East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 12/02/2025 - Part 3

001to potentially be better quality habitat once the project is completed. Beyond the re reveation of the parcel, uh the standard mitigation measures are included in the assessment. Uh there may there are not many other options available uh that would be appropriate for this property to further mitigate any impacts the construction would have. One possibility would be a scenic easement along the south side of the property in order to protect uh the photography the topography there. Um but this is an area this this would be uh of limited size and its value would be hard to to qualify. Yeah. On the reveation the planning department does not have any uh substantial suggestions for additional mitigation. Other than I can answer any questions you might have. So Tyler, since this is a large residence for a size

002lot for this size lot, do you think the uh reveation being offered is enough to protect the dunland characteristics? >> Reveitation uh the reveating or proposing to reveate a majority of what is cleared on the property. There's some areas left, you know, proposed to be left uncleared on the on the west side. Not a significant area. I I don't think if they added that it would add a huge amount of value to the, you know, to the mitigation. Certainly they could. Um, but I I don't think it's a huge difference between what they're proposing and what they could potentially do. >> Thank you. >> Um, I know that you said it's uh consistent. It meets height requirements. I was looking at the plans. Um, and there's just a line that says height setback, but there's

003I didn't see anything that actually confirms the numbers, right, of >> Yeah, I went through I don't remember the numbers all the time, but I went through and measured the the top of that peak that one point to to grade and it it everything meets up. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Any other questions? >> Yeah. So, this reveg diagram that we have, you can't tell what's going where or I can't. Um, are you aware of where everything's going and how much the total amount? >> Exactly. >> The total amount was like I think was it uh 2,800 square feet I want to say the number was in that in that in that range. 2,800 feet I want to say is the number. Um, but yeah, it was I mean they were showing a diagram of it

004being mixed pretty appropriately. Um, so the yeah, the the um I think it was uh northern bay berry um and maybe barberry mixed in with with you know beach grass and things like that. It was appropriate. I didn't have any concerns. They were showing a couple paper birch or gray birch as well. I think six total um which is are more ornamental, but they're not non-native either. Um so I I didn't have any issue with that. >> Okay. And if it's approved, we would want that added on to the survey or >> I don't think it hurts to add to the survey. maybe prior to a building permit uh to show the area, but I was comfortable with how they showed it on the building plans to move forward to a public area. I thought

005the information was at least displayed that we could see it >> with the proposed pool since there's no pool on it today and this is a lot of redevelopment. Do you have any concern about the pool? >> You see in your TAM it says there was a pool approved in 1985. I assume that's long gone and >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously that never got built. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um yeah. I mean I mean the the footprint is expanding uh the the total lot coverage was getting larger um but not to the point and and again the clearing that they're proposing which is really uh uh what would be the most important thing is pretty minimal. Um so I I we didn't really have any significant concerns. The environmental impacts on the natural features on the

006property are are pretty minimal. >> They're protecting that south side which is really the the area that you know of of the most interest I think on the property. Um, and there's some clearing for the for the sanitary system which will get reveated with with beach grass. Um, so yeah, I I didn't have any significant concerns. >> So it looks like the clearing is being reduced by about 2,700 square f feet. >> Yeah, that makes that makes sense. Yeah. >> Yeah, pretty significant. >> Yeah, absolutely. And I mean this is obviously long long been cleared as is. Um, so any in any decrease is a benefit. Um but they're doing most of the property outside of what's you know the residence itself in the structures. >> Um is there is it important I know there's

007no you know dune vegetation like you know the stuff that's hard to get back right but is it recommended to keep whatever sands on the property? >> Certainly. Absolutely. So that'll be a >> I think it's one of the conditions. I think it's one of the conditions on investment. >> And I guess well I'm going to want to ask the applicant. I mean I know what you're saying. I mean I know your opinion is that well it's a very small easement but to me any scenic easement is a good easement. So I guess we should ask the applicant if they're amendable to it. Is there any other area like I mean >> I don't think anything value you know that would be worth protecting. I think really that topography at the back would be really

008the only place >> Yeah. >> of any significant value that's worth worth anything. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> I have no more. >> There anybody in the public would like to address this application? >> Is there anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Did you want to ask the agent? >> The agent. >> So, as you heard the discussion, um there's not a lot of uh any mitigation so far that's been offered um on the property. So this issue of the scenic easement to protect the rear um has been recommended as a possibility. Um is do you know if your client if the applicant is amendable to establishing that scenic easement on the rear of the property? >> I it's hard to say. Um it feel it feels like

009that does impose kind of a restriction that maybe isn't necessary if if the dune is existing and we have to go through a process like this to um you know to try to get a variance for that area or something. I I I don't want to speak for them on that because it does in my mind sometimes it reduces the the value of the property in some ways. Um I I think that's not necessarily our how we would look at it. I mean it's not unusual for this board to seek scenic easements and mitigation over a protect an area of protected natural resources. So >> um is is it is it a requirement typically on in the neighborhood? Well, it's a natural resources heavy neighborhood whether it's wetlands or duneland, so it comes up often.

010>> Yeah. >> I mean, I can't ask you to speak for the >> Yeah. >> owner, but I mean, we'll just >> I mean, I looked to the house next door and >> I mean, it's on the record that this has been suggested mitigation. So, I >> mean, I think whatever we can help to pass, I just I don't want to add restrictions that may um you know hinder a buyer in the future or needs of the property. I'm not I just don't I'm not aware of those things. Maybe a lawyer would have a better grasp, but >> um I'm sure they would comply with any recommendations um if it was based on expected to pass through the board's approval. Um, you know, we do want to update the property. >> Thank you very much.

011You got >> I have a motion. >> Yes. >> Before you ask, I I don't want I'm getting a little nervous. It they didn't agree to anything. So, I don't want >> We agree. We agree that I don't and that's not a requirement. >> Okay. I just don't want I don't want this to come back and answer the condition approval on something they didn't agree to. So, we can't do that. >> I mean, one board member, >> right? Well, I mean, it's a question we often ask, you know, it's always asked. I I think we can we can move on. I don't think I think the answer for me was adequate enough and not um Okay, >> me too. >> From so >> that's why I said I didn't want to pursue it any further.

012Thanks. >> Okay. Um, in the matter of Scott Aer 70 Cliff Road, Amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 3000-174-2-24, I make a motion to close the public hearing and the record. >> Second. >> Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Nina Rachel Leerman and Rowena Lande Aras Trust. It's a tough one. 39 Old Cliff Park Place Road. That's an easier one. Um Springs 30 m uh Suffet Pass Math number 300-24-7-45. The size and location is 11,698 ft of 390 Fireplace Road Springs. The description is to demolish a portion of the existing residence, 210 square ft of decking, and remove a concrete pond, to reconstruct the existing deck, make alterations to the existing residence, and to construct a 94t addition, additional decking, porch, patio steps, new roof, a 334t detached garage, walkways, driveway, outdoor shower, upgraded

013sanitary system, associated structures, and within jurisdiction setbacks of title, wetlands, and bluffs. the relief sought as a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and eight variances are required for this application. Variances is 70 73.3 ft 34.6 ft 25 ft 13.3 ft and 10 ft are required from 255430 of the town code to construct the proposed decking and deck alterations 26.7 ft additions to the residence 65.4 4 ft patio 75 ft garage 86.7 ft and outdoor shower 90 ft from tidal wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required variances of 48.3 ft and 9.6 ft are required from 255440 of the town code to construct the proposed decking and deck alterations 267 ft with additions to the resident 65.4 4 ft from the bluff crest where 75 foot setbacks are

014required. One variance of 7.5 ft is required from 255172D of town code is required to construct the addition of new roof line 7.5 ft outside the town's pyramid regulation along the northern sideyard line and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a residence zone AE flood zone and elevation 8 in the secret classes type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yes, I reviewed the affidavit. Uh everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction. >> Okay. >> This is a photo indicating that the property was properly posted. Next, please Tyler. >> Where am I? This is actually um um walking on the south side of the property and this is uh just a walkway which is going to be reconfigured. Next, please. This is the garage

015that um exists. Uh this lab is on grade. I believe this is going to be rebuilt, but I think it might even be smaller than what exists there. Now, next please. This is I think another picture of the garage. Next, please. This is a picture of the house and part of the addition is going to be on uh the west side. It's going to some of it is going to be on the Lwood side and some of it is going to be on the seawward side and I have taken pictures in the back to indicate that. Next, please. This is just a full a better view. Now, to the left, to the north side of the property, is where they're going to be proposing the um sanitary system. Next, please. To the right, uh or

016rather to the south um that little structure you see uh right next to the fence is the outdoor shower that exists. Next, please. Again, I just uh took a a picture of this because there's going to be proposed steps on this side and also a better view of where the septic system will be. Next, please. Just the vegetation that's there. Next, please. This is the rear of the house. And to the rear, they're going to be proposing um the existing deck is going to be rebuilt and the existing deck to be rebuilt with a pergola. Next, please. This is just a view of Gardener's Bay. Next, please. This is on the south side of the house. This is um an existing deck that I believe is going to be rebuilt. Next, please. This is the

017house to the let me get myself straight here. This is the adjoining house I believe on the would be on the south side I think. Next please. And this is the um residence that's on the north side. I think that might be it. This is just a view of gardener uh acabonic gardeners and that's it. I did also take a picture of a concrete >> pond being >> very tiny. I didn't make it into my field inspection, but I just wondered what was that all about. >> I think that's what's noticed to be removed. >> Yeah, I Yeah, but I wondered what it was even there for you. >> So small. >> Good evening board members. I'm Alice Pulley of Matthews Kur Kulian and Churon here on behalf the applicant Nina Lerman and Rowen Argalist.

018Uh I'm also here with Shannon McAffrey of Dwy's planning and and Sherry the architect. There are any questions I can answer? Hopefully they can answer them for you. Uh the concrete pond, what is the purpose of that? I just couldn't tell you. But I can tell you that we're proposing to get rid of it. >> Um before I get started, I wanted to bring a couple of housekeeping issues to your attention. Uh we submitted a memo of law on November 21st. Hopefully you've had an opportunity to review that. We also submitted today a letter from our engineer regarding the sanitary system placement and some stating his belief that the proposed septic system is cited in the best possible location. And we also submitted a construction protocol. We have hard copies uh here with us tonight

019if you'd like them. This property is bounded by Gardener's Bay to the east and old fireplace road to the west. On the other side of Fireplace Road, the property is in jurisdiction of the title wetlands of Akabonic Harbor. The property is fully bulkheaded and the existing 1,251 ft two-bedroom residence and porch sits just 25 ft from the bulkhead. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a letter of non-jurisdiction because the property is bounded by over 100 ft of functional bulkhead and old fireplace road, which is an improved and paved road. While the town and the DEC obviously have different requirements and policies for wetland relief, it does make sense for you to acknowledge that there is a scientific basis for why the DEEC considers this project to be out of their jurisdiction. The

020bulkhead mitigates mitigates impacts on Gardner's Bay and the improved roadway mitigates impacts to Akabonic Harbor. From the outset, this project was very carefully designed to be respectful of those constraints while providing a modest expansion that is in line with the surrounding properties and to improve the property for my clients and their family. Other than the practically unavoidable variance to construct an addition to the residence, every aspect of this project is an improvement to the existing conditions. most importantly the proposed substantial revitation, the reduction in garage size, the sanitary system upgrade, and the much greater pyramid compliance. Furthermore, after receiving the TAM at the end of May, the applicants further reduced the proposal and made the following changes to address the concerns raised in the TAM. The applicant reduced the proposed GFA by 173 square ft

021or 9.2% for a total increase of only 422 I mean, that's pretty small. With a resulting GFA that is nearly 1,000 square feet less than what's permitted. Uh they reduced the proposed lot coverage by 218 square ft with both lot coverage and building coverage being well within what is permitted, removed the proposed decking on the water side, and are now only proposing to rebuild the existing decking and are reducing that overall decking by 11 square feet on the water side. They removed the proposed reconstruction of the covered re roof which you saw. Uh they're now proposing just upgraded the proposed septic setback uh at the suggestion of the planning department to Aabonic Harbor to 101.6 6 ft and increase the proposed reveation by an add additional 687 square ft for a total revitation of 6,046

022square ft on this pre-existing 100% clear lot. As detailed in our memorandum of law, this project is consistent with 2551D, preservation of natural resources. In addition to placing the proposed improvements on the most conforming location on the site, the house design is consistent with the goals contained in the New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources Scenic Areas of Statewide Significance, which we like to call SAS. This recommends smaller spreadout additions to reduce visual impacts on the area. The SAS also states that future development should be clustered away from the shoreline, which is exactly what's proposed here. The proposal maintains the existing setbacks and reduces the pyramid encroachment. In fact, with the installation of the upgraded sanitary system as affirmed by our engineer, there will be an improvement to groundwater quality and surface

023waters by reducing the level of nitrogen being discharged and the substantial revitation of this 100% cleared property will help intercept sediments and nutrients associated with fertilizers and there will be a net benefit to the wetland. I think it's important to note that the existing cess poolool is over 50 years old. To this end, we note that there is no evidence in the record or the TAM that the proposed improvements would have any negative impact on the wetlands. Granted, the variances will similarly not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or community and certainly will not create a detriment to nearby properties. The nearby properties will benefit from all of the changes and mitigation being offered by the applicant in the form of the reduced pyramid encroachment. significant revitation and upgraded sanitary system. There are no

024feasible alternative methods to achieve the benefit sought in lie of the variance relief. The applicant has designed the best possible proposal while being constrained both by the pre-existing non-conforming layout of the existing improvements and the proximity of the wetlands on both sides of the property. The increase of the GFA is minor at 422 ft with a total proposed GFA of 1,780 greatly below the allowable 2770 ft. The grant to these variances will also not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The change to the current conditions coupled with the addition of the sanitary system, a more energyefficient and code compliant house and the substantial reveation will result in a net benefit. Arguably any variances can be considered self-created and it is for this reason that the law

025specifically holds that such alleged self-creation is not dispositive. Here the need for the variance relief is not self-created but instead stems from the inherent constraints on the property which is why the application was designed so carefully. In short upon completion of this project the property will be much better for Abonic Harbor and for Gardener's Bay. Uh all of the uh conditions are acceptable to the applicant and I'm happy to answer any questions or turn over the mic if I can't. I just um the concern I have is the location of the septic system only in a sense it is kind of close to the water body but because this is within the H pod is the location of the septic system the maximum practical distance and the other part of my question is the additions

026as proposed um are bringing the septic system closer to the harbor So was there any thought given to a smaller addition which would allow better setbacks to the harbor? >> Well, the addition was reduced greatly. It was reduced by almost 200 square ft. >> You know, this property is constrained and the the addition where it is proposed, it's welldesigned. It's in the only place it can really go. >> I mean, this this is a two-bedroom house. They're adding a bedroom. This is not a huge ask in terms of scale for gross floor area. Um, and I think it's important to keep in mind that without an addition, there is no sanitary upgrade. There's no revitation. These are benefits to the wetland. And to say, you know, that you would expect someone to make these improvements

027to to a property, which our client is absolutely happy to do, and not get also the benefit of just a bedroom for their child. It's not reasonable. This survey we have is dated 7 September 30th, 2025. That's the latest, right? So all these reductions that you're just talking about are all reflected in the survey, correct? It's um in the TAM as so I just want to get you on the record. So hear what you say like the net increase in the GFA is under 500 square f feet but I I know that the TAM you know uh asks a lot about sprawling nature you know of the so can you just um illuminate a little bit more on the design choice. I know you just referenced the SAS and that there seems to be some

028suggestion of a um kind of spread out development, but is that just explain a little more about the design choice as opposed to creating something more compact but still giving you know the expansion that would be needed? >> Uh sure. Um I it is consistent with the SAS which the the TAM does acknowledge. Uh but also the design choice is it's necessary on this site in order to comply with the 50% rule >> um you know any you know any further yeah to to remove it from uh the setback. >> So if you know you have further questions on like the design itself I think maybe >> Ann should answer those. I'm not an architect but >> no I really wasn't asking a aesthetic question. And I just wanted to elaborate, >> you know, your

029view related to a concern that was raised in the T. >> Sure. And and it complies, you know, that that's what the code is there for to to push you to comply as much as you can. And then when you cannot when a property is burdened, that relief valve is the zoning board and that's why we're here. >> So overall, you are changing the roof line which is um reducing the pyramid has a net effect of reducing the new additions. They from what I see they don't appear to pierce any p. So you're not adding any um any further pyramid reliation. So from the pyramid standpoint you're actually even though it's yeah you're you're actually improving that. Right. >> Correct. By quite a bit. I think I think I have these numbers correctly. So right

030now on the side that's being reduced it pierces by 17 and 1/2 ft. And so we're reducing that down to seven and a half. There is a portion that will still encroach and then the addition does comply. >> The Tam asked if um a FEMA assessment was done to see if the house needs to be raised. >> Yeah. So, um, what the architect did was she put a letter into the record that, uh, explained that the subfloor needs to be raised to comply with FEMA. So, it's not that, you know, the entire house has to be raised. Everything will be FEMA, >> but it's only by like in >> Yeah, it's not much. >> 2T. >> So, will it be So, the question is, will it be FEMA compliant? That's the question. >> Yes. Yes,

031it will be. including anything below the flood zone mechanicals and everything like that. >> Uh I don't are are mechanicals >> because that's FEMA compliance, right? So FEMA compliance includes all of that. >> I generally leave that to the architect but yes >> I'll leave that up to my question is will it be FEMA compliant? >> Yes, obvious that it absolutely has to be FEMA compliant and that is the goal. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Borsack for the planning department. Again, um the subject property is situated on the north side of Old Fireplace Road in Springs. Uh the project before the ZBA is a request to make significant changes and additions to the existing residence, reconstruct the existing decking and make additions. Uh new

032decking, new porch to demolish the existing garage, construct a slightly smaller garage, uh upgrade the existing sanitary system, and reveate the property after construction is completed. The parcel is located within jurisdiction and setbacks the title of both Gardener Bay and Akabonic Harbor. While the scale of the project has been reduced and setbacks increased since the first assessment was written, the proposed improvements still represent fairly aggressive levels of development on a constrained property within jurisdiction of sensitive protected natural features and within and with minimal mitigation able to be offered to offset significant improvement. Excuse me. uh old fireplace road and it extension Gerard Drive is a fragile peninsula of uh land separating Akabonic Harbor from Gardener's Bay uh and an area of extreme environmental sensitivity. Akabanic Harbor is a New York State significant fish and coastal

033wildlife habitat, a component of the PCON estuary critical environmental area and is within uh the area aonic scenic area of statewide significance. It is a resource of uh crucial importance to the town and provides multiple environmental and recreational benefits. The project as proposed will increase the size of the 1,251qt residence to 1,780 ft. The design of the proposed additions with the long hallway to the bulk of the proposed additions appears to be in order to shift a portion of the additions into a conforming location and as as was confirmed in order to to comply with the 50% expansion uh rules. Uh the issue that this creates is taking up the most conforming location available on the parcel for a sanitary system uh upgrade for the proposed addition by shifting the additions further west on the

034parcel. The sanitary system is in turn then pushed even further west and closer to tidal wetlands of Akabanic Harbor. A property being within the harbor protection overlay district requires that for any sanitary system upgrade on a property that the sanitary quote shall be set back a minimum of 150 ft from the upland boundary of all tidal wetlands including title surface waters or if that is not feasible it shall be set back the maximum practicable distance and continues to talk about uh tidal waters from there. Uh while the project has been updated to increase the setbacks of the sanitary system in particular for Macabonic Harbor, the applicants still need to show that the proposed location for the sanitary system is the maximum practical distance especially when considering the sanitary system is proposed in such close proximity

035to the water body with less tidal exchange which would be more impacted from the effects of sanitary system in such close proximity. The project has gone through some improvements since planning department wrote our first assessment. The applicants have shifted the IIA treatment tank to the north of the proposed additions and also reduced the size of the improvement slightly which allows leeching structures of the sanitary system to be shifted further east even further from Aabonic Harbor. But the concerns with the additions taking up uh even more conforming space for that sanitary system remain. The redesign of the sanitary system is an improvement. Uh the question for the board is has enough been done to justify the proposed additions which may be pushing the sanitary system closer to Akabonic Harbor than is necessary. A small more condensed

036addition to the existing residence which allows for better setbacks to Akabonic Harbor may be more appropriate for the constraints of the part of the parcel along with additions to the residence. The roof lines proposed to be changed significantly uh which will result in overall reduction in the severity of the pyramid non-compliance. The ridge of a portion of the existing roof line runs perpendicular to the sideyard lot lines which will be demolished and reconstructed parallel to those property lines greatly reducing the pyramid non-compliance on the property. The existing roof measures 17 ft 8 1/2 in which will be reduced uh with the shifting of the roof line to a maximum of 7 1/2 ft uh of non-conforming along the new proposed roof line uh as noted in the relief requested. Further to the proposed additions and

037upgraded sanitary system, the applicant uh is requesting variances in order to reconstruct, reconfigure and add to the existing porch, decking and patios on the parcel. A portion of this decking is proposed on the seawward side uh or the northern part of the parcel. Um in very close proximity to the Bluff Crest and title wetlands. The small changes to the seawward side of the residence are minor uh and appear to be in keeping with the existing improvements in that area. Uh but any substantial changes to the seawward side of the residence would be inappropriate um and counter to the proper natural resources planning uh and the board's past past practices. But in this case, it's fairly minor changes uh on the on the seawward side. The final aspects of the project are to demolish the existing

038detached garage, constructed uh a slightly smaller and slightly more conforming detached garage uh in order to to reconfigure the existing driveway um and to the new garage and to reveate the parcel uh once construction is complete. Excuse me. The proposed garage is a minor change to the parcel along with the shift in the driveway to accommodate that new garage. The proposed reveation should help to reduce impacts from runoff and provide some level of buffer to both wetlands on either side of the parcel. This reveation uh was increased slightly in the most current revision and now includes a total of 6,046 square ft of vegetation. The pre-existing non-conforming uh clearing will be reduced to a conforming 5,652 square feet as a result of that uh reveation. Other than that, I can answer any questions you may

039have. >> Any questions for Tyler? >> Yeah, Tyler. Um, if I'm reading the survey correctly, the distance that the IIA system is from Aabonic uh Harbor is 100.6 ft. 150 ft is is required. >> Well, it's 150 or maximum practical. I don't there's there's no way for it to meet 150 foot setback because they're squeezed between two wetlands. Um, >> so so that's right, 101.6, six. What the survey shows? >> Well, what does it what does it notice say? >> Yeah. >> 101.6. Yeah. So, Tyler, do you see given the configuration of the house, the layout of the house has proposed uh a more conforming location for the IIA system? >> I think it could be shifted further further east on the property. >> Yeah. I mean, if you if you were to shift that

040addition, I mean, the addition has sort of a long hallway. Obviously, that's to keep it conforming to 50%. I don't know what the 50% numbers would be. I I didn't do that. But if if it needs to be reduced and shifted closer to the house, they may need more of a variance or it may be more variance, you know, more structure within variance jurisdiction of Gardener's Bay. But shifting that uh sanitary system, I think, outside of Hackabonic Harbor is is probably one of the most important things have to do with this property >> with requiring a change to the layout of the house, >> right? It would it would it would have to be. Yeah. >> Right. No other >> there's no room otherwise. Yeah. >> And that would provide a better setback for >>

041doing in doing so. So we I mean this this project this this property is interesting because there's a lot of there's a lot of constraints on it, right? So there's there's not only the property size, but you got the sauce requirements that we that have addressed you've addressed in the TAM and stuff like that. So what we're grasping at is as a whole um the design of the project was it well thought out was is is the tweaks that we're looking at worth it >> right that's the ultimate question right exactly so >> yeah thank you >> yeah would cutting off that hallway and shifting it closer is that worth you know the however many feet you'd get out of the sanitary system >> I just wanted to square one statement you make in the

042TAM with what is happening on the rebatch side. So early in the TAM and you said it here, you talked about um you know you said quote minimal mitigate mitigation able to be offered but we are seeing proposed 6,046 ft of reveation >> on a you know pre prehistoric preexisting pre excusing pre I'm not minimizing the reveation that's proposed right so are you still saying that that's minimal mitigation or >> no I just think that that's that's essentially all they can offer is is is that all right >> not much else they can offer other than that not that that's minimal just that there's nothing >> that's what I want to clarify because it seems like important mitigation absolutely on especially in an age pod >> yeah and there ultimately they're eliminating a non-conformity by

043doing so This is what we look to see in a, you know, redevelop, not a redevelopment in this case, but a significant development. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Thank you. I have a motion. >> You have anything to add? Do we wait? We didn't go to public. >> We didn't do anything public. >> Anybody in the public? >> Does Sha know more about the configuration of the additions? >> Come on up. you'll announce yourself. Sure. >> Your address and then we'll swear you in. >> Hi, my name is Aaron Seagull. Uh our address out here is 33 Old Fireplace Road. Um which is the property uh adjacent. >> Okay. You swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. Thank you. >> Yeah. So

044we are um I would actually call it the um northwest to be pedantic because kind of the the waters of gardener's island is the northeast. But um first of all I want to really thank the board for allowing me to speak and for all the work you do. I mean it's and especially you know dealing with all the complexities of modern uh communication all that but um thank you and um so we have been at 33 old fireplace road since for about 51 years since 1973 and um that's um the context. So at first I wanted to say what uh we found to be good about the design. We really appreciate the um changes to the pyramid and the roof. That's definitely an improvement which really benefits the neighbors especially well both us and the

045neighbor to the um southeast and it's very considerate that the design team did that. We appreciate that. And um the second thing we also appreciate is the reeducation because that's obviously um a contribution to the neighborhood and the community. And um if this uh application in some form is approved, I I hope that um that's in the final version. The main concern we have is um the scale and people have mentioned that um it has a lot of constraints and I guess the question as a layman I would have at the end is what does that mean if a property has all these constraints should it have a variance or is it not the right project for um this location so it's a currently we have a small cottage on a small site The redesign

046is a very stretched out building which more than doubles the length of the building and it's a facade that both the neighbor to the south and the southeast and the neighbor to the northwest um will be staring at all the time. It's I I don't think it's the designer. I think it's the site because the site is so narrow. So there's not much that can be done when you add that's the only direction to go. You can't go up. You can't there's can't go to the side. So um but for us as nextdoor neighbors it's a lot to look at. So I would not say that there's no um detriment. also um yes and I'm not sure it exactly conform you know conforms to the immediate architecture of the eight houses on old fireplace road

047which is the narrow stretch from Springs fireplace to draw drive and my second concern about scale is um this is a relatively rural part of the town it's a wetlands area filled with deer egrets and osprey and that kind of thing it's not the outskirts of the village and we're looking at a.3 acre lot purchased in 2021 which is situated in a very narrow stretch between the wetlands and the bay. I know there's a a bulkhead that's about, you know, 6 in wide or foot wide uh on one side and there is a road on the other side which obviously is needed for people to access their dwellings beyond but it's basically in a very natural area and um the existing cottage because it has it may not be um I forget the technical term

048it it may not be reveated per se but it is open green space has a certain scale to it on the site. When the cottage is stretched out and doubled in size, uh it's a different scale. So, um so our two cents as a neighbor is that it needs to be scaled back. Um and to me, when I hear there's a lot of constraints, it means it might not be in its current form, it might not be the right project for this location. That's my, you know, personal frank opinion and um thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for hanging in there. >> Anybody online? Matt, >> you have zero callers. Thank you. >> Okay, Alice. >> Uh Alice Kohley again for the applicant. Um just a couple of quick comments. Uh I

049I am in agreement with member Maring that uh the proposed mitigation is is substantial and and and not minimal. Um the sanitary system is the maximum practical distance and you know we we do have wetlands on two sides and that is why this was so carefully designed. Uh we have our experts opinion in the record that this is the best location. Um, and I also just want to note for the record that as a matter of law, reliance on theoretical impacts as to the basis to deny an application does lack a rational basis predicated on substantial evidence for objective data. And if you have any other questions for me, I am happy to answer them. >> I have no more questions. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Alice, >> I didn't get a chance to visit

050the property, but I intend to. So, Wide open. >> Wide open. >> Yeah, it's just a little boarded up at the moment. >> Soggy right now. >> Thank you. May I have a motion to go? >> Like to make a motion to close the public hearing and record for Nina Rachel Letterman Owens Lum Bay Augul Trust >> Trust at 39 Old Springs Fireplace Road uh Suffach County Tax Moment 300-24-7-45 second. >> Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving to our post hearing decisions. We have John and Karen Weston at 24 Washington Drive in Montalk. Um, size and location uh suffic map number 300-71-2-1.2. Size and location is 48,626 ft of 24 Washington Drive in Montalk. Description is to renovate and construct a 1658 square foot of additions on to a 200 2,220 foot two-story residence. Reconstruct

051the swimming pool and decking and construct two retaining holes on a project of land containing freshwater wetlands. The relief saw is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430. The following variances are requested. A variance of 31.2 2 ft to replace pool decking 68.8 ft from a wetland 100 foot is required. A variance of 2.1 ft to construct addition 97.9 ft from a wetland where 100 foot is required. A variance of 34.6 ft to construct a deck 65.4 ft from a wet land where 100 foot is required. Any other relief necessary zoning district is a residence zone zone X flood zone classes type. And uh this he was member Johan so he's not here. So I think member Burger is going to >> Okay. Um okay. Uh this hearing was um

052happened on September 30th, 2025. Um the agent for the project, the applicant was Tara Burke from Lighthouse Land Planning and there's some conversation and testimony by Andy Hammer, the attorney. Uh the documents we received at the time of the survey, the hearing of the survey dated 12, 1825. That date is wrong. 24 121824 we received it on January 22nd, 2025. Uh Jay Kushner is the planner and the table dating nine. We have construction protocol from TF Engineering that was received at 21221. The site plan from TF Engineering also received 21221. on a construction protocol received on January 9th, 25 dated 111324 from Scott to Bernardino and Associates. Um, record was left open at the end of the hearing for to provide a revge plan and reveg numbers for the revge over the new septic system.

053Um post hearing we did receive the re edge plan by rural fine landscaping dated on 10825 and another memo from lighthouse land planning dated 10725. Uh so we received a memo earlier uh for the time of the he prior to the hearing that we received on 929 also from Cara Burke of lighthouse land planning dated in response to the TAM. Um try to quickly go over what uh was discussed. Um, this is a renovation and rec and construction of the addition of 1658 square feet of additions to an existing 2,220 ft residence. The additions to the house were proposed on the south and the west side uh replacing an existing deck and an existing covered porch. 2.1 foot variance is required. for the southeast corner of the addition on and only six square feet of

054that addition is in jurisdiction of the 100 ft line from the wetlands. The addition on the west side is replacing existing wood deck and walkway along that side. Uh there's a swimming pool that was in disrepair and leaking and they were rec rather than try to repair the vinyl pool. They proposed to reconfigure replacing it with a gunnite pool and reconfiguring that pool and the decking around it. Uh the new pool uh will increase the setback the location of it from the wetland from 73 feet to 77.1 ft. There's a gravel area if you recall that was down from the front steps. the gravel area that were replaced proposed to be replaced by pool decking and the total replacement of that and additional pool decking 970 ft including that 265 gravel conversion and for a

055net decrease of 16 square ft of pool. Uh they also propose to to replace the sanitary system on the west which is on the west side of the house along Washington Drive and that will require two retaining walls uh that no greater than 4 foot and they're proposing to regrade on the Washington Avenue side the in the entire side of that road where the new septic system will be placed. They proposed reveation in that area with native plantings and an additional 2,626 square ft of vegetation to bring proposed total clearing down to 15,205. Um, we meet a survey, new survey shows the additional revitation prior to a building permit being granted. Um, the applicant also agrees to an additional 16 foot scenic easement to in addition to the one to add on to the one

056that was created back in 2019. Um, that scenic easement will bring the will still leave the the uh area that the nearest structure would still be 10 ft approximately or a little bit more away from that. Um there was no builder contracted yet and in postering comments the applicant sent the letter that Leven's the contractor they working with hearing the attorney for the applicant stated the board could require written notice for the start of work. Um with all the um bottom line here for me is that I am approving this application in its entirety due to the those benefits that we increase that back for the pool and all the replacements that are happening are already over assorted walkways and that exists today with the property. Um I do think it meets all the standards

057if you want to read them out or u but they what I wanted to discuss is they um the conversation about the contractor uh that a lot of that was in response to a public comment we got from Russell Stein who lives across the street from the intersection of the garage um and complaining about resulting traffic with all these construction construction projects etc. during uh the work and all summer. Uh in the letter from the applicant uh they had some questions and answers from Mr. Lavin as to it wasn't a promise but basically his his experiences in the past as far as traffic and number of trucks and it appears that they will he will the trying the best to to get that. Um, however, I I do think uh along with the the other

058improvements and the seating easement and all that that we should I think Andy Hammer had a good idea about a letter from the contractor stating that giving two days notice or some form of notice to not sure whom um that the within two days there's going to be a starter for the construction. um sign it and bring it into a department. I'm thinking maybe the enforcement department. I don't know, but I'd like to hear how everybody else feels about that. But um there was one other uh public comment from R Fell that was opposing the project, but that was on general basis. I think he he realizes that they these were improvements even on the the existing variances that that were in place. >> Okay, we can revisit that conversation, J. >> Yes, thank you.

059Um, so three wetland setback variances relative to the required 100 foot minimum setback are required for this application. Here's my deliberation and conclusion on each one relative to the standards. Um so first the pool decking that variance relief is 31 requested is 31.2 ft but that is related to the rebuilding of the existing pool deck and the pool and although the rebuild is not exact is not exactly in place and in kind. It is very close to the existing size and position of those current structures and they are not getting any closer to the wetland than what already exists. I believe the new pool itself um will be 4 feet further from the wetlands. Overall size of the decking I believe is reduced um about 208 by 28 ft. So I do not see um

060granting this variance as having any incremental impact on the wetland. Um secondly, the largest of the three variances 34.6 6 feet um relief requested to construct 265 square ft of new decking walkway. Um basically in part is in the same spot replacing an existing sort of awkward gravel um with like wooden surrounds um a walkway. Also this will not seem to have any meaningful incremental impact on the wetlands. And finally, with respect to the addition to living space of the house, you know, the headline number adding 1,658 square feet or 75% GFA expansion to the existing 2220 ft might sound substantial. However, as it was um discussed in the public hearing, the variance itself is um as I see it is not sorry, it's not substantial. It's just a 2.1% variance that relates, if I

061heard this correctly, to only six feet of the six square feet of the addition. Um, so that's not even and that's not even 1% of the new structure. Um, the applicant indicated um at this point that the bedroom count is not expanding from four. However, in the future, this amount of additional space does leave room for meaningful increased occupancy. However, the antiquated septic system is being replaced with an IA system that I would imagine would have good capacity um and obviously improve the uh nitrogen levels and such in the flow. For those reasons cited above, I do not see the variances as substantial. As I said, two two of the three are replacing exist existing structures. So they're not really incremental or self-created. Um with respect to the variance for the addition, sure wanting an

062addition is self-created, but is the variances dimminimous? Um so I don't see the grant of the variance variances will cause an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighbors. the additions to the house site meet all the set setbacks um and are positioned where uh you know for where there have been existing structures already. As many are aware, extraordinary redevelopment has already um been trending um in this area of town, the area we call presidents. Um and you know there's some thought um that the clearing of the wildl lookinging very dense vegetative area could impact character. However the the robust reveg can offset um can offset that and also I think much of what's being taken out is invasive in nature. Um so don't see I don't see alternative for alternatives for two

063the two larger variances. um and um perhaps uh so I all in I don't think this will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and with respect to the NRSP I also find the totality of the project meets those standards as already related to what I articulated for the variances um and I do also note the expansion of the scenic easement over those wetlands is important beyond what was already there um I think that scenic easement B um relative to existing scenic easement A on the survey. Um and the one thing I did want to ask, we did get into the record um the revge after right at the end we left it open. We were not able to to get the feedback from the planning department into the

064public hearing record. So don't really know what their view um was. Um, so it's hard for me to judge exactly could it be more robust or not. Um, but certainly appreciate the reveation and the removal of the invasive. So, um, proving this in full. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. >> Uh, the work proposed does not increase any pre-existing nonconformities with the exception of 2.1 uh feet uh for the second floor edition, which is minimal. It upgrades the septic system to IIA, the clearing area for which is to be regit reveated with native species as shown in the reveation plan that was submitted. Uh the applicant agrees to increase the scenic easement depicted as area B on the Wallbridge survey dated December 18th, 2024 by I think it was 15 ft. Um, my only con

065area of concern is that the construction protocol only provides for parking for a maximum of six vehicles, which is not sufficient to prevent workers vehicles from being forced to park on Washington Drive. Construction is planned to start in the fall and finish by spring, which is extremely optimistic. Um, please note that these concerns were addressed by a letter to the board from the owners received subsequent to the hearing. The construction protocol does include a provision for silt fencing to protect the wetland from sedimentation and all disturbed areas are to be reveated. Other than my concerns about construction vehicle parking and likely summertime disturbance uh which was a concern expressed by a neighbor who spoke at the hearing. I do not find a nexus for denial and believe the proposed work is a net gain for

066the town and the environment and vote to approve this application in its entirety. I believe it does meet NRSP and uh standards enumerated in 255-8-50. >> Vice Chair, >> thank you. I'm not going to repeat much of what's already been said. Um I do agree with my fellow board members. Um most of the improvements are proposed within the existing footprint of the residence. Uh they're proposing a new IIA system. I without repeat and the hearing was left open for submission of a revge plan for the area where the existing and updated septic system will be located. The reveation area will be 2,626 ft, making the total proposed clearing 15,204 ft where 20,444 ft is permitted. During the public hearing, there was an uh concern about the overcrowding congestion along Washington Drive and that has been

067concerned uh that has been addressed via a letter by the applicant. So, I do believe that this application meets the standards for grant and I will be approving it in its entirety. >> Thank you. I agree. I don't have anything else to add. You guys covered it well. >> Um I might just add with the parking situation, I think going trying to put restrictions on it or or guidelines on it goes a little bit beyond our bridges. Um I don't I think that I don't know how we're going to you know how that can be enforcable. There is there is um methods in the town for doing that. There's code enforcement. There's complaints and stuff like that. I don't just don't know how what benefit and how that's going to be how how that can

068be enforced. So that's my feeling on it. So I don't know. >> Well, I brought up the letter to try to avoid that somebody having to >> and the letter's on >> them out or something. But it what do we call it? a not written notice of the commencement of construction of notice to whom that's you know who's going to be >> but the building permit is notice so the build the posted building permit is notice of construction so I don't I just think it's another >> thing of like like another layer that I don't know if we should be I don't feel we as a zoning board should be getting into that but that's my feeling it's all I'll let you guys decide >> no I I agree with you I mean I don't

069know We would enforce that. >> All right. >> Mhm. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Margaret and Richard Hurst at 16 Dune Lane. And >> let me interrupt this the revge plan. Um we can still leave that as a condition. >> Yep. >> And approvable by plan. >> Approval by planning department. Yes. Margaret and Richard Hurst 16 Dune Lane Amaganza subass map number 300-176-4-8 and size of location is 12,375 ft at 16 Dune Lane um Hampton Dunes lot 52 filed August 17 1966 is map number the description is to allow a 962 foot deck 290T woodw walk and outdoor shower to remain within wet and land setbacks Believe sort of three variances of 78.5 ft 43 43 feet and 38 30.8 ft pursuant to 255430 of the East Hampton Town Code are needed to

070allow the deck to remain 22 feet outdoor shower to remain 57 feet and woodwalk to remain 69.2 ft from the wetland where 100 foot is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence exploit zone 2% annual chance of flood hazard AE 10 in the secret class type two hearing. >> Thank you. Um okay the public hearing was held on October 21st 2025. Andy Hammer of Beyondo and Hammer spoke on behalf of the applicant. Tara Burke of Lighthouse Land Planning was also present but I don't believe she um spoke. No comments from the public were made either in person or in writing in connection with the public hearing. Uh and we were working off the survey from Gary Benz dated uh 1, sorry, January 28, 2025. And the TAM was prepared by

071Morgan Slater at 12,285 square ft. This lot is pre-existing under size substandard to be residents minimum area by 39%. But that sort of substandard sizes, as this board knows, um is quite common um in this area, this neighborhood. And in fact, there are a lot more lots that are less than 10,000 ft. Um well, not more than anyway, but there are a lot of lots that are a lot smaller. Um, the house itself is sized at just over 1500 square ft, modest, and I believe that house dates back to can't remember if you said the construction was in 1966 or that was the date of the that the lot was created. Um, the coverages are well below um maximums. I think they're in the range of about 40% below maximum allowables. Um, the last and

072only CO on record dates to 1967. Well, yeah, that would mean the house was built in ' 66. Um, and this and that CEO covered the house and a smalish 312 square feet of at grade decking that attaches right to the southern to to the rear um of the house. The entirety of the house and the original deck were built prior to environmental natural resource protection codes. And I think the whole thing the whole thing or and most of the property is within the required wetland setback area. The parcel has some meaningful topography and as was not uncommon in this neighborhood back then. Um the house itself was actually built on top of a meaningful dune structure. In addition, the property to the rear um right off the portion of the area of the deck

073that's in contention in this application, we see a rather steep drop off um that goes right down into the wetlands described in the TAM. Um the elements of this application that are seeking relief, specifically the wood walkway on the north side and around towards the back of the house, the additional 962 square ft of decking that attaches to the area that was seeded um and extends back towards the east as well as the elements and structures that the applicant is proposing to remove were all built without the benefit um of a uh building uh building permit and were not part of any co. It remains unclear where the septic system is on the property and that was some I just raised because that was something that was flagged in the TAM but we didn't explore

074that during the hearing. Um though the aerials are not clear are not clear enough to pin down when that significant deck extension was added. There were written affidavits uh two of them submitted to the record from two relatives as to their recollection um that that deck um that extended deck existed in 1984 as well as there was a 1983 letter from um uh Bud Hirs uh to his builder who owned the property at the time that indicated its presence in 1983. Getting to the decisions with respect to the 30.8 8 foot variance for the wood walkway that leads from the driveway steps to the front door to and moves towards the rear of the house. I will vote to approve that. It is a narrow low impact structure that provides proper needed access to the

075house itself. I don't think it would be right to demand only a dirt or sandy path to the front door. Um, this is the smallest of the three required variances. It's just over 20 the 25% level that we often think of becoming more of a substantial variance, but it's still moderate. And the position is dictated by the House itself. Um, and I think we've already established um that, you know, pretty much most of the House is non-conforming to wetland setbacks. So, I don't think there's an alternative that could um eliminate or remove that. Um, and it doesn't have an impact on character. doesn't cause a detriment to the neighbors as I see it. It's not necessarily self-created. Um, and I'd note that the proposed removal of the brick patio along the west front facade of

076the house could be seen as some mitigation relative to granting this variance. With respect to the outdoor shower, I am also going to approve that 43 foot variance to allow it to remain in its current and likely long-standing location tucked under an existing second story small deck. An outdoor shower is very common feature across the Beach Hampton Beach Hampton lots and many of them were established long ago at the time the original houses were built before zoning. Um it could be moved to perhaps the area where the small shed um on the south side of the property that's going to be removed. However, though it might improve the setback by maybe another 10 ft. On the flip side, it also reduces the amount of dunland reveg that can be accomplished and um has been offered

077in that area. So the existing shower appears to be sitting on sand at a topography well above the wetlands to the rear. So I cannot establish a meaningful environmental detriment necessarily to the wetlands. And I find that the benefit to the applicant of leaving it in place probably like likely outweighs the environmental any environmental improvement from moving it. With respect to the third requested variance, this is indeed very substantial at 78.4 feet um required to leave the unpermitted 900 plus square ft of deck extension um in place relative to the wetlands. But I do see a path to approve that variance based on um some very constructive discussion that we had um in the meeting. Um it you know with some specific mitigating conditions during the public hearing. We had a very constructive discussion with

078the applicant's agent, Andy Hammer, about addressing the conditions of the dune land around the property that has been somewhat degraded over time by the replacement of sandy areas and native dune vegetation replaced with more ornamental plantings as well as just a lot of mulching and irrigating that really degrades natural um dune land. Um, we also had a constructive exchange with how to better protect the most vulnerable part of the property, that steep topography indicated on the survey. Um, that that with the that it has native vegetation that drops right down into the wetland area. The applicant's agent was very amendable to restoring dune land and dune vegetation around several areas of the property and he did also um seem amend was amendable to establishing even if it's small a scenic easement to the rear part

079of the property to protect um that area that's closest to the wetland and the significant topography as I balance the variance and the NRSP standards with these non-conform forming structures. I believe this mitigation can very much improve the environmental and natural resources conditions on the property. Um and so I based on those conditions I will approve um most of the deck extension I guess contingent upon establishing a scenic easement. Um and I think we had tal he talked about um you know perhaps a 5-ft buffer created between the rear of the deck. So that might mean shaving off a five feet from that very rear of the deck. Um which would still mean a variance of about 73 feet. But as I said, I think the benefits to the conditions on the property um would

080be uh very important. So I am approving the application in full with these conditions that I believe the applicant was amendable to. >> Thank you. Sorry. >> Okay. U I agree with most of that narrative. Um, I do feel the the existing walkway uh leading to the house, the entrance of the house and uh I I guess I I agree with everything except the last one. I think the 78.5 foot variance for that deck that was added additionally, the 962 foot deck um is outrageously. It's it's big. It's very big. And I I think that that I well I'm denying that variance. Um, I know there was discussion about a scenic easement, but I think it was also contingent that we have a variance that the 10- foot of structures, you know, that we would

081give a variance on that that doesn't have to apply. But I I think that this project would be better done uh with cutting back that deck to where it was originally and then doing some reveation in the area that gets cleared up from that out to the wetland. So I I agree with approving all the other items on the the list. Um but uh that one I am going to deny. I don't think it meets the uh NRSP standards or the variance standards from the wetlands. >> Thank you, John. >> Um I agree that the uh the walkway uh makes sense. It serves a purpose. Um and that removing it would uh probably cause additional disturbance. Um, I'm not clear about the deck and the and the deck as it's outlined is not clearly depicted

082in the survey. It's there's a when you talk about the deck extension, you're talking about the new the >> you can see where it was red. >> Is that what we're talking about? >> Is the variance being requested for the entire deck, the entire rear deck? That's my understanding. >> Well, the 78.5 because they measure from the closest point. >> Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. But but if you look at the existing conditions picture, you see that clearly there there two decks there. There's an older wooden deck and then this new deck that doesn't have a railing. >> So, right. So, when we're talking about granting the variance, is it for both decks or just the extended? >> Because because the if you look at the survey, the deck with the red lettering on it.

083>> Yeah, but those dimensions, they don't make sense though. >> No, but it was CODed. It's already it was coed in 1977. >> So it's this new uh deck that's raised that that we're talking which I agree with member Burgerer is it's a it's a 78% of variance. It's uh it's huge. Um and I don't like it and uh >> I just don't like it. But uh >> but you know what we can't deny on we don't like it. So we have to have a reason for denying it. So you have to go through it. >> Yeah. Well, you know, I weighing uh the uh conditions that were offered by uh the representative uh Andy Hammer, reveating areas that are to be cleared, um reveating areas that are currently mulched, uh reveating uh reveation being

084required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Um and uh and >> so I I with those conditions can agree to the the walkway and the deck. But what I wanted to ask the fellow members of the board about was their feelings about the outdoor shower. I agree that the footprint of it is exactly under an existing second story deck >> and that moving it to the south side of the the house uh will interfere with reveation um in in that cleared area. Will the wetland benefit from a dry well underneath that uh deck shallow? That's the only open question I really I have. >> And they did offer that. >> They did. Yeah, Andy did offer that >> to keep the he said it could probably be done if he pushed back a

085little bit on its efficacy, but he said >> he did. He said it's a high water table there and >> No, it's not high. It's not high water because it's out for the elevator. Trying to remember that shower being over part of the walkway, isn't it? The little blue dots. >> No, it's directly under the corner of the house. >> Yep. It's under the corner. Yeah, but it's not directly in the sand either. >> No, it's not. It's It's over the deck. >> Over the other deck. Yeah. So, I I'm okay with um uh conditioning my approval for for the deck and the walkway contingent upon the revitation plan. Reveitating the mulched areas and the the shower contingent upon the driveway. >> I'm sorry, but you're denying the bigger deck in the back. You were

086talking about the walkway. Well, no. That's what is before us is that new deck. The deck in the back is uh requires a variance of 78. I'm sorry. So, I'm approving it. >> Oh, you're addition on the mitigation. >> Yes, exactly. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> My turn. Okay. I mean, the deck has been on the property for 40 years, and I do agree with the agent that removing it could be more detrimental and destructive, and there's really nothing, no evidence in the record that it's had any impact on the wetland. And I think the activity being controlled uh on these existing features like the decking and the wood walkway, in my opinion, are protecting the vulnerable vegetation. the outdoor shower. I mean, it could be in a more conforming location,

087but uh maybe if we'd offered to put in shallow drywalls, I'd be okay with it, but it's not my approval is not contingent on that. I don't have a problem with the outdoor shower. They're all also proposing to remove certain unpermitted multiple structures like the shed, walkway on the south side, brick patio on the west side of the residence, and fencing. and these areas should be reveated with beach grass. So I think there's been enough mitigation offered for me to feel comfortable granting the um NRSP and variances and I do agree with you member Maring that um another strong feature would be the establishment of the same. >> So that's how that's how I'm voting. >> Thank you. I too agree with approving this application contingent on the mitigations that were discussed. Um uh I

088don't think I have much more to add to that. Um I think we covered it. So >> I think so. >> All right. So I'm going to go through this one. >> Okay. >> So everybody >> we have I'm approving the whole thing. We we have everybody's approving except for member bear member burger is not approving the larger deck >> right >> um except and then with conditions are we doing we want a uh drywall something for the outdoor shower no >> he offered it >> agent actually offered it >> so why not drywall >> very easy to put in >> and then the revenge obviously and the last through the scenic easement. What exactly is this >> to the Yeah. Can we point out the There's a topo line here. >> Sorry. So, if

089you rest of you can tell me, but there's the 12 foot topo line, right? So, from there to the to the edge of the property. >> Correct. That would be my my view. Now again, I if we wanted to create a five- foot buffer, I think they'd be amendable to take from what I heard and Andy say would be amenable to cutting a little bit of that deck back. So, it's just not right on top of it. But, um, you know, so that just seems like the best place to >> you can't have it go from the 12 because the deck's right on the 12 and you have you're supposed to have to keep We offered five and we can do that. So, >> but I don't think we can create another non-conformity. Right. An

090easement does does have a required setback. >> Yeah. >> Well, is it >> in the past has established easements with structures in the setbacks. >> Okay. >> And I think we just have to make it clear and be reconstructed or whatever. >> Yeah. They had to make it that there had to be some sort of language. Okay. You don't have to comply with >> I think it's Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. I think we can condition it that it >> Yeah. And then we would need a revge >> plan >> because he did he did agree like a lot of those areas like along the north side, you know, in those beds that have been created and I think they are willing to do some nice restoration. So that plan addition. >> Okay. I'm denying that

09178.5. >> So, we're adding a scenic easement as a condition. >> Yeah. And again, it was, I think, well discussed on the record. So, >> yeah, I know. Yeah. >> Okay. Next, we have 621 Lazy Point LLC at 621 Lazy Point. Um size and location is 232,638 ft at 621 Lazy Point Baywoods at Nap 3 map number 9536 filed July 4th 1994 in Amaganz. The description is to construct a 720 foot addition, 600 foot garage with an adjacent storage room, a 158 foot covered porch, and a 7200 foot tennis court on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands, barrier dunes, beaches, and surface water. The lease saw is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 and a variance from 255440. Postal setbacks of the East Hampton Town Code. A variance of 16

092feet is required to construct the addition 134 feet from the primary doom crest where 150 ft is required in any other relief necessary. Zoning district is A2 AE flood zone elevation 10 request to another. >> Thank you. The public hearing uh for this application was held on October 21st, 2025. Uh we closed both the hearing and the record at the end of that public hearing. Um the applicant was represented by Richard Whan of Whan File Filer via a submission to the public hearing file on October 16th, 2025, including an updated survey dated October 15, 2025. um which was update that that submission updated the lot area for the purposes of the dimensional calculations. That lot area was restated at 157,285 square ft. Correcting it from the prior representation of 92,857 square ft. um the smaller

093number had been based it seems on an erroneous exclusion of the scenic easements from the lot area. This changed the coverage and clearing ratios as we discussed them um during the hearing. In particular, the proposed clearing percentage um was corrected to 20.6% versus a previously shown 35% of the lot area. The revised greater lot size also had the effect of increasing required side lot line setbacks for the residents to 35 ft from 30 ft. Meaning that the existing house um which already has a CO is actually 1 foot out of setback compliance. Um and but it means more importantly to this application um that the 720 propo 20 720 foot proposed addition to the front um of the house on the that lines up with that eastern um side of the house will require a

0941-oot setback variance if we're to approve it. um which though not noticed directly for public hearing certainly falls into the category of any other relief necessary. Um the property owner was in attendance as was the architect Terry Fister. Um the TAM was written by Sarah Lewis. Um again no members of the public offered comment in person or in writing to the record though Mr. Whan mentioned that the neighbor to the east had wanted to ensure that a full vegetated buffer would remain um around the proposed additions which Mr. Whan assured uh us would happen. Um in my field report, one of the things I did confirm and I thought was important to the overall um you know stewardship of this property and what's being proposed. I did confirm um the very robust um uh and

095strong conditions of the two important and large scenic easements on the property. All right. The proposed additions are basically divided into two parts. On the northern part of the lot on the landward side of the existing house, the applicant is proposing as we said a 730 ft addition. and I think the footprint of it is 600 square ft which will include two new bedrooms that's attached directly to the front of the easternmost section of the house. Um a 600 square f foot detached garage is proposed. Again that will be further landward of the house and in between those two elements will be I think a sunken garden. All these proposed additions are to be done in already disturbed areas. some of which is gravel and some of which is highly you know clo um fully

096vegetated but mostly with ornamental and non-native veg. Of these three elements only the house addition requires a variance um a 16 ft or 10.6% setback variance to the primary doom crest um for the addition as well as we just said one foot or 3% sideyard setback just discussed a moment ago. Um, I also wanted to confirm that I heard this the way the other board members I think Mr. Whan said the addition didn't was not an NRSP jurisdiction but the I we can come back to that because I got a little confused by that. Okay. So, I'm going to approve the variance for the House addition as noter as noted. It's not substantial in magnitude at around 10%. um variance. The decision to do an addition could be viewed technically as self-created. However, it can

097be seen more broadly as not self-created because the entirety of the house is within the 150 150 ft dune setback. Placing the addition land word um uh land word of the existing house likely means the variance requested is the minimum necessary. This 600 footprint represents an 18% increase in GFA. GFA on this existing house and on a lot greater than five acres the total new house size will remain well well below maximum allowables. Also the addition um is as mentioned is already is going to be built in already disturbed areas. The addition as I see it will have no detrimental impact to character of neighborhood as it can't really be seen from any road or by a neighbor or even from the beach. Um and given that a strong vegetated buffer um will be maintained

098likely no dangerment to the direct neighbors. Um so I don't see any environmental or physical harm being gr being created by the granting of the variance. The second part of the application is to build a tennis court sort of in the southernmost quadrant of the parcel. Um this meets all the required lot line and wetland setbacks and needs no variance but does require an NSP being in wetland jurisdiction. The court is proposed to be sized at 7,200 square feet and the total clearing for this addition is presented as only modestly 7% greater than the tennis court itself at a total of 7 7,7007 700 square ft. I'm going to approve the NRSP required for this. Um no doubt 7,700 square foot of clearing um to take place in a fully wooded part of the lot

099made me take a little pause but to assess it in a broader context that's square feet represents 4.9% of total lot area. Also the clearing beyond the court um as we said is proposed to be minimi minimized to the extent possible. It doesn't put into jeopardy the extensive scenic easement or put into jeopardy the protected natural feature wetlands just north north of where this will go on the property. Character is not an issue as this is a large lot subdivision. The court is positioned very far um from other um improvements on the surrounding properties. Um, it will not be lit at night as they said and overall I don't see this addition of a tennis court as creating material degradation or put at risk natural features protected natural resources on the lot. Um, a lot

100in excess of 5 acres can reasonably be said to adequately accommodate this amenity. Um, so I'm approving the application in full. I also it's in the TAM but we want to make sure the tree felling seasonal restrictions will be restrict um you know uh the a condition won't be lost um in the shuffle and that I think would be nice to covenant the no lighting um on the on the tennis court if possible um and that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Well, I agree with my fellow board member on this one. Um, in its entirety, I think they a wellthoughtout project. Um, the 16T variance to construct the addition is minimous. It's 134 ft from the primary dune crest. Um, the one foot sideyard variance was already discussed. It

101was an error in something in the survey. uh for the addition uh and uh the tennis court also uh I'm approving the NRSP for that that the NRSP from the freshwater wetlands um and the the scenic easement is the big uh benefit on that for me and I think that will uh that meets the NRSP standards with that and the protection that'll be afforded to the rest of this property. property on the south side and uh that's the only variance one >> well I also meant to say I approved the one foot variance for the sideyard setback so I didn't see so that would be three variances um I approved this I think it's all the standards I think you know the additions and the redoing of some of the the garage it's all over

102it's all landward of the house so I think it meets all the standards mention Leanne and our street. >> John, >> I'm in agreement with um my fellow members and their exhausted um review of the application. Um I uh the conditions that were mentioned in the TAM I assume will make it uh to our approval which are project limiting fencing sediment control uh the residents to have leaders and gutters directly directing storm water to appropriately sized catchment uh basins. an IIA sanitary system in the approved location and the no tree cutting for the protecting the long-eared bats was specifically proposed by Sarah Lewis to be restricted between March 1st and November 30th. I really like the idea of adding a covenant to for no lighting for the tennis court but as I approve the application

103it's in time. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you. Um I won't go through the numbers of corrected lot area numbers because member Maring already addressed that. She also addressed the um clearing discrepancy being um not 35% of the lot but 20.6% of the lot. I don't know. I one of the things um really I think it's worthy to note that this board in its wisdom and member Burgerer and Lloyd Delene were on this uh in 2021. I thought this was very impressive. They approved the installation of pressure equalization modules to reduce beach erosion. And in a uh and of course this means that every year they're the beach is being monitored to see uh the results. And the results of the latest monitoring survey indicate that the PEMS continue to stop the erosion completely

104and have further increased the amount of sand volume towards the back and midpoints of the beach while continuing to advance the ve vegetation line at the project site as compared to the baseline conditions in 2001. So, I think that's very impressive. Um, the proposed house addition, garage, septic system, and tenn tennis courts are all within building setbacks from property lines and scenic easements. And additionally, these structures are entirely out of wetland, 100% setback, and that the house is more than 130 ft from the nearest dunest. I feel this design has actually been implemented to protect the environment that this is a very well uh planned out project and I'm going to be granting this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. I um I too agree that this is a well thought out project. I'll

105approve app prove it as well. Interesting note that that those pems on the beach there is a pilot program. >> I know. >> So it's really interesting. It's very impressive when I read that the data on that. It's amazing. It's a a really good decision back in 2021. >> I think that's got one more year left, right? It was fiveyear project. >> And what can it be extended? >> Sure. Yeah. >> We could might remember to do that because it's working. >> All right. We're going to move on to minutes of approval. We're going to put off that other decision. Okay. >> One question I have. Sorry. Is I had two people say about the covenant for the lighting. What about >> Oh, yeah. Yes. >> Can we enforce that? And I mean, if they

106can, they said it wasn't going to be light. >> Can we enforce that? Is that >> I mean, well, you can ask them to have a covenant, but they won't have lighting. I mean, as far as enforcement goes, that's going to be you're not going to be the one for >> I know. I thought that was more night AR. I don't know. >> It would be more just in the future they couldn't put, >> right? They don't they said they're not going to put lights up, but it would be more for someone down the Exact. >> Okay. Thank you. And then do we clarify? Did the House extension need an NRSP? I thought Rick said somehow it was out, but I just want to make sure I'm approving it. >> But I would appro if

107if it needed NRSP, I would approve it. So >> just so we're clear for the record. >> Okay. So we have the draft minutes of November 18th, 2025. Make a motion to approve the draft minutes for November 18th, 2025 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. We move on to resolutions. We have Anna Kanger at 60 Osprey Road Navig 300-131-7-3. >> I'm refused from this. Sorry. >> This is uh this is I I'll click through it. This is a application. It was a denial by the board. Unanimous denial. Um, and I'm going to make a motion in the application of Anna Kanger, 60 Osprey Road, Emit, Suffic, Passmap number 300-131-7-3 to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Recused. >> Thank you. We have Waterview 3

108LLC at 232 Westlake Drive. M talks off test map number 300-12-4-29. >> Who is that? >> Well, it was Ed's, but it's M talk. So, um, we all remember this. Um, now I saw the final was everybody okay with that final modification with that very detailed description of the lines? I I had sent another question earlier to Charlie if it needed to I can't remember if it w we wanted it to actually be described as a buffer as opposed to just a reveation. I was trying to remember >> I thought it was just reve >> I think it was kind of I it was at the public hearing it was more of a buffer. >> I remember the public hearing people kind of just talked about the rege portion of the buffer at the clearly.

109I put it as a buffer in I updated it. >> Correct. You sent it out last. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And Sam has the most recent one. >> So for Waterview 3 LLC 232 Westlake Drive in Monttox map 300-12-4-29. Make a motion to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. Pinker. >> Pinker. Next we have Savina Delamada. modification at 41 Gardens Drive. I'm guess number 300-174-4-7. >> Okay. So, um we received a See, I'm saying this right. We received a request to modify again to state that we were were approving an NRSP for the reclamation and rehabilitation of the wetlands. So that is reflected in this modification. So, um, in the matter of Sylvia Delamada modification 41 Gardener Drive, Amagans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-174-4-7. I make a motion to

110approve the modification as written. Secondur, thank you. We next have KZ LLC at modification 23 safe drive M talk of tax number 300-20-2-12. >> Charlie Winter send that one out. Is it >> last week already? >> Oh, yesterday. I don't see that. >> It's a modification. >> Which one? The Oh, no. I sent that last week. >> Okay, then I think I did read it. Okay. Okay. All right. So, you remember this? was, you know, to lower actually it lowered some of the variances and of this development and they rearranged some of the uh structures. Um so the KZ LLC modification at 23 East Lake Drive, Montto 300-20-2-12 and make a motion to approve the modification as written. >> Second. >> I concur. >> Concur. Thank you. We have Alexander Charles McDonald at 123 Harbor

111Boulevard and Springs of FEMA number 300-95-6.3. The project description was to allow a first story addition to remain 13.8 ft and slate pavers to remove to remain 14.7 ft from the rear yard lot line where 15 is required. I believe this was a unanimous approval and I'd like to make a motion to approve the determination as written. >> Second >> kinker. Thanks. Mix surf club at Montalk 20 Surfside Avenue Malk Math number 300-496-21. >> Okay. And if you recall, this was minor variances on three different units at the surf club um which were already over improved areas all three for the surf club at Malkque at 20 Surfside Avenue in Montalk 300-049-06-21. Make motion to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you, Vice Chair. We're going to ask for an adjournment

112then to then to go to an executive session to discuss a legal matter. >> Okay. I'll I'll do two. I'd like to make a motion first to go uh make a motion to adjourn the ZBA meeting on December 2nd, 2025 at 9:20 p.m. >> Second. >> I'll concur. I'll concur. >> Concur. >> I'd like to also make a motion to go into executive session for the discussion of a legal matter. >> Second. >> Concur. Uh people