Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Resilience topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board makes SEQRA negative declaration for Devon Yacht Club redevelopment after multi‑year review
Summary
After an extensive review of environmental assessments, East Hampton planners voted to issue a SEQRA negative declaration for the proposed demolition and reconstruction of most buildings at the Devon Yacht Club, finding mitigation measures sufficient to avoid significant adverse impacts under current submissions.
The East Hampton Planning Board voted to adopt a SEQRA (secret) negative declaration for a multi‑year redevelopment plan for the Devon Yacht Club at a meeting on Aug. 27, 2025.
Lisa Laori, a planning‑department reviewer, summarized the proposal and the environmental assessments prepared by the applicant. The plan would demolish most existing club buildings and rebuild structures serving the same functions, relocate some facilities farther from a primary dune, install an upgraded sanitary system using innovative low‑nitrogen technology, realign and expand parking, retain and resurface eight tennis courts, import fill to raise grades, and reconstruct the dune. Laori said the applicant’s corrected estimate for imported fill is 3,976 cubic yards and that a previously reported deck to host a flag had been reduced to 17.5 square feet. “I have indicated a cubic yardage of fill as 4,793 but that has been reduced to 3,976,” Laori said. “It is down to 17.5 square ft for the deck.”
Board members and staff emphasized the multi‑agency review required for a Type I action. Laori said the planning board has acted as lead agency for much of the application’s review and that the zoning board of appeals will separately consider the roughly 20 variances the project requires. The planning‑department memo and the applicant’s submissions assess coastal flooding and FEMA velocity‑zone construction standards; the applicant proposes timber piles and higher first‑floor elevations for buildings partly seaward of the limit of moderate wave action.
Several board members described the application as an improvement over current site conditions, noting the removal of a failing on‑site cesspool and restoration of wetlands and dune habitat. “We are not looking at a vacant property — we are looking at a heavily developed site that has certificates of occupancy for everything that is there now,” Lisa Laori said during the presentation, describing why some existing impacts are being replaced by modern systems.
Other members urged caution and asked for alternatives. Member Lou asked whether the board could require or request alternative layouts with reduced coverage, smaller buildings or fewer amenities, saying, “Why couldn’t we ask for an alternative project plan?” Planning staff replied that SEQRA review can and should identify unacceptable environmental impacts and that alternatives should be targeted to mitigate those impacts.
After discussion, a motion to adopt a negative declaration passed without a project approval; board members made clear that a negative declaration under SEQRA does not constitute site‑plan approval. Michael (board member) summarized that earlier rounds of review had materially improved the application and recommended against requiring a full environmental impact statement (EIS). The planning board will continue review of site‑plan and zoning matters at subsequent hearings and the zoning board of appeals will consider the variance and natural‑resources special‑permit standards.
What happens next: The negative declaration allows the application to move forward in the town’s review process; the zoning board will hold public hearings on variances and the natural‑resources special permit, after which the project will return to planning for site‑plan hearings and conditions if approvals are granted.
