East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 10/21/2025

001All right, GBA, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. Welcome everybody to the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for October 21st, 2025. Uh we have some scheduled public hearings this evening. I'll read the first one into the record. First applicant is Alexander Charles McDonald at 123 Harbor Boulevard Springs. Soft test map number 300-95-6 is 12.2. The size and location is 14,000 ft at 123 Harbor Boulevard 1 through 6 filed July 23rd 1911 as a map number 16 in Springs. The description is to allow a first story addition to remain 13.8 8 ft and slate pavers to remain 14.7 ft from the rear lot line where 15 ft is required. The variances of 1.2 ft and.3 ft pursuant to 25511 of East

002Hampton Town Code is required to allow the addition to remain 13.8 ft and slave pavers to remain 14.7 ft from the rear yard lot line where 15 foot is required. Any other relief necessary? The zoning district is B residence zone X flood zone in the secret classes type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Uh I have not received this yet. I know this is one where we had some issues with the applicant. So with the posting I think he's here though so we have to take >> Yeah. Okay. So say that yeah you got to take care. >> So there's no affidavit on this one. But it wasn't posted. >> So, and I'll let the applicant discuss it. And Morgan Morgan was working with him, too. But I I

003believe there was I have an affidavit and the posting uh seems to be done correctly, but the mailings went out a little late um because of a snafu with the assessor's office. He wasn't able to get the addresses on time, but I'll let him discuss that. But so we were off by according to the affidavit and this they were mailed out on the 14th when they should have been mailed out uh on the 11th. So they missed it by a few days. >> So suggestion would be to do what? >> Um I think because of the facts that I was conveyed that he had gone to the assessor's office and the assessor said he had to foil to get the addresses which is not I I don't know why they did that. So, he didn't

004have the addresses. >> So, do you think we should >> Yeah, we could have the public hearing and then um do a uh keep it open for proper notice to the next uh meeting. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. You said there's an FA posted. Was it posted? >> It was posted on the property lines, but the mailing went out a few days late. >> He he did the mailings that >> So, when would we when would we leave it open till? Because it's already been posted. Uh there was no posting there today, >> right? And there was no posting. >> So >> I don't I don't know about the post. I mean, I just have the affidavit. I don't know if it was posted at the >> If we'd left it open till November 18th,

005would that be appropriate? >> I think so. >> Okay, I'm ready. >> So, I went there today and this is I'm standing on Harbor Boulevard and I'm facing the residence and I'm walking uh down the driveway, which is a gravel driveway. Uh, next please Morgan. Oh, this is just another visual a little bit closer. Shows the chimney and um, next please. Now I'm uh, actually the on the side where the addition is and underneath this deck is where the papers are uh, in the gravel under the deck. Next, please. A kind of a better picture of where you could see the pavers. Next, please. This is the northwest side of the property. Uh, next, please. This is the um the steps leading up to the entrance. Um, and there's just stones leading up to the

006steps. It just continues the gravel driveway as you walk in. Next, please. This is actually on the southeast side of the property. uh a little bit past the addition. This actually really slopes dramatically to the rear of this property and what you're looking at is a concrete wall and I'm literally standing on top of it looking down. Next, please. This is a just took a photo of the outdoor shower. Next, please. This is the rear of the property. Um just to give you an idea of what the whole house looks like. Next, please. This is fencing that appears to be I almost thought it was encompassing the entire property, but in the front of the property when you're standing on Harbor Boulevard, there is no fencing. So, next, please. >> I think that might be

007it. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Have the applicant agent come on up. >> Announce your who you are and your address. >> I'm Alexander Childs McDonald. Address is 123 Harbor Boulevard, East Hampton, New York. You an attorney? >> Are you an attorney? >> I'm not. >> Okay. Would you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Oh, you can present your >> So, my the addition that was put on my house was built um uh too close to the property line. Um I only learned this during the uh initial inspection, which was March 2024. after everything had been um built and um the inspector, Ryan Bonitez, had come to my home to check the the project and make sure everything

008was um up up to snuff and and good to get approved. Um and I'll just comment on the pavers, by the way. They they've already been moved. That shouldn't be um a an issue. I moved them back. >> I'll move so that would show up on a new survey. I think it does show up on the new survey if my my surveyor Tim Taylor I I was back and forth for sure with him >> and the survey just so we're clear uh is >> last revised February 6 2025 just for the record sounds about right yeah >> with the updated papers I have it right here >> but it show it still shows the pavers slightly >> yeah may maybe he didn't I >> I didn't think there was a thing that I had with

009the surveyor and I I'm sorry I don't know which one you're looking and I'd have to look at my records to see which one I have. But I remember speaking to the surveyor specifically about this to make sure he made the adjustment on the plans that were submitted to you. >> Could we zoom in on the date of this survey here? The one we're looking at. >> This is the latest one. Uh does that say February? >> Yeah, >> this is the latest one we're looking at. >> Yeah, that's what I >> That says updated papers. [Music] And if you could point to where we're talking about, Morgan. There. There you go. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm sorry. Can I clarify? So you're saying that versus what's reflected on this survey, you're saying

010that the pavers have been moved further away from >> they so originally the pavers were in line with the edge of the house and they were moved back so that it matched the 15 it it might be more than 15 ft but it respected the 15 ft. Um >> um so it's up to code. >> Okay. So then being that so Tim Taylor he has surveyed it and >> he has surveyed it. He's the one who did the survey. >> All right. May we being that the record might stay open, we might request a copy of that be sent in. >> A copy of the the most recent one that he did. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. I thought you had it. >> What h on as far as the the addition though? What was was

011what did the building permit show? The drawing showed we had the architect here. I want to come on up and introduce yourself. >> Yeah, I'm Jonathan Foster. I'm an architect. I've been in East Hampton for a very long time and u hold on. >> Do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. >> Um so, uh I have a couple of things to give you guys. >> Thank you. >> You can pass them down a little bit here maybe. >> Sure. I think there are six copies of everything and I'm also giving you a letter I wrote to ago. [Applause] >> Thank you John. >> I don't see this. Yeah, this is new. So, we started Well, oh, go ahead. Oh, go ahead.

012Um, at the very from the very beginning, the property line was sort of mysterious and um um uh the fence there was a a split rail fence, the rotting. It's all over the place and so forth. U and I try I and there's this concrete wall which you described which uh is, you know, fathered in, grandfathered in now. But, uh, I thought, well, this, you know, what what is actually going on here? I went in and spent some time with Dawn Green at the building department to find out. She said, well, you got to get rid of all the furniture, all the decking, all the whatever stuff is in in that underground area and uh and uh and so forth, but couldn't really deal with the dimension off the property line. And I wanted to

013get the surveyor to give me a spot, you know, uh and he kept saying it's just the fence line, but the fence line I was able to measure from the fence widely differing, you know, uh um uh dimensions from from one spot to another. It's just uh very difficult. So, having said that, I thought I had worked out a way to make sure I was very easily within our rights. Um um the u uh then uh we put it out to bid and picked a builder, Phil Miller, who lives in East Hampton, too. And u um he um I went over with the whole plans with him, everything, all the details, where everything went and so forth. And I said, "Can you do this? You want to do this?" "Yeah, yeah, I'll do it. I'll

014do anything you want." So, day one, I get there. I was out of town when they poured the foundation. Day one, uh I got there and um and the front two feet of the building were cut off. I said, "How how are you going to can lever that? You you you've already done the decking. You you can't just, you know, put it on post here." And he says, "You think I'm going to do that? You're crazy." So he cut off two freed off the front of the house. So then he didn't build the rest of the house exactly to the plans either. And so squishing space in to less than you know taking two feet out uh at the end very end I think that what he did was uh when he built that closet

015and I had had a little little bay window there that's in there that is like was you know well maybe you could sit in it you know but it wasn't didn't go to the ground didn't go to the roof it was just there like a window and um uh he didn't do that uh so what he did was he pushed the concrete the foundation out further than planned. Uh you can see that the red line at the bottom is the two feet cut off and that little um box at the uh uh at the other end at the property line end is um is missing because he used that space for uh building and I didn't know that I mean uh after this going through this project with him. If you read the letter that

016I wrote to the building department, uh that's some of the things that that he did. He he just did not want to follow the plans whatsoever. He want to do everything his own way. And uh it was an incredible problem. Uh and uh I there's nothing I mean there's very little I could have done to to to get him to do it right. You know >> when did you know that there was a problem in terms of you being too close to the property line early on with him? Was this come later on? >> Well, no. I I didn't I I I didn't know until till um um I was told, you know, when >> when you went for CO what >> when you went when when we went for the >> I originally found

017out from Ryan Bonitez, who was the person assigned to the property when he was in the house when he had come to the house >> to get the to inspect the the the job >> for that inspection was >> and that's when I found out. So I think that I think that was March 2024 >> and uh you know with all of this other chaos the kind of that kind of disappeared from my mind as a as an issue because I thought it was under control and but contractor wasn't really in control. So hey does anybody have any questions? >> I just wanted to clarify Jonathan. So, what you handed us and you're talking about this red line here, >> but I'm trying to orient this relative to the little part on the survey that's

018in question. >> The big red line is right here. Uh, so that comes along here. These two feet are gone. >> And then there's a little box that comes off the back end. >> This wall should really be here. And that box goes out to that spot. See? >> I'm sorry. I don't see a bo I see an AC unit, but I don't see AC. It says >> window. >> No, look at this. >> No, I'm I'm sorry. I'm trying to reconcile with the survey. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So, that doesn't show that shows what's there, right? >> This is what plan to do. >> This was the plan. Okay. You're showing that he deviated from deviated. >> So what we're saying is that that bay window bumpout >> was planned and approved to

019meet the 15t setback. >> Is that what you're saying? That's what you're saying. >> But it's a bay window. It doesn't No foundation. >> Microphone, please. >> The foundations go to the foundation and building. If there's a bay window above it, it's different. >> Okay. Okay. >> Any other questions? >> I have no more. Thank you. >> I'm good. >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [Applause] >> Keep this open >> for proper posting until the So we need >> I only hear you for the proper posting. >> So you need to get they said that the sign right did he said the sign wasn't there? The poster wasn't there. >> I put two up. >> There were no I'm sorry. You know, I look a lot of times with a storm something blows down.

020I did look around. I must have blown away. >> Yeah. So, we'll have to get We're going have to get new posters. >> Yeah. >> Um and then get new posters, put them up >> and we'll come back and the the mailings went out, so we don't have to do the mailings, but the >> the poster will go up and then you don't have to come back. You can if you want on the 18th you you should probably if you can come back >> and that way if a neighbor wanted to discuss this they could I >> okay >> I have a feeling that they probably won't but you never know. So >> we'll just leave it open for proper notice. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you very much. >> Don't leave yet because

021we're not done. Morgan has to come up and do her thing. >> Hi Morgan. >> Hi. Good evening board. Morgan Slater for the planning department. Morgan, do you swear for him to tell truth, old truth, and nothing but the truth? I um I don't really have a ton to add to this. It's a pretty straightforward area variance application. Um the Oh, so the addition was constructed under building permit issued in 2023. It was ultimately constructed too close to the property line. I will say the building permit plans that I looked at were a little hard to follow. So, I'm interested to see what was submitted tonight, but I don't think it's really going to change any recommendations from our department. Um, both variance requests I think can be considered as dimminimous. Um, I'm happy to

022answer any questions the board may have about the property or its history though. >> Any questions board members? >> No, thank you. >> No. Thank you, Morgan. Is there anybody in the public like to address this application? Matt, is there anybody online? >> Stand by, please. [Music] And this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV. Making sure that lines are open and clear, which they are, and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Okay. Can we have a motion? We're going to keep the the the hearing open until >> Okay. >> November 18. Okay. >> Okay. in the matter of Alexander Child's McDonald's 123 Harbor Boulevard Spring, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-95-6-12.2. I'd like to make make a motion to close the public hearing, but leave the record open for

023until November 18th. And we're also going to get a copy of a more recent survey. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Secondur. Thank you. [Applause] >> All right. Our next hearing is Margaret and Richard Hirs at 16 Dune Lane Amaganz map number 300-176-4-8. The size and location is 12,375 square feet at 16 Dune Lane, Hampton Dunes, lot 52 filed August 17th, 1966 is map number 4694 in Miganzit. The description is to allow a 962 ft deck, 290 ft woodwalk and outdoor shower to remain within minimum wetland setbacks. Relief sought is three variances of 75.5 feet, 43 feet, and 30.8 feet pursuant to 255430 of the East Samson Town Code are needed to allow the deck to remain 22 feet, outdoor shower to remain 57 ft, and woodwalk to remain 69.2 ft from the wetland where 100

024foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence X flood zone. um 0.2% annual chance flood hazard AE10 secret glasses type two. This is the one we were concerned about the the postposting and the NRS that it's also an NRSP. >> Yeah, we just want to brief it's not posted as an NRSP but it does fall within NRSP jurisdiction. So that in our in our uh in our consideration of this application, it'll fall under any other relief necessary. So the the we're still going to have to uh address the NRSP. >> Yeah. And I I review the uh affidavit of notice and posting and everything's good to go on this one. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Good evening everybody. Um, so I went to visit the property and um,

025full disclosure, I live around this neighborhood, so I walk by the property often and I had seen that it had been properly posted for quite a while. This is on Monday. We had a big blowing storm overnight and when I came to the property, the the uh, card that was posted on the board was in the puddle. Um, so I picked it up. I didn't want to leave it in the puddle. I think I had asked the office to reach out to the agent if she wanted to go and repost it, but I I do believe it had been fair, you know, it had been fully posted properly until it hit the puddle. Okay, so this is the front of the property. Next slide. Right. This is just a view. I'm looking north on uh

026Dune towards Central Avenue just to get a little sense of the street in the neighborhood. Next slide. Um, okay. I think we're a little out of order here. Um, but anyway, this is these are the steps coming off the driveway. Um, the steps are part part of the um walkway that is that are one of the elements. Um, this is on the north side of the house that front door is on the north side of the house. Um, that will need uh variance. Next slide. Um, as you go up those steps, um, it's a little hard to see because of all the stuff that had been blown around, but that is the brick patio area on the front of the house that is, um, noticed to be removed. Next slide. Um, I'm just going further

027back on that walkway. The whole thing, I believe, needs the uh, relief and the variance. I'm heading towards the back of the or the rear of the property. I'll be swinging around in a moment. Next slide. Um, I just wanted to show along the uh that walkway. So, this property basically is on top of a dune. Obviously, this house was built before there were was natural resources standards. Um, and I just did want to note that a lot of I mean the dune structure is there, but much of the dune land has been I think over time I'll use the word degraded. It's been mulched, it's irrigated. there are a lot of invasives or um ornamentals. So, I just wanted to show that it it's true around the rear of the house as well. Next

028slide. Um all right, so I'm just about to head around the corner rear of the house. That is the shower that is noticed for relief. Next slide. Okay, this is the rear. So, the rear facade of the house is to my right. You can see the door of the shower basically right there. Um, this is the uh portion of the deck that's the closest to the house. Um, and it's um, it's not really a raised deck. It's I think it's pretty much right on the mostly on the ground. Next slide. Um, I'm just turning my back to the rest of the decking. And this is the just the rear of the house. The decking goes right up to the house. Next slide. Um, okay. So, now my back is to the rear facade of the

029house. And that's the decking that extends um really out towards the wetland edge. Sorry, the edge of it extends out. Um and I think I have a next slide. You can sort of see how it's elevated. No, it's we're out here, but um the edge of that rear Oh, yeah. Sorry. That is the edge. You can see at the bottom of the slide of the northern part of the deck. It's not doesn't quite come out well in the photo, but the property drops off pretty steeply um right after um you know the edge of that deck. And then that's the wetlands are back in there. Next slide. I took another view. Um you the colorful stuff in the distance is really in that wetland. As the TAM says, it's a fairly extensive wetland. Just for

030reference for the board, there's a house in the distance. That's 170 Marine which had been before the board and there was a lot of discussion on that application protecting that wetland. So you can kind of see as the Tam says many houses, you know, impact this wetland. Next slide. Um this is the uh south side of the house. This is the decking and the shed that is noted to be removed as part of this application. Next slide. I don't know if I had some street views or Oh, yeah. These, sorry, these were out. So, this was just the front of the house. This is the southern portion of the driveway on dune. You can see the house presents very um set back and you know, not very prominent because of all the vegetation in front

031of it. And then I think I had one more. There's just the rest of the driveway. Yeah, that was the other side of the driveway where the posting was. I think that's it. >> Thank you, >> Sarah. That was it. Andy man up. Good. Good evening, Chairman Delene, members of the board. Richard A. Hammer from Biano and Hammer. I'm here tonight representing Margaret and Richard Hirsch to this application at 16 Dune Lane Navig. Tara is also here with me. I did want to address the posting. Yes, my office. Tara reposted it. I don't Did we even get a call? She stays up at night and wonders to when the wind's blowing and she had reposted that about 1 2 in the afternoon after the rain had stopped. Uh because that's just a a typical thing

032to do. Uh I think your photos captured it well. Fairly modest house in the dunes area. Long predates NRSP regulations. House was built in 1966 or thereabouts. Um we submitted affidavit regarding the deck in question. Uh providing that it predates town wetland regulations. Uh I think it pretty the affidavit are from members of the family uh that prominently remember this deck being built for 1983 or 1984 birthday party of the owner. Uh it was a central feature in his 55th birthday celebration they all seem to remember. Uh I included a letter we found from the original owner who was Bud Hirs uh who has since passed away and he had hired a builder in 1983 to extend the deck to include a spa. the spa is no longer there, but it was at the time

033provided for. Um, and and I actually recognize the builder's name uh on the house uh Ted Vori. I think I've heard that name before in the past through throughout this area. When it was initially built, it had a deck that you can see on the survey, but it was extended about 15 years later. Uh, in my experience, decks at grade level would typically not require a building permit depending how they were built at the time. uh basically uh and I've seen that with pool decking etc over the over the years >> 83 they were requiring a >> typically yes but at grade not always I've seen it both ways basically I can't explain what was there I wasn't there in 1983 but it did look like he hired a builder and his letter >> Joe

034did Christopher Faroh back then or something maybe >> or Bill Gale I one of them >> wasn't >> yeah I don't know who the building inspector was in 88 might have been Fred Sers >> I think I Ired probably a Fred Cers Fred. >> Um so in any event, it was in fact constructed and has been remained in place since that deck. Uh and it was only recently something that we recognized not having a board to legalize it. There is a a for rent sign. Basically the kids have been renting the house. They they uh or they try to over the summer. That's when this first came up when we applied for a rental permit. I said, "Oh, let me see your co." I said, "This thing's from 1966. What the heck's going on?" So,

035in any event, I said we should try to get this legalized. Uh, there's a fair amount of topography in the rear of the lot, uh, that you can see on the survey. It doesn't show up so well in the pictures. You know, what's what's strange is in 1966 or even before that, in 1977 when the DEC had any regulations, they could have just regraded all that and, you know, put up retaining walls. They didn't basically. Uh, I think they've been fairly good stewards of the property since it was improved with a house. They enjoyed the dunland and wetland features. It's hard to tell the areas that are now were dunland or not. You know, those could probably were legally landscaped in 1966 and just continue to the present. Uh but if you look at the

036survey, it's a pretty tight clearing restrict uh regulation around the property. We're well under lot coverage, clearing, all the other regulations under the code. Um I I think the deck that was installed here is certainly preferable to walks or installing a lawn which they probably could have done back in the day as well. Uh clearly not today. Uh I think it does I think it's entirely consistent with the NRSP regulations. As I mentioned, we're well within all the coverage limitations. Uh that wetland in the rear is shared with another property. I think it's right on the property line and there is a house across the way that shares it with us. the line of clearing is respected pretty much right up to the deck and it led some historical credibility to this deck being a

037positive factor on the property. It's not really a negative because once you step off and nobody steps off of that and respects the clearing. The other thing that we're proposing that probably date back to some time period in the past um you know there were quite a few things that the family just said we'll get rid of them. I noticed that front patio. Okay, we'll get rid of that. We'll get rid of the shed. I don't know where it originated, but the family wasn't all that concerned about them and said they would certainly remove it. The existing outdoor shower I, you know, Morgan mentions in her TAM that it's, you know, could be in a more conforming location. It's actually under a second story deck. You know, it seems like a logical place to have

038the deck. It doesn't require any clearing, any improvement. Yes, you could relocate it, but you'd be putting it on currently unimproved surfaces that would require more disturbance. So, I think it's not a bad location where it's currently uh sits right now. Um, it's been there for a long time and as I said, just the least disturbance seems to be preferable. Uh, I'd say this site is basically encapsulated by the uncleared areas. Basically, the the walkway that we're seeking to legalize and all that basically prevent encroachment on onto the unimproved areas. Uh, and I think they're been pretty attentive to protecting the vegetation outside of that their improved areas. I don't believe it's a huge ask. We've established a spend here and it long predates town regulations. Uh, and if you need those affidavit, I can

039have them resubmitted, but they are part of our original application. It's unfortunate the house it's difficult to really see all of this on the aerial photos, but you can see evidence on the photos that Morgan attached that show what appears to be decades. just it wasn't surveyed. It was you know it's not a clear shot that shows it. Uh but you know everything seems to point to this has been there since 1983. Um and in my experience it's just not entirely clear that in 1983 they would have asked for a building permit for this or not. They probably should have but I've seen lots of cases where they haven't. I think the benefit the applicant seeks here, it's a good benefit to the property and it sort of con defines and confines the residential use

040on the property to improve surfaces uh and also provides a measure of protection to the surrounding vegetation. Uh as member Mering mentioned, there is some of this ornamental vegetation. I, you know, I think the board could say, hey, why don't you, you know, be happy to look at getting rid of that? I I don't know. It doesn't look like it's maintained to the nth degree or whatever. and maybe the family would be willing to let that revert to dune vegetation or introduce some dune vegetation, but that was kind of consistent with the entirety of the neighborhood when this is built and kind of how the family enjoyed it up until today. >> I just a note that you know on those aerials that we were referring to in the 19 even in the 1988 Ariel

041what is >> what is pretty clear is the dueland characteristic of the neighborhood is very very clear. So I mean we're losing that over time. >> Yeah. [Music] Can we just make it clear that you're saying that the entire deck we're looking at here was constructed by 1983? >> That is I I am not saying that but that's the affidavit say that that was part of the spa that was constructed in 1983 or 1984. That's what the the family >> only because you know we're asking for a natural resource special permit and it's just for the record you know how did the walkway and decking keeps the environment safe like if approved what would be the justification >> you're not stepping you know you're not what would be the alternative I guess a pathway at

042dirt you know at grade that those tend to have runoff issues everything associated with them and you're you're encouraging trampling of vegetation all that stuff I I also tend to think that walkways over dunes are a good idea because they, you know, require and encourage a single pathway and it's not going to be slopping off. You know, this property is not landscaped as I would think of it where they have lawn mowing and all that other stuff going on. It's kind of a very uh, you know, natural landscaping on the property in general. But I think having these walkways is is a way to protect that. And if you coupled it with a requirement that we revisit some of that revitation, I'm I'm sure they could come in with that and probably it would be

043no problem for the family. >> Um, can I ask the question? So, I don't have in front of me, but I read the um affidavit about Mr. Hersh's birthday party and the recollection of the deck, but I thought they said a deck in a jacuzzi. So what happened to the >> koozie was long lost at the end of the day? I I mean it was probably built into it for a long time. The town didn't require any permits for >> I guess um so was the deck rebuilt after that when the jacuzzi was removed. Do you know or the deck is >> the jacuzzi was framed in and then it was just decked over at the end of the day? And if you go there today that decking that's there I think it's a composite

044decking. So it's clearly the boards are equipped to replace but you can do that without a permit in the town of East >> and on the shower since it comes up. So does it have a dry well at this point? >> I think it's on clean sand. >> Oh, >> you know I mean you question whether or not I don't even know if you could get a dry well in this pretty low grade. But you know if the board asked them to do it I'm sure they could figure out how to install one. It would just be a shallow groundwater and it's over clean sand. Pretty much this whole area is pretty clean. When do you think the shower was built at the same time? What? I can't remember. >> Look, I I don't know

045specifically, but it certainly looks to be several decades old when you look at the photos and visit the site. >> My last question, and I don't know if my other board members have questions or I don't want to hog. It's >> more the enclosure, by the way, on the show. The enclosure is probably the problem on the outdoor shower. You could probably have it sitting on the wall. That would be fine. Uh but it's the enclosure that looks to be several years, many years. You were saying that maybe there could be some discussion about maybe naturalizing some of the area that has the invasives or the ornamentals, but and I don't know if it would make a difference, but since the edge of the deck um is so close to the wetland and there's topography

046there, is there something that you'd be willing to do that might at least protect that last 20 ft of the rear of the property? Well, it'd be tough to say a scenic easement because scenic easements require structures, you know, but we could have a scenic easement that would allow a structure within 10 ft. You know, I think that would be the most permanent protection or a vegetated buffer requirement, a covenant basically that would be filed that would say that beyond the edge of that the existing deck or the approved deck, there won't be any clearing grading or or disturbance of soil or something to that effect. It' essentially be a scenic easement that's not a scenic easement. Either one I think would be a I'd be amendable to. >> And when you uh say you're

047willing to revis visit the reveation, are you immenable to the structures that are removed being those areas being reveated? >> Absolutely. Okay. I think a good condition to consider would be upon you know that prior to the issuance of a building permit they'll submit a reveation plan and in that reveation plan address some of the other issues on the you know but clearly those areas it would be re reunval or whatever it is you know 3-in combs and 16inch centers and we would kind of spread that around basically and show that to the board for uh approval. It would be nice to get rid of a lot of that mulch and the irrigation that really degrades the the sandy character. It's Yeah, agree with you. >> Okay, thank you. >> Any other questions? >> I'm

048good, Sandy. >> Morgan, >> I did want to say I wanted to see Bud's cake 55 cand. >> Yeah, I was just reading that >> the party >> burning brightly. >> Hi, Morgan. Hi, Morgan Slater again for the planning department. Um, this property is on the east side of Dune Lane as part of 1966 Hampton Dune subdivision which was created before the town's natural resources special permit regulations and because they were adopted in 1984. This property is pre-existing non-conforming to minimum wetland setbacks and has an undersized lot area for be resident zoning um both of which are characteristic of this neighborhood. The freshwater wetland is at the rear of the property and consists of a groundwater maintained shrub, swamp, and marsh. The wetlands contain diverse wetland plant species indicative of high soil saturation levels. The

049habitat of the wetland provides benefits to wetland dependent wildlife and provides important flood water retention benefits for the beach area which is floodprone due to its low elevation and development density. The variance request can be considered as substantial and since there are numerous lots in the vicinity of this wetland that are similarly constrained, the board should determine whether this request is unique enough to warrant approval. The planning department has reviewed historical town records and was unable to find any definitive evidence that the deck footprint predates wetland setback regulations. It does appear the deck has been maintained and reconstructed in recent years. Um, the shower is also requesting a significant variance and there does appear to be more conforming areas on the property for an outdoor shower. It's worth noting that the entirety of the residence

050is within 100 ft of the wetland. So, it would be difficult for any structure to on this lot to meet the required setbacks. However, more conforming locations are feasible. Um, I did have the 1988 uh aerial up just before and you can see that there was um significant dune habitat present on the parcel. Uh there has this parcel has not come before the town for much of anything. Um really uh I sent out building history. It'll be available in the file also. Um so it's kind of flown under the radar really until now. Um and I can answer any questions board may have about the lot or its history. >> Any questions board members? >> Well, I have a question about the the variance for the the woodwalk. I didn't see where where is that

051from >> the actual dimension? Yeah, >> I think I took it from >> there kind of this line here where it seems like it turns more from just a deck just to just the straight walkway. So that's where that dimension is coming from >> to that wetland to that same wetland. >> Yeah. So this is what the walkway is measured to is >> okay and the suggestion that there's a better place for the outdoor shower making that suggestion. Yeah, I mean even on the south side of the residence, I think it's provides sufficient, you know, privacy for something like an outdoor shower while having an increased setback. Um, I think it would probably increase that back by 15 to 20 feet potentially. >> So, that's in the area where they're proposing to remove the walkway

052and the shed beyond, right, on the south side. >> Yes, it appears so. >> Okay. And then what I raised about some sort of easement on the topography in the back some sort of protection would that >> it would be a small easement. I'm not sure it would be >> it protects the topography as well. >> It does protect the topography. Any manipulation of that area does still require would be in front of the board because that would require a variance. Um just something to keep in mind. >> Any other questions? >> No. No. Thank you. >> Thank you. Morgan, is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? Anybody online, Matt? >> Yes, you do. Stand by, please. And unmuting last four digits. 0381. You are live. >> Are you here

053for this uh caller? Are you here for this application? Caller. [Music] One more time. Caller, are you here for this application? >> All right, we're going to move on. >> Okay, you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Can we have a motion? >> Uh, okay. Did Did you want to Did the applicant want to follow up at the end or anything or No. >> Uh, >> okay. >> I don't think we need >> I don't think so. Um, so we so how are we I'm sorry. Are we the issue of reveation or anything? Are we leaving that for some sort of >> re have Andy come up and address that because >> how do we want to address that, Andy? Um, >> well, I do I do want to address what

054Morgan said. Oh, we could move the outdoor shower. I would prefer to just have that be part of the reveation on the property rather than creating a new outdoor shower and enclosure area or something. You know, I I think where it's situated right now is requires nothing. And and I think we can do more reveation rather than trying to place a new structure there. Uh my suggestion would be if the board were to approve this, you can require revitation prior to the issuance of a building permit. It will include all the areas where everything's being removed and I will make sure it also includes some of the areas that have regular landscape or you know the mulch or whatever and have that restored to a similar plant >> type. So I will make a motion

055>> in the matter of Margaret and Richard Hirs 16 Dune Lane Amagansit um tax number 300-176-4-08. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and close the record. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. >> Concur. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Jordan Brink in Sali at 49 G Road Malk subm number 300-10-6-5. The size and location is 75,000 ft. 49 G road collodon shores lot 60 map number filed October 16th in 1961 in Montalk the description is to allow a patio to remain 8.8 ft and 9.3 ft from side southern and rear eastern lot lines where 15 ft is required two variances of 6.2 2 ft and 5.7 ft soon to 255 11110 of the East Hampton Town Code is required to allow the existing patio to remain 8.8 ft

056and 9.3 ft from the sideyard and rear lot lines where 15 ft is required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence X flood zone and the secret class is type two. Um council I'm going to ask if we have proper affidavit of service and posting. I think there was an issue here. Yeah, I don't have an affidavit and I think there was some issues with the >> You don't have the >> I don't have an affidavit. >> You don't have an affidavit either. Okay. >> I don't know if anybody's here for the applicant. >> Do you Oh, so they might I don't know if they have >> Can you come up and >> can you announce yourself? >> Regina D Simone. I work at Davis Landscape Design and we did the outdoor

057patio and landscaping. >> Okay. And I'm just going to swear you in. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing true about the truth? But before we get to anything, I've got questions for you as far as the posting. We don't have that David's. We didn't have proper posting on the site. Um, how are we going to address this? Because really, this this hearing should be postponed as a result of that. >> Okay. So, dropped off. Are you talking about the mailings? >> Yes, >> I dropped them off. I I gave her my copies and everything, but I do have three. >> Ah, thank you. >> I have three um neighbors that said no problem. >> Okay, we that's getting to the specific specifics of the case, which we're not

058ready to do yet. So, let's let's address the posting and see if we can have this hearing at all. Yeah. [Music] [Applause] [Music] Okay. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Julie. >> Oh. Oh. [Applause] Yeah. >> Yeah. The uh based off the affidavit um I don't know about the posting on the property, but the mailings were done properly. Uh sent out on September 12th. >> Sorry. >> So, I think one of one another issue is that the posting we saw was low to the ground. It wasn't it wasn't clear where it was and >> it was not a public hearing notice. You can see right there through the grass that's what they had posted and it was not. It was a Davis landscaping >> Yeah. >> sign >> with a little insert. Um they had

059the like the public hearing f folded up inside it but there was no public hearing notice posted. I went several times and >> I don't know. So that's that's an issue, right? So that that we need to have a clear posting up off on the stakes or everybody that drives by everybody neighbors, everybody can see it. And that's not that's not a clear example. >> You must have gotten the correct postings to from the town, right, to put up there. >> Yeah. I I laminated the one that came in the in the packet that you sent. laminated it and we taped it up to that sign right there which >> but the town also >> so hidden >> the town also gives you a bigger sign that you're supposed to pro put in a prominent

060location so people can see it >> for the public >> and that wasn't done >> okay >> so I think I think I can't see into that what I think that is in there is this is this >> right this was >> but that doesn't count Yeah, I understand. I think there was a confusion there, I'm sure. But >> councel, do you have a suggestion how we should proceed? >> I mean, it's up to you guys. They're here. I mean, the mailing has been out for a month and a half. So, >> all right. So, this is similar. We're going to we're going to have to if we do have the hearing this evening, we are going to request that it be properly posted for the correct period of time and to see if we

061get any neighbor correspondents. >> Okay. And you would have to go into the office and ask Julie to give you the posting. It's not mailed. You have to go into the office and get it and post it on your property for 10 days. >> I'll do that. I'll tomorrow. >> Um, you want to hear our report so you can sit down for >> Well, I don't really agree that we should do that, but do that. >> For the record, I do not want to proceed with the hearing. I want to hear what my fellow board members have to say because of because of improper similar to first hearing. No, >> I think in this case and and I'm just going to say this, we have um the the planning department is down a secretary. Um

062and that secretary has been very helpful to people applicants that are not accustomed to the procedures in the property. It's usually the secretary that answers those questions and shows them and preaches that because we're in my opinion because we have that lacking right now that I think there is special occasion for us to continue with this um and be fair um because we just don't have that support in the town. And so I would recommend we continue with the hearing. So, we don't care if people post till a secretary comes back. >> May I? I think it's very similar to what we just talked about in the first application. >> I think if there wasn't an affidavit, I would have a problem with going forward, but it does appear there was an affidavit and there

063was an attempt to post. So, I think if we leave it open till November 18th and you do post the property, it would be similar to what we already did. and >> and I would be okay to go ahead. >> Well, I I was out there and it it's clearly not posted and I think the public should have a reason reasonable opportunity to react to any posting on any property we have now. Uh I'll yield to what you're recommending if you think that that's the proper way to move forward, but we've had this happen now a few times. So if we go through this hearing and it's properly posted for an extended period of time and then they can come back in. I suppose we've actually done that several times before this. But I was

064out with member Burgerer and it is u unfortunate that we're having a hearing where the neighbors have no no knowledge of it's going on. Seems really an unfortunate thing that we've had this come up a number of times. If we move forward with it and we keep it open, I guess it's in keeping with what we've done in other places, but >> I'm not comfortable that we keep doing this over and over. I agree. >> Yeah, we have to stop this and we say that every week, but if we're going to do this one last time, I don't know. I want it left open until November 18th. >> That's fine. Yeah. >> As and I want the applicant back in here for questions, not just has anybody called up. >> November 18th. >> Okay. Fair

065enough. >> That's fair. >> Okay. Can we have a report? >> Oh, yeah. Half of them are the posting different angles. That's how it wasn't there. It's not the correct one anyway. Go ahead, Morgan. Go through them. There's four of them. That's as close as you can get. And you'd have to crawl under there to see it. Okay. Keep going. Another angle. And next. So, nobody could see that. Even if they could, it wasn't right. Anyway. Okay. Now we have a front view of the house itself. And then I'm going to go to the back which is where the the patio is that's in question tonight. Next, uh there's a gate. It's actually six foot also. And I I just put that out there because I don't know if that's been a permitted gate. It

066may may or may not be. I know we did get the existing conditions in today, but I haven't had really a chance to look at it. Front yard. >> Yeah, front yard. No, that is Yeah, front yard. Um, next. And now I'm going to walk to the back. It's the rear patio. You see, if you see where those seats are, the benches, uh, the bench to the right that's kind of parallel to the walkway is the south side. And the one directly in front, if you continue walking, is the east side of the property. Next, uh, this is just another shot. This is a shot. But I believe it's from the northern side of the patio and that's its distance from the the rear deck, the east east deck. Uh the east property line rather.

067And next, this is a shot I took from the northern side of that patio and shooting straight ahead. And it's the setback from the the left side that you see there. and directly forward at beyond those grasses, it's the the southside variance that's required. And I think there might be one more shot next. That's just another shot of the rest of the yard out there. But um that may be it. Is that it? >> Yeah. >> The the photo that you had of the fence, where was it? the front front yard at the front front >> on the front property line. >> Yeah, on the front property line. No, it's back from the front property line. >> Oh, I see. >> I'm just going to I'm just going to stop you guys now. It has

068nothing to do with this application. So, it's just not even not worth it. >> I'm just I'm just wanting to know because we >> It's also behind the house, so it's not even an ARB issue. So, but let's not bring it up. >> Okay. [Music] >> You want to come on up? >> All right. You are swearing in sworn in. So go ahead. >> Our procedure before we start any design is to contact the um building department, find out specifics about anything about property that we should know about and um we had our plans plotted on a survey and the survey was approved and we did 10 foot instead of 15. Um I don't know where that mistake happened but it was proved and on top of that we did go over just a little

069bit and that was during the building and uh it was just technically I think it's a few inches that ended up but now because we found out it was actually supposed to be 15 ft but there's a lot going on there. We have a lot of screening. We have fencing. We have beautiful vegetation, green giants. The property, I mean, it's a very small family. It's just a husband, wife, and one child. It's a low traffic area. The step that would be in question cuz the deck would probably be okay, but then there's a step down. And that is a step to nowhere. Nobody's going to use it. It's more aesthetic. Um, and it is heavily screened. Everything is in concrete, really built well. So, if we were to tear it apart, it would cause the

070neighbors more distress. And I mean, it is beautiful and it's quiet. They're a very quiet couple, little baby. Um, let's see what else I can tell you about that property. Uh but but just if you would look at the plans submitted and the proposed survey before it was built, you'll notice that everything was a 10 foot. >> So you're the you're now you did the landscape design >> and submitted for the building permit and your design showed 10 foot, >> but don't you know as a designer you're supposed to meet as you submit you're supposed to meet a required setback. So your plan is would seems to be um wrong to begin with. >> Well, first we as soon as we get a approval on, you know, the client signs their contract, we'll go in

071and ask all about the property. When we were told 10 ft, we submitted 10 ft and that was it. And >> you were told by who? Building department. >> They got a permit for 10 ft. They said they got >> they got a permit for 10 ft. going to say they got a permit, but but again this >> Well, it's a it's a weird situation. I think I I talked to Allison about it because there is sometimes it depends on the building inspector, I think, on how they interpret if it's attached to the house or not, >> right? >> Because sometimes patios aren't attached to the house, >> right? >> You know, if it's not attached to the house, it doesn't need 15t. If it is, it does. So, it's one of those weird and

072it's, if you look at the survey, it's attached sort of. >> That was going to be my question actually, but I don't want to. It's like it's barely >> kind of a caddy. It's like corner to corner, >> right? Is it is it I'm looking at it's the very corner of the patio. And again, unfortunately, they're like the dimensions are not like to the sideline and stuff on here, but um but is that what am I looking at that correctly? It's that very little corner on the north west side of that attaches to the very small corner of the house. Is that what I'm looking at? >> To another patio. >> Oh, it's to another. >> Yeah. And the patio is attached to the house. Um I brought detailed plans as well if you'd like

073>> cuz I can't hold on. and um stamped copies of the of the original that you submitted. >> So the asbuilt actually didn't come out at 10 ft as well. It's at 8 what? >> 8 9.3. So you're attributing that to builder error. What what is that about? >> Yes, unfortunately. >> And you're attributing the 10 ft to building department error. That's what um unfortunately it seems. Yes, it was uh what was told to us and that's how we designed it. We really tried never to have it. We've been in business 25 years and I've been with the company for 10 and I've never had a a situation like this ever. Yeah, it took it to the dam that they had the permit with 10 foot. >> Did your company >> I just want the

074record. >> Did your company do the construction on it? >> We we hire subcontract sub. >> Yeah. >> Any other question? >> I have to go. I actually have to go see. I didn't I didn't go on the property because I didn't think we were going to proceed tonight with no posting. So I will go in that next period to understand the configuration better of the deck. >> I'll make sure the postings go up tomorrow. >> Sorry. >> Any other questions >> with you from the planner? >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening board. Morgan Slater again for the planning department. Um so the patio was constructed under a building permit that was issued in 2024. And it looks like in those plans that there is a 10-ft setback for this patio.

075Uh 255-11-10 does say that any patios attached to the principal residents need to meet the principal building setback. Um that is what this is noticed for tonight. How that is enforced or how it's implemented I think is um not consistent with the building department. So that could be why you know there was a building permit issued for it meeting 10 foot. It is a small area attached to the house itself. If there's a certain threshold, I'm not aware of it. Um, so it's just noticed for the greater variance tonight. >> Well, can you just go there and point on the survey exactly where we're talking? It's not >> I don't even I can't I don't know what that dimension is, but it's this little tiny >> That's what it's attached. >> That is where it's

076attached. >> And right where you were pointing. Where am I? >> The patio walkways don't need to meet setbacks. The patio >> in here. Um, and then it's attached to the house there. >> And then just where you're pointing that that left edge of the patio, what is it? Is it attached to another deck or No, that's open. >> I I think this is some more stone work here. >> Um, and then there's a bit of lawn and then the entryway to the house. >> So, it's not like part of a whole other deck. >> I don't believe it's a whole sprawling patio. >> Thank you. >> That's the 8.8 side, right? The south side. >> Yeah. because I don't see the the setbacks on the survey. >> It was measured with a scale. It's

077a scalable survey. >> I know, but questions for Morgan. >> No. Thank you. Thank you, Morgan. >> Thank you, Morgan. >> Is there anybody in the public like to address this application? Matt, is there anybody online? >> We have the same caller from uh last time. Let's do it again. And we actually have one more caller. So stand by >> after us. >> And 0. >> Hello 0381. You are live. >> The last one after us. [Music] >> Yeah, we are. This is the last. >> Hello 0381. Hello clean blood. Okay, I'm going to I'm going to mute them >> because they were talking about some other stuff. And let's go on to the next caller, which is 5583. You are live. >> Hello, caller. >> This is Jonathan Davis calling. Can you hear me?

078>> Are you here for this application? >> Yes, I am. >> And can you announce who you are and your address? Yeah, this is Jonathan Davis from Davis Landscape Design. I'm just calling just to help answer any questions you may have. I've been unable to be there tonight because of child care, but um I just wanted to let you know that uh we did our very best to stick to the uh the guidelines that we taken from the building department. And one of the reasons I think that we've had an issue here is the survey was was very small which resulted in some discrepancies. I think that's where the the small discrepancy came from the 10-ft set back to what was actually built. but also it was a pretty steep incline um on the original

079build and there was a very heavily densed uh sorry very heavily vegetated uh bamboo clump in that corner and it was incredibly hard to see exactly where that property line was marked. So, I think for the in just speaking for the installer, that's where that error may have come. But regardless, you know, we're just we're really looking some clarification on on advice that was given that we followed and then trying to get a the permit closed, finding out that we had this this this issue here. So, that's all I have to say. >> Okay. >> Can I I just want to clarify the coverage on this. Yeah, just want to make sure because sorry this for some reason this photo this surveyor is not as familiar to me. So can you remind us what the

080is because it says a proposed lock coverage and then it says total just lock coverage. I can't remember what the maximums are. So are they within >> Yeah. Hold on. I think I have that in the um >> is it in the TAM? I thought I did I miss it in the TAM. I'm sorry. If it's in the TAM, then I'll find it. >> Um, >> sorry. I'm just used to seeing a survey that shows >> I think it's 33% proposed lot coverage and 21%. 24. >> I think 50% is the max for total. >> Okay, it's 50 and Okay, that's all. It was complying. >> I couldn't remember for a lot this size. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. I think we can close this. >> Well, we can't close it. >> No, we

081can't close. Well, we can make motions. >> Did you say that you had letters from the neighbors? >> Did you Did you submit those to anybody? >> No. >> Okay, they should submit >> the original and the copies. >> Um, >> You should submit those. Uh, >> give the Yeah, just drop them off tomorrow because we're keeping the record open. So, >> thank you. We have a motion. So for the application of Jordan Brink and ILZ Salmi at 49 Gold Road in Montto tax map 300-10-6-5 make a motion to close the public hearing leave well not closing the public hearing either right continue the public hearing on November 18th uh once for proper posting and public response if any >> we're keeping the record open. Yes. Just so you understand, you would have to come

082back on November 18th. Okay. >> Or Jonathan. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Oh, we didn't have a second. We need a second. >> Oh, you made the motion right there. Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. Next we have 621 Lazy Point LLC at 60 621 Lazy Point Amaganz map number 300-106S2-39.3 size and location is 232,638 square ft 621 Lazy Point Baywoods at Napig lot 3 map number 9536 filed July 4th 1994 or against it. The description is to construct a 720 ft addition, a 600 ft garage with an adjacent storage room, a 158 square ft covered porch, and a 7,200 ft tennis court on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands, tidal wetlands, barrier dunes, beaches, and surface waters. The relief is a natural resources special5420 and a variance from 255440 of the east town

083code. A variance of 16 ft is required to construct the addition 134t from the primary doom crest where 150 ft is required and any any other relief necessary. The zoning district is A2 residence AE flood zone elevation 10 and the s class is type two. Council, do we have proper affidavit of surface? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit notice and posting and everything seems to be in order for this one. The board has jurisdiction. >> Thank you. Great. >> So, for probably four decades, I was always wanted to know what was up this road and now I know. Um, so uh it was properly posted uh close to um Lazy Point Road. Obviously, Lazy Point Road is far from where the property is, but that's the proper place to post it. Next slide. Um just

084you this is the sort of dirt road driveway that you proceed you proceed first um next to I think a different property. Can you keep going? Next slide. Um so now I'm actually on the property. My back is to the house. I've come up the driveway. You can see where the gate is that lets you in in the in the distance there. Once you get onto this contained part of the property, um it's more landscaped and and uh but it is still very heavily vegetated. Next slide. Okay, so now my back is to that gate. Um at the top of the driveway, this is a partial view of the it's mostly the front facade to the left. I don't know if I took a picture of it. Off there is sort of the pool and

085a bit of a pavilion attached to the house. Um the area on the left um that has the peaked roof uh facing out that I think to that is where the um uh addition will be uh will be added on. Next slide. Oh, I did take a picture of the pool area to the left just to the left of the house. Um and uh the uh vegetation there obviously it's lawn. There'll be some extension of driveway actually'll be probably behind where I am but towards that side as well. Next slide. Okay. So, I've gone over to the area um that's probably somewhere between or where the um uh well, this is basically the area where we're going to have the disturbance as I can um think about it from the survey. Um it's where the

086addition will be and then there'll be I think um a patio or a garden space, right? And then further towards where the you know towards the south will be the uh proposed garage. Um, and I took a few shots in here because um, the topography starts to drop off, but I think that it's pretty much area that's just even though it's vegetated, I think there's a lot of ornamental vegetation and I think I'm sure you'll talk about what exactly is being cleared and you know what type of veg, but it's um, this is part of the area. I think that will be in play with the additions. Next slide. Um, yeah, sort of more of the same. I'm It's hard to see the topography does start to drop off. This is on more of the

087east side uh east side um of the of the towards the east side property line. Um but I don't think the extensions are going to necessarily impact that drop off or get close to it, I would imagine. But um next slide. Um yeah, sort of more of that area just to get a real flavor of what's going to be uh disturbed by the changes, proposed changes. Next slide. Um yeah, I have my back my back is really right to that facade of the house where the extension is going to be. Again, sort of more about the area that um will be um taken up by the extension. Uh next slide. Um, I think the area um in the distance is partially I can't really tell where I am right now. Maybe where the extension of

088the driveway will go. Next slide. Okay. Now, I'm just heading um I'm heading towards the rear of the house. That's the uh east side um east facade of the house. Next slide. I did want to go to the back even though really the back isn't in play. I did want to have a look at the scenic easement um and just the condition of it. So, it's pretty tight clearing to the rear facade of the house and then um the all the area that I can tell in the scenic easement is sort of well protected. Next slide. Uh my back is to the scenic ement and that's the rear of the house. Next slide. um you go through this small gate um and that's the path that is running through the scenic easement. It's a very

089narrow path that goes down to the water. Again, I mean the vegetation was I think pretty pristine. Um you know relative to that area it's been I think well looked after and well conserved. Next slide. Yeah, just heading down to the water water. One more slide for that. Uh yeah, again just really wanted to show the quality of this dune land um and the and the scenic easement. Um I think I have one more shot really at the water. You can see that there is some beach. Um oh maybe I maybe I missed it. Okay, so that's fine. What I did now is I've left the this area of the house and I'm going to go you can go to the next slide. I'm sorry. What I did is I went now down back towards

090Lazy Point. I went down past the se the main scenic easement in the middle of the property and back I think to towards where the tennis court is going to be. Um and I didn't go into the scenic easement just driving by it again it looks very much intact and there's wetland in there. So, as you're heading back towards um south before you leave the edge of the property, there's a little dirt road that runs in from that main dirt road. Um I think I'm in the right place. So, I went down that road. You can uh which is cleared path, whatever you want to call it. Next slide. Um yeah, and as you get a little further in, the area becomes a bit more open. Um, next slide. I think I took one shot.

091All right. So, my back is to the south and I'm in a ways onto this kind of dirt. It's Earth Road and I'm looking up at this area and you can tell me if I'm correct. I think this is the area where the tennis court. No, not where the tennis court's going to be. >> Um, already on the neighbor's property. >> Oh, I thought I was on the road. Then I missed. Okay. It was hard to navigate. I thought I thought the elephants were to my back. So, yeah. Okay. So, then I guess I'm not able to tell where the I I was trying to just take a photo of what was being cleared and what the condition was. Sorry about that. I'm already I thought that road that I went down was Oh, well,

092I'm right on that road. >> Oh, I see where you're Okay, I got it. Okay. All right. Well, then on that road I was passing the area. Forgive me. It was a little hard to navigate. >> Hey, thank you. >> That's it. >> Rick you, Rick. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Richard Whan from Whan Fire PLLC represent the applicant which is 621 Lazy Point LLC but actually has a human person or people behind it. One of the owners Tim is with us tonight. Terry >> uh Feister is the architect. So if you have questions that require Terry's intervention, he's here. Uh I I'll bet that member Maring when she went down there because that is kind of a cool place to go, but you'll bet you you didn't expect to run

093into elephants down there. >> Are we going to get a report how the pimps are doing those those points >> very well apparently. I'll me I'll mention that. Yeah, they seem to be doing well. >> Cool. >> I did take a picture of the beach some No. uh >> can't see anything you know you don't know that the system system buried there >> huh and and the and the beach is >> seems to be agreed I I'll mention it briefly but um >> yeah yeah go for >> so let me just so the the application you know where the property is of course uh I just want to hit the elements of the application just so we know that we're covering everything so there's a one-story house edition we computed as 600 ft in the

094uh in the planning department's TAM it's referred to as 720 20 ft. It's actually a first floor of 600 square f feet, which is 22 1/2 by 26 and 2/3 ft. But there is a um I consider it an attic. You might disagree, but I think it's an attic. There's a 136 foot mechanical space above that first floor ceiling and that's accessed from the gable portion of the main existing house. So, it's either a 600 square foot addition if you consider the mechanical area above to be to be um an attic or I guess it's 720 to 736 ft. There is also on the south side of that addition there's 158 foot covered porch. There's then just south of that there's a proposed again these are proposed structures. Uh there's a walled garden. The walled

095garden is actually completely outside, for what it's worth, completely outside NSB jurisdiction. Then just to the south of that would be the 600 foot detached garage. It's essentially a two- bay garage, although the applicants are planning to use one bay for storage. Uh there is the um there's a walkway on the east side of the house edition. On the east side of the garage, there is uh a slight enlargement to the stone parking area. Uh there's a new IIA um low nitrogen septic system. When I say new, the existing septic serving the house is not a low nitrogen system. So the system that would be installed is a low nitrogen system and it's obviously sized for the proposed number of bedrooms. And finally, there is the tennis court in a separate building envelope at the

096southern end of the property. So the house right now has four bedrooms. The addition includes two bedrooms. one of the existing bedrooms in the uh in the house right now that exists right now is proposed to be converted into a um uh study. So the net increase in the number of bedrooms is one from four to five. It would make the house a five- bedroomedroom house. Currently it's four. The change in GFA, again I'm using my figure for the addition of 600 ft² which is the first floor and the only habitable portion of the addition. The GFA on the house would increase from 3,844 square ft to 4,444 ft. Bear in mind the lot in total area is 5.34 acres in size. So it's a it's a large lot. The relief that we need, we

097need a natural resources special permit for most of the improvements. Um we need a dune crest setback variance of 16 ft where 150t setback applies for the house edition. Curious note, the house edition does not need an NRSB. Interesting. And I recheck that, but the NRSB jurisdiction only extends 100 feet from the dune crest or more than 150 ft from the wetland. So the house edition, which is the most important part of the project, does need a 16 foot dune crest setback variance, but it doesn't need an NRSP. >> Interesting. >> I thought the T said it was 136 feet. Yeah, I think it's 100. Yeah, the setback is 136 from the Dunerest, but Destress and the Dune Crest set setback requirement is 150 ft. Hence, we need what they say 134 ft. I think

098it's 134t back. So, we need a 16 foot variance. And um finally, there are two vegetable planter boxes. Let me hand up photos because I wanted to show you both photos of the planter boxes and also just of the the state of the duty itself. >> Thank you, Rick. [Applause] Uh, the point of the photographs I've given you is just to point out that the dune itself in front of the property is very well established. In 2021, you approved the so-called PEM system. It basically is tubes that improve the drain. It's like baseball stadium drainage or something like that except on a beach. And from what I've heard and you have two reports from uh what is it? Eco Beach International or something like that. >> Ecoshore International. So you have a report that was

099submitted to file from 2024 and 2025. Bottom line, it appears to be working. Um it appears to be leading to the increase in the retention of sand. As they describe in the report, a wetter beach tends to lose more sand as waves wash out. There's science behind this. It's a little over my head, but you know, it does seem to be working and both the report and my clients confirm that the dune has actually been building up and the beach seems to be accreing. So, that's good. Um, so we seem to have much more stable situation than we had in the early part of this of this century. So, the one thing I need to bring up that is not really mentioned in here kind of new is I had submitted a letter to the

100board. The lot area calculations on the survey were wrong. Not going to blame the surveyor for that because there's a kind of a reason why they were what they were. Those same lot area calculations were shown on the filed subdivision map in 198 1994. What happened is the original surveyor with Billy Walsh subtracted the full area of the scenic easement. You don't subtract the scenic easement from a lot for zoning lot area purposes. You subtract wetlands. You subtract the beach. You know everything seawward to the dune crest. You subtract the access drive. you don't subtract the lot area, the the scenic easement itself. I had a conversation with your council today and he pointed out that in the subdivision regulations, there's actually a slightly different definition of lot area and they refer to just easements

101in general that prohibit erectionability. It's not just private easements. Now, I do know the pling board in reviewing subdivisions does not exclude the area easements that it's proposing to have or requesting. But in any event, there's perhaps the reason why the surveyor got it wrong. All the way along, you know, coming down to Terry and doing his design, he assumed the lot area was the smaller figure of around 92,000 ft. Why am I mentioning this? When you go from 92,000 ft to 157,000 ft, which was what happens when you deexclude the area of the scenic easement that is not wetlands, you jump to a different category in terms of your yard setbacks. So the yard setbacks that this was predicated on for the principal building were 30 ft, but the actual setback for 157,000t lot

102is 35 ft and the proposed addition is 34 ft from the east property line. So your hearing notice uh and I talked to your council about this this afternoon, your hearing notice contains language that um it covers what's noticed in the hearing and any other relief necessary. So my position and I I think your council agrees with me is that you have jurisdiction to grant a 1-oot sideyard variance for the addition. None of the other structures are implicated. All of them meet the setbacks even under the the higher lot area number. But the the principal building addition, the setback is supposed to be 35 ft and it's built to 34 ft. >> Does that mean the principal building existing is >> looks like the principal building is at 34 ft. >> Huh. because you're matching

103you're matching that line the addition is built just to follow that line. >> Yeah. >> Um because I did ask Terry is what happens after moving you don't want to do that. Uh so I think you have the P. Let me let me if I could just hit the area variance just so I cover them. Uh will the will the grand and the variances create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties? Again, we're seeking one foot. Sounds like a 1 foot sideyard variance for the addition. The addition is only 600 square ft. In terms of the coastal setback variance, obviously the addition is being built entirely behind the landward of the existing house. The dune fronting house is in very good condition at the moment. And

104so I would posit that a uh 16 ft variance instead of 150 foot requirement is not going to impact the neighbor. I do want to make one other thing on this because I did get three calls from the neighbor to the east and they were very worried about losing the vegetative buffer between their property and ours. Well, we are too. So, you'll as you saw from member Marian's photographs, the east side of the property is very heavily vegetated. Now, we are changing the grade a little bit. We have to push out. You'll see the topographical lines on the survey. I guess you know as we to to flatten everything for the addition and the garage we do have to move into that area a little bit that will be ve vegetated. The plan is to

105have as solid buffer of vegetation and right now a lot of is non-native but we still would have a solid buffer of vegetation but protecting us from the neighbor to the east. We don't want to be clearing that at all. Can the benefits from the requested variance be sought by any means other than an area variance? This is kind of like the the fifth standard which is you know one of the reasons that that that led you to request a variance. There's no really alternative because if you're going to build an addition as we propose the entire existing house is within the 150 foot dune crest setback. So we can't attach to the house without having a portion of it be with 150 ft of the dune crest. So we have no choice but to

106to seek a variance. Uh are the variances sort substantial? Well, the Dune Crest setback variance is a little over 10% of the required 150 foot setback. And again, I would posit that we're not in any way endangered by building there because the existing house is already between us and the require and the due crest. Um, and finally, in terms of the sideyard setback that we believe now that that we need, that's a 1T variance from the 35 ft requirement. It's basically dimminimous. It's about 3% or less than 3% of the required setback. Uh and lastly, will the variances have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or in this area of the town? I don't think I need to address that with regard to the one foot east side variance,

107but the um the house addition being built on the lambridge side of the house with respect to the duneest again you have reports showing that the remediation that's been done, the installation of this pen system, PEM system seems to be restoring uh the beach or at least limiting further erosion. The dune is in good shape and the addition of course again is on the lambridge side of the existing house. So uh if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer question on my lot area differential that you were talking about uh does that affect the setbacks for the tennis courts? >> No because the setback meets 50 foot setbacks the setback changes from 40 ft to 50 ft. But remember all tennis courts when adjoining residential property have to have at least a 50

108foot setback. So our existing tennis court setbacks are 50 feet or a little over. So it has no impact on the tennis court. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. In terms of um the construction itself, I I was looking through your notes earlier, T. I'm just looking again now. Did you introduce a construction protocol for this and how we're going to move forward uh with the construction? Uh, I'd like to know how you're going to access the water side of the property and you're going to be working on the east side. You talk about the heavy vegetation. You know, there's not a protocol for us to review and say, "Well, we understand." I also wondering, uh, is it concrete footings here and concrete? No pilings, just concrete footings. >> Only for the proposed garage, not

109we have to sign you. Just announce who you are. I got to swear you in. >> Hi, my name is Terry Fester. I'm the architect. Do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing? I do. Thank you. So, I'm just asking the question about looking at this drawing. I don't see pilings speced out for any of this construction. So, I'm asking, were there any piling plan that we don't see or you're not doing pilings? You're just doing concrete. >> Just concrete for the for the garage. >> Pilings are going to be for the the house extension. >> Excuse me. Say that again. I'm sorry. For the what? >> Pilings for the house extension. >> Yeah, house extension is going to have pilings. Okay. So you're going to be you're going to

110be driving or you're going to be doing helilical piles on the ocean side on the water side. >> Uh it's going to be wood piling the same way. >> Wood piling. So you're going to have to get a piece of equipment back there to drive this. So protocol in terms of what are we looking at for potential collateral damage on the water side of the house. Now it's been brought up. The photos are excellent and I was out on the site. It's wonderfully vegetated at there's a slightly cleared area you have there beyond the house. However, when you go to add on that direction, what are we doing there? other than just a protective fencing that will be required. What are we doing in terms of protocol to know that we're not going to be

111encouraging any other damage on that part of the site? Do you see what I'm saying? We're always asking ourselves, how do we move forward with this? Very sensitive site, difficult spot to get to, and you're going to have to bring in the kind of equipment that may do some other damage. So my question is, is there has there been any thought to producing a a protocol that would describe? Sometimes we ask for the the size of equipment, how it can be limited, what are you going to do with materials, things like that. This is a site that when you go in is impressive for the reasons. Some of it is ornamental, but still there's a lot of native vegetation. I would I'd like to know what is the procedure from here on out to ensure

112that when you're done, we haven't done any collateral damage that we'd be very sorry for because we didn't ask these questions. Okay. Well, I believe the first uh person to be sorry if there is any damage would be the client because the house and the property is the buffer between the construction side >> and the the pristine like beach and dun area. So like you know it is our primary um yeah to really protect the house and much of the property to do the piling and not to damage whatever is existing there. So there is a lot of construction that is happening all at one point which is like to relocate the septic and to put the piling right in that location and that we I don't have anything to tell you of like how

113we going to do to protect it yet because we want to make sure like you know you are >> on board with us to like you know agree on this project. Are are pilings even required? Cuz you're an AE. >> I didn't see a I didn't see what happened zone on the map. >> Yeah, I didn't understand what what's happening. >> Uh your your notice is AE. Um >> yeah, >> your notice is uh AE elevation 10. >> Yeah, >> but still your AE. I'm not sure pilings are required. Your required pilings in V. the when we did the um the house um we did everything on piling when we did the 10 years ago the forension >> the pool and everything like know we did piling >> yeah for the uh for the we

114did um the the drill uh the board test on the land and everything and we we did everything on piling >> yeah just for the record >> and then the sorry >> yes >> uh a elevation tent in the plane department's tent. >> Correct. >> And you're right. We wouldn't be required to have filings in the AE, >> right? >> Go ahead. And I'm sorry. >> Well, no, that's right. Just back to that point though. You uh when you come in, you see the property, you're going to be clearing vegetation where the future garage is going to be, and that's going to become your access point to get to the rear of the house or the water side of the house for you to drive pilings. You're going to be >> No, no, no, no,

115no. The additions on the land side of the house. They're not going to the side. >> Very confused. Everything is happening in the front. >> Okay. I then I got I went when I went out there, I looked at that back overhang and I thought that's what we were talking about. I'm sorry. I was confused. >> Everything happening seawward. Nothing. Everything is like in the front of the house right there. If you can see the green area of the survey, it's the landward side of the house. >> It's just the bay. >> What is the latest survey? I have a couple of them. there. Okay. The that was given to the office and [Applause] >> the giveaway is when you turn to the lot area calculation on the left side. >> It now says lot

116area per town code 157,285. It's late last week. So, let me see if I have a revision date on here that's large enough for me to read. >> The lot area size is what? Two. >> Yeah, the lot area now says lot per town code 157,285 square feet. >> I don't think that >> it was submitted. It was submitted to the board I think Thursday of last week probably. >> Okay. This one's from April. The one I have is from April. >> Yeah. >> And that's really the only change. I don't think anything else would change in terms of what's proposed. >> Can I So, may I ask about the tennis court? So, the tennis court is not in NRSP jurisdiction or is it >> The tennis court is in within NRSP for jurisdiction for

117the wetland that's in the center of the lot. >> Right. Okay. So, um so because I went too far on that road and I looked at what was more of an open field, I was a little like, "Oh, that's nice. It's not there not going to be as much >> clearing >> dropping of trees." But now it's a little So, can you just talk through I'm just uh I see I see the prop it's hard to read on the proposed additional clearing line goes right up to the tennis court. Is that what I'm reading? So, you're only clearing really for the area of the tennis court in that area. >> Yeah, that's is that correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. because I see the building envelope profiled map, but it says proposed additional clearing 7,700 square ft,

118but that's the the area in white around the green tennis court underneath the green scenic easement. Is that that all remains the natural vegetation as is? >> Okay. And >> and so the composition basically of what you're dropping in that 7700, is it a lot of mature trees? I think or is more >> um I didn't I drove down the same road that you did. Um but I didn't have to admit I didn't look too close. These kind of, you know, it's kind of thin pitch pine woods. >> Uh so I think there were some mature pitch pines, but I didn't take any photographs back there and I didn't. Yeah. >> So what about drainage for the tennis court? Where's that? Where's that living? >> Yeah, you're going to have to drain it, right? You're

119Yeah. So, where's where we going to where we going to put those dry wells and whatever? If you if you are We'll probably put those like, you know, where you have the little like stone pathways. So, like, you know, we're going to to build the the tennis court like to access the um machinery. We're going to put it like right there, I guess, to minimize the impact on the land. >> Are you lighting this tenor material? This is going to be >> Where are you bringing access in? >> We're going to follow the the dirt road like >> the earth road. >> Earth road. Yes. >> This is an existing dirt road here. >> Yeah. >> And then this is a little like pathway like I guess here. We know we don't want to damage

120that like you know it's it's in it's in pristine shape now it's beautiful really the minimum impact and going to be clear the really really minimum we have to put that in place >> there's a lot of wildlife in there I would imagine so are you planning on lighting the tennis court at night or Any [Applause] other questions, board members? >> I do not. [Applause] >> Thank you, sir. Go ahead, Rick. um we could but I don't know but it seemed to me that the question was like um a misunderstanding of the project because we everything we're going to do is like land >> no so given given given that the you know we're not doing anything on the lambert side of the seawward side of the house my question is do you want a

121constru construction protocol. I mean, if we if you needed one, we could produce one. >> I Let's just be clear about this. Um because I'm I I agree. I don't know if we're really requires one because it's this it's only this area right here. >> Yeah. >> This is the house there. And they're adding on this addition with this court. And then the garages here and that's already >> we're kind of be working out of the area that's currently the parking lot. Mhm. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a lot less sensitive than I thought. My mis misunderstood and I went to that back overhang and I was working back and forth looking at dimensions in there wondering how you're going to get back there. >> That's just my bad. That's a poor take on my part.

122>> You guys work off of the survey which is really really complicated to read. >> I admire you because like I took I don't know if you have like my other drawings. I what I've done for you I like analyzed the survey for you by you the reading you can see the setbacks you can see the rotation you can see the easements you can see like the water duration all line up in different ways so you understand why the project is the way it is >> and it's impossible even for myself to read that survey it take me hours and I don't know how you do it like in 10 minutes it's a pretty loaded survey >> thank Thank you. >> We really keep the project around what is right now like the um the

123driveway and then here where you have the existing septic. This is the location of the project. >> Okay. Thank you. >> You >> Sarah Lewis for the planning department. >> Hi Sarah. Do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Uh, so the applicant is requesting a natural resources special permit to construct the tennis court uh within 150 ft of wetlands and a 16 ft variance to construct the addition 134 ft from the primary dune crest where 150 ft is required and any other relief necessary. Um, the applicant is proposing to construct a 720 ft addition, a 600 ft garage and adjacent storage room, a 158 ft covered porch, and a 7200 ft tennis court. The most recent CFO was issued

124in 2016 for the residents and accessory structures which was originally constructed in 2001. Um which at the time was located more than 150 ft from the primary doomcrest and beyond NRSP jurisdiction. Uh the proposed addition meets pyramid and is located on the landward side of the house. Um as the applicant stated an additional 1.4 4 foot variance is required for the garage um which does not meet setbacks given the updated law area. Um all of the properties are accessed by a common driveway and have shore frontage along Napig Bay. The entire area is relatively low-lying coastal habitat with wetlands throughout. The building envelopes on the property are bisected by substantial freshwater wetlands and a se scenic easement covers the shoreline and the freshwater wetland to the south of the structure. The GFA of the existing

125house is 3,844 square ft um with the potential addition adding um about 720 bringing total GFA to 4564 ft uh which is well below the limit. Uh the proposed application does include some clearing uh including 3,700 ft for the proposed home and driveway expansions. Uh the applicant also proposes the construction of a 7200 ft tennis court which would require an additional an additional 7,700 square foot um of clearing. Um allowable clearing on this property given the new lot area calculations is 49,321 ft while the applicants are proposing to bring clearing to 32,467 square ft. So they're still below the clearing limit. >> Can you repeat that second number? >> Yeah, sure. Um they're bringing clearing to 32,467 square feet. Uh the DEEC or Department of Environmental Conservation has determined that the additions and accessory structures

126are out of their jurisdiction. Uh but they did note that the northern long-ear bat has been documented within 3 miles of the project location. Uh the DEC and planning department thus recommend no tree cutting between March 1st and November 30th of any calendar year. Um, the planning department has also provided a sketch of areas for pro project limiting and silt fence. Um, and I can bring that up if you guys want to see it. >> Happy to answer any questions. >> Questions for Sarah. >> I I just wanted to clarify a little bit. So, your TAM says that the house was originally built more than 150 ft from the Doom Crest. >> Yeah. So, but didn't I read that right? The residence was initially constructed as and located more than 150 ft from the primary

127doom. Yes. When I I was reading the in the conditions existing conditions memo. I just happened to be reading the determination. I think it was for the pens and at the time it said the residence is presently located 60 ft from the dune crest crest. So, I mean, I know the beach had eroded at some point, but I I just was a little >> Yeah, that's something I would have to double check. >> Okay. Just pointed out. >> Thanks for pointing it out. >> Okay. And then just so I I'm clear on the clearing because you said the numbers quickly the with I guess we're we're taking 11,400 square ft of more of additional clearing. So, it is under the max, but it's like 2% under the it's very close to the max now after

128the proposed. >> Um, I think it's more than that. So I was looking >> allowable clearing is 49,000 >> maybe now with the change in the correct. >> Yeah. So originally under the old lot calculations it was much closer to that maximum clearing >> that survey. >> Um so the newest survey was submitted end of last week and it should be in the official file. Okay. Um and that can be found on the web page too. >> Yeah because under the old it was >> Absolutely. Yeah. It used to be a lot closer and now um there's more of a buffer there. There any other questions? >> I have none. >> Thank you. Is there >> anybody clarification? Sarah said that I think she mentioned that the garage would be the 1.4t side area. >>

129What? Yeah, I think that's um >> it's it's shown as 33.3, but the setback is only 25 ft even under the higher lot area. >> Detached. >> Yeah, detached. Detached garage. >> Oh, accessory building. >> Detach accessory structure. >> Yeah, it's 25. Yeah, >> thank you. Is there anybody in the public like to address this application? Rick, is there uh >> my name is Matt, but that's okay. >> Uh we're going to give these uh this caller one more two more chances. >> 0381, you are live. Caller, >> are you here for this application? You are live once again. 0381 >> caller. >> No, >> he's there. >> Okay, you have zero additional callers. >> Thank you. >> Rick, any closing remarks? You good? Okay, thank you. I have a motion motion um in the

130matter of 621 Lazy Point LLC 621 Lazy Point A point I think it's road amit Suffach County Tax Map 300-106-02-39.3 I make a motion to close the public hearing and close the record. >> Concur. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Nette John's at 74 Surfside Avenue in Montalk Suffic map number 300-51-4-12. Is there anybody here for this? >> No. >> Oh, look like >> it's an interesting evening. >> Great. >> How do we do this? >> Nope. Doesn't look like it. Did they submit their affidavit? Let me check. Uh, >> let me read it. >> It's easy enough that we could just do it if they've submitted their affidavit in their postings. >> Just check. >> Okay. I mean, let's read it into the record and we'll see. >> Size and location

131is 58,422 ft at 74 Surfside Avenue in Montalk. The description is to restore approximately 70 linear feet of eroded bluff by placing approximately 1500 cubic yards of clean bluff compatible fill and construct a 4ft wide bluff stair. The restored bluff is to be planted with beach grass 12 in on center face is to be installed at the toe of the bluff. The relief sword is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code and the zoning district is B resident zone X1 zone. The secret class is type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service? >> No. >> Huh? >> They didn't at this point. This is like what the third time they've done this >> I believe. So >> yeah, >> I think we can deny that. >> They're going

132to go they're going to get kicked way back. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, >> we were queued up like this one other night. >> It's the same thing happened a few months ago. >> Yeah, >> probably in August, I think. >> Right. >> Actually, you know what? I do. >> All right. So, I mean, the the thing is they're going to kick back the application. They got to What are they going to do? >> I'll leave that to They have to reschedule it with >> Yeah. the planning department. >> Well, we never opened it. So, >> yeah, we never opened it. So >> just a journal for lack of service and no applicant and >> I don't know who's there. >> We should reach out to we should reach out to their agent

133First Coastal Kelly Hoffman at First Coastal and be like >> they posted the property, right? >> I don't know. I don't have anything. Well, >> well, >> there was >> we had we have there's a photo they sent in of a po of a posting lying in the mud and a post that obviously must have come off of. So, the answer is possibly, but the posting was impossible to read because it was soaked in it. >> So, is that >> it may have been unless the callers are for the application, the people that's on the line. >> It's just this mysterious thing >> we should Let's just ask >> Matt. Is there somebody online still? >> Yes, it's the same caller as the last hour. >> I don't have any applications. >> Let's uh let's

134do this one more time. And 0381, you are live. >> Hello. >> 0381, you are live. So strange. >> It's up to you, Mr. Chair. >> They don't have any paperwork. >> We don't have any any postings or anything, right? >> Just asking. I got nothing. >> The other ones we had something they got nothing. >> Yeah. Okay. So, we we'll move on. Thank you, Pat. If you want, you can hang up because we're going into work session. already hung up. Go ahead, please. >> Thank you. >> Uh, next we go into post hearing decisions. We have Elizabeth Alexandra Miller at Five Ganet Drive. Um, this one I was not part of. So, I'm going to step down. I'll let you read it for the record. >> Are we doing Gan? Ganet first. I thought

135the other was first. >> No, that's what we're doing. Yeah. >> Okay. Musical chairs. Let me get out of your way, John. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we go on to post hearing decisions. The first one is Elizabeth Alexandra Miller 5 Ganet Drive Mtok Suffach County Tax Map number 300-4-7-4. Description is to construct a 490 foot swimming pool within minimum rear yard setbacks. Relieve saw is one variance of 12 feet pursuant to 2551 11110 of the East Hampton Town Code to construct the swimming pool 8 ft from the rear eastern lot line where 20 ft is required. Zoning district is a B resident zone X flood zone secret class type two. Remember Johan? >> Yes, but I'm going to have a little bit of a problem here because I'm looking for my TAM. No one

136else has the tamp. I have a tamp. You want a tamp? >> When I finish up. Thank you. >> Excuse me, John. >> It's in here somewhere. Thank you. >> Um Miller, five Ganet Drive. Remember that the hearing was September 23rd, 2025. The survey was received by the planning department January 17, 2025 from Alonso uh Pierce Land Surveyor. The there was a pool plan submitted SE dated September 19th, 2024 from Lab Crew Engineering. Lori Wilshshire represented the applicant. Morgan Slater represented the planning department. This is a 75 by 100 uh lot. It's typical of the Colon Shore subdivision. Many small lots in there. Uh one 12T variance is required from the Eastern property line for this pool. CFO was issued for the house and a 900 foot deck in 1966. Another CFO was issued for

13749 foot hot tub in 2019. We received four letters of support from neighbors and one neighbor neighbor spoke in opposition. Lori Wilshshire proposed that the pool is small uh basically a lap pool and that it is well screened from the most affected neighbors and that the house immediately to the east is currently unoccupied. Additionally, she stated that the pool could only be located where it is proposed because the second floor deck that is attached to the residence would have to be removed to allow the pool to move far enough westward to eliminate the need for a variance and that was not a viable option for the applicant. The TAM pointed out that while there are other pools in the Colon Shores neighborhood, none have required a variance. Uh given the given the constraints on the

138lot size and the relative position of the existing house and the attached deck on the parcel, there is not sufficient room to accommodate a pool in the prop in this proposed location. Approval of this application would open the door in my mind open the door to similar applicants to expect the same type of relief which could and most likely would have an impact on the character of the neighborhood. Not all parcels given the extent that they have been previously developed can accommodate every pertinent. So this is one of those parcels in my opinion. The double setbacks uh exist for double setback standards for pools exist for a reason. Allowing a pool to be constructed only 8 feet from a property line is not at all in keeping with the town code with with the town

139code designed to regulate the installation of a pool on a residential lot. Then going to the standards and thank you for the tumor. [Music] Uh okay. Uh asking the question pursuant to 255-8-50 of the town code uh the GBA must find when granting a variance a that the benefit of the applicant to grant the area variance outweighs any detriment which granted the variance will uh cause gates health safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the town. I don't think the benefit does outweigh that. I think that by establishing the location of this pool where it is, it could begin a cycle of similar applications and possible approvals that would not benefit the neighborhood. The area variance under bay the area be granted the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty caused by the

140applicant requested in the area variance. I I don't believe it's the minimum variance necessary. I think that that pool had they wanted it in a different application they might have removed the deck and say we're pulling the pulling the pool back far enough but that was not an option that they were willing to consider that was one that there was uh the pool was essential I mean the deck was essential for living on this property living in that site because it's a very small house and then under 255-8-50 as well uh whether or not the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change to the character neighborhood I've already mentioned that I believe it bill whether the benefits off by the applicant will be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue

141other than the area variance. I think that it could uh and then under um and then under C whether the requested area variance is substantial. It is extremely substantial a 12T variance on on a 20ft setback. Whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. I would not say that it will. I would say that that that was not the the factor that would sway me one way or another. Whether the difficulty causing the applicant to request an area of variance was self-created. It absolutely was self-created. They're asking for a pool on an undersized lot. Uh we have applications come in front of us and we've ruled in many cases to provide relief the applicants when they're looking for this kind of a pertinence.

142Here is a situation. We have an undersized lot. People are asking for a swimming pool. There was mentioned by the uh by Lori Wilshshire, the applicant's representative, that part of this is caused by the fact that there's a steep slope to the front of the property and so the house has been moved back on the property. Unless every property comes with its own conditions, and that's a condition that in this case would not allow for a pool to be put in the area where they want to see it happening. This is not a hard call for me. I don't see this as a good application in terms of a proposal and I'm going to deny it at this time. >> Thank you, Member Burgerer. Okay, I uh I agree with my fellow board member um

143for basically all the same reasons. The variance is large, very large. It's 60% variance. So the requested area variance is substantial. Yes, absolutely. I do think the well the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, the affected area of town. Um in in a way as far as the well the affected neighbors uh it it is the first time that a pool would be approved in the entire collodon area that with a a variance. Um so it would be first so the grant for the variance could change in the character of the neighborhood and detriment to nearby properties. would be a a very bad precedent setting thing and I am not going to be the first one to approve one. Um you have the double

144setbacks. This thing is large. Um they made several different attempts at this project and this is the best they could do. But I think it's not necessarily a small pool. I really think they do have no other alternatives other than to give up something else that they didn't explore. You know, a hot tub or some other rearrangement of the the pool and much smaller. But um the pool certainly of that size I don't think they could put anywhere else. Um and it is not the minimum variance necessary. And I think the difficulty causing the appear requested error was self-created. It absolutely was and and for those reasons um my denying this application member Mary. >> Yes, thank you. Um so the we know the collodon area or the neighborhood of Monttok is one of most

145unique character defined by the history of the leisureama. We all know what that's about. But the other most defining character um of this neighborhood is the prepundonderance of very small lots. Um a review of the number of lots and lot sizes in the area um shows that nearly every single lot in this neighborhood are severely pre-existing but undersized to the B residence zone minimum. This lot at 7,500 square feet is I think 63% below the minimum residents lot size. Um and I think half of the lots of neighborhood are this size. Some are a little little bit bigger at 11,000 square ft. So what this means is that in this area, this is one of the most dense neighborhoods in town. And as such, this makes things like lotline setbacks especially crucial to preserve the

146quality of life, characterally growth and well-being for all who live in it. And as we know, the point of the double setback um on a pool is to in addition reduce potential detriment to surrounding properties. 490 square ft pool is not a small one. Um we we just looked at a 5 acre property that has a 500 square ft pool on it. It's not and it's it's a 60% rear yard setback which numerically is a very substantial variance. But it's not just a small corner of this pool. the entire 35 foot length is all um all requires that and it's really like 85% or the whole volume area of the pool is not meeting um the rear yard setback. The applicant as has been said dismissed the question about considering a smaller pool. you know,

147on very constrained and small lots, this board, you know, frequently has an applicant come in front of us with a plunge pool, you know, 100, 200 square feet. Um, I think it's not for us to redesign an application, but I think we could all look at the survey and see a place where something a much smaller type uh, you know, amenity like that could meet setbacks. Um, so and then lastly, as was said, the planning department noted, quote, "While some neighboring properties have swimming pools, those pools have been able to comply with the required setbacks. To date, there is no known history of a ZBA granted pool variances in the immediate area. And I too believe granting one would um set precedent very quickly. Um, in a neighborhood like this, the the application fails, as

148I see it, to meet any of the standards for variances under 255,850. It's self-created. Um, it's detriment to uh neighbors and the neighborhood. Um, it will change that if that precedent is set, it will change the character of the neighborhood. Um the screening and the fence does cannot mitigate uh the detriment that could happen from having a pool so close to setbacks. Um there were other alternatives that would have reduced or eliminated a variance. This is totally self-created. So all in the size of the lot and its array of current improvements mean this lot is just not sufficient or appropriate for the amenity of the scale that has been proposed underation. >> Member Thor. >> Thank you Vice Chair. Severi. Um, in my opinion, the lot size and the location of the house simply cannot

149accommodate a pool without a significant variance and would establish an unwanted precedent for the neighborhood where there are many similarsized uh, and constrained lots. Even though the immediate northern and southern neighbors have written in support of the variance, the proposed location of the pool would meet the required setback uh sideyard setbacks of 20 ft to their properties, thereby benefiting them of the required setback. While the rear neighborhood uh neighbor, excuse me, for whom we haven't heard, would have a pool with its attendance detriments 60% closer to their property line that intended by law and would deprive them in perpetuity of the intended benefit of the required setback. So whether the grant of the variance will as per 255-8-50 whether the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood

150or will create a detriment to the property. Our decisions run with the property with the land in perpetuity that the affected lot to the rear is currently owned by an LLC and and is unoccupied is irrelevant. I believe I believe allowing a pool to be 60% closer to the rear property line than permitted will create a detriment to the rear neighbor and establish a negative precedent for the neighborhood. Uh whether the uh benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method. The pool could conceivably be located under the rear deck if it were canlevered or eliminated. Uh whether the variance is substantial. Yes, a 60% variance is very substantial. Whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I believe having

151a pool 60% closer to a property line than intended could adversely affect the rear neighborhood neighbor with increased noise. I believe the variance uh being requested is a selfcreated uh for a self-created purpose and for these reasons I vote to deny the application. >> Thank you. It was brought up during the public hearing that the property owner uh I'm sorry that the property was very well screened but that only affects the visual impacts. I appreciate the three letters in favor, but setbacks are there to protect the joining property owners, and these decisions we make are for perpetuity and ownership changes. As we often see on this board, the extent of the existing developments on the property limits options for conforming location, and the alternatives that were looked at don't really work out because of the

152constraints of the property. all the other pools in the neighborhood complied with the required setbacks. And let's not forget, especially with a pool, the noise factor and the reasoning behind the setback requirements. The setbacks are also there to ensure there is enough space for emergency personnel in the event of an emergency. I think um where is my services? This is a substantial variance and I've said this before, some properties are just not conducive to have a pool. So the extent of the encroachment just does not meet the standards and I will be denying this application in its entirety as well. [Music] Okay, council. Okay, let's make the >> switch [Music] resolution. No, we're good. [Music] We should play music when we do this. The music stops. >> Music stops. This is John. >> Where is

153Roy? Is this Roy? No. Is that your >> It's right there. Isn't it under you? >> Oh, here it is. Okay. >> Just in case you forget who you are. >> Next, we have Waterview 3 LLC at 232 Westlake Drive, Montalk Map number 300-12-429. >> The size and location is 27,50 ft at 232 Westlake Drive, Monttok Beach Development Corp. Subdivision number seven, West Lake residential section block 155, lot 6, map number 1024, Montto. The description is to allow the removal of existing walkways, wall and ornamental vegetation, relocated propane tanks, and to allow a new stone retaining wall, gravel driveway extension, new walkways, and associated structures on partial landing containing title wetlands. Relief saw is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and two variances are required for this

154application. Variances of 74 ft and 68.5 ft are required from 255430 of the town code to allow the existing walkways to remain 26 ft and existing block wall to remain 30.5 ft from tidal wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a resident zonex flood zone and the E8 secret class is type two council. Oh yes. >> Who's Whose was this? >> Is mine. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Excuse me. >> Want to remember that the hearing was on September 30th, 2025. We were working from a Jamie Walsh survey dated January 26th. I think it's 26th. No, 28th. 28th, I'm sorry. 2025. The landscape plan we received from uh Giran Crawford Landscape Architects was dated January 23rd, 2024. John Tarvet represented the applicant. Morgan Slater represented

155the planning department. Um this requires an NRSP in two variances 74 and 68.5 ft. One for a gravel walkway and the other full block walls already been mentioned by the chair. There's no new work associated with this particular application. There is the relief as to be granted for work for the removal. All the removal work, the removal of those uh walkways and wall has already been completed. That is not part of this application at this point except for the the grant relief for the action taken. Um the the variance are noticed to the wetlands to the north and the east of the parcel which is basically on the neighbors property and it's not measured back down to the lake montalk and the shoreline. So the variances are measured from that wetland. Um we do have

156the NRSB to consider obviously for the entire parcel parcel has a past history and we've had them we've had other conversations about this parcel. None of those previous conversations enter into tonight's decision-making as mitigation for the applicant while for wanting this wall that they ran around the house extended beyond. There was a conversation there was a pre-existing stack stone wall and this was the replacement of it. We didn't see that on a survey. There was a discussion about whether it did or didn't exist. At this point though, what we were asked to do is to take a look at that northeast corner where the wall projected down to its nearest point and determine whether or not that we were willing to allow that, whether or not that was significant enough to deny this application. Additionally,

157there was a gravel walkway that runs along that wall between the residents and the wall. That was also noticed. It was mentioned by um rep by Morgan Slater that uh they didn't consider the planning department did not consider that gravel walkway to be a particularly um injurious potential uh to the environment there because it is permeable although they still comes in front of us and then we're talking basically about the wall in that area. One of the things that came up was um what could be offered as mitigation. There was a discussion that night by the board back and forth and the conversation went back to the representative who then agreed that as mitigation the applicant would be willing to reveate a portion or to vegetate a portion of the existing lawn that extends along

158the norththeast property line and offered a covenant. He also offered a covenant to protect against the use of pesticide and fertilizer on the lot. The chair pointed out that's uninforceable. that was suggested by the applicant that uh there was still something they could offer up and it would pass down from one to another. The key to this is the revge plan where we're being asked if we get reveation to help protect what is it what is now a formal lawn area from uh that comes right up to their edge of their property line. We to bring that back. What are we what are we uh what are we gaining for the town? What are we gaining for the environment? Um I think that the revge plan as discussed that night did wind up offering for

159me enough mitigation to approve this application. I think that what we had and it was pointed out by several board members was a fertilized lawn coming up to you know close justosition to the wetland by eliminating that having that be reveated. I will say that I'm not clear and I think the board should all weigh in on to what extent that is to be that night. I know they agreed that we would come down along the the east and the north property line in an easterly direction. Um, and I that was drawn out here. It was discussed by by Morgan Slater. I was happy with what she showed us that night and I'm willing to do it. I will define it a little more clearly at the end if we all weigh in on it.

160Uh obviously the revenge plan would have to be approved as a condition of any approval given here and as I say a discussion may be necessary by us to determine exactly what we're all willing to approve. Terms of the standards uh under 255H50 whether the granted variance will cause an unreliable change of the character neighborhood. I've say no whether the benefits sought by the applicant be achieved by some feasible method. There is one that could have been done. This work might not have been done but they still have presented it to us. Whether the quested area variance is substantial uh it is substantial uh but whether or not it's going to have a significant impact on the environment I could not I I don't I don't believe it would whether the granted advance had an

161adverse effect or impact on the physical environment I just said that I don't think it does uh and then whether the difficulty causing the applicant to request advance was self-created yes of course it was the applicant must demonstrate then under 2551 whether or not the preservation of natural resources is all structures used on the coast for shall be located upland and not be located. No, this is located close enough that it would not it would not get any uh relief in under that one. Under alternative reason property determined not to exist. Uh I don't think there's I think alternative uh opportunities were there for the wall not to exist but again we have a wall. We're now determining whether or not the uh the mitigation that we're being offered will compensate that. And then whether

162or not the design entailing smaller building structure reduced or the setbacks diminished and and reconfigured areas determined not to be effective. I think that um that I think that what we have here is that yes, I I would say that we don't have to worry. We're not I'm not looking for an additional change in that. Then the 255-5-40 and the compatibility is this the site of the proposed use suitable for one location. Is this compatible in this neighborhood and community in general? I think yes. I don't think this is going to do anything to provide a detriment uh to the u to the neighbor or to the uh roadway there. And whether the natural characteristics of the site are such the proposed that we introduce here without undue disturbance. I think that Morgan Slater to

163weighed in on the on the walkway and I think the small nature of it's about a 20 to 22 in wall in that area that now is holding back what looks like might have been held back before. It certainly is a job from one elevation to another. So that wall seems to have been a retaining wall in the past. All those reasons I am willing to uh approve this application at this time. Mr. Chairman, >> thank you. Hey. Um, well, I I agree with my fellow board member actually at the bottom line of this, but um the what I have a problem with I guess is it was nice that we talked about reveation and talking on the northeast side. However, um I don't think it was enough that we unless we could clarify that

164um you know, we this this house had some of these types of features before before this work was done before there were issues with it. Um so anything on the land side of the house um I'm okay with as far as an NRSP. Um it is the the side when you come through the gate and you have the stone walkway that requires the variance and the and the wall. Um I could give the variance um and I will be giving the variance on I do think they they meet the standards if the reveation were sufficient. Um, we saw the photos there and there was grass all around the pool and everything see lakewoodward of the the gate that you come and you go into the back um is all is all grass and stone. Um

165I think that entire back part portion should be reveated with uh reach grasses and um as recommended by the the planning department and the pool is in disrepair. We saw that and I guess um if this is approved overall I'm not sure what to do about the pool other than can we make a statement that this would have to come in front of us certainly for any work to be done on it >> would have state it again >> but um so I I you know I I agree on on the standards I think there are huge variances I think they it won't really change the character of the overall neighborhood over here on Westlake Drive. Um but um well they are huge variances and they are self-created but um that whole area in the

166back I I would approve these variances. I think they and if we get the the reveation and get rid of the grass which would automatically eliminate the irrigation and pesticide issue. um that that I would approve this application and approve the NRSP on it. >> Thank you, Jane. >> Yes, thank you. So, I actually struggled been struggling struggled um on through my deliberation on this. So, we have uh the stone walls. Of course, these things were done without the benefit of a permit. Um we know they received a stop work order. So the the walls on the next you know on the towards the north side wetlands on the property next door these are very substantial variances and I mean it's not I don't see the board doing there are many times where we deny

167um walls and structures that close to wetlands and there was really no particular particular reason cited for needing these walls. It was sort of more aesthetic creating flattened areas. So, I'm not quite sure really what the benefit is to the applicants. So, that's the first thing I'm struggling with. The second thing, and by the way, don't we need a variance on the stepping stone uh on the south side of the property? That stepping stone path, >> it's not I don't think it's noticed. So that like I believe there's a third that's a third variance, right? Don't really need that. >> Yeah, the existing walkway is 26 ft I think. >> No, no, that's the that's the little gravel path on the north. >> We notice is just for >> it's just the most the whatever

168the most variance is walkway is. You don't get like not every foot of the walkway gets a variant. >> I never quite understand it because it's a separate structure. Okay, never mind. Um so um but I guess you know I want to go back to something that was said by the planning department in the hearing because you know the applicant was saying that there's not a nexus from what we are being asked to approve relative to you know many all of us expressed concerns. The chairman I think was um very eloquent about it. you know, we have a sloping irrigated fertilized um uh sod lawn going right down to wetlands. Um, and you know the what was said was from planning, I don't get it word for word, but basically a quote such with such

169an intense level of development as is on this property, any additional development should be offset by mitigation. This is an H pod. Yes, it's pre-existing allowed 100% clearing. But this 26,000 square feet of clearing where there should be, you know, if to protect the lake, which is an impaired water body, um, you know, would would be 10,000. So this is where I'm struggling because I don't think I don't find necessarily that the mitigation that was discussed in that sort of corner there is sufficient. Um but I I do want to work that through with the rest of the the board. So leaning I mean I think if it can't be greater mitigation and I agree I think that whole um area that runs parallel to the wetlands sorry the you know the the lake um

170and that old concrete retaining wall between that and the pool. I I do see a nexus to that being um reveated. So that's where I am. So can I just leave it right there for now? One the rest. Okay. Thank you. discussion about that for sure. >> Um, vice chair. >> Um, okay. >> While the retaining wall uh replaced a previously stacked stone wall, it was done without a building permit, needed a variance in an NRSP, and a majority of the wall in question is on the landwood side of the house. The reasoning for the wall was to create a flat area for the parking. The transition from the parking area between the garage and the house due to the slopes in a safe way. The wall, in my opinion, actually creates a benefit from

171stopping that slope from runoff from the driveway area down to the wetlands between the wall and the vegetation around the wall. I do agree with the TAM that environmental conditions on this property could be improved by removing the side lawn on the water side of the pool and reveating with native beach grass, especially since this is an hot. As already been said, this really is an ex an intense level of development existing on this property. So the mitigation in terms of removing that uh sod lawn is appropriate because sod is not even compatible with the edge potty standards and since malkque is a compromised water body I think the mitigation recommended um if approved will will benefit the lot environmentally and protect the native characteristic natural characteristics. In terms of the gravel driveway extension, um

172it's permeable and it does not really create any additional uh would not be uh increase the runoff in any way. Now, are these variances substantial? Yes, I don't think any of us would disagree with that. But every existing structure on this property not before us tonight are all extremely non-conforming to setbacks. I mean the residence is set back 37 ft. >> So I think as long as we implement uh a buffer and the uh uh reveation that was recommended by the planning department, as long as we incorporate that, especially since it's in an H pod, I am willing to um approve this application. I don't see any detrimental environmental issues associated with it. As long as we implement conditions of approval regarding the revitation, I'm willing to approve the application. >> Thank you. I um

173I agree with my board members. This is I there was an ar there was a discussion that that evening um especially when we were talking about the buffer um council John Tarbet was mentioned you know was saying okay but there needs to be a nexus for us requiring it and I think I that's what I struggled with what is that ne nexus but I think our board members tonight define that nexus that we this is a heavily developed piece of property. It's um if it had come before us and if they had come before us with these improvements there would be a buffer there. >> Yeah, we know that that is the history that is that is the the the integrity of this board to do that >> and I think this board did establish

174the proper nexus to seek a buffer along both both sides of that pool. Um and I do feel that we have done that. I would I too would suggest that we condition it on a buffer both on the >> east and the north end of the property. I >> think so. >> That's the best we can do actually. Well, I >> I think we established the nexus prop adequately this evening. I really do feel that we've done that. >> Would we be allowing a three-foot walk around the pool or >> Yeah. Yeah. You have to allow some. >> Yeah, I think you have to, right? I think we probably >> have a deck around the pool. >> Yeah, we got there has to be maintenance though. We should only be 4 foot probably enough >>

175to have the stone though. So, >> we need we need we need buffers along our water and that's that's critical environmentally there that the buffers are critical. >> Oh, >> and are we is it beach grass or do we want something more woody >> and robust for the minerals? >> I think uh >> will do that. >> Okay. I just >> I think I think that if the TAM mentioned brief pre-re they did I think we should be consistent with that. >> I'd be in complete harmony with what the planning department thought. Could we >> define the >> Yeah. Yeah. Can we just point >> area talking about I mean >> I want everything that when you go past that gate where the stone walkway continues and ends >> I think we have to I

176think I think before we >> I think we have to be careful of overreach and I'm not I'm not saying we are saying that but I think we should take a look at that. >> Um >> the variances. >> Yeah. The gate. From the gate. >> Yeah. From the gate right here. the walkway that got the variances >> from that that gate right here. Right. >> I think there can be no argument >> this and this implementing this mitigation. >> This is pool right there. >> Yeah. >> There's another gate here. Yeah. Let's look because the audience can't see our fans out here. I what what I would suggest doing is from the gate on the north side. >> Yeah. >> Going um easterly and then along the east side of the pool, but carry

177that straight line across >> and let them have some lawn there. >> I would I would I think that's reasonable because our our we're protecting the water and I think that's giving us adequate >> and the wetlands on the north, >> right? I would I would approve the variances and the NRSP based on that. >> I would Yeah, I think that's really appropriate mitigation. >> I can't see what you're >> That's basically the end, Charlie. >> And my concern with that is that it's still going to leave grass on the south side of the pool. >> But we're doing a bunker all the way across. So, >> yeah, but nothing's going that way. >> Yeah, he's going all the way down. I mean, we're going it's Yeah, >> but then it's got to come this

178way a little more, too. >> Okay. >> Four feet. So, four feet off of here. So, between them and >> all the way to the other property that >> I will attempt >> that's still going to leave them with some grass pesticide. >> I think it's an overreach to go further. >> I think I just think it is an overreach. walkway we just gave a huge variance to is ends there >> like that. >> Yeah, but I think but >> off like not directly up onto >> but here we're protecting these wetlands. This we're protecting those wetlands the title wetlands. >> Oh yeah yeah yeah generally that >> I think we have to be noted. Yeah. >> All right. >> Yeah, that's Yeah, that that that's probably >> right. That's it. >> Yep. >> Something

179like that. >> Yep. But up just up to the retaining wall or they going to Well, they're not going to revge on the other side of the retaining wall because that's the beach. >> Yeah, it's just approximation. I mean, the retaining wall ends here anyways. >> Oh, no. The the retaining wall. >> Oh. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> I'm fine with as it's drawn >> vegetated probably on the other side of that anyways. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Me, too. >> Yeah. I >> I'm fine with that. >> Okay. So, approve it condition on that. Is he Terry? Are you >> Terry? Are you with us? >> I don't like it, but I like Yes. But how do you feel though? >> Okay, you'll go. >> Just bothers me that there will still be grass

180over on that side, >> but just so the minutes are right. You're willing to >> Yes. Let's be clear. >> Yes, I said. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um, we have some resolutions. Paul Bronzo. No, we have minutes. Uh um minutes still need some work. >> There was one error still in the minutes. >> Yeah, there's one thing we're still working on. >> What is What are we working on? Cuz um we had a discussion in premeating today about this. Um and um we I I don't want to get into a habit of just if if the minutes are succinct and factual, >> um I I think we should put them forth and say yes. Do they have to include everything? I don't know. So, I don't know what needs to be in there.

181>> No, there's a factual error in it. This is factual. >> That's what I'm saying. >> I just the item that's there were two things that were not factual. One got corrected. The other one was regarding the echard. I gave Charlie my email the last time. Um because when I rewatched our deliberations on that application, it ended up being that the full board approved that application >> um with a 26 for variance when >> I approved the application and it didn't mean it to say that I sent it, but I was not in agreement. >> It says I I disagreed with the >> I approved the application, >> but I approved. All right, let's just table it for now and we'll figure this out in a minute. I don't know what to do with this.

182>> We'll just post them. It doesn't matter. We'll we'll just post them. It doesn't You don't have to We don't need to have this social media. Just >> We'll fix them. >> I mean, I don't want saying that I just agreed with it. >> We'll fix them. We'll send them out. We'll post them. We're done. >> Sorry. >> Thank you, Charlie. Fix them. >> Um All right. >> Resolutions. We have Paul Bronzo modification at 65 Jacqueline Drive, Amaganza subcast map number 300-176-1-9. >> Thank you. Um, this was a modification on a uh um to rebuild in place and in kind two existing uh outdoor decks attached to the south side and the north side of the building. And we all agreed that that made sense. So, in the matter of Paul Bronzo, modification 65 Jaclyn

183Drive, Amigansit, Suffach County, tax map 3-176-1-9. Um, and make a motion to um approve the modification as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. Next we have 53 TI Drive LLC, 53 Treasure Island Drive, Amigans of Testment number 300-175-136. >> I was not present for this one. So John, you can >> you can vote for us. >> Yeah. And I sent I got a call about there was a question on some of it. I I did edit it again subsequent to the original one. So, there's a it was a little bit a little confusing because there was a denial of the sideyard setback, but the board didn't have a problem with the LP tanks being there on the property. They just didn't like them where they were currently. But unfortunately the way this property

184is set up, I don't know if there's a spot where they can go without requiring at least a variance from wetlands because of just the way or you know it's so I take a look at it if you I emailed it to you guys. >> I saw that >> it's so it's a denial of the variance but I also put a condition saying that they could you know propose some a better location of the LP text because you have to have the L. Can't just not have them. >> Yeah. Right. Right. You have to have them. >> But we also denied the >> and the fence as well. Yeah. The fence is that missing. >> Yeah. Once you move the tanks, the fence is going anyway because that's all the reason the fence is there,

185>> right? >> Uh >> okay. >> But I just wanted to make it I didn't wanted to I wanted to give the applicant a way to still put a put them somewhere and not just deny it and then then not have you know heat or something. You know what I mean? >> Like to a more conforming location. >> Yeah. Just a more conforming location. >> Motion. Good. So in the matter of and everyone will remember this was uh an application to legalize a whole number of things because there I don't think there'd ever really been a scope on it. Um and we also um made a condition um I think a 10-ft reveated buffer along the rear lot line. So in and we were pretty much unanimous on everything except the tanks but it was

186those were just discussed. So in the matter 53 TI drive LLC 53 Treasure Island Drive I'm against it Suffach County Tax Map 300-175-5-36. I make a motion to approve the resolution as just discussed as amended as written. >> I said that right. >> Concur concur. >> Concur. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. I would like to make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals meeting on 10:2125 at 9:05 p.m. >> Second it. >> Concur.