Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Natural Resource Special Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant proposes steel grate bridge and narrow wetland setback for Montauk access

East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals · July 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a ZBA hearing, applicants proposed replacing a timber bridge with an H-20 rated steel grate structure, retaining a gravel driveway and a deer fence 1 foot from wetlands (requiring large variances). Planning staff supported the construction protocol; the board closed the hearing for deliberation.

Laurie Waltz, representing the applicant for 61 Seaside Avenue in Montauk, described a plan to replace an existing timber bridge with a 12-foot-by-14-foot fixed steel grate bridge, allow about 2,600 square feet of gravel driveway to remain and keep a deer fence/driveway gate roughly 1 foot from the wetlands where a 100-foot setback is required. Waltz said the fencing is needed to address a deer problem but that the replacement bridge and construction protocol were designed to limit disturbance to the wetlands.

Engineer Drew Bennett said the new bridge will be H‑20 rated and able to support emergency vehicles. Planning staff reviewed the site history and noted the property received a temporary administrative natural resource special permit in 2018 and a modification in 2022; the existing bridge was described as timber decking with settling abutments and an unknown maximum weight capacity. Staff said the proposed construction protocol (hand‑disassembly of the existing bridge, timber piling abutments installed landward of current abutments, no in‑stream supports) met NRSP standards and recommended conditions consistent with a DEC modification pending from the applicants.

The board asked questions about fence alignment and the feasibility of moving the fence away from the wetlands; the applicant indicated limited options because of lot configuration but proposed following the clearing line to reduce wetland impacts. The public hearing was closed by voice concurrence and the application will proceed to the board’s decision process.