East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 09/09/2025

001Okay, Town ZBA, you are live. You're recording. Phone lines will remain off. Go for it. >> Thank you, Madden. Welcome to the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals work session for September 9th, 2025. We'll start off our our work session with an administrative application and that is 380 OMH LLC at 380 Old Malk Highway in Montalk suffix task map number 300-88-1-12.5 and that's to allow an existing outdoor shower and deck to remain on a property containing a bluff. Uh yeah, so this is out on old Montalk Highway. This one's Morgans's I'm covering it for um the I drew the dirt jurisdictional line on here. That's this red line. Um, and the wood deck and the shower that are here are in yellow are are what they're requesting uh an NRSP for. It's very

002straightforward. Um, no significant impacts. Everything else on the property already has a CO. Obviously, there's a lot of extremely non-conforming structures on the property. Um, but the deck and the shower itself are are pretty pretty uh uh unremarkable. Um, so we were comfortable with it moving forward uh administratively. >> Any questions? Board members, there any issues? >> No, I don't have an issue. >> No, I'm fine. Do Can we have a motion? >> Did you? >> No, it's fine. I >> Okay. >> I'm looking at something I can't really see, but that's okay. >> I'll I'll take it on the advice of planning. >> Do you have it, Terry? You going to make the motion? >> What? Oh, I can do it. Okay. >> I don't have it in front of me. >> All right.

003for 380 OMH LLC at 380 Montto Malks for County Tax Map 300-88-1-12.5. I make a motion to allow the application to be processed administratively. >> I'll second it. >> Concur. >> I'll concur. >> Concur. Thank you. >> We'll move on to our post-hering decisions. And our first applicant is Richard Pereello at 11 Flag Avenue in Montalk Map number 300-30-4-3. Size and location is 14,640 ft at 11 Flag Avenue in Malk. The description is to allow an existing residence and associated structures to remain over the maximum allowable building coverage. The relief sought is one variance of 428 square ft is required from 2551110 of the town code to allow the parcel to remain with the maximum lock coverage of 3,356 ft where 2,928 ft is the maximum allowable and any any other relief necessary. The zoning

004district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 11 and the seeker class is type two and >> this was me. >> Yeah. >> Hi. Okay. Um, since we had this hearing on August 12th, 2025, um, had a site plan, well, we had one from 11121 and then it was a TAM date at 7:32. I think we had date on site plan also. Uh, received July 16th, site plan A 100 where it's up on the screen there now. And I couldn't read the date, but we was received on July 16th, 2024. And we had a survey from can't read that date either. Uh survey dated >> I can look that no 121021. No, I'm sorry. The latest is 6622 on it and we received that on July 16th also. Um, and this one is for an

005overage and building coverage and it's a little bit of a messy application uh history on it. Uh, the if you look at that the the red things up there, the one on the right side was labeled A. The one on the center on the bottom is B and one on the center top toward the center top is C. And what happened was uh the the one on A uh was there was a survey issued with that in the plans for the building plans and it did not include a portion of the property that was covered and should have been included in the building coverage. uh numbers. Uh that was a surveyor that did that and then the the applicant who was also the builder as well as the owner of the property uh he saw

006that and he at that point it did not exceed the the building coverage number. So he took it upon himself to add in uh numbers B and letters B and C to the project. And this was not discovered until the final survey come came out. Um and the overage was discovered at 428 square ft over the building coverage. And there was a little bit of a messy history. I don't know go over it. Um it seems the first time that I saw um Richard and Gene Pllo, it was in 1617 and they did get a permit to build an accessory building that you see there at the top of that document. Um with a shed, decking, and hot tub. Uh they renewed that permit the following year on January 18th 18th and then um there

007was a stopped work order in August of 2018 for that permit 63825. I'm not exactly sure what that was for. Um, so the plans were amended on that and then they actually got a renewal for that uh permit and in 12719 they got a CFO for that structure with shower and shed. And I bring that all up because it looks like they did not do the hot tub. Um, I did not see a hot tub out there. Uh, so that might still be an open issue somewhere along the way. So I'm just bringing it up. Um then they they did get a CFO for that accessory structure. Then on 11:2420 there was a stop work order issued because they started to demolish the existing principal residence and without a permit. So that got cleared up

008and then on 12720 the building permit 70187 was issued to demolish the residence, build a new residence, six bedrooms, one kitchen. They added a new IIA system at that time and lower level wreck area. But um anyway, there is a notation on the property card that said with this uh permit that their lot coverage is at the maximum. But I think it it's all these things happening that caused the discrepancy with the survey and the applicant said he did not notice it until the final survey was done. and now he was here to have us apply for a variant for the 428 ft over the building coverage. Um it's my opinion that um I am going to deny this application. I think it does not meet the standards. It's we don't have many building coverage

009applications that come in and I feel that this does not meet the the standards. I think the the grant of the variance could cause more of an an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Uh neighborhood is one of our one of our not well one of our standards in 255850 as well as character is also a standard in 25511 D uh particularly for the protection of residential neighborhoods. And when you see this property, it does jot out as being uh it's very different than anything else in that area. I think the benefit well could be achieved by some other method. I think what he needs to do is just remove some of the portions of the structures that he put in. Um and the I think the area of variance is substantial. It's

010428 ft higher um than the the maximum allowable on that and I think it could have an adverse effect on the or an impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood and uh other areas of the town and it clearly was an self-created hardship that was caused by because of the the discrepancies that went on with the builder. So, I am looking to deny this application. >> Thank you, Ed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we had the discussion uh the night of the hearing that's already been described by member Burgerer, and that was uh that course of action that led the builder/owner to assume that he had some options left in adding to his structure. Of course, what he did add was not permitted. So, he moved ahead with an unpermitted series of small additions

011and roof lines on that. However, when we start looking at this, we've got to go back to the fact that a building permit was issued for the house that he built initially and that that overhang was not included was not included in the uh in the u survey and accepted in the final u uh accepted as a when as a companion to the building permit. I guess he thought he had some guidance in this. Uh later he goes and and closes uh two roof lines and now he's got this 428 foot problem. I think that um u I'm a little slightly advarian here with what member Burgerer said. I'm not sure that I see this creating a real change in the character of the neighborhood. I think that the house is out of character with

012the neighborhood, but that's not in front of us. I think the house is uh kind of large for the site and I think that overhang is something that you see right away when you pull up. But all of that was part of initial B building permit. So that's not in front of us. What's in front of us is whether or not these two additional enclosures he had that gave it that put him over the 428 ft over uh in terms of lot coverage is in uh something that we think is going to have a long-term negative effect on the property. I don't see it that way. I think these are two coverages that sit over pre previously improved areas over hardened areas below. So they're not extending out over an area that doesn't have lot

013coverage already associated with or doesn't have hardened area or so associated with it. I think that both of these places it's not a significant amount of structure. I don't think they're visible from the road. I'm not sure how they would impact the neighborhood from the one one is of course, but that's the one that was the initial one that was part of the project. But the two that he added later on are not. Uh if you go to 255850 uh a does the benefit to the applicant from the grant of the area variance outweighs any detriment which might grant the variance would cause to the general health safety and welfare of the neighborhood the town as a whole and I think the benefit to the applicant does. I think the asking him to remove those

014at this point uh given the history given this confusion there was about this coverage. I think it is his responsibility. I'm not saying it's not, but I do think that there was a certain amount of uh perhaps a misunderstanding that led to what's happened here. So, when I look at this, I don't see this as creating a change in the character of the neighborhood. I don't see it as changing or creating a uh a precedent that we might have to worry about here. I think it's an individual and a unique circumstance in the sense that what what this project uh is uh what he's achieved by adding these spots is some convenience for him. But I don't see it as a detriment at all to the town. So going back to that 255 850, I

015think I'm going to rely on that and say that the benefit to the applicant always a detriment to the town and I am going to approve this application. >> Thank you, John. >> Uh thank you. Um I agree mostly with um member uh Johan and I'm just going to uh quickly go through um my uh my notes here. Building permit 70187 which was approved on December 7th, 2021 was based on a survey by Twin Forks Land Survey which was dated October 6, 2020. And it showed a total lot coverage of 2738 square feet which equates to a coverage of 18.7% where 20% is the maximum permitted by uh 25511-10 of East Hampton Town Code. The surveyor erroneously did not include the roof overhang. The roof overhang in the south deck in their total lot uh

016coverage calculation. The roof overhanging the south deck is shown on the second floor plans which accompany the building permit. It is it is further identified as a shown in red on the PLLO site plan dated uh January 11th, 2021. The owner uh and builder are one and the same assumed the approved total lot coverage included the roof overhanging this south deck. And based on this assumption, he believed he was under the maximum total lot coverage permitted of uh square feet. He proceeded without approval to add roof overhangs to the east and west sides of the house. These roof overhangs are identified as B and C respectively. The addition of the roof overhangs A, B, and C account for the excess of 618 square ft beyond what was approved and 428 square ft beyond the maximum

017total lot coverage allowed by 255 11110. Though it is regrettable that there is a 15% overage in total allowable lot coverage and even though o the owner who is a builder proceeded to build two additional roof overhangs without approval. I find that the benefit to the applica applicant does outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood and town. I believe allowing the variance is the only remedy short of a major redesign and construction work being done on the house. So, as per the standards enumerated in 255850 of the town code, I don't believe granting the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. I don't believe the benefit being sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method that's feasible other than the area

018variance. And I don't believe the requested variance is substantial. um the roof overhangs are over uh hardened surfaces, hard deck surfaces, and I don't believe that the granting the variance will have an adverse effect on the um >> on the baseball game. What is with a hammer? That's the first. So I don't believe that the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect on the impact of the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or in the affected area of the town. The difficulty uh causing the applicant applica applicant to request a variance was absolutely self-created but it's not uh solely determining. Therefore I I vote to approve the variance. >> Thank you James. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, so I am just going to uh go through how I look at the standards relative

019to whether or not I can approve this application. Um I do um agree with member Burgerer that you know this is a this is a building coverage overage and in it's 15% over the maximum which numerically may not sound substantial but um I'm not sure the last time this board has approved building coverage uh variances. So I think they're significant and I do look at to at the um standard does uh the granting of the variance um create a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood and I do see going over building coverage um and again our code is building coverage is building coverage. It's not like oh this is over a hardcape outside it's just building coverage. So, um I do see that as having an impact on the character of the neighborhood.

020Um and it would it would not be something I would have approved had it come to us as a variance um during the uh well, it didn't come to us at all as a board. So, I guess I can't really use that. The whole application went straight through the building department. importantly also you know the applicant who is the um owner and the builder um was clear he said that he missed it um you know he said he only had yourself to blame and I appreciate that um openness however this is a licensed builder um and I do believe the responsibility was on the builder to build and make sure the surveys were correct that were submitted for a building permit. Um and so when I get to the standard of self-created, I know that

021particular standard is not um always uh um definitive in a decision, but I think it becomes much more um much more relevant here um because it the house should not have been built um based on a survey that was not submitted as part of the uh building permit process. Um and again I do think it's substantial in uh um not maybe in numeric but substantial on an absolute basis um because something like this is rare. Um and then I guess lastly the benefit it was interesting because the applicant didn't make a case for what benefit is created by having these overhangs. Um, I guess one's over a grill area, one's over the entrance. They really serve no purpose that if and then there's obviously the big overhang over um a patio. So, it would appear

022to me that um there there really isn't benefit. He also is a builder and can I guess remove them um without having to go hire, you know, hire another builder. So all in on a balancing basis, I'm going to deny this application. >> Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, I mean this one's troublesome for me also. I think that um I I do believe being a developer, builder, owner, there should be a higher standard. And I do do agree. I think though that the there's circumstances I agree with my other board members Johan and Thorson um that the circumstances that surround this particular case and related to the proposed survey is not clear. I think there was an error there um that didn't get picked up and um foresee I I I don't like this I

023don't like this application either. I don't like I don't like approving it, but I don't see the nexus for denial here. I think that um the uh benefit to the owner at this point in in the process does outweigh the detriment to the town. I do agree with um member Johan that uh you know this is not affecting even though it's a he states that it's not a a desirable look to the house or the neighborhood it's still the the additions don't affect that in any way. Um with that I I'll vote to approve the application. [Applause] Next we have Susan Carassic at 67 Devon Road in Amaganza subass number 300-174-6-11. Size and location is 6,000 square feet at 67 Devon Road and Beach Hampton section one block 7 lots 72 to 74 map number

0241203 in Migans. The description is to legalize and reconstruct an existing deck and allow an existing bin to remain on a parcel of land containing beach vegetation due land within jurisdiction wetlands within rear and sideyard line setbacks and outside the town's pyramid regulations. The relief salt is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and three variances are required for this application. One variance of 5T is required from 235 11110 of the town code to allow the existing decking to remain 10 ft from the eastern rear yard line where 15t setback is required. One variance of 25 255 11110 of the town code is required to allow the existing bin to remain 5.5 ft from the northern sideyard lot line where 9.6 ft setback is required. One variance of approximately

0255 ft from 2551172D is required to allow the existing bin to remain 5 foot outside the town's pyramid regulations. The zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 13 and the secret class is type two. Um, mayor. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, okay. So, our public hearing on this application was held on August 12th, 2025. The applicants, Susan and Philip, um, Carousik, appeared on their own behalf. Also appealing with them was their I think their contractor, and I apologize, but his first name was Pat, and I could actually not understand his last name. So, >> Rayban Ray Ray. >> Rayban. Okay. Thank you so much. Excuse me, Mr. break if you're watching. Um the applicants have owned the property for 32 years since 1992. Um it's never been in front of the

026zoning board before. Um Tyler Borsack spoke on behalf of the planning department. The TAM um we reviewed was dated July 3rd, 2025 in the record. Um and though the the cars had mentioned that they had spoken with their neighbors and that their neighbors um either supported it or didn't object, there were um no public comments formally submitted directly into the record um or spoken at the hearing. Um the original house was built in 1964. Um the gross floor area was not specified on the survey or on the TAM, but based on the dimensions shown on the survey rough calculation, this looks like a one-story about 1,000 square foot um cottage that's, you know, very representative of the um character of uh Be Champton. And I think as we also learned, the last co uh on

027this property was 1992. Um just in terms of context in terms of how I look at the request and or need for a relief um you know perhaps 90% or more of the hundreds of parcels in the area known as Beach Hampton are pre-existing non-conforming meaningfully um substandard to zone lot minimums with respect to this parcel at 6,000 square ft. It's 70% undersized to the minimum and is actually among one of the very smaller lots of all the small lots in in beach. So the small lot challenge I always take seriously when variance relief is sought. Um and at the same time this um you know excessive density of the area also sets a bar that requires I believe us to be judicious and consider especially the key question if variance is sought are the

028minimum necessary and if they you know protect neighbors uh ability to enjoy their own properties uh peacefully. Um so as as the notice said that's just as background that's context I gave. Um so there are two areas two elements on the property that we know need relief. The deck in the rear of the house requires one 33% rear lot line setback variance. Some portion of that rear deck has been in place since 1971. though it was expanded modestly um since uh since its construction um I guess it was constructed five and a half decades ago for the TAM and the aerials that expansion took place perhaps between 2007 and 2010 um not exactly sure the square footage expansion that it was um but you know it's come to us because the applicant is in need

029of repairing the deck and rebuilding it um which they intend to do in place and in kind and obviously is looking to um legalize the current dimensions. And then there's the small bin structure right on the northern property line that requires a 95% variance um to the um already reduced 9.6 northern side yard setback that also requires a 5-ft uh pyramid variance. Um the applicant had said in the hearing that the bin was added to the property around 6 to 7 years ago. I also note that the NRSP is required because part of the lot is within jurisdiction related to wetlands on the west side across Devon Road. However, no wetland setback variances are required in this application. And I'd note that the entirety of the rear deck um based on the survey is completely

030outside of the 150 ft wetland jurisdiction. the small bin is in the wetland jurisdiction but again outside of the required 100 foot setback. Um so taking I would just want to take the standards um uh for these two things separately. So I do find the request for the rear yard lot line setback meets the standards and I am going to vote to approve it. Um I'll just run through the standards uh quickly and how I find them. Um so the uh whether the variance will cause undesirable change in character of the neighborhood. Um don't find that this variance will create an undesirable change in the character. Um it's not really it's not visible. The property is pretty well screened all around. The overall scale of the deck is small and proportional to the small house

031on this rather small lot. Um it won't be visible as I said it won't be visible. Um and uh I don't see that this expansion that was created in this variance will um it's really not going to expand the usage of the deck because it's already a very small deck. Um and I think what they have on it are you know very minimal um things like a grill, a table and some chairs. So I don't see that um this expansion you know created a whole new uh living area that would have created additional disturbance. Um whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method other method feasible um rather than a variance. No. Um the um there is really no other place on this property to add decking that wouldn't need

032a variance as well. um whether the requested area of erance is substantial. Um at 33% you know I we tend to think of like 25% as a threshold for substantiality. Um but again it's really not a big square footage um area and again the benefit of of outdoor living space um is uh is really not achievable with a lesser or no variance. um whether the grant will have an effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions. I'd say no to that mostly because it's out of uh wetland jurisdiction. Um and whether the difficulty caused by applicant um was self-created. I mean, yes, it was self-created because they did it without the benefit of the permit. Um but uh it's also um it's the lot is very very constrained. Um and and so I took that

033into account. Um all right. So now so I'm approving that variance with respect to the bin storage. You know, it's not a big structure. Um and I believe that the applicant thought they were doing a good thing by placing it at that area on the property line kind of right up I guess against a shed on the neighbor's property, which I guess also doesn't mean setbacks, but that's not before us. Um, so I appreciate that they thought they were doing uh the right thing. Um, however, it does appear from the survey and um, I don't think it was clear that there is not another fairly, you know, uh, there's not another um, position for that small bin that would eliminate or significantly reduce the variance. So, I want to see what my fellow board members

034say. Again, I and I think the board in Beach Hampton has historically been pretty strict about not granting um you know, pyramid variances at the sideyard lot line or or those. So, I'm leaning towards um denying it, but I guess I'd rather hear what my fellow I'd like to see what my fellow board members say. >> Okay. Um, thank you for that, J. Um, I I I agree with um member Miring on this. So, we'll start with the deck also. It's out completely outside of NRSP jurisdiction and I I agree. I saw the property. Um, there isn't much space back there for this family to use. Um, I too think it meets all the standards and uh for the variance and I'm going to approve the deck, the bin. I'm in the same position. Um,

035right up against the the property line. Even though it's not that tall, it's still a substantial pyramid. And I thought that it was stated that there are other loc alternative locations that would be a better setback or even possibly entirely conforming. Um so I mean the area there on that one um NRSP-wise I don't think it's really a problem because of the distance of the wetlands but um the the fact of the pyramid and just the way this board has handled these in the past um I'm leaning towards denying that. >> Okay. Um just for clarification you said the deck was outside NRSB jurisdiction. I think you wetland. Is it out of jurisdiction or is it >> 150? >> It's beyond It's out. It's outside of the setbacks but still within juris. Oh, that's >>

036jurisdiction. >> I just want that clarify. Good. That's great. Okay. >> Uh Ed, >> yeah, I'm I'm largely in agreement with my fellow board members on this. I think that the deck it's a constrained lot. I think the deck is not going to create an impact in any way. I realize we're granting a variance of five feet here and that the the deck was done without the benefit of a building permit. I see all of that, but I think that the benefit to the applicant here on the deck is clear and I don't think that it does provide or doesn't uh present any real environmental danger or particular impact to a neighbor in this particular case. However, with the bin, I'm in agreement. I think we've been pretty hard on people with uh bins on

037property lines and sheds on property lines largely because of pyramid as well as a location. The time people have presented to us that that that location is not going to be bothersome to a neighbor. In this case, they say there's a shed behind it and so it blocks the view of it. That shed could always be removed. We got to remember we're doing these things in perpetuity. So I can't approve that shed at that time. If a compromise was to say to move it, if they had said move it to the house, even though it might not have been fully conforming, I think they would have helped us with the pyramid regulation. So, as it sits now, I'll approve the deck and deny for the very much the same reasons my fellow board members said.

038I think that had um had there been some suggestion of moving it back to the house, I would have been able to approve that, but it didn't come up. And so at this point, uh, as the as it's been presented to us, yes to the deck and and I'm going to deny the bin. >> Thank you, John. >> Um, the current owners acquired the property in 1992, which at the time had a wooden deck of approximately 450 square ft, and it did meet the required rear yard setback of 15 ft. Between 2007 and 2010, they expanded the deck to its current size of approximately 800 square feet, violating rear yard setback by 4.9 ft or 33%. Current owners installed the bin in its current location around 2008. It violates sideyard setbacks by 9.1 ft, i.e.

03995% where uh 9.6 feet is required and the pyramid law by 5T. And please note that the variance application dated October 1st, 2024 indicates the project that they requested the application as replacing an existing 900 square ft deck. Um, as per the standards in town code 255850, I don't believe that granting the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or create a debt groomment to nearby properties provided the deck is replaced exactly as is and the bin is eliminated or moved to a conforming location. During the hearing, the owner did offer to eliminate the bin. And it was suggested by Tyler that there uh the bin could be moved to the house, which would be a more conforming location, and even possibly uh to the left of the shed, which

040would be entirely conforming. So, it can be moved or eliminated. Um I do believe the benefit being sought by the application can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, i.e. reducing the size of the rear deck back to its original size meeting the required 15t setback. A 15oot setback is required for the deck in that it is attached to the principal structure and principal structures require 15t setbacks. If the deck weren't attached to the principal structure, I'm not exactly how how that would work. Then a 10 only a 10-ft setback would be required. This consideration helps my approval. There is no remedy uh in my opinion for the bin in its current location. The deck requires that is the uh variant substantial. I think a 33% var variance is substantial

041but as stated uh previously the distinction between a principal versus accessory structure uh setback is mitigating the bin as is extremely non-conforming both per sideyard setbacks and the pyramid law. I don't believe granting the variance will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood or the environment and the difficulty causing the applicant uh to request the variance was self created which is not determining provided that proper uh project limiting fences fencing is required. I don't believe replacing the existing decking will disturb degrade or imperil the wetlands across the street and I therefore approve the NRSP. So, I approve the deck and deny uh the the ban the >> I also agree. I I think the deck is uh is is meets the standards. Um I agree for the reasons my board members set for as well

042as the bin. The bin we we don't we we've not approved many bins on the property line or near the property or pyramid whatever. Um, and I think that the benefit to the applicant in this case does not outweigh that detriment to the town um, on the bin. So, I would vote to deny the bin as well. So, I'm in agreement with the board. >> Thank you, >> council. I just I didn't say specifically, but I want to say it. I I'm approving a natural resources special permit as well for >> Okay. >> application. Sorry. Uh, I approved the check but not the ban, but I'm approving the NRSP overall for the application. >> Thank you. Next, we have Robert Mckenley at 239 Fair View Avenue in Montalk Suff-9-7-40.8. Rise and location is 16,851 square

043feet at 239 Fairview Avenue, Montalk Beach development core, subdivision 7 filed May 6, 1927 is map number 1017 in Montalk. The description is to construct a 490 ft second story addition and upgrade the sanitary system on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. relief sought as a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255430 of the town code and a variance of 23.5 ft is required for the proposed addition where 100 foot from the wetland is the minimum required in any other relief necessary the zoning district is B residence zone X flood zone and a secret class type two and this is Ed >> yeah thank you Mr. Chairman McKinley. Uh you'll you'll remember that the hearing was held on August 19th, 2025. We were working from a survey that was dated at September 9th, 2024.

044That we received building plans from Randall Goya architects that were dated July 2022. We received them on uh September 11th, 24. Uh we also had septic drawings, two sets of them. once dated July 10th, 2024 and received September 11th, 2024. And we received updated septic drawings that included a hookup to a potential future uh cabana, which is not in front of us tonight, but those was an updated set of drawings we received on August 14th, 25 received on the 18th of the same month. Uh the applicant was represented by Joel Holsey of Lighthouse Land Planning. The town planner was Sarah Lewis. The existing home was constructed 1978. The most recent CFO was issued in 2016. The current owners took possession of the property in 2017. This parcel received An NRSP approval. Uh, excuse me, where

045I was. Sorry. That's okay. Oh, yeah. Um, NSP approval for pool patio fencing and pool equipment in 2023. an NRSP and a 23.5 foot variance from the required 100 foot wetlands setbacks is required with this application. The property borders on Peter's run to its north where an existing vegetable garden that would be would require a variance approval will instead be removed. Uh the applicant offered that up at the hearing. Uh the property is currently overcleared at 12,363 square feet and the applicant proposes to reveate 234 square feet to bring the total clearing into compliance below the 12,29 permitted maximum. The existing house is 1496 ft with the proposed 468 ft second floor addition. The new structure will now be 1994 square ft. The proposed addition significantly I think will be placed entirely over the existing

046house footprint. The house how the house sits at this point. Um the proposed I ITS septic system will be located to the roadside of the structure in the most conforming location and the sil leashing fields will take up more ground area but will require less excavation and potentially cause less disturbance to the parcel. Overall, I think the application proposes to bring total lock clearing back into compliance, remove an existing unpermitted garden from within wetlands jurisdiction, and to install a new IIA sanitary system or looking for approval to add a 490 square foot addition over the footprint of the existing house. If I go to the standards and I ask myself under 2551 whether the preservation of natural resources under under one whether we're doing best for preservation of natural resources and that all structures have

047been uh and uses other than coastal structures shall be located up as far away. I think that this is not changing the sense of footprint where the house was. I think the addition of the IA system obviously is a benefit that under 255-5-40 specifically whether the house is compatible with the neighborhood. I don't believe that this particular uh second floor edition will be incompatible. it sits far enough from the road, it's fairly well screened. And if that it's not a large and overpowering amount of work for addition to the thing, whether the environmental protection has been watched out for and decay, I think that the uh natural characteristics of the the site and talking particularly about Peter's run here and the move the removal of the garden. The garden was of course illegal, so it's

048not mitigation, but the fact that it was going to be removed and that that is to be reveated down along Peters Run, the 234 ft is being put, a reveation in the most advantageous place to protect the environment. I think that was all a plus all in. I think that this is an application that is providing a net benefit environmentally. I think it rises to the standards of the NRP that we're looking for. I think Peter's run has been important to us on several other applications and I think there was a the applicant was cognizant of that and the proposal we have here and Mr. Chairman I'm willing to approve this application in its entirety. >> Thank you Terry. Um I am basically in agreement with my fellow board member. Um I'll restate some of

049the reasons. Joel Holly, you know, presented for the the application uh the two small seconds story decks. Uh say no new clearing would be needed for the project has already stated a 1496 square foot house will become 1994 with the additions. Um they are offering an IIA system and um they they are reveating to bring them into back into conformity for clearing. And just note there was a little garden next in in that area of the reveation which will be removed and Joel stated that that would be reveated also. It's a small garden. Um, uh, they did keep away from the wetlands pretty much and away from Peter's run, which was more running across through the the north westerly side of the property. And these additions are going on the north of in the center,

050but in on the easterly side of the house. Uh, there is a pool and they do have a cabana. It's not part of this project. I think they already have a permit for it. Um, but they did send the updated sanitary to uh include plumbing to go into the pool house that it says proposed Cambana on here, but there'll be a pool out and um it does meet the standards and does meet the NRSP standards as well as the uh variance standards. Um they did accept the all the conditions of approval. The only thing on there that might be outstanding I that a New York State DEC permit is needed or I guess a non-jurisdiction and I don't I don't recall if they've applied for that yet or gotten it but I am approving the

051application. >> Thank you Jean. >> Yes, thank you. Um the proposed increase of a second a partial second story at 498 square ft represents a 33% expansion um in the total GFA from 1,496 to 1,994 um and was uh discussed on the record. that new GFA um still remains 62% of the code that was in place um at the time that their application was deemed complete. Um it's not something we really take into account, but since Mr. Holly did mention it, it is also 75%, you know, below the maximum of the new code that's coming in. Um we know that I think that the TAM said that there are three different wetlands that impact this property. Um and so you know the lot is uh um con somewhat constrained especially of course noted is the

052um proximity to Peter's run. We've spoken about Peter's run several times before in applications and we know it's especially sensitive um and as the TAM says and of course this is something factored into my deliberation you know quote the value of protecting the area around Peter's Run to the water quality of Lake Montto cannot be understated. Um so the um there's no new clearing. There's a small revitation um and they're um that brings them back into compliance with um max clearing allowances. Um they were a little bit over um and as been said there's that little vegetable garden that will add a little more when they remove that I think to the the proposed reveation. We've got the sanitary upgrade. Um the I do believe that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the standards of

053um for the variances as well as the natural resources special permit. I'll just run through a couple of them quickly. Um the benefit to the applicant um outweighs any detriment um to uh to the neighborhood or the town as a whole. Um yes, I do I believe that is the case here. Um the area of variance is the minimum variance necessary. Um I do believe it is. I mean they're doing a partial second story over an existing house. Um and I think most of the house structure is is within um wetland variance jurisdiction. there's really not even a place they could put it on, you know, if they were to do a one-story ed or first floor addition um that could um improve or reduce the variance. So, I think that standards met. Um the

054grant of the variance uh will in my view not uh create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. I already talked about um the numbers. It's a small it's not even a full second, not even a half second story. Um, and we know no member of the public um, expressed any concerns. Um, again, I don't think the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other way. It's an extra bedroom. Um, again, can't imagine they could find another spot to do this. Um, and uh, the whether the variance is substantial. I it's just under 25%. So, I don't even really see this as a substantial particularly substantial um variance even with the constraint on the lots and um I don't think again because it's a second story um there's a little

055revge there's the offset of the one extra bedroom you know because of the new septic system so I don't see any adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood and for all those reasons without going through them again I do think that also makes um this meet the hurdles for the NRSP um standards as well. So, I am approving the application. >> Thank you. John, you have anything to add? >> I'm in agreement with my fellow board members. I think it's a a very well-considered application. I like the location very much of the uh uh IIA system. Um I believe it's a net environmental win for the town and I uh approve the application in its entirety. >> Thank you. I do too without anything to add else to add. Thank you. [Applause] >>

056Next we have Mark Goldstein and Katherine Borison at 724 Hans Creek Road in East Hampton SuffK map number 300-74-5-2. Size and location is 35,550 ft at 724 Hans Creek Road, lot 23, Hans Creek Harbor, file 513, 1966, map number 4629, East Hampton. And the description is to allow a stone wall to remain within minimum wetland setbacks and fence gate and slate walk to remain within the jurisdiction of a wetland. The relief sword is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code to and one variance is required for this application. A variance of 31.1 ft is needed to allow the stone wall to remain 68.9 ft from the wetland where 100 foot is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence zone flood zone and the secret class

057is type two. Um, and this was in my neighborhood my report. So, um, the hearing was, um, held on Octo on August 19th as well. The property is located at 724 Hs Creek Road who's represented by Alex Bald Balsam. Um, right off the bat, I find I find this uh to be a dimminimous request for a number of reasons. The the um the TAM the best way for me to to to go through this is by quoting the TAM here. The application is requesting to allow a 1.6 foot tall wall. It's 1.6 foot tall with a driveway that um that that's been in existence from the CFO from 1986. Um although the driveway does not have to meet wetland setbacks because it's it's a pvious driveway. The stone wall does need to u meet meet

058the setbacks. It is a structure in this case. Um if you look at the topo of the survey, the topo from the driveway dra drops drastically down towards the wetlands. Um I think this it's my opinion that the stone wall request is dimminimous, but even helping the runoff from the driveway to to run down the um the the grading towards the wetlands. The planning department's concern here was that water the water that is retained from the retaining wall traveling down the driveway be dealt with some drywalls. Um the applicant has agreed to hire an engineer and design drywalls and install dry wells. So I would like to make sure that's a condition of the um of the approval. Um, as far as the slate walkway and the fence, um, these have been in existence for

059some time. Um, and they are dimminimous. Um, and I would approve those as well. So overall I find that this application does meet the the standards uh NRSP and the variance standards um for approval with the condition that the uh wet that that the water be contained in drywalls at the bottom of the driveway. Ed, you want to go? >> Sure. Uh I'm going to agree with the chairman on this. I think that um when you visit the site, what takes you right away is that the severe drop off just beyond the driveway goes right down to the wetlands. Uh I realize that the wall went in without previous approvals. I think that there is uh very likely a net uh benefit of having the wall there by funneling that water down. Now, there's no

060benefit without the drywalls, but that was quickly approved uh by the applicant that he would be putting them in and it would be up to the standards of that was be provided by an engineer. so that we would get uh somewhere to take this excessive rain when they happen and shunt that water and keep it from just curling its way back down and possibly doing damage in filling wetlands and whatever. When I looked at it on the site, um the wall seems to me to be actually a fairly good idea. Now we had came in front of us and as you said as the chair said that driveway has existed for an ex a longer period of time and I think that overall um this is a small ask in relative to what we see

061on the site and what the potential there in the future was. I could imagine that that without that wall we'd see some erosion happening down towards the wetlands. It seems to me it's helping kiss rain it. I don't know if that's the right particular p perspective to have on it, but I think that the catch basins down at the bottom of the driveway with water being funneled to it is a net environmental b net environmental benefit. I'm going to approve this application. Thank you, J. Um yes I agree with both um the chairman and with uh member Johan so I won't belabor it but um you know say at 1 foot6 in I don't think there's any visual impact on anything don't see it as having um a negative environmental impact um I think there's

062a benefit to them having the wall as in not you know having guests plunge over the side of that very high um uh driveway. The driveway's been there. Um I also think the dimminimous, you know, dealing with the uh p the sort of stepping stone uh walkway and the fence. I don't see any environmental issues for that. I agree on the comments about the catch basins. Um and so all in I'm going to approve the application all in. It's only one element. Yes, >> I agree with everybody else on the same things. Um 1.6 foot wall of driveway that's been there since 1977 hasn't presented a real problem running down to the road. Um the application uh the the applicant rather uh has agreed to the catch basins for the driveway. Um the one thing

063I guess I'd like to add that there was a discussion there was that there's a pool permit that's still open. Can that be like condition that they check out why or >> if it's open I think the building wouldn't the building department make sure they close it out >> and said that we don't know why. Nobody knows why it's still open. >> Maybe that's what they're trying to do. Yeah, the open permit just didn't have to come before us is what I which my guess is right Tyler. >> I would imagine they can't get a CO until they get the other issues fixed which is why they're in front of you for the other issues. >> Yeah. >> So we just leave it as is. We don't say anything about >> Well, I think it

064would be the perview of the building department. >> Yeah. They'll have to when they go to they have to get a building permit for this stuff to get it all legalized and then that's going to be part of it. So they'll it'll get closed out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. But I agree with my fellow board members on the NRSP and the variance for the the wall. >> Thank you, John. >> I agree with my fellow board members. I I think the wall is actually I see it as a safety feature. Uh that's a very steep grade on the other side of the wall. I drove there and uh parked head in and I was sure glad that wall was there when I backed that. So, as long as there was a drainage system,

065I I approved this uh application its entirety. >> Thank you. Good council. >> Yep. All good. Thank you. Uh, next we have 53 TI Drive LLC, 53 Treasure Island Drive, Amiganza Test Math number 300-175-5- 36. Size and location is 8,000 square ft at 53 Treasure Island Drive, Beach Hampton section 4, block 6, locks 9 through 12, map number 1319 and Amigans. Description is to allow an existing shower shed approximately 112 ft of shelf slate patio approximately 833 square foot of decking LPG tanks fencing and AC units to remain within setbacks and jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands. The relief is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and eight variances are required for this application. Variances of 55.1 ft, 57.2 2 ft 43.5 ft 46.5 ft 45.8 ft 47 ft and

06646.7 ft are required from 25430 of the town code to construct a proposed LPG tank 44.9 ft fencing 42.8 ft AC units 56.5 ft outdoor shower 53.5 ft shed 54.2 2 ft slate patio 53 feet and decking 53.3 feet from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required. One variance of 7.5 ft is from 25511 of the town code is required to allow the existing LPT tank to remain 2.5 ft from the eastern rear yard lot line where a 10-ft setback is required and any other relief necessary. The res zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 10 secret classes type two Jane. Yes, thank you. Um, okay. So, this public hearing was held on August 19th. Uh, we know this is an 8,000 square foot lot. That's 60% under sized relative to the

067be residence minimum. Again, not um not in uh sorry, not different than most of the lots we see around Beach Hampton and on Treasure Island do drive. This lot, like many of the ones on the east side of Treasure Island Drive, are contiguous at the rear, too. Um, a very substantial and fragile swath of reserve uh um that includes uh extensive wetlands and and uh very nice dune land. Um the applicant was represented by Britain Bistrian. The house was constructed in 1958, a 458 square foot summer cottage, so it's very original. Um, it's in the family current ownership for 67 years. That little cottage was expanded somewhat over the years by closing at a 96 foot porch and I guess at some point a 380 foot addition, but it still remains a modest size house

068from a GFA perspective and is as I mentioned very authentic and reflects the historic character of Beach Hampton and Treasure Island Drive. Um although it is within 17% of building coverage max allowed. Um, as we learned as part of the public hearing process, none of the four building permits obtained between 1958 and 1962 were ever closed out. Um, according to the property history card, no CO has ever been issued um on the lot. Um so the purpose of this application is to secure a CEO um and as stated by the a applicant's agent um in order to facilitate a sale of the property by the current generation of family owners. Um Tyler Borsack um spoke on behalf of the planning department on this application. Tam July 10th 2025 was um reviewed. Um we're working off

069of a Sascus survey. The most recent one was dated May 14th 2024. Um, and just for the history buffs out there, there's an original 1960 um, I don't know if you call it a survey. It's sort of a plot of the house. Um, it goes way back. Um, and, uh, you can see the diff different configuration of the house. Um, there was one letter of support received into the record from a neighbor, Lyall Greenfeld. I think he's a neighbor. thought in the application it said he might have sold the house but nonetheless he has familiarity um with the property um and the au he talked about the authenticity of the property relative to the unique character of Treasure Island Drive. Um so and again the it in addition to the NRSP the applicant seeking eight

070variances seven of which are wetland setback variances you know all of which are um substantial the LPD the LPG tanks require two um variances one wetland setback and one rear lot line setback. I just also want to clarify the notice talks about uh uh fencing variance. The best I can tell is that fence is the fence around the LPG tanks, right? Okay. Just because we never really clarified that. Um, and then you know, obviously AC units, outdoor shower, shed, slate patio, and decking. So, I'm going to take the AC units, the outdoor shower, the shed, the slate, patio, decking collectively, and I'm going to approve the variances for um those elements. Um most of them appear to have been in place at least since 1984. Um the aerials seem to um uh say uh show

071that except for the slate patio which I think has been probably came uh later. Um I see the variances although the variances are substantial numerically um they again because they've been there um for so long um and also because again the back of that property is really all within that wetland jurisdiction. So um you know again the the the deck is small. It's a standard of pertinance um in this area. I don't see it as having an impact on neighbors or on um the environmental conditions. Um the slate patio that was uh um added, it it doesn't it doesn't extend further to the wetlands and the existing decking. It sort of kind of squares it off. It's not a particularly big um area. I think there's benefits to the applicant from having that um outdoor

072um outdoor space um as well as having the shed and the outdoor um shower. Um so all in um I don't I think the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment. Um they're long-standing existing. I think they they all meet the um uh the variance standards and the NRSP standards. With respect to the LPG tanks, this element requires the largest of the wetland setbacks in the application and I said also requires a very substantial lot line setback. Yes, I understand it's the set the rear setback is to the reserve. Um, but I don't necessarily see these meeting the standards and the balancing test because it appears clear in the survey that there are multiple other locations on the property to move these um and likely eliminate uh both both variances. The applicant's agent actually never

073really made a case of why they couldn't be relocated to a more conforming location. Um, and again, you know, kind of similar theme to what we talked about. um on staying sort of uh keep keeping to our our somewhat discipline about lot line setbacks. I not going to approve that in particular. So lastly, I just want to turn to the recommendation from the planning board that is mitigation. They recommended a 10-foot vegetative buffer should be established along the rear eastern property line. Um I I acknowledge also that Miss Bistrian characterized the idea of this mitigation as an overreach. However, I don't want to dismiss it. I want to hear what my fellow board members do have to say because um certainly could that buffer would be very beneficial, you know, given that there are structures

074no matter how long they've been there that are, you know, within, you know, close to those um wetlands and and duneland. But I also understand that it might I and I think there's a nexus to it. I just um don't not yet sure. I want to hear what everyone else has to say. Um if it quite um if if people also think that it's important to establish >> now for clarification that buffer would be where again >> I think Tyler well Tyler I think it was >> where the re edge is. I thought he wanted it relative to the >> parcel suggesting the rear. >> It's the rear the the eastern property line, right? That's what it says here. The entire rear of the par >> I think I think it was 10 a full

07510 foot buffer is being asked for along that whole 10 foot deep buffer along that eastern property line. Yeah. So I mean in principle I think it would be very beneficial and offset these variances but the you know these structures have most of these structures have been there you know for quite a while. So I'm going to want to hear and then also I don't know that it was said but I think there should be a dry well for the shower. >> Yeah, >> that's where I am. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I agree again with the mirroring. Um just some notes from from Tyler um that well the reserve area and the the variances are substantial um particularly the LPG tank and the fence around it are the largest um as well as the

076dimensional variance for that. Um Tyler did say as far as the everything was there for a long very long time. So they doesn't really feel that these have been impacted uh throughout the years. The slay patio estimated was uh probably put in around 2013. Um, and as far as the LPG, the planner also stated that there are other locations, alternative locations for those tanks and the fence around it. I guess um I I am going to approve all of the items except the LPG tank and the fencing around it. I deny that. Um, they can be moved elsewhere. And as far as the buffer, I think it would be nice. I the purpose of this whole thing is that they could sell the house. So if it could be buffered and then the house sold,

077I feel that might be better than leaving it as is and having somebody else come in and then do something. So um I am leaning toward that that 10 foot buffer also. >> Thank you, Ed. Yeah. Um I'm going to agree largely with what's been said. I have a few things I'm going to vary on. Um I think that the uh this is it was as as was explained by uh been mystery and this has been a long haul for them. They came in front of us uh or in front of the town. They went to the building department, got a list of things to improve, had to make a several different approvals and when they were all done and thought they were about to be awarded it, they were told they have to come

078in front of us for what are obvious reasons. Um, and so I think I have I have a certain amount of sympathy for that perspective. Uh, that they've been through a lot and they've tried to act in good faith along the way. Couple of key factors here though. It was mentioned by member Miring that this is a traditional house in a very much in character what was the old Beach Hampton look that whole partial small houses on small parcels. Now with uh you know this predates of course modern environmental zoning. Now every anything you do on that property would require some sort of approval by a ZBA. That's a it's a very these are properties all down in there that require help from us anytime any work gets done. I look at the number of

079things there that all extraneous to the house. They didn't come in front of us looking for redevelopment or to to to change the size of the house significantly in any way. We're not looking to add uh some second floor house to the house. We're not looking for an addition that would make it closer to wetlands. I think all these are positive in favor of what they've done. I'm I feel the same very same way about approving everything and asking questions about the LP tanks. My question is if you ask them to move, are we eliminating a variance? I think the answer is no. We can improve it. We can improve it slightly. I'm not sure that what we've asked for them to do uh if we make make the move it they can ever make

080this great of requiring a variance for the fence around that and I think that that's something that is a certain amount of hardship to them. Now they're in front of us looking for approvals on a good many things and we've asked what can they you know what can we have back. I think I specifically asked Britain Bistrian and she said we we think as was mentioned by member Mering that it's a bit of a reach for us to ask to have a buffer put in because that's an expense for people who have already gone through a great deal of expense. That may be the case, but nonetheless, I think that I'm someone I'm going to stand in this position and say that I'd be willing to approve the entire application and I think we should

081be asking for a buffer. I think it's uh something that's going to be passed on. Particularly, I know 67 years of ownership, but if the house were to be sold, I think we'd want to know we've done the best we can to protect it environmentally. So, I will approve this application with the condition that we do uh take the recommendation of the of the planners here and require a 10-ft buffer. >> Thank you, John. You want to attempt it or do you want me to? >> Uh, yeah, sure. Thank you. Um, yeah, I'm in agreement with bits and pieces of everything I've heard so far. Um, I do think the proximity to the wetlands of the shower uh would benefit greatly from a dry well. Um, and I would like to see the LPG tanks

082moved and I think a revitation in the rear. That's what we're talking about in the back. Um, would be a great idea. >> Are we talking uh Okay, that's a buffer. So, reveg buffer. >> That's what we're talking about. >> I believe the planning department said they wanted a vegetative buffer. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, and what makes us I've heard it mentioned that house is being sold. It was that did we hear that or this is being done to >> that was the narrative that was told to us. Yeah. >> Um, so I I think uh asking for these conditions now is a is a good is an opportune moment. So I I'll approve the application. I would like to see reveation and the LPG tanks moved in a dry well for the shower.

083Thank you. Um I don't I so when it comes I agree with the board members when it does come through the LPG tanks. I the TAM literally says this that the LP tank is also located approximately 2.5 ft from the eastern rear yard lot line a significant deviation from the required 10 ft. However, this is a relief request from a reserved area and the board may find that it meets the variance standard since there's no significantly directed impact neighbor or no trail system would be impacted by the structures. Um, and often times we look for that type of uniqueness where where there is a there is uh it's not really affecting a neighbor. So, I'm going to approve the LPG tanks um in their location. Um, regarding the um, buffer, I'm on the fence about

084the buffer, but I do will go along with my board. I think that um, it's a good idea, especially if the house is being sold. We do we do get to protect that over time. So, I will I will agree with my board members on that on the buffer as well. >> Good. >> Okay. >> So, what do we have here? We have >> how many on the LTB tanks? >> So, I have you and I. Um >> Ed's okay with him staying. You okay with him staying? And then everybody else I think >> relocate three to two on them. >> My question I don't remember were they buried tanks or I don't know >> u for the Okay. So So that means they got to move them to a conforming. They're not it's not

085approved. >> You wanted them moved. They did. Okay. Okay. So the tanks would the variance for the tanks would be denied. Correct. >> Right. >> And the fence around it. >> Um and then the vegetative buffer. That would be something that you'd want a covenant for. A covenant to keep a vegetative buffer. Is that what the >> Well, there is no vegetative buffer right now. So, >> right. Well, I understand it's a condition, but is a condition that will be covenanted and they'll file a covenant restriction at the county or is this just something that it's not a re we're not asking to revege because then a revge you could move it around theory, but if it if it's a vegetative buffer along the whole property line, >> that would be something that you want

086in perpetuity. Is that what we're saying? >> Well, if we were calling it now, whether it's covenanted or not, we would be approving it. would be requiring it in perpetuity. Would would we not? Um I think uh covenant is further protection over it. Would >> Well, I just I would say that it would it would be hard for I'm just speaking on my own experience working with the town and town's documentation. It's going to be difficult to know if you if you want this to protect all. Yes, it will be part of a approval, but that might just get lost in the shuffle 10 years from now, two years from now, two months from now. Otherwise, it shows up in a title report as a as a >> if I was if they are to

087sell it and somebody is to buy it, they'll know there's a I that's my legally I would say that makes more sense if that's something that the if you guys feel that for as long as this you know these the approvements are there that you know >> and I think we should >> we're asking for revitation aren't we? >> Well, that's it's >> I mean that's what the t >> we're asking them to establish as I understand it. or ask them to establish >> 10 foot reveation buffer. So is that mean you just want to revge and just do a rev and be done with it for 10 ft along the crop the back? >> No, I think you can covenant that too. I mean to protect it. Yeah. >> Or you just do I

088mean or there would be a scenic easement basically at that point. >> That's the other way to do it. But we didn't talk about that at the public hearing. I I have to >> um >> I think we want to protect that. It's going to stay there. >> I think the purposes of us doing it and the suggestion and the planning is to you know make sure that area is protected I guess in perpetuity. So >> okay. So um so that what do you think? >> So we should put a covenant on it. I think that if it's going to sell, that's one of the reasons we're looking at this. >> I think that's the purpose of of getting it now is to get it to get it cleaned up. >> Yep. >> Okay. >>

089Um and then would that be something that would be uh you would want to reve? >> Yeah. For the for the planning department to approve. >> And then and then there will be a drywall for the outdoor shower. That's the other >> outdoor shower requires a >> drywall. All right. Um, that can be done. Um, I think that's all I got. You good? >> Yep. >> All right. We go on to other decisions. We have under building permit certificate of occupancies we have descent 137 Edgeir street in Montalk sub task map number 300-28-4-2. Tyler, you want to walk us through this? >> Sure. Pull it up. That's okay. I just want to see what it said. This one was Brian's. Um, this was the original survey that was approved. Um, >> oh, sorry. >> Yeah.

090So, this was what this was the one that was approved. Um, it was originally approved back in 2017 uh for a 2,975 foot two-story residence, decking, swimming pool, and sanitary system. Uh, and the replacement of two floating docks with a new 4TX 10-ft fixed dock on a parcel land contained surface wetlands. The most significant part of this is um originally they wanted to make it 4 foot x 20 foot. The board said no, we wanted 4T x 10t and that was what was approved. What was constructed um is a 4ft x 20 foot dock. Um so that's that's the biggest issue that's that that's on this one. Um so our our our our suggestion is that the board say no, it needs to be cut back to 4 ft by 10 ft. Um, additionally on

091top of that, um, the building the the total coverage, um, is 703 ft over, um, we're not quite sure where that comes from, but it it it's it's over by a few hundred square feet. Um, and, uh, the Asel swimming pool is 1.5 ft closer. Not a significant issue. Um but again it was it was raised in in Brian's memo but he says minimally the dock should be reduced to the 4 foot by 10 foot dimension required um by the determination and depicted on an updated survey revised accordingly. >> And what does he say about the others? >> Not not much just that that there are discrepancies between what was approved and what was constructed in >> in what again you said in >> what's the discrepancy in what coverage? Building coverage. total coverage was

092703 square 703 ft larger uh and the swimming pool is one and a half ft closer but it appears to be the same as >> you know roughly the same as what was approved >> wetlands I think >> here's I have a copy of this here >> so >> larger than what was approved but doesn't >> okay so appears to be roughly the same as what the board approved we it does We weren't really able to identify where that total coverage came from, but it it appears to be roughly the same. >> So, in any case, if they if we're going to get if if if they want the 700 ft seems substantial I I don't know. It seems it seems substantial. Does that need to be a modification? >> It could certainly require one

093if you >> I mean, we've we've had modifications that require a lot less than that. Yeah. >> Yeah. A lot less than that. Especially like changes in the driveway. That would be one area where 700 square feet could come from. >> Well, I'd want to know. >> Was there a change in the driveway? >> I don't know. It I This one This This one was Brian's. Um, looking at it, it doesn't look significantly different than this. I mean, it's a little bit different right here up in this corner. >> I can't see where you're pointing. >> Yeah. Um, let me see if I can >> I mean, absolutely agree with the with the dock. >> Yeah, but 700 ft's got to be >> I don't know where that I think that needs to be defined

094or >> total coverage. Yeah. >> Um, >> is it It sounds like it'd be a much larger parking area here. It It might have changed a little bit up in this area. You can see that. >> Okay. If you come back to here, this looks like it just came in a little less steep. I I think that might be some of it by the looks of it. It's really hard to tell. >> Well, you think before we say that's okay or not okay, do you think we should have clarification on that? >> Yeah. Yes, >> I definitely want clarification and maybe do it as a modification. >> Maybe we able to get some clarification today. >> And I mean if it if it is if it is this driveway change and that's out of jurisdiction.

095So I you know >> but I I don't know if anybody disagrees with me but that dock is a no-go. >> Agreed. Absolutely. Um that gray area is what it was approved Tyler. >> This is what this is what geez this is what this is what as this is the asbuilt survey. And the approved was show >> approved is this >> blood. >> And you think and it it's in the driveway coverage. You think? >> We don't know. >> Just by looking at it, I can see it's slightly different. >> I know, but I think we should have we should have an enumeration a clarification of where it is and what it is. >> Yes. >> But 700 ft is significant. It's really a large number. >> I mean, the pool the pool is only

096quote only, but it's a 1.5 closer. I don't know if the pool got bigger. I don't know if that decking on the back >> got a little bigger. I don't know. But I I want to know. >> Similar. >> Yeah. Well, >> and I mean the setback change to the pool by one and a half ft. That's not a huge difference. That 700 feet certainly didn't come from that. >> It could be a combination of things. So yeah, I wanted I would like clarity >> and potentially still leave it open as a modification if we agree. >> Well, this was a sea of >> travel. Yeah, that could be that could be that's not >> and the jack is no go. >> But then there's that just ask Wbridge to do it. What's going on?

097>> Yeah, >> you can compare. >> Try and figure it out. Yeah, >> it's hard that other survey is hard to read. >> It is. >> And the other thing we need to know is that is does that uh increase affect any variances? Right. >> Sure. I mean, we're going to have to send it back to them for the doc. >> Yeah, we got we have to have clarification on We can tell them to let us know where the differences have come from and then tackle that at that point. >> Agreed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> We have an extension of time of one zac at 100 forest road malk self attack number 300-32.1-1-226 an extension of a 2019 determination. I kind of remember this but it's recent. >> Yeah. Yeah. We can have >>

098that was the one that the board uh gave them the okay to go for their building permit recently because they were had to wait for the sanitary system in Mont the Mong shores to uh to finish up. So that that's that's that application. We have a motion. >> I'm okay with the extension of time. >> A motion. >> Okay. In the matter of one's lack at 100 the Forest Road Monto tax map 300-32.1-1-226. Make a motion to approve the extension of time. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. Next, we have SHM Star Island Drive, Star Island LLC at 32 Star Island Road, Montalk Map number 300-6-4-9- uh 9, 10, and 16.1 extension of a two 2021 determination. >> Yeah, this one's pretty recent. It's it was for uh like they were replacing the swimming pool,

099the patio around the pool, uh a couple of other small changes to the building. It was it was pretty minor uh generally, but the pool was the bigger part of that one, but it's it's fairly recent. >> Yeah. We have a motion. I'll make a motion because this was mine, I think. uh in the matter of um SHM Star Island LLC 32 Star Island Road Montalk County Tax Map 300-6-4-9-10 and 16.1. I'd like to make a motion to approve the extension. Second time >> concur. Concur >> concur. Thank you. >> The draft minutes of Tuesday, August 19th, 2025. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, August 19th, 2025 for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. >> Now, I want

100um there's a very minor change. We approved the August 12th minutes and there's a minor change that I need to make on it, but Samantha had her baby, so I wasn't able to talk to anybody about that. So, I'm just letting you know. I'll talk to Yeah, I'll talk to Julie about it and we'll handle it next week. >> Fuzzy word fuzzy fuzzy word. Cuspy. >> Thank you. Move on to resolutions. We have Mendoza at 94 Cooper Lane, East Hampton, Suffet Test Map number 300-160-3-1. Um, council, this was a clarification, wasn't it? >> Yeah, I corrected um who actually voted on it because the alternate was on that one and I just mistakenly left him off of that. And then also uh when it was noticed, we didn't include the uh pool patio along with

101the pool. So now we're just including the patio as part of the approval as well. That's that's attached. It's between the house and the pool. So >> right. >> So can we have a motion? >> Yep. So that was mine. So >> yep. In the matter of Mendoza 94 Cooper Lane, East Hampton, Suffach County Tax Map 300-160-3-1. like to make a motion to approve the amendment to allow an existing pool uh pool patio with associate equipment to remain within minimum front yard setbacks. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Thank you. Next we have Savina Deamada at 41 Gardens Drive Amagat number 300-174-4-7. >> Um thank you. This was in uh my uh area. Can I just I had sent prior um to this meeting comments for some adjustments to uh to this. I didn't

102get any confirmation back. >> Were they made? Can you confirm they were made? >> I I didn't um this was one was handled by Frell Fritz. >> Right. I sent it. >> I don't I haven't seen anything recent. So if you'd rather not vote on it. Um >> is that okay? I'd like to just confirm that that those were made. I don't I don't I didn't do the work so I don't know if it was confirmed. I >> I mean time to table if next week we've >> Yeah, we can table it for next week. >> Okay. So that's I don't need a motion to do that, do I? No. Okay. >> Next we have I Ivan Jacome at 78 Hildrith Place in Springs of task number 300-96-5-1.6. >> That was mine. Um, so in

103the matter of Ivan Jacome 78 Hilddrth Place Spring, Suffet County Tax Map 300-96-5-1-6 rather. I'd like to make a motion to approve the determination to allow an existing pool to remain within a minimum front and sideyard setbacks. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Next we have Norman Henry Leathers Living Trust at four-wheel curl highway and springs of attachment number 300-94-6 17.2. >> Um I'll make that motion if you want. >> When did it come out? Did you see it? >> I didn't see that one today. >> I didn't see it. >> Norman Henry Leathers. >> When was that sent to us? >> You have it? >> Yeah. >> Um is that something we should Let me just table a table to next week. >> Yeah. >> So, we have a chance to read it.

104>> I don't I don't recall getting it. At least not the last time I looked. >> When did that get sent out? >> Um, I'll check. >> These agendas might have gotten confused. Wouldn't >> Did we already do this one? >> I I at first thought we already did this one. Yeah, me too. >> And I didn't see it come in today. >> Right. >> I didn't either. >> Yeah. >> Uh I sent it last on the 19th. >> You sent it what? >> I sent it to you on the 19th. >> Right. But did we >> the 19th >> Of August. >> Right. That was our last meeting. >> I sent it to you right before the meeting, so it probably wasn't done. And I said it would be on for this agenda in

105>> Oh. Okay. >> I thought we did it. Yeah. >> Yep. Share on the 19th. >> No, >> it was not. It was not agenda. >> In the minutes, you're saying? >> Yeah. In the minutes. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Well, >> so then I just >> if we got it >> just table it till next week then. >> Hold on. >> I guess I should I read it back then. See what happens when we're on break for >> my brain goes have no days off. >> Yeah. >> Um so this was a unanimous approval. Mhm. >> I'll read the description quickly and then I can I think I can make a motion. >> Yeah. Yep. >> If we got it back then, I would have read it. It was the purpose of the

106application was to construct a 317 foot addition, 225 foot detach workshop, >> 182 foot of additional decking, relocate an existing outdoor shower, walkways to upgrade to the sanitary system, allow an existing AC unit to remain and to remove an existing shed, walkways, root barrier. Oh, this is the root barrier. That's right. And the driveway within jurisdiction and setbacks of wetlands. Um so that it was all it was a unanimous approval. >> Do we have conditions? >> So with that I make Norman Henry Leathers Living Trust four-wheel curl highway springs suffic number 300-94-6-7.2 to approve the resolution as written. Got that John? >> I got that second. >> Concur concur. >> Pinker. Okay, next we have John Marino at 63 Bench and Drive at Monttok suffest map number 300-30-1-20. >> That one that one's definitely I

107didn't get that yet, right? >> That one also had some comments >> that too >> the Sorry, just go. >> What was that? >> I I received some comments today. I was in exact session with the town. >> We'll table that as well. >> Yeah, just table it. >> Okay. Yeah, there were some changes. Uh Joseph McCary and Kim Staller at 20 Bendigo Road. M again subtest map number 300-152-1- 11.3. I >> think I also had sent some comments on this one. I really specifically about I think there were people missing >> rech. >> Um >> no no it wasn't the revet. I just noticed that I think you had an incomplete list of people who are present at the public hearing. I can't remember what else I read. >> Well, I I did that.

108>> The only person that spoke was was Billy and HJ. There was other people sitting here. >> I know. But didn't didn't the builder get up and speak? No. Or the architect? No, he didn't. >> It was just Billy and Morgan, the architect, the attorney, the owners. They were sitting in there, but they didn't speak. >> I seem to remember one of them popping up. Okay, no worries. Um, so I'll make the motion. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. in the matter of Joseph McCari and Kim Staller 20 Bendigo Road and again sits up a county tax map 300-152-1-11.3 um we'll remember that this was a uh new construction on uh 11 plus acres of uh wetlands containing wetlands and and uh and uh beach vegetation um and this was a unanimous approval right >> um

109okay so I'd like to in do I have to say that again in matter of Joseph McCary and Kim Staler 20 Bendigo. I'm against sit county task 300-152-1-11.3. I make a motion to um accept the resolution as the determination is written. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. >> Concur. Next we have Sophia Borditki at 85 Oyster Shores Road in Eastampton, South Gas number 300- 92-2-43. If you remember, this was a relocation reconfiguring of a pool. Um, it was a unanimous um dec approval. Um, so therefore, I make a motion in Sophia Boritki, that's 85 Oyster Shores Road, East Hampton, South number 300-92-2-43 to approve the determination as written. >> Second, >> concur. >> All right. Thank you. John, being you're in the hot seat. Can you make a motion to uh adjurnn? >> I'd like to

110make a motion to adjourn the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals uh work session September 9th, 2025 at 8:07 p.m. >> Second. Pink cocker. Thank