001Okay, Town ZBA, we are live. We are recording. Phone lines are opened. Go for it. >> Thank you, Matt. Welcome to the Town of Eastampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for September 16, 2025. We have six public hearings this evening. Uh let me get going on them. The first one applicant is Jeffrey Minich at 93 durier Avenue in Montalk subass map number 300-5-2-15 a size and location of 11,250 ft at 93 Dura Avenue sound view estates slot 9 map number 1929 in Montalk the description is to allow an existing patio to remain 13 ft from the sideyard property line >> where 20 ft is required relief saw is one variance of 7 ft from 255 11110 10 of the East Hampton Town Code is required to allow the existing patio to remain 13 ft from
002the sideyard lot line where a 20 foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residents zone X flood zone in a secret classes type two. Oops. >> Um and this is a continuation um due to improper notice. Uh therefore the uh do we have proper affidavit of service and posting on this? >> Yes, I received them uh on September 10th. So yeah, every they were properly noticed after the Okay, so I see we have a photo there. >> Yeah, >> I went out to the site. Um I know that um member Burgerer had been there earlier and seen it before this. I was there a couple of days ago. I have this one. I think one more just to show that it's in front of the house or you
003just put the one up. Yeah, there it is. You can see the house to the left. There it is at the road and there was a closeup of it. It was properly uh labeled. >> Okay. Therefore, we have um gone through um hearings both with the applicant and the planning department. Uh this is to see if there's anybody in the public that would like to address this application. >> U Matt, is there anybody online? >> Stand by, please. Hello, this is Matt Chadman calling from LTV just to make sure the lines are good in which they are and you have zero additional callers. Thank you. >> Thank you, Matt. Um, with that, uh, can we have a motion to close the record and >> record? I guess we didn't have anybody here. >> That's good.
004>> I mean, it was a continuation. Okay, we talk about it more just aside. have a motion. Okay, I will. Um, then in the matter of Jeffrey minutes 93 Dura Avenue, Monttok suffocanic tax map 300-5-2-15, I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record at this time. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Oh, you're over. Next we have Sean Eert uh 11 at Rehan Avenue in Montalk SuffK tax map number 300-30-3-10 size and location is 7,320 ft at 11 Rehan Avenue in Oceanside Malkque map number 2730 lot 67 in Montalk the description is to allow an existing retaining wall steps walkway and fence to remain on a parcel of land with within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands The relief order is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420
005>> and variances from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks of the town code. A variance of 37 ft is required to allow the fence and retaining wall steps and walkway to 63 feet from a wetland where 100 foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning zoning district is B resident zone X flood zone and the secret class type two council. So, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Um, I would like to talk to Joel. I don't know if you have a I'm sure you submitted them, Joel. I without Samantha here are I'm getting it's not the same process as normal, but I'm sure Joel has [Music] >> because sometimes I email them. Did you email them, Joel? >> No, I do email and I do. >> Yeah, >> I'm sure
006it's good. I just wanted to double check. Yeah, we have proper affidavit of notice and posting. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> This is mine. >> Okay. >> Um, okay. I only took a few pictures of this. There's a posting from a distance. It was properly posted. Next, there's the closeup to show the date and time. Next. And this is the area in question in the front there for us. Um, then I did just walk down to the back of the house and took a few more shots through the northerly side of the house. Next and the shot of the pool that had gone in. And next is the other area in the back that has the stone. And I believe that's it. >> Thank you, Joel. Joel, you swear affirm to tell the truth, the
007whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Good evening, Chair McLean and board members. Joel Holly on behalf of Lighthouse Land Planning representing property owners of the property located at 11 Rehan. The proposed property project is innocuous but serves an important purpose. Previously, the driveway on this property was a semi steeply slope slope grade going into the property. Uh, and that was not the main issue. The main issue was the original driveway drove over the septic tank. Um I have submitted a survey in the file does depict this uh driveway. I submitted that last week. Uh when the new owners bought the house, they realized that this was a big issue and could be hazardous. In 2021, they got approval from the highway department to build a wall, but not did not
008realize it was within wetland jurisdiction. Uh I did submit the highway department approval to the record as well last week. Uh furthermore, after the wall was built, the owner received a CO issued for a building permit the month before that the wall uh permit was issued by the highway department and a second building permit was issued a CO in 2020 uh issued a building permit in 2020 for 23. Uh when they for that was for the pool and when the um they went for the CO for the pool, that's when the uh building department noticed that the wall was uh within jurisdiction of the wetland and that's kind of what raised the issues here tonight. Uh the original driveway was not welldesigned and was potentially dangerous. Uh the likelihood that the current sanitary uh system
009is loadbearing was very low and over time this area could have collapsed with the driveway with the cars parking on top of it creating a situation that cause harm and potentially be detriment detrimental to the environment. Uh the application is not asking for anything other than to legalize a few minor structures which are very important to the residential uh structure and maintaining the uh the sanitary system in in a good location. Board has any questions? I'd be happy to answer them. >> Um you want to go first? >> Yeah. Um a whole bunch. Um okay. The first thing you said the CFO the garage the house was originally built with a garage under. So the driveway, when you say the driveway, >> went up a hill. >> Y >> came uphill and then down into
010the garage. >> Up the hill into the into the house. If you you've got to walk up those these steps to get to the first level of the house. So the driveway came up and then into the the house. Basically, it's a two-le house, >> right? Okay. But the the garage originally was underneath the house. >> No. No. And you have pictures of the front of the house. Yeah, there was the first picture. I believe I also have an ear map if that's helpful. Or do you want a picture? >> Oh, yeah. So, it came in and then see this is the top. This is the second right here. So, it drove up the hill into the into the first into the first floor essentially. But now there's stairs that up to the first floor
011and it's it's leveled out with the retaining wall. >> Okay. And that happened in when when did they change that? Uh 2021 is when they got the highway department approved. >> December of 2021. >> Okay. And that's when they also applied to the highway department. >> December of 2021, they got the highway department approval. October of 2021 is when they got the approval, the building permit to to uh move the garage and build uh finish 11. Okay. But now there's a variance required. I I don't know if the the highway department really has standing to allow that to happen. I know there was something about a safety issue, >> but um >> Well, you can't issue a variance on something that's on highway department uh property. >> The part of this wall is in front
012of us. It's on the property of the house also. >> Yeah. And it was it was not owned by the property owner at the time, the building department or the highway department. and the highway department knows that it's there. Um, again, it was it was there was an error at the end of the day. We're trying to fix that error right now. >> Okay. I guess what's bothersome to me, it had a septic tank that they thought might be crushed or failing or whatever. Um, and there was no other option that they suggested that like maybe a new sanitary system. >> Well, it's I mean, as you as you can see, the lot's pretty constrained right here. There's a light, a power pole, so there's no room there. So basically, it's in the best location
013it can go. >> Unless you want unless they want to try to get LIPA to move the pole. >> You're saying that there can never be an upgraded sanitary system on this property? >> Excuse me. >> Are you saying that there could never be a place for >> I'm not saying there could never be an upgraded sanitary system? There could be. >> But if anything, retaining wall is going to help protect the upgraded sanitary system. But because on top of it, sanitary systems can't be placed in a I can't exact the a 17% grade or something like that. So at the time this would have had if you were going to upgrade the sanitary system, a retaining wall would have been required for a new sanitary system property in the future. >> You'd have a
014new sanitary system, which it would be an environmental benefit. >> It would be, but again, there's not really much of a nexus for a sanitary system and a retaining wall. >> Well, between a pool, I mean, it never came in front of us, right? But obviously there was a pool and there was an expansion of GFA in the garage. >> There hasn't really been any expansion of of the house. >> Well, the garage was converted from a garage to GFA, right? >> One in 2021. Garage. >> I know it didn't come in front. >> Garages were considered GFA. I don't know where when it stopped being considered GFA, but it was completely always been GFA. If you review the town code, garages have never not been >> considered GFA. So, the wall is part of
015the building permit that was issued uh except for this portion that we're seeing that came out uh a little bit further. I'm interested to know uh in the original building permit or the build most recent building permit, was this wall included in that? >> Well, technically the wall does doesn't need a building permit because it's less than 4t high and it's in the front yard. >> That's right. >> So, that you mentioned in your earlier comments that that it was going to help um for future. What you mean? Did you mean a future uh uh sanitary system? >> I I'm saying it's it's help it's helping retain the existing sanitary system in place right now. >> Basically, it was built just to bring the grade up so that we could have a different confirmation entering
016the house. >> The grade really hasn't changed. They I mean, they used to drive up a hill and basically park on top of the sanitary system. >> They were able to move it out a little bit with a few steps, right? >> Memo. [Applause] Um, sorry I didn't get to read your memo until right before the meeting because we only got it late, but I have read it. >> But I think you're saying that the retaining wall was put there to just stop stop cars from driving over this the tank. >> Correct. It created >> Okay. So, um, so so it's a it's not really a structural thing. I mean, I guess we look at alternatives. Couldn't you st someone could have staked out the area, put a little, I don't know, barrier or fence.
017It's not a solid retaining wall to achieve that goal of >> Yeah, of course you could have >> rather than a retaining wall. >> Yeah, you could have. I mean, again, is is there a detriment? I mean, there's been no detriment pointed out that to the wetland of this retaining wall. >> Understood. I'm just asking alternative like an alternative. Yeah, >> there could have been alternatives. Um I'm sure there could have again eventually in the future if and when the sanitary system ever does get upgraded a retaining wall would have would be needed put in this location. >> Okay. >> You can't like I said you can't have sanitary systems in a in a uh I think it's a 17% slope. 17% slope I think it is. Again I don't have a sanitary engineer. I
018did speak to a sanitary engineer regarding this situation and they said, "Hey, well, probably not a bad thing there." >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> I have a question for council if I may, just for the record. So, I understand you're saying that we you're saying we don't have jurisdiction over things that are not on the property. That's what you're right. But council, I just want to understand, does the highway department has jurisdiction to not consider wetland setbacks or things like that? >> Well, I think all the highway when you get a highway permit, that's just them saying that they're okay with it in terms of the right of way. They're not making any claims as to wetlands or any other things of that nature. Like if you put a Belgium block apron in,
019you have to get highway to make sure it's to protect the town right away in the right way. >> But they're still not in accountable to the natural like they wouldn't they don't have to show deference to the zoning board with respect to the natural resources. >> I would say >> I don't know of >> again this is for my education. Yeah, I need to check on exactly how their process works, but as far as I'm aware, they issue permits without regards. They don't talk to the building department or the planning department when they issue permits as far as I'm aware. >> Okay. Thank you, council. >> Yeah, I mean, >> I would like to understand that just definitively at some point. >> Yeah, you still need to get just because the highway signs off
020on something doesn't mean that it's necessarily allowed. They don't grant approvals over somebody else. Yeah, they're basically signing off on the fact that is in there right away. >> They just don't all they care about is that a stone plow can get down the street. >> Okay. So, what So, we still have jurisdiction to >> Yes. I would I would say I would say you would have some jurisdiction here in terms of these structures. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. But the TAM is also saying that part of the retaining wall is located off the property, which is why it falls into the highway department's jurisdiction. >> Yeah, it does. So >> the the retaining wall that's on the property, highway doesn't care about that. Is not But if you look on that blue line >>
021Yeah. Yeah. >> That's the property line. So that retaining wall section that juts out into the road, that's that's on town property. But are you saying that we only have jurisdiction regarding the variance over the part that's inside the property line or we have jurisdiction? >> I I would say >> over it all because the closest point to the wetland is is it the part that's off the property or on >> the closest part is off the property. >> Okay. >> The wetland. You see those? You can't. That's what I was thinking. It just >> doesn't it doesn't have line. It doesn't measure to the wetland on survey. >> Yeah. Which is another issue. >> Wetland measures to the corner of the house. >> I mean, at the end of the day, you've got a
022retaining wall that's across the street from a very small >> Yeah. >> very disturbed wetland. >> There is. >> Um, you know, so I I'm trying to, you know, I don't know where this is going, but I, you know, you know, I'm wondering if if there's issues with the retaining wall, I'd like to know so I can address them right now. I'm I don't make decisions on the fly, so I can't say there's issues. I'm just trying to understand. Obviously, we have a document that you submitted into the file that said that the highway department was like cool on this, but I'm asked because it's noticed the retaining wall. This is relief necessary to allow an existing retaining wall. >> I would say that's all >> the applicant kind of went, I would say, backwards
023here. probably in the correct course of action, they should have gotten these approvals and then pursuant to getting a highway department. Okay. >> Mhm. >> And that's that's not what happened. They got highway first, but that doesn't mean that you guys don't get to look at it. Just because Highway signed off on it doesn't mean that we are not involved any longer. But >> in if this was done, if I had this is a vacant piece of property and someone had developed it and proposed things within the highway, the building department would have said go if highway signs off on it. Okay. with us. >> So Joel, I'm I'm not trying to say or tip or anything like how I'm feeling about this as a board member, but I just really wanted to understand our
024what our jurisdiction is and it's not. So thank you. >> Um should we hear from the planning department? >> Yeah. >> Thank you, Joel. Good evening. >> Sarah Lewis for the planning department. >> Sarah, do you plan Do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um, the subject property is located at 11 Rehan Avenue in Montalk and is zoned as a B residence. Uh this is known as the ditch plains area which is characterized by higher density residential development and contains extensive freshwater wetlands that are part of a complex drainage system that flow into Lake Maque. Um the subject wetland is located on a property that was purchased by the town of East Hampton for open space preservation um which
025is across a paved public road. Um, in addition to the habitat value, this wetland is significant for attenuating storm water and conveying surface and groundwater through the ditch plains wershed. Um, I think Joel covered a lot of the property history. Um, I just wanted to note that the closest part of the retaining wall to the wetland is 63 ft. The closest point on the owner's property is 74 ft. Um, the impact on the retaining wall in the nearby wetland is kind of difficult to quantify um since it is across the street. Um the planning department has not identified any specific environmental impacts from the retaining wall to the wetland. However, it may alter surface runoff patterns. Um I just also want to note that the applant is proposing to cut back the existing gravel area
026in the backyard to reduce coverage. Um the new coverage will be 2,936 ft. Um 3,498 ft is currently covered. Um I also want to note in the TAM, I think I said that they were over on coverage, but that's not the case. Um allowable coverage is 3600 ft square feet. Happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions? >> I do not. >> No. >> Thank you, sir. >> Anybody in the public would like to answer this uh come to this uh application, address the application. Matt, is there anybody online? to our application. >> There are zero callers on the line. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> So, are we making a >> Yes. Can we have a motion? >> Yeah. Can we have a motion? Motion. the matter of um Sean Eckard 11
027Rehad Avenue in Montalk 300-030-03-10 to make a motion to close public hearing on the public record. >> Second. >> I concur. >> Concur. Thank you. Our next applicant is Jasmine and Imad Khalil at 84 Northwest Road, East Hampton. SuffK task map number 300- 91-1.7. The size and location is 340,720 square ft, which is 7 7.82 acres at 84 Northwest Road. James E. Dunlop, Senior and Adelaide, H. Dunlop. Slot one filed October 10th, 2000 is map number 10,5507 East Hampton. The description is to allow an existing tennis court to remain within the minimum sideyard setbacks. The relief is one variance of 12.2 ft pursuits 255 11110 of the East Hampton Town Code is needed to allow the tennis court to remain 47.8 ft from the sideyard lot line where 60 is required. The zoning district is
02885 residents export >> two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service in Pulson? >> Yep. I reviewed affidavit notice and posting and everything seems to be in order jurisdiction. >> Thank you. I tell you I had a difficult time finding this property. The ways ways took me down um another road that this dirt road or whatever it doesn't go through it. It was it was difficult. So, I had to go all the way around Northwest Road to find it. Um, this is a heavily wooded, very remote area. I'll take this. The sign the sign is posted. It's properly posted. We'll take you into the property. Um, as you can see, that's the the gate. Um, there's the front of the gate. Um, there this is a f and then there's a rear gate and
029that's what I think ways was trying to take me to, which was totally unmarkable. um going into the property. Go ahead. Next. That's the That's the rear gate. And then you can see the tennis court in the next photo in the distance. That's the tennis court back there. It was hard to get closer because there's a a deer fence in the way there. So, but that's the tennis court. Very heavily wooded in there. That's it. [Applause] >> Hi, how are you? How are you? >> Shannon McAffrey Dewy's planning. >> Do you tell swear to tell the truth? All truth and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> The subject property is located at 84 Northwest Road. The property is a flag lot that is 7.82 acres in size and was created from the James
030E. Dunlop Senior in Adelaide H. Dunlop subdivision in 2000. One condition of the subdivision was the creation of a prescribed building envelope. This required a 35- ft set back from the southern property line, which is the property line that we're seeking relief from to allow a tennis court to remain 47.8 ft where 60 ft is required. In 2014, the property owners hired a license licensed contractor to construct a tennis court that was permitted by building permit number 59400 issued on May 19th, 2014. The survey used for the issuance of the permit dimension the tennis court to be 47.8 8 ft from the prescribed building envelope, which is equivalent to an 82.8 ft setback from the southern property line. Prior to construction, the court was staked out, but it appears that the 47.8 ft setback was
031staked from the property line and not the building envelope. It is this field error that caused the tennis court to be 12.2 ft too close to the property line. The southern property line borders two reserves areas that are and there is more than 160 ft to the nearest residential property line from the tennis court. This area is heavily vegetated and helps prevent the nearest neighbor from any noise disturbance caused from the tennis court being 12.2 ft too close to the property line. It would be a financial hardship to relocate the court to a conforming location. Please let me know if you have any questions. So that's the looking at that survey that you have the reserve area that goes to the road, right? And then you have the road. >> Um, so [Applause] [Music] Right.
032>> Okay. >> These are all the reserved areas. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> No, >> I have no questions. >> Thank you from the planning. Over you, Morgan. Good evening board. Morgan Slater for the planning department. >> Morgan, >> do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Um, so the applications for the tennis court, which was constructed under a building permit issued in 2014, and that remains open. The survey with that building permit depicts the court 47.4 ft from the property line. 60 ft is the minimum setback. Um, I do want to make a note that the survey in the digital file is an older revision from the hard copies that we received. The hard copy was most recently revised on January
03325th, 2025, and that depicts the additional an additional sport court, but that's compliant with setbacks, and that's what's on the screen now. Um, the tennis court was constructed according to the building permit plans. It's 47.8 from the southern lot line and the reserved area is prop is directly to the south and that is the one that is most impacted by the variance request. Um, other than that, I can answer any questions the board may have. I just want to clarify. So on one hand, some of the narrative makes it sound like it was a building department error, but on the other hand, Mr. McCaffrey, and it was some in here somewhere, that it was a field error, meaning I think it said that it was staked >> incorrectly. So which >> Yeah, I put the
034building permit in the board's file for you to review, and that building permit depicts a 47.4 set back from that property line. >> So the building permit was issued incorrectly, but >> that's what it appears. >> Okay. But but it was described as a field error. So when I hear field error, that feels like a builder's error relative to what was permitted. So that's all I was getting. >> I think the the applicant could probably provide some clarification on that. My you know, I'm providing information based on what the town has in its records. >> Thank you. um if we're able to pull up the building um the survey from a building permit, it's pretty confusing because the prescribed building envelope is shown and so it seems as if when they did the survey they
035>> the when the surveyor did the survey, right? Yeah. So, it was issued an error. >> I think there might have been one that we've seen at one point. >> So, I just saw it inside of the building envelope and said, "Oh, you're good." >> Right. >> I had to guess. >> Sweet. I stand corrected. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody in the public like to address this application? >> M. Is there anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Therefore, in the applicant of Jasmine and Edmad Khalil at 84 Northwest Road, Samson subcast math number 300-91-1-1.7, make a motion to close the hearing in the public record. >> Second. >> Concur. Kinker. >> Kinker. >> Thank you. Next we have Jason Gold Clang at 66
036Pepperage Lane in Aranis of Map number 300-127-4-10. Size and location is 84,23 square ft at 66 Pepperage Lane, Hawk Nest. Section 3, lot 52, filed March 20th, 1978 is map number 6658 Naganzit. The description is to construct a screened porch screened in porch patio fence and clear 4,000 square feet of vegetation within the jurisdiction of wetlands. Allow a hot tub, patio and fire pit to remain within jurisdiction of wetlands and to allow a fence to remain within minimum wetland setbacks. Leaf saw a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code and one variance is required for this application. A variance of 17 ft is needed to allow a fence to remain 83 feet from the wetland where 100 foot is is required. Any other relief necessary? The zoning district is A2 residence
037X flood zone and the secret class type two. Council, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I have reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> Thank you. See? >> Yes. Thank you. Okay, so I visited the property. Um it was properly posted. The posting was very visible um right as you get to the property just to orient people. Um this house is at the end of Pepperage Lane. A culdeac lane comes off of Abraham Abrams as I like to call it landing road about twothirds of the way towards you know where the Devon Yacht Club and that public beach is just people. Next slide please. Just a shot of the cold sack that this uh
038comes off of. Little bit of vegetation in the middle. It's very uh quiet wooden wood wooded place overall in terms of character. Next slide. >> Um okay. So I've just decided I'm heading up the driveway. I'm walking up the driveway. It's not a long flag lot, but well it's not really a flag lot. It's just a driveway that goes up towards the house which is set back. Uh and it's wooded um on both sides. The wetlands are sort of tucked in where it goes from grassy to vegetated. The wetlands are tucked in there. I got a photo of them later. Next slide. Okay, I'm continuing up the driveway. I'm approaching the front of the house. Um there's a little bit of clearing up front there and then we'll get into some of the other uh
039uh fac uh elements of the uh application in a moment. Next slide. Okay. Okay. So, now I've gone all the way up the driveway and now I'm going around the back of the house and I'm heading towards um where the decking, the pool, and the other elements are. Next slide. So, I've gone uh to the side. It's the would be the west side of the house. Um there's the pool fence, the pool. In the distance, you can see some of the elements that are noticed. So, there's the playhouse. Um, there's the hot tub and then you can't really see it well here, but there's the fire pit as well where the chairs are. Next slide. Um, and then uh this is notice. So, this is between the pool fence and the wood fence that's basically
040on the northern part of the property getting close to the the northern property line. That's the stone area where the chairs are on it. I believe that um also needs to be legalized in this application. Next slide. Um okay, I've gone back actually to the front of the house. This I believe is the fencing that also uh has to be legalized. It runs from basically the uh west side of the house um all the way back towards uh the wooded area and where the the play the play fence is. It's transparent. Um, I didn't measure the height. I think it's like six feet maybe. Um, next, uh, next slide. Uh, this is just a shot of the general kind of woodland conditions around it. Now, I did have photos that I took of the area,
041the 4,000 square feet that was proposed to be cleared. I took them out because late in the day, we received um, information that the applicant has decided to exclude from this application. the request to clear 4,000 feet of steeply uh wooded uh area. So, I took the those photos out, but just a general idea of the property. Next slide. Um Oh, I I'm on the I'm on the I'm behind now. I'm looking at the house again. I tried to get a little closer to the playhouse, the um hot tub, and the uh the fire pit just from another direction. Next, next slide. And then lastly, I've now come around to the front of the house. That area where the steps and the um two redund chairs are, that's the um part that is requested to
042screen in as a screened in porch. Don't I think the last picture I just shot, so I went back out. It's hard to see. They're they're tagged. This is the basic wetland area. Um it's very seems to be very much intact. There's a lot of leaf cover. My guess is it's been grazed out by a lot of deer in terms of the understory, but it did seem that the wetlands were pretty much undisturbed um and are intact. That's it, I think. >> Thank you. We have Jameson. How are you? >> How are you, Jameson? >> Good evening, board. Jameson McWills from the Adam Miller Group. Um, I'm here on Gold Clang 66 Peppidge Lane. Um, Jane did a very good uh description of lay the lay of the land. I had a whole description here
043of exactly where this is. Um, but I'm going to skip that. I want to point out up front that we are working off of that's it. The last revised survey is dated August 6th, 2025. Um uh so a little bit of a description of the neighborhood anyway is that you'll see >> sorry August 6, 2025. Oh, right. That was the new one. I know. Yeah, sorry. You put >> Yep, that's it. It where the um proposed clearing has been removed. >> So that should be the Thank you. >> Um okay. So many of the lots in this neighborhood, you'll notice especially by aerial um they're nice and wooded. This lot um as well being well under the allowable clearing. there are wetlands in the neighborhood and on this one as Jane mentioned um it's kind
044of plopped right in the middle of what would be the front yard. Um which is why the house is oriented so far you know to the north which is the rear. Um and then also there are some grade elevation changes on the left there which is why it's oriented um a little bit also to the east to the right. Um, as mentioned by the notice, the application, uh, is to construct a screened in front porch, um, which is on the on the sort of on the back side if you're coming in from the driveway, but it was shown there where the aderondic chairs are. Um, that's to enclose the existing front deck, make it a porch that's 108 ft from the wetlands. Um, to construct a small patio on the south side of the pool.
045Um it's adjacent and just a little bit below the pool, adjacent to the wood deck that's uh situated 100 ft from the wetlands. Um to construct a portion of the fence um to legalize a portion of existing fencing and to remove a section of fencing. So, I can get into more detail about the fencing in a minute, but that's there's we're looking for some fencing uh legalization. Um, and then to legalize the existing hot tub, which is 112 ft from wetlands, legalize the small patio, which was shown with that the table and chairs on top, and then to legalize the existing fire pit. Um, there was also proposed to remove a little bit of hardcape between the hot tub and the fire pit. it's shown on the survey. Um so all in um most of
046this is NRSP only. Um the and a lot of it is to legalize existing improvements. Um as we know there's really no excuse but for the fact that my client bought it. This was all here. Um but uh much of this is not on the CO. um they bought this during COVID where most people were not updating cos and it was prior to the requirement um in the law but they would like to legalize it now and then get some of that additional fencing. Um and then the one portion of the fence as noted in the um in the notice is a variance of 17 ft for partially you know the closest point of the fence is 83 ft from the wetland. Um and then the history of the lot is very basic and straightforward.
047In 1987, there was a zoning board application and a subsequent approval. In uh 887, the building permits were pulled for the existing residence. In 88, building permits were pulled for the existing pool and patio. There was a 1988 CO for all of that and then nothing since then. And I don't believe any improvements to anything but for those small items that I described. Um, and then in response to the TAM where we looked a little more carefully at that 1987 ZBA file, we asked our surveyor to plot the location on the survey where that 15 to 20% slopes are located. Um, and that was really where we were proposing some of the clearing that we wanted. So, we just eliminated that from our plan. Um, even though it was also correctly noted that the covenants
048restricting that clearing, we couldn't find a recorded copy, but we just removed it anyway. Um, because it's not a good place to have clearing anyway. Um, and that's basically it. The existing clearing on the lot is the 19,679 where 31,50 is allowed, but that's all to remain the same. There's no change there. And then I'm happy to say that most of the other um calculations are well under the allowable, right? The building coverage is right now 1.2% where 10% is allowed and we're only proposing that would go up by.1 of a percent. So it would go up to.13%. Um and then the total law coverage where 35% is allowed. um existing is 10 and it's going down by.1%. So truly not much is changing um and they're well below but again not much is changing
049because mostly we're requesting some of this to be legalized after the fact >> and that's it. But I can explain the fencing a little bit more explanation on it. Yeah. First of all the fencing that I showed I was correct that that's the one you want legalized the red. >> Absolutely correct. Yes. Um that is what we are looking to legalize. It's basically on the whole you know the front yard side of the pool. Um but where we are proposing to it's basically moving cuz when you were there the fence doesn't go all the way yet um to the house. So what we're proposing it kind of if you don't I'm going to come up. Is it the black line with the X's? I see it's a busy survey, so it says new proposed fence.
050Yeah, >> because by the way, it'll be good because when we watch things on the LTV replay and see what's been going on. Yeah. Okay. So, great. That's >> show you the existing pool, right? And you saw this photo because the pool is 13 ft from this wetland to get a pool, right? So their preference would be to eliminate I don't >> no it's okay >> but you know what I mean to move at least one side >> you know we're not trying to add so my understanding anyway and the rest of the funding >> right >> and then this is also existing but they don't have permit for this >> and I think before we get back >> yes >> so the proposal is to you know legalize this >> actually going to remove
051this remove this >> just >> thank you >> understood thank you for that James >> so the fence that covers the large ial effect become the pool fence. >> Exactly. There will >> you're suggesting eliminating the pool fence in its entirety. >> No, >> just one side of it. Just part of you know what? >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> I'm not taking this back. Yeah, that one. >> You're right. You got it. Okay. We're going to remove this and the plan is to extend to add this. >> Right. >> Y. >> So, it's this enclosed area of the pool. little area is now more of a pool area, >> but then the entire yard is still >> fenced. You have like double protection around >> double protection on >> there's no clearing needed for this.
052It's >> no clearing, right? The the as you saw the fence, most of it's existing. It's already kind of cleared under there. And so we're basically just trying to move the fence to another cleared portion and have it continue along that line. So there's no clearing proposed. I I'm happy to report. >> Any other questions? >> Nothing for me. >> I do not have questions. What? Why are you taking little bit of stone out? >> You know, it's a just a preference. Maybe they I think they want grass there. >> The stone between the two. Yeah. >> The stone in that little >> Oh, the little stone >> and it doesn't meet setback. So, we wanted to get rid of it. >> Yes. She knows the plan better than I do. Thank you, Morgan. >>
053But you're only proposing to take a small strip of that out. >> Correct. Was this >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. >> Thank you, Jameson. >> Morgan. Good evening board. Morgan Slater again for the planning department. Uh Jameson did a really good um cover of basically everything that's proposed. It's for a combination of existing and proposed structures. The wetland is on the south side of the property. It's responsible for capturing a lot of the runoff from the steep slopes to the northwest. Um the one structure in need of a variance is the fence and it's not really a significant variance. It's only uh 17 ft. Mhm. >> The other structures on the property need of relief are pretty minor and they all meet wetland setbacks. So the planning department
054believes they are not likely to significantly increase the overall impact of the property from what currently exists. Uh they did remove the clearing from the application which was we're happy to see because it was in a questionable area. Um and the patio that is being removed uh it I believe it meets the separation from the hot tub now to not be considered a pool patio. So it doesn't need to meet the double setbacks and that's why that is proposed to be removed. I can answer any questions the board may have. >> You want to comment on the enclosure of the front porch? >> Um, you know, it meets wetland setbacks. It's not, you know, increasing the building coverage by a significant amount at all. Um, it's a pretty reasonable request. Um, from our standpoint, >>
055can I go back on the covenant that was mentioned in the um, TAM? Now I know there was a question about was that proposed clearing going to incur making incursion into that area but so that's off but in general I think you were saying that there was supposed to be a covenant from a prior or decision and it was not properly filed so I guess maybe for the for the applicant's agent like is that something that we can get done like to make sure whatever the board had asked for as a part of this application you know that covenant one of the conditions could be that that covenant actually finally gets um >> whatever the right word is implemented or given or recorded. >> So that's not a recommendation that we've been making recently or
056the board has really been enforcing in in recent years. You know this was kind of um a pretty new application after NRSP was implemented. So I'm you know I don't know the practices have changed over time. Um you know we wouldn't be opposed to that covenants you know being associated with this property. But I do want to point out that really any clearing in that area on this property will need an NRSP because it'll be within 150 ft of the wetlands. So there, you know, there is juris NRSP jurisdiction over that area already. >> Then why but the zoning board specifically asked for that covenant as a condition of approval of a prior application or no? >> Yes, they did. >> Okay. So that's my question. if a prior board wanted that to be done
057and it hasn't been done like >> I mean a co was issued on that project so the application was closed out in essence um like I said we don't have an opposition to having that covenant associated with this property um but it would just be an additional you know layer on top of the already um you know it's already in jurisdiction of the wetland so there there's that protection in place there >> thank you anybody in the public like to address this application. Matt, anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Davidson, you want to come on up and address the covenant issue? >> I don't. >> Um I don't I have I have the approval. I think you already know what the covenant is, but I could I could state
058it if you um it was pertaining to the slopes, right? So the um there shall be no clearing in those areas containing slopes of 15 to 20%. >> If the board was insistent on having that as a covenant of this approval, I could certainly ask the client. Um I I I'm curious more after Morgan's statement um you know the basis of the board at that time like you know what went into requesting that because we as we know we don't really do that now but I'm happy to ask I mean I personally would like not personally sorry as a member of the board not personally as a member of the board thinking about what prior boards wanted. Um, if you could address that with the applicant, um, I I think it would be important to
059kind of close that loop, but that's just my view. I don't know how other board members feel. >> I don't I don't know. It's I just it's for me. I'm not sure you know what, like you said, what necessitated that. So it would be hard for me but there the board did decide that I I do I do agree with that >> must have been a determination was it mentioned a determination or anyway >> yeah I was I was reading from this 87 determination you know it does also have that uh language form of said instrument shall be subject to approval by council of this board and I'm assuming it should have said that they have to have proof of that they recorded it >> which is obviously a missed step. >> Um I will
060say that there was the requirement of the the scenic easement to cover the wetlands. That's was you know originated in this also and at least we did that and by we I mean the prior owners from the 80s. Um >> I think a previous board has already stated that they were looking for the covenant and I don't know what we should do now. >> So the covenant is protecting what there is a senior easement on. So the scenic easement is was separate. Um scenic easement was one of the requirements and that is what protects you know it's it's there in that box in the wetlands box. >> So the covenant it says clearing on the subject lot shall be limited to the area of the building envelope depicted in the sketch of the planning department
061which I'm sure Morgan has. It's a little bit hard to see. I mean it's a little bit hard to read. Um, >> it then says there will be no clearing in those areas containing 15 to 20% slopes. >> Um, >> so if that's from the planning department, that goes beyond the zoning board. That goes from the planning board when when they were doing a subdivision. >> No, no, no. Planning. This is the planning department. >> Planning department. I thought you said planning board. >> Sorry, maybe I did say that. It is the planning department sketch. Um, oh no. Yeah, no, planning department. Um, so what then happened is once Morgan was looking at this, she pulled this up. We were the slopes that are depicted, they're hard to see on here, but they didn't line
062up exactly with the topo that they were seeing. Um, which is why we had our surveyor plot the topo. Then he highlighted for us showing in which areas is it 15 to 20% slope. And that was where some of our >> Where is that area? Is it over the if is it in the scenic ement? >> No. No. >> Um, pull the old one up first. So on the old one, I believe and Morgan can correct me if I'm wrong. It's that kidneyshaped area, right? >> That's 20 plus% slopes. >> That's 20 plus percent slopes. >> And then the dotted is 15 slopes. >> Oh, the kidney, right? >> Is that in the public hearing file? >> Yes, >> it is. Okay. um on our surve it's almost it's almost the same. The the topo
063has changed slightly though according to maybe just more updated uh data that our surveyor plotted but basically it's s it's somewhere in the same area which is why we removed the proposed clearing from that area. >> It's too drastic of a slope. >> Yes. I climbed it to >> you did. I did. I enjoyed experience >> live to tell the tale. Um >> only three ticks, >> but I you know for for I I don't want to again I don't want to presume um what they were thinking but clearly they wanted to limit clearing where there is you know it's slopes >> steep slopes. This is steep slopes >> which is why we removed it as well. And I will agree with Morgan that if we were ever to propose clearing anywhere within the 150
064ft we would be back here anyway. But if the board wants me to also check if we're okay to do to covenant that I >> it's one thing I didn't contemplate that you guys would ask me. So I I would have to check with the client. >> It was in the TAM. So that's why I'm asking you. Um um as a member I would ask if you could ask again my billboard. >> So that means we're going to leave the record open. >> Yeah. >> I can get that to you very quickly. So >> okay. >> So how long do you want to leave it open? >> Want to leave the record open. So, it sounds like we're going to be >> Yes. >> How much time? >> One week. >> Okay. Well, we have
065week, right? >> I I really don't need it, but Okay. Do you have a meeting next week? >> Yes. >> Sorry. Uh 23. >> Yeah, we want to wrap it up. So, one week is fine. >> Okay. >> All right. Do you need for a motion? Yes. Okay. Hold on. Thank you, Jameson. Um, in the matter of Jason Goldclang, 66 Pepperage, Lane, Amigans, Suffach County Tax Map 300-127-4-10, I make a motion to close the hearing, but leave the record open for one week until uh September 23rd, 2025. for >> oh I'm sorry for response from the applicant regarding uh the issue of the covenant prior covenant on steep slopes. Second. >> Concur. >> Uh, concur. >> Concur. >> Next, we have Jeffrey and Kim Wheelen at 170 Marine Boulevard in Naganza, substance number 300-176-4-12. Um,
066this size and location is 15,02 square ft at 170 Marine Boulevard, Hampton Dunes, lot 49, map number 4694 in Migza. The description is to enclose a 209 ft back porch within minimum wetlands setbacks. The release is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420. One variance of 38.7 ft pursuant to 255430 of the East Hampton Town Code to enclose a porch 61.3 ft from the wetland where 100 foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. zoning district is B res zonex flood zone and a secret class is type two proper affidavit of service in posting I don't believe I received any I don't they email I don't know if they dropped them off to the planning department I haven't gotten a copy of them as far as I'm the applicant's here and they have
067a copy >> is the applicant here tonight >> who makes it move on >> so I'm assuming yes somebody get This I >> Yeah. >> Has this one been >> This one's been moved back a few times. >> It had requested an adjournment of the first scheduled hearing. >> Um >> it seems like they're not here. >> So we can have the schedule date, >> but it looks like they did do a posting. >> They did do >> Yeah. But there's actually an issue. Can I say this if we don't open the hearing? There was a bit of an issue with the posting because it's there, but it's really not visible um from the road. So, >> well, I don't have an affidavit or the mailing. So, >> um, >> and they're not here, >>
068right? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Obviously, we can't have the hearing, >> right? So, >> so is there a motion I need to make or anything or No, >> I would just uh just adjourn it or or you know. Yeah, we can't have it now. >> Okay. So, we can we can do a motion to adjurnn the uh the until a later date until yeah for re you know proper notice and posting you know we'll reach out to the applicant and be like hey >> we just cancel >> yeah we haven't legitimately open >> we haven't opened it so >> so I guess we don't need a motion right if we haven't >> yeah we're just saying we'll just adjourn to a later date of no representation >> okay right okay >> so next we have
069MV realy group core at 315 Gerard drive spring sub test map number 300-65 4-2-14. Um, size and location is 38,025 ft at 315 Gar Drive Springs. The description is to allow the continued reconstruction of a residence with approximately 630 ft of decking and two and add two seconds story dormers on a parcel of land containing due land beaches and located within the town's jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. The relief orders of natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 and variances from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks 55440 coastal setbacks and any other relief necessary. The following variances are required. Variances of 29 ft 43 ft are required to reconstruct the residents and decking 71 and 7 57 ft from wetlands where 100 foot setback is required. Variances of 38 ft and 55 ft are required to reconstruct the
070residence and decking 62 feet and 45 ft from the landward edge of the beach where 100 foot setback is required in 47.4 foot variance is required to install a sanitary system 102.6 ft from wetlands where 150 ft setback is required. The zoning dive district is A2 residence 8 flood zone elevation 9 and the secret class is type two council. Do we have proper aff? >> I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> You vice chair. Okay. Thank you chairman. This is the official notice. The property was properly posted. Next, please. This is the driveway um that leads down to the project before us. Next, please. This is Here we go. This is the west side of the existing residence.
071It's facing east and uh this is uh actually um before us for a stop work order, demolition and reconstruction. It was stopped in that process. Next, please. This is a picture of um wanted to give you I'm sure you've all visited the site, but these are concrete peers and timber pilings beneath the foundation and uh it also supports the um decking which I think I have another photo of next, please. This is um I'm now on the um eastern side of the existing residence facing west. And this is actually uh an outdoor shower. I wasn't aware of any dry wells, but this is I just wanted to indicate this photo. Next, please. This is a photo. Um I'm standing um I'm facing west. Um actually, Gardener's Bay is behind me. And I'm uh letting you
072see the stairway to the left and the existing um second story deck. Next, please. This is just vegetation like this is throughout the entire property. This actually path that leads to Gardener's Bay. It's just a really beautiful site. >> Next, please. This is just a I'm now, you know, in the back of the house and I'm facing Gardener's Bay. It was a beautiful day today. Next, please. Okay. I seem to always be running into these tubes that >> these these exist like throughout the property. I'm assuming they're for irrigation, but um just clarification on that. Next, please. This is just what exists the power uh that exists on the side of the house. Uh next please. Um oh this is um along the um driveway there's this barrier that's set up. It was it's hard
073to really get a visual of it because it blends right into the environment, but it's obviously there to um stop uh sedimentation into wetlands. Next, please. And again, I just you know, it's they're pretty high and from what I hear, they're they're very uh beneficial to the site. So, next, please. >> Okay. I have no idea what this is. I I >> Wait a second. It's a septic. So that I mean that's what I assumed. >> But that is going right into the ground and I I just thought you know uh clarification on that because that obviously the location of the new septic will change. Uh next please. >> I think that's the last one. >> I think that is the last one. Now the one question I have >> is um like how did
074this happen? How did this happen in this day and age to think you could demolish and >> build a residence uh you >> without >> Hey guys, >> permits >> of course >> I just would like a nar >> Eric Brown from Acriman Partners uh on behalf of the applicant. I'm here with uh Shannon tonight. Um, Denise, in answer to your question, I I don't I don't have an explanation for, you know, for for why this has occurred the way it has that there was there was water damage to the original house. Okay. >> The which happened in the winter, the pipes froze. The applicant then went to his insurance company was filed a claim and was and was paid in or you know to to have this to have this work you know to
075have the repairs done and for whatever reason they did not you know they did not come to the town and and request a permit. So they should have done that. We agree that they should have done that. I mean, I would point out to you that one of the reasons the property looks the way it does is because as soon as the the property owner was made aware that there was an issue, they immediately stopped everything. There was a stop work order. Um, you know, so the property and I, you know, I was talking to Brian about this before the the meeting, you know, the the property, you know, nothing has gone on there, you know, at all. and you know he's the he's availing himself of the process that we have to address these
076issues. He's waited you know he's been in the queue quietly for almost a year. Um you know he hasn't had us challenge you guys and try and compel you to hold a hearing earlier. We haven't you know he hasn't said we should challenge the stop work order because it's too broad. Um I understand this was this was a mistake. It was a screw-up and it shouldn't have happened at this point. you know, I don't know what we can do except try to go forward from there. And Shannon can certainly speak to you guys about the, you know, about the technical issues in terms of the the sanitary and those those other types of things. There's an entirely new system proposed here, obviously, right on the sanitary side. So that's, you know, >> Okay, thank you
077for that. So the elevation we're looking at now, you're actually trying to meet FEMA, >> correct? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And the height or we're not going to get into any pyramids or height restrictions. basically what he's proposing to do Shannon correct me if I'm wrong >> in place in kind >> it basically rebuild the same house there are they have added some some dormer space which I'm sure Shannon and and Brian can address but other than that it's it's essentially what should have happened to begin with >> and the footprint isn't any larger other than >> there's no there's no additional coverage yeah no problem so it's my I mean it's my experience that um in terms of water damage the insurance companies need to come in immediately and remediate for to minimize
078any mold outbursts and stuff like that. Yeah. So they so I mean if they were to apply in our town in today's age what are they going to be what's going to be happening you know so um to that extent I I appreciate your explanation >> absolutely >> of condition >> how much was demolished I mean how far did we get in terms of demolition >> I I'm going to defer to Shannon but I don't think >> I I think to describe it as not very far would not Okay. >> Good evening. I don't need to be sworn in again, right? Um, it's fully it's been gutted fully. >> Oh, okay. >> Nothing inside, right? >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Shannon. >> Nothing has been state. Do you want me to kind of go into
079details a little bit? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. So, um, Eric's hit a lot of things already. So basically the last CO was certificate 14830 and has the improvements of the property listed as a 768 ft first floor, 320 ft second floor, 168 ft wood deck, and 414 square ft of additional wood decking. Um, as Eric um stated, they experienced a flood and was very poorly advised by their insurance company to begin remediation and received a stop work order. As you can see, once we were hired, we did reach out to the town, the planning department, code enforcement, about the property, sensitivity of the property, and the project limiting fence was installed to make sure no debris were um going into the wetlands. The applicant is requesting replacing requesting to repair the existing dwelling and
080construct two dormers to increase the head height for a bathroom and a closet on a second on the second floor. Um the dormers will increase the floor area of the dwelling by a minimum 126 ft 63 ft each dormer. Um, it should be noted that this square footage is already be was originally utilized as like a bathroom and bedroom closet area but will be considered part of gross floor area now because it'll have that meet that 5ft minimum to be counted. >> Um, the footprint of the dwelling will not increase and the septic will be upgraded to an IIA. Um, the engineer has kind of balanced this is a tough site with wetlands on both. We have gardener's bay and wet wetlands that border the western property line. And so we've kind of balanced it
081to be as best. Currently the existing septic is basically two cess pools that are on the property line. So it'll be brought in a bit further into the property and that whole area once it's completed will be restored with beach grass. Um the dwelling has a first floor elevation already of 11.9 and is compliant with FEMA for the flood zone AE9. Um the previous CO survey does show um a wall bridge survey that was dated May 12th, 1997 showing an elevation of 12.9. That foot difference is due to different datoms. Um and so that's where it's essent it is the same first floor. No, the floor hasn't been raised or lowered um from the original house. Um and so the owner is ultimately just looking to repair what was lawfully existing and minimally increase the
082usable floor area of the second floor. Once all the work is completed, the property will be more energy efficient by achieving HERS compliance, maintaining storm runoff with the use of gutters and leaders directed to dry wells, utilizing a nitrogen reducing system, subject system. These are all net benefits to the environment and neighborhood. An applicant also agrees to establish the scenic easement and wet wetland buffer area that was um suggested by Brian Frank and the TAM. No issues with that. Please let me know if you have any other questions. >> What was the date of the water damage >> that was? I don't have the exact date. I believe >> date was a winter. >> I think it was winter spring of 2023. And so by the time they got through insurance, I mean, they made
083pretty good progress to October 12th of getting the demo. >> Yeah, cuz the building plans are dated December 8th, 23. >> The stop work order was October 12th, 2023. >> So the building plans were developed after they started work. building plans. Um, I believe that they didn't really hire the architect until because it was just kind of, you know, like when insurance happens, they were kind of just bringing down what was existing, >> right? >> And but now, >> back to the question on the narrative, just so I understand, was the original plan to just demolish the house completely and resell the lot is or no, they always wanted to rebuild the house. >> They I they wanted to keep this house. I have to say I think they have gotten a bit discouraged during
084this whole process >> and so that's why it has been marketed um >> sorry >> now Shannon there's a I'm sorry >> what did you say about it >> listed at one point um that they were going to sell it but now >> it's on it's it is still listed >> right but I think if once they get the permits they want to keep it I believe it's going to be for their son and Shannon there's quite a list of mitigation >> right >> at the end of the T you you've had a chance to look at that. You're in agreement with all of that. >> Yeah, I think they're all pretty for a lot like this. Pretty standard. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Now, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> There's a a shed. >>
085Yes, there is a You know what? I had a picture of the shed. It didn't pop up. >> I think something Brian said in Tam was, you know, that would maybe go away and we'll we're willing to certainly get get rid of. >> Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Now, that that outdoor shower um does it have a dry well? I would I'm remiss in I didn't I don't think it did. So, I didn't see one. >> So, I think that would if grant if that remains. Um >> we can make sure that a dry well we can ver either verify that a drywall is installed or I didn't see one but um now was that legally built or did that I'm just I'm not sure. >> And wouldn't it need a variance? >> Yes, it is
086on the CL. >> Oh, okay. Okay. It is on the CR. All right. Thank you, Shannon. >> Can I just ask a couple of questions about this whole demolition? So, when I go up to the site now, I'm looking at concrete peers. Were they done as part of the new work that's been recently happening? These concrete peers exist before the water damage or not. >> I believe it was before the water damage, but I do not have >> that's not that's not part of the new work. All that you've done since the water damage is a demolition. >> Correct. So the house as I'm looking at it when I'm standing underneath it and walked around it that house is in the same spot the same size as before the deport >> same height everything already
087met FEMA was always FEMA compliant >> all you're planning on doing now to change these dormas to get head room on a second floor for a couple of conditions correct >> right but everything there is kind of jarring when you look at it to try to figure out exactly what's gone on I want to make sure that what I saw all pre-existed that's not work that was done. The only thing that happened here was demolition and you got your stop work done. >> Correct. >> And the decks are not being expanded. They're being replaced >> and they'll be repaired. Um just additional square footage will be the dorms. Correct. >> That's okay. >> that's the only change increasing any harden or building coverage. It's all within the existing. >> Thank you. >> Any other question?
088>> I have no other questions. some questions for for good man from planning. Brian, >> how are you Brian? >> I'm good. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. Brian Frank from the planning department. >> You swear tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Um I I think a lot of the history has been um uh well covered. I I will corroborate u my experiences with the property. I was contacted by D East um sometime after the stop work order about what mitigation could occur on the property while uh things were being resolved and and you know we provided a a sketch of the location of the wetlands and recommended sediment control. There's a pile of fill by that by that shed to help keep
089that from uh going into that wetland. Um the board knows uh this is a pretty sensitive area of town. Gerard Drive is sensitive in particular. This is at the southern peninsula of Gerard Drive on the Bayside. Um it Gerard Drive is in multiple critical environmental areas. It's an important bird area. Um as you saw from uh Vice Chair Savaris's photos, there's really no doom crest anywhere on the southern uh peninsula here. It's it's Gerard Drive. Uh for the most part in this area, especially it's low, it's flat or gently sloping. And there are a couple of areas where the um ground dips down close enough to the water table to have wetlands and that's what you have on the western portion of the property. Um so um despite the um inospicious beginning of the application
090um the planning department doesn't have an objection to the scale of of what's proposed in the application. um if the application were to continue to de demolish the you know what you see above those concrete peers now and I'm not suggesting it is it's pretty hard to tell from the what what's underneath the plywood obviously um but this is a highly sensitive area and the scale of new construction should be limited. So limiting the construction to within the footprint of the house, making the the gross floor area square footage increase limited to what's provided by the dormers. I think it's about 160 square ft. Um putting in that new um sanitary system and then the planned planning department did provide a fairly extensive list of mitigation as uh the vice chair had mentioned and that
091is because of the sensitivity of the of this area. you you saw that you have basically a narrow gravel driveway now that that leads to uh the property. This is a flag lot and that driveway does bisect the wetland. So the planning department has recommended that the driveway stay quartz gravel. That the driveway be uh configured away from the wetland a little bit. Um that the maximum practicable buffer which is about 20 to 25 ft be established along the western property boundary. that um that that's about 1,600 square ft in total. Um I agree with uh uh Shannon's statement that the the new sanitary system is as ideally cited as the lot allows um to get the maximum separation from the wetland to the west without getting too close to the uh beach uh to
092the east. Um this is a productive shorebird breeding areas for clovers and turns and the exact location that those species use do vary uh from year to year based on the site conditions. So um this may be an area where clovers and turns um set up shop in the future. But again those those exact locations are are somewhat variable. But we know that this is a a protected area. My guess is that the DEEC permit will have a similar uh condition in there um about a shorebird window. And if there's no shorebird activity, nesting activity within 500 ft of the property during during the summer, then that's a rational basis to uh lift uh the the shorebird window. We've recommended that in other um projects. Um planning department has recommended a conservation easement o over
093the beach. Um, and I think we've already established that the it is important that the House meet FEMA, and I think the applicants have established that it it does and it will. Um, the I don't think there's any harm in putting a dry well under the shower, >> but the separation from the wetland is is is pretty adequate right now. It's train, you know, it it's going into beach sand. >> Okay. Again, there's no harm from adding a dry well, but in in full cander, I I don't think it's necessary on on this particular >> and it's flat there. Yeah, it's it's not going to run down >> it's not going to run down to Gardener's Bay and it's not going to run west into the wetland or we would have made that recommendation. >>
094Um I uh I think I was a little bit more scattered than I thought my presentation would be. So, if I miss something and you have any questions, I'll uh I'll do my best to answer them. Could you show us the sketch? >> I'm sorry. Yeah, same question. >> Oh, you want you want the sketch? >> Now, I I brought up the survey instead of the sketch because I realized I made my sketch on an older survey that didn't have the sanitary upgrade. Um, but yes, I'll I'll bring that up. So, um, this, uh, shows the recommendation. Oh, I guess I didn't use the most recent, sir. >> So, uh, you see that M looking thing on, uh, off to the west. That's the, that's the sediment control that's there right now. Um, and the
095planning department has recommended sediment control around the perimeter. the area of the sanitary system is is somewhat successionally wooded right now. I don't know that that's really unavoidable impact from clearing out the cedar and the pines that's there. That should be naturalized after construction with uh with basically duneland planting. Just beach grass is is fine and let it naturalize over time. Um you see the conservation easement in whatever color that is peach pink >> something like that. Um, and uh, there's I don't know if you had a question for me in related to the sketch or you just wanted to zoom >> in a little bit on it. >> And what's the yellow stuff? >> Can't see. >> Yellow stuff. This >> yellow stuff. >> No, the yellow there. It looks like where the decking
096is. Is that the decking? Is that just what it is? >> No, that's that's the sur um Yeah, that that's the decking. I I don't that that's from the survey. I didn't I don't think I did that. Oh, okay. So, how much of a scenic easement is that? >> It does look pretty big. >> I don't know if I put it in the in the >> um >> uh >> I don't think it says it in the t >> seawward of the landwood edge of beach as depicted on the planning department sketch. Is is is that in the tent? >> No. >> That that sounds about about 181 19,000 square feet. If you want that verified then then I'll do that in the in the office tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think we'd ultimately
097like to have the number but the estimates >> what the in terms of the size of the scenic easement. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh there's a comment in the TAM about crossing over a wetland as you come in the driveway. Is there anything that has to be done there? A culvert or anything else to >> I don't know I don't I don't know if there's a culvert in there. I I don't think there is. I think it's just a path of fill through the wetland. >> Yeah. and and just putting a a a a bed of new quartz gravel to to kind of level out that little belly, that low spot in there. I think that's unavoidable since that since that's the sole access to the propert. >> Do you think that's an adequate solution to
098the problem? Just fill in with more cross gravel. >> I don't know that there's really any other alternative, you know, reasonable spot. >> It has to be that way, right? All right, >> I'm good. Any other questions? >> No, I'm good. >> So, I I have a question for Brian and Eric. And so, I see you see the easement. That That's clear. What is the wetland buffer >> going to be? >> Right. That That was my >> That That was about 1,600 square feet of um a planting, you know, vegetation to be uh um established. That's that green area. >> Yeah. Yes. So, is that But what my question is, is that going to be just a revge area? Is that a scenic easement? Is it a what? >> Just a reveation area. >> Just
099a revage area, >> right? >> A little bit more robust vegetation that's there right now. Plants like bayberry and groundel um the native shrubs that we we get. >> We need to submit got to submit a revge plan for that. And is that we don't do just so I also I want to make sure we get this right on the for these guys. Is it going to be >> just that's just what it is and then we leave it >> or is there it's not a scenic easement so there's nothing recorded. We're just not. >> No, but it it would be beyond any clearing, you know, beyond the final clearing lines in in an area where all the clearing is regulated for for one reason or another. >> It's already it's already regulated the whole
100so we can't do much anyway. Okay. So, yeah, we'll just submit a revenge plan. >> And Brian, could you comment just on how you uh assess the sort of quality of the, you know, everything seawward of the house in terms of the June land? Do you feel that it's in good uh undisturbed state? Is there any other like there was some what looked like had been some sort of patio or whatever? But you know, is there a view that any other um revge is needed on the property like within the easement or no? It's all >> No, I I think the only revitation that's required is where the um where the san where there's going to be clearing for the sanitary system and the buffer to the wetland. The rest of that is natural and
101and it and it's successional. The farther you get away from the beach, the um more um the more robust and the larger the the woody vegetation becomes. >> Yeah, that's very beautiful. >> Any other questions? >> No, I'm good. >> I'm good. >> Thank you, Brian. [Applause] >> Is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? Is there anybody online? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good. Close it up. >> Are we leaving it open for additional language for the size of the scenic easement? I don't think we need that, do we? No. Brian's pretty clear about you said you wanted it. Okay. So, we're going to close it. >> I mean, do we need an actual formal survey? >> No, I think I think we're No, I
102think we're fine. >> Okay. Okay. So, in the matter of MV Realy Group, 315 Gerard Drive Springs, Suffach County Tax, Map number 300-62-2-14. >> I make a motion that we close the public hearing and record. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Thank you. [Applause] >> Hey, board members. Next, we have the minutes approval draft minutes of Tuesday, September 9th, 2025. >> So, we would like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, September 9th, 2025 for the East Anthony Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you. We then go into our resolutions. We have SHM Star Island LLC at 32 Star Island Road. Mtox of test map number 300-6-4-9 10 and 16.1. >> That was a >> No, I didn't do this. >> That was a modification.
103That's correct. We have a motion. >> What was that? The one where >> island? >> No, I know that wasn't the one where we wanted to >> more info. Yeah, that was different. Okay. Sorry. Right. Yeah. Just >> All right, then I'll do it. >> Then in the uh application of SHM Star Island LLC 32 Star Island Road, Monttok, Silver County Tax Map 300-6-4-910 and 16.1. I'd like to uh make a motion to accept this determination as written. >> Modification. >> I'm sorry. I I I spoke. That was This one's an extension of time. >> Oh, >> that's why I was right. >> Yeah, that's Yeah, sorry. That was I was thinking about a different one. >> That's That's why I was >> That was It's just an extension of time. >> Do your motion.
104>> Motion. >> Yeah, I realized that as we were as matter of SHM Star Island LLC 32 Star Island Road, Monttok Savanic Tax Map 300 uh-6-4-9 10 and 16.1. I make a motion to uh accept the application for an extension of time. >> Second. Concur. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Next, we have Savina Deamada at 41 Gardener Drive, Amaganis Map number 300-174-4-7. Uhhuh. Okay. Um, uh, I know, uh, there were some, uh, changes made based on board feedback. I read the latest version that was uh sent us by council and so I don't need to go through the whole the application what's about again but I'd like to make a motion in the matter of Savvina delam 41 Gardner's drive amigans at Suffach County Tax Map 300-174-4-7 um making a motion to accept the resolution
105as written. >> Second concur >> concur Thank you. Next we have Chris Polley at 54 Firestone Road in Mont number 300-17-2-34.1. >> Okay. So >> yeah. Um this was uh sent back to uh add the condition that they do not um enclose the new decking and patio um which had been left out of the original iteration of the determination. And that was in there. I did review it. Everything looks good to me. I would like to make a motion for Chris Py at 54 Firestone Road, Montalk Tax Map 300-17-2-34.1 to approve the determination as written. >> Second. >> Okay. I'll concur. >> I'll concur. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Right vice chairment and then go into executive session for a legal matter. I would like to make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of
106appeals on September 16th, 2025 at 8:00 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I'd like to make a motion to go into executive session for the discussion of a legal matter. >> Second. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Secondur. >> Did we get a second? concur.