East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 11/18/2025

001I saw it somewhere. >> All right, zoning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you everyone and welcome to the town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for November 18th, 2025. Um, we have a busy agenda tonight. Um just going to make ask everybody to be mindful of their time um as we move along. The first three um applications are are were held open cases due to notice issues. So we're going to I'll read the first one into the into the record is 33 Surf LLC at 33 Surf Drive Amigans suffic number 300-174-3-5. Size and location is 10,000 square feet at 33 Surf Drive, Amaganit, Beach, Hampton, number 1203, lots 36 and 40, Amaganz. The description is to construct a 154.35T addition to an

002existing deck on a parcel within the jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. The relief order is a natural resources special permit pursuant to and a variance from 255430 of the East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. Variance of 80.1 ft to construct a deck addition 19.9 ft from a wetland where 100 foot is is required. The zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 and the secret class is type two. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this application? Come on up. >> Council for applicant. >> Okay. >> Like to hear me now or public first. >> Yeah. Let me just find out. Matt, is there anybody online >> except for just just please stand by one second. >> And this is Matt Chapman calling in from LTV making

003sure that all lines are open and clear, which they are. and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Council. >> Yes. Good afternoon, members of the board. Uh John Bourwin of Greenberg Towering, 2317 Monttok Highway in Bridgeampton for the applicant. Um I know the board has heard this once before, so I'll keep my comments brief. Um the board heard this matter on the October 28th calendar, at which time it was delayed for the or put over for our updates to the posting and mailing affidavit which have been submitted. The proposed work here is to bump out the existing deck in the rear of the property 6 feet to the east. >> We do we need to reiterate the application. >> Um just so I can point out the uh the technical

004analysis memorandum the TAM of October 3rd states the plan department has not identified any long-term environmental impacts and generally speaks in favor of the application. >> Thank you. >> Um Mr. Chair, I just wanted to did take a photo that the not the new notice had been posted. Um there was one question that we did have if I may for the agent because we asked Miss Vale and maybe we can just clarify it so we have all the right things we're would be deciding on um the existing deck. I think there was a question of if that was being rebuilt in in place and in kind in addition to the extension and I think she had mentioned she get back um back to us. it's not crucial. Thought it would be just good to clarify

005for >> at this point the only contemplated work is the 6 ft extension out to the deck. And um actually on that note um just for housekeeping I do know that it was noted on the record last time that we are awaiting a um minor revision to the survey the gravel area and flagstone walkway are to be um marked to be removed and to actually also be removed. So I'm not sure if the board wants to make a decision with that receipt of that survey conditioned or wait for the receipt of that survey. >> So it providing that is clear that we're that the survey will show that I think we can make it conditional. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Right. >> So motion to >> Yes. motion. >> Okay. Um in the matter of

00633 Surf LLC 33 Surf Drive I'm against it. Suffach County Tax Map 300-174-03-05. I make a motion to close the hearing and the record. >> Second. >> Thank you, Council. >> Concur. Next, we have Jordan Brinken Inzi. It's 49 G Road, Montalk. Suffet task map number 300-10-6-5. Size and location 7500 square feet at 49 G road collodon shores lot 60 map number 3433 filed October 16th 1961 in Montalk. This description is to allow patio to remain 8.8 ft and 9.3 feet from side and rear yard lines where 15t is required. Two variances of 6.2 2 ft 5.7 ft pursuant to 255 11110 of the 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 lot lines where 15 foot is required and

007any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence X flood zone and the secret class is type two. Um what do we have here? Okay. In the story, if I may, if I may. Are we ready? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I believe there was an affidavit done this time, but um there was a posting a couple of days after our last hearing when this happened. And there's the photo. Um I didn't get that photo, so somebody must have submitted that. Um, however, when I went out subsequent to that, there was the next photo that you'll see. So, somewhere along the way, it disappeared. >> I think we can we can rule that it was properly posted. >> They were notified and they put it I know >> they put it back up. >>

008They put it they put it back up. So, >> Oh, they just put it back up. >> Okay. >> Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this application? Matt, is there anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, can we have a motion to close? >> Okay. So, for Jordan Brink and Inzi at 49 G Road in Montalk Map 300-10-6-5, make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> Second. No. Concur. >> Concur. >> Um, this is one board members. Would you entertain making a decision tonight or would you be ready on this? >> Um, no. I'm not prepared. I'm sorry. >> McDonald's. >> No. Which one? You're talking about McDonald's or No, the next one. Yes. I'm sorry. >> I wouldn't

009have a problem with this, but I'll go with my >> Which one are you talking about? >> Sorry. >> G Road. >> Yeah. >> Alexander. Next one. applicant is Alexander Charles McDonald at 123 Harbor Boulevard in Springs suff-95-6-12.2 size and location is 14,000 square ft of 123 Harbor Boulevard in Montalk View lot 1 through6 filed July 23rd 1911 as map number 16 in springs the description is to allow a first story addition to remain 13.8 8 ft and slay pavers to remain 14.7 ft from the rear lot line where 15 ft is required. Relief saw as variances of 1.2 and.3 ft pursuant to 255 11110 of the East Samson town code is required to allow the addition to remain 13.8 ft and slate pavers to remain 14.7 ft from the rear yard lot line where

01015 foot is required in any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this application? >> Matt, is there anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> All right. Can we have a motion then to close >> in the matter of Alexander Charles McDonald 123 Harbor Boulevard Springs Suffach County Tax Map number 300-95-6-12.2. >> I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and record. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. Are we ready to make a decision on this vice chair? Okay, go for it. >> Proceed. Yeah, I could do this one. >> Okay. I'm going to go right to the standards >> now. >> Yeah, >> we'll

011do it now. Right off right the bat matter. >> We can do it now. >> Okay. >> Um I think this hearing was first held October 28th. I'm not positive about that. >> 21. Oh, thank you, John. >> And I just want to make sure we reference the proper survey, but I'll go right to the standards. The benefit to the applicant from grant of a variance outweigh any detriment which grant of a variance will cause to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or the town as a whole. I feel that um this application will not cause any detriment or to health safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The area variance to be granted is the minimum variance necessary. It certainly is. It's actually of dimminimous variance 1.2t and.3t. the area or whether

012the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. I feel that this application will not do that. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieve achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than area variance. I think the answer to that is no as well. whether the requested barrier area variance is substantial. It certainly is not. They're requesting a 1.2 foot variance and a.3 pursuant to 255 1110 allowing the addition to remain 13.8 ft and the slate pavers to remain 14.7 ft from the real lot line where 15 ft is required. Whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood. I feel it will

013not. Whether the difficulty causing the applicant to request this variance was self-created. Uh yes, it was. But as already stated, these are relatively minor and as built addition does not appear to result in any significant encroachment into usable open space. So for these reasons, I will be approving this application in its entirety. Thank you, Ed. Yeah, I'm going to agree with my fellow board member. It's a dimminimous request. It's I don't see any potential environmental uh detriment to the community, to the neighborhood. I don't see it have an impact on the character of the neighborhood. I'm going to agree uh with the vice chair and I'm going to approve this application at this time. Missy Terry. >> Yeah, I'm also going to approve it. Just want to make a statement. I guess there was some

014uh contractor errors that were made on this application. um and the contractor would not correct the issues. Um however, as far as the detriment for the uh applicant um I do feel that the the little mistakes that were make made on it as my fellow board members said were not uh large and um I'm improving the variances the 1.2 and the 0.3 ft also. >> Thank you Jane. >> Yes, thank you. I assess this application uh very similarly to my fellow board members relative to the standards. So I will be approving both variances uh requested relief. Thank you. >> Likewise I I agree with my board members. I have nothing else to add council. >> Thank you. Our next applicant is Marine 51 LLC at 51 Marine Boulevard and I'm against it task map number

015350-179-17 size and location is 21 29,700 ft of 51 Marine Boulevard map of Cebu C view at Amiganit lot 37 filed November 3rd 1967 is map number 4987 in Namiganit. The description is to replace an existing deck in place at kind. Construct a pool deck with gravel area where there is an existing patio. Relocate pool equipment. Install a gas line. Re reorient the existing gravel stone driveway. Construct wing walls at the driveway entrance. Reveitate and regrade within ve flood zone minimum within minimum dune crest setbacks and a lot on a lot containing beach vegetation and dand. being sought as a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and three variances of 50 50.9 ft 8 ft and 32 32 feet from 255440 to replace a deck 49.1 ft. Install

016a gas line 92 feet and construct driveway wall 68 ft from the dune crest where 100 foot is required and any other leaf necessary. The zoning district is B residence VE17 and AE10 and the secret class is type two. Council, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this. Thank you, Eric. >> Thank you. Um member Mary. >> Yes, thank you. Um I visited the site for my field report on a sparkling sunny day. Um this is the proper um uh the photo of the proper notice um that is clearly visible from the road. Next slide. Um just this is a shot just right across the street. This is this is

017the we're heading towards sort of the eastern culdeac of beachampton just east of Nepig Lane. This is the property on the other side of the street. just character, you know, there is some nice uh dune land and topography all around this part of um Beach Hampton. Next slide. Um now I'm looking east towards that way down towards that culdeac. Just again shot of the road in front of the property. Um the right of way in front of the property is directly on the right there. Next slide. Um the sun is a little bright. I'm just showing I'm standing in the road looking now uh flush at the property. The whole thing is very sandy in front. Um I know there's going to be a lot of discussion about reveation things. The front of the property

018is mostly I think the invasive olives. Um you can sort of I just wanted to show that you can sort of see through there's the fencing there um which is related to the pool which we'll be discussing. Um, but that even though the pool is in the front yard, it's screened and you also really don't see the house from the road as well. Next slide. Okay, this is the driveway that's on the really runs um parallel and close to the uh west uh west side of the lot kind of straight up towards the house. So, I'm going to go up this driveway. It's grally and sandy. Next slide. Okay. um right before Oh, you can see the house in the distance there. Um which we'll get to, but um right off the driveway um towards

019the east the the path sort of jogs um and I'm going to go down that. So, we'll look at the pool and the pool patio which are um an element of this application. Next slide. Yeah. So, now the house is right at my back. I'm standing on some topography, Sandy, that's between the front of the house and the pool. There's the pool fence. I'm looking out towards Marine Boulevard. Um, and you can see there's a existing brick patio, existing pool. Um, next slide. I just went inside there just to get a little sense. I believe um the patio's being replaced mostly in place and in kind, although I think there's some extra stone noted. Um, but I think it's, you know, going to remain pretty much the same. Next slide. Okay. So, now my back

020is directly towards that pool and pool fence and I'm looking at up towards the front steps of the house. Next slide. And you I'm sorry. And you can see there is there was topography in there. Um, I actually think if you look at the survey, the septic might be right under that area. This it says cesspool in the survey. Um, and there is some I think there's some potential grading that's going to happen in this area, but we'll get to that when the agent gets up. Next slide. Okay. A little closer to the house, there's a broken slate uh walkway up to the steps. The house sort of looks like it's in three sections. It's a one story. Um, you can see along the front there, I'll I have a better picture of it later.

021There are um sort of these retaining walls, creass seat or whatever they're made out of or railroad ties or things like that. Those are all going to be removed and I guess the um the gr the um whatchamacallit the sort of restoration of topography will take its place. Next slide. Um where am I? Oh, the house is I'm actually standing up on the steps again looking um houses to my back just so you can sort of see, you know, there is there's there's a really nice rise that has come off Marine Boulevard by the time you get to the house. Just was trying to show that next slide. Um and again, a little closer look at those bit of that retaining wall and that sandy area. Um, you can see the there's a retaining area

022towards the left of the photo and right in the in the foreground. Next slide. Okay, now I'm heading I'm continuing back on the driveway. I'm heading all the way to the end of the driveway. This is the um west side of the house. That's where the garage is. Um, in the distance there, there's a lot of I think that black pine there has been called out in the tam. Um, I'm going to go around the back of the house again. Back up there. There are more of those sort of retaining areas that I think the survey say will also be removed and I guess there'll be some restoration um of the dune land maybe within where those pines are. Next slide. Now I'm coming right around the back of the house. Um you can see

023there's like a gravel path. That's the rear deck um to the left that's going to be rebuilt in place in kind per the application. Next slide. Um you can kind of you can see this more clearly on the survey. So those are the steps of the back deck. Um you can see the ocean in the distance and that area is sandy. It doesn't show up because the way the light is hitting, but what marks the difference between the sand and then the beach grass that goes up to the primary or to the dune crest is um again it's like sort of wooden um stuff that I guess will be removed as well. Next slide. Um okay now I'm you know sort of in my back is toward head to towards the ocean. I just wanted

024to get a full view of the house and the back deck that's going to be um uh dealt with and there will be again I think some regrading in this part. Um right now it's just sort of bare sand in this area. Next slide. Um but what you can see and I did want to take is there's very lush mature um beach grass that runs really all the way from this little semicircle as you head towards the water. Next slide. And then this is just you can see it on the survey. This is there's a a bit of a wood walkway that comes out of that area um and is going to head down to the beach. It turns into a sandy path. Um next slide you can see the sand path. There it is

025going down. You can get a sense of the vegetation all around. Very beautiful day. Next slide. I think I have one or two more. Um okay. So I'm just my back is I'm kind of standing I think roughly where the dune crest is marked. My back is to it. Just a little context. You'll see that white house um all the way on the end. That will look familiar to this board um as that was in front of us not that long ago. And you know there was a lot of discussion at the time about the stability of the dune land um within this area. It was for a different application, but it's very close to to here. Again, you can see um it doesn't really show up well. It does, you know, from where I'm

026standing down to the house where that semicircle of sand is, it does drop um pretty quickly. And again, we'll discuss some of the um potential um restoration of of uh contours. And then this last sorry, going that last slide again, this was just a closer up as you're coming around towards the back of the house by the garage. This is some of those structures that are going to be um removed. I think that's it. >> Thank you, >> Eric. >> Uh good evening. Uh Mr. Chair, members of the board, Eric Brown, Acriman Partners for the applicant. Um Roy, I think I'll defer my comments until the planning department has done their memo. Uh you know, has has presented. Uh there I don't have a whole lot to say about this. I would be probably more

027productive if I answer questions and sort of lay out the the responses to what Morgan has just said. >> Thank you. We're here from the planning department. Morgan, >> how are you? Morgan. Good evening board. Morgan Slater for the planning department. >> Morgan, do you swear for to tell the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um, so the application is for some minor improvements to the property and the removal of existing structures with the most extensive structural work being around the driveway and pool area. Um, this entire lot was developed prior to NRSP standards. I think I have to look. There is building history in the in the file. I think probably dates back to the 60s or the 70s. The application also proposes regrading on

028the north side of the house and a restoration of the duneland on the seawward side of the house in an area that appears to have been cleared since at least the early 80s. The extent of legally existing structures that are being removed is hard to quantify since the 1983 CO survey lacks a lot of detail. Uh, I do know there are like building plans that show the pool patio from around that time, but the pool patio doesn't make it onto the CEO. So, that's just an that's kind of a major structure that didn't end up making it onto a survey that was definitely there at that time. The extent of disturbance and temporary clearing limits does seem to be a lot um considering the improvements are generally minor. The existing vegetation on the landward side

029of the house is a mixture of native and invasive species and the applicant is proposing a reveation of mostly native species. The planning department recommends that the Japanese black pine that's included in the reveg plan is be eliminated since that is an invasive species frequently found in the town's duneland. Uh ultimately the proposed clearing limits are 7,191 square feet which is about 4600 square feet less than the existing clearing limits. The overall scope of improvements is quite minor and the planning department does not anticipate any additional environmental impact from these improvements when compared to the existing conditions of the lot and in some ways the environmental conditions are improving. Um I can answer any questions board may have or we can hear from the applicant and then I can come back up however you guys

030want to do it. >> Any questions for Morgan? >> Well yeah your TAM was done on October 25th and the survey that you just handed us is November 7th. >> Yes. So >> different. >> So one of the um things that we recommended in TAM was there was a few different plans in the file um all showing the scope of work. So we recommended that the entire scope of work be shown on one revised survey and I believe that is what you have in front of you. Um I think Eric can probably speak to if anything has changed majorly um from that than what was shown in the file, but it's more just a cleaner way to review the application as a whole. >> Okay. Black pine is the only invasive you found on the

031propert >> on the reveg plan. >> Yeah, there's like one re black pine on the on the reveg plan which we don't want to encourage people to plant, >> but like those olives. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. So that's I think maybe Eric can speak to the limits of disturbance for the work that's being done. I imagine a lot of those invasive species are going to be removed in order to get some of the work done and then it will be, you know, restored with native species. But again, I think that's more of a question for Eric. There are significant number of pines to the west of the house where the new walkway is going in to the west of the house. Here is we're coming up to alongside the garage. We're going to spin our

032way around to the back now. They're going to take out that they have a railroad ties standing up on edge that do a semicircle. They're coming out that area then will be recontoured to best match the existing I'm summarizing here what I think I hear just some you know to match what exists. Right. So that side we're going to see some replenishment of dune and everything to the west with those pines. Are you saying that all those pines will come out now? Is that >> you just have one pine? >> One pine. Okay. So the about existing one. >> Yeah. No, I wouldn't the pine that I'm talking about specifically is was included as a planting on the revitation plan. So we don't want any additional pine pine on the lot to be taken out.

033Um I don't know the extent of how much is actually being removed from the property in the process of the improvements. >> There are some there are some railroad tide steps and there's some rail retention wall there that's to be removed to allow the new walkway to come in. So all I'm saying is that's going through a group of pines. Whatever has to come out for that is fine. The other pines you're fine with. >> Um the ones that are remaining on the property. >> Remaining on the property. Yeah. If they if they don't need to be removed for the work, then they then they can as long as they're not in the path of the work, you're okay. >> Yeah. The scope of work doesn't really warrant an entire, you know, invasive species removal

034project. I think it's more just, you know, as the work is being done, there's going to be some disturbance that would involve removing some of that vegetation and then it's comment about the potential over clearing during construction, thinking it was excessive. We typically I mean considering that the quality of the vegetation on the north side of lot especially is moderate in most um cases uh we're happy with the reveation plan for the most part that restores a lot of the property with native vegetation. >> And you've been through the Marties uh they did a protocol on this. >> Yeah. >> Protocol seemed complete to me. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I do see on the new survey that you just handed tonight the tempor the temporary limits of clearing. Oh no, that's right. That's the

035still it's still the 22. Never mind. Um, can you just comment and maybe we'll ask Mr. Brown as well. So, because I haven't sort of seen this. So, there's this recontouring of part, you know, as you're as you're getting seawword of the house, right? There's some recontouring. So, I just want to think about like h how that fits in with, you know, protect because you're close to the primary dune crest. So can you just shed a little light on that type of work and >> what it means and obviously ask the applicant why you know why it's happening but >> yeah so they the applicant provided some cut and fill estimates um so I believe that they will be importing some sand to accomplish that restoration our recommendation is that that sand be you know

036compatible with the existing conditions there and clean um and any beach you know beach grass should be planted on top of the dune restoration in order to stabilize it um I don't you know as far as like the contours go. If if that area remains, you know, untouched, you know, the wind may have its way in in some cases. You know, it is ocean front, so it may not look exactly um the way that it's proposed to look. But I think the fact that they are reveating an area that has been cleared since at least the early 80s with, you know, beach grass um and trying to mimic the natural dunecape, uh is a is meritable to the application. And then my other question is um so in in a way these are you characterize

037them as minor changes. There's a lot of replacing in place in kind. There'll be in some environmental improvement I guess because of the revge with more native but we're and and the house has already been renovated I believe right fully but we're still coming away on this property with a cesspool and I don't think any easement or protection you know over a part of a parcel where we often do see again this is not a full redevelopment and I'm not but did you have any thoughts in ter I I mean the extent of the existing renovations um especially interior I I believe the building department would look at and see if that reaches a threshold to warrant a sanitary system upgrade and I guess it didn't because um that those renovations have been completed. Um

038the exterior work that we're looking at tonight um I think that the revitation plan that they submitted that will be replacing a lot of invases on the property with native plantings is um enough mitigation for the work that they are doing. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I I have no questions. >> No, Eric. >> Thank you, Morgan. That was a very thorough uh presentation. Um I'm happy to answer any questions that I can uh for you guys and answer to uh Terry's question about the survey difference. Um the DEEC had asked us to remove some uh minor portion of the uh west side of the proposed deck and some additional stone that was going to be uh put uh in a north south fashion on the on the most landward parking area.

039All of that is below the the coastal erosion hazard area limit line. So they obviously have jurisdiction over that. So the we we took that out so that you guys would have you know the most accurate survey. we've agreed that we're simply not going to fight with the DEC over that and so we're going to leave it there. Um Jane, in answer to your question, um the idea in the back in terms of in terms of the in terms of the grading and dune area is to try to mimic as much as we can the you know the the traditional topography as you showed on your photos. There's sort of a, you know, there's a big drop between the the, you know, the the dune and, you know, phase as it runs to the beach

040and the and the grade where you come down off the deck. So, the idea is to try and and and address that and to make that more beachy. Um, Ed in in and also other members had asked about the railroad ties and that sort of thing. All of that stuff is going to come out. Um uh Martyr's brief is to remove all the invasive species, you know, that that they can and replace them with beach grass. We've already installed some additional beach grass there, but we, you know, obviously we had to come to you guys uh for the rest. Um, in terms of, uh, the deck, um, I know that Morgan noted in her memo that it was unclear as to exactly, you know, was 400 feet at one point and now it's 800 square

041ft. Our clients acquired the property in 2022 and have done nothing to the deck. So, as far as we know, I mean, when we acquired it, when our client acquired it, the deck was the size it is now. Um the building department had opined that we could replace the surface boards of the deck without an NRSP, but unfortunately the the framing system for the deck is is you know rotted through and they basically told us that in that situation you know we would need to come to you to uh you know for for uh permission to to replace the whole thing in place in kind which is which is what we're doing. Um, I'm not sure what else. I would point out that the, as Morgan said, the, you know, I we think the the

042clearing numbers as well as the coverage numbers are improving on the property. Um, the uh improvements that have been made to the house are really just exterior cladding and uh and interior, you know, interior renovations that have not increased the size of the house or the footprint of the house in any way. So, um, I won't go through point by point. I know you guys have a have a busy evening, so I won't go through the standards point by point. I'd refer you to the, uh, legal memorandum that we filed as an addendum to the application, and I'm happy to answer any questions, >> questions. >> No. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. >> Thank you. Do we have a motion? >> Yes. One second. >> Okay. >> You have zero calls on

043the line. Thank you. >> Anybody in the every as Charlie walks in the room? Um any anybody have from the public would like to address this application? No, nobody online. Thank you. So, >> okay. Thank you. um in the matter of uh Marine sorry oh Marine 51 LLC um 51 Marine Boulevard um uh tax map 300-179-01-07 I make a motion to close the record and close the public hearing >> secondur thank you thank you too you too >> thank Next we have Surf Club at Montalk 20 Surfside Avenue in Montalk selfie task map number 300-49-6-21. The size and location is 333,633 square feet at 20 Surfside Avenue in MTO. The description is to add an 80qt bathroom addition over existing deck on unit 73. Construct an approximately 40 ft first floor and 22 ft second

044floor addition over an existing deck on unit 81 and on 80 and an 80 ft bathroom addition with a skylight over an existing patio on unit 85 on a parcel of land containing and within fresh jurisdiction of dunes duneland beaches beach registration and title wetlands relief saw as a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 20 of the East Hampton Town Code and three variances are required for this application. Variances of 61 ft, 30.8 ft and 17.4 ft are required from 225440 to construct the proposed additions to 89 ft um 119.2 ft and 132.6 ft from Dune Crest and any other relief necessary. zoning district is RS resort zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit

045of notice of posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you member Johan. >> Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh this uh property is noticed in three different locations. This is the first one. This is on South Essex. I'm sorry this picture is not larger, but you see it there on the post in front of you next. That's South Essex. Here we are now on Surfside uh Surfside Avenue, and it's noticed here at another side entry. Continue. Next, please. And here we are seeing it as we're coming off of Surfside Lane. We're going to pull into the back parking lot here. These are three units all in the same basic area of the Surf Club. Next, please. I just want to give you an idea

046what it looks like here. And we'll see that these are uh graveled areas with the units spread around them in semic-ircular fashion. Next, oh uh I guess this is just the end just Yeah, this is dead ends here at Surfside. That's a pathway to the road. It's unnecessary, but that was just as you're coming in this back entrance next. So now we're taking a look at 73 from a distance here. This is what these little units are like. They have some privacy entrance on every one of them. There's a little area to the We'll get a little closer. Next, this is an area here that you This is existing deck and is what we're talking about on two of these. We're going to take this area and close them in. Uh, next, now I'm going

047to the next one. This is 81. This is down an alley. And to the right, I go down to that wall and make a right. And that where the door would be to my left as I go down that alley is the uh mechanical room, which an exterior door to it. In this one, they're talking about closing in that area uh that we see on the first floor and doing a second floor addition to it. Next, I just took a minute here between the two to show you where they're located. Located in Montalk on the uh the eastern side of town, looking across the primary dune here out at the ocean. I have two more of these. I'm looking now to the east. You can see there's a deck coming from that hotel to the

048immediate to the east and then to the next one, please. And again, you're going to sweep down looking past where these units sit. And uh you know, one of the original developments in Montalk for vacationers, and it's still, although it's been rebuilt, uh it's still in this primary location. Next, and now we're coming into the last 185 here. I'm looking at coming down this alley. Again, all of these have these protected openings or entryways. Uh next, I'm going to look into the area that they want to close in. This one says highlighted having a skylight above. So, we had a couple of existing patios. We had an entryway. I think that's all of them. Tyler, I think that's all I did. Oh, just a parking lot here just to show you what we have for

049a parking lot. >> Thank you. >> How are you, Lori? >> Good. Thank you. How are you? >> Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. Lori Wiltshire for Land Planning Services. This is uh we're not reinventing the wheel here. been here before doing this exact same project and will be here again. The applications for an NRSP and Dune setback variances are three units at the surf club. Unit 73 and 85 both proposed to enclose existing 72 square foot atriums while unit 81 proposes a two-story infill addition of 62 ft. The requested variances from the Dune Dunecrest are 61 feet, 30.8 feet, and 17.4 feet. It should be noted that this is the first property that's immediately east of downtown Montalk map

050174. Up until that point, the Dunerest setbacks is 100 ft. Soon as you step off of map 174, it's 150 ft. So, we wouldn't be here for two of these properties if we were one property to the west. Anyway, the atriums at unit 73 and 85 are basically useless moldy outdoor spaces and the area proposed for the infill at unit 81 is currently a doll a dark hallway to the front entrance. Additionally, the infill project will not be visible from any other units. The proposed work at all three units is extremely minimal. Units 73 and 85 propose enclosures of the existing atriums that will result in a second bathroom of 76 ft. While the two-story infill project at 81 will add 62 square feet of living face space in the form of a foyer and

051small kitchen addition on the first floor and a small office on the second floor. Basically using up um outdoor space that has no purpose again like the atriums as stated in the Tan. The proposed work is also going to take place over land already improved with decking. There will be no clearing, no environmental or visual effects on the duncrest or the property as a whole. While the variances may be considered significant, the properties already improved and no alternative exists due to the location of the duncrest. The request for these variances is self-created in that the various owners all wish to take unusable exterior spaces and turn them into usable habitable space, but this should not preclude the granting of the variances. This type of work has already been done at other units at Surf Club,

052specifically at unit 22, which was granted an NRSP and a 37 ft variance from the primary dune crest for the same twotory infill project proposed at unit 81. So, the proposed work will be in keeping with the existing conditions of the property and will have no environmental impacts whatsoever. >> Any questions for Lori? >> No, >> I have no questions. >> No. Thank you. Can we have a motion? >> We need >> I'm sorry, >> Tyler Borsack for the plane. >> Tyler, do you swear for tell truth? Nothing but the truth. >> I do. Um, the proposed project uh before the board is to enclose uh existing exterior decking and patio space on three separate units uh within this parcel. This area down uh east this area east of downtown Montalk requires 150 foot setback

053from the Doomrest. Uh because jurisdiction from the Derrest is only 100 feet. Uh only the improvements to units 81 uh require a natural resource special permit and a variance. The other two units only require a variance from the minimum setbacks to the Doomrest. Uh the subject properties in front of the planning board for uh several improvements including the proposed improvements currently before the zoning board. Uh the planning board determined that the application was complete and ready for consideration by the zoning board. Uh and their final determination on the application is on hold until the zoning board makes their determination on the required variances. Downtown Montto was part of a beach nourishment program that significantly widened the beach uh which was undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers in February of 24 which ultimately is a

054temporary solution to a long-term erosion problem in this area. Uh the proposed improvements represent minimal changes to the existing conditions on the developed property. Uh while the additions require variance from the duncrest uh one of which requires a sizable 61 ft variance, the additions are minimal in size and proposed within the footprint of the existing improvements decking and patio. Additionally, uh there's no seawward expansion expansion proposed or new clearing required in order to complete the project. The planning department has not identified any substantial short or long-term impacts on sustainability of the use of the parcel and it appears that the proposed improvements are in keeping with the existing development. Other than that, I can answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you. Any questions for Tyler? >> None for me. Thank you. >> Thank

055you. Is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? And Matt, anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now, can we have one? >> Nope. Please fine. Hold on. Uh, I'm closing. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Uh, then in the matter of surf club at Montalk 20 Surfside Avenue, Montalk 300-049-6-06-21. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record at this time. >> Second. >> Concur. Um board members, I just want to as we go into the work session, cons you to think about whether or not we can make a decision on this this evening, but we'll go do that. We'll address that in work session. Um next we have Al Capra at 235 Fairview Avenue in Montalk 300 tax number 300-9-7-6.2. 2.

056Size and location is 14,660 ft at 235 Fair View Avenue in subdivision 7 block 2011 lot 6 map number 1017 in Montalk. The description is to construct an approximately 270 foot deck edition, 36 square feet hot tub, outdoor shower, a new window, a door basement egress, and an up and to upgrade the sanitary system within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands, relief sers and natural resources permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code of four variances are required for this application. Variances of 55.8 8 ft 22.1 ft 22.1 ft and 18 ft are required from to construct a proposed decking 44.2 ft, hot tub 77.9 ft, outdoor shower 77.9 ft and window well 82 ft from wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B resident

057zone X flood zone in the secret classes type two council. So, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. >> This is member Burger. Oops. Okay. Um, this is actually I'm standing across the street from uh well I'm standing at the applicant's house and just shooting across the street. See there's a community preserve and there's a covert that goes from that side across uh south across Fair View Avenue um onto the and comes out on the applicant's property. The next uh is the official notice and posting. It's probably posted. Next uh here you can see it went toward uh Peter's Run. You could see that there's

058turf grass all the way up right to where Peter's Run is. And on the right side of that is where the culvert comes from the other side of the street. Uh, next, uh, it's a shot of this area where originally there had been a pool proposed, but now there's some, uh, changes, uh, being asked for. There's going to be a deck extension. And then on the toward the right side of that photo that there's an egress window that's pretty up high. It's in the shadow there, and that's proposed to be made into a full egress door from the lower level. Next. Um, uh, that same kind of thing, but a little bit better view of that. Um, now the next I went to the back of the house and the closest window you see right

059there is also proposed to be uh, changed egress to a 4x4 window. There is a a proposal of ex deck extension. I know what's the next one I have, Tyler. No, that doesn't help. Okay. Can you go back to that one? I didn't have a survey where I could find I didn't have the latest survey when I went out there. So, around that corner between on the the east side of the property. You can't really see it from here, but is where the there's a deck extension that's proposed and along that toward the back wall that you see the north wall in the next photo. Um there will there's a proposed um shower and a hot tub six by 6 by6 foot hot tub and I so go to the next one. You still really

060can't see it. It would be toward the left of that other photo left of this but um and then the next shot is just a shot of the north is the neighbors to the north uh from that that location. and the tribute. >> Thank you. How you doing, Joel? >> Joel, do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Uh, good evening, Chairman Glean. Board members, Joel Holly on behalf of Lighthouse Land Planning representing the Capra family, the sub owners of the subject property. The application that is now before the board represents a significant reduction in scope over the originally proposed project. The project now is a modest 6 foot x 6 foot hot tub, deck extension with egress steps and an outdoor

061shower along with the previously proposed two lower level egresses. There is no increase in lot coverage and the minor increase in total lot coverage is equaling 338 square ft. The proposed hot tub along with all of the other structures maximizes setbacks to the wetlands to the greatest extent possible. Currently the property owner sorry currently the property is overcleared at 11,568 square feet or 10,999 square feet is the maximum allowable on this property. In addition the clearing runs right up to the what is a Peter's run as you noticed in the picture. Uh in uh this clearing has existed since 1976 and is pre-existing non-conforming and grandfathered in. As mitigation for the minor project, the property owner is willing to reveate a 10-ft buffer along the cleared area for a total of 1,433 square ft. Uh

062this 10-ft buffer will provide an immediate benefit to Peter's run and also bring the property into declaring conformance. Although the applicant may upgrade the sanitary system in the future, that is no longer proposed as part of this project. The current system is adequate for the residents. The upgraded sanitary system was hoped to be mitigation for the previously proposed project. The project was received poorly by the planning department at that time and there's no nexus that can be linked to an upgraded sanitary system and a project as currently proposed. Uh when when Al Kapper who's in the audience tonight um came to me for this project. This was just for he just wanted to do egress uh two egress windows to or an egress door and egress window on his house. and I informed him that

063any changes in in egress would trigger a natural resource special permit. And that's kind of where the the the project kind of blossomed into a pool and and just hey, we're going to throw darts at the wall and see what sticks. Um so, uh you know, maybe the pool was a bad idea. Maybe maybe it wasn't wellreceived. So, we we you know, working with Tyler and the planning department. We think we came came up with a project that would be better received by the planning department. And um to that point I did h I have submitted a memo uh to the record uh from the property owner who again is in the audience tonight which I hope you have all had a chance to review and the pool was served a purpose a certain purpose

064uh there are certain med medical needs for their son uh that water therapy is extremely beneficial for and anybody who spends time on the beach in Montalk uh can see some of this in action with uh the surface healing that takes place in Montalk. Uh along with that uh there are memo uh two memos uh two letters from the doctor confirming the medical this medical need and we understand that all properties must be reviewed on an equal basis and that variance is run with the land. However, there have been times in the past where uh when compassionate review has been done by the board um and this project as proposed as minor proposes no significant threat to the wetland neighboring properties or the town in general and adequate mitigation has been proposed in the form

065of the vegetative buffer between the wetland and the upland development. Um we do agree with all the conditions of the mitigation except for condition four. Um I have discussed this condition with uh Tyler uh and it appears that this was inadvertently left entered into the conditions. That's the condition that requires dry wells uh and leaders and gutters and that's usually a condition for um new structures or sheds or sorry new additions to the house or sheds not for a deck addition in a hot tub. Um so that we you know we'd like to have that struck from the record or struck from the conditions. Um, the applicant does application does uh demonstrate compliance with the variance standards of section 255-8-50 and the general standards of 255-4-40 of the town code as outlined in the memo

066submitted to the record. I do not feel I need to read these into the record as they are currently part of the record. And if the board has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Okay. So, just to reiterate, you know, you're taking out this sanitary offer. Yes, sanitary effort was was hopefully adequate mitigation for that small pool, but that >> Okay, but now for a shower, you you said something about dry wells. I mean, for a shower, we would require dry well. >> Yes. Yeah. For an outdoor shower, we can attach a dry well, but the the condition for was leaders and gutters on dry have. Okay. >> Um All right. Now, what about the the hot tub as far as dry wells? I mean, how is this when it's not going

067to be in use and it gets drained? Where will that water go? >> I don't believe you drain hot tubs fully anymore. >> Do for the winter. Yes. >> Um, but I mean, I guess you I mean, you can attach a pool to a dry well. I never really actually heard of a hot tub being attached to a dry well. >> What's the size of the hot tub? >> It's 6 foot by six foot. >> Six by six. >> So, does that need to be double set back? >> Uh, greater than 6 foot by six foot. Needs to be double set. that triggers a pool. So any any if it's greater than six foot on width or length and deeper than 18 inches, it's considered a pool and then it triggers double setbacks. That's where

068the six foot. >> Any other questions? >> Well, as far as the buffer, would they be willing to condition that uh covenant that that the 10-ft buffer would remain? >> Um, I would have to remain. You would have to any clearing once it's established any clearing would require variance. >> Okay. Let's hear from Tyler. >> Anybody else questions? >> No, I'm fine. >> And just to let you know if you have any questions of the property owner. He's he is in the audience. >> Go ahead from Tyler. >> Welcome back. >> Tyler Borsack for the planning department again. Uh so the subject property is situated on the north side of Fairview Avenue in Montalk. Uh the project before the ZBA has gone through revision since the planning department first wrote uh wrote wrote our first

069assessment uh on the project. The application is now requesting construction approximately 270 ft of uh decking hot tub outdoor shower uh to install a new basement egress which includes a door and a window uh and to reveate. Overall, the project has been greatly scaled back from the original proposal which required significant variances for a swimming pool and decking which the planning department had recommended denial of which we are no longer suggesting. The wetlands within jurisdiction of the property are a portion of Peter's Run which is uh with uh uh notable slopes which run towards down towards Peter Run. Uh Peter's Run is a water course that runs through from the golf course directly to the west end of Lake Monttok. Improvements to this parcel and other part parcels that border the water course can have

070significant impacts that extend well beyond the property lines of each individual property. Uh Peter's run is a vital and sensitive water course that provides the benefits of all quality wetlands, especially the retention and redirection of storm water prior to recharge into the ground table and especially into Lake Monttok. The value of the protection of the area around Peters Run to the water quality of Lake Montto cannot be understated. Uh the current pro uh project is a fairly simple uh and small deck addition to the existing decking on the north side uh of the residence in order to allow for a more reasonable access uh to the proposed hot tub on the far west end of the proposed decking in the most uh landward location that the applicants felt was reasonable for their use of the

071property. The proposed hot tub is located 77.9 ft from the wetlands of Peter Run. Uh it does not appear that there is a reasonable location on the property that would both be conforming to both wetland setbacks and lot line setbacks. Uh and the current proposal likely represents the most reasonable location for an improvement uh of this type. The current proposal takes into consideration the constraints of the property uh and attempts to limit the impacts of the structures, maximize setbacks and limit their size. The proposed reveation is a 10-ft buffer along the entire length of the wetlands uh increasing the nearly non-existent buffer. Uh the board may find that some additional vegetation would mitigate the proposed improvements, but the 10-ft buffer is at least close to an approximate measure uh mitigation measure for 270 ft of

072decking, a shower and hot tub. U the elimination of the sanitary system uh limits the proposed mitigation for the decking and the hot tub to the reveation. However, a 10-ft buffer where Dun currently exists, which accounts for 1,433 feet of vegetation, uh, and reducing the pre-existing non-conforming below the maximum allowable, which eliminates the non-conforming on the property, uh, may be sufficient to offset the impacts of the limited decking and hot tub alone. Other than that, I'll make myself available for questions you might have. >> This is all about the buffer to Peter's run. That's what it's all about. When you go over there, it's um, it's kind of surprising. It mowed right down to the edge. So we have we have a turf as was brought up by member Burgerer right down to the edge

073of the pond. So the whole comment here is yours and that is the 10- foot adequate buffer to protect ourselves. It is a downward slope. It's there in the open water. The 10 foot is certainly better than what we have and and thankfully that'll be something. But I guess we have to be secure or feel good about the fact that this is what we should be recommending. I mean, standing out there, it's kind of jarring to see just how it goes right down to it. >> Absolutely. >> 10 foot, 1500 square feet. Right. >> Right. We're just under. Yeah. So, a significant amount of revage. >> It is. And the and given the size of the project, we were sort of okay in general with the with it, but certainly more is is always better

074obviously, but given that it's it is a fairly limited amount of decking and hot tub, we weren't comfortable and strongly recommending more. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? >> It seems to me that with the the grading and the way that was um with the runoff that 10 might be, you know, minimal amount and it would be better to >> Yeah, it's across the entire property though. I mean, 1400 square feet is certainly not no small amount of vegetation. Um again, we would we just felt that based on the scale of the improvements that they were proposing that more just wasn't something we could strongly recommend. Mhm. >> Strongly recommend, >> but we could strongly recommend. >> Weekly recommend it. >> Okay. It just seems that, you know, that turf grass is still

075going to be 10 ft away from that. But I mean, I'm feeling a bit of the same, you know, again, the visual, the slope, um, just, you know, the lawn does, I'm understanding what you're saying that it's sort of comparable to the uh, extra decking, but yeah, there is a part because we do talk about Peter's Run a lot. It's very significant. Yeah, I mean if it was a redevelopment, we would certainly be recommending for much more, but in this case, we didn't feel like Okay. >> And I just want to clarify there. >> Okay. Sorry. Clarify because I'm just hearing they're very close, but I'm hearing two different numbers. 1,533 and 1,433 and that on the survey they're just not quite getting back to the 10,000. So, I don't want to nitpick, but just

076know what number we are. under. I thought it >> says propose 10,135. >> Right. So, we're very very close. But in the TAM it said 1533 and you just said 1433. Again, I don't want to nitpick it, but I just want to know the >> Yeah, I thought it uh Yeah, I mean the existing is 11568 and they're going down to 101 135 where >> 1099 is is is permitt is permitted. Um, so yeah, it would be 14 and change. >> Will we be able to have a no fertilizer, no condition? >> Uh, that's generally not something that we it's it's difficult to enforce. >> Yeah. >> Um, so areas areas where there's like dune land and we don't want lawns at all because of the introduction of fertilizer, it's easier for something like that.

077But when it's an area where their lawn exists, it's hard to it's really hard to uh condition something like that. >> Do you have a planting plan already in hand or is that going to be >> No, we we would be fine with approving it, you know, that prior to a building permit. >> Any other questions? >> No, I'm good. >> Thank you. Is there anybody in the public that would address this like to address this application? >> Matt, is there anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Can we have a motion? >> The application of Al Capra at 235 Fair View Avenue in Montalk 300-019-07-6.2. Make a motion to close the public record and the public hearing. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. Good night. >> Concur. Thank

078you. Thank you, Joel. Next we have Maria Christina Peredi at 501 Monttok Highway in East Hampton. SuffK task map number 300-166-4-23. Size and location is 13,294 ft of 501 Monttok Highway in East Hampton. The description is to allow a portion of an existing 333 334 ft screen porch and a 146.45 square foot addition to the main house and 200 foot addition to the cottage to remain with sideyard side and rear yard lot setbacks and outside the town's pyramid regulations. The relief saw seven variances are required for this application. Variances of 6.0 ft, 1.24 24 ft and 2 feet are required from 2551110 of the East Hampton Town Code to allow the addition to remain 6.4 ft. Screen porch to remain 13 ft on wood deck to remain 12.4 ft from the western sideyard lot line

079where setbacks of 12.48 ft 14.24 ft and 14.4 ft are required respectively. One variance of 10 inches is required from 255 11110 of the town code to allow the addition to the residence to remain 19.20 ines from the southern yard front yard lot where 20 foot setback is required. One variance of 11.7 ft is required from 255110 of the town code to allow the addition to the cottage to remain 3.5 ft from the northern rear yard lot line where 50t setback is required. Variances of 7.2 2 in and five for 1 in are required from 255172D of the town code to allow the addition to the residence to remain 7.2 in and the addition to the cottage to remain 5.1 in outside of the town's pyramid regulations from the western and northern property lines respectively

080and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a red zone X flood zone secret class is type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Um I think member Maring you did, but I'm looking for the photo. >> I don't think that was my photo. >> That was going to be yours. >> Yeah. >> No, because I I was my mistake. >> We didn't know. I thought it was going to 501. >> It's right on the border in Namagid and that was the laundromat and then I realized um okay uh there was a photo I think of the posting. Maybe that's coming next.

081But um so just orienting so I'm on the north side of Montac Highway um just uh east of you know kind of where the uh Skim Hampton goes into that that's across directly across the road. I think many people not um know this. This was I think used to be Khan's sporting goods. I think it maybe it was chance but that's just a reference. Next slide. >> Posting one. >> I did send a posting photo. >> There it is right there. >> Oh, I'm sorry. There it couldn't I can't I can the seat I can right. So you can see the posting. I didn't get close to it. Um I'm coming in off the highway and it's right in front of the stockade fence. And by the way, you may want to kind of follow

082along on this survey as I'm going through this because there's this optical illusion because of all the stockade fencing, which is all, you know, pretty significantly off the property. So, I'm going to point out where the actual property lines are, but you might want to follow. Okay. Um, next slide. Right. So, I've gone up that driveway um where the sun is shining in. That's actually right there is the stockade fence um that you'll that you saw just a moment ago. It's very tight between the front of the house um and um and and uh the uh front of the property. Um basically um you know we've got that gravel there with the stone just to the left of that where the little railroad tie is. That is basically the property line. So the stockade is

083off somewhat off the property here. Um and beautiful maple tree there. um small house. Um next slide. I'm just going to head. Yeah. So, I'm just heading uh west um where the on the survey you can see where the portion of the house sort of jogs back a bit. That's the front door. Um that's the uh approaching the western property line. Um I'll get a better shot of it from the other side, but next slide. Um I'm standing in front. So, I'm sorry it was bright. the to the right you can see that bumpout of the house. Um and then as you're looking back you'll be able to start to see that screened porch screened room. Um which both of these need I think setback variances. Next slide. Right now I've come back around the

084other side of the house. If you're looking at the survey where it says asphalt um kind of coming up the driveway. So that's the that's the sort of asphalt parking. Um that's the um east side of the residence the house um you start to see peeking in the background there um is the cottage that's also um an element of this application. Um it's just sort of open lawn in between. What you will be able to see in all these photos is it's outside of that stockade fence is really beautifully wooded. It's all I think vacant property. I think all the property around it on three sides might is owned by the town. Um but just you notice how much um beautiful uh mature trees are all around this property. Next slide. Okay. Now I'm going

085back towards the cottage which as you know from the application was expanded and needs both setback and pyramid relief. I think um where the extension was is towards the right part of the cottage. I'm going to head back there. You can see again that stockade fence in the distance. And when you look at the survey you know that that is well off the property. Next slide. Okay. Sorry, I just got a little closer. You can see the cottage. It's very low slung. Um, very small in size. Next slide. Okay. So, now I'm on the back of the cottage. So, where that little um step down um at the rear of the house to that railroad tie that is just very close to where the property line is. So, that sucked um is off. So, that's

086why it looks like it doesn't need setback relief, but it does. And um next slide. I just coming around the other side of that. Again, I'm looking now back towards Monta Highway. Again, that stockade fence runs straight down towards Mont Highway and runs on mostly off and then onto the property. Next slide. Oh, sorry. It's all it's all off the property. Okay. So, here just as a closer look at that screened room. Um, and it's the end of it in the forefront that gets closest to the property line that needs some relief. Um, and then you can see there's I didn't get the whole thing, but there's that like little concrete um slab where I guess there was a hot tub and that's the hot tub's been removed and I think that concrete slab is

087removed and that might be it. >> Yep, that's it. >> Thank you. How are you Karen? >> Good evening board members. Karen Hog from Toulate Them uh 33 West Second Street, Riverhead, New York. Here with me tonight is the property owner, Christina Pierretti, and the architect, Jonathan Baker of Farmworks, architect who submitted the plans. As you said, the application proposes to legalize asbuilt additions to the main house and cottage portions of which requires relief from side and rear yard setbacks as well as pyramid relief for both. No new construction is proposed. The lot is a non-conforming lot at 13,294 square ft located in the residential aid zone and it gets relief on of a non-conforming lot under town code 255-1-43D. It does not meet minimum lot area of 40,000 square ft or lot width which

088is the minimum is 160 ft. The lot is at its widest 112.47 ft in the rear and 69.69 69 ft at its narrowest. The main house, as Miss Miring had commented, is situated in a secluded area surrounded completely by vacant properties, which is heavily wooded. The main house is situated on the narrowest portion of the lot. By way of background, the first CO number 14030 was issued in May of 1996 and certifies a one twotory frame, one family residence having one kitchen only and one-story frame cottage having one kitchen only. And at that time there was a shed, but all these structures were erected before the adoption of zoning. Uh there was also an addition al of an alteration to a brick patio and to the existing two-story residence. So as the main house and

089cottage were built prior to the adoption of zoning, they don't comply with current setbacks. So any additions to the structures would require some form of variance relief. The asbuilt one-story addition to the main house, the screen porch, the rear deck, and the cottage one-story edition were constructed based upon aerial photographs sometime between 2013 and 2016, which was prior to the applicant purchasing the property and after the 1996 certificate of occupancy. I thought it might be helpful to show some historical aerials to the board. >> Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Thank you. If you look at the historical areas which I took from Suffach County GIS from 2013 and 2016, you can see that in 2013 there did not appear um to be an addition to the cottage nor did there appear to be an addition

090to the main house. But they do appear in 2016. Um so sometime between that time period they were added. Since 2016, there were town approvals related to the property. In December of 2017, the town issued a building permit for emergency replacement of a,000galon septic tank and 300 square foot leeching rings. In September 29th, 2021, a CO was issued to close out that permit. On June 3rd, 2022, the town building department issued a rental registry permit 22-879, which expired in 2024. Miss Pieretti purchased the property on October 13, 2023. At that time, the town code did not require an updated CO upon transfer of ownership. When she purchased the property, she was unaware that these improvements were made without the benefit of any permit. She learned the issue after her purchase when a town inspector visited

091the property in January of 2024. As noted on the property card, the property was flagged by the town for ordinance. The formal notice of violation was never issued requiring her to go to justice court. While seven variances may seem substantial, when you take a look at the full picture, they are not. In terms of the relief, the main house, if you um look at sheet A100, which is what the architect put together, it illustrates the nonconforming portions of the main house as it relates to the western sideyard. That portion of the one-story edition, we are seeking to legalize it setback 6.4 where 12.48 48 is required. Thus, relief of six feet is needed. A portion of the screen port which is not conditioned space. We're seeking to have it remain at 13 ft where a

092setback of 14.24 is required. Rel relief of 1.24 ft is needed. The screen port sits at top the rear wood deck. We seek to legalize the rear wood deck at 12.4 where a setback of 14.4 is required. So therefore, a relief of two feet is needed. In terms of the front yard, the notice states that 10- in variance is needed when actually it appears to be 8 in. The front yard is a 20ft setback and the um addition piece is actually uh 19.2 ft off the front yard. Uh pyramid relief is needed due to the the sideyard setbacks. And in terms of the cottage addition in the rear yard, we're seeking to legalize the addition to remain 3.5 ft from the northern rear yard where 15 ft is required. Also, because of the sideyard setbacks

093and the location of the existing structure, we need pyramid relief. We've addressed the standards of the um the town code 255-8-50D in our application narrative. But to summarize, you know, this is really a unique set of circumstances here that we're dealing with and there's no harm to any neighbors in legalizing the aspilled structures. There's no detriment to the neighboring parcels as the the vacant land and they're completely wooded. Mrs. Per Peri is left with no options but to apply for variance due to inheriting the asbuilt additions in the existing nonconformity of the lot and the structures on it. There's no impact to the physical or environmental conditions on the property and the property complies with building and total lot coverage and we respectfully request that the board grant the request for relief. We are aware

094of the fencing that is off the property line. While it's more of a title issue, not a zoning issue, we are working on addressing that and we're here if the board has any questions. um the cottage. So what was the square footage amount of square footage that was added to the cottage? >> I believe it was 200 square feet. Jonathan, would you have that information >> right there? No, the red is the one the leaf >> the whole >> the addition was bigger. >> I have 200. >> 200, right? >> 200. Yeah, >> 200. So, do you know what the total size of this um cottage is? And the reason I ask is I'm not sure. Obviously, this was a pre-existing um it had a kitchen. And I don't know that I had a bedroom

095before, but I don't know when we think I don't know this also has to fit under the maximum accessory structure size of 600 or or No, because >> the structures pre-existing non-conforming the the cottage structure >> in terms of setbacks and pyramid. Yes, I'm just because it was expanded. Again, I don't I'm we'll ask the council, but um generally it's a cottage. I guess it's also an accessory structure and then that would have a limit of 600. >> It goes towards the GFA. >> Sorry. >> It's two legal CFOs. >> It's so has since there's two cos it's a technically a principal res as long as both structures are not over the total allowed GFA for the whole property combined then it's okay. >> Okay. So the max size related to accessory structures is not

096a thing here. Exactly. Principle. Thank you. >> But it goes to to say that if we were if this was a proposed application, we would be having a conversation about increasing non-conformities. >> Yes. >> Um and alternate alternate scenarios of what what might happen. We don't have that benefit here. Um, so I mean we're going to have to and I sounds like you've addressed it in your um in the standards, but just can speak specifically if you can to the uniqueness of the application relative to what we've denied in the past um relative to increasing nonconformities. >> Sure. So So these are structures are both pre-existing non-conforming. They predate zoning. Um these structures, these additions have been there since looks like at least as far back as 2016. Um they the town or there's been

097no violations cited to the property. Um the town has been on the property over the years whether it was issuing building permits for sanitary uh installation to which is sufficient capacity wise to serve both units. Um, as well as the fact that there was, you know, a recent rental registry that was also issued to a prior owner. I mean, it's unfortunate that when the purchase happened back in 2023 that there was no code requirement at that time to get an updated CO because all these issues would have come to light at that point. >> But that's still that's still buyer beware. I mean, still still exists is in terms of responsibility of the buyer to know what is am I wrong? it is in council as well. I did not represent her on the on

098the on on the purchase, but those are things that certainly get looked at. Um, you know, the fact is that there is, you know, if you're looking at the standards, there there is no harm um to any of the adjacent properties. It's the the space that is added that is really in question in terms of within the setbacks is is pretty minimal. Um, you know, especially if you look at the the bumpout edition, it's a a one-story edition that created additional living space. Um, you probably have driven by this property a million times and never even noticed the property was there. Um, which has happened to me when we went to go post it. Um, but you know, there's, you know, I think that those are important criterias. there's no plan on ex expanding um

099the square footage of these structures. Um you know that they you know we understand that they are um you know that this is really to to kind of legalize what's there so that we can get the property properly seeded and address the problems so that there are no problems going forward in the future. Um it's also meets all the the pre-existing you know it's grandfathered in in terms of clearing um you know that's also noted on the survey as well. Um you know I think that the circumstances are and you know Miss Peretti could even speak to them or the architect is that you know it was it was it's a hardship um you know purchasing something with these problems associated with it um and not learning them until after the fact. you know that

100that that is an unfortunate situation. >> Any other questions? >> Well, I just want to say I'm sorry. >> No, go ahead. >> I just want to say to the chair's point is that yes, you're right, but that could come up with any number of pieces of property. Obviously, there's a responsibility uh to the applicant here in this case or the potential owner to look into the conditions on the property, but they're also legally represented. So somebody did not stop and say, "By the way, this property is dangerously close to the to the edge line, but I don't see it included in in the 96 CFO." So she was either poorly represented and then we're inheriting it as a condition of approval because she didn't know. I don't know that that's our responsibility to worry

101about what whether you do and don't know. Before you say anything else, I just want to say I'm not sure that there's any great fault in what anybody did here except for the fact that legally we're looking to ask we're being asked to approve a significant uh pyramid violation pyramid variance and the fact that particularly with the cottage that it's you know virtually on the property line. These are pretty significant. So, it's true she did not know and I understand that and we can have a certain amount of sympathy for it. But nonetheless, we're looking at a piece of property here that's got a very strange shape to it. And despite what the fence looks like, which is obviously all over the place, there was still must have been at some moment when this was

102being presented legally where you have to say to yourself, by the way, is do I have a problem? And if I'm only 5 feet from a property line, I have a problem. I know that coming in, especially if it's not on a previous CFO. So, I think there's something for us to consider here when we review these things. >> Well, I I think one thing um you know, as just as a lay person, if you know, in looking at the property card, when you see that there's a a CEO that comments and legalizes the cottage um in its current configuration or what you believe to be is current configuration in 96 and then you see the house on that as well. So, you're looking at two principal res. I don't know if anybody from a

103lay person looks and says, "Well, what was the square footage? Does it look like, you know, I mean, I I do. I mean, I look at the aerials and I try to figure out, you know, as part of my due diligence, but I I can't speak for for other people who do that. Um, but the fact that the town then had issued cos to for sanitary system um, and it was also on the rental registry, I think as as a as a lay person and you know, we could talk to the owner, I would think that there weren't any issues. Um, because I would think that it wouldn't have a rental permit if there was an issue. Um but but that to me is just a a how I would look at it and I

104would assume and you know we can ask the current owner if that's what her understanding was as well. Um but I think that there is some merit to the fact that there were approvals after the fact of the 96 co. Um, and I think, you know, unless you do a deep dive into, you know, looking at architectural plans or historic surveys or, you know, you you may not have known, I mean, you can't tell from that survey that the cottages actually had an addition to it until we had asel plans done. >> Um, so I I just think that that that's something that that is unique to this application. >> Um, I know that there was an emergency septic system replacement not that long ago, but that's still a standard septic. It's not an upgraded.

105It was not upgraded to the nitrogen reducing IIA at the time. What type of septic is it? >> Um, is it just a conventional? >> Yeah, that I believe that the CO states that it it's a >> it talks about the size of the tank. And it would >> Yeah, it's a >> but I think it would say if it had an IV >> um Yeah, it's a thousand gallon septic tank and 300 square foot leeching rings that was approved by the town in 2021 and then the town engineer submitted a memo in in in 2018 in regard to it saying the CEO could issue and then in 2017 was when the actual building permit um was issued. So, between the um the residence up front and the cottage, how many bedrooms in total? >>

106Four. Four bedrooms. >> One in the cottage, three in the residence. Was there any thought to upgrading the septic? >> Not currently. >> You have to you speak at the Yeah. Yes, thank you. >> Sorry. >> I'm not aware of the second. I know that the one >> state your name and address and I'll have to swear you in. >> My name is Jonathan Baker um with 3015 Skunkland Kutchog. >> Thank you. Do you swear firm to tell truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Um the only thing I'm aware of is when we pulled town records um after the somebody a town inspector left the card for the ordinance for the hot tub and obviously the fence and the driveway. Um and the town records were just photos

107of the septic replacement in 21. And just what I'm reading from the the replacement is that the leeching was size for a fourbedroom. It's 300 square feet. So, I don't know if that the owner thinks there's actually a separate septic for the >> I'm not sure. >> Yeah. But I think it's size for the house has always been a threebedroom. It is a threebedroom. It's one bedroom. >> And then we don't have jurisdiction necessarily over things that are off the property, but it is really an extreme amount of fencing that's off the property. Have you considered um correcting that? and getting your fencing onto your property onto your property line. >> Yeah, I think we were I mean obviously going through this process the hot tub has been removed. The shed at the rear that's

108off the property line has been removed on the >> fencing you know is sort of a larger project along with a driveway. So to try to reimagine, you know, I obviously bring the the fence, but yeah, fence, >> right? As you can see on the survey, it's noted that the existing fence will be the properties. >> All Oh, all of it is. Oh, I'm sorry. >> The existing fence to be moved. >> Well, I didn't know if it was the whole thing or Okay. Yeah, thank you. Oh, it's right there in front of me. >> Creates that disconnect when you visit the property. >> And they're removing the shed. >> Y the shed I think the shed's already gone. The shed is gone. And the hot tub is gone. >> And the hot tub's gone

109already. Okay. Thank you for that. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> No, I'm good. >> Thank you, >> Tyler. Tyler Borsk for the plane department. Again, uh being just dimensional variances, I don't have much else to add. Um I will note that the uh the adjacent property to this is a town owned parcel uh which is currently actually being developed for affordable housing. Um that said there the the plan if I remember correctly >> I want to sorry I want to I don't think that that >> no court is no this is a separate private Yeah that's further east I thought west further west I thought it was the same property >> no I thought so too for a second >> so then it's yeah then >> that's a private lot that's pretty big

110>> uh it it the one to the east is a private lot I don't know >> the one to the east is part of a subdivision I believe >> I thought I looked at the one to the west and north that was >> that that's a private that's not town owned that's owned by Fidian limited. It's a I mean it's a a >> It's very big. It's like >> it's really big. I thought I had a GIS gave it to me at town, but I could it could have been an error. >> Yeah. >> Regardless, um it's unimproved. >> I looked at the I looked at the tax map court is like two lots to the west and then according to the tax map, the one the lot on that it abuts on the east

111side is town owned, but I don't know. So, >> all right. Yeah, it might have been a misclick on my on my behalf then that if that's correct. Um >> okay, sorry interrupt. >> No, no. Um yeah, so the structures went over were went over uh side rear yard setbacks for the and pyramid for the cottage, sideyard, front yard, and pyramid for the addition to the house. Uh and some minor sideyard addition uh for the decking and the screen porch are what's required for the application. So there's a lot of a lot going on. Um the structures were con were constructed after the most recent CO which uh for the for the residents in 1996. Um uh and were built without a building permit. Um the applicant in inherited the property or or purchased the

112property in 2023. Um and based on aerial images, it looks like it was they were built sometimes between 2013 and 2016. Uh the hot tub and the shed have already been removed which is there. Uh so they're not seeking relief uh in order for those to remain. I can answer any questions you might have, but we don't have much else to add on this one. Any questions for Tyler? >> I have no questions. >> The pyramid variance is to is to the property to the west. >> Uh to the to the west uh and for the cottage to the north obvious obviously >> to the north. So that just to clarify, you just went over the property ownership. The lot to the left is a developable lot. >> Yes. Yeah. Apparently. And I think it's

113the same property. I think it hooks around. It's very large. It's very large. >> Has the same. >> It's a 22 acre piece of land. It runs all the way up to the train tracks. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But it's a potential subdivision. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Thank you, Tyler. >> Karen, anything else ahead? >> Is there anybody first? Let me go to the public. Is there anybody in the public would like to address this? Okay. >> Yeah. Well, well, we'll grab her first then. >> Okay. Good. Hi. Good night. Thanks for the time. State your name and address and I'll >> Maria Christina Pretti. Uh should I say my address here or elsewhere here? 550 51 Wuk Highway. So I purchased a property as it was mentioned. >>

114You swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing. >> I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Um so I purchased the property in November 2023. Um then we got you know the the inspector notice as Karen said uh the following year. I just want to say I do intend to repair the fence. Actually, you know, some of that fence is coming down and when I drove in uh here, there was a piece that was coming down. I just want to make sure that the seal is in place before I do anything else with the fence. So, I was just waiting for it and and I I did remove the hot tub. That cement slab or that concrete slab will be removed. I just removed

115the the hot tub a couple of weeks ago and I also demolished the shed because I know it was non-conforming. So, whatever I can I I've been trying to get conforming. I'm just waiting for the CO to then fix the fence if it's possible. So that's it. >> Thank you. >> State your name and address. >> Victoria Fel and I live at 487 Pantico Road. So I am the first Oh, sorry. >> Oh, do you swear from him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I I swear. Um, so I actually am the only resident directly surrounding her house. So I live to the west. So there's a piece of land from the developer, I guess, the 22 acre between us and then I'm the closest residential home. And

116I just want to say I have no issue with the application or the variances even though some of the property uh structure is towards the western side. I see, you know, she's not looking to blow it up and turn it into a huge mansion or anything. So I think in my opinion, just as a neighbor, it's fine. >> Thank you. Karen, you good? >> Right. Can we have a motion? >> Yes. >> You have zero callers on the line. Thank you. >> Christmas. >> Okay. Um, in the matter of Maria Christina Peretti, 501 Montana Highway, East Hampton, Suffach County Pax tax Map 300-166-4-23, I make a motion to close the record and the hearing. >> Second. Sure. >> Pinker. Thank you. Thank you very much. >> You too. >> Next uh going to work session.

117We have administrative applications. Uh we first one is Jeremy and Kristen Phillips at 68 Springy Banks Road East Hampton SuffK test map number 600-118-1-56. And that's to construct a 617 ft addition and 269 ft deck within jurisdiction of a freshwater wetland. Tyler, >> sure. Uh so this one is Jake. I'm covering it for him. This is uh as was noted, it's a 617 square foot addition to the residence which is located the addition is here. It's sort of sandwiched in between wedlands. Uh it's out of jurisdiction from wetlands of Three Mile Harbor. Um and it's in jurisdiction from the wetlands across the street. Um uh the jurisdictional line is uh right here. So it's just partially within jurisdiction uh to those wetlands. I think it's 130 138 ft from wetlands across the street uh to

118the to the west. >> I'm sorry I couldn't see where your cursor was moving. Could you just one more time? Thank you. >> So this area here, you can sort of see this this line coming north to south. That's your jurisdictional line for the wetlands across the street. So just a just a portion of that really the connection and and the very first couple feet of that addition are within jurisdiction. So pretty minimally within jurisdiction. Um 617t addition 269 ft of decking. Um outside of jurisdiction to the 3M harbor itself. Uh no variance is required. Obviously it's because we're proposing it for administrative review. Uh it seems fairly straightforward. Good. >> Is there any just any issues around like clearing or anything or that you pre-existing what what's on there? I'm not sure what the

119numbers are. >> Okay. >> Um >> that you would work on any of that as part of an administrative. >> We felt that it was it was so the amount that's in jurisdiction is so minimal. >> Okay. >> And there's no real great area to do a reveation. There is lawn in the back of the property. Um, but it's out of jurisdiction from the wetlands on that side. And there's a property in between this and and the wet and the wetlands. So, it wouldn't be really any great benefit plus the minimal amount of work that they're doing. It would be hard to >> hard to say how a reveation is going to have a great impact. >> Thank you. >> I'm okay with this, guys. >> I'm fine with it, too. >> All right. Therefore,

120I make a motion in Jeremy and Chris and Phillips 68 Springy Banks Road in East Hampton SuffK task map number 300-118-1-56 to allow the application to proceed administratively. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. Next we have Jeffrey and Elizabeth Laurel at 29 Springwood Way, East Hampton Suffment number 300-74-7-26.1. And that's uh 1,081 square foot of clearing on a parcel container of bluff and tile wetland. >> Yeah. So that's all they're asking for on this is to do some clearing and have a little bit of lawn space. There essentially is no lawn um or very minimal, I should say. I mean, there's a little bit around the pool, but not significant. Um, so that's what they're asking for. 1,081 ft of clearing within jurisdiction of the Bluff Crest. Outside of setbacks, obviously, it doesn't need

121a variance. Um, the area seaw order, the proposed clearing is well vegetated and there's no structures proposed. >> What's outside of jurisdiction, you said, right? >> It's in jurisdiction, but outside of setbacks. >> Mhm. >> What's the clearing number? >> The total U it will it's proposed to be total 9,692. >> Sorry, what's >> what's allowable? >> Allowable is 10,000. >> What? >> 10,000. >> So there a couple of hundred off. >> Yeah, just under 300 or something. Yeah. >> Is this in a H? >> Yeah. Harbor protection. >> So I'm sorry. When they clear, they're not going to meet H pod or they will meet. Um >> they will they will still meet. Yes. Okay. Got it. >> Okay. I'm okay with this. >> I am too cuz they will meet H5. Yeah. >>

122Agree. >> I'm okay. Okay. >> So therefore with Jeffrey and Elizabeth Laurel 29 Springwood way in East Hampton test number 300-74-7-26.1. Make a motion to allow the application to proceed administratively. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. >> Do you want to go here? Yes. Okay. >> Members, can we make a decision on the surf club this evening? >> Would you be able? >> Well, I I it seemed two things about it. One is that it's over a completely disturbed area already. It's um not a large addition. It's all landward of it. We can wait two weeks. But I would be saying the same thing I'm saying now. But I have no problem with it. I don't see in a lot of cases when we get asked to do it right away, what are the

123extenduating circumstances? I can't see an extenduating circumstance between now and any future date that would influence my decision. So, I'm willing to move on now and approve it. >> I think I agree with um Ed. I think there's minimal changes to what already exists. >> Um the uh the additions are minimal in size and proposed within the footprint of existing improvements and there's nothing seawward expansion being no seawword expansion being proposed. So, I think it meets the standards and I would be willing to approve it. >> Thank you, Terry. >> Yeah, I agree. Um, I think it meets all the standards and um I'm willing to approve this tonight. It's already been deemed complete by the planning board and we'll go back to them after this. I see no issues with it. I approve it.

124>> Yes, I would agree. Um, some of this has been done before and already approved by the board. I think there was at least one unit that was cited. Um, and I guess I agree on the standards. These are very small fill-in type uh um changes. >> And of course, it's in an amazing location, you know, when you see it. But it makes sense and I'm good with it. >> Right. And I agree too. And one of the things I typically look at on something like this, I it came before us. We approved it. Um but it is zoned as are as resort zoned. A lot of these a lot of these are are zoned in a residential which which it would be a na forming >> um use but this being the resort zone

125it's um >> good point. >> It's applicable. >> Yes. Thank you. >> So thank you. >> All right. So that one's done. Thank you. >> We go to other decisions now. TZ LLC at 23 East Lake Drive in Montalk SuffK test map number 300-20-2-12 and that's a modification of a 2022 decision. Uh so this one was Morgan's and she did a good job highlighting of what's different between what was approved and what they're asking to modify or part of it I think is is happened. Um it the the request was for a lot of things originally. Uh there was a 950 foot residence, a 600 foot garage, a greenhouse, swimming pool, pool house, uh trellis with patio, shed, sanator system, driveway, and gates. Um currently it's under construction. Um the improvements requested by the mod

126uh needed an NRSP, but no additional relief is being requested. Um and and and that's what it was approved for originally was a natural resources special permit. Um they've eliminated a number of structures, and I'll switch to the the approved one to show you that. So this is this is the approved survey. So this structures down here, a lot of this has been or all of this has been removed. That's a 348 foot greenhouse. There's an associated driveway that's all been removed. Um a 61qt shed here and the 307 foot trellis with patio under it. Um, and the pool deck, which was uh this was a patio originally approved, is now a pool deck, which I'll show on on the on the survey. Um, so this is what they are asking for now is a

127deck, which is slightly larger. Um, they got rid of all those structures down here. Um, the clearing is slightly different. This this little pathway is more meandering. Um, they've tightened up the clearing in here. Overall, the clearing is actually slightly more uh 274 square feet of extra clearing that was beyond what was approved. Minimal. Um there they relocated uh a structure here. I think it's a shed a pool the pool house has been relocated out of jurisdiction entirely. Um sanitary system uh was relocated out here. Um let's see what else. Uh the pool house uh although the pool house was also enlarged. It was 61 ft. It's now 128 ft but it's out of jurisdiction. Uh the leeching pools were originally built within 150 ft of the wetlands to the south uh but are proposed

128to be relocated to a conforming location which is shown in the engineer plans. Um building coverage is uh proposed to be reduced by 413 ft. Total coverage is proposed to be reduced by 2598 square feet. that's mainly from that driveway. Um, and then clearing up slightly. Uh, the board may want to consider a condition a condition of approval of the modification being an updated reveation plan since the clearing is so different than what was originally approved. Um, but other than that, we didn't anticipate any negative environmental impacts compared to those uh with the original application. >> So, to be clear, this is a modification. >> Yes. >> No additional variances, but it also seems like they've improved some of the conditions on the site. Yeah, certainly less total coverage with the removal of of um

129this greenhouse area, sheds being relocated or or removed, pool house being relocated, larger but out of jurisdiction and the removal of this driveway is a lot of that coverage certainly. >> And you said that all this work that's part of this modification has already been done or is >> I'm not familiar if it's already I think the property is under construction and I think they're proposing some of these changes. I don't know if all of them have happened yet or not. I'm not familiar enough with the site to say that. >> I just I mean for the record again this is not how I'm going to decide on it but like for the record it this was you know a well heard I I wasn't on the board at the time you know there was

130a lot of stuff going on. There was a determination. I just you know from a process standpoint I just want to say for the record we want modifications to come to us when they would like to have them not when they're done. But I just wanted to >> we got some of that. >> Mr. Chairman, I was recused from this decision. >> Okay. So, I'm okay with this modification. Again, our policy has been if there's no additional >> variances that we could approve this from the bench. >> I would recommend that we maybe think about that. >> I think I'm leaning toward it, but I'd like to hear what did you say about the rev that all the like this driveway area and everything will become part of the revge plan? it it is proposed

131to be part of the revitation and because the the area of reveation is different we're suggesting that we condition on a new revge plan being approved by the planning department >> okay yeah I would go with that >> motion >> okay so for Kez everybody's good >> yeah I'm good >> um KZ LLC at 23 East Lake Drive Mto tax map 300-20-2-12 make a motion to approve the modification from 2022 Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Calfman at 50 Oyster Shores Road, East Hampton, SuffK. That's math number 300-92-6-19. It's a modification of a 2020 three determination, which happens to be a denial. >> And I think we had questions whether we could have a modification on a denial. So, council, you might have to face it after Tyler does, too. Uh

132yeah, so there was a denied NRSP um and wetland setbacks, Bluff Crest variances um associated with a demo of a one-story residence, a swimming pool, construction of a two-story resident swimming pool, decking, driveway. Um obviously it has title wetlands and coastal bluffs. Um the modification is requesting to seek to reconstruct and reorient the swimming pool. Um I can pull up the plans if you'd like to see them. Um but modifications are generally entertained by the zoning board for minor alterations or changes to structures or activities invalid determinations. Uh the planning department is not aware of any modification being issued in conjunction with a denial um or no approved activities. Um so we we are suggesting that it be evaluated as part of a new application. >> I have to agree with that. I mean we

133don't even have enough information to make a decision. Well, I was going to say like what is it they're proposing in the modification? Not that I'm going to consider it, but um but I mean, you don't have enough. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I just >> essentially they're proposing to So, the pool right now extends well out. Um there's a there's a retaining wall around it, which they're proposing to leave. Um and they're proposing to reorient it parallel with the house, pull it back. Um but we we feel that it requires full review by the >> I mean the previous application had a was a redevelopment. Was it not a redevelopment? >> Originally it was a redevelopment. Yes, >> it was a redevelopment. So that was a that was a part of a hole. >> Um

134and now we I I think I agree. I think it's a new application. >> I agree too. Absolutely. Well, >> we don't have enough information. >> Okay. But can that even be done? Council, do we just >> Yeah. I don't know how you can modify. >> There's a denial. So, how >> Yeah, there's not >> I don't think you can modify a denial. >> Modifier. >> Yeah. How could >> that's what I'm asking. What's the legal? >> Well, it's more than that. I And that's what I'll say. If I can add to that, if you will. It It's the the application before was an entire redevelopment and it had a different house. It had a whole different location. So really has this has no bearing on that previous application >> at all. >> So that's

135why I think it's it's a new >> Yeah. I don't >> new application. >> That's a I don't understand how you can it that's what they modified their plan but that doesn't mean you modify the modification come back. It's it's a substantially different application >> coming in for >> which would allow them to come back cuz you know there's a rescue dakata issue if you can't just keep applying for the same variance but that's not what they're doing here. They're applying for something different. So you need to hear it as a new application >> declining to act. >> So what do we do here? Do we make a motion to deny the modification? >> Why would we even do that if we're if it's not even a valid thing? >> Yeah, I wouldn't deny them

136because you don't want to. >> So we just leave it. >> I just deny it. We're giving them a planning to act on the request. >> Yeah. Just >> and they can make the decision to go further. >> Yeah. They can they can submit an application. It's not Yeah. >> Okay. >> Agreed. >> So, a letter I think a letter has to go to the applicant uh saying that the zoning board uh feels that this is a new application. Okay. Just very simple. Right. Right. >> Yeah. That's not the application is the the their request is not ripe for review by the board. They need to >> just declined to act on it. >> Yeah, it's not not ready to do anything. >> Kind of the terminology we always used to use. >> Thank you.

137Next we have building permit certificate of occupancy and that's the Hurland at 1873 Mile Harbor Hogree Highway Springs suffic map number 300-94-1-2.1 and that's compliance with conditions of approval eligibility request for bulkhead reconstruction. >> Uh yes, so this is Brian's as well. Um this was a permit to reconstruct the 154 linear feet of concrete bulkhead with vinyl sheathing and untreated lumber piling on parcel land containing surface waters. Um the permit limited the elevation of the top of the new bulkhead to 8t proposed in the engineering plans and the asbuilt elevation is 9.4 ft. Uh the plane department does not object to to the asbuilt elevation, but the elevation increase is significant enough to warrant a formal modification of the permit at 33 a 33 foot deck uh as labeled on the survey. Constructed land where

138the stairs was not part of the approval uh and may be part of the upper staircase platform. Uh and a rectangular wall is labeled on the survey located at the northern portion of the property appears to be an innocuous at grade structure that extends uh beyond the northern lot line. Um that being said, based the the main thing is that that increase in the elevation um of the bulkhead we were we felt was more appropriate for a modification. So that there was something official in the record that you know the board was okay with that. >> So this is something this is something that um bulkheads are something we look at closely. We look at we've we've looked at heights. We've looked at um uh we've even denied uh heights on bulkheads. Um, and this

139is one that went through the scrutiny of the zoning board. >> It had a specific elevation that it was approved for >> arbitrarily changing the height. I think it's going to require a proper modification process here. Um, because there's neighbors involved. There's there's there's it's a different it's a different animal. And I think that um it would be my recommendation to the board to say that they have to come through process proper process modification process hearing. Yeah, >> I I agree with that. Did Did we get a memo from Brian on this? Am I thinking of something else reviewed this with us? It sounds very familiar. >> I think he emailed to you last week. >> Yeah, I I think he did. Like I got something last week. Yeah, I was just >> so I

140I I think I think this is not I think this is something that has to go through hearing application process. >> I agree with that. >> Yeah, we weren't certainly weren't comfortable just signing off on it as >> Yeah, it's a substantial change. And why did they why would they Well, I don't know. That's a silly agree. >> Whatever reason. >> Yeah, >> doesn't matter. >> I mean, is it a functioning? We We'll find out. >> Yeah. >> What's the protocol here now again? Um uh I mean we we can just inform that that it doesn't pass the CO inspection and they need to submit a modification. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Resolutions. Oh, draft minutes of >> I had problem with them and I don't I don't know honestly if you want if you

141want to modify somebody can >> what do you mean sorry >> on the minutes from what I remember I was out of pocket this past week some of it. Um there was the recusal by you when >> Jane and I didn't see Jane's response in minutes. >> It's not Well, >> may I address that? Because >> minutes my entire life. >> In minutes, it's mandated that recusals be recorded. So, it's not a choice. We have to include them. But discussions are not recorded because minutes are not a transcript and there is a tape on what happened. But we would have to uh have language in there about any recusal. A board member made a recusal or an fine I would just think somebody gets a response like an applicant gets a response. >> An applicant

142gets a response. >> This is not a decision though. >> No, no, no. This is this is this is about recording. I don't I'm not I'm not totally clear on this, but um >> if you're uncomfortable making a motion, I can >> go for it then. >> You can say nay. You don't have to approve. >> Say nay. >> In the matter of the uh draft minutes, I make a motion that we approve the draft minutes as written. >> Do we have a second? Thank you. >> Concur. >> I'll I'll abstain, I guess. >> I'll concur. Actually, >> concur. Let's move on. >> Move on to resolutions. Uh we have Hampton Wyth LLC at 10 Tyson Lane, East Hampton Suffach Taps map number 300-189-6-2. Board members, we had this decision. Um this was u decision

143offer further lane. The board approved this unanimously. Um, and so I'll make a motion um, in the application of Hampton Wyth LLC at 10 Tyson Lane, East Hampton, subject map number 300-189-67.2 to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Next, we have Susan Porter at 191 South Fairview Avenue at Malk. Okay. Tax number 300-28-5-24. >> All right. This one was mine. And if you recall, this was for a change um to a hot tub um and some added decking, some egress out of the basement um for the application and it was a unanimous approval by this board. So um for Susan Porter, 191 South Fairview Avenue, Monttok, Safford County Tax Map 300-28-5-24. Make a motion to approve the determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. Concur. Thank you. And then

144David and Lisa Welsh at 240 Westlake Drive, Montto suffest map number 300-12-4-21 28.1. >> See this? >> Yeah, I didn't I didn't see it either, but >> it's a Scrier's error. >> What? >> Oh, no. Welsh. I saw it. It was sent to us. Oh, I somehow I missed that one. I didn't see it. >> This was a 41 approval. >> Well, I know. Yeah, >> I I read it. Well, >> look. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Anybody else read it? >> Yep. >> You read it? >> Yeah. We got Charlie's been busy. >> You want me to make a motion? Who's making a motion? >> Motion. >> Did you look at it, too? >> No. All right. U Well, we could always amend it later if necessary, I guess. Okay. So, for David and Lisa

145Welsh at 240 Westlake Drive, Montto tax map 300-12-4-28.1. Make a motion to approve termination as written. This was a 4 to1. >> 4 to1. Yes. >> Yeah, there was one denial. Okay, >> I'll second it. >> I concur. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Concur. Next we have Allan and Karen Burke at 1859 Malk Highway Amagit. So test map number 300-131-1- 11.1. It's a modification of a Scriber's error. >> Yeah, this one was uh this one was my fault. Um I didn't carry some of the information from the I have used a but I copied something. I didn't copy it down to the correct information down to so the approval in the first section wasn't reflected the proper stuff. It's just clearing up my mistake. >> Can any of development on that picking prop right Yeah.

146Okay. >> on the highway. >> Um All right. I'll make the motion. Yep. Um uh in the matter of Allan and Karen Burke one 1859 Mont Highway against Suffach County Tax Map 300-131-1-11.1 I make a motion to accept the modification of the scrier's error of the resolution. >> Please second concur. >> Concur concur. Next we have Sean Eert at 11 Rehan Avenue in Montalk Suffer number 300-30-3-10. Okay, this was mine. And if you recall, this is the one with the retaining walls and uh on rehand retaining walls and a parking area and everything that went off the property with a this was an approval of an NRSP and the the variance from the homeowner's property and I believe it was was a fivehole >> approval. Yeah. U so for Sean Eert at 11 Rehan Avenue

147Malk tax Map 300-30-03-10 make a motion to approve the determination as written >> second concur >> concur we next have we have Janice Wilson at one Gladstone place amassment number 300-9-2-50.3 >> okay that's mine too and there were a bunch of changes to that today and I think they all got done. Um, from what I saw, I was okay with it. Um, and this was a split decision on uh an overclearing issue on in a water recharge overlay district area. So for Janice Wilson at one Gladstone Place, Montalk Tax Map 300-9-02-50.3 and make a motion to approve the determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. We next have >> on the Kanger one. >> I didn't uh I didn't This one's not done. So >> the what? >> I didn't get this one

148finished yet. So >> Okay. Yeah. >> And what about what of you? >> I sent it out uh >> but like very late. So >> I'm sorry. No, no, it was I just I was trying to get >> up against the clock on that. >> Uh, yeah, close. But, >> um, did you read the >> Well, I got to read it when I was sitting here because I had missed the message because I was >> No. Yeah, it was sent It was sent late. I wasn't >> right. Yeah. Right. >> I did write back to Charlie that I thought the resolution needs more about the buffer and what we approved and the sketch. >> So, we can we can just do it in the next meeting. Yeah. Table. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. So,

149I think we're going into exec session. Is that right, Charlie? >> Yeah, there was one other >> I did send out one other thing. We can table this one, too. I I just I've been trying to it. It's the It's a modification of the Delomato one that Frell Fritz handled, >> but I did I also sent that out late, so I I you probably haven't seen it yet. >> I didn't get to see it >> that one. We could >> we can we can table it until the next meeting, but I Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, can we have a two different We're going to exec to discuss a legal matter. >> Okay. So, I'll make two motions. I make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals meeting on November 18th

150at 8:33 p.m. >> Second it. >> Concur. >> I make a motion to go into executive session regarding legal matter. >> Second that. >> Concur. Concur. Thinker.