East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 10/28/2025

001All right, GBA, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. Welcome everyone to the town of Eastampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for October 28th, 2025. We have four scheduled hearings this morning, this evening, and I'll read the first one into the record. Um applicant is Montalk 007668 LLC at 33 33 North Surfside Avenue in Montalk Map number 300-29-1-9.2 2. The size and location is 19,15 ft at 33 North Surfside Avenue, Surfside Estates, map of part of lots 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13, block 356, map number 1690 in Montalk. The description is to legalize an existing home entrance, walkway, and driveway, install a new egress basement window, and allow for the placement of a new storage shed on a lot containing freshwater wetlands. The relief

002sodas and natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 2545430 wetland setbacks of the East Hampton Town Code. A 38.5 ft variance is required for the proposed egress window. A 42 foot variance is required for the new shed location to be located 61.5 ft and 58 feet respectively from wetlands where 100 ft foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence zonic flood zone 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 hearing. >> Thank you. >> [clears throat] >> Okay, this is the official notice and posting. The original one had blown down and I appreciate

003that the applicant got this one replaced promptly. Um, it's 33, but this is a flag driveway. So, the 35 is the neighbor. Next, [clears throat] uh oh, there's the original one. Okay. So, [laughter] next, [snorts] uh, this is the shed that's in question to be removed on the survey and some of the stone around it and, uh, the rocks. And next, [snorts] it's just another view with some more of the rocks and the walkway. We'll see a lot of that. Next, uh, this is just a shot in the back toward the the direction of the the wetlands that are noted on the survey. Next, this is the LP tank. And around the side is where the the new shed, which is smaller than the one being removed, will be placed, is proposed to be placed.

004And the egress window along the side in the center. Get another shot that's more direct on next. Um, so that's where the egress wind the shed will be going next. And I also took the the egress window, but because I don't know if these rocks uh in the driveway are part of the issue with the rocks or if that's just the outer part of the driveway going down to the flag flag lot. Next, uh some more of the rocks and stone that are in the driveway. And next, uh this a shot out toward the the road. And you can sort of see that there's rocks along that also that I believe are in question for for the NRSP. Next, I think that might be it. Oh, no. More closeup shot of the shed that'll be

005removed and the stone in front of it. Next. [gasps] Oh, that's right. Yes. The brick on the bottom of the driveway, this apron is also in question. And that may be it. Thank you. Do we have the agent here this evening? Rick, come on up. >> How are you, Rick? >> Good morning. Thank you. Um, Richard Whan, attorney for the applicant. Good evening to all of you. Um, I am accompanied by Tara Burke of Lighthouse Land Planning. Hopefully, this isn't overkill. And Tara won't even have to say anything. I think two of us here for this application probably is a bit over the top. Uh the applicant sort of CFO for the property. Dawn Green at the building department identified certain things that she thought needed ZBA approval and some of them certainly did and

006so we are here. So, the project consists of, you know, as member Burgerer indicated, the removal of the existing shed, which um uh Teresa's photos showed you, uh and the stone railroad type base on which it sits. Those intrude into the scenic easement and also were built without the benefit of building permits or variances. The new approximately 29 square foot shed will be built abing the east side of the house again where member Ber's photographs indicated. that's much further from the wetlands and obviously will not be intruding into the scenic easement. Uh the shed is for storage purposes. It will be located approximately 58 feet from wetlands. Thus, it needs a 42 foot wetland setback variance. Again, it's approximately 29 square ft. The proposed new shed, the old shed will be removed from the property.

007Second is the construction of approximately 22 square foot window egress on again on the east side of the house. Member Burgerer's photographs showed where that would go. Um that is for egress, property egress from a finished basement on uh that is by my count. A little hard to read it on the survey. Um but I come up with a distance of 68.9 ft from the wetlands. That doesn't match the plane department, TAM, but I don't think anything has changed. And the survey I read it as 68.9 ft. Again, it's not that easy to read on the survey. that would require a 31.1 ft wetland variance. And lastly, theoretically, is the legalization of the existing stone driveway and some PA walkways, as I'll explain when I get into it. We don't think we need permits from

008the board for that. Maybe for the brick apron at the entrance from um uh North Surfside, but other than that, the driveway, as far as I'm concerned, is legal or substantially legal. I'll discuss that. So the house was built in 19 well sometime after 1989 pursuant to a natural resources special permit issued by the zoning board on it was filed on the NRSP was filed with the determination of the board was filed on January 25th 1989. The applicant's name was Blair Carasten. That approval specifically approved a driveway including a parking area. The driveway had to be pvious. There's a stone driveway today. Uh it is true that once the driveway or the original driveway plans are totally impractical if you take a look at them, what the zoning board referred to was, you know, not

009enough room to either park or turn around. Uh so the driveway is actually built is a is somewhat larger. The parking area is somewhat larger than was originally approved. And you know, if you want to legalize that, that's fine. But the actual driveway, pvious driveway, we have a stone driveway. That's legal. The stone border is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Um, and the brick apron on the road. The purpose of that really seems to be to prevent gravel from the driveway and stone or gravel from the driveway to going to going out into North Surfside Avenue, which is a paved road and I believe is a town highway now. So, u, if the board wants to prove that and legalize the brick p the brick apron, that would be great. We think it should

010stay there. If you want it removed and you want it to be literally uh gravel or stone right to North Surfside Avenue, we'll take it out either way. It's okay. Um lot size, right? To diverge the lot area for the second consecutive week, but I want to make sure the board doesn't go down any wrong lines here. Total lot size is 19,15 ft. The surveyor gives the lot area is 12,482 ft. But the surveyor excluded beyond wetlands, which of course are excludable from lot area. The surveyor excluded from flagship. That is not correct. Look at the definition of lot area in the zoning code. A flagship is not excluded from lot area unless it is subject to an access easement or a common driveway easement. This is not although it is sharing partially sharing uh

011common driveway with the neighbor. There's no easement. Okay. Just a bizarre thing. And that might be why the surveyor did this. In a subdivision, in a proposed new subdivision, the planning board regulations tell the planning board to exclude the flag strip from the lot area for the purposes of the subdivision. But under zoning, a flag strip that's unencumbered is not excluded from lot area. I just want to mention that just so this the record is straight. Doesn't really have any effect on our application. uh the property complies with clearing and with coverage limits and in fact total coverage and building coverage are being reduced as a result of the overall changes in the application. So total coverage and lot coverage are coming down. U terms of reveation the applicant has already hired Grime's native plants

012or you know to to reveate some areas where the um clearing went into the scenic easement. I believe that work's already been done. Now, of course, when the shed is pulled out, the applicant will have to reveate there, too. But other areas have already been reveated. Some of the walkways that were there have already been removed. Again, they were PA walkways. I'm not even sure they needed board approval, but the applicant removed, you know, those, you know, except for the ones that still remain already removed them. And um you know there was a narrative addendum submitted with the application that addresses the variance and natural resources special permit standards. I'm not going to repeat that. And finally all the proposed conditions in the planning department TAM are acceptable to the applicant. So if you have

013any questions I'll be happy to answer them. >> Any questions board members? >> The brick apron is that actually on the applicant's property? >> Some of it is in the road right away. Some of it is on the flag on the flag pole. Look, from the from the survey, looks like about a third of it is on the property. >> Yeah. Only part of it is on the applicant's property. >> We were just [clears throat] we were just had an application where we were told we can't approve or legalize something that's not on the property. So, >> well, to the extent it's in the road right away, >> right, >> the highway department, we don't have road opening permits in East driveway permits in East, >> right? Yeah. >> So, there's no regulation. I mean

014the applicant put down stone, asphalt, concrete, brick in the road right away. There's no limitation on that. >> Um, and Rick, what is do you have that new number when you the lot area without wetlands but flag? >> Yes. Yes. Uh, if you exclude only the wetlands, not the flagship, the correct lot area should be 15,000. Well, approximately because I just did a measurement of the of the flagship and it might not be precise, but the new lottery, correct lot should be approximately 15,642 square feet. >> 15,642. >> You're going to put another survey into the updated survey into >> Yeah, we could. Yeah, absolutely. We could have the survey update. It should be updated because it could create confusion in the future. A lot of area is used for things like clearing GFA coverage.

015So, it should be right. have your questions. >> Any other questions? No. >> Thank you. Thank you, Rick. Thank you. >> How are you, Sarah? >> Good evening, board. I'm good. Thanks. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. >> Sarah, do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. So, I think Mr. Whan covered the um contents of the application pretty well, but I'll speak a little bit to the wetlands. Um, so this area of Montalk and this property contain an extensive wetland system. The Surfside Estates wetland system provides the same benefits as other high-quality wetlands within the Montalk area. They constitute an integral part of the natural environment and hydraulic system and play an important role in the storage water flood control and maintenance

016of water quality prior to recharge into the surrounding wersheds and groundwater. I will mention that this wetland is part of a um New York State DEEC class one wetland um which is the highest quality rating for freshwater wetlands. So that is one of our conditions of approval that it seems the applicants are amanable to. Um these wetlands flow south and east throughout the Surfside Estate subdivision and impact wetlands throughout the area including those along the bluffs to the south and throughout the western portion of Shadmore State Park. Um, I will mention that the subject property is very constrained by these wetlands and the scenic easement. Um, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the board has. >> Anybody have any questions? >> Just about that apron. So, [clears throat] um, we have a about

017a third of the size of the apron appears to be from the survey appears to be on the property. What's the position of the planning board on that? Anything? I mean, that's that's a hardened area within what's supposed to be a pvious driveway, >> right? So, I would say it's within our jurisdiction what's on the property. I'll defer to Charlie for what's off the property. Um, I know we recently ran into that issue with the retaining wall application. >> Um, >> in terms of the planning department, I know the driveway itself was in the 1988 approval from ZBA, but it didn't mention the brick apron. Um, [clears throat] so I'll leave that to the board's discretion. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Thank you. >> Thank you. Have a great night. Anybody in

018the public like to address this application? Matt, is there anybody online? >> Stand by, please. >> This is Matt Chapman calling from LTV, making sure all lines are open and clear, in which they are, and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. Richard Whan again for the applicant. Um, as I stated, if the board wants the brick a removed, we'll remove it. I will say though that I think the purpose of it is so that we don't have gravel, you know, being dragged out or run out directly onto the paved road. So, I think it serves a beneficial purpose, but if you're not comfortable with it, then, you know, it will be removed. Are we leaving this the record open to get receive a new survey or what what's >> I don't think initially >>

019I would say not I mean we looked again the the lot area doesn't directly affect what you're doing we don't need any variance involving that I I do think we should have our own surveyor correct it because again it's going to create confusion in the future agree [clears throat] >> you know >> all I would say if you may want to make it a condition of approval do that >> we can make it a condition >> I think so okay >> we have a motion Okay. Okay. So, on the matter of Montalk7668 LLC at 35 North Surfside Avenue, Mtok Tax Map 300-29-01-9.2. Make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> I'll second it. >> I concur. >> Thank you. Thank you. Our next applicant is 33 Surf LLC at 33

020Surf Drive, Amiganza. Sub task map number 300-174-3-5. Size and location is 10,000 square ft of 33 Surf Drive, Amiganit, Beach Hampton, number 1203, lots 36 and 40, Amigit. The description is to construct a 154.35 foot addition to an existing deck on a parcel within the jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. The relief sought as a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255 420 and a variance from 255430 of the East Hampton Town Code and any other relief necessary. the variance of 80.1 ft to construct a deck addition 19.9 ft from a wetland where 100 foot is required. The zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 the secret glasses type two and council do we have proper affidavit of surfacing posted? Um I I just reviewed the affidavit uh with um applicants council. I think

021there was a typo on the posting date. So it's saying that I think he put today's date but I don't believe that >> most of the um for the record Lizville Greenberg TR 2317 Montalk Highway Bridgeampton. I think most of the forms require you to say to date it today. So it was posted exactly 10 days ago. I know that it was um >> I could sign a new one or but he's the one who physically posted it. >> Yeah. Um well, yeah, because it was dropped off on the seven like he Yeah, it's a little confusing. The dates are just I think he just got the dates confused because it was dropped off on the 17th. I know it was posted correctly. What I what we could do is you could open the hearing

022and then if you want to adjourn it, we could repost it to cure any defect in the notice. That's what I generally do with my boards. >> Yeah, that's what we've been doing. I think it's just a it was a typo. >> So just to cure any potential defect in the notice, we could adjourn. We could keep the hearing open, [clears throat] adjourn the hearing and renotice it. >> Is that for the recommendation council? >> Yeah, I think >> if necessary. >> Thank you. >> What's wrong? >> Thank you. date. >> Um, you want to do your report? >> I would. Thank you. Good evening. Um, so this is, uh, well, I'm standing on Surf Drive. Um, this is north of Central, um, Avenue. Um, that's the posting. It was visible to all. Um, next

023slide. Um, I just took a shot, uh, looking up Surf just to get a little flavor. Next slide. Okay. Um, I'm not going to spend very much uh time on the front of the house because it's not really in in play at all. Um, but I want to just give a sense of the house. Um, it's a sort of a split level one story. Well, it's hard to say because there's a jog out, but um, this is fairly typical of development that was done in this neighborhood in the 1970s. Next slide. Um, and then just got a little bit closer on the front of the house. You can see there is um some topography on the lot. The lot swoops up to the house. When we get to the rear, you'll see kind of where

024the the house is relative to the back. Um next slide. Um okay, I've gone through there was a gate uh on the left side as you're looking at the house. I went through that gate. I'm heading towards the rear. It's just a little stepping stone path. Um next slide. Okay. So, when you get to the back, so I'm in the north uh northwest corner. Um, and that's the edge [snorts] of the current decking. Um, where you you can see a little bit of bamboo in the end. That's really the corner where the wetlands are on the other side, but those are the wetlands that are part of this the key part of this application. Next slide. Um, and then I wanted you to see this is so it's lifted up. Um, there's a lot of

025sandy dunish type land. Um, that spans really the whole uh back part of the lot. Um, next slide. Um, yeah, just moving around you can see the kind of length of the existing elevated deck. Um, where those trees, more of the ornamental trees are. I imagine that's the lot line. Um it's, you know, sandy and there's some dew vegetation sort of sprinkled among the sand. Next slide. Um I just put my back to the uh property line, the rear property line kind of get a full sweep of the h the width of the house and the current width of the deck. That whole, as I understand it, when you look at the survey, the whole deck um the whole width of it will be extended extended out. Um next slide. And then this is the

026other corner of the deck. I shot it because um when the deck um is to get moved out, it sort of jogs to fill in that space between the side um deck and and uh and such. I think that do I have anything else? Anything else? Oh, I'm sorry. I had also just taken you can see the depth of the of the deck. Um and obviously it would be expanded. Um I think it's a six foot expansion of the deck >> linear but it's 15. >> Okay. Right. Um and uh anything else? Do I have more? Is that it? >> That's it. >> Okay. Thank you >> both. [clears throat] >> Thank you board members. Thank you for accommodating me again. Liz Vil Greenberg 2317 Monttok Highway Bridgeampton. Um so we're here tonight on behalf

027of 33 SURF LLC. The application seeks to construct an additional 154 square ft which again is 6 feet in length to the existing deck on site. Subject property is comprised of 10,000 square feet. It's pre-existing non-conforming with respect to lot area in the B residence zoning district as are most of the properties in the Beach Hampton subdivision. The property is surrounded by wetlands on three sides. We require an NRSP and variances for a variance from 255430 for the minimum wetland setback to allow the deck addition to be 19.9 ft from the wetland where 100 ft is required. The proposed deck meets the remaining zoning setbacks. Um the application meets the uh area variance five-part test. It will not cause an undesirable change to the neighborhood or cause any detriment to neighboring properties. The decking is

028very much in keeping with other properties in the neighborhood. I actually started to print out aerials of other properties in the neighborhood with decks, but almost every property has a deck. So, it would have sort of inundated your record. I can provide an aerial from a larger area showing almost every single property in Beach Hampton is improved with significant decking or patios for outdoor for outdoor use. The TAM also acknowledges this um stating quote the decking of this kind is a common characteristic of the area as many residences include extensive decking unquote. Additionally, the proposed deck will not cause an impact in neighboring properties. There's a significant screening between the properties. You can see from the photos that were taken. And again, the TAM also states, quote, given the high degree of screening between the

029parcels, the effects of the deck expansion on neighboring properties are limited. The benefits sought here cannot be achieved by without a variance from this board. The parcel is surrounded by wetlands on three sides and the entire property is within the 100 ft setback required for structures in wetlands. Therefore, any construction on this site would require variances from this board. The requested area variance is substantial numerically. However, this board is required to consider the quote totality of circumstances. And here when considering that the parcel is surrounded by wetlands on three sides and it's um undersized with respect to lot area, the variance relief is not substantial. The grant of the variance will not have a negative effect on the environment. The um addition of the deck is minimal and will not impact the environment as outlined

030in the TAM. Again, quote, "The excavation required for the deck extension of this size is minimal," unquote. The difficulty creating the need for the variance is always arguably self-created. Um but when the property is surrounded by on three sides by wetlands, any improvement to the property requires variances again and that standard alone is not a basis to deny the variance as this board is aware. The application also complies with the NRSP standards of the code. The addition to the deck is located as far upland as possible. Does not diminish the existing wetlands on site. No natural feature duneland vegetation or wetland will be diminished, degraded or lost to establish this deck addition. any disturbance to the site would be revvedated with planning approval and should be minimal. We have a proposed silk fence on the

031survey already um which we submitted to this board. And when you look at the photos of the existing deck, you can kind of see how narrow it is. This would just allow an additional room around the chairs and chase lounges, making the deck easier to use. The area under the deck is already sort of cleared and sandy. It won't impact the soils and plants by extending it. Um, and additionally, I think the board in general would want um for this property to have the living area focused on the deck further up away from the wetlands as much as possible. Um, and that's what would happen if you allowed for this variance to allow for this deck addition. And for the reasons submitted, we respectfully request that you grant the variances and the natural resources special

032permit for this modest 154 addition to the um square foot addition to the deck. >> I'll submit the aerial just for the record, but >> [laughter] >> Everybody gets a deck. It's like >> everybody has a deck in a wetland. >> I do personally. Um uh I just first of all I misspoke. The corner where the wetlands is is the northeast corner. I think I said northwest. Um are you is is the applicant going to be rebuilding the existing deck as well? And are you going to put or if it's just an extension, you're going to put very similar type of support? >> I think there's very similar type supports and it's an extension, but I can get that information for the next meeting since we have to hold this open. >> Yeah. >> Got

033a date on the survey. That's up there. >> Yeah, because mine looks [clears throat] >> Any other questions, board members? What's the date on it? >> Uh there it was revised 619 2025. >> Right. That's what I had open. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, I'm only asking because the grally portion on mine is not grally looking. >> Yeah, I know. That's what was throwing me off, too. >> Mether. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. Come on up, Jake. >> Good evening, board. Jake Kushner with the planning department. Jake, do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. >> So, this property is partially cleared and improved with a singlestory residence, decking, walkways, driveway, and sanitary system. The most recent CO

034was issued in 2021. That gravel area and walkway located to the north are not on the latest CO. They may need to be removed or legalized. The parcels within the Beach Hampton subdivision, it's characterized by those duneland sandy soils. They provide good drainage and are stabilized by plant growth. This parcel also falls in within the jurisdiction of three freshwater wetlands. The closest wetland is adjacent to the property line in the northeast corner um 19.9 ft from the proposed structure. There's a second wetland to the southwest on the neighboring parcel as well as a wetland located across to the west across Surf Drive. So these wetlands are home to a variety of species um even though they are small and they do provide benefits like flood and storm water attenuation. So although these request the requested

035variance is significant we have not identified any long-term environmental impacts given the uh parcel's proximity to the wetlands all improvements to the property are likely going to require an RSP and some form of variance. The project is pretty minor in scale. Does not propose any additional clearing. Total coverage conformity is maintained. Um excavation of duneland soils required for decking of this type should be pretty minimal. Um clearing should also be minimized and all areas disturbed by construction should be reveated. Then mitigation in the form of silt fencing is necessary to contain that sediment on site and prevent wetland sedimentation. I'd be happy to answer any other questions the board may have. You made a um statement earlier. We were talk you when you started about the gravel area. You're saying that it was not on

036the survey. It may need approval. >> It was not on the latest CO. It was not in the 2021. Uh >> you made a statement it may need approval. >> Um yeah. So I believe it needs to be removed or legalized. [clears throat] >> Wait, what? >> Gravel area up here in this flagstone walk. were not included on the latest CL. >> Okay, I'll check. >> Okay, any any questions? I'm going to have questions for council on that one, but um >> any other questions, board members? >> Yeah, that is the one question. >> Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat] Come on up. >> So, I don't know, you know, about them being specifically listed on the CO, but I have an aerial from 2016 that shows the walkway in particular, um and the gravel

037area. So, I think I don't know if it's just something that wasn't specifically listed on the CO, but it certainly was part and parcel of the property the entire time. So, I'm not sure that we would need to get it legalized. >> Um, given that it's been in existence, I think since at least, let me see, 2016, maybe even earlier. I can look at Google Earth for the next meeting and just take a look at it with the planning department. >> But you have a 2021 CFO. >> Yes. Yes. But not every single structure is always listed on CL. >> Okay. >> But we we're happy to look into it. >> Yeah. And if if so, I mean, we would be approving this survey if we approved it. Um and would being that it's not

038noticed probably fall under relief necessary. So, um but yeah, if we can somehow address it. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm not sure what to say if it's been there since. >> Right. and you have a >> CO being issued. I don't know how you would assert that it was illegal and a CO was issued for it and not cited, right? But >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this application? >> Matt, is there anybody on the phone? >> You have zero calls on the line. Thank you. >> Thank you. We're going to keep this open and for posting for additional 10 days. Is that it or? Yeah. >> So, are we doing this till our next meeting or >> to the next meeting

039so I can post? >> Yeah, the next meeting November 8th. >> It'll be November 18th for members. >> Ready for a motion? >> Okay. Thank you. In the matter of 33 Surf LLC, 33 Surf Drive, Amagamit, Suffach County Tax Map 300-174-3-05. Um, I make a motion to leave we're leaving the hearing and the record open um until November 18th for um uh proper reposting. We renoticing as well renoticing >> proper notice for proper they they did the they did the mailings properly. It was just the posting was done. >> I think they did that they did it properly. They just wrote the wrong date on >> Okay. for for renewed proper posting. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. [cough] >> Next, we have 840 Springs Fireplace Road LLC at 840 Springs Fireplace Road in Springs

040of test map number 300-62-7-2.3. Size and location is 13,192 square feet at 840 Springs Fireplace Road. Map of Montalk Manor 4, lot 1 through 4 including 17 and 18. Block 3 filed July 11th, 1911 as map number 455 in Springs. The description is to construct a 1,439 ft two-story house, 561qt pool, 86 foot of deck, outdoor shower, IIA sanitary system, reconfigure a driveway, and allow clearing to remain within jurisdiction of a wetland. The relief s is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code. The zoning district is A5 residence AE flood zone elevation six and the secret class is type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Uh yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the

041board has jurisdiction. >> Vice chair is >> Yes, I went to the site today and this is the official notice. It was posted properly. Next, please Morgan. It's actually a vacant piece of property. So, this is a photo of that. And there's one more. >> Yeah, I did. That one didn't make it in. >> Okay, fine. That's it. This is just to give you a sense of what the property looks like. It's completely vacant, right? That was the easiest building I ever did. >> Thank you. [clears throat] have the agent of Britain. >> Britain Distrian >> Britain, you swear affirm tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Good evening, Chairman Deleene and members of the board. Burton Bistrian representing 840 Springs Fireplace Road LLC at shockingly 840 Springs Fireplace

042Road in Springs. Um, as pointed out, the parcel's on the east side of Springs Fireplace Road. It's about 100 or so feet uh north of the intersection with Fort Pond Boulevard. So, it's just sort of north of the where the wine shop and the pizza place is on the other side of the street. The parcel is part of an urban renewal map from 1911 titled Montalk Manor section 4 and it's vacant. It's always been vacant. Project in front of you is seeking an NRSP only, no variances to construct a 1439 ft residence, a 561 ft pool, 806 ft of decking, outdoor shower, and obviously an IIA septic system. The proposed house is a modest two-bedroom, two-b house in scale to the parcel size in the neighborhood. It's conforming in all aspects of zoning and is

043about half the allowable coverages. Those are uh 7% building coverage is proposed where 20% is permitted, 26% lot coverage where 50% is permitted and 1439 square ft where currently 2473 is permitted. Although this is grandfathered under the old code which would have allowed 2,991 square feet of GFA. In my summation, this is the type of NRSP request that we should be welcoming as part of the development under this parcel. the UR map. Um, it imposed a scenic easement when at the time the property is developed along Springs Fireplace Road and it was 50 ft in depth. Because the lot is only 200 ft in total depth and it's very narrow as you can see. Um, the scenic easement pushed the development of the house closer towards the natural resources and the wetlands which we didn't

044believe was the intention of the UR map. Um and so in an effort of sort of good planning and and thinking about the environmental sensitivity, we went to the planning board um and then the town board to change the UR map uh to amend that scenic easement from 50 ft to splitting it to 25 ft along the roadside and 25 ft along the wetland side because we thought that was um in the interest of good planning. They agreed on this proposal. That took about a year. I want to point that out. So it was a long time before this application was on hold for a while just pending that resolution. We feel this issue was reviewed extensively in the urban renewal process at the planning board and it also had a secret review as part

045of that. Therefore, I don't feel the planning department in this zoning board review is properly considering prior review and determinations made in reference to the both the establishment of the urban renewal parcel and subsequent the recent thoughtful adjustment to that map supported by the planning board and approved by the town board in order to protect the natural resources. Um, [clears throat] that's some sort of major planning issue here. I didn't hear any other um concerns in the TAM. I will step aside and let David Rhodess address the septic because he is the expert in that. Um I'm not aware of any letters hitting the public hearing file. And so I'll step aside now and ask David to speak. He did submit a letter to the file and hopefully the board had a chance to review

046it, but sometimes it's nice to have a dynamic conversation because these things are interesting. >> Before you go, what was the around the date of the planning board review and approval? Do is it recent? Um, well, this was deemed complete in May. Where are we? October. So, I would say it probably I can look in my computer, but I would say it usually takes about 4 months to get back to you. So, I would say probably late 2024 was when that process finished. I believe this application was initially submitted in 2023, but I will get those dates and come back after David speaks. >> Thank you, Bren. >> David Rhodess with TF Engineering. Do you swear to talk? >> Uh what I would like to talk to about today is there was a comment about

047interp how to interpret the groundwater. And so what I'd like to talk about is there are two different codes. You got the health department code and you got the town code. And I think they should remain separated from each other. And the way the way that the town identifies the separation to groundwater is that no septic leeching pool shall hereby be installed unless the bottom of the leeching pool is situated a minimum 4t above the groundwater table. So the groundwater table is as defined in the coats as all subsurface water of the town which isn't really clear but the de the common definition of groundwater table is your static water where it is. When we did a test hole out there the groundwater was at one. Now when we do a design at the health

048department they specifically say that we have to be separated from the highest expected groundwater and they specifically tell us how to define the highest expected groundwater. Turns out when we do that approach that's elevation three. So when alto together if you take a look at the 4t above the one foot that's 5t elevation to the bottom of the the uh drain field. And if you look at the health department, it's 2 feet above the highest expected, which is 5T. So they just in this case just happen to turn out the same. But I don't think it's appropriate to apply definitions and codes from the health department to the town code because they should stand alone and not be applying different codes to your code. Any questions on >> I don't have a question about it.

049It's um is that [clears throat] is that a statement on your behalf that we should be considering this in the future when we look at other cases? Is that why you bring >> Well, I my statement is the the coaches stand alone. So if if you if you are apply you know we've stated in our letter that we have met both codes because they're interpreted differently. We've we've we've identified one and the plan as it is designed is compliant with both codes. Any questions? No, >> I do not. >> No. >> Thank you, David. All right. >> How are you, Morgan? >> Good evening, Bo. Morgan Slater for the planning department. >> Morgan, do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you.

050So, as it's it's been said that this lot is on the east side of Springs Fireplace Road within an environmentally sensitive area because it is contiguous to the wetlands associated with Agabanic Harbor to the east, which is a water body protected by numerous local, state, and national conservation efforts. It is located within the harbor protection overlay district, which has more restrictive clearing and sanitary system design requirements. Um, the Legion pool component of the sanitary system meets a 4-foot separation to the groundwater elevation as required by H pod. The groundwater elevation used was determined by a test hole. The code does not specify that the groundwater elevation used should be the highest expected groundwater elevation, which is the unit used by the county. The county only requires a twoft separation of the leeching pools from the

051highest expected groundwater elevation. In an area that has a groundwater elevation that can potentially be influenced by the tides due to the proximity to a tidily influenced water body, using the more dynamic groundwater elevation is the more environmentally conservative approach, but it is not required by the town code. So, the proposed design does technically conform with the dimensional code requirement. >> The lot is overcleared for H pod standards. So, the planning department recommends a revitation plan that would bring the clearing limits below the maximum allowable given the proximity of the lot to the wetlands associated with the harbor. The recommendation is about 1,100 square ft more than what is proposed, which would bring the clearing down to around 8,900 square ft where 10,000 is the maximum allowed. One of the intentions in establishing the harbor

052protection overlay district is to maintain or improve wildlife habitat within the area and restore the waterways as closely as possible to their natural condition. The recommendation of the planning department is to make the lot more conforming to the conservation goals of this overlay district. Also, a majority of the lot is within the AE flood zone. So improving the buffer to the wetlands allows for increased resistance to flood waters within the flow path as well as enhancing infiltration and groundwater recharge of the flood waters. Um regarding the UR map modification, the lot did originally have a 50-ft scenic easement along the roadway which was modified to become a 25 ft easement and allow the sanitary system to be constructed within it. The UR map modification process that changed the scenic easement was not a review of

053this NRSP application and the proposed improvements. It was a beneficial modification to the UR map because it opened up an opportunity to have a more conforming building envelope with regard to the presence of the wetlands to the east. The extent of the environmental review for UR map modification differs from the environmental review for a natural resources special permit since the NRSP process has its own environmental standards. The recommendation of the planning department to have a larger scenic easement to the east is in response to the environmental conditions of the property and the scope of the proposed improvements that are in need of a natural resource special permit. Um, I can answer any questions the board may have about our recommendation or the history of the lot or any of the proposed improvements. >> So, what's

054what's on the survey up is be Oh, I have a sketch proposed, right? Do you have a sketch? Yeah. And then that also means extending the scenic easement over that additional revet. Is that what you're >> Yeah, that that's the one I want. >> That's a lot more opaque than it looked when I >> So you're [laughter] saying with this that with this this would meet H pod. >> No, we gave you >> it would be about 1100 ft below the maximum allowed by H pod. So the max allowed is 10,000 square ft of clearing. Um, this would bring the clearing limits to about 8,900. >> And that area is lawn and it's sod. >> Yeah, that's what it looks like from site visits and the aerial. Yeah. >> Let's see how they feel about

055this. [laughter] >> Has the applicant had a chance to look at this? >> I did send it out yesterday. Okay. >> I'd like to know how they feel about this. >> Probably call them up and find out. And um it'll go to ARB if and after >> it is in the Springs Historic District. So it does need ARB before building permit. Oh, I also want to note um that this easement is slightly pulled back from the recommendation in the TAM. This allows for the 10-ft separation between structures and the easement itself, which is required by code. So it ends up being about I think at its longest point from the eastern property line like 65 ft and it's just under 100 ft 100t buffer to the wetland itself. >> Okay. Any questions? >> No, >>

056I have no questions. >> Thank you. Before we go to the public, Britain, I think you should come up and address this. >> Um, there's a couple things I would want to note. The I did get a revised scene easement yesterday. Um, the initial scene easement that was proposed on behalf of the planning department was for 75 ft plus the 25 at the street, which is 100 ft of a 200 foot parcel in depth. That proposed um easement that went out when I was noticed of this hearing [clears throat and snorts] didn't meet town code. It made it my development non-conforming. So, I um don't think that that was a good idea. It was then reduced, but I do think that the planning that went into the town board and planning board process shouldn't be

057ignored. They split the scenic easement. And just a reminder, yes, an NRSP is a different process, but the scenic easement doesn't get established until the building permits issued on the property. So, you can't get a building permit on this property without an NRSP. So, the intention of creating the scenic easement is to develop the parcel. So they did consider the fact that this parcel would be developed and the environmental sensitivity. I also want to point out that this house its coverages are about 50% of what would be allowable on this lot. Actually the house size is less than 50%. Um I think what we've offered is very fair. We have offered a conforming clearing. There is some question whether the majority of this clearing was legally done. Um but in general to request that we

058reve we're offering to reveate to meet H pod standards the planning department is then asking us to reveate 1100 or,200 additional square feet to make us below that standard. We meet the standard we meet the code and that inquire that um requires reveation which we could probably pursue the lot next door which is in common ownership. We did we were able to um grandfather that clearing that was pre 1984 I believe this property was farmed. It is not sod, it is lawn. Um, it was previously farmed property. [snorts] Um, and then to answer member Miring's questions, um, the town board was finished completed with this in the end of 2024. I re submitted to this board February of 2025. I received a complete letter in May of 2025 and brought us to the hearing in

059October of 2025. >> So I again I'm a little confused. the survey that we have showing the proposed reveated city easement. >> Um, this one here, which is bigger than what is on the survey, >> right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Correct. We to we had a 50ft scenic easement. We proposed >> at the town board to do two 25 ft scenic easements reveated >> as proposed on the survey. as proposed on the survey, >> you'll be at the 10,000. >> Yes. >> Which we felt was appropriate for a two-bedroom, >> two bath house at 50% of the size that would be allowable on this parcel. >> Uh Morgan, I'm confused because I might want to ask you a question now. What is the impetus of of of >> additional 1100 >> of this additional

060and then kind of submitting it last minute? >> This is less um restricted than what was recommended in the TAM. Um the TAM was a larger scenic easement. Um I saw Britain's response and pointed she point rightfully pointed out that the one that was recommended in the TAM wouldn't allow for the 10-ft separation from structures. So we I pulled it back. This is now the revised recommendation which is slightly less than what was recommended in the TAM. Um as with regard you know with regard to the meeting H pod standards I mean there are lots that are in H pod that are not in NRSP jurisdiction. So this is a combination of those two environmental constraints on the law. recommendation. There are wetlands if this is within 100 ft of the wetland. The clearing that

061is there now, um I don't think has been there, you know, longer than 2004 was the most recent area where I could see that the lot was uncleared. So, it's I don't believe it to be grandfathered in to um pre-existing non-conforming clearing standards. Um so, this is really the recommendation based on the proximity to the wetlands and also being within H pod. [clears throat] So you're you're asking for an additional 1100 square feet. Basically down to 8,900 from the 10,000 that's been agreed upon by the applicant, right? >> Yes. Yeah. >> That's primarily justified by the 8 pod standards of the property. >> Yes. On the proximity to the wetlands of Aabonic. >> Okay. >> I haven't got any other questions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I don't have question. I just want to clear

062up that in addition in the request from the planning department is an additional 25 ft in depth of the scenic easement in addition to the I don't know the number 1100 ft of rebatch there's two requests they're separate I don't have a problem reveitating additional square feet if that's what the board wants I think that 75 ft of scenic easement on a 200 foot depth parcel is overreaching >> thank you there anybody in the public that would like to address this application. [clears throat] [cough] Matt, is there anybody on the phone? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Can we have a motion >> in the matter of the application of 840 Springs Fireplace Road LLC 840 Springs Fireplace Road Springs, Suffici Tax Map number 300-62-7-2.3. I make a motion that we

063close the public hearing and record. >> Second. concur. Thank you. Our next application is 20 Ocean LLC at 20 Ocean Lane Amaga sub. Map number 300- 176-3-7. The size and location is 12,000 ft at 20 Ocean Lane, Hampton Dunes, lot 33, map number 4694 in Amiganzit. The description is to construct approximately 552 ft of first and second floor additions to change from a gabled roof to a flat roof. New windows and doors. Remove and replace existing wood decking. Remove and replace an existing retaining [clears throat] wall like place like reconfigure the existing driveway. Reconfigure entry steps and upgrade the sanitary system on a parcel of land containing dune land beach vegetation and within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. The relief s is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the eastampton county code and

064a variance is required for this application. One variance of 4.25 ft is required from 2551110 of the town code to construct a proposed flat roof approximately 29.25 ft above grade where 25 ft is maximum allowable and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 secret classes type two council gear proper affidavit of service and posting. Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice of posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> Thank you. Can we have our reports to come up? Um I I will have something to say about the posting, but um and before I start um I don't have to do this, but I do want to disclose I live on this block. I am not a direct contiguous

065noticed neighbor as this board does. participated in other applications uh on this block as well. So >> So how far are you from this house? >> Why do I have to? >> No, I'm just wondering why you didn't recuse. >> Because I have not recused on other things. I'm not I'm not a noticed contiguous neighbor. There's not something that says I have to recuse. I've not recused on I think four other applications. >> I just think because you're on Ocean Lane. >> What? that I just wanted on record that because you are on Ocean Lane that you should have recused yourself from this application. >> But why this one and not other ones on Ocean? >> On record, I'm not going to get into a discussion with you. >> I did recuse myself. Should have

066recused yourself. >> I did recuse myself when I was a contiguous neighbor on 26 Ocean Lane because that was the advice of council at the time. Um, council, how do I >> I'm going to let I'm going to say let's let's move on and just make a point that recusal is is even the perception of so but but um well let's move on. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so this was a uh photo of the driveway that is on the um southern side of the lot. Um the issue with the posting is that it was obscured because it's can't be seen really from the road. It's set behind that car like behind the uh um the tie uh the sort of retaining there. So it really was not visible to anyone going by. Um I

067don't know other members had a hard time. So I wanted to raise that. Um okay. Um just another shot. Uh this is looks towards the house uh to the south. Next slide. Sorry. Um I'm looking I'm just stepped north of the driveway. This is the gra you can see the gravel area that's on the survey. Um there's uh screening along the front of the house, that part of the house. Next slide. Um okay, so I've just come I've got the driveway to my No, these are Okay. Yes. So this is actually on the property next door on 26 Ocean Lane. Um and then the screening trees there, I believe, are on the applicant's property. Um just want to show that this dune land it it spans uh the lot to the to the uh north.

068Um so you can see this run this dune land running all the way up parallel to the line and then on the other side the dune extends uh beyond the applicant's property. You see that like green evergreen tree line running up. I think that's roughly the property line. And then that dune continues onto uh the property to the south of the applicant. Next slide. Um this just uh got a little peek. You could kind of see the posting in the in the back there. I'm just going to start heading up along the south side of the house. Um, so this is the dune uh structure and condition on the south side of the house. Um, and you can see a bit of the house on the uh left side of the slide. Next slide. Um,

069so I've jogged in um under um up the the little the wooden walkway off the driveway. I'm looking towards the house. Next slide. Um, okay. And now I'm going to head to the rear of the property. Um the area that looks sort of like a planting area on the side of the house. I believe that is where you can see on the survey the proposed addition um will be and that's the existing uh walkway. Um as you head to the back you can start to see it in the distance. um the uh um the retaining one of the parts of the retaining wall um comes into view. Next slide. Okay, so now I'm starting to wrap around the back of the house. You can see this is the tallest part of the retaining wall that

070is proposed to be replaced and is in some disrepair. Um that is the decking. It it's sort of uh sinks down a bit. Um, in the rear of the house, the the fence line, the fence there, I guess, is the was the rear property line. You can see the dean land. Uh, you'll see more of it. Next slide. Um, so now I'm got my back to that fence and I'm looking at the rear facade of the house. You can see the entrance to the kind of below grade space. Um, and again you can get another sort of perspective on that part of the retaining wall. Next slide. Um, so I've I'm just looked. So the the right the rear facade is to my right. I'm looking south along the property line that d that dune

071land that's sort of sweeping up. Um if I'm reading the survey correctly, um I think that will be an area that says um proposed temporary um clearing um in that in that area. Next slide. Um okay, I'm coming now. I'm looking towards [clears throat] the towards the north. Um that's other you can see the topography. Um the rear property line is to the right. Um that's heading towards 26 Ocean Lane. Um uh next slide. Okay. So now I'm coming around the uh I guess around the south side of the house where sorry the west west side of the house. That's the um uh existing deck to be rebuilt. Um next slide. just can see from the rear corner of that deck, you can kind of see how it's into, you know, the the dune that's

072sloping up towards the towards the neighboring property line. That area, I think also, if I'm looking at the survey correctly, it says um uh proposed temporary clearing for construction, I believe, in that area as well. Next slide. Um this is just a look at the um Oh. Sorry, the west facade. Sorry, the north. I got it turned around here. The north facade of the house on the deck on that wooden deck. Next slide. Um, now I'm wrapping around the front of the house. You can see the seconds story deck existing that's going to remain. Um, and that's the front wooden deck. Next slide. It's going to step down. It steps down. This is really towards the front of the property. You can't see this from the road because it's all screened in, but it's just

073a cleared um flat sandy area um with currently has some I think some slate on it and a fire pit. Next slide. Um again, just another another look at the house from that angle. Next slide. Um okay, again I'm just looking see where I am. Oh, okay. I'm I'm back on the the side of the house that abuts the trees on the left are I think around the property line with the with the neighbor to the north. Um again I think some of that will be cleared for the construction temporarily. Next slide. Um and that is just another look at the side of the house. I think I have one more here. um more more dune land that will be impacted during the construction. Next slide. Um and then this is just this this these

074are I don't know if these are native or dune. These are planted along I think what is the property line um of the house with the southern neighbor. Anything else? Excellent. And then I just took a shot of the house from the south just so you can sort of see the pitched roof and you know think about that as what will be a flat roof um structure as as proposed. That's it. >> Do we have the applicant? [clears throat] >> Um >> can you give one to the secretary for for record? So this is brand new or what is this or >> we got it electronically. Is this >> Can you Can you We have to be sworn in. Announce yourself >> and who announce who you are. >> Tommy Zung uh owner of 20

075Ocean Lane. >> You swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Uh firstly, prior to starting, um I respectfully would like to formally say that Jane's my neighbor one over and it would be appropriate, it would have been appropriate for her to recuse herself. So, I just like that on the record prior to starting. >> And my one question to you is, is this already in the file and you're just >> Yes, it's all in the So, nothing's changed. >> I'm always worried that maybe technical difficulties. So, um, yeah, everything's in the file and and etc. >> Um, I'll review a little bit what was already said. So, project description to construct approximately 552 square ft of first floor and second story addition. Change a gabled roof

076to a flat roof, new windows and doors, remove and replace existing wood decking, remove and replace existing retaining wall. uh like place kind refigure the existing driveway, reconfigure entry steps and upgrade the sanitary system uh on parcel of land containing dune beach vegetation within the jurisdiction of fresh wetlands. Uh relief requested natural resource special permit pursuant to code 255-4-20 the eastampton code. One variance is required for the application as noted earlier. One variance of 4.25 ft is required from 255-11.10 10 of the tow well town of code of East Hampton for the proposed flat roof approximately 29.25 upgrade where 25 is a maximum allowable and any other relief necessary. Um, the parcel is currently improved with an approximately 1,844 ft twostory residence, approximately 109, sorry, 1,994 ft of a first and second floor second story

077decking, driveway, and associated structures. The most recent CO was issued in 2018 for 1142 ft. First floor 672 second floor frame one family residence having a one kitchen only containing a total of four bedrooms 1835 ft wood decking a lower level wck room. >> Can I just >> this is already put into the record so we don't need to hear all this. So if you can just if you can just cut to your your specifics I'd appreciate it. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. So the um the design is to have the least invasive most environmentally um uh sensitive design. Um the existing foundation will stay and remain the same. The only cheek key in foundation is where the existing um um retaining wall that was shown in the picture was. Um I want to note that David

078Rhodess has uh already uh engineered the septic system and that was put in because the old one was failed. This is one of the existing homes uh in Dune Hampton. Um so again, if you can see, the existing foundation stays the same. There's no disruption on three sides of the building. Uh and the foundation sits on top of the existing uh retaining wall that was there. There's no other disturbance that's required. Uh for the second story, uh the as noted in Tyler's TAM, uh the most disruption would be uh to the existing old uh wooden uh railroad tie foundation which is failing. Um so we made an illustrative construction report. Thank so so archival amigance in Hampton's natural conditions. This is what the dunes look like when the home was built. Um I'm always interested

079in the most environmental um natural conditions uh which is this is how it was settled so it should go and be [clears throat] looking like that um and finality. The second one is another just to note the existing um natural conditions. Um there was three major things that Tyler noted in the TAM. One was to be cautious of the dune with the failing uh retaining wall. The second was um that there was some clearing done which is uh invasive species which seemed to be um seemed to be of um um planted by my previous neighbor at 16 ocean uh and she was um um less mindful of taking away that. So um so the invasive species remediation um just want to talk about that right now. Um firstly in the reveation area obviously we will

080reveate which native species on top of uh when all the when the retaining wall is finished because until that's done it would be disturbed once and then put back in. >> You can go to the next slide. >> Um so here it was a little bit after maybe I purchased 15 16 years ago. I know Jane purchased 23 years ago. This most of this was uh obviously dune land. Uh and again the neighbor on on 16 ocean uh all of it had gotten this bamboo. So in the past 10 years that's been eradicated. Same with the Russian olive species. So you could see where it was in that. You can continue on. Um just I wanted to be respectful of Tyler's you know what what what was taken away was that. So you can see

081that that was completely invasive of everything. Uh also some of the other trees that had to be removed were pine beetle. Um uh Jane's mentioning those are uh native oaks that are up there and uh um otherwise uh we're to the retaining wall. So I think that's the largest um um issue in terms of the dune because the building on the second story is is um does not have uh a great impact at all. Uh so there can be exact and like kind of this failing retaining wall which is you know Roy would know as a tieback uh dead man legs where you have to go quite deep into it. So Dandrio engineer our engineer uh said that the least disruptive way into the dune was to cut the tiebacks, abandon them and let them

082go. um and just pour in place a uh concrete retaining wall and that's a less inv least inv least invasive way. So if we can go on this is just everywhere where it's failing. It's not a question of um do we have to do it it's a question of when we have to do it. So that's that aspect. So I just was just for the board to give to an understanding. Um what we existingly have is a is a retaining wall with tiebacks. So those have to go uh at least the length of uh the height of the wall. Um it's estimated that there will be an eight if we do in like kind we have to dig back. uh it would be approximately 80% more cubic yardage um of material that would need to

083be removed because you have to get all the way back behind I put a temporary retaining wall all the way cutting into that which is the best student doing feature which would be on that uh southern side. Um, so it would be approximately 80% more creage disruption moving material and then putting it back as opposed to and this is you can see where that retaining wall holds the foundation of the house back by the small walkway which was documented as opposed to here if there's if there's um if we were to replace the sec the second thing that should be noted is if you have a concrete retaining wall there's there would 99% never be another need to redo that retaining wall. We all know that um there's less arsenic in tiebacks now, but you

084still have some arsenic. It still will be in there and it still will deteriorate and rot quicker in a wet dune environment typically cuz the sand is always um taking on water. Um so there we are on that. If you can go one more, I think there's so again the yellow is showing uh where it would be. So, cutting cutting the tiebacks, abandoning them, putting a small Okay, one more if you don't mind. And there's just to show um what what it would look like. So, it was Sorry, we did a um step one excavation. You can go to sub two temp retaining wall. So, it's far less of a distance temp. Okay. Three. Thanks. Uh proposed retaining wall as close as possible to existing location. Yep. for um obviously all the sand would be

085stored on site and put back to the as close to >> which is a question where do you plan to store the stored materials >> in the back not offsite nothing will be removed offsite >> the back meaning >> the rear of the property so it would be the >> I know but where is the rear of the property you got a major dune back there too uh that's a that's a flattest area >> in in in the topo >> okay can you see that rear area. That's That's the I mean, if you have another suggestion, Roy, I'm happy to. >> No, that's fine. I just want I just want to understand where just want to point to it. >> That's the lowest equal grade. >> All right. Yeah. I'm just concerned about that dune

086to the north. >> So, >> this one's non-disruptive. >> Yeah. All right. That's a >> So, here this is the being replaced. Obviously, there's a little one here, but this is the major one. >> Yeah. which is of the highest uh >> the largest height. Store store material here least least cut into this because this is the best June feature. Obviously that one is quite nice too. Keep that very close. Leave the sand pour dry put back. >> I'd suggest that you you ought to consider moving the sand and not stock buying this. The chairman's asked you the question about where it's going to go to put it over where the future septic is because that's already a disturbed area. It's going to stay disturbed and you're not going to do the damage you might

087do to a do behind. I was out there and I see what you're dealing with. >> Yeah. You think put it in the front? >> I'm saying that I know it is very flat where you're going to put the septic. I walked out there and if that material went there an area that's going to be disturbed anyway with the septic, I think it's going to do less damage in the >> Yeah, we could do that. Again, I wanted to note the septic's already in. >> Oh, it is already. >> Yeah, it's already in. But yeah, I mean >> you need equipment and stuff. I think that's a different story. >> Yeah, Roy is correct. It's It's kind of hard. like I don't >> I don't ever like to have any, you know, skid steers there.

088But >> going to be difficult for you because it is a tight site and you've got dune structure to protect. But go ahead. >> I wholeheartedly agree. But if you have a suggestion of where you'd like it stored, it could be stored there. But >> you're on it. You're on it. >> We thought that would be less disruptive, but yeah, agreed. Um, backfill reveation. Um, support from my neighbor, which is Jane's neighbor, direct neighbor. She's two homes away from me. >> Um before you move move on, can you just go back to so where you're proposing to use the for concrete method? So that's happening around the whole going up the >> wherever retaining wall is required >> and that so that includes also you're going to replace the retaining wall around the driveway, right?

089And so that would have the same technique in it. Okay. Everything is that technique is is is the less invasive technique because they all have what's called dead man ties. >> No, I just want to make sure I know all these. And then what about on the north side where the existing deck is being rebuilt? >> Anywhere where retaining walls require as per plan. >> Okay. >> As per survey. >> And so when you show propo when you show these areas, this proposed temporary clearing for construction. So is that >> that's that's mandated and done by John Barilleski. >> It's the least invasive. >> May I just finish my question? I'm sorry. I'm just wanted to understand when it's cleared, but you're not doing anything to the topography or the structure. It's just taking out

090whatever's vegetation is there. >> Well, if you read the plan, nothing's being cleared. >> I'm sorry, what? >> If you read the plan, nothing is being cleared. >> Proposed temporary clearing for construction. I see. So >> that that that's that's a verbiage that's required by the town of East Hampton. That does not mean that you need to clear something as per your photos you took, Jane. >> There's nothing there to clear. >> That's why I was asking because so I'm sorry, it's on the survey. So never mind. >> Correct. >> Thanks. >> Any other questions? >> I noticed that uh when we were out there that all the sand around the house, all the dune scrape is is devoid right now of any planting. Has that just been recently resanded? Were there material brought in?

091>> No, no, no material. It's all natural dunes as that's why I showed the existing photos of of how the house was built because I purchased it from uh the the owner and builder and also Carol, my neighbor. So, we collect our photos of that. But in any case, uh no, that was um the devoid of it was eradicating all the invasive species. That's one. And waiting until we're doing this work because this application has been in for years. We're trying to get the, you know, best way to do it. So, I paired back the application over years, kept it the simplest way and then we reveitate. >> Now, are you you gave us two options for the retaining wall replacement, but are you leaving it up to us to tell you or are you

092telling us what >> I'm saying? I believe and I suggest that it should be do done once in the least advant in the least invasive and most environmentally sustainable method which would be aboard concrete and we never have to look back at this >> and we have the least disturbance of cubic yardage of a dune. >> On the survey it shows on the south side proposed fence. So, are you proposing to run a fence all the way up that dune to the back to close in the whole property? >> Proposing a deer fence on that side. Yes, that's correct. >> So, that deer fence would be running up that dune. Is it sort of like where those green trees are? >> Yes, correct. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> It is to be noted,

093Jane, that you have a deer fence around your entire property. >> I'm sorry, what you talking about? It should be noted that you do have a deer fence around your entire property which is not on a survey nor has a building permit. But I just wanted to note that >> we're not here about my property. >> Just move on, guys. No, no, no, no, no. I just wanted to know. I was asking, >> we're not going to No, we're ending this. We're moving on. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Borsite for the planning department. >> Tyler, do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um, so this parcel is located on the east side of Ocean Laneet. Uh the parcel uh is in to

094add minor additions to the existing residence. Changed uh from a gabled roof to a flat roof, add new windows and doors along with the change in the roof line. Uh replace the existing decking uh fencing. Reconstruct the retaining wall like in like place like kind. Uh reconfigure the driveway, reconfigure the entry steps, and install well the new sanitary system is in. Um the subject property uh was created as part of a 1966 subdivision prior to the adoption of the town natural resource special permit regulations in 1984. The parcel contains significant tertiary dune land topography. Freshwater wetlands exist to the north uh and to the northwest of the subject property. These wetlands are consistent with other smaller wetlands in the beach area of Amigansit, many of which were fragmented as part of the development of the

095area prior to modern zoning. Uh the dune land on the parcel is noteworthy with elevations changing from 13 12 to 13 feet uh from the highest point to the lowest elevations on the property. The retaining wall uh proposed to be replaced holds up some of these dune land features and careful consideration of the retaining walls is required when examining the application in order to limit disturbance while also providing for a reasonable uh replacement of a deteriorating retaining wall. Uh one of the most important aspects of the application and which requires the most detailed review by the board is the replacement of the of this retaining wall which has been gone into uh uh in in in great detail at this point. Originally the application was submitted with two different with two different options. One was

096replacing it in place in kind with a with the with a timber retaining wall and the other being the the concrete retaining wall and after discussions with the applicant we both agreed that the concrete retaining wall would be the better option of the two. Uh it it appears to be a reasonable option uh to take limiting disturbance to dune land and minimizing clear clearing while still allowing the applicant to safely reconstruct the retaining wall in the same approximate location. Uh one concern is the amount of temporary clearing shown on part of the retaining wall replacement. A lot of this area is already cleared of vegetation um given that there was invasive species there. Uh I did go back and look at some of the older photos that we had of the property and it did

097look like it was mostly bamboo in those in those areas. So it it it certainly wasn't highquality dune vegetation that was cleared. Um and the planning department is suggesting that all areas uh that are currently cleared be reveated with with native dueland species once construction is completed. Um the given the significant slopes uh the tertiary douland land uh the board should be sure that no changes in grades will result from the proposed construction. Appears that they are taking these into consideration. Uh the the applicant does app you know is is aware of of the the sensitive dune habitat that they have. Um but these dueland features are a critical part of what characterizes the neighborhood. uh and their protection and preservation are vital to any application on on parcels such as this. Um the application

098application also includes proposed additions to the residence which include an approximately 5 foot wide two-story addition uh to the south side of the existing residence along with approximately 1 and 1/2 ft wide addition to the east side uh of the residence uh which also includes interior renovations and the changing of the roof roof line from a gabled roof to a flat roof. The additions to the residents are within the existing disturbed areans areas currently improved with decking or walkways. Uh the change from a gable to a flat roof al also opens up floor space and adds additional gross floor area. Although the footprint isn't changing as dramatically as the increase in the gross floor area suggests. Um the 276 square foot increase in footprint uh coupled with the change in the roof results in an

099increase in a second floor uh increasing from an existing 662 to a proposed 1,334 ft. Uh while the first floor is only increasing from 182 to 1,458 ft. Overall, the residence will increase from an existing 1,844 square feet to a proposed 2,792 square feet where 2,800 square feet is allowed. Uh, the proposed flat roof meets pyramid regulations, uh, but does not but does require a height variance from the lowest point of the existing grade of 4.25 ft. a portion of the roof line meets height requirements. Uh but since the property has substantial grades, uh the center of the house along the east side has a lower elevation and is non-conforming in that area. It's worth noting that it appears the existing gable roof is also non-conforming uh approximately 3'5 in outside the maximum allowable height

100uh in that same relative location. Um, and it me measures from from grade to the peak at 33 feet 5 in. With the shift from flat a gabled roof to a flat roof, the overall height will be reduced by just over 4 feet. Uh, an alternative to a flat roof could be the use of gables off of the existing roof line in order to allow for better use of the floor area of the second story, but the visual impact of such a change would rem similar to that of changing from a pitch to a flat roof. The existing decking is proposed to be replaced almost entirely in place uh with a slight change to the configuration at the far eastern side of the parcel. Additionally, windows and doors are proposed to be replaced. Um uh

101the upgrade uh sanior system was upgraded. Uh it's already been discussed. Uh and finally, the driveway is proposed to be squared off at the south southeastern corner of the parking area. This change in the driveway is coupled with a slight relocation of the existing retaining wall to hold a small amount of the the dune land topography up. It's not you can see in the pictures. It's not a very large retaining wall in that area. Uh overall the project requires some substantial construction with a retaining wall replacement, expansion of the residence, and some minor changes to the decking and driveway. Uh the board will need to determine if the application meets the NRSP and variance standards and should be sure that they have sufficient information in order to make the determination. There are several aspects that

102require careful review and attention in order to determine if the applicants are proposing a reasonable method of construction uh and that all alternatives have been considered. The topography of the car parcel creates challenges with construction especially the retaining wall replacement. Uh but the applicants do appear to have considered alternatives that are and are cognizant of the challenges uh the property entails. The board should consider any additional mitigations they feel is warranted. Uh the planning department als uh uh the the the planning department recommends that uh all areas be reveated that are outside of the uh existing improvements. Um which does not leave many other options available for additional mitigation. Um other than that I can answer any questions you might have. >> Any questions for Tyler? >> Yeah the uh the variance we're looking at

103for the height at 295 and 25 is allowed and currently you said it's at 335. So it's coming down by four feet by making a flat roof. It's now going to violate by four. That's taken from that area on the I guess that's the east side that low that low point >> the rest of the house there. We're not really seeing that or >> it's not not as severe at least um >> relative to the roadway. It's really taking because that's quite a depression. It goes down to the lower level. >> Yeah, there there are definitely conforming locations especially near the edges that are completely conforming. Right. >> Um and then yeah as you as you get >> dip down there and then foroot violation. >> Right. Right. That's just at the most extreme point.

104So do you have an estimate of I know sometimes like with pyramid we talk about the volume that's outside of you know the the limitation. So I appreciate that what you described. >> I wouldn't even be able to venture a guess. It's it's because the topography is so complex and it would be hard to determine. You'd have to sort of guess what the topography line is but but through the house it would be hard to >> it'd be hard to uh even come up with a with a with a rough guess. It would be difficult. >> Okay. even for the architects to to come up with a number >> and then I of course I read the TAM but did you have any suggestion of um any easement on >> we had we had brought

105up the idea of it I think a value of an easement would be limited um on the property just because how small they would be um certainly over those dunland features is is a is a possibility um but they'd be pretty small uh it's a small lot to begin with um so yeah we didn't we didn't recommend it just because they would be fairly small and the value of them would be limited. I think the reveation of the of the parcel is probably paramount. Um both helping to retain those those those uh topography from from erosion. Um and then also bringing back the character of the neighborhood um which was lost with, you know, invasive bamboo coming in. >> And forgive me, where do you want to see the re edge? >> Pretty much anything

106that's not improved. >> Um yeah, >> all that barren sand land now that we saw in the photos. Yeah. Yeah. >> Around the whole property. >> Exactly. >> I mean, most of it's going to be disturbed with construction anyways. So, um it's not like they're losing much that they're going to they would have to revatch, but um just trying to re trying to re regain that that Duneland um character. >> Any future work would require an NRSP anyway coming in front of us. >> Correct. Yeah. I mean, the whole the whole lot is Duneland. Um whether there's vegetation on it or not >> and there's wetlands and you know, roughly in jurisdiction. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Tyler. Anybody in the um public like to address this application? >> Is there anybody on

107the phone? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I just want to know quickly, I want to just thank Tyler so much because we were working really closely in, you know, how to preserve and go back to the natural um the natural way that the dunes were settled. So he was really um really informative and the conversations were amazing and uh you know I want to thank him very much. Uh and I want to thank you all to >> Hold on a minute. Hold on a minute. So before you leave, let's make it clear that your proposal now is for a concrete wall on a spread footing, a reinforced concrete wall. We're not deciding anything. That's what you're proposing. >> I propose that that's most sustainable and least invasive option. Yes.

108Correct. >> Thank you. >> Can we have a motion? >> Yeah. Um, did any other members have an issue with the posting or no? >> What? Okay. Um, in the matter of 20 Ocean Lane, >> 20 Ocean Lane Amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-176-3-07. I make a motion to close the public hearing and the record. >> Second concur. Jur. >> Thank you. Next application is Kevin Natti at 276 Old Montalk Highway, Malkque, Sucker Tax [snorts] Map number 300-87-2-32. The size and location is 56,128 square foot at 273 Old Montalk Highway, Hitherwoods, lot 39, map number 3520 in Montalk. The description is to construct a 33,366 ft two-story residence with a 612 ft attached garage, 1,126 ft of first and second story porches, decking, and balconies with 352 ft swimming pool, 200 ft pool house,

109116 ft pool patio, retaining wall, driveway, sanitary system, and associated structures on a parcel of land containing freshwater lands. The relief sword is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and nine variances are required for this application. Variances of 29 ft, 12 ft, 10.5 ft, 10 ft, 6 ft, 5.5 ft and 5t are required from 255430 of the town code to construct a proposed fencing 71 ft. Retaining wall 88 ft, decking 10.5 ft, walkways 90 ft, house 93.4t 4 feet pool patio 94.5 ft and garage 95 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required. Two variances of 23.5 ft and 19 ft are required from 2511 of the town code to construct proposed porch for 16.5 ft and house 20.1 ft from the front yard lot

110line where 40ft setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a resident zone exploit zone under secret classes type two. Council, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit and notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Okay. >> Yep. Go for it, Ed. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I'll start by saying I have too many photos, but we're going to run through them quickly. I was advised by others here. U this this this this property has three uh postings. So it's important to see all three. Here we are on fur. This is uh the posting on fur. Uh next I'm going to look uh up towards the

111highway from that. That's a short little end of the property. You'll see on that survey I can see up to 27. Next I'm going to look from there back in the other direction. And I'm looking up and you can see fur continues and Elm's going to make a right. I'm going to make the same right. Next. Now I've come down. Now I'm standing down and this is an effort to say that you'll notice that there is higher ground beyond. This is very low down below the property and the improvements are suggested above and you'll see that as we surround the property. Next I'm looking now up Elm. Elm runs up away from me. I'm going to go up the way a little bit further. Next uh turning and looking back up the other way. Just

112keep going. Next. This is the posting now that's up on Elm. This is further up. Uh as you come up, there's going to be a little turn in the roadway which is going to be the edge of the property. Next, I'm going to get myself up now. Looking up. I'm looking up this higher ground. Hard to tell from my photo, but there's higher ground here. And we're getting near the uh the eastern edge of the property. Next. Uh just go by that one. Next. Okay. So, so what's happened here is this elm elm comes up and takes a big turn. And it's kind of important to know that just about where that turn is up in there as we get up a little bit there is the far end of the property and that's going

113to shoot up back to to an angle and then back up to Montalk Highway next. Now, this is about where the property line will be. Doesn't mean much, but it'll show you that it's well vegetated and it comes and it's all running uphill pretty pretty severely at this point. Next, Uh that's just looking back down Elm just to give you a character of what's going on on both sides. It's very wooded, very lush in both sides. Next, I'm going to come out onto the out on the highway now. I'm out on on Sunrise. I'm looking down fur on the far end of it. I'm at this end of the property. I'm going to wind wind up heading east next. I'm going to look up and down. This is the old Montalk Highway. Here I am

114looking east next. Here I am looking west. So you know about the character about where it is it right across from in the Gurnie area. Next please. This is the posting now that's out on the highways. That's the third posting. Fur Elm and the old Montalk Highway. Next. Uh this is again hard to see and this is a tremendous drop off here. I'm standing on the highway. I'm looking down to where I took a photo before and said how nice the meadow was and how pretty it was. It's a very severe drop. Next. Now I'm up in an area where they're going to be talking about the improvements. This is important to notice that this is all filled. The at some point in the past someone filled this side of the property. There was a

115steep grade. You're going to see it in a minute, but I'm going to have several shots of this because this is where the house and other improvements are suggested to go proposed next. Now, just to take a look now, the kind of a sweep. I was at the gate. I backed up a little bit. I see an improved house. You can see a house on the the further lot to the east. Next, you can also see how severely it drops off there. Now, I'm standing just about where the house is to be about the east end of the house looking back. Again, bear in mind this is Phil. So, you'll see that as we see around the edges of it. Next, uh now it doesn't matter. This is just because we can see how this

116floats off. This is part of where I'm looking back down towards where the house wants to go from. The spot I was standing next. Uh oh, I guess I just wanted to show you that the other property line where it was. Keep going. It's hard to see on some of these because it's now I've worked my way just about as far as the fill is. That's that house we saw from a distance before. This is really just about where they're talking about outside improvements away from the main house. Next. That's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. How are you, Deborah? >> Uh, good evening board members. Alice Kohley of Matthews Curse Kulie and Churon. [laughter] >> Told you Deborah. I'm sorry. >> You know, you're the second person to do that tonight. And I will

117point out that Deborah lives on this street and she has much longer, more luxurious hair than I do. [laughter] Bregman. >> Yeah. Yeah. Bregman. Bregman. >> Hi, I'm Alice [laughter] of Matthews Curse and Chron. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Kevin Gaddy who's here with me tonight and his family also with Shannon McAffrey of Dwy's Planning. Uh I was very pleased when I read this TAM because it acknowledges really how well thought out this design is for this very challenging site. So thank you Tyler. Uh before I address the NRSP var and variance standards as they relate to the wetland, I'd like to spend a little bit of time talking about what makes this site unique and how its layout and distinct topography dictate its design. While the front yard variances are technically required

118and could even be considered substantial, not only is this clearly the most practical and environmentally appropriate location on the site for the house, but this is the best location for an unusual and major reason. This property is burdened by extreme topography. If any of you have not had the opportunity to visit it, I implore you to get there. The pictures do not do it justice. I took a bunch too and I thought, what is the point of showing it to you? It doesn't even remotely capture how steep the drop off is. Uh only once in my career have I had one another occasion to work on a site with such extreme slopes and that was in the town of East H and uh Southampton. We ended up asking for a height variance because of how

119hard it was to build on that site. Luckily here there is a big flat area. This lot was created in 1962 prior to the adoption of our modern subdivision standards. If this lot was created now, it would look quite different. There are two relevant provisions in the subdivision regulations to consider. 220106HE states the standard subdivision design shall exclude the following listed features as buildable area. There's a bunch like wetlands and one of them is horizontal areas of slopes which exceed a grade of 20%. And 22109 says, "Configuration of lot lines where slopes, depressions, and elevations occur outside open space areas. Lot lines shall generally follow such topographic irregularities so as to incorporate such irregularities into required side and rear yards rather than home sites. This proposal respects the intent of the subdivision regulations by concentrating

120the improvements on the area that is flat and not burdened by steep slopes. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing a scenic easement over the area of steep slopes, which is what have been what would have been required during the subdivision process. Why am I talking to about subdivisions? If you exclude those areas of steep slopes and the wetlands, you actually get a lot area of 22,984. And if that was our lot area, it would reduce the front yard setback to 20 ft. Would you mind pulling up that chart, Tyler? The other one. That one. Yeah. Thank you so much. Using this approach, the house itself would not need any front yard variance and only a 3 and 1/2 ft variance would be needed for the porch. So as to not be disingenuous, we analyze whether the

121project would still meet allowable coverage, total coverage, clearing, and GFA using the reduced lot area calculation. And it certainly does as you can see from this chart. It should also be noted that the road rightway is very wide on this area of Montalk Highway. So really the house is proposed 45 ft from the edge of the pavement. This placement is consistent with the setbacks of the other properties nearby. So at the very bottom of the steep slopes near Elm Lane, kind of near where the photo of the puddle was, there's a depressional wetland. It's clearly a place where the runoff from the entire area collects because of the topography. It's quite muddy and it wre havoc on my boots. Luckily, using this flat area of the property along Old Muk Highway also makes for the

122most conforming area on site that places the improvements furthest from the wetland. This is consistent with 255-51D, preservation of natural resources as the applicant is seeking reduced front yard setbacks in order to maximize the distance from the wetland. In addition to placing the proposed improvements on the most conforming location on the site, the house is designed as long and narrow to maximize the distance from the wetland. The applicant is proposing limited exterior improvements particularly for this area of Montalk and for a lot this size. They're concentrated in the most environmentally sensitive and conforming area on the site. The sanitary system is as acknowledged by the planning department proposed in the most conforming location. The proposed clearing is minimal as the majority of the proposed building area was already cleared prior to my client's purchase. The

123law is well settled in New York that a special use permit such as an NRSP authorizes a use that is presumptively harmonious in the zone in which it is conditionally permitted. Pursuant to town code section 25551, the board may grant an NRSP for the proposed improvements if the application is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and will not degrade, pollute, or diminish the size of the natural feature. There is no evidence in the record or the TAM that the proposed improvements would have any negative impact on the wetland. There is a substantial natural buffer between the proposed improvements and the wetland which will help intercept sediments and nutrients associated with any fertilizers. The house itself requires a wetland variance of 6 and 1/2 ft at its closest point. Though the majority of the

124house fall meets the setback only about 550 square ft of the house itself is within the 100t setback. The deck requires a 10-ft variance and the pool patio a variance of 5 1/2 ft. Though the pool does meet the setback, we don't think the garage should be counted as a separate variance as it is part of the house. The grant of the variances will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or community and certainly will not create a detriment to nearby properties. This property has bit of a been a bit of an eyesore prior to my client's ownership and I think the neighbors will be pleased to see it improved and no longer a dumping site. This proposal is entirely consistent with the surrounding properties, particularly given how large this lot is. Could you

125show that other chart with the text map? Thank you. Uh if you can see the colors that Yeah, I can see them. Okay. Uh you can see from this chart that many of the homes in the vicinity of this project, which is mostly improved with very large homes, exceed the proposed GFA. We analyzed 24 nearby properties, just ones in the immediate vicinity. Uh 12 of them, which are shown in green, have a greater percentage of allowable GFA used and more GFA than this proposal. Four of them have a greater percentage of allowable GFA used, but less GFA total because they're on much smaller lots. Uh those are the ones in blue. and eight of them have lesser uh a lesser percentage of allow allowable GFA. There are no feasible alternative methods to achieve the benefit

126sought in l of the variance as this lot is quite constrained. The applicant has designed the best possible proposal while being constrained by the steep slopes and the proximity to the wetland. These wetland variances are not substantial. The grant of the variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood as the applicant is utilizing the area that's already cleared and the flat portion of the property and is actually leaving over 76% of the lot undisturbed. 76 that's a lot not touched at all. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created as the applicant purchased the property in its current configuration. But given the dimminimous nature of these requests, we submit the standard should not be controlling. The TAM does raise a concern about the steep topography, proposed

127grade changes, and retaining wall and their potential impact to the wetland. To mitigate this concern, we have a construction protocol to submit tonight to address the methodology. However, if the board finds it insufficient, we can have an engineer prepare an additional protocol and the applicant would be happy to accept that as a condition of approval. All the other conditions mentioned in the TAM are acceptable to the applicant and I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns that you have. >> Yeah. Is there a licensed architect on this property? Is there a site engineer or structural engineer? The reason I asked those questions is because this is a pretty sizable development on this filled lot. We have we have we have extreme grades that's going beyond the flat area that we have drainage issues and we

128are regrading a lot. So there's no there's nothing for us to look at >> in terms of >> shows us shows us pre uh existing conditions versus the amount of fill that's coming in. And I'm concerned about the the structures over by the pool area so close to you drop off especially. But so my question is it doesn't seem like a complex part you have and you also have a fill area which which um which I think structurally should be looked at very carefully. Right? When you put a foundation into a filled area, we don't know what those subsurface conditions are and how far they go down. So it it it seems like there's very bare minimal information in front of us to really say dig into this and and put our teeth into it.

129I know you're trying to to address the NRSP, but for me there seems to be some lack of, if you will, proper design for even as far as drainage and how it affects that steep drop off. Uh well there is a project engineer um and >> we have an engineering report from him. Do we have something that shows us how we're stabilizing this structure on Phil or anything like that? >> We we can certainly submit that if if you're willing to keep the record open for us to do that. >> So when we see this area that you've outlined to be developed and you mentioned that you're going to save 76% of the parcel >> from that edge down below. I don't know what the number is. We can go look at the topo. You've

130been there. You mentioned it. I was there. It's an extraordinarily steep drop. How are we protecting that slope? How are we not going to see that to erode? What do we have? I don't see in the drawings anything that tells me how we're going to take that perimeter which is fill >> which is not necessarily stable, right? We don't know that. Then how are we protecting their ex? So, as was the chair said that if we had an engineering report in front of us, we could either challenge it, discuss it, or prove it. But I'm not sure what I'm looking at when I'm standing there in terms of the stability of a structure that size on fill surrounded by a tremendous drop off. We can talk about fill in other areas. Generally, it's fill at

131grade. It fills in a hole. It's got stabilization around it. Here, that's potentially a very unstable platform or plateau. So, that's a question. Now, there may be a very solid answer you have, but it's not in the documentation we're looking at. We don't see that. So maybe your engineers looked at it, your architects looked at, your clients looked at it, and that's all been good, but but I don't know what we're, as the as the chair says, I don't know what we're actually examining here in terms of engineering. >> And the other um concern I have is the um the drastic elevation changes that are required for the swimming pool. Uh yeah. So, um, we we do have a structural engineer, um, and that's Matt Sherman, and he has analyzed this project, but if you

132want us to have the engineer to put in materials for you to review, we can certainly do that. And in doing so, we can also address the pool and the engineering associated with that. >> Okay. >> I think that's necessary. >> Yeah. I mean I I I understand Roy what you're saying about the soil analysis. Um but that has been done but you haven't seen it and you have to satisfy yourself that it's acceptable. So I >> we don't know and it doesn't seem like the information that we have in front of us it doesn't seem like that analysis has been done. So I think that's critical to before you even think about putting a structure on a on a property with Phil. Oh, certainly. >> That's um >> I mean we all take that

133very seriously. My client takes that very ser seriously. This is going to be his home with his family. So, and this is not his first time building a home. >> You know, are we on three foot of fill or 9 foot of fill? That's a question we're going to ask right away. Three foot of fill, your foundation may be down undisturbed soil, but we don't know that. >> Got it. >> Somebody's going to have to say the quality of the the land it's sitting on and then the other engineering factors that have to go into stabilizing. is a large structure. It's going to be something that and not only there is a con, as the vice chair has pointed out, all of that area, the trumpet recreation area, the pool has a whole another series

134of questions about the topo. I think we need, as has been pointed out by everyone here, I think we need more information where we can say, well, that makes sense or it doesn't make sense. >> Understood. >> And then I thought I heard you say you are putting into the record tonight a protocol, a construction protocol. Yes. So, we haven't seen that yet. Right. >> Exactly. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Any other questions? >> I'm good. >> We can hear from planning. >> Tyler Borsac for the planning department again. Um, so this parcel is located on the north side of old Montalk Highway in Montalk. Uh the project before the board is to permit new construction on an un on an unimproved parcel including a new residence, attached garage, swimming pool, pool house, retaining walls,

135and associated structures. Uh the the subject property has some fairly unique features which create difficult development challenges for the applicant. The parcel contains significant slopes with a small flat area near Old Mont Highway where development of a a residence and associated structures are most reasonable. The parcel is somewhat large for the area at 56,128 square ft, which requires a 40ft front yard lot setback for principal structures and a 50-ft setback for accessories. Uh with three front yards, Old Mont Highway to the south, Elm Lane to the north, and Furlane to the west, a non-standard uh shape to the parcel and depressional freshwater wetland to the north, the conforming building envelope is constrained. utilizing the flat area uh of the lot to the southeast is likely the best option for development. The question is, is the

136uh proposed development the appropriate size, layout, and level for the constraints of the parcel? The proposed residence is a six-bedroom, two-story residence with a gross floor area of 3,366 ft. Given the size of the parcel, the size of the residence would be reasonable development. Uh however, the proximity to wetlands, extreme slopes, and front yard lot setback variance requests might be more than is appropriate. The project is proposing limited decking around the residence itself uh with a second story deck uh over a proposed first story on each side of the residence representing the majority of decking attached to the house. The proposed swimming pool and pool patio would be the other exterior space proposed and is located partially within setbacks to wetlands uh on on the property. The patio around the swimming pool is small uh

137with the pool itself equally sized. Uh this area uh this the this area of the parcel appears to require regrading in order for the pool and patio to be installed and should be looked at closely by the board to determine if it meets the NRSP and variant standards. The extreme slopes over a large portion of the property raise serious development constraints that the applicant needs to deal with and and enforce specific design choices that the board will need to examine. There are several factors to weigh when examining the project centering around the location and size of the proposed residence as well as the location of the proposed swimming pool uh patio and pool house. The 3366 foot residence with attached garage is a large structure that requires setback variances from both wetlands to the north

138as well as substantial front yard lot setback variances to the south. The wetland variances are small 6.6 ft for the residents and 10 and 1/2 ft for the decking. However, coupled with the approximately 50ft front yard setback variances may suggest that the development is too large for the constraints of the property. It is worth noting that the road rightway uh in this area is very wide with approximately 45 ft from the edge of pavement to the applicant's front yard lot uh along Montag Highway leading to the front yard lot setback to appear larger than it is in reality. Additionally, uh, section 255-5-51D2 of the NRSP standards suggest smaller buildings or structures, but also suggest reduced yard or other setbacks in order to reduce impacts on prot protected natural features. The specific conditions of this parcel

139do point towards reduced front yard lot setbacks in order to push the proposed residents further from wetlands and also to keep development off of the steep slopes in the parcel uh which directly impact those wetlands. The question for the board is uh is the size of the development appropriate uh and and reasonable to grant front yard relief in order to push the the the the structure further south on the parcel or is the a smaller residence more appropriate. Reducing the setback to approximately 20 the 20 foot required for a smaller parcel less than 40,000 square feet uh may be a reasonable design and request if the board feels that the applicant has done enough to design the project uh to reduce impacts that then justify reducing the front yard setback uh requirements. In addition to

140uh the proposed residence and swimming pool uh in addition to the proposed residence uh swimming pool with associated structures, the proposed sanitary system is located in what is the most conforming location available in the southeastern corner of the property. U and the leeching structures meet the required 150 ft setback from wetlands. The applicants are proposing to include a scenic easement which would protect the steep slopes between the residents and wet and the wetlands in perpetuity. Uh a fence is proposed to be constructed along the edge of the clearing which appears to function as an enclosure for the swimming pool as well as just fencing for the property. Uh fencing would help to reduce the possibility of inadvertent clearing in the future as the property is improved. Uh a retaining wall is proposed along the northern

141edge of clearing near the swimming pool and eastern side of the residence so that uh grade can be leveled out in order to install the swimming pool patio pool house and associated structures. No significant details have been included regarding that retaining wall and the applicant should address how much fill will be brought in uh or removed uh in order to level off that area around the swimming pool for its construction as well as the construction of the proposed sanitary system. Changing grades significantly in jurisdiction of wetlands can have unintended consequences. So any changes to those grades should be clearly shown for the board to make an informed decision about the impacts the swimming pool might have. Based on the survey and what appears to be proposing, uh the elevation of the swimming pool appears to

142be around an elevation of 76 ft, which if accurate would require raising the elevation 10 to 12 feet at the lowest point to bring the grade up uh to what looks like the proposed elevation is. Uh further information should be provided by the applicant on this but if such drastic elevation changes are required for a swimming pool it may not be appropriate uh structure given the constraints of the property along with the existing and proposed scenic easement there are not many other additional options for the board uh uh for mitigation other than that I can answer any questions you might have >> I don't have questions but I we share all these same concerns the ones you just brought up at the end the pool area that did drop off. One of my photos didn't

143show. Well, that dropped pretty dramatically. So, now we're talking about that. And I think the applicant has to understand the kinds of engineering challenges this presents. That's all. >> Yep. >> That's how would I wouldn't move forward as a board wanting to make a decision without seeing a clear idea how they plan on stabilizing structures over 9 foot of Philill. >> Any other questions for Tyler? I mean, I assume there will be some drastic retaining walls. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're looking at maybe 10 to 12 feet potentially. That's pretty sizable retaining wall >> on the survey. No, [clears throat] >> I think we >> Yeah, >> I don't know if should speak to this, but I think we're going to >> have to leave this open till we get >> Yeah, we're going to

144have to we're going to we'll address the applicant for that, but we we should go to the uh public. Is there anybody in the public that would like to address this application? >> Is there anybody on the phone? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. Okay, >> come on up. Alice. >> Alice. [laughter] Um, so I understand what the board wants to see. Um, you know, this this project has been a long time in the making. So, I want to assure you that we we do have a very good understanding of what we're proposing, but we also understand that as the board that is charged with approving these applications, you need to understand it. So, um we would ask for six weeks to get you that analysis. >> Okay. I want to say 30 days,

145but with holidays coming up, I don't think that's going to work. >> May I ask a question? And we would have a continuation of the hearing because with those materials, we might want to ask questions. >> Yes, I think there would be the continuation in this case of the hearing. >> Right. Because otherwise we couldn't create a new >> Have an architect already? You do have an architect on this shite on this project. We have an engineer. >> Engineer. Okay. So, the engineer will be present at the next hearing to explain whatever drawings andor >> a calendar >> andor proposals are made. >> Okay. >> Either way, we'd have to have enough materials to you understand what happens here. I mean, we be talking about pilings or something. It's not for us to decide that,

146but we're not looking at anything now substantial enough to make any decision about what we're looking at. So, we'll get it in six weeks. >> So, are we meeting on the 16th, Julie, of December? >> Yes. No, I think we should have a continuation hearing. >> Are we? >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry. >> Are we meeting on the 16th of December, Julie? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Because the six weeks would be the week of December 8th. If we had a hearing on the 16th, a continuation, and you know, tonight what what's the rule? You don't have to repost or >> Yes, we love that. [laughter] >> Three of them. >> So, would December 16th work, Julie? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> It's my mom's birthday. >> But will we have the information? Will the

147board have the information prior to the actual >> Well, it would have to be in the week before would be the six weeks. >> Yes. >> So, and we'll we'll get it into you as soon as we can. We just want to make sure that we get everything. >> Okay. That will be [clears throat] in by a week before December 16th. >> Yes. >> Okay. Well, that's when the six weeks is up. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, December 16th is my day. >> Have a nice >> motion to keep Yeah, we should probably have a motion just to >> I I think we do, right? To continue it and and set the date >> to continue and Okay, I'm making a motion to uh continue the hearing until December 16th >>

148on the record. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Then in the matter of Kevin Gatty's uh 276 Old Mont Highway Montto sub county tax map 300-87-02-32, I'd like to make a motion to uh leave the hearing open until December 16th been able to enable the applicant to provide additional information concerning both the engineering and possible construction of this project. I'm going to leave the hearing and the record open. Well, we would do that for a continuation of the public hearing. >> All right. >> Is that close to it? >> That's close to it. That's good. >> We have a second. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. And I won't make that mistake again. [laughter] >> Sure. [clears throat] >> Don't ask Alex. >> I I knew it too as soon as I said it. >> I know. I

149I I heard you and I was like, huh? All right. Where are we going next? Mr. Wyatt. Okay. We're going to go into a couple postering decisions. Um, we have Hampton [clears throat] Wyth at 10 Tyson Lane in East Hampton Suff-189-6-7.2. Size and location 70 is 71,196 square ft at 10 Tyson Lane, map of James Tyson, lot 15, map number 4863 in Eastampton. The description is to allow an existing 92 ft structure to remain as an accessory structure greater than the maximum allowance gross floor area and to replace a 4ft fence within a with a 6ft fence within jurisdiction of minimum of and minimum setbacks of freshwater wetlands. The rel is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the east town code and two variances are required for this application. and one variance

150of 302 square ft is required from 255123 of the town code to allow the existing cottage to remain as an accessory structure with a gross floor area of 92 ft where 600 ft is the maximum allowable. One variance of 68.1 ft is required from 255430 of the town code to allow existing fencing to remain 31.9 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a resident zonex flood zone B8 and the secret class is type two. Um this was I handled this uh application. So again the hearing was on 9:30 2025. The survey is dated 2525. Um there was a memor memorandum of law submitted by the uh applicants um attorney Eric Brown received at February 11th, 2025. The plans are dated 12725 which shows

151the plumbing to be removed on the existing structure. Um, a point to be to make is that the the reason the plumbing was to be removed, it is removed. It was a requirement of um a building permit application to build a primary residence on this structure. There's some history involved in this property. Um, most noteworthy in my opinion, when we're dealing with um areas of accessory structures, we look to scrutinize it closely. And I think we have to uh we look for uniqueness on this. There is some history involved here. There is also um noteworthy is the own the owner has has purchased a number of lots adjacent to both lots to the west and to the east and to the north of this property as far as further lane. There was a um a

152a structure storage structure that has been already demolished and there is an art studio that's on there that is being um proposed to be removed to another lot on uh 3 I think it's 310 further lane [snorts] um is to me I think uh let's see in June 4th 2008 uh the ZBA pro approved the studio to exceed the then principal structure of square footage and this studio was uh an art studio. Um and that is the structure that is being relo relocated to 310 for um I believe the um the applicant has met the criteria for approval of this application as as outlined in their memorandum of law. Um I think um [clears throat] I I will re re rely on the reasonings for this the variances as outlined in that uh in that

153memor memorandum of law because I agree with their assessment and I believe they did do meet the burden of proof of uniqueness on this property being um it's in common ownership with the family that has bought the lots all surrounding it um and I do not think it'll affect the character of the neighborhood. So, with that, I will vote to approve this application. >> Ned, you want to try it? >> Sure. Um, yeah, I don't have a lot to say. I think that it was a a pretty straightforward application. I think the history was important. The fact that this building was there, they agreed immediately and [clears throat] before they were in front of us, they had already taken the plumbing out of the structure. They agreed it would not be used as housing in

154the future. It's an accessory building. It is something that is larger than we generally would allow and on this particular spot and the usage it's going to have. I thought it was not going to affect the character of the neighborhood. I think that they own the adjacent parcels is fine for now, but we have to think the long term that may not be the case. I think even if that's the case, I don't see this as presenting any kind of detriment to a future neighbor if it was not in common ownership. I didn't find any reason not to think this was something we could approve. Nothing jumped out at me about it. I thought their reasoning was logical. They wanted to save what they consider to be a historic cottage and the intention now is

155to use it as a playhouse for children. Uh the restrictions we put over it, the removal of the plumbing, they couldn't reverse that very easily. I uh I I agree that this is one an application that is not difficult for me to approve. So, I'm approving it at this time. >> Thank you, Jane. >> Thank you. I agree with my fellow board members uh who have spoken so far. Um, I will just cite in particular um that uh the there was testimony that the ARB in their review of the property um was pretty specific. They would like to see this uh this structure um preserved in its sort of proportions which you know would reject cutting 300 ft off of it. Um I also aside from the fact that they have already removed the plumbing

156in the kitchen um we did ask Mr. Brown during the uh hearing if they would be willing to add more protection by putting a covenant that it will never be used. So um I think that's helpful um helpful as well. Um and you know with respect to the standards um there's no other uh method to achieve the benefit than the variance of the size of the um turning into an accessory structure. I don't think there's any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In fact, I think preserving historically meaningful structures, especially ones that have an A look to them in an A overlay, is important. Um, and I also believe that I I know that uh Tyler in the in the TAM had put in a series of, you know, different applications and there

157was a precedent similar for approving a, you know, fairly sizable square footage variance also for a historic structure. Um, and so all in I'm approving that. And are we talking about the fence variance as well? >> Fence. >> So, um, I'm going to approve that. I I also think it meets the um excuse me, sorry I have a little breathing problem tonight. Um uh meets the variance standards um and it's really replacing a fence that already exists. So I will approve that variance as well. >> Thank you Terry. >> Can I agree with my fellow board members? I don't have much more to add just as far as the fence. It's a 68.1 foot variance which is can be substantial but um one question about that um Eric Brown did state that part part of

158that is to keep it closer to the cottage and it will help protect people from going through there over the dunes and vice versa people coming through the dunes and trying to come to the for the the carriage house. Um, I have nothing else to add. I agree with my fellow board members. The cottage plumbing plumbing was done and uh I think it meets all the standards of the NRC and standard. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> I agree with my fellow board members. I do believe though that we should have a covenant. >> Yes. on that um >> structure so that it doesn't become a guest house or a caretaker house or something like that. As the kids get older, they may want to live in it. Um but uh and also in terms

159of the fence, I was a little back and forth about it because there is a conforming location, but and usually we include a fence of 4 feet concurrent with a clearing boundary during construction and maintenance to limit clearing or reveation. But I think in this case um it's fine to approve as is. So I'm in a agreement with my fellow board members. >> Thank you. Council, are we good? >> Thank you. >> Before you read the next one and I'm recused. >> Thank you. Okay, next we have Anna Kanger at 60 Osprey Road, Amaganza, sub test number 300-133-7-3. Size and location is 7,552 ft at 60 Osprey Road, Montan C. Section A lot 15 115 and map number 2438 in Nabaganza. This description is to construct 831 square feet of first and second floor story

160additions and approximately 200t roof deck, 100 ft first floor deck, new stairs entry, upgrade the existing sanitary system and to clear approximately 1,000 square ft of vegetation outside of the town's pyramid regulations and greater than the maximum allowable height on a parcel of land with dunes, dune land, and beach vegetation. relief sought and natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and three variances are required for this application. Variances of approximately 7.25 ft and 10.3 ft are required from 235172D of the town code in order to construct a proposed addition 725 ft 10.3 ft outside the town's pyramid regulations along the western and eastern property lines respectfully. One variance of 1.5 ft is required from 25511 to 10 of the town code to allow the addition to be constructed 26.5

161ft in height above the grade where 25 ft is the maximum allowable for flat roof and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence zone AE flood zone elevation 10 classes type two. Um John I think this was yours so you want to kick us off. >> Yep. Uh thank you chairman Delene. The public hearing was held on September 30th, 2025, and the applicant Anna Kanger was represented by Diane Leverier. Joining by phone were architect Elizabeth Thalme, and landscape designer Tom Muse, Richard Shrier, [clears throat] council Anna Kanger, also called in to mention the owner's willingness to reveate as the board feels is required. Tyler Borsac representative the planning department. Um the variances requested are as you just mentioned and adding a new deck to the south side of the house will require clearing

162approximately 250 square ft of dune vegetation. I understand that the current application is an improvement over [clears throat] a previously submitted and denied application. However, it is a new application submitted to a new board and should be considered on its own. The pre-existing non-conforming roof violates East Hampton Town Pyramid Code in 255-11-72D by 20.6 ft on the east side and 14 ft on the west. The proposed first and second floor additions will add new nonconformities, specifically with a height violation of the flat roofs of 1 and 1/2 ft and pyramid violations of 7.25 ft on the west side of the house and 10.3 on the east. Even though the newly proposed nonconformities are less than the existing nonconformities which will remain, they are themselves substantial. New height and pyramid nonconformities add to the overall impact

163of the pre-existing nonconformities, excuse me, thereby extending the bulk of the house north and south, which visually impacts the rear and side neighbors. As was noted by chairman Delene during the public hearing, the existing house would not be permitted to be built today. Even though what is being proposed might conform to 56 Osprey to the west, a looming structure, in the words of the agent, it will not conform to the character of the Monta on the Sea neighborhood of Nepig with its typically small lots and accordinglys sized homes. During my site visit prior to the hearing, standing in the rear of 60 Osprey, I was struck I was struck rather by the extent to which 56 Osprey does indeed loom over 60 osprey. [clears throat] Does 60 Does 56 Osprey establish a precedent whereby every

164home in Montalk on the Sea is permitted to violate the town's pyramid and height codes? I hope not and don't want to help establish a domino effect pervading the neighborhood and town. [clears throat] I struggle to find a unique uniqueness rationale for approving this application. This lost size, shape, neighborhood, and situation within Dunland constrains what should be built as per the variant standards promagated in 255-850 of the town code. A. I believe granting the height and pyramid variances will negatively impact the character of the neighborhood and cause a detriment to nearby properties. B. I'm not an architect and don't know how the owner can feasibly add GFA to the house without requiring variances, but I would imagine there are means to do so that would require less substantial variances. C. Even though the height and

165pyramid variances requested are less than the existing nonconformities, they are substantial nonetheless. Uh whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood or in the affected area of the town. For me, this is the crucial consideration. I believe allowing additional bulk with pyramid and height v variations does adversely affect the physical condition of the neighborhood and establishes or sanctions a negative precedent. um though not determinate the difficulty posed by this application is self-created I believe uh I further believe that with an IIA septic system proposed reveation and providing uh project limiting conditions provided that the project condition uh limiting conditions are met then an NRP NRSP is likely warranted. It is however moot in that I vote to deny the variances which

166would require it. >> Thank you Terry. >> Okay. I agree with my uh fellow board member here. It's we I was around for the first iteration that we had of this project um in which was a a denial. Um looking at this this iteration of it to me not much not that much has changed to make me change my mind. Um they they are asking for 831 square feet of first and second story additions. The first application was about 827. So actually a couple feet smaller. Um they did make improvements on the pyramids and moved some of the work to the northern side of the house. In addition, they are offering well might be required a IIA system. Um, however, they're still increasing some of the nonconformity on that and um the flat roof in

167the back um I find uh to totally unwarranted. it's to to have a roof deck um it exceeds building height and I believe it actually exceeds it by more than is in the notice but regardless when I look at the drawings for this and look at it from the the eastern view and the western view aside from the pyramids of the the northern portion of the house the the current pyramid also it just the that second story deck just jumps out at you uh further blocking views and from both the house to the east and the house to the west. Um [snorts] so I I do think this does not meet the standards of the NRSPs and the the variances. they they're still too much and the the construction of the 831 I believe brings

168them very close to the maximum proposed building coverage >> um of which is they're proposing 1451 and I believe the maximum is 1510 so on this kind of a constrained lot uh and the addition of having needing an NRSP I think this property is just too constrained to be able to handle all that additional housing. They they could come up with possibly something that's less than 831 ft uh in addition. So I I think the variance is not the minimum necessary. I think it will further um in this whole area of Bontto by the Sea uh potentially to just continue uh a detriment to the the entire neighborhood and the town as a whole. Um I actually unlike my fellow board member so far um the house to the west um that we know with

169the dormers was a very unusual and unique situation and in that case I was on the board for a denial or at least one denial and then uh that configuration that looks kind of strange right now. It was actually a very wellthoughtout project. Um, and uh, but this one I think will just be intrusive on on the west and the the east side and I think it it is self-created and uh, they think it's not the minimum variance necessary. I don't know what alternatives they have other than do something less in in terms of the numbers. So I remember denying this application at all. >> Thank you, Ed. Yeah. Um I was part of the uh approval on and denial and approval of the house immediately to the west. And uh when you look at

170that approval, uh one of the reasons we did approve it, one of the reasons I approved it, I can't speak for the board, was that the sizable structure that existed already blocked the western view, already had the impact on the house, already had a uh an effect on the quality of life, let's say, of everyone else in the neighborhood. So those dormers once they were reconfigured and became less massive didn't strike me as at that time having an amazing or an important effect on the immediate neighbor. The question now is is that the same case here is what we're asking that being what they're asking to have done here uh is it not larger than greater than what already exists but just a reconfiguration within that basic framework has it expanded as was pointed out

171to the maximum GFA and is that something we should call back I found this to be a very difficult one because I think that we didn't necessarily establish precedent but we understood the neighborhood enough when we looked at at the one immediately to the test and we said yeah given the conditions of what's there given the neighborhood given what we see immediately around it and given the size of the existing house how much different is it to allow them now I go to Kanger and I say the same question look at the size of the house as it exists look at the roof line we change and we have the flat roof of course comes under a different set of uh different scrutiny it doesn't allow for the same height as a pitched roof that

172flat roof that gets added has got to be and we have a sizable Um we're asked to approve a sizable uh variance here. Yeah, it's sizable. It's less than the first take on that. I'm not sure that I see that this is changing as dramatically. Uh the conf that configuration is changing dramatically the effect on houses on either side of it. I think the most compelling argument to deny it is the one that was meant [clears throat] made by member Thorson and that is are we opening the door to changing the character of the neighborhood? And we've looked at that closely on other other architectural uh endeavors, other projects here, other applicants saying if we allow this, are we saying that we believe that this is the right configuration for future houses? Will we see

173all the houses in this subdivision rise up and say, why can't we do a second floor and bolted ceilings and all the other things that could happen? I agree with that. That's a fair argument. But those are houses that would have to come in front of us to change massively their configuration. I don't think this is massive change of configuration. I think the ma the bulk of the house is there. I think we're asking they're asking to add some things on it. When we denied the last one, I will say one of my main considerations before we talked about elevation was the fact that it was moving they were changing the footprint to the south, moving into the into the duneland. That was a no-go for me. And I know that was a quick denial

174in my mind because we were not going to I was not going to approve a movement further into the dunland. When I come back here and I look at this one and I see what's there, I appreciate the member what the other members have said. I don't think there's anything wrong about what they've said. I just ask myself when I'm done, is this a significant change from the existing house that is really having an adverse effect on the neighborhood? I think the argument about character is one has to be considered. But all in all, I think this was a fairly reasonable approach on how to add space kind of conducted uh contract it in a way that it did not expand into Dunland and I was not particularly I did not feel that it particularly

175doing anything that's significantly different than what is already there. So I am going to approve it uh and I with with reservations and with agreeing with a lot of what I've heard. But nonetheless, on the bottom line, I don't think that we're approving here opens up a precedent for all the other houses in the neighborhood. They have to come in front of us and they're in their own neighbor. I think where they sit here with the one immediately to the west, what they what they what they represent in terms of mass, I am not offended enough to think that I'm going to deny this. So, I will, Mr. Chairman, approve this application. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> Thank you. The project tonight is to construct proposed addition along the western and eastern property lines,

176one variance of 1.5 ft to allow flat roof to be 26.5 ft above grade with 25 is the maximum allowed. If approved, this will create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. Alternative designs should have been looked at to not diminish or lose or cause damage to natural features. I think the level of development given the constraints of the property. My main concern is maintaining this dune land habitat for the future. What's the importance of that? It's stabilizing sediment um to not affect the dunes and duneland features on this property. The rear of the property is a dune formation with beach heather, beach plum, and barberry. The project before us will clear approximately an additional 250 square ft of revitation to the rear of this residence. And let's not forget the northern portion

177of the property has already been cleared of its native habitat a long time ago. This will set, I believe, a poor precedent if approved because many of the neighboring properties are modest in size. And I do feel this will change the character of the neighborhood. As the TAM states, the size and shape of the residence on this small non-conforming property make the existing improvements non-conforming to pyramid and height max. So if the pyramids are granted, you'll be increasing the nonconformity along the western and eastern lot line. Whether the grant will cause an undesirable change, I believe it will. Whether benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method other than an area variance. I believe it can. Whether the area of variance is substantial. Yes, this is very substantial. Whether the difficulty

178causing the applicant to request an area of variance was self-created. Yes, alternatives could have better addressed the substantial variances and the detrimental impact it will have on the neighborhood. uh alternative reasonable uses of the property do exist and the project I don't feel will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general particularly with regard to visibility scale and the overall appearance of this project. [sighs and gasps] All of the improvements involve more clearing of beach of beach vegetation in an area characterized by sensitive duneland beach vegetation which exists throughout the entire area. This is um part of the reason why we'll be denying this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. [clears throat] that for me it comes down to the applicant's [sighs] presentation on

179the hearing of whether or not this is the minimum request necessary or the minimum variance necessary and they tried to prove it. They talked about plate meeting, plate height, and that was a reason for um for their um stating it. Um but if you look at the drawing, it's plate height of the second floor. It's not a plate height of the first floor. Um which to me like if they want if they're looking for additional square foot there, I I do believe there's an alternate design uh necessary. And I think rather than piercing and I think the variances are substantial here that rather than piercing pyramid and height they could have increased the square footage of the house and make it more livable for them by lowering that and bringing it down into the first

180floor matching the first floor plate height. So there I think there are alternative um designs that they could have come come up with. I do agree with the assessment of the uh property to the west that that had my four other board members that were president at the time like me. I do feel that great scrutiny was done on that and the impact on that relative to the existing was a lot less. This has a bigger impact visually. has a bigger impact um and and the character of the neighborhood uh is does have an impact on the environmental uh conditions of the property. Um I um I too will be voting to to deny this application. I think there is a viable alternative to increasing square footage and usability of this structure rather than what's

181been before us. Um and that's the reason. So I would vote to deny it as well. >> Good council. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Thank you, John. >> You're welcome. >> Thanks, John. [clears throat] Okay, next we have David and Lisa Welch at 240 Westlake Drive in Montalk Map number 300-12-4-28.1. Size and location is 55,371 square feet at 240 Westlake Drive lots four and five block 155 in Mog Beach development core cloud September 7th 1927 is map number 1024 Malk the description is to demolish an existing 3,022T one-story residence and constructive 5,139 foot two-story residence with an attached garage 600T pool and spa 9114 square f foot of decks 278 square ft of patio outdoor shower IIA sanitary system on a property containing title wetlands relief s natural resources special permit pursuant to

182255420 of the town code and one variance is required for this application a variance of 21 ft is needed from 255 375B to construct the IIA sanitary system from 179 179 ft from the wetland where two thou 200 ft is required in any of the relief necessary. Zoning district is a resident X flood zone and V8 and secret classes type two. >> This was mine. >> Okay, go for it. >> Yeah. Okay. Um I'll tell you right now um there are questions in terms of some of the numbers on this application that I still can't figure out and get straight. Um the it the application is for an NRSP and the variance of 21 foot for the IIA system. Um the hearing date was on September 30th, 2025 and uh we had submissions at that

183time on September 26th. Um the the TAM uh the TAM so September 26 we had uh submission from Nelson Pope Vorhees and in included in that uh attached to that were the architectural plans by Robert Young. Um the land Dandro Andrews engineering sanitary sanitary plans that have been revised and um the whole list of documentation that up to that point. There were previous submissions on this going all the way back to August of 2024 [snorts] and I'm not going to address what changing during all that time. So what I want to start with is with the hearing. Uh Beth Baldwin was the attorney representing them and um Robert Young who was the architectural uh person [snorts] from that that uh firm and Nelson Pope Vorhees. The documentation that we received was by Jason Ames. were

184done, right? Justin Ames, excuse me, but the person at the actual hearing was Brent and I didn't catch his last name, but um so we on the 26th of September, uh we got the submission um and this is the one that we had in hand at the actual time of the hearing. They they had submitted the documentation. Um actually we didn't have everything in hand at the the actual hearing. Um but the plan had been updated numerous times and the survey survey that it was using was March 6 from 2025 at the hearing. Um and 32625 for the submitted plans. So a lot of the discussion it's it's for an NRSP and a lot of the discussion at the hearing one of the things in the TAM well a lot of things in the TAM

185one of the things in the TAM had recommended that uh perhaps the uh well they they the planning department had recommended that perhaps the sanitary could comply better with the [snorts] the uh setback. It was it's listed at 100 [laughter] 179 square uh feet from the wetlands where 200 was required. Uh there was some discussion at the hearing whether it should be 200 or 150 by Beth Baldwin. Uh regardless uh what the applicant did at the hearing was come in and state that they would have [clears throat] they could move the sanitary system so that it met a a only needed a variance from the 200 ft of a half foot. [snorts] Um however the discussion in the the hearing uh was that that type of system would require some ejector pumps to be included

186in the septics and it would push out uh some some vegetation some trees would have possibly have to go. Uh the the the chair brought up the discussion on the sanitary system and the ejector versus the the gravity system that was originally suggested and uh at the 179 ft from the 200 ft wetlands. And um the board at that time did collectively agree that we preferred the gravity method and so the applicants were going to revert back and submit new plans with the original uh septic location in it. >> [snorts] >> Um the the house itself uh basically they the house they showed um the charts on the existing [cough] the existing setbacks. Um the clearing on this house was at 45,146 square ft. Um it was deemed as pre-existing non-conforming to clearing. [snorts] Uh

187the building coverage existing was 3,475 ft square ft and total coverage 9,374 and GFA at 3,22 square ft. Uh [snorts] the wetland setbacks for the existing house was 97 ft and 71 ft for decking. Uh what the application proposed was uh setbacks of 100 100 ft [snorts] 100.4t for pool deck and 101 for.1 for the residents. [snorts] Um the sanitary setback uh improved from 152 for the existing one which was basically in the same near the same location as the new proposed uh to 179 ft set back for that. The [clears throat] clearing as proposed the was going to be 36,717 [snorts] um and where the max allowed in the H pod district this is in H pod is 16,000 and3t square feet >> [snorts] >> um still leaving it quite for about 20,000 square

188feet over uh the building coverage proposed was 52 229 and the max allowed would be 7 7204 and the total coverage on this was proposed at 11,685 with max allowed at 9212. Um the GFA numbers on some of this um seem odd perhaps. Uh I'm not sure, but in the TAM as uh it was that the GFA was going from 3,000 22 foot one foot res 22 square foot one-story residence up to and construct a 5,139 square foot residence, twostory residence. So, it was a change of 2,117 ft and noted in the TAM as a pretty substantial 70% increase in the GFA. Um, I tried to go back uh on some on the the history of this application and the house and the the changes that had happened along the way, but there's a history

189of this with the ZVA and applications that had gone in and out um from the the >> ask a question. Do we really need to get into that? This is a redevelopment of a property. So once they once they redevelop we start from new. So treat it like a new property. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So going back to the hearing on the on the 30th uh Grant Riner from now in corporate Vorhees. So they the applicant were offering there had been an existing scenic easement on the property and the applicants were offering to increase the scenic easement from a there was a 50-foot wetland buffer proposed and in the they were incre offering to increase that up to uh a variable line of 75 foot um and reveate to ultimately bring the the

190application into uh still quite a substantial uh under the clearing allowance over the clearing allowance rather of 20 about 20,000 square feet. They they retreated the house at four feet and they were removing a number of patios, a greenhouse and some other brick patio and a shed that um had existed on the property. And that those were all more seawwood of the seawward of the the home and [snorts] the so the the house and everything retreated back. The pool is at a outside of wetlands jurisdiction but 100.1 foot for the pool. Um and [snorts] so the discussion there it was a big improvement on it and they were offering to reveate naturally and a no no pesticide no mowing zone of um native species and there was a revitation plan that has been submitted. Uh

191we left the hearing that night with them to redo the the documents to revert back to the the septic system at the 179 foot variance. And we did receive on October 14th documents from Nelson Pope Voy's and a new set of documents from the proposed survey updated on October 7th, 2025. Sanitarian drainage plans updated by Dandro Engineering on October 14, 2025. Uh planting plan updated on October 6, 2025. and a comparative analysis plan by Nelson Pope and Vorhees on October 6th, 2025. So we have those documents. Um I want to talk about the comparative analysis to go over that again. And we have a existing if you look at that it shows the It shows the all the changes and the the total picture of the plan and the the proposed wetland buffer area non

192fertilization and uh the lot building coverage numbers which um >> again I'm just going to interrupt this is all part of the record Terry so we can we can kind of get to the question. So, the bottom line on this is that I do think it meets the NRSP standards. Um, the environmental improvements are obvious. this replacing uh turf grass that covered almost the entire area that will now be vegetated uh up to almost the area of the structures on this and the sanitary system variance uh of 19 ft uh 21 ft rather is um minimus the minimus I think they meets the variant standards. The alternatives have been discussed on that and this was the minimum variance necessary for the septic. So with these documents on this and I am going to approve this

193application. Thank you. >> Yeah. Um the um in this application, the one thing that's most seriously to consider about this to start with is the fact that the residence is going from 3,22 ft to 5,139. That's a significant increase in the size of the structure. We start there. This is property that's on the lake. So of course, it's going to require an NRSP. I think significantly the work that was done in the planning here resulted with the required they were required to get an NRSP and one variance that's the only variance was the one for the septic discussions already been brought up but what went on that night by member Burgerer they had originally said 179 ft they tried to work hard to see if they could reduce that 1995 the chair brought up that

194adding a complication of pumps and things that if we were already happy with the 179 which it seemed like the planning department thought had described as in the best possible location that why don't we do that. So what we come down to very quickly is a retreat of a house from the ro water which we we propose. No uh no varianc is needed for the new structures of any sort and then the major question was what were they going to do for us beyond the IIA system to protect the uh protect the [clears throat] lake. They the suggestion on the TAM was to do an additional 75 ft back as a buffer an additional buffer. um they came up with a more imaginative plan where they have a bit of a semicircle and it's going

195to curl up. The square footage is the same as if it was a straight 75 foot. It turns out that with that configuration, it allows the applicant a little more space for children and other activities on a lawn. When we asked the planning department that night, they had no problem with it. They thought that we got uh basically what was a good buffer, a solid one. There was some discussion about access to the beach and allowing re reveation on its own naturally down on the beachfront. All of these were positives. It wasn't a hard one for me. I think in the end this was a an applicant that thought long and hard about what they'd have to do by living on the lake. They retreated the house. They made sure that didn't require variances in

196any one direction. The numbers have already been gone through about all the various uh coverages. I think the fact that it does not come close to, you know, it's 20,000 ft shy that what they've added is a reasonable effort. It was pointed out that night that the um that this had been previously cleared. And so this is a this is a lot that was cleared all the way down a lawn all the way down to the water. We see a retreatment of the house. We see a reveation of that area. We see a new IIA system. and we're not required as long as we're willing to accept where the septic went where we all agreed to. Was only that one variance. I'm going to approve this application because I think that it was well thought

197out. I think it was well presented. >> Thank you, Jane. >> Thank you. Excuse me. Um, so we know this is a 1.1 acre lot. It's located on the southwest part of the shoreline of Lake Malkque. Um and you know just to review the context here which does uh contribute to my consideration of this application right Lake Monttok significant fish and coastal wildlife habitat component of piconic eststerary critical environmental areas um it's the parcel is within the lake mont scenic area statewide significant um and the SAS report does mention that residential development around The lake is identified as discordant feature with SAS while natural vegetation is desirable. Um and as we know it's also in an H pod. Um and the planners remind us that Lake Monttok itself um is very challenged and if not

198impaired water body. Um some just a couple other statements from the TAM. the protected natural resources need to be confir conserved and enhanced as much as possible to maintain the character of this area. Um and including limiting the amount of development. Um okay so um excuse me for one second. Okay. as submitted in August 20, 2024. Um the chairs um but per per the letter in the file from the chair that uh con called [snorts] the application complete it was um that completion happened 5 weeks prior to the J July 1 effective date of the revised GFA code. So, as the c as the applicant said during the hearing, as they are permitted, they are quote exercising their GFA grandfathering. Um, the max under the old code would have been 6,43. Um the original application

199um as it was cited in the application itself and also in several memos that are in the file from uh Nelson Pope and Vorhees put the GFA at the proposed GFA at 6,44. um and that was reiterated at least I think three times in the documents in the file when um and and that was shown on the related surveys at the time. Now that GFA number we know was revised much more recently on September 26, 2025 in a Nelson Pope Borhees letter um that was revised down to 5,139 square ft. Um however I did note that when you look at the plans compare the plans related to the two different numbers and the survey you don't really see any reconfiguration of the house at all to reflect something like a 12 almost a 1300 reduction

200in the size of the structure. So we explored this during the hearing during the public hearing. Um you know given that the code specifies that quote spaces with ceilings of less sorry um spaces with floor to ceiling height in excess of 15 ft shall be counted twice. Um so it wasn't really clear from what they were saying um whether it was being counted and at the end of the day that's going to be a building inspector's um decision um if this you know gets to uh get a building permit. I'm not a building inspector. So, I am only considering this application based on the 5,139 um per per the Robert Young Architects A 101 um and also a comparative analysis in an NPV package dated September 26, 2025. The GFA of the existing house is

201stated repeatedly as 2,420 square ft. Um so the GFA is expanding um by by expanding by 2719 square ft. So that more than doubles the size of the GFA or it's plus 112% compared with the existing. The house is shifting a dimminimous four feet from its current position relative to the wetlands. Um improving four 4 feet. Um the there's also a 3757 ft basement that includes some meaningful amount of habitable space. The coverage building coverage is expanding by 53%. Total coverage is expanding by 26%. Um and all in this is a very significant increase of development and intensity of use on this property. Now we know an IIA septic is required um and can have some benefits but the point of upgrading um the septic is to mitigate a lot of existing flows as opposed

202to not necessarily facilitate significant new development. I of course appreciate the reveation and the easement offer. Those numbers have just been gone through. Um per the survey that the last survey we got um post the post the hearing clearing is to be reduced from 45,146 to 31,191. Now the new clearing that leaves the new clearing remaining 95% above the 16,03 um uh H pod maximum. I know there's pre-existing non-conforming clearing, but on a total redevelopment, I think I've heard the board say this before, and I would agree, there should be an expectation of resolving or eliminating nonconformities. Just earlier this evening, we heard a planner mention that when a development is in both HOD and NRSP jurisdiction, that bar um gets a bit higher and more stringent relative to um the H pod clearing level.

203The applicant's agent asserts in their memorandum, sort of like a memorandum of law, quote, "This redevelopment sets a precedent for other redevelopment projects along West Lake Drive." While the agent characterized that precedent as positive, um I there is um that is not necessarily as I see the code and this application um not it's not necessarily positive. expanding um this this much while leaving a property um significantly non-conforming to H pod um could be detrimental to these the natural resources um and the character especially the character of the neighborhood. So just wrap up with the some of the standards. Um 25551C compatibility um building structure for which an NRSP is sought must be found to be compatible with the purposes set forth in 25511. I'll come back to 25511 in a moment. Um D preservation. No

204natural resource feature or system designated um in 255412 will be diminished in size, polluted, degraded or lost or placed in peril thereof in order to establish such a structure. Um based on the significant expansion of structure and intensity of use, I do see the potential that um the natural feature um could be placed in peril. Um and then uh compatibility the site of the proposed um the proposed will be in fact compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and the community in general particularly with regard to visibility scale and overall appearance. I don't believe that this application will meet that standard given that um I I don't the scope of this redevelopment is far larger than um what characterizes the um character of this area. Um and then um just to

205wrap up within 255 1111 I don't think this application meets um uh C aesthetic attributes um D character um and uh E protection of hamlets in neighborhoods. So all in I'm going to uh deny this application. >> Okay. So the applicant has addressed all of the issues and concerns connected with this project in a letter dated October 13th [clears throat] 2025 from Nelson Pope and Boris. They have updated the application to reflect the covenant scenic easement, the ZBA's preferred location of the IIA system and the relocation of the pool equipment from the sideyard to the basement of the proposed residence. They've relocated the septic system is now 170 ft from the landwood edge of the wetlands boundary. I believe this meets the NRSP and varian standards and I'm approving this in its entirety. >> Thank

206you. [clears throat] I'm going to say this. We have an application here. The applicant has a has the burden of proof to come before us and prove this. They brought us uh in my estimation an amazing job. We have a we have a TAM that does not reach we are we are our board is does not have the um experience and the professional um wherewithal to make decisions like I heard just heard and and to reach way beyond what two sides have have have recommended to this board and that is the evidence which we need to weigh this evening on this application. ation. I believe this applicant and the planning department and their and the analysis from both sides supports the approval of this application. I think this is a model um application coming before

207us and I'll approve this application. Thank you. We have other decisions. Kez LLC, 23 East Lake Drive, Montalk suffic tax map number 300-20-2.2. It's a modification. Tyler, >> we're not ready for that. There was uh Morgan found some issues that she needs to address with the uh applicant and then they get back to us in time. Um so we'll be back in November when we have our next uh meeting on that one. >> Okay. >> We have the draft minutes of October 7th, 2025. I take motion to approve the draft minutes from October 7, 2025 for the recept town zoning board of appeals. >> We have a second. >> I'm sorry. Second >> Concur. Motion to approve the draft finish of October 21st, 2025 trans. >> Second. >> Concur. We have resolutions. Jason Gold Clang

208at 66 Pepperage Lane, Abiganzis of test map number 300-127-4-10. >> Um, yes, you'll remember that this was an application uh for legalizing a number of things and making some small additions like a covered little bit of a covered porch. Um and then the the the more um controversial part of the application to clear was all removed. Um this was a unanimous decision um approval, excuse me. Um in the matter of Jason Goldclang 66 Pepperbridge Lane, Amigans at Suffet County Tax Map 300-127-4-10. I make a motion to um accept the resol to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. Concur. >> Concur. >> We have Jasmine and Edmond Khalil at 84 Northwest Road, East Hampton, South Map number 300-91-1-1.7. This was an application regarding a tennis court. This was approved by the and unanimously by the

209board to make a motion in um the res in the application of Jasmine and Edmod Khalil 84 Northwest Road, East Hampton South M 300-91-1-1.7 to approve the resolution as written. >> Next one is mine. Oh, concur. >> You can go. You can go. I'm ready. I'm ready to go home. >> Yeah. MVP MV Realy Group Corps 315 Gerard Drive and >> let her know she's she's reading it in. That's fine. >> In Spring, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-64-2-14. This application was to allow the continued reconstruction of a residence with approximately 630 square feet of decking and add twotory dormas on a parcel of land containing duneland beaches and located within the town's jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. This was a 50 to approve. I'd like to make a motion to approve the determination for this

210application um as written. >> Second career. Next we have Jet. Jeff, sure. You want to read it? You [clears throat] can tell me. Go for it. >> Uh Jeffrey Minich and Amy Agnello at 93 Dura Avenue, Montto Sub County Tax Map 300-5-2-15. This was a an application to approve a patio and sideyard sideline yard variance on the north side of the house. I believe we all approved this. Did you approve it, uh, Jane? >> Uh, yes, I did. >> I was not here, John. >> I'm sorry. Hold on. I'm sorry. John approved it then. I should have read the list. Okay. So, it was it was approved unanimously. So, I'd like to make a motion then to um I'd like to make a motion then to approve the the determination [clears throat] as written for

211Jeremy Jeffrey Minich and Amy Agnelloo at 83 Jur Avenue Montalk Subar County Tacmac 300-5-2-15. Like to make a motion to approve the determination at this time. a second. Second, [laughter] I >> I would like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting >> on October 28th, 2025 at 9:35 p.m. >> Second. Thinker.