East Hampton Conservation Commission Approves Carport Permit, Continues Medical Office Hearing

Conservation · Meeting of July 20, 2026

CT EAST HAMPTON — East Hampton Conservation Commission approves carport permit and ratifies enforcement order at July 20 meeting. The commission unanimously issued a positive determination under sections 2A and 5 of the Wetlands Protection Act for a carport and fill project at 63 East Street, approving applicant Carl Proknoll's request with conditions including straw wattle erosion controls and removal of fill within 30 days. The board also ratified a stop-work and enforcement order against a duplex project at 389 College Highway after the contractor resumed work without notifying the commission following a multi-month pause and failed to submit a required quarterly engineer's report due in April; Conservation Agent George said he would begin issuing fines if violations continue.

A Notice of Intent hearing for a proposed 7,200-square-foot medical office building at 38 College Highway — filed by KVIP with engineer Philippe Cravo of Arlo Beck Associates — was continued to August 3 pending an outstanding Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program review. The meeting opened with a lengthy public comment exchange in which resident Jeff challenged the legality of the July 6 hearing that approved a solar project 2-1, alleging the Zoom link posted as hybrid access had not functioned, preventing peer reviewer Ryan Nelson of Lubeck Associates from participating before the vote was taken.

In the full story:

• The complete report — 925 words

Source: the Conservation meeting of July 20, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

EAST HAMPTON — July 20, 2026 — The East Hampton Conservation Commission approved a permit for a carport and fill project on East Street Monday, ratified a stop-work enforcement order against a College Highway property, and continued a Notice of Intent hearing for a proposed medical office building pending a state Natural Heritage review.

The commission also authorized any member to sign Conservation Agent George's payroll and mileage forms, addressing a practical gap when the agent is unavailable.

The Full Story

The commission opened its July 20 meeting with an extended public comment exchange between a resident identified in the transcript only as Jeff and the commission chair. Jeff raised concerns about two earlier meetings — June 1 and July 6 — involving an application, apparently for a solar project, that had been approved 2-1. He argued that the July 6 meeting had been listed online as a hybrid Zoom meeting, that the Zoom link had not functioned, and that the peer reviewer from Lubeck Associates, Ryan Nelson, had been unable to join. He also questioned whether the peer review process had been completed before the vote was taken.

The chair responded that the meeting had been posted as in-person only and that the Zoom link had been a test for a potential new member, not a hybrid access point. The chair also said Nelson had been notified of the in-person format and had submitted emailed comments shortly after the meeting began, two of which addressed fence-related questions the commission considered resolved. The chair added that the commission had sent the Planning Board a letter recommending it invite Nelson to its own hearing on the project, citing issues in the peer review that fall outside the Conservation Commission's jurisdiction.

"At the end of the day, it was seven — we're talking about seven square feet. Which is a smoke and mirror right there." [No timestamp index supplied] — Jeff, public commenter

"He was hired by us as a peer reviewer. And at the end of the day, the decision is up to us." [No timestamp index supplied] — Commission Chair, responding to Jeff

On the first hearing of the evening, Carl Proknoll of 63 East Street received approval for a Request for Determination of Applicability covering a carport and a pile of fill material that had been deposited near a creek and river within Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Proknoll said he was unaware of the conservation restrictions when he purchased the property. Conservation Agent George confirmed he had not issued a formal enforcement order, only a letter, and recommended issuance of a positive determination under sections 2A and 5 and a negative determination under section 2. Conditions include installing straw wattles for erosion control between the construction area and the creek and moving the fill within 30 calendar days of approval.

The second hearing, a Notice of Intent filed for a proposed 7,200-square-foot medical office building at 38 College Highway, was continued to the August 3 meeting. Philippe Cravo of Arlo Beck Associates, the project engineer, presented plans showing a site of approximately 7.3 acres on which roughly one acre of disturbance is proposed. The project sits within the 200-foot riverfront area of the Manhan River and partially within the 100-foot buffer zone, though all work was described as outside the 50-foot inner buffer. Cravo said the stormwater design uses hooded catch basins, a sediment forebay, and a lined bioretention area with an underdrain and level spreader. The commission asked about tree removal and requested that the applicant stake the limit of work in the field before a site visit. Conservation Agent George said he would not recommend peer review, citing the applicant's submission of a required alternatives analysis and his own twice-completed site walks. A pending Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program review made continuation mandatory.

The commission also unanimously ratified a stop-work and enforcement order issued by Conservation Agent George for 389 College Highway, where a duplex project had resumed without notifying the commission after a pause of more than five days — a violation of its order of conditions. The agent said the project had also failed to submit a required quarterly engineer's report due in April and that he had observed open containers of an asphalt sealant on site with no personnel present. The agent said he would begin issuing fines if work continued without compliance.

Why It Matters

The 38 College Highway medical office project is still in early stages before the Conservation Commission, with a required Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program response outstanding. Residents living near the Manhan River and intermittent stream on the property will want to monitor the August 3 hearing for updated plans and the conservation agent's written recommendations. The enforcement action at 389 College Highway signals the commission is prepared to issue fines against the duplex developer — the next step in a two-stage process the agent described as already under way.

Key Motions & Votes

- Vote: Issue positive RDA (sections 2A and 5) and negative RDA (section 2) with conditions for carport and fill project at 63 East Street (Carl Proknoll), and close the public hearing Tally: Approved unanimously

- Vote: Continue Notice of Intent hearing for 38 College Highway medical office building to August 3, 2026 Tally: Approved unanimously

- Vote: Authorize any commission member to sign Conservation Agent George's payroll and mileage reimbursement sheets Tally: Approved unanimously

- Vote: Ratify enforcement order for 389 College Highway Tally: Approved unanimously

Source

East Hampton's community access TV: Conservation Commission meeting, July 20, 2026