001All right. Good evening, East Hampton ZBA. Uh, we're 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 everybody to the town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for August 12th, 2025. We have some scheduled public hearings. I'll read the first one into the record. [clears throat] The applicant is Sophia Borditzki at 85 Oyster Shores Road in East Hampton number 300-92-2-43. The size and location is 146,7884 square ft at 85 Oyster Shores Road in East Hampton. The description is to construct a pool with associated deck and patio and a deck associated with the principal building with uh within sideyard setbacks. The relief s is in variances of 24.4t, 17.6 ft, 15.6 ft and 6.6 6 feet from 255
00211110 of the town code are needed to construct a pool deck 25.6 ft pool 32.4 ft and pool patio 34.2 ft from the sideyard property line where 50 ft is required and no and to construct the deck associated with the principal building 28.4 4 feet from the sideyard property line where 35 is feet is required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district A3 residence X flood zone V8 and the secret class type two. This is a hearing that was already conducted. We there was a problem with notice uh or posting. >> Um it was the mailing actually Charlie. Um >> and um just want to u so we're going to open the record um is do we have proper affidavit of service and posting that's >> yeah I reviewed the uh notice of the the
003notice of service and the uh affidavit and everything seems to be in order now so we're good if if anybody's here that wants to talk they can >> thank you is there anybody in the public that would like to address this application is there anybody online >> we have no callers is on the line. >> Okay, with that, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing in the record for Sophia Boriski at 85 Oyster Shores Road in East Hampton, SuffK top map number 300-92-2-43. >> Second. Oh, concur. >> Thank you. Uh, next application we have Ivan Ivan Jacome at 78 Hilderth Place in Spring SuffK test map number 300-96-5-1.6. Size and location is 15,151.5 square feet of 78 Hildrith Place Estates of Malkque lots 9 through 15 block 55 filed January 29th 1913 as
004map number 48 in springs. The description is to allow an existing 500 foot pool to remain within the minimum front yard and rear yard setbacks. Two variances of 12.9 ft and 4.8 8 ft. Pursuant to 25511, 10 of the town of the East Hampton Town Code is needed to allow the pool to remain 17.1 ft and 15.2 feet from the front and sideyard lot lines where 30 ft and 20 ft are required. Council, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Um, yeah, [clears throat] I have the affidavit of service and posting, but the applicant didn't fill in the dates on the form. So the the posting or the mailings seem to be postmarked. Okay. But I just probably should fill this out properly if he's here. >> So we could well if
005the applicant's here, he could just Yeah. So just clarify what day he posted on. He just needs to complete the form and then we'll be good. >> Okay. I think >> [clears throat] [clears throat] >> Same Okay, that's good. Yeah, we're all good. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you. I'm going to ask member Thorson to uh give the uh presentation. >> Hey, Brian. Uh this first photo is taken from 78 Hilddrth Place directly in front of the house. the post the notice the public notice was not out on the curb but it's up uh on the house itself next please Brian >> that's not proper posting >> um you know a little bit uh out of order here uh let's just go to the next one please [clears throat] >> um this is the pool
006that's in question um The application is for a sideyard setback. And this is the northeast corner of the pool. Just to the right of the fence is a um a place where a public road might be built. And directly behind the pool uh north is I believe it's an easement where there's a u a path. I don't if that's owned by the town or not. Uh, next. Here's the standing in the corner looking at the house. That's the pool. Uh, next, please. There's the notice that's uh on the house and not out at the uh the uh curb. Next. And that's once you enter the gate that's on the right of the house. This is the path that looks directly north at the pool. I think that might be it. >> Do we have the
007applicant here? >> You have you're the applicant. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Come on up. >> Oh no. >> Over there to the to the deas to the not the deas plat. Just announce your name and your address. >> Yeah. My name is Ivan Jacome and the is 78 Hendrick Place. >> Okay. Ivan, raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> You can put your hand down. [laughter] >> Okay. Yeah, we tried the beginning, you know, to get a permit first and then we do the draw and with the guy who build the pool because I was the I wasn't the guy, it was the company who built the pool, but he gave me the measurements and
008everything, but somehow we get messed up with the town. I don't know what happened, but we tried from the beginning. I tried to do the right thing, you know. I came to the town of course I asked them to everything but that something went wrong and I don't know when I went to get the final permit I find out and it wasn't right measurements and you know but I we tried to do from the beginning the right thing but I don't know what happened somehow get messed up so I don't know >> that's it but I never tried to do something wrong you know what I mean I always try to do the right Mr. Chairman, I could probably fill in some of the application. >> Sure. >> Would you? >> Yeah. If you don't
009mind. >> Yeah. Would you guys would you like >> Yeah. Then we can ask come back. >> Come on up. >> Thank you. >> Any questions? >> Okay. >> Excuse me. Brian, can you move the can you move the podium over a little? >> Isn't it better to look at the post than [laughter] me >> with you? Yes. But I'd like to see Thank you. Um >> Brian, do you swear from the [clears throat] truth the whole truth to nothing but >> I do. Brian Frank on behalf of the planning department. I'm uh uh pinch hitting tonight for Morgan Slater, the analyst who reviewed the application. And the uh the history here is uh pretty linear. Um in April 2023, there was a building permit issued for the swimming pool. That building permit was was
010issued in error. was issued for the swimming pool being located within the northern rear yard setback and the eastern um front yard and I'll use air quotes for front yard in a moment. Um uh setbacks. Uh the town code requires uh front yard setbacks from all streets whether they are open or not. Uh the property to the east is on the survey shown as the unopen road of uh Sh St. James Court. This property is in the old filed map system where um it is not uncommon for um roads to be abandoned in their entirety um when they are not necessary to serve uh the original layout of uh the subdivision which had a much higher density in these UR maps than what is actually built out. So there are roads in the map that
011are slated for improvement and those that are are slated for uh abandonment. I do have a copy of the most recent UR map now here and they show that area as um a park. They don't show that as a road anymore. Um so it's possible that the application is overnoticed a little bit. That's more of a building uh department determination, but St. St. James Court may not be uh a front yard anymore. It may be a sideyard and then therefore it would need uh lesser variance. So, the swimming pool was um this these are the asbuilt conditions. I do have the survey that I could show you um that was issued with the building permit. It showed the swimming pool um about 18 ft from um St. James Court and I think the same distance
012of of 15.2 ft or about that um uh to the property line to the north. Um I also have uh I say I I'm taking a lot of the credit for Morgan's work. Morgan had prepared uh for the board a couple of aerial photographs that show um that area around it as as parkland and the property to the north as parkland. So um these dimensional setbacks are there to protect the adjoining properties and um their enjoyment of the property and it's uh unclear if there's any impacts to those neighbors. That's for the for the board to determine obviously. Um but it does appear that the building permit was issued an error and those are among the circumstances for which variances were created in the first place. Those types of not necessarily self uh self-created difficulties.
013So I I saw some nods when uh I offered to put up the other uh survey. Um are there any questions that I could answer now or should I show you some of the other uh information in the file? So even if the eastern property line was considered a sideyard, it's still uh within >> it would still need a it would still need a variance. It wouldn't comply with those side >> in both dimensions, the north and the east. >> It would need 20 ft, right? >> I mean, this is a a building department error and can't answer for the building department, but we've seen this a couple of times. I'm sure members have been here longer than I have. >> The permit was issued in 2023. Our building department handles uh an extraordinary volume
014of applications for um for everything. Um and uh yeah, this permit appears to have been issued in error. >> But the [clears throat] pool in the you said the survey that accompanied the building permit showed it at 15.2 ft from the northern property line, which is what it is now. >> It may have been 15.1 on I'll show you in a second. It's it's it's very close. Yes. >> Very close. Yes. And and in the other direction over to St. James Court the building B was issued at about 18 ft and about 171. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> And that one was 30 until [clears throat and cough] maybe not. >> Maybe it's 20. >> Now it's 20. Okay. >> Correct. >> What's odd on what's odd here is that for years the the
015building department has required that the pool [clears throat] setbacks be staked prior to getting a permit. And I don't know what happened here, but >> there there was if you take a look at the building history, and I I know Morgan included it in um the uh in the application history there. The survey that uh went with the building permit did have it staked out. So the pool was basically, you know, for the most part built where it was proposed with a with a slight error and um the uh its location within setbacks was not identified by the building department at the time uh the permit was issued under 99% of the circumstances and in my opinion they would have caught that and bounced it back to the applicant and [clears throat] say you got
016to put it in another location. In terms of the uh the presence of St. James Court. It's possible that uh you know um another applicant may have dug in a little bit to see if that's still a road and maybe it would have been depicted differently um or or sought a determination from the building inspector if the front yard setback still applied. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah, [clears throat] just following up on that the size of the pool. So, [snorts] um, the the building permit was issued for an 800 ft pool and it was but it was the plans associated with the permit were had a 416 ft pool but the pool according to the TAM is 500 square ft. So, am I correct that the pool itself is not trying to be like
017somewhat overbuilt relative to the plan? And I'm not talking about the setback which could have I mean if it was built larger than the plans showed. I don't know how to >> it doesn't look like I I'll show you that's typically acceptable. >> I'm asking Brian question. I'll show you the survey that the swimming pool looks >> I'm going to say comparable not identical. I didn't measure measure it but it does look comparable to the building permit that was uh that was issued for the swimming pool. >> Okay. The only reason I'm asking is cuz if the pool were built at a different size than in the plans, you know, maybe that's part of why it shift, you know, it got closer to the setbacks than it should have. I'm not sure. Obviously, I'm just
018trying to figure out how much was building department error and then other things that happened. So, >> I I my suggestion respectfully is compare the two surveys. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Would you like to see that now? >> Yes, please. Oh, excuse me. This is the asbuilt survey. This is the survey. Um I I had the asbuilt survey up. This is the survey uh yeah issued uh excuse me, sorry about that. This is the proposed swimming pool survey. It shows an 18t setback to St. James and a 15.1 ft set back to the north at uh 16x 26. Uh the asphelt survey doesn't have the dimensions on it, but it's naked eyeing it. They don't look um significantly different. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Just because Morgan included it in in
019the file, she did have uh a couple of a couple of areas that may be of interest to the board. And we usually do show the aerials on uh um for the board's information. This is the uh the overall neighborhood. This is the the subject property. This is a town owned open space to the north. This is the unopened uh St. James uh road. And then uh more zoomed in view of uh the property. And as I said, I have the uh the UR map here and I think you have it in your file as well, but um I think that's the application in a nutshell. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you, Brian. Is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? >> Matt, is there anybody online? >> We have
020no callers on the line. >> Thank you. I have a motion >> regarding the application of Ivan Jaccomi 78 Hildrith Place Springs, New York 11 1937 SuffK County Tax Map 300-96-5-1.6. I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. I'll >> second it. >> I concur. >> Concur. >> I concur. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jacome. >> Thank you. Next we have Jeffrey Manich at 93 Durier Avenue in Montalk Suffach. Map number 300-5-2-15. The size and location is 11,250 ft at 93 Dura Avenue, Sound View Estates, lot 9, map number 1929 in Mau. The description is to allow an existing patio to remain 13 ft from the sideyard property line where 20 ft is required. The relief order is one variance of 7 ft from 25511 of the East
021Hampton Town Code is required to allow the existing patio to remain 13 feet from the sideyard lot line where 20 foot setback is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence zone X flood zone and the secret class is type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Um I reviewed the affidavit of service and posting. the service was done correctly, but based on the affidavit, it says this was only posted yesterday. >> So, yeah, so we didn't get proper posting. Um, we could do similar to we did on the other one where we could do the hearing today and keep it open until the next we have a probably won't be for a little while. uh keep it open for another meeting to have proper posting.
022It's up to the board. >> You the applicant. You the agent or >> the come on up. Well, are we opening the hearing or >> Well, I think >> I would pref I it was not posted until today >> and I do feel that posting is a very important part of a public hearing and would like to see the hearing happen at another time when there's a full 10day posting. I don't know how my fellow board members feel. >> Well, I agree. I think we it calls for proper posting. So it was just posted yesterday. >> Uh yes, sir. >> Yesterday morning. >> I was here Friday and there was no posting and we called it. >> Are we saying if we extend it then there's not for people to come in and speak. So
023we all close it today. >> Go ahead. >> If we do it >> I know, but you know this keeps happening. It keeps doing as long as we continue to do this and say we're going to have it up for another week. I I think we should have 10 days of posting before we hold the public hearing. Yeah, we can I mean if we could adjourn the closing or adjourn the closing adjourn the uh hearing until you know proper posting the 10 days or we can have the hearing and keep it open for them to have it properly posted and then at a meeting at another date we can keep it we can have the hearing continued and if any neighbors have any comments or complaints they can attend that future hearing. uh whatever we
024decide, whatever our schedule allows. We'll probably be in two weeks if that's available. Probably be at this point be September 16th. I mean, I'm in favor of holding it now. We have a busy schedule. We have a busy schedule every week. Um it's incumbent on them to post it. You're going to have to post it if we continue the hearing. Um and it's going to have to stay open. But >> [clears throat] >> um there are guidelines to uh how these processes are supposed to happen. Um board members. >> Well, I I'm uh I I'm certainly with the board members who are concerned about it. Um this is a public hearing and the public has to be notified. So the sign has to be up. So, if we go ahead with the hearing today, and
025the feeling is that the public will have an opportunity to speak, but [clears throat] I'm never in favor of moving forward with these hearings if the public isn't properly represented. So, if we go ahead with the hearing today, I can live with it, but I have to know that, you know, as you say, we'll stay open and we will give an opportunity for the nine neighbors and then they who might have a concern. This is what this is about. This is about letting the public know that there's going to be work done on your property. You have to post it. So, The way I feel about it is we keep doing this >> over and over and we really need to stick to what it should be to begin with and all those instructions get
026sent out to the applicants or the agents. When are we going to start it here? >> So we can vote. I mean I was I will not I don't want to move forward today. I think it should be posted and we come back in the next meeting. We have a busy schedule every week. Correct. Um, but I mean, >> well, I'm I'm willing to move forward with it. We know that there's going to be open after this, but I understand the complaint. I agree that this is really important and it's been treated cavalier by some people and I think we have to be careful with it. >> And I'm not making any comments about this application at all and this is about >> upholding the integrity of posting. So, right, that's it. So not at
027all personal or individual to this application the content of it. >> I'm okay with having the hearing now long as we get the proper posting just like we did at 85 oyster shores. >> Same. So the next because we wouldn't be able it wouldn't have enough time to do >> okay. Okay. 16th is when we would have the continuation if we do it >> or either both >> res 15 September. >> Oh, September. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay, >> I'll be here. >> Go ahead. Well, um we'll have the presentation. me. >> Okay, I'm gonna do a little field report first and then you come up. Um, these are slightly out of order, but I only have about six or eight photos, so it won't matter. I'm looking uh west here on Durier. This
028is down in Colon Shores. I'm looking west. Character neighborhood. Turn the other way. Next, please. Here I am looking east and this is heading back up to Flamingo. Next, here is the posting that went up uh yesterday. This is when I was down there yesterday uh about noon, maybe a little later. There's the posting on the uh on a tree that's up. Another thing about this supposed to be posted at the road. We're going to post it next time. Put it out at the road because people coming by have to have an opportunity to see the sign. Okay. Next. This is the house immediately across the way. most uh affected neighbors by anything going on immediately across the way. Next, this is the house that's immediately to the um I guess that's the west of
029it. Next, now I'm coming down here. The property line in question has got the stockade fence on it. And if you look, we're going to get another photo of it, but you see a post and you see a corner of a patio that's extended beyond the house. That's the point we're discussing next. Here again, I'm looking down at that point as it goes to the backyard. I'm looking at that patio. Next, that little corner. Again, I've turned my way. There's their pool and a shed beyond, but again, this is the area that's in contention. Next, now I've gone to the backyard and I'm looking again. Now, the fence is on my left. You can see that patio section that's coming out from the house with a little bit of a canopy over it. Next, That
030was >> that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. You can ask your name. >> Devin Zakardi with the Laurel Group here for Jeffrey Minut 93. Um I'm request to the mic, please. Thank you. >> Requesting a variance. >> You're an attorney. Are you an attorney? >> I'm not. >> Okay. Can you raise your right hand? >> You swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. Thank you. Um I'm here going for a variance in this uh green highlighted section. Uh the reason being there is uh one door for entrance and exit off the back. Uh it is right here which is inside that line. Uh so given the pool patio setbacks, if we were to go to 20 ft, that would actually interfere with the
031uh middle of the the door. Uh which brings us here. Um when was this constructed? >> Uh last year. >> So at that time was it a problem to understand how this was going to work for you? I mean are you the planner? Are you are you the architect? >> Uh we are a landscape architecture firm. Okay. I'm not an architect landscape architect myself. >> Uh we were given this project from a property management company that kind of left these homeowners in the dust. So they did they installed the pool um they tore everything up and then they came to us uh to install the patio portion. >> Uh what I was provided was a survey with the proposed uh patio space and everything of which was connected to the pool. Uh and with what
032I did, the only amendment I made was uh taking it back ever so slightly to not be attached to the pool. Um, do you happen to have the survey from 2022? >> I think that's the building permit survey. Is this the one from 201? >> This one right here. Correct. Um, this was all attached. This is what I So, this was existing concrete that was here already house and all we did was extend this further to what was already submitted. Um, this was all proposed concrete. All I did was take this back ever so slightly. And I extended this over a little bit just to provide a little bit more space. If we were to cut this back significantly, this would be basically for walkway at this point. This over here, >> right? But but
033when we're we're designing, we have codes. We design within codes. So, you know, >> just built without a >> Was there a building permit for this? Uh there's a building permit for the decking building permit for pooling spa and then >> for the what? I'm sorry. >> That's the area that we're talking about. That's the per roof over the concrete we're talking about. Okay. >> So for the Okay. It was for the pergola but not for the surface on the ground, not for the pattern. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh was there a design option that would have made this? You have it all. It's all connected now. One patio, right? To the pool. So, it's a pool patio. >> It is not connected. Uh it's off about You have the stepping stones that
034are in between. Second, >> it looks connected. Oh, >> these are separating. Yeah. >> By about three feet, >> correct? >> Yeah. >> So, the basically the patio is replace the concrete or it's on top of the concrete on top of the concrete >> kept that that concrete in place. >> Does it exceed the dimensions of the concrete that was there? >> I'm sorry. Are you referring to the stepping stones? No, the the concrete off of the the bedroom with the >> the >> which direction? >> Towards where? >> Okay. >> East basically. >> But our problem >> west. So that would be west. Yeah. Well, this uh the concrete patio, the existing concrete patio is always uh within 13 ft of >> uh so so extending it towards a pool, you're not you're not
035exacerbating the v the variance requests. In other words, variance is to the north and not to >> So was that that was pre-existing then the concrete was was there before the building permit was issued. >> Correct. That's what the Tam appears to say. Yes. Maybe we can hear. Was >> that concrete put in with the permit? >> Yeah, maybe. >> Maybe we can hear from the planning board. You guys, any other questions? >> I'll wait for the planning. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You You may come back up. So, >> I'm sorry. >> Don't leave. You may come back up. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Do not leave the building. Sarah's debut. How are you, Sarah? Hi, Sarah. Good evening, board. Sarah Lewis for the planning department. >> Sarah, do you swear firm to tell
036the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Thank you. Just some property history. Um, the original certificate of occupancy for this property was issued in 1961 for a 92 foot one-story residence in Carport. The most recent CO was issued in 2022 for a small first floor addition, first floor interior art alterations, new windows and doors, and an IAPIC system. Um, as mentioned, in April of 2023, a building permit was issued for the construction of a swimming pool, spa, and deck. A building permit for the construction of a pergola over the patio was also issued in 2023. Um, as mentioned, part of, um, the patio was existing concrete, um, which was confirmed in a survey dated December 29th, 1975. So, just some history there. Um, the applicant is looking to legalize
037the existing stone patio, which is 13 ft from the lot line, requiring a 7 foot variance. Um the required setback in this case is 20 feet due due to the double setback requirement of pools and pool decks as accessory structures. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> So the concrete that appeared from as far back as 1975. >> Yes. >> Is under this new surface that's under the pergola. >> Yes. >> Half of it. Yes. >> Half of it. Yeah. So the distance that it sat before before they did this recent work from the property line which we assume is pre-existing and therefore has been coowed before. >> Yeah. So it's the same variance um extending north but as as mentioned they've extended it further west. So it's the same variance. >> But play that
038again. It's the same variance to the north >> going this way. The existing concrete went >> as far this way, >> but they've extended it west. >> Okay. So, they So, the problem is the extension to the west, which is now >> Well, they're looking to legalize the stone patio. >> So, it was like half pre-existing nonconforming. >> Exactly. >> Sort of doubled the nonconformity. >> It wasn't pre-existing nonconforming because it wasn't permitted. Was it permitted? >> Um, I'm not sure if it was permitted. I mean to be to have pre-existing non-conforming status it has to have been lawfully right created you think >> I guess I don't get why moving extending it out to the north made a difference in this okay which >> which is >> was north to the which line >>
039north is up North is up. That's what it is. Okay. It did. >> But but but what I get clear is that you're saying that it wasn't extended to the north. It was extended to the west and thereby going to the west put that portion that came to the west at variance. Is that right? >> Yeah. Please. >> We're talking about this. >> Yeah. >> This is already here. >> Yeah. >> They expanded it to here roughly. Right. So because it's attached to this patio which is attached to the pool, it has to meet double set which is 20 ft. >> We are 13 ft. So I would say this has I think those properties have really kind of this >> a little square and the little rectangle in the corner. >> Kind of a
040That's Wow. That's how I see it. Not to step one. >> No, that helps so much. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Anybody? >> No. Thank you. >> Do we need questions from the applicant? >> I don't have any other questions for him. I just meant in case you wanted to respond to any of this, you should leave the building. >> You don't have to. Okay. Thank you. Can we have a motion? >> Public. >> Oh, public. If anybody in the public would like to address this application, anybody online, Matt, >> we have no callers online. >> Thank you. Okay. Okay. I've just got to find it now. Oh, here it is. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. And then in the application of Jeffrey Minich of 93 Dura Avenue, Monttok Suppanic Tax Map 300-5-2-15, I'd like to
041make a motion to close the public hearing and the public I thought we weren't doing. >> Sorry. I'm sorry. Leave the hearing and to make a motion to leave the hearing open until September >> 16th for a continuation for for the purpose of allowing the public to respond to the proper notification on the site. >> Right. It will need to be reposted. So make sure you follow those guidelines properly, please. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. >> It's a new posting. It's a new posting. is going to have the new date on it and it's got to be 10 days prior >> and and how how many feet from the road, Charlie? Just so we can >> 10 ft from the road. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And we're leaving the record and the hear the hearing
042and the record open. Okay, that was the motion. Great. >> Second. >> Concur. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Richard Pllo at 11 Flag Avenue in Montto suffest map number 300-30-4-3. Size and location is 14,640 ft at 11 flag Avenue in Montalk. The description is to allow an existing residence and associated structures to remain over the maximum allowable building coverage. One variance of 428 square feet is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the parcel to remain with the maximum lot coverage [snorts] of 3356 ft where 2,928 square ft is the maximum allowable and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 11 under secret glasses type two council. Do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yes, I have reviewed
043the affidavit of notice and posting and everything appears to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this matter. >> Thank you. Please report. >> This is mine. >> Okay, this is just a shot basically from around the intersection of Flag and Benson. I shot down Flag Avenue itself. See, can't see a lot of houses, but basically the character of the neighborhood. Next, uh this was the posting. It was on a gate, not right out by the road, but was visible when you went by. Um got a little blurry, but it is the correct date and time. Next, uh this is the house directly across the street from the applicant's house. Next, this is the parking area and [clears throat] shows I was trying to capture the retaining wall too, which was also, you
044know, not in scope for the actual overage, but just the there was some uh leeway, I guess, for the that retaining wall to extend into the c the town right away. That was permitted by the highway department. Next, uh, this is another shot. I was trying to get one of the overhangs. There are a lot of overhangs and roofed overhangs on on this house. One of the ones that is shown in a diagram that was sent in by the applicant. Uh, you see it in a distance. And I'll get a closer shot next. Uh, this is that same overhang, roofed overhang. It went up and standing at the the Flag Avenue side of that right now. Next, and I turn to the north, and this is another of the roofed overhangs that uh has come
045into play for the uh this application. Next, I'm going to walk around the house. Next, uh this is actually the rear of the pre-existing non-conforming structure that was there. I was trying to get a feel for the the grading on this. There are a lot of retaining walls around this property entirely, and You can't see it in the property line here because it's dark, but there's a considerable drop off to the rear yard of the house on the on adjoining street. Uh, next another retaining wall that goes down a couple of feet and then from there on the other side of the shrubbery is yet another retaining wall that goes down to the ground level. Next, uh this is another roofed overhang that I believe was in question with the uh building permit that had
046been issued. Next, another view of that um around the other side of the the house. Next is just a view that captures the house across the street. But um anyway, I think that's it. Is that it? Oh, and just another shot of the pre-existing structure that had been redone as part of some of the applications. And that's it. >> Thank you. You want to announce yourself? >> Richard Pillo >> of of the house and the builder. >> Do you swear firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Okay. So, um, as far as the, uh, lot coverage, can you go there is a site plan has an A, B, and a C on this. Actually, on the if you go to the proposed survey first, I'm sorry.
047So on the proposed survey, the actual lot coverage on this survey did not include the roof overhang on that one large porch, which I did not realize. And that's sort of where the crux of the of the mistake happened. And once the uh I thought I actually had an extra few hundred feet of of lock coverage because I was unaware that the surveyor didn't realize that there was an overhang on that on that that whole side of the house. So he did not include that on the proposed survey uh as part of the lot coverage. So that's where the mistake happened and that is how it actually got exacerbated when I added the other two roof overhangs on the entry and where the the grilling area was in the back. And that's how I got
048to the the 428 ft um because I was unaware that that wasn't included on the original um lot coverage on the proposed survey. So, it wasn't until after the house was completed and the final survey was done that then I realized that we were over on our on our lot coverage. Um, so if you can go to the what it has a A, B, and a C. So, >> that that area labeled A was that's that roof overhang that you took pictures of that wasn't included on the original lot coverage that I was unaware of. And then that is where that mistake led to adding B and C that I didn't realize that I was already at my max. So if we didn't add B or C, I would have been um I believe those
049add up to more than 420 square ft. Those additional roof structures I would have been under. But I wasn't aware of this until after the final uh survey was done. And then you had all of those uh roof coverages allotted for and then we were over the 428 feet. >> So you're saying B sorry B and C you're saying add up to more than what you're over. Did you say or >> correct? So no on the original proposed survey I was unaware that the surveyor did not include the the roof overhang. He was only including the footprint. >> Right. I understand. And that's where the that's where the mistake really happened and it just got compounded by adding the other two roof overhangs because I thought I was still under my uh total allowable coverage.
050>> Do you have a building permit for the structure we see when we go out and visit the site? >> Yes. >> Built according to the plans that was submitted with the building permit. >> Yes, it was the actual structure. All of that was the same. uh but just the surveyor didn't include it didn't look at the overhang when he was doing his calculations. >> So the main thing is you're saying that that the survey what I'm concerned about this survey didn't reflect correctly what the coverage was. But this is the the house you built is what you submitted with your building permit. Those plans are the same as what we're looking at. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Do A plus B plus C equal the 428 square ft? >> No. I think I think
051actually B and C are pro if we did just A and not I didn't add B and C I probably would have been very close. >> Right. But right now you're 428 square ft to >> Yeah. That's including >> A plus B plus C. >> Well, and and the entire >> Yes. That's everything that's on the property because it's lot coverage. >> Yeah. >> 428 over with the >> which includes any roof overhangs >> but with Okay. What's the date on the You mentioned a survey. The survey that's incorrect. What's the date on that survey? >> I'm just proposed one >> that would have been when we did the original. That was probably like 2020. >> But it just shows proposed deck. Doesn't show it overhead. It shows no overhead. Can you zoom in on
052is that the proposed Tyler. >> Uh, this is the proposed one. It's, uh, 106 2020. >> 106 2020 6386. >> I can't. So that and that shows only that one large overhang the one that you had called a >> well this he I didn't really he doesn't have any of the overhang on that on that original calculation. >> So what about hardscape is did that increase at all as a result from the building permit application. Um well we made a little originally there was steps that we were doing that we didn't end up doing but in terms of the actual hardcapes is pretty much the same is what was on what's on the proposed survey. >> So certainly those steps contributed to additional coverage. >> Well we actually made it a little smaller. >> So
053on the patio >> but you're over on building coverage but not total coverage. Correct. >> Correct. Okay. Can I ask a question also? There's another overhang on the house on the second I'm looking at your rendering here. So that uh second floor deck is has a >> that's included in that in that calculation from >> Right. But that was you're saying that was >> on the original on the original plan. >> Okay. That's what I was just trying to ask. >> Was it the same builder who uh built the overhangs who constructed the house? >> I'm the same builder. [laughter] So, I got no one to blame but myself. [laughter] >> Any other questions? >> Um, what? Because it would count to building coverage. I can't remember, so forgive me. The the the accessory structure
054is the same size as it was prior to the redevelopment of the rest of the property. Same size. So, that was an expanded rate. >> Okay. The little bit of a gray area is um on the overhangs. If it's less than two feet, they don't count it. If it's more than two feet, it does get counted. So, that's also where a little bit of a gray area happens. But that calculation was uh was done including all of the roof overhangs. Even on the >> on the accessory structure, there's a roof overhang on the back that is more than two feet. That's included in that calculation. Any other questions? Thank you. Tyler Tyler Borsac for the planning department. Do >> you swear from tell the truth to all truth and nothing but the truth? >> I
055do. Um, so I mean there's not much else to add. That was a pretty good uh summary of of what happened on the property. Um there was a 2020 stop work order that was issued for the demolition of the existing residence. Um subsequently a building permit was issued um for the demolition and a new and a new residence. Uh the survey associated with that has a lot coverage of 18.7% where 20% is allowed. Um and and as the asbuilt lot coverage currently is 22.9%. Um which ends up being 3,356 ft as was in the notice. um that that lot coverage appears to be attributed to the three additional roof coverings which are not shown on the survey. Um and and the the the variance request is 426 ft um to remain at 3356 where 2928
056is allowed. Um other than that, I can make myself available for questions if you have. I can pull up the building permit if you want to see that. Um I do have that available. Um other other than that, it it's a fairly straightforward application. [clears throat] Can I ask one just to for clarity sake? I feel like we we're throwing around terms here that are I want to make sure everybody's on the same page. This variance is for building coverage. That's roof area. That's right. >> Pam says lot coverage which is >> lot coverage is what is what it's called in the town code. There's lot coverage and total lot coverage. Lot coverage is building coverage as you would also call it. Total lot coverage is everything. That's correct. >> For the total lot. It's
057okay. I was >> I just want to make sure it was okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. >> Building coverage is anything that's roofed. Correct. Right. Whether it's external or internal. >> Oh, these are the stamped plans. >> These are the plans that were associated with the building permit. This is that survey. It's the same survey. Um there's just multiple copies of it. Sanitary plans. I don't think there's anything else of note in there. Um and then the building plans themselves, the site plan, basement plan, which doesn't have much uh bearing. That's the first story plan. Um again, not much bearing on the application. in the second story which has that roof um which does appear to extend slightly over that deck. That line would be the exterior wall of the first story below it. Um
058but again those ones as was mentioned those those additional first story ones are not are not on here. >> Um can I ask a question? I just want to make sure this is all noticed properly. So, I'm getting a little confused by the um the accessory structure because I see the building permit in 2017 um that was to build a 289 ft accessory building blah blah blah. But was that and then I've heard it referred to tonight as nonconforming, but I don't was there another structure there that this 2017 building permit replaced and remained non-conforming or was it built non-conforming and not recognized as such in 2017? Look, I'm just want to see does that need to be legalized in some way if it wasn't already? I don't believe I I believe the structure as
059it is there is is legal. Um I didn't write the assessment on this. I'm just covering it. Um >> so it looks like it's 11.1 ft from >> 10 ft would be the >> 10 ft is all you need in B in B zone. Right. Okay. So then I was confused why it was referred to I thought I heard non-conforming. >> If you if you flip the page if you look at the existing conditions site conditions it looks like that it looks like that was there. Yeah, in the TAM it says it was a pre-existing non-conforming accessory building that encroaches side setback, >> right? >> But it's a rear setback, >> isn't it? >> Yeah, I guess it would be rear. >> It might have been a confusion that they thought it it needed a
060principal setback or something along those lines is my guess. >> But if it means if it needs a 10 foot a rear yard set back. >> So what I'm saying is it's not a non-conforming structure. >> Not to my knowledge. No. >> Okay. because otherwise this would be the time to try and legalize it. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> No. Thank you. >> No, no. Anything else? >> No, that's all for me. >> Thank you. >> Is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? >> Man, is there anybody online? >> We have no callers online. >> Thank you. I have a motion. Uh for the application of Richard Pllo at 11th Flag Avenue in Malkque, tax map 300-030-04-3. Make a motion to close public hearing and the public
061record. >> Second concur. >> Concur. Thank you. Our next application is Susan Carassic at 67 Devon Road in Amaganza Suffoc number 300-174-6-11. The size and location is 6,000 square ft at 67 Devon Yode in Beach Hampton section 1, block 7, lots 72- 74, map number 123 and Migzit. The description is to legalize and reconstruct an existing deck and allow an existing bin to remain on a parcel of land containing beach vegetation dune land within beach jurisdiction of wetlands within rear and yard sideyard line setbacks and outside of the town's pyramid regulations. The relief facult is a natural resources special permit pursuant to 255420 of the East Hampton Town and three variances are required for this application. One variance of 5T is required from 25511 of the town code to allow the existing decking to remain
06210 ft from the eastern rear yard lot line where 15 foot setback is required. One variance from 2551110 of the town code is required to allow the existing bin to remain 5 ft from the northern side yard line where 9.6 ft of setback is required. One variance of approximately 5 ft from 25172D is required to allow the existing bin to remain 5 foot outside of the town's pyramid regulations. The zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 13 and the secret class is type two. Council, do we have proper affidavit of service and posting? >> Yeah, I reviewed the affidavit of notice of posting and everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this hearing. >> Mary, >> yes, thank you. Um, so we're on Devon Road, which is uh
063part of the dirt roads uh that this board knows well on the uh eastern half roughly half of of this part of Beach. Um, that's the proper posting that was very close to the road and visible for [snorts] all to see. Next slide. Um, this is I'm standing I didn't I didn't take street photos just to keep the number of photos down. I think the board is all um aware of what this road looks like. It's narrow. There's a lot of gravel coming off so it makes the road look a little bigger on both sides. But anyway, this is the front of the applicant's home. Um, it's a small uh beach cottage on a very small lot. We know that many of the lots in Beach Hampton are undersized. This is one of the smaller
064ones at 6,000 ft. Next slide. Um, okay. I'm just going I'm on the south side. I'm going up the south side um towards the the lot line. You can see the fence there which probably marks the lot line. Um, this is one part of the decking. It's being used as decking. It's also the walkway basically around the house. I'm heading towards the back. Next slide. And now I'm on the This is the back decking in question in the rear yard. Um I This is just a a part of it. You can just about see the rear facade of the house in this photo. Um and how far back um it goes towards the uh towards the rear lot line. Next slide. Um just the other other part of the deck. Um, next slide. That's the
065rear deck. Um, and then I actually can't see. Well, I think I took the shot of kind of what's off the deck on the rear um towards the rear lot line. So, that's not decked part of the rear yard. Next, next slide. Um, and then I just turned my back from I'm standing off the deck looking at the rear facade of the house. You can see the depth of the deck and how it's being used. Next slide. Okay, now I'm just going around the north side of the house. I believe that's the bin um in question. You can see it's sort of up against the fence that likely marks the property line to the neighbor. Um it's you can see its position and its, you know, height uh and position to the north side of
066the house. Next slide. I think that might be it. Oh yeah, just another another look at the bin and then just the view to the neighbor to the uh north that side across that sideyard line. Is that it, Tyler? Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. Do we have the agent or the applicant that up? Whoever >> whoever wants to speak. Yeah. Can you announce yourselves? >> I'm Susan Carich, Philip Caros. >> Okay. Do you both swear? Raise your right hands. You swear tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Go. Go for it. >> Okay. So, um, we purchased our house in 1992. Um it might show in the record 2021 and that's because for state purposes we put it in my name but we have been there
067for 33 years 33 very happy years in that house. Um we with our expanding family we did want to expand the house but we can't because it's it is on such a small lot. Um, so the additional deck space as well as the path is really wonderful, especially with the grandchild and all the accessories and the stroller and whatnot. I think there might be a photo of that. Um, so and this is our first time that we've come before the board in the 33 years. So, oh, oh, and also Yeah. [clears throat] So, it's in really disrepair. There's the stroller. And so, um, I do want to also mention that our neighbors on either side know exactly what's happening. They're per perfectly fine with it. We've spoken with them as well as a budding property
068in the rear. Um, he stopped by Stewart and um, they're fine with it. So, we're asking if we can keep the extra deck space. It really does um provide us with a lot of extra living space. >> Any questions? >> Yeah, just a just a couple. Number one, because it says you're going to reconstruct the deck. So, are you planning on raising it at all or is it going to stay at ground basically at ground level? So, it's really going to be replaced in kind is your That's my first question. I'll have a question on the on the bin for you. >> Pat, if you can announce who you are. >> Pat, do you swear from you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. >> What's
069Susan? Bill have a house over there. >> They have an existing deck that's pre-existent. They want to replace it. >> Let's go. We looked at the old survey from 1971. It's the last 77 was the last one we had that probably 30 years ago 5t was added on being a beach. I said I I would recommend you go for a building permit. That's why we're here. We're going to leave the exact same size, same footprint and everything. We were told that we're going to lose the walkway to the to the main entrance to the house which is I guess they're like gravel right now. The wood walkway there just pre-existing. This deck here, this is all pre-existence. We're just trying to rebuild it there. Same shape, same form. >> Okay. >> That was there when
070the house was purchased. >> The the um No, >> it was expanded is is pre-existing. the um the walkway of the about 10 feet of the walkway that you saw photographs. We put that we put that in years ago when we when we just started to have more and more kids and people there. >> So, we put that we put that [clears throat] down. Um, and the um the bin in the back is something that um I put up. Uh we we had somebody come and put it up and we positioned it um that the uh neighbor's house is like the um unused side of their house. So we basically put it right where where there was already a a shed as well >> on the neighbor's property. side >> and both both our neighbors
071have had, you know, we've spoken to them and they have no objection whatsoever to what we were going to do. >> Just curious, how long has that shed been there? >> Um, I'd say about [snorts] six years, seven years >> or another spot the property could be moved conveniently. >> The the property is um it's it's very small. I' I've looked about I've looked around on the property and I don't see any place where it could be moved where we wouldn't still we'd still need an extra couple of feet of setback and if we have look if we have to give if we have to give it up I understand that's something that we would do if we had to do it there is I can only tell you that it's um it's used to
072store wood >> it is not in any way impacting um the uh the wetland land or the environment. There are no chemicals in there of any sort. >> There's just straight up wood and some chairs and that's it. Firewood. >> I think Go ahead. >> Well, I just want to make sure I heard correctly because you said the neighbor's shed, the shed that shows on the survey. [snorts] Um, that's the neighbor's shed and that's why you put the bin right there to line up with their shed. >> Yeah. Yeah. Lined it up. Lined up. >> Yes. And Then also on the decking um so the I'm looking at the town an tech technical analysis memo and it mentions that I think originally there was 450 ft of decking um and now it's more so if
073I understood you correctly is it the rear decking that's been expanded over time or I or are you saying it's that uh the the the sort of deck walkway that was added That is >> the rear decking that was expanded. >> It was okay. >> And it was, as I said before, the side decking that leads into the front door of the house that was put down by us. >> Okay. Thank you. >> They said plan is 80 ft for wetlands 100t issue with it. >> Sorry. No, you are you're out of wetland jurisdiction, aren't you? >> No. The wetland, in all honesty, if you know the area, the wetland is on Central and Deon >> on the souththeast side. >> It's way far away from us. There are at least two other houses closer
074to Central that are right across from the uh >> Okay. >> Any other questions? No one. >> Thank you. Right. >> We have to hear from the planning department now. >> Thank you. >> You can stay if you We're not done yet. >> We have to. [laughter] >> Good evening. Tyler Borsack for the plane department again. Um so this uh property is located on the east side of Dune uh Devon Road and Meansit. Uh the application is to reconstruct and legalize an existing deck in place. Um decking existed on the parcel at the time of the last sea which I can bring up if you'd like to see it. Um but it has been expanded slightly since that time. Um the application also is requesting to keep a bin along the northern uh property line
075which requires significant variances. Uh wetlands exist across the street um which are within jurisdiction of the majority of the project u but the impacts from from the project on those wetlands is is minimal. Um there's there's not a significant amount of improvements and being across the street uh the impacts are are minimal at best. Um the most recent CO was issued in 1992 uh and included approximately 450 ft of decking uh and it was located 15 ft from the rear property line which is what's the required setback. Uh the current decking is approximately 800 ft. Um, it's located 10.1 feet from the rear property line and some additional decking was was added as like a walkway um along the south side of of of the uh the house, the south west side we we'll say
076of the house. Um, no permits were granted for the extension of the decking. Um, from best I can tell from town aerial images, uh, the decking uh, rear decking was extended sometime between 2007 and 2010. Um the south side it was hard to tell um because it's it's covered with with trees and and and it's it was just difficult to tell when that when that actually happened. Um there's also the proposal to uh legalize the existing bin. Uh this has a setback setback of 0.5 ft. Uh the bin uh along the northern property line and is about 5 ft outside of the pyramid regulations. Uh the bin is somewhat unique in that there's a large shed structure located directly north on the the neighboring property. um which could lessen the impact the bin that that
077this bin has on that neighboring property. Um but the you know the varian standards still need to be met and the applicants need to show how they meet them. >> Um they also need to show how they meet the NRSP standards. Um although the small bin has minimal impacts on wetlands across the street. Uh and the extended decking is is similarly minimal. Um and even at the rear of the properties outside of jurisdiction entirely. Um that's all that I have. I can answer any questions you might have. Do you think there's an alternate location available for that bin? >> Um they it's certainly I mean alternate location that would even have better setbacks. Certainly there are >> right even just question where where would that be? They have reduced setbacks from the 410 rule at
07860 ft in width. I think they get 9.6 foot setbacks. I'd have to do the math. Um so they do get somewhat of a reduced setbacks um from structures uh from the from the sideyard lot lines. not significant but something um but certainly there are there are more conforming locations if not entirely conforming locations >> I just want >> maybe next to the shower >> just to check myself following up on this question right so when we grant a variance it runs with the land right but if if that variance were to be granted it would be specifically for a shed of that size but wouldn't it wouldn't carry over to any other structure if property ever got redeveloped or whatever, right? >> If it was ever expanded, that expansion would need a variance. So,
079something along those lines. >> It it runs with the land, but only for this particular >> that exact structure at those dimensions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And we're basically saying that the deck was extended about 5T. You said it was 15 feet, right, at the time of the last CO? >> Yeah, roughly five feet. It got extended backwards. It meets the accessories rear accessory setback. It doesn't meet the principal setback and being attached to the residence, it needs to meet the principal setback. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can I I'm just confusing myself. We were just talking about a shed in that needed a 10 foot rear lot line setback. >> Yeah. >> In a B residence zone. So why what am I missing here? But this needs a 15 foot rear yard setback.
080>> The shed the the needs the 15T because it's attached to the house. So it gets principal. Right. Right. I'm sorry. Exactly. >> It was detached. >> I knew I was missing something. >> Then it would be 10. Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> Thank you. Thank you, Tyler. Is there anybody in the public would like to address this application? Matt, is there anybody online? >> We have no callers online. >> Thank you. So, we have a motion. >> Yes. Thank you. Um, in the matter of Susan Caris, I hope I said that correctly, at 67 Devon, uh, Devon Road, Beach Hampton, uh, Suffach County Tax Map 300-174-06-11. I make a motion to close the public hearing and the public record. >> Secondur concur. Patrick, you can now leave. [laughter] >> You all
081can leave if you want. >> What's that? year and a half. >> We will we have >> we legally we have 62 days. Um it'll be made before then. >> Thank you, boss. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> No. >> All right. We're going to go into post-hering decisions now. Board members, there are two items on the post-hering decision that were discussed this evening. Um the question is, do we want to handle this? I think the idea is and and we're trying to clear the backlog. The the planning department is very active. We're going to have what you can see our agendas are getting busier and busier and we're so if there are if there are applications that can be let's say discussed on the fly like tonight like Ivan Jacome >> discussed tonight >> no
082that's the second >> so the question is are you comfortable discussing any of these and I'm not going to press it but um just that's that's what we're trying to do. So, are you comfortable discussing? >> I'm I'm definitely comfortable on Bora Ditzky. I'm saying that Bora Dinsky because there was a procedural matter. We heard it >> and um you know, have had time to think and deliberate. So, yes, I see. I'm perfectly fine to do that. If I may, I'm not I'm not of the mind to say um I'm okay to do uh an application like we've just heard it and then go in and and do it because I understand totally about clearing the decks. But, you know, we're running so it's a decision we could make next week. I just feel that
083um if if this is a policy that we want to adopt in the board, I think should really have that discussion like we are now as a principal. But um I would like to deliberate and think more and I can't imagine the difference between doing it let's say next week versus this week. >> So I would not want to >> I mean yeah and I mean M minutes wouldn't be on for tonight anyway even though that's listed so we can't do that. Um the the issue is Ivan Jacome. So I mean if we're not we could do this next week. Um um what's your thought? >> Yeah, member Mary makes a good point. What's the difference between just rolling it forward a week? Right. You're still going to attack the backlog in the same same
084speed. We'll miss a week. I don't think it puts a burden on the planning department for us to make a decision a week or whatever from now versus because they're going to be here like we're going to do it in a meeting and you know I I think I'm you know I the the session we had last week the work session you know we cleared the decks on what not eight or nine eight applications so you know I do think this board is working much quicker um than we were I think our um council is getting the uh um what we call it the determinations to us more quickly. Um but if you'll indulge me, I do think there's something to be said for stepping away from a hearing. My process is to go through
085everything again, rewatch, and just not be comfortable taking. >> We're fine with that. I'm fine with that. >> All right. So then we're going to go into Sophia. >> That was my view. I don't know if everyone else the same way. Sorry. Yeah. >> Sophia Borditski um at 85 Oyster Shores Road in East Hampton map number 300-92-2-43. The size and location is 146,784 square ft at um 85 Oyster Shores Road, East Hampton. The description is to construct a pool with an associated deck and patio and a deck associated with a principal building within sideyard setbacks. It may be thought as a variances of 24.4 ft, 17.6 ft, 15.6 ft, and 6.6 ft from 25511 of the town code are needed to construct a pool deck 25.6 ft. Pool 32.4 ft. [snorts] Pool patio 32 34.2
0862 ft from the sideyard property line where 50 ft is required and to construct the deck associated with the building principal building 28.4 ft from the sideyard property line where 35 is required and any other relief necessary. The zoning district is A3 residence X flood zone V8 and the secret class is type two and this was in mine. Um so I'll begin. The hearing was held on two on 7:1525. Um there is an existing um pool there. It's it's um I'm going to call it a kidney shape, but it was curv curve curv in nature. >> Um and what they're doing is re constructing or and reconfiguring the pool in the same general location. There is an overall um reduction in imperous coverage. The pool will reduce by 153 square ft. The pool and patio
087will be reduced by 49 square ft. Um the TAM calls um that the proposed sunken patio encroachments to be minor and that's between um that and the principal building. So there is a slight reduction in patio within the 50oot setback. The proposed deck attached um to the principal building will become more conforming to the sideyard setback. There is already a wooded um area approximately of 70 ft. Um and it's densely wooded by the way separating the neighbor. Um I I going to approve this application. And I think that overall it has a very little impact. It's it's actually slightly improving the existing conditions although we are uh adding a new a new patio. I think that I'll just going to go through the variance standards if you will. Um, does the benefit to the applicant
088from grant of the area variance outweigh any detriment? Which grant of the variance will cause the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the town? And I say it does. I think they um it's it's a reconfiguration. Um, and it's in the general area. And I with the wooded area, I think it's it does it does uh outweigh any harm. Does the benefit of the applicant from grant of an area outweigh any detriment? I read that already. Is the area variance to be granted the minimum variance necessary inadequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicant to request an area variance? Um there is I say yes it is because there is an existing condition that they're slightly improving. Very slightly but slightly. Has the applicant [clears throat] shown that the benefit acrewing to
089him from the grant of the requested variance outweighs any harm which will be caused to the neighborhood and the town? Yes. Will the granted of the variance cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or will it create a detriment to nearby properties? Um I say no. I again they're reconfiguring this pool, adding a a patio um and slightly improving it. the p the existing condition in the wooded area is very densely wooded. Um and the and the TAM supports that and the benefits sought by the applicant be achieved by some method. You can always argue this to be yes but I think within reason. I think this this application is within reason. Is the requested variance um substantial? Um, in this case, no, I don't find it substantial and they're actually improving
090it slightly. >> This is self-created. Um, yes, most variances are self-created, but I'll leave it at that. So, with that, I will look to approve this application. Terry, you want to go? >> Sure. Um, well, I agree with the chair on this one. Um there was a discussion well discussion by the agents Xiaolin um as far as alternative locations that was the one concern Morgan and well the TAM did say that there could be alternate locations but as it was explained by the agent some of the moving the pool or the patio would actually be more of an issue in in the locations where it could be moved. Um, one part of that being a steep slope. Um, this property is very large and right now it's totally screened from neighbors. Um, there is a
091large lot easement on this property and um, covering at the hearing was Morgan and she said basically the the footprint for the pool is the matter different in some inches from 1981 uh, which apparently was before double setbacks were required for pools. Um, so I think it does meet the standards. I agree. I won't reiterate them, but uh I too am going to approve this application. >> Thank you. Um, so the board knows me, I often take uh, you know, a strict feeling about observing setbacks. But in in this case, for some reasons, I'll say that reiterate some of my fellow board, the chair and member Burgerer, I am going to approve these variances. Um, again, it's compelling to me that they're replacing a pool that yes, when it was built was probably built at
092a time it didn't need the double setbacks, but it somehow became non-conforming along the way. And this pool, we heard, it's hard to see on the survey, but you know, we heard from the planning department that it's basically within the same spot, maybe within inches of it. And yes, it is getting, let's put it this way, the pool and the patio is not getting it's not getting bigger. So, um, it's it's being scaled back a bit. So, you know, I sort of see this in the context of replace, you know, being uh just redoing a pre-existing sort of non-conforming um setback pool. Um and also, you know, having been on the property, there is uh you know, a lot of wooded area, this, if I remember correctly, this lot, the elevation of this lot is
093much higher than the neighbor that would be affected. Um and so it's not like they're, you know, cheek to jow. Um, and all in I don't think it has a negative impact on the neighbor. Obviously, we didn't get any negative feedback from the neighbors. Um, and uh, so all in I think it meets the standards and I'm approving the application. >> Thank you, Ed. >> Yeah, thank you. I'm not going to repeat what's been said. I agree with essentially with everything that's been done. Two two factors have already been mentioned, but one is that when we discussed moving the pool, the representative mentioned that it would become more of a potential uh visual impact on a neighbor by climbing the hill. And so you could just take it back. We could move it a little
094bit, but what what are we going to achieve? And as member Miring has said, and everyone says the chair said, this is basically a pool going in the same area. And uh the other thing is that uh I think it's important to remember that it was built before double setbacks were in place and so therefore it was never put uh incorrectly and initially it just inherited this new ruling and that there have been CFOs along the way that have happened for other work and it didn't kick back then. So I I I for all the reasons been mentioned and the standards were read in by the chair I'm going to approve this application. >> Thank you. Um council I I don't know if we need it though but um John was not part he was
095present not part of it. Does he participate if Denise is in here in the vote? >> He feels like he you know he was he was here for the public hearing. Yeah he was here and he is he is prepared. He is prepared he said to to do it. So go ahead. If I could when we when the alternate thing started the it was stated by the town council what they ultimately approved was that the whoever heard the hearing would follow it through to the conclusion. So that would mean Denise for tonight was at the hearing. Um >> I yeah I >> just following that guidelines that they had together. I mean we could this is still be an approval either with an approval but I thought I I'm not going to get into discussion
096of what happened when the town just decided to create an alternate. Thought the point was exactly this moment that if we had a 22 we were going to have not be facing that over and over again that that the alternate had to be ready to step in. One of us breaks a leg they step in and make a decision. So we don't get into these two two ties. That's >> But we could also lay over the decision. Oh, we again, we know we're trying to clear the decks, but technically because we're just closed the record, right? So tonight, um, so I guess if if we wanted to believe that the town board's intention was the member, whether it's the alternate or the full-time member who hears it, right, makes the decision and want to stick
097to that, we would legally be able to do it. I >> I'm not sure. >> What's the difference though with a member being absent from a hearing and then voting on it uh at a later time, you know, when they review the hearing uh on >> We used to do that. >> Yeah, we do it all the time. >> We used to do that, but that changed >> and we have a four we have a four nothing approval already. So, >> yeah, that's what I'm saying. >> If he wasn't here, then I would have an issue with it. But >> the only disadvantage I wasn't able to ask questions interactively, but so is but that's true for a member who's absent from a hearing as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's the same difference, but
098you were actually here watching it in person. Well, I mean, one thing procedurally we might want to do when a member knows that they're going to be out um and they've heard the hearing, we could always ask that member like, do you know, are you comfortable with the >> I I would respect that too as well as as in in the in the area where it's an important like maybe a complex hearing or something like that or there there there would be a thing. I I'm okay with John just it's good for practice, too. So, I don't think it's out of line. So, So, John, why don't you go ahead and uh go for it. >> All right. >> Well, I happen to agree with all board members. >> There you go. [laughter] >> And
099I have really nothing to add. I see it as a net as a net a positive for the neighborhood in the town. And uh the pool might be slightly more visible, but there's no one there to see it. It's very well screened. So, uh I approve the application. >> Thank you. >> Make him go first next time. [laughter] Um, okay. What else? >> The draft minutes of August 5th. >> Yes. I'd like to make a mo get corrected. Um, the I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals for Tuesday, August 5th, 20. Yeah. 2025. >> Second it. >> Concur. Um, next we have Did you concur? >> Yes, I concur. [laughter] >> Silent concurrence. Thought you'd have me off the day. >> We
100throw you up over [laughter] there, huh? >> Um, we have resolutions France here. Yakabatsi at 15 Faith Street in Montalk number 300-28-5-5.2. >> Are we rereading this because of a scrier's error? >> Yeah, there was that was my mistake. there was something tied. We made one change, but it was not the correct change to make. So, I I apologize, but yeah, it's just a uh it was just who did the um construction protocol. Yeah, it's just the name of the contractor or it was the engineer, not the contractor. So, there was a confusion there. >> There was an application for a new house on a sensitive lot. Uh we'll remember that there's standing water on the lot. There's a lot of discussion about how much impact it might have. driveway. The house was put in
101the northwest corner to get the minimum impact on the wetlands. It was approved. Uh I would like then in the case of Francis Yabowski 15 Bay Street, Mont County Tax Map 300-28-5-5.2 to approve the determination as corrected. >> Second, >> concur. >> Thank you. We have next have Alexander Marie Noble and Rose Malendredos at 40 Treasure Island Drive. Amigans submap number 300-175-5-20. >> Okay. Um this is an amigance. So, um you will recall that this was an application um to legalize a already built uh gravel patio area that um had was basically right at rear and sideyard setbacks. Um and also there was, you know, discussion about uh some reveation. Um this was approved in I think a 32 vote. Um, and that's I think all I need to say right now. Um, so in
102the matter of Alexandra Marie Noble and Rose Melendredos, 48 Treasure Island Drive, I'm against it. Suffet County Tax Map 300-175-5-20. Um, I make a motion to uh adopt the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Concur. Concur. Thank you everybody. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Who wants to give that motion? >> Somebody with a clock. >> Oh, sorry. [laughter] That's the time for you. >> Go for it, Jan. >> You want me to do it? Woohoo. I'm like stepping up in the world. Um, Mr. Chair and board members, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn the uh August 12th uh zoning board of appeals meeting at 8:02 p.m. Second. >> Thank you everybody. >> Good evening everyone.