EH Town Zoning Board of Appeals              Denise Savarese

              300 Pantigo Place              Telephone: (631) 324-8816

              East Hampton, NY  11937

 

EH Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of June 20, 2017
East Hampton, New York

 

 

I.              CALL TO ORDER

12:00 AM Meeting called to order on June 20, 2017 at Town Hall Meeting Room, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY.

 

Attendee Name

Present

Absent

Late

Arrived

Chairman John P. Whelan

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member Theresa Berger

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member Roy Dalene

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member Cate Rogers

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member David Lys

¨

¨

¨

 

II.              CANCELLED PUBLIC HEARING:

III.              SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A.              American Legion Post 419

              TIME:              6:30:00 PM              APPLICANT:              American Legion Post 419

              SIZE/LOCATION:              208,295 sq. ft., 535 Abrahams Path, N/A, Amagansett (300-170-02-01)

              DESCRIPTION:              To allow a 13.5? tall, 414 sq. ft. monument to be constructed within front yard setbacks.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              Variances from  255-11-10 (Table III) and 255-11-72D (Pyramid) of the Town Code

              and any other relief necessary.  The following variances are required: (1) An 80?

              variance is required to allow the construction of a monument 0 from the southern

              (front yard) lot line where an 80ft. setback is required; (2) a variance is required to allow

              the proposed monument?s dedication to extend approximately 1? beyond the relative

              height limit (Pyramid) along the southern lot line.

              ZONING DISTRICT: A Residence Zone X Flood Zone

              SEQRA CLASS:              Type II

i.              Technical Analysis Memo

Technical Analysis Memo

             

              Lead Agency:              (not applicable)

              Planner:              James Kommer             

              Date completed:              April 17, 2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class:              Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              535 Abrahams Path              Subdivision

              School District:              Amagansett              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              A Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:    N/A              Variance: XX             

              Tax Map Number: 300-170-02-01              Natural Resources

     Applicant:                            American Legion Post 419                                           Special Permit  

                                          C/o William J Fleming                                      Other:

10 Gingerbread Lane

East Hampton, N.Y. 11937  

                                         

             

              Telephone:                            631-324-8778

              FEMA ZONE:              X Flood Zone

              Soil Type:              Carver and Plymouth sands, 3 to 15 percent slopes (CpC), Plymouth loamy sand, silty substratum, 3 to 8 percent slopes (PsB), Bridgehampton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (BGA),

              Map of Property:              N/A

              Size of Parcel:              208,295 sq. ft.

 

Project Description:  To allow a 13.5 ft/ tall, 414 sq. ft. monument to be constructed within front yard setbacks.

 

Relief Requested: Variances from  255-11-10 (Table III) and 255-11-72D (Pyramid) of the Town Code and any other relief necessary.  The following variance is required: (1) A 66 ft variance is required to allow the construction of a monument 14ft from the southern (front yard) lot line where an 80 ft setback is required.

 

Property and History: The property is improved with a one story building with paved parking, gravel parking, block garage, gazebo, one story dwelling with stone drive. The existing clearing predates the adoption of the vegetation protection ordinance. The most recent Certificate of Occupancy issued on the property was in 2013. All of the improvements can be found on the George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C. site plan dated revised 04/29/16. The property appeared before the Zoning Board previously in May of 2000, requesting a setback variances for a gazebo. The variances were granted.

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Board's Consideration:

 

The applicant is seeking to locate a portion of steel from the World Trade Center destroyed on September 11, 2001 in a 36x36 monument with a dedication and planting bed totaling 414 sq. ft. The steel monument with base shall be 13 5 tall. The monument area shall be surrounded by sidewalk up to the edge of the property and brick pavers on the north, east and west totaling 332 sq. ft. Four concrete benches are proposed of various sizes on the grounds of the American Legion Post 419 property in Amagansett. Situated on the front (south) lot line of the property on the northern side of Montauk Highway, the proposed monument requires an 66 ft variance to allow the construction 14 ft from the southern (front yard) lot line where an 80 ft setback is required.

 

The property is located on a 4.8 acre lot where accessory structures are subject to an 80 ft street front yard setback. While the applicant is requesting a substantial variance from code, the nature of the monument being constructed must be taken into account before a decision can be made. Steel from the World Trade Center has been used as memorials on public and private property, with over 80 installations on Long Island alone. A monument of this nature commemorates an event of national importance and could serve as a landmark in Amagansett. Accessory structures in residential zones typically consist of sheds, garages, swimming pools, and other residential uses. Setbacks as per 255-11-10 of the East Hampton Town code are in place to protect the character of the neighborhood, but excessive setbacks on a monument meant for the community would be counterintuitive to its purpose. The proposed monument, while a notable addition to the area, shouldn't warrant high intensity use or result in local disturbance. The board could consider the unique nature of the structure and the mission statement of the American Legion in evaluating this application with the Town Code?s variance standards. Should the board deem to grant this application, the inherit uniqueness and the relative rarity of this project could easily set this specific application apart from most others requiring front yard and or pyramid variances.

 

The Zoning Board needs to decide if the applicant meets the variance standards in 255-8-50 of the Town Code in order to be eligible for the issuance of the requested variance. The applicants should address how the variance does not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, cannot be achieved by some method other than the requested variances, is not substantial, and does not have an adverse effect or impact on the environment or the neighborhood

 

 

 

Recommended Project Conditions: N/A

 

 

B.              Montauk Properties LLC

TIME:              6:50:00 PM              APPLICANT: Montauk Properties, LLC

              SIZE/LOCATION:              51,308 sq. ft., 183 Edgemere Street, N/A, Montauk (300-027-03-14)

              DESCRIPTION:              To legalize a number of already-built accessory structures and additions, install a new

              sanitary system, install new drainage, and modify the lighting and landscaping.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to section 255-4-20 of the Town

              Code. A total of twenty-one (21) area variances are requested. Ten (10) variances are

              requested from the minimum wetland setbacks of Section 255-4-30 of the Town Code

              and eleven (11) variances are requested from the minimum yard setbacks of Section

              255-11-10 of the Town Code, and any other relief as may be necessary.

              ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence Zone X Flood Zone

              SEQRA CLASS:              Type II

C.              Technical Analysis Memo

Technical Analysis Memo

             

              Lead Agency:              N/A

              Planner:              Eric Schantz

              Date completed:              April 25, 2017                            Site Plan                            X

              SEQRA class:              Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              183 Edgemere Street              Subdivision

              School District:              Montauk              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              B: Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:   Harbor Protection Overlay District              Variance                             X

              Tax Map Number: 300-27-3-14              Natural Resources

     Applicant:                            Montauk Properties, LLC                                            Special Permit                  X

                                          c/o Richard A. Hammer, Esq.                                            Other: 

                                          Biondo & Hammer, LLP

                                          PO Box 5030

                                          Montauk, NY 11954

             

              Telephone:                            (631) 668 - 7332

              FEMA ZONE:              X

              Soil Type:              Fs: Fill land, sandy

              Map of Property:              N/A

              Size of Parcel:              51,308 sq. ft. (excluding wetlands)

 

Project Description: 

Application is to legalize a number of already-built accessory structures and additions, install a new sanitary system, install new drainage, and modify the lighting and landscaping.

 

Relief Requested:

A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to section 255-4-20 of the Town Code. A total of twenty-one (21) area variances  are requested. Ten (10) variances are requested from the minimum wetland setbacks of Section 255-4-30 of the Town Code and eleven (11) variances are requested from the minimum yard setbacks of Section 255-11-10 of the Town Code, and any other relief as may be necessary.

 

Property Conditions and History:

The subject parcel is zoned B: Residence and contains two (2) legally pre-existing, non-conforming commercial uses in the form of a restaurant and motel. It is situated along Edgemere Road in Montauk and is adjacent to Fort Pond, a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. The entirety of the property is situated within the Harbor Protection Overlay District (HPOD).

Site plan application was originally made to install a 500 Gallon underground propane tank and to legalize a number of already-built structures. The nature of the proposed project has changed significantly since the original application and the property has since been the subject of Court proceedings.

 

The property is the subject of a Stipulation of Settlement between the owners and the Town of East Hampton (dated June 29, 2016). This settlement requires a number of specific conditions and improvements, including special conditions for the granting of a music permit, as listed below:

 

              As a condition of granting a music permit, a cap of three hundred and ninety five (395) persons on-site in the outdoor beach area, on the deck, in the bar/restaurant area, in the office and in the retail area. This does not include the motel units for which the maximum occupancy remains as permitted by the Fire Marshal as per all applicable codes.

 

              Establishment of a fifty (50) person roped-off queueing area near the main entrance to the restaurant (as opposed to having waiting patrons in the parking lot)

 

              No outdoor music is permitted after 8PM and is limited to two (2) hours per day

 

              Live music is only permitted between May 15th and September 15th, up to five (5) times a week and on Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day

 

              Installation of a new sprinkler system in the restaurant building

 

              Installation of an updated sanitary system

 

              Installation of sound-mitigating features (as was part of a previous stipulation from 2010, or as approved in a modified plan)

 

              Applicants must obtain all necessary approvals from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Architectural Review Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Planning Board for any structures proposed or placed/built on-site previously without approvals.

 

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Boards Consideration:

 

The following is a comprehensive list of the variances required, although the Zoning Board and/or the applicants may wish to double-check this list as it is quite long. The variances have been arranged by structure/site feature which requires approval at this time.

 

Total Lot Coverage:

1.                            A variance for the existing total coverage.  A significant portion of the coverage is pre-existing and non-conforming, however; since there are no coverage calculations on the CO survey, it is difficult to tell just how much is pre-existing.  Therefore; the applicants are applying for a variance for the coverage as it currently exists in order to legalize all improvements on site and also cover those that are legally pre-existing.

 

Movie Screen:

2.                            A 89 foot variance for an existing seasonal audio/visual screen to be located 11 feet from the wetland, where 100? is required;

 

3.                            A 38 foot property line setback variance for the existing movie screen to be located 12 feet from the front yard property line, where 50 feet is required.

 

Fire Pit:

4.                            A 57 foot variance for a fire pit located 43 ft from the wetland, where 100? is required;

 

5.                            A 7 foot property line setback variance for a fire pit located 43 ft from the front yard, where 50 feet is required

 

Electrical Box:

6.                            A 6 foot variance for the existing PSEG utility box to be located 94 feet from the wetland, where 100 feet is required;

 

7.                            A 14 foot property line setback variance for the existing PSEG utility box to be located 1? feet from the rear property line, where 15 feet is required;

 

SCWA Box:

8.                            A 10 foot property line setback variance for the existing SCWA box to be located 5? feet from the rear property line, where 15 feet is required;

 

Deck Extension:

9.                            A 48 foot variance for the existing walkway connecting the front and rear deck on the west side of the structure, to be located 52 feet from the wetland where 100? is required;

 

10.              A 6 foot setback variance for the existing walkway connecting the front and rear decks on the western side of the restaurant structure to be located 14 feet from the rear property line where 20 feet is required.

 

Sound Barrier:

11.              A 100? variance for a sound barrier to be located on top of the existing deck 0? from the wetland, where 100? is required;

 

12.              A 50? foot property line setback variance for a sound barrier to be located on top of the existing deck 0? feet from the front yard, where 50 feet is required

 

Fence/Railing:

13.              A 100 variance for a proposed safety railing to be located on top of the existing bulkhead, where 100 ft is required;

 

14.              A 50 ft foot property line setback variance for a proposed safety railing to be located on top of the existing bulkhead 0? feet from the front yard, where 50 feet is required;

 

Outdoor Storage Area:

15.              An 84.9 foot setback variance for the existing outdoor storage area located to the rear of the structure, to be located 15.1 feet from the wetland, where 100 feet is required;

 

16.              A 24.9 foot property line setback variance for the existing outdoor storage area to be located 15.1 feet from the front yard, where 40 feet is required;

 

Propane Tanks:

17.              A 72 foot setback variance for the propane tanks, to be located 28 feet from the wetland, where 100 feet is required;

 

18.              A 22 foot property line setback variance for the propane tanks to be located 28 feet from the front yard, where 50 feet is required;

 

Dumpster & Enclosure:

19.              A 8? foot property line setback variance for the dumpster and enclosure to be located 7? feet from the rear yard, where 15 feet is required;

 

Berms

20.              A variance of undetermined scale for the existing westernmost berm from the wetland, where 100 feet is required;

 

21.              A variance of undetermined scale for the existing easternmost berm from the wetland, where 100 feet is required;

 

 

It is the understanding of the Planning Board that fees have been submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a total of fourteen (14) variances as well as the fee for a Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP). The discrepancy in fees should be corrected.

 

Section 255-11-34 of the Town Code deems berms of greater than 6 ft in height along the Edgemere Street side of this property (the rear yard) structures which would require relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The submitted plan does not indicate the finished height of the proposed berms or their distances from the wetland boundary. Therefore, it is not possible for the Planning Department to determine if the berms will require variances, or the scale of these variances. The applicants should clarify this issue for the Zoning Board of Appeals.

 

Drainage & Storm Water Run-Off Control

A comprehensive site drainage plan has been submitted which appears to account for all storm water run-off produced by the roof of the principal building. It is not clear to the Planning Department whether or not the drainage calculations and proposed structures will account for or contain the storm water run-off generated by either the large deck to the rear or the covered outdoor storage area. The applicants should clarify this issue for the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Department, primarily due to the proximity of Fort Pond, would recommend that all generated storm water run-off from these areas be controlled.

 

The drainage plan provides a calculation for the areas where the 20 - unit, two-story motel building is sited. The calculations indicate that adequate drainage control structures will be provided. However, the drainage plan does not appear to indicate any drainage control structures in this area. The applicants should clarify this issue. The Planning Department is unaware of whether or not there is existing drainage control for this building. Although this building is not the subject of any of the requested relief as part of the subject application, the proximity of Fort Pond makes storm water run-off control for the entirety of the site an issue of prime importance.

 

Sanitary System

The existing sanitary system consists of two (2) septic tanks and eleven (11) leaching pools for the thirty four (34) motel units and sixty eight (68) seat restaurant as well as any other patrons which may be in standing areas on-site.

 

Installation of an updated sanitary system is required as part of the Stipulation of Settlement, after all necessary approvals have been obtained. The applicants propose a system that utilizes a grease trap, two (2) separate septic tanks (consisting of four (4) connected shallow depth pools), and a pump station which will pump effluent upland (and up-grade) to eight (8) separate rows of Geomatrix leaching systems.

 

The leaching systems consist of parallel rows of stone and sand which filter and channel effluent in the southwest direction (consistent with the flow of groundwater on-site) with the aid of a filter fabric and soil air blowers. The last two rows of this system have a soil and sawdust combination below them which helps to further reduce nitrogen continent in the effluent. The submitted sanitary plan also indicates that meters will be installed to measure groundwater and soil moisture.

 

Although still a conventional sanitary system, the proposed system utilizes a design which should represent a significant improvement over the existing system and should greatly help to reduce the quantities of nitrogen and other deleterious substances leached from sanitary effluent. Given the site's proximity to Fort Pond and shallow depth to groundwater, this aspect of the project is seen as a significant positive improvement.

 

Innovative and Alternative On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (I/A OWTS) are not currently required by either the Suffolk County Department of Health Services or East Hampton Town. However, the applicants should consider that improvements in such technologies have been made over the past years and that such systems may eventually be required for facilities with generated flow rates such as this one. The applicants are encouraged to consider an alternative system as any effort which could be made to reduce nitrogen output into Fort Pond should be made.

 

Structures/Additions Requiring Relief

The Zoning Board of Appeals should read the Stipulation of Settlement agreed upon by the Town and the applicants. It should be noted that some of the structures/additions were specifically required in the Stipulation or were requested by various Town employees during discussions and/or on-site visits. Other structures/additions for which approval needs to be obtained appear to be relatively minor-sized utilities or seemingly necessary items. These items the Planning Department has no objections to as they appear to either be specifically requested or required by the Town or serve necessary functions of the facility. The remaining structures/additions are more discretionary and the Zoning Board of Appeals should focus its deliberations on these items. The Planning Department classifies the aspects of the project as listed below:

 

Required by the Stipulation or requested by the Town:

?              New sanitary system

?              New drainage

?              Safety railing

?              Sound barrier

 

Utilities & similar:

?              SCWA box

?              Electrical box

?              Underground propane tanks

?              Dumpster & enclosure

 

Remaining items:

?              Movie screen

?              Fire pit

 

The applicants have submitted a narrative to the Planning Board regarding the intended nature of use of the fire pit and movie screen. The narrative states that the movie screen will not have sound and that it is not visible from behind as the rear of the screen is blacked-out. It will be partially visible from Edgemere Street. The fire pit is said to be used mainly in the off-season. Neither of these structures is anticipated to contribute significantly to storm water run-off which could impact Fort Pond. However, as a rear yard (Edgemere Street) setback variance is requested, it would seem prudent for the Zoning Board of Appeals to discuss potential additional screening to make the front of the movie screen invisible from this well-traveled public roadway.

 

?              Deck extension (~3 X 45 or 135 sq. ft.)

 

This is a relatively minor addition which connects the legally pre-existing decking at the front of the restaurant to that at the rear. However, it does represent additional impervious surface within wetland jurisdiction.

 

?              Berms

 

As mentioned above, the details provided about the berms are incomplete. However, although the Town Code discourages tall berms in close proximity to public roadways, the ability of the berms to help screen the facility from public view should be considered as a potential positive aspect.

 

?              Crushed shell parking lot

 

The parking lot is proposed to be resurfaced from gravel to crushed shells. Although the Planning Department does not necessarily object to this, it is recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals discuss with the applicants where these shells will come from as the proximity of this parcel to Fort Pond presents the potential for contamination by either chemicals which might be on the shells, or, more concerning, contamination by biologicals such as bacteria, which can infect shellfish populations and easily be transferred to new water bodies.

 

?              Outdoor storage area

 

The property previously had a number of scattered storage bins and walk-in coolers to the rear of the restaurant building. The project proposes to consolidate these items into one area to be covered by a roof overhang.

 

 

Recommended Project Conditions:

 

1.              The Zoning Board of Appeals should consider, after clarification of the issues raised above, whether or not additional drainage structures for storm water run-off control are needed.

 

2.              The Zoning Board of Appeals should consider requiring additional screening of the movie screen to conceal its view from Edgemere Street.

D.              My Wife Really Likes It LLC

              TIME:              7:10:00 PM              APPLICANT:              My Wife Really Likes It, LLC

              SIZE/LOCATION:              4.6 acres (approx. total), 1 Association Road, Wainscott (300-200-03-08)

              DESCRIPTION:              To remove approximately 8,900 sq. ft. of common reed (Phragmites australis) from the

              surface waters of Georgica Pond including the excavation and backfill up to 36  of

              pond bottom containing the rhizomes (roots) of the reeds.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the Town Code

              and any other relief as may be necessary.

              ZONING DISTRICT:A5 Residence AE Flood Zone, elevation 10' & 11', X Flood Zone

              SEQRA CLASS:              Unlisted

i.              Technical Analysis Memo

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON   NEW YORK 11937

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM

PART II (to be completed by Lead Agency)

 

TOWN REVIEWING AGENCY:

East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals

==================

             

     Lead Agency:       (non-coordinated review)

              Planner:              Brian Frank

              Date completed:              May 05, 2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class:              Unlisted              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              1 Association Road              Subdivision

              School District:              Wainscott              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              A5 Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:              Harbor Protection Overlay District              Variance

              Tax Map Number: 300-200-03-08              Natural Resources

              Applicant:              My Wife Really Likes It, LLC              Special Permit: XX

              C/o Land Use Ecological              Other:

              570 Expressway Drive

              Medford, NY  11763

              Telephone:              (631) 727-2400

              FEMA ZONE:              AE Flood Zone

              Soil Type:              Caver and Plymouth sands, 3 to 15 % slopes (CpC)

              Map of Property:              N/a

              Size of Parcel:              4.6 acres (approx. total)

              Project Description:

To remove approximately 8,900 sq. ft. of common reed (Phragmites australis) from the surface waters of Georgica Pond including the excavation and backfill up to 36" of pond bottom containing the rhizomes (roots) of the reeds.

 

              Relief:

A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to  255-4-20 of the Town Code and any other relief as may be necessary.

             

 

 

Part 2 - Impact Assessmen <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/90161.html>t.  The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept ?Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action??

 

                No, or small impact may occur              Moderate to large impact may occur             

1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91098.html> regulations <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91098.html>

XX                                         

2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91103.html> XX                                         

3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91399.html> XX                                         

4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91404.html> establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91404.html>? XX                                         

5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91414.html> affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91414.html>? XX                                         

6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91419.html> reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91419.html> XX                                         

7. Will the proposed action impact existing: <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91424.html>

a.   public / private water supplies b.   public / private wastewater treatment utilities? XX                                         

1.               XX                           

8.  Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91429.html> architectural or aesthetic resources <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91429.html> XX                                         

9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g.,   wetland <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91434.html>s, waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna) <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91434.html>              XX                           

10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91439.html> problems<http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91439.html> XX                                         

11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human   health <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91444.html>?              XX                           

                                         

 

Part 3 - Determination of significance. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/90166.html>  The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered ?moderate to large impact may occur, or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91455.html> the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91455.html> Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91460.html> duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term, long-term and <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91460.html> cumulative impacts. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/91460.html>

 

 

Property Conditions and History:

The subject premises are improved with an approximately 12,000 sq. ft. two story residence with various appurtenances such as a swimming pool and tennis court.  Most of the improvements on the property were constructed pursuant to a 2005 building permit.  Prior to the issuance of this permit, the improvements on the property consisted of a residence with an approximate footprint of 2,000 sq. ft. constructed prior to zoning.  A new sanitary system appears to have been installed nearly 300 ft from the wetlands to serve the new construction; but a sanitary system located northwest of the residence and shown on the survey, possibly located as close as 40 ft.-50 ft. from the wetlands, appears to still serve the original residence.  The most recent Certificate of Occupancy for the improvement on the property was issued 2007 and the most recent survey depicting the existing conditions on the property was prepared by the Saskas Surveying Company, dated revised September 12, 2015.  The property appears to have been acquired by the current owner of record as of November 2014.  This activity has received a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), most recently revised March 15, 2017, a copy of which is contained in the Board?s file.  The most recent plans depicting the details of the proposed activity are those approved in the NYSDEC permit prepared by Land Use Ecological Services (2 pgs) dated August 04, 2016.   This application requires the approval of the East Hampton Town Trustees who own the bottomlands of Georgica Pond on behalf of the public.  More than half of the Phragmites stand proposed for removal is located beyond the applicant's property on the public bottomlands of Georgica Pond.

The common reed (Phragmites australis), often referred to as Phragmites, is one of the most widespread invasive species of wetlands and their adjacent uplands.  It is a member of the grass family that can grow to heights of 14 feet.  Phragmites thrives in disturbed habitats within and adjacent to wetlands.  While it produce viable seeds, once established it tends to reproduce vegetatively by the spread of ground level stems (stolons) and horizontal roots (rhizomes) that produce new above ground culms (stalks or shoots).    This vegetative, or clonal, reproduction is most frequently the source of the dense, often spreading stands of the reed.  The density and vertical thickness of this rhizome mat contributes to this species rapid growth and resistance to control measures. 

As noted on the most recent plans, the proposal consist of the cutting and removal of the Phragmites culms.  A 10 ft. wide by 45 ft. long timber mat is proposed to be used by a long reach excavator to access those portions of the rhizome mat located as much as 60 ft. from the shoreline.  Between 24-36 vertical inches of material will be excavated to remove the culms, stolons and rhizomes.  The excavated material will be contained in a silt fence dike near the shoreline until dry enough to remove to an upland disposal site.   Clean sand (660 cubic yards) is proposed to backfill the excavated area to match the adjacent elevations.  Emergent wetland plants are proposed to be planted within the excavated area and a 30 deep shoreline buffer composed of an unspecified combination of native shrubs and herbaceous plants has also been proposed.  The application also includes the removal and replacement of a white oak (Quercus alba) and black cherry (Prunus serotina)  from the shoreline as noted on the plan and will likely involve the excavation or removal of a large diameter tree stump, suspected to be a red maple (Acer rubrum), also located along the shoreline.

 

Environmental Setting

The property is located within the ?Goose Creek? tributary of Georgica Pond.  Georgica Pond is a locally significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. During most of the calendar year, it is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by a beach and barrier dune.  The pond receives significant freshwater input via groundwater and surface water tributaries from the surrounding watershed. The pond is opened to the ocean as a result of coastal storms and the seasonal mechanical excavation of the inlet, coordinated by the Town Trustees.   The elevation of the surface and groundwater tables can vary substantially over the course of a calendar year.  Water table elevations are highest when the inlet is closed for prolonged periods of time and can decrease rapidly when the inlet is opened as a result of natural or mechanical processes.  The location of the pond shoreline also varies dramatically in conjunction with changes in the water table's elevation.  The wetland vegetation along the pond shoreline is most frequently characterized by tidal wetland species in the southern portion of the pond, closest to the inlet where the salinities are highest, and transitions to freshwater wetland indicator species as the distance from the inlet increases.   The northern sections of the Georgica Pond shoreline is best characterized as a red maple-black tupelo swamp with the characteristic canopy, understory and shrub layer associated with this plant community in coastal New York.

 

Section 303 [Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans] of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each State to identify surface waters that do not meet water quality standards for any given pollutant that potentially impacts the water body's designated uses.  Surface waters that exceed an established water quality parameter for a given pollutant are added to a Priority Water Body list (frequently referred to as the 303(d) or Impaired Water Body list).  Georgica Pond was added to the impaired water body list in 2007 due to due to indicators for elevated levels of pathogens.  Pathogens are disease causing organisms like bacteria, viruses, fungi and algae.  In surface waters, these organisms frequently originate from human and animal wastes, often from sanitary effluent and fertilizers.   Water quality impacts resulting from surface water runoff and groundwater seepage are exacerbated by a lack of riparian buffers, which when present, facilitate the interception of sediments and other contaminants in addition to assimilating  excess nutrients from phosphorus and nitrogen compounds that are strongly correlated with important water quality parameters.   Consequently, a common reed invaded shoreline is inferior habitat to a natural and undisturbed shoreline, but is usually preferable to a shoreline that is regularly cleared and devoid of any vegetative cover.

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations:

 

It is difficult to quantify the environmental benefits of the application and it is possible that the proposed Phragmites removal will result in greater aesthetic benefits to the property owner than a measurable improvement in the environmental conditions of Georgica Pond.  While it is true that the proliferation of Phragmites displaces or takes over native emergent wetland habitats, it should also be noted that the rapid growth rate and large biomass of Phragmites contributes to its ability to remove excess nutrients, especially nitrogenous compounds, especially pertinent in Georgica Pond.  It also retains some habitat value for some wildlife species, especially some sensitive species of shorebirds and marsh song birds. 

To date, NRSPs issued for Phragmites removal have been limited to selective hand cutting landward of surface waters and this project would be the first NRSP to allow the direct excavation of the reed within surface waters.  The excavation within an area that is not subjected to even minor disturbances could be especially disruptive and as such should only be undertaken when demonstrable environmental benefits outweigh the short term impacts associated with the disturbance.  Since a majority of the project site is located beyond the applicant?s property, this application requires the full cooperation and support of the East Hampton Town Trustees.

The water depth in this area of Goose Creek is highly variable and nearly absent when the inlet to the ocean is open.  The excavation is currently proposed to occur when the inlet is open, which may reduce the severity of some of the potential adverse impacts of the excavation such as surface water turbidity and the mobility of any Phragmites rhizomes that may establish new clonal stands of not contained by silt fence or a turbidity curtain.   Locating the containment area for the excavated sediment and rhizomes close to the shoreline may also reduce the potential for sediments or rhizome fragments from reentering the wetlands or surface waters of Georgica Pond.

A number of project parameters remain a concern to the Planning Department.  There is no conservation benefit to the removal of the oak or cherry tree from the shoreline.  Although greenbrier is a native species, there is little impact from cutting this vine, or the Japanese honeysuckle away from the trees to improve their vigor.  Similarly, the maple stump is a natural component of the shoreline.  Since it is essentially surrounded by Phragmites, it will also likely be removed along with the Phragmites.  The application has proposed a number of freshwater emergent wetland species to replace the Phragmites.  Within this area of Goose Creek (and generally within Georgica Pond) there are very few areas than contain emergent wetland vegetation, due at least in part, to dramatic water table fluctuations.  While most emergent wetland species are adapted to a specific range of inundation, few herbaceous species are tolerant of a wide range for a prolonged period of time and the survivorship of the proposed revegetation is questionable.   

The extent of Phragmites extends well beyond the stand proposed for excavation, especially to the west.  Phragmites thrives in the presence of nutrients from non-point stormwater and groundwater sources.  The failure to reduce nutrient loading from upland sources increases the potential for the Phragmites to re-establish in the excavated location or to continue to feed the nearby stands.   The subject property is extensively cleared with a fairly steeped sloped lawn leading to the shoreline.  Currently a 30 ft. deep buffer is proposed of an unspecified combination of native shrubs and herbaceous species.  The herbaceous component of the buffer is not consistent with an undisturbed wooded shoreline in the northern portion of Georgica Pond and should be replaced with more woody species accordingly.  Increasing the depth of the buffer would further reduce the quantity of non-point pollutants and provide significantly greater riparian habitat benefits.  If any application for Phragmites removal is granted, a strict time line for the implementation of any revegetation should be incorporated into the Board?s determination and the Board should consider requiring the implementation of the buffer beyond the work area prior to the excavation of Phragmites.

The recently proposed abandonment of the old sanitary system near the shoreline is a significant mitigation measure that would provide measureable water quality improvements and pollution reduction to this poorly flushed portion of Georgica Pond.  Prior to the public hearing for this application, the applicant should provide greater detail about the ability to abandon or remove this system.  Any disturbance to the woodlands in conjunction with the sanitary system abandonment should be identified and appropriately remediated.   A summary of possible mitigation measures in addition to site and geographic information system photographs will be submitted to the Board?s file prior to the public hearing for this application.

              Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required.

 

              Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

Zoning Board of Appeals                                                                                    ________________________

Name of Lead Agency                                                                                   

 

John P. Whelan                                                                                                               Chairperson                        

Print or Type Name of Responsible                                                                       Title of Responsible Officer                           

Officer in Lead Agency

 

 

 

______________________________                                                        _________________

Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead                                                         Date             

Agency                                                                                                               

E.              Joseph & Courtney DeSena

TIME:              7:30:00 PM              APPLICANT:              Joseph & Courtney DeSena

              SIZE/LOCATION:              17,187 sq. ft. (total), 137 Edgemere Street, Montauk (300-028-04-02)

              DESCRIPTION:              To demolish an existing residence and construct a new 3,525 sq. ft. two-story

              residence, sanitary system, swimming pool with decking and to replace two floating

              docks with a new 4 x 20 fixed dock on a parcel of land containing surface waters.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to Section 255-4-20, variances from Section 255-4-30 (minimum wetland setbacks) of the Town Code and any other relief

              necessary.  The following variances are required: (1) a 12.2 ft.  variance is required to

              allow the swimming pool and associated patio to be constructed 87.8? from wetlands

              where a 100 ft. setback is required and (2) a 10 ft/ variance is required to locate the sanitary

              leaching pool approximately              190 ft. from the shoreline wetlands where a 200 ft. setback is

              required.  The new residence has been proposed 110? from the wetlands.

              ZONING DISTRICT:              B Residence Zone X Flood Zone

              SEQRA CLASS:              Type II

             

i.              Technical Analysis Memo

                                     Technical Analysis Memorandum

Lead Agency: (not applicable) 

Planner: Brian Frank 

Date completed: 3/30/2017

Site Plan  SEQRA class: Type II Sub Waiver

Physical Location:137 Edgemere Street Subdivision 

School District: Montauk Special Permit 

Zoning District: B Residence Zone Change 

Overlay District: Harbor Protection Overlay District Variance: XX 

Tax Map Number: 300-028-04-02 Natural Resources  

 

Applicant: Joseph & Courtney DeSena Special Permit: XX  C/o Land Planning Services Other:  PO Box 1313  East Hampton, NY  11937  Telephone: (631) 537-8500  FEMA ZONE: Zone X Flood Zone  Soil Type: Montauk loamy sand, sandy variant, 8 to 15 % slopes (MnC)  Map of Property:  Size of Parcel: 17,187 sq. ft. (total) 

 

Project Description: To demolish an existing residence and construct a new 3,525 sq. ft. two-story residence, sanitary system, swimming pool with decking and to replace two floating docks with a new 4 ft. x 20 ft. fixed dock on a parcel of land containing surface waters. 

Relief: A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to Section 255-4-20, variances from Section 255-4-30 (minimum wetland setbacks) of the Town Code and any other relief necessary.  The following variances are required: (1) a 12.2 ft. variance is required to allow the swimming pool and associated patio to be constructed 87.8 ft. from wetlands where a 100 ft. setback is required and (2) a 10 ft. variance is required to locate the sanitary leaching pool approximately 190 ft.  from the shoreline wetlands where a 200 ft. setback is required.  The new residence has been proposed 110 ft. from the wetlands.  

Property Conditions and History: The premises are improved with a residence originally constructed prior to the adoption of zoning.  The residence has a footprint of 1,333 sq. ft. and is one-story on the eastern (street) side and two stories as the grade drops to the western (waterfront) side of the property.  A 2002 building permit allowed 784 sq. ft. of lower level to be converted to habitable space and the Planning Department estimates the square footage of the existing house to be 2,117.    A 144 sq. ft. deck located about 8 ft. from the shoreline at its closest point is proposed to remain.  Two docks, at least one of them a floating dock, aggregating approximately 193 sq. ft. are proposed to be replaced with a new fiberglass 4 ft. x 20 ft. fixed dock.   The most recent Certificate of Occupancy for the property was issued in 2002 and the applicant

DeSena T2 Assessment App # A1220160010 Page 2 of 3 

appears to have become the owner of record in February, 2015.   The proposed improvements are depicted on the George Walbridge Surveyors, PC survey dated revised 11/17/16.  The corresponding building plans were prepared by Hollenbeck & Smith Architects (6 pgs) dated revised 6/23/16.  A revegetation plan dated 8/25/16 prepared by Ecobarrier and a plan for the fixed dock prepared by LPS dated 9/16/16 are also contained in the Board's file. The existing residence is located approximately 85? from the shoreline and two non-conforming sanitary leaching pools are proposed to be removed or abandoned along with a private water supply well, also located near the shoreline of the property.   It should be noted that the application appears to require two additional variances that have not been applied for; the new sanitary system proposes a 3? separation from the bottom of the leaching pool to the groundwater table where 4? is required in the Harbor Protection Overlay District (HPOD) and a fixed dock may only be permitted when it is replacing a lawfully preexisting fixed dock.  The application requires approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS).  A notice of complete application from the NYSDEC has been included in the file.    

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Board's Consideration:

 

The application consists of an aggressive redevelopment of the property that does not appear to meet the general NRSP standards of  255-5-40, the specific NRSP standards of 255-5-51 or the variance standards of  255-8-50.  The proposed gross floor (3,525 sq. ft.) area constitutes over 97% of the maximum floor area (3,626 sq. ft.) generically allowed on a lot of this size at the time the application was submitted.  This square footage does not include the basement of the residence where a pool cabana has been proposed and which, whether included in the Town's definition of gross floor area or not, the basement could provide an additional roughly 2,000 sq. ft. of habitable space within the proposed residence.   The Board should evaluate the scale of the application relative to the constraints of the property and the impact that this project would have on the character of the neighborhood, including the cumulative impact of similar redevelopments if approved.  The Board needs to determine if the property should build the maximum sized residence allowed at the time of submission if it doesn't, or can't, fully comply with zoning.  The property appears to be capable of locating all structures 100 from the wetlands.   The zoning code provides built in relief from street front setbacks for waterfront lots (excluding oceanfront lots) by allowing principal structures to meet rear yard setbacks to the street (255-11-10, footnote 9).  This property further benefits from the reduced side yard setbacks provided for lots that are non-conforming to lot width [ 255-143D(1)] which allow the side yard setbacks to be reduced to 12 for the principal structure.  The sanitary system design should be revised to comply with the 4 ft. groundwater separation requirement of the HPOD and the applicant should indicate the status of the waste disposal system application with the SCDHS prior to the public hearing for this application. The application has proposed a revegetation of 1,742 sq. ft., mostly within in an area that is vegetated with predominantly non-native species.  The property is steeply sloped from the shoreline to bluff line and it is unlikely that the non-native species could be removed and replanted with indigenous shrubs as proposed without sedimentation of the waters of Fort Pond.  The application is proposing to remain non-conforming to the clearing restrictions of the Harbor Protection Overlay District by 5,144 sq. feet.  Since the property is vegetated between the shoreline and the wooden fence, the existing buffer is only increasing by 5 ft. in the southern portion of the property to 14 ft.  north of the shoreline deck where the Code minimum setback is 50 feet.  More significant mitigation would be a revegetation that establishes the species proposed on the submitted plan located landward of the existing clearing limits that would bring the property into compliance with the 50 ft/ Code setback for the removal of vegetation from wetlands and bring the property closer to, or in compliance with, the clearing restrictions of the HPOD.  The deck located along the shoreline is a non-conforming structure that should be eliminated in conjunction with the redevelopment of the property and included in a shoreline buffer.  The 4 ft. wide wooden footpath through a flat, cleared area appears to be an extraneous structure, not necessary for coastal access and should be deleted from the application. The application does not propose to replace the stairs that lead to the shoreline.  The Board needs to determine if any portion of the landing at the base of the stairs constitutes an existing dock.  The Town Code has specific NRSP standards for docks in  255-5-51H of the Town Code.  These standards only permit the reconstruction or a new fixed dock when the property is already improved with a lawfully preexisting fixed dock.  A dock that does not comply with all of the

DeSena T2 Assessment App # A1220160010 Page 3 of 3 

Special Permit standards would require variances from those Code provisions.  The Planning Department is not aware of any NRSPs issued by the Board that have permitted a 20 ft. long dock to extend into Fort Pond.   Fort Pond is the second largest freshwater pond on Long Island and is a New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife habitat.  Fort Pond is an important waterfowl overwintering area and supports one of three significant small-mouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) populations on Long Island.  The pond also provides several forms of passive recreation as well as recreational fishing and boating.  It is a closed water system and is particularly sensitive to the cumulative effects of nonpoint source pollutants such as fertilizers, sanitary effluent, and stormwater runoff.  The Flora and Fauna of the Waterfront Inventory amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 1991, states that any alteration or disturbance to the vegetative communities in or adjacent to the Pond or increases in sedimentation and run off may adversely affect the wildlife of the Pond.  Fort Pond is also a local subunit of a Scenic Area of Statewide Significance. 

 

Mitigation Summary The Planning Department recommends denial of the application as proposed.  The Department can provide suggested mitigation measures at the request of the Board or in conjunction with a project redesigned to more fully comply with zoning as recommended in the body of this document.

IV.              WORK SESSION:

V.              EXTENSION OF TIME:

A.              Frederick Seegal

3 Georgica Association Road, Wainscott - SCTM# 300-3-9.1

 

Original Permit Date March 2015 - Extension for the purposes of receiving a Certificate of Occupancy.

B.              John & Lucille Fondrisi

190 Bluff Road, Amagansett, SCTM# 300-175-1-48

 

Original Permit Date: March 10th 2004 - Last Permit Extension July 20th 2010 - No activities completed yet - Purpose is for the issuance of a Building Permit and a Certificate of Occupancy

C.              Sameh & Sylvia Iskander

98 Runnymeade Drive, Springs - SCTM# 300-23-4-10

 

Origina Permit Date: June 30th 2014 - Construction completed - Trying to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy

D.              Carilli

SCTM# 300-29-1-18.8 - 26 North Surfside Avenue, Montauk

 

Original Permit Date - February 2nd 1995 - Last Permit Extension: October 10th 2012 - For the purposes of maintaining a valid Building Permit and obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

VI.              POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATIONS:

A.              Mark Pauletti

SCTM# 300-19-1-21 - 179 Fairview Avenue, Montauk

 

Project Description - In-ground pool, spa side porch, front porch, bluestone pool deck (east) bluestone pool deck (west)

B.              Miklos & Marina Vasarhelyi

SCTM# 300-110-2-19.3 - 5 Beach Plum Court, Amagansett

 

Project Description: Extending a second story deck on an already improved surface

C.              Bahia delos Suenos Partners

SCTM# 300-56-5-20 - 22 Three Mile Harbor Drive, East Hampton

 

Project Description Beach Access Stairs

VII.              BOARD DETERMINATIONS:

A.              Salt Beach LLC

SCTM# 300-32-3-13.5 - 4 Old West Lake Drive, Montauk

 

Letter from Britton Bistrian - regarding issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Waiting for comments from Eric Schantz, the Planner, assigned to this application.

VIII.              BOARD DECISIONS:

IX.              Cynthia Rowley

SCTM# 300-32-4-20 69 Seaside Avenue, Montauk

 

Relief sought is to demolish an existing one story residence and sanitary system and construct a new 1,375 sq. ft. two story residence with 1st and 2nd floor decking and new sanitary system on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands. Public Hearing held March 28th 2017 Continuation of the Public Hearing scheduled for May 16th.

X.              Gerard Russell

SCTM# 300-194-1-29 - 50 Wireless Road, East Hampton.

 

Relief Sought : 3 variances from  255-11-10 (Table III) and 255-11-89 of the Town Code. (1) A 1.4 ft. variance is required to allow a pool deck to be rebuilt 18.6? from northern (rear) lot line where a 20 ft. setback is required; (2) A 4.5 ft. variance is required to allow a pool deck to be rebuilt 15.5 ft. from eastern (side yard) lot line where a 20 ft.  setback is required; (2) A 1.8 ft. variance is required to allow the pool equipment to remain 18.2 ft. from the northern (rear) lot line where a 20 ft.  setback is required, and any other relief necessary ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence Zone X Flood Zone SEQRA CLASS: Type II - Public Hearing was held June 6th 2017 - left open till June 13th 2017  for survey, aerial photo, neighbor comment

XI.              MINUTES APPROVAL:

A.              Minutes of June 13th 2017

XII.              RESOLUTIONS

A.              Gelfond & Leong

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

             

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

ROBERT GELFOND & SANDRA LEONG

SCTM # 300-175-7-4

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE: April 4, 2017

                                

PRESENT              :              JOHN P. WHELAN, Chair

                                          CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

                                          DENISE SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          TYLER BORSACK, Planning Department

                                          JONATHAN TARBET, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                          CHRISTOPHER COY, AIA, Architect for Applicant

                                                                                   

                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

              The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Vice-Chair Lys of this of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:  To demolish an existing residence, swimming pool, decking, and sanitary system and to construct a new 5,074 sq. ft. two story residence with 841 sq. ft. swimming pool, 1,329 sq. ft. of decking, an approximately 160 sq. ft. extension to the existing walkway, a relocated driveway, with a new sanitary system, and 6,286 sq. ft. of revegetation above the Town?s maximum building height, outside the Towns pyramid regulations, and within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands, dunes, and beach vegetation.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and six variances. Variances of 15.1? and 36.1? from ?255-4-30 are required to allow the proposed residence to be located 84.9? from freshwater wetlands where a 100? setback is required and the sanitary system to be located 113.9? from freshwater wetlands where a 150? setback is required. One variance of 4? from ?255-11-10 is required to allow the residence to be constructed at a height of 29? where a 25? maximum is allowed. Variances of 3.75?, 7?, and 5.33? are required from 255-11-72D of the Town Code to allow the residence to be constructed outside the Towns pyramid regulations along the western, eastern, and northern property lines, respectively, and any other relief necessary.

3.             

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE:  36,713 sq. ft. (total) 

 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 261 Marine Blvd.

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: Atlantic Ocean

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Amagansett

5.              FILED MAP NAME:  Gansett Dunes

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 6639

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: January 9, 1978

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 4

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-175-7-4

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: A Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order to be eligible for issuance of the requested Natural Resources Special Permit, applicant must show that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of ?? 255-1-11 and 255-4-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and satisfies the criteria set forth in ?? 255-5-40 and 255-5-51 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

2.              In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested area variance, applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of Town Law ? 267-b 3 have been met. The Board is to ?take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of an area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.?  The Town Law also directs the Board, in granting area variances, to ?grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.?

 

3.              The standards set forth in Town Code ? 255-8-50 (D) paraphrase the requirements language of Town Law ? 267-b 3:

 

a)              the benefit to applicant from grant of the requested variance outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; and

 

b)              the variances sought are the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request an area variance, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the general health, safety, and welfare of the Town as a whole.

 

4.              The Board finds that grant of the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The subject premise is currently improved with an approximately 3,796 sq. ft. two story residence with 602 sq. ft. attached garage, 1,845 sq. ft. wood deck, 859 sq. ft. roof deck, 480 sq. ft. swimming pool, walkway to the beach and sanitary system.  The most recent Certificate of Occupancy for the property was issued on November 4, 2015 for a ?1,812 sq. ft. first floor, 1,984 sq. ft. second floor, frame, single family residence having one kitchen only, containing a total of (4) four bedrooms only, 602 sq. ft. attached garage, 1,845 sq. ft. wood deck, 859 sq. ft. roof deck, 480 sq. ft. vinyl swimming pool with proper fencing and dry well, walkway to the beach and platform?. The property appeared before the Zoning Board three times previously, most recently in 2016 for an application that had initial discussions to deny a proposed 5,236 sq. ft. two story residence with swimming pool, decking, and sanitary system that required 8 variances.

 

2.              The parcel is part of the Gansett Dunes subdivision, an ?open space? or ?cluster? plan that created parcels smaller than the 40,000 sq. ft. required in the A-Residence zoning district and established a 16 acre Reserved Area containing extensive freshwater wetlands and dune land that is located across the street and contains the freshwater wetlands within jurisdiction. The subject parcel is an oceanfront property that is located between the dune crest to the south and the wetlands on the reserved area to the north. The wetlands within jurisdiction provide all of the typical benefits of a high quality wetland, especially the attenuation of floodwaters. The application is to remove the existing structures on the property and construct a new 5,074 sq. ft. residence with decking, swimming pool, new sanitary system, and driveway relocation.

 

3.              The applicants are proposing to remove the existing approximately 3,796 sq. ft. two story residence, the majority of which, is located approximately 103? from the dune crest and is seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) line along with the existing 602 sq. ft. attached garage (4,398 sq. ft. combined), decking, and swimming pool. Applicants are then proposing to construct a new 5,074 sq. ft. two story residence with new swimming pool, decking, and sanitary system entirely behind the CEHA line, 148? from the dune crest at its closest point. The residence is also being relocated from a VE 17 flood zone to an AE 10 flood zone.

 

4.              By relocating the residence farther landward, the project is moving within setbacks of the freshwater wetlands, which are located across Marine Boulevard from the subject parcel. The residence will be located 84.9? from the freshwater wetlands while the sanitary system is being relocated slightly from an approximately 87? setback to the wetlands to a 113.9? setback.

 

5.              As part of the project, and presumably to get all the structures landward

 

6.              of the CEHA line, the applicants are requesting several dimensional variances. The project as proposed requires, height and pyramid variances. Compared to the previous application in 2016, the applicants have removed the requests for front yard lot line setback and gross floor area variances and reduced the requested pyramid variances. The residence is proposed to be located 20.1? from the front yard lot line where 20? is required. The residence is proposed to reach a height of 29? above natural grade where 25? is the required height for a flat roof. This may be partially due to the need to meet FEMA base floor elevations of 12? in an AE 10 flood zone and also because of the 9? ceilings inside the residence.

 

7.              Since the previous application, the applicants have reduced the size of the residence from a proposed 5,236 sq. ft. to a conforming 5,074 sq. ft. The maximum GFA for any unconstrained lot of this size in East Hampton would be 5,120.56 sq. ft. The residence is proposed to have a 2,467 sq. ft. first floor with a 2,612 sq. ft. second story, no basement appears to be proposed. Finally, the project is proposed to have three pyramid variances along both side yards and the front yard lot line. Because of the proposed residences height, flat roof, and setbacks to property lines it will require pyramid variances of 3.75? from the east property line, 7? from the west property line, and 5.33? from the northern front yard lot line. These variances have been reduced from 12? along the east and west property lines and 13.5? along the northern property line in the 2016 application.

 

8.              The applicants are proposing to remove the existing sanitary system and construct the new sanitary system slightly farther from the wetlands, increasing the setback from approximately 87? to 113.9?. The details of the sanitary system are depicted on the Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. plans, dated 5/18/16 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on March 30, 2017. Those plans showed a 2? minimum separation to groundwater utilizing a retaining wall along the western and northern lot lines along with fill to raise the grade to elevation 12?. The plans also showed a 5? separation to the slab foundation where a 10? minimum is normally required under the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.

 

9.              The proposed swimming pool and pool decking are seaward of the residence and are located right up against the CEHA line. The swimming pool and decking are located partially within the VE 17 flood zone on the property and are the only structures proposed to be in the VE zone other than the walkway to the beach. There does not appear to be any strict regulations regarding swimming pools in flood zones. However, FEMA does mention that swimming pools constructed near buildings in Zone V should have design professionals assure community officials that the pool will not increase the potential for damage to the foundation or elevated portion of the building or nearby buildings. Applicant submitted information to the record from an engineer testifying to the structural stability of the proposed swimming pool.

 

10.              The applicants are also proposing to revegetate the area seaward of the CEHA line where the existing residence and improvements were located. The 6,286 sq. ft. revegetation is detailed on a Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. proposed revegetation plan, dated revised March 17, 2017. Once the revegetation is completed, clearing on the property will increase from 7,196 sq. ft. to approximately 10,121 sq. ft. An extension to the existing walkway is proposed to continue farther north to connect the existing walkway with the proposed pool decking. This walkway will be within the revegetation area and is limited to 4? in width as is customary for the Town.

 

11.              Building coverage on this property is proposed to be increasing from the existing 2,257 (7.69%) sq. ft. to 3,519 sq. ft. (11.99%) and total lot coverage is proposed to increase from the existing 7,196 sq. ft. (24.84) to 9,359 sq. ft. (31.90%). Clearing on the survey is shown to be increasing from the existing 7,196 sq. ft. to a total of 16,407 sq. ft. and then a final clearing limit of 10,121 sq. ft. once the revegetation is completed.

 

12.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. Applicant?s are demolishing an existing house and pool that is located seaward of the CEHA line and building a new residence and pool that will be located landward of the CEHA line. While dimensional variances are required for this application they are required to comply with FEMA regulations. While massing along the road was a concern for the Board in the previous application, the applicant has reduced the number of variances by eliminating the gross floor area variance and lowering the pyramid variances. Moreover, the property across the street is a vacant reserve area and the neighboring properties are existing houses located seaward of the proposed residence. The Board also notes that the proposed residence will be four (4?) feet lower than the existing residence.

 

13.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variances. Applicant is removing an existing residence that is located seaward of the CEHA line and constructing a new residence that is located landward of the CEHA line. The landward location of the house is further constrained by a wetland located across Marine Boulevard. Applicant has balanced the two natural features to provide the best alternative for a new residence and pool.

 

14.              The Board finds that although the requested variances may be considered substantial, they are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicant to request the area variances.  Only a small portion of the residence falls within the wetland setback. Moreover, there is no conforming location for the septic system between the freshwater wetlands and the LiMWA line. Applicants reduced the original pyramid request from the previous application, but are not able to eliminate all requests due to compliance with FEMA regulations.

 

15.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.  The Board notes this property is improving the environmental conditions on the property by removing an existing residence from seaward of the CEHA line, complying with FEMA regulations, and replacing the existing septic system with a new system that meets the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Moreover, the applicants are providing 6,200 sq. ft. of revegetation as mitigation. Finally, an extension of an existing scenic easement will provide additional protection against future development south of the CEHA line.

 

16.              The Board finds that the need for the variances is self-created. The Board finds however, that although the need for the requested variances is self-created, this need, although relevant to the Board?s decision does not preclude the granting of the requested variances.  Town Law ?267-b(3)(b)(5). 

 

17.              The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from grant of the requested variances outweighs any detriment which grant of the variances will cause to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the Town as a whole.

 

18.              The Zoning Board finds the nature of the proposed use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Law as described by ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. 

 

19.              The Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed improvements. Building coverage on the property is proposed to be increasing from the existing 2,257 (7.69%) sq. ft. to 3,519 sq. ft. (11.99%) and total lot coverage is proposed to increase from the existing 7,196 sq. ft. (24.84) to 9,359 sq. ft. (31.90%). Clearing on the survey is shown to be increasing from existing 7,196 sq. ft to a total 16,407 sq.ft. and then a final clearing limit of 10,121 sq. ft. once the revegetation is completed.

 

20.              The Board finds that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties as no impact to adjacent properties is anticipated from the construction of the proposed project.

 

21.              The Board finds that the characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features.  The Board notes this property is improving the environmental conditions on the property by removing an existing residence from seaward of the CEHA line, complying with FEMA regulations, and replacing the existing septic system with a new system that meets the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Moreover, the applicants are providing 6,200 sq. ft. of revegetation as mitigation. Finally, an extension of an existing scenic easement will provide additional protection against future development south of the CEHA line.

 

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL GRANTED:   A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and six variances. Variances of 15.1? and 36.1? from ?255-4-30 are granted to allow the proposed residence to be located 84.9? from freshwater wetlands where a 100? setback is required and the sanitary system to be located 113.9? from freshwater wetlands where a 150? setback is required. One variance of 4? from ?255-11-10 is granted to allow the residence to be constructed at a height of 29? where a 25? maximum is allowed. Variances of 3.75?, 7?, and 5.33? are granted from 255-11-72D of the Town Code to allow the residence to be constructed outside the Towns pyramid regulations along the western, eastern, and northern property lines, respectively, and any other relief necessary.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED:  To demolish an existing residence, swimming pool, decking, and sanitary system and to construct a new 5,074 sq. ft. two story residence with 841 sq. ft. swimming pool, 1,329 sq. ft. of decking, an approximately 160 sq. ft. extension to the existing walkway, a relocated driveway, with a new sanitary system, and 6,286 sq. ft. of revegetation above the Town?s maximum building height, outside the Towns pyramid regulations, and within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands, dunes, and beach vegetation.

 

H.              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

              Grant of the specified variances is specifically conditioned upon compliance with the conditions set forth in this section of the determination.  All improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below.

 

1.              APPROVED SURVEY:  Prepared by Saskas Surveying Company, P.C., survey, dated last revised December 10, 2016, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on December 14, 2016.     

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS:  Building Plans prepared by Barnes Coy Architects dated December 13, 2016 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on December 14, 2016.

 

3.              APPROVED SANITARY PLANS: Prepared by Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. dated May 18, 2016 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on March 30, 2017.

 

4.              APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL: Prepared by Christopher Coy, Barnes Coy Architects stamped received by the Zoning Board on April 10, 2017.

 

5.              APPROVED REVEGETATION PLAN: Prepared by Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. dated revised March 17, 2017 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on March 30, 2017.

 

6.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

 

a.              Project limiting fencing with staked straw bales (north side) shall be erected to limit land disturbance and prevent sedimentation of the wetlands in the location depicted on the approved survey labeled as ?Proposed Limit of Clearing, Grading & Ground Disturbance? prior to the commencement of demolition activities and for the duration of construction activities.

 

b.              The Board, or their delegate, prior to the issuance of a building permit, shall inspect the project limiting fencing and straw bales for adequacy.

 

c.              The clearing of vegetation and grading shall be strictly limited to the boundary depicted on the approved survey.

 

d.              The parcel shall be revegetated in accordance with the species, sizes and spacing indicated on the proposed revegetation plan submitted by Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., dated March 17, 2017.

 

e.              The establishment of turf, lawn, sod or ornamental vegetation shall be prohibited.

 

f.              The residence shall be furnished with gutters and leaders to direct stormwater from roofs into one or more catchment basins. Said catchment basin or basins shall have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal to the surface area of the roof (in square feet), divided by six. Said catchment basin shall be made available for inspection by the building inspector prior to backfill.

 

g.              All structures shall be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

 

h.              The driveway shall be composed of only of a clean, local, water-pervious quartz gravel surface.

 

i.              An Article 25 Tidal Wetland permit or statement of non-jurisdiction shall be obtained from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.

 

j.              A scenic easement shall be established from the northern boundary of the 100? wide conservation easement landward to ten (10?) feet south of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Line as depicted on the Saskas Surveying Company Survey dated last revised December 10, 2016 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on December 14, 2016. One four (4?) foot wide path/wood walk to the Atlantic Ocean may be maintained within the scenic easement as depicted on the approved survey. The easement, along with an updated survey depicting location of scenic easement, shall be submitted in acceptable form to the Zoning Board of Appeals for review by Counsel to this Board, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Town Board must accept and the applicant must file with the Suffolk County Clerk?s Office the scenic easement.  The original scenic easement shall be returned to the Town Clerk?s Office. Proof of filing must be presented to the Zoning Board before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

 

k.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Building Permit no more than thirty-six (36) months from the date of filing this determination.

 

l.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy no more than eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance of a building permit.

 

m.              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit, the approved survey, and the approved building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

I.              VALIDITY OF APPROVAL

 

If any condition of this determination is not met, or is not met within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits, or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and of no effect.

 

ALL CONCUR

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Jonathan Tarbet, Esq.

             

             

B.              Seth Leist

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

_____________________________________                                  

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

SETH LEIST

SCTM #300-176-1-16

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE:              March 7, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

                                          DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

DENISE A. SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

LISA D?ANDREA, Planning Department

                                          RICHARD WHALEN, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                          SUSANNA HERRMANN, Agent for Applicant

 

                     FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Member Lys of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: To construct a 295 sq. ft. bedroom addition on a parcel of land within wetland jurisdiction.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and a variance from ? 255-4-40 (Wetland Setbacks) of the Town Code and any relief necessary. A 20 ft. variance is requested to construct a 295 sq. ft. bedroom addition 80 ft. from the freshwater wetland where a 100 ft. minimum setback is required.

             

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE: 13,160 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 8 Pine Way  

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Amagansett

5.              FILED MAP NAME: Hampton Dunes  

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 4694

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: August 17, 1966

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP:  N/A

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-176-1-16

 

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order to be eligible for issuance of the requested Natural Resources Special Permit, applicant must show that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of ?? 255-1-11 and 255-4-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and satisfies the criteria set forth in ?? 255-5-40 and 255-5-51 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

2.              In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested area variance, applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of Town Law ? 267-b 3 have been met. The Board is to ?take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of an area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.?  The Town Law also directs the Board, in granting area variances, to ?grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.?

 

3.              The standards set forth in Town Code ? 255-8-50 (D) paraphrase the requirements language of Town Law ? 267-b 3:

 

a)              the benefit to applicant from grant of the requested variance outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; and

 

b)              the variances sought are the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request an area variance, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the general health, safety, and welfare of the Town as a whole.

 

4.              The Board finds that grant of the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The subject premises are currently improved with an approximately 1,713 sq. ft. residence, a 677 sq. ft. deck, a 127 sq. ft. patio, a 570 sq. ft. swimming pool, 1,032 sq. ft. of pool patio, a 390 sq. ft. pool house and an 86 sq. ft. shed.  The residence was constructed in 1968 and the deck, pool and pool house were constructed between 1973 and 1974.  The Zoning Board granted a variance in 1977 to legalize decking located within minimum rear yard setbacks.  Additional variances were granted in 1983, for a deck which extended an additional 1.5? more than allowed by the Board?s determination of 1977, and in 2003, for a shed built without a building permit. That same determination denied a proposed addition.  The property was brought before the Board again in 2004 for a 329 sq. ft. addition that was granted.  The Board granted the addition in this application because the applicant proved that a sanitary upgrade was possible.

 

2.              The owner and current applicant acquired the property in 2006.

 

3.              In 2008 the Board granted a NRSP and two wetland setback variances to legalize existing reconfiguration of the shed and pool house roofs.  An application for a 456 sq. ft. garage was submitted in 2012 and the request was denied by the Board in a June 30, 2013 determination.   Another application for a 480 sq. ft. garage was made.  The Board granted a NRSP and three variances for the 480 sq. ft. detached garage. This determination was filed on April 6, 2014. On September 10, 2015 a Certificate of Occupancy for the garage was issued.

 

4.              This property has a long building history and the Board has been involved with numerous decisions over the years. Incrementally, the property has increased its intensity of use and its non-conformity in an environmentally sensitive area that is also prone to flooding.

 

5.              The wetland east of the parcel is highly diverse with species of woody and herbaceous plants.    There is also standing water in the wetland throughout portions of the year.  The wetlands within jurisdiction constitute an integral part of the natural environment, and more specifically, the hydrologic system.  In addition to diversifying the landscape these wetlands play a significant role in the storage of water, flood control, and the maintenance of water quality.  The wetlands are an important component for the habitat of a variety of wildlife species.

 

6.              The Planning Department did not look favorably on increasing the non-conformities on this parcel when the applicant applied for and was granted a NRSP and three variances for a detached garage in 2013.   A CO for the detached garage and new driveway was issued on September 15, 2015.  The property now has a principal building and three accessory structures that do not meet the 100 ft. wetland setbacks.  Two front yard variances had to be granted to allow the garage to be constructed in its present location.

 

7.              The applicant is proposing to remove an existing one story deck and construct a one story house addition. The applicant is requesting another minimum wetland setback variance to build this addition. The addition is slated to be a bedroom with a bathroom. The addition is clearly an increased intensity of use despite remaining within the existing footprint and the removal of 168 sq. ft. of the total square footage the deck occupied.  It is the Planning Department's opinion that the property is already intensely developed in close proximity to the wetland and that presently there is adequate use on the property. According to the Planning Department, allowing substantial variances on a property as constrained as this could be contrary to zoning.

 

8.              All existing and proposed structures are depicted on a Nathan Taft Corwin III survey dated revised October 20, 2016 and received by the Board on November 10, 2016. The proposed bedroom addition is depicted on the Leist Proposed Addition Plans by Bruce A.T.Siska, AIA dated September 7, 2016 and received by the Board on November 10, 2016.

 

9.              At public hearing, the Planning Department reiterated its opinion this property is overdeveloped and the addition would negatively impact the wetlands within jurisdiction. The Planning Department also noted that the wetland itself is pristine, as there are no invasive species. Moreover, regardless of size the wetland provides benefits to storage of water, flood control and the maintenance of water quality.

 

10.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds that the proposed addition exceeds the constraints of the lot and would result in an overdeveloped lot in an environmentally sensitive area prone to flooding.

 

11.              The Board finds that the requested variance is substantial. The majority finds this property is overdeveloped and considering its proximity to the high quality wetlands any additional non-conformities would negatively impact the pristine wetland within jurisdiction.

 

12.              The Board finds that granting the requested variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As noted by the Planning Department in its Technical Analysis Memorandum and at the public hearing, the wetland east of the parcel is highly diverse with species of woody and herbaceous plants. There is also standing water in the wetland throughout portions of the year. The wetlands within jurisdiction constitute an integral part of the natural environment, and more specifically, the hydrologic system. In additional to diversifying the landscape these wetlands play a significant role in the storage of water, flood control, and the maintenance of water quality. The addition is slated to be a bedroom with a bathroom. The addition is clearly an increased intensity of use and the Planning Department noted, and the majority agrees, that the property is already intensely developed in close proximity to the wetland. Allowing for additional development within the wetland setbacks negatively impacts the wetlands and it role in the storage of water, flood control and the maintenance of water quality.

 

13.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variance. 

 

14.              The Board finds that this project, as proposed, does not promote the relevant purposes set forth in ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code as is required pursuant to ?255-5-51. Specifically, the Board finds that natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed addition may not be introduced without undue disturbance to important natural features. The majority concurs with the Planning Department?s opinion that the addition is clearly an increased intensity of use, and the property is already intensely developed in close proximity to the wetland. As the wetlands within jurisdiction are high quality and integral to the hydrolic system, additional development on this property within jurisdiction of the wetlands is not recommended.

 

15.              The Board finds that the proposed project is contrary to the purposes set forth in the Town Code for protecting the Town?s natural resources as is discussed in ?255-4-10 of the Town Code.

 

16.              The Board also finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed project is in conformance with the standards set forth in ?255-5-40D of the Town Code.  Specifically, the project is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood. The segmented growth pattern of this lot with multiple increases in nonconforming structures has resulted in an overdeveloped property. Allowing for additional nonconformity will negatively affect the preservation of the wetlands and is therefore not compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

 

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL DENIED:  A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and a variance from ? 255-4-40 (Wetland Setbacks) of the Town Code and any relief necessary. A 20 ft. variance is requested to construct a 295 sq. ft. bedroom addition 80 ft. from the freshwater wetland where a 100 ft. minimum setback is required.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK DENIED: To construct a 295 sq. ft. bedroom addition on a parcel of land within wetland jurisdiction.

 

CONCUR:

 

JOHN WHELAN, Chair

CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

ROY DALENE, Member

THERESA BERGER, Member

 

DISSENT:

 

DAVID LYS, Member

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Elizabeth Vail, Esq., Farrell Fritz, P.C.

       Richard E. Whalen, Esq.

 

C.              Kevin & Tina Felix

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

______________________________________________                                  

             

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                                                 DETERMINATION

 

KEVIN A. & TINA P. FELIX

SCTM # 300-23-4-2

______________________________________________

HEARING DATE: April 4, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN WHELAN, Chair

                                          CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

                                          DAVID LYS, Member

ROY DALENE, Member

THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

                                          DENISE SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          TYLER BORSACK, Environmental Planner

                                          RICHARD E. WHALEN, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                          SUSANNA HERRMANN, Agent for Applicant

                                          TINA P. FELIX, Applicant

                                         

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

              The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Vice Chair Rogers of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:  To construct a 770 sq. ft. second story addition with sanitary upgrade within jurisdiction of wetlands and bluffs.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ? 255-4-20 of the Town Code.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE: 25, 252 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 128 Runnymede Drive

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: Gardiners Bay

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Springs

5.              FILED MAP NAME:  Lion Head Beach 

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 3451

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: November 6, 1961

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 76

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-23-4-2

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A 

 

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order to be eligible for issuance of the requested Natural Resources Special Permit, applicant must show that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of ?? 255-1-11 and 255-4-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and satisfies the criteria set forth in ?? 255-5-40 and 255-5-51 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

2.              The Board finds that grant of the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The subject property is located on Runnymede Dive near the intersection with Thanet Way, in Springs. The property is improved with an approximately 1,929 sq. ft. two story residence with 504 sq. ft. lower level garage, 690 sq. ft. of decking, a 712 sq. ft. gunite swimming pool with spa, and a 485 sq. ft. patio. The most recent C.O. was issued on the property in 2013 for a ?1,029 sq. ft. frame one family residence having one kitchen only and 504 sq. ft. garage under, 252 sq. ft. decking; 380 sq. ft. first floor addition, 520 sq. ft. second floor addition; 64 sq. ft. wood decking; and 374 sq. ft. wood deck, 712 sq. ft. gunite swimming pool with 147 sq. ft. gunite spa with proper fencing, dry well and 485 sq. ft. patio?. This property has appeared before the Zoning Board previously in 1985, 1992, and most recently in 2008 for the swimming pool and associated structures.

 

2.              The applicant is proposing to construct a new 770 sq. ft. second story addition over the existing first story and front decking. The premises are contiguous to Gardiners Bay and within jurisdiction to a pond to the northeast known as Lion Head Pond West. Lion Head Pond West is part of a coastal pond system that may have formerly been contiguous to Hog Creek.  It provides many of the benefits typically associated with a high quality coastal pond system including the provision of high quality wildlife habitat, the retention of floodwaters prior to surface and groundwater recharge, and aesthetic benefits that contribute to the surrounding property values. The pond is breeding ground for commercially important baitfish such as mummichog, mosquito fish, sticklebacks, silversides, eels and banded killifish.  It is an important nesting and foraging ground for waterfowl and wading birds, especially for green herons, black crowned night herons and wood ducks.

 

3.              The Zoning Board finds the nature of the proposed use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Law as described by ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. Specifically, the proposed addition will not cause a detriment to the wetlands or to Gardiners Bay.

 

4.              The Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed improvements.  The proposed addition will be located within the footprint of the existing structure and the upgraded sanitary system will located in the only conforming location on the property. Proposed lot coverage and total lot coverage will be reduced as a result of this project.

 

5.              In accordance with ?255-5-40(D), the Board finds that the proposed project is compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and the community. The Board finds there are similarly sized houses in the area.

 

6.              The Board finds that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties because the proposed project is located within the existing footprint and will not interfere with the enjoyment of neighboring properties.   

 

7.              The Board finds that the characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features.  There is no increase in coverage or clearing, so there will be no impact on the potential for runoff. The proposed addition will be located within the footprint of the existing structure and the Board notes that an existing residence on the neighboring property is located between the subject property and the wetlands.

 

8.              The Board finds that adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use. 

 

9.              The Board finds that the site of the proposed addition is a suitable one for the location of such a use in the Town. Applicants are not proposing to increase the number of bedrooms on the property and are proposed to upgrade the sanitary system even though an upgrade is not required for this project.

 

10.              The Board finds that the proposed project, constructed in accordance with the proposed mitigation measures set forth below, promotes the public interest in adequately preserving the wetlands.  

 

11.              The Board finds that the application with the mitigation measures set forth herein meets the requirements for a Natural Resource Special Permit.

 

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL GRANTED:  A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to 255-4-20 of the Town Code is granted.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED:  To construct a 770 sq. ft. second story addition with sanitary upgrade within jurisdiction of wetlands and bluffs.

 

H.              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

              Grant of the specified variances is specifically conditioned upon compliance with the conditions set forth in this section of the determination.  All improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below.

 

1.              APPROVED SURVEY: Prepared by Saskas Surveying Company survey dated last revised April 5, 2017 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 9, 2017.

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS:  Prepared by David H. Sherwood, Architect dated August 13, 2015 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on August 15, 2015.     

 

3.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

 

a)              Project limiting fencing with staked straw bales shall be erected to limit land disturbance and prevent sedimentation of the wetlands in the location depicted on the Planning Department sketch dated 1/11/17 prior to the commencement and for the duration of construction activities.

 

b)              The Board, or their delegate, prior to the issuance of a building permit, shall inspect the project limiting fencing and straw bales for adequacy.

 

c)              The residence shall be furnished with gutters and leaders to direct stormwater from roofs into one or more catchment basins. Said catchment basin or basins should have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal to the surface area of the roof (in square feet), divided by six. Said catchment basin should be made available for inspection by the building inspector prior to backfill.

 

d)              All structures shall be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

 

e)              An Article 25 Tidal Wetland permit or statement of non-jurisdiction shall be obtained from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.

 

f)              Applicant shall upgrade the sanitary as proposed on the approved survey.

 

g)              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit, the survey and building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

h)              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Building Permit no more than thirty-six (36) months from the date of filing this determination.

 

i)              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy no more that twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of the building permit.

 

 

I.              VALIDITY OF APPROVAL

 

If any condition of this determination is not met, or is not met within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits, or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and of no effect.

 

ALL CONCUR:

 

JOHN WHELAN, Chairperson

CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

ROY DALENE, Member

THERESA BERGER, Member

 

Dated: June 20, 2017

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Richard Whalen, Esq.

              Susanna Herrmann, En-Consultants

D.              Easevoli

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________

In the Matter of the Application

                                                                                                           RESOLUTION

              of                                                                             

                                                                                                         

JOHN & PAULA EASEVOLI

SCTM # 300-106-1-21

____________________________________

                     

              The Zoning Board of Appeals has received and considered a request to amend or modify a determination of the Board to delete a condition of the approval. The Board held two public hearings to consider this application. The first public hearing was held on January 31, 2017 and the second public hearing was held on April 25, 2017. 

 

A.              REQUEST TO MODIFY: Determination (In the Matter of the Application of John and Paula Easevoli) dated December 7, 1971 and filed in the Town Clerk?s office on December 15, 1971 which granted a variance to permit a building alleged to be a garage by the Building Department to be used as a guest room and bath because this use preexisted zoning. Said determination was specifically conditioned on the structure containing only a bedroom, bath and laundry utility, and no kitchen, and that there can be no further expansion of the structure.

 

B.              PROPERTY LOCATION:                8 Bay View Avenue, Amagansett

                                                                                   (SCTM #300-106-1-21)

 

C.              PROPOSED MODIFICATION:  To amend the Board?s December 7, 1971 determination to delete a condition of the Board?s approval stating that the accessory structure under review not contain a kitchen.

 

D.              FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

 

1)              Applicant was the owner of the subject property in 1971 when the 1971 application was submitted and the determination was adopted by the Zoning Board. Applicant did not challenge the condition of ?no kitchen? in 1971.

 

2)              Applicant?s handwritten application specifically asked for ?no kitchen.? The applicant?s signature was notarized on the application on November 23, 1971. Paragraph 4 of said application states in part, ?[W]e wish to maintain this as a cottage, without a kitchen.? (emphasis added)

 

3)              The public hearing notice dated November 26, 1971 stated that the application at the time indicated ?Application of John and Paula Easevoli for a variance from the provisions of Sections 302 and 401.01 et al for an interpretation and/or a variance to permit a building alleged to be a garage by the Building Department to be used as a guest room and bath because this use pre-existed zoning.?

 

4)              The review of this application was carefully vetted by the Zoning Board (public hearing, site visit, photos) in 1971 and the Board specifically required that no kitchen be permitted as a condition of the approval.

 

5)              Based on review of the record, including the Board?s file from 1971, the Board finds that no kitchen was present at the time the Board reviewed the application, nor was adding a kitchen requested in 1971.

 

6)              Substantial evidence has not been provided that would allow the Board to modify its 1971 determination.

7)              In 2010, Zoning Board determined that adding a kitchen to a pre-existing nonconforming residence, which did not contain a kitchen, increased the degree of nonconformity and is thereby prohibited by ?255-1-42(A) of the Town Code. See, Zoning Board determination, ?In the Matter of the Application of Birch Tree Partners, LLC? dated October 19, 2010. As this Board has determined that no kitchen existed in 1971 and, therefore, a kitchen in this residence is not preexisting nonconforming, an area variance from ?255-1-42(A) would be required to add a kitchen to this residence. No variance request was part of this application.

 

E.              DISPOSITION OF MODIFICATION REQUEST:

 

Request to delete the condition of the Board?s 1971 determination requiring an accessory structure containing a bedroom and a bathroom to not contain a kitchen is hereby denied.

 

CONCUR

 

JOHN WHELAN, Chairperson

CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

ROY DALENE, Member

THERESA BERGER, Member

 

DISSENT

 

DAVID LYS, Member

 

Dated:  June 20, 2017

 

cc:                Building Department

Planning Department

Richard E. Whalen, Esq.

 

E.              Star Development Realty

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

             

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

STAR DEVELOPMENT REALTY

HOLDING CORP.

 

SCTM # 300-13-3-24

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE: April 4, 2017

                                

PRESENT              :              JOHN P. WHELAN, Chair

                                          CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

                                          DENISE SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          TYLER BORSACK, Planning Department

                                          DENNIS E. DOWNES, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                          DR. STEPHEN SACHS, Prior owner

                                                                                   

                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

              The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Member Berger of this of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:  To allow an existing approximately 1,077 sq. ft. brick patio with walls and an approximately 49 sq. ft. hot tub to remain within jurisdiction of bluffs and tidal wetlands.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: Three variances and a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ?255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code are required for this application. Two variances of 23? and 52.2? are required from ?255-4-40 of the Town Code in order to allow the existing brick patio to remain 47.8? and hot tub to remain 77? from the bluff crest where 100? setbacks are required. One variance of 16? from ?255-4-30 of the Town Code is required to allow the existing brick patio to remain 84? from the tidal wetlands where a 100? setback is required, and any other relief necessary.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE:  58,740 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 197 East Lake Drive

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: Lake Montauk

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Montauk

5.              FILED MAP NAME:  N/A

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: N/A

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: N/A

 

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-13-3-24

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: A Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: HPOD

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order to be eligible for issuance of the requested Natural Resources Special Permit, applicant must show that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of ?? 255-1-11 and 255-4-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and satisfies the criteria set forth in ?? 255-5-40 and 255-5-51 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

2.              In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested area variance, applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of Town Law ? 267-b 3 have been met. The Board is to ?take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of an area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.?  The Town Law also directs the Board, in granting area variances, to ?grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.?

 

3.              The standards set forth in Town Code ? 255-8-50 (D) paraphrase the requirements language of Town Law ? 267-b 3:

 

a)              the benefit to applicant from grant of the requested variance outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; and

 

b)              the variances sought are the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request an area variance, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the general health, safety, and welfare of the Town as a whole.

 

4.              The Board finds that grant of the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The subject property is located on the west side of East Lake Drive, in Montauk. The property is improved with an approximately 1,856 sq. ft. two story residence with 208 sq., ft. attached green house, approximately 1,077 sq. ft. brick patio and 49 sq. ft. hot tub. The most recent C.O. was issued on the property in 1983 for a ?1,438 sq. ft. first floor, 418 sq. ft. second floor of one-family residence having one kitchen only and 208 sq. ft. attached greenhouse?. This property has appeared before the Zoning Board once previously in 1982.

 

2.              The applicant is proposing to allow an existing approximately 1,077 sq. ft. brick patio and approximately 49 sq. ft. hot tub to remain within jurisdiction and setbacks of the bluff crest and tidal wetlands of Lake Montauk. The brick patio is located 47.8? from the bluff crest and 73.1? from tidal wetlands and the hot tub is located 77? from the bluff crest and 100? from tidal wetlands.

 

3.              According to aerial images, the brick patio was constructed sometime between when the C.O. was issued in 1983 and 1988. The patio was constructed around the western and seaward side of the residence at its closest point to the natural features. The Board should examine the application as if they are proposing new structures and discuss if these are locations they would have approved if they were proposed to be there rather than approving existing structures.

 

4.              The Planning Department recommends for any variances granted that a revegetation buffer of a minimum of 30? to the bluff crest be required to help offset the increased runoff created by the added impermeable surfaces so close to tidal wetlands and bluffs. The Planning Department also recommends a drywell to accommodate the hot tub located at least 100? from the bluff crest, if one does not exist, should also be included in the project mitigation if approved.

 

5.              The parcel is located on Lake Montauk. Lake Montauk is a New York State Significant Fish and Wildlife Habitat and a component of the Peconic Estuary Critical Environmental Area.  This area of Lake Montauk retains the highest water quality rating (SA) available for surface waters and can be expected to provide all of the benefits typically associated with high quality wetlands including the provision of diverse, high quality plant and wildlife habitats, nursery areas for commercially important shellfish and fin fish, the attenuation of floodwaters, and opportunities for scientific research, education and aesthetic appreciation. These activities depend on high quality water and healthy living resources. All these resources need to be conserved and enhanced as much as possible to maintain the character of this area. Limiting the size of development and increasing the setbacks from the Town?s natural resources will help limit pollutant impacts associated with upland development and storm water runoff.

 

6.              The parcel is also located within the Lake Montauk Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) boundaries. The SASS documents areas within the Town of East Hampton that are of statewide significance based on New York State criteria and aesthetic values that were identified by East Hampton Town residents. The parcel is visible from Lake Montauk and is currently cleared to within a few feet of the bluff crest. As previously mentioned, if the Board considers granting any permits on this property, the Planning Department recommends a 30? revegetation buffer. A revegetation buffer like the one proposed is vital to the interception of non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality, and provides some natural habitat and some visual screening.

 

BRICK PATIO VARIANCE REQUESTS

 

7.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances for the brick patio will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The brick patio has been in existence for over 30 years with no objection from the neighbors. The brick patio meets all dimensional setback requirements.

 

8.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variances for the brick patio. While there are existing conforming locations for the brick patio, as the patio has been in existence for over 30 years, applicant can mitigate the impacts of the impervious surfaces to the wetlands by establishing a revegetation buffer.

 

9.              The Board finds that although the requested variances for the brick patio may be considered substantial, they are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicant to request the area variances.  Only a portion of the brick patio violates the wetland setback and a vegetative buffer will offset any impacts to Lake Montauk.

 

10.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances for the brick patio will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood provided applicant establish a 30? revegetation buffer. A revegetation buffer like the one proposed is vital to the interception of non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality, and provides some natural habitat and some visual screening.

 

11.              The Board finds that the need for the variances for the brick patio is self-created. The Board finds however, that although the need for the requested variances is self-created, this need, although relevant to the Board?s decision does not preclude the granting of the requested variances.  Town Law ?267-b(3)(b)(5). 

 

12.              The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from grant of the requested variances for the brick patio outweighs any detriment which grant of the variances will cause to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the Town as a whole.

 

      HOT TUB VARIANCE REQUEST

 

13.              The majority of the Board finds that granting the requested variance for the hot tub will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The hot tub meets all dimensional setbacks and is located on the existing patio.

 

14.              The majority of the Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variance for the hot tub. While there are existing conforming locations for the hot tub, applicant can mitigate the impacts of the impervious surfaces to the wetlands by establishing a revegetation buffer and providing a drywell for hot tub water discharge.

 

15.              The majority of the Board finds that although the requested variance may be considered substantial, it is the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicant to request the area variance for the hot tub.  The Board finds that keeping the hot tub on the existing patio will minimize additional impervious surfaces on this property

 

16.              The majority of the Board finds that granting the requested variance for the hot tub will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood provided applicant establish a revegetation buffer and install a drywell to discharge hot tub water. A revegetation buffer like the one proposed is vital to the interception of non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality, and provides some natural habitat and some visual screening.

 

17.              The Board finds that the need for the variances is self-created. The Board finds however, that although the need for the requested variance is self-created, this need, although relevant to the Board?s decision does not preclude the granting of the requested variance.  Town Law ?267-b(3)(b)(5). 

 

18.              The majority of the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from grant of the requested variance for the hot tub outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the Town as a whole.

 

BRICK PATIO NRSP

 

19.              The Zoning Board finds that maintaining the brick patio in its current location will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Law as described by ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. 

 

20.              The Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the brick patio.  No dimensional setback variance requests are required for this application.

 

21.              The Board finds that the brick patio does not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties as no impact to adjacent properties has been identified and dimensional setback variances are required.

 

22.              The Board finds that the characteristics of the site are such that the brick patio may be maintained without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features provided applicant establishes a revegetation buffer. A revegetation buffer like the one proposed is vital to the interception of non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality, and provides some natural habitat and some visual screening.

 

HOT TUB NRSP

 

23.              The majority of the Zoning Board finds the nature of the continued use of the hot tub will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Law as described by ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. 

 

24.              The majority of the Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the hot tub. No dimensional setback variance requests are required to maintain the hot tub in its current location.

 

25.              The majority of the Board finds that the continued use of the hot tub will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties as no impact to adjacent properties has been identified.

 

26.              The majority of the Board finds that the characteristics of the site are such that the hot tub may be maintained without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features provided applicant establishes a revegetation buffer and providing a drywell for hot tub water discharge. A revegetation buffer like the one proposed is vital to the interception of non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality, and provides some natural habitat and some visual screening.

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL GRANTED:   Three variances and a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ?255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code are granted for this application. Two variances of 23? and 52.2? are granted from ?255-4-40 of the Town Code in order to allow the existing brick patio to remain 47.8? and hot tub to remain 77? from the bluff crest where 100? setbacks are required. One variance of 16? from ?255-4-30 of the Town Code is required to allow the existing brick patio to remain 84? from the tidal wetlands where a 100? setback is required, and any other relief necessary.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED:  To allow an existing approximately 1,077 sq. ft. brick patio with walls and an approximately 49 sq. ft. hot tub to remain within jurisdiction of bluffs and tidal wetlands.

 

H.              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

              Grant of the specified variances is specifically conditioned upon compliance with the conditions set forth in this section of the determination.  All improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below.

 

1.              APPROVED SURVEY:  Prepared by George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C., survey, dated last revised August 29, 2016, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on September 1, 2016.     

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS: N/A

 

3.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

 

a.              The parcel shall be revegetated in accordance with the species, sizes and spacing indicated on a revegetation plan establishing a 30? buffer to the bluff crest.  The revegetation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

b.              Hot tub water should be discharged into a drywell located at least 100? from the bluff crest on the survey.

 

c.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Building Permit no more than thirty-six (36) months from the date of filing this determination.

 

d.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy no more than eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance of a building permit.

 

e.              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit, the approved survey, and the approved building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

 

I.              VALIDITY OF APPROVAL

 

If any condition of this determination is not met, or is not met within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits, or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and of no effect.

 

ALL CONCUR WITH GRANTING THE VARIANCES AND NRSP FOR THE BRICK PATIO WITH WALLS.

 

CHAIRMAN WHELAN, VICE-CHAIR ROGERS AND MEMBER DALENE CONCUR TO GRANTING THE VARIANCES AND NRSP FOR THE HOT TUB.

 

MEMBERS LYS AND BERGER DISSENT WITH REGARD TO GRANTING THE VARIANCES AND NRSP FOR THE HOT TUB.

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Dennis E. Downes, Esq.