001put an X next. >> Okay, zoning board, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> I'd like to welcome everybody to the zoning board of appeals on September 23rd, 2025. I'm here to let you know the first two public hearings have been cancelled. that of Allan Manitarian 11 Ocean Lane in Amaganzit and Patrick Brennan 48 Agnu Avenue in Montalk. So we'll move on to the next scheduled public hearing which is Janice Wilson one Gladstone Place Malkque Suffach County Tax B number 300-9-2-50.3 size and location is a 20,554 square foot lot. Um description is to allow a parcel to remain 2,64 square ft over the allowable clearing limits of the water recharge overlay district. Relief sought is one variance from 255365 of the town code is required to allow 12,64
002square ft of clearing to remain where 10,000 ft is the maximum allowable and any other relief necessary. zoning district is an A resident zone X flood zone. The secret type is type one. Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Uh, yes. 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. Member Burgerer, do you have a field inspection? >> Yes, I do. Um, okay. This is the one of the there were two notices on this. This was the one on immediately in fronting the driveway at Gladstone. Next, um well, I just turned before I went to the other posting and this shows the parking area. There's an extensive parking area and the attached garage there.
003Next, this was the other notice. There's a paper road or closed street, Garrick Place. And this is the notice that was posted over there. Next, And it's just a shot of the dirt road showing it going up. And next, now I'm back in the driveway and I'm looking toward the right and you can see the two gardens that are noted on the survey there. There a lot of gardens on this property. Um, next this is a shot from behind those two gardens shooting up the side of the the house and about halfway up there is where survey shows me vegetation starting and it's going to follow up the property. Next, this is just Okay, now I'm noting the gardens and just shooting the entire length of the the house from the south side up toward
004the north. next north. Um it says farther up you can see the uh generator which is mentioned in the TAM and the garden areas beyond that and with again with the reveation going being proposed uh to the I guess it's north and east of that whole area running down. Uh, next it's just a closer view of that same area behind the the northernmost garden that's there. Um, show some of the other vegetation next. And I turned around and I'm facing toward the south end back toward the driveway side. Just taking another view of the other side of the house. And next it's okay. Thank you. Thank you. Member Burgerer, is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? Can I swear you in, >> please? Do you affirm to tell the whole truth
005and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you for identifying yourself. >> Thank you. My name is Janice Shearer. I am representing Janice Wilson. Coincidentally, we're both Janice's. Um I'm here tonight to go over the five standards for the variance. And just to but give a little bit of background. Um just by way of introduction, I am a town planner. I've been uh the town planning and development administrator for Southampton for tw you know I'm there now 22 years but for the past five. Um and I do have uh you know some environmental background. So we're very um aware of the need to maintain the water recharge overlay. uh standards. However, I just want to talk about the subject case here. It's related to the initial building interpretation that the installation of this small
006generator, which as you saw by the pictures, is not very large. It didn't require any clearing whatsoever. It now necessitates the homeowner to reveate her property to meet those standards of 10,000 square ft where she's a bit overcleared. Um the property as you know is located at one Gladstone place in Montalk and this property was um originates from an old filed map. So that map was the map of the Montalk Beach development corporation. So it's actually two one quarter acre lots lot 9 and part of lot 8 in block 204 subdivision number eight in the map filed May 6th of 1927. So that parcel has pre-existing non-conforming status by way of the fact that it is from an old file map. Um, and the applicant maintains that the vegetation on the property is largely the
007same as what when she purchased it. And the house was built, you know, it's a modest house. It's only um 7 1,746 square ft. And she's only the only clearing um only areas are those vegetable gardens. Um, the zoning does allow for 20% coverage, which would allow for a structure much larger than what she has, uh, 4,110 square ft coverage, which she does not intend to build. Everything is just largely staying the same. Um, so really, I'm just going to go back to those standards now and, um, say that, you know, we did read the planning report. She's amendable to restoring some part of the property. Um, >> how much? Do you know how much? >> Um, well, there was some confusion in the report there. There was a map that was given that showed
008like kind of a blurry aerial with some markings from GIS that was given to her and that said it was cleared in 1994 at 13,000 square ft. She this code the water recharge overlay went into effect in 1984. Um there's no aerials from that time. Janice says that the that her lot was basically the way you know she didn't do any additional clearing other than for the house itself and then the gardens and you can see the significant vegetation on the property. So we are asking for the benefit of you know maintaining that clearing. But but if it were to be you know like a like a grassland meadow like we were admiring here in the front of uh your town hall you know then she could do like 1300 some odd square feet which
009would be the difference between what this aerial with the benefit of 1994 and 84. it gets a little confusing in the report to me. Um, but I would I would say, you know, I'll go through the standards and then I I have a request. Um, but anyway, so there was a building permit issued when the her house was built, building permit 30873, and then CO was issued in 1993 for the construction of this house. Um, they were not issued in error, and this was all the conditions that remain to this day. Um, in order to grant the area variance requested, the zoning board obviously needs to take into consideration the benefits to the applicant if the variance is granted as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community.
010Um, and that the applicant must demonstrate the variances meet the standards. So, the benefit here in granting the variance would be great. The cost she was quoted to professionally reveate with large trees and shrubs um even just a small portion was $7 to $10 a square foot which would be $28,000. The applicant you know maintains her property immaculately and has not made any additions and expansions other than the placement of this small subject generator which I submitted a picture and you saw it in the pictures. um due to her husband's failing health and need for oxygen. The generator was installed pursuant to a permit. Um the overclearing is really related to the small vegetable and raspberry gardens which keep her active on the weekends and these gardens add value to the character of the neighborhood
011and do not have an impact to the aquifer or any recharge. Um it is our contention that the granting of the variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or cause a detriment to nearby properties. The lot has been improved and not overdeveloped, paved over. You saw the small modest brick patio um even that has recharged and the house has not reached anywhere close to the maximum coverage. It has not been stripped of vegetation or any um accessory structures or ornamental lawn decorations. There is no detriment to the neighborhood in granting the variance since the property is wellmaintained and used in conformance with residential zoning. the benefit. Now, here's where the benefit could be achieved by some other method. And here's what I would say, and that is this interpretation
012that a a variance for this clearing is even needed. I mean, if she received a um permit for the generator, does this small generator rise to the level of having to reveate? you know, I mean, I I would kind of save that for like if someone was, you know, bought the parcel, wants to rebuild a new house or something along those lines, but I mean, we're talking about the nexus between a small generator and then like the burden of of reveating the whole >> If I may, I mean, I understand what you just said, but the bigger issue for me is the fact that it's in a water recharge overlay district, >> right? So, and we're charged with um continuing the to maintain the purity of the groundwater supply and the sources of our drinking
013water. So, I understand what you're saying, but as a board member myself, anything more in terms of reveation that you could add would be a plus. >> Sure. And that's understandable. Um, however, the condition it is today and the dimminimous amount of um, clearing that we're talking about could not rise to the, you know, I I it would be hard to say that it's going to what the condition is right now today is just as advantageous to the aquifer as putting in more trees or anything else because there's no structure taking the place of the recharge. Right? It's usually the coverage that has the causes the problem like the paving or the structures those inhibit the recharge. But you're talking about, you know, a garden versus a a grassland or or any other kind of
014reveation. So I would submit that it's sort of the same thing that we're talking about. But um so that is the benefit there would be if you know if you'd rather go that but it does ask if there's any other um method feasible to pursue other than this variance and I would say the only other way is to grant a um variance from this determination under 255850A1 which is that determination that that generator kicked into the need to reveate back to a standard that that was non-conforming in the first place. So that's just that answer. Um and then you then that obviously would be a type two action. The generator is a type two action and you wouldn't have to worry about it. So um >> does the board have any questions? >> I didn't
015just finish the last >> Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you were done. >> That's okay. Um so if you don't agree with that then the benefit sought cannot be achieved by some other method feasible to pursue other than this area variance since the lot is slightly overcleared. Additionally the variance sought is not substantial particularly under the facts and circumstances where the only overclearing is the result of two small organic gardens. The granting of the variance will not have an adverse effect on the impact of the physical or environmental conditions within the neighborhood. um requires, you know, it does not have a environmental impact. And the difficulty um she contends is not self-created because that lot had patchy, it wasn't like a forested woodland even when she bought it and since, you know, she's known of
016it in 1993. um if you were to say it was self-created because she did plant the gardens, you know, the self-created hardship in and of itself is not a basis to deny the application. Um however, we're happy to do the small amount of reveation if that is the will of the board. Um she's offering to do 1,313 square ft and that's depicted on the survey. Um and we're here for any questions or comments. Thank you. when we're looking at the survey members. >> Okay. The survey we're looking at is June 14th, 2024 revised with this proposed reveation. So you're you're okay with the revitation as it shows on the screen with in that area. >> It it ex we don't know. It says in the report it has to go to natural resources. So she's
017not really sure what that entails. If we're talking about huge caliber trees, that might not be economically feasible. If we're talking about a grass land meadow, then that's fine. >> Okay. But is there any additional you're offering now when you say 1,000 ft? >> No, it's one it when this this number that I'm telling you, 1,313 ft is the difference between the aerial given to us by the town and the amount, you know, that's been cleared. >> 10,000. You have to speak at the microphone. >> You have to speak at the microphone. >> 10,000 square feet is what's required from the water recharge overlay district. The >> that we know. >> Yeah. >> And you're in almost 13 now. Yeah. And so you're offering it, 1300, which is going to bring you down to being
018still 1,000 ft over. >> Correct. And that's the subject of this variance. So it's somewhat of a compromise. >> Let me just ask you a question. You've been saying something about the caliber of the planting. Have you uh been in discussion with the planning department about what we typically do here? >> Could you identify yourself and I'll have to swear you in? >> Wilson, the owner of the property glass. >> Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Continue. >> 2254. Right. >> Great. Go right ahead. >> Go. Go right ahead. >> No, I had no discussion about um trees or anything like that. So that might that might clear a little bit up about the conversation that you're entering into with us saying we're not
019sure about the caliber of the trees. The typical replanting is not necessarily what you think it is and you really have to enter into discussion with the plant. >> I would be very happy to even not >> department >> whatever. I mean the the the the rain garden and the the uh gardens that you have outside would be fine. I have deer living on my property so you know >> we all do. The thing that doesn't get eaten stronger. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> That's why I have fencing to to keep the deer out. >> Member Johan, you want to continue? >> The property itself is not fenced. >> I want to make sure. Member Johan, are you >> I was only going to say that that uh if sometimes when we move forward, it's
020contingent on reaching an agreement with the planning department about how things get planted. And so that's not happening right this minute, but uh that's something that you would have to deal with in the future if there was an approval, right? Do you understand that you have to interact there to find out what it would take to plant that? Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Before before we get any further on that, I want to clarify the numbers we're talking about on the clearing and the reveation. The survey that we have says your existing clearing is 14,318 and you said you're willing to do 1313. However, that doesn't jive with the revge plan and the survey. It's a larger number. What was the 2250? >> The notice. So, the application is noticed as the applicant proposes
021to reveate 2,254 square feet of the parcel. >> That's correct. >> I'm sorry. That's what's shown in the application on the survey and the so we work off of the surveys related to the application says um the existing clearing is 14,318 square ft and the proposed clearing limit is 12,64 >> right so that's 2254T not 1313 just want to straighten that out >> took the survey and Not I understand what the confusion is if I may. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Good. >> Thank you. >> Um, initially Janice was given a a map from the planning department saying stating that the clearing was 14,000. Uh, right. >> No, it the aerial. >> Yeah, that aerial >> 13,000. >> Oh, she So, it was stating Yeah. So this here from the town states that the clearing
022was in 1994 13,000. So she was thinking the difference was from 13. >> Right. >> So that's where the confusion lies. >> Um we are asking for relief. Um and it is clear that you would like her to reveate some amount of the property. The question is what kind of plants and um how >> well I I I don't know the board is ready. I'd like to hear from the planning department. >> We'll go in some more question. >> Hold on. Thank you. Just so I'm clear. What's being proposed in the shaded area on the survey is to reveate >> 2,254. It's on the survey, >> right? And that will leave still a remaining 2,64 square ft beyond the the 10,000 right >> maximum. And have you offered in addition to what's shown on that
023survey an additional 133? >> It's what's on the survey. >> I got you. >> Sorry. Sorry for the confusion. >> Yeah. >> All right. I want to hear from planning. >> Yeah. >> I want to hear from planning at this point. >> Planning. >> Good evening board. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. >> Denise, >> do you affirm to tell the whole nothing but the truth? I'm writing notes. >> I do. Um, all right. As stated, this is a clearing variance application for one Gladstone Gladstone Place in Montalk. Uh, this is an A residence within a water recharge overlay district with a lot area of 20,554 square ft. Uh the most recent certificate of occupancy was issued in 1993 for a one-story family residence of 1,496 ft and a 264 ft attached garage. Um clearing
024calculations were not included on the 1993 survey. Um, as mentioned in 2022, a building permit was issued to install a generator, uh, where the applicant then found out that they were over the allowable 10,000 square ft clearing limit at 14,318 square ft. Uh, the property owners, according to the survey, are proposing to reveate 2,254 ft, bringing clearing to 12,64 ft, which is 2,64 ft over the allowable clearing limits. >> Okay, I get it. The purpose of a water recharge overlay district is to provide additional regulations for properties located in areas where disproportionately large quantities of rainwater are recharged into and stored in the underground aquifer in order to help ensure the continued sufficiency and purity of the town's irreplaceable groundwater supply and sole source of drinking water. Protecting the town's soul source aquifer is very
025important and it's precisely why there are stricter clearing restrictions within this district. The importance of this is reflected in the town's state environmental quality review act um type one action list which requires that any variance to the clearing or fertilized turf restrictions set forth in the water recharge overlay district requires a full type one uh review under SRA. The board established this as a type one action and established uh lead agency at the August 5th, 2025 work session. Um, I just want to note upon making a decision, the board will need to make a positive or negative declaration for this application. Um, clearing regulations for the WA water recharge overlay district went into effect in December of 1984. Um, the clearing on this property cannot be considered pre-existing non-conforming since the premises were vacant in
0261984. Since the 1993 co, it appears that an additional small portion of the lot has been cleared. Um, I believe that's a little over 1,000 square ft. Um the planning department recommends that properties in this overlay be reveitated to the maximum extent possible and variances only be approved when the only option available would be to demolish the exist existing structures in order to re reveitate. Uh for this application there does not appear to be sufficient area that could be reveated in order to have the parcel conform to the maximum clearing allowance of 10,000 square ft. However, there may be additional areas that could be reveated in addition to this proposed to have the parcel um be closer to this goal. I do have a sketch of that if the board would like to see it.
027Um >> can we put it up on the board? >> Sure. >> Can we do that, please? So, this appro um proposed additional revge would bring them to about um 10,900 square ft of clearing >> and I'm happy to answer any questions. If I remember correct, I was on the property as well as I think all my fellow board members. And if I remember, right in that area, there's a row of mature, what are they? >> Yuanous. >> Burning bush. >> So th those are premature wooded plants, but the understory is removed. So in this case, are you talking about removing those and putting something else in or are you talking about filling in the understory under the existing? >> Yeah. So, I think it would just be important to see a full reveg plan
028and look at native, you know, woody species. Um, that would be beneficial to the water recharge overlay district in general. >> And so, that I'm sorry, Sarah, that adds how much more? >> Um, 1,170 ft approximately. >> So, would um that would bring them to about 10,900 ft. >> So, they would still be over the um allowable 10,000 >> closer to where they should be. Yeah. >> Yeah. Does the board have any additional questions? >> Well, I'm curious about the species and all that, too. They may be they're not going to be mature plantings necessarily, >> but what type of plantings can you would all be approved by the planning department if >> Yeah. And we would work with the applicant on that sort of thing. Right. Because this is not a beach vegetation kind
029of thing. >> No. No. Exactly. >> Because the would be compatible with water recharge overlay district. Okay. >> Yes. Any other questions? >> Any other questions? >> Is this in the public uh file? >> See the sketch? >> Yeah, this was created today, so it's a last minute sketch, but I'll make sure that it's added to the file. >> Thank you. >> Can you just comment about that's an area now with vegetation there? We talked about member Burger mentioned the species. Um why is that not considered to be vegetated area? Just to make it clear for everyone. >> Yeah. So, I believe it's a bit of a gray area in the code. um as to what's considered clearing or not clearing and it can depend on the surveyor as well. Um so I think that
030it's just the majority of that area would be considered cleared. I don't know. I would have to ask the surveyor specifically. >> I think the code is pretty clear on it that if you clear even if >> you'll have your chance again >> order to this >> as I've read the code and we've discussed it many times on this board, right? It's just if there if all the layers, you know, aren't there, if the unders story is gone, I'm not going to opine on, you know, how how anyone would feel about that, but like that it's considered. >> And I I Yeah. Okay. Thank uh any other questions for Sarah? >> No. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this application? Matt, do we have any callers?
031>> Stand by, please. And this is Matt Chapman calling from LTV, making sure that all the lines are clear, which they are, and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Miss Sher, would you like to readress the board? >> Thank you. Um, as Miss Wilson said, in that area that's being shown on the map, 1,170 square feet, that is has mature trees. So, your objective to have more vegetation and then say you'd have to remove this vegetation to put different vegetation would be objectionable. That would not be what you're supposed to be doing. The code says minimize clearing. In all their actions, local agencies shall minimize clearing and grading of natural vegetation. So why would it be that she would have to remove these unanimous trees to put different trees? That
032wouldn't make any sense for recharge. And I don't think you can really hide behind saying recharge recharge when we're talking about vegetation that's mature there recharging. I do have an environmental science degree and I'm not sure that I I agree that that's that's proper. So, she's happy to do the vegetation that's been requested, but this additional area that was not discussed with uh with my colleague and friend um and homeowner is not is burdensome and significant. So, we would ask for relief and not have to do something even worse than what she's being required to do now. >> Does the board have any additional questions? Well, just considering what was just said there, there's a lot of gravel parking area of the house, too. That >> there's yuanous trees in this location. >> Yeah, trees.
033They're 30 years old. They they >> formed the uh border to the property for the property line. No other fencing. >> They're beautiful. >> I think I just want to clarify that we would want to, you know, reestablish the understory, not necessarily clear the existing trees. Correct. >> We understand. >> Okay. >> Does the board have any additional questions? >> No, I'm fine. >> All right. Member Burgerer, would you like to >> Sure. close the public hearing and record. Miss Sher, you're done, right? Yeah. You're done. She is heard the last comment, right? >> Yes, she did. >> Okay. >> All right. And then the application Janice Wilson at one gladstone place in Montalk 300-019-02-50.3 make a motion to close the public hearing in the public record. >> Second it. >> I concur. >> Concur.
034>> I concur. [Applause] >> All right. Thank you. [Applause] The next public hearing is Elizabeth Alexandra Miller, 5 Ganet Drive, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-4-7-4. Description is to construct a 490 ft swimming pool within minimum rear yard setbacks. One variance of 12 ft pursuant to 255 11110 of the East Hampton Town Code to construct the swimming pool 8 ft from the rear eastern lot line where 20 is required. Zoning district is B resident zoning X flood zone Cclass type two. Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? Yeah, I review the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Who has this? Okay, member Johan, go ahead. >> Thank you very much. Um, here's a a photo of
035the posting. It's posted clearly in front of the house. >> I'm taking a look uh down Ganet. I'm looking eastward here. You can get a notion this is down in the Colon subdivision. Next. Now I'm uh looking westward here and um where you can see we're coming up. We're heading out toward the the harbor. Next I look dramatically across the street just to show you the character neighborhood. The most the neighbor immediately opposite this property next. Um work my way. There's uh one of the significant things about the property is it's heavily vegetated. So, I'm looking uh down along the north edge of the property here and you can see the juxosition of the vegetation and the existing house. Next, I've come around back. Uh we're going to get several photos of this. People get
036a feeling for it. But you can see some of the uh there's a rack there with surfboards. There's a deck beyond. You'll see it in a minute. And the back property line with the vegetation there. This area where we see the seating area is where the proposed pool is to be installed. Next, I've gone around the far side of the property now and I'm looking back the other direction. You can see the house. You can see the second floor deck. You can see the back yard. You can see those chairs that were there. Again, vegetation to the right is uh approximately along the property line. Uh and that's the area that's uh now in being proposed to accept the pool. Next, just from that very same spot, kind of look back at the house. You
037can see the house. It's got some uh some additions on it, you know, some decking and whatnot. And uh just to the right, right on the far edge there again, that's where the pool would be the justosition to the house. Next, >> oh just to give you an idea coming down the other side. I'm looking now from there. I'm looking down on this at the along the east side of the house and uh again vegetation all the way around. This is pretty well screened in that sense. Next, I guess just one more. Look back. Here we are. This is the pool area that's proposed. Lo vegetation to the east and uh and a house to the west. Next. I think that might be it. Oh, yeah. Just one more. That's fine. Next. I think that's
038it. >> Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lori. [Applause] Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Could you identify yourself for the record, please? >> Lori Wilshire for land planning services representing uh Lisa and she's here with me today and she may have a few things to say as well. Um, so this is an application for a 12oot variance in order to construct a a 490 ft pool 8 ft from the rear property line where 20 ft is required. The original application was made by Swim King Pools and included an 1100 square foot PA patio with a 7 foot yard rear yard setback which is no longer proposed due to the location of the existing house and the seconds story deck
039which is supported by columns. The proposed pool has been located in as conforming a location as possible given the existing constraints. The meandering deer fence shown on the survey has been removed. There's an existing 6-ft opaque wood fence along the rear of the parcel which is not shown on the survey and I do not know why. Granting this variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or produce a detriment to nearby properties. The pool excluding the coping is just 12 feet in width and for all intents and purposes a lap pool and the property is very well screened from the neighboring properties as you can see from the photos provided. The proposed pool equipment is nestled up against the back of the house and under the seconds story deck so
040will not require variance or create a noise issue for the neighbors. There is no deck or patio associated with the proposed pool. So this will also ameliate noise concerns in the area. In fact, we have three letters of support which I handed to you of the application. One, the immediate neighbor to the south, Mark Epstein, at 11 Ganet Drive. He states, "I do not believe the proposed pool and its location will negatively negatively affect the neighborhood." Another is from the neighbor directly across the street, Jennifer Driscoll at 6 Ganet Drive. She wrote, "I believe the pool will be a positive addition and not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood." And a third from the neighbor to the immediate north, John Macaron, at one Ganet Drive, stating, "I have no objection to the pool variance
041being granted and in fully in favor of the board approving it." It should be known that the house behind Ms. Miller's home is owned by an LLC and has been unoccupied for years. This according to Ms. Miller and Mr. Macaron next door. There are no object objections in the file from that rear neighbor. The pool will not have an adverse impact on environmental or physical conditions in the neighborhood. The benefit sought can only be achieved without an area variance if the pool were to be constructed underneath the seconds story deck. This would require re-engineering the deck to be cantalievered as well as likely removing the hot tub and outdoor shower and re relocating the stairs to the first story deck. The hardship in this arrangement is that the pool would be in the shade all
042day long. So, the place where she's proposing her pool is the most logical on the property given the property's constraints and the support of her neighbors. If you have questions for me, please let me know. Does anyone else have anything to add? >> Well, let's start with the board. Does the board have any questions? >> No. >> Still, are you going to go? Go ahead, >> member Burger. >> No, the large variance that they're asking for still 12 feet. Yes, but it is highly screened with fencing and vegetation. >> 55850. We do have to look at whether or not the benefit can be sought by other means. >> We cannot I mean, yes, we can put the pool under the second story deck. >> There was no consideration to a smaller pool. >> It's only
04312t wide now. That's a very small, >> but that's because of the constraints of the property. >> Well, we could 7500 youth per foot lot and the other pools in the area didn't require variances. They all met the variance standards. >> That is correct. Those were actually that is correct. But those houses were actually built closer to the road in this instance. She's got a fairly large front yard and not a very large backyard. Um plus the front yard is a big slope. Um it's a big hill. uh certainly answer your question about so with a 12t wide pool and an 8ft setback there is no conforming location for a swimming pool in the backyard unless it was underneath the deck even if it was smaller. >> Is the pool to be 12 or 14
044ft? >> So it's 14 with coping. The the pool itself is 12 feet wide which is effectively a lap pool and without any decking or pa pavers around it. You don't have the impetus for a party situation where noise is the primary concern and that's the reason setbacks exist or doubled for pools. But with all this screening and no objection from the neighbor who would be most affected, I don't think it's a negative application. [Music] Are we ready to hear from the planning department if you have any questions? >> I was just going to say but you know that u talking about whether neighbors has any objection now doesn't follow through in the future. We don't know what a future neighbor would say about having a pool 8 foot from the property line. So it
045is a consideration for us to cons this is a this is a large ass to have a pool only 8 foot from a property line. We generally are not favorable about this because we know that long term we're going to have entertaining happen at the pool and the whole idea of the zoning on this is to protect adjoining neighbors. I understand that you've got, you know, we've got good support from the neighbors and that's a positive, >> but we still have to consider the fact that we're only 8 foot from the property line and I think it's a serious one here. >> It is. But either you can certainly distinguish this from another application that was to come before you asking for similar relief in that this is so heavily screened. Yeah. >> And fenced
046and has the constraints of the the house being situated further back on the lot, the large seconds story deck. And by the way, my client was saying today that the house is very small and the living area is very small. And then you have the bedrooms. So the out the deck is actually imperative to having actually a dining room when they use the house in the summer. So, it's not like we can chop the deck off to move the pool back, and that's that's a consideration. >> Thank you, Lori. Are we ready to hear from the planning department? >> Good evening. Board Morgan Center for the Planning Department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Uh so five Ganet Drive is an undersized lot with
047an area of only 7,500 square ft um within the Cloen Shores subdivision where most of the lots are of identical or similar size to this one. The extent of the existing development on the property limits the options for a conforming swimming pool. The requested variance can be considered as substantial. Uh an 8oot setback for the pool would be a 60% reduction in the required setback. There is no history of a yard setback variance being granted to construct a swimming pool in this part of town. So, the board should be cautious about setting a precedent if the requested variance is granted, especially since there are other lots in the immediate area with similar size constraints. Um, essentially the board needs to determine if the circumstances of this property are unique enough where it will not be
048setting a precedent that can be easily replicated. Uh, the point of the double setback in the code is to reduce the detriment to neighboring properties. So saying that there is no detriment to the surrounding properties kind of would undermine the purpose of the double setback in the first place. Um I can answer any questions the board may have about the property or its history or do we have any questions? >> I don't either. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? Thank you. >> I'll swear you in and then you can identify yourself. Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Uh, yes I do. >> Okay. >> Hello. My name is Anthony Susfinsky. I live at 22 Ganet Drive. Um, I'm
049one of Lisa's neighbors. I live uh south of Lisa. I moved there in 1992. Um, I've lived there quite um a number of years before Lisa had moved into the house. And um we have a water problem on our road that should be known by the town. Um they have addressed the sewers over the years. We have a common drain that so the water from our street runs from north to south because we have a common drain that runs down through the collodon development and uh so Lisa is north of me and you know over the years with the other pool that they had at the house I watched them drain it into the road which drained into the sewer which then went into our beach community. So, one of my concerns is if you
050do allow a pool, where would they drain the water? Cuz that's what they had been doing with the previous pools that they've had at the house prior. They don't have a driveway. Um, so the property is um same as mine. It's 75 by 100 and and the most of the properties were leisure at the time. That property wasn't a leisure. It's mostly filth, so it's elevated above us and they're 200 feet from the water. So, you only have Sound View Drive and then you have the water. So, during either storms or um when the sewage is not running right or Colon Beach backs up on a heavy rain, it kind of pulls up by my house. So, without a driveway. And they commonly park in the street without a place to walk their dog because
051they have to use our yards to walk their dog cuz the dog doesn't have a place to urinate or or go to the bathroom on their property because there is no property. So, as a neighbor, I'm just wondering if you allow her or any of my neighbors to overbuild the 75 by 100 to put a lap pool in when we live so close to the beach. And the town has just built a big beautiful pool for us. I I I don't know if it's necessary for either myself or my neighbor to take over our street with water that is not going to go into their property. So when it rains that water would generally go in but if you have a pool there you've remove that. So the over vegetation, there is no vegetation. It's
052just the neighbors treeine. And I want Lisa to have her her stuff. I'm not here to say she shouldn't have a pool. I'm saying is there is no space on her property. If a truck came and pumped the water out of the pool and took it away, we wouldn't have the problem of it say going into the sewer up the street or if we have flooding. So that's what my concern is. And um you know I we're we all watch out for each other there. And if I was asking for something that was overbuilding my property, I live in a th00and square foot leisureama. Um, it's not two or three stories like this small house is. Mine's a one-story house. I believe that these houses, including the man next door who had a,000 ft house,
053has a 3,900 ft house now. So there is no order >> and that and that's what I have to say to the board and thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else that would Lori, could you just wait a moment? >> Is there anyone else that'd like to address this application? >> Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> All right, Lori. Thank you. >> I would like to address um the the flooding area. So, uh, during COVID, um, Miss Miller put in a, uh, a blowup pool which they were using to entertain themselves and that because it was rubber and you couldn't leave it over winter did have to be emptied and that's unfortunate that it went down the street and actually to their neighbors property.
054What's proposed now is an ingground pool which would be uh you would pump it to a dry well as we all know because that's what we do with all pools and you don't drain an ingground pool entirely. You only take the top off the water so that the cover is resting comfortably on the the remaining water. So that flooding issue is of not not of concern. It will be addressed by a dry well which could can certainly be a condition of approval. Thank you. >> Board, are we I'm fine right now. >> I'm fine. >> Yes. >> Member Johan, would you like to make a motion? [Applause] >> It is. Then in the matter of Elizabeth Alexandra Miller Miller 5 Ganet Drive Monttok sub county tax map 300-4-7-4 I'd like to make a motion to
055close the public hearing and the public record at this time. >> I think concur. [Music] >> Okay. The next application is Susan Porter, 191 South Fairview Avenue, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-28-5-24. Description is to allow a new egress window shed and a replaced hot tub, decking, addition, and walkways to remain on a parcel of land containing and within setbacks of freshwater wetlands and within sideyard lot line setbacks. a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town Code and six variances are required for this application. One variance of 3 ft from 25511 of the town code is required to allow the deck to remain 17 ft from the eastern sideyard lot line where a 20ft setback is required. Variances of 45 ft, 28.5 ft, 25 ft, and 23 feet from
056two 255430 of the town code are required to allow the existing egress to remain 55 ft, shed 71.5 ft, hot tub 75 ft, and deck edition 77 ft from freshwater wetland where 100t setbacks are required and any other relief necessary. Sorry. Zoning district is B, resident zone, X flood zone, secret class is type two. Council, do we have a affidavit of service and posting? That's in order. >> Yes, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything uh seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Member Burgerer, do you have your field inspection? >> Yes, I do. This is the notice and posting. This is up away from the house. You can see the the shape of the the lot. So from the wetlands which are to the
057right of that their property continues down south fairly away next. And that's another shot I took in the other direction showing the going up to the house. Same posting just showing the rest of the property. Next I went up to the deck and this is a shot from the southern part of the deck. I guess it's southern. My directions got messed up on this one. >> I'm directionally challenged myself. >> Southern to south to north. No, north to south. I'm sorry. North to south on this next. Now, I to went down to the other end and took a shot down in the other direction because I want to know exactly which part of the decking is needing the variance, but I believe it's we'll get to it next. [Applause] Um, okay. Just shot the There's
058another area that I don't think existed before, but you can see the steps. And then this um planting area that's up there uh going in the direction of another house which will be it's in progress and being built will be a near neighbor. Next, uh this is a shot of the shed and uh the edge of the decking. Next, this is the shot of the hot tub that is in question along with the shed where the net is hanging. And next, uh this on the opposite side of the property going [Music] north, east uh this is going north and I think it's east. Um, but you see the egress from the the basement that requires one of the variances next. And there's a PVC pipe sticking out of the ground there. And I'd like the
059agent to Yeah. to the agent to explain what that's doing. And I believe that's it. >> Thank you. Member Burgerer. Joel, are you here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do, and I'll start off by telling you I have no idea what that PVC PVC pipe is for, but I will find out for you if you'd like. Uh, good evening, Chairwoman Seis and board members. Joel Holly on behalf of the Lighthouse Land Planning representing Susan Porter, the property owner for the property located at 191 South Air View in Montalk. Uh hopefully I can be brief with this one because uh the proposed project is similar if not less substantial than a project that was already approved on this
060property. The hot tub or by town definition the pool is only 7 ft 7 1/2 ft x 7 1/2 ft replacing a smaller 6' x 6t hot tub. Uh the pool approved in 2018 was 8 ft by 17 ft. Uh since this is a hot tub, but technically a pool, the decking now must meet greater setbacks than the the previous deck. It is for all intents and purp uh and purposes the same deck that was ex existed in 2018 application which always had a smaller hot tub in it. The structure is located on the landward side of the house and poses no threat to the wetland system. This goes for the same for the small 17qt shed on the deck and egress window. The egress uh was added as a safety feature to the lower
061level. The basement egress is up a narrow set of stairs and out of the house. There is no intent to add bedrooms on this level at this time. And there was and if there was, this would require a building permit and trigger the need for a sanitary upgrade. To that point, the potential for an intensity an increased intensity of use on this property could be a potentially bene uh beneficial benefit to this area. Sanitary system is currently a septic system built in the 1980s. So it contains a tank and adequate leech field. If bedroom is ever to be added to the lower level, they would need to upgrade the sanitary system and possibly apply for another natural resource special permit to add another means of egress to the lower level. The reasoning be would be
062uh by either uh the current egress would be used uh for the bedroom that exists now. They'd have to create another egress for a finished lower level because you need two you need a means of egress to for the bedroom and a second means of egress or two means of egress for the finished lower level being three means of egress altogether or alternatively a new egress would be required for the bedroom maintaining the same two means of egresses for the existing house. Now uh the application more more than meets the varian standards of the town code as followed um and outlined in the memo I submitted the board last week. And at this time, if the board has any questions other than the PVC pipe, I'd be happy to answer them. >> Board members, >>
063well, the the the decking, is that the decking that's right around the hot tub? Is that what got extended out or >> Yeah, slightly. Yeah, slightly bigger. >> Yeah. Okay. And the shed, that's all. Okay. All right. >> The location of the previously approved pool exact same spot. >> What's that? >> Same spot. same spot. >> Yeah, it's it's in the existing conditions of the previous one. >> So, is the new decking 17 or 14 ft? >> Yeah, that was my question. >> Uh, the new decking is around the >> Well, the shed's 14. The new decking is right around the hot tub here. >> I see. >> So, it's a shed that's 14 ft from the property line, >> but the the the shed is on the deck. So that's the and it would
064it would also be helpful if the actual things that are noticed could be shown with their >> where there dimensions. >> Yeah. Not not the dimensions. The dimension of the shed is I think stated somewhere. I mean generally we would see on the survey how far things are from the wetland. How you know that that's sort of missing. Um and then what the pool that was permitted the 136 square feet is the applicant foregoing that pool now. >> Yes. So they're not going to do that for >> this is all they want. They want this hut. >> Okay. So I I guess I'll ask the planner just to clarify the kind of what part of the deck counts now as a pool deck because I don't know if it's the whole deck which would mean
065it wouldn't meet 20. I I want to ask about >> Well, technically the whole deck would be I guess considered a full deck, >> right? So then how come doesn't need variances to the other lot line? >> Well, we'll wait for the department to address that. >> Thank you, Joel. >> Tyler, can we hear from you for the planning department? >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um, just to address the question, I asked the building department uh months ago when we first got it and they said that it wouldn't need it over on that side. I don't know if it was that it was far enough away or or what what the reasoning was, but I got clarification on that before moving side to
066about where >> the deck on the like the northwest side of the lot didn't didn't need to request a variance for the setbacks there >> because northwest corner >> 15 foot that's on the survey 15 is the >> I mean do they sorry but do they have some sort of standard that says when >> I don't I didn't I didn't get that far on it. >> Okay, thank you. Um, I'll just I'll just run through some information quickly. Joel covered most of it really well. Um, so there's not much for me to say. Um, the residence was built in the early 1980s to the south and west of a wetland on the property. Uh, that wetland essentially divides the regular shaped parcel in half. Um, since the southwestern portion of the property was chosen for
067development, the eastern side of the property has remained vegetated um and provides valuable wildlife habitat and cover. The wetlands within jurisdiction are part of a much larger wetland system around the golf course and likely uh impact for pond. Um it can also be assumed that it provides all the benefits typically associated with high quality wetlands especially the attenuation of flood waters and and runoff during rain events. Um all the structures were already discussed. I don't need to go over them in depth. um the the hot tub or it's considered a swimming pool because the town code considers anything over six feet in width or length uh to be a swimming pool. Um it's roughly the same location was was approved in 2018. Uh that swimming pool was 8 ft by 17 ft. This is 7
0681/2 by 7 1/2. So obviously smaller. Um that then and then the additional decking that was constructed around it, which is about 60 square ft. Um that pushes that then to need to meet a double setback. that double setback um is because it's considered a swimming pool, not a hot tub. Um the shed, the deck extension, swimming pool, and new basement eress all require variances from the minimum wetland setbacks as well. Um none of the variances appear to be very significant with the amount of decking being very minimal. Uh the swimming pool, a small change uh from 2018 approval, the shed very small at 17 ft and the egress window, a slight change uh to the footprint of the building. Uh and the walkway was essentially replacing existing walkways in the same relative location. Uh
069Joel discussed the uh you know the implications of potentially future living space in the basement um requiring a sanitary system upgrade which would potentially alleviate any concerns with the egress window then allowing for additional use of the basement. Mhm. >> Um that that would be the main concern I think with the application is what does that egress window eventually allow and and how could we mitigate that which he which he addressed and that would be for your discussion at that point. Other than that I can answer any questions you might have. >> So in the TAM you recommend a scenic easement around the wet >> just it was just a discussion about what could you possibly I don't think the amount of work rises to that level but it was just a discussion of what
070could be utilized not a suggestion of one. >> Okay. I I don't think there's really any any area for revegge that would be do any significant benefit. I mean there's it's pretty well vegetated around the wetland as it is. Um so a scenic easement would be really the only significant thing but I don't think the level of construction rises to that level either >> at this point. Okay. >> And the uh and basically the improvements that they're seeking for relief for here are on the opposite side of the house from where the wetlands are. >> Right. It's not not significant impacts that we we identified. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I have go ahead member >> me. Thank you. >> Um I'm looking at the southern corner of the um property. There's like a gravel
071area there. And if I'm reading the survey correctly, it appears that that gravel area extends >> onto the neighboring >> property. Um, and I don't know whose fence that deer fence is, but um I mean why why do they have a I mean can can that gravel area be removed on the other person's propert? >> There's not much that we can do about it's a civil issue between neighbors. There's not much that we have control over on that on that front. >> Um, >> anybody else? >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tom. Quick question. Would you want >> Joel? Would you like to address one quick question if I get clarification? >> Oh, one moment. Um, thank you. Uh, Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank
072you, Matt. Joel, >> if I could just get clarification as to where that PVC pipe was. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That was >> Where in the property was that PVC pipe? >> It was right at out in front of the egress here somewhere. >> A couple of feet out. >> Oh, by the Okay. Yeah, >> I'll find it and figure it out. >> Oh, okay. Oh, I thought you had an answer. >> I thought you got on the hotline and got the answer. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. Would you like to have a motion? >> Uh, yes. The application of Susan Quarter at 191 South Fairview Avenue, Vermont to text that 300-28-05-24. Make a motion to close the public hearing and the record. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> I think member Johan.
073Oh, no. I'm sorry. >> Member Johan seconded. >> Okay. We're moving on to postering decisions. We are going to cancel Stephen and Judy Kapano Michaelelsson until next week. Member Burgerer. Do we have a motion on the minutes? We >> do. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals for September 16th. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Moving on to resolutions. Lens and Marina 386 West Lake Drive, Montalk Sa County Tax Map number 300-12-1-14 and 15. >> Yes, that was mine. The board will remember this one. It was recently uh it was a 5 approval. Um this was an effort to uh create some new parking, a bath house uh to um improve drainage and um it met with our approval. We thought it was
074a an intelligent approach to utilizing this area. It's in Kunfoot Cove which is terribly overdeveloped previously, but this was not going to do any more than previously had been done to the area. So there was the um there was a easement placed over um the um the wetlands to the to the east and uh there's a new septic system. It all came in line with something that we approved. So in the matter of Lanzen Marino 386 West Lake Drive, Monttok suffocate tax map 300-12-1-1 14 and 15. I'd like to make a motion to accept the determination as written. >> Second. Concur. >> Concur. >> Christopher Leonard 406 Old Montalk Highway, Montalk Suffach County Tax Map number 300-22-1-3.2. Okay, this was mine. Okay, this was a modification. U actually council picked up a number of items
075that needed modifying, but this was um a modification with the fact that the applicant was not reveating per the reveation plan that was approved. And then there were some other small items that council picked up. Um it is a modification that was approved by the board. Um so for Christopher Leonard at 406 Monttok Highway Mour tax map 300-22-1-3.2 make a motion to approve the modification as written. >> Second. Say that. >> Concur. >> Next is 376 Bleecker Street LLC. Modification 78 East Side Avenue, Montalk, Suffach County Tax Map number 300-32-7-23.1 which is this council or well council. >> Well, it was brought Brian Brian Frank brought this to you guys. It was probably like a month ago, >> right? seaside. >> It was a there was a slight change in the orientation of the pro
076of the structure on the property. So, it just kind of like changed the the variances. It moved. There's two wetlands. So, when the house slightly moved, it one variance is bigger, but one is smaller. So, it was kind of just like a net. >> Nothing. >> Member Johan, you want to make a motion? >> Okay, fine. Uh then in the matter of 376 Bleecker Street LLC modification 78 Casside Avenue Malk Suff County Tax Map 300-32-7-23.1 I'd like to make a motion to um approve this determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Is that right? Determination. >> A modification. >> Yes. Modific. You want me to read it again? Modification is right here. Fine. >> Amend it to fine council. >> Um the next one uh I wasn't here. This was on September 9th. I didn't
077make this decision. >> So I'm going to give this to member Thor. >> I I believe >> Did you make this decision? >> Uh yeah, I was I did vote on this. I think the lead was member >> Delene. >> Yeah, but he's not here. So you're going to be the lead. >> Um so from memory, this was I believe approved uh unanimously. It was to approve a stone wall that ran along a driveway >> and I think a fence as well. >> Yeah. Fence and gate were in RSP jurisdiction, >> right? Yeah. So, the approval was unanimous. >> Okay. I'd like to make a motion that we approve the determination as as read >> regarding >> be nice >> gold stain and bors on Suffet County tax map 300-74-5-2 >> second concur >> concur
078member Johan would you like to make an adjournment motion >> sure thank 7:37. >> Uh, I would like to make a motion to close the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals um public hearing for September 23rd, 2025 at >> 7:37 p.m. >> Second. Take care. >> Thank you, Matt.