001Okay, ZBA. We are live. We are recording. Phone lines are open because I'm calling in. Go forward. >> [laughter] >> Thank you, Matt. I like to welcome everyone to the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of June 23rd, 2026. We had four public hearings scheduled for tonight, but Rosemary Caputo has been adjourned to The first public hearing is 24 Cross Highway LLC, 24 Cross Highway, Amagansett. Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-127-3-12. Description is to construct a court stone driveway with dry wells on a parcel containing a tidal wetland, beach, bluff, and dune land. The driveway is proposed 60.8 ft from the bluff crest. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255-420 and one variance is required for this application. A variance of 14.2 is required from 255-440 of the town
002code to construct a proposed driveway 60.8 ft from the block crest where a 75 ft setback is required. Zoning district is A residence AE flood zone elevation 9, VE flood zone elevation 10. Secret class is type two. Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Yes, sir. The affidavit of notice and posting and everything appears to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over this here. >> Thank you. Member Maring, do we have a field inspection? >> Yes, thank you, Chair. Um this first photo is the posting. Uh I didn't take a shot from the distance, but it was visible on the road and um right date and time. Next slide. Okay. Um so just to orient people, this photo doesn't really orient anyone, but we're on Cross Highway to Devon
003and that is one of I think four Cross Highways in in Amagansett. Um it comes really off of the uh where the Devon Yacht Club and the public beach access. That's the road it comes off of that. I took the shot and this is the property across the road. The wetlands in um jurisdiction are on this property. This board might remember this is a very large corner lot um that has been the subject 20 plus years ago of a zoning board uh situation that has uh very significant wetlands and natural resources on it. So I couldn't even It's a very long lot across this part of the road. I just took little bit of a shot at it. It's pretty pristine. Next slide. Okay, so now I've turned my back towards the house, sorry, the
004garage that you see there on one side. The house is really not visible at all from the road and I didn't take pictures of the house cuz it's really not in play in this application. So that is the current garage, the garage. I would imagine this is pre-existing non-conforming to setbacks. It's a also a very kind of narrow right-of-way at this point. So you can kind of see the one car there. There's another car car that's in the right-of-way and I'll get a little closer. The driveway that is in front of us really scooches right close to that side of the garage in the picture and it's going to it loops around a little bit. Next slide. Yeah, so now I'm just I turned my focus a little bit. I'm looking towards the what would
005be the speed and northern kind of the northernish part of the property and there's an area there where the loop of the driveway, it's a corkscrew, will come out on the other side. Next slide. Again, so right now I'm just on the northernish side of the driveway, sorry, of the garage and that's where the driveway is uh supposed to go in and then loop around. Next slide. I think you can see there's that shed that's on the survey and it's mentioned in the application that is proposed to be removed and so I just put it there kind of as a marker even though it's going to be removed because it just gives you the good perspective because the driveway that kind of curves around that horseshoe is going to be roadward of that. So, kind
006of gives you a little bit of perspective of kind of where this is going. Next slide. Um Oh, that's the shed. Um I didn't I Again, I didn't go take pictures of the house. I actually didn't walk all the way up to the top of the bluff crest and down to the water because it is I mean, there's a setback here, but not really in play. Um but, you can sort of see right behind that shed, the property kind of swoops up and is you know, you can see on the survey the um the the property rises towards the bluff crest from there. Next slide. Okay, now I'm sort of come back on the Cross Highway side of the property. I think this is sort of roughly where the other side of the driveway will
007cut out from the curb cut. Next slide. Um Oh, sorry. I just wanted to show a little bit of character. This is a very rural road. It's very uh treed. I think I might have one more photo The one more photo Ignore the last one. Oh, there was another photo. I took a couple pictures of like different driveways cuz it's a very rural Just want to say like um gravelly, not very finished or formal um street. And um there is my dog, Caesar. >> I was going to say, is that Caesar? >> He made his first appearance at the zoning board. I think that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there someone here to appear on behalf of the application? Hi, Britain. >> Good evening. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole truth
008and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Chairman Severance and members of the board. I'm Britain Bistrian, representing 24 Cross Highway LLC, owners of the property at 24 Cross Highway, which was noted to be in the Devon section of Amagansett. It's on the east side of Cross Highway between the road and Gardner's Bay. The parcel is a described parcel and the house was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning. Very simple application for the board to consider contain con- containing solely of the request to create a proper driveway access to this parcel. The proposed driveway is horseshoe shaped to alleviate the current access issues as you saw on the photographs. Um, it's just very difficult to come in and out of that driveway. Uh, it's it's kind of on
009a as member Mearing showed in the picture, it's kind of on a blind corner and they have to back out into the road and they've had a few near misses and they just said there's got to be some way to resolve this. Obviously, the house was cited prior to zoning. The garage is 7 ft off the property line. So, it doesn't even have a a single car parking in that's not in the roadway where where where we currently are. There is really no proper driveway to this parcel. Um, it's proposed to be local gravel, pervious, two dry wells to collect the runoff. The clearing on the parcel remains conforming. Um, the proposed uh, location of the closest driveway edge is 179 ft from the tidal wetlands at Gardner's Bay. Um, but it's 60.8 ft from
010the bluff crest. It was determined by the planning department although there was no clearing within 50 ft, which is the regulated number, that a gravel driveway is a structure which necessitates a variance. I did not originally apply for that variance because I was relying on the code that section 255-120 in definition of a driveway, a delineated private off-street roadway connecting a house, garage, and other building with a street that contains an area specifically designated for parking. The surface may be not limited to dirt, gravel, stone, asphalt. A driveway is not required to meet setbacks. And in that, it doesn't say property line setbacks or wetland setbacks. So, I really still stand that I don't believe this needs a variance, but I don't really want to get caught up in it. We applied for the variance
011fee and that's why I didn't apply for it originally because I that code to me says you don't need a variance for a residential driveway on a residential property. Anyway, um, we are aware that needs an NRSP. Um, it I believe it is also exempt from a building permit. I'd love for Council to weigh in on that. That's a section of the code that says residential driveways don't need building permits. Um, curious about that just cuz this is I learned a lot in this application. Um, there were no letters submitted in opposition that I'm aware of. It's only the driveway. The shed came up as something that was added on the property and so as part of this we said we're happy to remove the shed. It's very dilapidated. Um, I don't really have much
012further to add. There's not much to talk about a flat gravel driveway. >> Does the board have any questions? >> No, go ahead if you >> Uh, my question would just be where do you know where the drywells are going to be located? >> Um, >> Be in the driveway or you >> to be They're going to be in the driveway. Um, David asked us spec them out to be two Um, and he felt that that was sufficient to carry the the uh, the surface runoff. >> At the entrance? Oh. Like where? >> I think it's going to probably be from what I From what I imagine would probably be It has to be on our property so I would imagine it would be at the two terminuses where it meets the property line. That
013would be the lowest points. >> It's all downhill to there anyway. >> downhill as you can see it's >> that that little area that's saved inside of there it's got some nice It's got two large white oaks in there. There's no real reason for them to come out. I can't I can't tell you that you can't do it. I'm just saying when I look at this if they're going in the driveway it's very likely we'll be able to save those white oaks cuz you're going to go around >> Yeah, that was the The design was to save those two trees. They also really like those trees. Everything else is kind of scrub scrub oaks and brush. >> Thank you. >> Does anybody else have a question? >> No, I just wanted to >> No, I
014was interested to hear like you're going to try and save Again, it's it's a little bit about the character and the scrubbiness not the scrub oaks but the oaks and things like that. So, thank you for saying that you're going to save those trees. >> Thank you for >> Thank you. >> Can we hear from the planning department, please? Do you affirm to tell the truth? Do you affirm to tell the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> [clears throat] >> you. >> Jake Kushner from the planning department. So, we don't have too much to add here. It's to construct a stone court driveway with dry wells on a parcel containing tidal wetland beach bluff. Uh and the driveway is proposed 60.8 ft from the bluff crest where 75 is required. The parcel also falls within
015the jurisdiction of a freshwater wetland. The wetland is located south of the parcel across Cross Highway 120 ft from the proposed driveway. The parcel itself is partially cleared and approved with a two-story residence with decking, one-story detached garage, a shed that's slated to be removed, shower, and walkways. Um there are no other dimensional variances required for the proposed driveway. Coverage is maintained. Total coverage uh increased from roughly 22 to 27, well within the 50% allowed by town code. Clearing is proposed to increase by 893 sq ft to 9,071 sq ft, again within the 10,000 sq ft allowed by town code. Uh pervious driveways are exempt from wetland setbacks, but a variance would not be required here regardless given the 120-ft setback from a wetland. The driveway is proposed to be constructed of local court stone
016and two dry wells. So, the driveway material and dry wells along with silt fencing required during construction uh will adequately mitigate uh potential impacts associated with that improved surface. Um the driveway is also proposed at a much lower elevation than the bluff, greatly reducing the likelihood of any impacts to that bluff. >> Board, do you have any questions for Jake? >> No, thank you. >> Thank you, Jake. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address this application? Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> I think we can close this public hearing. >> Okay. >> Thank you. No, okay. This is it. That's that one here. Forgive me. I'm sorry. I didn't have the the Thank you. Um, in the matter of 24 Cross
017Highway LLC, Suffolk County Sorry, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-127-03-12, I make a motion to close the hearing in the public record. >> Second. >> I concur. >> The next public hearing >> I'm just making sure I have my paperwork correct. I'm going to make sure I have my stuff in order. It's Ferry Landing, right? Ferry Landing. >> The next application is Ferry Landing LLC, 140 Gerard Drive in Springs. Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-41-1-19. The description is to demolish an existing 842 square foot residence and accessory structures and construct a 1,023 square foot but one-story residence with 370 square feet of decking, a generator, an AC unit, an underground LP tank, and an IA sanitary system on a property containing tidal wetlands. The relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255-420, variances
018from 255-430, 255-375B, and any other relief necessary. Four variances of 45.3 feet, 41.6 feet, 12.5 feet, and 10.3 feet are needed to construct the residence 54.7 feet, deck 58.4 feet, propane tank 87.5 feet, AC unit and generator 89.7 feet from the wetland, where 100 is required, and one variance of 99.5 feet is required to construct the sanitary system. 100.5 ft from wetland [clears throat] where 200 is required. Zoning district is an A2 residence X flood zone AE elevation 9 ft. Secret class is type two. Council, is the notice of service and posting in order? >> Yes, I reviewed the affidavits and everything appears to be in order and the board has jurisdiction on this. >> Thank you. Member Kylie, do we have a field inspection? >> Uh property was properly posted on the road. Next
019next picture. Uh this is facing to the north. Um the benign street, not a lot of traffic. Next slide. [snorts] This is directly across the street from the the right-of-way into the uh application property. Next slide. Um this is facing the driveway. Next slide. Uh this is the right-of-way into the subject property. And there's CPF land to the left-hand side of the the driveway. Next slide. It's the shed that is slated to be removed >> [sighs] >> and close to the approximate location of some of the sanitary system. Next slide. Uh this is the backside of the house uh remarkable tree is why I took the picture. It's one of the trees that they want to preserve. Uh it has been recently pruned and there's tree to the left which is one that's slated to
020be removed. Next slide. Just showing the existing conditions of of the structure. Next slide. This is uh the wetland boundary to the to the west. The next slide. This is the house as it is. Needs a little renovation. This is the the southern exposure. Next slide. Another view of the shed. And next slide. And this is walking back out to Gerard Drive. Next slide. This is the CPF land which is adjacent to the south. That's it. >> Thank you, member Kylie. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of this application? >> Good evening, members of the board. Jameson McWilliams here from the Adam Miller Group. Uh representing Ferry Landing LLC. So, as board member Kylie stated, um this is 140 Gerard Drive. Uh you know the relief that we're requesting. This requires an NRSP.
021Uh the four variances for the residence, the deck, the propane tank, the AC unit and generator. That's from the uh 100-ft required setback from the wetlands and the variance for the sanitary, um >> [clears throat] >> which is we can only site it 100.5 ft from the wetlands or 200 ft is required. Um the project, again as you know, is to demolish that um existing sort of dilapidated cottage there. Um it's 842 sq ft. Um proposing to remove all of the accessory structures and to construct a 123 square foot one story with two bedroom one bath residence with 370 square feet of decking, the generator AC unit, the underground LP tank, and the sanitary. Um As noted in the TAM, the town has no records or indication of when it was built. It likely pre-dates
022zoning. I think uh the only reason we don't we haven't seen that in town records is cuz there's also never been a CO or any of the documentation that confirms that it it pre-dates zoning. Um But I think that it does. It doesn't meet um current zoning really only on that side yard setback, I believe. Um and then also obviously the wetland setback. Um and then I wanted to note just for the board we did update um the survey and you guys should have it. So, the survey that we're looking at here is the Saskis service survey last revised May 14th, 2026. >> Wait, May 14th? >> May 14th, 2026. Um And the reason that actually is important is I know that we want to be looking at the most recent. Um but also the
023only change that uh David Saskis had to make there was that the prior one was missing um a clearing calculation. It didn't have the proposed um which we'll get to, but I think that could be um there's notes in the TAM um that were a little unclear. That was our fault because the survey had existing and required but not proposed. Um So, I want to walk quickly through the memo that I submitted last week, which I'm sorry it was late, you probably didn't read it all. There's a lot in here, but um the only reason we kind of wanted to go through the history of how we got to this specific application was we really tried to make a lot of things work. Um the owners love the property. Of course, it's pretty special over
024there. Um our main goal has been to retain the trees. Um so, the challenge from the beginning was trying to preserve trying to renovate and preserve the cottage. Um as you guys know, there's this 50% um trigger in the code. If you are improving a structure and you're increasing the value and just of the structure, not of, you know, the appraisal of the whole land value. Um it triggers FEMA. It triggers the new energy code. It triggers the sanitary. All of which they were still willing to do. Um however, the structure, while it was possible that it could have been, you know, renovated and retrofitted and shored up and all of these sort of terms I'm not exactly going to use properly, but uh to save the structure in its existing location, the impossibility became
025once they had to raise it to FEMA. Um and because it's so dilapidated, as you see, it didn't take much proposed work to trigger that 50% value. So, it became a sort of a different uh struggle here, which was how can we locate a new house on a property that clearly is so constrained? There is no um there is no conforming location for sanitary, 200 ft from the subject wetlands. And there is no conforming location for residents to be 100 ft from the wetlands and still meet the side and rear yard setbacks. You know, if you think of how landward it would have to go and also be able to have sanitary on the same site. Um, so that was sort of the um there was a lot of thought and a lot of planning
026and a lot of um uh versions of this project actually honestly before my office got involved. Um, as you know cuz Katie's name is on this Katie Osaki worked on this project before I got involved. Um but the that was always the goal was to use this, you know, to be able to have a residence that they could use. Obviously, it is um increasing in size, but pretty modestly. Um, and I did have a typo in my memo, too. I don't know where I got I got that number from Katie. Although 1,049 sq ft, that's not what it's proposed. The TAM is correct. So, we are proposing a 1,023 sq ft residence, which is inclusive of the mechanical space. Um, so that's really only a 181 sq ft increase over the existing structure. Um, and
027substantially below the maximum allowable, which is the 3,087. Um it's as you can see it's bringing everything much more landward practically, you know, to uh be able to site the sanitary behind the proposed structure. Um, it is only increasing the allowable building coverage by half a percent. So, it's going up to 7.05% where the allowable is 20. Um, somehow we're getting a big reduction in overall lot coverage because of the driveway. So, we're going from 27.05 down to 15.5% where 50% is allowed. Um, because the proposed driveway is like a two two-strip pervious access track um extending only to the flat portion of the property, so it's not going to go quite as deep either. Um, and again, all the setbacks from from the structures that all the struct the structure setbacks um are improving
028quite a bit. The sanitary is also improving in both setbacks and quality, obviously. Um, this is a cinder block failed system. It's 70 ft from the wetland. Um, so we're getting it as far away as we can. And that brings into the discussion the um retaining walls. This was something actually the clients the the property owners did want to avoid. But, they wanted to save the tree more. Um, so and at first maybe it came across a little aggressive in my memo, but we did fight on this separation to groundwater. Um, and the reason we fought number one, the the code reads pretty clear that it is an approved pre-existing sanitary system and we are replacing it. So, we thought 2 ft to groundwater separation was what we could do there. So, the 4 ft
029is obviously better for the environment for that for that reason. It increases the separation. Um, but here if we could we first designed it at the 2 ft because then we avoided the retaining walls and avoided any you know, additional setback issues from the house. You need retaining you need setbacks from the house for health department. From the property line, from the retaining walls, and we wanted to save the tree. But once we lost that argument and we had to design it at 4 ft, then we came up with this design. And uh Morgan mentions that in the TAM also that we could have done a more shallow geomath system, but that big tree would have had to go. And we did have an arborist look at this. They love the trees. This was very
030important to them. So, they you know, they accepted that Katie and I said, "You're going to have to propose retaining walls for, you know, with the sanitary engineer said that to make that system work here." Um so, that's the story with the sanitary. Um And so, you know, in terms of the variance standards, um you know, I think it does meet all of the standards. I don't think that this will cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. Um as I stated, it's only 181 sq ft larger than the existing um structure. It's still going to be used as a single-family home less accessory structures. You know, there's no pool or anything like that, obviously. Um and we're increasing the setbacks from the wetlands. Visually, yes, we have to meet FEMA, so it
031is going to be a visual change. Um It is set very far back from the road. So, um the benefits sought by the applicant, I it cannot be achieved by some method other than an area variance. I mean, even if we were proposing a different plan, as I stated, I did the, you know, the measurements and the calculations to to develop this and use this residentially, we'll need variances. Even if the structural engineer said that we could somehow raise that to FEMA, we would have a real um pyramid issue that on that side, too. So, we'd be creating further, you know, variances required even to keep it in the existing footprint. Um Are the requested area variances substantial? I think on paper they probably do appear large. Um but when comparing it with the existing,
032they do represent a measurable improvement um in getting what I I consider a more environmentally friendly structure, right? We have to meet all like the highest energy codes now, plus FEMA, plus the IA system. Like I consider these all improvements. Um And whether the grant I believe that granting the requested variance variances will result in um a property improved in a way that represents an improvement to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood um and certainly relating to the subject lot itself. Um And I don't think that this was self-created, honestly, either. Um because we did First of all, we tried to explore every other possible alternative, even the alternatives that were more preferable to us and less, you know, potentially less redevelopment would require variances. So, it's just one of those lots that's
033just very constrained um by its, you know, by the shape of it. It's a very old subdivision. >> [snorts] >> And then the NRSP standards, I think that um it meets them, too. That all structures are being proposed further upland than existing, um the furthest location to be able to cite sanitary landward of the dwelling. All alternative reasonable uses of the property are determined not to exist if if uh in my opinion a reasonable use of the property is to use it residentially. Um And I think that the proposed use is suitable for the location of such a use in town. It's compatible with its surroundings and the character of the neighborhood. I note here, too, for the record that I already said it, I think FEMA may be the outlier here, um but we
034really have no choice in the matter. I would say they probably they're happy to do it. It they'll be able to get flood insurance. This is a good thing. It's more resilient. Was that their first choice? Probably not, but it is, you know, it's what's required and appropriate now. Um And I think the proposed use will be introduced without undue disruption of the important natural features. Um This is important. You've probably been waiting for me to say this. Okay, so the buffer, and this is what I was saying earlier. It was difficult, I realize, probably, Morgan. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when we did not have the calculation showing how the 10-ft buffer, how much vegetation added would impact that calculation. Um and it took me a little while to
035look at it even on this um updated survey. So, the health department permits. We've received a health department permit, which actually has to be modified once we had to change the design. Um but, we know that they always require this a 10-ft, you know, vegetated non-disturbance buffer. It's 10 ft from the wetland boundary. So, there is a portion of that 10-ft strip that's currently vegetated. So, by David Saskas's calculation, it would require 660 sq ft of additional re-veg to have that buffer be fully vegetated. That would still bring us over the H pod requirement. So, and just the board knows this, um but just for the record. So, the property is pre-existing um over-cleared. So, it's the allowable clearing is this 11,000. This is really small. 11,157 square feet. Um but Hpod requirements would be
03610,000 square feet. If we add the 660 square feet, we're still we would be at 10,149. So, once we looked at those numbers >> No, go ahead. This is >> The client is like, of course we'll do we can bring it into Hpod standards. >> So, you're going you so in essence in one short sentence, you're agreeing to the 20-ft? >> Well, so that's that's So, this is what I want to say. >> Yes. >> We can bring it into Hpod standards. That's no problem. But that would that's much less than a 20-ft. >> Okay. >> But if the and I we can hear from Morgan and if you guys still want the 20 ft, I think that the client will likely agree to that. It was just that by the time I saw the
037TAM and we had the updated survey, there was a little bit of a confusion because by then and this is truly this is like our fault with the survey. Um an additional 10 ft, I think it would add an extra thousand feet of re-vege. So, if the if still the board wants it even a thousand square feet more vegetated than Hpod standards, I will ask the client that I think they might say yes. >> Well, for me I I can't speak for the board, but for me because, you know, the variances are substantial in terms of what we're And in a situation like this, I always think the mitigation is it enough for approval? And I do think bringing it into Hpod compliance for me would be an important uh condition. >> I agree. Yeah.
038>> Right. >> But and that's what I just want to make sure and I don't I don't want to hijack jack the whole meeting before Morgan speaks. But that just so you guys know, that Hpod to bring it into Hpod would really only be 149 square feet more than the 660 we're proposing. So we could achieve that with like probably a 12 foot buffer, probably an 11 foot buffer. I'm not a surveyor, but if the board still wants more than that, then you guys just let me know. >> I mean >> I would like to I mean because because this is because this is an area that is it's Hpod, but it's even more than that, right? It's one What did Jim say? We know this is one of the most sensitive environmentally sensitive vulnerable
039areas. So um again, the and I think the variances are significant enough. I understand that the the house is actually moving back, but um so for as a board member, if that is something that the client is amenable to, I think that's a really um good thing for the property and a good thing for the area and good thing for the house. So I would say I would like to see that if they're amenable to it. And that gets you even more full than, you know, fully fenced than Hpod minimum. >> Are you also um >> 20 foot, yeah. 20 foot, yeah. >> Are you all Yeah. >> The 20 foot is something I'm agreeable to, too. >> Are you also okay with the recommendation of the conservation easement proposal? >> I should have said
040that. Yes. >> Does the board have any additional questions before we hear from the planning department? >> I'm done. >> Me just one quick one quick one. The the the tree with the swing, you're keeping that one. >> Yes, that's like the biggest tree on the property, I think. >> Is it to the When I was there, I don't know if I saw a swing. Oh, yes. Yes, yes, yes. It's >> That's the big it's cuz I couldn't tell on the survey you had some big green things that I think were trees, but that >> the big green things are staying. Um there was only there's nature tree. You can see it on my memo on page six. >> Okay, yeah. >> I did this really handy um clip art and I circled in red
041the one tree that we have to lose. Swing, too. Um they probably will keep the swing. >> I always feel bad taking away the swing. >> Yeah, [laughter] and it's got like vines going it's so poetic. >> [clears throat] >> Put that at the addition of a crew you know, looks good in fairy land. >> [laughter] >> It is fairy land after all. >> Okay, Morgan Jameson, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Oh yeah, we have one more question. >> Sorry. So we're going through the construction protocol. >> Oh yeah. I did not write this. Someone on the team wrote it, so >> There's no accusation going on here. I'm just going to make an observation. >> it sound good? >> If I go through that and I go to page nine and I look
042at items eight through 12, that's the progression of construction as it happens on this site. When I look down on the survey, there's a comment earlier on I think on page five that the staging area for all future construction will be on the footprint of the house and with another parcel a portion of the >> [clears throat] >> access driveway. There's no room in the access driveway quite obviously. >> Yeah. >> So what I'm seeing here is a proposal to say that the area that's going eventually have the septic would be a staging area while you're building the house before you're building the house. You're going to have a piece of equipment to drive piles. You're going to have all the pile of piles. So this my two-part question is is there a contractor already
043involved? So a general contractor. >> Oh, um >> It doesn't have to be. My point is going to be this is we do these we read these protocols and we think they they either do or don't come up to standards and we make requests. Once they leave here, what happens to them? So I think it's going to be incumbent on this applicant if this was to move forward to see to it that what's in this protocol which does read correctly to me, somehow goes to them because I do think it's a constrained lot, you know, it's a narrow lot and we don't want any action action happening to take down trees. We don't want any action happening on the on the water side. You have a very small area build this house and small house,
044it can be done. But, you know what I'm saying? >> Yes. >> The protocol has to be followed here. Otherwise, there's going to be some other collateral damage. So, when I read the protocol, I like it. I think it could touches the bases that has to touch. But, we as a board often wonder once it leaves here after tonight or when we finally reach a decision yay or nay on on your application, what happens to it. And I'm concerned that this particular lot understands just the logistics of how you build a house. >> Um I can find out while Morgan is talking. I I think that there is a contractor already engaged, but I have there's one layer of separation really on the >> We're going to we're going to put it on you. >>
045practical side. >> They're going to know about whatever contractor has to know this. >> Um >> Also, one of the conditions of approval, I feel, we've been putting this in our decisions, is that any design modifications are contemplated that are contemplated after the issuance have to come back before us. So, that'll be a condition of approval. So, we're protected with that protocol being followed. >> Sure. Um I will also say that the I mean, [clears throat] I've already stated this now, but I will say that the owners are so concerned about saving the trees that they will probably threaten the GC with their lives if they if they do what you suggested, like, you know, if they are if if that if those trees are being threatened. >> Lots like this are a little tricky
046because you don't have the road side to you, so trucks are pulling the road side down so you're one thing here, you don't have that, right? So, it's a little trickier. It's a little trickier when it comes to protocol. >> And the driveway though, I will say it's [clears throat] sort of interesting too, right? Because it does have that 10-ft right-of-way easement, which is unusual, but you're right. It is still only 20-ft wide. It's very long. There's not much area to stage cuz also one of the trees that they love is right at the terminus of that driveway. Okay. Okay. But, I'll find out. Thank you, Jeremy. >> Are we ready to hear from the Planning Department? >> Good evening, Board. Morgan Siler for the Planning Department. >> Do you affirm to tell the whole
047truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. So, this property is on the west side of Gerard Drive, which is notably less developed than the east side. And, unlike the east side, which is contiguous to Gardiners Bay, there have been very few applications to redevelop a property within the jurisdiction of the wetlands here. Um so, this project can potentially be precedent-setting for other applications in the future since many properties that are contiguous to Accabonac Harbor have residences that were constructed prior to wetland regulations. And, in this case, it does seem like this house has existed prior to zoning. Um and there are comparable instances on the shoreline of Accabonac Harbor for these properties. Uh Gerard Drive is widely regarded as one of the most environmentally dynamic land areas within the town, and it experiences
048flood inundation during coastal storms. It's a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and it's also been designated as its own critical environmental area. The properties around Accabonac are within the Harbor Protection Overlay District, which has more restrictive sanitary system and clearing regulations. There are no conforming locations on this property for a sanitary system, which would be required to meet a 200-ft wetland setback as per the Harbor Protection Overlay District. The proposed location of the sanitary system requires the largest variance, but it is in the most conforming location on the property. There's a narrow salt marsh within the tidal wetland on the subject parcel that is highly sensitive to the stresses associated with residential development. And given the magnitude of the requested variances, the planning department recommends a 20-ft vegetated buffer to the
049tidal wetland boundary and an associated conservation easement to protect the wetland buffer in perpetuity. Uh we did estimate that the buffer would bring it within the H-pod clearing compliance. Now we know it's going to be well over with the 20-ft uh wetland buffer. Uh the planning department is typically less concerned with exact area amounts um versus a just a good high-quality buffer of a certain depth. And in this case, we do feel that a 20-ft depth buffer is appropriate for the scale of the development. Uh and with that said, uh with the recommended mitigation that is a little bit goes into a little bit more in depth than the TAM, uh the planning department feels that the scope of the proposal is in keeping with the environmental sensitivities of the area. Uh and I can
050answer any questions that the board may have. >> Any questions, board? >> Yeah. >> I'm sorry, go ahead. >> No, go ahead, Ed. >> The elevation uh currently uh under the both structures about 5 ft. The elevation of the first floor is going to go to 12 and 1/2 ft. It's going to be 7 and 1/2 ft above >> Mhm. >> common grade now, average grade. >> Yes. >> Basically. >> Yes, that's complying, I believe, with the most recent FEMA restrictions, which technically uh it's the state enacting additional restrictions on top of FEMA. I don't think that they are enacted on a national level. It's more of a New York state building code thing. >> Thank you. Um two questions. Number one, on the 20-ft buffer, um are you wanting a vegetation plan prior to
051condition of approval or >> Uh prior to the issuance of a building permit, we would need an acceptable uh vegetation >> number two, we're not the ARB here, but I'm just curious, you know, the there's really no history on the property history card. It Is there any insight just for me? >> No, I was hoping that >> Because the structures are and Ms. McWilliams said they thought about trying to the structure. >> They do look pretty um authentic, so I didn't know if there was any info on >> No, I mean the building card is essentially blank, you know, so the town's records, you know, I'm not a town historian yet, you know, maybe in the future I could have a little bit more information on these things. >> You know, don't you? >> Um
052but I'm I'm cu- I'm curious as well, but I I wish I had I wish I had some more background, but I don't. >> have the information we need. >> Okay, sorry, it's just a >> Yeah, I mean the you know, the overall scale of the project it does seem to be in keeping with, you know, these these little cottages that have been here for, you know, probably maybe you know, half a century at least. >> Mhm. >> Thank you, Morgan. Any other questions for Morgan? Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to address us? Matt, do we have any callers? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Jameson, I I have a request. >> I have answers. >> [laughter] >> I think the um we all seem to be
053uh liking the idea of the 20-ft buffer with the sensitivity of the area and the fragility. Would your uh how would you need to leave the record open to get back to us on that or would you be able to agree to that tonight? >> Well, here is my question back to you. I if they agree to it, I would we if we have to get our survey then updated to show it, then I think we should leave the record open either way. >> Okay. >> Does that >> Well, >> All right. >> Exactly. Prior to a building permit. >> Exactly. >> I think the survey can be a consumer Right. Okay. Um Let's just leave it open for a week. >> Okay. >> Let's Oh, that's right. Leave it open for 2 weeks. >>
054Thank you, Charlie. That's >> Thank you, Charlie. Um to get the answer on the buffer. Um I did learn that we do not have a GC formally engaged yet. Um but when I explained this quickly to someone else on the team, um they said, you know, we should I should state for the record that obviously that's just our obligation as the applicant to make sure that they follow that, but also um we can add tree protection to the construction protocol from an arborist. They have an arborist fully engaged in this. So, if that helps, then we can do that, too. Just for the tree aspect of it. Um And then, you know, the I don't know, the project limiting fence should at least help some and obviously not going too much closer to the wetlands.
055Um but then I think that that is it, right? >> Right. >> Okay. Um If they say yes to the buffer, um did you say the re-veg plan is just something for before the building permit? >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're good? >> We're good. >> So, it should We'll leave it open for 2 weeks. >> Yeah, I also was concerned about that just because there's setbacks from easements, but I think we're still fine. That would take the house still. It's only Well, it would be 20. Yeah. >> Yeah, we were saying 20 on top of that. >> Yeah, I I think if if they agree to the buffer, I think a conservation easement covering the buffer plus everything to the mean high water mark is fine. >> And it can allow for access.
056I think in this case mitigation is the key. >> Access. >> And what do you do? A path? So, we're going to have a path through right now it's a very little sort of bambooy like roll out not a roll out map, but what's the proposal you're going to have a proposal about >> Oh, good question. >> through the buffer? Um, yeah, I was thinking like a I don't know. A footpath. I don't think we were proposing like a structure. Right. So, yeah, the easement would have to allow for that, too. Yeah. >> Yeah, I was going to say that. >> No, it's >> I know, it's good that you asked that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, we would have to update the protocol to have the protection of the trees. >> Yes. >> And
057um, you need to get back to us on the um, how the applicant feels about the 20-ft buffer. Am I missing anything? Are we good? I will leave the record open for 2 weeks. Yes. >> And if I can find out anything interesting historically about the structure, I'll throw that in the letter. >> [laughter] >> I I couldn't find anything interesting. >> It has a lot of patina. >> Once you see it in person, too, right? Like you don't want to stand too close to it, honestly. It was >> out of a Hollywood casting for something. >> It was >> Yeah, I know. >> interesting. >> It's interesting, but this will be a much safer dwelling to to even walk near. Okay. Thank you, everyone. >> So, remember Councilmember Wood, do you think you Jameson?
058Would you like to make a motion to leave the record open for 2 weeks for the additional information? >> Yes, in the matter of Fairy Landing LLC 140 Gerard Drive Suffolk County Tax Map number 300 41-1-19. Make a motion to leave the record open for a period of 2 weeks. >> Councilman Fromm >> Close the public hearing and leave the record >> Close the public public hearing and leave the record >> Very good. Thank you. >> Second. >> I concur. >> Thank you, Jameson. All right. Let me just write this down before I move on. 2 weeks. Okay. Okay, the next public hearing Open us. Is Patrick Brennan 48 Agnew Avenue Suffolk County Tax in Montauk Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-31-2-37. Description is to remove walkways gravel and pavers to reconstruct existing decking with
059proposed additions, construct a new driveway addition, and to allow existing stone patio, LP tanks, AC unit, masonry wall, walkways, and brick patio to remain within setbacks of wetlands, rear yard, and front yard or lot line setbacks on a parcel of land within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands. Relief sought is a natural resource special permit pursuant to 255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code, and nine variances are required. Variances of 67 ft, 61.7 ft, 52.9 ft, and 40.4 ft are required from 255-430 of the town code to allow the patio to remain 33 ft, LP tanks to remain 38.3 ft >> [laughter] >> This is a long one. AC units remain 47.1 ft and decking to be constructed 59.6 ft from fresh freshwater wetlands where 100 ft are required. Variances of 4 ft and 2.75
060ft are required from 255-1110 of the town code to allow the AC units to remain 6 ft and LP tanks to remain 7.75 ft from the rear yard lot line setbacks where 10 ft setbacks are required. One variance of 5.5 ft is required from 255-1110 of the town code to allow the existing patio to remain 9.5 ft from the rear yard lot line where a 15 ft setback is required. One variance is of 0.2 ft is required from 255-1110 of the town code to allow the existing patio to remain 9.4 ft from the side yard lot line where a 9.6 ft setback is required. One variance of 7.5 ft is required from 255-1110 of the town code to allow the existing patio to remain 12.5 ft from the front yard lot line where a 20
061ft setback is required and any other relief necessary. Zoning district is B residence AE flood zone elevation 12. Secret class is type two. >> [clears throat] >> Council, is the affidavit of service and posting in order? >> Yes, I read the affidavit but everything seems to be in order and the board has jurisdiction over it. >> Thank you, Council. Member Burger, do you have a field inspection? >> I have one if you want it. >> Thank you. Okay. So, we'll go through the photos. >> Sure. >> Well, we weren't sure. I know there's a new survey that came in today on this um from Brennan. Um But, this was the posting. We'll go through the photos quickly. Uh this is the west side of the house I took from uh the general vicinity of the
062driveway going all the way to the back. Uh next. Now, we went to the west side where we have uh a number of the items in question on this application, but most have been addressed already. Um >> Sure. >> Um just to show uh continue. Uh this is the east side of the house. This is where they want to change all the stone out into wood walkway and extend the walkway up to the shed that you see in the rear of that photo. Next. Uh this is a shot from the shed area across from the east to the west side of the property. Okay, next. I took these because we were going to talk about a another location for the AC and the the uh propane tanks. Uh this is the propane tanks and they're
063toward the northern part of the property. And again, shot from the east side of the property to the west. Now, I'm going to the other side. Uh first, let me shoot back. This is the back where the property ends and the wetlands are beyond. There is fences uh in the photo. Next. Uh now, I'm at the back standing near the the back of the property and this is one of the patios that was in question. I'm looking from north to south now on the property and it's on the western portion of the property or south. Next. Uh now, I'm standing on that and shooting back across again to that area in front of the shed and the house between them. Shed and house. And next. Here is the shot down in that direction on west
064side again for purposes of what I thought was going to be our discussion here. Um, I'm not sure if you did. >> Thank you, member Burger. Is there someone here to speak on behalf of the application? >> Yes, Tom. >> Uh, Thomas Crouch from Whalen Filer speaking for the applicant Patrick Brennan. Um, this has been in front of the board multiple times now, so I'll be as quick as possible. Um, the original hearing was on January 6th of this year. Uh, the board there were a number of structures that patios and decks that have been built over the course of like 25 years. Some with permits, some without. Um, the board at the close of that hearing on their post hearing discussion just uh, decided to grant some approvals, make some denials, and two of
065the items that were denied were the gas tanks and AC unit at the northern end of the property. Um, I asked the board to reopen the hearing uh, just to cuz they need to go somewhere on the property. Basically, the entire property is within the wetland jurisdiction, so we wanted to just wrap this up. Uh, Jameson was actually their original lawyer when we worked together like 3 years ago, so this has been going on for quite some time. Um, so yeah, we um, we had proposed the uh, gas the AC unit and the gas tanks on the west side of the property kind of up against the AC unit up against the outdoor shower. And we put a little gap there just because there's a bedroom window. >> Thank you. >> That increases the wetland
066setback from where it is now of 38.3 ft to 62.5 ft. And as requested by the board, it requires no other setback dimensional setback variances. >> Okay. Say that again more slowly, please. >> Okay. Sorry. >> From 38, we're talking about the propane tanks now? >> Yes, the gas tanks go from 38.3 ft from the wetland to 62.5 ft. And the AC unit um, goes from 47.1 ft to we don't actually have it separately marked, but >> Yeah, I know. >> 65 70 ft. >> Yeah, and that's kind of what I estimated to looking at it. >> So, um feel like that's the you know, given the constraints on the property that it's a narrow lot with you know, significant wetlands in the in the northern side on just across the property line that this
067is really the only location that makes sense. >> And they do look like they are meeting the western set back. Just trying to >> your from the course, yeah. >> Yeah, okay. >> So, so that's all I have unless you have questions. >> Okay, okay. >> All right. >> I have no questions. >> All right. >> Terry >> I have to show cards. >> I have no questions. >> [laughter] >> Okay. >> Thank you. So, we're ready to hear from the planning department. >> Tyler [clears throat] Borsack for the planning department. >> Tyler, do you affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. >> Um I don't have anything else to add in terms of I mean with the planning department didn't have much help much to say about
068the original location. The new location is obviously much better uh set back. Um it does meet side yard set backs. I don't remember what the side yard set back is on this property cuz it is narrow. Um but it meets like a 16 ft set back. So, it's well beyond what would be required normally um let alone with a with a reduced set back. Um but other than that I can make myself available for questions. >> Any questions for Tyler? >> No. >> Well, I guess the only question I have is to be exact more exact about the set back for the AC unit. Can you calculate that right now? >> Uh I could try. I'm not super familiar with the program, but I can attempt to. It might It might take me a minute.
069I don't we I don't carry a scale. Um but I can try and figure it out on this program. >> Unless we you just give it to us later. >> I mean yeah, I mean I can I can certainly look it up and >> It's approved. Want to say approximately >> Yeah, I can certainly let board know before they make their decision what the setbacks are. It's not new information. It's just we haven't calculated it. >> don't have to leave anything open here. Okay. >> Thank you. Is there Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to speak to this application? No, Jameson? Okay. Any callers, Matt? >> You have zero callers. Thank you. >> Tom, do you have any final comments? >> Nothing. Uh thanks for your time. >> Uh you're welcome. Remember
070the motion? Okay. So, I make a motion to close the public hearing and the record on Patrick Brennan, 42 Agway Avenue, Montauk, tax map 300-31-2-37. Second? >> No. >> Concur. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay, let's move on. Thank you, Tom. Okay, now we're going to move on to our work session. First item, other decisions, Hampton Rackett, 172 Buckskill Road, East Hampton, Suffolk County tax map number 300-184-3-11. Request to keep the record open for an additional 30 days. Tom? >> Uh I don't have any information on this. I think they're just requesting additional time. >> But well, I have She Did everyone see the letter we received from Tiffany Scarlato? >> Yeah. >> She wants additional She wants to be able to submit additional comments. I don't have any problem reopening the hearing for that
071information. But I personally feel that we should have another additional 2 weeks for the building inspector and the planning department to respond to that additional commentary. May I ask a question? >> Sure. >> So, in the [clears throat] hearing and Chair, you were very specific about this in the hearing, right? That there's sort of one thing >> Correct. Correct. >> There were many other things presented to us and in the file and that's okay, but I guess so the question for discussion is unless that information is really germane to what we think our jurisdiction is. But, I would like to get a little >> don't know. >> Okay. >> You you know, and I I would really be not in favor of denying anyone to submit additional information into the record. But, that being said,
072um whatever is submitted is if it is germane to what's before us, I would like the building inspector and the planning department to be able to respond. >> Sounds fair to me. >> Does that sound fair? Okay, does everybody agree with me? Okay, you're okay with that? Jan, are you good? >> Yeah, yes, please. Thank you. >> All right, so I will All right, I'll do this. So, for Hampton Racquet, 172 Buckskill Road in East Hampton, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-184-3-11, I make a motion to keep the record open for an additional 30 days and then another 2 weeks, which would probably bring us to around August 11th >> Yeah. >> for the planning department and the building inspector to give us their comments. Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >>
073I'll concur. >> Concur. >> [clears throat] >> Member Kelly, do you concur? >> I do. >> [laughter] >> Okay. Next is the minutes approval, draft minutes of Tuesday, June 9th, Member Burger. >> Yes. >> I'd like to make a motion to approve the draft minutes from Tuesday, June 9th for the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals. >> Second. >> Concur. >> On to the resolutions. The first one is 42 OMH LLC, 42 Old Montauk Highway, Montauk, Suffolk County tax map number 300-21-2-23. >> Who >> Which one is mine? >> Okay, number five. >> Yeah, you probably recall this. Um it's the what was known as the Benihana house overlooking the ocean off of Old Montauk Highway. Um I like to call it the go-to house, but um Anyway, so this was a minimal changes.
074Well, I won't say minimal, but changes to the structure itself. And um addition of a swimming pool, redirecting the driveway, and it also involved revegetation, and also revegetation on neighboring property which has the same owner. Um with a re-veg plan for in that property. Also, this was a good unanimous It was approval. So, I'd like to make a motion for 42 Old Montauk Highway, Montauk, tax map 300-21-2-23 to approve the resolution as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Next is 176 Deforest Road LLC, 176 Deforest Road, Montauk, Suffolk County tax map number 300-21-2-23. >> It was [clears throat] mine. Um I recall this was a structure that's been there since the 1880s. It was rebuilt about 20 years ago called Tick Hall. They were looking for some uh a minor approval uh locating a um
075uh gas tanks and uh changing a uh configuration of the driveway. It was a five uh oh approval. We all agreed. Therefore, I'd like to make a motion in the matter of 176 Deforest Road LLC 176 DeForest Road Montauk Suffolk County Tax Map 300-21-2-23 to accept the determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. Sorry. >> Next is Thomas >> That was you just did that. >> I was just looking at this one. >> Oh, no, no, I'm wrong. >> Oh, no, I'm sorry. >> I'm wrong. I'm wrong. >> Thomas Wenzel >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> 100 DeForest Road unit 826 Montauk Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-32. 1-1-226 >> Okay, this is mine. Okay, yeah. Um this is a this is Montauk Shores Condominiums um and this unit this has been around for a while.
076It was a additions to it I think it's a redevelopment of the unit actually, but this is a modification that came in to actually make the unit smaller and some other slight changes which actually increased the uh or reduce rather the the lot coverage on the property as well as the unit itself. So, this was a unanimous approval also for the modification to make a motion for the modification for 100 DeForest Road unit 826 Montauk 300-32.1-1-226 for Thomas Wenzel. Approve the modification. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Next is Marion Ladier 83 Cliff Road um again Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-174-2-6 >> Thank you. So, this uh we will recall uh was an application to increase the size of the existing house by about 1,080 73 or 83 square feet to the basically maximum allowable
077and to do a 588 square foot garage. Um, the issue um that the board found was uh the the existing clearing which had been done unlawfully um and the property was over cleared by more than I think 10,000 square feet beyond what it should have been. It was all cleared of of protected uh dune vegetation without the benefit of permit. So, this was a unanimous, believe it was a unanimous denial of the entire application um for both the variance, so this for the NRSP um given the issue with respect to there was no uh information or proposal for how they would remedy the uh the clearing violation. So, um in the matter [clears throat] of Maren Ledeer uh 83 Cliff Road, Amagansett, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-1-7-4-2-6, I make a motion to accept the determination
078resolution as written. >> Second. >> I concur. >> Do you concur at all or not? >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> Think about it. Put your glasses on to really think about it. >> Next is Natalie Barth, 14 Cow Hill Lane, Wainscott, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-1-9-7-1- >> 29.8, member Klingbeil. >> Yes, this was a unanimous decision of the property constructed a pool patio within 9 or 11.1 feet of the rear property setback where 20 feet was required. Building permit perhaps was issued in our uh and property proceeding construction. Uh decision of the [clears throat] board was unanimous to accept what was done. So, I'd like to make a motion to accept it as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Next is Mayo Trust, 96 Marine Boulevard, Amagansett, Suffolk County Tax Map number 300-176-7-12. >>
079Member Merz. >> Yes, thank you, Chair. So, this was an application in the Beachampton neighborhood on the north side of Marine Boulevard to expand the house with a full second story plus a full second roof deck on top of that second story. There's going to be a new septic. We were asked to legalize a small expansion of a a rear decking. I won't go through it all now cuz there were numerous moving pieces and such, but we were a unanimous in the denial of the roof deck and the request for a permit variants for the second story. And then we were split in various ways for the other elements on the house including the the second story. So, I'll leave it at that, but I did read the um resolution and in the matter of
080Mayo Trust, 96 Marine Boulevard, Amagansett, Suffolk County Tax Map 300-176-7-12, I make a motion to accept the resolution determination as written. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Vice Chair, do we have an adjournment? >> Yes, we do. I'd like to make a motion to close the Town of East Hampton Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing for June 23rd, 2026 at 7 39 p.m. >> Second. >> Concur. >> Thank you, Matt. >> Have a good night, board.