA the lot coverage not total but the lot coverage is you know going up I think 1,500 square ft but um it seemed it I I I guess just address why 6584 square ft of temporary clearing >> well obviously >> needed was there is there a way to you know take that take that Part of it is because we're removing a structure that is oriented differently than our the

098proposed structure. It's just a different structure and and it kind of it's oriented in a different way. So we need to access the structure to remove it and that is part of the the temporary clearing is to get access to these areas to remove. However, this is not a complex reveation. I mean you can look at it. It looks like most of the photos you were showing were lychans that are on the ground. I think they call them reindeer lychans and beach vegetation. So I think we can res even though the temporary clearing number is large, we did that based on what we think we need to access the site to remove the improvements and then to construct the new improvements. Most of the temporary clearing is probably associated with the removal of the improvements.

099uh you know if you just follow the the uh the footprint of the existing versus proposed you know most of everything else we're doing is within that area of the proposed the existing disturbance on the site already. So >> u so [clears throat] um the comment in the TAM is the primary concern for the board should be to ask the question is it up been done to limit the amount of damage to the existing dude escape which we're addressing right now and I like certainly like Britain's proposal that you use the as was mentioned by the chair we use the area with the septic but um I think that is to be noted for us in the future I think as a you know In addition to your protocol, I think we should have a

100staging area and a deposit area for that material. I think that should be noted. So, we're we're fully understand as this projects move forward. Uh you can't look at photos of a site on in East Hampton any longer and see something much nicer than this in terms of dunescape. So, it's our major concern. I think that you brought up some good points, but I do think before we make any attempt at approving this, we have to see that that's been noted that these areas have been specified and we know that the people beyond this group, the [clears throat] construction people and you know and all that understand exactly what the limitations are on this. I think >> well I do know our project landscaper is Jimmy Grimes and Grimes Land Design. I mean, there's nobody

101that I think knows the board's concerns better than Jimmy Grimes and can restore this property and he's been retained. Uh, I would have thought to bring him here tonight, but I didn't understand that was going to be something uh of, you know, paramount importance based on the the scope of the improvements, but it certainly makes sense to me. Uh, in terms of moving forward, I think we could quickly identify a staging area on the property and a construction protocol to get this in front of the board. I'd like it to be in front of the board before you you're you're done meeting for the year basically. So I think we could put that together very quickly and have it for you at the next meeting if that's what the board >> would suggest or >>

102we don't have a revge plan right in the file >> meeting. Typically on these it's it's beach grass uh you know combs the three 18inch centers uh is is standard pre veg it's not a very invent you know there's some pitch >> Tyler maybe on that is what they're think >> any other questions >> right now >> thank you >> the board for the planning department >> Tyler do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> I Thank you. >> Um, so this parcel is located in the uh southern end of San Castle Lane in Amigansit. Uh, the project before the board is to demolish the existing residence associated structures and construct a new 3,910T residence uh with a 600 foot attached garage, decking, porches, swimming

103pool, pool house, outdoor shower, and associated structures. The project requires a natural resources special permit for the clearing of beach vegetation, construction within Dunland area, and minimal work within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands to the north. Uh the duneland habitat in this area of amiganza consists of maritime duneland and maritime heathland habitats as defined uh by the New York State Natural Heritage Program. The maritime heathland habitat is ranked as by the heritage program as one of the least common in the state and has become less common throughout Long Island in the mid-Atlantic region. This area is one of the few remaining areas of town that contains highquality pristine duneland vegetation. The premises the premises are improved with an existing residence which is surrounded by pristine rolling dune land. The depressional wet depressional wetland exists near the

104road right ofway to the north of the property. The scenic easement is proposed in order to cover the majority of the significant dueland topography on the parcel as mitigation. Uh this parcel uh has town protected beach vegetation such as reindeer lyken uh state protected pine bear and sand wart bear berry and beach heather. With such valuable existing vegetation across uh the undisturbed area of the parcel, the preservation of those uh areas should be uh paramount in any application on the property. The best way to maintain dune characteristics on vegetation on parcels is to limit their clearing and disturbance from the beginning rather than trying to reestablish it after construction is completed. The proposed improvements represent a relatively similar level of development to what is currently on the parcel with a shift from a smaller residence

105and expense expansive decking to a larger residence with more reduced decking uh in order to keep development in the same approximate area as what currently exists. A table was included in the assessment that shows the approximate gross floor area coverages and clearing uh proposed uh which was discussed. Uh overall it appears that development is in the same rough area as the existing keeping construction away from the most significant topography on the parcel and also minimizing additional temporary clearing. While the gross flare area is increasing by 64% and lock coverage by 85% the total lot coverage is proposed to decrease by 220 ft uh and clearing will increase uh by 93 ft after reveation is completed. Temporary clearing for construction total 6584 ft. uh which should be reduced if they don't aren't required to do clearing

106for the abandoning the old sanitary system as well. Um it appears the applicants have designed a project to remain within the same approximate total coverage uh while shifting the location of the proposed structures to remain within the X flood zone area on the parcel avoiding the AE10 and 13 zones to the east and west sides of the property. That said, the first floor elevation of the residence is proposed at 14 1.5 ft, uh, which would meet the new requirements coming up in January for an AE10 flood zone, uh, if it were within that zone. The proposed redevelopment keeps much of the structures within the footprint of the existing house, decking, pool, and driveway with some expansion further southwest, and reductions on the southeast side. The applicants have proposed a redevelopment that is in the same

107approximate area as the existing improvements, limits disturbance of the most sensitive topography on the parcel, and keeps expansion of the structures into undisturbed areas of the lot to a minimum. The largest area of new disturbance uh is for the proposed sanitary system, which is located on the far west side of the property in a relatively flat area just south of the existing driveway. The proposed sanitary system is uh substantially further from wetlands to the north and likely meet a better separation of groundwater compared to the existing three- ring system. Um it was discussed about just abandoning that that that old sanitary system rather than rather than removing it to limit disturbance. Um as mitigation for the redevelopment of the parcel, the most significant slopes uh are proposed to be protected within a scenic easement aside

108from two areas to the north of the proposed and existing development. uh and the applicants seemed okay with our proposal to to include some of that in a in a scenic easement. There is some significant topography over there. Uh so, you know, protecting those in perpetuity is important. Additionally, applicants are proposing to reveate approximately 5,681 square ft of clearing for construction, including over the proposed sanitary system and existing sanitary system should be removed, although that may not be required any longer. Um they they discussed be beach vegetation. I think that'd be probably be fine in this case. I don't think anything more substantial is required in this area. There's not a lot of woody uh vegetation other than like bear berry and things like that, but I I don't think we normally would would see

109that in a reveation plan. So, I think at least start, you know, kickstarting the vegetation in the area with beach grass and then letting the other vegetation sort of seed itself over time is probably a realistic option in this case. Um especially re reutilizing those uh those sandy soils um which have that seed bankank in them. uh is is important in that. Um aside from including more of the sensitive areas of the duneland and scenic easements, the proposed mitigation is in keeping with similar development in this area. While the proposed project is in the same approximate area of the parcel as the existing development, the quality of the surrounding dune land and vegetation cannot be understated. uh and the board should be sure that the proposed improvements are appropriate for and the project is designed

110in order to minimize unnecessary disturbance. Other than that, I can answer any questions that you might have. >> Obviously, you understand what what concerns we harp, but in this diagram here, you have um the the yellow dotted line I assume is the clearing limits of during construction um which I assume would be the project limiting fence would be set there. What about the driveway? I'm concerned about the uh the dune feature to the east of the driveway. And I think we need to make sure construction limiting fence travels at that because yeah, we could update that. >> The biggest problem, as you know, and I know is you can have construction creep on a project and I want to I want to limit construction creep. >> Certainly. Yeah. that yeah that's that's that shouldn't be

111difficult um to include a new sketch or to include it in the determination >> up Sean Sean from form arch >> yeah you want do you swear for him to tell you the truth >> um I just want to note that there is right now a rope >> drive uh kind of fencing along the driveway and the owner eventually would like to get rid of it but that could certainly stay in place which would certainly limit any trucks from Thank you. >> Question. >> Oh, yeah. Questions for Tyler. >> Tyler. Sorry. >> Thank you. So, uh, number one, how what is the square footage of the lot that will that will be covered by the scenic easement? >> I have no idea. Um, the it might say it. >> I didn't Did it say it?

112I won't say the square footage. of that proposed >> 711 is what they're noting on the survey plus an additional I don't know maybe 4,000 for the one that we had suggested. So maybe around 14,000 15,000 something like that. >> I'm sorry. Sorry. The 4,000 is an addition to what's on the survey proposed at 10,000. >> Yeah. If it if it would if the what we had suggested was included on top of what they what they had come in >> saying that there should be a somewhat bigger easement. >> Yeah. Let me bring up my sketch. >> And then um why if it's not in AE10, why is the elevation being raised to as if it's in AE10? I'm just >> I think that's just the nature of the construction. >> If you look at

113the existing contours though, that the existing contours are at that elevation. >> They're around they're around >> the existing contours. They're not they're not like raising it significantly to to >> but that's what I >> not arbitrarily. >> And then in your paragraph about mitigation, you know, say as mitigation um extend the scenic easement, but then you talk about the revge of 5,681 square ft in the same breath as you're talking about mitigation, but it's not mitigation because they're they're doing 6,548 square foot of temporary clearing, which would be expected, >> right? They're not ask they're not asking they're asking to temporarily do it and then mitigate it by reveating out of after the fact. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tyler. Is there anybody in the

114public that would like to address this application? Anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you, >> Andy. So, I want to point out one is the scenic easement. Yes. I think we can extend it up. That'll put it at about 15,000 square feet. That's I don't know 40% of the lot. But it's it's really quality versus quantity in some respects. The quant the quality is the most important areas in the Dunland aspects that you see and value the most are the ones that we're really trying to protect. Uh in terms of the sanitary system, I think that temporary clearing will be reduced. We have to excavate enough to get the covers off to pump it out to health department rags, but that's certainly going to be much less temporary clearing. I don't know that

115we actually factored in what that difference would be, but it's probably a,000 square ft give or take. Uh, looking at the area that we're talking about in terms of the materials on site, we'd be happy to accept a condition that says all material excavated shall be retained on site in a sediment controlled barrier area. And I think the most likely and and certainly large enough area is the area of the proposed sanitary system would be an ideal location to stockpile those materials while we're working on site. We can stage them there and work around them as we're uh dealing with the rest of the site. But the there is a large area on site. It's not like we're super constrained in terms of where we can put these things. >> Any other questions? >> I

116have not. Andy, I just I just want to take a moment and just say that you've been in front of me many times and I want to take this opportunity to say I've enjoyed every one of them. Thank you. >> I wish I could tell you that, [laughter] >> your honor. >> I've learned I've learned a lot from you. I've learned that you're really good in naming wetlands. >> That's right. >> I've learned also that um you're like George Washington. Everybody in Montalk can say Annie slept here. Annie Hammer [laughter] slept here. So, thank you. Well, thank you very much for your service. It's been a pleasure >> and it goes best of luck. >> So, are we leaving the record open for anything? >> Are we leaving the record open? That's a question we

117have. Are we getting a construction protocol? Um I can we can I think we can condition that. Um number one, I'm concerned about the construction limiting fence. That's going to be dealt with, I'm sure. And then maybe that we can condition it on um soils quality quality of the soils remaining on site for I think we can do that in a sediment controlled environment. I think that would be perfectly >> and ultimately not to leave the record but ultimately if it's conditional approval to a survey with the expanded the any change in clearing and the expanded um >> easement. Yes. And I think the plane department generally would do that on the sketch that they would submit for you. So, we're not leaving anything open, Mr. >> I don't think we need to. I think

118we can condition it. >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you, Britain. >> Ready for a motion? >> Yes. Okay. in the matter of um Charlie Of LLC 59 San Castle Lane Amaganset tax map 300-152-2-28.10. I make a motion to close the hearing and the public record. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. No. Okay, we're going to go into work session. We have an administrative application. That's Linda Shonheimer at 12 South Ethna Place in Montalk Map number 300-49-5-11. has to construct a 280 square foot 288 foot shed on a parcel containing freshwater wetlands. >> Sure. Uh so this is a small shed located 105 ft from wetlands up here to the north. There's also wetlands, you know, surrounding the property. There's wetlands over here to

119the uh southwest. Um small amount of clearing is required. That's private. Um so we're not really too concerned with the clearing that's required. They're doing a little bit of reveation along the property line as well. meets all the required setbacks. It's a very minimal project. Um, we don't really have any concern. >> I don't have a problem with it. >> I'm good with this. >> I'm good. >> We have a motion here. Oh, >> yeah. So for the application for Linda Shonheimer 12 South Ed 3000-49-5-11 make a motion to approve the application to be processed administratively. >> Second >> I concur. >> concur. Thank you. >> Next we have post hearing decisions. We have Montalk 077668 LLC at 33 North Surfside Avenue in Montalk sub tax map number 300-29-1-9.2 two size and location is 19,005

120square ft at 33 North Surfside Avenue Surfside Estates map a part of lots 8 9 11 12 and 13 block 356 map number 1690 in Montalk description is to legalize an existing home entrance walkway and driveway install a new egress basement window and allow for placement of a new storage shed on a lot containing freshwater wetlands natur resources special permit pursuant to 255 420 and variances from 255430 wetland setbacks of the East Hampton Town Code. A 38.5 ft variance is required for the proposed eagress window and a 42T variance is required for the new shed location to be located 61.5 ft and 58 ft respectively from wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. This zone executive is B residence zonic flood zone in the secret class. >> Okay, >> this

121mine said this hearing was >> I think that's uh 10:28. >> 10:28. Yeah. Okay. He was on 1028. The agent was Tara Burke um who submitted a memo with memo from May 30th, 2025. And Rick Whan was also in attendance as the attorney who received uh that memo on August 18, 2025. And this has um the variances for this were minor. Um what happened here? There was a previous previous applications uh which had a scenic easement established. Something that happened after all of that uh was that a shed was put there was a scenic easement that was established and the shed was put within 10 ft of the scenic eastment. So part of this application was to remove that shed and put a smaller shed on another portion of the property um and also an

122egress window. Both of them were being proposed to go on the norththeastern side and mostly eastern side of the property. Uh both of which uh put that farther away from the wetlands that were on the property which were on the north and and the south side. Uh actually two sides that of wetlands along this property. Um there was um so all over time also from previous application there had been some stone work that was done. One aside from the shed it was on a stone surface and some other pavers and there was a question about the parking area which looked like it had been expanded a little bit beyond what was approved. Um so all of these things were being are being worked on some were already in progress with reveations but in terms of

123the the shed and the egress location I'm going to approve this application [clears throat] um I think it meets the NRSP standards the shed certainly uh being made a lot smaller than the the shed that was being removed from the property and from near the easement and the egress window was for uh access obviously from the the basement of the house and that was also put in a better location by farther from the wetlands. So, and I think it meets the standards. They're going to reveate on some existing stone that they're going to continue removing. Um there was one question that came up about a brick apron at the end of the flag lot which is partially on the applicant's property and mostly not uh whether we want to give that an NRSP or that

124portion of P uh the brick apron or not. Uh the Rick Whan in his in his discussion did say that the apron rather than take they would remove it if we wanted them to, but it felt it probably protects some of the runoff from the gravel driveway to begin with. So I'm all in favor of, you know, giving the NRSP for that portion of the patio. I think it meets the standards. I think there's no impact negatively overall in the the location of either any of the improvements that are being required and I think the minimum variances are being met on this and the improve this project as a whole and NRSP standards. Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh there's not a lot to add. I think you're you're right about it. Uh the egress window

125uh has a function there and I think it was put in the best possible location. I think it's something that was reasonable for the applicant to uh ask for. I think we're moving a shed that's a large replacing a larger shed with a smaller shed up against the house. So it's in a a previously disturbed area. We're going to reveate where that shed was. I think that's a positive. Um, I think the discussion of the u of the apron is one. There was about a third of it on the property of this parcel in question. I think taking it out is uh there's really no significance but positive environmental significance in taking it out at this point. What's beyond it would remained anyway. It was off the property. I think leaving it there is not

126in any way a problem for me. I think that it does rise to the level of approving the NRSP. I think that the variances are ones that are reasonable giving what we were asked to approve. Um, not a lot to add. I think that I'm uh I thought the presentation was a good one and I think they tried to cover the basis. So, I'm going to approve this application. Thank you. >> Entirey, >> Jane. >> Yes. I don't have a lot to add either. I'm approving the window egress variance. Um, I think a window egress is appropriate and required for finished basement. um the balance it's balanced distance from both wetlands um and likely the minimum variance necessary and in no way do I see it as um uh that it could be that a

127egress could be accomplished without a variance and I don't see it creating any detriment to the neighbors or environmental conditions. I'm approving the shed for similar reasons. It's likely the best position possible. It's smaller than what was there. Um, and it's out of the scenic easement. Um, obviously there in the record there was a BP memo sketch from the building department that also talks about us having to legalize everything that was in pink, which were all the walkways and everything. I guess we're legalizing that under the NRSP since they don't require variances. And I also agree um that stuff does not create a detriment to the protected natural resources um or anything else. And on the apron, I mean, I don't know how they get the part of it outside of us approved. I guess

128they have to go to highway department, but I guess I'm fine, you know, saying it's okay to keep the brick apron that's on the property that's in our jurisdiction. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> I have not much to add as well. Uh the project will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. Benefits cannot be sought by some other method other than a variance. 40% of this property is a scenic easement due to the property being constrained with wetlands. These variances are not substantial and this will have no impact on the neighborhood or negative impact on the environment. It is in keeping with the town's goals for protecting natural resources and the natural resources will not be diminished in size, polluted or degraded or put in peril. Actually, the total lot

129coverage and building coverages have been uh reduced. So, I'll be approving this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. I agree. I don't have anything else to add. And one thing uh that I forgot to mention, it came up that the the lot size was off on the survey and they will be submitting a new survey that has the correct dimensions on that. [clears throat] >> Thank you, council. We good? >> Yep. >> Next, we have 840 Springs Fireplace Road. 840 Springs Fireplace Road. Springs suffest number 300-62-7-2.3. The size and location is 13,192 ft at 840 Springs Fireplace Road map of Malkque Manor 4 lot 1 through 4 including 17 and 18 block 3 filed July 11th 1911 as map 455 in springs. The description is to construct a 1,439t two-story house, 561qt pool, 86

130ft deck, outdoor shower, IIA sanitary system, reconfigure a driveway, and allow clearing to remain within the jurisdiction of a wetland. The release is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code. The zoning district is A5 residence AE flood zone elevation six in the secret classes type two. And Mr. Vice Chair, >> thank you. This public hearing was held on October 28th. [snorts] >> Public hearing and record was closed. Britain Bistran appeared on behalf of the application. David Rhodess, the engineer, also appeared. Morgan Slater spoke on behalf of the planning department and there were no callers. This property is within the Springs Historic District. The proposed work is depicted on the Gary Ben survey dated revised February 4th, 2025. Architectural plans are drawn by Cartina and call dated received 21325 and septic

131sanitary system plans by TF Engineering dated revised 12324 [laughter] and a reveation plan by James Grimes dated revised 22322. David RH submitted a letter dated October 8th, 2025, which addressed a concern that was noted at the public hearing regarding groundwater. And it noted the bottom elevation of the drain field as proposed conforms to both county code of two-foot separation to highest expected groundwater and the town code of 4ft separation to the groundwater table. The highest expected groundwater elevation for this property was determined to be elevation 3.0 ft. Morgan Slater spoke uh at the public hearing, submitted a sketch which actually revised a scenic conservation easement. The easement accommodates it which accommodated the 10-ft setback that structures are required to meet from the scenic easement. Scenic conservation easements. uh as a board we can discuss how

132we feel about going forward with that. The applicant is proposing a very modest house. The 4/10 rule does apply on this lot since it is undersized for the zoning district it is in. The lot is cleared and vacant. This is in an harbor protection overlay district and contiguous to the wetlands associated with Akabanic Harbor. A major plus to the environmental stability of this site is the installation of an IIA system and also a reveation plan proposes reducing the clearing from 11,216 square ft to 10,000 square ft which would meet the clearing limits for H pod. Now these to me are two aspects of the application that I have to applaud um that the applicant uh applaud the applicant for implementing these because HP pod regulations provide extra protection to sensitive harbor side environments. It protects

133water quality which also preserves protecting wetlands, tidal marshes and coastal habitats. Additionally, there is a 25- ft scenic easement on the eastern side proposed. However, in the TAM, the planning department recommended the buffer extend 50 ft further to the west for a buffer and conservation easement extending to a total of 75 ft from the eastern property line. I think um the record should also note that um since this is in a historical district that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant should obtain approval from the architectural review board. I feel with the mitigation that's being proposed, the development is in keeping with NRSB standards and 25551 and 25540. I think this project is in keeping with the town's goals for protecting natural resources and I'll be approving this application in its entirety.

134>> Thank you, Ed. Yeah. Uh, thank you for that presentation, Vice Chair. Um [clears throat] I think they start by looking at this as an odds size uh we know it's undersized but an oddshaped lot and there was a real effort made here on the part of designing a structure and uh and the importance is to fit within uh the property successfully. I think it's important to note there are no variances requested here just in NRSP. I think when you start out looking at how to develop a lot like this, this is a challenge. This is a strange pies-shaped lot. They managed to repres uh uh propose a moderatelysized home, 1492 square ft. It does have a pool. It does have some deckage, but we see that it fit in very well. I think that

135[clears throat] the um uh the various requests there half of what's allowed in GFA and the building coverage is 7% with 20% would be allowed. It was all efforts on the part of the planning that showed that there was something went into this. This this parcel was also before it came to us in front of the planning board. It had a secret review. The town board had a comment on it. This called for uh some uh adjustment on the urban renewal aspect of the property as it came up to Springs Fireplace Road. [snorts] uh the discussion of uh the septic systems and that that was mentioned by the vice chair that it meet both the county and the town standards. Again, I overall it seems to me if you have a a lot like this

136that you want to develop, it was an undeveloped lot. U you come forward with us with a plan that makes the most sense on that lot for us. No variances is a big one. how you get a a project you'd like to see in here on this property. I think that it represents a creative and and an active effort on the part of the applicant to find the best way to fit in here. I think the discussion that went on a little bit at the end was whether or not we wanted to talk about increasing the buffer. The applicant was hoping to not go beyond what they had proposed and it was proposed again by Morgan Slater that we could come a good deal further north here on the property with that. I would say

137given the size of the property, the constraints on the property and the other directions, the fact that it comes under the 410 rule and that they've made I think uh a positive and reasonable effort in all directions, I'd be willing to approve it. a proposal as was made by the applicant. I think that uh planning department is correct in asking for more. I think that's their job. But I think that overall here what I see on the part of this applicant was a real effort. And uh I don't know if I want to say applaud, but I certainly recognize it and I'm willing to uh at this point approve this application. >> Thank you, Jane. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Did you say that you were approving it with what was proposed or with the

138um added uh easement that was uh talked about by Morgan at >> I'm I I agree with um member Johan that what the uh applicant proposed is sufficient to >> sufficient to you. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood your >> I just wanted to see how the rest of the board felt before I said how I felt. But I think the applicant, as member Johan has said, has >> Okay. >> met the um standards. >> All right. I just wanted to hear what you had to say. Okay. So um and maybe while we're talking, maybe you could put up the sketch that was shown to us. Um be helpful. Give me one second. Okay. Um so I won't repeat um everything. I also agree that you know this is an NRSP and

139it's a somewhat it's a constrained lot um and all the proposed structures and and everything uh does do not need variances. Um I believe what has been proposed for the most part does meet the all the natural resources uh [clears throat] special permit. um conditions or sorry uh standards um in terms of everything from you know character to not putting protected um resources in well actually let me take that one out for a second but um I do uh so the house um the pool and the decking seem like an appropriate level of development on the lot. Um, however, you [clears throat] know, the planner was very very compelled to uh make the case that the uh the the size of the scenic easement as proposed that we saw in the survey and that two

140members have already discussed felt that because it's H pod and in an NRSP and this is also the narrowest part of the lot that's closest to the wetlands that just looking at it as 25 foot deep um was not necessarily enough. So um it's not as much of a slam dunk without the extra variance for me that it doesn't potentially put the protected natural resource into you know some challenge. Now, I did hear Miss Bistrian say that she felt that the um additional the 75 ft would be I think she used the word overreach, but I did hear her say that she they would be willing to reveate that extra I think it was 1,100 square ft. um but would would prefer to do that but not have the easement extended over that. So I

141mean I guess still want to hear what my other board members say but I I would say at a minimum since that's offered I do believe even if it's not under an easement that greater degree of vegetation closest to the wetlands could be uh viewed as more appropriate mitigation. Um, so that's that's where I am, but I just, you know, still was a little custoy on that extra extra bit of easement. >> Thank you, Terry. >> Yeah. Um, okay. I agree. I agree with actually I agree about the additional revitation. Um, the the scenic easement as it's shown here with the extra 25 ft. I know Britain made an argument that, you know, they had the the planning board and the scenic easements approved at what they were at 25% on each side and that

142it would be a hardship to have to go back and get that change to the additional. So, I'm definitely against the additional 25 ft of the scenic easement, but as member Miring said, Britain did say that she was willing to do an additional,00 ft of reveation and keep this 25 foot scenic easement. She was willing to do that, which would reduce the clearing an additional,00 square feet. And I think we should go for that. I'm in favor of the additional reveation. >> Okay. Thank you. I agree with um with the approval of this application regarding the reveation and the easement. Um I find that the application is already meeting H pod um which I think is laudable on this application. Um I don't I I know that Morgan came to us and it was kind

143it was kind of last minute too. I I didn't it was kind of funny to me. So it was last [clears throat] minute she gave this came up with this thing but I don't think she >> she identified the nexus for >> requiring more than what H pod um what they were meeting already. So I too am going to approve the application as as submitted >> was originally submitted. Okay, I'm fine with that. The one thing I would say I I'm fine with it too, but the one thing I would say is that um I don't think it was last minute because the TAM actually, you know, showed recommended an even bigger easement than what's in her sketch. So, it was already on the table. >> I know they pulled it back because the the

144original one would have created a nonformity. I know. >> Just wanted to agree. >> Okay. We good, council? >> Yep. >> Okay. So before [snorts] you read the next hearing decision in um so this is right going to be ocean lane. Um so at the time of the public hearing I found no reason to recuse from the application. I informed that I had no conflict. Um advice of council has long told me that proximity on the or on being on the same block is not necessarily requirement for recusal. However, in light of developments that took place during the public hearing, I find that now I uh need to step aside from the decision deliberation of this board and I will be exiting the Don. Come on up. >> Does that mean you're leading off on

145it? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> [laughter] [clears throat] >> The public hearing was held on October 28th, 2025. Member Maring delivered the report and have since recused herself from the hearing for this application. The applicant, 20 Ocean LLC, was represented by its owner, Tommy Zung. Tyler Borsac appeared on behalf of the town planning department and the record contains a letter in support of the application from neighbor Tanaz Eggian at 26 Ocean Lane. There was no public comment. The [clears throat] application is for two variances. NRSP as the property is on dune land and within wetland jurisdiction and uh a variance for a roof height as the roof is changing from gabled to flat uh and the maximum height for flat roof is 25 and the new proposed roof is 29.25 uh which is

146measured from the lowest grade of an undulating duneland um which is a requires a variance of 4.25 ft which uh equates to a 17% variance. Um there was a question as to where sand will temporarily be stored during construction. The owner had suggested in the rear of the property and member Johan had asked if the front would be possible. I don't think this question uh got resolved. Uh in the front would be it it turns out that the owner has gone ahead and installed the uh IIA septic system. So the proposed location at the front of the property would be on top of the the new IIA system. I don't know if that's advisable or if the board has an opinion about this, whether it it would cause less disturbance to the site if the

147sand were stored in the front of the property versus the rear, but it would be on top of an IA system. So, I don't don't know if that was excluded from being possible because of the IIA system. I I think at the time the applicant was not in favor of putting it on the it was a completed system so he did not offer it up at that conversation. >> I actually I I >> I rewatched the the hearing today and he seemed uh okay with it. He was I think he deferred to our >> going to the front. >> Yeah. I'm not sure we came to a conclusion on that either. >> And I don't know if I'm qualified. Well, I'm probably qualified, but I I don't think I would want to stretch >> out

148and say that he has to put it on top of the septic system. I don't want to be in that position as a zoning board. These things are plastic covers today and stuff like that. And I I don't think it should be us to to dictate that. I think we should stay away from it. >> All right. So, the what was proposed that the sand be relocated in the rear of the property, we'll >> uh leave that as is. Um so as for the NRSP that's requested um provided that one as stated by the owner the foundation of the house is to remain the same uh that there will be no disruption on three sides of the house and that there will be invasive species remediation. Two that concrete canolvered retaining walls are to replace

149the existing in place railroad tie retaining walls. The tiebacks with dead dead men's legs are to be cut and abandoned in place. Uh [clears throat] in addition to reveation reveitating excuse me the construction disturbed areas as proposed in the construction protocol. Additionally that all current currently cleared areas also be reveated. uh that the dunes will retain their current topography and that the construction protocol would be adhered to. Um, also I don't believe that other aspects of the project negatively impact the NRSP, namely the first and second floor additions, which although they do increase the GFA, don't meaningfully increase the building uh coverage, uh, new doors and windows, replacing the existing wood decking, and reconfiguring the existing driveway and entry step. So um having said that and with the uh NRSP uh conditions as mentioned above,

150I believe the project will meet NRSP standards as enumerated in 255-5-51 of East Hampton Town Code. Um as for the roof height variance requested of 4.25T 25 ft resulting from the roof changing from a gable to flat roof. The change reduces the current roof height nonconformity and appears to eliminate a very small existing pyramid violation and will overall have I believe a minimal visual impact. So, as for the height variant, as per the standards enumerated in 255-850, I don't believe that granting the variance will cause an undesirable change of character in the neighborhood or that it will create a detriment to nearby properties. And as for whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance, the change from a

151gable to a flat roof opens up floor space with little addition to the home's outline and reduces the overall current height roof height by 4 feet. So retaining a gable roof would result in a similar uh visual impact. In my opinion, I do not believe the variance request is substantial and I don't believe that granting the variance will have an adverse uh effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or in the affecting area affected area of the town and though the difficulty causing the applicant to request an area variance is self-created created this consideration is not determinant. Therefore, with the project mitigations as stated as I stated previously, I vote to approve this application. >> Thank you, Terry. Okay. Um generally, okay, I I agree with um my fellow board

152member. Uh there a number of them. Well, I'll talk about the height one. The height one was actually easier for me to decide on. And as already stated, even though it's going to be a 4.25 25 increase in the height for the flat roof. It's going to be an ultimate uh lowering of about four feet from the gable roof that exists today. And the additions I think will not be overwhelming. He's still well under coverage calculations for the property. Getting closer, but still meets that. So, I'm definitely approving the variance for the the flat roof. Um, and then the discussion of the retaining wall, the one that was in most disrepair on the I guess that's the south westerly side of it. Um, they had the two options about doing the dead man approach and

153the concrete retaining wall approach. And I think everyone agreed in the TAM and uh board also that the best method was to go with the concrete retaining wall. So that is the one that I'm approving. Um the other, you know, the existing decking, but it was out at the property. You could see a lot of it was in disrepair. So I have no problem with the all the existing decks being rebuilt. And I guess I do want to I'm concerned with the NRSP I guess with the the soils. I know we talked about it and he wants to put them in the back. I guess one of our concerns which we're always concerned about contours is if they're putting all of that back in this area. Um my concern I guess is he going to

154restore all the contours to the way they exist today? And I think was that in the construction protocol? I'm not sure it was. >> Um, and then I do think uh as the TAM recommends that he would reveate anything that was disturbed >> during the course of the project. Um, he has on here like rebuild existing fences. I I don't know if those fences were approved yet and showed a lot of I don't know what kind of reveation on them but um don't know if that would have to go to the ARB for the uh fencing they were 8 foot deer fences >> but um I guess I I don't know that move you want to approve uh you Or we can we can approve we can approve a fence to code. >> Yeah. Yeah.

155It still needs to approve like the location. >> I agree with that. We can't approve. We don't want to >> you can't approve an 8 foot one without ARB. >> We say offense to code. We should uh >> we don't know if it appro [snorts] >> does it. I I don't know. I'm not sure property code. It's >> but it would 8 foot would need ARB approval at least it may be assembled. Yeah. So I I am very concerned about the uh the contours and that all the reitation gets done properly but overall if I guess if it gets done properly um um I think it will be better for metro for the city. The only other question I had, that little cut off in the parking area that he's squaring off, I mean, it

156didn't really seem like that was necessary. >> Still part of the proposal. >> Overall, I am approving this uh project, but um there's a concern that the protocols on the and the contours be be met and the reeducation occur. Thank you, Ed. Yeah. Um I think Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I think you start with the walls uh the retaining walls because we've talked about the environmental impact of those. Very quickly became obvious that the concrete proposal option was the better one. Far less disturbance. He talked about additional 800 yards of uh of excavation would be needed to come down at least on the south side of the property. I wouldn't be surprised if we wound up being more in the end. I think that was a positive. I think that uh it's extensive and

157it does extend around towards the rear of the house. So, it's something that deserved our attention and I think that we had the conversation that night and I think coming to the idea that it's going to be the minimum amount under the circumstance with the concrete was important in this application. I think the height is it's been stated well by uh the other board members here is that you know it actually is coming down although we have to reconsider that it's a flat roof but I think it's important to remember that it only is being called out because of that depressed area at the east side of the house that's significantly lower. So relative to almost the entirety of the property except for that one pit area it wouldn't be called out for variance on

158this at all. So I don't have a problem with that. I think the additional work being done to the house is largely uh the existing is largely being done over previous disturbed areas and over the house itself. So it's a large jump in GFA but it's not a jump in footprint house footprint at all or very little anyway and not something that we have to uh think an awful lot about for me on this one. uh the conversation about what has been disturbed, the condition of the duneland around there and what it will look like. Uh the applicant was um uh very uh anxious to tell us that he was going to see to it that anything that we looked like was disturbance because they pulled out invasive species. He mentioned uh that there was

159a significant amount of olive in there and that had gone and he was happy to see that done and it would all be reveated. So the reveation plan here along with the the respect for the existing contours is absolutely critical in terms of maintaining the best we can on a pro a small parcel that's going to have a significant amount of work done to it. So I think those are two areas that uh we have to reiterate how important it was for us in considering this. Um let me see what else I had here. um the GFA the building protocol is critical here and and where we do with the sand I agree with the conversation that's happened we didn't like it in the back because that's an existing area that we don't want to

160see us losing uh doing great disturbance to or losing uh code I now agree with having said suggested it I I'm agreeing with the chair um it'd be one thing over traditional u septic system where we might have reinforced covers and we've driven on them and over and often done that. >> As far as these leeching pools, I don't know that I'd want to be responsible for recommending anyone to put any kind of tonnage on that and find out we had done serious damage to it. >> I think the comment that we're not qualified probably applies. Someone else could have to make that comment to make it authoritative. But overall, I think that there was a a reasonable presentation. It seemed like the concern for the environment was on the applicant's mind. He represented himself

161so he could speak directly to how concerned he was about the future of the property. the revitation is critical and I think that uh the comments that have been made about uh the fence to code in the future and that would be important and then of course just that uh the planting plan being approved and then hopefully at the end inspected the CFO so we see that the parcel is preserved. With all of that in I I'm going to approve this application. I think that it was a a reasonable effort made on the part of the applicant to address our major concerns and so I have no problem with it, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. The only concern I I really had on this um is how the retaining wall was going to be installed. Uh

162the dune land on this property is significant. The importance of this retaining wall is the fact that it supports and upholds the duneland characteristics. So not disrupting the existing topography is critical. The existing retaining wall actually holds up to approximately 10 ft of dune land topography and soils. So maintaining that dune land feature is paramount to protecting what characterizes this neighborhood. The method of replacing the retaining wall by installing a new poured concrete wall appears to me to minimize the disturbance within the dune land habitat. This would avoid extensive excavation and reduce impacts to dune stability, native vegetation and natural grade while not really increasing the footprint. In my opinion, this approach may be considered a lower impact alternative. There should be no disturbance other than what is absolutely necessary. What's important that the restoration

163of vegetation after construction and most important erosion control measures should be implemented during construction which will reduce impacts to dune vegetation and root systems. In terms of clearing, all the improved un unimproved areas of the parcel should be reveated with dune land species after construction. This will help to maintain the character of the neighborhood. The additions to the residence are within existing disturbed areas and the gabled to flat roof is to add additional GFA. Overall, the residents will increase to a proposed two 2792 ft where 28 is allowed. So, they are within what is allowed. The proposed flat roof does meet pyramid regulations and will meet FEMA requirements. I think the existing deck changes are minimal and the septic system is in the best location and will create greater environmental protection for the property. The

164driveway is simply being squared off at the southeastern corner of the parking area. In summary, the applicant appears to have really considered alternatives and seemed to be very aware and conscious of the environmental constraints of the property during the public hearing and has in my view proposed reasonable methods of construction. I agree with the planning department recommending the reveation of all areas outside of the existing and proposed improvements. A scenic easement over the duneland topography is warranted and placing an easement over areas around the northeast corner and southern property lines is warranted as well. Overall, I will be approving this application in its entirety and approving the retaining wall by installing the Newport concrete wall with environmental safeguards. >> That's Thank you. I agree with my board members. I agree with the concrete retaining wall.

165agree with the height of the building. I agree with the [snorts] um the application as a whole. I do have a suggestion though regarding the um final grade and the topography of the dunes council in um paragraph D of the of the conditions has to do with the reveation plan. If we can say something to the fact that the reveation pan plan shall be revised and submitted and showing that the final uh grades comply with the existing grades. >> Okay. So it be a revge plan and >> yeah the re it should be shown on the revamp that >> grading and revage plan. Yeah, grading and reage plan shall show that that the uh final grade contours shall [snorts] be shall comply with the existing >> sound right. >> That's a good recommendation. >> So

166something to that effect. >> Your time. >> Okay. >> All right. Other than that, we're good. go back to the scenic easement and thank the vice chair for bringing that up because it was brought up but and I do agree that we should get a scenic easement on that as well. I know it was stated that it would be small but so what >> right I mean the more I think the more protection the better looking it's in um paragraph E scenic and conservation museum shall be established >> oh it's actually already in the summary >> oh good conditions >> yeah all right >> and I think it's warranted >> yes >> okay that good so you said there's a the scenic easement is is where >> it's it's part of uh E >> paragraph

167E >> in the conditions >> in the recommended >> it's already it's already identif >> in the summary of m >> recommended conditions >> it's one of the recommended uh mitigation measures >> is there a revised Hold on, hold on, hold on. >> Shoot. I don't have that in my c. >> Hold on. Let me go. Let me go back there. Yeah, I was I didn't bring my >> I'm sorry. Let me go back there. might have. >> You got the tar. >> I do too. Maybe I do. >> I I don't have >> still think the re plan should say that. >> I got to look up I got to look up the um Here we go. >> Yeah, I don't see it. >> No, the ement. No, >> it's noting the scenic. >>

168It's probably in the body of the town. >> It is. Yeah, it's on page four. >> Okay. In the second to last >> Charlie in the in the Tam in the Tam >> scenic easement over some of the duneland topography may be warranted. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So where would it be though? >> Where would the senior easement be? >> On the south side >> over um placing an ement over areas around the northeast corner and southern property lines. >> Yeah. >> And over the dune land topography. >> Do they want sketch approval? >> South. Yes. >> Approve a sketch at the same time. >> Again, we wouldn't be as scenic. We can't can a scenic easement. We can't create a nonconformity, right? Can does it have to be within 10 ft of >> I

169would Yeah, I would probably I mean >> easier that way. >> It'd be easier. I mean, I guess you could. Yeah. I mean >> always write it to say >> I don't know how you're going to define that. >> It would be like 10 feet off of the you know like that this is going to be tight. Well that's not really the that's not it's up here. >> Yeah. >> Northeast and the south that northeast >> 10 ft from here. >> No it's not >> it's going to be very little guys. Yeah >> every little bit helps. But then but you have a revge plan to keep the the revge plan would have a contours. So the contours would still be there and then >> ask for contours on a final co survey too. >>

170Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Just want to make sure there's a time we can I'll we'll work on it but I I know the general gist of it and Yeah. >> Okay. [clears throat] We good? >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for pointing that out. >> It's like 74 like not tapped properly. Okay, next we have Jordan Brink in Enz Salah at 49 G Road in Montalk number 300-10-6-5 Size location is 75 thou 7500 square f feet at 49 G road collodon shores lot 60 map number 3433 filed October 16th 1961 in Montalk the description is to allow a patio to remain 8.8 ft and 9.3 feet from side and rear lot lines where 15 ft is required saw as two variances of 6.2 2 ft and 5.7 ft [snorts] pursuant to 255 11110 of

171the East Hampton Town Code is required to allow the existing patio to remain 8.8 ft and 9.3 ft from the side and rear yard lot lines are 15 ft is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence and the X flood zone and the C bus is type two. This was this >> okay go for So we started with a hearing on 10:21 and uh it was the notice was improper but we went ahead with the presentation by the applicants agent um who was um Davis Landscape Design Company and then there was a continuation that we established to get proper posting on this uh with a continuation scheduled for November 18th which we had uh back then there was still an issue posting. Um but um there was no there were

172a couple of neighbors that did uh say that they approved of the the applicants variances and the project. So we went ahead with that and uh ended the uh call. There were no other calls at the time on November 18th from the public. Uh so this is two variances. It was a very long time coming for two small variances. [laughter] But um I am going to approve both variances. They they list on the TAM as 6.2 and 5.7 ft respectively for the patio for the side and the rear lot lines where 15 is required. Uh there was discussion though that originally on the building plans that were approved it should the plans that were submitted showed 10 foot as on the uh documentation to for the uh patio and then the 15t came into play

173later on and so the variances went on inspection later on uh said that they required a 15 foot. However, um if you look at the survey also, it's a very small portion of the patio that is actually attached to the house itself. Um and effectively this is to me more like a 1.2 and a.7 foot variant. So I am going to approve both of these in their entirety. There is no NRSP required on this one. So I think if it meets all the the variances, the dimensional variances, it's not going to pose a detriment to the town or the minimum variances necessary. Um they're not really even selfcreated and they're proving it in its entirety four months. >> Thank you, Ed. Uh yeah. Um it's it's fairly simple but u there was this idea that

174they assumed it was 10 ft. It was pointed out by the chair at the night of the meeting that it's responsibility of the contract and move forward knowing what the regulations are. Be that as it may portion of the patio touches the house. So if it hadn't touched would have been only a 10 foot. Having said all of that they still missed it by a foot point. too and professional organizations come in and then said, "Well, you know, it's hard to see the property line." That's what surveying is about and we have to deal with it all the time. So, I'm going to approve it, but I just want to make note of the fact that um it's kind of a weak argument to come in in front of us and say, "Well, it was

175hard to know where the property line was." Um, you know, this is what we deal with every day. >> I think it's a weaker argument because you could have measured it off the house which is existing and you know that this is you didn't need the property line. you had the house to give you the benchmark. >> All that all of that being is it it's a very they're very small variances. I'm going to approve it but uh comment about yeah Mr. Chairman [laughter] Dave speaking of the weak argument. No. Um so the hearing notice as we know was written in relation to relief for a recently installed stone porcelain patio. Um and it the hearing notice was written in relation to what was believed to be need what what by code is needed 15

176ft required setback for any decking that's attached to the primary residence. Um and the variances brought before us in that notice 6.2 and 5.7 ft would be substantial. However, during the public hearing, we learned that likely the building permit was issued in error based on a survey that showed that the patio was 10 ft from the side and rear yard property line. Um, and that was mistakenly approved. I guess they didn't realize that the patio was attached to the house. And it is true. One thing that's kind of unique about this application is like it's a small corner of this new patio that's attached to a small corner of the house. So from there um the applicant explained that the that pro that mistake got compounded because the sub subcontractor [laughter] built it in error

177as was said 1.2 ft and.7 ft too close to the lot lines. So one error compounds the other. Um as a board so it's sort of like approving builder's error. Um a board member as a board member it's not unusual for us to grant relief in the case of builder's error even if as the chair says might be a weak argument. Um and if it is based on a required 10-ft setback those variances are a lot less substantial. Again, the unique factor for me here is how little of the patio is actually attached to how little of the house. Usually, I think we think about these attached deckings as patio as a a kind of entirely attached to like a full side um of a house. So, um all in not really substantial. there was

178a building department error, a builder's error, and I don't think from the standards perspective, um it will create much uh detriment to the neighbors or um any issues with respect to character um or anything else in the varian standard. So, I'm going to approve them. >> Who's gone? My turn. >> Okay. I do not think that this project will create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. This residence is actually surrounded by similarly sized properties. The project uh will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, the record does show that aerial photos and site drawings indicate very dense vegetative screening along the rear and side property lines which should be maintained to help reduce visual or privacy impacts on

179neighbors. This area is not visible to any of the neighbors. I will be approving this application in its entirety because I do feel it meets the variance standards outlined in 25511 of the town code to allow this patio to remain where it is. >> Thank you. I agree to I have nothing else to add. >> Um next we have Marina Maria Christina Heredi at 501 Montalk Highway, East Hampton Suffach map number 3000-166-4-23. Size and location is 13,294 square ft at 501 Monttok Highway, East Hampton. Description is to allow a portion of existing 334 ft screen porch and a 146.45 square foot addition to the main house and 200 foot addition to the cottage to remain within side and rear yard line setbacks and outside the town's pyramid regulations. I saw as a seven pyramid seven

180variances are required for this application. Variances of 6.08 ft 1.24 ft and 24 feet are required from of the east and town code to allow the addition to remain 6.4 ft. Screen porch to remain 13 ft and wood deck to remain 12.4 ft from the western sideyard lot line where setbacks of 12.48 ft, 14.24 ft and 14.4t and 4 feet are required respectively. Once variance of 10 foot is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the addition to the residence to remain 19t 2 in 20 in 19.2 ft from the southern front yard lot line where a 20ft setback is required. One variance of 11.7 in is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the addition and to the cottage to remain 3.3 3' 5 in from the northern rear yard

181lot line where 15t setback is required. Variances of 7.2 ft and 5'11 in are required from 2551172D of the town code to allow the addition to the residence to remain 7.2 2 in and the addition to the cottage to remain five foot one inch outside of the town's pyramid regulations from the western and northern property lines respectively and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is a resident zonex flood zone and secret classes type two member Mary. >> Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh okay so the public hearing for this application was held on November 18th 2025. I think we're working off of this latest survey data 324205. The town was from AKRF. Um, Miss Karen Hogue of TUMLAM represented the applicant. Um, the property owner, Miss Peretti, spoke briefly on her own behalf. Um, architect Jonathan,

182I didn't write down his last name. Um, sorry, also provided some comments at the hearing. Um and he he also provided into the record a architectural submission that shows the asbuilt um structures and uh really highlights how much of each um in has an incursion and requires relief that I found helpful and I'll be referring to in my comments. Um one neighbor also spoke very briefly and she said she had no objections to the granting of the variances. Um the lot is non-conforming uh both in lot area size and also nonconforming in width. Um it is a very irregularly shaped lot. Um and um this is a 13,294 square foot lot in an eight residence zone. in particular, the um it's the the front um is the narrowest part of the lot, but both the

183front and the back are um unders sized to uh required widths. Um all structures, the house and the cottage, well, the structures, the house and the cottage were erected prior to zoning and are pre-existing non-conforming to setbacks. Um, as we discussed, the last CO issued um on this property was in May 1996. Miss Peretti, who purchased the house um in October of 2023, did not seek an updated CO. Um and though that would be advisable for a buyer um to do that perhaps um the at the time um doing so was not required by code uh prior to closing or at the time of closing. Per the applicant um Ariel's uh and I think confirmed by uh the planning department Ariel's indicate that the nonconforming additions that are the subject of this application and require

184relief um were likely built sometime between 2013 and 2016 under a prior owner. Um and the somehow they were built without uh building permits. Um and though some somehow though apparently the building department looked at this property several times um once for an emergency septic replacement um as well as the approval of a um rental registry permit permit in recent years um they didn't seem to catch the irregularities um and the structures that were built without a permit. Um the building inspector did find the irregularities in 2024 we heard. Um okay so three elements were added or expanded that need variance relief from this board um in this application to uh um to legalize. So I'm going to go through um the three ones. Let me start first with the house. So there was an

185addition to the primary residence um which is small in nature um and I don't think we I so I I don't know that we got the exact size of the um addition that was done. Um it needs both a front yard setback and a sideyard setback. Um I'm going to well I I guess yeah I'll just do my approvals for each one here. So, the front yard setback is dimminimous. I think it's only a matter of inches. Um, this property fronts on the ve a very busy part of Montalk Highway. Um, and it's uh there's a large fence and it's it's completely screened and set back from the road. Um, the sideyard setback is more significance. However, I think it's a very small part of the small house and it's only about I think a

186h not even a half of that small addition that um needs relief from the sidey jar setback. Um so I doesn't have an issue on character. Um one one of the um unique things about this application the property is that almost every property around this is vacant. Um so it will not have an issue of uh disturbance to neighbors or granting this variance. These variances will not change character um of the area. Um and um I think it would be a hardship to have the applicant slice off um a piece of the house that even though it was built without a permit, I think this should be uh warrants legalization with with regards to the screen porch. um or screened room, whatever you want to call it, and the wood deck that is under it.

187Um on paper, uh the variance reads quite large. However, when you look at that architectural rendering, it is a very tiny slice of the um of this room uh screened porch and deck um that needs uh setback. So again, um I don't I think it would be uh I think the benefit to allowing it to stay well offsets any uh detriment to neighbors or character or um anything else. Um so I'll be approving the variances related to the wood deck and the screened uh screened room on top of it. Finally, with respect to the cottage, um this small cottage to close to the rear of the property was already deeply non-conforming to setbacks. Um we don't even know exactly when it was built. It's probably been there for a long time. Um and so there

188was a 200 square ft addition on the east side of the cottage. As you look at the cottage now, it's very hard to but all of these additions, it's very hard to detect that, you know, there was brand new um anything really being created. Um we had the most robust I think discussion with the applicant on this um you know about ex this is really expanding a nonconformity which made me take pause but again this is a small lowslung one-bedroom um residence that has its own co um and the 200 again only about a third of that 200 square F feet is the portion that requires setback. So although um it is expanding a nonconformity, I do think there are enough unique issues around this property around what's happened. Um and yes, the chairman said,

189you know, maybe it's buy or beware, but I am willing to approve um this variance as well as again, as I've said before, I think it meets the standards and the benefit to the applicant of not having to slice uh you know, 100 ft off of a very small cottage residence um outweighs the the benefit um to keeping it. Sorry. The benefit to keeping it outweighs the detriment. So, I'm gonna approve all three elements. Thank you. >> Thank you, Terry. Okay. You done? >> I am. >> All right. [laughter] Thanks for the detail. Um, okay. I uh actually I agree. I am going to approve this application in its entirety basically for the the same reasons the 6.8 8 for the addition of the house with the western side outline. Um it's the minimus. It's

190the I'll stick with the residence the 10 foot for the addition to the residence. um that that variance I also find to be um I'm going to approve that variance and and on the western side of the residential edition all of them I guess in a nutshell a lot of my decision on this um goes back to pre-existing nonconforming lacks of cos um and times that the building department and the town went in and did do things like the emergency uh septic and the CFO for register rental registry and no one picked up on it. And I think a major reason for that is the fencing that is all over the property surrounding all the sides and way off the property line. And I know, you know, if I was a homeowner going looking for

191a home, I don't know that I would look if I see a fence that's going all around the property, I guess I would probably assume that that's where the property goes to. Um, so yeah, maybe she needed representation. Maybe you'd buy a beware, but I I could see how all of this got overlooked by the applicant. Um, and the the numbers are not big. The addition in in the back of the cottage, I think also the uh the pyramid violation for that uh again is entirely masked because of the fence that was probably 15t away from it on the property or off the property. Now, um so I'm approving all of the variances on this. Um the applicant on the survey it says that the fencing is going to be removed. Um and that she's

192going to do something later. She wants to take care of some other items first. She removed the shed already that was on there that said to be removed. Um, and the one thing with the fence, uh, I guess whenever she gets to the fencing, I also want to make a stipulation that she puts up a fence that, you know, just is a height that just needs a permit or goes to the ARB if it's going to be anything higher. Um, but, um, very interesting. I'll say it's interesting. All right. I am approving the entire application. >> Thank you. And >> yeah, I want to thank member Miring for describing this as well as she did. I think that each of these variances come with a story. And um I think the big story here, we

193talk about uniqueness. I guess this is the most unique property we've seen with a fence. I don't know if I've seen anything quite like this. I agree with the argument that if you're buying a property, you should probably have legal representation that shows you where the real property line is. But if I'm walking on that property, I probably assuming I own a lot more than I do. And I certainly wouldn't be thinking that these things that eventually became variance problems were going to be a problem. It look like I had plenty of room behind that cottage. So there was a responsibility and it was probably a legal responsibility of the representation to do a better job of informing of exactly what they were purchasing. But I think member Miring's explanation of how these variances impact

194long-term both the community and the character of the neighborhood I think is a good one and I think that uh largely they uh get reduced to not being terribly uh significant. Um the pre-existing condition and the fact that as was me mentioned again previously that uh you don't see any new construction here. I actually looked at that cottage and thought perhaps they had added on to the east end of it, not the west. I mean the west ended not. >> So uh anyway there's all of that. I did go back and say to myself uh what kind of justification the 255850 if I asked whether the grant that the variance will cause on change the character of the neighborhood I say no. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method feasible

195to pursue other than the area invariance is no. Whether the requested area invariance is substantial, I think no whether the grant of the vans will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions of the neighborhood that what we have there exists now and I don't see that as a a large potential to cause environmental damage whether the causing the applicant request an area variance was self-created. Uh I don't think in this case it was I think this was pre-existing and they might have had to know about it but they had to deal with what they had once they had it. In the end, I think the thing we ask often, and it was already brought up by member Miring, whether the hardship to the applicant outweighs the potential for the damage to

196the environment or or or uh the neighborhood in general. I think that um the hardship would outweigh whatever potential damage there is here. Removing a portion of the cottage, removing much of else what can be removed. They've agreed to remove the shed, the hot tub, the slab. Those were extraneous. They were agreed to part of them were removed when we visited the site to me promise and I think the comments about the future of the fence I hope will be handled by the appropriate application at the time but we'll see a conditional I mean a considerable amount of new fencing here and uh I got to say that I don't know if that qualifies legally as being unique but it is certainly a different look to anything we've seen before. So I'm approving it in

197its entirety Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Um, the surrounding properties are undeveloped and wooded, and the property before us is notably undersized and small. The residence and cottage were constructed before the adoption of the zoning code, and the additions were constructed in 2016 without building permits. That work was not done by the current owner. This owner is simply trying to legalize what is there and CEO the property. Additions were built in locations already disrupted by existing development on the property. The hot tub and shed have been removed. I think what makes this unique is it is a pre-existing non-conforming and it predate zoning regulations other than the additions. These improvements have been in existence for quite some time. Legal legalizing the additions will really not cause a detriment or impact on the environmental

198conditions of the neighborhood. The variances requested are the minimum necessary to reduce the described hardship that was inherited by the current owner and for all the reasons stated, I will be approving this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. Um I agree. I I think the uniqueness of this thing is obvious the guy mowing the lawn didn't know where the property line was. [laughter] >> So, um I uh I agree. So, in I even think that um council Karen Hog um addressed the due diligence as it relates to buyer beware in a very logical way. I had to put myself in the in my mind in my shoes what it would not have been as obvious and and it was it was a good explanation. So, with that I agree with my fellow board members

199to approve the application. [clears throat] >> Mr. Chairman, I was not here for the hearing for the next case, so I'll remove myself and allow. Thank you. >> Did we [laughter] take this EA? Did we have to say something about >> We did. >> We We did a neg. >> We did. Okay. Okay, next we have 66 Monttok Highway LLC at 66 Old Montalk Highway Amaganza suffic map number 300-172-2-27 [snorts and clears throat] and the uh size and location is 46,654 ft 60 at 66 old Montto highway in Amaganit. The description is to allow the pool house to remain 27 square feet and the shed to remain 7 feet above the pyramid line along the northern lot line. Relief sought is a variance of 255 11110 of the East Hampton Town Code is needed to

200allow the pool house to remain 27 ft where 200 ft is the maximum and for a pyramid variance of 7 ft to allow the shed to remain in place. zoning district is a a resident zone x flood zone and a secret quest sect two. Member Mary, >> thank you. Actually, I didn't see this go on the agenda until I guess I didn't see it till I walked into the room tonight because it went on late. So, I'm not going to do a whole wind up on all the uh things that are already in the record about the application. So, I'm just going to dig uh dig in um with respect to if that's okay. Um the the hearing was held just last week. Um we had thought about making the decision um last week but

201I think we had a little technical difficulty and ran out of time. So um with respect to the pool house, the pool house requires a 7 foot variance. Uh it's 7 ft over the 200 ft maximum for a pool house. Um, it was established during the public hearing that this pool house was already built at 207 square ft by a prior owner. And though the owner had been redeveloping part of the property or or adding to the property, they didn't touch this pool house. Um, and that it already has a uh co on it. So, I guess it still says we it's a variance requested. So I will be approving it as the seven square ft is dimminimous and will not trigger any of the potential negative uh characteristics that could come with uh allowing

202a variance under the standards. Um and then with respect to the shed um in the back that needs uh pyramid and lot line um variances. They're substantial in terms of uh on paper, but I guess this shed um or a they changed the roof line, but the shed has been in it mostly in its place. So, it's been nonconforming for a quite a long time. Um it is close to the property line, but is such a small structure on a large lot. um and heavily screened uh versus the lot uh to the rear rear of it um that I again don't see granting these variances to have any impact on the character of the neighborhood on the environmental conditions on the neighbors. It's not really it's it's a shed so it's not inhabited. It doesn't

203create activity around it. So I'll be approving that var those variances as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay, I didn't see it either. >> I will only add to that that the agent was Joel Hally. Thank you. And I know in relation to the shed being so close and the pyramid, uh, he had a story about a tree that they wanted to save, I believe. And [laughter] >> they couldn't just move the shed a little bit because they were concerned about the root system of that tree also. Um so consequently for that reason I will approve the shed variant and uh of the pool house itself has already stated there was mistake from a previous owner it was on the CFO by bill approving the 27 foot well the 7 foot variance the

204pool house. Thank you. Ed >> John John. [laughter] >> Hi chairman Delene. >> It's called rope. [laughter] >> The pool house variance of uh seven square feet is is a 3 and a half% variance. It's minimal. Pool house was built by the previous owner and the overage appears to have resulted from a contractor error. requiring the owner to remediate this minimal air would be ownorous and the benefit to the town minimal. Uh the applicant's proposing to allow a shed that was grandfathered within pyramid setbacks. According to the plan submitted by the applicant, the original shed roof height was 5' 7 and 1/4 in. For the new height adding uh one 1T 4 and 1/8 in, bringing the total new height to 7 uh I'm sorry to 6' 11 and 38 in. And the shed, which

205is only 2 feet uh 1 and 316 inch from the property line, is surrounded by vegetative screening. Um as the shed was then moved further away from the property line, the new roof height height nonconformity was reduced by six inches. So um uh albeit that this change was made without the benefit of of a building permit and uh is not to be condoned. I believe it is also minimal. Um and I vote to approve this application in in its entirety. Thank you vice chair. >> I have nothing to add. This is a dimminimous request. It will not change the character of the neighborhood. The application as requested will not cause any negative impact. So I believe it is in compliance with the East Hampton Town Code and I will be approving it in its entirety.

206>> I agree with my board members. I have nothing else to add. You good? Councel? >> Y. >> Next we have the minutes of uh draft minutes of December 2nd. Make a motion to approve the draft minutes for December 2nd, 2025 for the East and Town zoning board of appeals. >> Thank you. We go on to resolutions. We have [laughter] >> I got your back. Don't worry. >> Concur. >> You have the resolutions. [laughter] John and Karen Wes Reson >> as we wait for member >> um at 24 Washington Drive Montalk SuffK map number 300-71-2-1.2 to >> do you who's that? >> That's just my well phone ed but he was out. >> So >> I did look at it. It looked good to me. Um and this was a unanimous approval. Um member Johan

207was out of town. So alternate member John Thorson participated in the decision and it was a unanimous approval. So for John and Karen Wesson 24 Washington Drive, M talk 300-71-2-1.2 make a motion to approve the resolution as written. >> Second concur. >> Uh the next two I didn't I didn't the next two I didn't send out yet. So I didn't see reason. Okay. I was just going to say, >> okay, I thought so. And then with that >> that we [clears throat] are going like I see a motion to adjourn and to go to executive session to discuss a legal matter. >> So I'll do two. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals meeting on December 9th, 2025 at 9:40 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I'd like to

208make a motion to go into executive session for the discussion of a legal matter. >> Second. Incur. >> Incur.