East Hampton Town ZBA Regular Meeting 08/19/2025

001That's the web. >> All right. Good evening, East Hampton ZBA. We're uh live on channel 22. We're streaming to YouTube. Phone lines are open. This meeting is being recorded. You may begin. >> Thank you, Matt. Welcome to the town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for August 19th, 2025. Uh we have one cancelled public hearing this evening and that is Nette John's at 74 Surfside Avenue in Montalk Suff-51-4-12. That meeting has been cancelled. Uh so our first public hearing this evening uh is Robert McKinley at 239 Fairview Avenue in Montalk Suffk Map number 300-19-7-40.8 8. The size and location is 16,851 square feet at 239 Fairview Avenue, Montto Beach core subdivision number 7 filed May 6, 1927 as map number 1017 in Montalk. The description is to construct a 498 foot two seconds

002story addition and upgrade the sanitary system on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. The relief sword is 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 and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence is zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two council via proper affidavit of service and post. >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> Thank you. I think um Miss Mr. Johan. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh you see the posting here was properly posted. Next. Okay. I'm going to

003look uh both ways here on Fair View. Uh nice straight portion of the old racetrack we like to mention. Um next, please. Now I'm looking down in the uh in the north. It was the north. This is south direction. Same thing on the on Fair View. Next, this is a picture. I'm standing in the road and I'm looking up and it's important. We're going to get a couple more photos of it, but when I look at the house from here, the portion to the right is where they're talking about the second floor extension. We'll see that again in another photo. Next, I turned and I'm looking across the way. This is a wetlands that's there. This is part of Peter's Run as it comes out of the the golf course area. We're going to see

004a little more of that. It passes under the road at this point. Peter's Run's been in front of us for other cases. We'll take a look at it in another photo in a minute. Next, >> now I'm standing at the house now. Again, I did this again, you can see the roof line and going to be in question. It'll be discussed and presented by the by the applicant, but it's basically to the right side of the existing structure. Next walked around back behind this garden which by the way is not on the survey. This garden is Peter's run and you'll see that there's going to be lush vegetation running here. It's a continually running uh wetland that moves to all the way to Lake Mto. Next, uh I just stood back and again I'm looking

005down. You see the land is giving way. Peter's Run is there. There's a house a little bit to the left, the roof line. The Peters run runs between and behind houses as it works its way down to the lake. Next, u this just took one shot of the pool area because there was this reference in the the TAM and we did get an additional bit of information today about a future hookup between this building if it becomes a pool house and the new septic system. Next. Oh, this is standing now. I'm standing on the the south side of the lot and I'm looking the house is to my right. You can just catch a little glimpse of it there. But this the septic system is to go out here in front of the house and

006you'll see that on the survey out towards the road. Uh and so that area beyond that fence line and moving over to the northern property line is where the septic system is planned next. This is one last photo. There's a really sort of magnificent large red oak. I'm going to ask tonight whether or not that's going to be subject to removal for the septic, but it's probably near the edge of it. And that's all I have. Thank you. >> Thank you, Joel. Joel, do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Uh, good evening, Chairman Delane and board members. Joel Holly on behalf of Lighthouse Land Planning representing Robert McKinley, the owner of the subject property. Uh tonight my presentation uh will be short and

007sweet as it does not appear that the planning department had too many issues with the proposal. Um I did submit a revised sanitary plan which shows uh the cabana connected to the upgraded sanitary system uh so that it can be converted into pool house u if allowed. Um sorry for the delay in submitting that. Um the application before the board uh requires a mod modest 23 and 1/2 ft variance in order to construct a relatively small 498 foot second story addition to the existing residence with two small decks proposed off the addition two small second story decks proposed off the addition. Uh one on the back side of 43 square feet and the front terrace off the addition of 161 square feet. Uh the project will be located over the existing residence and the increase

008in lot and total lot coverage is negligible. There is no new clearing proposed and we agree to reveate the property to bring it in conformance with allowable clearing. Uh that area uh that you saw with the um the garden. Uh that will necess that will have to be removed and reveated. Uh that is obviously too close to the wetland. Um sorry I did not go back there and notice that. Um, I do believe he had a he did say he had a tomato garden on his property. Uh, so I'm guessing that's what that is. Uh, but he will have to get rid of that. Uh, the proposal before the board uh, should be more than mitigated with a proposed upgraded sanitary system. This is a small house of only 1,496 square ft. Uh, with the

009appro proposed addition, the house will still be under 2,000 ft at 1,994 square ft. This is only a 33% increase in the house size and well under the maximum allowable gross floor area for the old town code which we were grandfathered in and under the new and still under the new code of 7% plus 1500 square ft. The property owner is not asking for much and this will be added uh much needed space for the growing family uh with two young children both under five. Um I did recently submit a memo stating how the project complies with both the variance and natural resource special permit standards. Uh so I will not read these at these time at this time. Uh and thank you for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions if uh

010the board has any. >> Just to make it clear, you've already said it, but I want to make it clear that the the garden will be removed. >> Yeah, that would have Yeah, it would have to get a variance from the board to begin with. So yeah, that will have to be removed. >> Well, it wasn't noticed, but I just want to make sure you you're offering to remove it. Okay. >> And hopefully that would be a condition of the prior prior to the uh issuance of a building permit or prior to the issuance of a >> seal approval. Yeah. And what is any is there any plumbing in the cabana now? >> There is no plumbing in the cabana right now. Okay. No, actually the cabana has not been built. It still has a

011building a valid building permit, but it has not been built yet. >> Are they going to do that in conjunction with this if it's approved? >> Uh they would add plumbing to it. Yeah, exactly. I mean, they could build the the tomorrow for Yeah. But they if approved, they would add plumbing and have a bathroom. >> It's all part of a separate future application. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Just a tiny thing on the survey, Joe, because it says it still says proposed pool on the survey. So, >> it's it's it's constructed. Unfortunately, we have an open building permit for >> the cabana, >> right? >> And the town does not allow you to close out one building permit while you still have an open building permit. So, everything on the survey is still technically proposed

012because it's but it's there. >> Yeah. I just want to ultimately I guess we want it as built, right? And unfortunately, I believe that tree will have to go for the sanitary system. And unfortunately, I would have gone for a sanitary upgrade in the future as well. >> May actually be off the property, but it's still close enough. >> Yeah, exactly. And we tried, we tried to design a deep well system or sorry, a deep system. Uh, but to get to clean sand and excavation, you know, it would have been just too much excavation involved with that. So, >> do your best. >> And that would have gotten rid of the tree as well, too. But if it's off the property, >> I don't believe I do believe the tree is on the property. I'm

013not sure. It was hard to tell standing there if it's on or off because I couldn't. >> If it's off the property, can't think >> if it's off the property, then should be fine. >> I don't believe I wish. >> Any other question? No. >> No. >> Um I I guess could you just um respond in the TAM? It talks about the uh size of the leeching structures in the field. Um do you have any was there any other alternative that >> Oh yeah. Um I I did submit there is a memo submit to that from the engineer. >> Um and we did um the the excavation involved with the with a with a deep system would be probably more intrusive >> than you know the shallow system >> but the engineer did address that

014in the middle. >> Thank you. Thank you Joel. Hey, Sarah. >> Good evening, board. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. >> Sarah, do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. So, I think Joel already covered a lot. Um, the subject residence is situated on the north side of Fairview Avenue in Montalk and is a bzzoned residence. Um, originally constructed in 1978. The original home pre-exists wetland setback requirements with the most recent CO being issued in 2016 for a one-story one family residence with four bedrooms, a garage, shed, deck, and roof mounted solar electric system. Um, came into the possession of the current owners in 2017. Um, it did appear before the board previously in 2023 for an NRSP for the construction

015of a 200q ft swimming pool, pool equipment, fencing, and a patio within 150 ft of freshwater wetlands. Um, these have since been constructed, and as Joel said, there's still an open building permit. Um, there are three wetlands associated with the subject property, which are part of a drainage system known as Peter's Run, a water course that runs from the golf course directly to the west end of Lake Monttoque. These are um directly impacted by any uphill development. Um and the board should consider that improvements to this parcel can have impacts that extend well beyond the property lines. Um should also be noted that these wetlands are associated with um New York State DEC regulated wetlands and would likely require an article 24 freshwater wetland permit. Um other than that, I think Joel covered mostly everything.

016Um, obviously the planning department supports upgrading the sanitary system with the proposed additional bedroom. Um, and it appears to be in the most conforming location. Um, but I'm here for any questions. >> Any questions? >> I don't not have any. >> The only thing is about the garden. So, the garden will they'll submit some sort of reveation plan which you'll approve. >> Yeah. Noted. Um, and I did also >> approve >> and I did want to mention as well that that tree in the driveway that we spoke about earlier. Um, it looks like it's um it will remain according to the sanitary plans. So, I can show that as well. I have it up. >> Okay. >> If we're interested for the oaks, >> thank you Sarah. Anybody in the audience in the public like

017to address anybody online? Matt, >> we have no callers on the phone line. Okay, thank you. Um, is that can we have a motion? Yes. Then in the application of Robert McKinley 239 Fairview Avenue, Montalk Sa County Tax Map 300-9-7-40.8, I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record at this time. >> Second. Concur. >> Concur. Thank you. [Music] Next we have Mark Goldstein and Katherine Borison at 724 H Creek Road in East Hampton Suffet test map number 300-74-5-2. The size and location is 35,3 550 ft at 724 Hans Creek Road, lots 23, Hans Creek Harbor, file 5131 1966, map number 4629 in East Hampton. The description is to allow stone wall to remain within minimum wetland setbacks, a fence, gate, and slatewalk to remain within the jurisdiction of

018a wetland. Relief saw is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the town code and one variance is required for this application. A variance of 31.1 ft is needed to allow a 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 X flood zone. The secret class is type two. Council, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Thank you. Um, I did the report on this and you can see uh that the property was properly posted. Next, this is a photo taking looking up to the driveway. This is a

019hilly lot uh hilly area. So, we'll be walking up into that driveway to see the stone wall. Next, that's a stone wall um right in front of us and the property drops off pretty pretty severely beyond that stone wall. Next, then another you can see this you can see the grade difference here. Um, next. So, this is uh this is looking into the uh the gate that is requested in the and the slate walkway. Next. And looking back uh to the fencing gate in question. That's it. We have the agent. How are you, Alex? >> Good, thank you. >> Hey, everybody. Uh, Alex Balsam, Balsson, Schmid, and Hubert. Uh, I, uh, I'm here tonight um with, uh, with Mark Goldstein and Kathy Borison, the owners. Um, the house, as you know, was built in 1977.

020Mark purchased the house in 2008, and in 2011, Kathy was added to the title. So, um, as you said, we need we need a 31 ft variance to allow the 1.6 ft tall stone wall to remain in place around the perimeter of the driveway. And we have the minor structures that are within the NRSP jurisdiction that were added since the original house was built. And um those minor structures are the uh wooden curb around part of the driveway, some wooden fencing and and the slate walks. So the the granting of the variance for the stone wall will not uh cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. It's not going to create a detriment to nearby properties. It's a minor structure. uh may even have a net environmental benefit given the location of

021the original pre-existing driveway. This walls likely keeping the driveway intact. It's going to stop stones and or has been stopping stones and and whatnot from eroding down the hill towards the creek. Uh kind of keeps everything together. The benefits of the homeowner can't be reasonably achieved by another method. We think the walls desirable, perhaps necessary and beneficial and and adds a degree of safety to anyone operating a vehicle in the driveway. Obviously, Roy, as you said, it goes down pretty steeply beyond the other side of the wall. Uh, and at 1.6t tall, we think that the existing walls of minimal design and obviously we can't have this wall without the variance. The variance we say is not substantial because we're talking about a modest one 1.6 foot tall wall. Um, it's we're not going to

022have a adverse impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Um to that point, the planning department's memo said that uh we would not reasonably expect substantial environmental impacts from from from the structures here. Um and was it difficulty self-created? Perhaps perhaps not. The um the driveway was there since the house was constructed in 77. We have as the current owners obviously had no say in in the driveway location. We but we feel the wall is necessary and desirable. Um, and if you do disagree with me and feel that the difficulty was self-created, as you know, that's not determinative and you can still grant us the variance. Um, for the the wooden curb and and the wooden fence and the slate walk that are within the NRSP jurisdiction, these are again minor structures that

023we're seeking approval for. Uh, we think they're as upland as can feasibly be possible given the location of the house. Obviously, they're accessory to the house. um they're of and and again they're of minimal size in nature that we're not going to have an undue disturbance uh to any the nearby important natural features or the or the groundwater. And um being that both us as the applicant and the planning department in their TAM um you know don't anticipate any substantial environmental impacts from the structures that we're requesting the leaf for. We think that uh any alternate designs or locations would not have a definable impact. So that's our our case. >> Any questions? >> Yeah. Do you want to comment on the recommendation in the TAM for catch basins at the base of the driveway?

024>> Yes, we we we'd be happy to comply with that. Um hire a local engineer and submit something to the to the town. >> Any other questions? >> Um no. Thank you. Thanks, Morgan. How are you, Morgan? >> Good evening, board. Morgan Slater for the planning department. >> You swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> So, the application is to keep a stone wall and some minor structures within wetland jurisdiction, including a fence, gate, and slate walk. The stone wall requires a setback variance from the wetlands to the north that are associated with Hance Creek, which is a tributary to Three-Mile Harbor. These specific wetlands are influenced by freshwater runoff from the surrounding area and the tidal flushing that is associated

025with three mile harbor. The Hance Creek wetlands have been designated as a New York State significant fish and coastal wildlife habitat, a component of the piconic estuary critical environmental area and have been designated as a prime wildlife area by the DEEC. The lot is also within the harbor protection overlay district. The driveway orientation does not seem to have changed since the early 80s when referencing historic aerials. It's difficult to determine when the stone wall was built. Um, and that and the wall seems to function more as a barrier for the parking area rather than a retaining wall since it doesn't seem to be holding back any soils or significantly altering the grade. The planning department does not anticipate any substantial environmental impacts from the structures requesting relief, but since the property contains some steep slopes,

026we recommend that the catchment basin that catchment basins be installed to mitigate the driveway runoff. And I can answer any questions that the board may have. Um just a small thing. The survey the TAM says this is in H pod and the survey says it's in water recharge overlay. Is it both or >> um it would be H pod not water recharge. >> That should be correct. >> Any other questions? Do >> you have a particular feel for where these catchment basement should go? >> I'll leave that up to the engineer I think to design it based on 2 in rainfall. >> And then if I may ask I don't know this is inner jurisdiction so but it's in the TAM. So you have this building permit for a pool that remains open, but there's

027obviously a pool on the survey. >> I believe they probably just weren't able to get the most recent CO on the property from ' 86. So there was a building permit issued after that. >> This said 2000. I don't know when it was >> the CO the most recent CO. >> No, no, sorry. It says building permit for swimming pool was issued in 2000 and remains open, but clearly there's a swimming pool on the survey. Yeah, I I don't know if maybe the prior owner attempted to get a CO and couldn't because of the wall, you know, the CO um requirement for purchases is relatively new, so I can't speak to why that is still open. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> No. Thank you, Morgan. Is there anybody else in the public would

028like to address this application? Are they online? Matt, >> stand by. There is. All right, this is Matthew again. I'm just uh responding through the phone line just to let the public know that the phone is open and it's working properly. >> Thank you fans. Um, with that, I'll make a motion in applicant of Mark Goldstein and Katherine Borison at 724 Hans Creek Road, East Hampton, SuffK Map number 300-74-5-2 to close the public hearing in the record. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. Sorry. >> Thank you. So, next we have 53 Tide Drive LLC. TI or Treasure Drive Treasure TI TI Drive. We'll call it TI LLC at 53 Treasure Island Drive. Amigans suffic number 300-175-5-36. Size and location is 8,000 square feet of 53 Treasure Island Drive in Beach Hampton section number four, block six,

029lots 9 through 212, map number 1319 in Amagan. description is to allow an existing shower shed approximately 112 ft slate patio approximately 833 square foot of decking uh LPG tanks fencing and AC unit remain within setbacks and jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands relief sers and natural resources per special permit for two into 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 46.7 ft are required from 255430 of the town to construct a proposed LPG tanks 44.9 ft fencing 42.8 ft AC units 56.5 ft out shower shed 54.2 2 ft slate patio 53 ft and decking 53.3 ft from freshwater wetlands where 100 foot setbacks are required. One variance is 7.5 ft from 25511 of the

030town code is required to allow the existing LPG tank to remain 2.5 ft from east and rear yard lot where 10ft setback is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence 8 in flood zone. Elevation is 10 and the secret class is type two. Council, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> Hey, we have a report. >> Yes, we do. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Um, I'm standing on Treasure Island Drive looking at the property. Um, this is there's two dry sort of two driveways on this property. This is the one to the south. The posting is there. Um, and I just tried to

031get a little bit of a shot of the front. It's pretty heavily vegetated. You can't even see the house from the road. I didn't take a shot of the road, but I think we're all familiar with this is a narrow um lane in Beach Hampton. Next slide. Thank you. I just took a closer shot of the um uh posting. It looked to be in order. Next slide. Great. I've gone up that driveway that we were just looking at and making the turn towards the house. Um, it's a one-story house. Um, and I'm going to just wrap around the back and tried to get shots of all the elements that are noticed. Next slide. So, I just also wanted to show the deck is you can see the edge of the deck, but I just wanted

032to get a shot of, you know, it's it's uh cleared. Um, it's grass. It's not doesn't really look like a lawn. And then really right to the back of that you do doesn't show up great in the pictures but you do see a more naturalized um view. It's probably off the property but leading towards the uh reserve towards the back and seems to be mostly undisturbed. Next slide. Same thing. This is also just the house is behind me. The deck's behind me and sort of the border between the grass and as you get into the more natural vegetation. Next slide. Okay. Now I've just turned around. and I have all that vegetation to my back. This is the uh rear facade of the house. That is really the main and only usable decking on the

033property. There's deck that runs around the house, but it's mostly walkway. So, I just wanted to show you that. And then off to the side, you can see there's that little stone patio down the steps. Next slide. I just took the view to the other side of the house. There's a clearer view of that um slate patio. Um, and I'll get closer, but you can see the shower towards the right part of that photo. Next slide. That's a closer look. That's the shed shower and that um fence there. Inside of that are the LPG tanks and then you can see the northern property line and there's um a fairly sizable house that's been there for a while um as the next door neighbor. Next slide. Um okay, now I'm just going wrapping around. There's the

034AC unit. Um, it's close up against the house and there's the the north decking that's going to run back to that other driveway. Next slide. Um, so now I'm in that other uh the more northern driveway again. Just a shot. Now you can sort of see the front facade of the house um which is screened uh heavily from the road. That might be it. Is that it? Oh, okay. Sorry. I This is a shot of the neighbor across the road just to get a little sense of character. Um, anything else? Oh, and that again that's just the front of the house. No, all the screening from the front and the vegetation. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> How are you, Britain? >> Good evening. >> Mr. >> Britain, do you swear affirm to tell the

035truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Chairman Dean, members of the board. I'm Britain representing 53 TI Drive LLC. That's the owner of the property that you just saw on at 53 Treasure Island Drive. I'm sorry. Did we go over the posting? >> Yeah. >> Oh, we did. Okay. Make sure I got that technicality. Um in the Beach Hampton section of Amigantit. Uh the parcel is cited on the east side of Treasure Island Drive about equidistant between Bluff Road and the Atlantic Ocean. This parcel is part of a large uh 1940 subdivision. The house was originally constructed in 1958. Subsequent building permits were pulled in 1960, 1961, and 1962. They were all very small. As you can see, the house is not large. Um,

036with those three permits, there were porches. One enclosed a porch and the other one was a minor 380 ft addition. None of these permits were ever closed. The original construction of the house or any of those three I just listed, and no CO has ever existed on the parcel. This property has been in generations of the same family's ownership for 67 years. It was not until they were considering a sale that they found out that there was no these are now the grandchildren with no CO and open permits from the 1960s. In June of 2023, they went to the building department and received a list of items that they would need to obtain a CO. They started working on that list immediately. They obtained an electrician. They had trained a plumber and a surveyor to

037upgrade and certify the utility systems and document what was on the parcel. At no time in this correspondence with the building department was the ZBA approval ever mentioned. It took them time to coordinate the work that had to be done to obtain an underwriter certificate for the electric specifically. The house had been wired in the 1960s and it has never been renovated. So you can imagine there was wiring, smoke detectors, things like that that didn't exist 60 some odd years ago. They finally submitted their laundry list of items to close the permits in March of 2024 to the building department. And when following up on the issuance of their CO, they were told that they could not get a CO because the shed, the outdoor shower, the propane tanks, the small patio area, and the

038stoop deck editions were not included in the 1960s permits. So, they had been working for about 10 months to get the CO and then they were told they had to come to the zoning board. At this point, um, in March of 2025, I was engaged to assist them as they felt like it had be gone beyond their capabilities. They they they felt like they were navigating a system that wasn't ending in a CO. They already couldn't list the house for sale. They had, you know, problems. I was hired to close the open permits and obtain a CO. It was very difficult from the scarce building department records the 1950s and60s. They were effectively plot plans. I'm sure you've all seen them. the building permit application where the actual plan for the house is just a

039couple boxes on the on the third page of the application. There is no construction documents for the original house. I'm sure that they built a deck or a stoop to get into the house. There's exterior entrances as you saw and you couldn't just you wouldn't just step up from grade into them. Um I'm also sure there was fuel tanks because the house was heated. We then were then told that the items couldn't be legalized with a building permit and an application would have to go to the ZBA. Sorry. I went back to the building department and said, "Hey, you you gave them this list and we've satisfied the list and are you sure these things can't be found in the file?" And then I started looking through all pulling all the foils. And um as

040an end result, they said, "No, you have to go to the zoning board." I had to break to the family that I wouldn't be able to get their CO that they thought they could get through the building department and they wouldn't be able to sell their house anytime soon since an updated CO is a requirement of sale. So, I filed this ZBA application in April of 2024. It's been a year and four months to get to tonight since I filed the zoning board. I only highlight this because I think we have to have a better system for applications such as this where the majority of these minor accessory items have been in place for over 50 years, decades before the modern zoning code in 1984. I'm here tonight asking the board to approve a laundry

041list of small items that almost have no impact on the neighborhood since it probably be predates most of the neighbors. There was no letters submitted in opposition to my knowledge and a longtime resident of Treasure Island who who this board has seen many times submitted one in support of legalizing this property. We're not asking to build anything just legalize the existing conditions and obtain a CO. They've had a very very rough and expensive road to execute something that should have been much simpler. We're here seeking approval for these necessary minor exterior structures to obtain the CO and close this long duration of a chapter. I don't really have much more to add than that. just thought the history was pretty critical. >> Any questions? There was a recommendation in the TAM about possible mitigation with

042additional plantings. >> I think that's a little overreaching. We're not asking to build anything. These structures, I think most of the structures have been there since the 1950s. I I think the hardship that these people have had to mitigate in getting directives from a department of a building department that cost them to spend a ton of money that then sent them to the zoning board. I don't know if mitigation for something that we're not building, you know, for them to spend another $50,000 to plant their backyard. I I I just don't see it. If the board necessitates it, I will begrudgingly accept it. But I I think we should take into consideration and I have all the I believe I submitted them in the zoning board application, but I have all the building department emails

043with Joe Polarmo and everything saying these are the five things you need to submit to and get an inspection. We'll give you a CO three years ago, two years ago. >> Any other questions? >> I don't have any. >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Tyler. >> Good evening. Tyler Borsack for the planning department. Do you swear current to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Um, so the subject property is situated on the east side of Treasure Island Drive and I'm against it. The project the project before the ZBA is a request to legalize several structures which have been constru constructed on the property since the late 1950s when the home was first constructed. Uh, many of these structures proposed to remain appear to have

044been in existence since at least 1984 aerial images uh with the stone patio constructed more recently uh and appearing in the 2013 aerial images. A parcel is in the beach hampton area of Amigadit. Beach Hampton is has low elevations in a high groundwater table and is set within the double dunes natural area of East Hampton. The subject property has been cleared of native duneland vegetation likely since it was first developed. Aerial images from 2001 appear to show the same existing conditions that are in place today with nearly no native habitat, significant lawn area and landscaping. The wetlands within jurisdiction exist to the north and east of the parcel and extend well beyond the jurisdictional limits of the parcel. These wetlands consist of a dune land depression which collect rainwater and runoff from surrounding parcels and

045are within the gans the dune property owners association reserved area. This reserved area was established as a buffer to surrounding development to help preserve uh the dune land characteristics of the area and protect the significant wetlands which ex exist throughout the reserved area. The applicant is application is looking to permit several structures which have existed on the property for over a decade, many of which have been existence for nearly 40 years. While the variance requests are substantial, the existing conditions on the property being unchanged for so long and also being minimal improvements may meet the NRSP and variance standards uh with appropriate mitigation. The decking, small area fencing around the propane tanks, the uh the tanks themselves, and the shower are all visible on the 2001 aerial images and are like and likely predate that

046by a significant margin. The existing slate patio is more recent, first appearing in the 2013 aerial image. Uh it's a small this is a small area and is similar to the decking uh that that surrounds it uh and which is also seeking relief. The AC unit on the north side of the residence is not able to be narrowed down with aerial imagery, but is close to the existing structures and would not have significant impacts on wetlands. The LPG tank is located approximately only 2 and 1/2 ft from the eastern rear yard lot line, a significant deviation from the required 10 ft. However, this is really from a reserved area and as such there are no significantly directed uh uh impacted uh direct neighbors. There certainly are reasonable alternative locations that the LPJ LPG tanks could

047be shifted to in order to meet the rear yard setback and the applicant should show how they meet the standards given that the structures have been in existence for such a lengthy period of time, their minimal sizes and the mitigate the limited improvements on the parcel. In general, uh the board may feel that relief is warranted. The board should disco discuss what appropriate mitigation would be to allow the structures to remain if approved. degree vegetation to the rear of the parcel would be the most beneficial to wet to the wetlands within jurisdiction. Both establishing a buffer to help reduce impacts from runoff from the existing structures and al also establish some level of native dune land vegetation on the property which has long been cleared of vegetation. A 10-ft reveation buffer along the rear of

048the parcel would provide benefits to the wetlands and character of the neighborhood while also still allowing for reasonable use of the rear of the parcel. Um, other than that, I can answer any questions you might have. Is it uh reasonable to suspect that most of these improvements that we have in front of us tonight for relief pre-existed u current environmental standards? >> Possibly. It's hard to tell based on that. The 1984 I can pull up the 84 aerial. It's not very easy to see what's going on in those older aerials. They don't have great resolution in I mean in 2021 2001 which is the earliest good aerials. You can clearly see that everything except for the patio existed at that point in time. It's I think it's reasonable to assume that a lot of it

049existed. It's a very small deck. I imagined it probably was there in 1984. It could have been there in 1984 based on the area. I just I can't say for certain it is or is not. >> All right. >> Any other questions? >> Good. >> Thank you, Tyler. >> Is there anybody in the public like to address this application? Matt, is there anybody on the phone? >> We have no callers on the line. >> Thank you. Can we have a motion? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. In the matter of 53 TI Drive, LLC, 53 Treasure Island Drive, I'm against it. Suffach County Tax Map 300-175-5-36. I make a motion to close the public hearing and the record. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. You [Applause] Next we have Stephen Michaelelsson and Judy Kapano Michaelelsson

050at two field lane in East Hampton subass map number 300-159-1-18.31. The size and location is 40,560 ft of two field field view lane. the fields at East Hampton lot 31 map number 6459 in East Hampton. The description is to construct a 7,871 square foot tennis court within sideyard lot line setbacks. The relief s is one variance of 32.5 ft from 2551110 and 2551188 of the town code is required to construct a proposed tennis court 17.5 ft from the eastern sideyard lot line where 50oot setback is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is a resident zone x flood zone in a secret classes type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yep. I reviewed the affidavit of notice and posting and everything seems to be in order and

051the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> Okay, you can fast forward this. This photo doesn't apply. There you go. This is a posting on Robert's lane that's properly posted. This is an empty lot. I'm going to show you. This is uh going down Fair View. Um Field View, right? Field view. Um uh again looking at the lot it's uh it's uh undeveloped. Next this is the posting on field view. And again just looking at at the lot the house uh the house next door. I had a photo previous it's it's it's you can hardly see it anyway but still it looks like this lot to do the tennis court. a lot of it will be additionally cleared. So I think that's it. Thomas, >> how you Thomas? >> How are you? >> Good. >>

052Thomas Crouch from Whan Filer PLC for the applicants uh Steve and Judy Michaelelsson. Um it's pretty simple application. Uh the applicants would like to build a tennis court on the vacant lot adjacent to their property. They have a house at four field view which is directly it's lot 30 labeled on the survey. Um they've lived out here for 30 years and their plan is to pass down both properties to their uh children who are all in their 20s. Uh it's a single variance for a tennis court on a vacant property. The applicants, as I said, own the adjacent property and the single variance is from their own sideyard setback. Uh the application meets zoning in every other respect. The applicants have proposed screening and sinking in the tennis court to limit the impact on the

053neighborhood. Uh as mentioned in the TAM, they're they're agreeable to amending the screening plan if the board would like. And just to be clear, per the Department of Natural Resources, uh the property is pre-existing non-conforming fully cleared. Um, in response to the TAM, I put in a letter last week addressing the similarities between this application and the nine prior uh, tennis court applications that Mr. Borzac mentioned. Uh, just briefly, the board has only seen one similar application, 225 Old Monttok Highway LLC, uh, in which the applicant owned the both owned the adjacent property and the single variance was from the common lot line between them. Uh if you review the board's determination which I submitted with my letter, the board discussed the unique circumstances of that application which apply here. Quote, "The board notes that

054while it is unusual for the zoning board to grant set, excuse me, grant yard setback variances, this particular application presents unique circumstances. Notably, the principal of the applicant corporation is also the principal of 221 Old Mont Highway LLC, which is the adjoining party to the west and the party most affected by the grant of the requested variance. Essentially, the applicant seeks a sideyard variance from itself. Uh, that fact is really important here. So, stress it several times. Uh the fact that the applicants are the themselves the most infected neighbors and that the town code requires them to hold both properties in common ownership distinguishes this application from really every other tennis court application except for 225 Montalk Highway. Further, the lot size and shape are similar to prior applications. This board has granted relief for

055tennis courts. Uh as you said, the lot is 40,650 ft. Uh, this board has granted variances to allow tennis courts on lots that are uh 40,195 square feet in the case of old uh 68 Prospect Hill LLC and 44,784 ft in case of Old Mont Highway LLC. Um, the TAM mentioned that the lot is only 169 ft wide. Um, the board has granted variances for tennis courts on lots that were 150 feet wide, 160 feet wide, and 169 feet wide. Um, and I know there were a number of comments submitted from neighbors. Uh, I believe most of them were positive. Uh, I got forwarded one from the neighbor at 31 Roberts Lane. And, um, just wanted to address their concerns quickly. Um, he said there were really three concerns he had. First was a covenant

056that I submitted with the application that said that no building or structure of any kind whatsoever except a one family dwelling and private garage shall be erected on a lot. Um you know that uh covenant you know would require the removal of swimming pools. There are as as I counted there were 25 swimming pools on the 33 lots in the subdivision. So, I I don't really think and also it's a private covenant, so I don't really think it's uh within the zoning board's jurisdiction regardless. Um the second, you know, my client sent out a letter to his neighbors, you know, describing the application, giving them notice, and um said that, you know, his neighbors could use the court. Um I think he had concerns that the court would be considered a community, you know, feature.

057I I my client does not want it to be a community feature. He mentioned in the letter that it was specifically for his family. Um, but you know, he probably will invite some other people to play and that includes his neighbors. Um, I I think they're that's perfectly within their right to do so. And then, um, he had concerns about the the court being used for pickle ball and basketball. Uh, clients are avid tennis players. They do not play pickle ball. Um, you know, so I I don't think that there would be any concern of that. um they're, you know, agreeable to conditions about time of play. They they uh don't plan on installing lights. They don't play before 9:00 a.m. So, uh anyway, I'm happy to take questions from the board if you have

058any. >> So, and from our standpoint, it's still a large variance, right? So um you you can address it and from also from our standpoint we have to look at alternate um locations, alternate things. Have you pursued any of those ideas? Yeah, I mean as far as alternate location, um, so I had a conversation with Joe Polmo before we submitted because it's this is kind of a long story, but basically 68 Prospect Hill in 2017 uh uh building inspector Ann Glennon issued a determination that the the court did not have to meet a double front yard setback uh in that application, which meant that on that application, the court was only 66 ft from the from the road where it would normally have to be 100 feet. So on this taken you know applied to

059this application it would create a conforming envelope in this direction. However when I met with Joe we looked at the code and we looked at that determination and his feeling was that determination ignored the plain language of the code which said that you have to double setbacks for playing courts. Uh so you know his recommendation at the time was to you know file the zoning board file for a variance because he didn't he would not grant a building permit based on he felt you know he felt the opposite way about that. So you know that to me is the only other you know avenue like the only other possible configuration. Um you know this one I mean I I I agree that it's a 65% variance. I know that's considered significant, but I think you

060have to look at the full circumstances around it. And it's it's a unique situation. I mean, I don't know there's not very many situations where the the variance is from the common lot line that the applicant also owns and is required to hold in common ownership if he builds a tennis court. on the uh common ownership part of the code here too. It also requires that in the future if owner sells that you must be able to put a primary structure, >> right? >> So it fit a primary structure and I mean looking at it looks like it does. Now if you were to rotate it, would you be able to do it? And maybe it might cut that off. I don't know. It seems like >> Yeah. I mean, I think we when we

061talked about just the the idea of that 2017 determination and I believe we discussed that with Joe and I I didn't plot like if you flipped it this way. I didn't we didn't get to the point of plotting a a residence because he wasn't going to agree with the determination. But I mean I think it fit I you know it would be kind of a you know this kind of size house. So, um, yeah, I mean that's those are the two alternatives. I I mean I I looking at 68 Prospect Hill like just personally like I I I think I'm kind of I'm kind of shocked that that got got approved and built, but you know that's um it was only six you know it didn't meet it was only 66 feet from the road.

062So it it kind of it probably needed two variances, but you know it was only one that they needed to get. >> Is there any other questions? >> Yeah, I I have a couple. Um so first of all, I think you said that of the list >> um of the other tennis court variances. You said I think only one in your view was relevant to 25 old Montalk Highway. Um, I wasn't on the board at the time, but if I remember, I think this is 133 SP LLC. Um, that's the SER's path one where the board denied three variances and I might be wrong, but I if I remember correctly, the lots were in common ownership and the variances were at least some of them were to the common ownership property. So, why is that

063not >> Yeah. >> So, when I I submitted a letter last week that actually discussed four applications, that was one of them. I just 225 Old Mont Highway is the most relevant in my view, but yes, that was there two lots in common ownership, right? Um, you know, that property is long narrow property on Ser's path. It needed I think a 96% variance and even grant even granting that still needed a variance from the opposite lot line. >> So, I mean that that one is applicable in the sense that they're both in common ownership. It's not applicable because this is a single variance from the common lot line. There are no other variances required. It meets zoning, you know, meets all other setbacks. >> So yeah, I mean to me, you know, also I said

064that this lot was 169 ft wide. That lot was 110 ft wide. Um I think there material difference. So that's that's why. >> And then I'm going to ask council to elaborate a little bit on the validity of these covenants. I think because you're you and I don't understand it well at private covenant or whatever. So I'll ask council but just just going to the covenants right now because they're in the packet and in the public record. So I'm going to ask a couple questions. So first it says a dwelling erected on a corner lot shall be considered to front on all streets. Now, I'm aware that there's a reserved area um off of Robert's Lane, but uh it it just it's I'm trying to square why that is not a front yard and why

065a double setback wouldn't be needed. Is and maybe council has this too. Well, you're council, but um you know, just really want to understand that >> I'll just it's not a front yard. It doesn't front on the street. There's another separate piece of property between the road >> because it's a reserve and not a scenic easement. And it's considered >> separate a separate tax number. It's a totally different >> town owned reserve. I just wanted to part of the the when they drew this subdivision they cut it up that way probably for this exact reason. >> I was just asking because the covenant right sort of is is a little bit different but thank you. Um and then also back to the chairman's question about you know needing to be able to build a residence

066and I I think in the document somewhere it says they intend to. Again back to the covenant whether it's valid or not. This is covenant that actually specifies minimum sizes of houses, right? >> Um so, uh I tried to visualize it, but you know, it's not um it's not going to be a tiny house based on that covenant. So, and you feel that there's still ample room to do that, >> right? >> Yeah. Um I think principal setback is this slide. >> Purple one. Yeah. >> Purple one. Okay. Yeah. Principal structure setback. this. So that's I mean that's a good size that's a pretty good size >> and I think the minimum size is like 1500 square feet or something but again you know that's again a private covenant you know our position is particularly

067when it comes to the idea of accessory structures that covenant hasn't been enforced right >> uh given the large number of accessory structures that are on those lots. So can I ask council like are these are these covenants relevant to how we look at this application? >> Um are they val are they something we need to consider? >> Yeah I mean it's in the record so you should consider them but as applicants uh council has stated they've never been enforced by the town since they've been in it. And this is not just this. There's many subdivisions that have these types of covenants that >> the town has just ignored. >> Well, also the town doesn't have authority to enforce these. These are private covenants. They weren't imposed by the planning board in the in the

068subdivision approval. So that's a distin you know, yes, if it's a if it's a cond if it's a covenant that's required by the town for a planning board approval, then the town has jurisdiction. But this is a developer implemented covenant. So the town doesn't really have a >> okay role. >> And going back to Prospect Hill, that was a very unusual situation and a very unusual lot. And there was a question as to whether they could fit a principal structure on that and I think we made them demonstrate that they could show us a survey of some sort um that would show that they could actually fit it. I don't know if that's something you could provide. >> Yeah, I mean I we're happy to provide that. I I think it's clear from looking, but

069if if we need to plot it, I I'm happy to do that. >> I'm wondering if we could hear from the planning department before we we maybe determine that. But um >> maybe they've looked at that too as well. >> That's a good that's a good point. >> Thanks, Thomas. Yeah. >> Good evening. Title Borsack for the plane department again. Um, so this subject property is located on the south side of Fair View Lane near the intersection with Robert's Lane in Eastampton. The application is in front of the ZBA requesting a single variance in order to construct a tennis court within the eastern sideyard lot line setback. The proposed project includes a significant variance from the eastern yard lot, which the application notes is a parcel that is in common ownership with the subject property.

070Section 255-11-20C of the town code allows a parcel to have an accessory structure without the pre-existence of a main building as long as title to the contiguous properties is held in the same names and there's sufficient space remaining uh in order to construct a principal residence. The proposed variance uh the variance needs to be carefully reviewed by the ZBA and a solid foundation should be established on how the proposed structure meets the variant standards if approved. Even if the variance is requested from a parcel that is in common ownership, it is a significant variance to grant and the board will need to weigh the unique circumstances of the two lots being in common ownership against the standards. Setbacks for tennis courts are doubled uh the normal accessory setback and must be at least 50 ft

071if they are joining a residential property. The court adjoins residential properties to the east and south, a reserved area to the west, and the road rightway to the north. As mitigation, the board may want to consider requiring the proposed screening shown on the engineer plans to remain in perpetuity or possibly add additional screening of vegetation. Uh variance applications for tennis courts are not common. Since 2012, the board has had nine variance requests for tennis courts which are detailed in the assessment. I don't need to go over uh each and every one of those. Um, just to address the available space for uh a principal residence, there's 70 ft between the front yard setback and the tennis court or more than 70 ft between the front yard setback and the tennis court. I think there's ample

072space for a resident. I don't I I don't have any concerns. >> Sanitary system. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I didn't have any concerns with there being sufficient room. I mean, the sanitary system could be in, you know, even closer to the road if it had to be. You know, it doesn't have to it has to be a five foot setback. So, um I I didn't I didn't have any concerns when I was looking at it that there was ample space for I mean the town code minimum is 600 square f feet. Um so that's that that could easily be achieved. Um even 1500 ft² that's what 750 footprint. I I don't think there's any concern about that on this property at all. Um but I can answer any questions you might have if there are

073any other ones. Did you uh at all consider suggesting moving the tennis court to the west closer to the reserve area to make more space between the residential lot and the tennis court? Is that a recommendation we should be considering? >> It's certainly an idea. I didn't I I wasn't going to recommend they ask for another variance. >> Yeah, it's a different variance. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it's certainly an idea. Um >> right now there's no variance. We'd be creating a second one, >> right? You could Yeah, you and I'm not sure how wide that reserved area is, but you could sort of look at it like >> looks like >> what if the area on the other side is their front yard setback? Like what would that put them at? I I I

074wouldn't I didn't I wasn't looking into it like in that that respect. Um or rotating it so that there's, you know, and requested variance from the front yard. I don't I don't know if that's a better option for the board. >> Um [Applause] >> that's fine. Just wanted to know what what your consideration would have been about moving it. Yeah, I hadn't considered adding an additional variance. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Thank you, Tyler. >> Is there anybody in the public would like to answer uh would like to address this application? >> Is there anybody on the phone? >> We have no callers on the line. >> Thank you. [Applause] Thomas, I do have a question. You mentioned that they don't plan on putting lights. Lights would really be kind of

075egregious, right? Tennis court there. So, would they be willing to covenant that? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Lights would never be put on. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Anything else? >> Uh, nope. That's all I have. >> Thank you. >> So, application of Steven Michaelelsson and Judy Kapano. Michaelelssonfield Lane and East Hampton subass map number 300-159-18.31. Make a motion to close the public hearing in the record. >> Secondur. >> I concur. >> Thank you. All right, we move into our post hearing decisions. Um, our first post hearing decision is Savina Delamada at 41 Gardener Drive in Nagani. Suffic map number 300-174-4-7. Size and location is 10,615 square ft of 41 gardeners drive beach section one block 10 lots 34 through 38 Naganzit. The description is the removal of various opportunises and construct a 338 foot attached

076garage with 312 square foot of roof deck 37 square ft of first story additions and to the residence and attached shed sauna 779 790 square ft of patios new fencing with driveway gate and in a large driveway on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. Relief S is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255440 and variances from 255430 minimum wetland setbacks and any other relief necessary. The following variances are required. One and two and 83 variant foot variance is required to allow the addition on roof deck to be constructed 17 from wetlands. Three and four variance of 79.6 6 is required to allow the attached shed and sauna to be constructed 20.4 ft from wetlands. Five and 80.3 foot variance is required to construct the closest of the addition 19.7 ft from wetlands. An

07788.2 ft foot varianc is required to construct the closest of stone patio 11.8 ft from the wetlands and 7 to 90 foot variances required to construct the fencing 10 ft from the wetlands. all where 100 foot setback is required. Zoning district is B residence, A flood zone and elevation 10 and the secret class is type two. Council member, we discussed this um and it's recommended we come back to us and maybe uh discuss it in further detail. So to kind of clarify our decision. So Jane, you want to >> try? Go for it. >> What's that movie? Groundhog's Day. >> Yeah, Groundhog Day. >> Um okay. So I think I think the issue so I am not changing in terms of how I um uh decided regarding to the variances themselves. I will stick with

078my view that the approval of the very small I'll call them very small fill-ins of the resident structure. There's one on the west side, I guess, over the front door, and there's one on the south side where there's a little jog. I do believe those meet the variance standards, and I will continue to approve them. I denied all the other variances, and I'm not going to go through again how they went through the standards. I did that in depth um at the first postering decision. I think the question as I understand it is that um you know to me it there's absolutely no doubt I want to see these wetlands fixed and they must be fixed but I think you know I was willing to approve those two actually without making it contingent on the

079complete and total restoration and fixing of the wetlands. I know the board kind of later in the discussion I think in the second time we'd made the decision partly I think because of some things that council had said the board made had a discussion about well anything we approve should be uh dep uh um asked for the mitigation but I again I do believe these two variances that I would approve meet the standards and I would say there's probably not a nexus to um make it contingent on the buffers and you know all the restoration of the wetland. Anything else? I I would ask for that mitigation. Is that kind of where we need to be going? Council >> might be denying the rest of the >> I'm still denying the rest of the application.

080Thank you. >> That's pretty clear. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That clarifies it. >> I haven't changed my mind either. I did want a contingent on the restoration of the the souththeast wetlands. I'm willing to forgo that. Um, I stick with the two additions also. And I think I still would like the northern >> wetlands uh restored as they said they would. Um, we'll forego the other one and let that go back to justice court where it has to go to be addressed. >> Thank you. You know, I'm in agreement with both board members. I think that um if a nexus doesn't exist that uh enables us to require complete restoration of the wetlands based on these two small approvals, I I understand that and I'm willing to stick with my original approval

081of the same two small additions and deny the rest of the application uh while understanding that we probably are not don't have a nexus to insist on the restoration of the wetlands. Yes, >> I too am sticking to my decision to deny the application. Um I think these uh variances are significantly substantial. They're asking for 80 to 90% foot variances. Um I've already gone on record three times with this one. So I'm just going to say um these are not the minimum variances necessary. I think the project will have negative impacts on the neighborhood and the physical and environmental conditions. the wetlands can't really be buffered and protected when you're granting 80 to 90% put percent variances in an NRSP jurisdiction. So the question for me became is rejuvenating the wetland enough mitigation to approve

082and correcting a violation in my view does not mean you're entitled to an NRSB. This is a self-created hardship. The owner was aware of the presence of wetlands and knew the constraints of the property. I'm already on record as stating the value of these wetlands. So, I'm going to deny this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. I'm uh I'm with the board and I I too will stick with my decision to approve the two small additions. I think anything else on this application um is it's an aggressive application on a highly constrained lot and does not meet the national the NRSP standard. So, I would deny the remaining parts of the application. Council, are we okay with that? >> And I just want to be clear that I'm referencing everything I said about the

083denial of the other variances. >> So, we're gonna So, just for clarity and uh it's we're going to approve the two small little enclosures, but no no rev no mitigation aside from whatever else, you know, the normal stuff. I think we all want to see the wetlands restored and we want to but >> can't we get that vegetation that too and what about the septic system you think >> although I would like to go the septic actually >> do we have a nexus to the septic >> well it's not a requirement That's >> it's not required. >> Yeah. >> Per because they're not expanding it, you know, it doesn't trigger like the automatic. >> Um >> I think we should leave it as is. >> Yeah. Let's >> Okay. All right. You guys are good.

084I'm good. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We need no motion here. No, this is No, it's just a post hearing, right? There was no We didn't open the record again. Yeah. Yeah. >> We're going to go to Sans Capital. >> Okay. Before you read it in, Mr. chair before you read it in I'm going to recuse myself >> alternate to come on up >> alterate [Music] leave this here is that in your way okay I'm going to leave this back here Here it is with all my stuff. >> Thank you. >> Next uh decision is Sans Capital Holdings LLC at 183 Marine Boulevard. It's subt map number 300-176-8-23.3. The size and location is 57,325 square ft at 183 Marine Boulevard each section 2 lots 11 through 17 and include part of lot 10 lot 2

085of CMPSJ amigan. The description is to raise and renovate the existing residence and existing cottage in order to meet FEMA first floor elevation standards. Construct 519 square foot of additions to the main residence. Construct new stairs. reconfigure the existing swimming pool, new driveway gate, attached basement garage, and to temporarily clear approximately 3,100 square ft of beach vegetation on a parcel of land containing dunes, dune land, and beach vegetation, and which is located within front yard lot setbacks higher than the maximum allowable height outside of the town's pyramid. Regulations are greater than the maximum allowable gross floor area. The relief s is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the eastampton town and seven variances are required for this application. Variances of 6.6 foot 11 in, 12 foot 9 in, and 5'7 inches are

086required from 225 1172D of the town to allow the residents to be 6'11 and 12'9 outside the town's pyramid regulations along the eastern northern lot lines and for the cottage to be 5'7 outside the town's pyramid regulations along the western lot lines. One variance of 7.9 in is required from 2551110 of the town code to allow the residents to have a maximum height of 37 foot 9 in above adjacent natural grade where 30 foot is the maximum allowable. One variance of 560 foot from 2511 of the town code is required to allow the residents to have a maximum growth floor area of 5,082 ft where 4522 ft is the maximum allowable. Two variances of 4.6 ft and point4t are required from 25511 of the town to construct decking and swimming pool 15.4 ft and 19.6

0876 ft from the front yard lot line where 20 foot setbacks are required and other necessary. The zoning district is B residence B7 plus velocity flood zone and the secret class is type two. And we're going to let um John, you want to hit us off on this? >> Yep. Thank you, Chairman Delane. At the first public hearing held May 20, 2025, the applicant was represented by Richard Hammer and Britain Bistrian. Excuse me. Laura Beu of BMA Architects and the owner Erica Bellski also spoke on behalf of the application. Tyler Borsac appeared on behalf of the town planning board. At this hearing, attorney Jeff Bragman spoke in opposition to the application representing Rona Kloppman of 184 Marine Boulevard. Jack Hassid, who lives directly across the street at 186 Marine Boulevard, called in opposition to the

088application. A continuation was granted with the record left open for 30 days in order to receive a building protocol from the applicant and to receive any additional public comment. At a ZBA work session on June 24th, 2025, it was decided to schedule a new hearing because alternative new plans were submitted by the applicant. Excuse me. There was a second public hearing on July 22nd. I submitted a report and Richard Hammer appeared on behalf of the applicant. Tyler Borsack appeared on behalf of the town planning board. Attorney Jeff Bragman spoke in opposition to the application now representing three neighbors. Rona Kloppman at 184 Marine Boulevard, Jack Hedid at 186 Marine Boulevard, and Kathy Rocklin at 7 Dune. Jacked of 186 Marine Boulevard and Rona Clapman of 184 Marine Boulevard, both directly across the street from 183

089Marine appeared in opposition to the application. Uh there were no callers, but we've received two different sets of plans for this application. originally uh set of plans that featured a gabled roof and secondly on u uh July 22nd we reviewed a set of flat roofed uh plans. So uh chairman Delene read off the variances requested for the original uh set of plans which featured a gabled roof. Um in the public record there were a total of seven uh letters from neighbors uh five uh against and two four. The house was built in 2000 when the house was built in 2008. It met then current FEMA standards. FEMA standards have changed since the house was constructed and it is likely they will change again in the future. Excuse me. The applicant is not being compelled by

090FEMA or any agency to meet the newest FEMA standards. The work being proposed to meet current FEMA standards is is required by doing the work to meet current FEMA standards. The self-triggering self-caused motive was acknowledged by Richard Hammer at the first hearing on May 20th. He called it a tautology. In essence, the owner is creating the problem that they are proposing to solve. East Hampton zoning laws are not secondary nor subservient to FEMA regulations. Further, there is nothing inherently contradictory between them. They can and do function in harmony. The town of East Hampton is not required to sacrifice its standards at the altar of FEMA. uh according to the standard set forth in 255-8-50 a whether the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or will cause

091a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed raise house, whether gabled or flat roof, will rise anywhere from approximately 7 feet to 9.5 ft higher than the current residence and 7'9 in to 10 ft above East Hampton Town's height maximum allowed at 25511. The current house is already beyond the maximum GFA permitted and requests another 560 square ft. The pyramid law as enumerated in 255-11-72D [Music] is punctured substantially by from 5 feet for the cottage roof to 12 ft 12' 9 in for the main residence. The residents and cottages are structures that are near to and visible from Marine Boulevard as attested to by the five opposing letters of the seven received by the fact that three immediate neighbors retained a lawyer to oppose this application by the substantial height pyramid and GFA variances being requested.

092It is my opinion that granting the variances requested will cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and will create a detriment to nearby properties by allowing a more massive and taller structure to exist beyond what is per currently permitted by town code. B whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. It is my opinion that the primary benefit being sought results from seeking the benefit. That's the aforementioned an example of the forementioned tautology. While it is likely beneficial for the to the owners of the house to be current with FEMA regulations, there is no external agency forcing them to do so. When FEMA requirements change again in the future, as they almost are certain to, will

093the owner want to renovate the house again to to meet those new standards? The alternative is to raise raise the house to lift the house to meet FEMA's new regulations and meet the town of East Hampton's height and pyramid regulations. It can be done simultaneously. This would result in a smaller resident than residents than currently exists. The other alternative is to enjoy the house as is. See whether the requested variance is substantial. I believe that the requested height variances of between 26 to 40% for the residents depending on whether the roof is gabled or flat. That the pyramid variances pyramid variances of between 5 to 12t 9 in depending upon the roof design are substantial. The house and cottage together are 4,563 square feet already above the maximum allowed of 4522 ft. An additional 560

094ft being asked to fill the vac vacancy that would uh exist where where the garage is if the house were raised. whether the grant or the variance will have an adverse effect on the impact of the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or in the affected area of the town. I am not qualified to know whether the benefit of meeting current FEMA regulations by raising the house 9 ft 6 in with breakaway walls etc is offset by the potential for additional wind damage from having higher structures. But I do believe that having more massive and higher structures will negatively affect the physical condition of the neighborhood. Whether the difficulty causing the application to request an area of variance was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the determination. I believe the work being proposed

095is self elected. Though I don't believe the NRSP, the relief nor the pool or decking variances being sought are unreasonable. their moot as I vote to deny all the other variances being sought whether for the gabled or flat roofed options. >> Thank you Terry. >> Okay. Um thank you for that discussion. >> Welcome. >> Um yeah I didn't go into all the uh the specifics of the differences in the heights was quite honestly when I saw both both sets of them they were both extremely high. Um this rehearing there were some well with the changes with the flat roof. Um the agent wanted the board to consider both each of either of these applications. And regardless uh both have large height and pyramid variances needed for the main house and the cottage and exceed the

096maximum GFA allowed today. Um there was submissions by beyond and hammer on May 15, 2025 received by us on May 15th. The original house stated was at 183 Marine was constructed by an NRSP granted by this the ZBA at that time in 2006 and at that time the house complied with all setbacks as well as the FEMA regulations at that time. 2009 the FEMA reg changed the the narrative narrative is stated the entire motivation for the application is to conform to FEMA. Um as already brought up by John um the the height and pyramid variances are extremely large both in the first and second iteration of it. And in addition, there's a 564 variance requested from of town code to allow max gross force area gross floor area of 5,082 where is the max and

097RSP is also required unless the variances for the swimming pool and deck. uh driveway reconfiguration was set up for from two to one serving both structures and um as far as NRSP I have a problem with the driveway with the the substance that uh of the driveway uh the driveway proposes a clover paved driveway mixed with small pavers and which the Tam uh described as unique. Um, I see it as being totally out of character with any other driveways along Marine Boulevard. I also see the height the the variances are not the minimum necessary. Um, and I will deny all of those and and uh there well the letters of support will be to two neighbors in opposition and Jeff Jeff Bragman was council for uh North Hartman. Uh there was a lot of discussion

098around the FEMA requirements versus the East Hampton Town Code and which takes priority and as we know uh the town they can coexist peace peacefully with each other and the FEMA the desire for the FEMA compliance does not overweigh the East Hampton Town Code. Um there are other alternatives that I I feel that there are over other alternatives that the applicant can consider um that would you possibly an entire redevelopment of a one-story structure with the the FEMA compliances. Uh and I just want to comment on a few things. Um the as far as the self-created in this case I think this was absolutely a self-created problem that was run into just a little uh as we know there was a ZBA determination uh back in 20 June of 21 for a lot line modification

099with the board uh for the board which was granted and that put the cottage onto the property of the 183 ownership and that and this basically created the problem that exists today that they're already over the the maximum GFA and um in 2021 uh Mr. Bragman submitted some testimony from that ZBA hearing by member and the chair at that time that stated that those they both of those were already mostly maxed out of GFA. So that was part of their motivate motivation for allowing the property line change. um and uh assuming that there would be no unintended consequences because both lot one and like lot two were already pushing the the limits of the the GFAs on it. Um I am denying this application in its entirety. I think minimum variances are not met. There

100are min more minimum variances require that could be required. I think the uh the driveway and um would also have to be changed and um I I think the benefit to this applicant. Um that this v the variances would cause a very undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and very likely a detriment to nearby properties. And the benefit taught by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible to pursue other than these variances. And they are substantial and they will have an adverse effect and or impact on the physical and environmental conditions in this neighborhood. And they well already mentioned that it was self-created which shall be relative relevant but not necessarily preclude except this one was very much uh self-created so I'm going to deny the application in its entirety.

101>> Thank you and yeah thank you Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank uh member Thorson for that complete analysis to begin with because I think you covered a lot of things. I'm not going to go through all the standards again, but the same standards you cited were important to me in making my decision. I will go to one or two of them. I think that the uh crux of the uh presentation on the p behalf of the applicant was to talk about FEMA standards and trying to comply to them and to raise the house accordingly. There are a couple of things that are important there in our decision making here and one is that of course it was being done voluntarily as been mentioned and if they were bringing it up voluntarily uh what

102were the other implications to the community and to the structure at that time we talked about increased pyramid uh variances that were going to be needed and they were they were significant. They proposed a second design. The second design was no better in many ways. It was worse because the volume of the roof but the flat roof created pyramid uh situation that was less desirable in my opinion. But either one neither one were were acceptable. I think when we were looking at the FEMA and this was brought up uh FEMA regulations in their own sit that the FEMA regulations should be followed as long as they can be as compatible as possible with local uh zoning regulations. In this case, our zoning regulations really are significantly um being asked to make a significant um uh

103allowance here for the new structures. They were going to raise it. I didn't think that they this was a legitimate effort to look at a possible rethinking. If we go to the standards, but I just want to read this once a minute down on uh under D1 and two whether alternative designs were considered and were importantly uh uh incorporated in the decision-m I think once they voluntarily came and said we were going to raise the house the question was brought up at the hearing does a two-story house meant to be raised were there any other alternatives and no they wanted the two-story house. Well, if you're looking to uh bring this very very significant change, I think an alternative then would have been, as was mentioned by member Thorson, a smaller house, certainly a one-story

104house. Um this is a case of wanting to have both sides of it. I want to raise it up, but I also want to have that full house. I don't think you can do both. I don't think that we were looking at this in that case. The impact on the neighborhood is significant. It's a visual impact as well as I think we start changing the character of the entire neighborhood not just in that immediate area but up and down the line. I thought that um the quote from Tim Brenamman and from John Whan were important because I think it had a lot to do with our thinking and allowing the lot line approval back in uh in 21 that was on what 52221. I'm just going to read into the slight bit about Tim Brandon

105because I think it's important. I think this is Tim. I think that I would note simply that they are almost maxed out on GFA and uh and since they're maxed out. It's one of the reasons why I didn't feel that there were unintended consequences here because the lot receiving this cottage was basically maxed out on lot one and therefore at the 90 percentile already. So both lots are either or very near maximum gross for when we were approving that and I was part of the board. When we were approving it, a big concern was what did it mean relative to the lot that's being discussed tonight. It was maxed out. Therefore, when they came to us again, we knew that it would be difficult for them to get approvals. Now we get a proposal to

106us that is not really accommodating the site in the way that it could have had they come to us with a one-story structure that was smaller. talked about some of the other detailing, talked about how they might accommodate the problems that are associated with the u with the pyramid violations be one thing. I don't think this application rises on any level to to uh to allow us to uh approve an NRSP. I also don't think that a legitimate effort was made here to try to come up with the best possible solution for what is a very aggressive move to take a house of that size and raise it another 9 ft. Uh I want to go through all the standards but but 255850 whether the grant of the variance will cause an undesirable change to

107the character of the neighborhood. Yes, I say yes it absolutely is. I think I I feel adamantly about that. whether the requested area variance is substantial of course whether the difficulty causing the requesting applicator was self-created well of course he's admitted that in in the application itself in the presentation and then um lastly I think under compatibility these are important all these standards here were important to me in making the decision is this a compatible uh change to the neighborhood that the site proposes is it suitable for this location for this particular change no it's not this If you go down there now and you look at the house, it's got a significant presence where it sits. Raising it 9 ft as is just unacceptable. I think it's been well explained by member Thorson. Uh

108and I'm I'm I'm in agreement with what's been said here, but both board members before me and I am going to deny this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. This is a very important discussion we're having because so I am going to read do a little bit of repeating because I think we really have to have a complete record on how we all feel. I think it's going to become necessary in the future for local town boards to look at the standards that we have to look at as a as a board when issuing NRSP and variance applications on shoreline properties that are subject to FEMA. That being said, this clearly does not meet the standards we have to look at. This project does not meet those standards in any way. If approved, this

109house will loom over the neighboring parcels and grant of these pyramids would expand the above ground mass of this residence when looking at lot measurements on this parcel of land. FEMA does not trump over our zoning code and this is being done on a voluntary basis. Now, I did read the flood plane management bulletin, and in 3.3.9, it addresses local laws or ordinances. And for the record, I'd just like to be clear on why I made my decision. And it does state variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in conflict with existing laws or ordinances. It also addresses in 3.3.10 minimum necessary to afford relief. Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the granting of a variance is the minimum necessary considering the

110flood hazard to afford relief. A variance granted must be the absolute minimum needed to minimize or reduce future flood damage and still relieve the hardship. The house was legal to FEMA when built. The applicant is voluntarily committing to raise this house to FEMA foundation and elevation standards. As a town and a municipality, we will obviously have to address management of coastal projects in the future. as a result of climate change. But as a board, we can only grant or deny what or what does not meet the standards before us. And I feel both plans before us do not meet that standard. The modified application height variance for the main house will exceed a maximum allowable height by 10 ft.125 in the town. This will block light, air, and open space for neighboring properties and will

111change, literally change drastically the character of this neighborhood. They are all self-created hardships. If you want to raise your house, if you want to build a house, then act in parallel with the zoning code that this board has to adhere to. FEMA does not trump jurisdictional zoning board powers. They are asking in both projects for very substantial variances which will create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and set a precedent. This would be damaging and hard harmful to this hamlet. Variances are being requested and are not the minimum necessary. Local governments have the authority and right to enforce their building code and land use policies which does include local zoning ordinances. Local zoning laws play a key role in further shaping and enforcing building codes and expansion or development standards that are

112there to protect our community. The other issue I had and it's already been stated by member Burgerer uh is the GFA. I mean, the 1,280 ft cottage combined with the proposed residence results in a total GFA of 5,082 square feet where 4,522 ft is the maximum allowable. So, let's forget about FEMA. This application is coming before us would require variances and NRSPs. Would we approve it? I don't think so. in a very vulnerable area. They are over the maximum allowable GFX. The applicant can achieve the same benefits it seeks by another meth method. Raise or build a house that acts in parallel to current zoning code that we have to base our decision on and the and one that meets the standards. The application will not be compatible with the surroundings and the character of

113the neighborhood and the community. Uh there is no doubt that these variances will impair properties and those of other homeowners and the variances will are trying to go over our overall zoning requirements. So I don't want to I don't think we FEMA can be used as a reason to expand your residence. So for all the reasons stating I will be denying this application in its entirety. >> Thank you. Before I begin, council, I'm going to ask for a clarification. We've heard some arguments tonight that FEMA cannot trump or forget FEMA and and that it is my understanding that it's a federal law. It's my understanding that the if FEMA is triggered that the that the zoning board is not allowed to give a variance or say that FEMA cannot be or or or say that

114FEMA does not apply. We have to adhere to FEMA if it is triggered. Is that correct? >> I would have to confirm that. I can't off the top of my head, but I would say that well in this case, FEMA isn't triggered. So, >> right, it's >> I understand that, but I understand. But but that goes to the crux of the applicants. >> I think that if if someone if FEMA was required, I would say that there would at least be a lot of difference that would >> we've had this discussion on zoning board and Tyler, maybe you can chime in. We've had this discussion on zoning board. Case in point, Ditch Plains trailer park where we had trailers on the on the thing that wanted to replace the trailer and that we we were

115required Yeah. and they were required to meet FEMA. >> Um and so my question here and I think it goes to the crux of the of the applicants >> um presentation to application is that at some point they will be required. So that is the basis of their election. So, I want I want just want to make sure that we don't we don't that when we say that we don't care about FEMA or that it tr it doesn't trump local law that we do not have the authority to not adhere to it. >> Yes. >> Believe the board is able to grant variances from FEMA. >> Yes, >> I've heard arguments against that. >> That it's happened in the past. The problem is that if you do it often, we get audited, >> it can

116jeopardize >> insurance rates across town. >> That's correct. Right. That there's a there's a and I think that goes to the crux of the application of this and what Andy's argument is. I struggle with this application. I'll be I'll be fought with right with this. But I I I'm looking at when I look at this application is what are the arguments? I looked at the in in depth Anniey's argument on the May 15, and he's got a financial argument. He's got a he's got a um with with the insurance company. This house is 20 years old. It's at the re and every repair on the house goes against the 50%. It's cumulative. So the house is at its the the roof is at its at at its age. They're going to be replacing the roof.

117That's a big ticket on that house. So I'm I think the crux of his argument, as much as I don't like this application, I'm looking at the crux of his argument that says if we do go to the variance standards and we say I I say it it does affect the character of the neighborhood. There's no doubt about it, but is it does it create harm? Uh let's go to the first standard. I want to just pull that up. The benefit of the applicant from grant of the area variance outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood of town. And I think Annie specifically dealt with that in his argument that says it does not. And he even admitted that it it does affect

118the character of the neighborhood, but at some point it's going to be required. And I and I look at that and I'm saying with an a house on the ocean and it goes through a lot of a lot of abuse weatherwise. This that's a their ticket. It's a ticket a cost ticket that's occurring on that house every day. And so I think that his argument hells holds some water. And so unfortunately, I'm going to say that uh un unfortunately I'm going to say I think that the argument holds water and I'm going to support the application although I don't like it. I don't want to. I think he holds a a a valid argument um for wanting to raise it. Um, when it comes to the insurance requirement, the flood the flood insurance um the

119financial uh uh benefits that that he will he do with the election, he's going to eventually do it. I it's it's a horrible thing. I think this town needs to get get with it. I think this town town needs to get with it and redefine these these codes. >> But see, that's that's why we have justification though to deny it. And I don't think it's our jurisdiction to think about what FEMO will eventually require. I mean, I completely respect how you feel and I've been struggling this with this for days, but this was being done on a voluntary basis. Now, in terms of damage to the surrounding properties, I'm not an engineer, but if my house is up here and everybody else's house is down here and we get a hurricane or a storm surge

120or flooding, we're creating a corridor now with one house for that water to go. How does it affect, please let me finish. How does that affect the other properties? We don't really know. >> It's similar to putting a bulkhead in and no other property owner having a bulkhead. it's going to affect adjoining properties, but that's I think >> that's the purpose of the FEMA requirements is resiliency and resiliency is breakaway walls and blah blah blah. So now we're we're saying resiliency is not a good thing uh when this town supports this resiliency. So I I struggle with that argument. Um um they have breakaway walls and all that stuff that is meant to be resilient on the coastal. So, again, I'm I'm and and this is just a conversation we're having because it's going to

121be a denied application. That's fine. But I think these are are are things that I I think he holds it holds water and and I'm just going to say that I I don't like it. I think um it is what it is. It is what it is. I think the town has >> too the flood pain plane management the sections that Denise read earlier uh 3.3.9 goes into the explanation of existing local laws and ordinances and the the impacts and it does not say we must must follow FEMA. Well, I understand, but one of the arguments was saying, okay, it was and and Jeff Fragman brought this up, too. And it was FEMA compliant in 2006, but it's not FEMA compliant, but it's not it's not FEMA compliant according to FEMA, and it's not FE

122might be FEMA compliant is us as a zoning board or what we want to see it, but the flood insurance, the insurance companies don't see it as compliant. So, I mean, he's bringing forward, my point is he's bringing forward a financial um argument. Um, that has weight to it. To me, that's that's >> and that's a respectable opinion to have. I'm just looking at it in terms of the standards as a board member that I have to look at. This doesn't meet that standard. >> We follow >> current in my present. >> Okay, I'm good. >> In present time, >> we good council. Yeah, thank you. [Applause] >> John, you're on the benches. Oh, you're >> on the lead on the next. >> I'm actually leaving. I think >> I have to. Yeah. >> Oh,

123you're leaving. >> I'm leaving. Okay. >> Do I have to move over there? >> Where's Where's my name? >> Where's my name tag? [Music] Our next uh decision is Ivan Jacome at 78 Hilddsworth Place in Spring number 300-96-5-1.6 Six. Size and location is 15,151.5 square feet at 78 Hilder Place Estates of Malk lots 9 through 15, block 55, filed January 29, 1913 as map number 48 in Springs. Description is to allow an existing 500 foot pool to remain within minimum front yard and rear yard setbacks. We've sought as two variances of 12.9 ft and 4.8 8 ft pursuant to 2511 of the East Hampton Town Code is needed to allow the pool to remain 17.1 ft and 15.2 ft from the front and your side sideyard lines where 30 and 20 ft are required. Zoning

124district is B residence X flood zone in the secret classes type two. John, you want to take us? >> Thank you, Chairman Delene. >> Off on two decisions exciting. Uh the public hearing was held on August 12th, 2025 and the applicant, Ivan Jacome, represented himself. There were no public comments. Brian Frank appeared on behalf of the town planning department. The pool was built in a slightly more conforming location than was approved by the building department. However, there were two errors in building permit number 74256. The first was in approving the pool to be 18 ft from the eastern lot line which borders a road albeit unopened is considered a front yard and requires a 30-foot setback setback as per 255-11-10 of the East Hampton Town Code. The building permit approved the pool to be 15.1

125ft from the northern sideyard where 20 ft is required as per 255-11-10. There seems to be some uncertainty as to the exact status of the unopened road uh which is called St. James Court and the eastern lot line could possibly be considered a sideyard potentially reducing the violation there to 2.9 ft. The eastern lot line is shielded by a fence and 36 ft of the wooded and unclearared St. James Road or court and is 50 ft from the nearest neighbor. The northern property line is fenced and shielded from neighbors by the Lassau Nature Preserve. Even though the owner is ultimately responsible for conforming to town codes, even in the case of building department errors, I don't believe the granting of the requested variance will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or

126will cause a detriment to nearby properties as the location of the pool is buffered by an unopen road on the east and a nature preserve on the north. I don't believe removing and rebuilding a new pool is a feasible alternative to the variance being requested variances being requested and though mathematically significant I don't believe the effect of the variances being requested is substantial I don't believe granting these variances will have any adverse effect or impact on the physical or envir environmental conditions in the neighborhood or in the affected area of the town. And lastly, the pool being built within side and front yard setbacks is self-created and is the owner's ultimate responsibility, though he was aided and emedded by a building department error. Um, so I I vote to approve this application in its entirety.

127>> Thank you, Jane. >> Thank you. Um so I too am going to approve this and I agree with much of what uh member Thorson has gone through the standards. So I will not repeat them all but um again it's very relevant uh to how I look at this application. number one that Brian Frank when he spoke on behalf of the planning department and answered our questions and showed us the two surveys um that the most of what has happened here is a result of uh mistakes made by the building department and um again that doesn't mean that we have to um approve it but it was fairly clear that we're you know not one but two two mistakes and removing a pool and moving it um I do think becomes a hardship for um

128an applicant when they appeared to receive a proper uh well they received a uh building permit. Um and then secondly I also agree that um with respect to you know why we have double setbacks or and large setbacks uh for pools it's to prevent uh disturbance to the neighbors. Um and I also agree this the um the unopened road and the nature preserve on you know both of those lot lines where the variances are required uh do mitigate uh what would be my normal concern on granting lot line variances. So for those reasons and again agreeing with how member Thorson went through the standards I would put them I would uh say the same things about those standards I'm approving the application. Thank you, Terry. >> Yeah, I too am approving the application. There's not

129much more left to say. I think there was also some question perhaps about that St. James court whether and when the pool was constructed between uh those two things that possibly it would have been a not a double setback from the St. James court side. Um but I am I'm approving both variances. >> Thank you. Yeah, I am too. Um, I think that the uh Paper Road St. James Court uh to the east and the fact that there was an easement to the north are two areas that already have a certain amount of protection built in. I think you have to make note of the fact that the um building permit allowed for it to be 18 the proposed pool to be 18 foot and 152 foot from property lines. It was built at 171

130and 151, which is about a 10-in difference in one direction, an inch and a half in another. It's not significant. The um planner did say at the time that uh looking at it, it seems to be in the same spot. There was some question about the square areas changing back and forth, but looking at the building permit, it looks to be the same thing. And there was a building department uh building department error. And um I think that the the the benefit to the applicant here outweighs the detriment to the environment and to the town. So I'm approving in its entirety. Thank you. I agree with my board members. I don't have anything to add. Um we have other decisions at 376 Bleecker Street LLC at 78 Seaside Avenue. Seaside in Malk sub tax map

131number 300-32-7-32.1. It's a modification of a 2022 determination. Kyle, you want to take us through this? >> Sure. [Music] This one was Brian's. I will try my best to summarize his assessment of it. Um uh so it's a a change in building plans and the survey. Uh originally it was approved um to demolish a 1,000 ft singlestory residence and construct a 2392T two-story residence, 750 ft of decking, um a sanitary system and driveway. Uh there was two continuous uh public hearings, an extensive evaluation on alternatives to the sanitary system and the extent of grading proposed in the application. Um as far as the changes in the modification, the setback of the proposed residence to the wetland to the west has been reduced from 51.3 ft to 48.5 ft. So a slight reduction in the setback.

132Uh the setback to the wetlands to the west have been increased from 95.4 4T to 96.3 feet. The proposed building lot coverage, total lot coverage has been reduced um negligibly um 100 like 100 square feet in total lot coverage and uh 70 square ft in building coverage. The proposed clearing boundary and square footage appeared to remain the same. Uh the components of the sanitary system remain unchanged. [Music] The as far as the residence is concerned, the GFA remains the same. The the the first floor was reduced slightly and the second floor was increased slightly. Very minimal amounts like 10 square feet. Um what are the numbers? Uh 16 square ft difference. It's negligible differences. Um square footage of the decking has decreased from 750 ft to 450 ft. Um there does not appear to be

133a roof deck uh included in the modified plans as there was one approved in the original plans. Um the residence was approved with a slab foundation. The proposed residence indicates wood pilings on structural framing. Uh Brian says that the applicant should clarify the depth of penetration of the foundation with an amended amendment to the elevation plans. Uh if granted, all of the mitigation required for the original approval should be incorporated into the requested modification. Board members, any questions or comments? It seems as if most of them are an improvement in terms of environmental except for the one >> majority, but there is that slight decrease in setback from 51 to 48. >> Yeah, it's pretty minimal. Um, and then it's an increase in the setback from the from the other side. So, um, it's sort

134of a a give and take, I guess, there. Um, but yeah, it didn't seem like significant changes. Um, the only thing that Brian noted was the depth of that new the different foundation. >> Make sure that it met two foot separation of groundwater. I'm sure. >> Right. >> On on a a sketch or a drawing of that foundation. >> Is it you just that's what he's suggesting is that they show it. >> Yeah, I'm okay with it. Okay. >> Yeah, I think I'm okay with it. >> I'm okay with it. >> Um Okay. Do we >> No motion? It's like >> I don't think we require a motion. >> Okay. And the mitigation required for the original should be incorporated into >> Yes, I think you said that. Yeah. >> Say that. >> Yeah. >>

135Um we have Mendoza 94 Copper Lane in East Hampton SuffK map number 300-160-3-1 modification to include the Asbuilt pool patio. Hm. Didn't we We heard this recently, didn't we? >> Yeah, we we did it. >> This copper or Cooper? >> Should be Cooper Lane. Yeah. >> I don't know about this. >> Not here. Uh I think >> Should we table it? >> Is this the one that um is the one with the building permit that made mistakes and he built it found left the pool patio off of the notice? >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Even though it's there and it needs relief. It was just a I think it was just an oversight on a notice that >> and we already said yes to this. >> You said Yeah, you said yes to

136the pool. So, it's just we're just And the mention it. So, we're just trying to >> I'm sorry. Can you just clarify that you said the pool patio needs relief and you're saying that we verbally said we approved the pool patio relief? Was it noticed? >> You you approved the pool. >> I know we approved the pool. I know that >> patio wasn't noticed. Correct. >> Even though it was there. I'm sorry. So, just one more time. Was there another It's like they're asking for >> It's a clarification on >> right because it was >> they're not asking for another variance that was not noticed the first time. >> It's a clarification that the definition include the pool patio is basically pool and pool patio what it is because the pool patio is always there.

137>> Right. Right. >> It's the same dimensions. Yeah. The physical the physical conditions haven't changed. It's just a clarification of the approved notice. >> It's just a matter of including that. You see, I can't remember. I think I denied >> I did. >> I think I denied this. I I I remember a thing. I mean, I if we table this, I could go back and look, but I feel like I remember looking at there were these different patios and I felt I think I I can't you know what I don't even want to say. But so I I don't >> I don't want to table >> I think whether or not um I don't know if that's right or not wrong but I think the fact that if you did deny it still you could

138>> but I don't remember >> doesn't affect your determination on this? I don't know. >> I don't know. Not sure. >> It doesn't matter. I mean board what do you feel? I I mean I'm okay. >> I mean I'm okay with I'm looking I'm looking in my book if I can find >> Yeah. So yeah, just we'll add I'll do a modification to add the patio as part of it. >> We have Goldman at 51 East Lake Drive in Montalk Suff-20-2-16 is a secret classification, but Tyler, I believe this is an unlisted um I believe we're being asked. >> The purpose of this is for the board to determine that it is an unlisted action and to declare lead agency on it. You'll be the only agency in this in this case because the DEEC

139already issued a permit, I believe, if I remember correctly. I talked to Brian about it last week. Essentially, the purpose of this is for the secret process to get the secret process correct. Um, is to, uh, agree that it is an unlisted action. Um, it's definitely not a type one action. Uh, and it's not a type two action because it's clearing within a wetland. Essentially, what they want to do is they want to clear the area up here, um, which is partially within wetlands. There's a bunch of bamboo in there. That's what the project is for is to clear that clear that bamboo out and restore it which requires an unlisted action because it requires clearing within a wetland. So the purpose of of of this is to agree that it is an unlisted action

140and then to declare yourself lead agency and then we'll continue the secret process down the line. >> Okay. So for us right now it's relatively we're we're we're not getting into the environmental assessment part of it at this point. We are just seeking weed agency. >> Right. and saying it's unlisted. >> You're not doing a negative declaration or anything like that or a positive declaration or you're not we're not that not at that stage yet. This is just to say, yep, it is an unlisted action. You can move ahead with it and we're declaring ourselves lead agency >> and we have a motion to that effect. >> And by the way, this parcel's been in front of us a couple years ago. >> Yeah. >> This I believe so. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm not handling

141familiar with the site, >> but yeah, I saw there was >> this is purely for this bamboo removal. >> I'm not sure if there's other aspects of it. The almost part of it is the B department. >> Okay, I'll I'll make the motion. Um, in the matter of Goldman 51 East Lake Drive in Montalk Suff County, tax map number 300-20-2-16, I make a motion that we declare this an unlisted action and um >> declare lead agency. >> I know I have five words. >> Okay. >> Listen as an unlisted action and declare that the zoning board of appeals would like to be lead agency. >> I'll second. >> Concur. I'll concur. >> Concur. >> We have the draft minutes of Tuesday, August 12th. >> Yes. I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft

142minutes for the East Safe and Town Board of Appeals for August 12th, 2025. >> Second. >> Concur. >> I concur. Thank you. We have resolutions. Philip Gardano at 15 Forest Road, Montalk. Okay, this was mine. You remember this? This is the gate that um was put >> y >> one foot away from the wetlands and it was a unanimous denial on this modification. So for Philip Gordano at 15 to Forest Road MTO talk tax map 300-32-5-22 I make a motion to approve well to deny the modification as written >> to that sound. >> No toopmination adopt the resation as written. >> Thank you. >> Getting fancy. >> Uh I concur. >> Thank you. We have Joseph McCari and Kim Staler at 20 Road. Oh, that's tabled. >> We have Ryan Jansen at 164 West Lake

143Drive in Montalk. >> Right. This is mine also. You recall is there a redevelopment of the property. >> Good night Sarah. >> Peninsula of wetlands going around the house and this was a unanimous approval. This is granting a very large scenic easement and revitation as part of this project. Um, so for Ryan Gansson at 164 West Lake Drive, Monttoque, Xmap 300-9-5-8 and 21, and make a motion to approve the determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. Next, we have Susan Leman at 7 Outlook Avenue in Springs. >> This was mine. Um, the purpose of this application was to legalize an existing floating dock and construct a 166 ft twostory residence, 262 ft jack, approximately 925t patio IIA system, and utilize an existing 324t fisherman's cottage as an accessory structure with plumbing. It was

144a unanimous decision uh by this board to approve. I'd like to make a motion in the matter of Susan Leman, 7 Outlook Avenue in Spring, Suff County Tax Map number 300-57-4-7. I make a motion to approve the determination as written. >> Second, >> concur. >> Okay, here we go. >> We have an adjournment. >> We're going to adjourn. like to make a motion to adjourn the zoning board of appeals meeting this evening on August 19th, 2025 at 8:32 p.m. >> Second.