East Hampton board presses Haven Hotel team for fuller site, septic and setback details

The East Hampton Town Planning Board on Sept. 10 pushed the Haven Hotel renovation team to supply clearer site and sanitary information after a detailed planning‑department review flagged multiple missing elements.

Chris, planning‑department staff, told the board the submission proposed merging two parcels at 525 and 533 Westlake Drive into about 1.1 acres, renovating the existing motel and adding a pool and accessory structures. “The proposal includes 29 units,” he said in his review, noting that the submission had been circulated as 28 units but that department estimates showed most units near 300 square feet and two larger three‑bedroom units. Staff asked the applicant to provide existing and proposed floor plans with gross floor areas for each unit to confirm whether any units exceed the 450‑square‑foot threshold that would change a unit’s classification under the town code.

Why it matters: unit size and count determine which code standards apply (transient motel vs. resort use), whether a special permit is needed and whether additional parking or other standards are triggered.

Planning staff also flagged setbacks and coastal‑area approvals. The department said the proposed northern IA sanitary system appears within 200 feet of the bluff crest and that the submission must show the 150‑ and 200‑foot bluff setbacks so the board can determine whether a Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) or variances will be required. Staff urged the applicant to indicate all accessory‑structure setbacks, retaining‑wall and patio locations, and elevations for proposed enclosures.

On sanitary capacity, the planning memo noted inconsistent calculations and asked the applicant to prove an existing grandfathered allowable flow of 3,100 gallons per day from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services or to revise the numbers. “The submitted calculations use a total number of units of 29, whereas the proposal only includes 28,” staff said, and asked for corrected flow estimates aligned with the submitted plans.

Board members questioned parking and curb‑cutting. The site currently lists 29 parking spaces grandfathered from a 1978 approval; the code would require up to 40 spaces for a new project. The applicant’s team argued that a fourth curb cut would be needed to reach the 29 grandfathered spaces and to provide emergency and service access; staff said it did not oppose the fourth cut but asked for a clear rationale and supporting circulation diagrams.

Applicant Bridal Bistrian, representing 53 Westlake Drive LLC, told the board the project is a renovation rather than a reconstruction: “We are renovating. We are not reconstructing.” He said the ownership recently obtained a health‑department permit recognizing 29 units and that the team will file that documentation and revise the plan to reflect setbacks, ADA access to the pool and corrected sanitary calculations.

The board and staff also requested manufacturer sound‑level data for outdoor equipment, plot‑by‑plot lighting illuminance information, ADA compliance revisions flagged by the fire marshal for pool access and restroom clearances, and additional drainage/LEC details. Staff listed potential next referrals to the Architectural Review Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals (for variances or NRSP) and the Suffolk County Planning Commission (because the project lies within the county road review distance).

What happens next: the board directed the applicant to submit revised floor plans showing GFA and bedroom counts, corrected sanitary calculations and proof of any grandfathered SCDHS flow; indicate 150'/200' bluff setback lines; add circulation and elevation drawings for dumpster and pool gates; and provide noise and lighting data. The planning department will review the revisions before the board determines whether to move the application to public hearing or approval.