East Hampton Town

Eyeing Cemetery Expansion

    The East Hampton Town Board is pondering a land purchase that would allow for expansion of the Oak Lane Cemetery in Amagansett. Board members said Tuesday that, before deciding to proceed, they will first examine the status of other cemeteries in the town to see if additional space will be needed, review the costs, including purchase price and ongoing maintenance costs of the expansion, tally the potential proceeds from gravesite sales, and discuss who would be able to purchase the cemetery plots.

No to Wave Monitoring

    A Rutgers University representative was sent packing on Tuesday when town board members advised him to look to New York State rather than town beaches for a place to put an antenna for a wave-monitoring system.

    Ethan Handel of the Coastal Ocean Observation lab at the university’s Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences had originally asked for permission to install a 35-foot transmission antenna and a smaller receiver antenna, anchored by thin guy wires in a 20-foot radius on dunes near the bathroom at Ditch Plain Beach in Montauk.

    When Councilwoman Theresa Quigley objected vehemently, Mr. Handel worked with the town’s Planning Department to identify alternate sites for the radar equipment, which collects data on ocean currents and waves that are used by the Coast Guard and can provide information about coastal erosion.

    On Tuesday, when he said Atlantic Avenue Beach in Amagansett seemed to be a “great location,” Ms. Quigley said that she would not approve the installation at any of the town’s public, lifeguarded beaches.

Considering LTV’s Contract

    On Tuesday the town board discussed a new contract with LTV, the cable television station that is East Hampton Town’s public access provider. The station receives a portion of the franchise fees that Cablevision pays to the town, which are based on a percentage of what customers pay for Cablevision’s service.

    In recent negotiations, Councilwoman Theresa Quigley said, LTV representatives appeared to agree to a new formula by which the station would receive a “base” amount from the town ($550,000 has been suggested) to cover basic services, and then would have to make a case proving the need for any additional requested money. Almost 90 percent of the budget for LTV, a nonprofit organization, is provided by the town, Ms. Quigley said. The town’s previous contract with LTV expired in November of last year.

    A hearing will be held at Town Hall tonight at 7 regarding the town’s agreement with LTV to provide coverage of government meetings and educational programming. Members of the public can weigh in regarding the station’s performance.   

    In a split vote last Thursday, the East Hampton Town Board declined to join forces with other municipalities bordering the Peconic Estuary in an effort to pursue ecosystem and water quality protection goals.

    An intermunicipal agreement calls for each entity to contribute to the costs of achieving the goals of a comprehensive conservation and management plan developed by the Peconic Estuary Protection Committee — goals such as restoring and enhancing tidal wetlands, controlling and reducing pollution, and complying with federal, state, and local coastal regulations.

    Joining forces, according to the failed resolution, would “save personnel, time, and money, and lead to a better level of coordination” in East Hampton’s pending efforts to meet state stormwater management requirements.

    Councilwoman Theresa Quigley, who was originally slated to sponsor the resolution to enter into the agreement, not only refused to support it, but expressed outrage over an issue of protocol — that Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc, upon learning that Ms. Quigley had asked to have the resolution removed from last Thursday’s agenda, had himself brought it to the table for a vote.

    “I don’t understand it to agree with it or disagree with it,” Ms. Quigley said, adding that the board had not “properly vetted” the agreement.

    But Mr. Van Scoyoc said that the matter had been discussed in detail at  “at least two” previous meetings, and raised again at a meeting earlier in the week from which Ms. Quigley was absent.

    “I know nothing about it,” Ms. Quigley said, demanding that Mr. Van Scoyoc provide the date of the earlier meetings. “I want discussion on it, and it’s my right.”

    According to the resolution, the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southold, and Southampton, along with Suffolk County, the Villages of Greenport, North Haven, Sag Harbor, and Dering Harbor, and the State Department of Transportation, “recognize the importance of the Peconic Esturary as a vital coastal ecosystem essential to the environmental and economic well-being of the people in the areas surrounding the Peconic Estuary,” and therefore have entered into the agreement.

    Mr. Van Scoyoc said it was important to join them “to protect our Peconic Bay region, its economy, [and] its resources,” and that it would put the towns on a better footing to obtain grants to support the work.

    Councilwoman Sylvia Overby voted with Mr. Van Scoyoc in support of the resolution, while Supervisor Bill Wilkinson voted against it, siding with Ms. Quigley.

    Councilman Dominick Stanzione, who would have been the swing vote, abstained. Mr. Stanzione said that though he had “every intention of supporting the proposal,” he would honor Ms. Quigley’s request for further discussion. “I’m extending a courtesy to a colleague . . . who has requested it,” he said. “But I expect us to act on this expeditiously.”

    “I feel fully versed on this,” said Ms. Overby, noting that the town’s natural resources director, Kim Shaw, had made a presentation about the matter to the board.

    “I am liaison to natural resources, and I asked to have it removed,” said Ms. Quigley of the resolution. “How did it get put back on under Peter’s name?” She looked to John Jilnicki, the town attorney, for an opinion about the procedure.

    “As I understand, Theresa Quigley thinks, as liaison, she can prevent something from being voted on,” said Mr. Van Scoyoc. “I can understand if she doesn’t support it,” and would decline to sponsor the resolution, he said. But, he added, “a single councilperson, because they’re the liaison to a particular department, should not be the gatekeeper to doing the town’s business.”

    If a board member has questions about a proposal regarding an area for which they serve as liaison, Mr. Wilkinson said, they should be able to “pull it back and have the board discuss it at a work session.”

    “Again, this has been discussed at several work sessions,” Mr. Van Scoyoc said.

    “I don’t remember it myself,” said Mr. Wilkinson.

    “It has to do with secret meetings, Peter,” Ms. Quigley charged. She did not elaborate.

    The Peconic Baykeeper organization has taken legal action against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation over what it says are more than 1,400 septic systems and sewage treatment plants across Suffolk County that are not being held to environmental standards.

    Permits issued by the D.E.C. for those systems are deficient, the organization claims, in that they fail to require the facilities to limit nitrogen emissions or do not contain requirements that the facilities meet the minimum standards for emissions set by the federal Clean Water Act and administered by the state and county for discharges into drinking or surface waters.

    Kevin McAllister, the Peconic Baykeeper, said this week that the organization had submitted information to the D.E.C. in September after reviewing public records to compile a list of the allegedly deficient permits.

    Since 2005, Mr. McAllister said, the organization has focused on the significant impact that septic waste and nitrogen in treated wastewater released into the environment are having on drinking water supplies and open water bodies.

    The number of fresh and saltwater bodies deemed “impaired” by the state based on their level of pollutants has been steadily increasing, he said on Tuesday. “I don’t care where you live in this county,” he said, “you’re probably within a mile or two of impaired waters.”

    In East Hampton, permits for three wastewater treatment plants — those at the Rough Riders condominiums and the Montauk Manor in Montauk and the town’s scavenger waste plant in East Hampton, which is currently off line — and for approximately 40 individual septic systems that discharge more than 1,000 gallons of wastewater per day were called into question in a lawsuit filed by the Peconic Baykeeper in State Supreme Court.

    Among the individual systems are those at the Montauk Yacht Club, Gurney’s Inn, the Amagansett East Side Tennis Club, the Montauk Shores condominiums, the Coast Guard station in Montauk, and the Montauk Downs State Park.

    Countywide, the Baykeeper said in the Article 78 lawsuit, there are 79 sewage treatment plants and 1,338 septic systems that should be held to tighter standards by the D.E.C.

    A legal action filed in federal court under the Clean Water Act names additional facilities, including a number of state parks and the Stony Brook Southampton campus.

    “It’s not noncompliance as much as non-enforcement,” Mr. McAllister said of the permit holders. The state and county, he said, “are not administering the law properly.”

    The lawsuit seeks to force the D.E.C. to modify the permits it issues for sewage treatment plants and septic systems that discharge into groundwater “that is hydrologically connected to surface waters” so as to limit nitrogen emissions to levels that will not “result in growths of algae, weeds, and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages,” as described in a statewide water quality standard. They also asked that permits be modified, with stringent emissions standards imposed, for those that discharge into “nitrogen-impaired surface waters” or to groundwater with water quality deemed “poor” or “unacceptable” based on nitrogen levels.

    “What we’re trying to do is move these facilities to incorporate the best available technology,” said Mr. McAlllister in a phone interview on Tuesday.

    Nitrex, one wastewater treatment system approved for use in Suffolk County, treats wastewater to a level where there are only 3 parts per million of total nitrates, he said, while other approved, conventional systems in use result in 60 to 70 parts per million of nitrates in what is discharged into the ground or water.

    “I’ve been fighting to introduce these technologies in some of the developments on Long Island,” Mr. McAllister said of the more effective treatment. “We’ve got to really start introducing advanced treatments at the highest level of performance.”

    And, he said, “we need the mandates that say, ‘no, your discharge will not exceed this level.’ ”

    The Peconic Baykeeper “believes litigation and more aggressive advocacy is necessary,” Mr. McAllister said. “There’s urgency now. We’re at a juncture in time that we need bold actions.”

East Hampton Town

Arts Council Appointments

    After establishing an East Hampton Arts Council last month, the East Hampton Town Board appointed 12 members to the group at a meeting last Thursday. The group includes visual artists and art instructors along with an art lawyer, a collector and photographer, a theater director, a writer and publisher, and owners of a gallery and a music store.

    The council, according to a resolution passed unanimously by the town board, will “advise the town on issues concerning the arts and various artists, including education opportunities, business opportunities, areas for performing and producing art, and [will] interface with various artists groups, businesses, museums, and associations.”

Seeking Pet Safety Signs

    Seeking to protect dogs whose owners might think it is safe to leave them in parked cars during hot weather, Lynn Lehocky approached the town board last Thursday about erecting signs in parking lots or along public streets reading “Warning: Heat Kills Pets in Parked Vehicles.”

    She said that state law prohibits leaving pets in cars under certain conditions, under penalty of a $250 fine. Councilman Dominick Stanzione said that he had already forwarded an e-mail about posting the signs to Pat Gunn, a town attorney and head of the public safety division. But Councilwoman Theresa Quigley protested the idea. “I think the more we assume people don’t have common sense, the more they lack common sense,” she said.

Farm Museum Go-Ahead

    Restoration of the historic Selah Lester house, on town-owned property on the corner of North Main and Cedar Streets in East Hampton, is set to proceed, following the town board’s acceptance last week of a $296,700 bid for the project. Carter-Melence, a company from Sound Beach, will do the work. Thanks to the efforts of a volunteer committee, the house is slated to become a farm museum depicting the life of an East Hampton farm family in the early 1900s.

    The Revolutionary War-era house was built for Capt. Jonathan Barnes of Amagansett and was moved to its present location in 1870 after being sold to Selah Lester. The house and barn remain on the large open lot, which was purchased by the town using the community preservation fund. After structural work on both buildings is completed, the town plans to sign a license agreement with a new nonprofit agency that will be set up for the purpose of running the farm museum.

Two Employees Suspended

    The town board suspended two town employees last week pending the disposition of disciplinary charges of misconduct and incompetence. Steve Arkinson, an electrical services supervisor in the town’s Parks and Building Maintenance Department, was suspended without pay for 10 days, while Frederick Windisch, a minibus driver for the Human Services Department, was suspended without pay for 30 days.

    Both men are entitled to request a hearing, pursuant to New York Civil Service Law. Eileen A. Powers will be assigned as a hearing officer in both cases should that take place.   

    Residents of a Springs neighborhood near Three Mile Harbor who are members of the Duck Creek Farm Association are poised to begin caring for a town nature preserve along Babe’s Lane, fronting on the harbor, as soon as a officials approve a management plan.

    The association is the first to “adopt” a preserve under a program established by the town, and will work to remove invasive species from the two-acre waterfront area under a restoration plan.

    Ira Barocas, the president of the association, said at a hearing on the preserve management plan at Town Hall last Thursday that the process had been a long one, spanning four years.

    The area was neglected and became overgrown after the town purchased it for preservation in 2003, at a cost of $750,000.

    It was once a part of the 200-acre Duck Creek farm, owned by the Edwards family, Mr. Barocas said. The restoration process will restore water views for nearby residents as well as other members of the public who have enjoyed walking along the lane by the harbor, according to one resident.

    Putnam Bridge, the Connecticut developer seeking to build a senior citizen housing development on the former Principi property east of the Amagansett commercial district on Montauk Highway, has downsized its plan for the development following the Town Planning Department’s critique of the proposal.

    Initial plans for 555 Amagansett, as the proposed development is known, called for 63 cottages and 26 apartments, for a total of 89 units. These dwellings were to average 1,550 square feet and be priced between $850,000 and $1.8 million.

    The revised plan reduces the overall density of the project, eliminating 10 units. Some have also been redesigned. New apartments of 692 square feet, which the developer estimates would be priced significantly lower than under the original plan, are now part of the proposal.

    “We got rid of 28 cottages,” said Britton Bistrian of Amagansett, a consultant to the project. “It doesn’t sound like density went down a great deal, but we made more of them apartment units — the flats. We got rid of actual structures and put them into more apartment-like buildings. We opened up a big swath of open space down the middle of the property, and took all cottages off Montauk Highway.”

    The developer also intends to designate 10 percent of the development’s units as affordable housing, per the Long Island Workforce Housing Act of 2008, plus an additional 10 percent to be designated as affordable by local market-rate standards.

    Among the points raised by the town planning board when it took a look at the developer’s original proposal was the need to provide amenities that a larger portion of the community might be able to benefit from, Ms. Bistrian said in a July 5 letter to Reed Jones, the board’s chairman.

“Amagansett has a dearth of good playgrounds,” she said this week. “We proposed to put a big, fenced-in playground in the big, open field on the north side of the property.” Another idea, she said, is to situate a barn on the property to be designated a multipurpose building for the entire community’s use, and a site to be used as a communal garden. Under the new design, the overall footprint of the 23.5-acre property, Ms. Bistrian said, would be characterized by more open, scenic, and public spaces.

    In addition to concerns about density, affordability, and benefits to the larger community, an advisory memo prepared in May by JoAnne Pahwul, the town’s assistant planning director, questioned the year-round support a market-rate housing complex would have in Amagansett, where 65 percent of all housing units are seasonal, according to the 2000 United States Census.

    One aspect of the proposed development that has not changed is a commitment to sustainability. In the April 8 presentation to the Amagansett Citizens Advisory Committee, the architect Jaquelin Robertson of Cooper, Robertson and Partners in New York promised a complex that would produce as much electricity as it consumed, and a “zero-wastewater community” that would produce no nitrogen.

    “We came out of the planning board with definitive marching orders,” said Francis Jenkins III of Putnam Bridge, who had presented the plan to the citizens committee with Mr. Robertson. “I think we did exactly what we said we’d do all along, which is take community input and tie it back into the plan. It took longer than we wanted, but it’s a very thorough response. But we came into this eyes wide open, knowing that we were going to have to run a very open and robust process.”

    Ms. Bistrian said she hopes for a response from the Planning Department by Labor Day.

    A discussion at an East Hampton Town Board meeting on Tuesday centered on how to limit the parking of commercial vehicles and large trucks with equipment at residences.

    Under the town code, residents of a house may park their own commercially registered vehicle or “light truck” there. Businesses, “commercial operation[s], or other nonresidential activit[ies]” are generally not permitted in residential zones, with a few limited exceptions.

    However, Patrick Gunn, a town attorney and the head of the town’s public safety division, has been telling the board, there is no definition in the code of “light truck,” making it impossible for ordinance enforcement officers to cite those who use their houses as a base for landscaping or other businesses and park large vehicles and other equipment there. The issue has been particularly contentious in Springs.

    It has been a topic at a number of recent meetings, and this week Councilman Dominick Stanzione suggested holding a hearing on defining a light truck — which would not be restricted in a residential zone — as one weighing up to 10,000 pounds. Then, he said, based on comments from the public, the board could draft a revision to the town code.

    Other board members pressed for further discussion and fine-tuning of the rules before drafting an ordinance to put before the public.

    “Ultimately, the most important thing is that we keep businesses from abusing residences and residential property,” said Councilman Peter Van Scoyoc. “At the same time, there are a lot of businesses in this town with sole proprietors and I don’t want to penalize them.”

    Supervisor Bill Wilkinson raised a concern about the effect on business owners of limiting their ability to park work vehicles at their residences. “Do we have to at least look at. . . . I mean, where are they going to go?” he asked.

    “We don’t want our residential properties to become storage for commercial businesses,” said Mr. Van Scoyoc, noting that provisions of the town zoning code specifically seek to protect residential neighborhoods. Under the code, only a limited number and type of  “home occupations” are allowed.

    “At a certain level, the expectation is that business is going to have a business site,” he said. “A certain level of operations is not acceptable within a residential neighborhood.” Nonetheless, he said, “I don’t want to penalize a sole proprietor just starting a business.”

    Along with commercial trucks, Mr. Van Scoyoc said, the board should discuss commercial trailers used to haul equipment when setting town code definitions.

    “Is a ‘vehicle’ a trailer?” asked Councilwoman Sylvia Overby. “Is a ‘vehicle’ a backhoe?”

    She suggested allowing one large truck, or commercial vehicle — however the targeted class of vehicles is ultimately defined — to be parked at a residence, mirroring the code in Southampton Town. The Town of Brookhaven, she noted, based on a memo given the board by Mr. Gunn, does not allow any commercial vehicles to be parked on a regular basis in a residential zone.

    Board members agreed to discuss the matter at an upcoming work session before drafting a proposed change to the law.

    “We offer on-premises, heated, indoor, winter storage for your vehicle in our state-of-the-art, 12,000-square-foot facility,” Kalbacher’s Auto in Springs proudly states on its Web site.

    The problem, according to East Hampton Town’s chief building inspector, Tom Preiato, is that in 2006 the town planning board approved only half that for indoor car storage at the Fort Pond Boulevard site. And that discrepancy is part of what is holding up a certificate of occupancy for the property.

    In 2006, the planning board signed off on a site plan that showed a 6,000-square-foot automobile storage facility and a 1,080-square-foot auto repair shop.

    The extra 6,000 square feet of storage are in the basement of the approved building, something the planning board specifically told Kalbacher’s in 2006 that it could not do. “The board stated that the basement portion of the automobile storage building should not be used for storing automobiles,” Eric Schantz of the Town Planning Department wrote in a five-page memo to the board on July 2. While there is no prohibition in town code against storing cars at basement level, he pointed out that the board had been more concerned with the total number of cars on the site than it was with where they were to be stored in the building. Kalbacher’s also built a ramp allowing cars to enter and exit the lower-level storage space, and that too was without the board’s approval.

    In an aerial photograph the Planning Department provided to the board, 50 cars can be seen on the property, in addition to those parked out of sight in the storage facility.

    The lack of a certificate of occupancy has taken the company back to the planning board, this time represented by Susan Brierley of Land Planning Services in Wainscott, in an attempt to legalize the buildings already there.

    Ms. Brierley told the board on July 10 that she was there to get feedback. She got plenty.

    “Do you know how many times this has been in justice court for operation without a C of O?” Patrick Schutte, a board member, asked.

    “Why was this built differently from what was approved in 2006?” wondered the chairman, Reed Jones.

    Ms. Brierley told the board that Land Planning Services had only recently become involved and that she was not familiar with the full history of the site.

    “I don’t have a problem with the basement. I have a problem with the way this is being run,” Mr. Schutte said. “Fenders, doors, tires piled up sky high. I have a problem with our system allowing this to go on year after year after year.”

    According to Mr. Schutte, the 2006 site plan review began on his first day on the planning board. “Seven and a half years later, nothing has been done,” he said.

    “Wasn’t this one of the basements that we found to be illegal in 2006?” asked Bob Schaeffer, another board member.

    “Yes, it was,” Mr. Schutte replied.

    While Mr. Schantz told the board it did not need to hold a public hearing on the site plan, since what was before it was technically a modification of an already-approved site plan, the board disagreed, with Ian Calder-Piedmonte leading the way. He said he probably would not object to the basement, but “It would have been nice to have asked permission beforehand. Now, you’re in a pretty tough spot.”

     “A public hearing is important,” said Nancy Keeshan, the vice chairwoman. “We want to make sure that the reality of the place matches what is on the plan.”

    “I think it is very convenient to say the basement was an oversight,” Mr. Jones said. “You guys have some work to do on this before you come back,” he told Ms. Brierley.

    Cars and where to store them were also the subject of another site plan being reviewed by the board. Derek Trulson, a commercial real estate consultant and developer with Jones Lang LaSalle in New York, needs a place to store his collection of muscle cars and has chosen 24 Goodfriend Drive as that place.

    The 7,392-square-foot building at the site originally housed a printing company. Now, a new sign there reads “Goodfriend Motors,” JoAnne Pahwul, the assitant planning director, pointed out in a memo to the board.

    “I’m not repairing any cars,” Mr. Trulson told the board, explaining that he had put the sign up at the behest of his daughter. “My cars are toys, but they are also investments. I’m into Corvettes,” he told the board.

    He wants to remove exterior parking spaces that he will not need, returning that area to native vegetation, and put up a five-foot-tall fence on the property.

    The fence was the only part of his plan that raised concerns. Ms. Pahwul’s memo points out that there are no fences in the area and that the board had previously denied a fence to an applicant on nearby Plank Road.

    In the end, the board seemed to acquiesce, as long as it would be properly screened.

    The board encouraged Mr. Trulson, who appeared without representation, to huddle with the Planning Department to work out any issues that might remain with the application.

    “I think it is important that this board is approachable by people like you, who want to live here,” Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said.

    The hand-painted “Clam Pies” sign in front of the dilapidated building on Pantigo Road in East Hampton that was once a restaurant called the Crystal Room is no longer there, and soon the building itself will disappear, to be replaced by six houses, if an initial site plan presented to the East Hampton Town Planning Board on July 10 is approved.

    The roughly rectangular parcel is slightly under an acre and a half and is zoned for multi-unit housing. “There are only four properties in the town that are eligible for multi-unit zoning,” Richard Whalen, attorney for the Crystal Mews Group, said at the meeting.

    Two of the properties with that zoning, according to Mr. Whalen as well as JoAnne Pahwul, of the East Hampton Planning Department, who prepared a 10-page memo on the proposal for the board, are Hampton Mews and the Townhouse East Condominium, both of which are just down the road. The third is the Oakview Highway mobile home complex in East Hampton.

    Named Crystal Mews, the subdivision calls for six 1,599-square-foot, two-story houses. Mr. Whalen said the plan targets older residents, requiring at least one person in each household to be at least 55. Aiming at an older population allows the developers to install a smaller septic system.

    According to Ms. Pahwul, legally, the property could have up to 11 units. Each of the six houses proposed are to have a garage and two additional parking spaces. While the houses would be individually owned, there would be a commonly held preserve.

    Overall, the board seemed to find much to like about the plan. One of the members, Patrick Schutte, suggested that the next time the owners come before the board they might consider changing the plan so that all six houses are not uniform in appearance. Rob Levi, the head of Crystal Mews Group, which has a contract to buy the land, promised they would do just that.

    The board also asked that an archeological survey be undertaken because the land may contain historic remains.

Northwest Lots

     An undeveloped 35-acre strip of land between Route 114 and Two Holes of Water Road was also before the board on July 10. It is about to be divided into seven house lots, ranging from one and a half to three acres.

    Because the property is zoned for three-acre lots, however, which would yield only six houses, the owners would buy and develop an affordable housing unit elsewhere in town, David Weaver of George Walbridge Surveyors, representing the Prand corporation, told the board.

    Under county law, the owners have that option, with town board approval. They also could develop an affordable house on one of the lots or pay into a fund in lieu of doing so.

     Fifty percent of the acreage will be preserved with  another swath set aside as a scenic easement running from Route 114 to Two Holes of Water Road. Three of the lots will use a common driveway to Route 114, with the other four accessing Two Holes of Water Road.

    Although only a preliminary review was done last week, it was clear that the board was enthusiastic about the subdivision’s prospects.

    Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. welcomed the members of the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals at the board’s meeting on Friday, saying that zoning “probably is the core issue with respect to the governance of a municipality,” and suggesting that they “be mindful that as the zoning code evolves and is applied and manifests itself, that’s how your community maintains its personality and aura of cooperation and embracement.”

    The new roster starts with Frank Newbold as chairman. He had been the vice chairman and a member since 2004. Lysbeth Marigold is now vice chairwoman. Craig Humphrey, previously an alternate, is now a full member, and Ray Harden has begun a five-year term as an alternate.

    “I thank you on behalf of the board for all your efforts and energy,” the mayor said.

    The meeting was otherwise brief and uneventful. An application from Katherine J. Rayner to lower a floor under part of her house at 85 West End Road, for which the board heard a lengthy and technically complex presentation on June 28, was adjourned until the board’s meeting next Friday, at the applicant’s request.