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 March 28, 2017
East Hampton, New York

 

 

I.              CALL TO ORDER

12:00 AM Meeting called to order on March 28, 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:

A.              Herrmann - SCTM# 32-7-6

III.              SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A.              Herrmann - SCTM# 300-32-7-6

i.              Technical Analysis Memo

              Lead Agency:              (not applicable)

              Planner: Lisa D?Andrea             

              Date completed:              December 13, 2016              Site Plan

              SEQRA class: Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:                26 Seaside Ave              Subdivision

              School District:              Montauk              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              B Residential              Zone Change

              Overlay District:                  Variance             

              Tax Map Number: 300-032-07-06              Natural Resources

     Applicant:                Herrmann                                                                  Special Permit   XX

                           c/o Susan Brierley                                                                 

                            Due East Planning

                              P O Box 4144

                          East Hampton, NY, 11937                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                        

              Telephone:              (631)604-6288

              FEMA ZONE: X Flood Zone             

              Soil Type: Montauk Fine Loamy Sand, 8-15% slopes (MfC); Bridgehampton silt loam, till substratum 2-6% slopes (BhB)             

              Map of Property:              Map No. 1518; Seaside Shores Lots 28 & 29

              Size of Parcel: 40,000 sq. ft. total             

 

Project Description:  To construct a 2,376 sq. ft. two story residence with 616 sq. ft. of first and second story decks, a front porch and a new sanitary system on a parcel of land with freshwater wetlands.

 

Relief Requested: A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ?255-4-20, three variances from ?255-3-30 (wetland setbacks), and a variance from ?255-11-72D of the Town Code. Variances of 3.5 ft. and 38.1 ft. are required respectively to construct the decks and retaining wall 96.5 and 61.9 ft. from the wetland where a minimum 100 ft. setback is required. A 59.4 variance is required to install the sanitary system 90.6 ft. from the wetlands where a 150 ft. minimum setback is required. A 4 ft. 6 in pyramid variance is requested.

 

Property and History:

The parcel  is vacant and comprises approximately 40,000 sq. ft., is situate on seaside Ave. in Montauk, is in B Residential zoning and the soil type present on this parcel is Fine Loamy Sand  and Bridgehampton silt loam, till substratum as per Suffolk County Soil survey. The owner purchased the property in July of 2015.

 

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

 

The State Historic Preservation Act Determination concluded that the proposed project will not impact registered, eligible or inventoried archaeological sites or historic structures.

The premises are highly constrained by freshwater wetlands that occur in the southern and northern portions of the property. The property is included in the Peconic Estuary Montauk Critical Natural Resources Area (CNRA) and is in the Montauk Watershed.

This area of Montauk is part of a complex watershed that eventually discharges into the southern end of Lake Montauk, which is closed for beach bathing and shell fishing because of elevated levels of coliform bacteria. The presence of coliform bacteria are indicators of water pollution.  The soils throughout the Seaside Avenue area exhibit poor drainage and the region is prone to chronic flooding and drainage problems.  The wetlands on the premises play an important role in the retention of the floodwaters that contribute to the poor drainage of the area as well as the dissipation of pollutants and nutrients that eventually make their way into Lake Montauk.

 

It appears that the applicant has acquired a New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) permit to construct a single family dwelling with decks and a driveway with a bridge over the wetland to access Seaside Ave. The restrictions in the permit are that the bridge ?must be either a single span or constructed on pilings. The abutments must be located outside of the wetland as shown on the approved plans. If pilings are to be used, the minimum number of pilings must be used. No fill besides the pilings is permitted in the wetland. Decking of bridge must be a minimum of 18? above the wetland and surface with an open grate material that allows for light penetration.?

 

On December 2, the Board received the 26 Seaside Ave. Driveway /Bridge Plan by TF Planning PLLC dated November 22, 2016. The Town Engineer has examined the plans and recommends that a sign be placed at the bridge entrance posting the maximum load capacity of the bridge.  He also recommended that the driveway should not be crushed bluestone because of the proximity to the wetland. He recommends the driveway be composed of ? in. quartz gravel.

The Board should take note that the proposed retaining wall could be 10 ft. in height and the construction of the driveway will require a substantial amount of grading.  Great care to protect the wetlands in the north that are subject to siltation from the grading and construction of the retaining wall and driveway should be taken. The staked strawbales and siltation fencing needs to be firmly installed and maintained over the course of the construction process.

 

The Gross Floor Area of the proposed house is 2,376 sq. ft.  The building coverage is 1,458 sq. ft. Total lot coverage is 4,310 sq. ft. or about 16.5%.  It appears that all structures have been positioned so as to minimize the variances required. The house meets the minimum 100 ft. setback. The decks, retaining wall and sanitary system require variances. The sanitary system requires a substantial variance of 59.4 ft.

 

The applicant has proposed a 15,000 sq. ft. scenic easement  150 ft. deep and 100 ft. in width that would cover the wetland in the southern portion of the property and a provide a substantial buffer for the wetlands as well. The Planning Department applauds this scenic easement as mitigation for the project but it also recommends that a scenic easement 70 ft. in depth and 82 ft. in width be placed over the wetlands in the northern portion of the property. These scenic easements will help to assure the future protection of the wetlands by establishing protected vegetative buffers around them.  They will help offset the intensity of the use of the parcel and will provide multiple environmental benefits.  The vegetative buffer within the scenic easements will provide a quality habitat for wildlife.  The vegetation within the scenic easements will help to intercept non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality.  The root system of the vegetation helps to dissipate water during periods of flooding.

The Board must determine if the project complies with the Natural Resources Special Permit standards of ? 255-5-40 in order to issue a NRSP permit.

 

The applicant must demonstrate compliance with the Variance standards of ? 255-8-50 of the Town Code in order to be eligible for the issuance of the requested variances.  The Board must determine whether the variances sought are the minimum necessary.

 

 

 

 

Recommended Project Conditions:

 

a.              Project limiting fencing with staked straw bales should be erected to limit land disturbance and prevent sedimentation of the wetlands in the location depicted on the Planning department sketch dated December 1, 2106.

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

c.              The clearing of vegetation and grading should be strictly limited to a boundary established by the Board and the elevations depicted on the approved survey.

d.              Scenic easements shall be established over the wetlands as depicted on the Planning department sketch dated December 1, 2106. The easements, along with the approved survey depicting the location of scenic easement shall be submitted in acceptable form to the Zoning Board of Appeals Office for approval 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 easement shall be returned the East Hampton Town Clerk?s Office. Proof of filing must be presented to the Zoning Board before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

e.              The applicant shall prepare and submit a declaration of covenants and restrictions, incorporating the provisions of the appropriate paragraphs of this determination in standard form acceptable to and approved by Counsel to this Board.  The said declaration shall provide for its modification or termination only upon the approval of the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals, after a public hearing held on ten (10) days? notice.  Said declaration, after approval by counsel, shall be recorded at the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk.  Copies of the same, with proof of recordation shown thereon, shall be returned to the Town Clerk prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 

f.              The house   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 should be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

 

h.              The driveway composition and any drainage structures should be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.  The completed driveway and drainage structures should be inspected by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

i.              An Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit should 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 copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit and the approved survey and building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

 

 

B.              John & Jennifer Claflin - SCTM# 300-102-3-8

i.              Technical Analysis Memo

              Lead Agency:              Zoning Board of Appeals

              Planner:              Tyler Borsack

              Date completed:              January 20, 2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class:              Type I              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              27 Lilla Lane              Subdivision

              School District:              Springs              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              B Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:    N/A              Variance              XX

              Tax Map Number: 300-102-03-8              Natural Resources

     Applicant:                            John and Jennifer Claflin                                               Special Permit   

                                          27 Lilla Lane                                                                         Other:

East Hampton, NY 11937

             

              Telephone:                            631-324-3570

              FEMA ZONE:              X Flood Zone

              Soil Type:              Plymouth loamy sand, 0-3% slopes (PlA); Montauk loamy sand, sandy variant 3-8% slopes (MnB)

              Map of Property:              Green River Estates, lots 1 and 3, map # 4116.

              Size of Parcel:              41,087 sq. ft.

 

Project Description: 

To allow the property to remain beyond the clearing limits established in the Water Recharge Overlay District.

 

Relief Requested:

One variance of 3,579 sq. ft. from ?255-3-65 of the Town Code is require to allow the existing clearing to remain at 18,715 sq. ft. where 15,136 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.

 

Property Conditions and History:

The subject property is located on located on Lilla Lane off of Accabonac Rd near Neck Path, in Springs. The property is improved with an approximately a 2,252 sq. ft. one story residence with 650 sq. ft. of wood decking. The most recent C.O. was issued on the property in 2001 for a ?1,100 sq. ft. one story, frame, one family residence having one kitchen only, 300 sq. ft. wood deck; 1,152 sq. ft. one story addition and 1,056 sq. ft. interior alteration to basement, 350 sq. ft. wood decking and garage under?. This property has not appeared before the Zoning Board previously.

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Boards Consideration:

The subject parcel is before the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to request a clearing variance in the Water Recharge Overlay District (WROD) to allow their existing clearing to remain at 18,715 sq. ft. after a revegetation of 1,086 sq. ft. where a maximum clearing of 15,136 sq. ft. is allowed. In their application, the applicant describes that the property was issued a certificate of occupancy in 2001, which after examining aerial images appears to be the same clearing as exists today. This clearing took place during the construction of an addition to the existing residence between 1999 and 2001. While the error is partially attributed to the Town the requested variance is significant and represents what would be the first residential variance for clearing in WROD.

 

The Planning Department recommends denial of this application and at the very least recommends a significantly larger revegetation in order to bring the property as close to the maximum clearing allowed as possible. There is significant space available on the property for a revegetation that would bring the clearing close into conformity while still allowing room for a swimming pool to be constructed in a different location. It is the Planning Departments opinion that the requested variance is not the minimum necessary. The Planning Department is aware of only two clearing variances that have been granted in the Water Recharge Overlay District (WROD) and a high bar should be set for allowing clearing to exceed the maximum allowed in this important area of Town which is vital to the protection of the Towns sole source aquifer. The two previous approvals were on the ARF property (SCTM# 300-192-03-4) in Wainscott and the Temple Adas Israel (SCTM# 300-111-02-4.3) cemetery property on Rt. 114, both of which have very unique circumstances and neither of which are residential uses so they are difficult to compare to the current proposal.

 

The clearing restrictions required by the Town Code were designed to minimize the impacts of cleared areas which have little to no benefit compared to native forests and habitat and often encourage competing and alien species. Excessive clearing increases storm-water runoff and does not filter rainwater effectively before percolating into the groundwater table. The clearing restrictions were designed to minimize these impacts while allowing a residential development of our recharge areas. The granting of variances from the Water Recharge Overlay District clearing restrictions has the potential to cause incremental decreases in the quality of the Town's drinking water supply and the current application will help establish a precedent for any future clearing variances in the WROD. As stated in the Town Code; "The purpose of the Water Recharge Overlay District is to provide for the application of a system of needed additional regulations for properties located in areas where disproportionately large quantities of rainwater are recharged into and stored in the underground aquifer, in order to help ensure the continued sufficiency and purity of the Town's irreplaceable groundwater supply and sole source of drinking water." 

 

Furthermore, the requested variance is not the minimum variance necessary. Even when considering the possibility of a swimming pool, the proposed location could be moved closer to the residence and additional revegetation could bring the property into conformance with the maximum allowable clearing or significantly reduce the variance requested. Because of the current expectation that the Zoning Board may be seeing similar applications in the future where a certificate of occupancy was issued in error regarding the existing clearing, it is important to set a good standard for what the Zoning Board expects and is willing to accept, the Board should discuss this application and how it meets the variance standards in ?255-8-50 of the Town Code. The Planning Department recommends, and will continue to recommend, in applications where a certificate of occupancy was issued in error that properties be revegetated to the maximum extent possible and variances only be approved when the only option available would be to demolish existing structures in order to revegetate.

 

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 Mitigation:

 

a)              The parcel should be revegetated in accordance with the species, sizes and spacing indicated on a revegetation plan to be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.  The revegetation should be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

 

C.              Meijas - SCTM# 300-174-2-3

i.              Technical Analysis Memo

              Lead Agency:              (not applicable)

              Planner: Lisa D?Andrea             

              Date completed:              January 31, 2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class: Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              71 Cliff Road              Subdivision

              School District:              Amagansett              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              B Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District              Variance             

              Tax Map Number: 300-174-02-03              Natural Resources Special Permit  XX

     Applicant:              Meijas   

                            c/o Robert Connelly

                        50 Station Rd., Building1

                        Watermill, N.Y. 11976                                                                                                                                

              Telephone:              631-537-3100             

              FEMA ZONE: 0.2% annual flood hazard chance; X Flood Zone             

              Soil Type: Dune land (Du), Carver and Plymouth sands 15-35% slopes (CpE); Plymouth loamy sand 3-8% slopes (PlB)             

              Map of Property:              Map No. 4694; Hampton Dunes Lot 74

              Size of Parcel: 19,734 sq. ft.

 

Project Description:  To demolish the existing residence and construct a 2,383 sq. ft. two story residence, a 303 sq. ft. accessory structure, a 700 sq. ft. swimming pool and a 665 sq. ft. pool deck on a parcel of land containing dune land and beach vegetation.

 

 

Relief Requested: A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code.

 

 

Property and History:

 

The parcel is currently improved with a 924 sq. ft. two story residence with 352 sq. ft. of deck constructed prior to zoning. The most recent Certificate of Occupancy was issued August 14, 1968.

All existing and proposed structures are depicted on a Saskas Surveying survey dated revised  November 29, 2016. A Proposed Layout and Grading Plan for 71 Cliff Rd. dated September 23, 2016 was submitted and received by the Board on December 5, 2016 as were the  LABHaus 71 Cliff Rd. Building Plans. The Planting Plan 71 Cliff Rd. by the Laurel Group dated, October 3, 2016 that includes a pool profile was received by the Board on January 6, 2017.

 

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

 

The current owner and applicant acquired this property in October 2014 and should be aware that the property is dune land with beach vegetation both of which are protected natural resources according to ?255-4-20 of the Town Code.

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 924 sq. ft. residence with a 352 sq. ft. deck in order to construct a new 2,383 sq. ft. residence with a 303 sq. ft. accessory structure, decks, sanitary system and pool on the property.  This is a redevelopment of the property. An application that removes pre-existing structures, is considered to be a vacant parcel. Review of proposed construction should be equal to the review of construction on any other vacant parcel.  Any opportunity to improve or preserve the environmental conditions on this environmentally sensitive property should be considered.

 

This property is located east of Bluff Rd. on Montauk Highway and has two front yards.  However, it is noted in the parcel history there is to be no access onto Bluff Rd. The property has steep topography in the northern portion. The existing house with its deck sits at the foot of the slope and has an unpaved driveway. Other than around the immediate house there is very little disturbance to the natural habitat. To the north of the house is quality oak woodland and to south of the house is high quality dune land with protected beach vegetation such as bearberry (Arctastophylos uva-ursi), beach grass (Amophila brevigulata), lichen (Cladonia spp), and beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa).

 

Beach vegetation provides ecological value in terms of drainage, habitat for dune land wildlife and significantly contributes to the character of the neighborhood.  Construction of a residence with pool, decking, accessory structure, wooden walkway, and driveway over a portion of a previously uncovered section of the property substantially reduces absorption of rainwater into the ground and could have a significant effect upon the direction of travel of the remaining underground waters. The existing building coverage is 932 sq. ft. and the proposed building coverage will be 1,908 sq. ft. a 5% increase. The total lot coverage is proposed to increase from about 3,000 sq. ft. to 5,284 sq. ft. an 11.5% increase.

The application as proposed will preserve approximately 3,500 sq. ft. of natural vegetation which is oak woodland in the northern portion of the property. The new house, pool, deck, walkway, new sanitary system and accessory structure are designed in such a way that the remaining 16,000 sq. ft. will be disturbed in one way or another during the construction process. Essentially no natural dune land or its protected vegetation will be left undisturbed. It appears that little, if any, attempt was made in the design of this project to consolidate structures and development on the property with the preservation of the natural features in mind. The beach vegetation is an important component in retaining the Town's rural beach character and as an ecological benefit for wildlife and storm water absorption.  Although the applicant is proposing to revegetate much of what will be disturbed, it will not result in an equal replacement for the habitat that has been disturbed or removed. In any functioning ecosystem are millions of invertebrates, fungi, bacteria and other organisms within the habitat that go unseen or un-noticed but none-the-less are vital to its functionality.

It should be noted that the survey indicates a lawn area around the pool and house. The agent for the applicant assured the Planning Department that the applicant is aware that establishing a lawn will not be permitted. If the Board approves this application the approved survey for the permit should have the lawn area removed.

The Planning Department does not feel that the NRSP standards have been met and does not support the application as proposed. It is the Planning Department's opinion that this project is too sprawling and disturbing to the protected natural resources and will cause them to be diminished in size or lost. The Planning Department recommends consolidation of structures and clearing to protect the natural features and prevent fragmentation of the protected features.  It appears a more consolidated or downscaled design, especially of the pool, pool decking, and the storage shed, could give the applicant adequate use and enjoyment of the property while preserving existing beach vegetation dune land habitat.

The Board needs to consider if this project is acceptable for the neighborhood development and is it in keeping with the development practice over the past 30 years.

Recommended Project Conditions:

 

a.              Project limiting fencing with staked straw bales should be erected to limit land disturbance and prevent sedimentation of the wetlands in the location depicted on the Planning department sketch dated January 31, 2017.

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

c.              All areas disturbed by construction activities should be revegetated with Beach Grass (Ammophila breviligulata) planted 12 on centers in culms of three or more in staggered rows.

d.              The establishment of turf, lawn, sod, or ornamental, non-native vegetation should be prohibited.

e.              A revegetation plan outlining the species, size and spacing should be submitted for approval by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.

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.              The sanitary system should be located and upgraded as indicated on the Saskas Surveying survey dated revised November 29, 2016 under the supervision of Suffolk County Department of Health Services.

a.              All structures should be situated at least 2 above the seasonal high groundwater table.

b.              The swimming pool should utilize a chlorine reducing sanitation system and all pool water should be discharged into a drywell located at least 100 from the wetlands on the survey.

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

 

 

D.              Cynthia Rowley - SCTM# 300-32-4-20

i.              Technical Analysis Memo

              Lead Agency:              (not applicable)

              Planner:              Brian Frank

              Date completed:              1/30/2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class:              Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              69 Seaside Avenue              Subdivision

              School District:              Montauk              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              B Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:              Variance: XX

              Tax Map Number: 300-032-04-20              Natural Resources

              Applicant:              Cynthia Rowley              Special Permit: XX

              C/o Joel Halsey              Other:

              PO Box 5030

              Montauk, NY  11954

              Telephone:              (631) 668-7332

              FEMA ZONE:              AE Flood Zone, elevation 14' & X Flood

              Zone

              Soil Type:              Bridgehampton silt loam, till substratum, 2-6% slopes (BhB)

              Map of Property:              Map of Seaside Shores; Map # 1518; Blk 602; lot 30

              Size of Parcel:              20,319 sq. ft.

 

Project Description:

To demolish an existing one-story residence and sanitary system and construct a new 1,375 sq. ft. two-story residence with 1st & 2nd floor decking and new sanitary system on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands.

 

Relief:

A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and variances from ? 255-4-40 (Minimum wetland setbacks) of the Town Code and any other relief necessary.                The following wetland setback variances are required: (1) & (2) Variances of 90? and 95? are required to construct the residence and decking 10? and 5? respectively from wetlands where a 100? setback is required; (2) a 144? variance is required to install a new sanitary system 6? from wetlands where a 150? setback is required and (3) clearing is proposed adjacent and within the wetlands where a 50? setback is required. 

 

 

Property Conditions and History:

The property is currently improved with a 988 sq. ft. one-story residence with 180 sq. ft. of decking that was constructed pursuant to Zoning Board review in 1976 according to the Certificate of Occupancy issued in 1976.  The most recent survey, depicting the existing conditions and proposed improvements was prepared by James Walsh Land Surveyor dated revised 10/11/16, stamped received 10/27/16 and the corresponding building plans were prepared by Lindal Cedar Homes (7 pgs) also received by the Board on 10/27/16.  Also received on 10/27/16 is a site plan of the proposed improvements and sanitary system details prepared by the Raynor Group engineering firm (dated revised, 10/04/16).  This project requires approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS).  

 

 

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

The property is located on the northwestern corner of Seaside Avenue and Miller Avenue, both unpaved private roads.  With the exception of the existing driveway location, the residence is completely surrounded by freshwater wetlands located within 15? of the structure.  The sanitary system is located southwest of the residence and encroaches several feet into the delineated wetland.  A small deck in the southwestern corner of the property, constructed without permits is proposed to be removed.  The subject premises are located within one of the most complex and hydraulically active sub-watersheds within the Lake Montauk watershed.  Surface and groundwater from the southern portion of the West Lake Drive area north of Montauk Highway flows south and east through a complex network of streams, marshes and swamps to the southeast along either side of Seaside Avenue, and then from west to east along Miller Avenue where some of the water seeps through the coastal bluff south of Miller towards the ocean; but much of the water flows north through wetlands and streams within the densely developed Ditch Plains community and discharges in the southern end of Lake Montauk.   The southern end of Lake Montauk is closed to shellfishing and as a bathing beach due to elevated levels of coliform bacteria that are used as indicators of water pollution. 

 

This property is among the most severely constrained by wetlands as any improved property reviewed by the Zoning Board over the past twenty years or more.  Any redevelopment of the property should establish a rational basis for an increase in the size of the residence and include a high level of short term and long term mitigation to protect the wetlands and prevent an increase in flooding in this chronically flood prone neighborhood.   The 988 sq. ft. residence contains a roof overhang that increases the footprint of building coverage to 1,288 sq. feet.   The proposed footprint (coverage) comprises 868 sq. ft. (10.1%) and nominally increases the wetland setbacks on all sides except the southeast corner where a deck is proposed.   The existing total coverage, which presumably includes the non-permitted deck, is proposed to be reduced from 1,823 sq. ft. to 1,206 sq. feet (14%).   The new residence is proposed on a slab foundation and the 1,375 sq. ft. residence comprises a roughly 39% gross floor area increase over the existing 988 sq. ft. house. 

 

It is the Planning Department?s opinion that footprint reduction, along with other mitigation measures, makes the application reasonable for the Board to consider the proposed size increase.  However, the environmental constraints of the property are extreme and unique; the potential for severe short and long term adverse impacts to the wetlands is very high.  The wetlands completely surround the residence with very limited room for construction equipment and workers.  The location of the property on the corner of an unpaved, private road increases the constraints for the staging of construction materials and equipment.  The greater the duration that construction activities occur on the property, the greater the likelihood of significant wetland impacts.   The high clay content of the soils increases the potential for soil compaction to further decrease the permeability of the soils, increasing the flooding potential.

 

Test hole data from the new sanitary system location indicates that clean sand, required for proper sanitary system installation, is located 49? below grade. If nearly 50 vertical ft. of poorly drained soils needs to be excavated, contained and removed from the property before the shaft can be backfilled with clean sand, detailed provisions explaining how this will be accomplished without encroaching beyond the existing clearing limits and into the wetlands, needs to be provided.  The test hole location indicates standing water at a depth of 6? below the surface (elevation 9.2? above sea level) but significant standing water within the wetlands suggests the potential for a water table much closer to the surface in other portions of the property.  The application proposes to remove the existing sanitary system and this property may be a better candidate for abandoning the sanitary system in place and in accordance with SCHHS regulations to minimize the extent of excavation in such proximity to the wetlands. 

 

The Planning Department recommends establishing a scenic easement in the eastern portion of the property to facilitate the conservation of their multiple values in perpetuity.  A tentative boundary for a potential easement will be submitted by the Planning Department prior to the public hearing for the application.  The new house has proposed a slab foundation which limits the extent of excavation of soils that would be associated with a crawl space.  Neither the survey nor building plans indicate the proposed first floor elevation of the residence, required by FEMA regulations to be a minimum elevation of 16 feet.    The survey indicates that elevations beneath the proposed house range from 13? to slightly more than 15 feet.  No proposed grading is indicated around the proposed improvements and grading around any new residence would affect the rate and volume of water entering the wetlands.  Although the property is not located in a Velocity Flood Zone as defined by FEMA, it may be an excellent candidate to place the residence on an open piling foundation to the reduce the need for grading around the foundation, allow the flow of water when necessary to allow the potential use of trench drains for drainage as an alternative to subsurface drywells.

 

The Planning Department strongly encourages the Board to obtain a detailed construction protocol, time line for anticipated construction activities and a detailed grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed design professional prior to any approval.  Ideally, this information should be provided to the Board well in advance of the public hearing.  The construction protocol should provide a detailed plan for removing the existing residence, abandoning or removing the existing sanitary system, construction of the residence and preparing the location of the new sanitary system for installation.  The grading and drainage plan should clearly depict all proposed grades, all drainage structures, their design volumes and the separation to the groundwater table of all subsurface structures.  The drainage plan should also address an existing culvert currently located south of the residence.  The high groundwater table, volume of flowing water and fine texture of the soils result in a high potential for sedimentation of the wetlands as long as intensive construction activities are occurring.  Consequently, the construction protocol should include an anticipated time line of construction activities and provisions for protecting the wetlands if construction activities are suspended for a significant length of time.   The applicant should update the Board regarding the status of the applications with the NYSDEC and the SCDHS prior to the public hearing. 

 

 

Summary of Mitigation:

a.              A construction protocol that clearly details the demolition of the residence and the construction of the proposed residence and sanitary system should be submitted to the Board prior to the public hearing for this application.  An acceptable construction protocol should be incorporated into the Board?s conditions of approval.

b.              A grading and drainage plan that, prepared by a licensed design professional, should be submitted to the Board prior to the public hearing and incorporated into the Board?s conditions of approval.

c.              Project limiting fencing consisting of 4? plastic safety or snow fence shall be erected concurrent with the clearing boundary approved by the Board adapted from the approved survey or site plan to limit the clearing of vegetation and land disturbance.  The fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction activities and replaced as necessary if damaged, dislodged or upon request of the Building Department or a delegate of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 

d.              Sediment control fencing consisting of staked straw bales within the perimeter of the project limiting fencing referenced above to prevent sedimentation of the wetlands. The fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control manual prior to the commencement and for the duration of construction activities.  The fencing shall be repaired or replaced as necessary to maintain proper function. 

e.              Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Board, or their delegate, shall inspect the project limiting and straw bale fencing for proper installation.

f.              The clearing of vegetation and the filling, grading or re-contouring of the property should be strictly limited to the boundaries established by the Board and any proposed grading depicted on a survey or engineer?s grading plan approved by the Board.

g.              A scenic easement shall be placed over the wetlands in the eastern portion of the property.  The easement, along with the approved survey depicting the location of scenic easement shall be submitted in acceptable form to the Zoning Board of Appeals Office for approval 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 easement shall be returned the East Hampton Town Clerk?s Office. Proof of filing must be presented to the Zoning Board before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

h.              Copies of the same, with proof of recordation shown thereon, shall be returned to the Town Clerk prior to the issuance of a building permit.

i.              The sanitary system shall be installed in the location and to the specifications indicated on the approved survey and engineering site plan under the direction of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.

j.              A revegetation plan that indicates the locations, species, size and spacing shall be submitted to the Board for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.   The plan shall be implemented and inspected by the Board or their delegate prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

k.              All structures should be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

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

m.              The applicant shall prepare and submit a declaration of covenants and restrictions, incorporating the provisions of the appropriate paragraphs of this determination in standard form acceptable to and approved by Counsel to this Board.  The said declaration shall provide for its modification or termination only upon the approval of the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals, after a public hearing held on ten (10) days? notice.  Said declaration, after approval by counsel, shall be recorded at the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. 

n.              An Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit or statement of non-jurisdiction should be obtained from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 

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

 

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

IV.              WORK SESSION:

V.              EXTENSION OF TIME:

A.              Adios Holdings - SCTM# 300-106-1-5.4

Approval of Extension of Time was tabled at March 7th 2017 meeting for Member Lys to conduct a field inspection.

VI.              POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATIONS:

A.              Cashelmara Holdings LLC - SCTM# 300-152-2-28.11

68 Castle Lane, Amagansett - Project is for a Natural Resources Special Permit to construct a garage and shed on a property with beach vegetation.

VII.              BOARD DETERMINATIONS:

A.              David Greuner - SCTM# 300-54-2-9

Modification request - clearing is currently 21,281 square feet over permitted  clearing of 30,580 square feet.

VIII.              BOARD DECISIONS:

A.              Alexandra & Bernal Vargas - SCTM# 300-128-1-19.2

336 Cranberry Hold Road, Amagansett - Project description is to construct an approximately 1,464 square foot two story addition with 1st and second story decking to a residence on a parcel of land containing dune land and beach vegetation. Public Hearing held January 17th 2016. Public Hearing closed but record left open till February 21st 2017 for an updated survey for current clearing and also information from the Planning Department regarding the Locker Determination.

Public Hearing record left open till February 21st 2017

Board tabled making a Decision

B.              Lisa & Robert Gerbino - SCTM# 300-172-3-38.7

3 Old Station Place, Amagansett - Relief sought is to allow an existing slate pool patio to remain with rear yard lot line setbacks. Public Hearing was held February 28th 2017 - the Public Hearing was closed - but the record was left open for one week for information from the Planning Department.

C.              68 Prospect Hill LLC - SCTM# 300-12-2-1.14

68 Prospect Hill Lane, Montauk - Relief sought is three variances to construct a tennis court. The Public Hearing held February 28th 2017 was left open for one month for the following submissions 1) updated survey 2) ownership and whether they qualify as contiguous properties 3) Building Inspector interpretation on front yard setbacks 4) Planning Department review     

D.              Adam Lindemann - SCTM# 300-33-1-2.2

16 Cliff Drive, Montauk - relief sought is a Natural Resources Special Permit and variances for construction of a swimming pool, pool fence and pergola. Public Hearing was held February 28th 2017. The Public Hearing and record was closed.

E.              Thomas Walsh - SCTM# 300-77-5-3.1

209 Three Mile Harbor Hog Creek Hwy., Springs - Relief sought is a Natural Resources Special Permit and variances to construct an addition and pergola, a second residence porch and patio. Public Hearing was held February 28th 2017. Public Hearing and record were closed.

F.              Seth Leist - SCTM# 300-176-1-16

8 Pine Way, Amagansett - Relief sought is a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 and a variance from Section 255-4-40 of the Town Code. A 20 ft. Variance is requested to construct a 295 square foot bedroom addition on a parcel of land within wetland jurisdiction. Public Hearing held March 7th 2017 Public Hearing and record closed.

G.              Safe Harbor Retreat LLC - SCTM# 300-135-1-8

26 Bull Run, East Hampton - Relief sought is three variances from Section 255-11-10 of the Town Code to convert a roughly 3.9 acre property in a residential zoning district containing a two story single family residence and associated accessory structures into a semi public facility. Public Hearing held March 7th 2017. Public Hearing and record left open indefinitely for a Continuation Hearing.

H.              Adam Young - SCTM# 300-23-2-7

19 Bay Inlet Road, Springs - Project description is to allow a swimming pool with a slate wall to remain with the minimum side yard setback. Public Hearing held September 20th 2016 - Public Hearing closed but the record was left open for 90 days for the applicant to consult with the Planning Department. Record extended an additional sixty days - January 15th 2017

I.              Ackerman - SCTM# 300-174-2-32

71 Jacqueline Drive, Amagansett Relief sought is a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 and a variance from Section 255-4-30 of the Town Code and a variance to construct a deck 9 foot from the wetlands where a 100 foot minimum setback is required to demolish and remove an existing deck and replace it with a 458 square foot deck and to clear vegetation in order to construct a new driveway within 150 feet of freshwater wetlands.

J.              Mike Valentino - SCTM# 300-48-8-10.5

17 Fairview Road, Montauk Relief sought is a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the Town Code to construct an approximately 4,500 square foot two story residence with a 635 square foot attached garage, approximately 2,059 square feet of porches, pool patio, swimming pool, new driveway with retaining wall, and sanitary system within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands.

K.              Nilson Novoa - SCTM# 300-10-3-23

48 Pinetree Drive, Montauk - Relief sought is two variances from Section 255-11-10 and one variance from Section 255-11-7D to allow a 128 square foot shed and deck to remain within side yard setbacks.

L.              Alan Kazlow - SCTM# 300-175-3-16

29 Beach Lane, Amagansett - Relief sought is five variances and a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the Town Code and 255-11-10 to allow an existing approximately 223 square foot Screened porch addition and an approximately 290 square foot deck addition to remain within side yard lot line setbacks and freshwater wetland setbacks.

M.              James Donohue - SCTM# 300-17-1`-37.2

97 Tuthill Road, Montauk - Relief sought is One variance of 8.4 from Section 255-11-10 of the Town Code to allow the second story deck to remain 11.6 feet from the western front yard lot line setback to allow an existing approximately 375 square foot deck to remain within front yard lot line setbacks. Public Hearing was held March 7th 2017 - Public Hearing and record was closed.

Tabled

IX.              MINUTES APPROVAL:

A.              March 21st 2017

X.              RESOLUTIONS

A.              Frans Preidel - SCTM# 300-50-2-22

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

             

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

FRANS PREIDEL

SCTM # 300-50-2-22

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE: January 31, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN P. WHELAN, Chair

                                          CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

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

                                          DENISE SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          LISA D?ANDREA, Planning Department

                                          PAUL FULLER, Applicant

                                          JOEL HALSEY, 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 Theresa Berger of this of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:  To replace an existing 67 sq. ft. (6.7? X 10?) shed, 16 sq. ft. (4? X 4?) outdoor shower, & roughly 72 sq. ft. of decking with a new 145 sq. ft. (10? X 14.5?) shed.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT:  A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to section 255-4-20 of the Town Code. A variance from the maximum allowable building coverage of section 255-11-10 of the Town Code. A variance of 1.5? from the Pyramid Law of section 255-11-72 D of the Town Code. A 48.1? variance from the minimum bluff crest setbacks of section 255-4-40 B of the Town Code whereas a minimum setback of 100? is required and a setback of 51.9? is proposed and any other relief that may be necessary.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE:  4,738 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 3 South Edison

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: Atlantic Ocean

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Montauk

5.              FILED MAP NAME:  Montauk Beach Development Corp.

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 174

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: November 22, 1926

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 20

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 13 & 14

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-50-2-22

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: RS: Resort

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: Coastal Erosion Overlay District,

                                                               

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 parcel contains a single - family residential dwelling within the commercial RS: Resort Zoning District of downtown Montauk.  It is extremely constrained for a residentially-developed lot at 4,738 sq. ft. (roughly .13 acres). It is entirely seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line and is within FEMA flood zone VE (el. 17). At its southern end, the lot contains a roughly 80? long portion of the primary dune which buffers downtown Montauk from the Atlantic Ocean. The primary planning concern on this lot is the impact of coastal storms on the primary dune, and in turn the impact that this has on the integrity of the structures on the lot and the prudency of allowing further development to occur.

 

2.              The portion of the dune on the subject parcel represents the terminus of the short (roughly 500?) uninterrupted section of the dune that also protects the Royal Atlantic Motel to the west. This portion of the dune was part of the recent Army Corp of Engineers coastal protection project and has been reinforced with sand and geotextile bags, which runs the length of the dune from South Edgemere Street east to South Edison Street. Dating back to 2000, this dune section had been the subject of a total of eleven (11) emergency dune restoration permits between the subject lot and the Royal Atlantic Motel to the immediate west prior to the Army Corp project: Four (4) (2004, 2008, 2010, & 2012) for the subject parcel and seven (7) such permits within this time frame for the neighboring Royal Atlantic Motel (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013).

 

3.              In addition to the hazards presented by the nearby Atlantic Ocean, the portion of dune on the subject property is also adversely impacted by erosion due to the access cuts that exists at South Edison Street. Storm-water run-off from the downtown Montauk grid runs generally south and often ponds in this vicinity and sporadically runs into the Atlantic Ocean. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic also contribute to further erosion.

 

4.              The most recent certificate of occupancy reads:

12/17/15 - C.O. 30991 (46931, 53206, 53545, 55010, 55073, 55355, 57554, 58370) - DALAL PREIDEL - ONE-STORY, FRAME, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE HAVING ONE KITCHEN ONLY, CONTAINING A TOTAL OF (2) TWO BEDROOMS ONLY, ENCLOSED PORCH, WOOD DECK, WOOD WALL, ALL ERECTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF ZONING; 67 SQ. FT. SHED, EIGHT FOOT HIGH STOCKADE FENCE,  AND TEN FEET HIGH FENCE.

 

5.              As evidenced by the aforementioned flood and coastal erosion area designations this parcel is situated in an area of extreme vulnerability to direct wave action as the result of coastal storms. The Town and Federal efforts to reinforce the primary dune and protect this and other shoreline properties may reduce the potential for damage to on-site structures, but can never truly eliminate them for these properties as it is simply a matter of proximity to the Atlantic Ocean that makes them vulnerable. The subject parcel is no exception and the Planning Department, in principal, advises against any projects that would represent further development in such an area of extreme vulnerability.

 

6.              The proposed shed is minor in scale at 10? X 14.5? (145 sq. ft.). Although total building coverage would increase by 78 sq. ft., the total lot coverage would be reduced by 10 sq. ft. This is due to the fact that although the new shed is larger in size than that what exists (145 sq. ft. v 67 sq. ft.) which increases building coverage, and it is proposed to be placed where an existing shed, shower and decking exists which total 155 sq. ft., reducing total lot coverage by 10 sq. ft.

 

7.              As mentioned above, this property has been routinely severely impacted by storm damage due to direct wave action. The most recent such significant damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012. Subsequently a building permit for an emergency dune restoration was issued on December 10, 2012. A certificate of occupancy was subsequently obtained in December 2015 (see above). Based upon aerial photographs from the Spring of 2013, it appears that the majority of the vegetation on the dune was either destroyed or removed as part of the dune restoration process. As can be seen in the photos supplied to the Zoning Board of Appeals in a separate memorandum from the Planning Department, this area had previously been almost entirely American beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata) with a number of invasives, particularly Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii) mixed in. The previous lot inspection record identified this area as beach grass, which is a protected natural feature under the Town Code and the removal of which requires a Natural Resources Special Permit.

 

8.              Based upon a site inspection, it appears that this area has been entirely revegetated, mostly with American beach grass but also with a number of ornamentals mixed in, specifically what appears to be a variant of Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). As noted above, this dune restoration was granted a certificate of occupancy. The Planning Department recommended, and the applicant agreed, that the site be revegetated in a manner more in keeping with what is usually required on a primary dune, which is commonly American beach grass (only).

 

9.              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. This parcel is a tiny parcel sandwiched between two commercial uses, currently the Sloppy Tuna restaurant and the Royal Atlantic Hotel. The Sloppy Tuna, which is the property adjacent to the property line where the shed is, looms over applicant?s property. Clearly, the shed, as proposed will not have any effect on the neighboring property as the neighboring property significantly looms over applicant?s property.

 

10.              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. Due to the location and size of the property, there are no alternatives for the applicant?s shed.

 

11.              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.  Applicant is proposing to reduce the total lot coverage on the site and has agreed to revegetate with indigenous species where possible.

 

12.              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.  Applicant is proposing to remove an existing outdoor shower and its associated plumbing as part of the project, and therefore, the property will see an environmental benefit.

 

13.              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). 

 

14.              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. 

 

15.              The Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed improvements. Applicant is reducing the total lot coverage on the property as he will be removing an existing shed and existing decking.

 

16.              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. Applicant?s property is sandwiched between two large commercial structures that will dwarf the proposed shed.

 

17.              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.  Applicant?s she will be located in an already disturbed areas as the proposed site currently contains an existing shed with outdoor shower and decking. These existing structures will be removed for the new shed.

 

18.              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.

 

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 section 255-4-20 of the Town Code. A variance from the maximum allowable building coverage of section 255-11-10 of the Town Code. A variance of 1.5? from the Pyramid Law of section 255-11-72 D of the Town Code. A 48.1? variance from the minimum bluff crest setbacks of section 255-4-40 B of the Town Code whereas a minimum setback of 100? is required and a setback of 51.9? is proposed and any other relief that may be necessary.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED:  To replace an existing 67 sq. ft. (6.7? X 10?) shed, 16 sq. ft. (4? X 4?) outdoor shower, & roughly 72 sq. ft. of decking with a new 145 sq. ft. (10? X 14.5?) shed.

 

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 24, 2016, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on August 26, 2016.     

 

2.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

a.              Applicant shall revegetate, with the exception of the existing bamboo which is currently in containers, any non-native species on the site with indigenous species prior to issuance of a building permit.

 

b.              An Article 24 Freshwater 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.

 

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

 

              JOHN WHELAN, chair

              CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

              DAVID LYS, Member

              ROY DALENE, Member

              THERESA BERGER, Member

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Applicant