East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 10/07/2025

001Okaying board we are live will remain off. Go for it. >> Thank you Matt. Welcome to the town of East Hampton zoning board of appeals meeting for October 7, 2025. This is a work session, so we have no hearings this morning. >> Um, good morning. >> We do have um our alternate on the first decision sitting next to me and our vice chair in the audience. Um our first application this evening uh in posthering decisions is Jeffrey Minich at 93 Dura Avenue in Montalk SuffK taps map number 3000-5-2-15 size and location is 11,250 square feet at 93 Dura Avenue Sound View Estates lot 9 map number 1929 in Montalk. The description is to allow an existing patio to remain 13 ft from the sideyard property line where 20 ft is required. Relief thought is one

002variance of uh what does it say? It's not proposed 7 feet I think it is right. Yeah. 7 ft of 255 11110 of the East Hampton Town Code is required to allow the existing patio to remain 13 ft from the sideyard lot line where 20 ft se foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two. And who's going to leave this off? Okay. Ed, Mr. Chairman, Jeffrey Minich and Amy Agnello. Well, board will remember that the hearing initial hearing was held on August 12th, 2025. We had a continuation for the purpose of reposting the property and that hearing was held on September 16th, 2025. The survey we were working from was from March 26, 2025 by Gary Ben

003Surveying and Land Planning. Uh the applicant was uh represented by Devon Zucardi of the Laurel Group. Uh there was a masonry plan from the Laurel Group that described and located the patio in question. We received that the town received that on November 22nd, 2024. The town planner that evening was Sarah Lewis. The parcel is 11,250 ft square feet and the existing lot coverage is 4,024 ft which is 35.8% or 5,625 square ft or 50% is allowed. The existing building coverage on the lot is 1770 ft where 2250 ft is allowed. Um, the original CO for the property was issued in 1961 for a two 92 ft house in Carport. A building permit was issued for a detached shed in July of 1963. So, the house goes back and has some history. The CFO was issued

004in 2022 for 92 square foot addition, interior alterations, new doors and windows, and an IIA septic system. In November of 2024, a building permit was issued to demolish the existing entryway steps and construct a 35 ft enclosed entryway. The applicant is singing a 7 foot variance for a patio that sits just 13 ft from the parcel's north property line. A building permit was issued for the construction of 176 foot patio on April 6, 2023. It appears that a concrete slab existed under the location of the new patio as far back as December 1975. And that slab extended approximately as far north as the current patio does. That slab existed at the time of the 2022 C that the 2022 CFO was issued. In December of 2023, a building permit was issued for the construction of

005the pergola. Uh and the requested variance needed for that portion of the patio was increased in size western direction is an area of less than 15 square ft. In terms of the various standards uh to 255 111 and 10, I don't believe this small addition to an existing patio will produce an undesirable effect on the character of the neighborhood or prove to be a detriment to the nearby properties. The patio in question exists to allow for an exterior house door to function comfortably is not a prime recreation area associated with the pool. Additionally, I don't feel that the slight extension of the pre-existing patio poses significant threat to the environment or physical conditions of the neighborhood. What we had here was an extension of a or a new patio going down over a concrete slab.

006And it was the extension to the west that triggered the variance needed to the north. So it was a small portion of about a foot and a half extension to the west that extended about twothirds of the width of the patio. All of that was in question. I looked at this and said this was not a um this was not a significant change to the pre-existing layout pre-existing co layout and I thought that it was not an exorbitant or unreasonable ask so I'm willing to uh approve this application at this time. >> Thank you John. >> I um agree with fellow member Johan. I really don't have anything to add. It's a minimal um request and I approve the application in its entirety. >> Thank you, J. >> Oh, sorry, Dr. Terry was going. Um

007okay, so um I I spent some time looking at the surveys that were in the file. Um, so you know, you had the 41 2022 survey showed the house a small rectangle of concrete and some gravel just off the back of the house. Um, then there was a survey 11023 that showed the proposed pool and decking that was approved through building permit 74267. Um, and you can see that what was approved in terms of the layout of the decking the um around the pool actually bears little relationship to what was actually built um by the applicant. Um, and then when you the survey that's up on the screen is the survey that shows the asbuilt conditions. Um I I I I'm going to deny this variance unlike like I understand the case of my fellow

008board members. It's not a tremendous amount of area. However, you know, there were alternatives um like they could have built what had been approved. Um they also um could have they the applicant made an attempt to say that the rear the patio that attaches to the rear of the house is separated from the um uh the pool area. Um although our planner is def was definitive that this um is not a separate deck and that it needs the double setback. Um so because uh that the it's separated by these sort of stepping stones I think it we established in the hearing is only three feet there was there is certainly an option to um expand and you know expand the break between that patio on the rear of the house and the pool deck. Um,

009and at the end of the day, you know, don't in a neighborhood that is one of the densest in town. Um, and where there are other alternatives, I think it's very important to still uphold, um, setbacks, especially, you know, sideyard sideyard setbacks. So, um, I actually do not see this meeting the the standards enough for me to, um, approve this. So, I'm going to deny disappearance. >> Okay. >> Hey, I have a similar track to what member Miring did. I was also looking at the surveys from uh 2022 um 74267 for putting in the pool and at that point in time in 2022 there was no stone patio that was connected to the pool. Um then the uh 2023 is when the pergola on the deck uh was put in and that work was done

010and somewhere in between there I believe what happened is the 2022 pool permit some stone patio was added onto that project uh thereafter. So somewhere along the way, this stone patio became connected to the pool uh making it now all a pool patio and now requiring the double setback. So I do think there are alternate methods. Um they put these little stepping stones in I think with the thought perhaps that that would absolve the the double setback. However, it doesn't. have to be 5T away from that. But there are alternate solutions that could be used on this. And uh this other recent uh hearing we had about Colon and the pools and pool patios and the tightness of all the space um in Colon on these small lots that um the alternate they could have

011done other things and separate that patio the the one that we're here for from the pool patio and then it wouldn't need a variance at all. So, I think there are other solutions for it. I don't think it meets the standards. Um I to denying it. >> Thank you. Um I'm going to approve the application in line with uh what um member Johan um laid out. I don't think it's um uh it's a large it it it it warrants a denial in this specific case. So with that I I also spoke to approve the application. Thank you. [Applause] See, welcome vice chair. Our next application is Sean Eckard at 11 Rehan Avenue in Montalk subass map number 300-30-3-10. [Music] Size of location is 7,320 ft 11 Rehan Avenue, Oceanside of Montalk, map 2730, lot 67

012in Montalk. The description is to allow an existing retaining wall, steps, walkway, and fence to remain on a parcel of land within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. Relief S is a natural resources special permit pursuant to and variances from 255430 of the town code. A variance of 37 ft is required to allow the fence and retaining wall steps and walkway 63 ft from a wetland where 100 foot setback is required. Any other relief necessary? Zoning district is B residence zone X flood zone in the secret classes type two. I think this is yours. >> Okay. Uh yes, this hearing was held on February, not February, September 16th, 2025. The agent was Joel Hallysey. Uh the survey that we're looking at is dated July 8th, 2024. Um this required, well, the variances are stated 37 ft for

013the fence retaining wall steps and walkway uh to be 63 feet from the wetlands. Uh this was a disturbing application for me, but um number of things occurred on this property and uh the the applicant I'll go into the history I guess with uh Joel Holly said that the reason that some of this occurred is because it was a steeply slope property to begin with. the original driveway uh sloped up and went over into over the actual septic system that's on the property. And um the the owner got concerned about the the integrity of the septic system, not knowing if it could retain weight with cars going in and up and over it. Um it was a point in time where the garage that was under actually became part of the living space. Most of

014the garage did um but the owner was still concerned because the septic system was left there and I guess people were still driving over it. Um in 2021 the applicant went to the highway department to ask for a solution. I guess to see if they could put in a retaining wall. >> Um they got approval for that >> and in 2022 they got a CFO and a permit. Um and then in 2023 they got a permit for the pool and it was in the inspection after the pool was put in that it became known about the retaining wall and it had not come to this board uh for any approvals. Um so they had done this as a matter of safety potential safety. Um there unfortunately they only went to the highway department and the

015agent said they they didn't know they didn't know that they needed to come and do something else. They needed the highway department I guess feel they had to notify anybody and according to council I guess they they just don't do that. So there was a lot of discussion on this. Um we can't as far as uh the NRSP part of this you know the planning department was not that concerned about um negative environmental aspects since the wetlands are across the street from the property. They thought maybe there could be some additional runoff but they didn't have a strong feeling on that at all as being harmful. Um as far as the variance um I have a concern on the variance. I'm going to approve this application um because of the safety issues that were brought

016up and only because of that issue that um however um they the planner said that the it's noted for a 37 foot variance to be 63 feet from a wetland but during the hearing the planner did break that out and the the 63 feet the well the 37 7 ft is actually off from the the property that that the part of the property that's actually not on the owner's property. It's in the town right away and perview of the highway department. So, I do not want to approve a variance of 37 ft. The planner said that the portion of the wall that is on the applicant's property is 74 feet from the wetland. So I am willing to do a 26 ft variance for that to be 74 ft from the wetlands but not not

017the 37. >> Thank you Jane. >> Okay. Um so uh one of the issues that did come up um and council answered my many questions on the record. um you know so we have a situation where um the highway department which has jurisdiction over whether something could or should be in the right of way made that decision their approval of the retaining wall um the documentation that was I believe put into the record um and uh the so so it was approved um when we know that really I think as we but realized it it should have come to the board first because it needed variances and an NRSP, but it didn't. So, I'm looking at this application more as a mis sort of a mistake um in terms of an approval that got the

018applicant to build the wall. Now maybe they knew um what their wetland setbacks are. But however, you know, just like we look at when building department approves things in error, I'm looking at this in a similar context. Um in addition, as member Burgerer said, and I also take this into account. um our planner who wrote the TAM and presented to us did not at all feel strongly and you know said that um she could not necessarily articulate or quantify what risk um this would create to the wetlands. The wetlands I believe are actually that these are across the road. Um and so um between not being clear that there would be you know per the NRSP standards or the varian standards I'm not necessarily seeing environmental detriment created by this. I think we had an

019unfortunate circumstance where the protocols and the sequencing of an application were poor. But those two things together in particular, um I will be approving uh the application in full. Thank you, Ed. Yeah, I'm going to agree with my fellow board members. I think they've expressed most of the ideas that I had about this. Well, um I think that uh when you first come onto the site, uh it's a little jarring because there's wall does extend out fairly close to the road out onto the area that was given approval by the highway department. They did not come to us for any kind of approval. Um which is unfortunate. But a couple of key things here beyond the shock value of seeing what was there. Uh, one of the reasons that was stated for uh, moving it

020was the driveway and to eliminate the one did run into the garage before that had crossed the septic tank and they weren't sure of the structural integrity of the tank and they were afraid of that collapsing. That may have been a factor. In the end, I mean, it was a factor to them. I don't know if that was something that we would uh, we we can quantify in any particular way, but I think the wetlands are across the street from the parcel. I think that what was ran up by by member Burgerer that although it's uh noticed as a um a 67 foot uh yeah 67 foot or 64 foot anyway variance is actually it's 74T so we're looking at a 26T variance which gets us now close to 25%. I think that's a factor.

021Uh I think the quote and I won't read the quote but it's been mentioned by both members that um our uh our planner did say that there was hard to quantify any particular effects you might have crossing that roadway from a wall that was that far away might have on the wetlands would certainly effect the planning department did not have a strong negative feeling about it. So with no negative effects to be anticipated on the wetlands and um I think that um it's as was said procedurally I'd like to see that we had a little better working relationship with the highway department on these sensitive issues but I'm not sure that that has anything to do with our decision tonight and I'm going to approve this application based on the fact that I don't think

022it's going to provide any potential damage or at least very little potential damage to the environment that's most associated with and that that it is a 25% and not a 35% or 38% whatever it was variance request. So, I'm approving this application. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. I'm not going to repeat what's already been said. Um I don't see them being any negative environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There was, as member Burgerer already brought up, a safety issue. Uh but I'm in agreement with my fellow board members and I'm going to be approving this application. Thank you. Um, I too am going to approve it. However, I caution on approving it based on a safety issue. I I approve it based on the variance request and other factors. I don't want to I

023don't believe it's just the safety app, but there's a number of different reasons why you should be approving this application. Um I I the board are we all in agreement that it's going to be a 26 foot variance not not variance >> 37 what >> uh instead of 37 >> I don't want to approve the varian >> we don't it's not we're we don't have the jurisdiction to approve >> varian what you're saying is the only part that we can approve >> is on the property that's correct okay so we I I thought we in the hearing we did say that we did have the jurisdiction to also deny the other the other variants. So that's I'm looking it that way. But if I is it the variance or is it the I we don't

024have the jurisdiction on a variance but I think the discussion correct me if I'm wrong was had to do with the NRSP um that we did have our jurisdiction can go to approving the NRSP part of it >> but in all the time my tenure on the board u we stay within the property line. Yes. So that's basically >> well that's what I'm basing my decision on. So, it's 26 ft variance then from >> right >> from the property. >> Morgan, you you agree with that? >> Um, yeah. I believe the board's jurisdiction is just what's within the property limits. I mean, >> we'll see what happens when it gets to the building department for a co if it has to come back for an amendment. The board already discussed it and be a conversation

025later on if it needs to happen. >> So, we're just approving what's on the property. That's what I'm approving. Okay. >> Yeah. and the fact that there's no negative environmental conditions to the neighborhood. >> Council, did I give the dates of the survey or did I did I >> Thank you. Did uh >> I got the survey >> survey 78204 and the agent sent in a submission on 9825 which we received the same day and a handdrawn sketch from 121724 on that. Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay, we good. >> Thank you. Next, we have Jasmine and Ed Immad Khalil at 84 Northwest Road East SanF number 300-91-1-1.7. Size and location is 340,720 ft, which is 7.82 72 acres at 84 Northwest Road. James Dunlop Senior and Adelaide H Dunlop plot one

026filed October 10th, 2000 as map number 10507 in East Hampton. The description is to allow an existing tennis court to remain within minimum sideyard setbacks. Relief SW is one variance of 2.2 ft pursuant to 255 11110 of the East Hampton Town Code is needed to allow the tennis court to remain 47.8 8 ft from a sideyard lot line where 60 ft is required. Zoning district is A5 residence X flood zone and the secret class is type two. And this was in mine. This uh this uh hearing also took place on 916. Um and if you remember the uh the pro it's a very large property uh very heavily and densely um naturally vegetated um screening. Um the uniqueness to this property uh this this was an era both in surveying and with the building permit.

027Um the uh the state property was staked out off the property line instead of off the accessory uh build building envelope. Uh and the build and the building permit was issued on the same. Um, and as far as uh the uniqueness of the property to the south is a reserve and a road which puts the neighboring the the most affected neighbor is the reserve area. >> Um, and then you have a road. So it puts the neighboring house u about 160 ft away from the tennis court. Um, with that I find that this is a unique situation. Um, and I think it warrants approval uh based on uh on the fact that there is a quite a large because these double setbacks were created to avoid noise with neighborhoods with neighboring uh neighbors. So, um,

028with that, I I I vote to approve the, uh, the application, and I believe it meets all the standards. [Music] >> You want to go? >> Sure. Thank you. Um, I agree with, uh, our chairman. I'm going to approve this um, approve this variance uh, for similar reasons. Um, number one, that the the um, 20 the sorry, the 12.2% 2% variance requested um represents a variance of 20% relative to the 60 foot required setback. Um we recently um reviewed a series of uh approvals that our zoning board had made for you know these fairly rare tennis court setbacks. And one of the patterns seemed to be that the approvals um were generally for smaller magnitude around 20 20-ish percent. So um I feel like this is in keeping with some of the uh the approvals

029for you tennis court setbacks before. But more importantly again I also would cite the uniqueness um and and part of that uniqueness is the both the mistake in surveying and it not being picked up and corrected and a mistake of issuance of the building permit. Um and I don't see it having particularly great impact on neighbors or the character of the neighborhood. This is a seven almost an 8 acre lot. Um, and the most affected property, as has been said, is the reserve. So, I'm going to approve this uh application. >> Thank you. >> I don't have much more to add to that. I agree with my fellow board members. Um, you know, stated the the reser is a reserve area on this property. The nearest neighbor is more than 100 ft away. Um, there's

030not much more to say. I think it is a unique situation and the variance is not large. No, I too going to approve this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. And yeah, there's not a lot to add, but just the same points. Uh very heavily vegetated lot. Uh the reserve area means that the nearest house, as the chair said, it's 160 ft away. I ask myself in these cases, what was the legislative intent? Uh the codes established to try to protect the adjoining neighbors from noise pollution and other kinds of activity that's too close to them. We don't have that here. that gives it uniqueness. I think there was the problem with the survey. Uh but uh for all the reasons that have been mentioned by fellow board members, I'm in agreement with them.

031I'm going to approve this application. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> I too agree with my fellow board members. I agree with Chairman Deline that this is uh a very unique situation with regard to the survey and the building permit. These are this is not a substantial variance. The tennis court was constructed to the approving plans and the neighboring property affected by this is a reserved area. Also, lot coverage, building coverage and clearing are within the maximum allowable and it will not cause a detriment to the neighborhood. So, I will be approving this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. >> We good. Council. >> Yes. >> Next we have Jason Goldclang at 66 Pepperage Lane in Amaganza Suffach Map number 300-127-4-10. Size and location is 84,23. Square of 66 Pepperage Lane Hawk Nest section

0323 lot 52 filed March 20th 1978 as map number 6658. The description is to construct a screen porch, screened in porch, patio fence, and clear 4,000 ft of vegetation within the jurisdiction of wetlands. Allow a hot tub, patio, and fire pit to remain within the jurisdiction of wetlands, and to allow a fence to remain within minimum wetland setbacks. Relief sought as a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code and one variance is required for this application. A variance of 17 feet is needed to allow a fence to remain 83 feet from the wetland where 100 foot setback is required in any other relief necessary. Zonic district is A2 residents X flood zone and the secret class is type two Mary. >> Yes, thank you. Um the public hearing was held on

033September 16th, 2025. At the end of the hearing, we closed the hearing but left the record open for one week until September 23rd in order to receive a response from the applicant regarding um a covenant that had been required by a prior board multiple years ago. We had a lot of discussion about um uh whether it should be properly conveyed. Now, um the applicant did come back to us within the time frame of the 23rd and did say that um her client or the applicant's agent came back um that her client was happy to uh convey that covenant. Um so that um put that in um uh put put a rest to that. Um the applicant was represented by Jameus McMill Nick Williams of the Adam Miller group. Um the TAM was prepared by Morgan

034Slater. It was dated um August 1, 2025. We did not receive any public comments into the record um before the hearing began. Um I think it was a few days before the public hearing date, the applicant decided to remove a substantial perhaps the most substantial element from their application. It had there had been a proposal to clear an additional 4,000 square ft of woodlands on steep slopes uh I think on the west western part uh of the existing developments uh the existing development of the property. that change that um the change to what was noticed for the hearing is also reflected um on the updated Gary Ben survey dated August 6, 2025 um which um uh um so that came in like uh not that long before the hearing, but it was discussed at the

035public hearing and uploaded into the public file on 820. Um, with respect to the four existing elements that are seeking to be legalized, those were all built by prior owners of the property and existed at the time the applicant purchased the property. The other three elements um they want to add um that also require variances in NRSP are proposed to be within already disturbed sort of existing building and total coverage areas of the property. Um, aside from the steep slopes and woodlands on the property, it's a beautiful um, wood wooded area overall of Amigans in town. This parcel is also distinguished by a wetland area um, on the southern quadrant of the property sort of between um, the entrance to the driveway and the uh, house that's set back. Um, and there is a scenic

036easement that had been placed um across that wetland um I think at the time of the original building permit. Um, and that easement um visually appears to be the scenic easement, excuse me, appears to be intact. Um, uh, so I just wanted to note that. Um, I'm going to come back to at the end, but I noticed that on the survey that the scenic easement is marked, but it actually seems it's not covering the whole wetland. I'll come back to that. And if you look at the sketch for it in the public hearing file, it was shifted a little differently, but it just I'll come back to that. Um, one of the elements, a portion of the existing fence fencing requires a modest 17% variance to the minimum wetland setback. Everything else, I believe in

037this application is outside of the required 100 foot wetland um, setbacks. Removing the proposed area area of significant new clearing of native trees on the slopes was an important development. Um a and I'm happy it had been marus because it was not clear to me it actually comported with the NRSP standards. Um considering all the elements of the application in total relative to the NRSP standards under and 25540 and the variance standards under 255850. Um and that the applicant will formalize the co covenant um established by the prior ZBA. I believe um the elements meet all of those standards. I'm not going to go through each element one by one, but overall the variances request requested for the existing fence is not substantial. And I do not find that any of the other elements in

038the application to be material or will cause any detriment to the environment, to the natural features of the site, to the neighboring properties or the character of the neighborhood. And overall, I note that all the improvements on the property remain fairly tightly clustered on the lot and given the wooden nature of the surroundings are not particularly visible from the road. Um there's no expansion really going on on everything. They're actually removing a few things to offset some of the legalization. Um and so um also I'd note that the clearing will remain unchanged at 23.4% 4% of the lot which is below meaningfully below the maximum of 36.9% and the building coverage and total coverage ratios remain virtually unchanged and both of those are really only a fraction of what maximums are permitted. So all in

039I'm uh looking to approve this application um and I guess I would like to clarify that scenic keyment position but I'll leave that to the end. Thank you, Terry. >> Okay, I agree with my fellow members. Um, interesting application. The biggest problem uh for me also before the hearing actually occurred was the additional clearing that had been requested and that was removed by the applicant. We received that by the time the the hearing started. Uh Jameson uh did some sketches on the board to show how the uh fencing was going to be changed and removed, some removed, some added to, but in order to complete the pool pool fencing and eliminating some of the other fencing that was within uh NRSP territory. Uh they're moving uh there's a hot tub and part of the the

040project that they they would remove some of the stones between the hot tub and the fire pit mostly because the hot tub would require a double se double setback as a pool and so that was addressed. um talked about the original the original residence and the uh the covenant for the lack of clearing and they did provide the okay that the applicant would do that. So, um I do think that this meets all the standards uh for the NRSP and uh for the 17 this one variance for the uh fencing uh I feel it meets the standards. It's a a minor variance. It's not going to cause any harm and uh minimum variance required. I think that uh I'm I'm approving this application in its entirety. >> Thank you, Ed. Yeah, I'm going to agree

041with my fellow board members on this one as well, but um I make a couple of points that they've already been made, but this is what influenced my thinking. A very wooded lot. Um that proposed clearing area that was uh was shocking when we first went there was withdrawn before we actually had to consider it. So, that was plus. I think we went from uh coming into the hearing anticipating possibly having to wrestle with 4,000 additional cleared uh square feet from that to getting the covenant which was uh required from an earlier time. But the fact is that the client did not re in any way try to recoil from that. So, we go from potentially arguing over or discussing cleared land to having a covenant to protect that very land. and and of course

042a good deal of the rest of that very pitch slope. I thought that these other improvements were all 112 108 100 ft away. The removal of the stone which took away the double setback condition over on the far side there between those couple of other elements, the fire pit and whatnot. I thought the reconfiguration of the fence was one that worked conveniently for them to have a little more room, but it was creative enough that it didn't change things significantly. It was two small little returns with gates in them that had to happen there to make it happen to make it work. Um I I didn't think the fence represented any kind of large um um and and the porch the porch um the porch uh improvements were insignificant. I didn't think that the uh

043the planning department had any real problems with it. I think there was uniqueness to the lot in terms of uh the wetlands that existed on it, but that we made an effort. We're coming out of this to protect them a little better than they were when we came in. So, I I'm willing to approve this application at this time. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> I agree with my board members. The all the proposed structures um are not expected to have any long-term environmental impacts on the wetland. As everybody, I was concerned about the removal of the 4,000 ft of reg re vegetation. I'm happy to see that has been removed from the project because this will benefit the wetland and minimize storm water runoff and impact to soils stability. The proposed uh final limits

044of clearing are 23,590 ft where 31,50 ft is the maximum allowable. So I do feel this meets the NRSP and varian standards and I will be approving the application. >> Thank you. I too agree with my fellow board members and I don't have anything else to add. Thank you. >> We next have >> I'm sorry. Can I just resolve this thing on the scenic easement? Is that okay? Because I I'm wondering if it's a mistake on the survey because the scenic easement must have been established relative to the sketches that were in the record. Um, and what's depicted on the survey looks odd. I know. I mean, there's enough in the record. I hope I'm not trying to make a new record here, but it sort of just jumped out at me again why the

045easement is there, I guess, in terms of size, but it seems like it's positioned strangely relative to the wetland. >> But is the easement already established? The ement was >> Yeah, no, it was established. So, that's you looked at the sketches that like were in the whatchamacall uh >> Right. But but as far as an an easement goes that is established by surveying and and meets and bounds and all that just like a property line. So that's that's legal. It's already filed. >> Yeah. I just it just didn't never match what was >> asked of of them. So >> wetlands moved >> the wetland was redated. >> Oh the wet. Oh okay. So that's the old scenic easement and now >> flagging on the surveys. >> Yeah. >> I guess that I noticed that >>

046easement is much older than that. Got it. Actually on the circle. Okay. >> Thank you. Um next we have MV Realy Group Core at 315 Gerard Drive in Spring number 300-64-2-14. Size and location is 38,025 ft. at 315 Garden Springs. The description is to allow the continued reconstruction of a residence with approximately 630 square feet of decking and add two seconds story dormers on parcel of land containing dune land breaches and located within the town's jurisdiction of freshwater wet. The relief s is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430 coastal setbacks and any other relief necessary. The following variances are required. Variances of 29 ft and 43 feet are required to reconstruct the residence and decking 71 ft and 57 ft from wetlands where a 100t setback is required. Variances

047of 38 ft and 55 ft are required to construct a residence and decking 62 feet and 45 ft from the landward edge of the beach where 100 foot setback is required and a 47.4 foot variance is required to install the sanitary system 102.6 ft from wetlands where 150 foot setback is required. Zoning district is A2 residence AE flood zone elevation 9. in the secret classes type two. Um, vice chair, I believe this was in New York. >> Yes, it was. Thank you. The public hearing was held on September 16th, 2025. The survey prepared by George Walbridge. Survey lost revised 8:30. Dated received 92624. The plans for additions and alterations to the residence are prepared by WJG Architects. Dated 412 2014. data received 926 24 pages are two A1 and A2. No letters in the digital

048file from the public and no one from the public participated during the public hearing. Oh my god. [Music] >> There were no callers. Eric Brown was the attorney. Does somebody have a lifesaver? >> This something happens to me. I don't know what the minty thing is. >> Eric Brown was the attorney who appeared on behalf of the application along with Shannon McCaffrey. Brian Fank appeared on behalf of the planning department. When I asked, "How does a demolition and reconstruction project begin without the benefit of a building permit?" Eric Brown explained, "I apologize. I'm sorry. Something happens to me in this room. Leave this end of the >> There was water damage to the original house in the winter and pipes froze. Applicant went to the insurance company and filed a claim was paid to have

049repairs done while never really getting proper permits. So, they're now here trying to rectify a mistake since a stop work order was issued. I did ask, will the height in any way change involving a pyramid? I was told no. There's no increase in the footprint and I appreciated that explanation. The footprint will not increase and there will be a septic system upgrade. The dwelling is compliant with FEMA. The applicant has agreed to all the mitigation being proposed, one of which is to establish a scenic easement seawward of the landward edge of the beach as depicted on the planning department sketch. The shed is going to be removed and the outdoor shower was legally built and is on the CEO. Concrete peers have always been there and they are uh only adding dormers to get headroom

050on the second floor which total square feet. I believe the NRSB sorry the alternative reasonable uses of the property do not exist. They are not working within the pre-existing legal structures that exist. They are working within the pre-existing legal structures that exist on the property. There will be no negative impacts to the project as a result of this project. The septic system upgrade will be an environmental plus and there will be no disturbance or disruption to the natural resources or resources. So, for these reasons, I'm going to be approving this application. >> Thank you. >> In its entirety. >> Yes. Uh, I've got to say that in the time I'm on the board, it's one of the most shocking first sites when I went to see this one. This building that was propped up the

051way it was and the sighting is gone and I wasn't quite sure what we were getting ourselves into and I thought it was going to be a lot more difficult than it was to come to some sort of decision here. Um, there does require an NRSP and five variances. Um, they made a mistake starting the demo without permits. That's obvious and that was admitted by the applicant's representatives. There are no variance needed for pyramid on this one or height. So those are two positives with something that's been brought up on these constrained lots and and uh trying to come to uh to FEMA standards. Uh I guess one of the things before I go through what made up my mind is I uh climbed under that house and was quite certain that the concrete I

052saw was new. They said it wasn't. that had been there before. I went back and looked at the building plans because I thought for sure I was going to see a detail and that was all new work that was misrepresented. But in the building plans, it does say pre-existing concrete peers exist in all those locations that are there. It also said that the beam work that was there, I will only say that as not before us, that work had to have happened sometime between the original cottage and when it came in front of us for the renovation. However, that was something to think about. There was what was mentioned at the hearing by the vice chair that this piece of PVC shooting off into outer space that turns out being part of the original or

053the the pre-existing septic system. Um you know a couple of the things that influenced my decision making on this is that um uh the only addition that they're doing here from pre-existing footprint is they have these two small dormas in areas that already had previous use. As was mentioned, that's a total of 126 square feet. It does change the GFA calculations, but it does not change substantially the existence of the structure and how it's going to represent itself in that area. The first floor elevation is 11 foot. Uh they mentioned on a previous survey is 12t. That just accounts for whether you take the elevation from below or above the first floor framing. So that deck was probably that's the answer there. It does meet it is FEMA compliant by having it in that in

054that area like that. Um I think that uh they talked about controlling the uh storm runoff that we don't have didn't have in the previous one with gutters and leaders. We would have required that the new IIA system of course but it's in its best possible location so that was is deemed to be a a positive. There was a shed to be removed. Um let me see. Um, oh yeah, all the suggested mitigation from Brian Frank was adopted. I said the is in his best possible location. House will meet all FEMA regulations. Those are all positive. easement to the water uh that was established that was mentioned by the vice chair is 19,000 square foot of easement space between the the front of gardener's bay and back to a line that's I guess 75 ft

055back from wetlands. Uh there was also a 1600 square foot buffer along the Seahaw line just north of the Seahaw line that was uh was voluntarily agreed to. Um and uh the existing vegetation by Brian Frank was deemed to be uh adequate in most areas. Uh I think that we know that Gerard Drive, not only do we take it sensitively, Mr. Frank takes it very seriously and uh I thought that his attitude was that this is one of the better potential u end solutions to development along Gerard Lane. I think it is is a better outcome to have this house renovated in place in kind, more or less in kind, but without changing a footprint than a potential redevelopment might come in front of us. We have a certain amount of disturbance there that's already

056established. We know that finishing up the renovation is going to be a lot less impactful on the property than a whole new construction. So, as shocking as I first found this, I think that it was a very uh kind of wellthoughtout application in the sense that they offered the mitigation that we were looking for that the planning department was looking for. And I think that uh we're going to see a benefit on the property in terms of an IA system protection for the wetland and uh not being asked to approve a house that's larger or more disturbing than the one that already exists. So, I'm willing to approve this application. Thank you, G. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I remember when the hearing kicked off and our vice chair said how can this happen and

057I felt similarly there was sort of a shock to right how could this happen um and also you know it's was very jarring to have an applicant come before us while at the same time and we talked about this in the hearing a bit you know have a a active real estate um ad up that you know encourages expand and the space. Let your imagination run wild. However, as a zoning board member, no matter what my chalk um or any of those things, I'm charged only with looking at the application before us and assessing it on its merits only. Um if this application had come to us in proper order um and timing prior to starting work um I do believe I would have approved it as it appears to meet NRSP standards and the

058standards for the wetland and edge of beach variances required um as well as the one setback for the septic system. Um the house and decking um has been on as is has been on the site the variances site for some time. I can't remember what year it was built but the house has been there for quite a while. Um the variances reflect the setbacks um that reflect the existing house because this is a rebuild replace um uh in place and in kind for the most part. uh as was mentioned there there are two dormers that add a basically a dimminimous amount of GFA or mass to the house um and they don't require any height or um uh pyramid variances or anything like that. Um the improvements um of a septic I do believe in

059this case the septic is likely mitigation because the house is not expanding a lot. There's a 19,000 square foot, I think that was the number, 18 to 19,000 was estimated, scenic easement, a a reveated buffer on the land side of the house. Um, and the house as mentioned is already FEMA compliant. These are all very important factors in my deliberation um relative to the NRSP standards as well as the variance standards. Um so uh with respect um so I don't think there's any alternative to um those variances again because they're keeping the structure. I agree with my uh fellow board member, especially member Johan just said this. You know, this is we know Gerard Drive is one of the most fragile and vulnerable places in all of town. And it is a very good outcome,

060I believe, to keep the house in its size and scale relative to, you know, changes in that area and the character of it. So, all in I am approving the application. I guess I wanted to ask what member Johan brought up in terms of those peers looking new. Um I guess it'll go there was it would go to the building department really right to assess their structural integrity. So I don't think we have to make any kind of condition of that. It'll just right it should be >> um hopefully it will be looked at closely. Um and if they were to need to do something different they'd have to come back to us. >> Stamp plans. That's what they're going to rely on. >> Great. Okay. That's it for me. Thank you. >> Um Terry,

061>> two I'm going to approve this application for all the same reasons we already heard the water damage. It was a bad start I guess on this but when they have the stop work order uh the fact that you know the variances are going to be exact the house is in the same footprint so everything's the same except for the dormers that have been mentioned many times before. Um there were a lot of pluses on this. I don't know that the sanitar is mitigation for me. There's a redevelopment but regardless there's a sanitary system going in. Um the planning department once again a 19,000 ft uh scenic easement a 25 ft buffer on the west encompassing about 1,600 square ft with uh woody reveation. uh the sanitary has been cited in the best possible location.

062And uh one thing that he that Brian Frank did bring up and I guess this would be more in the DEC permit area. He mentioned that it's possible it could be a nesting place for clovers and other shorebirds. So there might be a condition on the shorebird window, but I guess that would be handled with the DEC permit. Or should we put it in anymore? Do we need to put something in about that? >> We don't think we're qualified to do that. I think that that that would be a planning department thing um or recommendation or DEC thing. >> DEC I think cover that. Right. Right. Planning raised it to us. Right. Planning did raise it to us. >> Yeah. um does me FEMA and uh we talked about drywall for the shower, but Brian

063thought was totally unnecessary because it's on sand and um that's about it. It's it's all good or hopefully it will be all good when it's done. And um I too am approving this application. >> Thank you. I too think that the optics and initial uh viewpoint on this thing was not positive. But um with adjudicating cases um we do have to enter this with an open mind and look at the facts and that and this is a model case of of showing that why we need to do that in my opinion. Um but uh I also with that I I I say that when you do have and it happens all the time every winter in this place where we do have freeze-ups and and water damage and there needs to be a provision somehow

064for the removal of the of the bad materials in a quick manner. Um however it does appear that they went a little bit beyond that scope in the demolition on this thing. So I think the stop work order was warranted in this case. However, when you do look at the simp the facts of this case as as it stands, it it's a good application ultimately and I too agree with my board members in approving the application. >> Answer there was a condition in the TAM for a strict moratorum on construction activities uh between March 15th and August 30th to protect the shorebird species. That was in the TAM. I I thought that I was going to bring up is it in the summary to that accepted accepted all the >> Yeah. Yes. >> That'll be

065in the Yeah. Okay. Good. >> One question I have for the board is I get the seedment that's the for the buffer. So, they're going to need to do a revge plan for the planning department. >> Yeah. >> But is that just going to be a buffer? There's not an easement over it. Like there's just just a buffer. They're just going to get a rev plan. Okay. >> Yes, sir. Yeah, we asked that question. I think >> I think we did answer that question. I just want to double just a revge plan that will get approved by the planning department. >> I I think Brian Frank also asked for beach grass to be planted over the disturbed area for the sanitary. >> Correct. And they agreed to it. Um the next two the next two

066uh cases I'm I was not here. So I'm going to ask the vice chair to step in my position and our alternate John to come on up. >> Can I have two of those so I can get through the mint? >> Something happened to me in this room. I don't know what it is. Okay, let me just happens every all of a sudden. Okay, so the next application is Janice Wilson, one Gladstone Place, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-9-2-50.3. Project description is to allow a parcel to remain 264 square feet over the allowable clearing limits of the water recharge overlay district relief sought one variance from 255 365 of the town code is required to allow 12,64 ft of clearing to remain where 10,000 square ft is a maximum allowable and any other relief

067necessary. zoning district is a resident zone X flood zone super class type one. Now, whose is this? What is mine? Okay, member Burger. Okay, so this hearing was also September 23rd, I believe. >> Yes. >> Oh, I did write it down. Okay. Um and the um the agent for the applicant was Janice Shira and we had latest survey reference was May 30th 2024 which we received stamped on June 14th 2024. Uh the applicant submitted the application along with a series of exhibits um which were dated June 13, 2024 which we received on the same day. Uh that she also submitted an EAF part one dated October 1st which we received on October 7th, 2024. Okay. the applicant. This is for um over clearing to allow a parcel to remain 264 square ft over the allowable

068clearing limits for water recharge overlay district. Um the applicant and this is the original and the current owner residence was built in 1993. the CFO um I guess permit or CO number I have written here 12171 for one-story residence with the attached garage. The original survey for this property is dated July 6th, 1993 and does not contain clearing calculations on it. Um the clearing regulations were established by that time in 1984. Um the next activity on this property after all these years was in 2022 the building permit 73827 to install a generator to accommodate uh an ailment of uh for her husband that needed the generator. Uh the survey done for this right there. Um they are >> I don't have my back up. Yeah. Hang on. >> I have it to get it out.

069Survey >> survey for the No, I don't need to look at it, but just the date of it. The survey was done for I guess 73827 is the building permit to install the generator. I guess that's good enough. Um, and it was when the the applicant went for the SEO for the the generator addition, which was also put in an area that had already been cleared on her property. Um, that the overclearing issue came up. Um there's a number of things on this that uh need very sympathetic with the applicant in this case. Um, we have her her exhibits and there was a lot of confusion if you remember on this weather she was just offering the the amount of reveation that showed on the survey to bring the clearing down to 12,000 >> 124

07064. Yeah. Um and then she was discussing when the applicant was the agent was up there and the applicant was up there about 1313 reveation to be done and there were there was confusion um initially that well I might still have some confusion but whether she was offering the 1313 in addition to the amount that was in the notice on the on the you know in the public notice. or if she was just wanting to do 1313. And I believe there's still, if you look at her exhibits, I believe she was actually saying there was a a hardship for her to do go beyond the 1313. And a lot of it revolved around, well, are they going to ask me to put in big trees or are these going to be little plants? I can

071do some things, but not a huge amount. She had a there was the reveation that's on the survey, the current survey that's up there. Um indicated I guess that there was some kind of a plan from James Grime because his name is on there. Um so, so I actually am sympathetic to her and I want to bring out some of the items that she had in her submission. At the time of the hearing, there was uh her agent kept waving a document that we couldn't see from here, but actually it's in her exhibit. It's um exhibit four, I believe, on it. And um it shows and the applicant said that she discussed this with that that she was shown this with the planner and it's just it's a very bad aerial but on it it

072does say approximate clearing 13,000 and then when the survey got done for this application that one the clearing shows us 14,000 so it created well she was concerned concerned about that and I know her she came in saying that she would do this reveation but and then we were trying to get more additional reveation but however um I'm not approving anything to go for additional in but I'm concerned I I and I will approve it as this is with the 2254 however um I also feel that maybe we should increase her her actual clearing. And I know that's odd, but um in her narrative, get to her narrative. She did write this paragraph. Um the conditions on the lot changed little, which we know they have changed little. There were no other structures put on

073this except for a tiny pond and a couple of gardens, which are actually a good thing. Um but the conditions she indic she said now indicates my property has 14,318 square ft of clearing which exceeds the 10,000. She respectfully requests that the zoning board grant an increase in the allowable clearing from 10,000 square ft to 13,000 square ft matching the 1994 aerial that her agent was showing us that night which is in her documentation. Um she said the benefit of that as property owner will uh outweigh a burden to health, safety and welfare suffered by the community. But so she's asking she reve um is being offered and then that that reveation that she was offering exhibit five. Yes. Okay. Is the survey that shows the over clear 12,64 over. So it's there's still in

074my mind some confusion as to whether she was offering the additional 13 or not. Um but her her statement I don't know I'm sympathetic to her statement that this property as we see it is is unique in that it comes to us with no other structures that have been built that caused the overclearing situation. There was obviously confusion and in the records of town uh there was no clearing on her original survey from 1994 and everything on her property is is planting. She over she did admit to clearing a little additionally but it was all in planting gardens and in water recharge overlay. I mean having that all these things on her property contribute to this root system. So everything contributes to the water recharge. Um, and is this in all my time on the

075board, this is only the second application that occurred that is a similar situation where the applicant planted maybe they planted ornamentals. They weren't were counts toward the reveation that the town does. um and and a similar situation in that the the clearing was not on that applicant's survey either. So I think out of difference to this app this applicant I'm considering that maybe we should give her the additional clearing allowed to bring it up to the 13,000 but minimally I am approve I will approve the as it was uh on the on the notice for the uh the car on survey and this I'm approving this as is. I'm also saying we should consider >> to take into consideration her hardship statement of the $28,000 that she got in a bid for reveation and actually

076allow her the 13,000 because of from 1993 till now nothing nothing was added. All these other clearing over clearing applications we get have been filled with pools and patios and stone and all kinds of other structures and this woman she did not do this. So I would like us to consider that >> remember Mary. >> Yes. Thank you. Um oops I lost my place here. Okay. Um so 255360 uh describes the purpose of the water recharge overlay district. I won't read the whole thing. Um, but just the key phrase, um, in order to there's a water recharge overlay in order to help ensure the continued sufficiency and purity of the town's irreplaceable groundwater supply and sole source of drinking water. Um, and needless to say, uh, clearing is an important element. how much clearing you

077have is an important element um that has to do with water recharge and and things like that. Um the I want to rebut one thing with respect to the water recharge area that the applicant asserted in their documentation. They referred to the 10,000 square foot limit in a water recharge overlay as um what's the word? um without reason, without um good good uh good cause. And I really have to disagree with it. The these minimums were established um in or the code says this in order to give the land owner ample room for residents, accessory structures while preserving the native habitat so essential for water recharge. So, I did I think it was important to address um you know, one of the one of the cases they made arbitrary. There's nothing arbitrary here. We have

078a complication as I see it in this application comparing what was presented by the applicant and her agent the evening of the actual public hearing and comparing that to the application that is formally submitted by the applicant um into the record specifically um and and is not has been noticed to the public as we know specifically the application noticed and submitted um proposed reveation of 22 254 square ft. That would still leave the property to over 2,000 square ft quote overcleared and requiring about a 20% variance to the maximum clearing allowance. However, at the public hearing, the applicant indicated that they propose only want to revitate 1,313 square ft or 58% of what is noticed um in the actual application. Um, now they are basing this on a town supplied aerial of the lot from

0791994 that they submitted in exhibit 4. And though it is very hard to read and quite blurry, it's clear on the town document that says approximate clearing in 1994 was 13,000. Um, if we were to approve that, that would that would be a 30% variance. Um, in addition, the planner during the hearing proposed another 1,170 ft of reveation along part of the northern property line um to basically restore some understory under mature series of existing trees. I always take into account what our planners um recommend. In this case, um I am before I get to how I'm signing this application, that is not something that I'm going to look to ask for or require. Um I am willing to grant the variance with respect to what is noticed in the application. Um all sorry >>

080I'm sorry. Can you say that again? No, I am willing to approve and grant the variance as stated in the noticed application. So that would be for the 2,00 what is it? 2,254 square ft. That brings the clearing to 12,64. Um I believe the standard meets sorry this variance request meets the standards um of variances. Um the grant of the variance I don't believe will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Um the variance at 20% I mean it's substantial because it's over clearing in a water recharge area. However, it's 20% and um the TAM did have a series of um applications where the board granted some over clearing um in a water recharge uh really in the last five or six years. And the TAM notes each of these applications are

081unique in their history, parcel size and existing conditions. So comparing them to each other is not very straightforward. each application should be examined individually to determine the most appropriate action for each individual case. Um, and so that's I'm I'm don't know the size of those variances in all those cases, but there is some precedent for approving um a variance and I think the very specific uniqueness of this lot um helps warrant it. Um I don't think that the grant of the variance will have some incremental adverse effect on the conditions because it appears this clearing um over clearing relative to 10,000 has been there for decades and also I agree with member Burgerer right the although the property is considered overcleared there still is not any large degree degree of hardcape um impervious surfaces, right?

082The coverage is only around 4,000 square ft, well below the minimum allowed. Um and was the area of varants self-created? Um uh you know, in a way not really because it's been there for so long. Also, they became aware of it um because there was a CO inspection related to the generator. Um and one of the other things the applicant said is there's no nexus from between the generator um and this amount of mitigation. I actually don't think that's the correct interpretation. This is we're not asking this is mitigation for the generator. This is to correct this is being asked to correct an outstanding overclearing issue. Um, so all in I'm willing to approve this applications. I think it meets the standards. I'm not quite there to grant something a greater clearing at that 1313.

083I also heard the hardship. They said it was $7 to 8 um per square foot was the quote they got. Um, and then what they really did say was to restore it all the way to 10,000 square feet of clearing would cost between 28,000 and 32. So, I understand um there's some hardship there, but um >> that's as far as I want to go. I'm sorry. I was trying to formulate the right words. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. So, this was an involved obviously listening to discussion from my previous two board members here. This was an involved hearing in terms of trying to define exactly uh how we and the planning department uh look at cleared area in a water recharged overlay district. Uh we take that seriously. Water recharge uh overlay districts are something that

084taken a lot of our attention on many many sites. I think we go right to the numbers that have been discussed by the previous two board members both member Miring and member Burgerer. Um, we have a cleared number of 14,318 square ft where 10,000 is allowed. The TAM suggested that the offer was for 2,254 ft. The applicant then create corrected that to say they're really only offering and that would not bring it down to what the what the TAM had suggested the 22 254 would take it down to 12,064 increasing it by a significant amount. However, that's when the discussion got a little muddy because what were we talking about with the square area? One thing I was never comfortable with is the gray area on the the photo we have or on the map,

085the survey we have was supposedly clouded in from an uh plan from uh James Grimes planning uh landscape planning. I don't know what that square area is now. They're suggesting it's 1313. Looks like it's more than that for me. But either way, if that's what's offered at 1313, one of the things that came up, Sarah Lewis suggested, the planners suggested at the meeting, there was room on the north side of the lot underneath where there's some mature eonymist that were pointed out by member Burgerer the night of the hearing that exists there that could get planted. when I asked how do we define what do we have for areas that if they have vegetation but they're not consider they're considered cleared because they're ornamental or they're mature um that led to some confusion I think

086on the part of the applicant the applicant said bringing in big woody trees bringing these expense I think I suggested that night I think it's a suggestion now if we can move forward that any kind of replanting they have to sit down with the planning department to get a real definition of what has to be done on a site like I have the same sense of sympathy for the woman that my fellow board members have. However, I do think that I would not retreat anywhere further from it getting to see at least 2,254 ft that was mentioned in the TAM. That'll take us down to the 12,000 ft mark. Now, that's still 2,000 over where we should be. However, I will say again agreeing with my board members, this is largely a lot that is

087covered in vegetation. There's not a lot of hardscape been added. Not four little buildings have been added. There's not a tennis court that's been there. There's not things that we're looking at that we say are going to significantly change it. However, we still have to come back to the definition by the planning department of what is cleared area. So, there's the crux of our problem here. We have something that's going to drain fairly well. It's got vegetation on it. Not all of it is acceptable by definition of how we define cleared area. I'm willing to go through all that muddle to think all through it to have sympathy for them to understand the conditions that were here to realize that it was kicked off only by the as as they frustrate and the frustration said

088you know this has got all this cost over an air conditioner. Well of course as was mentioned by member miring it has nothing to do with over the air condition. It has to do with the overclearing that has existed. I don't know what to make of the aerial photo. I don't know how accurate that is. I know it goes back a long way and I think it coordinates fairly closely with the purchase of the property by the current owner. So that's something that they felt they could take it back to something like when they first took possession. >> That's nice concept for them, not necessarily for us looking at to do the best thing we can for water recharge. So, I'm going to stay with uh I'd like to see that plan implemented there and

089with the recommendation that was made by member the our planner Sarah Lewis that additional planning be done underneath without having to remove that some in consultation. Let this applicant sit down with our planning department and decide what kind of planting can go on to create another thousand feet which will take us down the total will be someplace like the 2200 and will take us down to something like 12,000. That's a solution. my >> So you're saying so I'm clear on what you're saying because I'm kind of on the same page. >> If we go along with Sarah Lewis's mitigation, >> right, >> that would literally bring it down to 10,900 square feet. >> I'm not we have to we have to >> I just want to make sure we're on the same page. But but

090I just want to go back to say that when that suggestion that was in there of the 2,254 has been contested by the applicant who says that they are willing to come up with 1313 and if I add a,070 from Sarah's suggestion that's only taken us up around 2500 off of the 125. So we're we're not going to get ourselves down to 10,000. Well, that's >> or if we go along with Sarah Lewis's recommendation. >> That's Go ahead. That's assuming. No, that but that's assuming that's assuming that the James Grimes drawing here represents 2254 on the survey, >> right? That's what's on the survey. >> That's what's on the survey. >> So, it I mean, we have to bring it down to about 12,000 >> about 11,000. >> All right. I'm All right. >> Okay.

091So, I'm going to I'm going to stay where I'm at. I'm going to say what I see there plus that I want to see my my approval would be based on uh recommending that Sarah's recommendation for the additional planting area in that area of the maturing without causing the expense of having to take them out some compromise be made in there for them to learn how to plant that out. So I am approving I'm basing my approval on the James Grimes plan and the additional recommendation by Sarah Lewis. The numbers will have to be worked out exactly, but we can take of what's in the drawing. Uh we can take of what's in the ATM, but that's what I'm willing to >> 10,894. >> Correct. That's what it would go down to. But the applicant

092could just it's good we're discussing this. The applicant's agent was not amendable to that plan. >> Right. >> So, yeah, but you know, >> good reasons. We can turn around and approve it based on Sarah's >> condition on that condition on approval. >> I just want to be clear where you are because I'm going Okay, go ahead. Member of course. >> Hi. Um, yeah, the just to repeat at the risk of repeating what's been said, the nexus for this variance is is not the installation of a generator. the generator kicked off the survey that noticed that the lot had been overcleared and uh as the planning department uh mentioned the clearing cannot be considered pre-existing non-conforming as the lot was vacant before the clearing regulations went into effect in 1984. So uh as part of

093the uh variance applica the application that we have in front of us that the owner has uh proposed reveating 2,254 square ft maybe um uh this then would leave the lot overcleared by uh 264 ft. Right now the lot is over cleared by 43% which which I think is very significant. um what was offered in the in the application would leave it uh 21% overcleared. Um what Sarah Lewis proposed would bring the overclaring down to about 9% which would be a total of 10,894 ft which was what member Johan discussed. What is salient to me is that the lot is in a water recharge overlay district with surface water directly feeding into Montalk's indigenous aquifer. And as the TAM states, protecting the town's sole source aquifer is very important and is precisely why there are

094stricter clearing regulations in water recharge overlay districts. A high bar should be set for allowing clearing to exceed the maximum in this important area of the town which is vital to the protection of its soul source acquer. I am in concurrence with the town uh planning department recommendation that this lot be reveated to the maximum extent possible short of demolishing a portion of the existing residence. There is a portion of the property along the northern property line which was identified by Sarah Lewis where additional reveation of 11 1,00 170 square ft could be accomplished. It's also feasible to convert some of the existing gravel parking area to reveation. So, uh, applying the town code standards found in 255850 governing our determinations, I find that granting the variance, whether granting the variance will cause an undesirable

095change in the neighborhood of character or a detriment to the nearby property. Thinking cumulatively, every square foot of land that maximally filters rainwater contributes to and sustains the health of the aquifer it sits above and therefore benefit those who depend upon it for drinking water. Denying or conditioning the approval of this variance will cause a desirable change to the neighborhood and nearby properties. This vital yet invisible shared resource is susceptible to the tragedy of the commons whereby each small degradation accumul accumulates to the loss of the whole. Um whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method. Yes. Reveitation of the planning department approved proposal of uh the additional ft and what the TAM uh lays out is the uh 22,254 square ft. um whether the request of the variance

096is substantial as it's over clearared now it is uh very substantial and allowing 264 square ft uh of which represents 21% uh beyond what is allowed I believe is significant uh whether the grant will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood I believe that denying or conditioning the approval of this variance will cause a desirable change to the environmental condition for all those who depend upon this aquifer for the drinking water. Um, and it seems to me that uh the majority of the overclearing occurred before the current owner built the house with some uh clearing occurring afterwards. So, it's not u largely not self-created. Um, so I condition my approval as member Yan did upon the additional revitation um of two 2254 ft and the 1170 >> that Sarah

097Lewis proposed. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. Um and also aren't we supposed to be making a secret determination? >> We will. Let's get through the decision first. >> So I condition my my approval on uh the total remaining clearing being 10,000. I think it's 8.94. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Bring it home. >> I know. I mean, I agree with member Johan and member with Thorson. I really feel that the water recharge overlay district standards really have to be held high. And these clearing regulations went into effect in 1984. So, this is not a pre-existing non-conforming situation. I'm actually not in favor of overclearing and exceeding the maximum allowed. Protection of the town sooul source aquifer is crucial and key to our community and I think limiting clearing amounts will reduce impacts from

098runoff. So Sarah the night of the public hearing gave her presentation about what uh her sketch would involve and as member Thorson and member Johan have already stated that would bring us down to reduce clearing of 10,894 which would be much more in keeping with what I would approve. I think the closer we get to as much limits as we can on clearing the better. So, if we're going to condition and we're if we're going to approve this application, then the only way I can approve it is based on uh us going down to the 10,894 square ft. Um, if that's the case, if that's the the direction we're going in, then I would approve it based on that condition being part of my approval. >> So, it sounds like we're all in agreement. >>

099No, I'm not in agreement. >> All right. So, what is it? Is it a two? Yeah, I think so. >> Sounds like a three. >> But how do we wait? I'm not denying I'm not denying not denying the application, >> but we're approving it based on the numbers that bring us down to 10,894. Am I right about that? >> Yes. Okay. So, and three of us are so relief was requested is what I'll approve. >> Okay. So, >> I'm I'm only approving I'm approving what the what the application is noticed. I do not agree that I want that I believe in this particular case unique circumstances that that extra 1,000 whatever it is is necessary. So yes, I think we're all unanimous before the let's leave the condition aside. We're all unanimous on wanting to

100approve the application as noticed and as presented to us, but two of us are dissenting. >> Okay. >> On >> and three of us, >> right? Yeah, approving it upon. >> So, yeah, we're we're approving it with lines and the additional >> correct. Right. >> Three people three people are two approving. >> Okay. Right. >> Everyone's approving it. >> Everyone's approving this. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Three people are approving this. >> Three of us are both >> for both. We'll approve it if conditional mitigation. That's the only way I'll approve it is if we >> but you're not going to they don't have to remove the uranous. It's just painted understory. >> Oh god. Yeah. They >> wherever wherever they wherever they can find 1170. >> Yeah. It doesn't have to be

101>> right. >> Um Okay. >> So I think the closer we get to basically it's 10,800. >> Correct. >> And then we got to do the >> Yes, we do. Now we have to um say whether it's a negative or a positive declaration. I'm say I'm feeling it's a negative >> declaration because it would not um warrant an impact statement. Does everyone agree with that? >> Yes, >> definitely. >> Okay. So Terry, would you make a motion through it? >> Do we want to go through the EF? Should we go through it? No, we don't have it for tonight, but Oh, we don't have it from >> So, if you could make a motion that we're uh neging the application. >> Okay. So, I will make a motion. [Applause] >> Okay. For do I have

102to the like a regular motion? >> Yeah, just like a regular motion. >> Make a motion for the application of Janice Wilson at one Gladstone Place in Montto. uh tax map 300-9-2-50.3 that the board declares that there is a a negative declaration on EF for the EF1. >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Are we good, Charlie? >> Okay. Okay. So, the next is Susan Porter, 191 South Fairview Avenue in Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300- 28-5-24. Description is to allow a new egress window, shed, and a replaced hot tub, decking addition, and walkways to remain on a parcel of land containing and within setbacks of freshwater wetlands and within sideyard lot setbacks, a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and six variances are required for this application. One

103variance of 3 feet from 10 of the town code is required to allow the deck to remain 17 feet from the eastern sideyard lot line where a 20ft setback is required. Variances of 45,28 25 and 23 from 255430 of the town code are required to allow the existing egress to remain 55 ft shed 71.5 ft hot tub 75 ft and deck addition 77 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100t setbacks are required and any other relief necessary zoning district B resident zone X flood zone secret class type too. This is yours. This is mine. >> This is yours. Okay. And bear with me because I left all my notes. >> So, this hearing was on September 23rd. Uh the planner was Tyler Borac, the TAM from July of July 24. Uh the survey that we use

104is dated 104204. The agent for the applicant was Joe Hollyy from Lighthouse Lane Planning. Um, okay. This um this is a property. Well, they they what happened on this I'll give some history. There was a an application back in 2018 that came in front of the ZBA and it was to replace an existing hot tub at the time with a very small pool um which had been approved. uh the variances that this application is very similar to that one. Um what ultimately happened the applicant replaced the hot tub that was existing back then with a hot tub that was larger and at 7.1 ft by 7.1 ft. And that put it into the category of a swimming pool which increased some of the the setbacks the double setback on the the variance from the side

105eastern sideyard the three-foot variance uh that was due to that. Um all the variances from the wetlands are well not all um except for the egress. all the other var um for the except for the egress and the shed which did not exist back in 2018. It was a hot tub. The the deck edition um these are all all these improvements are on the landwood side of the property. Um the variances are not they're the minimum variances necessary for this. The additional size of the hot tub caused the deck edition to get larger also because the that was moved around the hot tub. Um there was some questions on the TAM about the egress and concern that it would cause uh the applicants to build out in the basement. Um Joel Holly testified that there

106was no plan and it is in his a document that he submitted to us. Um also that they have no plan to build out on the basement. It was done for emergency exit if there's an emergency in the house that they don't have to go up the stairs to the main house to get out of the house to get out of the basement. So that was added for that purpose. um the pool that was referencing back in 2018, they did not do that and there are no plans to do that. That application is done and um this um so the the variance for the three-foot that was due to the change in the hot tub and the shed was added uh right and placed right next to the hot tub. So the the variance 28.5

107ft from the wetlands on that and the egress was added also with a 45 ft variance uh from the the wetlands and um I think these these meet the uh the standards. I think that there's no and the planners also said that no the preserv standards are met all structures shall be located on upland which is the case on all these structures and uh the grant of the variances won't cause undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood will not and the benefit cannot be achieved by some other method and still keep these all uh maximum placed away from the wetland and the area variances are not substantial in this case and they won't have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental connections in the neighborhood. Um, and were they self-created? I don't know.

108I guess so. But anyway, I think it meets all the standards and the standards for the NRSP. There was some more some slight discussion about a scenic easement, but the planner did did not uh request that since uh because of the the way the property is laid out and the location of the wetlands. So, I am approving this application in its entirety. >> Member Mary. >> Yes, thank you. Um I agree with approving um the variances. I won't go through them all the standards for each one because member Burgerer has said a lot of it um but I'll just go um quickly. Obviously, this is a large lot encumbered by um wetlands. Um the uh much of the lot is natural with a lot of vegetation on it and doesn't have um developments on it.

109Um so with respect to the egress 45% variance is substantial but I don't see any other option because of the position of the house and the position of the below grade bedroom. So even though it's substantial um I still think it meets all the standards and will have no detrimental impact um on uh on any of the issues in the standards. um the shed variance uh less than 30% if I remember correctly. This is a 17 square foot shed. So that I see that as having no detrimental impact at all. Again, this is on the nonwetland side um of the house. Um member Burgerer talked about how the double setback was triggered by a small exam expansion of a hot tub relative to the one was there. Um the bump out of the deck is

110not a lot of square feet. Um there's a uniqueness here. This is a funky shaped lot and it's only a small portion that actually needs a setback and the setback is uh uh I think it's only a 15% variance. Um I one thing one question I had is they are relinquishing the approved pool. were told they're not going to f uh ultimately do the pool that was approved in the 2018 um uh permitting. Um I guess I want to know like do they have to actually formally quote seed that or abandon it or it just I don't know council you can tell us what's the right thing to do. Um so all in I'm not going to belabor it. I believe this meets the NRSP standards the variance standards. Um there are very uh really

111insubstantial things that are being done and I think it enhances the benefit you know of a little more usability um on that back nonwetland area. >> Member Yoga. >> Yeah. Um I'm going to agree with my fellow board members. I think that um there was the previous approval in 2018 for a pool that's larger than what exists now on the site. There was a reason it's come in front of us because they bumped it up from se from six by six to seven and a half by seven and a half. Still it's smaller than the previous uh uh approval that was made. I think the point was made by the planner Tyler Borsack that none of the variances appear to be significant. They all are on the landward or the opposite side of the house

112from the wetlands. Uh they he didn't feel there were significant impacts potential on the wetlands. He said the northwest deck which is at the entry does not require does not need a variance work from there. Um not a lot else to say about it. I think they've covered it about as far as the standards. We have to read those back in but um we're replacing a tub. We're following it. We have a previous approval that's very very similar to what we have here. There's slight changes a couple of feet as was mentioned by member miring on a deck and I think the one foot uh required for the uh deck the deck is being only 14 ft from the property line is minor and inconsequential. So I'm going to approve this application. >> Member Thorson.

113>> I'm in agreement with our fellow board members. I don't really have anything to add. The only thing that stuck out to me about this application was the egress window >> and um it was represented by agentaly that um there it's not currently a living space that it was that egress window was added for emergency egress. At one point he did seem to indicate that there was a bedroom there but that it's unfinished space. I think he might have just misspoke and Terry ref uh member Burgerer referenced a letter that um states that it's an uninhabited space. So uh and uh Agent Hollyy did say that in the future if they were to convert that to a living uh space that they would then have to come back. >> They what would be triggered would

114be a building permit and then a natural resource special permit. then it would be in front of us. Uh so uh that was the only thing that really stood out for me. I I approved the application in its entirety. >> Okay. I feel the development on this parcel is all focused around existing improvements. They're relatively modest improvements. None of the variances for the deck basement eress shed and extending the deck are significant. The hot tub is actually 75 ft from the wetland. In terms of the new basement egress which was added for safety, there will be no additional bedrooms. I don't see an intensity of use and if there were to add bedrooms, the level of use would increase and it would require um coming back to us and it would require an updated septic

115system >> and the egress poses no significant impact to the wetlands. The project poses no threat to the environment, preserves natural resources, no alternative reasonable uses exist, and there will be no disturbance or disruption of natural features. I will be approving this application as well in its entirety. >> Um, vice chair, I ask one question. and there's no conditions recommended, but um and maybe they're already bound to it from a prior NRSP, but I would love to see if possible a no fertilizer, no chemical um use that often goes um you know with >> it. Sorry, >> I don't know that it goes with that with this. No, I don't know if they're already bound to it from because they must have gotten did they I don't know if they needed NRSB before, but um

116there's a lot of lawn on the property. It's not over cleared, but there's still a lot of lawn and I know when I was on the property um doing my field study, there was uh things being applied the land the landscapers were there. I didn't know if that could be a condition, but >> council, do you feel there's a nexus to requesting something like that? >> Um, >> I don't think, but >> but we're granting an NRSP. >> How do you How do you feel? >> Oh, aren't we? >> Yeah. Yeah, we are granted. But in this area, this isn't like >> there's a wetland, >> right? I mean is it I don't truthfully I think there was a better nexus for it on some other applications that we have today. >> All right I

117don't think >> okay thank you Ice breakers. All right. What am I doing? Everybody approve this. >> Yes. >> Okay. We go on to other decisions. We have Paul Bronzo, 65 Jaclyn Drive in Abigans, sub tax map number 300-176-1-9, a modification of a 2024 determination to indicate reconstruction of decking in place and in kind. Morgan. >> Um yeah, so this was a recent application from the board that was an approval for some additions on the um on the existing residence and at that during the normal application. They didn't propose to reconstruct the decks. They are now looking to reconstruct those decks in place in kind. There's no increase in the footprint. Um they will have to take out some of the footings and replace them. So there's some ground level disturbance there which is why

118they are coming in for the modification. >> Yeah. I remember asking the agent during the hearing like those decks like they're need to be redone. So it makes sense to me. >> I have no problem with it. >> Okay. >> We have a motion. >> Uh yeah. In the matter of Paul Bronzo, 65 Jaclyn Drive, Amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-176-1-9. I make a motion to approve the modification of the 2024 determination as presented to us. >> Second that. >> I'll concur. >> I concur. >> Thank you. Next, we have the draft minutes of Tuesday, September 30th, 2025. Make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, September 30th, 2025 for the East Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Thank you. S we have going to resolutions. We have Susan Carzek

119at 67 Devon Road, Amiganza, Civic Task Map number 300-1 174-6-11. um our I think we'll remember that this was an application on a 6,000 square foot lot in Beach Hampton. It was to legalize uh potentially two things. The extension mostly of a rear deck which put it into um setback jurisdiction and then also a bin small bin that was uh in uh basically on the property the northern property line and needed a pyramid. So I they believe we were unanimous. We approved Yeah, we approved the deck um legalization and the replacement of that deck in place in kind and we denied um the bin in its current location. Okay. So I make a motion in the matter of Susan Karis 67 Devon Road Amigansit Suffach County Tax Map 300-174-6-11 and make a motion to um

120approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Next we have Richard Pllo 11 Flag Avenue in M talk map number 300-30-4-3. >> Okay. This was um this was an application where the >> lot coverage, building coverage got exceeded over the town maximums. >> You recall this was the owner is also the contractor on this >> and um there were overhangs that were done. there's confusion with him and the building permits that he had looked at and overall this was a a 3-2 approval of the application I think right two >> so for Richard Pllo at 11 flag Avenue Malkque tax map 300-30-4-3 make a motion to approve the resolution as written >> second >> concur >> I concur >> concur thank you next we have Robert McKenley at 239 Fair View Avenue in Montalk

121number 300-9-7-40.8. >> Uh, that was mine and I'm going to have to apologize. I'm drawing a blank on it. I read it and now I'm sitting here after doing seven decisions and I can't remember what it was about. >> There's a couple of additions on the second story. >> Second editions >> and a pool house. >> Yeah. New sanitary. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for helping me out there. >> Unanimous. I'd like to make a motion uh then in the case of Robert McKenley of 239 Fair View Avenue, Monttok Supper County Tax Map 300-9-7-40.8 to accept the determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. >> Concur. Thank you. We have Gary Davis and John McInn at 275 3M Harbor Creek Road Highway in Springs of map number 300-75-1-32. This is the

122uh settlement >> of the dock. >> All right. Yeah. >> The description of the work that's being approved, court ordered actually natural resource special permit approval by the court is to construct a dock consisting of a 4 footx 30.5 ft fixed catwalk, 3tx 20ft aluminum ramp and 4tx 24 ft floating dock on a parcel of land containing coastal bluffs and adjacent to a surface title wetlands. I'd like to make a motion to approve the determination as written for Carrie Davis and John McInnuff County tax map number 75-1-32.2 True. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. Fand Capital Holdings for this one. >> You don't need to step off. You can >> John. Yeah. Okay. You can vote for Capital Holdings LLC at 183 Marine Boulevardit map number 300-176-8-23.3. John, you want to make? >> Yeah, I

123was the lead for this application which proposed two different roof lines that one was flat, the other was gabled. Both of which would u pierce the pyramid law on the north and east sides as well as a cottage uh raising the roof there. Um and the board voted uh 4 to one in denial. So in the matter of the application of Sans Capital Holding LLC 183 Marine Boulevard, Amaganza, New York, Suffach County Tax Map 300-176-8-23. I'd like to make a motion to approve the determination as written. Second concur. >> Recused. >> Sorry. >> We want to Charlie, are we doing the >> one more that determination? >> Oh, I don't >> The tennis court, if you guys are okay. I didn't put it on the I didn't get it to get it on the agenda

124for today. So, >> I I I read it. I was >> Did you make a motion? If you read it, >> I did read it. Did Did anybody else read it? >> I did. >> Are you fine with it? >> Yeah. I don't have the info though in front of me. >> Um I can give you the give you a second. >> Yeah, just Okay, >> I'll give you the >> Oh, right. the tax. >> I'll give you the tax. Give me a second. Uh is >> uh Stephen Michaelelsson is the property owner and the tax map is 300-159-1-8.31. 159-1 >> 18.31. >> Okay, Michael. So, we all know this was for a tennis court. This was denied 32 for Steven Michaelelsson tax map number 300-159-1-18.31. I make a motion to approve the determination as

125written. Secondur >> concur. Thank you vice chair. >> Okay. >> I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals at 8:28 on October 7th, 2025. >> Second. >> Concur. Thanks.