East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 09/30/2025

001Okay, zoning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you and welcome everybody to the Town of East Hampton zoning board of appeals meeting for September 30th, 2025. We have a number of uh scheduled public hearings this evening. I'll read the first one into the record and this is and Eric Brown is in the poll position on this one this evening. Um uh the first one is Hampton Wyatt at 10 Tyson Lane in East Hampton Suffach text map number 300-189-6-7.2. The size and location is 71,90096 square feet which is 1.6 acres at 10 Tyson Lane. Map of James Tyson lot number five, map number 4863 in East Hampton. The description is to allow an existing 92 square foot structure to remain as an accessory structure greater than

002the maximum allow gross floor area and to to replace a 4ft fence with a 6-ft fence within jurisdiction and minimum setbacks of freshwater wetlands. a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and two variances are required for this application. One variance is of 302 square ft is required from 2551123 of the town code to allow the existing cottage to remain as an accessory structure with a gross floor area of 92 ft where 600 ft is the maximum allowable. One variance of 68.1 ft is required from 2 to 5430 of the town code to allow the existing fencing to remain 31.9 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a residence uh X flood zone NVE8 and the secret classes

003type 2 council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Um this is my report. Um I visited the site and it was properly posted. Um this is uh this is the cottage u that is slated to be moved over towards further lane. And um this is also a site under construction. There's a a main residence that uh is being constructed as part of an existing building permit and you'll see that next. All right. Walking into the site, you'll see the the main residence being in in construction on the right there. Next, this is the cottage uh that is in question and part of tonight's hearing. This uh

004as far as making it an accessory building. Next, uh, scanning out over just showing over the dunes. I have another photo of the dune. This is the double dune section, which is absolutely stunning. Every time I see these things, it's just it floores me. Um, next. Um, and there you go. And I the fence in question is over to the right. I didn't get a closeup of it, but um, it's into the back part of the property line. That's the last photo. Thank you. I have the agent to the owners, Eric. >> Um, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Um, Eric Brown, Acriman Partners, 34 uh, Panica Road for the applicant. Uh, as you can see, Mr. Acriman is here actually in the room and we've also been joined by Brent Green who

005is the caretaker. You guys tell me, do you want me to take you through the history of how we got to where we are tonight and in terms of the structures? I mean, is that >> As long as we're not here till midnight, Eric, that's >> okay. Well, I mean, you know, I can, you know, if I I can I can give you the Reader Digest version. >> That's fine. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Charlie, do we have an aerial of the Sure. Thank you very much. >> All right. So um until about 19 in the 1980s, this lot that's that we're talking about tonight and the lot immediately to the west or a single parcel. It was originally approved with a traditional shingle style uh East Hampton Oceanfront cottage which was on the southerntherly

006third of what would be what is now the uh westerly lot. In the early 1960s, two other structures showed up on the easterly side. One of which was a,250 ft um barn garage and the other uh was this the structure that's the topic of tonight's hearing. Uh the barn garage is no longer there. Uh the uh owner tore it down uh about two about two years ago. Um, Roy, I know that Lenny has mentioned that the the cottage that we're talking about tonight, we was moved from another location. >> We thought it was moved from the there is a uh there's a large up in this area, there is a large egg reserve that has been farmed forever. And if you look at very early photographs of that from the 50s, the resolution is terrible,

007but they did identify structures on there and it looks big just based upon the footprint like this may have been one of the agricultural structures there. So that was then that was then moved over to to this site. How was it done? It was done under what we used to refer to as the paper subdivision rule where if you could demonstrate to the building inspector that in fact were you to subdivide your property you could erect two residences in conformance with zoning. If you could prove that then then you did not have to you know actually undertake the subdivision. So in about 1980 the um the properties were subdivided. As you can see the the sort of tortured property line on the on the west side there was was done to uh avoid having to

008move any of the structures on that site. Um and of course what that created was two lots. One with a large residence and the other with a residence nonetheless albeit a a much smaller one. Um, and then in the 90s, the the the photo that Roy showed in the beginning, uh, is a structure that was brought by Helmet Lang to this property, uh, as an artist studio, uh, to do his design work. Uh, it is permitted both as an artist studio and it also has a variance to be larger than the maximum size permitted under uh, under the artist studio regulations. Um, our client then purchased this property. They own properties both to the east and to the north all the way up to uh to the edge of Further Lane. Um and what they

009it's a very large family. Uh the properties are very heavily used during the season but also you know year round. Um and what they wanted to do on the on the subject property we're talking about tonight is build a larger house to accommodate their grandchildren and their children. uh we spoke to uh the problem of course being in making that application is that we have two you know we had a residence on there already. So we went to Joe Polalmo and initially I had asked him if he would allow us to take some of the uh pre-existing non-conforming legal GFA that we had from the from the garage that was taken down and just apply it to this other structure. And he was I I think for largely for recordkeeping issues he was not comfortable

010with that. So we agreed to come to you guys to seek a variance to allow this to remain as an accessory structure and uh oversize. Joe also asked us to um you know to remove all the things that make it a residence which has been done to fence it off as you saw and to board up the windows and not let anybody in there which is which is the uh which is the current um configuration. Um, now it's in the location it's it's been in for the last 65 years. Um, there's no inclination to move it. The um, and obviously the new main house required ARB approval because all of this is a reserve or adjacent to a reserve. The ARB expressed a desire to see both this little cottage and the helmet lang uh,

011structure preserved. Just so that I I will try to wrap it up now, but that the helmet lang structure last year we uh received site plan approval to move it across the street to the a reserve area as an agricultural structure. That that uh that field in the center of uh of Tyson Lane has had its development rights stripped. So it can only be used for agriculture. It's in both a reserve and it's burdened with an a easement in favor of the panic land trust. the family uses it for agricultural production, um, fruit trees, uh, ro, you know, garden crops, uh, beehives. And so we're going to that that structure on October 16th will go across the street to the location approved, uh, by the, uh, by the planning board and, uh, the ARB. Um,

012>> that's the one on the survey that says to be moved to 310, right? >> That's correct. That's correct. And I don't I mean I don't have a lot else you know I don't have a lot more to add but yes >> just just to verify the property immediately to the east is also >> Yes. >> same the same owner. Yes. >> So it's almost like they're in common ownership. >> Yeah. It's the same it's the it's the same family. >> Same family. >> Yeah. I mean they own they own this excuse me over here obviously this and then there you can't see them here but there are some residential lots and one lot with a tennis court that are on the edge and then north of that begins the the uh the farm field

013that's in production >> the u the tam suggests that uh you're volunteering to take the plumbing out of the existing structure >> the yeah we've we've removed the the plumbing in the kitchen have been removed Joe Polmo asked us to do that as a condition for allowing us to continue to construct the residence and so we did that and then his his office inspected it and the way you know the reason it's it's fenced and boarded up is you know >> and then it's going to be used as a playhouse. >> Yes. >> So just define for us what a playhouse is in your in your taking on this. How is it going to be used by grandchildren? Is that what you mean? >> Yes. Yes. >> So it'll this as I said I think

014uh Ed the the family is very large. there are grandchildren and great-grandchildren and you know I I think they would just we we would prefer I mean we could cut 300 square ft off the thing and it would then be you know conform you know conforming provided we you know it's not used as a residence but you know the family and to a lesser extent I think the ARB wanted to see it preserved in the you know the way it is now you know and that's you know that's really why we're here. >> Any other questions board members? the the house though it's not considered like a historic or original structure. I mean you said it's >> we've kind of gone back and forth on this. >> You said move the farm. >> Jane, I

015I think I think what it is is the closest comparison I can think of is the Dominique watch, you know, clock shop that the village has done. if if you looked at what they brought over as the original structure, it was really the bones of what of what was left because that structure also was up on the ocean. So, I think what's happened here is that the the you know, the original structure of the of the place was was brought over, but it's been maintained because it's a wood building that as far as we can tell has spent almost all of its life, you know, in in an environment that's, you know, it's probably about as hostile as it can get in terms of weather conditions being that close to the ocean. And, you know,

016over the years, it hasn't it it hasn't moved away. It's gotten closer. You know, when they moved it in the 60s, it's even closer. If you gain approval through this uh application, are you looking to do more work on that structure? Will you be coming in for a building permit to do any other improvements? Change all the windows and doors, things like that. >> No. >> So, it's basically what we're looking at. I was out there. What you're looking at is what >> what you're looking at is is is what you're you know >> what you get >> is what you get. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um you are taking the plumbing out and everything voluntarily. So it's would not necess but would it be appropriate to consider some kind of covenant that you know

017it will never be restored to sleeping >> never be used as a residence in other words. >> Okay. Yes. Okay. Yes. >> Okay. >> Any other questions board members? >> I'm good. >> Thank you Eric. >> Thank you very much from the planning department. How are you, Tyler? >> For the plain dormant. >> Tyler, do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? >> I do. I'm doing well, thank you. Um, so I'll just go over briefly uh what the application is about, which uh which was gone over well enough as is already. Um, so the project requires two variances uh and a natural resources special permit. The one uh variance is to required to allow the existing residence on the parcel to be converted to an accessory

018structure greater than 600 ft. It's 92 ft in total. Uh and then a second variance is required to allow the wire fence proposed to be located 31.9 ft from the wetland boundary to the south of the parcel. The proposed conversion of the existing 92t structure to an accessory playhouse represents some unique history as outlined uh by the applicant. Uh however uh the applicant needs to distinguish this request from others denied by the by the board. These types of requests are fairly uncommon uh and require careful review and consideration of precedent. Uh the plane department was able to identify seven applications I think since 2008. They're listed in the technical analysis memo. I think there were two approvals and a couple denials. Those numbers might be slightly off. They're all in the they're all in the

019assessment. Their numbers and and some some general facts about them. Um but uh with respect to the fence uh there do not be appear appear to be any physical constraints or unique features that would prevent the applicant from relocating fence to a more conforming location. Uh therefore the applicant should demonstrate how this represents the minimum variance necessary for their use uh of the property. Other than that I can answer any questions they might have on the on the application. >> Any other questions? could thank you for providing the different properties in the TAM, but um do you uh have some uh thoughts to that would be appropriate to share about how this might compare to the ones that were approved versus the ones that were >> I remember there was one off the top of

020my head that had to do with a historic building. >> Yeah. Um, that would be the only one I think that would be any sort of significant consideration between the two. Um, >> let me see if I can find it. >> Yeah, >> because there's not color here about why the others would >> CJ LLC approved 342T variance for detach structure which had historical significance. Um, and then the other one was a fairly small variance, 171 square ft, uh, which was to allow mechanicals. Uh, and then there was a bunch of denials, some of them small, some of them very large. I mean, the very large ones were obvious. 550T variance is a significant variance. I mean, this is a 50% variance, so it is sizable. Um but but certainly every every variance is unique

021especially these because they are so infrequent but the precedent that they could provide requires I think the board to at least state specifically if approved why it's being approved how it's different um because they they are very you know unusual >> relative to the fence if you got a suggestion where you you the planning department would like to see it moved >> I just pulled pulled back to the you know whatever they they could pull it back to I think 50 ft is the clearing minimum. Um there is a clearing line shown on there. Maybe that's an appropriate uh uh setback for for the fencing just to bring it back to where that clearing line is. Um >> we didn't have any specific uh recommendations, >> but there is a letter in the file from

022the group um stating that it could damage the structure if moved and that they were requesting an engineer report. >> Oh, no. Is it just defense? I'm talking about the cottage. I'm sorry. >> No, no, the the Yeah, the the existing uh it's it's out of jurisdiction anyways. Um so I don't I don't I don't think there's any issues with with as far as wetlands are concerned. They're out of jurisdiction. So it's not really under the board's purview. They're just in for the the the GFA variance. >> Can they they would need ARB approval though because it's a sixoot fence or do they already have that? They're in front of >> Not ARB on a six foot. Six foot's allowed. Yeah. >> Not Not in your front. If it were front yard, >> four foot

023in the front, >> four feet in front, six on the sides and rear as of right other than the fact that it's within jurisdiction of in the rear. >> Yeah. >> Right. That's a rear front. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think the ARB would still call the front yard the street side even regardless of the ocean frontness of it. >> Right. >> Has to do with, you know, view from the road and things like that. doesn't really have to do with with wetlands or uh setbacks or things like that. >> Any other questions, board members? >> Okay, thank you. >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody in the public would like to address this application? Matt, anybody online? >> Stand by, please. >> And this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV. Making

024sure all lines are clear, which they are. And you do have one additional caller on the line. So stand by for that caller, please. Thank you. >> Hello caller, are you here for this application? >> Stand by. Stand by. Caller 6223, you are alive. >> Caller, are you here for this application? >> Apparently not because they just hung up. Please keep going. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. You have any closing remarks? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, in terms of what you know, Tyler said about the about the precedent setting for this, I mean, I think, you know, again, you have it. It is a somewhat unique situation, but I think that the closer comparison would probably be with the with the historic building that he that he referred to because there,

025you know, there's no question this thing, you know, we don't know how far back it goes, but the framing and the and the structure of it, you know, are, you know, in fact, we I would say historic. So I think in this situation and particularly taking into consideration the fact that the you know I think these these property owners have been very conscientious about you know about trying to you know preserve these structures and they've obviously taken you know a good deal of time and expense to do not only this application but also all the work that was necessary to move the other structure across the you know across onto the onto the farm field. I I think it's distinguishable. the fence is where the fence is because the fence has always been there as

026far as we can as far as we can tell. It's been there for, you know, for many, many years. So rather than move it around or do something else with it, we just thought, well, we'll, you know, we'll leave it and make it a little bit taller. Um, it does provide a, you know, a a buffer in the in the dune to keep people from coming up from the beach and obviously to keep people on the landward side from, you know, trunking down through there and, you know, going through those wetlands that that separate the two. So, other than that, I'm I have nothing else. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. With that, I make a motion um in the application of Hampton Wyth attend Tyson Lane Hampton SuffK taskm number 300-189-6 7.2 to

027close the public hearing and the record. >> Second. >> I concur. >> Thank you. Next we have John and Karen Wesson at 24 Washington Drive in Montalk numbers 300-71-2-1.2. The size and location is 48,626 ft at 24 Washington Drive in Montalk. The description is to renovate and construct 1,658 foot of additions to a 2,00 square foot 2,220 ft two-story residence. Reconstruct a swimming pool and decking and construct two retaining walls on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. The relief assault is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances of two from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks. The following variances are requested. One, a variance of 31.2 feet to replace pool decking 68.8 feet from a wetland where 100 foot step back is required. Two, a variance of 2.1 ft to construct an addition

02897.9 ft from a wetland where 100 foot is required. A variance of 34.6 ft to construct a deck 65.4t from a wetland where 100 foot is required. and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a resident zonex flood zone and the secret class is type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> I review the affidavit of notice and posting and everything appears to be in order. The board has jurisdiction. >> Thank you, Miss. >> Yeah. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. This parcel has two road frontages. This is on Fair View Lane. That's the posting on Fairview Lane. Next, I'm looking up Fair View Lane here now. My back is to Washington. Next, I'm going to look in. We're going to get several views of this because this is important.

029Obviously, it's the wetlands is a beautiful little meadow. The house is up and to the right, but you're going to get an idea that this parcel when you see the photos is heavily vegetated and a lot of it is impressive. Next, uh I'm just looking back. Um, I actually don't know what I'm looking at there. I guess it was just another view of that spot because the vegetation was so thick. Thank you. Next. Now, I've gone over to the other posting. This is on Washington. This is posted all the way to the southern edge of the large. It's a large lot that wraps around the corner. The survey will show that. And we see the garage. The garage is uh going to be in play here in terms of the discussion. And the driveway to

030the garage. This is near the southern edge of the property. Next, I'm just going to take a look at the garage while we're standing here. Now, you can take a look up and see there's a driveway. The garage and proposed in uh the um in the application is that they'll create a ramp to the left of the garage you're looking at to gain access to the construction work that is going to take place if this application is to move forward. Next, I'm going to turn around and look across the way. That's exactly opposite. All I've done is a 360 and I'm looking. You get a character neighborhood. There's a house immediately across from the next. Um, now I'm going to look out. Uh, I've just walked up a little bit. The house is back in

031there. It's important to note that this is the area where we'll see it again from above where the proposed in this area is where the proposed uh, septic system, the new IIA system is proposed to go. Next. Again, I'm looking my way back road towards the garage. I want to make sure you get an idea of the character of what's here. Next, uh this is another house. Now, I'm over by the second driveway we're going to see going in. And this is the neighbor across the way. Next, I'm looking at Washington here. I'm looking north on Washington. Next, I'm going to turn look south on Washington. Next, I'm coming up the driveway. This is a driveway that's going to lead up to the the residence. Next, I get up at the turn in that driveway

032that you saw, and you can see how the residence is set. It's up in the top of this particular portion of the the hill. Next, I'm going to take a look my way down across here in a couple of shots. I'm looking down. you get an idea that from the house and the driveway, there's a fairly uh steep drop off down into what is going to give way to the wetlands. Next, looking back out now, this is that same open meadow we saw from Fair View. And now I'm just looking back from that driveway. It's a lush and uh and uh and and attractive environment. Next, these are stairs going down alongside the garage. This is where that ramp will come. I've walked over to the garage and taking a look. You see the garage

033is to your left. The road is Washington's out in front. This would be removed and uh a ramp would go in temporarily to facilitate construction. Next, uh this is the back of the garage. Now, this is actually the second story, right? The garage is on the lower level. So, by the time you're up here, this is the second floor of the garage, and this is the uh entrance that faces east. Next, I'm going to take a look here. So, one of the things we're going to talk discuss tonight is uh and here described to us by the applicant is the additions to go on the house. This is looking at what currently there's a U on the on the west side of the house. This is a second floor deck and overhang. Next, um I'm

034going to take my I'm going to take a view back around here and you're going to see myself looking back up uh down through across the way. These are two houses across the way from just about where I was standing. I take a look just to get again a character of the neighborhood. You can see it's a well vegetated area. Next. Now I'm around back and I'm looking up at the house here and uh this is again area that we'll be discussing in terms of future construction or potential construction next. That is the pool. The pool's coming into play. I'm on the south side of the house looking at the pool. Next I've gone up to Sandy. You can see the pool area. That far corner which I'm going to go out to is what

035comes into play in terms of the closest to the wetlands next. Now I'm standing in that corner looking down. So again I'm looking at the meadow. We've looked at it from three different spots. This is from the very uh nearest corner of the pool looking down on the wetland. Next uh just looking back from there. You see I'm in that far corner. You can see what the house structure and everything looks like here. Just to put it in perspective. Next. Uh just looking back down around. We're going to come down here. There's going to be a little area that comes into contention next. I think I have a shot of it. Oh, this is just steps back up into the house next. Oh, okay. Another one looking down the meadow. This is There's a slight

036corner at the bottom there. That's the corner of a little landing. Uh that is um the closest in this particular spot closest to the meadow to the wetlands next. And here's a walkway coming back up and around into the house here that's facing down. Everything to the right here will be cleared because this is where the IIA system is to go. And you'll see the clearing line on the survey includes this area next. I think that might be it hopefully. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. We have the agent. Tara [Music] >> Tara Burke from Lighthouse Line Planning here on behalf of Karen and John Wesson. >> Tar. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, tell the truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Um good evening members of the

037board. Thank you member Johan for um those extensive photos. I think it's really helpful to get the setting uh of the property. Um this application proposes to renovate and construct a 1658 ft addition to a 2,220ttory residence, reconfigure the swimming pool and decking and construct two retaining walls on the parcel of land containing the freshwater wetland that we spoke about. um not to resource per special permit and variances are required. The um there's three variances required. It's 31.2 feet to replace the pool decking uh 68.8 ft from a wetland and that is an existing deck that's being replaced um not getting any closer to the wetlands. um a second variance of 2.1 feet to construction addition 97.9 uh feet from the wetlands and that is on the landward side of the house um underneath an

038existing deck. Um and then a third variance of 34.6 ft to construct the deck uh 65.4 ft from the wetlands and that is to replace an existing um gravel walkway within uh wood framing and make that uh decking. Um, so I think it's just important to note that all three variances are um for existing structures. They're just either being replaced in kind or um being renovated into habitable space instead of decking. Um so the replacement of the pool deck, the existing pool is leaking and in a state of disrepair. Um they they need to do something with the pool. So rather than replace the existing vinyl lined pool in kind, they figured they would reconfigure the area. Um it's a bit awkward when you walk around it. It's very tight around the pool and they

039wanted to create a bit more deck space and replace the pool with something sturdier um like a guneyed pool. This way they wouldn't have to be back in front of the board for future repairs. The new pool um you can see is uh on an angle here. So this is the existing decking line and this uh gray line is the existing pool. So, the new pool is here and the existing deck is staying in the same location. Um, the new pool will actually be 4.1 ft further from the wetland than the existing and the new pool decking totals 705 ft where the existing deck is 985 ft which is a reduction of 280 ft of pool decking. Um, the footprint remains the same as I said on the side closest to the wetland. there's no

040intention of getting any closer to the wetland. Um the decking is being removed on the south side where the pool is coming in at the angle, hence the reduction um in the overall decking. Uh the new deck, the additional decking is um on the north side of the residence, 65.4 ft from the wetland. and that I submitted a photo of that um that wasn't in those, but this is the the gravel um with wood framing that they want to just replace that and make that decking. Um so, uh there's like there's steps that lead down to it and then it's this gravel in the wood and then you step back up and it's very awkward. Um, I was walking through it again today and you know, your feet are kind of hitting the gravel and

041then they're hitting the wood and it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So, they figured, let's replace that with wood decking. This way, we can just replace deck boards in the future rather than have to supplement the gravel. It'd be a lot cleaner, a lot safer um and um it'll just create a better flow. So, if we add that decking to the pool decking that we're proposing, which is 705 square feet, um this new decking is 265 square ft. So, if you add the total of the pool decking and that new section, we're still 15 square ft less than um existing decking and not getting any closer to the wlands than existing structures. The addition is proposed on the south and west side of the house uh where the existing deck and the

042covered porch are situated. So that's this area here and here. So you can see the the gray outlines here of where the covered porch are. And some of those photos I think gave a good perception of um where that new habitable space is going to be. um only six square feet of that is within variance jurisdiction and that's just a small corner right here. Uh that is the six and again that is currently a covered porch. Um, and the total gross floor area of the residence, should you approve the addition, would be 3,878 ft when the allowable on a parcel of this size is 5,777 ft. So, it's 2,000 square ft under the allowable GFA as per our code. Um, and I think it's important to note um that, you know, they put so much

043thought into this. I mean, as you know from your record, there was initial applications submitted like five years ago or something, and we've been brainstorming back and forth how to refine it, what to do. They wound up getting um some soil borings done. They had engineers come in and look at the whole house. And all of that decking on the south and the west side is compromised and there are big concrete footings that go into it. And on this side, on the west side, the concrete footings go into the top of those retaining walls that go down this slope here where the existing septic is. Right? So, the only way to fix the decking is to rip out all of the concrete footings that are in there, or they'd have to rip out the retaining

044walls that are in there to make the deck safe again. So, they figured, we're doing all of this. We've got three kids. We'd love to have more room in our house. It's still a fourbedroom house. Um so we're not increasing the number of bedrooms. They would just like some more space for the kids and the grandkids. Um so that's kind of how that came about. Um and then you know obviously in discussing the application we're like okay let's replace the septic system. Um and as part of that you know as part of this we're proposing to do that. Now, the existing septic is in that heavily wooded area along Washington Avenue. So, that was all cleared at one point in time and regrrew. There's a lot of invasive species in there. There might be some

045native. It's so hard to tell because it's so thick. Um, so the only way to replace the septic is to remove the existing system. The health department doesn't let you leave the old system in to put a new system in. So, if we want to upgrade to the low nitrogen system, which the town now requires, we have to take out that old system. Um, now, uh, this is 131.7 ft from the wetlands. It's the furthest location possible. Um, I can't think of anywhere. I mean, we'd have to open that up to to put the septic in any to take the old septic out. Um, now one thing that wasn't in the application, which I spoke to a couple of the neighbors, which was actually really helpful, um, that the Wessons have intended on doing all

046along, but wasn't shown in the submission, is that area is proposed to be cleared, which you can see here's the clearing line, right? And they're still within their allowable clearing. Um the I know I put it in the memo, but the allowable clearing I think is 20,444 and the proposed clearing is 17,830. So they're within the allowable clearing restrictions, but they intend to replant that area. Um that is not going to remain grass. Um they intend on putting native species in there. They love the bukhallic character of the neighborhood. They love the vegetation. That's one of the reasons they bought the street. They think the wetland's beautiful. um they really are good stewards of the land and they intend to reveate um all along Washington and fill that in as much as they can with

047native species. Um so, you know, if you so choose, we're happy to submit a revitation plan for that area. Um you know, as supplemental information after the hearing. Um >> could you just point that out on the survey again where the reving >> this area here is where the new septic is going. So, they would certainly plant along here and up in here really as far as they can. And um they do have the Laurel Group um retained for the project. And I spoke to uh Devon Zakardi from the Laurel Group today and um just to confirm that that's all in the works. And he said absolutely, you know, no problem. We can submit that information. Um and then I submitted I don't think I need to go through them now unless you'd like me

048to, but I did submit the variance standards and you know, how we think we comply with those in writing for your record. Um start okay so with the you didn't submit anything for reveation yet but your proposed clearing of 17830 is what is includes that reveation that no >> so that's what's on this those are the numbers taken from the survey >> so we will be opening leaving the record open for you to submit >> for to submit a revitation plan yeah >> and do you have any idea approximately how much that Well, I would say this is 1,600. Oh, no. Because that's GFA. So, >> 30 by 40. So, 30 by 40, right? Yeah. It's about about 2,000 square feet. >> 2,000 more. Tara, how do you feel about the TAM suggestion that in

049terms of the scenic easement that you expand it around the >> We sort of we expected to have to expand the scenic easement. Um they have that's the reason they bought the property is uh because they love that view of that beautiful pristine wetland. Um >> so they have no problem expanding that scenic easement. I think the the this because it was once and then you can see how it was expanded right scenic easement B that's 15 ft and I think if you go another 15 um you know that that can stay within the the room to replace the pool they would have no problem doing that. >> Thank you. >> Um in terms of uh there's a couple of items in the building protocols I just want to touch on. One is that uh

050it's a tough site for you to do any parking at now because of the slopes. It's not as if in the the area that's going to be cleared for the septic was is now suggested to allow for storage of materials and soils before the septic goes in. So the excavation that takes place around the pool and things like that any extra materials. There's also a reference in uh in the one that was prepared by the architectural firm that there'll be no significant change in grade and you expect that there will be very little material added to that slope. Right. So saying that's that's what's in here. Now we're always concerned about what happens to the native grade. So the native grade here you're telling us that we're not going to see that changed. >> Well,

051there is a grading plan in there. So there are >> plan and the grading plan does show a little bit of a change in that. I see that. So it was acceptable. What I'm concerned about now is um in the TF engineering under access and parking it says uh at no there will be parking will be provided up to six vehicles and at no time will construction vehicles be parked on Washington. >> Um that's very uh ambitious and optimistic. I think that uh during construction there's going to be more than six vehicles there and very often we wonder who is the contractor and what can we do about talking about keeping Washington from being blocked in traffic. So this is part of the relationship to the neighborhood we have to consider. So when I look

052at this site many sites we can say there's a temporary area that could be used for parking. You don't really have this here. You have the driveway that comes up to the house which one of your drawings your site plan drawing shows four or five cars there. I can imagine six there, but that's still part of the construction site. I think is difficult here. So, one of the things is um under this protocol is there's going to be incumbent on you to figure a way to get some more parking at the garage or someplace there because I see this problem in a narrow road of eight vehicles out there when they're delivering materials. And it does say there's a note saying that when the larger construction and concrete is being delivered, we understand that. Mhm.

053>> This is a tough site for this. >> Absolutely. And um >> we don't Excuse me. We don't have a builder. >> I'm sorry. >> You haven't chosen a builder yet. There's no contractor chosen for this. >> Uh not as far as I'm aware of. >> All right. So, >> um but they do have the Laurel Group on and uh but I don't I don't think they've chosen a contractor yet. But that being said, I did speak with the homeowner. Um she's very friendly with the neighbors and um has a really good relationship with several of them. Um, one of them who lives nearby, she lets him park his car in her garage. Um, when he's not here in the winter, um, she has said that they have no intention of starting in the summer.

054They'd like to start in the fall as soon as he he's lives across the street. So, she said they want to start right when um, in the fall when he leaves. Um they are I mean I know this you know I could say this at any point but they really are lovely people and they're very concerned about keeping the peace in the neighborhood. Um so I mean that's going to come down to an enforcement issue right with the building department and with code enforcement and with their contractor. Um it'll certainly be tricky. Is this the only tricky neighborhood in Monttok that has had construction? you know, they're it becomes incredibly inconvenient for the contractors to have to juggle, but it they can do that. >> Something's going to have to happen to protect the neighborhood.

055Second, the there was a note here. You're saying that construction would start in the fall and be done this spring. That's the optimistic optimistic point of view. There was a note here about taking two months, which is unrealistic, but you're saying that basically you're looking for winter construction. So, we're not going to be talking about an awful lot there in the summer, right? If it all goes well. >> Yeah. She has no intentions of, you know, >> upsetting the whole neighborhood where she lives and intends to spend a >> quite a substantial part of her life there. So, >> any other questions? >> Um, yeah. Oh, did you want a Okay. So, just again coming back to the clearing. Sure. Um, so the 1783 we just established doesn't include perhaps another 2,000 of reveg, but

056during the course of construction, is is that 17830 going to be more than that? Okay, so there was permission to do that. Yeah, >> that's question number one. Is there what what is is there living space in the top story of the garage? >> There's habitable space in there. Yeah, and that was seeded. Um, I think it's in the TAM, right? >> So, does that count to GFA? Shouldn't that be GFA? Is that part of your total GFA? >> So any Well, in today's code, anything over 600 square feet of the detached structure would count, right? >> Well, sorry. If if there's habitable space in it, it would count, I think, to the overall GFA. So, is that in that's six is it 600 at the top? >> Um, I don't know how many square

057feet it is off hand, but I would assume it's counted in. I mean, those are the numbers I got from the architect. >> Okay. And then this h this house was built uh when you remember >> 1980. >> Okay. So was it was it pre-existing non-conforming to wetland setback when it was built? Like I'm looking at that kind of northeast corner >> handled the permits for the prior owner. So you might know the answer to that one. Right. >> Good afternoon. I was planning on being very uh brief remarks but I can't tell you I know this house very well. This was a house owned by my uh close friend Mike Valentino. When I say close friend, this was the first house I ever took my newborn baby outside of the house. My son Truman

058sat on that kitchen table upstairs. So, I'm very familiar with the house. The house was built about 1980. I think Mike bought it sometime in the '9s. It was non there there were no wetland setbacks in 1980. >> That's why I'm saying it would be pre-existing. >> Yeah. So, it's a, you know, unusual lot. Even I remember the first time I looked at it, I said, "Hey, Mike, you know, this is an unusual property that you you own uh because of the the the kettle hole and then the way the driveway came in." Uh I also know that the owner now, Karen Weston, happens to be one of my very close friends, dermatologist. Uh and everybody says she's a great dermatologist. I think we should get her to move out here. In any event, uh

059I did handle the garage application uh for Mike. And at the time, this is a very small house. I mean, it's 2200 square feet. It was It's very tiny. Uh, even to your eyes, because when you go upstairs, there's a bedroom and there's not a whole lot of living space. Part of the reason we proposed the garage, it was not ideal. I don't think Mike even liked it. It was proposed in that location cuz a it conformed to zoning setbacks and everything. It was allowable. I think we need an NRSP, but it would it well complied with all the setbacks. uh and it provided him with a little bit more space to store things. So the garage I think it's 400 square feet at the base and a 200 square feet uh storage slash I

060think he was using it for a home office at the time. Uh so whether or not that counts as habitable I don't know but it is 600 square ft in total. I remember that uh from the time and it was coed by the town. Uh when Mike did own the house, we explored a lot of options on this house and all the options pretty much follow the same formula we're doing here is if you want to retain the house, you have to build all your additions on the south side of the residence away from the wetlands. Uh and at the time I think the wetland line, I don't know if it's changed or not, but I think that would have been 100% conforming. I think tonight it's six square feet of it is uh non-conforming,

061but that was the alternative here. So, and it's not an attractive alternative for at least for Mike. It it seemed like it was going to be a lot of work to achieve a very small benefit to the house. However, it is a lovely house and we did consider it. I think Karen Wesson looked at the same, you know, that's where these ideas came from. It's like, oh, we always thought about doing this. Uh, and she has the architectural plans that show how they can make it work for her. Um, you know, one thing I remember from the last time I was in front of the zoning board is, yeah, this is a very well-veated site. It's not pristine and the the you know even if you look at those photos there's a lot of mile

062a minute vine. I saw some pampas grass. However, it's always been the intent and the and the stewardship of this property is everything to the north of their clearing line stays completely as it's as uh you know you know let nature run its course. And that's always been the case. As a matter of fact, you can't even walk there's a Belgian block boundary there. You can't even walk out of that area and never have been able. You know, I've known this site for 15 or 20 years and you cannot you could never step out into that area and never would want to. Basically, I think the closest you can get to that kettle hole is if you go go up at the end of what is it Washington Drive and you can walk in that

063way. Uh but other than that, that's you know what I wanted to add to the conversation tonight. >> I'm sorry. Can I just close the loop with Andy on the the the question I asked about the house was built before wetland set official wetland set. That's right. But it was it would it was not built with further than 100. >> I'm I'm getting a little confused about the rule where you can't expand something that's pre-existing non-conforming. >> In variance jurisdiction, you're limited to the 50% expansion. However, six square ft of this is being expanded. in variance jurisdiction far less than 50% the house everything else >> only part in varian jurisdiction right okay thank you I just I knew I was missing something >> thank you any other questions >> I have no getting come

064on up >> well it's at the property too and it is beautiful and actually it's got a great uh animal habitat birds okay but um could the I just want to clarify by re rerun by it. You're going to take out the old septic. They're going to put in the OA OTS system in that same area >> in the retaining walls. And then is that just going to be left to be naturalized? >> No, they're going to reveate it. Um >> they are going to reit lots of native shrubs. Um yeah, they've got a whole bunch of things in the works on a revge plan that they were using internally and I said, "Hey, let's submit this to the board. if you have intentions of doing this, we should absolutely let them know. >> And

065then just that little um the gravel and the wood walkway for the thing that's the same that hasn't changed variance that existed. >> Yeah, I think it's in the TAM here. Yeah, that actually said it's 62 feet. Um and we're 64 uh and change. >> 65 shows 60. Yes, 65.4 from it. Okay. Any other questions? No. >> Thank you, Sarah. >> Thank you. >> World premiere of Zack. >> Good evening, board. >> How are you? >> Jake Kushner with the planning department. >> Zack, how are you? Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. So, I think we got a pretty good overview of the project. Um, I'll speak a little bit here on the environmental um area here. So, the wetlands on

066the parcel are on the northern half of the parcel. They're part of a larger system of interconnected wetlands, kettle holes, and some smaller wetlands. Um, it was likely once connected to the wetland to the east there. They are classified as a class one wetland by the DEC. Those are considered wetlands of the highest quality. They perform benefits like attenuation of storm water, buffering of pollutants, and then uh habitat for flora and fauna. There is some disturbance around the wetlands um and some invasives as well. As for the project, the GFA, building coverage, total coverage, clearing all remain um within the maximums allowed. Most of the improvements are proposed um on the southern and western sides of the building, which are probably the most conforming locations relative to the wetland setbacks um farthest removed. The small

067deck extension is proposed in an area where there is an improved service already existing. and the pool decking reconfiguration pushes the pool uh further from the wetland which is a benefit. So um the planning department doesn't have any major recommendations. The upgraded IIA system is beneficial improvement to the property and can help prevent um you know future impacts to the wetland. The construction protocol uh has guidelines for silt fencing to prevent sedimentation of the wetlands during construction which is big. Um it does state that that fencing will remain in place till the area is stabilized. Um the construction protocol also again mentions reveating all disturbed areas. Um and then that the parcel does have that scenic easement um which we discussed could be extended. So beyond those uh mitigation measures the planning department does not

068have any further recommendations. Be happy to answer any questions you might have. Any questions for >> No, I'm good. Thank you. >> Thank you, J. >> Thank you. Anybody in the public like to address this application on up? >> Remind the uh public the public comment is limited to three minutes. >> To the mic. To the mic, please. My name is Russell Stein. I live at 19 Washington Drive. Are you an attorney? >> Talk, New York. >> Are you an attorney? >> No. >> You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. And I would do that even if I was still an attorney. Um, basically, uh, Ed, I loved your photo presentation. You penetrated the property more than most of us who live in on

069Washington Drive. But you did leave me out. You didn't show my house. My house is directly in front of the driveway to the little garage. Okay. When you come down that driveway with the pickle ball court on the on the pavement, you are standing at my front door. >> Okay. So, the pictures you did show were from the main house. And then you look over and you see two an aircraft carrier and another big one and another big one. But the little there are two little ones. And I spent uh 20 minutes just now trying to find a picture of them and I can't even though I taken hundreds. But basically what you have is two 1944 bungalows. That's what they stood on the street alone till 1977 when the first house was built on

070the hill next to mine, the aircraft carrier we call it. >> Um so in any event, this is a very significant project. And why do I know that? because I've lived there 54 years and during those 54 years I have lived during seven builds of new giant houses and or restoration or you know refurbishments projects. The average project took over two years and um excuse me and results when it happens Washington Drive let me back up one second. Washington Drive is a very stressed drive. If you ask the highways people in Montalk, they know this. People are now driving 60 up and down it because it's the number one way to 250 houses. Kenny Rousell sends all of his dump trucks up and down that road all year long, no matter where he's working in

071the Mirror Development. It's insane. He has six other entrances on the old highway. He doesn't use any of them. He uses Washington. Why? Because it's the first road when you come out of the the village, you know, or Navy Road where your trucks are parked. It's the first right. So they do that and then they take a big circuitous route to get to half of the things they're doing. So it's very busy. Also, all the big new houses need landscaping and the trucks are all parked on. Think Further Lane, it's exactly the same. It has uh uh you know landscaping trucks on it all summer long. Sometimes taking away one lane, sometimes taking away both lanes. And now I park on the shoulder across from my house. I've never had it's a 40ft lot and

072it has no room for a driveway. And the one next door is essentially the same. And so my car is across the street and yes, the Wessons have been terrific neighbors to me. And they even said, you know, it's an old 25-year-old leaky car. And Karen said one day, why aren't you in our empty garage when it rains? Okay, these are good people. I'm not here to give them any kind of a hard time. But what I am asking this board is to think about the mess that is on Washington Drive now and getting worse and worse and worse. And when this proposal first came up, I didn't give it much thought. What I heard was all on the other side. It was a pool renovation and so forth. Now it's on the west side.

073The revision this year, there there's going to be new habitable space on the Washington Drive side. And the giant jungle that we all love is in going to have to go for the new septic. And hopefully the Wessons will replant something that looks a little like it. But so that's the the story with Washington Drive. It's it's very difficult, very dangerous, too, because now there are strollers and kids and bicyclists all summer long and the the the entrance onto the old highway is blind in both directions. So people come around the corner and there's a big contractor's truck there. So what you're going to have my my feeling is I'll leave you with this. Having lived through the eight houses that were already that are done, this will be the eighth that are done in

074the 50 in the 40 54 years I've been there. The average project took wipes out, as I say to Karen, wipes out two summers. All right? If you live there and you're paying your taxes and you'd like to open your screen windows or sit on the front lawn, you can't. All right? while these things are under construction from 7:00 a.m. to 7 pm all summer all year. Now, I understand they're proposing not to do anything in the summer, at least anyway, till September. My summer is now September, October. But the the the point is that that it won't be done in 10 months unless they're at some kind of super uh fantastic. You're going to have >> you're going to be wrapping this up because we got a long name. >> Okay. going to have

075trucks from their, you know, Riverhead Lumber Supply and all that kind of thing parked there. I will have nowhere left to park. I will not be able to park across the street and their their driveway and other areas near there won't it will be be a new road. They're proposing a new road. So, I'm saying to you that the the whole project is a good idea, but the the parts that impact Washington Drive, I wish it would look very very strongly at that. So I make sure they don't. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Anybody else would like to address this application? Matt, anybody online? >> Yes, please stand by. And last four digits 8999. You are live. >> Caller, are you here for this application? >> No, I'm not. >> Okay, thank you. Um,

076good. >> No, we're going to have to leave the record open. I for planting plan for that's going to be important to us because we we need to know how much. >> Certainly. And you know, just so for the members of the board, Russell Stein was the original town attorney during the resoning and uh is sort of a legend of zoning practice out here. When I first started at the town, he was the person we've always looked up and emulated and would still call him for advice today. So I wanted to make that clear that he was an attorney and a very good one. Uh I I also did want to point out that I think the biggest concern here comes down to the construction protocol and in the past I remember the board if

077you know when you have a site like this that parking access needs to be regulated. We don't have a contractor I wish I was standing up here with my friend Jimmy Kim for men at work construction. This is probably isn't even in the scope of what they would do. However, I think it would be a good idea the board could suggest that any contractor is selected must sign the application and return it to the zoning board before commen as part of their notice of commencement or something just so that hey every you know we can put a lot on terrace shoulders but contractors are a difficult bunch as I'm sure Roy can attest to but you know we can guide them as much as we can but we want to make darn sure that they

078know exactly what they are agreeing to before they operate on any site that the zoning board has jurisdiction over. >> Um, how much time do you need? >> We're we're going to find out how much we It's going to stay open. So, how much time do you need to uh keep open? >> I'd say 14 days for us to submit the vegetation plan and and I don't object to Mr. Stein submitting whatever he would like to. >> Can we just get from um Jake if it's not in there already? I didn't see it. the um existing conditions memo if one was done into the public hearing file online. Thank you. While the record's open. >> Sorry. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> We have a motion. >> Yeah. Um open

079till October 14th or 13th. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um we don't have a hearing. Oh, we don't have a hearing that night. >> No. Do we No, that's Columbus Day. >> The 14th anyway. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. For written comment only. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Then in the matter and application of John and Karen Wesson, 24 Washington Drive, Monttok, Subar County Tax Map 300-71-2-1.2. I want to make a motion to close the public hearing at this time, but leave the public record open for 14 days until October 14th to allow for the submission of a uh landscape plan. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Before you read the next application, Mr. Chair, I will be recusing myself from the >> Thank you. Come on up, John. John. [Music] Welcome John. Thank you.

080Uh the next application is Anna Kanger at 60 Osprey Road, Amagenzit. Uh suffic map number 300-131-7-3. The size and location is 7,552 ft at 60 Osprey Road, Montalk on the sea, section A, lock 115, map number 2438, Nam transit. The description is to construct 831 square foot of first and second story additions approximately 200 square foot roof deck 100 foot roof first floor deck new stairs entry upgrade uh entry upgrade the existing sanitary ent system and to clear approximately 1,000 ft of vegetation outside of the town's pyramid regulations and greater than the maximum allowable height on a parcel of land within dunes dune land and beach vegetation. The relief salt is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and three variances are required for this application. Variances of approximately

0817.25 ft and 10.3 ft are required from 251172D of the town code in order to construct a proposed addition 7.25 ft and 10.2 10.3 ft outside the town's pyramid regulations along the western and eastern property lines respectively. One variance of 1.5 ft is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the addition to be constructed 26.5 ft in height above grade where 20 ft is maximum allowable for a flat roof and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 and the secret class is type two council. Do we have a proper affidavit of service hosting? >> Yeah. Um let me sorry one second. I just want to double check. I don't have them printed out for me, but just give me one minute. >> Uh, yeah, I

082reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order. >> Thank you, >> John. Your report on the lead. Um, I visited the property yesterday and this is the uh notice out on Osprey. Next, please Tyler. This is looking uh across Osprey uh south at uh the front of the house. Next, please. This is the house to the immediate uh west. I think the address is 56 Osprey. Uh, next, please. This is north across the street. I think that's 55 Osprey. Next, um, this is the west side of the house looking south. Next, please. Um, this is in the backyard looking southwest. Uh, that's the uh dune area directly behind the back of the house. Next, please. This is turning around and looking north at the back of the house. Standing

083in that uh uh the dune. Next, this is looking to the northeast. Uh, still from the backyard. Next, please. This is looking to the south west. Um, shows the house. You can see the uh angled roof on the right is 56 Osprey. Next, please. Uh, this is on the deck looking uh east. Um, next on the deck looking pretty much due south. Next. And on the deck looking due uh west. And I think that's it. >> Thank you. >> How are you Diane? Good evening chairman u members of the board. My name is Diane Learier. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Anakar Jordan and Learier PC 257 Panigo Road, East Hampton, New York. Um as you may recall, we were here um about a year ago uh with um an application and request for

084uh variances. Um since then we went back to or the applicant went back to the drawing board mostly based on the um comments submitted by the department department and also by the the members and um the application has since been significantly reduced um so as to permit the um improvements that are sought by the applicant while minimizing the impacts on uh the environment and and the surrounding area. The um notables with regard to the reduction uh pertain mostly to removal of decking, uh reduction of clearing um and uh uh making those improvements so that the majority of the improvements are um although the the improvements are on the south side, they're also in the north and most of them are within the I think all of them are within the existing nonconformity Um in the

085technical analysis memorandum I al I saw some um somewhat positive comments from uh Mr. Borsac. It seemed that he had acknowledged that the um revisions and the modifications that were made since the initial application seemed favorable and um I can uh go into those specifically. First um we reduced the number of variances from six to three. We reduced the pro proposed height, reduced the decking, um removed the deck railing and reduced the clearing by 550 square ft. I recall when we were previously before the board, the board was very concerned about the impacts of the proposal on the um dune area. We uh went to great lengths to ensure that the improvements that are sought and the expansion that is sought are um the minimal necessary in order to provide the additional um space and

086the gross floor area although albeit within the permitted gross floor area. um within the gross floor area that is um permitted and also just uh to accommodate the applicant's um desire to have greater space their grandparents as well seeking additional space so that everybody can um be comfortably within the residence uh the kids grandkids etc. So um the um the application has been significantly scaled back. the impacts on the um with regards to the decking and the dune area are minimal. And um I think that the I think the technical analysis memorandum was accurate. Um with regard to the modifications that have been made and um like I said, I think they acknowledged the improvements in the in the proposal. um specifically addressing the comments that were submitted by the architect which I believe are

087also submitted to um chairman uh chairman Zelene and the zone zoning board of appeals this afternoon. Um she addresses specifically from an architectural standpoint some of the um issues that were raised by Mr. Borsac indicating that the existing height encroaches beyond the pyramid by 20'6 in. Our proposal is 10'6 in less than the existing. The proposed stair to the deck on the south side of the residence encroaches 1 ft. The existing stair encroaches 3 ft. The existing stair area beyond the um beyond the required setback is 22 plus or minus square ft. The proposed is 3 and 12 plus or minus square ft. We're increasing the distance and improvement improving conditions to the house to the south. The height relief we are seeking is 6 feet less than what was existing than what is existing.

088We are matching the plate height on the north elevation and the ceiling height will be 7'6 in. Also uh worth mentioning is previously when we came before this board we had um indicated that we were making an application to the department of health services to upgrade the septic system. That um minor variance was approved by the Suffach County Department of Health Services. The only thing left to do is to file a covenant um to uh wherein the owners are going to agree that the driveway will uh remain permeable. And um so of course adding the and upgrading the septic system to load nitrogen also uh helps to mitigate any of the environmental impacts. In terms of the um proposal that's currently before the board, it is well within the um uh the nature of the

089the surrounding area. Um greatly reduces any uh potential adverse environmental impacts. Um and uh oh again also with regard to landscaping, we're proposing to add native vegetation to the northerly portion of the property um as a mitigative effort to um increase the uh n amount of native vegetation just to mitigate the very minimal amount of um clearing that's proposed on the south side. Um, and I think that uh I think that's uh all the comments that I have unless the board has any questions. >> Any questions, board members? >> Uh, yes. Hi. >> Hi. >> Um, so the current residence violates pyramid regulations. >> It's a pre-existing non-conforming. >> Pre-existing non-conforming by how much? >> Um, well, we went through it. So the existing height encroaches beyond the pyramid by 20'6 in. Our proposal for

090the second story addition is 10 ft 6 in less than the existing >> pyramid violation. I'm talking about heights. >> Oh, the existing height is um I think it's 26 and a half square uh 26 and a half 26.5. >> But that's a pitched roof. >> I'm sorry for flat. It's a flat roof. Was there an existing flat that exceeds exceeds the height? >> Well, the the current roof's pitched, isn't it? >> No, no, no. Our our current roof is Oh, this um the current roof Well, actually, you know what? I'm not the architect, but we do have the architect on the >> The point is we we talked you said you said that the addition is lower from the existing house, but the existing house is a pitched roof. So that has a higher

091higher um that's what 32 I think it is 32. >> Correct. I think that the point >> you're you're proposing a flat roof. So to to relate it to a pitched roof is sort of um misleading, I think. I don't mean to use the word misleading. I'm trying to figure it out, but it's um >> it's apples and oranges, I think, is what you're saying. >> Apples and oranges. Um >> so, uh to the extent that the um architect submitted those comments to the board um and uh included that analysis, I think I'd like to bring her in. She's I believe she's on hold. >> Okay. Before you do that, did you say that she submitted things today? >> She did. >> Today? >> Yes. Mhm. I have copies of those two to um submit

092here to make part of the record. >> Um >> if you want to hand them so we make sure we have >> Sure. Yep. >> Yeah. >> I think I have it stated today. >> I also have um copies of uh correspondence that I submitted as well um for the board. [Music] >> You submitted um this letter today, September 30th. Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, just >> I believe the the board got digital copies of that this afternoon as well. >> I I I I've made copies. >> Okay. >> On the um elevation, the bottom elevation, that's the side view of the addition, right? So, um, the deck below, is that existing or >> There is an existing deck. Yes, there are two >> expanding that deck. >> It's they're bumping out the uh

093addition. So, they're adding GFA and then they're pushing the the deck out >> to accommodate that expansion. >> You know, I think they're adding 100 square feet to that rear deck as well. >> Correct. in in the area. Um I believe there's a spiral staircase that's um that's proposed just to allow for area to walk around that spiral staircase. Um again with regard to the dune vegetation, I included pictures of where that proposed deck where that deck is proposed in the vicinity. It's mostly sand in that vicinity. We've been, you know, we've been very conscientious in terms of um the considerations that we've made for that for that deck and for uh you know to ensure that there's very limited clearing on the south side. So you're I mean I'm just before we get the

094architect on the phone um regarding um the the variance requests you're you're asking you're you're increasing nonconformities it appears and I'm trying to I'm struggling with the uniqueness of this request um other than hearing that it's the owner you know desires it but I what's the uniqueness because to allow if you were to have an empty lot a constraint lot like this that's empty you would have to conform formed to all all zoning. Um, but now you have a non-conforming and we're we're just pushing it out more. But I don't understand. I'm I'm struggling with trying to find the uniqueness because if we're going to approve this, it has to have a unique character. Um, and we're going to, you know, it's I'm struggling with it. Well, I mean there is first of all there

095is precedent with regard to increasing GFA especially when you look at that looming shy fet structure that's on you know to the west of this premises. So uh so we have um you know we have precedents there and then with regards to there is uh you know there is an existing nonconformity that um you know we are trying to work with that is unique to this particular property and um you know to these circumstances. So they are you know they are proposing the minimum necessary to work within the existing nonconformity in order to increase GFA not to the maximum still below what's permitted not clearing to the maximum still way below what's permitted 100%'s permitted we're you know up to 48%. Um so the um you know the ask is essentially to allow the applicant

096to increase the GFA in an in an you know in a to for this particular property that has unique nonconformities working within that structure in a way that's con that conforms with the surrounding area and um certainly conforms with the um surrounding area and falls within the the precedent setting structure to the west of the property. >> Okay, any questions? >> The nonconformity is not decreasing. There's still some additional nonconformity. >> Yes, >> the minimum necessary to increase the GFA. We're only looking for 130 square ft 830 square ft essentially where and um you know I believe it's about 2350 square ft of GFA that's permitted and we're about you know 100 square feet under that. So >> you're going for the maximum. Yeah. >> Well, we're not maxing it out. We're still going below.

097>> Very close. One thing I'm not uh clear about is why removing the existing first floor deck and adding a 100 square foot deck in the rear requires clearing a thousand square ft of vegetation. I see the green proposed uh additional clearing. I'm just not sure why that needs to happen in the uh in the backyard and and the uh that would be the uh west side. I also had the landscape designer on the phone as well along with the architect who have been working very closely with the owners who are also on the on the phone um to comment as to the um the clearing which is still well below the permissible clearing >> but understood as to the as to the southside and um also uh you know to explain uh why it

098is that there's seeking that additional decking on the south side. >> What's the date on that document that's up on the screen? >> This one is March 2025, I believe. >> Yeah. March 14th, 2025. >> Okay. If you want to get somebody else, if you want to see your >> Sure. Yes. Um I I don't know how we get to the people. >> Okay. I have I have a question then. This is Matt from LTV. I have three callers. Do we happen to have a last name of the architect? >> Uh Dalheimr Elizabeth. >> Perfect. I will unmute them right now. And 6223, you are live. >> Good evening. Uh this is Less Alheimr. >> Hi. Do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. Okay,

099go ahead. >> I I would just like to address the the height variant we're requesting on the north side of the building. Um that that height we're matching the existing plate height of the house and it's only allowing us 7 feet 6 in in height um for that area. So we're we're we're really not um you know like going above and be beyond the the reason for that height is is specifically because of the existing height of the building of the of the plate height like I mentioned and really the minimum that we could really go for a bedroom for the height. >> Okay, >> board members. >> No, no, thank you. Um, Elizabeth, I thought there was also a question as to the decking and um why it is that we're requesting the additional

100100 square feet of decking on the first floor. >> We are proposing it. It's it's since you know it's a dune area, they're not going to be utilizing um grade at all. And so we're trying to maximize the area without touching the plantation, you know, the plantings. And so I felt that that was a minimal amount of decking to add for the, you know, they they have two new grandchildren and, you know, trying to have room for their family. We've also the stair that we're proposing um to get up to that um first floor deck is considerably I I know Diane u um read my statement um um to the board but the right now the existing stair is much more forward and encroaches a great deal more than what we are proposing. I I

101I did try to be very respectful of the site um and at the same time provide what my clients needed and and as far as if you know what what's unique about this property, the house is skewed on the property. If we were to knock it down and build a new house, obviously it would um conform more with the direction of the property. That that is unique to this property. Okay. No other questions? No. No. Thank you. >> And I believe there was a question for um Tom Muse who Muse Design who is also on the phone with regard to >> you let Tom stand by please. >> And caller 1842 you are live. Hey Tom, >> thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thomas Muse, 27 Hopkins Avenue, Mtok, New York. >> Yeah,

102Tom, do you swear for him to tell the police and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Okay, Tom, I think there was a question about why why is there um from >> Yeah. Um my question is about why is it necessary to clear a thousand square feet of vegetation especially on the west side and on the south side on the south side there's a if you um I don't know if you can bring up the landscape site plan if that's possible bring it up so the board can >> we looking at we're looking at it >> they have it up yeah >> okay the purple line is showing the uh edge of proposed clearing and And there's the um dark kind of cloud line. That's the uh existing clearing. So there is um

103uh an edge of proposed clearing to allow um uh you know basically uh access to really construction there. Um there's a project limiting fence that is proposed and that project limiting fence shows the uh is representing basically the the northern line of the Bearberry um band that's there which is uh you know an endemic uh dune vegetation um north of that limiting fence and in inside of that limiting fence is just um some landscape mosscanthis grasses and uh a few a few uh clumps of Bayberry and stuff like that. Non nonsignificant um landscape vegetation um that uh will be, you know, uh possibly impacted by the additional deck and construction in the back there. So, um the the the the uh opportunity for reveation right up to that deck is there. um it's not represented

104there, but um there's a few 100 square feet of clearing on that south side. And then um the whole uh project was moved to the to the north side or the addition and the sanitary system. And that's where most of the additional clearing is required to put the sanitary system in with the um distribution trench and the grain the at the uh gravel uh driveway. Um there is a great reduction in the um curbside appeal uh of the masonry, you know, that that an imp sorry a a great impact to the curbside on in a on a on a native vegetation. Uh there's a large apron that's existing there and some driveway along the road frontage that's going to be reduced by native vegetation. You can see that on the north boundary of the property

105line the as the uh cobblestone apron is get get significantly reduced and we uh you know plan to do some native plantings there. Those are the reasons for the additional clearing. Do you plan to reveate where you can for above the IIA system and in the construction area in in the backyard in the south side? Um yeah, there's um we we've got um some additional planting opportunities once we remove that, you know, massive uh cobblestone apron. Um uh on the east and west side of the proposed new apron, which is more of a conventional size apron. Um and the uh the parking area there is rendered. Um it's a it's a it's a tight site and um the initial uh zoning application was with all the improvements and additions to the south of the property

106which was going into the dune system. So, we've reversed that and we're uh protecting a substantial amount of uh the south really the whole south side of the properties shown as non disturbed native vegetation and that was the whole the whole >> John where on the south on the south side where >> John on the southside where you're you're saying you're clearing because of the construction why not re revge that back to where it should be closest closest proximity to the to the additions Um, I don't I don't have any problem with that at all. >> Leaving maybe a four or five foot access around. >> Yeah. Building building maintenance. Yeah. Couple of feet around. Yeah. >> Excellent. Yeah. >> Yeah. again. Um I I sent some photos around and I know you guys have

107the photos and you'll see the u the endemic u significant you know uh dune vegetation is is not close to the building there. It's it's uh it's like I said where you where I've shown this project limiting fence. South of that is where the real the nice native uh doing vegetation is. North of that is um just some scrubby old landscaping that's there. Um but to to revege up to uh you know a two or three ft line surrounding there will we'll we'll slightly reduce the the requested clearing and that's something that certainly could be considered just make the owners aware of that. See if they sign off on that and we could modify the uh proposed vegetation line to show that. >> Okay. >> Anything else? >> Any other? >> No, I'm good. >>

108Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tom. >> Thank you. >> For the plane department again. Um, so the subject property is situ situated on the south side of Osprey Road in the Napig area of Amigans. The application is requesting an NRSP pyramid variances and height variance in order to construct uh two-story addition decking, new entry stair, upgraded sanitary system, and to clear beach vegetation. This property was before uh before the board is located in the Montalk on the sea subdivision in Napig. This areas comp comprised of smaller lots which contain duneland habitat and beach vegetation. Of the greatest concern to the board is generally retaining as much of the dune character on these properties as possible while allowing for appropriate levels of development. The rear of the subject property contains a dune

109formation and that is vegetated with beach heather, beach plum and barberry. Uh some of the proposed clearing in this is in this area of the existing residence uh to the south of the existing residence. Although the southern clearing limits have been greatly reduced since the 2023 uh denied application uh and and are generally the the amount of of development at the south of the property has been been reduced greatly. Um so it's really just around that new deck uh sort of addition um and then a little bit south of the addition for the house which is over the existing decking for the most part. Uh the subject application is requesting two pyramid variances uh and a variance from the maximum allowable height for uh for the proposed additions and decking. The proposed additions to the

110residence require variances from the town's pyramid regulations of over 10 ft and 7 feet from the eastern and western property lines respectively. Uh the size and shape of the residence on this small non-conforming property make the existing improvements non-conforming to pyramid and maximum height. The existing residence is approximately 14 ft out of pyramid regulations along the western lot line and more than 20 ft along the eastern lot line at the peak of the roof. The proposed flat roof addition will also extend approximately 26 and 1/2 ft above the surrounding natural grade. And that's to this that's on the on the the south side of the lot where the lot sort of the topography sort of slopes down a little bit away from the from the uh down and away. So that that height variance is

111really at the far southern end of that uh and not the entirety of the of the addition. Uh the parcel directly to the west 56 Osprey was the subject of multiple ZBA applications requesting pyramid uh and third story variances for additions to the residence. That application was originally denied uh and was subsequently approved in the second application after revisions to the plans in order to reduce the magnitude of those variances. Uh that property was ultimately granted five variances including one pyramid variance to constru 8 ft 8 1/2 in outside of town pyramid regulations uh and also required a third story variance cuz it's sort of a strange building. Um the subject property uh was be the subject property here in this case was before the board in 2023 for a similar project uh which has

112been scaled back to eliminate some of the variances and reduce others. At that time, the applicant was asking for four pyramid variances. Uh, two pyramid variances to construct the proposed addition 11.42 feet and 14.12 feet outside the pyramid regulations. Uh, and the proposed decking 5.08 and 8.08 ft outside the town's pyramid regulations on the western and eastern property lines. The decking variances have been eliminated as the proposed decking is uh first floor and roof decking over a more centrallylo uh second story edition. The proposed pyramid knock conformities have also uh both been reduced by approximately four feet on either side of the parcel. Still still less than what currently exists on the property. Uh the application is also proposing to clear significantly less of the remaining beach vegetation has has already been discussed. Uh the

113current proposal will clear approximately 250 square ft of vegetation and and I agree that a lot of that is is uh is or ornamental mscanthus and and a little bit of bay. kind of sandy area as well. Not as high quality as the the Bearberry uh that that we really are concerned about at the far south end of that property. Uh the relocation relocating um of the bulk of the proposed additions to the north of the residence appears to be an attempt to address some of the board's concerns with the previous application. The proposed 831 ft of additions to the residence on the subject property will increase the gross floor area from an existing 1,451 square ft to a proposed 2282 ft where 2355 is the maximum allowable at the time the application was submitted.

114Um with such large variance requests and nearly maximizing the gross floor area allowance, the board will have to uh carefully consider how this application meets the variance standards. Are there reasonable alternative designs that could be considered which would add some additional living space to the residence without uh need for such large variances and which would limit the impacts to the beach vegetation on the property. The Montalk on the Seas subdivision is an area of town that has been seen many applications in front of the ZBA in recent years for redevelopments or additions to existing properties many of which are maximizing or nearly maximizing the gross floor area allowances. This level of development may simply not be possible on some of these properties given the existing conditions, dwindling duneland characteristics, and significant variances required. The character

115of this neighborhood of modest homes with the duneland habitat has been under increasing development pressure and the board will need to determine if the proposed variances in NRSB are in keeping with that character or if there are better alternatives which would require less clearing, smaller or no variances and better fit the constraints of the property. Additionally, the applicants are showing a sanitary system upgrade to a modern IIA sanitary system as part of the project. Sanitary system is likely required uh but the benefits of an additional low nitrogen sanitary system although uh although the parcel is not within jurisdiction of any protected wetlands remains. Um, the ZBA should carefully review the application, compare it to the constraints of the property and what has been included or offered to mitigate uh those impacts associated with the development

116uh and compare the development of similar properties in the neighborhood to determine if the applicant meets the NRSP and variance standards. Um, and I think I answered any questions that may have been lingering. uh the the clearing line around that's shown around the the the decking I think it's fairly close to probably around five feet um which is sort of standard for the board to allow you know room for people to to do maintenance for their home. I I don't I don't I don't know if much additional reveation would be necessary but certainly um including anything up to around a five foot buffer would be appropriate. >> That's it. >> Thank you. Any questions for Tyler? And Tyler, if I'm understanding, the um roof height will exceed uh the maximum by a foot and a

117half, >> right? >> And if I'm also understanding correctly, the pyramid uh violations will be reduced. >> They will be reduced from >> from the previous Okay, but this is a new application, new board. I'm looking at this fresh eyes, >> correct? Yeah, there was an application in 2023. the majority of the additions were on the south side of the house. It cleared significantly more of that which which we had concerns with um and the pyramid variances were greater at that point in time partially because the topography and also just the general >> I'm just I'm considering this as a new application new board. So so the um the variances are seven and a quarter on the west side and 10 10.3 >> on the east side. >> Right. So really the what what's before

118us is the NRSP, the height variance, and the the pyramid east and west. Correct. That's it. >> Yep. Yep. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Thank you, Tyler. >> Is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? Matt, is there anybody online? >> Yes, we still have one caller and I will unmute them right now. and 899. You are live. >> Caller, are you here about this application? >> Richard Trier. >> Yes. I I just want to make the following mention. Um this is Richard Trier. I'm uh uh council to um uh uh the hangers. Uh I just want to mention that with regard to any vegetation that you think is appropriate, they will approve that. uh whatever the board feels is appropriate, they will replace

119uh vegetation as as required. That's not going to be an issue. Other than that, I don't have anything else to add. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yep. Thank you. Um Okay, we're good. >> Okay. Thank you. Um are we do we need to No, we're okay. I think we'll we'll we'll dis we can condition it on five within uh four five feet, I think. So, >> all right. Can we have a motion, John? >> Yes. Regarding the application of Anna Kanger at 60 Osprey Road, Amaganza, Suffach County Tax Map 300-131-07-3. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> Concur. Thank you. Thank you, Diane. >> Next, we have what? Oh, we'll wait for [Music] We'll get to you soon, back row. [Music] >> Next, we have

120What of you three LLC? It's 232 West Lake Drive in Montalk SuffK map number 300-12-4-29. The size and location is 27,50 square ft at 232 Westlake Drive, Montalk Beach Development Core, subdivision number 7, Westlake residential section, block 155, lot 6, map number 1024, Malk. The description is to allow the removal of existing walkways, wall and ornamental vegetation located relocated propane tanks and to allow a new stone retaining wall, gravel driveway extension, new walkways and associated structures on a parcel of land containing title wetlands. Believe sought is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and two variances are required for this application. and variances of 74 ft and 68.5 ft are required from 255 430 of the town code to allow the existing walkways to remain 26 ft and existing

121block wall to remain 31.5 ft from title wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a residence X flood zone V8 flood zone and the secret class is type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> Thank you. Okay, Ed. >> Thank you. Um, this is the posting. You see it on Westlake Drive. Board will be familiar. Most of the board I think we were all on here for a previous uh discussion of this parcel. Next, we're going to look down West Lake here. I'm now looking down towards the harbor. Next, I'm going to turn, look the other way.

122I'm looking back up towards 27. Next. Now, I'm standing here with the gates open and I'm looking I'm going to walk my way into the property and take a few photos just of the property in general. Next. Looking at a garage that's off to the right here. Continue. Next. The same one I had. If not, keep going. Next. Now I'm standing here looking down. We're going to go up towards the house. There's a walkway leading up to the house. From here, this is not the walkway in contention. Next, there's a series of walls that were constructed and they're under there now some cinder block or a block walls right now that are an incomplete state or perhaps they're in a complete state. They can tell us. But anyway, next I see another corner here. And

123this wall is going to now wrap around all the way down towards the water. Next. See a series that wall keeps coming. Next, I'm going to see it now. It's leaning its way. You see it with this is all to the north. It's going to work its way around the house and again down towards Lake Malk next. Uh this is just looking back up into the house next. This is a walkway that comes alongside the house. And this is um Lake Malk is off in the distance. this walkway we're going to be having a discussion about next looking out across the pool like M talk beyond next looking back I've got the house in the setting the house here you can see that walkway just to your left that's the end of the walkway that

124we're going to be discussing next this is a wall that came up at last hearing I'm going to take a photo of it this is an older wall you can see the old concrete next it's a wall that goes dates back I don't know when to when but dates back far enough that it's not in front of us tonight. Next, it has been discussed. Let's get a view of the the setting here. We're looking out on Lake Montalk and you can see there's a buffer there that um is largely undisturbed. Next, from there, the walls that along the existing wall looking back up towards the house. Next, again, just from standing out in the uh beyond the out in the buffer, right almost on the edge of Lake Malk. Next, this be the NRSP sec.

125I'm looking here. Uh I'm looking uh south here, I guess. Yeah, south. And this is a property that's got a bulkhead to the right here. That's uh fairly significant. Next, that's the edge of their property. Now, I'm going to walk my way up alongside the pool, and you're going to see we're going to come a little bit further, and there's that wall is going to be closest to the wetland. It's going to be on my right next. Oh, don't just looking back across where there's a septic is next. Um, again, I'm looking for another photo, but this is just looking back across the way. Next. So, this is the corner. This is where this uh wall ends. This is the portion that's 31.5 ft from wetlands. This made its way from the front along the

126northern side of the house and dead ends here. Uh there's a little bit of looks as if there was intended to go further, but this is as far as it's gotten right now. I think that's it. Is that it, Morgan? I was just looking back through this gravel area looking back up. That's that wall looking back up to the house. Next, I think that's it. No. Uh this is only because there was so much gravel area and it was mentioned earlier in one of the previous comments, but that's it. >> Thank you, John. How are you, John? >> Hi, good evening. John Tit for the applicant. Uh, it's a relatively straightforward application. There's a little uh, as you see on the pictures, there's a uh, retaining wall that was built around the property there. It

127did replace a stack stone wall that had been dilapitated and was was uh, no longer serving its function uh, and probably didn't cover the entire area that the new wall does. Um but the owner um and the or the land and or the landscaper felt that u because it was going over existing lawn and it was north of the house wetlands being or not sorry landward the house with um wetlands being on the other side of the house that they could do without a building permit. Uh of course it did need a building permit. It also needed a natural resource permit and a variance. The wetland while it is noticed as being pretty close to well and is just that corner on the side of the house. the majority of the wall in question is

128on um the landward side of the house. So you'd have the wall and then the house and then the pool and then the then the retaining wall and then the wetlands. Um and then of course you saw the pictures of the uh the little uh blue stone steps over an ex all this was over existing lawn. So um I don't believe anybody thinks there's any environmental detriment from this. the benefit to the applicant. Benefit to the applicant was uh the reason for the wall was to try to uh create a little flat area for the parking um uh and and just and just transition from the parking area in the garage to the house in a in a in a safer, more organized fashion. Otherwise, you'd have a little bit of a slope. And um

129that was the reason why it was built. Again, no known detriment from from building this wall. If anything, arguably there's probably some benefit from um uh stopping that slope from the driveway area down towards the wetland >> between the wall and the vegetation around the wall. >> So, um >> how much of the walls being removed? >> Uh no no removed >> I was told it's 22 inches high, but clearly looks bigger in some sections higher. >> Yeah, I'm not sure. >> Yeah. Um uh it's it was mostly just >> question. I don't know if it's appropriate, but I had a question about the the condition of the wall looks as if more work is going to be done. >> Yeah, it was uh they thought thought they could do it without without a variance

130and most of that wall is is either outside of 100 feet or or or close to 100. >> The notice is stood to allow the removal of existing walkways, wall and ornamental vegetation. >> I think that's a question from the planning department. I think it was just a complic it was uh it was complicated in the sense that um the stuff was done without a permit. So uh there was work done. So I think that's the question. the wall along the water side. What? Uh >> uh everything that's there is proposed to remain and that and that wall was supposed to have s um >> so was that there prior or was that a new wall? >> That's a new wall. >> So they built that without the without an RSP. >> Yes. Yeah. >>

131Pretty egregious. >> Replace which wall you're talking about? You talking about the one that's down at the waterfront? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That one that's an older wall. That's an old picture of it. Yeah, that's an older wall. >> That's the one built without a building permit. No, that was not built by them. I'm not going to defend you. I'm just saying the wall that's on the ocean is an older wall. The wall that we're discussing is the one we saw start at the beginning of the house and curl around on the north side. And that was built without the benefit of building it. >> Correct. >> You're in front of us now because you took out an older wall to put this one in. >> Thank you. >> And some and some walkways as

132well. >> Yeah. The walkway The walkway that's shown to the house has always been there. Uh I think it's a different walkway than what was there. Yeah. So that probably needs natural resource permit or variance. >> And the walkway on the side of the house that you show in the pictures, those blue stone steps, those were also added with uh without a natural without a >> variance. And there was walls there. Um but we replaced some of the walls with with a more modern wall. It is intended to be there supposed to be a facade put on, but the stop work order issued and they stopped. So should the variance be granted, they would just put some sort of nice decorative feature on it. I just want to clarify what you said. You said there

133were stack some stack stone wall that was a bit >> it was dilapated, >> right? Dilapidated and then you replace it with this more. Right. But >> I I don't I don't know where that stack but you said I think the new wall is much bigger the same like was it in the same place? >> Same same idea. Uh there's always been that gentle gentle uh grade difference between the the parking area and the and the water and the um there was always been some sort of attempt to transition from the higher to the lower area. There's always been some there's a stacked wall there. It was it was >> not really there anymore. The house has been developed for 70 years. So at times it's had a lot of different features, but this just

134it's just a uh just a landscape feature. >> What is what is existing? I'm trying to understand what's existing between the pool deck and the seawward side of the pool deck regarding buffer to the to the water. Is there any buffer there? >> John, maybe you pull that up. >> There's a cement wall and then there's remember these these properties all own the underwater land in in the lake. >> So the uh the survey is showing the mean high water line there, but all the way out to Lake Montto is owned by the property. Um, so the buffer would be um all that area. Um, >> is it a buffer now? That's what I'm That's what my Morgan, can you try to pull up something on that? >> That old wall. >> So, you got

135grass coming up to the wall. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's all that's all >> you really don't have a buffer there. >> No, that's all all that all that um is that >> Oh, all that in front of us here. >> I don't I don't know what the tech uh all that all that all that wet land is owned by the applicant. All everywhere below that wall is owned by the applicant. >> That's another photo. Go back a little bit. >> I understand. But that's that's the edge of wetlands, right? >> Yeah. >> So there's nothing protecting the wetlands. There's there's grass coming up to that wall. I'm wondering if we can get a buffer there. >> There's that wall. There's the grass and then beyond. I don't think the the the landscape feature >> brass

136going up to bulkheads on the water line is that cool. So we we we we're going to >> I know but there there's absolutely we're talking about a wall on the other side of the house, right? And so so to remove the lawn is a big ask. >> What we could do is we could do a co we could record a covenant for no no irrigation, no um fertilizers, but >> but that's un uninforcable. Enforcable. You can't enforce that. >> The walls on the other side of the house. So, I mean, it's >> uh you could also say make the house smaller, but I mean, there has to be some sort of rational reasonable >> I'm talking I'm talking about between the deck, the pool deck and the retaining wall. >> The deck is legal

137and the pool is legal. The house needs >> I'm saying that. But we have lawn between that. We don't have a buffer protecting the wetlands. And we always look for a buffer, right? We always do. And there's >> and I don't think there's anything wrong with asking for it, but but I'm asking for a wall on the other side of the house. So I think that I think when you ask for mitigation for a perfect example would be if I ask for a sideyard variant, you say, "Hey, put screening up to protect the neighbor." Asking me to remove lawn has no there's no there's no nexus between that and and and the wall on the other side of the house. So I understand I'm trying to >> I I'll consider that, but I'm just Yeah,

138that's just my you know, that's me being my part of the argument. the other side of the house though and this the relief requested here variances of 74 feet and 68 1/2 ft to allow existing walkways also to remain 26 and the block wall 31.5 ft from the wetlands. >> So the the wetland in question is to the north >> is recommending that you create some buffer. Well, I when you're talking about that variance, I think you're talking about the portion of the wall that runs down towards Lake Malk and that corner there. And the wetland in question is on the there is vegetation between us and and the neighbor and that the wetland is actually on a neighbor's property. But I'd be willing to um offer to remove any lawn in that corner and

139make it beach grass. But the there's very little lawn on this property and to to remove that small area um of when when nobody here is saying the wall is going to do any detriment. the wall is not hurting anybody or anything. Um, if anything, it's providing some environmental protection because it's creating it's stopping the flooding from the street and the driveway down into the the water. So, to simply say, "Hey, we think you should remove the lawn." Um, I I I don't think, you know, my argument would be that that's outside of of powers. That's what I'm >> Well, we can hear from the planning department on that. >> Wait. Oh, can I ask one? >> Yeah, go ahead. Um, obviously it's not in this application, but we're on the site and the pool

140is which was like from 1972 is broken, right? So I don't Do you have Are you coming in for replacing that pool or >> No, I don't know. >> Yeah, I honestly have no idea. >> Thank you. >> My client's watching. Maybe she'll text me. >> What? >> My client's watching at home, so maybe she'll text me. >> Okay, great. because it's it's I mean it's broken. It's like >> I don't >> I mean you've seen it so >> that's why I asked. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for John? >> No, I'm good. >> Thanks John. Let's hear from planning. >> How are you Morgan? >> Good. How are you board? Morgan Slater from the planning department. >> Morgan, do you swear a firm to tell the truth all truth and nothing but

141the truth? >> I do. Uh this property is within part of Montalk where there are numerous properties developed prior to the establishment of minimum wetland setbacks. This particular lot has been intensely developed within minimum wetland setbacks. Though the only improvements that have occurred within wetland jurisdictions since the inception of NRSP um has been window and door replacements and some roof line work uh which received the admin NRSP a few years ago. Um, in addition to the subject work in need of relief that we're discussing tonight, a stop work order was issued for the construction of the pathways and retaining wall that are in need of variances and also for other ground disturbance that occurred within wetland jurisdiction. That includes the removal of the structures. So, there isn't currently any proposed work on this lot. All

142the removal of structures has already happened. That was just included in the scope of work that was submitted when the application was first received by our department. Um there's that was with a different agent and now John is the agent on the application. Um the gravel pathway and stonewall are minor structures but they are 25 ft and 31 1/2 ft from the wetland at their closest points which are substantial variances. The level of legally existing development within the minimum minimum wetland setbacks makes the environmental impact of the walkway and stone wall difficult to quantify. Um however, a way for the environmental conditions of the property to be improved would be some revitation with with you know beach grass um on the water side of the pool since or within some sort of buffer to the

143wetland at the closest point since there is currently saw throughout the entire property which is not compatible with H pod standards. Um I can answer any questions the board may have about the property that is quite um there's a bit of a history. So >> you recommending in your TAM to get a buffer there too. um anything is better than what's there right now. >> So, um council has said that there's really no nexus to the request and I'm trying to dig I'm trying to drill down into that >> when there is such an intense level of development that is legally existing. Any additional development should be, you know, looked at pretty closely. Um, you know, if this was proposed, um, I think that we would be having a bit of a different conversation and

144and and you know, not really different, but we would still insist that there be some sort of revitation. You know, it's 100% pre-existing clearing. Montalk is a compromised water body. Um, any buffer that is better that is better than what's there is, uh, definitely the opinion of the planning department. That would I think be warranted. So there's an area where you have the you go through the gate to the back and basically where the pool is >> and that's the area that I was taking from the tamp that you want to have a buffer >> you know. Yeah. Something you know at the closest point it is 25 ft from the that is quite a large variance. >> You're okay with the walkway staying at that location? >> Yeah the gravel walkway. Yes. Yeah. It

145is it is pvious or at least semi- permeable. Um it's not um it you know it's not super flat so it doesn't introduce a ton of additional runoff but it's more the concern is you know having like a fertilized lawn right up against the tidal wetlands. >> So that whole area back there by the pool you recommend that they reveate or vegetate >> I think in I think you know ideally there would be some revitation there. Um I think that you know if it's just within the buffer that is from where the wall is in the gravel pathway to the clo that wetland where because it does come up a little bit um I think that would be okay. Um >> and our nexus for asking could be for uh especially since sod is not

146compatible with hpod sanders. So do you feel that asking for this uh revitation is in trying to keep more in the limits of uh what's before us with HPOD? >> Yes. >> And that would make a nexus for us to request additional mitigation. >> Yeah. I mean the existing conditions of the property are certainly not in keeping with H pod. I I think um you know there is an IA sanitary system that's that's good you know um but each pod does kind of prioritize you know maintaining some sort of vegetation along the protected natural resources and the surface waters that are supposed to be protected having a fertilized lawn is not necessarily >> well it's also some pretty substantial landscaping on this property so probably the amounts of nitrogen I think I' probably it's like

147to see a buffer there would too. >> So, just to clarify for May, are you talking about the length of that wall that you're recommending a buffer or primarily in the northeast corner? >> Essentially from where the wall ends to the wetland, you know, the buffer between where the wall ends to the wetland, >> but that would be then on the north the north edge of the property rather than on the east side. >> Right. >> As I'm looking at this, >> point to it on there. Can you point to that? I mean I no I don't know what the exact square footage off top of my head would be. I mean the gravel path is here. It's this yellow highlighted part here. Um I think any veget any additional native vegetation um within this

148area here >> Yeah. >> is better than what's there. >> What about all the grass going across and the walkway that's 26 feet from the wetland? >> Yeah. And also, you know, any additional any planting there should also accommodate, you know, some sort of access path around um the structures that are there. So can we clarify this first sentence in under the project description to allow removal of existing walkways, wall and ornamental vegetation. Okay. So what is being removed? >> Nothing is being removed anymore. That was a part of the scope of work that was submitted by the applicant initially. Uh basically it it has to do with the stop work order. >> I'm sorry. What? >> It has to do with the stop work order that was put on the propert. >> But was

149ornamental vegetation removed? Do we know? I do not know. I mean, the work was essentially completed um by the time we got to our review. So, >> and there's a lot of mosscanths, right? Was it mscan like down near the water and >> amusing lawn? I would say >> almost >> there's a lot of hydrangeas in the lawn. >> And then on the landwood side of the house is there are a lot of ornamentals and all that. >> Yeah, I think we are a little less concerned with the landward side of the house than the water side of the house. >> It's done. So, >> I mean, I know it's pre-existing non-conforming clearing. I get it. But, you know, at the end of the day, it's heavily developed and it's, you know, 2.7 times more

150than what, you know, the HPOD standard is, which we often look at. And, you know, the planners very often want to see any reveation where there's any kind of nexus to it. Okay. Any other questions? >> Come on up. >> Proposal by the department. It's fine. That that that norththeast corner. Uh so the wall for lack of a better term return the wall that's on the land side of the house returns back towards Lake Mtok and um to the uh maybe from the deck over uh could be could be if there to there's any lawn there now. Um that whole area could be made as um beach grass. Uh in addition, I think the planning department is saying that it's the fertilization. I know it's I know it's hard to enforce. I I get it.

151But but a covenant is better than nothing because it puts any future owners on notice and if somebody, you know, there still be a violation that the town could enforce if someone were to use fertilizers or pesticides on the lawn. Um, [Music] so I I think that's a reasonable ask on the part of the planning department and something we'd be willing to do to the extent that the where the wall returns everywhere uh on that northeast corner could be uh made to have no grass. Uh just native I guess you wouldn't care if it was uh native vegetation approved by the planning department as opposed to beach grass. >> Um again the wall has no known detriment. Nobody's saying it's hurting anything. Um and uh if anything that's probably by a benefit because there there

152is some flooding from the street down there. Uh which is another reason for the wall was to prevent the house from being flooded. So uh to the extent that that retaining wall was built, it it does help keep any of the driveway runoff from heading down towards the uh >> land. There's a landscaping plan in the file. It was received by us May 1, 2024. Was this already done? Cuz it was that. Yeah. So, was this already completed? And looks like everything on here is or a lot of is non-native and was all like ornamental. Uh >> yeah, this uh this was done to the extent that the notice said that removal u removal of ornamental vegetation I can see in this corner it says permit to be removed so there's >> probably stuff like

153that >> I guess the question is you know h the work that was done was done without a permit and without an NRSP um I would imagine if this had come before us as an NRSP at the time we would have not approved this landscaping plan. I I think because it's all it's non-native. It's all ornamental. So that's I'm just kind of >> Oh, I can clarify that. So you don't need a natural resource permit to um to like recede your lawn or or anything like that. And so I I think this is a plan, but um we would not have needed a natural resource permit for 90% of what's shown there. >> Okay. Thank you, John. Thank you. >> Anybody in the public would like to address this application? And is there anybody online?

154>> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Can we have a motion? We're not leaving anything open. >> Yeah. Then in the application of Waterview 3 LLC 232 West Lake Drive, Monttok separate county tax map 300-12-4-29. I'd like to make make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record at this time. >> Second. I concur. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Excuse me. Then we walk next door. Exactly. Next door. >> Yeah. Know save me a lot of time. Very very efficient to have two next to each other. >> Our next application is David and Lisa Welsh at 240 Westlake Drive, Montalk SuffK. That's Map number 300-12-4-28 28.1. Size and location is 55,371 square feet at 240 Westlake Drive, lots four and five, block 155 Muk Beach Development Corp. filed September

1557th, 1927 as map number 1024 in Montalk. The description is to demolish an existing 3,022 foot of one-story residence and construct a 5,139 foot two-story residence with an attached garage, 600 ft pool and spa, 1,914t of decks, 278T of patio, outdoor shower, IIA system on a property containing title wetlands. to relieve sodas and natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code and one variance is required for this application. A variances of a variance of 21 ft is needed from 255375B to construct the IIA sanitary system 179 ft from the wetland where 200 foot is required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is a residence X flood zone V8 and the secret class is type two council. So, do we have proper affidavit of service in both? >> Um, Beth, do you

156have a copy? Did you Who sent it in? >> They were Yeah, they were FedEx to you um on Friday. >> I don't know if I got a copy. >> Yeah, >> I'm looking now, too. >> I didn't get it emailed to me, so There is postings in the on the on the line. >> I'm sure I just >> post coordination is not >> Yeah, there you go. >> Everything's good. >> Thank you. >> This fine. Yeah. >> Thank you. Um, this was properly posted. It's kind of weird that you can hardly see the the ink, but when if you were in front of it, you could. And it was up all week, so I can confirm that it was well official and correct. Anyway, next. Um, so this I'm just inside the gate now,

157shooting across from the south, yes, south over to the northeast, the direction of the property. Uh this is a complete redevelopment and there'll be a new IIA system all put through this this area and uh the house will be moving slightly landlord and uh total redevelopment. We'll go through the pictures, walk around next. Uh now just turn and this is a shot down toward Lake Bon talk from the southern southern lot lot line. Next, um, now this is up near the gate also that to enter the property. And again, this is another shot. This is there's a, uh, bridal path area that's embedded in that fence somewhere. Um, and again, where the sanitary is going to is proposed to be going next. Uh, now I'm down the other end. uh actually near the tree that

158you saw in the previous picture and I'm looking is this the north and facing the east and we're going to go down towards the the water next. Uh this is shot next to the house and that's the there's a neighbor's house in there that's the nearest neighbor to the property aside from water view that we just had. Uh next and this is a shot from the north toward the south again showing uh the big expanse of the property. Very nice property. Next uh here's where it drops kind of down toward the toward the shoreline from here. And again, this property has a lot of grass as you see. And the grass also goes up right into the the water line. Next, uh there's a pathway that goes through there. Uh next, and you end up

159down here at the water. You can see there's grass. And next, there's just a couple of shots. This is in the northerly the southerntherly direction. And actually, you're getting a shot of water view. Um, next, uh, this is just the nice shoreline, the water. And next, I just turned around and shot took a shot back to the existing house, which will be demolished and replaced. And next, and this is the u greenhouse and the shed that are going to be well, everything's getting redeveloped. those will be removed as part of the project. Um, next and this is shot across the existing house from the south toward the north um with the the deckings that exist and and I think that's it. Is that it? >> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Okay, one question from

160Nelson Popenbore. here on behalf have a a survey date of March 10th, 2025. We'll see March 6th. I just want to confirm that's the latest. We did get some new >> You didn't submit a new survey. Okay. I'll get to that. >> Um, so Brandt Riner from Nelson Popenbore, he's here on behalf of the applicant. Uh, David and Lisa Welsh, you need to swear. >> You swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Uh, here with me tonight is Beth Baldwin, attorney for the applicant, and Robert Young and Andrew Pati from Robert Young Architects. They are the ones that designed this beautiful house. Um, very quick background on the pro on this application. It was submitted in August of 2024. um after an extensive review with town

161staff and vetting with the architectural team and a good faith effort to design a project that met all of the town zoning standards including H pod requirements. Uh so when we made the submission, we were hopeful that we were going to um help to speed up the review process with a design that we thought was was was going to be um worthy of meeting the town standards. During the review process, it was brought to our attention that there were some things that were um worth um reconsidering in terms of the product design. Uh we heard the first round of comments and submitted updated materials to staff's review in March of this year. Um and then once again we heard comments um from the town staff and resubmitted again just recently as as recently as um

162Friday I believe. The latest round of of responses in sorry of com of revised materials is in response to the technical review memo um from um September. And just to go over to a point that was already made, the the materials that are in front of you that are currently in your file that are considered the most upto-date, the only thing that's not included is the survey and we just didn't have enough time to get to that. But everything else that you're seeing is is intended to be consistent with the project that is being um that has been revised slightly to meet the town staff comments as best as we can. And I can go through those revisions really quick. um high level um we were responding to t to staff's comments about um the

163architectural plans not um needing more clarity with regards to the GFA and the um basement slab not meeting groundwater separations plan revisions have been made to address those things GFA is now clearly noted and the basement elevation for the slab and the found the footings now meets the two footsteps separations so that the basement has been shrunk in height to to make that work. Uh the sanitary plans have been reconsidered. We've taken a long look at how we can get this system back into a conforming location. When I say conforming, it's to meet the 200 foot setback. You know, there's some discussion to be had about whether 150 foot setback would be appropriate here. um we're conceding to that and we're trying the best we can to get the system behind 200 feet. In order

164to make that happen, the sanitary engineer had to get a little bit creative and the architectural team had to work with the owner to make some interior uh shifting to allow the plumbing to work and a system to meet the health department standards using ejector pumps. So the idea is that um again the plan that we'll go through in a minute is intended to to get as close as we can for that entire sanitary system to be to the 200 foot setback. So with the redesign we're at 199.5 ft. Um if I could pause here and take a sidebar. The application that's before you is for an NRSP and a variance for the sanitary system. that is the only variance that we are requesting and that original variance that was being requested has now been

165reduced to half a foot. So I wanted to make that point very clear. It was you know a lot of work to get that done but um we feel confident that this is a a sanitary system that is um going to function and it meets the health department standards. There is an application pending before the health department. This new sanitary system design has not yet been um submitted to them. It's in the process of being submitted or I should say it has not yet been formally reviewed. We don't have a notice of of comments from the health department. Um the third thing I'd like to to note with regards to the updated materials is you'll see that the the vegetative buffer plan the the new proposed non-disturbance non-fertilization buffer i.e. the expansion of the scenic

166easement is now a variable width sorry buffer that is equivalent to a 75 ft set back from the wetlands. So we feel as though we've made a an even we put our another foot forward to to to make this an even better application and provide as much mitigation as possible. So, um, before I get started on walking you through all of the mitigation, oh, sorry, all of the comparisons of the of the project and the mitigation, I just want to make a note that the DEC did issue a title wing permit for this project in September of 2024. And to reiterate, the health department review was pending, we believe, pending approval subject to this board issuing its NRSP, but we are going back to them for a modified sanitary plan as you're going to see

167on on this screen. >> Can you tell me where's the existing sanitary? >> Yeah, great question. This this plan is is intended to help um look at all of that. >> It's right here. And then in the proposed Yeah. >> Yeah. So it's roughly in in the living room of the proposed house. So the idea is that this project is intended to move everything back. This is a full retreat of all of the existing site improvements. And I'll go through that really quick. Um current setbacks of the existing house are is 97 ft. We're moving the house back to 101 ft. set back of the existing deck is 71 ft. We're moving it back to 100 ft. The masonary and patio um this this note is actually for the patio that's around the greenhouse, but

168that's at um 54 ft. Um the new masonary patio patios are going to be on the other side of the house at 155 ft. Um there is no pool but the pool that's being designed is is designed in a formula location at 101 ft from wetlands and then the sanitary system existing sanitary systems at 152 ft. The proposed is at 199.5 ft. There is a slight reduction in building coverage as part of this application but we believe that it's offset by the substantial buffer that you can see on this plan. So if you look at this plan, the blue represents the proposed and the red represents existing. Again, you'll see that retreat um and you will see um a a very clear distinction of that growing buffer that is going to be vegetated with a

169full pallet of seaside appropriate native vegetation. Um, this project was designed again not just to meet the standards but in some cases fall well below them because this application was submitted in August of 2024. Uh, we are um exercising the GFA standards that were in place at that time. So looking at the what we'll call the old GFA standards pre July 1st 2025 this site could yield a GFA of 6400 square ft 6403 actually to be exact. The proposed GFA is 5139 which is actually 20% less than what would have been allowed at that time. So there was no intention to ever overbuild this site. You the architects took a very good look at it. It's part of their model as a firm to study project sites and make sure that they're designing below the

170standards, not up to them. And that was intended to um that sorry that was, you know, by design. So um real quick looking at the um the mitigation associated with this project. Um, I hate to look at other applications, but you just saw the neighboring property. This project represents a massive improvement to the existing site conditions. The IIA do the IIA system is a massive upgrade, the increase in setbacks, the introduction of of proper drainage to capture storm water runoff from all of the imperous surfaces, the incorporation of gravel driveways where we can. Um the use of a sorry the expansion of a vegetated buffer with um a very specific type of vegetation that we know will succeed in this environment without the use of any fertilization or irrigation. Irrigation would be required maybe for

171the first year but after that it's a set it and forget it type of situation. possibly some weeding, but it's intended to to mesh with what would need be seen in this location naturally. Um, Morgan, would you mind pulling up the rech before you >> can come back? You go first. >> Oh, I'm sorry. If if you want to stack on that plan, that's fine because I was going to finish with the revge plan. >> Go ahead and we'll talk to you then. >> Yeah. So you can see right here we're not just using one monoculture of you know beach grass or um little blue stems or you know just a meadow type of environment. We're using shrubs and grasses intermixing to create the natural wildlife habitat that you would need to see along this

172um this highly scenic um corridor. So that's all I have for my presentation. I would like Beth to come up and give you just a quick understanding of the natural resources standards. But while I'm here, if you have any questions, >> I got a question. I want to drill down into this. U let me ask you this question. The septic system that um was proposed for that the TAM wrote um was a gravityfed system. >> Yes. >> The original system was a gravity fed. Yes. >> And the TAM is referring to already as a most conforming. Why introduce mechanical pumps to try to improve the most conforming location by the I don't know if that's a better system. >> We're introducing >> We're happy to fall back. >> We're introducing a mechanical pump if you

173it's it's it's like uh that's something that's going to require more maintenance. It could fail. I I would say gravity fed is probably better way to go here. I don't I'm just >> You were at 169 before this. You were something like 169 away. >> I think it was 175. >> Okay. All right. You don't have to repeat it. But no, you gained you gained yourself 20 feet or so by moving it back, which you have to now rely on, >> right? 20.5 ft. >> Okay. Mechanical. And you didn't in this new configuration, you're not going out into the bridal path. >> Correct. >> So, you had to reconfigure it in a way to make it work without getting in the bridal path. >> Yes. And still max meeting the 4oot separation groundwater. Yes. Uh,

174Mr. Chairman, I I couldn't agree with you more. We would prefer to use the gravity fed system, but again, in an attempt to try as best we can to meet your standards. We found a way to make it work. You know, I've I've worked on many of products that have ejector pumps. I I guarantee they are not the preferred method, but with um you know, certain backup generators or whatnot, and so use of solar, it's it's it's it's possible. You know, the health department does approve them. So again, we would take that under advisement if that's something that this board would rather see. We're happy to go back to the original design. >> Well, we can hear from both as well. >> Yeah. So, um I'm sorry. Was there another comment on the comparative analysis

175plan? Um >> when you when you did put up the uh planting plan, it answered one of my questions. I couldn't read the notation to you to see what you were doing in this particular drawing here. But then you put up the uh you just had a planning plan up and that did show us that what was happening here. >> Yeah. In that area. I see that. And that's the area that uh was off colored coming back towards the house. You're just saying it's going to have a variety of plantings, not just uh the blue stem, the large and small. You're going to be talking about other things. >> Correct. >> And of course, that all run by our planning department for approval. >> Yes, 100%. And we're willing to work with the town on

176the plan selections if they don't agree with what we've chosen. >> Was this submitted Friday? Was this one of the ones that came in Friday? >> Yes, it was. >> Do you want to see >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. >> Anybody want to see the plants? Are they the same basically on the previous plan that you had submitted >> for the Yes. Yeah. The plant pallet is is and it's consistent with what is on the town's list of acceptable native plants. >> Any other questions? >> Yes, please. So two questions. Number one, so with the improved or the greater buffer, right? So I know you said you didn't have time to turn around a new survey, but do you have an estimate? The proposed after reveation on the most current survey we have is 36,717. Is

177that um actually improving off of that or >> it's going to be more than what was shown on the >> survey that do you have any rough magnitude of how that 36717 will change? >> Unfortunately, I'm sorry I don't Okay, I would be speaking out of turn if I tried to guess. I will say this >> currently the vegetative buffer area is around 1300 square ft. Mhm. >> What we're proposing is actually is closing on in on 15,000 square ft of buffer. >> So, 1300 to 15,000. >> Yes. And then my second question, just if you could reconcile, so the memo from NPV dated August 12th, 2024, um had a construction of a 60 6,44 square foot twotory single family house and now obviously it's at five. What's the number? 51. >> Uh the new

178number is 5139. So what I mean did you shrink the house? Was that a mistake? And if I understand the plans well looking at them, it looks like the sort of center part of the house is uh double height internally. >> Mhm. >> So under our code, as you probably know, double height counts twice. You know, area that's under double height counts twice to GFA. Has that been taken? Has that double height been included in the 5139? >> That's a very good question >> because I was sort of wondering if the was actually the number with double height and this one is not. But I think >> Okay, so that is a very good question outside of my area of expertise, but these two fine gentlemen right here >> could answer that very quickly for

179you. >> Thank you. I'll wait. Yes. Hi. Do I need to Robert Young, the architect? >> You swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and not the truth. Thank you. >> Uh, so the the area in the center that's double height has structural uh ties that go across at less than 15 feet. So, it's not possible to occupy that space uh in any way. That's the >> But it's still open and double height. >> Yes. >> Okay. I mean there'll be an issue with the building department on it. Yeah. I mean >> well is it included in the >> I don't know. Is it included or it's not included because of that because it's not a >> So you didn't count it. >> It's not it's not included under he's saying he

180you're saying >> not part of GFA because it's not occupiable. It's not habitable. >> Yes. >> Speak. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Uh Andrew Patine from Ramy Young Architects. >> Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Uh there's also a portion on the side wing, the garage side of the house that is double height because that's the connection to the second floor there and everything that is above the 15t is counted twice for GF. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yep. One other question, one other question was just about the uh there was a comment that you achieved the uh uh distance from groundwater by reducing the basement area, the height of the basement. What what happened there? We went from what to what >>

181the the numbers >> shrunk the >> we ra we raised it up so we didn't change the house at all we just moved >> right but what did you what what is the headroom now below is that still 7 foot or more >> so the there is the result of you moving it up is 7 foot >> eight >> okay thank you So, if there's no more questions at this time, I'd like for Beth to come and just give you a quick rundown on standards. Thank you. >> How are you, Beth? >> Good evening. Elizabeth Baldwin on behalf of the applicant. >> You don't have to my role too. I should >> um good evening board members. Elizabeth Baldwin, attorney for Essex, Heftner, and Angel on behalf of the applicants. Um you have heard the

182project overview from Brandt. Um, and I wanted to just go through the NRSP and variance standards, the town code, and summarize how this project meets these standards. Um, I did submit a memorandum in support of the application on Friday with the packet. Um, so I don't think I need to go through in full detail. Uh, but I did want to note a few important aspects of the project. Um, I did want to start out by pointing um pointing out that the applicants started with this project with the intent to not only fully comply with regulations set forth in the town code, but to be well below those regulations. Um, the applicants appreciate the environmental sensitivity of the project and sought to maximize the distance um to the wetlands by presenting the board with a reasonable

183project that takes the uh environmental conditions into account. We do not believe that any of the natural features will be diminished in size, polluted, degraded, or lost by this proposed project. Um, not going to go through the numbers again, um, as Brandt did that for you. Um, but I think you can see that, um, a lot of these development projects sometimes tries to max out, you know, their numbers, um, without taking in into account the environmental sensitivity of the problem of of the of the property. I think this is not one of those situations. I think um the architects have proposed a um a residence that in that incorporates the um environmental conditions of the property and the mitigation offered will offset any additional um coverage and improvements on the property. um the revitation um

184on on this property, I think, as opposed to other properties along Westlake Drive, you'll notice this revitation will be um will provide much more u a buffer for non-point pollutants and all of the issues that I know are important um the board looks out for in a pod regulation areas. Um, another part I think this this property, the project as proposed is is not a sprawling property with with, you know, pools over here and accessory structures over here. I I think the point was to keep it all contained in one area. It allows for the additional revitation while also um limiting the coverage on the property. Um, as far as the sanitary system, um, I think the applicants would prefer what we had originally proposed that was noticed. Um, however, I think an attempt to

185to show alternatives, which I know is something that the board's looking for when they're going to be granting or looking at a variance. Um I think the point was to show that um the applicant has explored all all alternatives though we we we feel that that first the noticed um sanitary system would probably be more beneficial. Um but we will let the board make that determination. I'm sure um I would like to hear what the planning department says about either one. Um so I think we can wait um on that. um you know the the demonstrating that this application demonstrates the town's goal of retreat. Um I think that's something that we do want to see on these these properties. Um and the and then again just about the uh the extensive revitation plan. I

186think overall the applicants project meets the standards set forth in the town code for the NRSP. Um, one of the issues that that came up in the TAM with regard to um, GFA and whether or not um, the size could be reduced. I know that's always um, something that the board's looking at with respect to these properties. However, I think um, the applicants in this situation, they are um, building this is a forever home for them. This is something that they anticipate um, they have children. they anticipate their children and their children children, the generations to come on using this house and and to make it work financially and functionally for them. Um this is a size that's um fundamentally important to them and um we think that the mi with the mitigation offered um

187that the size and the and that no detriment to the um environmental conditions will occur based on this application. Um let's see. I think uh let's see what else did I have um as far as the variance standards um if we consider either um both I think both of the requests um I did question and I know Brandt brought it up but I did question the review of the um the 200 foot setback versus the 150 foot setback. Um this is an existing sanitary system. Um, I understand that it's a redevelopment of the property. However, I don't know. I don't see where in the code it says that a redevelopment falls under the 200. Um, we're not challenging it here. We're just um we we we are seeking um the the variances that that we've

188been told we need. Um however, I do want to question that interpretation as to where that has come from because I don't remember that being the case in the past. Um that being said, uh we do feel we meet the variance standards set forth in the town code. Um the benefit to the applicant will clearly outweigh the detriment to the um to the neighborhood and the community. Whether it's the 6inch variant or um the little slightly larger but variance, the the variance itself is um minimal. Uh there there'll be no impact. It's a sanitary system. It's underground. It's going to be on the landward side of the house. Um there's going to be an extensive buffer to the wetlands. Um there's uh there's no alternatives. The the bridal path on the uh road side of

189the property limits how much we can't push it back any farther. Um I think the uh engineers did a great job of coming up with an alternative um to this while still working within um avoiding that bridal path. Uh and then uh no negative impacts to the environment are uh environment are anticipated rather positive impacts should occur as the existing outdated sanitary system will replace with a new IIA system. Um additionally the extensive re reveation buffer proposed by the applicant will offset any impacts. Uh and as for whether the request is self self-created the applicant pushed the system as far away from the wetlands as possible. However, the bridal path limits getting any closer to the road. Um, obviously I have more extensive review of all the standards within the memo. Um, however, I just

190wanted to point something out, but overall we feel that this project is a reasonable project for the property that meets both the NRSP and variance standards of the town code. >> Any questions for >> Yeah. Um well in the recommended pro project conditions they recommend this the 75 foot reveation plan and buffer and you you said variable is it >> so I think the so one of the things that you know obviously they would like to maintain some of their lawn area understanding that they do still need to do some extensive revitation. So, one of the things and we we took this from the DEEC. This is one of the things that the DEEC and some other jurisdictions do as well is taking the amount if we did the full 75 foot buffer to um

191and calculating that amount, but rather than just putting it straight across, adding some on the side. So, the average is out to be the same amount of revege. However, it's built up a little bit more on the side to preserve some of the the lawn area in front of the house that, you know, they still have they have kids and things. You know, they want to be able to maintain some of that use of lawn area while still offsetting the um the actual buffer to the water. Okay. And you would put a scenic easement. You're agreement to putting the scenic easement over that area. >> Yeah. I'll just I'll just point out to you really quickly where that is. So it's really So if you see this line right here that represents the 75 foot

192setback >> these triangular pieces right here represent the offsets that equate to. So it's why you call it the equivalent buffer. >> Achieve the same square footage of buffering to create that root structure and limit you know the amount of any opportunity for irrigation and fertilization on the property. It's just intended to preserve some areas for the children to play and and you know serve the same purpose. >> Okay. Now that 200 foot for is that because of >> H pod? >> Yeah. Yeah. The 200 feet, right? >> So usually the code itself distinguishes between um you know it's a 200 foot in Hod, but then it has an exception. If you have an existing sanitary system, you you only have to meet 150 ft. So when they originally went into the project, they were

193thinking they were meeting 150 ft. However, during the review, it came up that the I guess the planning barton has been saying has been um interpreting it to require a 200 foot setback when it's a redevelopment of the property. Um don't know if it says that in the code. I didn't see it anywhere. Um, but either way, you know, I think it's the project itself is still a good project that I think and I think the sanitary system is maxed out as far as it could go regardless of what the >> and just to further discussion on this point right here. The system that was included with the most previous submission was designed to be in this location right here. Mhm. >> And it and it's limited to going this way because of the >>

194because of the what? I'm sorry. >> The bridal path. Yeah, bridal path. Well, there's also a comment about a tree. >> Yeah, there's a tree there that >> the beach tree >> the owners want to preserve. There's >> Oh, yeah. It's right here. It's this tree right here that they were intending to preserve and this tree right here. So, it's pushing it over here. >> We couldn't achieve the setback regardless. This is the 200 foot setback right here. So, as you can see, as we go >> uh northwestish, >> it gets tighter to the property line. So, that's why the very um creative, we'll call it, you know, sharpening your pencil as tight as you can engineering effort to to try to get that conforming system pushed it back down here. Um, you know, but

195really, you know, to to have a gravity fed system, you'd want it to be right here. >> And so, you would lose those trees that you're trying to preserve with the gravity fed or could you >> be just away from them? >> These trees stay, >> right? Yeah. So, it was very important to the owner to preserve the trees. That's >> right. So, I just want to clarify if it went to a gravity system, you would still be able to keep those. Correct. Great. Thank you. That's what it clarifying. Thank you everyone. Morgan. >> Hello again. Morgan for the planning department. Uh the parcel is located on the southwestern shoreline of Lake Mtok uh which is a New York State significant fish and coastal wildlife habitat and a component of the piconic ashray critical environmental

196area. The environmental constraints of the properties around Lake Monttok cannot be understated and a redevelopment of any of the properties adjoining Lake Montalk warrants a lot of consideration for any potential environmental impact. This property is within the Harbor Protection Overlay District and the Lake Monttok scenic area of statewide significance. Both of which emphasize the importance of maintaining the natural resources within the area. The current residence is 97 feet from the title wetland and the new residence will be 101.1 ft from the wetland and is therefore conforming to setbacks. The proposal introduces a significant increase in the gross floor area of the residents compared to what currently exists. However, it does seem like the applicant has responded to most of the planning department's recommendations provided in our review. Uh and the variance for the sanitary system

197has been reduced from 21 ft to half a foot. Um something to consider for the IIA options that are in front of the board uh is whether the benefit sought can be achieved by some other design. Um the benefit sought um is up to the applicant to you know present to the board if the benefit is a less temperamental system but that is slightly closer to the wetland. Um that's their case to make. Uh the planning department as uh chairman Deen pointed out did not have an issue with the original setback of 179 ft. Um, I think it is laudable that they did what they could to get it further away, but that original setback wasn't necessarily an issue with our department in our review. Uh, the proposed reveation within the lake Montalk wetland buffer

198is also a large merit to the application and the most recent plants submitted is satisfactory to the planning department. Uh, if we're going to be a little nitpicky, the herbaceous ones are, you know, not necessary. We're usually okay with, you know, leaf litter as ground cover um and a more substantial woody buffer, but it this is this is a still a good uh revitation for the area and it is definitely going to provide a lot of benefits uh to Lake Montalk and and just improve the overall environmental conditions of the property. Um the area of the buffer is currently mostly cleared. Uh I think in one of the recent submissions, the area now of the reveation is 16,177 square ft. Uh that will bring the total clearing limits based on a rough calculation I just

199did to 28,979 ft. Um 16,3 ft is the max age pod, but this property does have I think 100% pre-existing clearing or something close to that. Um uh let's see. Oh, placing a conservation easement over the revitation is a strong recommendation from the planning department as a condition of approval since it would protect the renaturalized wetland buffer in perpetuity. The buffer is an important factor when it comes to the property aligning with H pod regulations and the consideration of the NRSP standards. Uh I think they verbally said that they're okay with the scene. It wasn't it wasn't um written in any of those submissions. So I just wanted to reiterate that the uh conservation easement is very important to you know the mitigation of this project. Um oh I just some notes uh we do

200I'm requesting some scalable versions of the digitals that we got. Um the ones we got on Friday I are not scalable. So just to clean up the official record a little bit that would be helpful. Um and then the a revised survey showing well yeah showing the additional wetland buffer and um any relocated structures. I think I made a quick note in the TAM about the pool equipment not meeting a double setback. I think that's probably a easy thing for them to address in a survey revision. >> And other than that equipment >> there's the pool equipment. Yeah, there's a quick note at the bottom of the TAM. It I think it doesn't meet 30 foot. I think they move in the basement. >> Yeah, they're putting it in the basement. >> I figured they

201would be able to figure that out if they could move the wasn't noticed for variance. >> Okay. Sure. >> Um I don't have is that shown on any of the plans that we got or is that going to be on the revised survey? >> On the architect plans. >> So that's fine. Yeah, we definitely need that survey. So um but other than that, I can answer any questions the board may have. What about the creative line they came up and discussed about the 75 foot mark? They're not exactly on, but they're adding buffer to either north. >> Yeah, that's fine. You know, it's fine with the planning department. Um, I do want to just note that the sandy area that is basically that's within the wetlands. Um, I think that would be hard to include

202in the reitation itself because it is within the wetlands. Um, however, you know, allowing that area to renaturalize over time, say for, you know, the 4ft access path is something that we also feel strongly about. >> Oh, that's right. And that shows you more than four feet. Yeah. >> So, this is the wetland. >> So, everything obviously see of that is within the wetlands. So, it's really just the sandy beach area. >> So, you would like to see just a 4 foot. >> Well, yeah. just allowing this to reactize um because it probably will um and just but you know save for their access path. >> Could you comment on the de you had a concern about the potential for dewatering now that they've they are meeting the two foot to groundwater. Does that allow

203>> Yeah, that's not a concern anymore as long as they're meeting the two foot um separation. >> Any other question? >> Can you say that final clearing number again? Yeah, again, this it may be maybe off by a little bit once we get the survey. Um, I just did it based off of the information that I had on me. Um, 28,979 square ft. >> 28, >> 979. >> Okay. Okay. Getting closer. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? Is >> there anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. Okay, Beth, come on up. So, we're going to need to leave the record open for how long? >> Updated survey in the scalable plan. Is that >> right? Hello. >> What's that? >> Just like

204to know if the board has any opinion on the septic system. if they're okay with the original design, we would like to go back to it. >> I I'm I'm pragma pragmatist. I don't see why adding a pump is necessary here at all. That's that's my opinion. I don't we can pull the board on this, but uh >> I don't know. >> Well, I think that the planning department already made their position obviously were okay with the previous location. So, I'm happy with the previous I'm happy with it, too. >> The new the new setback would be I thought I heard two numbers. 189 ft or 179. >> 179. >> Whatever was noticed. >> Yeah. Notice at 179. >> Right. So we stay with what was noticed which was 179. Yeah. >> Right. >> And

205then so in that case the health department review is just pending your >> That's correct. >> Um >> where would the easement go? So the east start the whole thing. >> Yeah. How far is it going to go to the >> to the water? Oh to where? Oh towards Westlake. >> It would just tie in. >> It'll tie from here. >> Because it kind of bends around the house. So it's got to end eventually. >> Yeah. >> It's going to cut at some point back to the property line. >> Oh yeah. Stand right here where the 100 foot. >> Maybe to the 100 foot. >> At the 100 foot. At 100 foot setback. >> Yeah. Set back. He's got you got to define it at some level. >> Yeah, we'll have it. We'll have >>

206on the survey on the survey. >> Yeah, we'll have I'll have you know I'll have him hash it. >> Yeah. >> And then I'll have him um and then when we do the actual easement >> um so Okay. So, and the for the surveyor >> Yeah. because now we're not changing the sen the sanitary >> with the scenic >> easement. >> So, how long? >> Two weeks of the >> just I know Dan is >> and we're waiting for the scalable y files as well as the survey. >> They should have been FedEx. >> The digital files. >> The digital >> Oh, okay. We want to make sure you get another copy. Yeah, we got the scalable hard copies. >> Okay. >> We need the a scalable digital. >> Oh, they didn't come scalable. I'm

207sorry. Yeah, we'll get that to you tomorrow, >> I think. >> Yeah, that's easy. >> Yeah, sorry about that. >> Okay, so we're leaving the record open for that quick math. I could have never done >> two weeks. Okay, >> we have a meeting. We have a meeting. >> I didn't even try. So, >> we can still leave it. We can still show it. Well, I mean, >> yeah, whether we meet or not. of the application of David and Lisa Welsh at 240 Westlake Drive in Montalk Map 300-12-48.1. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Leave the written record open for two weeks for the applicant to provide an updated survey >> and the scalable two weeks. So that's October two weeks. October 14th. >> 30th. >> Yeah. >> Today's the 30th. >> Okay.

208October 14th. >> I'll second it. >> And I'll concur. And I'll concur. >> I'll concur. Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Long night. >> Good night. >> At least you moved up to the front. >> I know. It's a promotion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Bye. All right, we have an administrative application this evening. It's Gizki at 6 Powder Hill Road in East Hampton map number 300-90-2-1.2 and that's a 322 ft porch and on a parcel within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. >> Morgan, >> um yeah, so it's this proposed porch. I think there is an existing deck over here where the porch is proposed. So there's uh no increase in total coverage. There's probably an increase in building coverage, just the area of the porch itself because it's going to have

209a roof. Um these are the wetlands over here. It's 132 ft. Um we don't really have any issue with it. >> I'm fine with this too. I reviewed this already. >> I did too. >> It's just an admin. You're going for admin, right? Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. way. I'll make a motion on on Gizy at 6 Powder Hill Road Lane in East Hampton subm number 300-90-2-1.2 to allow the application to proceed administratively. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. >> Post hearing decision. And that's Stevie and Judy Katano Michaelsson at two field view Lane, East Hampton, Suffach Map number 300-159-1-18.31. Size and location is 40,560 ft at two field view lane. The fields of East Hampton lots 31 map number 6459 East Hampton. The description is to construct a 7,871 square foot tennis court with

210inside yard lot setbacks. The release sought is one variance of 32.5 ft from 2551110 and 2551188 of the town code is required to construct a proposed tennis court 17.5 ft from the eastern side yard lot line where 50oot setback is required and any other relief necessary and the zoning district is a resident zodex flood zone and secret classes type two. If you give me a second I'm just gonna Okay. Um so this on this application the hearing was held on 8/19 2025. Um the applicant is Stephen Michaelelsson and Judy Kapano Michaelelsson. Um it was represented by uh Thomas uh Crouch attorney. The plans are dated 108 2024. Saska survey 111324. Um, and there was a whale and filer response to the TAM dated 81325. The Michaelelsson family letter and also a Michaelelsson family letter to

211the neighbors which outlined that there would be no lighting installed. There would be a sunken tennis court and there would be no games before 9:00 a.m. There were five letters of support and one letter of concern. Um the the uh application is is seeking a single variance which is to the eastern lot line and it's a it's in common ownership with the property owner. Um our section 2551120C provides for a parcel to have an accessory structure and providing there is no sufficient square there is sufficient space to fit a principal residence. Tennis court meets uh the required setbacks on the remaining property lines uh noting that they meet the double setbacks. Moreover, the the joining uh it adjoins a reserve area to the west and a road right away to the north. Um the during

212the hearing the the ZBA did address with the planning department and the application the the uh the uh that the fact that there would be res primary residence could be fit on this property line on the property. Um so I'm I'm in favor of doing this. Now the issue with these applications is providing uniqueness and I think the the the uniqueness um in this is that the only variance requested is from the common ownership. Um it meets all other setbacks and there's a reserve and and a private and what did I say there's a reserve area to the west and and a right of way to the north. Um, I think this application does provide the uniqueness to approve this application. Um, I'm going to go through the uh this the standards um and whether

213the grant of the um variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or will create a detriment to the nearby properties. Um it does outweigh the uh the it does the um does not cause an undesirable change in the fact that it meets all required setbacks other than the common ownership setback property line. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Um yes, but I it it in this case the variance requested is also the best variance requested doing being that it's in common ownership and that's the only variance that's being requested is a is a requested area variance substantial. I would say yes, but once again it's common ownership. uh there are no other

214area variances on either side of the property line. Whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect on the impact or on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or in the affected area of the town. Um I don't think it's going to have an adverse effect. I think that um we had the majority of neighbors that were in favor of it. Um, and we had one neighbor, um, that was a letter of concern, not really a letter of denial or or saying it couldn't be done. Um, and the fact that there would be no lighting and no play before 9:00 a.m. adds to that um, adds to that reason. whether the difficulty causing the applicant to request an arant was self-created which consideration shall be relevant to the determination of the determination

215of the board but shall not necessarily preclude the grant of the variance yes most yes it is self created however I think the uh the the condition of this application um is allows is is meets the standards being that again once again the only variance requested is in common ownership So with that I will vote to approve the application. Jane want to go. >> Okay. Thank you. Um thank you Mr. Chairman. Um so as we know the TAM um urges us um that we will need to weigh the unique circumstances relative of this application and situation relative to other decisions the board has made in the past um uh regarding tennis court sideyard setback relief. Um and given how substantial the variance request is um so obviously we're weighing that uniqueness as the chairman just

216uh discussed his view on that but I I have a after very careful review of the application materials and the public hearing proceedings and the public hearing file I do not see this application meeting the standards for the area of variance for a 32.5 5 foot or 65% sideyard setback variance for this tennis court. As part of my deliberation, excuse me, I have again reviewed I believe there are nine prior decisions um listed in the TAM that were made by the zoning board over I think more than a decade um with respect to requests for tennis court setback relief. two points I draw from that review of those uh nine um decisions, some of which were denials and some of which were approvals. Um though there were a number of approvals of setback variances listed,

217the bulk, if not all of those variances approved were for v variances that were materially less substantial than in this application. I think they ranged closer to about 20 to 25% relative to the 65% we're looking at here. And in one case, an approval was given from a sideyard ab budding an egg reserve. With respect to the approval precedent, I am aware that Mr. Crouch during the public hearing made the case that the application for 225 Old Montank highway, I think decided 12 years ago, was the in his mind the most relevant of four of the decisions that he had focused on in a memo he submitted to the file. So, I did consider that application very closely. Um and however again the variance granted in that application I believe is just a 10- ft

218um variance uh very different than what we're seeing here. So with respect to the denials um that I looked at um you know to consider um relative to this application we saw this passing horse um denial that was a 64% variance and um the most recent of these decisions was 133's path um where one of the three variances was was I think like 90%. So during that public during the public hearing I raised to Mr. crouch into the record. Um the question about the uh relevance of 133 SERS um as a comparable application to look at um that decision and I I did look at that decision in depth um as it is the most recent tennis court variance decision. It involves a setback variance relative to a lot line for another property that was

219also in beneficial ownership. um to two properties, you know, uh the lot line, sorry, the the lot line variance was to the other property in beneficial ownership and it was also similar size lot just under an acre in an A residence zone. Um and the two variances for which was a smaller court were also substantial. So the decision that decision was made back in December 2023, preceded my time on the board, but it was a 40 denial by my current four fellow board members. So as I see this application before us now, the case being made by the applicant for relief hangs solely on the current condition that the two lots in question are in common or beneficial ownership. However, that in and of itself is not necessarily a variance standard. I do not see

220that as constituting com constituting compelling uniqueness relative to the concern raised of establishing potentially problematic precedent. Moreover, even with common ownership, the lots are still two separate parcels and I think in large part the application still must be assessed as such. No matter what assertions are made by the current owner that they will hold both lots in perpetuity, there is no guarantee and that can change at any time and believe there's a covenant that's being offered um in case of the sale of one property of the other. It's just not clear to me that being feasible to be in to be uh enforcable. So, as the TAM states, ultimately not every property is appropriate for every amenity or pertinance. a parcel that's uh in this case sub one acre and 169 in width may not

221be the best candidate for a full-size tennis court unquote. Um and I would um agree um and and think that's a very important thing to uh um to to consider. I also note that this property already actually really benefits substantially from the western side because that town reserve converts that that to a sideyard setback um needed as opposed to needing a 100 foot front yard. So um I do not find the conditions sorry to wrap up just turning to the variance standards very quickly um whether the grant of the variance will cause an undiable undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or will create a detriment to nearby properties. So I understand I believe that expanding expanded setbacks in our code are for very specific purpose to protect neighboring properties from the detriment of

222disturbance and um I again this is would be in perpetuity and I do see um this is a very substantial um even with substantial tree screening um I do believe this potentially creates to uh peaceful enjoyment and if this were to become a precedent in this neighborhood it would have great detriment to the character of the neighborhood. Um whether the benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by some other method. If the benefit is to have a tennis court on this lot, there isn't definitely another which is to merge to merge the two lots that could have been done to create the benefit of the tennis court. Um the requested variance is very substantial as I mentioned and whether the difficulty causing the applicant um self-created. Um, again, we know that this is a standard

223that is not a knockout punch if it is self-created, but I mean, they bought a sub one acre lot with full knowledge that it would not be sufficient to build a tennis court without variances. So, for all these reasons, I am compelled to deny this application. >> Thank you, >> um, yeah, this is I go to Terry first. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you say I'm sorry. >> Terry, I'm happy to let you go. >> Terry and me. Okay. I too went back into some of the other applications that were listed in the TAM. Um, and there there was a lot of discussion at the hearing about uh 68 Prospect Hill in Montalk, which I I was on the board for that one. Um, it wasn't approval. It was not a a unanimous approval. Um,

224but I see that property being no way to compare with this property. Um, and there was some discussion about a building inspector uh making a ruling that on that property that I guess I I'm not really sure if Thomas was objecting to it or thought there was a similarity with this property, but I don't see it that way. Um, there there was also on the list they had Ducker listed uh which was an approval at 39.5 which sounded high and larger than the variance requested here. However, as turned out when I went back to that um there was um the sideyard setback on that particular property would would have required 120 ft. So the 39.5 was actually only about a 33% um variance on it where this one is 65. Um I think that this

225application this does not meet the standards and you know the common ownership have the same concerns. You know some things change and something could change that would u leave somebody stranded or some other property owner uh you know in a bad situation. But um so I think the as far as the granted the variance causing an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. I think potentially it can um in the subdivision there was also talk about you know swimming pools being but apparently there's no other tennis court in that whole subdivision because Thomas did not bring that up. Um, so I think that this does have the potential to cause some undesirable changes and if the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method feasible to

226pursue other than an area variance. Um, I believe it could be um that this was a full full-size tennis court and some of the tennis courts that we've had in the past that did get approved or not were smaller and I think one option is so that the applicant they could have they could look at making a smaller tennis court. Um, and whether the area variance is substantial. Um again in Thomas said no to a 60% variance which is actually six 65% and that is quite substantial. Um granted a variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the affected area of town. It may or may not on the physical or environmental but um whether the difficulty causing the self-created I I do think it was self created and

227they bought the property and just one for the tenants court on it. So um they did offer the covenant that was mentioned by the miring. Um but I think that's not not enforcable necessarily. Oh, I I'm going to deny this application. >> Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um, this was an interesting one because we had to go back and look at several past cases and that information was provided to us in the TAM. I want to go over that for a minute. Uh, it was that there were nine cases provided and there was a denial. There was the approval and several of the other approved were significantly less. This is asking for 65% variance. The Ducker approval um was significant um but that did have other circumstances. Two front yards off of Tyson and there

228was a 50-foot buffer provided by the roadway beyond and the board at the time agreed to that. Uh that was probably a tough court at that point too. I think in in the positive for them is that they were willing to um uh covenant the blight restrictions. They were going to dig this tennis court down, lower it so that it was not going to be as obvious in the neighborhood. The sunken temple court would be for private use only. Um they're requesting a variance from themselves only at this point. That was all positives. um the town on reserve to the west as a parcel of protected people on that from that direction. All of these are positives. However, I'm going to come back to uh the fact that it's a 65% variance to themselves. That's

229true. But as was mentioned by um my fellow board members here is that that property could change at any time. And if we then ask the future resident uh of the existing where there's an existing house now to inherit a property that has an oversized tennis court abuing within 17 ft of their property line. I think that the comment tam that not all properties can accept every impertinence really uh affected my thinking on this and I think the sor's path decision which I was part of we had a very similar thing similarly owned but we thought in the future were we going to allow this tenant court so close to the property that when they did divide that property if it ever happened that way the two properties were sold uh what would we be

230asking the others to do since we're doing this in perpetuity I then at the end how to balance what I thought was a very positive approach on them and trying to come up with a sensible tennis court but I don't think it works on this particular property I just don't think it does I think that there is there are limitations on what can happen on any one parcel and then just going through the code whether or not the grant to the variance will undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood I'm going to say yes only because we have then created uh another example of putting tennis course on undersized lots whether the requested area variance is substantial of course it is 65% whether the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect on

231the impact on the physical condition I say no I don't think that's the case here I don't think that's the condition on which I'm kind of I'm making my decision and whether the difficulty causing the applicant request the air request is self-created while he's asking for the tennis court in the end as positive as I think the approach was the fact that we're asking this we're asking ourselves to We allowed a tennis court 17 ft from the neighbor when in the future that could come back to be a very negative for the future but land owners somewhere down the line. I am not going to approve this application. >> Thank you. >> The subject property is vacant with no CO issued on the property. Immediately to the west between propert uh between the property and

232Robert's Lane, there is a 30- foot wide townowned preserved area. 2551120C allows a property to have an accessory structure as long as the title to the contiguous parties is in the same name and there is space for a principal residence. The plan is to build a single family house in the future with no variances. To me, what makes this unique is the sideyard lot line variance that's being requested is adjacent to the applicant's neighboring property. They're basically seeking a sideyard variance from themselves. The tennis court in all other respects I feel meets the town code requirements outlined in 2551120C. as long as the two properties remain in common ownership once the tennis court is built. And if not in common ownership, the tennis court would have to be removed. To alleviate noise and visual impacts,

233they are lowering the playing surface to be 2 to three feet below natural grade. They've also mitigated the tennis court with substantial screening by planting a 48 in arbor vite hedge which will surround the court. I feel this application does meet the standards and I will be approving the application in its entirety. >> Thank you, council. You good on that? >> Yep. >> 32 denial. >> Okay. We have the draft minutes of September 23rd, 2025. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from September 23rd, 2025 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> I concur. Thank you. Resolutions. We have three Georgia Association Road LLC modification. It's a scri scribner's era at three association road Scott attachment number 300-200-3-9.1. C. Can you just describe quickly

234the Scriveners error? >> Yeah, this on this property is on Georgia Association Road on Association Road there and uh but our determination where it says contiguous bodies of water just said NA next to um >> right >> next to that even though it's right on the pond. So I just changed it to say it's not on the pond. >> Thank you. So, I'll make a motion uh on three Georgia association road LLC modification for uh three association roads Scott suffic map number 300-200-3-9.1 to approve the modification with the scriveners error corrected. >> Second. No, I concur. >> Thank you. >> Um next we have John Marino at 63 Benson Drive at Malk 300. Uh, task number 300-30-1-20. Who is this? >> That was me. I'm sorry. Uh, let me get my change my glasses again.

235I thought I was done looking at the I was looking at the wrong one. >> Um, you have the new >> Yeah, I do have the I have it here. >> Okay. Um, yeah, Marino. Marino at 63. There was a We talked about a deck. There was a deck accommodation and a shower in the back. Uh that was a um uh there was a discussion about it. We went on that was approval by the board for the deck but a denial by member >> what's your name again? >> Denied the um >> denied the shower. It was denied the shower. So the vice chair denied the shower at that point. So I will uh I just have to find >> a lot of things. >> I just have to find it. Hold on. Do you

236have it? >> I have. >> Sorry about that. I put the wrong thing. So then in the case of uh John Marino 63 Benson Drive Malk uh Sub County Tax Map 300-30-1-20, I'd like to make a motion to accept the determination as written. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. >> I'm sorry. I was passing that to you because I thought we had that modification we were supposed to do. tonight. >> Are we doing this modification? >> Yeah. No, I was trying to give it to the chairman to say that >> we doing Bronzo. >> Which one? >> Bronzo. The modification. >> I don't know. We just got handed this. >> It's not on. >> It's We got We got a sheet for >> It's not on the agenda. >> I know, but we got it. I

237thought we got it by email and said we were going to do it tonight. That's I just wanted to double checking it. >> Okay. We ready to adjourn? >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals meeting on September 30th at 9:50 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. Encourage.