Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks driveway variance in Amagansett; planners say pervious material and dry wells mitigate impacts
Summary
The ZBA heard a request from 24 Cross Highway LLC to install a pervious horseshoe driveway 60.8 feet from the bluff crest where 75 feet is required; planning staff said pervious quartz stone, two dry wells and silt fencing should mitigate impacts and no callers opposed the application.
Britton Bistrian, representing 24 Cross Highway LLC, asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit a 60.8‑foot setback for a proposed pervious quartz‑stone horseshoe driveway on a property in the Devon section of Amagansett. Bistrian said the existing parcel lacks a safe driveway and that the horseshoe layout is intended to reduce dangerous back‑outs onto a blind corner.
Bistrian told the board he believed town code’s driveway definition might exempt residential driveways from setback requirements but said the team submitted the variance application to avoid a procedural dispute: "I really still stand that I don't believe this needs a variance, but I don't really want to get caught up in it," he said.
Member Maring presented field photos showing the garage, shed slated for removal, the narrow right of way and two large white oaks near the proposed driveway loop. The applicant confirmed the driveway design is intended to preserve those two white oaks.
Jake Kushner of the planning department summarized the technical review: the driveway edge would be 60.8 feet from the bluff crest where the code requires 75 feet; the parcel also abuts tidal and freshwater wetlands but the nearest freshwater wetland lies about 120 feet from the proposed driveway location; proposed clearing would increase by 893 square feet to 9,071 square feet and total lot coverage would rise from roughly 22% to 27%, both within town limits.
Kushner said pervious surfaces are exempt from wetland setbacks in general but that, given the site specifics, mitigation in the form of pervious quartz stone, two dry wells and silt fencing during construction would be sufficient to control runoff and reduce impacts.
No members of the public called or spoke in opposition. Member Maring moved to close the hearing and the board concurred; the hearing record was closed.
If the board grants a variance later, conditions the board discussed included a construction protocol, tree‑protection measures and installation of the specified dry wells and silt fencing to guard tidal and freshwater resources.
