Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
675 Skippers Ln
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK RECEIVED SEP 1 3 2029 STEVEN BELLONE SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTM Southold Town Clerk DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES GREGSON H.PIGOTT,MD,MPH COMMISSIONER September 6,2021 Studio A/B Architects Attn: Ms. Glynis M. Berry, R.A. P.O. Box 444 Orient,NY 11957 Subject: Variance Hearing R-21-0844—675 Skippers Lane, Orient,—t/o Southold SCTM: 1000-024.00-02.00-001.000 Dear Ms. Berry, Due to the Coronavirus (COVID19)response, your appointment to appear before the Board of Review of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services will take place by way of a ZOOM Meeting to comply with social distancing guidelines. Please note, Only Department representatives, applicants, applicant representatives,and formally invited parties,will be able to speak during the hearing. All other interested parties may listen/view the hearings by using the links below and may submit comments regarding the application under review by mail to The Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of Review, 360 Yaphank Avenue, Suite 2B, Yaphank, NY 11980 to comply with the New York State Governor's Executive Orders. Comments must be received by Wednesday September 22,2021. The meeting has been scheduled for September 16, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. You and interested parties are requested to login, with or without counsel. On that occasion, you may produce any information or evidence you wish to be considered concerning the above-referenced property. The following login information is required for your hearing: 9:30 a.m. Zoom Meeting Login Information Below: StC p t o Join Meeting by Clicking the clicking the following Link https://suffollmy.zoom.us/j/81307946947?pwd=d lNxOEl xQkRKWS 9NvK3p6VFRS SEZxzzo9 Note: Before joining, be sure to check system requirements to avoid any connection issues. STET 20 Choose one of the following audio options: m° E< •Division Of Environmental Quality o Board Of Review o 360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2B o Yaphank NY 11980• Phone(631)852-5801 Fax(631)852-5825 1btb P—It Promote Protect TO USE YOUR COMIPUTEW S AUDIO: If your computer is capable, After Completing STEP I you will be asked to connect to audio using your computer's microphone and speakers (VoIP). Note this is the preferable method to participate in the webinar/meeting and a headset is recommended but not required. --(OR— TO -(ORTO USE YOUR TELEPHONE: If you prefer to use your phone then After Completing STEP 1,you must select "Use Telephone" or tab stating"Phone Call" and call-in using the numbers provided and also stated below. United States: +1929 436 2866 US (New York) Webinar ID: 878 813 0794 6947 Audio PIN: Shown after joining the webinar/meeting via STEP I and selecting to telephone Passcode: 626222 Should you have any questions,please call(63 1) 852-5801. Very truly yours, Jogoarcd .E. C lth Engineer Review Cc: Board of Review File- Yaphank Ms. Lynne Burns-OWM Andrew Freleng-Planning Department AW Frame, LLC Town of Southold Planning Department Mr. &Mrs. Gilson Ms. Ivy Crewdson(Orient Realty, LLC) Van Cleef Mina M. Trust & Van Cleef Donald E. Trust Mr. &Mrs. Wagner Oyster Pond Historical Society neopoSG?" FIRST-CLASS MAIL After 5 Days,Return To The SC Department of Health Services 091008/20211+ 7 0 / 360 YaphankAvenue,Ste.2B 00' .3'3 Yaphank,NY11980 ZIP 11188 708 3230 0300 7771 3774 25t -�0 041N112_251574 Town of Southold 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY , .- a= E t „�I�lll,l,r jll��llrl,cd,1�' ' ,li��li'i'1J�'��fllill��l►!j,l„I! AFFIRMATIVE-ACTION EMPLOYER Neville, Elizabeth From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 10:37 AM To: webb' Cc: Anne Surchin; Robert Harper; Maryella Ostroski;Jamie Garretson;Joseph McCarthy; Dwyer,Tracey Subject: RE: FW: 675 Skippers Lane Attachments: Printout-15765-1034-M53669.pdf Good Morning Ted, The letter was mailed out yesterday. I am sorry I was not aware that they were doctors. There was no reference to this in any of the documents I had. Attached, please find the copy of the resolution which was prepared by the Town Attorney. Elizabeth A.Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk,Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer;FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel.631765-1800,Ext.228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 From: webb [mailto:tedwebbl@optonline.net] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 9:15 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Anne Surchin; Robert Harper; Maryella Ostroski; Jamie Garretson; Joseph McCarthy; Dwyer,Tracey; Ted Webb Subject: Re: FW: 675 Skippers Lane Dear Ms. Neville, In the cover letter to Potters the salutation should be "Dr. Louis Potters", not "Mr. Potters". He is a physician. Also, I think there is a significant wording error in the body of the resolution passed by the Town Board last Tuesday regarding 675 Skippers Lane. If you could forward a copy of the original resolution I will highlight the error. Thanks, Ted 1 Neville, Elizabeth From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 11:33 AM To: 'tedwebbl' Subject: RE: FW: 675 Skippers Lane OK, thank you,Ted. On the question of your signature on the HPC Resolution .....I found your signature page in Laserfiche together with the HPC Determination to the Building Department. The HPC resolution sent to me had only Tracey Dwyers signature on it. So, I duplicated the page from the Building Department Determination with your signature and record of votes and added it to the resolution for the purpose of clarity. Thank you, and you also have a great day! Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk,Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer;FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel.631765-1800,Ext.228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 From: tedwebbl [ma ilto:tedwebb 1(a)opton line.net] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 11:13 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: RE: FW: 675 Skippers Lane Thanks. I spoke to John Burke about the resolution wording. He agreed with me that a word was left out of the first "resolved", (should read "findings" of the commission"), but it does not change the actual resolution. Guess I have to ease off being a detail person! Have a great day. Ted Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Neville, Elizabeth" <E.Nevillegtown.southold.ny.us> Date: 12/6/19 10:36 (GMT-05:00) To: 'webb' <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Cc: Anne Surchin<surchinnmac.com>, Robert Harper<rharperl @optonline.net>, Maryella Ostroski <mostroski2@gmai1.com>, Jamie Garretson<j aoti Agmail.com>, Joseph McCarthy<iomaceb@aol.com>, "Dwyer, Tracey" <tracey.dNgergtown.southold.ny.us> i 4 Subject: RE: FW: 675 Skippers Lane Good Morning Ted, The letter was mailed out yesterday. I am sorry I was not aware that they were doctors. There was no reference to this in any of the documents I had. Attached, please find the copy of the resolution which was prepared by the Town Attorney. Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk,Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel.631765-1800,Ext.228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 From: webb [mailto:tedwebblC'Ooptonline.net] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 9:15 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Anne Surchin; Robert Harper; Maryella Ostroski; Jamie Garretson; Joseph McCarthy; Dwyer,Tracey; Ted Webb Subject: Re: FW: 675 Skippers Lane Dear Ms. Neville, In the cover letter to Potters the salutation should be "Dr. Louis Potters", not "Mr. Potters". He is a physician. Also, I think there is a significant wording error in the body of the resolution passed by the Town Board last Tuesday regarding 675 Skippers Lane. If you could forward a copy of the original' resolution I will highlight the error. Thanks, 2 7 014 1200 0001 6743 5049 ;dleoaa uan}aLl of}sawoa £506-OOO-ZO-069L NSd 9 i.OZ Alf 'L L90 waD�sd ` ,47 pl o rel ram (005$1ano) 'Gr-09 E+ 29 r0000 0022pa}Da}saal.eW patnsuIC h. }�tf n/tanlla0 Pa}ou}a� Zuoe }uoD an}euB S (a eIODI 19S WOf JaJSUVJ JIOPatnsul tm m Ja wn 9101 N B m= Aagap P9}011}saU fuanllaa uo oalloo 11,iJo , � m° CD' o ° o eslpueycaayy tGan11ap uo 3-I100 D - - 7 NI o o ao;}dieoea wn}aa❑ /Ganlla0 Pe}o1a}saa 11eW POU'VaO❑ 00 VZ0£9099 S99Z WV6 0656 a+ ;� m m m m v Nangap ®IteW PaB�iJa R V) a. W R° c Z CTL Pe}qu}saa lieyi pala}sPH El l O P}°P} » } S}I p� Nani a a sa em eu6i n Ill Il ll l 11 l ll 111 l l I I I II I lI I lI IIII I llI l 11 }, .� m vu m m m m m 11 J n QEW Pala}si6all❑ etn}euB!SIInPV C] I0C m .•m °:m m m o @-eadxgIIEN/I}uoud❑ d�n 11WINGS '£ r; �T' N y 050 L L, AN "4uiod spueS z pi @AIJa J esnos Z Q T o�eaue J8 W �. N 6�OZ Q �3 3 saa��od sino� • aw In y 1 I1 ON❑ olaq ssaappe laanyap as}u 'S o !,+qn SC7? sa,� }l a;}uaaa !P s apps an I Q :o}passaappv 913111V 'I. sllwjed coeds JI}uoa}ay}uo ao L '' r /6[OZ rchani asd a}e J o �/�/( a; `ao �aidImw ay};o osq ayj of Paco si4j 4oe11V ■ `,; p •... ..r :. . :, aassaap no/(o}paeo ay}u,ln}aa ueo am}eti}os Y m ; E3t C ■ CrziL asaanaa ay}uo ssaappswa�l atai£puse pus aweu.InoA 1uud ■'Z`{ dwocan} C s • s s ( 0's1 )121310 NMOL �. N -b.•Ye _ -a _ it'd' .4.2. :,5,« t:�✓: .,-. ♦ _' - » .4fiw"'Ny }.i„'t ;°3' .,eh'&a�(.i g - '^Y ,'nom s`a,3i r' ri".'. :i'.,."�4' ::Y.1• arSM': - `9..y Y> 't.p-..f„``JJ,dd,h - ..j e, :' a.Af_> ';`4H�.'K'' -.ai;,. . ',ad'^r�".;a 'S, ,.'§;.�'�'•p Mr,. Louis Potters Nis. Lenore:..1. 13ira scald _ h (: x 2 Sousa Drive -Sands Point, -NY 11050 - t SENDER: COMPLETE TH19 SECTION . . . 3a ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. Signature �_ ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X El Agent ' ----•— ErLr • so that we can return the card to you. ❑Addressee B. Received by(Panted Name) C. Date of Delivery —.. r3; [7 -N ■ Attach,this card-to the back of the mailpiece, u7' Ln or on the front if space permits. ® rr1 I m0 U IF i A L U � E 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes =I =r If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No r-' r'- Postage $ Mr. Louis Potters 8 �— �0 •° Ms. Lenore J. Brancato ®� I Certified Fee O 2 Sousa Drive Postmark C3I C3 Rsementcequire) Here z Sands Point NY 11050 C3, C1 (Endorsement Required) eo C7, O Restricted Delivery Fee In — � r3 r3 (Endorsement Required) r" p I c3 m 3. Service Type ❑Priority Mail Express@ ru' r1J Total Postage&Fees ❑AdultSignature ❑Registered MadTm II l Illlll IIII III I Il I II 111 111 I III ll I II I ll II Til GI�CertIt fled Signature Restricted Delivery ❑Registered Mad Restricte. Sent o . [' ou s Qtte rs 9590 9402 2663 6336 302 ❑Certified Met Restricted Delivery ❑Return ReceiMajl@ Delivery pt for MS. L_enoreJ___.____I3___r__a__n___c__a__t__o El Collect on Delivery Merchandise ; t,Ap ❑Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery }?Signature Confirmationm O p Slree _AP(IVo; (t_ r3 or Po No. 2. Article Number(Transfer from service/abep insured Mal KSignature Confirmation --------2_S.oUSa___Drl_Ye_________________________ 2 Insured Mad Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery City,S;ate,ZIP+4 - --- 7014 1200 0001 6743 5049 Sands Point NY 11050 (°ver$soo) PS Form 3811.JUIV 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Thursday, December 05, 2019 1:38 PM To:Norklun, Stacey Subject:FW: Emailing: Notification 675 Skipper_20191205132944 Attachments:Notification 675 Skipper_20191205132944.pdf LF -----Original Message----- From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 1:36 PM To: Burke, John; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; James Dinizio; Lauren Standish; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda (lynda.rudder@town.southold.ny.us); Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary; Tomaszewski, Michelle; William Ruland Subject: Emailing: Notification 675 Skipper_20191205132944 Attached, please find notification to the owners of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient of the Town Board Denial of their application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structure at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Notification 675 Skipper_20191205132944 Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 1 ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,MMC Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK �r P.O.Box 1179 �I Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Fax(631)765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER `rfk Telephone(631)765-1800 � RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER �y � � www.southoldtownny.gov FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 5, 2019 CERTIFIED MAL RETURN RECET RE UE'STED Mr. Louis Potters & Ms. Lenore J. Brancato 2 Sousa Drive Sands Point, New York 11050 Dear Mr. Potters & Ms. Brancato: Please be advised that the Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on December 3, 2019 at 7:00 PM adopted Town Board Resolution No. 2019-995 denying your application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY. A certified copy of this Resolution 2019-995 is enclosed, together with a copy of the Findings & Determinations. Very truly yours, m Eliza -th A. Neville Southold Town Clerk cc: Southold Town Board Town Attorney Historic Preservation Commission M. Finnegan, Esq. t°Q RESOLUTION 2019-995 ADOPTED DOC ID: 15765 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-995 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 3, 2019: WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission denied the application of LOUIS POTTERS AND LENORE BRANCATO dated June 28, 2018, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY., pursuant to Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, (Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks). WHEREAS, on May 31, 2019, the Owners of 675 Skippers Lane appealed to the Town Board requesting a reversal of the Commission's Denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Section 170-11(Appeals), or in the alternative requested an approval from the Town Board on the grounds that prohibition of such demolition will subject the applicant to undue hardship pursuant to Section 170-10 (Hardship criteria for approval of demolition, removal or alteration of historic landmarks; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed pursuant to Sections 170-10 and 170-11, of the Southold Town Code (Landmarks Preservation); now,therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission is hereby denied on the ground that the proposed demolition of the Structure at 675 Skippers Lane does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, (Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks) and be it further; RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the application for approval on a hardship basis is hereby denied on the ground that the proposed demolition of the Structure at 675 Skippers Lane does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-10 of the Southold Town Code, (Hardship criteria for approval of demolition, removal or alteration of historic landmarks) and be it further; RESOLVED that it is the Finding of the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby denies the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structure at 675 Skippers Lane and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby adopt the Findings and Determination dated December 3,201%,denving the application of LOUIS POTTERS AND LENORE BRANCATO for a Certificateof`A ro riatcness for the demolition of the structure at 675 Skippers Lane. and be it further Resolution 2019-995 Board Meeting of December 3, 2019 RESOLVED that the Town Board had determined that this action is consistent with Section 170-11, (Appeals); and be it further RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly asserted jurisdiction, separate and apart from the proceedings under Southold Town Code Chapter 170 (Landmark Preservation) considered herein. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Robert Ghosio, Councilman SECONDER:Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Ghosio, Evans, Russell ABSENT: Jill Doherty Updated: 12/3/2019 3:44 PM by Lynda Rudder Page 2 TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -------------------------------------------- In the matter of the Application of LOUIS POTTERS AND, FINDINGS AND LENORE BRANCATO DETERMINATION 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY RECEIVED SCTM# 1000-24.-2-1 ---------------------------------------------- DEC - 3 2019 ---------------,r-___......__------------------ DEC - 32019 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Southold Town Clerk Based upon the Application, documents contained in the Historic Preservation Commission's file, site inspections and testimony received at the Public Hearings held by the Commission on November 27, 2018 and April 10, 2019, the Town Board finds and determines as follows: ISSUE Martin Finnegan, Esq., on behalf of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato has filed an application with the Town Board, dated May 31, 2019, requesting the following relief. 1. A reversal of the Commission's Denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Section 170-11(Appeals), or in the alternative requested an approval from the Town Board on the grounds that prohibition of such demolition will subject the applicant to undue hardship pursuant to Section 170-10 (Hardship criteria for approval of demolition, removal or alteration of historic landmarks). FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1 t property " 11 .....: A. 1)��scx��t�����s ail :���� ��n�l ���r��l�cants�. The existing single family home at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY., is currently owned by Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato and is on the Town of Southold and National Registers of Historic places. B. Commission's Procedural HistQrV: .. I. Application As set forth in Chapter 170 of the Southold Town Code (Landmarks Preservation Code), all proposals for material changes/alteration or demolition must be reviewed and granted a Certificate for Appropriateness by the Southold Town Landmarks Preservation Commission ("the Commission")prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. On June 28, 2018, the owners filed for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the historic landmark home at 675 Skippers Lane pursuant to Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, (Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks) II. Public Hearing: The Commission held public hearings on November 27, 2018 and April 10, 2019, at which times all those interested were given [Ile uppoatunity to speak. At the public hearings, the owners of 675 Skippers Lane offered testimony from several experts with regard to the deteriorating condition of the structure. III. The Historic Preservation Commission's Determination and Certificate of Compliance. Following the public hearings, the Historic Preservation Commission denied the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY., in a decision dated June 21, 2019. IV.The Town Board Proceeding On May 31, 2019, the Owners of 675 Skippers Larie timely filed an Appeal to the Town Board requesting a reversal of the Commission's Denial of the Ceili:laeate of Appropriateness pursuant to Section 170-11, or in the alternative requested an approval from the Town Board on the groLind�s that prohibition of such demolition will subject the applicant to undue hardship pursuant to Section 170-10. APPEAL OF THE COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION Pursuant to Section 170-1, any person aggrieved by a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission relating to an application, under Chapter 170 may, within 30 days of the decision, file a written application with the Town Board l'a:)r review of the decision. Reviews are to be conchicted based on the same record that was before the Commission and using the criteria set forth in that same chapter. CONCLUSION After review of the Findings of the Historic Preservation Commission dated June 21, 2019, transcripts of all Public Hearings held by the Conu-nission and any and all documents submitted to the Commission, the Southold Town Board makes the following determinations with respect to the factors set forth in Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, (Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks): 2 (1) The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the public interest. The subject property although altered over the years to be relevant for its time, represents a fine example of the rural regional verriacL�ilar style typical of bay cottages in the early part of the 20th CentLiry. At one tinge these cottages, which belonged to tradesmen and baymen, dotted the waterri-ont in Orient. Today, the significance of 675 Skippers Lane rests in the fact that it is one of the few representative bay cottages remaining from that era in Orient's history. Therefore, the proposed alterations do not promote the public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. (2) Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District which together reflect the history and growth of the early village from a farming and fishing community to a prominent year round and summer residential district. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers lane and the Historic District. (3) The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty Although not of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty, it nonetheless has historical significance that would be lost following the proposed demolition. While the hoine at 675 Skippers lane is no'( historically signiricant because of its design, its type, a small, rather plain and unadorned workman's or fisherman's horne of the early 20"' cenitiry, nizdws it and important contributor to the overall streetscape and history of the Historic District. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers Lane and the Historic District. (4) Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town. 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property and a contributing element of the Orient National Historic District. As such, it significantly contributes to the general historic ambience and attractiveness of not only Orient Village, but also the entire Town. 3 (5) Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture. Properties in Orient, especially in the historic district, continue to be sought after as both year round and summer homes. Even in a turbulent real estate market, prices in Orient the value of historic homes have generally not decreased and some have even increased over non-historic properties. As a registered landmark, 675 Skippers Lane contributes to the historic nature and overall attractiveness of the hamlet that draws new homeowners and visitors to the area. In addition to the criteria for approval under Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, (Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks), Section 170-10 provides that applicant may apply for relief on the ground that the determination results in a hardship in accordance with the procedures in Section 170-10. The criteria for consideration by the Town Board are set forth in Section 170-10 and after a consideration of such criteria the Town Board finds: (1) Whether the owner is capable of earning a reasonable return on investment without such demolition, removal or alteration; Until shortly before the most recent transfer of ownership, the historic structure was occupied as a single family home. There is nothing in the record to establish the home is either uninhabitable or structurally unsound. Further, the record does establish that the historic home could certainly be renovated and brought in to a condition where it could be enjoyed by its owners. In fact, the owners themselves do not argue that the home could not be made livable but instead argue that such a small home does not support a modern lifestyle. The record is bereft of evidence of the initial cost of the home, the cost of renovation or the ultimate value of the home once the extensive renovations are completed. Many of the renovations or repairs required are common for older homes and would add to the value of the home when completed. Therefore, it cannot be established that the owner could not earn a reasonable return on investment without the total demolition of the historic home. (2) Whether the landmark can be altered, restored, renovated or adapted for any other use pursuant to a certificate of appropriateness under this chapter, either by the owner or a subsequent purchaser, which would enable a reasonable return; The owners of the historic home assert that complete demolition is the only option as a renovation is not feasible. To that end, they have submitted the reports of several experts which outline the need for a renovation but fail to establish the case for demolition. For example, the owner's initial expert report from Fischetti Engineering 4 while outlining the need for renovations, contains no finding that the historic home was structurally unsound. The owner's asbestos survey indicates that asbestos is present at the historic home in materials such as siding floor tiles and pipe insulation. This is a condition common to older homes and by may be abated by a licensed professional. There is no indication that the house must be demolished due the existence of asbestos. Likewise, the owners have established the existence of lead paint in certain areas of the structure. Again, this is a condition to be expected in a historic home built one (100) hundred years ago. The expert report indicates that the lead paint may be removed by a licensed professional. Additionally, a mold and fungus report were submitted to the Commission. While this report confirms the existence of fungus and mold in the historic home, it also includes a remediation plan. There is nothing in this record to support the total demolition of the home. The owners' more recent 2019 expert report provides a detailed analysis of the condition of the home and potential remedies. At no time does the expert indicate that a renovation is not feasible, he simply states the cost will be more than 50% of the home's value. This assertion is not supported by the report which lacks any detail with respect to the current value of the home or potential cost of renovation. The report is flawed in its assumption that the current historic home would be brought up to present building code and by further accounting for its proximity to the water and risk of flooding. These renovations are not required by code and serve to artificially inflate the yet to be established cost of renovation. In general, there is no evidence that each of the conditions existing in the property cannot be abated by the proper professional. Additionally, the record is silent as to the actual cost of the abatement. Finally there is no indication that these conditions require the demolition of the home rather than abatement. (3) Whether removal or alteration is necessary or appropriate to preserve the landmark; In this matter, the owners seek to completely demolish the historic home. As such no argument has been made to establish that such demolition is necessary to preserve the landmark. (4) Whether the claimed hardship has been self-created by waste, neglect, or failure to maintain the landmark; and There is no evidence in the record to conclude that the hardship as asserted was self-created. The structure has been subject to deterioration over the course its lifespan, 5 the alleged conditions resulting from substandard foundation, deteriorated structural elements, as well as building materials installed decades ago cannot be attributed to the current owners. (5) The public interest in preserving the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town The historic nature of the home has been set forth above in greater detail. Despite the Owners' insistence that all historic value has been stripped from this home, it is undisputed that 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property located in the Orient National Historic District. The Town of Southold, through the establishment of Historic Preservation Commission, has determined that such properties significantly contribute to the general historic ambience and attractiveness of not only Orient Village, but also the entire Town. To allow for the demolition such structures, without cause, would only serve to deplete the number of historic homes and undermine the intended purpose of the Commission charged with protecting them. Based upon the above analysis of the factors set forth in Chapter 170, the Appeal of the Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission is hereby denied on the gr6und that the proposed demolition of the Structure at 675 Skippers Lane does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, (Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks). Furthermore, On the issue of Hardship to the Owners, the application for approval on a hardship basis is likewise denied on the ground that the proposed demolition of the Structure at 675 Skippers Lane does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170- 10 of the Southold Town Code, (Hardship criteria for approval of demolition, removal or alteration of historic landmarks) as set forth above. Given the above Findings, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby denies the Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the structure at 675 Skippers Lane SCTM#1 000-24.-2-1. Dated: December 3, 2019 6 RECEIVED UG 2 7 201 Southold Town Board 53095 NY-25 Southold Town Clerk Southold, NY 11971 August 22, 2019 Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient My name is Jane Lear. My husband, Sam, and I have our primary residence in Orient, but not in the historic district. Unfortunately, we were unable to attend the August 13 public hearing on Dr. Louis Potters and Dr. Lenore Brancato's appeal of the unanimous decision by the Southold Historic Preservation Commission to deny the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the landmarked house at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. But I was happy to read in the Suffolk Times today that comments are open to the public for the next two weeks. Potters and Brancato's argument that mold and lead are reason to demolish a landmarked house in Orient is absolute hogwash. After living on our property for a number of years, we're renovating our house, which has an extremely dilapidated cottage out back. The interior of the cottage was covered in black mold, yet the Town of Southold refused to let us demolish it. The cottage, which was shoddily built to begin with, has no redeeming architectural merit at all. We were not interested in changing the footprint; we just wanted a well-built cottage. But because we weren't allowed to do that, at great expense we are renovating the existing structure. Again, we are not in the historic district. It seems only fair that Potters and Brancato, whose house IS in the historic district, should abide by the same rules. Sincerely, ti Jane Lear Orient resident janelear@gmail.com Edward Webb, Chairperson Town Hall Annex Anne Surchin,Vice Chair 54375 Route 25 jo Donald Feiler PO Box 1179 James Grathwohl Southold,NY 11971 Robert Harper Fax(631)765-9502 James Garretson Telephone: (631)765-1802 Joseph McCarthy www.southoldtownny.gov Tracey Dwyer,Administrative Assistant Town of Southold Historic Preservation Commission Tuesday, May 21, 2019 SOLUTION #5.21.19.1 Denial of a Certificate of A )ro riateness RE: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, SCT # 1000-24.-2-1 Owner: Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY is on the Town of Southold Registry of Historic Landmarks, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 56-7 (b)of the Town Law(Landmarks Preservation Code) of the Town of Southold, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission, and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting permission to demolish the existing structure and construct a new home on the site, and, WHEREAS, a final public hearing was held on April 10, 2019. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission determined that the proposed work detailed in the above referenced application does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-8 (A) of the Southold Town Code and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Commission determined that the proposal as presented will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance of the Orient National Historic District and denied the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. MOVER: Commissioner Garretson SECONDER: Commissioner Don Feiler AYES: Chairperson Edward Webb, Vice Chair Surchin, Commissioner Harper, Commissioner Garretson, Commissioner Joseph McCarthy, Commissioner Feiler and Commissioner Grathwohl. RESULT: Opposed Unanimously Please note that any deviation from the approved plans referenced above may require further review from the commission. Signed: n ., Tracey L Dwyer, Application Coordinator for the Historic Preservation Commission Date: May 22, 2019 �*faF SO � Telephone (631)765-1802 `Q Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Record of vote: Yes: 7 No: 0 Recused: 0 This Res n was duly adopted: May 21, 2019. Sig �liC�, — Date: L— Chairman Edward Webb, Historic Preservation Commission ,I Town Hall Annexw ° Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road � Fax(631)765-9502 a P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 �J�� BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Determination Regarding Application for Certificate of Appropriateness for 675 Skippers Lane Orient NY Date: May 21, 2019 Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957: SCTM# 1000-24-02-01 Owners: Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York is listed on the Town of Southold and National Register of Historic places, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 170 of the Southold Town Code (Landmarks Preservation Code), all proposals for material changes/alteration or demolition must be reviewed and granted a certificate for appropriateness by the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and WHEREAS, an application was submitted on June 28, 2018, to demolish the historic landmark at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY, replace the original portion of the structure in kind with the addition of a newly designed two-story wing on the side adjacent to the park and WHEREAS, Commissioners made a visit to the site to inspect the proposed project, and later met with the owners and their architect. On multiple occasions the Commission reviewed and commented on plans and later amended plans for a proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new home on the site, and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the proposed demolition was held on November 20, 2018, that hearing exceeded its allotted time, was adjourned for completion, and p Town Hall AnnexTelephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road � k Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 ? % Southold,NY 11971-0959y BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD WHEREAS, on April 10, 2019,the Commission held a further public hearing on the application proposing the demolition of the home at which time written and oral evidence were presented prior to the close of the hearing, and WHEREAS, At that time the owners application for demolition of 675 Skippers Lane was offered, and the Commission accepted, a home inspection report by Robert O' Brien dated January 8, 2019, which does not indicate the structure must be demolished, as well as his oral testimony regarding the current condition of the structure, and the possibility of its complete demolition, that the conimissioners deem inadequate, and WHEREAS, based upon the testimony, documentation and other evidence, the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property and a contributing element of the Orient Village National Register Historic District. Although the applicant termed the proposed new structure as an "in kind" replacement, as set forth below, the proposed new structure is vastly different from the existing structure and therefore constitutes a proposed alteration to the existing facades subject to the criteria of Sections 170-8 and 170-9. The buildings on the property consist of the existing 1-1/2 story, 1880- square foot residence and a 373 square-foot, two-car garage. A one story gable roofed addition was added to the original cottage in the 1957. The 13,817 square-foot property fronts both Skippers Lane to the north and Harbor Road (formerly State Street) to the west. The back of the property faces Poquatuck Park to the south. Three facades are visible to the public from the streets and are also visible in two directions from Poquatuck Park. Additionally, the house can be also seen from the causeway on Route 25 before entering the Village from the west. J Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road " Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 � Southold,NY 11971-0959 y" BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD The subject property, originally belonged to Edward S. Vail and his wife Agnes Vail. Edward Vail, who came from one of the oldest families in Orient, was a 0h generation fisherman who sailed the family's fleet of boats along with his father, George Sumner Vail. A December 27, 1918 news item in the County Review newspaper noted, "Edward S. Vail has been discharged from the army and has returned to Orient where he and his wife are domiciled in their cottage recently built on State Street" (now Skippers Lane). The cottage, sold in 1938 to Hobart Van Nostrand and his wife Florence, remained in the Van Nostrand family for four generations until recently purchased by the applicants. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District, which together reflect the history and growth of the early village from a farming and fishing colmnunity to a prominent year round and summer residential district. The subject property, although altered over the years, represents a worthy example of the rural regional vernacular style typical of bay cottages in the early part of the 20th Century. At one time, these cottages, which belonged to tradesmen and baymen, dotted the waterfront in Orient. In its evaluation, the Commission has considered how, and if, the proposal to demolish 675 Skippers Lane and replace it with a completely new structure meets the criteria outlined in Section 170- 8 Criteria for the Historic Preservation Commission for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks, as well as Section 170-9 of the Southold Town Code, Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks. WHEREAS, pursuant to § 170-8 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the enumerated criteria for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks and made the following findings: Town Hall Annex �` Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 � � BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (1) Whether the proposed alteration is consistent with principles of adaptive reuse,whereby the principal historic features of the landmark are maintained while permitting the use of the landmark for new uses other than its original use. Both the current structure and the structure with proposed alterations are to be occupied as single family homes. There has been no use proposed other than as a single family residence. Therefore, the principle of adaptive reuse would not be applicable to this determination. (2) The similarity in design, architecture and appearance of the proposed alteration with the historic design, architecture and appearance. The property owner has proposed demolition of the existing residence and the new construction of an enlarged structure. The proposed new structure pays homage to the 1918 cottage and is melded to a proposed addition modeled after vernacular, 19t"- Century residences in Orient Village. This addition combines details only found in the 19"'-Century such as 2 over 2 windows (Italianate style), low-pitched rooflines, Yankee gutters (c. 1870-1900) in flat soffit overhangs, etc. The proposed alterations are not similar in design, architecture and appearance to the historic design, architecture and appearance of the original structure. The two wings taken together, form a completely new house and bear only some superficial resemblance to what exists now. This is, essentially, a completely new structure from the roof to foundation, larger in almost all respects. Additionally, the new building does not maintain visual compatibility with the historic character of neighboring properties in public view. For example, the design of the addition facing Poquatuck Park was conceived to relate to the rear fagades and rear facade additions of neighboring houses. Those earlier approved additions were not required to conform to the current, correct town code standard at the time of construction,which only considered the street facade instead Town Hall AnnexNR Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 ' ..� . BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD of what lies within public view. Consequently, claiming relevance to non-conforining backside additions is simply not an acceptable or relevant design approach. While the average house in Orient Village is approximately 2,000 square feet, the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the 1,880 square-foot existing house will result in a two story 3,328 square- foot structure. This is a 77% increase to the existing home on a third of an acre. There is more building-added designed space than is compatible with the property's size in relationship to the existing colninunity. In terms of scale, massing and size, the project is incompatible with the existing fabric of the historic district. While not written specifically into our code, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards apply to all National Register Historic Districts and are referenced as a resource in Southold's Historic Preservation Commission Handbook. The Standards provide recommendations, which are used as guidelines in National Register Districts throughout the United States. The Standards discourage mimicry and even encourage additions that differentiate themselves from the existing while still being compatible. This goes to the significance of the layers of history on a landmarked house. The Secretary's Standards recommend that additions be subordinate to the existing building. In the case of 675 Skippers Lane the historic house will read as the subordinate wing to the larger addition. The inappropriate scale, massing issues, and inchoate forms of the proposed project are not compatible with the historic district. (3) The necessity for complying with the applicable building codes or other federal or state regulations. The original portion of the existing structure was constructed prior to the Town's adoption of a Building Code. The subsequent alterations are in compliance with the building codes applicable at the time of the alterations. The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed alterations are a Town Hall Annex ti Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 w. BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD necessary for compliance with the applicable building codes or other federal or state regulations as they relate to a structure of this age. (4) The necessity of such alteration to allow for a use of the property permitted by the Town Code in the applicable zoning district. The original portion of the existing structure was constructed prior to the Town's adoption of a zoning code and therefore has a prior non-conforming use. The property is currently zoned for a single family home and the use of the as built structure is in compliance with the applicable zoning district. The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed alterations are necessary to allow for a use of the property permitted by the Southold Town Code in the applicable zoning district. (5) The public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District which together reflect the history and growth of the early village fi-om a farming and fishing community to a prominent year round and summer residential district. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers Lane and the Historic District as a whole. WHEREAS, pursuant to § 170-9 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the enumerated criteria for approval of demolition or removal of historic landmarks and made the following findings: (1) The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the public interest. Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road v Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 � � � � t BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD The subject property, although altered over the years to be relevant for its time,represents a fine example of the rural regional vernacular style typical ofbay cottages in the early part of the 24tH- Century. At one time these cottages, which belonged to tradesmen and baymen, dotted the waterfront in Orient. Today, the significance of 675 Skippers Lane rests in the fact that it is one of the few representative bay cottages remaining from that era in Orient's history. Therefore, the proposed alterations do not promote the public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. (2) Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District which together reflect the history and growth of the early village from a farming and fishing community to a prominent year round and summer residential district. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers Lane and the Historic District. (3) The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty. Although not of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty, it nonetheless has historical significance that would be lost following the proposed demolition. While the home at 675 Skippers Lane is not historically significant because of its design, its type, a small, rather plain and unadorned workman's or fisherman's home of the early 20t" century, makes it and important contributor to the overall streetscape and history of the Historic District. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its dernolition would significantly change the character of Skippers lane and the Historic District. G Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 .jjit4�, Southold,NY 11971-0959 � �� BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (4) Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town. 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property and a contributing element of the Orient National Register Historic District. As such, it significantly contributes to the general historic ambience and attractiveness of not only Orient Village, but also the entire Town of Southold. (5) Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture. Properties in Orient, especially in the historic district, continue to be sought after as both year round and summer homes. Even in a turbulent real estate market, the value of historic homes have generally not decreased and some have even increased over non- historic properties. As a registered landmark, 675 Skippers Lane contributes to the historic nature and overall attractiveness of the hamlet that draws new homeowners and visitors to the area. The official policy of the Landmark Preservation Colnnlission is adverse to demolition of a landmark structure unless there is no prudent alternative. The Commission cannot allow a registered landmark to be demolished under circumstances where the structure can be renovated and altered to accommodate the need of an applicant. The Commission notes that there is a design alternative (see Town of Southold Historic Preservation Colmnission (HPC handbook, Part II: Design guidelines for Appropriate Design in the Historic Context) and that the owners can accomplish their goals without demolishing this historic structure. The Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) adheres to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (see HPC Handbook, Appendix, II.) The Standards are ten basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive Town Hall Annex a Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road p Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 ! �lU IV 1111 � N' F BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD character of a historic building and its site, while allowing for a reasonable chance to meet new needs. We reiterate, the owners can accomplish their goals without demolishing this historic structure. NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as presented at the public hearing on April 10, 2019, Will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance of the Orient National Historic District, and (1) Does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-8 Criteria for the Historic Preservation Commission for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks (2) Does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission denies the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition and facade alteration of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY. with the following conditions: the applicant may apply for relief on the ground that the detennination results in a hardship in accordance with the procedures in Section 170-10. Telephone (631)765-1802 �� 4d Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631) 765-9502 " P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 � p ( � -4 SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Record of vote: Yes: 7 No: 0 Recused: 0 This Resln was duly adopted: May 21, 2019. Sig .��� Date: Chairman Edward Webb, Historic Preservation Commission Neville, Elizabeth From: deborah dumont <deborandumont@mac.com> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2019 2:35 PM � � To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: Skippers Lane SEP S 2019 TO: Southold Town Board FROM: Deborah Dumont_, 715 Village Lane, Orient,NY S Duthold Town Clerk RE: 675 Skippers Lane My late husband,,Jan-Moor-Jankowski, bought our home at 715 Village Lane in 1968. We have an 18c historic house with all of its original doors, floors,windows, and latches. It was once a stop on the Underground Railroad and later a hiding spot for bootleggers. I do not have a romanticized-attachment to Orient;I only believe that we do not own our homes,we are only the keepers for,the next generation. I'm sure some of the members of the Town Board recall the almost ratified plan by Robert Moses and others to construct a bridge from the North Eastern tip of Long Island to Connecticut. The 1966-69 push eventually focused on two possible routes for the bridge-one including a 10-mile span from East Marion to Old Saybrook. If that plan had not have been stopped by the work of diligent and active citizens,we would not be here today,East Marion and Orient would have largely been wiped out to provide space for the on ramp to the bridge But the lovely, historically preserved Hamlet of Orient is here.And just as a generation ago,today I must insist that the house at the corner of Skippers and Harbor River not be destroyed. For once it is gone it is gone.And the trajectory following allowing this house to be destroyed is unknown. I encourage the Town Board to listen to the overwhelming outcry of Orient community to not allow 675 Skippers Lane be destroyed or that the out of character addition be approved. The wishes of citizens should not be muzzled nor should the Town Board bend their knees to pressure. We must stand up for what is right and true and lawful, whatever the consequences. ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. J i RECEIVED C�S�S AUG 2 7 2009 Southold Town Board 53095 NY-25 Southold Town Clerk Southold, NY 11971 August 22, 2019 Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient My name is Jane Lear. My husband, Sam, and I have our primary residence in Orient, but not in the historic district. Unfortunately, we were unable to attend the August 13 public hearing on Dr. Louis Potters and Dr. Lenore Brancato's appeal of the unanimous decision by the Southold Historic Preservation Commission to deny the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the landmarked house at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. But I was happy to read in the Suffolk Times today that comments are open to the public for the next two weeks. Potters and Brancato's argument that mold and lead are reason to demolish a landmarked house in Orient is absolute hogwash. After living on our property for a number of years, we're renovating,our house, which has an extremely dilapidated cottage out back. The interior of the cottage was covered in black mold, yet the Town of Southold refused to let us demolish-it. The cottage, which was shoddily built to begin with, has no redeeming architectural merit at clll,. We were not interested in changing the footprint; we just wanted a well-built cottage. But because we weren't allowed to do that, at great expense we are renovating the existing structure. Again, we are not in the historic district. It seems only fair that Potters and Brancato, whose house IS in the historic district, should abide by the same rules. - Sincerely, Jane Lear Orient resident janelear@gmail.com _ Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 9:31 AM To:Burke, John; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; Jim Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary; Tomaszewski, Michelle; William Ruland Cc:Norklun, Stacey Subject:FW: \[SPAM\] - 675 Skippers Lane, Orient FYI Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 From: kpcrary@aol.com \[mailto:kpcrary@aol.com\] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 8:57 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: \[SPAM\] - 675 Skippers Lane, Orient To the Southold Town Board, My name is Kinga Crary and I am writing to you to express my concern over the demolition of the house three buildings West of mine. The house has been occupied continuously since I lived here. It is not a palace, but with some TLC and the right architect, I know it can be renovated and turned into a charming home. The location is beyond reproach, so I can see why the Potters would like to replace it with a much larger (twice the size) and more splendid structure. But Orient is a modest village and thankfully this location has been designated a historic district and the house in question, modest as it is, a landmark. This said, it is legally protected from alteration or destruction. Thank your. KPC 1 Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:36 AM To:Burke, John; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; Jim Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary; Tomaszewski, Michelle; William Ruland Cc:Norklun, Stacey Subject:FW: 675 Slippers Lane, Orient FYI From: Patt Rudder \[mailto:pattrudder@gmail.com\] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 4:55 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: 675 Slippers Lane, Orient I am opposed to the home being built at 675 Skippers Lane as it has been proposed. If the current plan is approved, that will mean the end of any kind of historic preservation we may have in Orient. If the owners would simply construct a home of the size, scale and style that is consistent with the historic fabric of Orient then everyone would welcome their addition. But what’s on the table now is ridiculous. A house almost twice the size and mass of the existing structure on that small lot is an assault on historic preservation in the village. I urge you to vote against the proposal. Sincerely, Patton Rudder 420 Skippers Lane Orient ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 1 Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:37 AM To:Burke, John; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; Jim Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary; Tomaszewski, Michelle; William Ruland Cc:Norklun, Stacey Subject:FW: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient FYI Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 From: T Harris \[mailto:ted.harris@gmail.com\] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 8:01 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Ms. Neville, I am writing in strong support of the Southold Housing Preservation Commission's unanimous decision earlier this year denying the request of the owners of 675 Skippers Lane to demolish the house located at this address. My family has owned homes in Southold since 2000, first in Cutchogue and later in Orient. In addition, my brother's family has a home in East Marion. In purchasing our home in Orient, we were very much drawn to the history and character of the houses in the Village -- not just the individual homes but the homes that together comprise the Historical District and together give it its unique character in our Town. We were very much aware when we bought our home in Orient that it was in the Historic District and felt an obligation to the community to respect this. 675 Skippers Lane is in a very prominent location within the Historic District -- visible not only from Skippers Lane, but from everywhere in Poquatuck Park as well as from the causeway leading into Orient. It simply cannot be underestimated how devastating it would be to the community to harm the special character of what we have by demolishing this house (a survivor of the 1938 hurricane) and replacing it with a new structure. Mind you, I have no objection to new buildings -- I love new architecture and study it as a hobby; but I do very much object to unnecessarily replacing long-existing buildings that make of the fabric of our community's Historic District. That just seems to defeat the purpose of having the protection of an historic district in the first place. 1 All of these old houses need ongoing care and upkeep -- and houses that have not been cared for in a long time require even more effort on the part of the homeowners. Part of what makes Orient so special is stewardship -- looking after the homes that were there long before we were and should--if we are responsible-- be there long after. It is that notion that seems to be at the heart of having an historic district. Allowing the demolition of this land-marked house would undermine the efforts of those who came before us and saw the value to the community of going to the considerable effort of having this area recognized as an historic district. Moreover, it would surely be the first and foremost precedent to which others in the future would look the next time someone else buys a home in the Historic District and decides that they rather not live in an old house. There is no denying that Orient's Historic District is a truly special place within Southold and we as a community should do all we can for future generations to enjoy it. Once the house is gone it is gone -- there will be no turning back. Please uphold the Southold Housing Preservation Commission's decision and don't allow our Historic District to be eroded. Thank you, Theodore Harris ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Tuesday, August 27, 2019 8:35 AM To:'joan turturro'; Russell, Scott Cc:Ghosio, Bob; William Ruland; Evans, Louisa; Doherty, Jill; Tomaszewski, Michelle; Standish, Lauren; Dinizio, James Subject:RE: Historic Preservation Commission Decision. Second Mailing rd Yes, it was received. This will be the third 3 letter received from you. Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 From: joan turturro \[mailto:orientinn@earthlink.net\] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 7:18 AM To: Russell, Scott; Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Ghosio, Bob; William Ruland; Evans, Louisa; Doherty, Jill; Tomaszewski, Michelle; Standish, Lauren; Dinizio, James Subject: Re: Historic Preservation Commission Decision. Second Mailing Dear Board, I don’t know if my letter was received, so I am protectively resending it. Please see below. Thank You, Joan Turturro On Aug 12, 2019, at 11:53 AM, joan turturro <orientinn@earthlink.net> wrote: To Southold Town Board, The Historic Preservation Commission has determined that there is no good reason for the demolition of 675 Skippers Lane, in Orient NY. To overrule this decision sends a very ominous message to the residents of Orient and to the members of the Historic Preservation Commission. This is a building that once is allowed to be torn down to build an structure that is not in keeping with the historic nature of Orient Village will not just be a horrendous eyesore, but an opening of the floodgates for more tear downs and Mc mansions to be constructed. This will be an irreversible destruction of a historic hamlet. I as a resident and business owner for over 20 years have done all in my power to 1 restore buildings here in Orient , and the complaints which have been submitted to the Commission and the Town of Southold are issues that are not insurmountable. New foundations can be installed, and mold can be removed. All the ‘complaints’ from the owners and their engineers do not add up to a demolition. To allow this tear down to go forward will be a travesty of all that is unique about our hamlet and Southold’s Comprehensive Plan.. I am including a letter I sent to the Commission which addresses each complaint the owners are claiming as reason to tear down this house. Please see attachment below, and please do not allow these people to ruin our beautiful hamlet with a monstrosity. Sincerely, Joan Turturro <Proposed Tear Down of 675 Skippers Lane.rtf> 2 August 26, 2019 Mr. Scott Russell, Supervisor Members of Southold Town Board Dear Mr. Russell and Members of the Board, Thank you for allowing the public to respond to the request made by Drs. Potter and Brancato to overrule the Historic Preservation Commission’s unanimous decision to disallow the demolition of the house at 675 Skippers Lane. I attended the hearing on August 13, and left feeling that, although much was discussed, there was still one matter not sufficiently addressed. Therefore, I’m writing to call your attention to the precedent that was set by the HPC in 2010, when they also ruled against an applicant whose architect wanted to “tear-down” and “demolish” the house at 130 Village Lane. This is the first house at the northwest end of Village Lane. It’s a small one-story house, very humble, owned at the time (and maybe still) by Ed King’s daughter, Claudia King Ramones. Like the house at 675 Skippers Lane, it was deemed to have “no historical value”—meaning it’s not distinctive, distinguished architecture. Claudia and her husband wanted to change the roof line and raise the ceiling of the attic a bit (not much) in order to make bedrooms for their two children. Without this, the house they inherited was too small for their family to live in. They wanted Orient to be a part of their children’s lives as it had been for Claudia and her father and all the Kings before them. The changes being requested by the Ramones were minor. The house would look different from the original house (but still in keeping with Village Lane—with a small-statured second floor, similar to 295 Village Lane, at the time belonging to Skip Wachsberger, now owned by Charles Dean) and, most importantly, it would remain on the same footprint. It was still modest. And many of us on Village Lane wanted the Ramones to be able to live among us. The houses on Village Lane, were being sold as second homes. At night, on Village Lane, more and more houses were dark. The final decision of the HPC was to deny the request to “demolish” and rebuild. This is the precedent set in 2010. I believe it was not contested—or, if contested, the judgment was upheld. How can the Town Board ignore this precedent? How would you explain this to Claudia King Ramones and her family? The house at 130 Village Lane is smaller and has much less character than 675 Skippers Lane, which is a good example of the kind of summer cottage that were typical of Orient in the early 20th century. The new house at 130 Village Lane would have been in scale with other small, modest houses on the street. Those from Orient who attended meetings and hearings about this house were in favor of the changes because they did not interfere with the beauty and historic character of Village—and because having another family on the street was desirable. In contrast, it is clear that the house proposed by Drs. Potter and Brancato replaces an historic summer cottage, part of Orient’s history, with a much larger, lavish, luxury second home typical of 2019. Its footprint is far larger than the original house. The proposed new house is too large and the concessions that have been made (keeping the façade of the original) are inadequate, do nothing to uphold the mission of the HPC and ignore the intentions of the national and state creators of the Historic District itself. Why did Drs. Potter and Brancato buy this house? I would guess it’s because it is on a beautiful spot of land, on a charming road and park, and has a beautiful view of the bay. However, it is clear that, as one of the Board members said in the hearing: “The Potters want to live in an historic village but not in an historic house.” I guess they thought that with a few fancy maneuvers by a lawyer and an architect, that they could essentially tear it down. I urge you to uphold the precedent of 2010 that the Historic Preservation Commission has unanimously supported. If you do not uphold it, you will have betrayed these important principles. You will have been unfair to—possibly harmed—Claudia King Ramones and family. And you will open the floodgates for all those who think buying a house means they “own” Orient itself, without ever understanding or caring about where they are and what Orient means to history, to the region and the state, and to all of the people who have lived here and preserved it to this date. Sincerely, Karen Braziller 640 Village Lane, 11957 631 323 1362 karenrrb@gmail.com y 1 Smith, Jennifer From: Smith,Jennifer Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 3:02 PM To: Dinizio,James; Doherty,Jill; Evans, Louisa; Ghosio, Bob; Neville, Elizabeth; Ruland, William; Russell, Scott; Standish, Lauren;Tomaszewski, Michelle Subject: 675 Skippers Lane Attachments: 675 Skippers Lane_20190826150225.pdf Good Afternoon, Please see the attached letter from Karen Braziller in regards to 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. &ennifer 03mith Office Assistant Southold Town Clerk's Office 53095 Main Road Po Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 (631)765-1800 i RECEIVED August 26, 2019 AUG 2 6 2019 Mr. Scott Russell, Supervisor Southold Town Clerk Members of Southold Town Board Dear Mr. Russell and Members of the Board, Thank you for allowing the public to respond to the request made by Drs. Potter and Brancato to overrule the Historic Preservation Commission's unanimous decision to disallow the demolition of the house at 675 Skippers Lane. I attended the hearing on August 13, and left feeling that, although much was discussed, there was still one matter not sufficiently addressed. Therefore,I'm writing to call your attention to the precedent that was set by the HPC in 2010, when they also ruled against an applicant whose architect wanted to "tear-down" and"demolish" the house at 130 Village Lane. This is the first house at the northwest end of Village Lane. It's a small one-story house, very humble, owned at the time (and maybe still) by Ed King's daughter, Claudia King Ramones. Like the house at 675 Skippers Lane, it was deemed to have "no historical value"—meaning it's not distinctive, distinguished architecture. Claudia and her husband wanted to change the roof line and raise the ceiling of the attic a bit(not much) in order to make bedrooms for their two children. Without this,the house they inherited was too small for their family to live in. They wanted Orient to be a part of their children's lives as it had been for Claudia and her father and all the Kings before them. The changes being requested by the Ramones were minor. The house would look different from the original house (but still in keeping with Village Lane—with a small-statured second floor, similar to 295 Village Lane, at the time belonging to Skip Wachsberger, now owned by Charles Dean) and,most importantly, it would remain on the same footprint. It was still modest. And many of us on Village Lane wanted the Ramones to be able to live among us. The houses on Village Lane, were being sold as second homes. At night, on Village Lane, more and more houses were dark. The final decision of the HPC was to deny the request to "demolish" and rebuild. This is the precedent set in 2010. I believe it was not contested—or, if contested,the judgment was upheld. How can the Town Board ignore this precedent? How would you explain this to Claudia King Ramones and her family? The house at 130 Village Lane is smaller and has much less character than 675 Skippers Lane, which is a good example of the kind of summer cottage that were typical of Orient in the early 20th century. The new house at 130 Village Lane would have been in scale with other small, modest houses on the street. Those from Orient who attended meetings and hearings about this house were in favor of the changes because they did not interfere with the beauty and historic character of Village—and because having another family on the street was desirable. In contrast, it is clear that the house proposed by Drs. Potter and Brancato replaces an historic summer cottage, part of Orient's history,with a much larger, lavish, luxury second home typical of 2019. Its footprint is far larger than the original house. The proposed new house is too large' and the concessions that have been made (keeping the fagade of the original) are inadequate, do nothing to uphold the mission of the HPC and ignore the intentions of the national and state creators of the Historic District itself. Why did Drs. Potter and Brancato buy this house?I would guess it's because it is on a beautiful spot of land, on a charming road and park, and has a beautiful view of the bay. However, it is clear that, as one of the Board members said in the hearing: "The Potters want to live in an historic village but not in an historic house."I guess they thought that with a few fancy maneuvers by a lawyer and an architect,that they could essentially tear it down. I urge you to uphold the precedent of 2010 that the Historic Preservation Commission has unanimously supported. If you do not uphold it,you will have betrayed these important principles. You will have been unfair to—possibly harmed—Claudia King Ramones and family. And you will open the floodgates for all those who think buying a house means they"own" Orient itself,without ever understanding or caring about where they are and what Orient means to history,to the region and the state, and to all of the people who have lived here and preserved it to this date. Sincerely, Karen Braziller 640 Village Lane, 11957 631 323 1362 karenrrb@gmail.com - U S �o�f I �- I arn Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 11:55 AM To:Burke, John; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; Jim Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary; Tomaszewski, Michelle; William Ruland Cc:Norklun, Stacey Subject:FW: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient - William Ryall FYI Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 From: William S Ryall \[mailto:bill@ryallsheridan.com\] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 11:10 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Russell, Scott Subject: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Members of Southold Town Board, Even without living in the Orient Village Historic District, I am a strong advocate of protecting the architecture of Orient Village, and making the Historic District work for the Village, while protecting one of Southold’s jewels. For many years I rented a beautiful 1830 house several doors down the block from 675 Skippers Lane. When I decided that I wanted a larger house, I bought a lot outside of Orient Village and built a new house. I DID NOT try to purchase our rental house on Village Lane, and request permission to expand and enlarge it in violation of the Town Zoning Code. And as far as the Historic District is concerned, I cannot even image somebody purchasing a house in Orient’s Historic District, then asking for permission to demolish it (because the empty house has mold in it? are you serious?) I ask only for the Southold Town Board to enforce its own Code, and certainly not give any Variance for violating the Code, much less giving permission to demolish a house in Orient’s Historic District. This should never be permitted. Thank you. 1 Sincerely, William Ryall P.O. Box 57 (915 Southview Drive) Orient, NY 11957 ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Monday, August 26, 2019 11:54 AM To:Burke, John; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; Jim Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary; Tomaszewski, Michelle; William Ruland Cc:Norklun, Stacey Subject:FW: 675 skippers lane Orient -Jonathan Gilson FYI Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 -----Original Message----- From: Regina Ebel \[mailto:rebelgilson@gmail.com\] Sent: Monday, August 26, 2019 10:45 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth; Russell, Scott Cc: Jonathan Gilson Subject: 675 skippers lane Orient Good morning, Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the public hearing, re: the Potters property at 675 Skippers Lane. This is our follow up, after listening to everyone speak, we, the Gilson’s, and direct neighbor of the Potters property, are in full support of there proposal, to demolish the current non historical cottage, and replace it with a charming & tasteful like structure, in keeping with town guidelines & codes. We have lived next to the uncared for & derelict property for about 15 years, and we look forward to neighbors, who want to create a healthy charming & well maintained home. I also want to say the following on the comments we heard against the demolition. Many spoke out saying they were part of the OHS, or OA, and that they are against the demolition. We are members of both organizations, and I want it to be clear, that on this subject, we disagree with there POV. OA, sends out emails urging all to comment on this subject, but I do not believe, that most people have all the facts. If you stand in Poquatuck park, you will see, that all homes, have some kind of tasteful updated addition to the original structures, adding the modern conveniences and square footage, we are fortunate to have in 2019. This, also applies to 1 all of the homes, at this end of Skippers Lane, and to some on Oysterponds Lane. Seems, everyone applied for, and got the necessary permits, to make these renovations over the last several years, and some are ongoing. The home directly across from the Potters, was once a charming cottage, it now is some kind of rambling ranch, with an added boat house? Another, woman who spoke out against demolition, because of her love for Orient and it’s charm, removed a small home, to build a large modern, I’m sure lovely home. And, then the gentleman who spoke out quite passionately, about our small charming village and the need to keep it that way, has the nerve to have turned his garage into a commercial space, for a Saturday pop up art shop! I hope, that you will guide & support the Potters, allowing them to demolish & take the necessary steps, to create a beautiful home, for themselves & there family. As, all of us have been able to do to date. Thanks for reading, Regina & Jonathan Gilson Sent from my iPad ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Neville, Elizabeth From: Neville, Elizabeth 'Sent: Friday,August 23, 2019 5:32 PM To: Burke,John; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon; Silleck, Mary Cc: Martin Finnegan Subject: Emailing: 675 SkippersLa -T. Fros_20190823171153 Attachments: HPC Skippers Lane_20190715141445:pdf; 675 SkippersLa - T. Fros_20190823171153'.pdf Importance: High Bill, I think you should check this out as soon as possible. The file is in Laserfiche; Historic Preservation Commission; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. The second attachment is the letter filed by the applicant's attorney advising of their appeal. which was actually filed ten (10) days after the HPC determination. I do not believe there is any type of official/formal "application form" in existence for these appeals. Betty Neville Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 Your message is ready to be sent with the following,file or link attachments: 675 SkippersLa -T. Fros_20190823171153 Note:To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. . 1 A �i Neville, Elizabeth '. From: Timothy Frost <ttfrost@mac.com> AUG 2 0 2099 Sent: Tuesday,August 20, 2019 10:20 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Who` Town Clork Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane I _ r Please include this in the Town's Laserfiche Weblink in the "675 Skippers Ln" file of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Also, I still await the inclusion in the file of the actual written notice of appeal fled by the applicant and received by the Town Board within the required 30-day period (as specified in Chapter 170-11 of the Town Code). Absent such timely notice,the applicants' right to appeal expired and warrants no further consideration; therefore,please search for such notice and, if it exists, include it in the `675 Skippers Ln"file of the HPC. Begin forwarded message: From: Timothy Frost <ttfrost(@-mac.com> Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane Date: August 20, 2019 at 10:15:17 PM EDT To: e.neville@southoldtownny.gov Cc: Southold Town Attorney <bill:duffy ,town.southold'.ny.us> Please include this in the Town's Laserfiche Weblink in the"675 Skippers Ln" file of the Historic Preservation Commission(HPC). Also, I still await the inclusion in the file of the actual written notice of appeal filed by the applicant and received by the Town Board within the required 30-day period(as specified in Chapter 170-11 of the Town Code). Absent such timely notice, the applicants' right to appeal expired and warrants no further consideration; therefore,please search for such notice and, if it exists, include it in the `675 Skippers Ln" file of the HPC. Thank you. Begin forwarded message: From: Timothy Frost <ttfrostamac_.com> Subject: 675 Skippers Lane Date: August 14, 2019 at 1:13:47 PM EDT To: Scott Russell <scottr( southoldtownny:gov_>, "Scott Russell(cr7town south old.Ely.us" <Scott Russell@Town.Southold.ny.up Cc: Bill Duffy <bilidCa7southoldtownny.gov> Supervisor Russell and Members of the Southold Town Board: I believed last night's Town Board meeting was chaired well and fairly, giving r TwomeyrL -; Martin D.Finnegan SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO, LLP Partner 631-727-2180,x-265 mfinnegan@stiffolklaw.com stiffolklaw.com Thomas A.Twomey,Jr. (1945-2014) Stephen B Latham VV + John F.Shea,III Christopher D.Kelley i David M Dubin Jay P.Quartararo t Peter M Mott Janke L Snead May 31, 2019 Anne Marie Goodale 1Zi Bryan C.Van Cott Kathryn Dalli Laura I.Dunathan By Hand J` Lisa Clare Kombnnk II Patrick B Fife I Martin D.Finnegan O Reza Ebrahimi Honorable Scott A. Russell, Supervisor and Jeffrey W.Pagano is I Members of the Town Board of the Town of Southold 53095 Route 25, P.O. Box 1179 Bernadette E Tuthill Southold,NY 11971-0959 Craig H.Handler Alexandra Halsey-Storch Melissa S.Doris Re;; Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and Alteration KatennGnnko 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Lorrainee Paceleo ro Terrence Russell Daniel R.Bernard t• Christina M.Noon Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: 4., OF COUNSEL This office represents Louis Potters and Louise Brancato, who are the Kevin M„Fox Kelly E.Kinirons owners of the premises located at 675 Skippers Lane in Orient. Pursuant to Karen A.Hoeg Section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code our clients herebyappeal and Patricia J.Russell pp Jennifer P.Nigro . request the Town Board's review of the Determination of the Historic Preservation Commission, dated May 21,2019, denying their Application for a ; NY fl IBARS Y ALM INN TAXATION ; Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and ♦ NY&NJBARS reconstruction of a conforming single-family residence on the subject premises. AJ NY,NJ&PA BARS j #' NY,NJ&DO BARS It is respectfully-submitted that the Determination overlooks or ignores A NY,NJ&FL BARS , substantial evidence in the record regarding the condition of the existing Main Office i structure and is based on a misapplication of the criteria for demolition and 33 West Second St. P.O.Box 9398 alteration of historic structures set forth in Sections 170-8 and 170-9 of the Riverhead, NY 11901 Town Code.In the alternative,the Applicants submit that the denial of a 631.727.2180 Certificate of Appropriateness has subjected them to undue hardship and request suffolklaw.com relief therefrom pursuant to Section 170-10 of the Town Code. f We respectfully request that this matter be placed on the next available Town Board agenda for review. A brief in support of our request for relief will ? be submitted to the Town Board under separate cover. + 3 Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board May 31, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your consideration. �,;� ;y�• urs, Martin Finnegan MDF/lk cc: William Duffy, Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk } Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of June 18, 2019 XA RESOLUTION 2019-571 Item # 5.39(411 ADOPTED DOC ID: 15346 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-571 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JUNE 18,2019: RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 170-11 (Landmark Preservation Appeal) of the Town Code,the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 4:30 P.M., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the Appeal of Determination of the Historic Preservation Commission for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient; the house is owned by Loius Potters and Louise Brancato and is located at SCTM 1000-24-2-1, 6/75 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York . ♦ Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Jill Doherty, Councilwoman SECONDER:William P. Ruland, Councilman AYES. Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans,Russell Generated JUDe 19, 2019 Page 51 RECEIVED Neville, Elizabeth From: Timothy Frost <ttfrost@mac.com> AUG 2 0 2019 Sent: Tuesday,August 20, 2019 10:20 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Southold Town Clerk Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane Please include this in the Town's Laserfiche Weblink in the "675 Skippers Ln" file of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Also, I still await the inclusion in the file of the actual written notice of appeal filed by the applicant and received by the Town Board within the required 30-day period (as specified in Chapter 170-11 of the Town Code). Absent such timely notice, the applicants' right to appeal expired and warrants no further consideration; therefore, please search for such notice and, if it exists, include it in the `675 Skippers Ln" file of the HPC. Begin forwarded message: From: Timothy Frost <ttfrost(a)-mac.com> Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane Date: August 20, 2019 at 10:15:17 PM EDT To: e.nevilleCcDsoutholdtownny.gov Cc: Southold Town Attorney <bill.duffyRtown.southold.ny.us> Please include this in the Town's Laserfiche Weblink in the"675 Skippers Ln" file of the Historic Preservation Commission(HPC). Also, I still await the inclusion in the file of the actual written notice of appeal filed by the applicant and received by the Town Board within the required 30-day period (as specified in Chapter 170-11 of the Town Code). Absent such timely notice, the applicants' right to appeal expired and warrants no further consideration; therefore, please search for such notice and, if it exists, include it in the `675 Skippers Ln" file of the HPC. Thank you. Begin forwarded message: From: Timothy Frost <ttfrost �mac.com> Subject: 675 Skippers Lane Date: August 14, 2019 at 1:13:47 PM EDT To: Scott Russell <scottr .southoldtownny.gov>, "Scott.Russel l(a)-town.southold.ny.us" <Scott.Russel IP-Town.Southold.ny.us> Cc: Bill Duffy <billd a(�.southoldtownny.gov> Supervisor Russell and Members of the Southold Town Board: I believed last night's Town Board meeting was chaired well and fairly, giving 1 everyone present a more-than-ample opportunity to give voice to their concerns. Nevertheless, as I mentioned last night and as set forth in Chapter 170-11 (Appeals) of the Town Code, "Reviews shall be conducted based on the same record that was before the Commission and using the criteria set forth in this chapter". I raise this point because I am concerned that, in accepting additional comments,the Town may be opening itself up to the potential claim that any decision to uphold, annul, (or remand for further consideration) the Historic Preservation Commission's decision-will be disputed by the opposing side as due to after-the-fact, post-decision-pleading. Having voiced this concern, and after having;but skimmed through the now-522- page and ever-increasift file relatin°g to "675.Skippers Ln" on the Town's Laserfiche Weblink, I also offer two additional procedural points for your consideration... ' First, Chapter 170-11(Appeals) appears to require an appeal within 30 days of the Historic Preservation Commission's determination, as issued on 21 May 2019. I would note that the applicants' and their attorneys' first notice of appeal in the Town's Laserfiche WebLink files was dated 16 July 2019, after the expiration of the 30-day period. Please post the actual written application filed by the applicant and received by the Town Board within the required 30-day period. Second, I would note that the Town of Southold's Building Department conducted a Housing Code Inspection Report on 19 September 2017 and the Town of Southold issued a Pre Existing Certificate of Occupancy on 21 September 2017, seemingly refuting the applicant's argument that 675 Skippers was "uninhabitable" and establishing that the Town of Southold inspected the premises and, in issuing a C of O, took the position that such premises were indeed habitable. In closing, I would also like to reiterate my concern that the applicant may be allowing the property to fall into disrepair. Last night I made a point of suggesting that such neglect was not necessarily willful or intentional, even after the supporting porch columns were all removed leading to the potential collapse of the second story overhang, However, after Louis Potter voiced the entirely specious claim that all the columns "blew over in the wind", I am more inclined to suggest and I do believe the applicant is allowing/encouraging 675 Skippers Lane to fall into disrepair through willful and intentional neglect, including not undertaking the most basic of care by mowing the lawn. Thank you for your efforts on this matter and your ongoing service on behalf of the residents of Southold. ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 CIE AUa 2 0 2019 Southold Town Clerk Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 4:35 PM To:Bob Ghosio; Dinizio, James; Doherty, Jill; Evans, Louisa; Martin Finnegan; Norklun, Stacey; Rudder, Lynda; Ruland, William; Russell, Scott; Tomaszewski, Michelle Subject:FW: \[SPAM\] - Demolition of 675 Skippers Lane FYI Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 From: Drew Vogelman \[mailto:drew.vogelman@gmail.com\] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 3:52 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Suzanne Mcclelland; drew.vogelman@gmail.com Subject: \[SPAM\] - Demolition of 675 Skippers Lane We are writing in support of your decision to NOT overturn the decision on appeal and we wish to share our agreement that demolition of 675 Skippers Lane should not be allowed. The HPC has made the right choice to protect the landscape of orient. We are very recent members of the community and chose this particular place on the planet because of its light, water, scale , it’s humanity , it’s sense of community and it’s respect for history. It is also a place that allows for change and for contemporary architecture that respects its surroundings. Demolition of an historic house, however, is unnecessary and there can be other ways to improve, amend & expand on what we have already created. 675 skippers Lane is a beautiful spot and yes ownership allows for freedom but none of us own land in isolation. Whatever we do affects the people the plants and the wildlife around us. Thank you for considering these thoughts. And thank you for your continued support of preservation. Andrew & Suzanne 385 Oyster Ponds Lane Orient, NY 1 Dear Southold Town Board: I am writing, yet again, to express my opinion against the appeal of the application to demolish the property at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957 . The Van Nostrand residence is an important piece of Orient Village History. The house has weathered many a storm in it's century-long lifespan, inhabited every summer by the family, until it sold recently to the current owners who have clearly not purchased a house but a " building site". It remains today as an important example of an original worker's / Fisherman's cottage. The residents of the village have expressed overwhelming support to keep this important example of early working class architecture. As it was used more recently seasonally by the family, it also illustrates a typical seasonal seaside cottage which were one were so commonly found along the shoreline of lower Village Lane. The decision against demolition of this 100-year-old residence in the Village of Orient was a unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. That the decision was unanimous , with not one vote in support of demolition, must carry some weight . How can you even consider over turning a vote by the commission that was unanimously expressed by the commission? After all, if you overturn this vote, what is the point of-having a commission at all? If this cottage is demolished that action will set a dangerous president and endanger the safety of all historically protected homes in our village .No historic home will be safe. I also object to the enormous "addition" the Potters have proposed which does not , in any way " serve" the original structure as anything vaguely resembling an addition . The " addition "they have proposed is much too large and not in keeping stylistically with the original structure. The community has spoken and the commission has as well. Thank you again, Janet Markarian 1100 Village Lane Orient, NY 11957 631.521.3711 RECEIVED AUG 2 3 2019 Southold Town Clerk Smith, Jennifer From: Smith, Jennifer Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 3:22 PM To: Dinizio,James; Doherty, Jill; Evans, Louisa; Ghosio, Bob; Neville, Elizabeth; Ruland, William; Russell, Scott; Standish, Lauren;Tomaszewski, Michelle Subject: 675 Skippers Lane Attachments: Skippers Lane_20190823151507.pdf Good Afternoon, Please see the attached letters from Janet Markarian and Ann Ffolliott concerning 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. Thank you, &m!fer 33mith Office Assistant Southold Town Clerk's Office 53095 Main Road Po Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 (631)765-1800 i V~ To the Southold Town Board, concerning 675'Skippers Lane, Orient, I am an Orient resident and a committed voter. I will not be in Southold town on 8/13 so cannot attend the hearing about 675 Skipper's Lane but I want to register my opposition to the proposed destruction of the house. I hope the town board will support the unanimous opinion of our hardworking Historic Preservation Commission. A lot has been said about the architectural value of 675 Skipper's Lane, which to me is beside the point. The house is clearly part of the Orient Historic district. And if that is not an adequate reason to protect it, Southold town saw fit to designate the house as an individual landmark in 2007. At the last hearing I attended, the architect claimed that the south facade was not subject to review as it was not on a public right of way. But that is a specious argument; even if Poquatuck Park does not fit the definition of a public right of way (I don't know if it does or doesn't), the entire southern facade of 675 Skipper's Lane is clearly visible from Harbor River Road. In short, I hope the town board will support the considered opinion of its commission and deny the permit to tear down the house. Ann ffolliott 390 Oyster Ponds Lane Orient, NY 11957 RECEIVED AUG 2 3 2019 Southold Town Clerk Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 1:37 PM To:Bob Ghosio; Dinizio, James; Doherty, Jill; Evans, Louisa; Martin Finnegan; Norklun, Stacey; Rudder, Lynda; Ruland, William; Russell, Scott; Tomaszewski, Michelle Subject:FW: 675 Skippers Lane FYI Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631 765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631 765-6145 Cell 631 466-6064 -----Original Message----- From: Suzanne Gluck \[mailto:SGluck@WMEAgency.com\] Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 9:18 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: \[SPAM\] - 675 Skippers Lane To the Southold Town Board, I am a relatively new homeowner and voter in Orient. I bought my home on King Street only three years ago. Which is perhaps why I so clearly remember the many inspections and evaluations I did before I put my nest egg into a piece of property. I find it impossible to believe that Drs. Potter and Brancato did not do the same. No one would commit to the responsibility of an expensive second home without the most thorough of evaluations. I am certain the mold, roof asbestos, and structural issues did not come as a surprise. I have to question the truthfulness of the new owners seeming surprised by the difficulties with their property. I knew before financially committing to my own home exactly what the issues were, which would require additional funds to remedy. Everyone proceeds with home ownership with their eyes wide open, it is too big a decision to make without careful consideration and all possible information. I always like to think the best of people, but I cannot imagine any possible scenario where such a large financial commitment was made on incomplete information. To think that someone wanted to get a “deal” on a new build with an incomparable view is very upsetting to me as someone who has quickly come to cherish the unique character of my new village and county. Please uphold the unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission and deny the petition to demolish 675 Skippers Lane. Thank you for your consideration. Suzanne Gluck 1320 King Street Orient, NY Sent from my iPad 1 Suzanne Gluck | WME SGluck@WMEAgency.com 212.903.1169 2 Norklun, Stacey From:Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Friday, August 23, 2019 1:12 PM To:Norklun, Stacey Subject:FW: \[SPAM\] - demoition of landmarked house Please LF From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 1:09 PM To: Bob Ghosio; Dinizio, James; Doherty, Jill; Evans, Louisa; Martin Finnegan; Rudder, Lynda; Ruland, William; Russell, Scott; Tomaszewski, Michelle Subject: FW: \[SPAM\] - demoition of landmarked house From: SCOTT \[mailto:ardenscott@optimum.net\] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 11:57 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: \[SPAM\] - demoition of landmarked house To the Town Board: As a resident of Southold Town (Greenport) I implore you to uphold the unanimous decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission to deny the application of Dr. Potters and Dr. Brancato to demolish their landmarked house at 675 Skipper's Lane in Orient. Historic preservation is vital to the continuity of our communities: it ensures the future. Such designations are made with great deliberation and with the assent of the these communities. To overturn a unanimous decision would not only have dire consequences, it would be an insult to all who have cherished, preserved and in many cases spent enormous sums restoring their historic properties. Respectfully, Arden Scott 404 Atlantic Ave Greenport, NY 11944 1 RECEIVED August 14, 2019 AOG 2 1 2019 Southold Town Board Southold To,&n Cor 53095 NY-25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: 675 Skippers Lane Dear Supervisor Russell and Board Members, The SHPC unanimously denied the application for demolition of 675 Skippers Lane, and the STB should support that unanimous decision. To overturn the best thinking of the SHPC's professionals would send a message to all of Southold Town that "preservation" has lost its meaning. Homeowners in the historic hamlet of Orient have bought these old houses because they appreciate the coherent scale of the village and accept the challenges of remediation, which include structural and code inadequacies, the presence of mold and lead, and the use of asbestos insulation and siding. What's at issue at 675 Skippers Lane is not a discussion of the scale and architectural styling of a supposedly "in kind" replacement: the issue is whether the house can be demolished. Demolishment of any house in the Orient historic district on the grounds that it's too expensive and difficult to restore opens the door to requests for demolishment as the remediation of choice. At yesterday's open hearing, which we understand was voluntary on the part of the STB and was very much appreciated, we heard much from the owners' attorney about the burden of time and expense his clients had been subjected to. We couldn't help but think that had the owners invested that time and expense in restoration, they would be far along in their quest for a livable home. Unfortunately, it also seems fair to infer that this was never their intention, since they have always planned a house that was at least twice as large, while their active neglect of the property has led to further deterioration. Surely it cannot be right to reward buyers who flaunt the intent and purpose of the town's preservation efforts. Thank you again for your comments and for the open hearing. We look forward to your decision to support the SHPC. And as voting residents of the Town of Southold, we will continue to support those forward-thinking officials who understand the value of preservation. Sincerely, Linda Rice and Patricia Cristol 425 King Street (Box 15) Orient, NY 11957 RECEIVED UG 2 1 201 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of Southold Town Board: Southold ,,,town Cerk As a longtime resident of Orient (40 years) and a long time Registered Architect (38 years), I am writing to support the determination of the Southold Preservation Commissions to deny demolition of the historic property 675 Skippers Lane. This decision sets an important precedent for the preservation of the scale, character and history of Orient and of Southold Town. I urge you to uphold the decision of the town's own commission, which was made after careful deliberation and in the interests of our community. Respectfully, Susan B. Gardner Architect 1465 Youngs Road PO Box 43 Orient, NY 1.95..1 631. 323-2723 Orient,L.I. 917 225.....3543 Mobile RECEIVED AUG 2 1 2019 Dear Scott Russell: Southold ' n0 Clerk I have been a resident in Orient since 2002 when I bought my house on 230 Vincent Street. In 2004, 1 wanted to add a porch to the house, a simple farmhouse built in 1880, and went through a very laborious process where I had to go before the town, and have plans reviewed by a historic committee to get approval. I did not get approval--the board felt the porch, as originally drawn, was too deep, so I redrew the plans to their specifications. This pleased the historical society, too, and my neighbors who thought the porch was tasteful and appropriate for the house itself. I was happy to jump through these hoops to make sure our house retained its historic integrity, and to make sure my neighbors were all pleased with the changes. I knew when I bought my house that I was buying into a village that had retained its historical charm because of these measures. To see the Potters utter disregard for both the historic integrity of the house on the corner lot at 675 Skippers as well as the very strong feelings of their neighbors is disturbing to me. For these reasons, I emphatically support the unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny the application to demolish the house at 675 Skippers Lane. The decision was appropriate and well reasoned--and the community overwhelmingly supports preservation of our Landmarked structures. All best, Liz Welch D'Arcangelo 230 Vincent Street PO Box 293 Orient, NY 11957 R i�� I V^quill il'µ �uM AW Frame 640 Skippers Lane AUG, 2 G, s'0 0 Orient NY 11957 August 12th, 2019 Southold Town Board 53095 Rte. 25 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, We are writing once again regarding the proposed demolition and new-build on the lot opposite at 675 Skippers Lane, on the corner of Harbor River Road. We stand with the Orient Historical Preservation Commission in fully supporting their nanim�ou decision to oppose this development. Their decision was carefully considered, and reflects the strong feeling of the majority of Orient residents. Like most of our neighbors, we chose to live in this part of this village because of its beautifully- preserved history. 675 Skippers Lane has withstood multiple hurricanes over the last century, and to now claim that it's not "sound" structurally is an obvious strategy to force through their desire to erect a new, massive build. The owners would've had to have had an inspection prior to closing on this property, and their wish to now claim this long-standing seaside house as unfit for repair and restoration is a completely separate point. Even if this three-season home has issues, it doesn't warrant a replacement that mocks the size of what was originally there. To bulldoze a historic building within the Orient Historic District — in order to construct a new home that has nearly twice the original square footage on such a small lot — is not in keeping with the quaint character of this village. The corner lot of 675 Skippers Lane is charming because of the proper relationship of the existing structure to the size of the lot, and the fact that it borders the public land of Poquatuck Park means that the entire viLtage nrwll M cfied y. n _gg ges to this lot-,,Views of the water would be greatly obstructed, beautiful 150-plus-year old trees torn down, and the charm and personality of Skippers Lane transformed irrevocably. Furthermore, allowing a variance such as this proposal would set an alarming precedent that stands to permit anyone with available funds to rip apart the historic architecture this community is built upon, and sends Orient the way of the worst of The Hamptons. As Orient residents, we are all committed to keeping the distinctive personality of this tiny historic hamlet thriving. We would ask the Commission to honor the major and repeated objections of so many Orient residents, and that they insist our neighbors lovingly restore and renovate their Orient home in keeping with the aesthetic and the size and spirit of the existig 2000-s -ft historic structure they purchased. We object to an outright demolition of this historic building and sincerely hope that the owners can work with the commission to find a harmonious solution more aligned with the character of this beautiful place that we love. Kind regards, AW Frame R0 C E IV0'O August 20, 2019 AUG 2 0 2019 Dear Supervisor Russell and Commissioners of the Southold Town Board, Southold To Nn Clerk I am writing concerning the appeal of Dr. Potters and Dr. Brancato of the HPC's denial of their application to demolish their house at 675 Skippers Lane in Orient. This spring I purchased a house in Orient's Historic District, a house built about the same time as theirs-1920. Like their house, mine has some problems that one would expect in a hundred-year-old house. I have rotting boards that need replacement,windows that need replacing, etc. I take seriously my stewardship of the house, realizing that a part of Orient's history is in my care. I attended your hearing last week,where a lady mentioned that she thought the house on Skippers Lane was ugly. In response, although she feels that way, not everyone in Orient would agree with her. I think the house is charming—a sturdy, cottage that could be brought back to a charming residence were the asbestos siding removed and replaced with cedar shingles. This is not a beauty contest, anyway. The Historic Preservation Commission is charged with preserving history, not beauty. Some important historic homes might not fit today's idea of a beautiful house,but they are still historically important. Please stand by your HPC, affirming their unanimous decision to save this house. Those of us who live in Orient are depending on you. Many thanks, A Sinan Karabas 260 Orchard Street Orient, New Your 11957 .D RECEIVC-EE-D Neville, Elizabeth From: ks11957@aol.com AUG 2 0 2019 Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 9:45 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth SoutholdTown Clerk Subject: Skippers Lane property As a year round, long time Orient resident I am imploring the Town Board to uphold the finding of the HPC. Do not be responsible for opening up the flood gates that destroys the personality of this special place. This home does not belong in the historic district. With thanks, Kathy_Smith 1725 Village Lane Orient,N.Y. Sent from AOL Mobile Mail Get the new AOL app:mail.mobile.aol.com ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. a, 11 Neville, Elizabeth From: Ellen McNeilly <ejmcneilly@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:19 PM AUG 2 0 2019 To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Southold Town Clerk Dear Ms. Neville, I was advised that the enclosed email, sent from Cape Cod last week, was not in the file of letters to the Town Board, and would like it to be included. Thank you, Ellen McNeilly Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Ellen McNeilly <ejmcneilly@earthlink.net> Date: August 13, 2019 at 10:57:28 AM EDT To: Russell Scott<Scott.Russellgtown.southold.ny.us> Subject: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board, As a longtime resident of Orient, and former board member of the Orient Asociation, I am writing to register my support of the Historic Preservation Commission in denying the proposed demolition of the house at 675 Skippers Lane. You and other Board members may not be aware of how many residents of Orient, like myself, feel about the Potters-Brancato proposals in all their various forms, so I wanted to add my voice in support of the unanimous decision by the HPC. For those of us who cherish Orient and it's historic district, demolition of this structure, not to mention the creation of the idiosyncratic structure proposed as its replacement, would prove to be a breaking point in the destruction of the character of the historic hamlet area, not least because of its location overlooking Poquatuck Park. As a former Town Attorney, their representative in this matter is likely all too familiar with possible pressure points to which the Board may be subjected. It is my fervent, hope that, for the sake of what remains of all we hold dear, that the unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission be upheld. Sincerely, Ellen McNeilly i i Sent from my iPad ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 -CEIVED AUG 2 0 2019 Southold T®vvn Clerk Neville, Elizabeth From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 12:12 PM To: 'Ellen McNeilly' Cc: Burke,John; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill;-Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; James Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary;Tomaszewski, Michelle;William Ruland Subject: RE: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Ms. Mc Neilly, Your e-mail received today has been made a part of the record today. I have searched all of my e-mail boxes, but do not find any previous e-mail from you. Elizabeth A. Neville, MMCEEC IV Southold Town Clerk,Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer;FOIL Officer Marriage Officer AUG 2 1 2099 PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel. 631765-1800,Ext.228 Fax 631765-6145 Southold Town Clerk Cell 631466-6064 From: Ellen McNeilly [mailto:ejmcneilly@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:19 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Ms. Neville, I was,advised that the enclosed email, sent from Cape Cod last week, was not in the file of letters to the Town Board, and would like it to be included. Thank you, Ellen McNeilly Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Ellen McNeilly<eimcneillygearthlink.net> Date: August 13, 2019 at 10:57:28 AM EDT To: Russell Scott<Scott.Russell@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient 1 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board, As a longtime resident of Orient, and former board member of the Orient Asociation, I am writing to register my support of the Historic Preservation Commission in denying the proposed demolition of the house at 675 Skippers Lane. You and other Board members may not be aware of how many residents of Orient, like myself, feel about the Potters-Brancato proposals in all their various forms, so I wanted to add my voice in support of the unanimous decision by the HPC. For those of us who cherish Orient and it's historic district, demolition of this structure, not to mention the creation of the idiosyncratic structure proposed as its replacement, would prove to be a breaking point in the destruction of the character of the historic hamlet area, not least because of its location overlooking Poquatuck Park. As a former Town Attorney, their representative in this matter is likely all too familiar with possible pressure points to which the Board may be subjected. It is my fervent, hope that, for the sake of what remains of all we hold dear, that the unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission be upheld. Sincerely, Ellen McNeilly Sent from my iPad ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 RECEIVED Neville, Elizabeth From: Robert Black <oldorchardfarmstore@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:38 PM Southold Town Clerk To: Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Leslie Black; Catherine Black;JONATHAN GILSON; Regina Ebel; Louis Potters Subject: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient NY To Southold Town Board Please permit me to follow up on my recent letter that was read at the Public Hearing in support of the application of appropriateness by Regina Gilson, also a bordering and supporting neighbor of the Potters Property in question . This application issue has gotten before your Board due to the fact that the HPC does not appear to possess the skill set needed to come to a satisfactory conclusion for our neighbor and Village home owner. We know they have submitted 3building plans each with engagement and input of the HPC and have shown a complete willingness to be good stewards and make necessary adjustments along the way .A year later with the HPC and they could not find a mutual and satisfactory outcome with all their"historical qualifications" and architectural knowledge base. I would expect more from this Group and so should your Board . The Potters actually share the Aesthetic concerns of the Village as much as we do and I hope as much as the Board does .This has turned into a complete "Orient Mob Mentality" and has created only divisiveness in the area .There are two points I wish to make as follow ups . 1.The Orient"Mob Mentality" is a SMALL Group .They don't represent the majority thinking,But they are well organized ,even to the fact of producing"canned letter content"for distribution . Don't be swayed by small group thinking based on opinions and their dislike for any change other than their OWN . I site the leader of the letter campaign Charles Dean who professes Historical Integrity yet he runs a illegal Art&Jewelry Pop up Retail Business Gallery out of his own 295 Village Lane, Historic District AND Landmarked House( renovated garage)which is directly across the street from Ted Webb, Chairman, HPC .We find this to be totally hypocritical, self serving and not in keeping with Orient aesthetic and when contrasted to the Skippers Lane House project very objectionable . Furthermore, I will let the fact that the HPC Chairman has all but remained silent to this recent development on Village Lane speak for its self. I would call for a complete review of special treatment here in view of all the the "Historical Integrity" being put on the Skippers lane house but rules not applying to others, Do we even have the proper HPC Board that can make fair and impartial recommendations? 2. Most importantly,the remarks made by many at the Public Hearing were very much opinions and comments that reflected on what they want to see on someone else's property and not in keeping with what is LEGAL,AESTHETIC and VILLAGE APPROPRIATE ( subjective at best) . I would ask that you see the surrounding homes in this "Corner" of Orient it is not the downtown center as some suggested) and notice that the design plan would actually fit within the size and scale of surrounding homes . We hope the Board will support this application and permit the property to be beautified and become an asset to our Community in the manner of many many other projects that have been successfully executed in the Village,in accordance with the legal , safety and modern building code guidelines needed. ;Thank you for your time attention Sincerely 1 Robert& Leslie Black Old Orchard Farm Store ( Historic District ) 1240 Village Lane Orient NY 11957 631-323-8083 Catherine Black Frederick M Peyser Janis M Peyser 1420 Village Lane ( Historic District) Orient NY 11957 610-574-3121 ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. z SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING August 13, 2019 4:30 PM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman William Ruland . Councilwoman Jill Doherty Councilman James Dinizio, Jr. Councilman Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville Town Attorney William Duffy This hearing was opened at 4:43 PM COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by-the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:30 P.M. upon the Appeal Review Application of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato, who pursuant to Section 170-11 'of the Southold Town Code, seek relief from the Historic Preservation Commission's Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a conforming single-family residence on property on parcel SCTM# 1000-24-2=1 located at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in the Suffolk Times newspaper not less than ten'(10) days nor more than thirty (3 0) days prior-to, such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. I do have a notarized affidavit that this has been noticed by the Town Clerk's Office on the bulletin board and on the Town website and also a signed and notarized affidavit that this has been published in the Suffolk Times. Aside from that, most of the file is in laserfiche on the Town's website. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay, just before we start taking comment, this public hearing is actually the obligation of the Town Board to make its decision based on the facts as they were presented at the Historic Preservation Commission hearing, however, everybody has a right to be heard particularly if your references as part of the discussion that took place during that hearing. Who would like to address the Town Board first? MARTIN FINNEGAN: Good evening, Martin Finnegan, Twomey, Latham et al, 56340 Main Road Southold. I am joined here by my clients, Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato, the owners of the property at 675 Skippers Lane in Orient. I note at the outset here that this is'the third public hearing that my clients have had to attend since they applied fora certificate of 2675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 2 appropriateness to demolish the existing house on their property. We say existing house because we can't call it their home yet because they have never actually lived in it, it is uninhabitable in its current condition and over the course of the Historic Preservation commission's 11 month review of their application, Dr's Potters and Brancato had extensive environmental testing done which confirmed that the house is riddled with mold, asbestos, lead. They hired two engineers who confirmed that the renovation of the existing structure is not feasible and the written reports of their findings were submitted for the record, although I believe the Town Board has them for review. There are also photographs included in the power point presentation. So there in the record (inaudible) for the purposes of the presentation, we would bring out the photographs that depict essentially the deplorable condition of the house as it stands today. So despite the submission of uncontroverted expert testimony and reports confirming that the existing structure is uninhabitable, toxic, structurally unsound and devoid of any significant historical or architectural elements, after five works sessions and two public hearings, the HPC issued a general denial of the requested certificate of appropriateness for demolition. We submit that their determination was based on the misapplication of the relevant criteria chapter 170 of the town code and could not be substantiated by the record that was before them. The HPC determined that the since the property lies within the boundaries of the historic district and that a portion of the original house was constructed 100 years ago, it could not be demolished. And this appeal followed. So just a few details about the property itself. The subject property consists of a 13,817 square foot parcel located at the corner of Skippers Lane and Harbor River Road, it is bordered to the south by Poquatuck Park. The property is improved with an 1,880 square foot one and a half story wood frame residence and garage, the property was originally owned by a fisherman named (inaudible) who built a small cottage there, in and around 1918. In 1938, the property was sold to the Van Nostrand family and substantially altered the home in 1957 with the one story gabled roof addition and dormers. The interior surfaces of the house, including the roof and siding were all altered over the years from the original construction as well as interior renovations. So despite the age and location, the records or any evidence of historic design elements related to this structure, it was not photographed or even acknowledged in the Orient Historic Societies publication, Historic Orient Village. And it was apparently deemed contributing solely by virtue of existence in that historic district. Testimony from Peter Cook, the applicants architect confirmed to the extent the original cottage had any historic features, they were over time either renovated, removed or had disintegrated. That the house as it stands today has no architectural or craftsman like feature that one could consider historically significant or contributing over the restoration or in-kind reproduction. This is corroborated by reports and testimony from both engineers that the applicants hired Joseph Fischetti and Bob O'Brian. So the HPC sought, by way of its determination, to preserve the structure that the record confirms has no historic value. Even if the HPC could identify some component to this house besides its location, the applicants offered a substantial uncontroverted evidence for the record regarding deterioration, disrepair and lack of habitability of the existing house. I direct your attention to our memorandum of law, where I have highlighted the list of photographic evidence, scientific data and expert testimony that was presented to the HPC over the course of their lengthy review of this application. I am not going to reiterate it here and I just wanted to confirm that the memorandum of law has been made a part of the record of this proceeding. UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 3675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 3 MR. FINNEGAN: Okay, thanks John. So although the HPC reserved the right to retain an independent engineering analysis of the existing house to verify the evidence presented by the applicants regarding the condition of the house, they never did so. So the overwhelming expert evidence supporting demolition presented by (inaudible) by engineers Bob O'Brian and Joe Fischetti and architect Peter Cook, remains undisputed and confirms that the interior of the existing house is infested with mold, lead and asbestos to unhealthy and uninhabitable levels. The exterior of the house is encased with asbestos, if all of the contaminated or structurally unsound component parts of the house were removed, there would be little of anything else and the cost of doing so is prohibitive and would far exceed the cost of demolishing the current house. The deplorable condition of this house is obvious from the photographs that you see before you and if you have seen the house, you can tell that it is riddled with mold and completely lacking in architectural let alone historical significance. It is unfortunate that Dr's Potters and Brancato were required to incur the expense of all of this expert analysis to substantiate the obvious. Nevertheless, the HPC denied them the certificate of appropriateness in the absence of any actual support. The HPC based its decision on the premise that the existing house could be renovated and altered to suit the applicants' needs. But there is absolutely no evidence in the record to establish how that could happen and no realistic alternative was offered by the HPC as is required by chapter 170 of the town code. Instead, the HPC simply referred the applicants to the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation with no elaboration of how they were even applicable to this structure. It is respectfully submitted that the evidence presented for the record in the proceeding before the HPC conclusively established that demolition is appropriate under the criteria set forth in section 170-8 of the code. I will not reiterate arguments that supported the contention as they are detailed in our memo of law but I want to stress a few key points that the HPC overlooked that are critical to this analysis. First, the town code does not prohibit demolition simply because the structure lies within the boundaries of a historic district. The applicant is not required to produce evidence for the record of all the criteria in section 170-9, they are simply guidelines adopted by the Town Board for the HPC to consider in its review. Although the record belies the contention that this house is a historic landmark, the Town Board legislative intent in adopting of chapter 170 was to afford proper recognition to historic landmarks and to protect them from incompatible demotion in a manner that does not affect, abridge, limits or change in any way the uses permitted by the zoning regulations as applicable to such properties. The Town Board acknowledges that in cases such as this, demolition may be appropriate. And the mere fact that a property lies in an historic district does not deprive the homeowner of its development rights under the town code. That is precisely what the HPC's determination did here. The HPC's denial of a certificate of appropriateness for demolition was based primarily on generalizations regarding the size, character and location of the house in the historic district, it had no factual support of the record. It did not identify a single historic feature of the house that is worthy of preservation. The HPC spent more time taking the applicants to task on the proposed design of the replacement structure which is not even in their purview if demolition is deemed appropriate. The commissioners determination completely ignored scientific data and expert testimony presented for the record regarding the condition of the existing house and the testimony and documentary evidence regarding the history of prior alterations that stripped it of all of its original features. The report doesn't even mention the word mold, asbestos or lead which was a significant part of the testimony and discussion in the public hearings below. They didn't even mention it. it just completely ignores the condition of the house. So again, I direct your attention to our 4675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 4 memorandum of law and ask that the arguments presented there be included of the record of this appeal. I also just wanted to mention that I would like to hand out a brief memorandum that addresses the hardship criteria in chapter 170-10 of the code to the extent that the Board could (inaudible). So although we maintain that the applicants have amply satisfied, based on the evidence, the record, the criteria set forth in 170-8 demolition here, we have also satisfied the criteria under 170-10. And in closing Dr.'s Potters and Brancato submit that the overwhelming evidence presented in the HPC record clearly establishes the appropriateness of demolition of the existing house at 657 Skippers and is therefore respectfully requested that the Town Board null and set aside the HPC's determination and grant the applicants a certificate of appropriateness for demolition. We remain available to answer any questions that the Town Board may have. SHERRY THOMAS: Good evening, I am Sherry Thomas, I am representing the Board of the Orient Association, the civic association in Orient and we will present our remarks at the end of my talking. The Orient Association Board of Directors have several concerns about the hearing today, appealing the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding 675 Skippers Lane. Our comments are as follows: the historic district in Orient is the largest in Southold Town. It was recognized both by federal and state governments since 1976 in the national register of historic places. New development and additions to existing structures are regulated primarily through the town's Historic Preservation Commission as per town code 170. The Historic Preservation Commission is a commission appointed by this Board, comprised of professionals well versed in design, construction and historic preservation principles. After many site visits and a thorough and careful review of all information about proposed changes to 675 Skippers Lane, the commission voted unanimously to reject the proposal to demolish the existing house and replace it with a significantly larger new home. The Town Board should accept the existing record and the decision of the HPC and we emphasize that this is important to the continued protections that will be needed in the historic district in the coming years. In conclusion, the association supports the unanimous decision of the HPC, urges the Town Board to deny the appeal based on those findings. This is a crucial matter of public process and ;a community support for historic preservation and in Orient, and it is without comment on the merits of this particular application, we are speaking about the process and about how preservation needs to be taken care of in this town. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. FREDDIE WACHSBERGER: Hi, I am Freddie Wachsberger. A former president of the Oysterponds Historical Society. It was very important to enact the town's legislation because before actual protective legislation, the historic districts in the town were being whittled away in various ways and so it was a timely designation. And one of the legislations, one of the parts of the towns legislation specifically gives the communities response a very important role to play in the decision. And I want to point out that the community of Orient has a long tradition of dedication to historic preservation. The society was formed in 1944 as a response to a perceived threat to the American way of life and the whole community which was then largely descendants of the original settlors participated in donating a wealth of documents and artifacts for preservation, making Orient one of the best documented communities in the country. For the centennial of 76, it took many members of the community to do the hard work at retaining historic district status. Today, although many more are incomers like me, we feel ourselves to be 5675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 5 the stewards of this legacy, with a responsibility to preserve what remains which is why we strongly support the commission's decision to deny the right to demolish the Skippers Lane house, which at only 100 years old is one of the latest homes in the village but very much a part of it in scale and vernacular which I think is the most important part of the necessity for its preservation or the rejection of its demolition. The larger homes in the district are on the Main Road, like the houses of whaling Captain Peter Brown and (inaudible) and the homes of wealthy farmers. But the village itself was a working village of hardworking people. Shopkeepers, tradesmen, seamen and fishermen. There was a seamstress and a shoe maker. And like today, a post office and an ice cream parlor. This was the character of the historic village. And like the ,Skippers Lane house, the houses and shops were modest in scale. This landmark house is a very exposed and visible location, it's a logical extension of the landscape of the village. I hope that the town will accept the unanimous decision of the committee to reject the proposal to destroy the house and I suspect that the decision now will have an impact on the future preservation of the historic districts of the town. Thanks. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who else would like to address the Town Board? CHARLES DEAN: My name is Charles Dean, I lived for 23 years at 295 Village Lane. In a home built in about 1700, smack in the heart of the historic district. Orient is one of the jewels of Southold Town, it's a special place, one of the most historically intact villages in our`town. History is important to those of us who have chosen to live there. The Orient Historical Society is one of our central institutions. Its annual summer party is the social event of the year. We care about our village, its modest scale and its integrity. There are few places in America that stay as undefiled as Orient. We celebrate that and are committed to keeping over-development out of our historic district. In that effort we support the Town of Southold Historic Preservation Commission created by this Board to ensure that the historical integrity of our village as well as that of other historic buildings and areas in Southold will be protected. This is the third public hearing that the community attended, so I have the (inaudible) and Mrs. Brancato but in two public hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission, many citizens in Orient have spoken clearly against the application to demolish the house at 675 Skippers Lane and many others have written letters to that effect. There was great relief around the village when the Historic Commission recently voted unanimously to deny the application to'demolish the house at 675 Skippers Lane and then to build a much larger house that was designed as a pastiche of inappropriate architectural styles found around the village, a house_without any architectural or historic integrity for it to be built. While the current owners have neglected to maintain their lawn this,summer, resulting in the house looking abandoned and derelict,they have also removed the shrubs around the house so it looks abandoned, it had been lived in comfortably just two years ago. There's a photo up here, recent photographs, it wasn't long ago that the house looked like this, perfectly fine. it was lived in by a family only two years ago. The house is structurally sound, which I think is the reason the HPC didn't spend the money to have another engineer check the structure because it is obviously structurally sound. There are three architects on the HPC, all three said that the house is structurally sound, it is not falling apart. And the structurally sound part is the criteria determining demolition. This house could be restored to its former glory by its present owner. This is the way the house looked in 1929, cedar-shake shingles, it is a perfectly charming historic house. This house today, Dr. Potter and Dr. Brancato could have removed the asbestos shingles, no one wants asbestos shingle, I mean, they are ugly, 6675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 6 take them off, have it shingled properly with cedar shingles and it would be beautiful. Yes, there is lead paint, every old house has lead paint, all paint before 47 had lead, so you remove it, a lot of people have done that in Orient. You have mold, you can remove mold. These issues of mold, asbestos and lead paint which Mr. Finnegan has been discussing where common in old houses in Orient. This is not a demolition, it is not a reason to demolish a historic house. Also, if the rooms inside are too small, they can be remodeled. You can remodel the kitchen, remodel the bath, open the spaces up. The house could really be an incredible, perfectly charming house were it to be restored and it could be restored. I urge you to support the HPC unanimous decision to deny the application of Dr.'s Potter and Brancato to demolish their house. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of our village depends on your decision. If you emasculate the HPC, there will be no institution left to prevent our beautiful, beloved Orient from being totally Hamptonized. And the, it's not just a question of tearing the house down, that's a significant part of it but what they are proposing to replace it with is out of scale with the rest of the community, it's not a historically correct house. It's unattractive and it's really too large. That's part of the denial, is the demolition, because it was one application to demolish and build, and so it wasn't just the demolition they were objecting to, the Historic Preservation Commission, it was what they wanted to rebuild where they were demolished the house. So it was a package deal where the package was denied as it should have been. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this particular local law? REGINA EBEL GILSON: Hi, Regina Ebel Gilson, I live on Skippers Lane directly next door to the Potters home. I am going to speak first on my behalf and Jonathan's behalf. We are excited that the Potters coming in and buying property which has been an eyesore as long as we have been in Orient. I have been in the house and it really is a disaster and I am totally supporting them building a house of you know, follow the guidelines of Southold and the villages. I am also going to read a letter from Bob and Leslie Black, who live on the park. They reside on Village Lane but their property backs up to the park and are in view of the Potters. I am a little nervous and I don't want to sound like I am a politician, I want to read this slowly. This is on behalf of Bob and Leslie Black. `Please accept this letter of endorsement to support our good neighbor, Louis Potters and family in their pursuit, presentation and efforts to build a home that is by our measure legal, aesthetic, village appropriate and fitting to be situated along our view way as we too are located on the park line just four houses east. The discussion on what is historically appropriate and how it's determined is a lengthy and seems poorly defined. Our village is actually an assemblage of structures that have been moved or relocated from many areas and even a few other towns. We site the Webb House, the Schoolhouse and our family home as just a few examples. Historical perspective or an assembly of pleasing aesthetics are just opinions. We have found the Potters to be good stewards of this project that will beautify the area and not distract from village style aesthetics or effect the undocumented historical insignificance. As neighbors, we have voiced concerns to them on the initial build plan and have found that the Potters have been diligent and respectful with listening to our concerns, size and park view, and have found them willing to be flexible and adjust their designs to the neighbors, neighborhood and build style. Please permit me to further quantify our statement further as we ask you to approve their design and permit application. Our family has been property owners for 90 years in Orient in a house that sits on Poquatuck park four doors down from the Potters. It was our 7675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 7 family that provided the land needed to establish the park, thus it is sacred land for us and we are ever vigilant to the aesthetics. We are full time residents and business owners on Village Lane as well, so our interest is well vested in a positive village appropriate outcome. The Potters house belonged to a relative of my wife Leslie and her childhood memories of that house run deep and for many years. We know Orient, we know the land, the park, the village and what it means to protect and preserve all important historical significant aspects. This particular build is not one of them. It is about building an aesthetic, quality, safe and healthy structure within proper guidelines that will be part of our future community much like the assemblage of many of Orient's buildings. I have found myself before the Historic Review Board for a small deck railing replacement, documented from 1930 when built, only to be insulted, criticized and have a finding handed down by board members that included remarks by one lady that said `I just want to vote no because I can' and another gentleman that called my house `stupid' for having shutters on it even with the fact that the original build photo from 1931 showed it had shutters on it. The Historical Preservation remarks had nothing to even do with the deck railing application but were just arbitrary opinions that cost us all wasted time and money. My small deck replacement project went from $1,800 to well over $6,000 due to the lack of historical integrity and an over- abundance of redundant requests. Much was learned about how arbitrary the decision, opinion process was. I include this information as I do not want to see good, reasonable people turned away from our village and neighborhood just because the historical preservation can say no based on arbitrary opinions. We need to review the review process inputs and let the facts guide the process, not arbitrary, unqualified commentary or opinions. We don't see this as about the true historical structure and preservation. This project has been almost a year in review. Our neighbors deserve more from you and your support. Thank you for your time and attention and allowing us to voice our support for this project.' One other comment, being a neighbor and being on the park, and talking about the size of the houses, every house in our immediate area has been the original house with an addition behind it. Every house is much larger than the original home was. If you take a look at every one along the park, they all have additions on them and beautifully done and I think the Potters intention is the same. SARAH BURNES: Sarah Burnes, I am a resident. I am actually Jonathan and Regina's neighbor, one door down. We bought our house, 435 Skippers Lane, we bought our house in the spring of 2007. We renovated it 11 years later, this past year and I just want to say if mold and lead were a reason for demolishing a house, we should have demolished our house immediately. That is the state of those historic houses. And to the point of, we did just renovate our house, we added I think 11 square feet to a house that was between 1,400-1,500 hundred, so we had a tiny, little house, we added a tiny, little piece to it. That was all we needed. It was really important to us that the house, that we not just pass the Historic Preservation Commission but that our neighbors, many of whom lived in the house, there are a lot of our neighbors that actually lived in the house over the course of time. We wanted to be good community members. So the Historic Preservation Commission did actually ask us to make a change to our plans, they asked us that we make a bulkhead that was going to be visible to the street be wooden instead of metal and so we happily made that change. I just want to read one thing from their decision which is `properties in Orient, especially in the historic district continue to be sought after as both year- round and summer homes. Even in a turbulent real estate marker, the value of historic homes have generally not decreased and some have even increased over non-historic properties. This is the value for those of us who have abided by the decision making process have created in this 8675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 8 community. And to have, it's not fair for those of us that did abide by those decisions, to have this you know, from soup to nuts have this project be rejected. So I support the Historic Preservation's decision and I hope you do to. Thank you. DIANA WHITSIT: Good evening, Board members. My name is Diana Whitsit, I am a 16th generation of Terry family, living in the same house on the Main Road in Orient. So obviously I care very much about the historic nature of our town. And I don't really care whether the house is torn down or not because it's really ugly but I think the dilemma is setting a precedent, because if this house is allowed to be demolished, there are a lot of other houses in the historic district and in fact, all over Orient, that should be protected. So I think that decision is going to be a difficult one for you to make. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. BARRY (INAUDIBLE): My name is Barry (inaudible). I am a resident of Orient, formerly on Skippers Lane but now on Browns Hills. Professor of architectural history and former employee of the New York City's landmark commission. I do think that the issue lies largely on issues of procedure. It seems to me we have the historic district soon approaching it half century birthday in which it's possible to demolish a structure. I remind you that Mount Vernon was in deplorable state when it was decided by the Daughters of the American Revolution to restore it rather than to demolish it. If it is possible to demolish a structure and replace it by one significantly large, leave aside design issues, it seems to me that the historic district's death is really not far off. That is really the beginning of a slippery slope in which the historic district has absolutely no protections left. Thank you. MARK RIESENFELD: My name is Mark Riesenfeld and my wife Andrea and I are residents of Orient at 800 Village Lane. We purchased out home in the fall of 2018 and are in the process of restoring a 19th century historic structure. We have become supporters of the goals and objectives of the Orient Historic Preservation district as established by the National Register of Historic Places in 1976. Recently the town's Historic Preservation Commission denied the Potters-Brancato request to demolish and rebuild a home located at 675 Skippers Lane. Their denial of this request was based on a detailed analysis of the proposal in the context of town code section 170, requirements for change in historic structures in the Town of Southold. The HRC determination resolution of May 21, 2019 outlined the findings for the denial of a certificate of appropriateness. We urge the Town Board to affirm the well-reasoned and detailed decision of the Historic Preservation Commission and deny the appeal of their decision. Your action to support the HRC will make a statement that historic preservation in the Town of Southold and Orient is meaningful and supports the policies of the community character in Southold, well documented in the current comprehensive plan that you will be releasing shortly. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. DOUGLAS GRAY: Hello, my name is Douglas Gray and I am on the board of the Oysterponds Community Activities, an organization that runs Poquatuck Hall and also preserves all the monuments in Orient and East Marion. It just suddenly occurs to me to remind everybody that Skippers Lane is also where Oysterponds Activities, Poquatuck Hall, where we have had very, 9675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 9 very active summer. We have had children's programs, we have had cooking classes, we have had an amazing set of concerts this summer and it's also because of the monuments, it's where our parades stop at the corner of Skippers Lane. WE have the Memorial Day parade, we have the big 4th of July celebration and this is not, as I said, it's nice to hear from the neighbors of the house but this is actually what I call downtown Orient which my wife mocks me for that but this is a very, very public part of the town and it's not going to go unnoticed. So I, again, support with everyone else denying this appeal. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. Who else would like to address the Town Board? MANUELA SOARES: Good evening, my name is Manuela Soares. I have been asked to read these two letters from two Orient residents who are unable to be here this evening. The first is from Jane Friesen who lives at 690 Village Lane in Orient. `I am writing to put my family's opposition to the destruction of 675 Skippers Lane Orient, on the record. We have lived on Village Lane for over 22 years and are intimately connected to and protective of Orient's unique historical character. Like our neighbors, we see ourselves as the keepers of our very special historic district. It is a responsibility we take seriously. My husband and I have seen each iteration of the proposed new house for the Skippers Lane location and are frankly horrified by its scale, massing and design. As stated to the Historic Preservation Commission, we'd have no issue if this house was built at the edge of town outside the historic district. However, it is being proposed for one of the most visible locations in our historic center overlooking Poquatuck Park visible to all. We were heartened by the sensible decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission and trust that the Town Board will support its findings and the will of the Orient community. Many kind thanks for recording our position on this issue. We greatly appreciate the work that the Commission and Southold Township leadership does to keep our beautiful and historic North Fork villages intact.' Another letter is from Leslie Koch, 790 Uhl Lane Orient, `Dear Supervisor Russell and colleagues, I am writing to you as a resident and voter in Southold. More specifically I live in Orient Point. I am writing as a private citizen expressing my own views but I am also the President of the Oysterponds Historical Society. The Society previously expressed our views on the proposed demolition of this historic home in Orient Village's Historical District. I should also note that I was previously the President of the Trust for Governors Island, located in New York City where I was charged with the management of a 92 acre National Historic District, so I am very familiar both with federal guidelines on the demolition of designated historic resources as well as the roles and responsibilities of local preservation commissions. I am writing to add my voice to many fellow residents who object to the demolition of this property and its replacement with a large residence that is out of scale with the entire district. My concern, and that of many other people, is not only the impact of such an outsize property on the integrity of the Orient Village Historic District but the profoundly troubling precedent demolition and construction would set not only for this District but the protection of all historic resources in our collective Town of Southold. I understand and respect that the homeowners are within their rights to appeal to the Town Board. That said, I very much hope that you will not overturn the unanimous decision of the Town of Southold's Historic Preservation Commission who rejected the application for demolition and did not find that the homeowners or their consultants made a convincing case on the need to demolish the property. The Commission did their jobs as citizens of our town and I very much hope that you will respect and uphold their decision. I am sorry not to be at the hearing tonight but I've been called 10675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 10 away from home on business. Please uphold and respect the Historic Preservation Commission's decision. Sincerely, Leslie Koch' And speaking myself as a property owner in Orient and believer in historic district. Overturning the Board's decision really does set a dangerous precedent and I think we would be very hard pressed going forward to keep those guidelines in place. And when we consider those guidelines have been in place a very long time, every Orient resident who lives in that historic district has followed those regulations, so I don't understand why Dr's Potter and Brancato can't do the same. Thank you. LAUREL WATTS: Hi, my name is Laurel Watts, I am a neighbor at 495 Harbor River Road to the property at issue here and tonight I was surprised to hear them site hardship as a reason they might need to destroy the building because as noted before, as of two years ago there were families that enjoyed this building all summer long and neglecting the building, not taking care of it, not looking after the lawn so that it was (inaudible) so that the lawn looks like it had been and kind of boot strapping that I don't think is fair because it made an argument that it has an abandoned looking building or a building that has mold ought to be hardships that let you destroy it when you yourself have created that situation is not appropriate. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who else would like to address the Town Board? JONATHAN GILSON: Jonathan Gilson, I live next door to the Potter residence. I think these guys are being persecuted here. I have lived next to this house for 14 years, it's always been an eyesore and a dump. It has been owned by a family with multiple members and they were not there every day, they weren't there all summer long. They brought motor homes in to park on the lawn. There is nothing nice about this house or property. I have been in it many, many times. I think the Potters have a right to make the house right, you know? And if it were buyers (inaudible).... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Let me just interject, this is a public hearing, everybody has a right to be heard. MR. GILSON: Right, I don't want to be interrupted, I am speaking. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am reminding them this is a public hearing, everyone has a right to be heard. MR. GILSON: Correct. And I think that the doctors have a right to put up a home for their family and I am sure I have seen the plans like everyone else and by the way, when everybody says this giant house, how large is the house? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You need to direct your questions to the Town Board. MR. GILSON: Alright, how large do you think this house is? Does anybody know? COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: I believe it was about 3,300 square feet. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: The record that... 11675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 11 MR. GILSON: I am not disagreeing. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We can't have dialogue between the audience and the speaker. MR. GILSON: So maybe this requires some continued conversation with the Potters, you know, and their design (inaudible) but to say they can't have a house there and you can't knock down a structure that is hardly standing I think is crazy. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Thank you. TIM FROST: My name is Tim Frost, I live in Bay House, Orient. I have owned the house and cared for it for 35 years. I am reminded that one man's weed is another person's rose. There are a lot of opinions today and perhaps not that many facts. I actually looked at the website today that the town has and the 504 pages regarding this issue and a lot has been said, it's probably being resaid today but I think it's important for, to look at two things and the first is the appeal process, as the Supervisor noted is based on the record up to this issue. So all of this today is very useful commentary and it's commentary that a lot of it is in the record but I really think that it should be irrelevant in terms of the process for the board to hear this appeal. There are 488 pages of that record which was entered up to this issue. I have also looked through the July 16th memo which was the HPC appeal by Mr. Finnegan and he has reviewed many of those facts in his commentary today. He claims they are facts but I-am- also reminded of the statement that opinions are not facts. And frankly, a lot of them are ,baldly marshalled and macerated as facts. And I think it's important that we remember the distinction between opinions and facts. I guess I have two things that I would like to offer today, are more sort of steps forward in the future and the first is with respect to 675 Skippers and I am concerned that the applicant may be allowing his property as was mentioned today to fall into disrepair and I am not suggesting that this falling into disrepair is willingly or intentional but I believe it is important to remember or it is instructive to recall the applicant or agents allow the supporting columns to be removed and only be replaced back with temporary supports after it is pointed out to them. Also allow me to suggest that the applicant is certainly not doing itself a favor or engendering goodwill in the community by not maintaining the structure or even undertaking basic lawn care. Second, I would Pike to make a suggestion regarding the Historic Commission, in the interest of transparency and full disclosure in creating greater awareness for the commission, I suggest that the Town Board encourage the commission to do two things, one, as is required by chapter 170 of the town code they should update and publish a simple, clear and concise guideline of what, and not continue to rely on one that at this point is 10 years old. The point being it should be,a simple and concise and people should be made aware of it. The second is I would encourage the Town Board to require the commission to publish a definitive map of the historic districts in the town. There still continues to be much confusion as to what is in the,district and what isn't in the district and that should be done immediately. For those reasons and because of my own belief having been in Orient for 35 years and having become being changed by Orient rather than trying to,change it, I encourage the Town Board to deny the appeal. Thank you. JEAN MARKEL: Hello, my name is Jean Markel, I grew up in Southold down near Kenney's Beach and then by Harbor Lights. I left and came back with my husband about 15 years ago and 12675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 12 bought a house in Orient. Growing up in Southold and visiting Orient over the years but I didn't really know how special it was. Now, as a resident there and a registered voter, I do know. It's the North Fork once removed and it deserves to be preserved. So I am here to say intensely oppose the proposed demolition and fagade alteration at 675 Skippers Lane. I support the HPC's unanimous decision to deny the application, I consider the proposed replacement house completely out of character with size and design of Orient and I just want to say that the Skippers Lane house is one of Orients many visible and important historical buildings, proudly abutting Poquatuck Park, representing the modest residences of the early 201h century. If we allow its destruction, we allow for the unraveling of the historic district and invite a new age of horrible, lot hogging mega mansions to begin. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who would like to address the Town Board? UNIDENTIFIED: I forgot these letters that I forgot to turn in, eight letters, all who live in Orient who oppose this demolition. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: I assume they are in opposition? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: They will be a matter of the public record that the Town Board has access to. SCOTT STEIN: Good evening, I am Scott Stein, my wife and I live at 145 Skippers Lane in Orient for more than 15 years and I would just like to say two things, one, I think living in an historic district, in an historic home, in an historic hamlet brings with it responsibilities to abide by the laws and the traditions that go along with being in such a community and it seems to me that there's been a process that up until now has been carefully adhered to and I would urge the town to please follow the recommendation of the HPC. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who else would like to address the Town Board on this particular public hearing? COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: Can I ask a question? Do you know the actual size of the structure now and what(inaudible)... MR. FINNEGAN: Inaudible. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: What it is now and what it will be? MR. FINNEGAN: Well, what it will be is around 3,328, we are proposing. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: What you are,proposing, what is it now? MR. FINNEGAN: It's 1,880 square feet plus the garage is about 350 square feet. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: So you are about doubling it? I'm going to say this anyway, I've been involved with the (inaudible) historic commission since I've been on the board, almost six 13675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 13 years. One thing about we have one little incident where a gentleman built a structure in the rear of his yard but because it could be seen from a road that went alongside, they claimed that, you know, it was an intrusion on the historic district. It didn't go along with, it did not, it was completely different.' So I tend to think that it's more about what the place looks like as opposed to what the buildings actually are. Even though that this house you know, honestly if anyone drove by my house they would know that I am not an arbiter of good taste. Okay, and I think that this is the same thing. This has been there since I was a kid in that form. I can remember seeing it and I was just wondering if you would consider demolishing it and replacing it in kind? You know, the similar, instead of adding, doubling the size of it? Was that ever a consideration? I didn't see that in the record. LOUIS POTTERS: Hi, I am Louis Potters and my wife Lenore is here and we are the owners at 675. First of all, I want to thank everyone for their public comments. I think it's appreciated, we live in a democratic society. People are entitled to say what they think. The bottom line is that the house as designed and as we negotiated and worked with the HPC is in fact, in kind streetscape of the house that already exists, within a foot and a half of the current height along Skippers Lane. We actually found a water colored painting that was done of the house that was done by an artist who lives in Connecticut and with his permission we actually superimposed it as part of the record of what the new house will look like. The addition along the park is narrower than two houses next door, it is also shorter than the house, the two houses catty corner across the street and about the same house as the Gilson house at 505. The house itself will be 20.93 percent lot coverage which includes the garage, which is about 0.93 percent greater than code. The house itself in terms of setbacks along the park meets the requirements for setback. There is one setback on the corner of the house which is being retained in order to retain the current footprint of the house in order to retain the streetscape appearance of the house. It's two and a half feet short, so we are going to need zoning on the two and a half feet of space based on the current pre-existing location of the house that the historic commission asked us to maintain which is what we are doing. I think it's misleading to think of the house in terms of square feet. A lot of the square feet is used to maintain and rebuild the house in its current position as well as adding an addition. The staircase inside is out of code, there's no space to connect sort of the sections of the house with the addition so there is actually a fair amount of unused or will be unused square footage associated with the redesign. If the historic commission had allowed us to design at will, we could have built a house for much smaller square footage. But to add an addition to the house that allows us to build to current code and to expand the house as other houses along the park have been expanded, required some of that spacing. But I think it's important to also recognize that over the course of the process with the HPC, that we decreased the mass of the house by 18 percent, we brought the ridge lines down, we made the square footage of the house smaller and so there was a massing change of 18 percent that occurred during negotiations. A lot has been discussed about the process, I would only ask that the town review chapter 170 in terms of the due process that should have been afforded us in terms of our original application, the multiple meetings, the missed opportunities for the commission to actually walk through the house and the continued delays and delays of additional meetings. At every meeting that we had with them, we were negotiating in good faith with them to make changes and at every meeting we made changes to designs of the house. So to say that the final rendition of the house is you know, arbitrary to our neighbors in terms of scale and scope, I think it's important for them to recognize the decreasing in the massing effect, the fact that the lot 14675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 14 coverage is only going to be de minimus at less than one percent is an important fact of the record. I do also want to acknowledge the fact that we have spent about$10,000 to feed the trees and have the trees be pruned which hadn't been done in years so the idea of neglecting the property I think is a misnomer. The pillars on,the front of the house actually blew down and somebody had taken a picture-of that and we had a carpenter there in two weeks to put the 4x4 pillars up that you see in some of these pictures and that was repaired within the week, so to suggest that we are letting the house degrade is also not factually correct. The water was tested, the current well is out of code, the septic system is out of code and there's really no way that one could utilize the house as it currently exists. The last think I would like to say is that by the time that everything is removed from the house and what would be left would be a handful of 2x4's that would be erect that we would build a house around, there's no footings under the current foundation, so that the current foundation itself wouldn't support the reconstruction of the house as an in kind structure. In addition, we would have to remove so much of what exists that the building code would be greater than 50 percent, so I think all of those facts lead up to why we put in the petition for the application initially for demolition. We were not ambiguous, it was not our intent to you know, buy the house and tear it down. We had engineers and architects look at the house that are not part of the record who all concurred and agreed that the house is not stable structurally which hasn't been discussed today and that was even before we knew about the' footings on the foundation. So, I think it's important to the neighbors to understand that we used the Orient book of historic homes and looked at a number of details associated with construction of homes in .the village. If anybody wants to look in detail at what we are proposing which is really not part of our argument today but you recognize that those details were retained in the addition to the house while the original part of the house is literally being built with the same roofline and same streetscape that currently exists. We are even keeping the bilco basement doors, we are retaining the garage and what not. So, thank you. COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: Thank you. MR. FINNEGAN: Did that answer your question, Jim? COUNCILMAN DINIZIO: Well, it does, well, again, it's just that an enlargement that, I think maybe unnecessary. When you buy an old house, you know the ceiling is not going to be right, you know, all those things. The windows, don't have to be changed, and all that, it keeps the character of that particular land. This place is going to be seen on three sides. MR. FINNEGAN: I understand that but keep in mind that the only part of this house that the record confirms that is arguably historic is the streetscape side that is being completely replicated and that there is no evidence that any other feature of this house is historic. Even the back streetscape has any historic value, so when we go back, I would just echo the Supervisor's comments and the comments of those that reminded the Board that really was before you was ` that record below and while we respect, as I know you do, the comments of everybody that is here today and also respect the integrity of the historic district, the code, as a remind you, does not state that the mere fact that. a home exists within the boundaries of a historic district mandates that it can never be demolished. In fact, you have a code that sets forth a list of criteria for your commission to evaluate to determine whether it can be. And our position is, under the record before you, that those criteria have been established and with respect to this particular 15675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 15 structure, it should be demolished based on the record before you. There is no finding in the determination that speaks to any aspect of the structural integrity of this house. All the determination talks about is Orient in general and how the historic value of Orient homes are (inaudible) which no one disputes and everyone respects but this is a case by case analysis based on the structure that is part of this record. So I don't believe that the precedent is created when you are looking at a house that does not have historic value. If you rule and overturn the determination denying a certificate of appropriateness for demolition or destruction of a house that was historic, that's a different story. The record does not establish that here. So I thank you for your time and appreciate the comments of everybody. That's all we have. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who else would like to address the Town Board? Let me just say for the record, I actually read through the record (inaudible) Historic Preservation Commission right here, a little less than 500 pages. I didn't realize we had appointed to be a secretary. There's a couple of issues here, I just want to mention and to give you an idea of the difficulty this board is going to face in making a decision. I don't want to speak for the board but I have to presume given everything that was said tonight we are not going to be, prepared- to make a decision? COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: I would agree. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: First of all, someone mentioned the role of the Historic Preservation Commission, I think'the role there is probably to some extent subjective for a reason. Every board needs discretion, if you don't have it, then you don't need a board. You can just go to a recipe in the town code and they have difficult choices to make. The issue of community character is somewhat nebulous, however, I do believe if you read federal and state level, community character matters so if you follow the guidelines there, so I think that is a legitimate role of the board. I know there has been a lot of discussion as to whether they have the ability to look at mass of the home, I bet it might fall under the bailiwick of community character. However, that said, the preservation commission made.several recommendations along the way, , as if they were negotiating with the applicant without settling,,the first question which is can the house come down or can't it? And I think that's something this board is going to struggle with. now, I will be honest with the applicant, I read the record and I know you are on the record saying you like the historic district and wanted to live in a historic district but it would appear under the circumstances you just don't want to live in a historic house. I am not saying that to put him down because there is a lot of issues. There's scope and scale, I went and looked through inventory that's existing on many of the properties in Orient, particularly the house size, the total house size, the lot size and the scale is, very substantial. I will tell you the houses are very large relative to lot size however, they are historic in their entirety. That's the way they were built. So there's something to be said for that, whereas I think the whole ratio to lot size thing might not be as, I don't think you can probably use Village Lane as a template for decision ` making because that it appears as it did several years ago. Also, I don't know if everyone understands, there's a lot of references in the record with regard to additions that were made in the past. The Historic Preservation Commission prior to about 1998 I believe, was advisory. There was no mandatory component. So additions in those days didn't need the official approval of the HPC. They would be advisory as to whether they supported or rejected a proposal but ultimately it was the town code that decided that, not the committee at the time, that it's now a 16675 Skippers Lane Appeal August 13, 2019 page 16 commission. I want everyone to understand that. With that being said, I do have to say, it's a very difficult position. I appreciate the input that everybody gave today and that is something we are going to have to seriously consider on both sides of the equation, so but I would say I don't anticipate a decision tonight, it would likely be in two weeks. At least I am not prepared. Too much was said, too much to consider and I think we need to think about it very carefully before we take action. COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: The only thing I will say is I agree, I actually read at least 500 pages, there were 504 when I looked at the record and I do want to go back and look at it based on some of the comments made tonight just to make sure I understand what I read versus what was presented here tonight. So I don't want to vote tonight. JUSTICE EVANS: So we close the hearing and reserve decision for two weeks? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That is what I would recommend. COUNCILMAN RULAND: I would like to close the hearing and leave the record open for two weeks because people will see this on TV and may want to offer comment. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: But let me remind you, we have to be based on the record that happened in the HPC. COUNCILMAN RULAND: Everybody still has the right to be heard. COUNCILWOMAN DOHERTY: Alright, I just wanted... COUNCILMAN RULAND: Remember, we already have received a whole lot of written stuff at this point and maybe there is someone else, maybe there isn't. I don't think it's unreasonable to offer the opportunity, that is all. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And I would also point out procedurally, the Town Board has no obligation to hold a public hearing, I could have taken action and made decision based on the record but this board wanted to make sure that we provided every opportunity for everyone to be heard. So I don't see harm in following the suggestion of Councilman Ruland in the interest again of public participation. This hearing was closed at 5:57 PM, left open for written comment for two weeks. QYIAJ� Eli beth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk _ s RECEIVED Southold Town Board Elizabeth A Neville, MMC AUG 1 3 2019 Southold Town Clerk PO Box1179 Southold Town Clerk Southold, NY 11971 Subject : 675 Skippers Lane , Orient NY 11957 Please accept this letter of endorsement to support our good neighbor, Louis Potters and family in their pursuit,presentation and efforts to build a home that is by our measure legal, aesthetic, village appropriate and fitting to be situated along our view way as we too are located on the Park line just 4 house east . The discussion on what is historically appropriate and how it's determined is a lengthy and seems poorly defined. Our Village is actually an assemblage of structures that have been moved or relocated from many areas and even other towns. We site the Webb House, the Schoolhouse and our family home as just a few examples. Historical perspective or an assembly of pleasing aesthetics are just opinions . We have found the Potters,to be good stewards of this project that will beautify the area and NOT distract from Village Style aesthetics or effect the undocumented historical insignificance . 'As neighbors, we have voiced concerns to them on the initial build plan and have found that the Potters have been diligent and respectful with listening to our concerns (size and park view ) and have found them willing to be flexible and adjust their designs to the neighbors,neighborhood and build style. Please permit me to further quantify our statement further as we ask you to approve their design and permit application . Our Family has been property owners for 90 years in Orient in a house that sits on Poquatuck Park 4 doors down from the Potters . It was our family that provided the land needed to establish the park , thus its "sacred land"for us and we are ever vigilant to the aesthetics . We are full time residents and business owners on Village Lane, as well, so our interest is well vested in a positive Village appropriate outcome. The Potters house belonged to a relative of my wife Leslie and her childhood memories in that house run deep and for many years. We know Orient , We know the Land , The Park, The Village and what is means to protect and preserve all important Historical significant aspects . This particular build is not one of them. It is about building an aesthetic, quality, safe and healthy structure within proper guidelines that will be part of our future community much like the assemblage of many of Orient's buildings. I have found myself before the Historic Review Board for a small deck railing replacement documented from 1930 when built) only to be insulted , criticized and have a finding handed down by board members that included remarks by one lady that said" I just want to vote NO because "I can" and another gentleman call my house"stupid"for having shutters on it even with the fact that the original build photo from 1931 showed it had shutters on it . The Historical' Preservation remarks had nothing to even do with the deck railing application but were just arbitrary opinions that cost us all wasted time and money. My small deck replacement project went from $1,800 to well over$6,000 due to the lack of Historical Integrity and an over abundance of redundant requests. Much was learned about how arbitrary the decision , opinion process was . I include this information as I do not want to see good, reasonable people turned away from our Village and Neighborhood just because the Historical Preservation `Can say NO" based on arbitrary opinions.We need to review the review process inputs and let the facts guide - ,the process ,not arbitrary unqualified commentary or opinions. We don't see this as about true, Historical Structure and preservation . This project has been almost a year in review , Our neighbors deserve more from you and your support . Thank you for your time and attention and allowing us to voice our support for this project. Property Owners 1420 Village Lane , Orient Leslie Peyser Black Robert J Black Frederick-Peyser Jan Peyser Additional Property 1240 Village Lane , Orient ° Leslie Peyser Black Robert J Black Catherine M Black Phone contact 631-323-8083 Neville, Elizabeth From: Robert Hulsmann <r.hulsmann@yahoo.com> Sent:-= - Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7.03 PM �� To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: 675 Skippers Lane AUG 2 0 2019 1 do support the people who own the house to be able to knock it down and build their new home. In the plans It looks like a nice looking house that would fit Orient other then possibly being too big. Then ask them to make it a bit smaller. SOUth®ld Town Mrk Many of the people I see who oppose it the most have built modern homes as shown in the School House exhibit at the OHS, all which are totally not in the spirit of a farm community or historic community, but they are outside of the historic district so they were allowed to ruin what we have. Others (four along Skippers Lane and across the street) have put in tall hedges to block views. No one in the Historic District is limiting those Orient is beginning to look like the Hamptons But those people have money and do whatever they want So why deny the people who own that home. There plans are for a nice looking home, unlike the Mod houses that are going up all over the place Look at Oysterponds Lane a block away How many of those houses in the Historic District look historic One to be exact. Give them a permit to build a new house, perhaps a bit smaller Bob-Hulsmann 1290 Willow Terrace Lane Orient, NY 11957 ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i C � HE Twomey Lal hat m SHEA, KELLEY, DUEiIN & QUARTARARO, LLP Martin D.Finnegan Partner 631-727-2180,x-265 mfinnegan @z suffolklaw.com Thomas A.Twomey,Jr. (1945-2014) Stephen 8 Latham John F.Shea,III Christopher D Kelley David M.Dubin •. Jay P Quartararo t Petel M Mott Janice L Snead Anne Marie Goodale Bryan C Van Cott August 15, 2019 Kathryn Daili Laura I,Dunathan Patrick B.f=ife Martin D Finnegan Q Reza Ebrahimi Jeffrey W.Pagano o Via Electronic Delivery Bryan J.Drago Bernadette E.Tuthill Craig H Handler Honorable Scott A. Russell, Supervisor and Alexandra Halsey-storcn Melissa S Doris Members of the Town Board of the Town of Southold Katenna Gnnko 53095 Route 25 Lorraine Paceleo Terrence Russell P.O. Box 1179 Christi R.Bernard tQ Christina M Noon Southold,NY 11971-0959 OF COUNSEL Lisa Clare Kombnnk Re: Potters/Brancato Appeal Kevin M.Fox Kelly E.Kinrons 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Karen A.Hoeg Patricia J.Russell Jennifer P Nigro 4 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: .r NY x fn BAras t LL.M IN TAXATION 0 NYBNJBARS B �! NY,NJ&PA BARS I am writingb on behalf of the Applicants,Louis Potters and Lenore n NY,NJ&DOBARS Brancato,to renew their objection to the Public Hearing that was held on 4 NY,NJ farLBAAS August 13,2019 on their Appeal of the Historic Preservation Main WsOffice 33eSecond St. Commission's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the 'P.O. Box 9398 demolition of the existing house at 675 Skippers Lane. In addition,the Riverhead,NY 11901 Applicants vehemently object to the Town Board's resolution to keep the 631.727.211310 record open for another two weeks. suffolklaw.com As the Town Board acknowledged at the public hearing,your decision on the Potters/Brancato Appeal can only be based on the record of the proceeding below.Conducting a public hearing and accepting opinion testimony from witnesses was both unnecessary and prejudicial to the Applicants and has resulted in further delay of their Application. Any reliance by the Town Board on the public hearing testimony or subsequent written submissions is entirely improper and the acceptance of such testimony serves only to foster bias against the pending application.The :,� +.'., "`• ..,- r.>��, "y0. � 4'�•�> i� r�a,:ytn ��.:� ,�,^ .� ,�.;: r:7'. :� . 3 Supervisor Scott A. Russell August 15,2019 Page 2 Applicants are entitled to a timely decision based on the extensive evidence presented to the Historic Preservation Commission that unequivocally establishes the appropriateness of demolition under the criteria in Section 170-9 and 170-10 of the Town Code. Thank you for your consideration. ery truly ours, Martin . Finnegan MDF/as cc: William Duffy, Town Attorney � D PO Box 473 Orient NY 11957 August 14, 2019 To: The Southold Town Board Dear Board Members, I frilly support the unanimous decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission to reject the proposal to demolish the landmarked house at the end of Skipper's Lane and replace it with a home that would be out of scale with the historic district. In my opinion, permitting it to be demolished would mark the beginning of the end for all the historic districts in town, because there are few nineteenth century buildings without some issues like mold and lead paint which have to be addressed. All my friends who live in the historic district have been happy to do whatever restoration has been necessary for what they consider the privilege of living in one of the historic houses in a very desirable area of the village. Sincerely, Sylvia Newman D AUG 16 2019 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLO From: janefriesenjanefriesen@gmail.com a wti Subject: Fwd.August 13th Town Board Meeting:675 Skipper's Lane ®ate: August 8,2019 at 2 48 PM To: Charles Dean crdonent@gmail com Please read at the meeting if you can!I'm so sorry I can't be there I'm working down the list making calls RECEIVED ----------Forwarded message--------- From jane fr!esen<jane friesen@amail com> AUG 1 3 2019 Date,Thu,Aug 8,2019 at 2.44 PM Subject.August 13th Town Board Meeting,675 Skipper's Lane To <e neville@town southold ny us> Southold Town Clerk Dear Ms.Neville, I am writing to put my family's opposition to the destruction of 675 Skipper's Lane,Orient,on the record for next Tuesday's meeting.We have lived on Village Lane for over 22 years and are intimately connected to and protective of Orient's unique historical character Like our neighbors,we see ourselves as the keepers of our very special historic district. It is a responsibility we take seriously My husband and I have seen each iteration of the proposed new house for the Skipper's Lane location and are frankly horrified by its scale, massing and design As stated to the Historic Preservation Commission,we'd have no issue if this house was built at the edge of town outside the historic district However,it is being proposed for one of the most visible locations in our historic center overlooking Poquatuck Park visible to all We were heartened by the sensible decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission and trust that the Town Board will support its findings and the will of the Orient community. Many kind thanks for recording our position on this issue We greatly appreciate the work that the Commission and Southold Township leadership does to keep our beautiful and historic North Fork villages intact. Sincerely, Jane Friesen 690 Village Lane,Orient 917 407 1018 VED Neville, Elizabeth CI From: jane friesen <jane.fnesen@gmail.com> AUS 8 2019 Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 2:44 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: [SPAM] -August 13th Town Board Meeting: 675 Skipp r'SWthold Town Clerk Dear Ms. Neville, I am writing to put my family's opposition to the destruction of 675 Skipper's Lane, Orient, on the record for next Tuesday's meeting. We have lived on Village Lane for over 22 years and are intimately connected to and protective of Orient's unique historical character. Like our neighbors, we see ourselves as the keepers of our very special historic district. It is a responsibility we take seriously. My husband and I have seen each iteration of the proposed new house for the Skipper's Lane location and are frankly horrified by its scale, massing and design. As stated to the Historic Preservation Commission, we'd have no issue if this house was built at the edge of town outside the historic district. However, it is being proposed for one of the most visible locations in our historic center overlooking Poquatuck Park visible to all. We were heartened by the sensible decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission and trust that the Town Board will support its findings and the will of the Orient community. Many kind thanks for recording our position on this issue. We greatly appreciate the work that the Commission and Southold Township leadership does to keep our beautiful and historic North Fork villages intact. Sincerely, Jane Friesen 690 Village Lane, Orient 917 407 1018 i i Neville, Elizabeth From: Jeanne Markel <jm.markel@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 4:27 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth; Russell, Scott;William Ruland; Evans, Louisa; Doherty, Jill; Dinizio, James; Ghosio, Bob;Tomaszewski, Michelle; Standish, Lauren Subject: [SPAM] - 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Supervisor Russell and members of the Southold Town Board, I am writing to voice my intense opposition to the proposed demolition and facade alteration of the landmarked house at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. I support the Historic Preservation Commission's unanimous decision to deny the Potters/Brancato application. I consider the proposed replacement house completely out of character,both in size and design, with historic Orient. The Skippers Lane house is one of Orient's many visible and important historic buildings. It sits proudly abutting Poquatuck Park, representing the modest residences of the early 20th century. If we allow its destruction we allow for the unraveling of the historic district and invite a new age of horrible lot-hogging mega-mansions to begin. Please note that I am an Orient resident and voter. . Sincerely, C I Y G Jeanne Markel AUG 8 2019 100 Harbor Road Orient,NY Southold Town Clerk Neville, Elizabeth From: Sarah Burnes <sburnes@thegernertco.com> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 10:20 PM RECEIVE® To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: [SPAM] - Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient AUG 8 2019 Betty, Wanted to make sure you had this, too! SOUthold Town Clerk Thank you. sb Begin forwarded message: From: Sarah Burnes <sburnes(athegernertco.com> Subject: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Date: August 8, 2019 at 10:13:58 PM EDT To: scott.russell@town.south old.ny.us Cc: e.nevi Ile _town.south old.ny.us, rulandfarm(aJ_)yahoo.com, louisa.evans(d)town.south old.ny.us, fill.doherty(a�town.southold.ny.us, fames.dinizio(cD-town.southold.ny.us, bob.ghosio(a_town.south old.ny.us, michelle.tomaszewski(a�-town.southold.ny.us, lauren.stand ishQtown.south old.ny.us Dear Supervisor Russell, I called today and left a message about the proposed demolition of the house at 675 Skipper's Lane, Orient—two doors down from where I live at 435 Skipper's Lane. I support the unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission to deny said demolition and will be there on Tuesday to voice my concern about the Potters' plans. We have lived at 435 Skipper's Lane since May 2007 when our youngest (of three) was two- years-old. After living in the house for over ten years, we renovated it over the course of the last twelve months. We went before the Historic Commission, as the Potters have done, in advance of that renovation; the Commission asked if we would consider making a bulkhead door, now visible to the street, wooden (instead of metal). Of course we said we would do this—we were happy to comply with this request. So imagine my surprise—honestly, it's not too much to characterize this feeling as horror when I found out that not only did the Potters want to tear down the historically significant house that currently exists at 675, against the express unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission, but also that they want to build a house nearly twice as large. We, along with every other property owner in Orient, have complied with all regulations and laws to do with living in this national historic district. The town remains beautiful and historically significant because we have all done so, and it is a chief reason why people want to live and visit here. Orient is a special place. The Potters want to trade on the value that we have created without adhering to these regulations themselves. This is not right. Their plans will degrade the value and beauty the regulations are designed to protect. 1 The Historic Preservation Commission's report was extensive, fair, and well-reasoned. If you overturn their unanimous decision, it will open the floodgates to further demolitions and megamansions, and the very quality that makes this community so special and valuable to the whole of the North Fork will be ruined. Please don't let that happen to our village. The town must support the integrity of the Historic Preservation Committee's decision-making process. Best, Sarah Burnes 2 RECEIVED AUG 8 2019 August 8, 2019 Southold 'Down Clerk By Hand and Via Email: E.Neville(a),town.southold.ny.us Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk 53095 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re; Hearing with respect to Appeal of Determination of The Historic Presentation Commission for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,N.Y. (Resolution 2019-626) Dear Ms. Neville: I am writing in support of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato in their appeal of the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission determination with respect to their house at 675 Skippers Lane in Orient. Although I am neither an architect nor historian,I have a personal and professional interest in landmarking and historical preservation. My wife and I own a home in the Hamlet of Southold and we often visit Orient. I was surprised by the Commission's determination. I believe that in certain situations, strict preservation of landmarks is warranted. However, I believe that absent those special situations, there needs to be a balance between historic preservation and the rights of property owners to use and enjoy their properties in the context of our current society. Village Lane is a treasure and a highlight of the North Fork. The individual homes make Village Lane present like a series of photographs of a glorious period of history. The area around Skippers Lane and Harbor Road is different. The overriding architectural theme seems to be more flexible than that of Village Lane. Many of the homes, like 675 Skippers Lane, display a series of architecturally insignificant renovations that likely were aimed to correct problems and to make the houses more livable. To be clear - I truly appreciate Poquatuck Park and the surrounding homes but that area's distinctive character will not be compromised by the house proposed to be built at 675 Skippers Lane. I read the Historic Preservation Committee report. My sense is that the Committee recognizes the links to Orient of the original owner of 675 Skippers Lane, but as it stands today,like the majority of the neighboring houses, 675 Skippers Lane is very different from its original configuration. Ironically, the proposed design seems to be more in concert with the central theme of the immediate area than many of the other houses in that area. Recognizing these issues and the condition of the current house, the Commission's determination does not seem reasonable. My wife and I have known Drs. Potters and Brancato for over twenty years and welcomed the news that they bought a home on the North Fork. They are caring, family-oriented people who were drawn to Orient by all that makes it special. They purchased 675 Skippers Lane hoping to renovate the house to make it comfortable, particularly when hosting their family members and US 165369957 =,other visitors. Unfortunately, the obstacles posed by the house's current condition precluded renovation. The replacement house is respectful of Orient and is consistent with Orient's historic preservation ethos. I-believe that Drs. Potters and Brancato are entitled to a reasoned approach and I urge the Board to favorably consider their appeal. /arrenBernstein 2 US 165369957 Neville, Elizabeth From: Warren Bernstein <bernsteinwj@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 11:41 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Warren Bernstein Subject: [SPAM] - Resolution 2019-626 Attachments: [Untitled] (1).pdf Please see the attached letter i RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2019 August 13, 2019 Southold Town Clerk Dear Ms Neville, please add this letter to many others supporting the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. HPC has spent a great deal of time reviewing this situation. They gave petitioners several opportunities to modify their plans, retaining existing exteriors and adding modestly. They did not come lightly to the decision to deny petitioners application to tear down the existing building. Their decision needs to be respected and upheld. Petitioners should have known the house was preserved and looked into implications before they purchased. Their lawyer certainly knows a great deal about this. Buyer beware. Is Southold going to stand up to buyers who believe they can avoid rules made for the rest of us? There are many more such people heading our way. Will we become known as the Town that can be easily walked over? Dr. Brancato spoke with me after the last hearing. She was passionate about how much she feels and wants to preserve the spirit of the original owner/ builder. She told me the house has a great sense of healing that she can feel. I believed her. If the house is destroyed, how can she hope to enjoy that? She needs to ask for new plans that incorporate the existing house with an appropriate extension. would be very happy to support that. Please uphold the decision to deny the current application and suggest petitioners go back to the drawing board. Sincerely, Venetia Hands 255 South View Drive Orient RECEIVED Neville, Elizabeth From: Venetia Hands <venetia@handsconsulting.com> AUG 1 3 2019 Sent: Tuesday,August 13, 2019 1:51 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Southold Town Clerk Subject: 675 Skippers Lane hearing Dear Ms Neville, please add this letter to many others supporting the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. HPC has spent a great deal of time reviewing this situation.They gave petitioners several opportunities to modify their plans, retaining existing exteriors and adding modestly.They did not come lightly to the decision to deny petitioners application to tear down the existing building.Their decision needs to be respected and upheld. Petitioners should have known the house was preserved and looked into implications before they purchased.Their lawyer certainly knows a great deal about this. Buyer beware. Is Southold going to stand up to buyers who believe they can avoid rules made for the rest of us?There are many more such people heading our way. Will we become known as the Town that can be easily walked over? Dr. Brancato spoke with me after the last hearing. She was passionate about how much she feels and wants to preserve the spirit of the original owner/builder. She told me the house has a'great sense of healing that she can feel. I believed her. If the house is destroyed, how can she hope to enjoy that? She needs to ask for new plans that incorporate the existing house with an appropriate extension. I would be very happy to support that. Please uphold the decision to deny the current application and suggest petitioners go back to the drawing board. Sincerely, Venetia Hands 255 South View Drive Orient Sent from my iPhone 917-363-4757 ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2019 August 13, 2019 Southold Town Clerk Dear Ms Neville, please add this letter to many others supporting the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. HPC has spent a great deal of time reviewing this situation. They gave petitioners several opportunities to modify their plans, retaining existing exteriors and adding modestly. They did not come lightly to the decision to deny petitioners application to tear down the existing building. Their decision needs to be respected and upheld. Petitioners should have known the house was preserved and looked into implications before they purchased. Their lawyer certainly knows a great deal about this. Buyer beware. Is Southold going to stand up to buyers who believe they can avoid rules made for the rest of us? There are many more such people heading our way. Will we become known as the Town that can be easily walked over? Dr. Brancato spoke with me after the last hearing. She was passionate about how much she feels and wants to preserve the spirit of the original owner/ builder. She told me the house has a great sense of healing that she can feel. I believed her. If the house is destroyed, how can she hope to enjoy that? She needs to ask for new plans that incorporate the existing house with an appropriate extension. would be very happy to support that. Please uphold the decision to deny the current application and suggest petitioners go back to the drawing board. Sincerely, Venetia Hands 255 South View Drive Orient RECEIVED Neville, Elizabeth ABU '11 3 M From: Kathleen Kmet Becker <kkbkmet@optonline.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:48 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Southold Town Clerk Subject: 675Skippers Lane Proposal Good morning, My name is Kathleen Becker and I am a full time resident of Southold Town, live in Orient and vote here. The Historic Preservation Committee's unanimous decision regarding 675 Skippers Lane must be upheld. It was based on the tenants the Commission was formed to uphold.The town should respect and enforce their decision and not set a unfortunate precedent. The current owners bought a historic house in a Landmarked part of Orient.They should understand and respect that. Their desire to build a house that is out of scale and compatibility with the surrounding structures should not fly in the face of Landmark restrictions. One of the wonderful characteristics of,Southold Town is the uniqueness of its villages and hamlets.There are common concerns; water quality,traffic, infrastructure, zoning, development, etc. within the combined communities and the town reached out to the greater community to participate in the creation of a comprehensive plan for the Town. In addition, it also asked stakeholders to also focus on what their individual communities felt was unique to them. Mattituck is not Cutchogue nor Greenport. Peconic is not Orient. Orient is not Fisher's Island or Laurel. The objections to the 675 plans voiced by Orient hamlet residents is based on what many feel would not reflect or respect what is the historic essence of Orient's Landmark District. I respectfully and strongly urge that the Landmarks decision should not be overruled. Sincerely, Kathleen Becker 154 King Street Orient, NY Sent from my Whone ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i RECEIVED August 13, 2019 AUG 1 3 2019 To the Southold Town Board, Southold Town, Clerk My name is Kathleen Becker and I am a full time resident of Southold Town,.live in Orient and vote here. The Historic Preservation Committee's unanimous decision regarding 675 Skippers Lane must be upheld. it was based on the tenants the Commission was formed to uphold. The town should respect and enforce their decision and not set an unfortunate precedent. The current owners bought a historic house in a Landmarked part of Orient. They should understand and respect that. Their desire to build a house that is out of scale and compatibility with the surrounding structures should not fly in the face of Landmark restrictions. One of the wonderful characteristics of Southold Town is the uniqueness of its villages and hamlets. There are common concerns; water quality, traffic, infrastructure, zoning, development, etc. within the combined communities and the town reached out to the greater community to participate in the creation of a comprehensive plan for the Town. In addition, it also asked stakeholders to also focus on what their individual communities felt was unique to them. Mattituck is not Cutchogue nor Greenport. Peconic is not Orient. Orient is not Fisher's Island or Laurel. The objections to the 675 plans voiced by Orient hamlet residents is based on what many feel would not reflect or respect what is the historic essence of Orient's Landmark District. I respectfully and strongly urge that the Landmarks decision should not be overruled. Sincerely, Kathleen Becker 154 King Street Orient, NY RECEIVED Neville, Elizabeth From: Kate Bar-Tur <kbt336@gmail.com> AUG 1 3 2019 Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:26 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Southold Town Clerk Cc: Charles Dean Subject: [SPAM] -Tonight's Hearing Concerning 675 Skipper's Lane Certificate of Appropriateness Dear Southold Town Clerk, I have written to every Southold Town Board member about the hearing tonight on the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 675 Skipper's Lane. I would like to have my email to each board member be read aloud at the hearing. The email states as follows: Please vote against Dr. Louis Potter's and Lenore Brancato's application for a Certificate of Appropriateness will allow the property at 675 Skipper's Lane, a landmarked property to increased significantly in square feet and wipe out the original character of the building. This application is a blatant attempt to defy the unanimous, recent, decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission to deny their application. We moved to Orient precisely because we didn't want to live in a community in which historical houses are repeatedly replaced by three times the size of the existing structure. Dr. Potter and Dr. Brancalo are pushing to over-ride the decision of the Southold Historical Commission and the concerns of Orient residents to preserve our historical community and they will set a precedent for all new home buyer in Southold to demolish or otherwise change the character of historical houses to suit themselves and not to preserve the quality of our community. When purchasing property in the historical district all buyers are clearly made aware of the restrictions placed on historical property renovations. Why purchase this historical house and then pursue "exceptional" status? We purchased our home on Bay Lane with the full knowledge of that it is a historical property and must abide by the Southold Historical Commission's guidelines. We are moving to this community and will vote here to not change it's historical beauty. Please help to preserve Orient Village. Sincerely, Kate Bar-Tur and Amnon Bar-Tur kbartur@mac.com amnonBT@me.com 170 Bay Lane Orient,NY 11944 1 r Rudder, Lynda From: Standish, Lauren Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:22 AM To: Rudder, Lynda; Neville, Elizabeth RECEIVED Subject: FW: [SPAM] - 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Village, NY AUG 1 3 2019 - Southold Town Clerk, From: Kate Bar-Tur [mailto:kbt336@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:18 AM To: Russell, Scott<scottr@southoldtownny.gov>; William Ruland <rulandfarm@yahoo.com>; Doherty,Jill <jill.doherty@town.southold.ny.us>; Evans, Louisa <louisae@southoldtownny.gov>; Dinizio,James <james.dinizio@town.southold.ny.us>; bob.ghosia@town.southold.ny.us; Tomaszewski, Michelle <michellet@town.southold.ny.us>; Standish, Lauren <Lauren.Standish@town.southold.ny.us> Cc: Charles Dean <crdorient@gmail.com> Subject: [SPAM] - 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Village, NY Dear Southold Board Members, Please vote against Dr. Louis Potter's and Lenore Brancato's application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Their application asks that they be allowed to renovate/demolish the property at 675 Skipper's Lane, a landmarked property and to increase significantly in square feet of the house and to wipe out the original character of the building. This application is a blatant attempt to defy the unanimous, recent, decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission to deny their application. We moved to Orient precisely because we didn't want to live in a community in which historical houses are repeatedly replaced by three times the size of the existing structure. Dr. Potter and Dr. Brancalo are pushing to over-ride the decision of the Southold Historical Commission and the concerns of Orient residents to preserve our historical community and they will set a precedent for all new home buyer in Southold to demolish or otherwise change the character of historical houses to suit themselves and not to preserve the quality of our community. When purchasing property in the historical district all buyers are clearly made aware of the restrictions placed on historical property renovations. Why purchase this historical house and then pursue"exceptional" status? We purchased our home on Bay Lane with the full knowledge of that it is a historical property and must abide by the Southold Historical Commission's guidelines. We are moving to this community and will vote here to not change it's historical beauty. Please help to preserve Orient Village. Sincerely, i Kate Bar-Tur and Amnon Bar-Tur kbarturkmac.com amnonBTgme.com 170 Bay Lane Orient, NY 11944 (917) 299- 4021 z Neville, Elizabeth From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:19 PM To: 'Patrick.glieri@cseainc.org' Subject: RE: 1 shared Document [#INV-687008] with you on August 13, 2019 am sorry, but I cannot open any documents or attachments from anyone that I do not recognize their name. If this is any type of document that should be made a part of any official town file, please send the text of it within the e-mail. Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel.631765-1800,Ext. 228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 From: Patrick Naglieri [mailto:patrick.naalieriacseainc.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 11:30 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: 1 shared Document [#INV-687008] with you on August 13, 2019 M��1t YM1'k•��.if Yy.,•p.�xw e�u•�(Gw,~y A 5-x Y^^?Na �%•x From: Patrick Naglieri I Patrick.nag Ig ieri(a�cseainc:org ; Shared a new document with you, click on View Document ,August 13, 2019 1 r J Microsoft S/N DGCIGCIHLGFR Virus-free. www avast.com ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Neville, Elizabeth From: Microsoft Outlook To: 'Patrick glieri@cseainc.org' Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1.19 PM Subject: Undeliverable- RE- 1 shared Document [#INV-687008] with you on August 13, 2019 BN3NANI04FT022.mail.protection.outlook.corn rejected your message to the following e-mail addresses: 'Patrick.glieri(acseainc.org' (Patrick.glieri(d)cseainc.org) BN3NAM 04FT022.mai1.protection.outlook.com gave this error: [Patrick.glieri@cseainc.org]: Recipient address rejected: Access denied [BN3NAM04FT022.eop- NAM04.prod.protection.outlook.co m] A communication failure occurred during the delivery of this message. Please to resend the message later. If the problem continues, contact your helpdesk. Diagnostic hilcormat"oo "-,r zd'''ia.sG ,w` G"r'c:Cv . Generating server: iif/.E.s Patrick.glieri0tcseainc.org BN3ilAM041=1-022.iNail.protc.ctiori.o§,:ti,, k.,,t)�ii ; 550 :~3AJ [Patr"ick,glieri@cseainc.orcg]: Recipient address rejected: Access denied [1311311AM0I'1i 0Z 'TREy3i' P.$~r�3 ,;>s�t:� i n.outloolc.c om] -# Original message headers: Received. from S1;L 'tAT;.,( :_ o .,.. ry.us i 110.0.0. 191 ? by SHLDIM ILO.t .to,,m.soucrot.c. _ . . 0. IS] ) with magi id 14 . 03.0468 .000; Wed, 14 Aucr 2019 1j: _3: 10 From: "Nevill<a, 'E'li,z<.:;: -i;" E.Neville@town.southold.ny.us> To: °°'Patricic.gl_i_ert, :. .Patrick.glieri@cseainc.org: Subject. RE. J_ s'!,,areuv Dot' _ - i. ;, ,' i)3j wi-ril you on August 13, 2019 Thread-Topic, _ sF'ared 3'.: ':_;r_.. = liv`. ;}37008; ',,Tl_tiz you on August 1.3, 2019 Thread-Index: Date: Wed, 14 A %: ' Message-ID: <D8343E2BEE79C347BEEFDF35C032EClA27635BC2@SHLDMAILOl.town.southold.ny.us> References: :3C' '':_ "!_ ;� .i;'. .1'15A71?bC..1F7C@HP EIC. In-Reply-To: 366 3 iEBDAF%C@HP-PC> Accept--Language: et t-S Content-Lanvuage: er "S' X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Corr_eic tor: x-originating-i ;w. .i? Content Type. bounc:a_:% , 00M 7 DFETDF35C032ECIA27635BC2SHLDMAILOltowns_ type=tSI(lUlt pat i d.tt'r� ct:. .V;:+` 1 1 RECEIVED My name is Charles Dean. I have lived for 23 years at 295 Village Lane in a ho&G 1 3 2019 built in about 1700 located smack in the heart of Orient's Historic District. Southold Town Clerk I wonder why,for the third time,we have to attend a public hearing about this tear-down application. Section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code clearly states "Reviews (and that means reviews by the Southold Town Board of Historic Preservation Commission decisions) shall be conducted based on the same record that was before the Commission and using the criteria set forth in this chapter. " Anything said or presented at this hearing should be immaterial to your decision. But,with that said,let me also say: Orient is one of the jewels in Southold Town, a special place, one of the most historically intact villages in our town. History is important to those of us who have chosen to live there. The Oysterponds Historical Society is one of our central institutions—its annual summer party the social event of the year. We care about our village, its modest scale and its integrity. There are few places in America that have stayed as undefiled as Orient; we celebrate that and are committed to keeping overdevelopment out of our Historic District. In that effort we support the Southold Historic Preservation Commission, created by this board to insure that the historical integrity of our village, as well as that of other significant historical areas and buildings in Southold,will be protected. In two public hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission, many citizens of Orient spoke clearly against the application to demolish the house at 675 Skippers Lane. And many others have written letters to that effect. There was great relief around the Village when the Historic Preservation Commission recently voted unanimously to deny the application to demolish the house at 675 Skippers Lane and then to build a much larger house that was designed as a pastiche of inappropriate architectural styles found around the village—a house without any architectural or historic integrity. While the current owners have neglected to maintain their lawn this summer, resulting in their house looking abandoned and derelict,it had been lived in comfortably just two years ago. The house is structurally sound—the criteria for determining demolition--and could be restored to its former glory by a sensitive owner. Nobody likes the asbestos shingles, so of course remove them and clad the house in beautiful cedar shingles. Do whatever is needed inside—remodel the kitchen and the baths,open up spaces that seem cramped. The house could easily be one of the most beautiful homes in Orient if only its owners would love it and care for it. I urge you to support the Southold Historic Preservation Commission's unanimous decision to deny the application of Dr. Potters and Dr. Brancato to demolish their house. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of our village depends on your decision. If you emasculate the Historic Preservation Commission,there will be no institution to prevent our beautiful, beloved Orient from being Hamptonized. RECEIVED Southold Town Board Elizabeth A Neville, MMC AUG 1 3 2019 Southold Town Clerk PO Box-1179 Southold, NY 11971 Southold Town Clerk Subject : 675 Skippers Lane , Orient NY 11957 Please accept this letter of endorsement to support our good neighbor, Louis Potters and family in their pursuit,presentation and efforts to build a home that is by our measure legal, aesthetic, village appropriate and fitting to be situated along our view way as we too are located on the Park line just 4 house east . The discussion on what is historically appropriate and how it's determined is a lengthy and seems poorly defined. Our Village is actually an assemblage of structures that have been moved or relocated from many areas and even other towns. We site the Webb House, the Schoolhouse and our family home as just a few examples. Historical perspective or an assembly of pleasing aesthetics are just opinions . We have found the Potters to be good stewards of this project that will beautify the area and NOT distract from Village Style aesthetics or effect the undocumented historical insignificance . As neighbors, we have voiced concerns to them on the initial build plan and have found that the Potters have been diligent and respectful with listening to our concerns (size and park view) and have found them willing to be flexible and adjust their designs to the neighbors,neighborhood and build style. Please permit me to further quantify our statement further as we ask you to approve their design and permit application . Our Family has been property owners for 90 years in Orient in a house that sits on Poquatuck Park 4 doors down from the Potters . It was our family that provided the land needed to establish the park , thus its "sacred land"for us and we are ever vigilant to the aesthetics . We are full time residents and business owners on Village Lane, as well, so our interest is well vested in a positive Village appropriate outcome The Potters house belonged to a relative of my wife Leslie and her childhood memories in that house run deep and for many years. We know Orient , We know the Land , The Park, The Village and what is means to protect and preserve all important Historical significant aspects . This particular build is not one of them. It is about building an aesthetic, quality, safe and healthy structure within proper guidelines that will be part of our future community much like the assemblage of many of Orient's buildings. I have found myself before the Historic Review Board for a small deck railing replacement documented from 1930 when built) only to be insulted , criticized and have a finding handed down by board members that included remarks by one lady that said " I just want to vote NO because"I can" and another gentleman call my house"stupid"for having shutters on it even with the fact that the original build photo from 1931 showed it had shutters on it . The Historical Preservation remarks had nothing to even do with the deck railing application but were just arbitrary opinions that cost us all wasted time and money. My small deck replacement project went from $1,800 to well over$6,000 due to the lack of Historical Integrity and an over abundance of redundant requests. Much was learned about how arbitrary the decision , opinion process was . I include this information as I do not want to see good, reasonable people turned away from our Village and Neighborhood just because the Historical Preservation `Can say NO" based on arbitrary opinions.We need to review the review process inputs and let the facts guide the process ,not arbitrary unqualified commentary or opinions. We don't see this as about true Historical Structure and preservation . This project has been almost a year in review , Our neighbors deserve more from you and your support . Thank you for your time and attention and allowing us to voice our support for this project. Property Owners 1420 Village Lane , Orient Leslie Peyser Black Robert J Black Frederick Peyser Jan Peyser Additional Property 1240 Village Lane , Orient Leslie Peyser Black Robert J Black Catherine M Black Phone contact 631-323-8083 RECEIVED From: Jeanne Markel jm.markei@gmaii.com AUG 1 3 20191 Subject: 675 Skippers Lane,Orient � ? Date: August 8,2019 at 4:26 PM To: e.neville@town.southoid.ny.us, scott.russell@town.southold.ny.us, rulandfarm@yahoo.com, l0uis5.6116Fffwt4s, jill.doherty@town.southold.ny.us, james.dinizio@town.southold.ny.us, bob.ghosio@town.southold.ny.us, michelle.tomaszewski@town.southold.ny.us, lauren.standish@town.southold.ny.us Bcc: Charles Dean crdorient@gmail.com, Sarah Burnes sburnes@thegernertco.com Dear Supervisor Russell and members of the Southold Town Board, I am writing to voice my intense opposition to the proposed demolition and facade alteration of the landmarked house at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. support the Historic Preservation Commission's unanimous decision to deny the Potters/Brancato application. I consider the proposed replacement house completely out of character, both in size and design, with historic Orient. The Skippers Lane house is one of Orient's many visible and important historic buildings. It sits proudly abutting Poquatuck Park, representing the modest residences of the early 20th century. If we allow its destruction we allow for the unraveling of the historic district and invite a new age of horrible lot-hogging mega-mansions to begin. Please note that I am an Orient resident and voter. Sincerely, Jeanne Markel 100 Harbor Road Orient, NY r RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2019 Southold Town Clerk August 12, 2019 Southold Town Board 53095 Rte. 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Rachel Feinstein and John Currin 745 King Street Orient Village, NY 11957 Dear Southold Town Commissioners, We are writing once again to strongly object to the proposal to demolish the house at the corner of Skippers Lane and State Street (backing on Poquatuck Park), and to replace it with a new, much larger structure. We ask that you uphold the recent, unanimous decision of the Orient Historical Preservation Commission to deny the variance applied for by the new owners of 675 Skippers Lane. Overriding such a carefully considered decision —in the face of huge and sustained opposition by so many Orient residents—would set a dangerous precedent and would nullify the whole point of having such a historic district. The charm and scale of Orient is in your capable hands, and we hope you will vote against the proposal as it is contrary to what you have maintained so wonderfully thus far within the Orient Historic District. Regards, Rachel Feinstein and John Currin RECEIVED August 12,2019 AU G 1 3 2019 Southold Town Board 53095 Rte.25 PO Box 1179 Southold Town Clerk Southold,NY 11971 Lisa Yuskavage Matvey Levenstein 330 Maple Lane Orient,NY 11957 Dear Southold Town Commissioners, We are writing to strongly object to the proposal to demolish the house at the corner of Skippers Lane and State Street (backing on Poquatuck Park),and to replace it with a new structure. Bulldozing a historic building within the Orient Historic District — in order to construct a new home with nearly twice the original square footage on such a small lot — is not in keeping with the character of this village. As Orient residents,we are all committed to keeping the distinctive personality of this tiny historic hamlet thriving.We would ask the Commission to honor the major objections of so many Orient residents,and that they insist our neighbors lovingly restore and renovate their Orient home in keeping with the aesthetic and the size and spirit of the existing 2000-sq-ft historic structure they purchased. The corner lot of 675 Skippers Lane is charming because of the proper relationship of the existing structure to the size of the lot,and the fact that it borders the public land of Poquatuck Park means that the entire village will be affected by any changes to this lot. Furthermore,allowing a variance such as this proposal would set an alarming precedent that stands to permit anyone with the funds available to rip apart the historic architecture this community is built upon. We object to an outright demolition of this historic building and sincerely hope that the owners can work with the commission to find a harmonious solution more aligned with the character of this beautiful place that we love. Since the preservation of the charm and scale of Orient is in your capable hands,we hope you will vote against it as the proposal is contrary to what you have upheld so wonderfully thus far within the Orient Historic District. We support the unanimous decision of the Orient Historical Preservation Commission to protect the existing house at 675 Skippers Lane and strongly oppose the proposed new build. With appreciation, Lisa Yuskavage Matvey Levenstein RECEIVED AUG 1 3 2019 July 16, 2019 Southold Town Clerk Dear Southold Town Board I have been attending all of the public hearings concerning the proposed tear down of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. And I am appalled at the time wasted on issues that do not concern this commission. Case in point: It was established that this house would be a tear down from the beginning. The Potters bought this property with that in mind. That has been established . During all of the hearings, their architect and now an engineer keep on bringing up what is wrong with the interior. This is a smoke screen designed to add up all the reasons why 675 Skippers Lane should be demolished . Permit me to count the ways; 1. Mold 2. Rot 3. Window replacements 4. Shingle replacements 5 Aluminum window frames and the list goes on........ These items are all fixable. / am the owner of 1000 Village Lane which houses Orient's post office, a retail shop and an apt. There is also a barn in the back. All of these spaces have had mold, structural rot, dissolving shingles and window problems. And they have all been addressed and fixed. What was filled with mold was removed and cleaned. and replaced with new walls. What footings were rotted were removed, replaced and the buildings were then put on a poured cement foundation including the barn. The Potters and their architect are proposing a tear down which will enable them to build an unseemly structure by using exiting houses that did what A P they wanted before this commission was established is absurd. This commission was established in 1976 to preserve and save the uniqueness of our village and once you allow one tear down we will lose the village of Orient. If you allow this landmark to be demolished so that present owners can build what is currently referred as a Mac Mansion, then you have duly taken away any power the Historic Commission has. l ask once again, why are you wasting everyone's time? And if the commission has no power why have you as a town formed it? Thank you for your consideration, Joan Turturro 25500 Main Road Orient, NY 11957 RECEIVED August 13, 2019 AUG 1 3 2019 southold Town Clerk To the Southold Town Board Further to recent developments, Louis and I would like to reiterate our objections to the proposed new building at 675 Skippers Lane. We support the unanimous decision of the Orient Historical Preservation Commission to protect the existing house at 675 Skippers. Alas we cannot be at the hearing'this afternoon, but you have our permission to print this email or forward on to appropriate officials. Regards, Samantha and Louis Yoh Village Lane Orient, New York 11957 RECEIVE® AUG 1 3 2019 August 13,2019 790 Uhl Lane Southold Town Clerk Orient NY 11957 Mr.Scott Russell and Southold Town Board Members PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Re:Hearing Today on 675 Skippers Lane,Orient Dear Supervisor Russell and colleagues I am writing to you as a resident and voter in Southold. More specifically I live in Orient Point. I am writing as a private citizen expressing my own views but I am also the President of the Oysterponds Historical Society. The Society previously expressed our views on the proposed demolition of this historic home in Orient Village's Historical District. I should also note that I was previously the President of the Trust for Governors Island,located in New York City where I was charged with the management of a 92 acre National Historic District so I am very familiar both with Federal guidelines on the demolition of designated historic resources as well as the roles and responsibilities of local preservation commissions. I am writing to add my voice to many fellow residents who object to the demolition of this property and its replacement with a large residence that is out of scale with the entire district. My concern,and that of many other people,is not only the impact of such an outsize property on the integrity of the Orient Village Historic District but the profoundly troubling precedent demolition and construction would set not only for this District,but the protection of all historic resources in our collective town of Southold. I understand and respect that the homeowners are within their rights to appeal to the Town Board. That said,I very much hope that you will not overturn the unanimous decision of the Town of Southold's Historic Preservation Commission who refected the application for demolition and did not find that the homeowners or their consultants made a convincing case on the need to demolish the property. The Commission did their jobs as citizens of our town and I very much hope that you will respect and uphold their decision. I am sorry not to be at the hearing tonight but I've been called away from home on business. Please uphold and respect the Historic Preservation Commission's decision Sincerely, Leslie Koch August 13,2019 DECEIVED Southold Town Board Members AUG 1 3 2019 For the public record Southold Town Clerk The Orient Association Board of Directors has several concerns about the hearing today appealing the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the 675 Skippers Lane matter. Our comments are the following. • The Historic District in Orient is the largest such district in Southold Town. It has been recognized by the Federal and State governments since 1976 in the National Register of Historic Places. New development and additions to existing structures are regulated primarily through the Town's own Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC") as per Southold Town Code section 170. • The Historic Preservation Commission is a commission appointed by the Town Board comprised of professionals well versed in design, construction, and historic preservation principles. • After several site visits and a thorough and careful review of all of the information about the proposed changes to 675 Skippers Lane in Orient, the Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to reject the proposal to demolish the existing home and replace it with a new significantly larger home. • The Town Board should accept and support the HPC decision and emphasize that continued protections will be supported in the historic districts of Southold Town. In conclusion,this Civic Association supports the unanimous decision of the Historic Preservation Commission and urges the Town Board to deny the appeal based on the HPC findings. This is a crucial matter of public process and community support for historic preservation in Southold and Orient without comment on the merits of the 675 Skippers application. Sherry Thomas Executive Committee Member Orient Association �•_- , l 10 Doroski, Bonnie From: Tomaszewski, Michelle Sent: Tuesday,August 13, 2019 10:21 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth; Rudder, Lynda; Doroski, Bonnie Subject: FW: [SPAM] - Re: Hearing on 675 Skippers Lane, Orient For the public hearing file. Thank you, RECEIVED �cl�elle Michelle L. Tomaszewski AUG 1 3 2019 Secretarial Assistant Southold Town Supervisor's Office Phone: 631-765-1889 Fax: 631-765-1823 Southold T'®wrD Clerk From: Doug Gray [mailto:douglas@Ikdg.com] Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 8:58 AM To:Tomaszewski, Michelle<michellet town.southold.ny.us> Subject: [SPAM] - Re: Hearing on 675 Skippers Lane, Orient August 13, 2019 PO Box 335 Orient NY 11957 Mr. Scott Russell Southold Town Board Members PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Re: Hearing on 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Supervisor Russell and Board Members, Although I serve as a board member of the Oysterponds Community Activities (dedicated to the preservation of Poquatuck Hall on Skipper's Lane), I am writing as a private citizen expressing my own views on the proposal to demolish an historic home in Orient Village's Historical District. In my professional career as a theatre consultant, I have planned and/or supervised half a dozen projects involving the renovation of historic buildings. Due diligence, inspections, thoughtful planning and realistic expectations are part of the process before acquiring a property and beginning a renovation. To simply purchase and demolish an historic building negates the very existence of the established Orient Village Historic District. There was a unanimous decision of the Town of Southold's Historic Preservation Commission to reject this proposed demolition. If a large, out-of-scale residence is constructed in this sensitive location within the Historic District, a dangerous precedent will have been established for anyone wishing to defy the protections of all historic resources in the Town of Southold. Please do not overrule your own Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. 1 Thank you for your time and consideration Douglas Gray PO Box 335 Orient NY 11957 5 "Ideas are easy. Implementation is everything" Douglas Gray Gray Matters Presents.com 917.678.6430 z Rudder, Lynda From: Standish, Lauren Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 8:05 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Cc: Rudder, Lynda Subject: FW: 675 Skippers Lane From: Courtney Hoblock [mailto:ecmny@optonline.net] Sent:Thursday, August 08, 2019 3:57 PM To: Russell, Scott<scottr@southoldtownny.gov>; William Ruland <rulandfarm@yahoo.com>; Evans, Louisa <louisae@southoldtownny.gov>; Doherty,Jill <jill.doherty@town.southold.ny.us>; Dinizio,James <james.dinizio@town.southold.ny.us>; Ghosio, Bob<bob.ghosio@town.southold.ny.us>;Tomaszewski, Michelle <michellet@town.southold.ny.us>; Standish, Lauren <Lauren.Standish@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane Courtney Hoblock, Principal ECMNY Architectural Hardware, Ltd. 32 Water Street Sag Harbor,NY 11963 Tel 631 725 8090 fax 631 725 8337 Subject: 675 Skippers Lane Dear All,, As a full time resident of Orient, residing at 530 Orchard Street, I would like to go on record as agreeing with all what Charles Dean pointed out in his eloquent and well thought out letter to the commission dated 16:April 2019. I believe allowing Mr Potter to destroy an existing structure in the village and replace it with one well over its present size will set a terrible precedent that will then be next to impossible to avoid going forward. For thirty years before moving to Orient some seven years ago I lived in the village of Sag Harbor. And though we had a very strict architectural review board that has kept the village's character essentially in tact, the fight is ongoing and the results of development just outside the village is grossly apparent for what can best be described as excessive overbuilding at all levels, as is much of the Hamptons by now. I still maintain an office in Sag Harbor but friends there tell me that I left just at the right time, that things have only gotten worse, that the overbuilding is so often beyond excessive. 1 0 Though the South Fork overbuilding is still a good distance from our shores on the North Fork I believe it has already begun, and it will be inevitable. The seeds have been planted and Orient is now on the radar as `Sag' once was twenty or so years ago as `still untouched', ` still a place to find solace and respite', `still a great Deal.' We need to protect the simplicity of our little hamlet now, and that begins by nipping in the bud any efforts by newcomers to outsize existing houses or impose new designs that clash with existing norms, both of which are apparent with Mr Potter's submissions...... At one of the last meetings I attended about this application I believe Cliff Cohen described his experience of arriving as a new Orient homeowner best. He approached the podium and stated that when he and his wife, Leslie, bought their house on Orchard Street the first thing they did was approach the historic review board to seek guidance in learning how to best preserve the character of the home they considered themselves now the caretakers of. I also own a historic home on a Orchard Street with creaking floors, a drafty kitchen and rattling windows. I consider myself the present caretaker of this village home and I am happy to maintain it exactly as it is for as long as I can to preserve the town character. Though Mr Potter's home is not necessarily historic, it is still a modest little home in a modest little village by the sea that has stood there for close to a century. Feel free to gut it and add every modern convenience there is, but to tear it down and build something much larger and straight out of a Hamptons playbook is not what the age old character of this town deserves, or should ever allow. Kind regards, Courtney Hoblock 530 Orchard Street Orient,NY Courtney Hoblock, Principal ECMNY Architectural Hardware, Ltd. 32 Water Street Sag Harbor,NY 11963 Tel 631 725 8090 fax 631 725 8337 Sent from my iPad ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 D RECEIVED August 9, 2019 AUG 9 2019 Southold Town Board 53095 NY-25 Southold Town ��or Southold, NY 11971 Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Town Board Members, We are writing to ask you to reject an appeal of the decision of the Southold Historic Commission,which denied the property owner's proposal to change this building. We understand that this appeal will be heard by you on August 13, 2019. Although we do not live within the historic district of Orient, it was this history and character which drew us to the area.While we understand there should be some leeway for homeowners, it should be limited'to upgrades that do not change the building envelope or character,such as window upgrades.A drastic change as is being proposed here should be simply be rejected. Our request is that you do not go down the path of negotiating design adjustments or mitigations with the property owners as a kind of compromise, that will still allow them to tear down and replace with a much larger structure. While compromise negotiations may seem on face to be a reasonable, it is a slippery approach that muddies the waters for future change applications, and in our view is unfair to other property owners who maintain compliance voluntarily. As others have pointed out, the houses of Orient,simple as they are,together hold the spirit of the area and provide a deep sense of place and history. We hope you will use your position to ensure that the spirit and history of the village is not slowly eroded. Sincerely, Paul Gertner PO Box 175 2095 Youngs Road Orient, NY 11957 8/6/2019 AUG - 9019 Dear Town Board, = Southold Town-d6rk I am writing to protest the Potter's plan to tear down the cottage at 675 Skipper's Lane and replace it with a much larger dwelling. I chose to buy a home in Orient because it was a community that respected history and sought to protect the buildings and environment that were emblematic of that history. It was a town that wanted to reasonably and responsibly oversee development so as not to replicate the McMansions that have cropped up on the South Fork. I object to the Potter's plans on two counts.The first is that the building they want to demolish is a historic building within a historic district, and sits on a corner lot abutting Poquatuck Park, making it highly visible and part of the public landscape.Tearing it down would send a very strong message about the town's position regarding "reasonable" development. The second is that what the Potters want to erect in its stead, a 3,400 square foot house rather than 1,850 square foot cottage, is disproportionate to the lot and the surrounding homes. I live at 220 Skipper's Lane and when I bought my house, I discovered that my kitchen, a newer add on to the original structure was in terrible disrepair. As I contemplated its renovation, I tried hard to pay attention to both the scale and style of the original house, especially knowing that it fell within the historic district. I have watched my neighbors on the street,Jane and Tony Asch, Scott Stein and Andrea Schultz,Sarah Burnes and Sebastian Heath take the same care as they have upgraded their homes. The Potter's plans, which I saw when I attended both a working meeting of the Historic Preservation Committee and a Zoning Board meeting, do not similarly address these issues. I do not begrudge the Potters their right to build a home for themselves and their family, but there are other properties,other parts of Orient,that could better accommodate their plans without upsetting the balance in our historic district. Sincerely, L Stille 220 Skipper's Lane, Orient, NY 11957 TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ---------------------------------------------------------X RECEIVE® In the Matter of the Appeal of AUG 1 3 2019 LOUIS POTTERS AND LENORE BRANCATO From the Determination of the Southold Town Southold Torn Clerk Historic Preservation Commission dated May 21, 2019 denying a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Section 170-9 of The Town Code of the Town of Southold For the Demolition of the Existing House at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York ---------------------------------------------------------X MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF APPLICANTS, LOUIS POTTERS AND LENORE BRANCATO, IN SUPPORT OF HARDSHIP RELIEF PURSUANT TO SECTION 170-10 OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO, LLP Attorneys for Applicants By: Martin D. Finnegan, Esq. 56340 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 (631) 727-2180 Dated: August 13, 2019 a RECEED IV Neville, Elizabeth ' =UGFrom: Jonathan Gilson <jonathangilson@me.com>Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 6:20 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth lerk Subject: 675 Skippers Lane Orient, N.Y, We are the owners of 505 Skippers Lane in Orient Village. Our home is located adjacent to Lenore and Louis's property. The Potters, already being good neighbors, have shared their architectural plans and renderings with us.After careful review we believe it is their intent to design and build a home that will respect the character and historical values of our village.The Potters will be a welcome asset to our community.We are looking forward to seeing a beautiful structure as opposed the eyesore that has been next door to us for the past fifteen years. Best Regards, Regina Ebel Gilson Jonathan Gilson y r t Sent from my iPhone ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open.attachmentsor click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. l 3 RECEI WED AUG 6 2018 SOuthold wn Cl-erk� . D RECEIVE® JL 3 0 209 July 30, 2019 Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 NY-25 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Let's protect 675 Skippers Lane in Orient To Members of the Town Board: As the owner of home that lies within Orient's national historic district, I write to implore you to uphold the unanimous vote of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission to,deny permission to the owner of the home at 675 Skippers Lane — also in the district — to demolish it and replace it with one that is an astonishing 57 percent larger. If the owner were to be allowed to proceed with his brazen plan, it would render meaningless the designation of a neighborhood as a national historic district. That must not happen., Sincerely, ,A0�, John Henry 2360 Village Lane/P.O. Box 284 Orient, NY 11957 (646-483-2429; johnhenry2360@yahoo.com i #0002377860 STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Kimberly Gersic of Mattituck,in said county,being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES ,a weekly newspaper,published at Mattituck,in the Town of Southold,County of Suffolk and State of New York,and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks(s),successfully commencing on 07/25/2019 . Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this day of 2615 . CHRISTINA VOLINSKt NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No 01V06106050 Qualified in Suffolk County My Commission Expires February 28,2020 i • TYPESET- Fri Jul 19 13 14.27 EDT 2019 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lic hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall,53095 Main Road,Southold, New York on 1lresday,August 13,2019 at 4:30 P.M.upon the Appeal Review Applica- tion of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato, who pursuant to Section 170-11 of the South- old Town Code,seek relief from the Historic Preservation Commission's Denial of a Cer- tificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a conforming single-family residence on property on parcel SCTM#1000-24-2-1 lo- cated at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, New York,and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in the Suffolk Times newspaper not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty(30)days prior to such hear- ing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Dated-July 16,2019 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth A.Neville Southold Town Clerk 2377860 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold,New York being duly sworn, says that on the 19th day of Jul , 2019, a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York and on the Town Website: www.southoldtowlmy.gov Re: Legal Notice of Public Hearing on the Appeal Review Application of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato seeking relief from Historic Preservation Commission's Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness on SCTM#1000-24-2-1 675 Skipper's Lane, Orient,New York 11939 at 4:30PM on Tuesday, August 13, 2019. lizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Sworn before me t&ut 8th day of , 2019 rz;6u 11 4- M otary Public LYNDA M.RUDDER t4otary public,state of Newyork No.0I RU6020932 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires March 8,2QOL. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall,53095 Main Road, Southold,New York on Tuesday, August 13,2019 at 4:30 P.M. upon the Appeal Review Application of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato, who pursuant to Section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code, seek relief from the Historic Preservation Commission's Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a conforming single-family residence on property on parcel SCTM# 1000-24-2-1 located at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in the Suffolk Times newspaper not less than ten(10) days nor more than thirty (3 0) days prior to such hearing and to notify,the applicant by first class mail. Dated: July 16, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON JULY 25, 2019 AND FORWARD ONE (1)AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, P.O. Box 1179, Southold,New York 11971 Copies to: The Suffolk Times Town Clerk Bulletin Board Town Board Town Website Town Attorney M. Finnegan, Esq. Historic Preservation Commission Louis Potters &Lenore Brancato Neville, Elizabeth From: Reisenberg, Lloyd Sent: Friday,July 19, 2019 2:27 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: RE: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient All set Betty. Lloyd H. Relsenberg Network and Systems Administrator Town of Southold, New York www.southoldtownny.aov Ilo_ydr@southoldtownny.qov 0: 631-765-18911 M:631-879-1554 I F: 631-765-5178 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s) Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication. From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Friday,July 19, 2019 12:31 PM To: 'legals@timesreview.com'<legaly@timesreview.com>; Neville, Elizabeth <E.Nevil le@town.southold.ny.us>; Doherty, Jill<iill.doherty@town.southold.nv.us>; Doroski, Bonnie<Bonnie.Doroski@town.southold.ny.us>; Duffy, Bill <billd@southoldtownny.gov>; Ghosio, Bob<bob.ehosio@town.southold.nv.us>; Hagan, Damon <damonh@southoldtownny.gov>;Jim Dinizio<lim@iamesdinizio.com>;Standish, Lauren <Lauren.Standish@town.southold.nv.us>; Louisa Evans<Ipevans06390@gmail.com>; Norklun, Stacey <Stacey.Norklun@town.southold.ny.us>; Noncarrow, Denis<denisn@southoldtownny.gov>; Rudder, Lynda <Ivnda.rudder@town.southold.nv.us>; Russell,Scott<scottr@southoldtownny.gov>; Silleck, Mary <marys@town.southold.nv.us>;Tomaszewski, Michelle<michellet@town.southold.nv.us>; William Ruland <rulandfarm@vahoo.com>; 'Lisa Finn (lisaahfinn@gmail.com)'<lisaahfinn@gmail.com>; Michaelis,Jessica <iessicam@southoldtownny.gov>; Reisenberg, Lloyd <Lloyd.Reisenberg@town.southold.ny.us>; 'denise@southoldlocal.com' <denise@southoldlocal.com>; Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.nv.us>; Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>; Dwyer,Tracey<tracey.dwyer@town.southold.nv.us>; 'Martin Finnegan' <mfinneean@suffolklaw.com>; 'tedwebbl@opton line.net'<tedwebbl@optonline.net> Subject: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Please publish in the July 25, 2019 edition of your newspaper and on the town website. Elizabeth A.Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk,Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer;FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel.631765-1800,Ext.228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 1 Times Review Media Group O.13o 15 0 attltucic Y 11952 Phone:(61)298-3200 INVOICE/RECEIPT Ad/Order#:0002377860 07/19/2019 SOUTHOLD TOWN Salesperson:LEGAL NOTICES T/R BOARD-LGL 178826 Description: PO BOX 1179 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD/LN, SOUTHOLD NY 11971-0959 (631)765-4333 Phone:(631)765-4333 LYNDA.RUDDER@TOWN.SOUTHOLD.NY.US Promo Code: Size: 1.02 x 3.54 Color: Total Weeks: 1 Product Category Classification Insertions Period SUFFOLK TIMES CLASSIFIED LEGALCL LEGALS 07/25/19 Pricing Information: Sub Total: 31.85 Total Due: 31.85 Ad Taker:LEGAL NOTICES T/R LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a pub- lie hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York on Tuesday,August 13,2019 at 4:30 P.M.upon the Appeal Review Applica- tion of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato, who pursuant to Section 170-11 ofthe South- old Town Code,seek relief from the Historic Preservation Commission's Denial of a Cer- tificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a conforming single-family residence on property on parcel SCTM# 1000-24-2-1 lo- cated at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, New York,and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in the Suffolk Times newspaper not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty(30)days prior to such hear- ing and to notify the applicant by first class mad Dated July 16,2019 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth A Neville Southold Town Clerk 2377860 PLEASE NOTE CANCELLATION POLICY FOR LEGAL NOTICES: All ads are billed for entire run upon first publication date. Cancellations for publication dates can be made but there will be no adjustment to cost and refunds will not be given. There are no exceptions to this policy. Neville, Elizabeth From: legals <legals@timesreview.com> Sent: Friday,July 19, 2019 1:15 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth; Doherty,Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon; Jim Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Norklun, Stacey, Noncarrow,,Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary;Tomaszewski, Michelle;William Ruland; 'Lisa Finn (lisaahfinn@gmail.com)'; Michaelis,Jessica; Reisenberg, Lloyd; 'denise@southoldlocal.com'; Lanza, Heather,Terry, Mark; Dwyer,Tracey; 'Martin Finnegan'; 'tedwebbl@optonline.net' Subject: Re: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Attachments: Ad_Order_Form[4].pdf,Ad_Image_Preview[8].pdf Hello, This notice has been scheduled,the attached documents serve as your confirmation, invoice and proof. Please review for accuracy. Payment is due upon receipt. Affidavits are processed and mailed out a week after the final publication date of the notice. Thank you. legals@timesreview.com TIMES ` i EvasWn _ Myam.EDI. A Yd GROUP Kimberly Gersic Sales Production Assistant 631.354.8013(direct) kqersicC@timesreview.com www.timesreview.com PLEASE NOTE CANCELLATION POLICY:All ads are-billed for entire run upon first publication date. Cancellations for publication dates can be made but there will be no adjustment to cost and refunds will not be given. There are no exceptions to this policy. Krum 'd REVIEW 1 MEDIA GROUP ' 1 Kimberly Gersic Sales Production Assistant 631.354.8013(direct) kgersicP timesreview.com www.timesreview.com From: "Neville, Elizabeth" <E.Neville@town.southold.nv.us> Date: Friday,July 19, 2019 at 12:30 PM To: Lindsay Riemer<legals@timesreview.com>, "Neville, Elizabeth"<E.Neville@town.southold.nv.us>, "Doherty,Jill" <iill.dohertv@town.southold.ny.us>, "Doroski, Bonnie" <Bonnie.Doroski@town.southold.ny.us>, "Duffy, Bill" <billd@southoldtownny.gov>, "Ghosio, Bob" <bob.ghosio@town.southold.nv.us>, "Hagan, Damon" <damonh@southoldtownny.gov>,Jim Dinizio<jim@iamesdinizio.com>, "Standish, Lauren" <Lauren.Standish@town.southold.nv.us>, Louisa Evans<Ipevans06390@gmail.com>, "Norklun,Stacey" <Stacey.Norklun@town.southo Id.ny.us>, "Noncarrow, Denis" <denisn@southoldtownny.gov>, "Rudder, Lynda" <Ivnda.rudder@town.southold.nv.us>, "Russell,Scott" <scottr@southoldtownny.gov>, "Silleck, Mary" <marvs@town.southold.nv.us>, "Tomaszewski, Michelle" <michellet@town.southold.ny.us>,William Ruland <rulandfarm@vahoo.com>, "'Lisa Finn (lisaahfinn@gmail.com)"' <lisaahfinn@gmail.com>, "Michaelis,Jessica" <iessicam@southoldtownny.gov>, "Reisenberg, Lloyd"<Lloyd.Reisenberg@town.southold.ny.us>, "'denise@southoldlocal.com"' <denise@southoldlocal.com>, "Lanza, Heather" <heather.lanza@town.southold.nv.us>, "Terry, Mark" <mark.terry@town.southold.nv.us>, "Dwyer,Tracey"<tracey.dwyer@town.southold.nv.us>, 'Martin Finnegan'<mfinnegan@suffolklaw.com>, "'tedwebbl@optonline.net"' <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Subject: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Please publish in the July 25, 2019 edition of your newspaper and on the town website. Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk,Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer;FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel. 631765-1800,Ext.228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 2 y Neville, Elizabeth From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Friday,July 19, 2019 12:31 PM To: 'legals@timesreview.com'; Neville, Elizabeth; Doherty,Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Duffy, Bill; Ghosio, Bob; Hagan, Damon;Jim Dinizio; Standish, Lauren; Louisa Evans; Norklun, Stacey, Noncarrow, Denis; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Silleck, Mary;Tomaszewski, Michelle;William Ruland; 'Lisa Finn (lisaahfinn@gmail.com)'; Michaelis,Jessica; Reisenberg, Lloyd; 'denise@southoldlocal.com'; Lanza, Heather,Terry, Mark; Dwyer, Tracey; 'Martin Finnegan'; 'tedwebbl@optonline.net' Subject: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Attachments: LEGAL NOTICE.docx Please publish in the July 25, 2019 edition of your newspaper and on the town website. Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk,Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer;FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Tel. 631765-1800,Ext.228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 1 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York on Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:30 P.M. upon the Appeal Review Application of Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato who pursuant to Section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code, seek relief from the Historic Preservation Commission's Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a conforming single-family residence on property on parcel SCTM# 1000-24-2-1 located at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in the Suffolk Times newspaper not less than ten(10) days nor more than thirty (3 0) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Dated: July 16, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON JULY 25, 2019 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, P.O. Box 1179, Southold,New York 11971 Copies to: The Suffolk Times Town Clerk Bulletin Board Town Board Town Website Town Attorney M. Finnegan, Esq. Historic Preservation Commission Louis Potters&Lenore Brancato �BUFFot"� RESOLUTION 2019-626 o � ADOPTED DOC ID: 15427 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-626 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JULY 16,2019: RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 170-11 (Landmark Preservation Appeal) of the Town Code, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:36 P.M., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the Appeal of Determination of the Historic Preservation Commission for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient; the house is owned by Louis Potters and Louise Brancato and is located at SCTM 1000-24-2-1, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York. and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in the Suffolk Times newspaper not less than ten(10) days nor more than thirty(3 0) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Jill Doherty, Councilwoman SECONDER:Louisa P. Evans, Justice AYES: Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans, Russell Southold Town Board - Letter Board Meeting of June 18, 2019 r. RESOLUTION 2019-571 Item# 5.39 Qac ADOPTED DOC ID: 15346 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2019-571 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JUNE 18, 2019: RESOLVED that pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 170-11 (Landmark Preservation Appeal) of the Town Code, the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 4:30 P.M., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,New York as the time and place for a public hearing to consider the Appeal of Determination of the Historic Preservation Commission-for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient; the house is owned by Loius Potters and Louise Brancato and is located at SCTM 1000-24-2-1, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York . Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Jill Doherty, Councilwoman SECONDER:William P. Ruland, Councilman AYES: Dinizio Jr, Ruland, Doherty, Ghosio, Evans, Russell Generated June.19, 204 9 Page 51 Neville, Elizabeth From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Thursday,July 18, 2019 2:02 PM To: Burke,John; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon; Silleck, Mary Subject: RE: Emailing: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Attachments: LEGAL NOTICE.PDF John, Thank you for your review. I further revised my-copy and added your recommendation and revised my copy by taking out the duplicity of mentioning Certificate of Appropriateness twice. Please review and advise'. Thank you. Betty Neville -----Original Message----- From:,Burke,John Sent:Thursday,July 18, 2019 9:25 AM - To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: RE: Emailing: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Elizabeth, I would suggest that we insert the following wording: who, pursuant to section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code,seek relief from the Historic Preservation Committee's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a single family residence on parcel SUM# 100-24-2-1 located at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, New York, and this should be inserted after Brancato and pick up again at"directs the town clerk" if you have any questions let me know John J. Burke, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Southold Town Annex 54375 Route 25 (Main Road) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Office: 631.765-1939 Fax: 631.765.6639 E-mail: Johnbu@southoldtownny.sov -----Original Message----- From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday,July 17, 2019 3:16 PM To: Burke,John<lohnbu@southoldtownny.gov>; Duffy, Bill<billd@southoldtownny_pov>; Hagan, Damon <damonh@southoldtownny.gov>; Silleck, Mary<marvs@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: Emailing: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient 1 { Bill, Would you please review this legal notice and let me know if it passes muster? I only cited Chapter 170 Landmark Preservation Section 170-11 Appeals. Should Sections 170-9 & 170-10 also be cited in the notice? I had no past or previous files or appeal to go from. Thank you, Betty Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: LEGAL NOTICE Note:To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. z Members: Ted Webb tedwebbl@optonline.net Anne Surchin surchin@mac.com rharperl@optonline.net rharperl@optonline.net jomaceb@aol.com jomaceb@aol.com Jamie Garretson jgaoti@gmail.com James Grathwohl jfgrathwohl@msn.com Don Feiler DonaldFeiler.Architect@gmail.com 2 Neville, Elizabeth Contact Group Name: Historic Preservation Commission 1 Neville, Elizabeth From: Burke,John Sent: Thursday,July 18, 2019 2:06 PM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: RE: Emailing: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Looks good John J. Burke, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Southold Town Annex 54375 Route 25 (Main Road) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Office: 631.765-1939 Fax: 631.765.6639 E-mail: Johnbu@southoldtownny.gov -----Original Message----- - From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent:Thursday,July 18, 2019 2:02 PM To: Burke,John<iohnbu@southoldtownny.gov>; Duffy, Bill<billd@southoldtownny.gov>; Hagan, Damon <damonh@southoldtownny.gov>;Silleck; Mary<marvs@town.southold.nv.us> Subject: RE: Emailing: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient ' John, Thank you for your review. I further revised my copy and added your recommendation and revised my copy by taking out the duplicity of mentioning Certificate of Appropriateness twice. Please review and advise. Thank you. Betty Neville -----Original Message----- From: Burke,John Sent:Thursday,July 18, 2019 9:25 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth - Subject: RE: Emailing: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Elizabeth, I would suggest that we insert the following wording: who, pursuant to section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code,seek relief from the Historic Preservation Committee's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction of a single family residence on parcel SUM # 100-24-2-1 located at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, New York, and this should be inserted after Brancato and pick up again at "directs the town clerk" if you have any questions let me know 1 1 John J. Burke, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Southold Town Annex 54375 Route 25 (Main Road) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Office: 631.765-1939 Fax: 631.765.6639 ,E-mail: Johnbu@southoldtownny.gov -----Original Message----- From: Neville, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday,July 17, 2019 3:16 PM To: Burke,John<iohnbu@southoldtownny.gov>; Duffy, Bill<billd@southoldtownny.gov>; Hagan, Damon <damonh@southoldtownny.gov>;Silleck, Mary<marvs@town.southold.nv.us> Subject: Emailing: LEGAL NOTICE 675 Skippers Lane Orient Bill, Would you please review this legal notice and let me know if it passes muster? I only cited Chapter 170 Landmark Preservation Section 170-11 Appeals. Should Sections 170-9 & 170-10 also be cited in the notice? I had no past or previous files or appeal to go from. Thank you, Betty Elizabeth A. Neville, MMC Southold Town Clerk, Registrar of Vital Statistics Records Management Officer; FOIL Officer Marriage Officer PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel. 631765-1800, Ext. 228 Fax 631765-6145 Cell 631466-6064 Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: LEGAL NOTICE Note:To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. 2 - - . _fig,C,i - - s-= .,. _ _. ��,- -'{•y<_. 4'.i+'' .<,`3}-`'{�,1y''��- is: -4�yt s-`�°-k' y �,y�S L L. � r -... "���f�°x.•'•,.,g.��, r,{. ��1i��.�'Ev-•ti< �M1.ja''•A�'{t',-w � -_ -_ �;{,`.!' _ �r� •2d 3ry4..�'x� _ n..� - - �. G ,L _ � �t A< ^F���N, c• '��'¢Y i_ _f.-Y: s0FFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK " �o 15 NevilPe TOWN OF SOUTHOLD i '=�'�-, �-, •'='-� ,,` ,,'� �a 5 ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,TOWN CLERK,MMC , ��Vi' • Y 11971 53095 MAIN ROAD �o�� P.O.BOo U0 SOUTJ►OLD,NEW YORK 11971 -, V.,'r ^k. \`r ` a•.-w 5_�¢�eY..Ars.,q`�'y�;;y. .�4'pt I t ` 'Mr. Louis Potters &Ms. Lenore J. Brancato 2 Sousa Drive " - r Sands Point,New York '11.050 PKV P • - . - ' � E `^ a �• t INC es ver}rvrr - r-�ti.wrr�r cr�a�axc^,ucvFxr}a--'art¢gxrrrg^�-rv�rri�-:eeryvny�— - File Edit '+dreg,+r Toolbar --Window Help :_- 1 Wzz � � � 11 1 ► hl z:r 00` 0 24_-2-1 1473889 ,Southold . ,fictive RIS:1• School: Oyster Ponds S 'Potters,Louis ° `- - 'RollYear; 2019 Durr Ye ` 1. Family Res Land AV: 1,1100 '05 Skippers Ln "Land Size:0.30 acres " Total'AM 5,006'` L=1 Parcel 24-2-1 Owner Tax Bill Mailing Address 3rd Party address'', History ' Total,_2.;..Owners-T.e.Ooen:.,clic ,.the.,4rsr�rc6riat6 row ,_tfi uht...Click-to,Add' i" i t -fed Assessment, ....U Spee Dfst(s).. Lenore J Brancato .,Owner Type:Additional_ Desig Status: I-D Description I� i Owners) .. --t2i•Images L-'] GIs !Last Namel Company: _ First Name: "Mi. Jr.,Sr:,etc: ; . i Site(l),Fies Potters � Louisrv^,,. Kure , F....._ .a . _. _ _.._. ' _ .,.. .» . Sale0Sl2$l17 ' a „ ttention To!In Care 0f: Additional Address:, -Site(1)Res --. -- ;9,fe! Sa1e0512$!15 ..�_,-=..._.-.._.._.:,_-__-_:-___`- ,. --.>._,-._�.,..:-.�-�::__.. , iStreet No, Prrefix'Dir:'Streebl R,uial Router S1 Sufffx', Post Dir: UnitName:` Unit No;,= L.-site(1)Res., " _ _ 'r=i tet`Sale0$l2210$ 2 _ ..� Sousa w_a- " _ -; = Dr !' I T „�Y�._jF Po Box No. City/Town: ' ��� State: Zip Code: -_ Li -Site(1]Res -- - ; f'+ Sale0E124104 } Sands Point 'PIYg 11050 t' Site1 ( )Res ;Country:,enter if not"USA"-' B-ar-.Cd: Ownership, r;.g. Uife llse" owner Type:' ° (= t 1 Sale06124104 _ ti,: ;! _'I - Primary . ' ie3•'=Site(1).Res e�Owne`r's'Priinary Residence , , Prints the sa•een �- .X .f.,;l' .Y• w�J....:s,:..b es w ( :>,u» r.",° V �,' L �` v '.�, ,.1 July 16, 2019 Dear Members of the Southold Town Board, I urge you to affirm the unanimous decision of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission denying the application for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition and facade alteration of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. The application has roiled our community. At two public hearings of the Historic Preservation Commission numerous members of the Orient community spoke against this ill-conceived plan and many more have written letters in opposition to it. There was a palpable sigh of relief when the commission recently denied the application,reassuring our community that Orient's Historic District is not for sale and that the modest scale of the District's homes will be preserved. Our belief in our local government,that it both follows the law and is responsive to the public,was affirmed. There are few communities that still have the historic integrity that makes Orient the special place that it is. If the application to demolish one of our landmarked buildings is approved,there will be little to prevent more demolitions and the building of larger homes, forever scarring the district. Please do not overturn the Commission's carefully reasoned, and may I reiterate, unanimous, seven-page decision. Sincerely, Charles Dean S�e6lV111- 295 Village Lane Orient, NY 11957 DCC� D � �I � JUL 2 3 2019 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Board July 14, 2019 Re: 675 Skippers Lane To the Town Board: In a recent edition of the Suffolk Times, architect Peter Cook was quoted, in relation to an application to destroy 675 Skippers Lane, as remarking that one shouldn't be building a 1910 house in 2019. I encourage everyone to visit the fine Oysterponds Historical Society exhibition of modernist houses on the North Fork. Several of these houses are in Orient. But they are not in the Historic District. The District, which was designated in order to preserve a critical slice of Orient history, occupies an area of only 60 acres— fewer than 1/54 1h of Orient's total of 3264 acres. But these few acres are very important to us in Orient. There are many Historic Districts in the United States and they are all different, because they tell the stories of the different communities that built our country. Orient, Oysterponds, was a modest community of shopkeepers and tradesmen and fishermen; there was a seamstress and a shoemaker, a lumberyard and two small inns. Yes, the houses were modest in size and the ceilings low; it was often very cold here in the nineteenth century. (It was sometimes reported that the bay froze over; and a horse and carriage were able to go from Orient to Shelter Island on the ice.)And the only heat was firewood. Which wasn't cheap—it was imported by water from Connecticut, all the usable lumber in Orient having been exhausted by the mid-nineteenth century. Wealthier members of the community, like whaling captain Peter Brown and trader Lewis Edwards, built their larger houses on the Main Road(people gossiped about Brown's 30 foot dining room.) This is how the built landscape tells its stories. People have made the choice to live in the village, even with its low ceilings and other limitations, and experience being an intimate part of Orient's continuing history. And most of the villagers feel very strongly abcut protecting this heritage that has been entrusted to us. When the Town Board voted to make the Southold Historic Preservation Commission an official commission of the Town, they listed the response of members of the community as a critical factor in any decision. The community of Orient has already exhibited its deep concern in this matter. I hope the Board will support the unanimous decision by the Commission to reject the present application to destroy 675 Skippers Lane, a lynchpin of the Historic District. Sincerely D L 7ed4leachsb rger J U L 2 3 2019 President Emeritus of the Board of the Oysterponds Historical Society SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE 'OWN OF SOUTHOLD July 15, 2019 Dear Southold Town Board, We bought our home in Orient three years ago because we wanted to be part of a community that places history and community above the bigger is better ethos. Like so many longtime residents and newcomers alike, we treasure the walk down Village Lane, the biking around the historic district including Skippers Lane, and the traditional Orient lifestyle. There is a scale to our homes here in town that reflects our shared values. There are many other places that allow residents to build as big and as grand and as high as they want. In fact, most other places. But Orient is an unusual place, and if our new homeowners don't respect our unique environment it will quickly cease to exist, and we will become just one of many towns where you can do exactly what you want with no thought of the historical landscape or your neighbors. Please help us protect our special village and affirm the unanimous decision by the Historic Preservation Commission. Sincerely, Suzanne Gluck Resident of 1320 King Street DCC� I OYIE JUL 2 3 2019 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 14, 2019 Dear Southold Town Board, Through this long process,you've heard many,many times about Orient's unique qualities,the importance it places on its history and the years of effort its residents have made on its behalf, so I'll spare you any more poetry.The Orient Historic District was put on the National Register of Historic Places 43 years ago with a specific purpose—to preserve those unique qualities— and the people of Orient overwhelmingly want to see it enforced in the case of 675 Skippers Lane. The Historic Preservation Commission agreed,and voted unanimously to deny this application.What's different now?I guess the grass is longer, since it appears no efforts are being made to maintain the property. Otherwise we're talking about the same principles that applied when the HPC rejected this a few months ago. Forcing this project on Orient over the wishes of its residents and the legal purview of the HPC would simply announce that the Historic District no longer exists,that anyone who has enough money to pay enough lawyers gets what they want; that the zoning and easements that help keep not just Orient but all of Southold the magical places that they are don't matter anymore.You'll be waving a green flag on the kind of development that wipes out centuries of community in a couple years of speculation. Please reaffirm the HPC's decision and reject this application once and for all. Sincerely, Thomas Dyja 1320 King Street Orient, NY 11957 JUL 23 2019 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE (OWN OF SOUTHOLD 4' The Applicants, Drs. Potters and Brancato, submit that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition of the existing house at 675 Skippers Lane has resulted in extreme undue hardship. They have never been able to live in the house because it is uninhabitable in its current condition. They have expended considerable resources over the past year on architects, engineers, environmental testing and legal counsel to gather the evidence that confirmed that there was no alternative to the demolition of their house. The HPC ignored that evidence and denied their Application without justification. The HPC's Determination has effectively denied Drs. Potters and Brancato of any beneficial use of their property. The Applicants submit that if their appeal is denied,they are entitled to relief under the following Hardship Criteria set forth in Section 170-10 of the Code: 1. Whether the owner is capable of earning a reasonable return on investment without such demolition, removal or alteration. The record of the proceedings before the HPC confirms that the house is uninhabitable, rife with mold, lead and asbestos and structurally unsound. It is not feasible to renovate it and the be sold in its current condition. Leaving the premises as is will result in further deterioration and loss. 2. Whether the landmark can be altered, restored, renovated or adapted for any other use pursuant to a certificate of appropriateness under this chapter, either by the owner or a subsequent purchaser,which would enable a reasonable return. The only permitted use of the property in the applicable zoning district is a single family residence. It cannot be used for that purpose absent demolition. 3. Whether removal or alteration is necessary or appropriate to preserve the landmark. The record confirms that the existing house is devoid of historic significance that is worthy of preservation. 4. Whether the claimed hardship has been self-created by waste, neglect, or failure to maintain the landmark. The Applicants purchased the property in its current condition and have taken preventive measures during the several months that the application was under review by the HPC to stabilize the roof and prevent further deterioration. 5. The public interest in preserving the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. This house is not a historic landmark. The fact that it lies in the Historic District does not mandate that it remain in its current form. The public interest is in no way served by the preservation of the existing structure that has been substantially altered over the past century. Based on the foregoing,the Applicant's submit that the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness has undeniably subjected them to undie hardship and loss and respectfully _ request that the Town Board approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition of the existing house at 675 Skippers Lane in Orient. Dated: Southold,New York August 13, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, TWOMEY LATHAM, SHEA, KELLY, DU & QUA TARARO, LLP Attorneys licants By: NjOfffln D. Finnegan, Esq. I ( f 01� I .. a gom RECEIVED o CaAUG 1 2 2019 e 6 Southold Town Clerk JA r AIJL o z �e r J . l- . , I� ii ii ME RECEIVED August 2nd, 2019 RUG ,.... 12019 To Whom It May Concern, Southold Town Cle k I am writing this letter in regards to 675 Skippers rLane, Orient owner Potters Residence. A little background on myself, I am the owner of North Fork Woodworks, custom home builders based out of Southold, NY.We are known for our high-end custom homes from Mattituck to Orient. Our portfolio also includes several historic restorations including (03) alone on Skippers Lane, Orient. I am a strong avid believer in preserving the North Fork's historic value. 1, myself have bought a 18th century building on Traveler Street, Southold to restore to its former glory and use as our home-base/office.You will often hear about us turning down projects which could be considered categorized as "McMansions" or"Super Modern" facades in historic areas / districts. It was very clear to my team and myself upon inspection of the property that the current home that sits at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient has absolutely no historic value whatsoever.As it stands,it is nothing more than your typical 50's construction of asbestos shingle/asphalt shingle with traditional drywall finishes constructed using modern construction practices. To be sure,we looked vigorously in the option of renovating the current structure.The main issue with this structure that is preventing it from being renovated is the actual foundation it sits on,has no footings to support new construction, let alone the existing. The foundation itself cannot pass the current New York State and local building codes. In addition to this, the house has been neglected and is infected with a high concentrate of mold throughout. In order to remediate the mold, the entire house finishes such as but not limited to: drywall,trim, cabinetry etc would need to be properly removed and disposed of. At this point,we will be left with nothing but a framed structure which is once again with modern lumber in a modern practice which we will need to be washed and cleaned down due to the mold. Once we get past all of this,the existing home is not even a historically correct style for Orient. It is a very similar home to 390 Oyster Ponds Lane which is less than a Y2 mile down the road and has been completely re-done with a much more modern curb appeal. I have reviewed the current plans and have seen the multiple articles in the Suffolk Times about this project. It is hard for me to imagine that as a community,we can't get behind the Potters to construct this tasteful modestly sized home that fits the Skippers Lane curb appeal to perfection. I strongly believe that we need to not only receive this new home plan into our town but as a community, its time that we welcome the Potter's here with handshakes and hugs to the best community and town that our good God has blessed us with. Please feel free to contact me with any questions on my cell: 631-255-4028. Thank You in Advance, Scott Edgett, President PO Box 1407 Southold NY 11971 * Telephone: 631.298.7900 * Fax: 631.298.7899 * nfwwinc@aol.com JUL 23 2019 July 16, 2019 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Dear Southold Town Board I have been attending all of the public hearings concerning the proposed tear down of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient. And I am appalled at the time wasted on issues that do not concern this commission. Case in point: It was established that this house would be a tear down from the beginning. The Potters bought this property with that in mind. That has been established . During all of the hearings, their architect and now an engineer keep on bringing up what'is wrong with the interior. This is a smoke screen designed to add up all the reasons why 675 Skippers Lane should be demolished . Permit me to count the ways; 1. Mold 2. Rot 3. Window replacements 4. Shingle replacements 5 Aluminum window frames and the list goes on........ These items are all fixable. I am the owner of 1000 Village Lane which houses Orient's post office, a retail shop and an apt. There is also a barn in the back. All of these spaces have had mold, structural rot, dissolving shingles and window problems. And they have all been addressed and fixed. What was filled with mold was removed and cleaned. and replaced with new walls. What footings were rotted were removed, replaced and the buildings were then put on a poured cement foundation including the barn. The Potters and their architect are proposing a tear down which will enable them to build an unseemly structure by using exiting houses that did what they wanted before this commission was established is absurd. This commission was established in 1976 to preserve and save the uniqueness of our village and once you allow one tear down we will lose the village of Orient. If you allow this landmark to be demolished so that present owners can build what is currently referred as a Mac Mansion, then you have duly taken away any power the Historic Commission has. 1 ask once again, why are you wasting everyone's time? And if the commission has no power why have you as a town formed it? Thank you for your consideration, Joan Turturro 25500 Main Road Orient, NY 11957 Norklun, Stacey From:Rudder, Lynda Sent:Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:48 AM To:Dinizio, James; Doherty, Jill; Doroski, Bonnie; Ghosio, Bob; Louisa Evans; Neville, Elizabeth; Noncarrow, Denis; Norklun, Stacey; Rudder, Lynda; Russell, Scott; Standish, Lauren; Tomaszewski, Michelle; William Ruland; Duffy, Bill; Hagan, Damon; Silleck, Mary Subject:FW: Potters Appeal - 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Attachments:HPC Appeal Memo.pdf From: Martin Finnegan <mfinnegan@suffolklaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:01 AM To: Neville, Elizabeth <E.Neville@town.southold.ny.us> Cc: Duffy, Bill <billd@southoldtownny.gov>; Russell, Scott <scottr@southoldtownny.gov>; Tomaszewski, Michelle <michellet@town.southold.ny.us>; Rudder, Lynda <lynda.rudder@town.southold.ny.us>; Anna Schweitzer <aschweitzer@suffolklaw.com> Subject: Potters Appeal - 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Ms. Neville and Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: Please find attached the Memorandum of Law of the Applicants, Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato in support of their Appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Demolition of their home on Skippers Lane in Orient. Section 170-11 of the Town Code mandates that the Town Board review the decision based on the same record that was before the Commissioners using the same criteria set forth in Section 170-9. We, therefore, object to the opening of a public hearing on this Appeal. It is noteworthy that this Application has already been the subject of two public hearings before the HPC and over eleven months of review during which all members of the public were given the opportunity to comment and be heard. In accordance with the Town Code, the Applicants respectfully request a prompt review and determination of their Appeal by the Town Board based solely on the extensive record of the underlying proceeding. We remain available to address any questions the Town Board may have. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Martin D. Finnegan, Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, LLP 33 West Second Street, P.O. Box 9398, Riverhead, NY 11901 T 631.727.2180 x 265 mfinnegan@suffolklaw.com | www.suffolklaw.com ________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person. Thank you. 1 TWO1% am Y SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARMartin D.FinneganO, LLP Partner 631-727-2180,x-265 mfiniieg,an@stiffolklaw.com stiffolklaw.com Thomas A.Twomey,Jr, (1946-2014) Stephen B Latham v John F Shea,III Christopher D.Kelley David M Dubin Jay P Quartararo t I` Peter M.Mott Janice L.Snead May 31, 2019 Anne Marie Goodale Bryan C.Van Cott Kathryn Dalli Laura I.Dunathan By Hand Lisa Clare Kombrink Patrick B Fife i1` Martin D.Finnegan O I Reza Ebrahimi Honorable Scott A. Russell, Supervisor and Jeffrey W.Pagano 01 Members of the Town Board of the Town of Southold r° Bryan J.Drag° 53095 Route 25, P.O. Box 1179 Southold NY 11971-0959 Bernadette E,Tuthill , Craig H Handler Alexandra Halsey-Storch Melissa S DorisRe: Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition and AlterationIt KatennGrinko Lorrainee Paceleo 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Terrence Russell Daniel R.Bernard t• Christina M.Noon Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: OF COUNSEL This office represents Louis Potters and Louise Brancato, who are the Kevin M.,Fox Kelly E.Klnirons owners of the premises located at 675 Skippers Lane in Orient. Pursuant to Karen A.Hoeg Section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code our clients herebyappeal and Patricia J.Russell 1)1� 'Jennifer P.Nigro . request the Town Board's review of the Determination of the Historic Preservation Commission, dated May 21, 2019, denying their Application for a NY& BARS t LLM IN TAXATION , Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing structure and , IN NY&NJ BARS reconstruction of a conforming single-family residence on the subject premises. O NY,NJ&PA BARS W NY,NJ&OO BARS It is respectfully-submitted that the Determination overlooks or ignores ♦ NY,NJ&FL BARS substantial evidence in the record regarding the condition of the existing I:Main Office ` structure and is based on a misapplication of the criteria for demolition and �133 West i`P.O Box 9398 Second St. alteration of historic structures set forth in Sections 170-8 and 170-9 of the Riverhead,NY 11901 Town Code.In the alternative,the Applicants submit that the denial of a 1631.727.2180 Certificate of Appropriateness has subjected them to undue hardship and request suffolklaw.com relief therefrom pursuant to Section 170-10 of the Town Code. We respectfully request that this matter be placed on the next available Town Board agenda for review. A brief in support of our request for relief will be submitted to the Town Board under separate cover. i 1 Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board May 31, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your consideration. 4Xryu.y urs, Martin Finnegan MDF/lk cc: William Duffy, Town Attorney Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk TOWN BOARD OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ---------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Appeal of LOUIS POTTERS AND LENORE BRANCATO From the Determination of the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission dated May 21, 2019 denying a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Section 170-9 of The Town Code of the Town of Southold For the Demolition of the Existing House at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York ---------------------------------------------------------X MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF APPLICANTS, LOUIS POTTERS AND LENORE BRANCATO, IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO,LLP Attorneys for Applicants By: Martin D. Finnegan, Esq. 56340 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 (631) 727-2180 Dated: July 16, 2019 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT In this proceeding pursuant to Section 170-11 of the Southold Town Code,the Applicants, Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato ("Applicants"), have appealed the Determination of the Historic Preservation Commission ("HPC")dated May 21, 2019, ("the Determination") that denied their application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing house on their property located at 675 Skippers Lane in the Hamlet of Orient, SCTM# 1000-24-2-1 (the "subject premises"). The Applicant's sought the approval to clear the way for the construction of a new home on the subject premises that would be substantially conforming to all code requirements with only de minimus area variance relief required if the current footprint were maintained. The Applicants, their Architect and Counsel met with members of the HPC on numerous occasions to discuss the deplorable condition of the existing house and the details of the design of the proposed structure. The Applicants' intent to demolish the house was made clear from the outset of their discussions with the HPC since its condition left no feasible alternative. While not required if demolition were deemed appropriate, the Applicants went to great lengths and incurred considerable costs to design a new home that replicated the roofline and fagade of the existing house with additional design elements commonly found in homes within the Orient Historic District. The proposed design was modified and scaled back several times based on comments received at work sessions and public hearings from the HPC members and Orient residents. Over the course of the HPC's protracted eleven(11) month review of the application, the Applicants attended five (5) work sessions and two (2)public hearings and submitted uncontroverted expert testimony and reports confirming that the existing structure is toxic, uninhabitable, structurally unsound and devoid of any significant historic or architectural elements. Although the Town Code mandates review and determination within sixty days, the HPC did not even inspect the house until four months after the first work session. In the ensuing discussions, the Commissioners acknowledged the terrible condition of the existing house but questioned whether the foundation could be preserved. Although the foundation is arguably outside of the HPC's jurisdiction, in an effort to move the application along,the Applicants hired an engineer to examine the foundation. He concluded that there was nothing historically or architecturally significant about the foundation that warranted its preservation. The HPC heard opposition testimony from several Orient residents who argued that, notwithstanding the current condition of the home,demolition could not be permitted since a portion of the existing house was constructed 100 years ago and the subject premises lies within the boundaries of the Orient Historic District. The Applicants submit that the HPC's denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness was based upon a misapplication of the criteria in Chapter 170 of the Town Code to the relevant facts and was,therefore, arbitrary, unreasonable and entirely against the weight of the evidence presented. It is respectfully requested that Town Board nullify the HPC's Determination and grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing house. STATEMENT OF FACTS The subject premises consists of a 13,817 square foot parcel located at the corner of Skippers Lane and Harbor River Road in Orient Village. It is bordered to the south by Poquatuck Park. The property is improved with a 1,880 square foot 1-1/2 story wood frame residence and a 374 square foot detached garage. The record reflects that the property was originally owned by a fisherman named Edward Vail and his wife Agnes who built a small 1-1/2 story cottage there in and around 1918. In 1938, the property was sold to the Van Nostrand family who substantially altered the home in 1957 with a one story gable roofed addition with dormers. The exterior surface of the house, including the roof and siding were also altered over the years from the original construction. Neither the original cottage or the later addition were constructed with proper footings, further diminishing the structural integrity of the existing house. It is not disputed that the subject premises is located within the boundaries of the Orient Historic District or that it was constructed approximately 100 years ago. Despite its age and location,the record is devoid of any evidence of historic design elements relating to this structure. It was not acknowledged or photographed for the Orient Historic Society's publication "Historic Orient Village"and was apparently deemed"contributing" solely by virtue of its existence in the historic district. Testimony from the Applicant's architect confirmed that, to the extent the original cottage had any historic features, "they were, over time,either renovated, removed or have disintegrated. The house as it stands today has no architectural or craftsman like feature that one could consider historically significant or contributing, or worthy of restoration or in-kind reproduction". The Applicants offered substantial, uncontroverted evidence for the record regarding the deterioration, disrepair and lack of habitability of the existing house. Specifically,photographic evidence, scientific data and expert testimony has confirmed that: 1. The interior and exterior of the house is rife with toxic mold due to water infiltration in the basement and lack of insulation in the walls. (See, Insight Environmental, Inc. Mold Inspection Report dates 9!6!18) 2. The exterior of the house and numerous interior surfaces are encased in asbestos cement shingles or fabricated with asbestos fibers. (See, Insight Environmental,Inc. Asbestos Survey and Report dated 9/4/18). 3. There is lead paint in the windows,ceilings and bedroom walls(See, Insight Environmental,Inc. Lead Paint Analysis Report dated 9/4/18). 4. Remediation of mold, lead and asbestos will require removal of all of the interior floor, wall and ceiling finishes as well as the exterior siding and roofing. The floor joists in the original house and the addition are undersized, overspaced and have extensive termite damage. (See, Engineering Inspection Report of Robert P. O'Brien, P.E. dated 1/15/19). 5. Even if remediation were attempted,the cost of removing the extensive comtaminated elements would far exceed the cost of demolition,with no guarantee that the mold infestation would be permanently removed. (See, Engineering Inspection Report of Robert P. O'Brien, P.E. dated 1/15/19). 6. Since the original construction,the roof, siding, window trim, fascia, soffits have all been replaced with newer materials. (See, Engineering Inspection Report of Robert P. O'Brien, P.E. dated 1/15/19). 7. The columns whether original or replaced have deteriorated to the point where they had to be replaced with 2 x 4 supports. 8. The foundation is neither stone nor brick but poured concrete, without footings and has no historic value. (See,Engineering Inspection Report of Fischetti Engineering dated 10/31/18). 9. Demolition is necessary for health and safety reasons. (See, Engineering Inspection Report of Robert P. O'Brien, P.E. dated 1/15/19; Transcript 4/10/19 Public Hearing, p. 37). 10. There is no way to renovate the existing house because once the mold, asbestos and lead contaminated elements and the termite damaged and deteriorated structural elements of the house were removed, there would be little left of the existing structure and the cost of the extensive work required would far exceed 50% of the fair market value of the existing house. (Id.) 11. Over the years, extensive modifications and additions were made to the house stripping it of its original components, and as such there is nothing architecturally or historically significant about the house. (Id., See also, Transcript 4/10/19 Public Hearing, p. 31-37). At the second public hearing, the HPC reserved their right to retain an independent engineering analysis of the existing house to verify the evidence presented by the Applicants regarding the condition of the house and determine whether demolition was warranted. The HPC never availed themselves of that opportunity and as such, the overwhelming expert evidence presented by the Applicants in support of demolition remains undisputed. Nevertheless, the HPC adopted its Determination denying a Certificate of Appropriateness in the absence of any factual support. The HPC based its decision on the premise that the existing house could be renovated and altered to suit the Applicants' needs but there is absolutely no evidence in the record to establish how that can happen and no realistic alternative was offered by the HPC. For the reasons set forth below,the Applicants submit that they have met the Criteria for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition or Removal under Section 170-9 of the Town Code and that the HPC's Determination is erroneous and contrary to the evidence in the record of the proceeding below. ARGUMENT POINT I THE APPLICANTS HAVE MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISITING HOME UNDER CHAPTER 170 OF THE TOWN CODE Under Chapter 170-9 of the Southold Town Code, the HPC is required to consider the following criteria in passing on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of a historic landmark: 1. The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the public interest; 2. Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character; 3. The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty; 4. Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town; and S. Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture. The Applicant is not required to produce evidence establishing all of these criteria. The criteria are simply guidelines established by the Town Board for the HPC to consider in its review. The Town Code does NOT prohibit demolition. To the contrary, the Town Board's stated legislative intent for Chapter 170 was to afford proper recognition to historic landmarks and protect them from incompatible demolition in a manner that does not "affect, abridge, limit or change in any way the uses permitted by the zoning regulations as applicable to such properties". Chapter 170,therefore acknowledges that in cases such as this,demolition may be appropriate and the mere fact that a property lies within a historic district does not deprive the homeowner of its development rights under the Town Code. Here,the record clearly establishes that the existing house on the subject premises has few if any historic elements. It is respectfully submitted that Chapter 170 does not mandate the preservation of an unsafe and uninhabitable structure that has been substantially altered and expanded over the years, merely because a portion of the existing structure was constructed 100 years ago by an Orient resident. A review of the HPC's findings with respect to the criteria set forth in Section 170-9 in their Determination reveals that the HPC"s denial of an Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition was based primarily on generalizations regarding the size, character and location of the house in the historic district that have no factual support in the record. The Commissioners ignored the scientific data and expert testimony presented for the record regarding the condition of the existing house and the testimony and documentary evidence reading the history of prior alterations that stripped it of all of its original features. Had the HPC properly applied the relevant fact to the applicable criteria in Section 170-9 of the Town Code, the appropriateness of demolition of the existing structure would be patently obvious. The relevant criteria are addressed seriatim below: 1. The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the public interest The HPC characterized the house as a fine example of the bay cottages that existed in Orient in the early part of the 20" century, however, they made no finding as to how the existing house compares to one of those cottages. In fact, the HPC expressly acknowledged that the original cottage constructed in 1918 was substantially altered and added to over time. It cannot be disputed that the addition to the house in the late 1950's has no historic value. When that renovation was completed, what may have been a"fine example of a bay cottage"ceased to exist. As such,the HPC's finding that the 675 Skippers Lane is"one of the few representative bay cottages remaining" is simple hyperbole with no support in the record. The HPC did not identify one historic element of the house that is worthy of preservation. They, nevertheless, conclude that the "proposed alterations do not promote the public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark". This analysis is clearly flawed since the criteria address demolition, not alteration. The HPC has failed to establish that demolition of this uninhabitable structure would be a detriment to the public interest since the original 1918 cottage is long gone. 2. Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character Once again,the HPC's findings fall short of factual support in the record and are nothing more than unsubstantiated generalizations based on the existence of the property within the boundaries of the Historic District. Curiously, neither this house nor any other"bay cottage" appears in the Orient Historic Society's publication"Historic Orient Village" which begs the question of the historic significance of the structure. But even if the original structure was typical of the type and size of home that existing at some point in Orient's history,the HPC failed to make a finding of how the existing structure, in its altered and dilapidated condition, contributes to the history or character of Southold Town. Even if there were historic elements left in this house, the HPC cannot ignore the fact that the structure is riddled with mold, lead and asbestos and structurally incompatible with any possible alteration. 3. The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design,texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty The HPC expressly acknowledges that the house is not of"such old and unsual or uncommon design, texture and material"and that its design"is not historically significant" and then reiterates the same unsubstantiated generalization that the size and type of home is a contributor to the streetscape and history of the Historic District. This contention is once again belied by the overwhelming evidence in the record regarding the physical condition of the existing house. The house that sits at 675 Skippers today is not a"small, plain, fisherman's cottage from the early 20d' century". Whatever Mr. Vail constructed in 1918 has long since been renovated and expanded leaving no elements that are deserving of reproduction. 4. Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town The sole finding here by the HPC is that the house should be retained merely because it is a registered landmark. The HPC could offer no other justification for retention of the home. Here again, the HPC's finding is made in a vacuum, in complete disregard of the expert analysis and recommendation for demolition. Astonishingly, the HPC's Determination fails to offer any discussion of the current condition of the house beyond a passing mention in the 71 Whereas clause of the determination, which erroneously cites the January 8, 2019 report of Robert O'Brien regarding the necessity of demolition,and then dismisses his opinion without explanation. In fact, in both his January 15,2019 Report and his oral testimony at the 4/10/19 public hearing,Mr. O'Brien unequivocally recommended demolition as the only option. The HPC erred in basing its findings on their fanciful image of a bay cottage that may have existed in 1918 and not on the existing structure. 5. Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture With respect to this criteria, the HPC Determination offers nothing more than irrelevant, boilerplate comments regarding landmarked properties in Orient, without any specific reference to any historic feature of the house at 675 Skippers Lane, the retention of which will increase real estate values or encourage interest in local history or architecture. The existing home is a dilapidated eye sore that is surrounded by larger, renovated homes. While the HPC comments that historic homes can add to the attractiveness of the hamlet,this home does not. The average person driving by would discern absolutely nothing of any historic or architectural significance because the house is devoid of such elements. It is clear that the HPC's finding is based on a policy to deny demolitions"unless there is no prudent alternative." The HPC's conclusion that"the structure can be renovated and altered to accomodate the need[s] of the applicant" is entirely belied by the overwhelming evidence in the record to the contrary. The Town Code requires the HPC to elaborate on the available alternative which they failed to do. They do not explain their belief that the house can be renovated and they obtained no expert engineering support for this contention. Instead,the Commissioners make a passing reference to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation which are merely general guidelines that are to be "applied to projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility'. The Applicants maintain that there are no historic elements in their home that are worthy of preservation. Even if there were,the record confirms that once the toxic, contaminated and structurally unsound elements of this house are removed, there will be nothing left to rehabilitate. It is not economically or technically feasible or even possible to renovate the existing structure to current building code standards. The HPC has failed to offer any justification for their denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of this house nor have they provided a reasonable alternative. The HPC's analysis of the criteria for alteration is inapposite here since demolition is clearly appropriate and warranted. As such,their Determination must be set aside. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing,the Applicants, Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato, submit that the overwhelming evidence presented for the record in all proceedings before the HPC relating to this Application establishes that that demolition of the existing house at 675 Skippers Lane is entirely appropriate under the facts and circumstances here. It is therefore respectfully requested that the Town Board annul and set aside the HPC's Determination and grant the Applicants a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition. Dated: Southold,New York July 16, 2019 Respectfully Submitted, TWOMEY,L M, SHEA,KELLY, DUBIN UARTA O, LLP Attorne for Applic By: Martin D.tAnegan,Esq. 56340 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 T: (631) 727-2180 F: (631) 574-1258 Edward Webb, Chairperson Town Hall Annex Anne Surchin,Vice Chair 54375 Route 25 jo Donald Feiler PO Box 1179 James Grathwohl Southold,NY 11971 Robert Harper Fax(631)765-9502 James Garretson Telephone: (631)765-1802 Joseph McCarthy www.southoldtownny.gov Tracey Dwyer,Administrative Assistant Town of Southold Historic Preservation Commission Tuesday, May 21, 2019 SOLUTION #5.21.19.1 Denial of a Certificate of A )ro riateness RE: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, SCT # 1000-24.-2-1 Owner: Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY is on the Town of Southold Registry of Historic Landmarks, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 56-7 (b)of the Town Law(Landmarks Preservation Code) of the Town of Southold, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission, and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting permission to demolish the existing structure and construct a new home on the site, and, WHEREAS, a final public hearing was held on April 10, 2019. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission determined that the proposed work detailed in the above referenced application does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-8 (A) of the Southold Town Code and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Commission determined that the proposal as presented will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance of the Orient National Historic District and denied the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. MOVER: Commissioner Garretson SECONDER: Commissioner Don Feiler AYES: Chairperson Edward Webb, Vice Chair Surchin, Commissioner Harper, Commissioner Garretson, Commissioner Joseph McCarthy, Commissioner Feiler and Commissioner Grathwohl. RESULT: Opposed Unanimously Please note that any deviation from the approved plans referenced above may require further review from the commission. Signed: n ., Tracey L Dwyer, Application Coordinator for the Historic Preservation Commission Date: May 22, 2019 Town Hall Annexw ° Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road � Fax(631)765-9502 a P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 �J�� BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Determination Regarding Application for Certificate of Appropriateness for 675 Skippers Lane Orient NY Date: May 21, 2019 Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957: SCTM# 1000-24-02-01 Owners: Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York is listed on the Town of Southold and National Register of Historic places, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 170 of the Southold Town Code (Landmarks Preservation Code), all proposals for material changes/alteration or demolition must be reviewed and granted a certificate for appropriateness by the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and WHEREAS, an application was submitted on June 28, 2018, to demolish the historic landmark at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY, replace the original portion of the structure in kind with the addition of a newly designed two-story wing on the side adjacent to the park and WHEREAS, Commissioners made a visit to the site to inspect the proposed project, and later met with the owners and their architect. On multiple occasions the Commission reviewed and commented on plans and later amended plans for a proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new home on the site, and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the proposed demolition was held on November 20, 2018, that hearing exceeded its allotted time, was adjourned for completion, and p Town Hall AnnexTelephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road � k Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 ? % Southold,NY 11971-0959y BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD WHEREAS, on April 10, 2019,the Commission held a further public hearing on the application proposing the demolition of the home at which time written and oral evidence were presented prior to the close of the hearing, and WHEREAS, At that time the owners application for demolition of 675 Skippers Lane was offered, and the Commission accepted, a home inspection report by Robert O' Brien dated January 8, 2019, which does not indicate the structure must be demolished, as well as his oral testimony regarding the current condition of the structure, and the possibility of its complete demolition, that the conimissioners deem inadequate, and WHEREAS, based upon the testimony, documentation and other evidence, the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property and a contributing element of the Orient Village National Register Historic District. Although the applicant termed the proposed new structure as an "in kind" replacement, as set forth below, the proposed new structure is vastly different from the existing structure and therefore constitutes a proposed alteration to the existing facades subject to the criteria of Sections 170-8 and 170-9. The buildings on the property consist of the existing 1-1/2 story, 1880- square foot residence and a 373 square-foot, two-car garage. A one story gable roofed addition was added to the original cottage in the 1957. The 13,817 square-foot property fronts both Skippers Lane to the north and Harbor Road (formerly State Street) to the west. The back of the property faces Poquatuck Park to the south. Three facades are visible to the public from the streets and are also visible in two directions from Poquatuck Park. Additionally, the house can be also seen from the causeway on Route 25 before entering the Village from the west. J Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road " Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 � Southold,NY 11971-0959 y" BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD The subject property, originally belonged to Edward S. Vail and his wife Agnes Vail. Edward Vail, who came from one of the oldest families in Orient, was a 0h generation fisherman who sailed the family's fleet of boats along with his father, George Sumner Vail. A December 27, 1918 news item in the County Review newspaper noted, "Edward S. Vail has been discharged from the army and has returned to Orient where he and his wife are domiciled in their cottage recently built on State Street" (now Skippers Lane). The cottage, sold in 1938 to Hobart Van Nostrand and his wife Florence, remained in the Van Nostrand family for four generations until recently purchased by the applicants. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District, which together reflect the history and growth of the early village from a farming and fishing colmnunity to a prominent year round and summer residential district. The subject property, although altered over the years, represents a worthy example of the rural regional vernacular style typical of bay cottages in the early part of the 20th Century. At one time, these cottages, which belonged to tradesmen and baymen, dotted the waterfront in Orient. In its evaluation, the Commission has considered how, and if, the proposal to demolish 675 Skippers Lane and replace it with a completely new structure meets the criteria outlined in Section 170- 8 Criteria for the Historic Preservation Commission for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks, as well as Section 170-9 of the Southold Town Code, Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks. WHEREAS, pursuant to § 170-8 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the enumerated criteria for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks and made the following findings: Town Hall Annex �` Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 � � BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (1) Whether the proposed alteration is consistent with principles of adaptive reuse,whereby the principal historic features of the landmark are maintained while permitting the use of the landmark for new uses other than its original use. Both the current structure and the structure with proposed alterations are to be occupied as single family homes. There has been no use proposed other than as a single family residence. Therefore, the principle of adaptive reuse would not be applicable to this determination. (2) The similarity in design, architecture and appearance of the proposed alteration with the historic design, architecture and appearance. The property owner has proposed demolition of the existing residence and the new construction of an enlarged structure. The proposed new structure pays homage to the 1918 cottage and is melded to a proposed addition modeled after vernacular, 19t"- Century residences in Orient Village. This addition combines details only found in the 19"'-Century such as 2 over 2 windows (Italianate style), low-pitched rooflines, Yankee gutters (c. 1870-1900) in flat soffit overhangs, etc. The proposed alterations are not similar in design, architecture and appearance to the historic design, architecture and appearance of the original structure. The two wings taken together, form a completely new house and bear only some superficial resemblance to what exists now. This is, essentially, a completely new structure from the roof to foundation, larger in almost all respects. Additionally, the new building does not maintain visual compatibility with the historic character of neighboring properties in public view. For example, the design of the addition facing Poquatuck Park was conceived to relate to the rear fagades and rear facade additions of neighboring houses. Those earlier approved additions were not required to conform to the current, correct town code standard at the time of construction,which only considered the street facade instead Town Hall AnnexNR Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 ' ..� . BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD of what lies within public view. Consequently, claiming relevance to non-conforining backside additions is simply not an acceptable or relevant design approach. While the average house in Orient Village is approximately 2,000 square feet, the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the 1,880 square-foot existing house will result in a two story 3,328 square- foot structure. This is a 77% increase to the existing home on a third of an acre. There is more building-added designed space than is compatible with the property's size in relationship to the existing colninunity. In terms of scale, massing and size, the project is incompatible with the existing fabric of the historic district. While not written specifically into our code, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards apply to all National Register Historic Districts and are referenced as a resource in Southold's Historic Preservation Commission Handbook. The Standards provide recommendations, which are used as guidelines in National Register Districts throughout the United States. The Standards discourage mimicry and even encourage additions that differentiate themselves from the existing while still being compatible. This goes to the significance of the layers of history on a landmarked house. The Secretary's Standards recommend that additions be subordinate to the existing building. In the case of 675 Skippers Lane the historic house will read as the subordinate wing to the larger addition. The inappropriate scale, massing issues, and inchoate forms of the proposed project are not compatible with the historic district. (3) The necessity for complying with the applicable building codes or other federal or state regulations. The original portion of the existing structure was constructed prior to the Town's adoption of a Building Code. The subsequent alterations are in compliance with the building codes applicable at the time of the alterations. The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed alterations are a Town Hall Annex ti Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 w. BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD necessary for compliance with the applicable building codes or other federal or state regulations as they relate to a structure of this age. (4) The necessity of such alteration to allow for a use of the property permitted by the Town Code in the applicable zoning district. The original portion of the existing structure was constructed prior to the Town's adoption of a zoning code and therefore has a prior non-conforming use. The property is currently zoned for a single family home and the use of the as built structure is in compliance with the applicable zoning district. The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed alterations are necessary to allow for a use of the property permitted by the Southold Town Code in the applicable zoning district. (5) The public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District which together reflect the history and growth of the early village fi-om a farming and fishing community to a prominent year round and summer residential district. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers Lane and the Historic District as a whole. WHEREAS, pursuant to § 170-9 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the enumerated criteria for approval of demolition or removal of historic landmarks and made the following findings: (1) The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the public interest. Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road v Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 � � � � t BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD The subject property, although altered over the years to be relevant for its time,represents a fine example of the rural regional vernacular style typical ofbay cottages in the early part of the 24tH- Century. At one time these cottages, which belonged to tradesmen and baymen, dotted the waterfront in Orient. Today, the significance of 675 Skippers Lane rests in the fact that it is one of the few representative bay cottages remaining from that era in Orient's history. Therefore, the proposed alterations do not promote the public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. (2) Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District which together reflect the history and growth of the early village from a farming and fishing community to a prominent year round and summer residential district. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers Lane and the Historic District. (3) The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty. Although not of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty, it nonetheless has historical significance that would be lost following the proposed demolition. While the home at 675 Skippers Lane is not historically significant because of its design, its type, a small, rather plain and unadorned workman's or fisherman's home of the early 20t" century, makes it and important contributor to the overall streetscape and history of the Historic District. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its dernolition would significantly change the character of Skippers lane and the Historic District. G Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 .jjit4�, Southold,NY 11971-0959 � �� BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD (4) Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town. 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property and a contributing element of the Orient National Register Historic District. As such, it significantly contributes to the general historic ambience and attractiveness of not only Orient Village, but also the entire Town of Southold. (5) Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture. Properties in Orient, especially in the historic district, continue to be sought after as both year round and summer homes. Even in a turbulent real estate market, the value of historic homes have generally not decreased and some have even increased over non- historic properties. As a registered landmark, 675 Skippers Lane contributes to the historic nature and overall attractiveness of the hamlet that draws new homeowners and visitors to the area. The official policy of the Landmark Preservation Colnnlission is adverse to demolition of a landmark structure unless there is no prudent alternative. The Commission cannot allow a registered landmark to be demolished under circumstances where the structure can be renovated and altered to accommodate the need of an applicant. The Commission notes that there is a design alternative (see Town of Southold Historic Preservation Colmnission (HPC handbook, Part II: Design guidelines for Appropriate Design in the Historic Context) and that the owners can accomplish their goals without demolishing this historic structure. The Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) adheres to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (see HPC Handbook, Appendix, II.) The Standards are ten basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive Town Hall Annex a Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road p Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 ! �lU IV 1111 � N' F BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD character of a historic building and its site, while allowing for a reasonable chance to meet new needs. We reiterate, the owners can accomplish their goals without demolishing this historic structure. NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as presented at the public hearing on April 10, 2019, Will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance of the Orient National Historic District, and (1) Does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-8 Criteria for the Historic Preservation Commission for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks (2) Does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission denies the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition and facade alteration of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY. with the following conditions: the applicant may apply for relief on the ground that the detennination results in a hardship in accordance with the procedures in Section 170-10. Telephone (631)765-1802 �� 4d Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631) 765-9502 " P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 � p ( � -4 SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Record of vote: Yes: 7 No: 0 Recused: 0 This Resln was duly adopted: May 21, 2019. Sig .��� Date: Chairman Edward Webb, Historic Preservation Commission gUffpL� Town of Southold 9/21/2017 o� cOy� 53095 Main Rd ca x Southold,New York 11971 , �� o� �'°I PRE EXISTING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: 39228 Date: 9/21/2017 THIS CERTIFIES that the structure(s)located at: 675 Skippers Ln, Orient SCTM#: 473889 Sec/Block/Lot: 24.-2-1 Subdivision: Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the requirements for a built prior to APRIL 9, 1957 pursuant to which CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NUMBER Z- 39228 dated 9/21/2017 was issued and conforms to all the requriements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is: wood frame one family dwelling with covered porches and accessory wood frame garage_* The certificate is issued to Vannostrand,Barbara&Hughes,Jean (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED *PLEASE SEE ATTACHED INSPECTION REPORT. %L %ago, 0ho d Signature , BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD HOUSING CODE INSPECTION REPORT LOCATION: 675 Skippers Ln,Orient SUFF.CO.TAX MAP NO.: 24.-2-1 SUBDIVISION: NAME OF OWNER(S): Vannostrand,Barbara&Hughes,Jean OCCUPANCY: ADMITTED BY: SOURCE OF REQUEST: Vannostrand,Barbara DATE: 9/21/2017 DWELLING: #STORIES: 1.5 #EXITS: 2 FOUNDATION: concrete/concrete block CELLAR: x CRAWL SPACE: x BATHROOM(S): 2 TOILET ROOM(S): UTILITY ROOM(S): PORCH TYPE: covered porches DECK TYPE: PATIO TYPE: BREEZEWAY: FIREPLACE: yes GARAGE: DOMESTIC HOTWATER: yes TYPE HEATER: electric AIR CONDITIONING: TYPE HEAT: gas WARM AIR: floor furn not working HOT WATER: #BEDROOMS: 4 #KITCHENS: 1 BASEMENT TYPE: unfinished OTHER: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: GARAGE,TYPE OF CONST: wood frame STORAGE,TYPE OF CONST: SWIMMING POOL: GUEST,TYPE OF CONST: OTHER: VIOLATIONS: REMARKS: INSPECTED BY: JOHNJ DATE OF INSPECTION: 9/19/2017 TIME START: 2:45pm END: 3:25pm r Cdri�a , �bForm No.6 . d{.7-7 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL 765-1802 APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY This application must be filled in by typewriter or ink and submitted to the Building Department with the following: A. For new building or new.use: 1. Final survey of property with accurate location of all buildings,property lines,streets,and unusual natural or- topographic rtopographic features. 2. Final Approval from Health Dept.of water supply and sewerage-disposal(S-9 form). 3. Approval of electrical installation from Board of Fire Underwriters. 4. Sworn statement from plumber certifying that the solder used in system contains less than 2/10 of 1%lead 5. Commercial building,industrial building,multiple residences and similar buildings and installations,a certificate of Code Compliance from architect or engineer responsible for the building. 6. Submit Planning Board Approval of completed site plan requirements. B. For existing buildings(prior to April 9,1957)non-conforming uses,or buildings and"pre-existing"land uses: 1. Accurate survey of property showing all property lines,streets,building and unusual natural or topographic features. 2. A properly completed application and consent to inspect signed by the applicant.I£a Certificate of Occupancy is denied,the Building Inspector shall state the reasons therefor in writing to the applicant. C. Fees 1. Certificate of Occupancy-New dwelling$50.00,Additions to dwelling$50.00,Alterations to dwelling$50.00, Swimming pool$50.00,Accessory building$50.00,Additions to accessory building$50.00,Businesses$50.00. 2. Certificate of Occupancy on Pre-existing Building- $100.00 3. Copy of Certificate of Occupancy-$.25 4. Updated Certificate of Occupancy- $50.00 5. Temporary Certificate of Occupancy-Residential$15.00,Commercial$15.00 Date. l 1 New Construction: Old or Pre-existing Building: (check one) Location of Property: 5' 1 �(' ` House No. Streetp Hamlet Owner or Owners of Property: _— Suffolk County Tax Map No 1000,Section Block 2 Lot Subdivision Filed Map. Lot: Permit No. Date of Permit. Applicant: Health Dept.,Approval: Underwriters Approval: Planning Board Approval: Request for: Temporary Certificate Final Certificate: (check one) Fee Submitted:$ G t - - Applicant Signature_ CONSENT TO INSPECTION Gtr✓ . Nd 9 4,/'. ,the undersigned,do(es)hereby state: Owner(s)Name(s) ZT,r%rien That the undersigned(is)( of the premises in the Town Of Southold, located at which is shown and designated on the Suffolk Co, Tax Map as,District 1600, Section gq Block 2. ,Lot I That the undersigned(has) (have)filed, or cause to be filed, an application in the Southold Town Build' Ins p ctor's Office for the following: That the undersigned do(es)hereby give consent to the Building Inspectors of the Town of Southold to enter upon the above described property,including any and all buildings located thereon,to conduct such inspections as they may deem necessary with respect to the aforesaid application, including inspections to determine that said premises comply,with all of the laws,ordinances,rules and regulations of the Town of Southold. The undersigned,in consenting to such inspections, do(es)so with the knowledge and understanding that any information obtained in the conduct of such inspections may be used in subsequent prosecutions for violations of the laws, ordinances,rules or regulations of the Town of Southold. Dated: &l-7 �(Signa�ture) (Print Name (Signature) (Print Name) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RE ?0D CARD D OWNER STREETr VILLAGE DIST. SUB. LOT A m 2,1171 �fI )? kQ►'/l'JI' �r Nn E,.. ACR. Aw � r aye 1e � 1N TYPE'OF BUILDING r� f RES. a� St5 � 21 b SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. c MISC. mkt. Volae LAND IMP. TOTAL - DATE REMARKS 0 m LO Ln a I GOG DS1�al �_ I i a r a a ✓/ r f 3 ��l/ � � �fQ r� S �° f 0Oa 4 l Soon6�/3f7 k 9 -L H,7#9; o2S3- _ DSfi'Qdy� ( �S l' n�fanQ �+ZfS?i a —L. �� - a'�rdl�os��r, �s� �s � AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW ABOVE '- FARM �* L/Z6(S, I Qi�t Acre Value Per Value Acre LD i Noble Y , m 'ilfable 2 f t t .� ,L ll7/ [[fable 3 h ` Q m i0 rood[Qnd varnpiQnd FRONTAGE ON WATER m ushlnnd FRONTAGE ON ROAD (� "- :)use Plat DEPTH m BULKHEAD `t°I DOCK , c,;��_;,-•;ori: r ���� �l�iiiliiiii!!■�!! ME Vol . _ ■�■� ■ iii■■■■■■■ii■!ONE N i■ia ■■■!iiil, ■itlil■■■!i■■■■■i■■ ■■i�ff ■■!i■■■'i■■■■■■■■■i i■■EiN ■■!i■i■i■■■ i■Wiili■■■i!■■!t■■iiiaiEN Type RoofRooms I st . . . .. • .. i pp W�D17ARI A ?I C T �O 4•� �STR/F �)� _ .F• rye, S/per A�� �� ,.�J Cisme °RgYc T"G CM,r �95 H644s . SpL/T �re, t-0 �o� olo TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPT. 765-'1802 INSPECTION [ ] FOUNDATION 1ST [ ] ROUGH PLBG. ( ] FOUNDATION .2ND [ ] INSULATION [ ] FRAMING /STRAPPING [ ] FINAL [ ] FIREPLACE & CHIMNEY j ] FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION ( ] FIRE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT PENETRATION ( ] ELECTRICAL (ROUGH) [ ] ELECTRICAL (FINAL) REMARKS: DATE INSPECTORAV yvv C LOCATION: J � (number & et) (municipality) SUBDIVISION: VLA-P•N'O.: - LOT(S): .. NAME OF OWNER(S)': - OCCUPANCY: C71MA4, IPA (type) (owner- tenant,)-ADMITTED BY: Ift4t/ _ ACCOMPANIED BY: KEY AVAILABLE: SUFF. CO. TAX MAP•N O. 1000 SOURCE OF REQUEST; , . . DATE: L DWELLING 0 TYPE OF CON TRUCTI.ON: WFQO' STORIES: 0 �( L #EXITS: ?� on FOUNDATZO`N: b� A5 11 ENT:w, CRAML SPACE: # OF BEDROOMS: 1ST FLR: �� 2ND FLR-: 3RD FLIt: BATHRO'OMO AA '"TOILET nOOM(S): UTILITY ROOM: .' PORCI .TYPE DECK, T'YI'E: PATIO; YPE: Ire Iq k BREEZEWAY:' FIRLPLACE: (,�C� � QARAGF,:Q^-- DOMESTIC HOTWATER: TYPEhEATEIt: AIRCOXI)ITIONING: . Qry ftq,-(do f TYPE HEAT: WARM AYR: HOTWATER: 4 OF KITCHENS: FINISHED BASEMENT:- YES _ . NO OTHER: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES , GARAGE; TYPE OF CONS'.: �"t--OST-ORAGE, TYPE CONST.: SWIMMING POOL: - - GUEST,'TYPE CONST: - OTHER: VIOLATIONS: CHAPTER 144 &N,Y. STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION &BUILDING CODE - T.00.&TTON A-MT nom,„ APPLICATION OF LOUIS POTTERS&LENORE BRANCATO TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PREMISES: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY INDEX OF DOCUMENTS 1) Copy of Preliminary Statement of Applicants dated 11/27/18 2) Copy of the Project Narrative prepared by Peter H. Cook,Architect, dated 11/27/18 3) Copy of the Transcript of the Public Hearing held on 11/27/2018 4) Transcript of Minutes from the Town's meeting in 2018 5) Copy of Fischetti Engineering's letter dated 10/31/18 regarding foundation inspection 6) Copy of Inspection Report prepared by Insight Environmental Inc. dated 9/4%18 7) Copy of Mold Inspection Report prepared by Hayes Microbial Consulting dated 8/23/18 8) Copy of Lead Based Paint Evaluation prepared by Insight Environmental Inc.• dated 9/4/18 9) Copy of Limited Initial Fungal Assessment prepared by Insight Environmental Inc. dated 9/6/18 10)Copies of letters opposing Applicants'Application dated in November 2018 11)Copy of Martin D. Finnegan's letter dated 2/25/19 requesting that the remainder of the public hearing on Applicants'Application be scheduled 12)Copy of Edward Webb's letter dated 3/18/19 in response 13)Copy of Robert O'Brien, P.E.'s Report dated 1/15/19 14)Copies of letters opposing Applicants'Application dated in April 2019 15)Copy of Affidavit of Posting dated 4/10/19 16) Copy of Introduction prepared by Peter H. Cook,Architect 17) PowerPoint Presentation dated April 2019 prepared by Peter H. Cook, Architect 18)Design Development Plans from original to current 19)Copies of photos of neighboring premises 20)Copy of the Transcript of the Public Hearing held on 4/10/19 21) Copy of the Decision of the Historic Preservation Commission dated 5/24/19 denying Applicants'Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness 22)Copy of newspaper article clipping from 1918 Application of I enore Brancato and Louis Potters 675 Skippers bane., Orient,NY SM M#1000-24-2-1 Application to Historic Preseiwation Commission for Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or new construction Town Code Section 170-6 Memorandum for Hearing November 27,2018 Relief Requested: Certificate of Appropriateness Preliminary Statement: Skipper's Lane is purportedly within the Dcsignatcd Historic District in Orient. According to the:National RegistiT of I listorie Places 600 acres and 120 buildings were aJded. According;to the State of New fork the"Period of Signilicance is 1900-1024, 1875-1891), 182a- 1849,1800-182 1,1750-1799, 17/00-1749". The Architectural Style which influenced the inclusion into tl,c National Register was"Italianate.,Greek Revival,and federal Arch itectura:'". The subject horse at 675 Skippers I.ane has none of the above periods of construction,and has none of the listed architectural stvlcs identified as significant. The prior owners cid not request landmark status it was imposed on the property merely by its location on Skipper's Lane. The existing house. according to the National Registry of historic Places, is merely ra "contributing building'^ because it is located within the Designated Orient Historic District. The existing;house is not"historic"and it is in very Dari condition and is not presently habitable and in its present condition lacks architectural value. The Board must weigh balancing the desire of the owner to construct a safe and architecturally conforming home within the character of the Historic District, versus, keeping the least desirable house in the neighborhood merely because it exists. 1. Standards for consideration: According to both your ]-landbook and Town Code Chapter 170-9; The Board should consider the following;criteria for a certificate of These standards are discussed below. (1) The landmark is of'such architectural or historic interest-that its demolition or removal would he to the detriment of the public intOrVA,The property contains an existing 1,874 square foot 1 1/2 story wood frarne dwelling and 374 square foot detached garage. There are two distinct wings of the]rouse, the wing facing Skipper's Lane is believed to be constructed in 1938 and sits on a formed concrete foundation. The one story, low pitch gable addition wing facing State Strect(a.k.a Harbor River Road) was constructed in late 1960's or early 1970's and sits on a concrete block foundation. When the addition was constructed it appears that many of the architectural elements of the 1930',wing were-modernized to the 1970's". "lIhe house itself does not possess significant character or historic,aesthetic or archaeological interest or value as part of the cultural, architectural,economic or social heritage of the community or Town. The existing house is a bad 1970's renovatiotr. All the architectural features have been stripped. According to historic Orient Village.20"Anniversary Reissue published by Oysterponds historical Society, Orient, New Fork 1995, the Historic District extends "just far enough to encompass the concentrated; built-up section of Orient Village as it was in the,late 18" and early 19'h centuries, and as it still is today in many respects". This house did not exist during this time period. The proposed House is intended to capture the roof line and porch of the 1938 wing but also the architectural feat ffe,4 and styles of the late 18v'and early 19"century 2)Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character; The existing house.in its current fnrin,(toes not contribute to the Town's history or character. The proposed house has been placed on the footprint of the original home find is retaining the gabled and shad roof_ The Board requested that the owner retain the location of the home and the view from Skipper's Lane. This view hag been duplicated as seen on the architect's elevations and Jaynes Napoleon's, Tile Visitor- "Nessuno", %009 acrylic on panel painting of the existing house. With the artist's permission, the,existing honse is shown on a rendering. (liereut attached Exhibit A) (3)The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, textctie and material that it could not be reproduced or he reproduced only with great difficulty;That is clearly not the case. The original structure built in @ 1938,was altered in 1970 with the construction of the addition. The proposed plan replicates the design (gabled and shed roof and covered porch),rerrkmns asbestos shingles and replaces artificial manufactured materials with ntttrlt;d materials. The plan proposes use of reclaimed brick foundation and chirnney,pale grey cedar shingles; integrated gutters in the roof edge, white trine, barge hoards along the foundation line and corner boards, screened-in porches and 2 over 2 double-hung windows. According to Joseph Fischetti,P.E.,of Fischetti Engineering, the capacity of the foundation to support the new construction cannot be determined without excavation of the foundations and observation of the condition of the footings below the existing foundation,Moreover, it Nvas his opinion that there is no historic architectural value in the existing foundation. The concrete and concrete block exisEing toundalion is very similar to-what is constructed today. (Exhibit B) (4)Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect a historie place or area of historic interest in the Town;The existing house did not exist during the pet iod of historic interest%Bich the Historic District intended to be preserved. Orient decided that "historic significance"would be claimed for all structures Will before 1900. This existing house is not"historically significant" as the term was intended in the adoption of the Historic District. (5)Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture, The original house was not maintained and requires a complete gut inside and out. The extent of renovation required to preserve the existing structure would exceed 50%of the value of the existing structure. "fhe New York State Building Code would require the house to be brought up to current New York State Building Cedes, including the energy code and hurricane standards. Without specific relief as a"historic structure"from the standards of the New York State Building Code, from the [r ixning to the insulation,most of the house would be replaced. The house-itself is not"historic". it is within the Historic Distract,and is most likely not eligible for relief froni the New Mork State Building Code. It is not in the best interest of the owner to preserve the non-code compliant features of the existing house. The proposed plan builds new with the sante architectural features the Board has requested be preserved. The Architectural features which will be replicatecl are the gable and shed roofs, covered porches with roof decks above. Reclairne:l brick foundation, if a new foundation is constructed, and reclaimed brick chimney. The proposed house will be more conforming to the architectural style of the adjacent homes and will increase the real estate value of this property and adjacent,properties. The house would not qualify as a landmark outside of the Historic District The site has no historic event or is identified with historic personages. The house does not possess a unique location or physical characteristic;thereby represmiting an established and familiar visual feature of the community or Town, The owner has taken great care to design a house, adjacent to the park, which conforms to the size, Volumes and architectural features seen of nei_qllborii:g horses. As can be seen from the architect's exhibits,the design has been Carefully piepared to conform to match the elevations of the neighboring homes. The location of the parcel adjacent to the Village Green does not,by itself,mise the level of historic significance of the existing structure. Also included and made part of the application plans and elevations renderings Model Landscape plan Elevation overlays (Existing vs. proposed) Existing condition pliotos and details mounted on foan, core. Neighboring property clevation comparison FnvironmenTal test results. Story board of similar house details throughout Orient that we are proposing for our project. II. Conclusion: A certificate of appropriateness must be granted. To deny the o-,vner the right to reconstruct the proposed house,based oil all the Gets in support of the application, would be arbitrary and capricious. peter h. cook I architect 728 montauk highway I box '1102 1 water mill, ny '11976 27 November 2018 Potters residence, 67'5 Skippers Lane, Orient New York. SCTM##1000-24-02-01 Project narrative. To Whom It May Concern: The 13,817 SF.site at the corner of Skippers Lane currently includes an existing 1,827 SF 1-1/2 story wood frame residence and a 374 SF detached garage. The existing residence has 2 pre-existing non-conforming front yard setbacks of 21.2'on the north property line and 30.4'on the western property line where 35'is required under current zoning. Additionally the 374 SF pre-existing nonconforming two-car garage is set 5.3'to 5.7'From the easternmost property line where 35'rear yard setback is required under current zoning. The applicant intends to maintain this garage in its current location and re-finish it with a new roof,new siding,new windows,and new garage doors. Uncertain as to the original construction date of the structures,there appears to be two distinct wings to the main house;an original 1-1/2 story gabled structure which appears to have been constructed sometime around 1938,and a later single-story low pitched gable addition thought to have been built in the 1960s. The project as proposed would involve the reconstruction and expansion of the existing 1,827 SF 1-1/2 story residence,resulting in a new 3,341SF two-story residence built in a style compatible with detailing referenced throughout the Orient historic district. The design intent is to replicate the circa 1938 wing of the house and honor it's distinct and familiar roofline and front porch details, retaining the exact sitting as the existing structure. This would maintain visual familiarity on the most visible portions of the house,The north west corner of Skippers Lane where it turns along Harbor River Road towards the Bay. The original 1-1/2 story roof line is proposed to be lengthened(enhancing the front porch feature)and is proposed to attach to a 2-story gabled farm house wing which will house the updated living areas. Due to the positioning of the original house and our desire to maintain its footprint,we will require a dimensional variance to maintain the existing front yard dimension of 30.4 feet where 35'is required. petercookarchitect.com p: 631.283.0077 1 t: 631.283.5960 27 November 2018 P.2 of 2 Potters Residence.Project narrative. The proposed lot coverage for this new residence is 2,893 SF or 20.93%where 2,763.4 SF or 20%is permitted.As the project as proposed exceeds current lot coverage maximums by.093%or 129.6 SF applicant seeks an area variance as well. The design of the of the house as evidence by the plans,elevations and renderings and scale model include elements commonly found in the Orient historic district; Gabled and shed roofs. Covered porches with roof decks above. Reclaimed brick foundation and chimney. Pale gray cedar shingles. Integrated gutters in the roof edge. White trim,barge boards along the foundation line,and corner boards. There are a few extenuating circumstances that the applicant feels makes these variance request reasonable; 1-in the Interest of preserving,if not the structure itself,the historical scale and nature of the structure at the corner of Skippers Lane,the applicant is willing to honor the original roof line and porch details of the current structure,that are familiar to the neighborhood,in the proposed residence. Accordingly the applicant seeks to maintain the existing position of the north west corner of the existing house. 2-Applicants property abuts the Oyster Pond Historical Society Park,an approximately 3.75-acre vacant lot.Therefore,as the subject property is a corner lot,there is only one adjacent neighboring property. 3-100 Harbor River Road(the ONLY other residence with a front yard on Harbor River Road)enjoys a 32.3'front yard where 40'is required. 4-Two towering trees that are to remain,dwarf any structure proposed for this property. Reullysubmitted, Peter H.Coo IA Architect 1 1 ------------------------------------------- X TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 3 ------------------------------------------- X 4 5 Southold, New York 6 November 27, 2018 7 8 9 10 11 12 Board Members Present: 13 14 JAMES GARRETSON, Chairman 15 ANN SURCHIN, Co—Chairman 16 ROBERT HARPER, Commissioner 17 WILLIAM WEBB, Commissioner 18 GARY PARKER, Commissioner 19 JAMES' GRATHWOHL, Commissioner 20 21 22 23 24 c 25 2 1 2 675 SKIPPERS LANE, ORIENT 3 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: -- the 4 present also represents this 5 Commission, which seeks to build on 6 its additions -- decisions. Sorry. 7 The future is represented by what the 8 community could become, if not 9 protected by landmarks. Today we' re 10 here to listen to; public input, but 11 we' re also going to start with a 12 presentation from the applicant and 13 applicant 's team on what they propose 14 in detail. So that you could 15 evaluate it as the public. Some of 16 you have already been to the work 17 sessions. So you know a lot of this, 18 but this is the latest that is being 19 presented. So whatever you were 20 presented before is not on public 21 record. What is being presented 22 today by the applicants team, is in 23 the public record. I just want to 24 make sure that nothing presented in 25 the work session' s is public record. 3 November 27, 2018 1 So first the applicant will make 2 their presentation. Second, the 3 commissioner' s will ask questions of 4 the applicant. Third, the neighbors 5 and any other interested parties will 6 be heard. They will be able to make 7 their own presentations and present 8 what they want to present. Okay. So 9 without further ado, I will start the 10 hearing officially. 11 And this is public hearing from 12 Peter Cook, for 675 Skippers Lane, 13 Orient, SCTM #1000-24-2-1. Additions 14 and alterations to an existing single 15 family dwelling on a landmark 16 property. You' re on, Peter. 17 Introduce yourself, Peter. 18 MR. COOK: Thank you. Peter Cook, 19 architect. Mr. Chairperson and 20 Members of the Board, I am happy to 21 finally be here with you today and 22 the public hearing session, after all 23 these many months working together. 24 I will start by my prepared statement 25 and then I will press record. 675 4 November 27, 2018 1 Skippers Lane by way of introduction, 2 is a 13,817 square foot site at the 3 corner of Skippers Lane. Currently 4 includes and existing, 1,384 square 5 foot, with one and half story wood l 6 framed and a 374 square foot detached 7 garage. The existing residence, has 8 two preexisting nonconforming 9 setbacks of 21.2 feet on the north 10 property line and 30.4 feet on the 11 western property line, where 35 feet 12 is required at the current zoning. 13 Additionally the 374 square foot i t t 14 preexisting nonconforming two car 15 garage, is at 5.3 feet to 5.7 feet 16 from the eastern most property line, 17 where a 35 foot setback is required 18 under current zoning. The applicant 19 intends to maintain this current 20 garage in its current location with a 21 new roof, new siding, new windows and 22 garage doors. Not certain as to the 23 original construction date of the 24 structures, there appears to be two 25 distinct (Inaudible) main house. I 5 November 27, 2018 1 have had some drawings prepared. An 2 original gable structure which 3 appears to be constructed sometime in 4 the late 1920's. Later shingle style 5 low pitch gable was built in the late 6 1950' s. The project as proposed would 7 involve the reconstruction of the 8 existing (Inaudible) resulting in a 9 new 3300 square foot two story 10 residence. The footprint of the 11 existing house would increase by 980 12 square feet from 1540 square feet to 13 2,520 square feet. There is an old 14 one and half story cottage roof line 15 that is proposed to be lengthen. 16 There is a front porch feature. Due 17 to the original positioning of this 18 house and our desire for this 19 footprint, a position, I think the 20 Board shares, we were required an 21 additional conventional variance to 22 maintain the existing 30.4 front yard 23 dimension along Harbor River Road, 24 where 35 foot is required. The 25 proposed front yard along Skippers 6 November 27, 2018 1 Lane is conforming at 20.5 feet, 2 where a 20 foot average along the 3 street is required. The project as 4 proposed, will require a rear yard 5 setback, of which we have a 47.9 6 -feet, whereas 35 feet is required. 7 And the Oyster Pond Society Park side 8 yard setback, where we have 17.8 9 feet, where 10 feet is only required. 10 The proposed lot coverage for this 11 residence is 2,893 square feet or 12 20.93%, where 2763.4 square feet or 13 20% is permitted. As the project 14 proposed, it exceeds lot coverage by 15 maximums of .093%. Less than 1% the 16 applicant is actively seeking an area 17 variance as well. Existing house. 18 The current house which has remained 19 unattended for many years has 20 deteriorated to its current state of 21 disrepair. The house has mold and 22 asbestos. The siding is asbestos. 23 The roofing is asphalt. The windows 24 are single pane. The trim, soffits 25 and window frames have all been 7 November 27, 2018 1 encased in aluminum. The columns 2 whether original or replaced, have 3 deteriorated to the point where they 4 had to be replaced with 2x4's. The 5 foundation is poured concrete. The 6 original body of the house was 7 expanded with a one—story addition. 8 (Inaudible. ) It is our opinion that 9 anything of significance or 10 contributing has since been either 11 removed, renovated or disintegrated. 12 The house as it stands today has no 13 architectural or craftsmanlike 14 feature that one would consider 15 historically significant or 16 contributing or worthy of restoration 17 or in—kind reproduction. The design. 18 The design intent is to replicate the 19 circa of a 1929 house, with the roof 20 line and porch details. This will 21 maintain visual familiarity. The 22 design of the house is evidenced by 23 the plan and elevations and scale 24 model and commonly found in the 25 Historic District and the Oyster Pond 8 November 27, 2018 1 20th Anniversary publication of the 2 1995 edition of the 1976 original, 3 featuring a pictorial guide of over 4 100 structures. We would note that 5 675 Skippers Lane was not included in 6 either publication. Elements of 675 7 Skippers Lane include gable and shed 8 roof, covered porches with roof decks 9 above. Reclaimed brick foundation 10 and chimney. Integrated gutter in 11 the roof edges. White trim 12 (Inaudible) boards along the 13 foundation and corner boards. Two 14 over two double—hung windows and the 15 house as proposed conforms entirely 16 to the Town of Southold Building 17 Code. We are not asking for a house 18 that is too large or does not follow 19 the code. At the November Zoning of 20 Board of Appeals hearing, I am 21 paraphrasing, "Why would the Potter's 22 buy this home when its condition 23 (Inaudible) Historic District if they 24 did not like the house as it was?" 25 Well, the Potter' s recognized they 9 November 27, 2018 1 were purchasing in the Historic 2 District. It was never their 3 intention to maintain the house as it 4 was. It was recognized by the 5 sellers themselves, as well as, 6 others who they had consulted with 7 pre—purchase, that major work was 8 going to make the house habitable. 9 With that understanding, the Potter's 10 had the understanding that they were 11 going to be allowed to refurbish and 12 expand this property within the 13 zoning parameters. 675 is not the 14 only property on the street or in 15 this area to come before this Board 16 seeking approval for expansion, 17 reproduction or for a variance to 18 accomplish their goals. In fact, 19 every home along the south side of 20 Skippers Lane has a nonconforming 21 front yard. As does 100 Harbor River 22 Road, which is the one and only 23 neighbor south of Skippers Lane. 24 Variances have been granted for yard 25 relief, lot coverage, height and use. 10 November 27, 2018 1 Nothing requested of the application 2 before is you is anything greater or 3 much less. They' re requesting much 4 less than what has been granted to 5 prior applicants. Perhaps the 6 Potter' s were naive of the process at 7 first (Inaudible) . They will work 8 closely with the Historic Board, 9 which is what I think we have done. 10 Two, at the end of the day, anyone 11 with a black and white camera taking 12 a picture of the new house would not 13 be able to distinguish it from any 14 other home. I think that is the goal 15 in which we tried to achieve, in 16 which we feel that we have. We first 17 brought this to the Board in the 18 May 2018 Work Session. We worked in 19 tandem with the Board at work 20 sessions monthly. This is your i 21 house, our house, the Board's house. 22 This will be our sixth meeting 23 working with you. You have had 100% 24 input from every step of the way. 25 You advised us before with pencil and 11 November 27, 2018 1 paper and have shared everything with 2 you. This process works. We are 3 building in—kind and on the exact 4 footprint of the house. And 5 excepting the process that goes with 6 it. This is similar styles based on 7 the surrounding homes. We have made 8 compromises based on your 9 suggestions. We have lessened the 10 mass by lowering the foundation. The 11 roof. We have softened in terms of 12 the overall look. The only thing 13 that remains (Inaudible) . The 14 cottages are no longer but the 15 property remains and that is what we 16 have endeavored to preserve. This is 17 an example of that. This was 18 included in Suffolk Times. We had 19 our photo photo—shopped in his 20 painting, which his permission, to 21 show the similarities and how 22 important that corner was to us as 23 well. The application before you is 24 a .well thought out, sensitive and 25 fair reasonable request for the 12 November 27, 2018 1 expansion and build of 675 Skippers 2 Lane. You as a Board should be proud 3 of your efforts to make this work 4 with the homeowners and the 5 neighborhood. Thank you. 6 MS. MOORE: I have presented to 7 the Board a memo, for which purpose 8 of establishing all the legal 9 standards. I have them written out 10 to you. It 's the blue back of the 11 two exhibits. I would point out most 12 importantly that Skippers Lane is 13 purportedly in the designated in the 14 Historic District in Orient. In 15 reviewing the National Registry of 16 Historic Places, the emphasis was and 17 the reason for incorporating this 18 area was the period of significance, 19 which was the 1900 ' s to 1924, 1875 to 20 1899 and 1825 to 1849, 1800 to 1824, 21 1750 to 1799 and 1700 to 1749. Those 22 were the architectural styles which 23 influenced the register. This 24 property has none of the above 25 periods of construction. And has 13 November 27, 2018 1 none of the existing styles 2 identified as significant. We were 3 advised at one point that the house 4 was built in the 1938. That period 5 may or may not be accurate. I don't 6 know what information has been 7 provided. This house was not 8 identified as a house that was 9 architectural significance. The 10 landmark designation was placed on 11 this property, on Skippers Lane 12 without comment from the owners. It 13 is according to the National Register 14 of Historic Places, it 's a 15 contributing building because it 's 16 located within the designated 17 Historic Orient District. The house 18 itself is not historic. As Mr. Cook 19 identified its current condition and 20 is not presently habitable. And its 21 present location lacks architectural 22 value. When you' re weighing and 23 balancing the desire of the owner to 24 construct a safe and architecturally 25 conforming home within the character 14 November 27, 2018 1 of District, there is this keeping 2 the least desirable house in the 3 neighborhood because it exists, we 4 would hope that you would grant the 5 Certificate of Appropriateness as has 6 been requested. I will -- that has 7 been submitted to the Board. I don 't 8 need to read through the whole entire 9 document. It 's there for your 10 review. If you want, Mr. Cook to 11 identify each of those boards, I 12 think it might be helpful for you and 13 the public to see and kind of walk 14 through the boards? 15 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Yes, I think 16 that would be appropriate. 17 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: For my 18 information, would Dr. Cook identify 19 himself please? It ' s my 20 understanding that he' s here? 21 MS. MOORE: Dr. Cook? Dr. Potter. 22 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I 'm sorry. 23 MS. MOORE: This is the owner. 24 DR. POTTER: Welcome. Hello to my 25 new neighbors, and I appreciate 15 November 27, 2018 1 everyone coming out. My wife (In 2 Audible. ) As I have introduced 3 ourselves at the last meeting, but we 4 have three grown boys and we sail. 5 As a result of keeping our boat in 6 Greenport and ultimately renting in 7 Orient, this house serendipitously 8 came upon us and we moved to purchase 9 it before we went onto the market. 10 We felt it was a real opportunity. I 11 think it escapes no way that the 12 location of the house is really 13 idyllic. Beautiful setting. As 14 Peter implied and stated, you know, 15 he's our second architect on this 16 project. We had a North Fork 17 Architect that we worked with for 18 over 8 months. We met with lots of 19 architects. Not a single person felt 20 that there was any value in retaining 21 the house. One of the architects who 22 I spoke to you last time, basically 23 came and drew the four lines of the 24 setbacks and said we will just tear 25 the house down. We did not hire 16 November 27, 2018 1 them. We hired a local architect. 2 Since some of this was our naivetE 3 and the process, he lead us down a 4 path that would have been 28% 5 coverage, which was a lot. A house 6 that completely -- you know, sort of 7 a farm looking house, but it had a 8 tin roof. Modern bannisters on the 9 decking a whole bunch of other 10 things. And when hearing that there 11 was a 20% coverage, he said we would 12 get it down to about 23%, 24% lot 13 coverage and the Historic Board will 14 buy it at 23% and we will be fine. 15 We got rid of him. And I think the 16 Town would appreciate if they had 17 seen and I have no intention on 18 showing or relinquishing his name, 19 what we have actually come up with 20 and thanks to your advice, is 21 something that I think is more 22 aesthetically appealing to the 23 community. We really took a lot of 24 time. My wife and I walked through 25 the Village. We bought the historic 17 November 27, 2018 1 books. We looked at the books. I 2 gave Peter all the books that you 3 could buy. We purchased all of those 4 things. It was our intention to try 5 and retain some of the house and 6 build an extension to it. When we 7 discovered the extensive amount of 8 mold in the house and then 9 subsequently from the engineer's 10 report that there was asbestos and 11 lead. And you know, it just wasn't 12 worth saving. The idea is, and the 13 renderings and he design demonstrate 14 our attempt to maintain the original 15 look of the house. I originally 16 wrote in Peter's contract, as he has 17 stated, the intention was to work 18 with the Board. He met with you on 19 multiple occasions. I didn't even 20 let him start drawings until he met 21 with you for the first time. And I 22 also wrote into his contract, you 23 know, as an amateur photographer 24 myself, a black and white picture 25 could be submitted into one of the 18 November 27, 2018 1 books of the community and would have 2 a rendering that fit within the 3 community. So we' re very sensitive 4 and naturally appreciative of 5 everybody' s interest. I will be 6 interested in hearing what other 7 people have to say. There are other 8 new constructions within the Historic 9 District. There are two houses on 10 Oyster Pond Lane that actually walked 11 by many times. Saying that this is 12 exactly what we don 't want. Exactly 13 what we are not looking for. In 14 terms of what we were designing. So 15 just leave it at that, I guess. I 16 will let Peter walk you through the 17 boards. 18 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Pat, you 19 would know this. Don't we have to 20 legally put the reports of asbestos 21 and mold into the record -- 22 MS. MOORE: Yes. Mr. Duffy will 23 confirm, all the documents that have 24 been submitted in your file, are 25 hereby requested to be incorporated 19 November 27, 2018 1 into the record because you have both 2 the engineering reports, prior 3 documentation. You have 4 Mr. Fischetti' s opinion, letter, 5 which I have attached to my memo as 6 well. So everything that you have 7 received over the six meetings that 8 you have had, to all been to document 9 and support the public hearing. So 10 rather than submit each one, we ask 11 that they all be incorporated. 12 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: I just wanted 13 everybody to understand. We had all 14 these work session's and that this is 15 the official meeting. Today is the 16 time. What is also true, that 17 anybody who has sent letters in, 18 those will be part of the record. 19 You can go ahead, Peter. 20 MR. COOK: We will start over 21 here. Scale model of the house. You 22 can hold it at eye level. 23 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Peter, is 24 this the same model that we have seen 25 already? 20 November 27, 2018 1 MR. COOK: Yes. 2 MS. MOORE: There was this window 3 that was modified -- 4 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: The dormer. 5 MR. COOK: This was modified. 6 Flat roof. Gable element. 7 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Okay. 8 MR. COOK: This includes a water 9 color by James Napoleon. 2009 10 painting of the house. With his 11 permission, we superimposed our house 12 in water color to show similarities. 13 Napoleon took perspective of a front 14 porch. Our's is a true perspective. 15 We created the porch deeper than what 16 it actually is. This side, is the 17 first floor closest. This is a 18 collection of photos of the existing 19 house and the details of the house. 20 The exterior. 21 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Peter, let me 22 just ask you one more question. The 23 packet that you left in front of every 24 Commissioner's table, it includes 25 everything that you' re presenting? 21 November 27, 2018 1 MR. COOK: It includes the 2 renderings. It does not have the 3 existing condition photographs. 4 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We have that. 5 MR. COOK: You do not have a review 6 of the street scape or the (Inaudible) . 7 We can submit later. The next series 8 of boards are computer renderings of 9 the proposed house. One of the 10 renderings is someone's landscaping. 11 You can see the house. The other is 12 indicated, the other is the landscaping 13 plan that is submitted in your 14 packets. The last boards -- those are 15 separate boards. The top board is -- 16 the Board requested a street scape and 17 park scape comparison. This is the 18 information that is available to us and 19 other people's homes are limited. 20 These are two of the houses that are 21 closest to 675 Skippers Lane. On the 22 top elevation, 675 Skippers Lane is on 23 the far right. Seen in line with 24 505 Skippers Lane. They are scaled -- 25 that is 139 Skippers Lane. The bottom 22 November 27, 2018 1 is a similar version. Skippers Lane 2 is on the left. 505 is the next to it 3 and 139 is on the right. That is 4 Skippers Lane. This is Skippers Lane 5 from the park. This is an attempt by 6 me to photograph the model in the 7 context of the site. I had someone 8 hold the model up as close as I can get 9 with an iPhone. This is in line. So 10 you can see it on context. I think our 11 house is a little bit bigger than what 12 it should be but gives us a sense in 13 what it would look like on park row. 14 It ' s very compatible with what is there 15 now. The model doesn't look like it's 16 in line with the houses and on a hill, 17 but that 's just the photo. The last 18 board which anyone can see, it 's just 19 an example of the front yard variance 20 conditions around the neighborhoods. 21 Showing that all the houses on Skippers 22 Lane have a 20 foot front yard. And 23 that only neighbor on Harbor River Road 24 has a 10 foot variance on their side. 25 Any questions on any of this? 23 November 27, 2018 1 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: No. 2 MR. COOK: Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: When everybody 4 gets finished looking at them, you 5 should probably bring them back up to 6 us. If you' re finished, then I would 7 ask if any Commissioner's have any 8 additional questions. 9 Are you finished now with your 10 presentation? 11 MS. MOORE: Yes, for now. 12 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Okay. So I 13 will ask the Commissioner's if anybody 14 or all of you have questions? Who 15 wants to go first? 16 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I will go 17 first. Several times in the 18 documentation that we have here you 19 refer to this as a 1930' s house. We 20 have also heard it characterized as a 21 1920' s house. The date seems to keep 22 changing. Do you have definitive 23 answer as to when the house was 24 actually built? 25 MR. COOK: I don't. I was told 24 November 27, 2018 1 1938. And the reason I am saying 2 20 ' s, is the board that someone in 3 the audience brought. I don't know 4 whether there is evidence that the 5 house was actually photographed in 6 1929 for that board or if it 's just 7 someone' s guess. So I don 't know if 8 the data is correct. 9 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I think it 's 10 important because the significance 11 does include 1900 to 1924. If the 12 house is pre-1924, then it would fall 13 within the period of significance 14 when the national register 15 nominations was made. 16 MR. COOK: I think this board is 17 representing that the house is 9 18 years younger than we have understood 19 it to be from the former owners. 20 1929 is still 5 years from 1924. I 21 don 't know. I didn 't produce the 22 board. 23 COMMISSIONER HARPER: We have a 24 letter from the Venosan Family that 25 says the house was built in 1918. 25 November 27, 2018 1 That they bought it in 1938. So 2 again it's important because the 3 period of significance does include 4 1900 to 1924. 5 MR. COOK: I can 't tell you for 6 certain. 7 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: A point of 8 clarity is to -- Pat, in your 9 statement here, you started out by 10 saying that Skippers Lane is 11 purportedly within the designated 12 Historic District. It is within the 13 Historic District. 14 MS. MOORE: Well, honestly I put 15 that in there because when we were 16 doing some legal research, there was a 17 serious question about how much that 18 designation and where the designation 19 occurs. So I left that issue open. If 20 we were to go to a higher court, those 21 issues might be addressed. We hope -- 22 we will go with the assumption for 23 purposes of this hearing that it 's in 24 the district. We will not raise -- 25 other than raising the legal issue for 26 November 27, 2018 1 possible making sure that all our 2 issues are out there and the court 3 understanding that that was an issue 4 that we were questioning. For your 5 purposes that would go into a 6 significant area that this Board really 7 doesn 't want to open up. So it would 8 be something that we may have to 9 address in a court. And that is why I 10 have that purported language because 11 from what is stated in the record, this 12 property is in the District. Again, 13 how it was done, may have some legal 14 issues. 15 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: We did 16 significant research on the District 17 in the last couple of years and we 18 had the correct map of the District, 19 and we solidified the parameters with 20 the District. This took a great deal 21 of effort and part of this Board. So 22 you know, I just wanted to bring that 23 up., 24 MS. MOORE: Thank you. So that is 25 not clear in any of the records. So 27 November 27, 2018 1 if that was done and may have 2 corrected some errors in the past, it 3 may address it. But from what we can 4 tell from the Town records, we 5 couldn 't get a final reading on that. 6 So again, for the purposes of this 7 hearing, it 's unnecessary to address 8 this issue. But if we ended up going 9 to a higher authority, that may be an 10 issue that is addressed. Thank you. 11 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I would like 12 to add to that, that the application 13 for the Historic District is 14 available. And the boundaries of it, 15 are also available. They' re pretty 16 clear. As Ms. Surchin said, we 17 actually walked the boundaries of it. 18 I think if it was not within the 19 Historic District, we wouldn't be 20 here. It 's because it 's in the 21 district that we' re having a hearing. 22 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Any other 23 questions? 24 COMMISSIONER WEBB: I just want to 25 clarify. It was mentioned there were 28 November 27, 2018 1 two new builds within the Historic 2 District recently. And that is 3 unfortunate error. Those two builds 4 on -- never came before the 5 Commission because the Town was using 6 a map that was inaccurate, that we 7 corrected. So it 's unfortunate that 8 those two new builds did not come to 9 the commission. We didn't rule on 10 them. 11 DR. POTTER: My only comment to 12 that by saying -- it 's almost 13 irrelevant. It was our feeling that 14 that wasn't something that we wanted 15 to do. Without knowing whether or 16 not it was in the Historic District 17 or not, it was something that we 18 looked at. This is not what we want 19 to bring to you in terms of aesthetic 20 of designs. I appreciate the factual 21 comment. I think my feelings about 22 those particular houses -- and I am 23 not sure how the neighbors feel about 24 those particular houses, but it 's not 25 something that I think is 29 November 27, 2018 1 representative of the work that is 2 now. 3 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Dr. Potter, 4 did you consider any other properties 5 in Orient outside of the Historic 6 District? Where you wouldn't have 7 quite the restrictions that would be 8 imposed by the -- 9 DR. POTTER: Yeah. So a couple of 10 things. Before we rented, we 11 actually looked at a number of 12 properties. Looked at buildings 13 (Inaudible) on that side of the 14 Village. It never found something 15 that we really fell in love with. We 16 rented in the Village on Skippers 17 Lane two summers ago. You know, to 18 me and I think to my wife and my 19 family, the charm of the Village is 20 something that is really unique, you 21 know, with all due respect to the 22 Town of Orient, you could buy north 23 of the highway and build whatever you 24 want on the North Fork and South Fork 25 and -- you know, you' re not part of 30 November 27, 2018 1 something which I think is special, 2 which is the Village. When this 3 property came on, and I had to -- 4 like I said earlier, I think its a 5 unique piece of land. The intent and 6 the application that is before you, 7 is not something from a height 8 perspective. We' re looking at less 9 than 1% lot coverage. ,We' re looking 10 at 3 feet of a variance from the 11 front yard to maintain a porch that 12 you guys advised us that you wanted 13 us to keep. If we took 3 feet off 14 the front porch or 4 feet off the 15 front porch, we would save on the 16 square footage. We would avoid the 17 variance on the setback. So there is 18 really nothing on the proposal that 19 is really from a mass perspective. 20 You know outside of the boundaries 21 from some of the neighboring houses. 22 You know, it 's not a big house. 23 We' re not looking to build a big 24 house. And I think the charm of the 25 building that is something that we 31 November 27, 2018 1 liked and everything else that was 2 there. Yes, we did look outside and 3 we didn 't feel that, that made any 4 sense to us. Anything else while I 5 am standing? 6 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Any other 7 questions? 8 COMMISSIONER HARPER: Yes. 9 Ms. Moore, and correct me if I am 10 wrong, but I' think you had said and 11 correct me if I am wrong, but the 12 house itself is not historic? Is 13 that something that you said in your 14 introductory remarks? 15 MS. MOORE: Yes. Based on the 16 timeframe that we got from prior' 17 conversations and from the Board's 18 knowledge and other people's 19 knowledge, that it was believed the 20 house was approximately 1938. Again, 21 when you' re going through the 22 registry and the particular 23 description of this property, it 24 doesn 't have any -- unlike other 25 houses that clearly belong in the 32 November 27, 2018 1 district or belong -- required in 2 preservation because of the 3 architectural character, this house 4 -- the write—up had nothing other 5 than contributing to. The house 6 itself does not have architectural 7 character that would be one that you 8 want to note for historic 9 preservation. So I went straight 10 through the description, as well as, 11 when inventory, that this house did 12 not describe itself as anything -- 13 historic redeeming value. Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I would 15 have to disagree with you. 16 MS. MOORE: You can disagree -- 17 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I am only 18 saying that it 's a house in Orient 19 and normal folks lived in and brought 20 up their families. They were mostly 21 fishermen. It has a place in Orient 22 history. It has a place in Southold 23 Town history. So I am just saying I 24 don't think you can just wipe it off 25 the map and say it 's not historic. 33 November 27, 2018 1 MS. MOORE: Here is my point to 2 that issue. When you' re going around 3 the Village and if you in fact are 4 going to say it was a fishing cottage 5 that was from whatever period of 6 time, should never be changed in any 7 way -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: No, I am 9 not saying that. 10 MS. MOORE: That is what you' re 11 implying. Saying that this house 12 should remain just as it is. 13 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: No. No. 14 You' re wrong. Totally wrong. 15 MS. MOORE: All right. Then I stand 16 corrected on my misunderstanding of 17 your point. 18 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Changes to 19 houses can still maintain their 20 authenticity. 21 MS. MOORE: And that is precisely 22 what this is -- 23 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: No. No. 24 You want to tear it down. That is 25 not maintaining any authenticity. 34 November 27, 2018 1 MS. MOORE: Well, maybe describe 2 what you mean by authenticity? 3 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Let me 4 interrupt here. We talk about this as 5 a -- there is comparing the original 6 house with a replica in kind. I think 7 you used those words or somebody used 8 those words. So why don't you explain 9 to us, what is the difference between 10 the two houses? There is one house 11 that is there now and the other 12 house -- 13 MR. COOK: To go to James question, 14 I read through the directives on 15 historical houses and restoration and 16 in dealing with those things and I 17 understand it. But I challenge the 18 Board or anyone in the audience, that a 19 single significant architectural 20 element on this house -- 21 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I am not 22 asking that. 23 MR. COOK: Then I would like to 24 address his question first. It 's 25 talking about what is, it was 35 November 27, 2018 1 fisherman's cottage ,or summer -- 2 seasonal cottage. If it was a 3 (Inaudible) or replicated window 4 (Inaudible) original wood to be used, 5 siding, fascia, trim, anything on this 6 house. A single item on this house 7 that was worthy of removal for 8 restoration or replication, I challenge 9 anyone to point that piece out to me 10 today? There isn't. 11 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I 12 challenge that too. The house has 13 been there and it stood storms and 14 people have lived in it made a 15 living, families were brought up 16 there. 17 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Let me just go 18 back. I wanted to know the difference 19 between the original house and the 20 replica. Let 's use those words for a 21 moment. Is the height the same? 22 Windows are slightly different. 23 MR. COOK: The replica is a probably 24 about 18 inches taller than the 25 original house roof line, because we 36 November 27, 2018 1 have taken substandard ceiling heights 2 and pour thicknesses, which is under 3 new construction and required by code. 4 Once you remove 50% of the economic 5 value of the house, it 's considered 6 reconstruction. You have to conform 7 with the current building codes. Light 8 safety, energy. Have to have egress 9 windows. Proper safety. You can't do 10 that in a framed -- like this house. 11 So the house gets a little bit taller 12 as a result -- 13 COMMISSIONER PARKER: When you say 14 it gets a little bit taller, how much 15 taller? Are you measuring from the 16 existing ground level or do you 17 measure from your new foundation? 18 MR. COOK: Foundation. 19 COMMISSIONER PARKER: So your new 20 foundation might be a little bit 21 taller than the existing foundation. 22 MR. COOK: I am going to be adding 23 a few more inches to each. We have 24 the second floor has a 7 foot floor 25 ceiling height. The first floor has 37 November 27, 2018 1 an under 8 foot ceiling height. We 2 want to go to 8 1/2 feet. We' re 'not 3 looking for 10 or 12 foot ceilings. 4 The proportions of the house are 5 being retained as much as we can, but 6 we' re trying to make the house built 7 by today's standards. The porch is 8 exactly the same depth. The roof 9 line is on the same. What we did is 10 made them symmetrical. We removed 11 the rear (Inaudible) which is not 12 original to the house. As far as the 13 gable, we think they' re better 14 looking. To give a better view. 15 That is really kind of it. Taking 16 the covered porch off the back of the 17 house, which was also a later 18 addition. We made sure the windows 19 are the same size or approximate what 20 is there today. They' re undersized 21 by code. So we balanced our window 22 pattern and have asymmetrical before. 23 We attempted to balance the facade a 24 little bit. Those are the major 25 changes to the cottage portion of the 38 November 27, 2018 1 house. 2 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: The key that I 3 wanted to get, it ' s 18 inches. You 4 raised the house 18 inches. As far as 5 I can see, in your drawings, the 6 foundation is very close to what it 7 was -- 8 MR. COOK: They are. 9 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Any other 10 questions? 11 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I really 12 didn't get a chance to ask the whole 13 thing. If we' re assuming -- I don 't 14 think it 's even an assumption that 15 the house was built in 1918, that 16 would make the house 100 years old 17 this year. The statement that the 18 house itself is not historic, to me, 19 100 years old is what makes it 's 20 historic. I think what you' re trying 21 to say that it ' s not significant. 22 And I think historic and significant 23 are two different things. Historic 24 is something that stood for a 100 25 years. It ' s historic. Can you 39 November 27, 2018 1 clarify what you mean by historic and 2 can you also tell me if it is from 3 1918, which we believe, would that 4 change any of your views of the 5 house? 6 DR. POTTER: To me personally? 7 COMMISSIONER HARPER: Actually to 8 Ms. Moore, because she is the one who n 9 said -- 10 MS. MOORE: Okay. He wants to say 11 it. 12 DR. POTTER: So when we purchased 13 the house, from the year it was 14 purchase, I appreciate that the 15 neighbors were able to identify 16 potentially -- I am not saying that 17 it was built in 1918. If there is 18 evidence as such, then great. We' re 19 interested in knowing what the 20 history of the house is. There was 21 no record in the Town of Southold as 22 to what year the house was built.- 23 There was no permits. Nothing 24 really. So the semantics of it is 25 one thing. And I will let the 40 November 27, 2018 1 lawyers and everyone else discuss 2 that. I think there is aesthetic 3 value to the look of the house. 4 There was intention whether people it 5 or not, to renovate the front of the 6 house, along with the park, to keep 7 as much of the house as is there. 8 The house is the -- the foundation of _ 9 the house is -- potentially is okay. 10 Footings is okay. Once you got into 11 the mold, once you got into the lead 12 in the piping and into the lead paint 13 and the asbestos, and then you 14 started looking at 2x4's holding up 15 the side of the house and what not. 16 This isn't even the type of 17 construction you can attach, you 18 know, 2x4's to and build it to code, 19 as Mr. Cook said. So our attempt to 20 try and maintain the aesthetic is 21 _ really strong. And I think that the 22 plans demonstrate that in terms of 23 the look. We originally presented to 24 you a higher foundation, I think in 25 the summer. And we lowered that 41 November 27, 2018 1 foundation down. So 18 inches 2 represents a compromise from the 3 original presentation that we made 4 last summer against the height of the 5 original house. 6 COMMISSIONER HARPER: My question 7 was though, if it was from 1918, 8 would you consider it historic and 9 would that change any of your views 10 about the house? 11 DR. POTTER: So my views of the 12 house are the same. There is value 13 to the home whether you call it 14 historic or not. So if 1918 -- I am 15 not sure if there is a legal 16 definition if 100 years defines 17 something "historic" or not, but 18 regardless of that, I think there is 19 value to the aesthetic. If it can be 20 renovated, which we don't believe it 21 can be, that -- the new construction 22 is designed and in—kind is what 23 in—kind is. Made to look exactly the 24 same. 25 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Excuse me. 42 November 27, 2018 1 I' know there are people sitting in 2 this audience who have restored 3 houses much worse than what yours are 4 now, and they' re outstanding houses. 5 Yes, they went through cold spells 6 and wet spells, but they maintained 7 the significance and the historicity 8 of their house. And I hope when the 9 time is right they will speak up and 10 say what they did. You want to wipe 11 the slate clean and start from 12 scratch. I will tell you right up 13 front. I am personally and totally 14 against that. That is not Orient. 15 That is not Orient. If you want to 16 be in the community, you should 17 consider very strongly maintaining 18 the historical significance and 19 architectural significance although 20 Peter says there isn't any, but a 21 part of Orient and preserved to stay 22 there. 23 MR. COOK: Well, my question back 24 is, if there is nothing -- your 25 jurisdiction is the exterior of the 43 November 27, 2018 1 house. 2 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Yeah. Who 3 is determining that? You are. 4 MR. COOK: No. Actually your 5 Board is. My question is, nothing on 6 the house is 100 years old. 7 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Let me answer 8 this. I have done three houses. One 9 of which was abandoned. One of which 10 was in Orient which I totally 11 restored and there was a major museum 12 building in Orient, which I restored. 13 So all of which I didn't have to 14 increase the height. There are many 15 ways you can handle it to code and 16 make it work. And we help any 17 applicant on the technical aspects of 18 that and we would be glad to assist 19 you on how you could not have the 20 house -- whether it 's replicated or 21 not, that is a separate issue. But 22 have the house at the correct height 23 as it is now. Not raise it 18 24 inches. I believe you don 't have to 25 raise it 18 inches. And I think it 44 November 27, 2018 1 can be worked out to make it 2 compatible for the owners new family 3 and very comfortable inside and not 4 totally destroy this house. I think 5 that the -- the indication here and 6 what is really -- and I know you have 7 been working on this Pat, is the 8 concept of what we call a tear down. 9 We have had two situations in Orient 10 of that relationship. The first one, 11 they did an application, it 's called 12 the King property. At the end of 13 Village Lane. They didn 't do an 14 application for a tear down but it 15 finally got to a tear down. And we 16 worked very hard and it turned out 17 that we made the decision, no tear 18 down. The community in those days 19 was totally different than the 20 community today. They wanted us to 21 support the family to tear it down, 22 because it was an old family. And we 23 stood by the fact that we felt it was 24 not appropriate to be torn down. n 25 This situation is slightly different 45 November 27, 2018 1 but I think there is something about 2 -- whether there was a detail or 3 maybe no certain things about the 4 shingle siding. We have done 5 research about what the house used to 6 look like. There is something about 7 the amassing the way it was and still 8 what makes the place work. 9 MR. COOK: I think it ' s unfair to 10 make a comparison to other houses and 11 make them historic without those 12 houses here to show us the condition 13 they were in. There are houses on 14 the street I am sure were restored. 15 (In Audible. ) 16 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We' re not 17 talking about what is inside. We' re 18 talking -- 19 MR. COOK: It might have had 20 details that were worthy of 21 restoration. My point is, I am 22 asking the Board -- 23 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: And I am 24 answering your question. I am saying 25 it ' s not -- the point is, you' re 46 November 27, 2018 1 really putting a different house 2 there. If you were to take that mass 3 and make it exactly what is there 4 except a few changes in terms of its 5 appropriate for the location, 6 especially the photographs that we 7 have seen and other things that we 8 have seen in the neighborhood, there 9 are a lot of things you could bring 10 to it. But you' re taking the mass of 11 a house and changing it. Once you 12 allow the mass of a building to be w 13 changed, then the whole place starts 14 growing and changing. I mean, it 15 makes a big difference. 16 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: I would 17 like to say something too. When you 18 say in—kind, that sort of goes to the 19 heart of what Mr. Garretson is saying 20 in—kind to this Board and in—kind in 21 terms of the narrative that we have 22 to judge by, means that you have 23 essentially reproduced the house. So 24 I think the conflict that is being 25 brought up here has to do with 47 November 27, 2018 1 whether it is in—kind or not. I 2 appreciate that you' re paying homage 3 to the original house even though you 4 have the 18 inches. I think we have 5 to be clear about the terms that we 6 use when we' re saying in—kind. It 7 isn't exactly in—kind in terms of 8 what our Board has to -- the 9 Guidelines that our Board has to 10 judge by. I am not making any 11 judgement, but I am just throwing it 12 out there. 13 MR. COOK: That is a guidelines 14 that the Board offers, a homeowner 15 who wants to renovate -- it doesn 't 16 say you can 't change the height. 17 Doesn 't say you can't change the 18 height of the building. It lists the 19 things you want to restore for 20 restorations. So what is required of 21 this Board for anyone ,working on a 22 house -in the Historic District -- 23 there is nothing on this house that 24 meets those Guidelines. 25 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: There is 48 November 27, 2018 1 also one other thing that you have to 2 consider with the National Register 3 of the Historic District is which the 4 (Inaudible) Guidelines for repair and 5 restoration. They are in fact 6 Guidelines. But because -- if it 7 were a standalone house and not in 8 the Historic District, that might be 9 another story. But because it 's part 10 of the Historic District, we have to 11 take those Guidelines under 12 consideration. And we can 't always 13 abide by it, which is really true. 14 You want to replace .a new (Inaudible) 15 that is now extinct, so obviously you 16 can't put that kind of material that 17 came from the tropics. It 's no 18 longer available. Obviously you 19 can't replace in—kind. I think that 20 people are worried about the massing 21 isn't somewhat in—kind. I think that 22 is what James is getting at. 23 MR. COOK: I understand that. 24 There in no where in your Guidelines 25 that say that somebody who bought a 49 November 27, 2018 1 the last 100 years has to be built 2 the same way. (Inaudible) and you ' re 3 left with a shell of a silhouette. 4 Our goal is to build a replicable 5 buildable house. We' re respecting 6 the silhouette. We' re respecting the 7 roof line. We' re respecting the 8 front porch and playing on those 9 things that we think are the romantic 10 or (Inaudible) without putting our 11 client through undue expenses. You 12 know, as today, the houses 100 years 13 ago were not built like they were 14 today. So every 2x4 will be sistered 15 or replaced. In the end, they' re 16 going to stand back and see a new 17 frame of a house that will maybe not 18 be taller than what is there, but 19 newer. The Building Department is 20 not going to accept anything that is 21 not structurally sound. That is the 22 question for our client. Is that 23 what he has to do? 24 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: The answer to 25 that is, we feel in terms of what has 50 November 27, 2018 I been presented, the importance -- 2 it 's important to keep the height and 3 be little more massing. Better word 4 is the massing. And I am not 5 convinced that can't be done with 6 technology without spending a great 7 deal of money. I am not convinced 8 that it 's necessary to do that. 9 Maybe we' re spending too much time 10 talking about the existing building. 11 I think that is a big factor. I 12 think there is something being the 13 first person to come and say, be 14 absolute and without any kind of 15 analysis, that you' re going to tear 16 down the building. That was the 17 permit in terms of the -- what you 18 put in. 19 MR. COOK: That is not fair 20 analysis. Based on your parameters 21 which dictates where something should 22 be restored or preserved or replaced 23 in—kind is by environmental engineer 24 and observation of mold and decay. 25 And today, sitting here today, can 't 51 November 27, 2018 1 identify a single thing on the house 2 that they consider (In Audible. ) Is 3 it the aluminum frames around the 4 windows? 5 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We' re not 6 talking about that. We' re talking 7 about the massing of the house. The 8 sloping of the roof. You know 9 exactly what I am talking about. 10 MR. COOK: And you know that 11 within the 6-7 months that we have 12 been working together, one of the 13 very first things we brought, was a 14 farmhouse (Inaudible) which we have 15 done, hand sketched on there, is this 16 the kind of thing that you' re looking 17 for? To preserve the lines on the 18 corner? That is how we did that. 19 MS. MOORE: I think I also need 20 clarification because you keep 21 talking about the massing of the 22 house. Are we just talking about 23 the way -- what we' re trying to 24 replicate? In terms of the entire 25 house? 52 November 27, 2018 1 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We had broken 2 it down into three parts is the way 3 we saw it. One is the original 4 replica. One is the length we call 5 it and the other is the back. We 6 haven 't even started talking about 7 the other parts. We' re really 8 focused now or ask questions so we 9 can make a determination about the 10 house. It 's a separate area. 11 MS. MOORE: Okay. 12 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We' re not 13 talking about -- 14 MS. MOORE: Because the massing -- 15 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: The questions 16 related to the massing, the replica 17 portion. 18 MS. MOORE: The replica portion. 19 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: I just 20 wanted to say that when Peter came 21 into one of our work sessions too, we 22 went around the room and say what is 23 significant around this building and 24 my main concern was, I felt what was 25 significant about it, was not that 53 November 27, 2018 1 there is any authentic details left 2 and what would they be any how? Some 3 stock wafe board, 1x6 or something? 4 But I thought what was significant 5 about this house as it relates to 6 Orient is its scale. And I 7 specifically said that. So I think 8 that is true. So scale and massing, 9 they go together, you know. 10 MS. MOORE: Thank you. I just 11 want to clarify or at least raise a 12 point on the record. We use the 13 Historic Orient Village as a way of 14 identifying architecturally 15 significant. As one of you 16 mentioned, what is architecturally 17 significant. Well, I think what 18 gives a good indication, what homes 19 was believed to be architecturally 20 significant. And when you turn to 21 Skippers Lane and identifying which 22 houses they were -- when this book 23 first came out in 1976, this house 24 was there. It was clear that the 25 time an inventory was being done, 54 November 27, 2018 1 that the Board at the time, looked at 2 this house and said, this house 3 really doesn 't have significance, 4 such that, we should incorporate any 5 part of this detail into your book. 6 So starting from that point, 7 regardless of what year this was 8 constructed because quite frankly, I 9 am hearing 1970' s in some kind of a 10 joke. I 'm sorry, music and things 11 like that are suddenly considered to 12 be vintage. As the years progressed, 13 we' re going to be further and further 14 from the year that something gets 15 built, but it 's architectural 16 significance, I think you gave a road 17 map of what we should follow. And I 18 think that is why Peter is stated 19 that he has used to guide in the 20 design of the entire house and in 21 particular preserving the replica of 22 the original house. But to make it 23 match. So I do want to point that 24 out. I would also point out, that we 25 have to follow and you should have to 55 November 27, 2018 1 follow, the Guidelines and Standards 2 for Consideration. And I wrote out 3 each and every point for Standards 4 for Considerations. And we seem to 5 be going off the mark when you' re 6 looking at those standards. 7 COMMISSIONER HARPER: What 8 standards? 9 COMMISSIONER: Who wrote the 10 standards? 11 MS. MOORE: These are the Town 12 Code. Let me start with one. It 13 says standards for consideration. 14 The landmark is such architectural 15 historic interest, that it' s 16 demolition or removal would be to the 17 detriment of the public interest. 18 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Excuse 19 me. That is what we' re talking about 20 right there. The demolition. You 21 said we' re not considering it and we 22 are. You' re trying to tell your own 23 story and you' re wrong. 24 MS. MOORE: Well, sir, the 25 property contains an approximate one 56 November 27, 2018 1 and a half story wood frame dwelling 2 and 370 square foot detached garage. 3 There are two distinct wings. The 4 first wing was approximately 1938 and 5 I wrote that all out for you. The 6 one story low pitched gable addition 7 wing facing the street, also known as 8 Harbor River Road was constructed in 9 the late 1960's or early 1970's. Sits 10 on a concrete block foundation. When 11 the addition was constructed, it 12 appears that many of the 13 architectural elements of there 14 1930' s wing were modernized to the 15 1970' s so in the 70's when this house 16 was renovated, they modernized it to 17 that period, which undermines what 18 you' re trying to preserve or we' re 19 trying to preserve. So you can 20 disagree but -- you know. The house 21 itself does not have significant 22 character -- excuse me, the house 23 itself does not possess significant 24 character, historic aesthetic or 25 archaeological interest value as part 57 November 27, 2018 1 of the cultural, architectural, 2 economic or social heritage of the 3 community or town. The existing 4 house is a (Inaudible) 1970 5 renovation. And all the 6 architectural features have been 7 stripped. And I go on from there. 8 So we have responded to all of your 9 -- to all of these standards and we 10 have rebutted them. That is our 11 obligation. And I would ask the 12 Board to keep in mind the purposes 13 again of the creation of the Historic 14 District. It wouldn't be to tell 15 somebody that has a 1970' s addition 16 that has really ruined the house and 17 the house for the most part is really 18 not habitable because it 's missed 19 care over the years, that they must 20 keep this as a small house that is 21 proposed existing today. That is not 22 what -- what a community should 23 demand of an owner. And I would tell 24 you that every house in Orient and 25 you can go to individual houses in 58 November 27, 2018 1 Orient, and they may haven't 2 renovated to them, but they have 3 added to them. They have over the 4 years since the 1800's would have 5 changed the houses to incorporate the 6 needs of the families. What you' re 7 trying to do to this owner is to turn 8 it into a museum piece. That is not 9 what should -- 10 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: No. No. 11 Pat, you' re way off. 12 MS. MOORE: That is what I am 13 hearing here. 14 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Half the 15 people here that live in Orient, they 16 will disagree with you. 17 COMMISSIONER PARKER: When you say 18 standards, we' re talking about 19 massing and scaling and whatever. 20 Let me read you the standards of the 21 US Department of Interior. This is 22 Federal State. And it 's just short. 23 A couple of paragraphs for this too, 24 but I will just read to you, retain 25 the historic relationship between 59 November 27, 2018 1 buildings, landscaped features and 2 open spaces. So that this is in a 3 particular place for me. This is in 4 a particular place that there is a 5 vista there. When I drive on the 6 North Road, when I go to pick 7 something up at the farm stand, I see 8 this house. And we have to consider 9 that as well, I feel. This is what 10 we' re selling to the public in this 11 Town and it ' s the vista -- 12 MS. MOORE: I understand, but -- 13 COMMISSIONER PARKER: You have 14 larger 18 inches and then another 18 15 inches. And then I am not sure what 16 the chimney is. By the time, you get 17 done, you have to admit, you changed 18 the vista and the massing of that 19 house. So that it doesn't really -- 20 I don't feel, fit into the Village 21 feeling. The seashore feeling. 22 MS. MOORE: That is not reflected 23 in the exhibits you have given. We 24 have given you the elevations. The 25 true photograph elevations from the 60 November 27, 2018 1 green of the neighboring homes. And 2 when you look at this home compared 3 to the neighboring homes, the height 4 of the roof is no higher. We lowered 5 the ridge as was requested in a 6 previous meeting. The window heights 7 were reduced. So there has- been an 8 incorporation of all those comments 9 in the redesign. So we hope that in 10 good faith when we apply the requests 11 that are being made to the redesign, 12 we will ultimately get an approval 13 but it seems that for everything that 14 is, accepted and incorporated, it 's as 15 if nothing has been done and nothing 16 -- no concessions have been made. I 17 think in the end, you know, you want 18 -- if you want to keep this house 19 just as it is, then it ' s the 20 responsibility of the -- Orient or 21 the Government to condemn the 22 property and keep it just as it is. 23 This property was bought and it 's 24 being renovated. And the family 25 wants to be part of the Orient 61 November 27, 2018 1 community. And we hope that the 2 majority of them will welcome them 3 and embrace them because they' re -- I 4 am sure, you have seen, lovely 5 individual and wonderful family that 6 would be worth wild to incorporate 7 into the Village, but you can 't 8 design for the homeowner what is 9 subjective and the (Inaudible) and 10 what visually you want to see there. 11 It may not jive with the interest of 12 the homeowner. 13 COMMISSIONER PARKER: Well, it ' s 14 obvious that it 's not jiving with 15 either of you. 16 MS. MOORE: Well, we have 17 incorporated your comments. And I 18 was at the last meeting where your 19 comments were taken in and the design 20 was changed. 21 COMMISSIONER PARKER: Well, that is 22 what I asked in the beginning. Is 23 this the same proposal that was 24 submitted at the last meeting? There 25 is no changes -- 62 November 27, 2018 1 MS. MOORE: Because it was changed 2 prior to that. 3 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: That 's 4 correct. 5 MS. MOORE: The house was brought 6 down. Why don't you put on the 7 record the several changes -- 8 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Pat, I don 't 9 think -- well, I don't think it 's my 10 point is. You can do that. You have 11 the right to. I just want to clarify 12 something. At this point, this is not 13 a statement. These questions relate to 14 how I feel. Gary' s questions are 15 related to how he feels. My point is, 16 that -- you' re so close to -- and maybe 17 -- some how I feel that 18 inches is 18 too much to be honest. As I said 19 before, I have done three houses. One 20 of which was abandoned and full of 21 mold. Full of everything. 22 Structurally a disaster and yet I was 23 able to not make it a tear down. And I 24 didn't do it with a lot of money. So I 25 am not convinced that it has to be a 63 November 27, 2018 1 tear down. You asked me to talk about 2 the replica alone, yes, because I am 3 not getting into the link or the 4 additional house. My personal opinion 5 should be the replica should be 6 renovated to make it worth for you and 7 restored to not what it is now but what 8 it was in the earlier pictures that 9 fits in with the rest of your design. 10 In other words, you did the shingles 11 and the windows. You could come up 12 with a concept that didn't tear the 13 house down. The inside, with the new 14 construction concepts that you have 15 with the blue lamp and steel support, 16 there is all kinds of stuff you can do 17 that can take care and make it worth. 18 As you probably know, Peter. And so, 19 that is my feeling. When you look at 20 this -- because I have done this for a 21 living. I have been in your shoes for 22 a lot of projects. And I try and get a 23 sense of what I have to do to the board 24 and each individual in order to get 25 their vote or support. So that is all 64 November 27, 2018 1 I am trying to communicate with you. 2 MR. COOK: If you look at all the 3 displays and exhibits, you see that we 4 have designed the exterior of the house 5 the way that it would have looked at 6 1929 or 38 or whatever. In terms of 7 making it look like what it used to be, 8 even though that is not in the 9 parameters or guidelines, to the 10 Historic Board, we wanted to make it 11 look like the old picture. That is 12 what we used as a reference to design 13 this house. We took the shed off of 14 that. We thought the shed looked ugly. 15 So we' re removing things that are not 16 historic and not part of the house. 17 With that said,. I think somebody said 18 as an advisor to the Board at one of 19 our hearings, told the Board that it 's 20 up to you to go to the house and decide 21 if something has been done to this 22 house since it was original that maybe 23 it was considered contributing in some 24 point in time, but after so many years 25 at something what may have been 65 November 27, 2018 1 contributing -- you have to look at it 2 now and say, was this contributive in 3 1976 when the historic guide was done. 4 They did 120 houses. They omitted 20 5 homes. 675 Skippers Lane was one of 6 there 20 homes. So to us, if I had -- 7 I don't know what houses you worked on, 8 I can't comment on them, but if this 9 house had something that was so 10 critically important and to restore, I 11 would tell my client to restore it. 12 He' s going to pay a tremendous premium 13 to have this house demolished, shingle 14 by shingle, board by board and frame by 15 frame. There is no guarantee when we 16 do that, that this frame is going to 17 pass anybody's code. We' re going 18 through all of this and end up coming 19 back to this. Any reasonable person 20 would say, okay, what 's left? The 21 frame? They won't see 20 years from 22 today. There is an image, roof line. 23 There is a front porch. There are 24 things about this house that we think 25 is important. That I think is 66 November 27, 2018 1 important. That is why our design from 2 the first time that I met you all, 3 started with that house. How do I add 4 onto this house to make it acceptable 5 for a new family in today's world? 6 It 's not appropriate to build to what 7 is (In Audible. ) Around the world. We 8 should not be building the Orient of 9 1898 today. You should be building the 10 Orient of today, today. 11 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We' re not 12 asking you to do that. 13 MR. COOK: You get to a point, if 14 you' re not careful, building 15 Williamsburg. So this house is 16 respectful. All details taken from 17 Orient. There is no roof form or shape 18 of this house that is inconsistent or 19 identifiable -- it 's not taller than 20 any of the houses nearby. It's massing 21 is comparable. There is a house on the 22 corner, 1000 Oyster Pond, that has a 23 26% lot coverage. We're looking for .24 less than 21%. There is area 25 variances, height variances. Even use 67 November 27, 2018 I variances on 100 Harbor River Road, 2 which I don 't know if it's in the 3 Historic District, but if we' re 4 supposed to reference this to what 5 we' re doing at 675 Skippers Lane, I 6 think all of you would be pretty upset. 7 It 's a ranch house. Has relatively ,new 8 additions. Has a boathouse on. Has 9 use variances. So this applicant isn't 10 seeking anything extraordinary. 11 Anything unique. In keeping the house 12 small because it started out small. 13 Small worked 100 years ago. It didn 't 14 work today. All the neighbors have 15 doubled the size of their house and 16 expanded. As a homeowner, you look at 17 the neighborhood. Consistent with 18 everyone else has done. Are we 19 building it too close to the road, its 20 already too close to the road, as is 21 everyone else in the neighborhood. I 22 disagree with the massing and sizing 23 and that it ' s going to affect this 24 house in a negative way. We' re 25 extending the one and half story to get 68 November 27, 2018 1 a staircase in. To get a new two story 2 element. It has been all brought down 3 vertically. I think it 's going to look 4 appropriate on this site. People will 5 look and say it' s a beautiful house 6 and they did a very nice job over 7 there. 8 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Okay. Now I 9 think we should move along. 10 Do we have any questions as its 11 related to the addition? 12 COMMISSIONER WEBB: I have one 13 question of Mr. Cook. In looking at 14 this photograph here, which looks 15 like it 's taken Oyster Pond Park and 16 I also looking at your statement that 17 you made earlier, that at the end of 18 the day, anybody with a black and 19 white camera taking a picture of the 20 new house would not be able to 21 distinguish from any other original t 22 home. I am struggling with that 23 statement. Can you clarify what 24 those other original homes are? To 25 me, if you took, a black and white 69 November 27, 2018 1 picture, this house would stand 2 out. 3 MR. COOK: Why is that? 4 COMMISSIONER WEBB: Again, 5 relating to mass -- 6 MR. COOK: You have to understand, 7 I am out there Saturday, trying to 8 beat the rain with this model, up in 9 the air, as I am sitting with my 10 iPhone on panorama. Trying to get a 11 distance from that house, the model, 12 to make it look scale of the other 13 houses. It ' s not a perfect image. 14 Doesn't have the landscaping. It ' s 15 an attempt of representing that this 16 house doesn't look really any 17 different than on that strip. And 18 none of them are shielded. I don't 19 believe -- in terms of perspective, 20 anything that is going to take away 21 any experience on that park. 22 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: I think we' re 23 going to have testimony on a concept 24 of a Village, in terms of a park view 25 and 'a street view to come under public 70 November 27, 2018 1 discussion. I don't think we need to 2 talk about that. It 's going to be very 3 clear when we see the drawing. Any 4 other -- anything else from any of the 5 other Commissioner's? 6 COMMISSIONER HARPER: Yes. Just 7 one quick thing. You used the word 8 significance a lot. And I think 9 significance is a subjective term. 10 Kind of in the eye of the beholder. 11 We have a crab shack out here that we 12 consider significant. Especially 13 since it 's 100 years old. Can we not 14 call it 1938 anymore? There is real 15 no evidence for that. But people who 16 have grown up with this and seen it, 17 it's part of their landscape. I 18 think you have to be very careful on 19 how you use the word "significant." 20 Because what may not be significant 21 to you, may be very significant to 22 someone else. 23 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: If there is 24 no more questions, then I think we 25 should move to the public hearing. 71 November 27, 2018 1 So members that get up to speak, it 2 says on the dais, you have to 3 remember to give your name and where 4 you ' re from. Make your presentation. 5 If you need PowerPoint, we do have 6 it. 7 MS. GORBIL: Good afternoon. My 8 name is Loralie Gorbil. I live at 9 1100 North Sea Drive in Orient. I 10 moved out here year round with my 11 husband two years ago in August. 12 Currently, I have volunteered to be a 13 (Inaudible) at the Orient Historical 14 Society. So I am very proud of the 15 way that the Historic District has 16 been preserved and it 's one of the 17 reason why I chose the community that 18 I live in. This is my first time at 19 this particular meeting and I really 20 just came with a couple of questions 21 initially. To clarify what the facts 22 are going on in this particular case. 23 One of the new questions that came to 24 mind when I was listening, when were 25 the rules about setbacks and things 72 November 27, 2018 1 like that put into effect from the 2 Town? 3 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: You' re 4 talking about Zoning? 5 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: It was 6 established around 1957. 7 MS. GORBIL: So the house in 8 question would have already been 9 there outside of the footprint and 10 the house that -- so it already would 11 have been there. So it didn 't 12 violate the rules at that particular 13 time. 14 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: As long as it 15 was the existing house. 16 MS. GORBIL: Right. The last 17 extension, it would not have violated 18 the rules. But now we have new rules 19 about setbacks and footprints. 20 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: He's asking 21 for a change in the footprint which 22 changes everything. 23 MS. GORBIL: Right. So now to me, 24 it makes sense to me that if the 25 house was there -- kind of like 73 November 27, 2018 1 grandfathered because it was already 2 there prior to 1950. And then for 3 some new reasons, had rules to be put 4 into effect in 1957, okay, then if a 5 house is going to be taken down, then 6 it would have to go with the new 7 rules in the new footprint. And 8 those new rules were put into place 9 for a reason. What I am also hearing 10 here, which was part of my question, 11 that with all due respect, 12 Dr. Potter, it doesn't seem to me 13 that you had any intention at all of 14 trying to restore the house. You 15 didn't ask any of the architects, How 16 could I fix it up? How could I do 17 anything like this? It doesn't seem 18 to matter to you whether it was 1918, 19 1938, 1959. Whatever it, was. Your 20 intent was to put a new house. That 21 is what I am hearing. I think when 22 you talk about the scale of the house 23 and the way things go, if I -- I 24 would have loved to be able to buy 25 that house and have the money to 74 November 27, 2018 1 restore it. It 's a beautiful piece 2 of property. I understand why 3 Dr. Potter likes that piece of 4 property. However, if I were able to 5 buy the house across the street and 6 bought t he house knowing that the 7 house that was there, the size was 8 not going to change or if it was a 9 tear—down and might get smaller or 10 better, and when I bought my house 11 that had a rule -- I bought my house 12 that there were rules that were going 13 to remain. If now, something that 14 was going to change and contradicts 15 the rules, and now something is big 16 and takes out my view, now you have 17 also went against the value of my 18 property. My question to Dr. Potter 19 would be, why do you need a large 20 house? A larger house that is there? 21 You' re going from 1800 square feet to 22 3,331 equate foot. That is a 23 significant difference. I don 't know 24 if he knows, but does he intend to 25 live year round? What is the intent 75 November 27, 2018 1 or the use of the house? Summer 2 home? Year round house? Rental 3 property? Why does it need to be 4 that big? Handicap? Is someone 5 handicapped in the family that we 6 need to have wider doors and ramp 7 access. And I am being a little 8 facetious here and I apologize in 9 advance, is he going to live there 10 year round and need an extra bedroom 11 to take on foster kids? Is there a 12 need or is this just the house that I 13 want? There is a lot of things that 14 I want and I don 't circumvent the 15 rules to get what I want. I see that 16 this house was bought in the Historic 17 District. The fact that you want to 18 go outside of the scale that is 19 already there or want it to be torn 20 down and the architect is talking 21 about, you have to stay in code. 22 Then you have to stay within the 23 setbacks. The rules came after the 24 house was built. So I am not denying 25 anybody the right to build the house 76 November 27, 2018 1 that they want. The people -- I 2 ended up getting a little bit of a 3 view from my house because a tree 4 came down. But if -- if the property 5 owner decides to put the tree back 6 up, I lose my view. That is his 7 right because it 's not protected. I 8 didn 't buy my house with a guarantee 9 that I would keep my view. So 10 they' re allowed to do whatever it is 11 they want to do. I do support the 12 integrity and keeping it in place. 13 And I would love to have been able to 14 afford to renovate the house and been 15 able to keep it to scale. So that is 16 -- I would have to say that -- if 17 there is a need for a bigger house, I 18 would like to hear what that need is. 19 If it ' s just that, I want a bigger 20 house, well, we can't have all we 21 want because there are rules. Thank 22 you. 23 MS. MOORE: Do you want us to 24 respond one by one? 25 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: No. I think 77 November 27, 2018 1 if you start responding one by one -- 2 you are good at taking notes. John? 3 MR. HENRY: John Henry and I own a 4 home at 2360 Village Lane in 'Orient, 5 National Historic District. Pat 6 Moore and Mr. Clark have made much of 7 the fact that the property in 8 question is not in that booklet that 9 was published to celebrate the 10 National Historic District. There is 11 a good reason. If you look in the 12 introductory pages -- this was 13 written in 1976. That the buildings 14 in question must be 100 years or 15 older. And obviously the property at 16 675 Skippers Lane wouldn't meet that 17 criteria. I think there is a 18 slipperiness here that is really 19 detrimental to the owners case. As 20 you can see with the misleading dates 21 on the instruction. Your reference 22 to 1938 and 1929 just isn 't credible. 23 And Mr. Harper has pointed out that 24 the former owners said the date of 25 the construction was 1918, which by 78 November 27, 2018 1 the way, perhaps if that booklet was 2 published today, it would meet that 3 criteria of 100 years or older. In 4 my opinion, we shouldn't even be 5 discussing today whether a house, a 6 century old house, that lies within 7 the Historic District on its own, a 8 landmark structure should be 9 demolished ands replaced by a 10 dwelling that is 70% larger. If this 11 travesty is allowed to proceed, it 12 would render meaningless the 13 Village' s Part I Historic District. 14 And I don't -- don't let that 15 travesty happen and I urge the 16 Historic Preservation Commission to 17 deny the application for demolishing. 18 Thank you. 19 MS. PERRY: I am Kevin Perry. I 20 live in Orient. Building in the 21 landmark district of Orient is very 22 difficult. There is no model you can 23 point to and say this is what we 24 want. What defines Orient is the 25 community of small homes. 1200 79 November 27, 2018 1 square feet is quite common. 2 Anything about 12 feet (In Audible. ) 3 So to that end -- well, I think that 4 a lot has revolved around the house. 5 I have taken the liberty of preparing 6 some elevations of the properties 7 along Skippers Lane, which I would 8 like to show you now. So this is the 9 view from the street. You see the 1, 10 2, 3 4, 5 -- this is the existing 11 cottage at the far right. The 12 proposed -- you will also notice that 13 the buildings vary in size from this 14 tiny little guy, which is probably 15 close to the 1200 feet and to the 16 farmhouse on the right, which is a 17 little larger. This just zooms in a 18 little bit comparing the two 19 adjoining properties with the 20 existing and the proposed. This is a 21 view from the park. Proposed is on 22 the left. Top. Starting on the 23 left, you have the applicants 24 property running down to the house -- 25 four houses down. This is a similar 80 November 27, 2018 1 view from Skippers but it pushes the 2 houses together. Takes the spaces 3 out from in between them. So you can 4 sort of get a sense of the changes in 5 scale between the various houses. So 6 I will leave it there. 7 MR. COOK: To show our house 20 feet 8 from 505 is an unfair characteristic. 9 There is almost an entire vacant lot 10 between our garage. There is another 11 47 feet. Not to mention the 100 foot 12 tree that sits in front of the house. 13 So these are not exactly accurate. I 14 don't know where the information comes 15 from. I don't know if they' re to scale 16 as ours. I can't -- I can't say what 17 is drawn here is correct. 18 MS. PERRY: Photographs from the 19 houses. 20 MR. COOK: You must be pretty good 21 to get them to scale. 22 MS. MOORE: They don't -- 23 MR. COOK: They are not properly 24 in context. 25 MS. PERRY: Then we will go back. 81 November 27, 2018 1 That is from the park. There is the 2 appropriate distances between the 3 houses. The point is, you' re going 4 to be one of the largest houses in 5 Orient on a street that has very 6 modest size homes. Most people in 7 Orient bump their heads in their 8 second floor bedrooms. 9 MR. COOK: That doesn't mean that 10 everyone should. It 's also unfair to 11 say that 675 is like most lots. 12 It 's unfair to say that. Our house 13 is off by itself. There is a 3 1/2 14 acre park next to it. It 's a very 15 different scenario. 16 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Kevin, are 17 you finished? 18 MS. PERRY: Yeah, I am done. 19 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Go ahead. 20 MR. DANE: My name is Charles 21 Dane. 295 Village Lane in a 300 year 22 old house. A New England style home. 23 The feeling of the living room 24 (Inaudible) . And I hit my head all 25 the time. You can't stand up in the 82 November 27, 2018 1 two bedrooms upstairs. You know, 2 it 's an antique. And I love living 3 in it. As stated before, many, many 4 people in Orient had a great 5 difficulty coming to this hearing 6 because it 's in the afternoon on a 7 weekday. And a lot of people work. 8 So to give them some voice, we put a 9 petition in the Country Store saying, 10 we, the undersigned, oppose the 11 application before the Southold 12 Historic Preservation Commission to 13 demolish the historic Ben Ostrom 14 (phonetic) house, 675 Skippers Lane. 15 The house was built in 1918 by the 16 Vales, one of the founding families 17 of Orient. Making this the 100th 18 Anniversary. The house stands within 19 the Historic District and is listed 20 by the Town of Southold "landmark 21 that contributes to the heritage of 22 the Town." To allow the demolition 23 to this house or a significant change 24 to the exterior of the house would do 25 irrevocable damage to the street 83 November ,27, 2018 1 scape and by precedent, threaten the 2 Historic District of Orient. This 3 was in the Country Store. There is 4 coffee stains on it from various 5 coffee' s. It was signed by 50 people 6 who live in Orient. Many of them are 7 here. So I would like to give this 8 to the Committee. Not everybody this 9 time of year is out here. So we put 10 a Change.Org petition online. And we 11 have 707 signers saying -- well, it 's 12 basically the same thing. They were 13 all signing that they were opposed to 14 the demolition of the house.- It 's 15 very similar to that one. So I won't 16 read it. So because it was online, 17 anyone could sign it. So I have 18 orange highlighted the people who do 19 live in Orient because there is 20 people all over the country signing 21 it. There are a lot of people in 22 Orient who have signed it. Southold. 23 So I have looked over them. There 24 are over 100 people between the two 25 of them who have signed petitions of 84 November 27, 2018 1 Orient people who are opposed to the 2 demolition. So I just wanted to let 3 you know that even though there are a 4 lot of people here who are against 5 the demolition, this is 'no where near 6 the totality. Thank you. Before I 7 give my statement, I have a letter 8 here from Donald and Mina Van Cluth. 9 Their property is to the right. She 10 says our house is on Skippers Lane, 11 within 100 feet of the Potter' s 12 property. Contrary to the reports in 13 -Suffolk Times, we were never shown 14 drawings of the property or figures 15 concerning the proponed lot. Now our 16 feeling is that coverage of the lot 17 of the proposed home, should conform 18 to the limitations of the Town. She 19 emailed it to me and asked if I would 20 deliver that to you and I am. The 21 demolition policy of this commission 22 is clearly stated in a 2010 letter 23 from the Southold Landmark 24 Preservation Commission to Mr. And 25 Mrs. (Inaudible) Claudia King, 85 November 27, 2018 1 denying a request to demolish their 2 house on Village Lane. Also in 3 Orient ' s District and also a simple 4 home, architecturally. I quote from 5 your letter to her, "the official 6 policy of the Landmarks Preservation 7 Commission is to not permit 8 demolition of a landmark structure 9 unless there is known proven 10 alternative." Your decision on this 11 application will determine if that 12 will continue to be your policy. We 13 can also stand -- I can stand before` 14 you as has the architect and 15 Ms. Moore and talk about mold, lead 16 paint, asbestos shingles. Most all 17 homes in the Historic District have 18 some of these problems, if not all of 19 them. You know, lead paint, 87% of 20 houses in America built before 1940' s 21 have lead paint. Almost all houses. 22 You either remove it or you just live 23 with it. It ' s not that dangerous if 24 you don 't eat. Asbestos shingles, 25 well, you know the (Inaudible) house 86 November 27, 2018 1 had asbestos shingles and they 2 removed them. Gideon (Inaudible) 3 house had asbestos shingles and they 4 had removed them. I mean you remove 5 them. They can re—shingle this 6 house. The house had cedar shake 7 shingles. They can replace the 8 asbestos cedar shake shingles. The 9 lead paint, that is just not. Mold. 10 Many houses have mold. My house has 11 mold. You just deal with it. You 12 know, Clorox or whatever. You deal 13 with it. You just don 't tear your 14 house down because you have mold. 15 And those of us who have purchased 16 homes in the Historic District, have 17 chosen to live in antique buildings 18 and have chosen to care for these 19 antique buildings. None of the 20 problems that the buyer has 21 mentioned, none of them requires that 22 they demolish their house. As for 23 the -- well, the last hearing, they 24 claimed it was unstable. Ms. Moore 25 has stated that the house was stable. 87 November 27, 2018 1 As for the preposterous point that 2 it 's not stable, it recently went 3 through two terrible storms, Irene 4 and Sandy with only a shingle or two 5 loss. They did find an engineer who 6 they paid to include that -- that 7 it 's not. That is very not 8 compelling. I would like to address 9 an issue that was mentioned, that the 10 house -- a contributing house was 11 established in 1976, which was 42 12 years old. Well, the house is 13 located within the district and was 14 not listed at that time, because 15 homes listed at that time as 16 contributing, were all built before 17 1900. This house was built in 1918 18 and only 58 years old in 1976. Today 19 it 's 100 years old. It was built in 20 1918 by Mr. Edward Vale, a member of 21 one of Orient's founding families. 22 The house is (Inaudible) of our 23 village. The house was sold to the 24 Van Nostrand family in 1938. In 2007 25 the Landmark Preservation Commission 88 November 27, 2018 1 _ in a letter from Mr. James 2 (Inaudible) to Ms. Elizabeth Van 3 Nostrand stated, "please note that 4 your property located at 675 Skipper 5 Lane in Orient is listed on the 6 Southold Town as an Historic Landmark 7 and subjected to the Town's revised 8 landmark preservation code." That 9 statement cannot be more explicit. I 10 would like to bring your attention to 11 the fact that with my neighbors at 12 195 Village Lane, went to add a 13 dormer onto their house. A house 14 that was built after 1900 and 15 therefore not listed as a 16 contributing house in 1976, the 17 Commission, you gentleman and lady, 18 reviewed and required alterations in 19 their plans. No one felt that it was 20 outside of your jurisdiction. Your 21 jurisdiction does in fact cover the 22 entire Historic District. In your 23 letter to Ms. Ramone when you denied 24 her house down, you stated "the 25 Orient Natural Historical District is 89 November 27, 2018 1 unique. Your proposal would have an 2 adverse effect on the Historical and 3 Architectural significance of the 4 Historic District." It is the 5 District that you are in charge of 6 protecting. Members of this 7 Commission must show that Orient is 8 an important Village. One of the 9 best preserved and amazingly intact 10 Villages on Long Island. Those of us 11 who live in Orient, live with it 12 daily. We pride ourselves on the 13 charm. Preservation of the Village 14 is paramount to us. If we allow this 15 iconic house to be bulldozed, we set 16 a precedent that will result in our 17 Village being overbuilt and ruined. 18 I don't know what else to say to Mr. 19 Potter or Ms. Francata (phonetic) 20 that their historic could be a home 21 jewel if they would just restore it. 22 Keep the same size. Renovate 23 whatever else they would like to do 24 inside. We would welcome them to 25 join us in the endeavor and enjoy our 90 November 27, 2018 1 community. I hope the Commission 2 will live up to its name and deny the 3 application to demolish the Van 4 Nostrum house. Thank you. 5 MS. DUMONT: I am Deborah Dumont 6 and I live at 715 Village Lane. My 7 husband bought our house in 1968 and 8 had been abandoned since 1965. We 9 have an 18th century house with all 10 its original doors, windows and 11 latches. I do not have a 12 romanticized (Inaudible) for you. I 13 only believe that we really do not 14 own our homes but the keepers of the 15 homes within the Historic District. 16 How many of you recall the almost 17 gratifying plan by Robert Moses and 18 others to construct a bridge from 19 Long Island to Connecticut in the 20 mid-60's? The 1966 and 1969 push 21 focused on two possible routes. A 10 22 mile span from East Marion or a 15 23 mile bridge from Port Jefferson to 24 Bridgeport. If that plan had not 25 been stopped by the work of diligent 91 November 27, 2018 1 and active citizens, we would not be 2 here today. East Marion would have 3 been wiped out to provide space for 4 the ramp to the bridge. A lovely and 5 historic hamlet is here. Just as a 6 generation ago, today we must insist 7 that the house on the corner of 8 Skippers and Harbor River Road not be 9 destroyed. For once that it 's gone, 10 it's gone and the allowing of that 11 - house to be restored is unknown. As 12 my late husband would have said, 13 citizens should not be muzzled and 14 thankfully not today, and nor bender 15 a knee to pressure. We must stand up 16 for what is right, true and lawful 17 whatever the consequences. Thank 18 you. 19 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Next? 20 MS. SCHNITZLER: My name is 21 Barbara Schnitzler. I live in New 22 Suffolk. Why buy a house in the 23 Historic District? Because the house 24 has integrity. It hangs together 25 united by its scale and history. -It 92 November 27, 2018 I tells its unique stories and how 2 they' re cited, how they evolved at a 3 certain point in history. The 4 history will stay that way because 5 it ' s protected by local landmarks 6 ordinance. We will not wake up one 7 morning to find a wrecking ball above 8 your neighbors house or will you? 9 The property owners who want to 10 demolish and rebuild within the 11 Historic Orient District could build 12 a bigger house just about anywhere in 13 Southold. Their proposed 3,341 house 14 is over 25% larger over the average 15 American house that is built today. 16 Yet they have chosen to build on one 17 of the few properties with in doing 18 so, would destroy the character of 19 the neighborhood and adjacent park. 20 No wonder their neighbors have spoken 21 out against it. The same neighbors 22 who should have every intention that 23 their district will remain as 24 substantially as it has been. A 25 cluster of modest old homes because 93 November 27, 2018 1 it ' s protected by landmark law and by 2 commissioner's who are responsible 3 for making sure that the law is 4 enforced. The local landmarks law 5 was never intended to preserve 6 (Inaudible) but rather allows for a 7 mechanism to include for the way that 8 people live today. I have 9 extensively remodeled my 1743 home 10 twice. Both with permission by this 11 Commission and in accordance with the 12 current building code. Not everyone 13 would appreciate its sloped floors 14 and low ceilings, but my family does 15 and that is why we bought it. The 16 proposed house is very pleasant. The 17 owners seem to have done their 18 homework -and have good intentions. 19 The architect is skilled but, I will 20 end with the same question I started 21 with, why buy a 100 year old home 22 which is a contributor to a district 23 with a special charm if you plan to 24 demolish it and plan to build a new 25 considerably larger one. And I hope 94 November 27, 2018 1 the Commission will deny this 2 application. Thank you. 3 MS. CRYSTAL: Patricia Crystal, 4 Kings Street, Orient. The historic 5 Village of Orient and its houses, 6 tell a story. And to demolish one of 7 its houses, is to rip out a chapter 8 of that story. People from all walks 9 of life over a period of century have 10 made the Village what it is. And 11 we' re not -- the Village is not a 12 replication. I believe that it would 13 be wrong to demolish the house 14 certainly, but even to replicate the 15 house would I think would be wrong. 16 It would be appropriate to restore 17 the house. And I hope that is what 18 you decide. 19 MR. COHEN: My name is Clifford 20 Cohen and I live on Narrow River 21 Road. Previously I lived on Orchard 22 Street in the Village. I didn't 23 prepare anything to say. I wasn't 24 going to speak. A couple of things 25 jumped out at me. Right in the 95 November 27, 2018 1 opening remarks, I don't know who 2 said it, might have been the 3 architect, that the owner had no 4 intending on living in that house as 5 it was. And also that there was an 6 expectation that there would be an 7 accommodation by this Board. And I 8 think that's a very curious way to 9 start. Just struck me and have not 10 been able to get it out of my mind. 11 We had a house on Orchard Street and 12 it needed a lot of work. And we 13 didn't come with the expectation that 14 people were going to do stuff for us. 15 We had to go by the rules. And the 16 rules were stringent. They were very 17 stringent because it was an important 18 house within the community. And we 19 followed all the rules. And we 20 didn 't compare it to other houses or 21 say why did we have to because they 22 didn 't. We just did it because we 23 were told we had to. This Board 24 presented us with an award at the end 25 of it because they appreciated that 96 November 27, 2018 1 we had a sensitivity to the community 2 and to the district. We' re not 3 special. We' re not heroic. We 4 didn't -- we just simply did what we 5 were told to do and what was expected 6 of us. And it would be my hope that 7 this would go in this direction and 8 that these people could end up with 9 an award for doing what is expected 10 of them in this regard. That 's it. 11 And I never really got to thank you 12 for that. Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Do we have 14 any other speakers? 15 MS. THOMAS: My name is Dee—Dee 16 Thomas and I live at 750 Village 17 Lane. My family has been in Orient 18 since -- as I would like to say, 19 since the "Dawn of Dirt." I am a 20 Edward, Latham, Brown, Vale. If 21 you' re in Orient for longer than 22 15 minutes, you ' re related to 23 everybody, which is a very good thing 24 I think. I have lived all over the 25 United States and I have lived out of 97 November 27, 2018 1 the country. And Orient calls me 2 home. So I also understand what it 3 is to live in a historic house. I am 4 actually one of the shorter one' s in 5 my family. My father is 6'6 and has 6 -- like Charles, has a very 7 interesting excursion trying to sleep 8 upstairs with 7 foot ceilings. And 9 that doesn't include the doorways 10 which are much lower. There are many 11 advantages in living in an Historic 12 District and living in a historic 13 house. Part of it being a steward of 14 a really great story. Part of it is 15 just feeling like you ' re not living 16 in a stepford, cookie—cutter, Edward 17 Scissorhands environment. They are 18 all different. They all have 19 different stories. My grandfather 20 bought the houses that we have on 21 Village Lane in the 50' s. One of 22 which we just sold to some amazing 23 people that we were lucky to find who 24 appreciate's its lower ceilings and 25 corkiness. And it does have asbestos 98 November 27, 2018 1 shingles. And it does have issues, I 2 am sure with lead paint. As Charles 3 said any house before 1970 is having 4 issues with lead paint. Orient 5 itself is also a very special place 6 to live. I realize I am 51. So I 7 might be slightly younger than some 8 people in the audience. I am 9 considered historic because I am over 10 50. But I don 't consider myself 11 myriad to live in a museum. I find 12 that an offensive characterization of 13 myself and people who chose to live 14 in the Historic District. I also 15 don't want the Potter' s feel that we 16 are inhospitable or unfriendly 17 environment because we' re not. But 18 we did consciously chose to live 19 where we live. We also entrust that 20 you' re helping us to protect. So I 21 would like to see us be able to, one, 22 rule on whether or not the house 23 could be demolished. I think every 24 discussion after that is a different 25 discussion. And I certainly hope 99 November 27, 2018 1 that -- you make a decision not to 2 demolish the house. And it may not - 3 be big and beautiful but it 's 4 important to the fiber of the 5 community in which we choose to live 6 and the challenges that it is to live 7 in a Historic District. Thanks. 8 MS. MACARIAN: My name is Janet 9 Macarian. I live at 1100 Village 10 Lane. The corner of Skippers Lane 11 and Village Lane. I sit on the Board 12 of (Inaudible) . The Oyster Pond 13 Historical Society, as well as 14 (Inaudible) Museum Committee. And my 15 home was built in the 19th century. 16 It is held up beautifully to this day 17 by locust posts, which you will find 18 in many early American homes. Valued 19 for its particular density and 20 natural (Inaudible) chemical free and 21 insects. Attached to my home is a 22 storefront which was added about the 23 1920' s, which is the Village barber 24 shop. I have lived in that home for 25 almost 15 years. What drew me to 100 November 27, 2018 1 Orient then, is what I still hold 2 here. It 's a uniquely intact 3 Village. Architecturally and 4 socially. I feel fortunate to live 5 in this antique home. It ' s not big. 6 I have two kids that grew up much of 7 their life there. I intend to care 8 for it as much as I can. I believe 9 the Van Nostrand cottage which is 100 10 years old this year should not be 11 demolished. It is well preserved and 12 important example of early 13 architecture in Orient. Cottages 14 like this still standing along the 15 Bay represents 'it ' s first time the 16 Village saw it 's summer seasonal 17 residents. So in that respect, 18 modest, although it may be in 19 comparison to other productions, it ' s 20 authentically plain and simple. It 21 adds to the diversity of our 22 district. We are not Williamsburg 23 and not frozen in time. There are 24 many opportunity in Orient to build 25 newer and more contemporary homes 101 November 27, 2018 1 outside of the Historic District. 2 Many talented architects have done 3 so. In my opinion, this decision is 4 crucial to other potential demolition 5 of historic homes. If any landmark 6 home can now be considered a 7 potential building site, we don't 8 have much hope for the Village that 9 we love and know it to be. 10 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Do we have any 11 other speakers? 12 (No Response. ) 13 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We' re going to 14 leave this hearing open because we will 15 go to adjournment -- we ,don't rule -- 16 we need time to think about it and 17 recover. Do you want to respond? 18 MS. MOORE: No. I will like to take 19 it all in. 20 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: I think it 21 would be good for all of us to take it 22 in. It has to be a month because I 23 have to notify everybody. 24 MR. COOK: Just a few underlying 25 things that I think is worth responding 102 November 27, 2018 1 to. One of them is working with the 2 rules. Obviously we' re working within 3 the rules and that is why we' re here. 4 We' re attempting to gain permission 5 that is based on the rules. We' re not 6 trying to do this outside the rules. 7 The other thing is, talk about antique 8 versus old. Talking about their homes 9 and what they have restored. And the 10 wonderful doors and the trims and the 11 mouldings. I wonder how they would 12 feel after they bought those houses and 13 renovated in the 1970. And that all 14 those things have been removed. And 15 now they have clamshell moulding. 16 Vinyl flooring. There is nothing in 17 the home that was antique or 18 historical. My first home was a 100 19 year old house. I bought it from an 20 estate from a woman who lived in the 21 house in the 1880' s. I bought it with 22 my brother and sister. A Victorian 23 house in Bridgehampton. Her father was 24 a carpenter. He turned all the 25 mouldings himself. He built the house. 103 November 27, 2018 1 by hand. We respected it. We restored 2 it and built the house that everyone is 3 talking about. Slope floorings, all 4 those cute, corky things. This house 5 is not one of them. I am wondering if 6 anyone who is talking about the 7 condition of this house has ever been 8 in this house or been up close to the 9 house. So there is nothing in this 10' house that is charming or cute. I 11 think the Chairman's comment about a 12 silhouette, a height. That is worth 13 considering. That is valid. It is 14 important to note that everything that 15 we' re doing is within the code. 16 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We can only go 17 so long. 18 MS. PRARIE: Inga (Inaudible) . 19 House there. 20 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: We can't hear 21 you. 22 MR. COOK: It' s a street scape. h 23 MS. PRARIE: Inga Prarie, that is 24 my house. The (Inaudible) of my 25 house is the original. I wanted to 104 November 27, 2018 1 talk about -- there is nothing in 2 that house. There is no marble in 3 that house (Inaudible) very modest 4 house. Mr. Potter made a statement 5 at the very beginning and said he 6 rented a house in Orient and fell in 7 love with the house at the end of the 8 street. He fell in love with the 9 house and that is why he bought it. 10 I am definitely opposed to tearing 11 down the house. 12 MR. DANE: Charles Dane, 295 13 Village Lane. Explaining to the 14 architect, when he said there is 15 nothing in the house that you would 16 love. Well, the people next door to 17 me, on the other side, Lynn Cay 18 bought a Victorian house, which they 19 worked with this commission to 20 renovate. Terrible conditions 21 inside. All the floors were rotted. 22 They actually gutted the entire 23 house. So if you looked in the 24 window, you can see the ground and 25 the basement. There was nothing in 105 November 27, 2018 1 the house. They put in all new 2 stairs. All the floors. They 3 rebuilt the interior from- scratch. 4 The outside, it ' s still very 5 beautiful. Still a Victorian house. 6 You wouldn't know if they -- that it 7 had been changed at all. They 8 actually brought the interior. They 9 can gut the house inside if they want 10 to. They can put whatever they want 11 inside and -- they want to build from 12 scratch anyway. They want to build a 13 beautiful new kitchen and modern 14 bathrooms. They can make open floor 15 concept. They don't have to change 16 the outside of the house. They can 17 shingle the house appropriately and 18 restore the house. Just keep it the 19 way it is. We' re not asking them to 20 live in some kind of ugly interior. 21 They can make a beautiful interior. 22 They are just not supposed to change 23 the way the house looks from the 24 street. They can restore the 25 shingles. They can make it 106 November 27, 2018 1 beautiful. They obviously have the 2 means to do it if they' re going to 3 build a house this grand. 4 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: I think that 5 what I am going to do now is keep the 6 public hearing open. I have to find 7 another date to find this size 8 meeting room. I have to find a date. 9 I can't just pick a date. So I am 10 going to adjourn the meeting and we 11 can talk about it and how you want to 12 do this. I think we will have some 13 advice. Gives you a little bit of a 14 chance of how you want to play it. 15 Without any further ado, I am going 16 to ask the attorney something. Do we 17 have legal things to talk about. 18 Do I hear a motion to adjourn? 19 COMMISSIONER WEBB: So moved. 20 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Second? 21 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Second. 22 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: All in favor? 23 COMMISSIONER HARPER: Aye. 24 COMMISSIONER PARKER: Aye. 25 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Aye. 107 November 27, 2018 1 COMMISSIONER WEBB: Aye. 2 COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Aye. 3 CHAIRMAN GARRETSON: Aye. 4 (Whereupon, the meeting 5 concluded. ) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 November 27, 2018 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 3 4 5 6 I, Jessica DiLallo, certify that the 7 foregoing transcript of audio recorded 8 Meeting/Public Hearings was prepared 9 using required electronic transcription 10 equipment and is a true and accurate 11 record of the meeting. 12 13 14 Signature: 15 Jessica DiLallo 16 17 18 Date: December 16, 2018 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 May 15th,2018:Working Meeting Below are minutes of the meeting from the internet Pre-Submission Conference Peter Cook for 675 Skippers Lane;Orient(SCTM#1000-24.-2-1). Additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling on a landmarked property. Mr. Cook presented preliminary concept drawings,seeking direction from the commission. Commissioners expressed concern with both massing and scale of the proposed additions and alterations. Mr. Cook explained that the concept drawings were done free hand just to see if he was going in the right direction" Commissioners asked that he return for a pre-submission conference in.lune with more detailed drawing sand a model. June 19'h,2018:Working Meeting Below are minutes of the meeting from the internet Peter Cook for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient(SCTM#1000-24.-2-1);additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling on a landmarked property. Mr. Cook brought in new, more extensive drawings, based on conversations with the commission at the previous meeting. He explained that the house would have to be torn down, due to its existing condition, and rebuilt with new additions and alterations. Mr. Cook explained that a number of zoning variances would be needed for the public hearing with the ZBA. Chairman Garretson expressed concern that there may be a larger than usual turn out for the meeting because of the proposal to tear down the house and suggested that the meeting be held in town hall. Damon Rallis said that they he would investigate options once the hearing is scheduled. In the meantime, it was suggested that Mr. Cook file his application with the building department to start the process for both HPC and ZBA. It was also suggested that Mr. Cook return for another conference at the July regular meeting. Chairman Garretson asked Mr, Cook to create a 3-D model or streetscape so that the commission could consider the new dwelling in relation to other structures on the street. July 17th,2018 Below are minutes of the meeting from the internet Peter Cook for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient(SCTM#1000-24.-2-1); Additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling on a landmarked property. Mr. Cook brought in more drawings and photos, as well as 3D renderings, at the request of the commission. Commissioners questioned the plate height and whether or not it could be lowered. Commissioner Grothwohl said that he was not in favor of a total tear down of the house and questioned whether or not the original structure could be saved. The architect said that it was not feasible. Commissioners agreed to take the drawings and visit the site to get a better sense of the project. September 18th,2018 Below are minutes of the meeting from the internet Peter Cook for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient(SCTM#1000-24.-2-1);additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling on a landmarked property. Mr. Cook presented the commission with reports, that he claims prove that the house must be torn down in order to accommodate any sort of expansion. These included reports on asbestos, lead, and black mold in the house. Commissioners asked Town Historian Amy Folk about the age of the structure and whether or not it was considered a contributing structure at the time of the district creation.Amy Folk said that it was contributing and she said that she believed that the house was likely built around 1920. Commissioners asked whether or not there was any way to save the house and Cook said that there was not. He stated that the owners were making a "great concession" by agreeing to mimic the original house and rebuild it in kind and said that the house was insufficient as a structure. Commissioner Grathwohl explained that it was his belief that original houses were irreplaceable and every effort should be made to protect the original structure. However, Peter Cook argued that there was nothing left of historic value in the building since work had been done over the years removing historic components. He said that the design was meant to pay homage to what was there. Peter Cook invited commissioners to schedule a time to tour the property and go inside the house to see the condition for themselves. Commissioners agreed to schedule another pre submission conference for October 16, 2018 at 3:30PM. Dr. Potters was planning on attending this meeting but due to the death of his mother, could not attend. Suffolk Times Article based on that meeting Proposal to demolish Orient home draws residents to Town Hall by Cyndi Zaweski 109/19/2018 12:00 PM A proposal to demolish a house in Orient's historic district drew more than a dozen residents to a Southold Historic Preservation Commission meeting on a rainy Tuesday afternoon.Residents filled up the Southold Town Hall annex meeting room,even though the work session and pre-submission hearing were not open to public comment. The home is located on the corner of Skippers Lane,prominently situated on a parcel abutting Poquatuck Park.According to preliminary plans filed in June by Water Mill-based architect Peter Cook on behalf of the homeowners,the existing 1,827-square-foot structure would be torn down and replaced by a new 3,424- square-foot building. "It isn't appropriate for the village,"resident Jane Friesen said after the meeting."It is very visible from our village green. It does not fit the character." A rendering of the proposed home. (Courtesy of Peter Cook) An e-newsletter sent out by the Orient Association earlier this month telling residents about the meeting sparked so much interest there wasn't a seat to be had before Mr. Cook and his associate entered the building.The applicants did not attend due to a death in the family,but provided a statement on the proposal and design that Mr.Cook read. "We have shared the drawings of the project with our immediate neighbors,all of whom liked the appropriate scaling of the house,"the statement read."...they appreciate our intent to retain the look of the current house." Another prospective of the proposed house. (Courtesy.Peter Cook) When asked by member James Grathwohl if the old home needed to be leveled,Mr. Cook said it was required because of irreparable structural damage.A recent environmental review submitted by the architect showed the house,believed to have been built in the 1920s,was overrun with asbestos,lead paint and black mold. "I am a person who does not want to tear down something unless it is the only possibility," Mr.Grathwohl said."I am a historian and history plays an important role in my evaluation of things,especially in Orient." Another rendering of the proposed hone. (Courtesy of Peter Cook) When the village's historic district was forined in 1976,the home was classified as contributing to the designation,however,Mr.Cook questioned how much of that history was left to save,saying that much of the original trim work and windows had been removed in a past renovation. "I am a big proponent of saving things in an old house that can be saved,"Mr.Cook said. "There is nothing historic in this existing house.The client has asked us to pay homage to what is there and to be respectful of that corner. [The new build] will honor its spirit." The new build would have additional living space and raise the ceilings—and thus the height of the roof.The evaluation was a point of concern among residents who believe the increased height could obscure views from the park and fundamental change the appearance of the historic district. "The historic district has such a small footprint that every change is significant," said Orient resident Keith Scott Morton after the meeting."The architecture is not reflective of the community." Some residents and commission members noted that the proposed home is aesthetically pleasing,but ultimately questioned the project because of its location. Orient residents filled the Town Hall annex meeting room Tuesday. (Cyndi Murray photo) "If this was being proposed on a different street,none of us would be here,"Ms. Friesen said. The commission agreed to tour the home prior to the next pre-submission hearing planned for mid-October. Before Tuesday's pre-submission hearing,chairman James Garretson explained that comment from the community needed to wait until a public hearing,which would be scheduled after the commission reviews the application,makes recommendations and the applicant files final construction documents outlining the exact specifications of the project. Residents were encouraged to send written comment to the commission,which would be included in the public hearing when the time comes. In addition to Historic Preservation Commission approval,the project would also require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals,as it would exceed maximum lot coverage limits. Top photo caption:The current house that may be demolished (Credit:Cyndi Murray) cmurray@timesreview.com Email from Garrison regarding the ZBA regarding the front setback: From:JAMES GARRETSON <Jgaoti gmail.com> Date: October 29, 2018 at 6:40:04 AM EDT To: "Peter Cook(phcookaia@aol.com)" <phcookaia aol.com>, Elizabeth Moore <emoore wmclaw.com> Cc: "Webb Edward W." <tedwebbl@optonline.net>, Donald <donaldfeiler.architect@gmail.com>, James <ifgrathwohlPmsn.com>, Gary <gp3950 optonline.net>, Anne Surchin <surchin@mac.com>, Robert Harper <rharperl optonline.net>, Scott <scott.russell town.southold.ny.us>, mark.terEy town.southold.ny.us Subject: Re; 675 Skippers Lane,Orient Peter, Upon further review of your submission, SHPC recommends that the original house maintain it's present foot print. Please contact me if you have any questions. Jamie James Garretson AIA, Chairman Southold Historic Preservation Commission Southold Town Annex 54375 Main Road (Rte. 25)" Southold, NY 11971 Cell: 917-748-1174 ENCSINS' E!ER] .N , October 31, 2018 Patricia Moore, Esq Main Road Southold,NY 11971 RE: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient Dear Ms Moore, I had a chance this morning to inspect the foundation for the above referenced dwelling. The structure below the first floor of the original structure is a foundation consisting of a formed concrete foundation.An addition build at a later date has a concrete block foundation and a crawl space. I was not able to ascertain if any of these two foundation sections have a footing under the walls.While the walls both seem to be sound,no determination can be made for the reuse of these foundations for a new two-story structure above without knowing what is supporting the existing foundation walls. I have been a builder and engineer on the North Fork for 44 years. Over that time I have seen many historic structures. It is very important to secure our historic architectural heritage for the future. As for the historic value of keeping the existing foundation,it is my opinion that there is no historic architectural value in this particular foundation. It is a concrete and concrete block foundation very similar to what is being constructed today. Being old does not make it architecturally significant. BOARD CERTIFIED IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING JOSEPH Q9FISCHETTI.COM FISCHETTIENGINEERING.COM 63 1 -765-2954 1 72 5 H O 9 A R T ROAD 5 O U T H O L D , N E w YORK 1 1 97 1 II M S_ - INSIGHT Environmental Inc. FULL INTERIOR & EXTERIOR ASBESTOS SURVEY At 675 Skippers Lane Orient, NY 11957 Inspection Date:August 22,2018 Report Date:September 4,2018 Prepared For: PETER COOK ARCHITECT 728 MONTAUK HIGHWAY WATER MILL,NY 11976 Attn: Mr.Rick Tloczkowski Prepared By: INSIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 74 E. Main Street Patchogue, NY 11772 (631) 654-2780 President: Insight Environmental, Inc. ' - -.--_ as Vice President: Insight Environmental, Inc. Ge ge WMaul TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title 1.0 Executive Summary 2.0 Asbestos Inspection 2.1 Asbestos Inspection Methodology 2.2 Bulk Sampling Activities 2.3 Analytical Methodology 2.4 , Summary of Asbestos-Containing Materials 3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Appendices Appendix A Asbestos Bulk Sample Analysis Results Appendix B Sample Location Diagrams Appendix C Reconnaissance Photographs Appendix D Certifications Section 1.0 Executive Summary Insight Environmental, Inc. has conducted a full asbestos inspection of the residential property located at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957 on August 22, 2018. The building in question is a 1,800 square foot,vacant,two-story residence with an unfinished basement and a pitched roof. The inspection was specific to all suspect asbestos containing building materials throughout the interior and exterior of this building to facilitate the renovation of the structure. New York State requires that the asbestos survey information be transmitted by the building owner as follows: 1. One copy of the completed survey shall be sent by the owner or their agent to the local government entity charged with issuing a permit for such demolition, renovation, remodeling or repair work under applicable State or local laws. 2. The completed asbestos survey for controlled demolition or pre-demolition asbestos projects shall also be submitted to the appropriate Asbestos Control Bureau district office. 3. The completed asbestos survey shall be kept on the construction site with the asbestos notification and variance, if required,throughout the duration of the asbestos project and any associated demolition, renovation, remodeling or repair project. During the course of the asbestos inspection performed on August 22, 2018, Insight Environmental, Inc. collected a total of 48 bulk samples of suspect Asbestos Containing Building Materials. All samples were remanded for Polarized Light Microscopy(PLM) analysis; fifteen (15)samples were friable in nature and thirty-three(33)samples were Non-friable Organically Bound (NOB). All NOB samples that were deemed negative (28 Total)were remanded for Transmission Electron Microscopy(TEM) analysis in accordance with the New York State Department of Health's Environmental Laboratory Approval Program (ELAP) requirements. All samples were labeled and sealed immediately upon collection and remanded to AmeriSci Richmond (ELAP#10984). Summarily,analysis has revealed asbestos containing materials to be present in the basement insulation wrap and flue cement,floor tile within the living room, kitchen, both V and 2,d floor bathrooms,floor tile mastic and in the exterior siding and roof. According to New York State Industrial Code Rule 56, a material is considered "asbestos- containing" when asbestos represents greater than one(1) percent of the material's content by weight. For more detailed information see Section 2.4 and Appendix A. 2.0 Asbestos Inspection 2.1 Asbestos Inspection Methodology This asbestos inspection included an inventory of all accessible locations within all elevations of the building.Suspect and presumed asbestos containing materials were classified as Surfacing Material or Miscellaneous material and then categorized into homogeneous groups. A"homogeneous group" is any material that appears similar; like color, function, usage, and characteristics. Samples of suspect ACBM's were collected in representative locations within each homogeneous group. It should be noted that when a sample of a given homogenous group is determined to contain asbestos, then it is assumed that all similar materials within the building are also ACM (Asbestos Containing Material). The asbestos inspection was conducted by George W. Maul a NYS certified Asbestos Inspector License#98-13806. 2.2 Bulk Sampling Activities Bulk Sampling activities were conducted according to the following guidelines: ➢ Sampling was conducted in unoccupied areas. Surfaces of the material to be sampled were wetted with amended water mist prior to collection. ➢ Samples were collected with a core borer, knife, or other approved sampling tool. ➢ Sampling tools were decontaminated between each sample. ➢ Sample containers were labeled with a date and unique sample ID number using a permanent marker. Individual sealable containers were used to contain each of the collected samples. Samples were double-bagged for transportation to the laboratory. ➢ All multi-layered system components,when possible,were separated by strata in the field and remanded for individual analysis. These sampling procedures were implemented in an effort to provide control of samples through analysis and reporting. 2.3 Analytical Methodology All bulk samples were transported and relinquished to AmeriSci Richmond analytical Laboratory for analysis. AmeriSci is a NYS Environmental Laboratory Approval Program accredited laboratory (ELAP#10984). Asbestos bulk samples were analyzed utilizing Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) methodology in accordance with EPA600/M4-82-020. Samples deemed negative when analyzed by PLM, but determined to be non-friable organically bound materials (such as floor tiles, mastics,and roofing materials) were remanded to transmission electron microscopy(TEM)Analysis in accordance with ELAP certification manual section 198.1, subsection 6.3.2.2.1,which states, in part: "...PLM analysis alone cannot definitively confirm a non-friable organically bound material (NOB)to be non-asbestos containing.This determination can only be made by analyzing such samples by transmission electron microscopy(TEM) methodology". Bulk Sample Analysis Results can be found in Appendix A. 2.4 Summary of Asbestos-Containing Materials Table 2.4: Material .Asbestos% "Location Quantity Conditidn Friable Insulation 80.0% Basement —6 Sq. Ft. Intact Yes Wrap Flue Cement 44.4% Basement —3 Sq. Ft. Intact No Light Brown 8.5% Living Room —433 Sq. Ft. Intact No 9x9 Floor Tile White/Olive 10.6% Kitchen —178 Sq. Ft. Intact No 9x9 White/Olive 1.4% Kitchen —178 Sq. Ft. Intact No 9x9 Tile Mastic White Pattern 12.3% Bath 1 —22 Sq. Ft. Intact No 9x9 Floor Tile Cream 9x9 9.1% Bath 2 —37 Sq. Ft. Intact No Floor Tile Cream 9x9 1.6% Bath 2 —37 Sq. Ft. Intact No Floor Mastic Siding Board** 21.2% Exterior Side — 1600 Sq. Ft, Intact Yes Roof Shingle 3.2% Exterior Roof —2000 Sq. Ft. I Intact I No *Quantities are estimates only and must be field verified for bidding purposes. **Please note that six extra transite shingles are stored in the attic of the home ***Although not anticipated,additional pipe insulation may exist inside walls and ceilings throughout.Should the contractor encounter suspect asbestos containing materials during renovation,we recommend that they stop work immediately and contact our firm so that we may inspect the area in question. Section 3.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Disturbance of this quantity of asbestos is regulated in NYS under 12 NYCRR Part 56 "Asbestos". Summarily,this will require retention of a licensed NYS Asbestos abatement contractor, independent third-party project monitor/air sampling technician. Notification to the NYS DOL Asbestos Control Bureau is required. My office can assist you in both asbestos project design and project monitoring/air sampling that will be required by the NYSDOL Engineering Services Unit(ESU). Only NYS licensed personnel may enter, contain, remove and dispose of these materials. Air Sampling is required prior to,during, and at the completion of asbestos abatement activities. Appendix A Asbestos Bulk Sampling Analysis Results Please Reply To: AmefiSci Richmond 13635 GENITO ROAD AmERI So MIDLOTHIAN,VIRGINIA 23112 TEL:(804)763-1200-FAX:(804)763-1800 FACSIMILE TELECOPY TRANSMISSION To: George Maul From: William M.Dunstan Insight Environmental AmeciSci Job M 118082015 Fax#: Subject: FLAP-PLWFEM 48 hour Results Client Project: 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; Email: gmaul @�insi htenvironmental,com,leont@insightenvi 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY g ronmental.comjohnp@insightenvironmental.com,an drea@insightenvironmental.comj trick@insightenvir onmental.com Date: Sunday,August 26,2018 Number of Pages: -Z-40 Time: 13:19:00 (including coversheet) Comments: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Unless otherwise indicated.the information contained in this communication is confidential information intended for use of the individual named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify the sender by telephone and return the original message to the above address via the US Postal Service at our expense. Samples are disposed of in 60 days or unless otherwise instructed by the protocol or special instructions in venting. Thank you Cerdfied Analysis Service 24 Hours A Day- 7 Days A Week Competitive Prices visit aur web site-wvm.amerisel.com Boston-Los Angeles-New York-Richmond AmeriScl Job#• 118082095 Page 1 of 4 Client Name. Insight Environmental Table I Summary of Faulk asbestos Analysis Results 18-0579; Renovation Inspection, 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY Sample Heat Acid Insoluble AmeriScl HG Weight Sensitive Soluble Non-Asbestos "Asbestos%by •'Asbestos%by Sample# Client sample# Area (gram) Organic% Inorganic% Inorganic% PLWDS TFM 01 1 1 –•• .... — — Chrysotile 80.0 NA Location. Basement,Insulation Wrap 02 2 1 "' — — — NAIPS NA Location: Basement;Insulation Wrap 03 3 1 — — — — NAPS NA Location. Basement,Insulation Wrap 04 4 2 — –'- — — Chrysoble 44.4 NA Location: Basement,Flue Cement 05 5 2 — — --- .-- NAPS NA Location: Basement;Flue Cement 06 6 2 — — — — NAPS NA Location: Basement,Flue Cement 07 7 3 0 241 21 0 49.4 296 Chrysoble 8.5 NA Location. Living Room;Light Brown 9x9 08 6 3 0.401 21.7 33.3 45,0 NAPS NA Location: Living Room;Dark Broom 9x9 09 9 4 0 062 907 9.1 01 NAD Chrysoble Trace Location: Living Room;Floor Tile Mastic 10 10 4 0.093 94.5 5.4 0.0 NAD Chrysoille Trace Location: Living Room;Floor Tile Mastic 11 11 5 0 087 643 11.9 23.6 NAD Chrysotile Trace Location: Dimng Room;Linoleum Floor 12 12 5 0.104 76,7 128 10.5 NAD NAD Location: Dining Room;Linoleum Floor 13L1 13 6 0.158 25.3 270 47.6 Chrysotile 10 6 NAPS Location: Kitchen;White W/Olive Streak 9x9 13L2 13 6 0.055 654 201 130 Chrysoble<0.25 Chrysotile 1.4 Location: Kitchen,White W/Olive Streak 9x9 14L1 14 6 0.184 25.3 26.1 48.6 NAIPS NAPS Locabon, Kitchen;White W/Olive Streak 9x9 141-2 14 6 0.084 59.2 28 6 12.3 Chrysoble<0.25 NAIPS Location: Kitchen,White W/Olive Streak 9x9 See Reposing notes on last page AmeriSci Job M 118082015 Page 2 of 4 Client Name: Insight Environmental Table I Summary of Bulk Asbestos Analysis Results 18-0579: Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY Sample Heat Acid Insoluble AmerlSci HG Weight Sensitive Soluble Non-Asbestos ""Asbestos%by "Asbestos%by Sample# Client Sample# Area (gram) Organic% Inorganic% Inorganic% PLMIDS TEM 151-1 15 7 0 222 249 22.7 524 Chrysoble 12.3 NA Location: Bath 1,White Pattern 9x6 15L2 15 7 0 070 872 9.3 33 Chrysoble<0.25 Chrysotile Trace Location- Bath 1:While Pattern 9x9 161.1 16 7 0.241 24.9 237 51.5 NAPS NA Location: Bath 1;White Pattern 9x9 161-2 16 7 0.056 76,6 196 37 Chrysoble<0 25 Chrysotile Trace Location: Bath 1:White Pattern 9x9 17 17 8 0.095 27.7 17.5 548 NAD NAD Location: Bedroom 1;Ceiling Tile 18 18 8 0.081 23.4 194 57.2 NAD NAD Location: Bedroom 1:Ceiling Tile 19 19 9 0.098 89.5 6.7 3.8 NAD NAD Location: Kitchen:Celling Tile 20 20 9 0.068 809 109 81 NAD NAD Location: Kitchen,Ceiling Tile 21L1 21 10 0.252 33.7 649 14 NAD Chrysotile Trace Location: Bath 1:Green Cove Base 21 L2 21 10 0.192 64.9 16.9 181 NAD ChrysotlleTrace Location, Bath 1.Green Cove Base 22L1 22 10 0.246 33.5 655 08 NAD Chrysoble Trace Location: Bath 1,Green Cove Base 221-2 22 10 0.236 66.8 15.2 181 NAD NAD Location: Bath 1,Green Cove Base 23 23 11 — — -- -•-- NAD NA Location: Dining Room;Ceiling Drywall 24 24 11 ---- — — — NAD NA Location; Dining Room;Ceiling Drywall 26L1 25 12 — — — ---- NAD NA Location: Bath 1;Wall Board 251-2 25 12 0137 76.8 12.2 109 NAD NAD Location: Bath 1;Wall Board See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 3 of 4 Client Name: Insight Environmental Table I Summary of Bulk Asbestos Analysis Results 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY AmeriSci Sample Neat Acid Insoluble NG Weight Sensitive Soluble Non-Asbestos "•Asbestos%by •'Asbestos%by Sample it Client Sample# Area (gram) Organic% Inorganic% Inorganic% PLM/DS TEM 26L1 26 12 --- -- — — NAD NA Location: Bath 1:Wall Board 261-2 26 12 0103 66.1 17.2 16.6 NAD NAD Location: Bath 1:Wall Board 27 27 13 — — — — NAD NA Location: Dining Room,Ceiling Spackle 28 28 13 ---' — — ---- Chrysotile<0.25 NA Location: Dining Room;Celang Spackle 29 29 14 0151 65.7 25.5 8.8 NAD NAD Location: Bath 2,Shower Wall 30 30 14 0159 64.6 24.6 10.9 NAD NAD Location; Bath 2:Shower Wall 311-1 31 15 0 218 23.7 514 249 Chrysoble 91 NAIPS Location: Bath 2;Cream 94 31L2 31 15 0.068 60.5 24.0 139 Chrysotile<0.25 Chrysotile 1.6 Location: Bath 2;Cream 9x9 321-1 32 15 0.231 24.0 53.2 22.7 NAPS NAPS Location- Bath 2;Cream 9xg 321-2 32 15 0.072 54.5 30.1 15.4 Chrysotile<0 25 NAPS Location: Bath 2;Cream 9x9 33 33 16 — — — — NAD NA Location: Ceiling Cavity;Fiberglass Insulation 34 34 16 ---- — — — NAD NA Location: Ceiling Cavity;Fiberglass Insulation 35 35 17 — ---- — — NAD NA Location: Bedroom 2;Closet Wall Board 36 36 17 --- ---- — --- NAD NA Location: Bedroom 2;Closet Wall Board 37 37 18 — — — — NAD NA Location: Second Floor,Wall Drywall 38 38 18 --- — — — NAD NA Location: Second Floor;Wall Drywall See Reposing notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 4 of 4 Client Name- Insight Environmental Table I Summary of Sulk Asbestos Analysis Results 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY Sample Heat Acid Insoluble AmeriScl HG Weight Sensitive Soluble Non-Asbestos "Asbestos% by Asbestos%b ySample ClientSam le# Area {gram) Organic% Inorganic% Inorganic/ PLM/DS TEM 39 39 19 0 451 83 16 90.1 Chrysotile 21 2 NA Location: Exterior Siding,Siding 40 40 19 0 377 8.9 29 88.1 NAIPS NA Location: Exterior Siding,Siding 41 41 20 0 239 222 67.5 10.1 NA Chrysotile Trace Location: Exterior Window,Caulk'rotal Asbestos Concentration For Multiple Asbestos Types Present Is Less Than 1%" Anthophyllite Trace 42 42 20 0 303 24.9 633 116 NA Chrysobie Trace Location: Extenor Window Caulk'Total Asbestos Concentration For Multiple Asbestos Types Present Is Less Than 1%" Anlhophyllde Trace 43 43 21 0,267 21.2 472 31.6 NAD Chrysotile Trace Location: Root,,Shingle 44 44 21 0 325 19.5 48.2 291 Chrysotile<0 25 Chrysoble 3 2 Location: Root;Shingle 45 45 22 0 531 114 751 134 NAD Anthophyllite Trace Location: Extenor Window,Glazing 46 46 22 0.493 9.5 69.4 210 MAD Anthophyllite Trace Location: Exterior Window Glazing 47 47 23 0.141 95.5 41 0.4 NAD NAD Location: Exterior Siding,Tar Paper 48 48 23 0.134 969 3.1 0.1 NAD NAD Locatlon: Exterior Siding:Tar Paper TEM Analyzed By.Jean L Maye Dale Analyzed.8125/2018 ReviewedZr Date Reviewed: =5/2018 Semi-Quantdalive Analysis:NAD=no sbestos detected, NA=not analyzed, NAPS=not analyzed due to positive stop;Trace=<1%: PLM analysis by EPA 600/R-931116 per 40 CFR 763(NVLAP Lab Code 101904-0)or NY ELAP 198 1 for New York friable samples which Includes quantitabon of any vermiculite observed(198 6 for NOB samples)or EPA 400 pt ct by EPA 600IM4-82-020(NY ELAP Lab#10984); TEM prep by EPA 6001R-931116 Section 2 3(analysis by Section 2 5,not covered by NVLAP Bulk accreditation);or NY ELAP 198 4 for New York NOB samples(NY ELAP Lab#10984), -" Warning Notes:Consider PLM fiber diameter limitation,only TEM will resolve fibers<0.25 micrometers in diameter TEM bulk analysis is representative of the fine grained matrix material and may not be representative of non-uniformly dispersed debns,soils or other heterogeneous materials for which a combination PLMrrEM evaluation is recommended:Quantitation for beginning weights of<0 1 grams should be considered as qualitative only AmeriSci Richmond 13635 GENITO ROAD AwRI SCl MIDLOTHIAN,VIRGINIA 23112 TEL;(804)763-1200•FAX:(804)763-1800 PLM Bulk Asbestos Deport Insight Environmental Date Received 08/24/18 AmeriSci Job# 118082015 Attn: George Maul Date Examined 08/26/18 P.O.ark 74 East Main Street ELAP# 10984 Page 1 of 12 Suite #1 RE: 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, Patchogue, NY 11772 NY Client No. /HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 1 118082015-01 Yes 80% 1 Location: Basement;Insulation Wrap (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile 80.0% Other Material: Non-fibrous 20% 2 118082015-02 NAPS 1 Location: Basement;insulation Wrap Analyst Description: Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: 3 118082015-03 NAPS 1 Location: Basement;Insulation Wrap Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: 4 118082015-04 Yes 44.4% 2 Location: Basement;Flue Cement (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Cementitious,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile 44.4% Other Material: Non-fibrous 55.6% 5 118082015-05 NA/PS 2 Location: Basement:Flue Cement Analyst Description: Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 2 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Deport 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No. / HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present 'total %Asbestos 6 118082015-06 NAIPS 2 Location: Basement;Flue Cement Analyst Description: Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: 7 118082015-07 Yes 8.5% 3 Location: Living Room;Light Brown 9x9 (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Brown,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile 8.5% Other Material: Non-fibrous 21.1 % Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):21.0%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):49.4%;Inert(Non-asbestos):21.1% 8 118082015-08 NAPS 3 Location: Living Room;Dark Brown 9x9 Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):21.7%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):33.3%;Inert(Non-asbestos):45.0% 9 118082015-09 No NAD 4 Location: Living Room;Floor Tile Mastic (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Brown,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 0.2% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):90.7%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):9.1%;Inert(Non-asbestos):0.2% 10 118082015-10 No NAD 4 Location: Living Room;Floor Tile Mastic (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Brown,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 0.1 % Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):94.5%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):5.4%:Inert(Non-asbestos):0.1% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 3 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No. /HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 11 118082015-11 No NAD 5 Location: Dining Room;Linoleum Floor (by NYS FLAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 23.7% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):64.3%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):11.9%,Inert(Non-asbestos):23.7% 12 118082015-12 No NAD 5 Location: Dining Room;Linoleum Floor (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 10.5% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):76.7%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):12.8%:Inert(Non-asbestos):10.5% 13 118082015-131-1 Yes 10.6% 6 Location: Kitchen;White W/Olive Streak 9x9 (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types:Chrysotile 10.6% Other Material: Non-fibrous 37% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):25.3%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):27.0%;Inert(Non-asbestos):37.0% 13 118082015-131-2 Yes Trace(<0.25% pc) 6 Location: Kitchen;White W/Olive Streak 9x9 (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26118 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 14.4% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):65.4%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):20.1%;Inert(Non-asbestos):14.4% 14 118082015-141-1 NAPS 6 Location: Kitchen;White W/Olive Streak 9x9 Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):25.3%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):26.1%;Inert(Non-asbestos):48.6% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 4 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbest®s Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No. !HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 14 118082015-141-2 Yes Trace(<0.25% pc) 6 Location: Kitchen;White W/Olive Streak 9x9 (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description: Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 12.3% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):59.2°/x;Acid Soluble(inorganic):28.6%;Inert(Non-asbestos):12.3% 15 118082015-15L1 Yes 12.3% 7 Location: Bath 1;White Pattern 9x9 (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile 12.3% Other Material: Non-fibrous 40.1 % Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):24.9%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):22.7%;Inert(Non-asbestos):40.1% 15 118082015-15L2 Yes Trace (<0.25% pc) 7 Location: Bath 1;White Pattern 9x9 (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 3.4% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):87.2%,Acid Soluble(inorganic):9.3%;Inert(Non-asbestos):3.4% 16 118082015-16L1 NAPS 7 Location: Bath 1;White Pattern 9x9 Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):24.9%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):23.7%;Inert(Non-asbestos):51.5% 16 118082015-16L2 Yes Trace(<0.25 % pc) 7 Location: Bath 1;White Pattern 9xg (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description: Black,Heterogeneous, Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 3.8% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):76.6%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):19.6%;Inert(Non-asbestos):3.8% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 5 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No. /WGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 17 118082015-17 No NAD 8 Location: Bedroom 1;Ceiling Tile (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Tan,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 54.8% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):27.7%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):17.5°/x;Inert(Non-asbestos):54.8% 18 118082015-18 No NAD 8 Location: Bedroom 1;Ceiling Tile (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Tan,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 57.2% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):23.4%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):19.4%:Inert(Non-asbestos):57.2% 19 118082015-19 No NAD 9 Location: Kitchen;CeilingTile (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:White/Tan,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 3.8% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):89.5%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):6.7%;Inert(Non-asbestos):3.8% 20 118082015-20 No NAD 9 Location: Kitchen;Ceiling Tile (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Whitefran,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 8 1 % Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):80.9%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):10.9%;Inert(Non-asbestos):8.1% 21 118082015-21 L1 No NAD 10 Location: Bath 1:Green Cove Base (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Green,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 1.5% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):33.7%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):64.9%;Inert(Non-asbestos):1.5% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job 4. 118082015 Page 6 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Deport 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No./ HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 21 118082015-211_2 - No NAD 10 Location: Bath 1;Green Cove Base (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 18.2% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):64.9%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):16.9%;Inert(Non-asbestos): 18.2% 22 118082015-221-1 No NAD 10 Location: Bath 1;Green Cove Base (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Green,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 0.9% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):33.5%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):65.5%;Inert(Non-asbestos):0.9% 22 118082015-221-2 No NAD 10 Location: Bath 1;Green Cove Base (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description: Gray,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 18.1 % Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):66.8%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):15.2%;Inert(Non-asbestos): 18.1% 23 118082015-23 No NAD 11 Location: Dining Room;Ceiling Drywall (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray/Brown,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 5%, Non-fibrous 95% 24 118082015-24 No NAD 11 Location: Dining Room;Ceiling Drywall (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray/Brown,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 5%, Non-fibrous 95% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 7 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No./HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 25 118082015-25L1 No NAD 12 Location: Bath 1;Wall Board (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Green/Brown,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 95%, Non-fibrous 5% 25 118082015-25L2 No NAD 12 Location: Bath 1;Wall Board (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 10.9% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):76.8°/x;Acid Soluble(inorganic):12.2%;Inert(Non-asbestos):10.9% 26 118082015-26L1 No NAD 12 Location: Bath 1;Wall Board (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Green/Brown,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 95%, Non-fibrous 5% 26 118082015-261-2 No NAD 12 Location: Bath 1;Wall Board (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 16.6% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):66.1%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):17.2%;Inert(Non-asbestos):16.6% 27 118082015-27 No NAD 13 Location: Dining Room;Ceiling Spackle (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 100% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 ' Page 8 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY i Client No. !HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 28 118082015-28 Yes Trace(<0.25% pc) 13 Location: Dining Room;Ceiling Spackle (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description:White/Gray,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types:Chrysotile <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 100% 29 118082015-29 No E NAD 14 Location: Bath 2;Shower Wall (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description: Multi-Colored,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 8.8% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):65.7%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):25.5%;Inert(Non-asbestos):8.8% 30 118082015-30 No NAD 14 Location: Bath 2;Shower Wall (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description: Multi-Colored,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types: f Other Material: Non-fibrous 10.9% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):64.6%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):24.6%;Inert(Non-asbestos):10.9% 31 111180820115-311_1 Yes 9.1 15 Location: Bath 2;Cream 9x9 (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile 9.1 % Other Material: Non-fibrous 15.8% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):23.7%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):51.4%;Inert(Non-asbestos):15.8% 31 1118082015-311_2 Yes Trace(<0.25% pc) 15 Location: Bath 2;Cream 9x9 (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description: Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 15.5% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):60.5%;Acid Soluble(Inorganic):24.0%;Inert(Non-asbestos): 15.5% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 9 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No./ HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 32 118082015-32L1 NAPS 15 Location: Bath 2;Cream 9x9 Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):24.0%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):53.2%;Inert(Non-asbestos):22.7% 32 118082015-321-2 Yes Trace (<0.25% pc) 15 Location: Bath 2;Cream 9x9 (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description:Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types:Chrysoble <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 15.4% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):54.5%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):30.1%;Inert(Non-asbestos):15.4% 33 118082015-33 No NAD 16 Location: Ceiling Cavity;Fiberglass Insulation (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Green,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Fibrous glass 98%, Non-fibrous 2% 34 118082015-34 No NAD 16 Location: Ceiling Cavity;Fiberglass Insulation (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Green,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Fibrous glass 98%, Non-fibrous 2% 35 118082015-35 No NAD 17 Location: Bedroom 2;Closet Wall Board (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description: Tan,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 95%, Non-fibrous 5% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 10 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLIIII Bulk Asbestos Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No. 1 HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 36 118082015-36 No NAD 17 Location: Bedroom 2;Closet Wall Board (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description:Tan,Heterogeneous,Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 95%, Non-fibrous 5% 37 118082015-37 No NAD 18 Location: Second Floor,Wali Drywall (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan on 08/26/18 Analyst Description:Gray/Brown,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 5%, Non-fibrous 95% 38 118082015-38 No NAD 18 Location: Second Floor;Wall Drywall (by NYS ELAP 198.1) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Gray/Brown,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Cellulose 5%, Non-fibrous 95% 39 118082015-39 Yes 21.2% 19 Location: Exterior Siding;Siding (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Cream,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08!26!18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile 21.2% Other Material: Non-fibrous 68.9% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):8.3%;Acid Soluble(inorganic);1.6%;Inert(Non-asbestos):68.9% 40 118082015-40 NAPS 19 Location: Exterior Siding;Siding Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):8.9%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):2.9%;Inert(Non-asbestos):88.1% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 11 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLIC Bulk Ashes$®s Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No. l HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 41 118082015-41 NA 20 Location: Exterior Window,Caulk Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):22.2%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):67.5%;Inert(Non-asbestos):10.3% 42 118082015-42 NA 20 Location: Exterior Window;Caulk Analyst Description:Bulk Material Asbestos Types: Other Material: Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):24.9%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):63.3%;Inert(Non-asbestos):11.8% 43 118082015-43 No NAD 21 Location: Roof;Shingle (by NYS FLAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 31.7% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):21.2%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):47.2%;Inert(Non-asbestos):31.7% 44 118082015-44 Yes Trace(<0.25 % pc) 21 Location; Roof,Shingle (EPA 400 PC) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description: Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types:Chrysotile <0.25%pc Other Material: Non-fibrous 32.3% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):19.5%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):48.2%;Inert(Non-asbestos):32.3% 45 118082015-45 No NAD 22 Location: Exterior Window;Glazing (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 13.5% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):11.4%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):75.1%;Inert(Non-asbestos):13.5% See Reporting notes on last page AmeriSci Job#: 118082015 Page 12 of 12 Client Name: Insight Environmental PLM Bulk Asbestos Report 18-0579; Renovation Inspection; 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Client No. I HGA Lab No. Asbestos Present Total %Asbestos 46 118082015-46 No NAD 22 Location: Exterior Window;Glazing (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:White,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08I26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 21.1 % Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):9.5%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):69.4%;Inert(Non-asbestos):21.1% 47 118082015-47 No NAD 23 Location: Exterior Siding;Tar Paper (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description:Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 0.4% Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):95.5%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):4.1%;Inert(Non-asbestos):0.4% 48 118082015-48 A/o NAD 23 Location: Exterior Siding;Tar Paper (by NYS ELAP 198.6) by William M.Dunstan Analyst Description: Black,Heterogeneous,Non-Fibrous,Bulk Material on 08/26/18 Asbestos Types: Other Material: Non-fibrous 0.1 % Comment: Heat Sensitive(organic):96.9%;Acid Soluble(inorganic):3.1%;Inert(Non-asbestos):0.1% Reporting Notes: Analyzed by:William M.Dunstan Date: 8/26/2018 Reviewed by: LJ46. 'NAD=no asbestos detected, Detection Limit<1%,Reporting Limits:CVES=1%,400 Pt Ct=0.25%,1000 Pt Ct=0.1%;"Present"or NVA="No Visible Asbestos"are observations made during a qualitative analysis;NA=not analyzed; NAPS=not analyzed/positive stop; PLM Bulk Asbestos Analysis by EPA 600/R-93/116 per 40 CFR 763(NVLAP Lab Code 101904-0)and ELAP PLM Analysis Protocol 198.1 for New York friable samples which includes quantitation of any vermiculite observed(198.6 for NOB samples)or EPA 400 pt ct by EPA 600/M4-82-020(NYSDOH ELAP Lab# 10984); CA ELAP Lab#2508;Note:PLM is not consistently reliable in detecting asbestos in floor coverings and similar NOB materials NAD or Trace results by PLM are Inconclusive,TEM is currently the only method that can be used to determine if this material can be considered or treated as non-asbestos-containing in New York State(also see EPA Advisory for Floor tile,FR 59,146,38970,8/1/94). NISI'Accreditation requirements mandate that this report must not be reproduced except in full without the approval of the laboratory. This PLM report relates ONLY to the items tested. Relinquished 1180820 1 �. VED Date/Tlme:_ 1� /°'� BULK CHAIN OF CUSTODY AMERAMERI So 13635 E RICHMOND Received By. Q _4 2018 Date/Time; 13835 GENITO ROAD MIDLOTHIAN,VA 23112 Relinquished By- ' Date/Time: ,,� TOLL FREE'(800)476-5227 PHONE'(804)763-12DO Received — W WW.AMERISCI.COM FAX'(�)763.1600 Date>Tme• _ _ ompany:Insight Environmental Inc. roe ,Renovation Inspectio ""'�'S"#` Street Address:74 East Main Street, Suite 1 ro Mgr:George W.Maul __ proi#18-0579 Patchogue State:NY Zip:11772 ro Address:675 Skippers Lane,Orient _ proi state:NY thhone:631.654.2780 Ceil: nalysls: ❑PLM; Q Positive Stop; QTEM; ✓a1VY ELAP PLMITEM w/NOB Prep. Results? Y ✓� Fax#:631.654.2781 ASTM Dust (Microvac)[2fte); OQuahtalive; El NY ELAP 198.8 Vermiculite mail Results? Y21 Email:GMaul@lnsightenvironmental.com umaround Time: 48 hr _ Material T Bulk Dust 0 Water esuhs to:George W. MaulGeor e am ed B • 9 W Maul pate Sam led pecial Instructions or Comments: -- I Lab ID Field ID Location Sample Description Idust area Homogenous Area 1 Basement insulation Wrap 1 2 Basement Insulation Wrap 1 3 Basement Insulation Wrap 1 4 Basement Flue Cement 2 5 Basement Flue Cement 2 6 Basement Flue Cement 2 7 Living Room Light Brown 9x9 3 8 Living Room Dark Brown 9x9 3 9 Living Room Floor Tile Mastic 4 10 Living Room Floor Tile Mastic 4 11 Dining Room Linoleum Floor 5 12 Dining Room Linoleum Floor 5 Kitchen White w/Olive Streak 9x9 6 V11 Kitchen White w/Olive Streak 9x9 6 Bath 1 White Pattern 9x9 7 Bath 1 White Pattern 9x9 7 Bedroom 1 Ceiling Tile 8 Anvmd,Bulk CoC,rev Jai lois PAQE 1 of 3 RECEIVED ,,sem 11808201• S Relinquished BY Date/Time: /� / BULK CHAIN OF CUSTODY SCI RICHMOND Received By: Datefnme: AmEm SCJ n136351GENIITO ROAD MIDLOTHIAN,VA 23112 Relinquished By: Daterfime: , TOLL FREE:(800)4765227 PHONE:(804)763.1200 ReceivedB : y Datemme: WWW.AMERISCI.COM FAX.(804)763.1800 ompany:InSight Environmental Inc. roect:Renovation lnspectior"" " ' treat Aadress:74 East Main Street,Suite 1 ro M r.George W.Maul Proj#;18-0579 1 ; Patchogue state:l` '_ Lp:11772 'roj Address:675 Skippers Lane,Orient proj state:NY hone:631.654.2780. Cell: nalysis: Q✓PLM, R]Positive Stop, ,TEM; Q NY ELAP PLMffEM w/NOB-Prep. ax Results? Y R1 Fax#:631.654.2781 ASTM Dust Mlcrovac I e Qualitative; NY ELAP 198.8 Vermiculite mail Results? YRI Email:GMaul@insightenvironmental.com urnaround Time: 48 hr Material Type: D✓ Bulk QDust Water esults to:George W.Maul am led By:George W.Maul A Date Sampled$/22/18 Special Instructions or Comments: — Lab ID Fieid ID Location Sample Description dust area Homogenous Area 18 Bedroom 1 Ceiling Tile 8 19 Kitchen Ceiling Tile 9 20 Kitchen Ceiling Tile 9 21 Bath 1 Green Cove Base 10 22 Bath 1 Green Cove Base 10 23 DiningRoom Ceiling Drywall 11 24 DiningRoom Ceiling Drywall 11 25 Bath 1 Wall Board 12 26 Bath 1 Wali Board 12 27 Dining Room Ceiling Spackle 13 28 Dining Room Ceiling Spackle 13 29 Bath 2 Shower Wali 14 30 Bath 2 Shower Wall 14 31 Bath 2 Cream 9x9 15 32Bath 2 Cream 9x9 15 EEEt Ceiling Cavity Fiberglass Insulation 16 Ceiling Cavity Fiberglass Insulation 16 Amml3d,Bulk COC,W Jan 2018 PAGE 2 of 3 118082015 Relinquished By: RECEIVED BULK CHAIN OF CUSTODY /i MER J SC f AMERISCI RICHMOND /y Received By: � Da@elTime: 13635 GENfrO ROAD MIDLOTHIAN,VA 23112 'Relinquished By-- Date/Time: TOLL FREE-(800)47&5227 PHONE:(804)763.120D ReceivedB : By Date/Time: WWW.AMEPJSCI.COM FAX.(804)763-1800 ompanr:lnsight Environmental Inc. r; :Renova#ion Inspectio "wws°'4 treat Address:74 East Main Street,Suite 1 ro a George W.Maul Pro'#18-0579 Patchogue State:NY 23p.11772 3ro'Address•675 Skippers Lane,Orient pro State:NY hone: Cell: — 631.6'4.2780 nalysis: EIPLM, 0 Positive Stop; [ITEM; Q NY ELAP PLMrrEM w/NOB Prep. ax Results? Y0 Fax#:631.654.2781 ASTM Dust Microvac Wipe,): QQualitaNve; NY ELAP 198.8 Vermiculite mail Results? YO Email:GMaul@lnsightenvironmentaLe m Turnaround Time: 48 hr Material Type: EBulk Dust Water Results to:�orge W.Maul am ted B :George W.Maul Date Sampled) /18 pecial Instructions or Comments: Lab ID Field ID Location Sam le Description dust area Homo enous Area 35 Bedroom 2 Closet Wall Board 17 36 Bedroom 2 Closet Wail Board 17 37 Second Floor 38 Wall Drywall 18 Second Floor Wall Drywall 18 39 Exterior Siding Siding 19 40 Exterior Siding Siding 19 41 Exterior Window Caulk 20 42 Exterior Window Caulk 20 43 Roof Shingle 21 44 Roof Shingle 21 45 Exterior Window Glazing 22 46 Exterior Window Glazing 22 47 Exterior Siding Tar Paper 23 48 Exterior Siding Tar Paper 23 k__—- I— - A-ASd,Bdk COC,M Jan 2018 PAee 3 OF 3 Appendix B Asbestos Containing Material Sampling Location Diagrams 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 9st Floor Elevation 47,48 Siding 13,14 Bath 1 7,5,76 Kitchen Dining Room r _q Pantry m. Bedroom 1 Living Room 7,$ Created by Insight Environmental Inc. 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 2nd Floor Elevation CL Bedroom 4 Bedroom 3 3 f Attic/Storage CL Bedroom 2 ___ 32 ' f l CL I ' li i ' (�EBath, Created by Insight Environmental Inc. 43,44 Root 675 skippers Lane, Orient, NY Basement Elevation z 4, 5, 5 8 1� Created by Insight Environmental Inc. Appendix C Reconnaissance Photographs n 1 -MA"'I Pipe wrap installed on the structural wooden member in the basement �a s s Flue cement in the basement � 3 4 �k y µ." View of the Living Room sample location—Light Brown 9"X9"Floor tile �3 31, irk #B Pu esu a ,,y i u POO ff£ la, v ' h � y k r +t View of the Kitchen sample location— White w/Olive streak 9"X9"Floor the R ty S �ro �a v a w TS 1 �dZ d f fi s�It r4'T �r( View of the Bathroom#1 sample location— White pattern 979"Floor the { r. i � 4 View of the Bathroom #2 sample location—Cream 9"X9"Floor the WV11 s F t +/ $ 2A t e � �, 3 � V Y� y View of the transite shingles of the exterior of the building —note slight damage 3 f s {6 i ' f•, e 2� fo 1 I I f i x � View of the transite shingles stored in the attic a ii Y _ �m Appendix D Certifications Rew York State'-Department of Labor, Division of,Safety and Health. License and Certificate.0nit State Campus,Budding 12 Albany,NY,12240 ASBESTOS HANDLING LICENSE lnsight Environmental, Inc. ", FILE NUMBER: 02-0279. ,Suite 1` LICENSE NUMBER:,28434 174 East Main Street LICENSE CLASS: RESTRICTED DATE OF ISSUE: 05/10/2018 ' Patchogue, NY 11772 EXPIRATION DATE: 05/31/2019 Duly Authorized Representative—'John J Paciulli'=-m• 'This license>tias been issued to accordance with pp, licableprtivisitiiis;ioftAftielz,3,t)of the Laboi Law of New Yoik State and of the New York State Codes.Rules`and,ReguIattons•(12 NYCRR Part'5' 6)' it is,Wbject to suspension or revocation"or a(1) serious violation of state,federal or local laws witli regard to,the conduct of,au:asbestos project,or(2)demonstrated lack of responsibility in the conduct oCany job involvtrigasbestosgr,asbestos iciaterjaE:This license is valid only for the contractor naciirrcl abbvc and this"license or"a-photocopy nnist.be.Iirominently displityed at the asbestos project workstte. This-license verifies that all persons einplo},ed by the hccitsee on an asbcstos`prcject in New York State have becii'issued an.lsbestos Certificate,'appigpriate for'bie,type bf-work they perforin by the New York Staid' Departineilt of Labor. r Eileen M.Franko, Director SH 432(8/12) Foi the Commissioner of Labor STAIT-OF NEW Yft`-, E ARTMENT O LABO - AS6EST6S-, =RTlttCAT 9. W MAUI;` S(EXf'I dl ) _,. Cf l'S .0 ATFC(0gj1b) INSP(Q6/1'9)' ''l:i'" ,.3�.`��t7p,.��$>3`: '�� gG'{?•,lg`4ii:YM �(i��'H 3q'»�t�551.�"� .>a>w.� ?..`� &• i��.#,.wWt`+44^k`.�'.�ro�. !A�'rS lr�• �..'I k.F�'u�:Y��l.3�' tE9ti1liitltlfit,'�EEC�?tlf°3 HMC#18028053 MICROBIAL CONSULTING 3005 Fast Boundary Terrace,#F Midlothian,VA 23112, USA 804.562.3435 Fax:804.447.5562 contact(Phayesmicrobial com http7/hayesmicrebiai com/ Analysis Report prepared for Insight Environmental, Inc 74 East Main St.Suite#1 Patchogue, NY. 11772 Phone:631-654-2780 Fax:631-654-2781 Job Number: 18-0579 Job Name: 675 Skippers Ln. Orient,NY Date Sampled: 08-22-2018 Date Analyzed: 08-23-2018 Report Date: 08-23-2018 EPA Laboratory ID#VA01419 TEXAS a— Department of State Health Services AIHA EMPAT Lab ID#188863 Mold License.LAB1021 License-#PH-0198 Page 1 of 7 T MICROBIAL CONSULTING 3005 East Boundary Terrace,#F Midlothian,VA 23112, USA HMC#18028053 804.562.3435 Fax:804.4474562 Insight Environmental,Inc 74 East Main St. Suite#1 Patchogue,NY 11772 August 23,2018 Client Job Number: 18-0579 Client Job Name: 675 Skippers Ln. Orient,NY Dear Insight Environmental,Inc, We would like to thank you for trusting Hayes Microbial for your analytical needs. On August 23,2018 we received 7 samples by FedEx for the job referenced above. 7 samples were received In good condition. The results in this analysis pertain only to this job,collected on the stated date and should not be used in the interpretation of any other job. This report may not be duplicated,except in full,without the written consent of Hayes Microbial Consulting,LLC. This laboratory bears no responsibility for sample collection activities,analytical method limitations,or your use of the test results. Interpretation and use of test results are your responsibility. Any reference to health effects or interpretation of mold levels is strictly the opinion of Hayes Microbial Consulting. In no event,shall Hayes Microbial Consulting or any of Its employees be liable for lost profits or any special,incidental or consequential damages arising out of your use of the test results *-64— Steve Hayes,BSMT(ASCP) Laboratory Director Hayes Microbial Consulting,LLC Page 2 of 7 H AV F. vs Insight Environmental,Inc Spore Trap Analysis MICROBIAL CONSULTING 74 East Main St.,Suite#1 SOP#HMC101 3005 East Boundary Terrace,#F Patchogue,NY 11772 Midlothian,VA 23112, USA Phone:631-654-2780 Fax:631-654-2781 HMC#18028053 804.562.3435 Fax:804.4475562 Job Number: 18-0579 Job Name 675 Skippers Ln. Date Collected 08/2018 Collected by: George Maul Orient,NY Date Received. 2/2 08/23/2018 Email gmaul@insightenvironmental.com I I Date Reported, 08/23/2018 HMC ID Number 18028053-1 18028053-2 18028053-3 18028053-4 SampleID# 2751813 2751815 2751817 2751814 Sample Name Kitchen Living Room Bedroom 2 Bedroom 4 Sample Volume 75 liters 75 liters 75 liters 75 liters Reporting Limit 13 spores/M3 13 spores/M3 13 spores/M3 13 spores/M3 Background 2 2 2 2 Fragments NO ND ND ND Organism Raw Count/M3 %of Raw Count/M3 %of Raw Count/M3 %of Raw Count/M3 %of Count Total Count Total Count Total Count Total Alternaria Ascospores 20 267 69% 35 467 20.4% 64 853 14.3% 48 640 20.1% AspergilluslPeracdlium 160 -_ pi33, 55: I 5 67 29% 30 400: 126% Basidiospores 96 1280 33.1% 128 1707 74.4% 384 5120 85.7% 160 2133 66.9% BipolarislDrechslera Bispora Chaetomitim Cladosporium Curvularia Epicoccum Memnoniella� Myxomycetes 13 1 173 4.51/6 3 40 1.7% 1 13 <1% Pithomyces,' 1 13 <1% 1 13 <1% Sporidesmium Stachybotrys StemphylNm Torula Total I 290 13866 172 2294 448 5973 239 31876177 Water Damage lndioator_ !, Common Allergen I "7S-lightly Higher than Outside Air -Signiikahtly}Ggher-than0utside°Afr-,° ` ` ' ,Ratio'AbndfmaGiy, `= Signature: P R� Date: 08!13!2018 Reviewed by: Date: 08!23/2018 Page 3 of 7 H AV F; Insight Environmental,Inc Spore Trap Analysis MICROBIAL CONSULTING 74 East Main St.,Suite#1 SOP RHM0101 3005 East Boundary Terrace,/iF Patchogue,NY 11772 Mldlothlan,VA 23112, USA Phone:631-654-2780 Fax:631-654-2781 HMC#18028053 804.562.3435 Fax:804.4475562 Job Number 18-0579 Job Name* 675 Skippers Ln. Date Collected. 08/27/2018 Collected by_ George Maul Orient,NY Date Received_ 08/23/2018 Email gmaul@insightenvironmental.com Date Reported. 08/23/2018 HMC ID Number 18028053-5 18028053-6 18028053-7 Sample ID# 2751808 2751816 2753007 Sample Name Basement Outdoor Blank Sample Volume 75 liters 75 liters 75 liters Reporting Limit 13 spores/M3 13 spores/M3 13 spores/M3 Background 2 2 ND Fragments ND ND ND Organism Raw Count/M3 %of Raw Count/M3 %of Raw Count/M3 %of Count Total Count Total Count Total Alternana Ascospores 640 jp: ,,'=:8533; 223% 192 2560 282% AspergtlluslPenictliium 1600 2.1333' —55513°l0< Basidiospores 144 1920 50% 480 6400 70.5% BipolarislDrechslera, Bispora 320 '.;"4267; 11-2% Chaetomium Cladosponum 160 'ai33A 56% 8 107 12% Curvulana 1 13 <1% Epicoccum Memnoniella-- , Myxomycetes Pithomyces Spoddesmium 3 40 <1% Stach`ybotrys y=• =. ' Stemphylium Torula Utociadium`-5" Total 2867 38226 681 9080 ND ND :' Water Damage Indicator Common Allergen Slightly Higher than Outside Air =; _ V F. S Insight Environmental,Inc Spore Trap Information MICROBIAL CONSULTING 74 East Main St.,Suite#1 3005 East Boundary Terrace,#F Patchogue,NY 11772 801dlothian,VA 4.5 2.3435 Fax 804.4475562 USA Phone:631-654-2780 Fax:831-654-2781 HMC#18028053 Reporting Limit The Reporting Limit is the lowest number of spores that can be detected based on the total volume of the sample collected and the percentage of the slide that is counted.At Hayes Microbial,100%of the slide is read so the LOD is based solely on the total volume.Raw spore counts that exceed 500 spores will be estimated Blanks Results have not been corrected for field or laboratory blanks" Background The Background is the amount of debris that is present in the sample.This debris consists of skin cells,dirt,dust,pollen,drywall dust and other organic and non-organic matter As the background density increases,the likelihood of spores,especially small spores such as those of Aspergillus and Penicillium may be obscured.The background is rated on a scale of 1 to 4 and each level is determined as follows NO No background detected (Pump or cassette malfunction") Recollect sample. 1 ,<5*/.of field occluded No spores will be uncountable 2 .5-25%of field occluded. 3 25-75%of field occluded 4 75-90%of field occluded. 5 >90%of field occluded"Suggest recollection of sample Fragments Fragments are small pieces of fungal mycelium or spores They are not identifiable as to type and when present in very large numbers,may indicate the presence of mold amplification Indoor/Outdoor There are no national standards for the numbers of fungal spores that may be present in the indoor environment.As a general rule and guideline that is Comparisons widely accepted in the indoor air quality field,the numbers and types of spores that are present in the indoor environment should not exceed those that are present outdoors at any given time.There will always be some mold spores present in"normal"indoor environments.The purpose of sampling and counting spores is to help determine whether an abnormal condition exists within the indoor environment and if it does,to help pinpoint the area of contamination. Spore counts should not be used as the sole determining factor of mold contamination. There are many factors that can cause anomalies in the companson of indoor and outdoor samples due to the dynamic nature of both of those environments r.Water Damage Indicators,,`"�t;.These molds are commonly seen in conditions of prolonged water intrusion and usually indicate a problem Common Allergens , Although all molds are potential allergens,these are the most common allergens that may be found indoors Slightly Higher than outside Afr, The spore count is slightly higher than the outside count and may or may not indicate a source of contamination Significantly H3gherthan outsfde�Air' The spore count is significantly higher than the outdoor count and probably indicates a source of contamination µa'° "`8atib Ab6tfmYaGry i The types of spores found indoors should be similar to the ones that were identified in the outdoor sample Significant increases(more than 251/6)in the ratio of a particular spore type may indicate the presence of abnormal levels of mold,even if the total number of spores of that type is lower in the indoor environment than it was outdoors Color Note Fungi that are present in indoor samples at levels lower than 200 per cubic meter are not color coded on the report,unless they are one of the water damage indicators. Page 5 of 7 N AV E vs Insight Environmental,Inc Organism Descriptions MICROBIAL CONSULTING 74 East Main St.,Suite#1 3005 East Boundary Terrace,4F Patchogue,NY 11772 Midlothian,. a1 .447.5562 USA Phone:631-654 2780 Fax:631-654-2781 04562.345 FVA ax:804 HMC#18028053 Ascospores Habitat. A large group consisting of more than 3000 species of fungi Common plant pathogens and outdoor numbers become very high following rain.Most of the genera are indistinguishable by spore trap analysis and are combined on the report. Health Effects: Health affects are poorly studied,but many are likely to be allergenic. Aspergillusl Penicill tum Habitat: The most common fungi isolated from the environment Very common in sod and on decaying plant material.Are able to grow well indoors on a wide variety of substrates. Health Effects: This group contains common allergens and many can cause hypersensitivity pneumonitis.They may cause extrinsic asthma,and many are opportunistic pathogens Many species produce mycotoxins which may be associated with disease in humans and other animals. Toxin production is dependent on the species,the food source,competition with other organisms,and other environmental conditions. Basidiospores Habitat: A common group of Fungi that includes the mushrooms and bracket fungi They are saprophytes and plant pathogens In wet conditions they can cause structural damage to buildings Health Effects: Common allergens and are also associated with hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Bispora Habitat: Found on wood and decaying plant matter Health Effects: Health effects are poorly studied. Cladosporium Habitat: One of the most common genera worldwide. Found in sod and plant debris and on the leaf surfaces of living plants The outdoor numbers are lower in the winter and often relatively high in the summer,especially in high humidity. The outdoor numbers often spike in the late afternoon and evening Indoors,it can be found growing on textiles,wood,sheetrock,moist window sills and in HVAC supply ducts Health Effects: A common allergen,producing more than 10 allergenic antigens and a common cause of hypersensitivity pneumonitis Curvularia Habitat: They exist in sod and plant debris,and are plant pathogens. Health Effects: They are allergenic and a common cause of allergic fungal sinusitis An occasional cause of human infection,including keratitis,sinusitis, onychomycosis,mycetoma,pneumonia,endocarditis and desseminated infection,primarily in the immunocompromised Myxomycetes Habitat: Found on decaying plant material and as a plant pathogen Health Effects: Some allergenic properties reported,but generally pose no health concerns to humans. Page 6 of 7 HATES Insight Environmental,Inc Organism Descriptions MICROBIAL CONSULTING 74 East Main St.,Suite#1 3005 East Boundary Terrace,#F Patchogue,NY 11772 Midlothian,VA 23112, USA Phone:631-654-2780 Fax:631-654-2781 HMC#18028053 804.562.3435 Fax:804.447.5562 Pithomyces Habitat: Common fungus isolated from soil,decaying plant material Rarely found indoors Health Effects: Allergenic properties are poorly studied. No cases of infection in humans Sportdesmium Habitat: Found on wood and decaying plant matter. Health Effects: Health effects are poorly studied. Page 7 of 7 Ail NEW YORK,STATE,- ` ` NSIGHT —'- - _ ''EOyilOn.m8nf8l Inc ____ .... ...... . ........___ September 4,2018 Peter Cook Architect,AIA 72OMontauk Highway Water Mill, NY 11976 Attn: Mr. Rick TlmmukowskU Re: Limited Lead Based Paint Evaluation—87GSkippers Lane,Orient NY 11957 Dear Mr.T|oczkowaki: Pursuant to your request, our office has conducted paint chip bulk sampling of various suspect Lead-based painted surfaces that will be disturbed by upcoming remediation, renovation and demolition. As such,a total of five paint chip samples were collected from various exterior and interior window surfaces, ceiling and xxa|| paint and pointed brick' All samples were submitted to AmeriSci Richmond (ELAP#10984),for analysis by EPA 7000B Method to determine the presence oflead-based paint. According tothe U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development, any paint chip sample determined to contain equal or greater than 0.5%lead is considered lead-based paint containing. Results regarding the sample analysis indicate that lead-based paint is present in three of the five samples collected. Please note that based onthese results,vverecommend all ofthe windows/doors and window/doors components be treated as lead-based paint containing surface. Additionally,the painted brick fireplace,and the painted brick in the kitchen to be considered lead containing. Please see the sample analysis results inthe table below. Lead-Based Paint Containing Materials: Load LI White Painted Brick 2.7% Kitchen Stove Slightly Damaged L4 White Window Sill 1.8% Bedroom#3 Damaged Paint L5 White Window Sill 2.3% Exterior-South Damaged '� � . � CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS It is required that work disturbing confirmed Lead-Based Paint containing surfaces in public housing be conducted by a NYS EPA Certified Lead Abatement firm as stipulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA) Section 402 (a)(1)to conduct Lead Based Paint Activities with personnel that have received appropriate training pursuant to 40 CFR Part 745.226. Should any materials identified to contain lead-based paint require salvaging,these substrates will require abatement of lead in their entirety. Only those areas as identified by the architect will be required to be abated prior to demolishing the structure. Chemical abatement is recommended for the areas to be salvaged by the demolition contractor;e.g. peel away or similar. Following abatement activities,the balance of the home may be demolished using traditional demolition techniques,with poly(plastic sheeting) protection of soils surrounding the foundation.These poly sheets will be folded upon themselves and included in the waste stream. All waste generated is subject to Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP)for characterization and disposal purposes.All debris containing equal to or greater than 5 parts per million (.5%by weight) is defined as lead containing waste and must be disposed of in accordance with the applicable RCRA(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) requirements. Due to the mass of concrete and the miniscule concentration of lead,the materials will likely be disposable and Construction and Demolition (C&D debris). The selected contractor must be "Lead Safe" certified and in compliance with 29 CFR 1926.62 OSHA's Lead in Construction industry standard. Upon completion of removal of all lead containing construction materials, soil/wipe sampling is recommended to ensure the work has been completed safely and effectively. Enclosed herewith,please find a copy of the analytical results and photographs of prevailing conditions at the time of my inspection. If you should have any questions regarding this report, or require further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, INSIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL,INC. Leon W.Tregerman, EPA Risk Assessor 2 Gperge . Maul,Vice President Project#18-0579 �� Potters 1 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 ATTACHMENT A Analytical Lead Point Chip Analysis 3 Potters 1675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 Please Reply To: AmeriSci Richmond 13635 GENITO ROAD AMEm SCI MIDLOTHIAN,VIRGINIA 23112 TEL:(804)763-1200-FAX:(804)763-1800 FACSIMILE TELECOPY TRANSMISSION To: George Maul From: Amber Jiles Insight Environmental AmeriSci Job#: 118082130 Fax#: Subject: Lead(paint)48 hour Results Client Project: 18-0579; 675 Skippers Lane; 675 Email: gmaul@insighteaviromnental.corn leont@insightenvi Skippers Ln,Orient,NY romnental.com,johnp@insightenvironmental.com,an drea@insightenvirontnental.coni jurick@insightenvir onmental.com Date: Thursday,August 30,2018 Number of Pages•• 1 Time: 16:50:04 (including cover sheet) Comments: CONFMENTIALrrY NOTICE: Unless otherwise indicated,the information contained in this communication is confidential information intended for use of the individual named above. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify the sender by telephone and return the original message to the above address via the US Postal Service at our expense. Samples are disposed of in 60 days or unless otherwise instructed by the protocol or special instructions in writing. Thank you. Certified Analysis Service 24 Hours A Day-7 Days A Week CorrrpeWye Prices vier[our web eke-www.amerkdxom Boston-Los Angeles-New York-Richmond LSS L&bwv~ Lead Paint Chip Environmental Hazards Services,L.L.C. Analysis Report 7469 Whitepine Rd Richmond,VA 23237 Telephone:800.347.4010 Report Number: 18-08-04310 Client: Amed-Sci Received Date: 08/28/2018 13635 Genito Road Analyzed Date: 08/30/2018 Midlothian,VA 23112-400 Reported Date: 08/30/2018 Project/Test Address: 118-08-2130; 18-0579;675 Skippers Lane;Orient,NY Collection Date: 08/22/2018 Client Number: Fax Number. 48-3042 Laboratory Results 804-763-1800 Lab Sample Client Sample Collection Location Pb(ug/g) %Pb by Narrative Number Number ppm Wt. ID 18-08-04310-001 Lt KITCHEN BEHIND STOVE; 27000 2.7 BRICK PAINT 18-08-04310-002 L2 DINING ROOM;CEILING 62 0.0062 PAINT 18-08-04310-003 L3 BEDROOM 2;WALL PAINT 87 0.0087 18-08-04310-004 L4 BEDROOM 3;WINDOW SILL 18000 1.8 PAINT 18-08-04310-005 L5 EXTERIOR;WINDOW SILL 23000 2.3 L04 PAINT Page 1 of 2 Environmental Hazards Services, L.L.0 Client Number: 48-3042 Report Number: 18-08-04310 Project/Test Address: 118-08-2130; 18-0579;675 Skippers Lane;Orient,NY Lab Sample Client Sample Collection Location Pb(uglg) %Pb by Narrative Number Number ppm Wt. ID Sample Narratives: L04: Sample contains substantial amounts of substrate which may affect the calculated results with units of ppm and%by weight. Preparation Method: ASTM E-1979-17 Analysis Method: EPA SW846 70008 Reviewed By Authorized Signatory: Deborah Britt QA/QC Clerk The HUD lead guidelines for lead paint chips are 0.50%by Weight,5000 ppm,or 1.0 mgfcm'. The Reporting Limit(RL)for samples prepared by ASTM E-1979-17 is 10.0 ug Total Pb. The RL for samples prepared by EPA SW846 30505 is 25.0 ug Total Pb. Paint chip area and results are calculated based on area measurements determined by the client. All internal quality control requirements associated with this batch were met,unless otherwise noted. The condition of the samples analyzed was acceptable upon receipt per laboratory protocol unless ottxt Wse noted on this report.Results represent the analysis of samples submitted by the client.Sample location,description,area,etc.,was provided by the client. Results reported above in mg1crn3 are calculated based on area supplied by client. This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without the written consent of the Environmental Hazards Service,L.L.C. ELLAP Accredtitation through AIHA-LAP,LLC(100420),NY ELAP 911714. LEGEND Pb=lead ug=microgram Ppm=parts per million ug/g=rr iawams per gram Wt.=weight Page 2 of 2 Relinquished By: DateMme: I i� BULK CHAIN OF CUSTODY Received By: Date/Time: AMEm SCI 13635 GErmo Rao MuuomAN,VA 23112 Relinquished By: Date/Time: \.00" TOLL FaEe•(800)476-5227 Received B : DatelTime: NM1NWAMEMSOXOM Pmow(804)763-1200FAX 804 763-1800 ompany: INSIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL ^ � ro ect: « 118 0 8 213 b 74 E Main Street,Sulte 1 treetAddress: r r Pr au: 1 —Or7 Patchogue State: NY Zip., 11772 Adr rsss: hone: 631-654-2780 Fax: 631-654-2781 nalysis; _PLM; _Pos'I Stop; TEM: —NY ELAP P M w/NOB Prep. ell: L Fax: ASTM DW I Qualitative: Other describe in comments -mail 2 e�t'7 �insi9htenv�ronmentel com Verbal Results: Y ! N Turnaround Time: `P, r t"-' Material T Bulk Dust Water esults to: Sampled By: Date Sampled: Va.� pecial Instructions or Comments: 4•cAa Lab ID Field ID Location Sample Description Idust area Homogenous Area h p n w: ,,, c' L2 amt I 1 Affwlft.Bulk CoC,rev May 20.2009 PAW ATTACHMENT B Photographic Record of Prevailing Conditions 4 Potters 1675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 Y T y 'X. t t' ft f r Typical interior windowsill 1 r' t '�5 � �►�� aj�* f\y fi Typical exterior window components 5 Potters 1675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 2� w , 7� ^ View of the painted brick in the kitchen G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . �. . . . Potters X675 Skippers Lane,OHent.m1a9 ATTACHMENT C Certifications 7 i'M24 Potters 1 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 t ISI H Environmental Inc. September 6,2018 Peter Cook Architect,AIA 728 Montauk Highway Water Mill, NY 11976 Attn: Mr. Rick Tloczkowski Re: Limited Initial Fungal Assessment—675 Skippers Lane,Orient, NY 11957 Dear Mr.Tloczkowski: Pursuant to your request,l have conducted a preliminary inspection for mold colonization throughout the above-referenced residential dwelling.This inspection was prompted in response to visible suspect fungal colonization within in the home. This inspection comprised; I. A thorough visual and olfactory inventory of prevailing conditions throughout the home. 11. Measurement of temperature and relative humidity within representative areas of the dwelling. III. Measurement of available moisture levels in select building materials throughout the dwelling. IV. Development of a photographic record of prevailing conditions observed at the time of inspection. V. Indoor ambient air sampling to characterize and enumerate total aerosolized fungal structures (total airborne molds)within representative areas of the dwelling and outdoors,for comparative(negative control) purposes. Findings of our inspection are as follows; Basement. 1. Upon entry to the basement a significant malodor associated with fungal metabolic activity was immediately noted.This condition is likely attributed to a myriad of factors including elevated humidity, lack of air circulation,excess organic dust concentrations, water intrusion and foundation wall seepage. 2. At the time of our inspection, water staining and heavy fungal colonization was noted on the underside of the subfloor and joists in the basement and crawlspace. Moisture survey of these areas revealed predominantly saturated conditions throughout all substrates. 3. Evidence of water intrusion was observed at the Bilco door and foundation walls throughout the basement. It appears that the leader discharge is too close to the foundation wall at the exterior allowing for seepage to occur. 4. Pools of water were observed on the slab during our investigation. 74 East Main Street, Suite#1, Patchogue, NY—631.654.2780 fax: 631.654.2781 —www.insightenvironmentaLcom 5. Moisture survey of the foundation walls and cement slab revealed saturated conditions at the time of inspection. 6. Relative humidity throughout the basement was recorded at 81.8%rH and the temperature was recorded at 73.4° Fahrenheit. Please note that fungal colonization may occur naturally in environments with greater than 60%relative humidity. 7. Analysis of the air samples obtained from throughout the basement elevation revealed significantly elevated concentrations of Ascospores,Aspergillus/Penicillium, Bispora,and Cladosporium genera fungi when compared to the outdoor ambient air. First Floor. 1. Upon entry to the home a malodor associated with fungal metabolic activity was noted. 2. Staining,water damage, and in some instances,fungal colonization was observed at the ceiling finishes in the kitchen,dining room, living room,and bedroom#1. It appears that each of these areas have been subject to leaks from above over the course of time. 3. Fungal colonization was observed on the flooring in bedroom#1. Moisture survey of this area revealed elevated water content. 4. Moisture readings collected from the remainder of substrates throughout the first floor revealed mostly elevated concentrations.This finding suggests that the space has been subject to elevated humidity for a significant period of time, resulting in the saturation of building materials. 5. Fungal colonization was observed in the sink and bathtub in the 1St floor bath. 6. Staining and fungal growth was observed in the sink and base cabinetry in the kitchen. 7. The average relative humidity and temperature throughout the first floor were recorded at 80.3%rH and 74.6'Fahrenheit at the time of the inspection. Please note that fungal colonization may begin naturally in environments with greater than 60%humidity. 8. Analysis of the air sample obtained from the living room revealed low concentrations and similar speciation of fungi,while analysis of the sample collected from the kitchen revealed elevated concentrations of Aspergillus/Penicillium genera fungi when compared to the outdoor ambient air. Second Floor. 1. Upon entry to the second floor no malodor associated with fungal metabolic activity was noted. 2. No obvious signs of significant water damage or fungal colonization were noted. 3. The average relative humidity and temperature throughout the second floor were recorded at 80.6%rH and 76.1'Fahrenheit at the time of the inspection. Please note that fungal colonization may begin naturally in environments with greater than 60%humidity. 4. Analysis of the air sample obtained from bedroom#2 revealed low concentrations and similar speciation of fungi,while analysis of the sample collected from bedroom#4 revealed slightly elevated concentrations of Aspergillus/Penicillium fungi when compared to the outdoor ambient air. CONCLUSIONS&RECOMMENDATIONS 2 Significant mold conditions have been identified throughout the crawlspace and basement elevation of the home as a result of elevated humidity concentrations, lack of air circulation, 675 Skippers Lane,Orient, NY 11957 presence of excess organic nutrient and dust concentrations,and moisture intrusion within the basement/crawlspace. Water damage and fungal colonization was observed throughout the first floor due to leaks from above,and also elevated humidity concentrations, lack of air circulation, presence of excess organic dust concentrations. Slightly elevated concentrations of aerosolized mold were identified in the 2"d floor bedroom#4 due to either a hidden fungal amplification site of cross contamination from the kitchen. Our office has prepared a mold remediation plan that will address visible mold colonization/ contamination encountered, or reasonably presumed at the time of inspection,without regard for causation.A copy of this document is attached herewith as Attachment C of this report and may be used by the licensed mold remediation firm to establish minimum Personal Protective Equipment (PPE),engineering controls, preliminary material removals,decontamination activities,content handling,and establishes project completion criteria the remediation contractor must adhere to. Any proposed deviation from this plan must first be approved in writing in advance of alteration to the plan. All mold remediation must be performed by those trained in mold remediation, use and care of respiratory protection,Article 32 of the New York State Department of Labor and the IICRC 5520 (Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation). In the event a conflict arises between these sources,the most stringent means/methods shall be applied. Said mold remediation contractor is also required to; 1.) Prepare a Microbial Remediation Work Plan and submit it to the property owner/owner representative. Plan must identify EPA registered product(s)that will be used and obtain approval from the owner/occupant prior to use/application. 2.) Post Notification of the impending project at all entries to the dwelling. 3.) Post warning signs at the entry to all regulated work areas where microbial remediation will be performed. 4.) Provide full face APR(Air Purifying Respirators)to all workers for completion of all phases of microbial remediation.These respirators may be either operated in negative mode or Powered Air Purifying Respirators; PAPR's are preferred. Cartridges must be NIOSH (National Institute for Safety&Health)compliant for HEPA(High Efficiency Particulate Arresting(NEPA)with a minimum efficiency of 95%(99.975%preferred) and coupled with an Organic Vapor filtration media to reduce exposure to Microbial Volatile Organic Compounds (MVOC's). 5.) Maintain containment(s)until written approval to remove it is granted by our office. Failure to maintain containment to this standard is a violation of Article 32 of New York State Labor Law. 6.)Comply with all other applicable Asbestos (NYC/NYS)and Lead-Based Paint(EPA) regulations prior to implementation of the scope of microbial remediation. 7.) Possess a minimum$50,000 GL(General Liability) insurance policy,with environmental pollution Endorsement for mold remediation work. It is required that at the conclusion of all mold remediation activities,that a follow-up visual 3 inspection be conducted. General requirements for final visual inspection include: 1.) All moisture sources must be remedied. 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 2.) No visible mold colonization may remain. 3.) No malodor associated with mold colonization may remain. 4.) No demolition debris may remain. 5.) No waste may be stored in the work area. 6.) No gravimetrically or electrostatically accumulated particulate(dust) may remain. 7.) Temperature and relative humidity are within acceptable limits as prescribed by ASHRAE seasonal thermal comfort standards. Post microbial remediation verification sampling will also be used as a tool.to assist in the post remediation investigation process to ensure that material removals and decontamination efforts are sufficient,and that constituency and enumeration of fungal matter are similar to those encountered in outdoor air and/or indoor reference(un-impacted) areas of the residence. Please refer to Attachment C for further detail on air sample/surface sample clearance criteria. Additional recommendations for the property-owner include: 1.) Install proper circulation and dehumidification within the entire home including the crawispace to reduce humidity concentrations and help prevent future fungal colonization year-round. 2.) Increase leader discharge distance to a minimum of 6 feet. 3.) Properly grade all planting beds to prevent a negative pitch toward the foundation wall. 4.) Seal all holes and vents in the foundation wall. 5.) Properly seal the soil bottom crawl with 6mil poly sheeting and duct taping as necessary. 6.) Retain a licensed professional engineer to evaluate and make recommendations to cure water intrusion at the basement. Enclosed herewith,please find all supporting analytical documentation, photographic record of prevailing conditions at the time of inspection, mold remediation plan, methods&procedures, disclaimer and firm/personnel licensure. If you should have any questions regarding this report,or require further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Respectfully submitted, INSIG NVIRONMENTAL, INC. org . Maul,Vice President Mold Assessor License#MA00022 Project#1'8-0579 4 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY 11957 ATTACHMENT A Supporting Analytical Documentation 5 zzl� 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY 11957 ATTACHMENT B Photographic Record of Prevailing Conditions 6 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY 11957 fiil i Staining observed at the ceiling in the kitchen Staining observed at the ceiling in the kitchen -v ' — ' - ----- 675 Skippers Lone, Orient, NY 11957 «�\ ) . . , Elevated moisture detected m m£/ortile in the 6lc m/antyae � t d K &em»)moisture demceda the mo:finish+ the pantry.� Elevated moisture detected in the wollfnahm the!®fo7bath . .._�.�. . . . . . �. �... . .. —�---�. ��.. . �. .. . . � 675 Skippers»n Orient,NY 11957 12 Fungal colonization observed in the sink and bathtub in the 1"floor bath i; ;Y Y '�:e:cCyA qis Y n$ ' 9 Fungal colonization noted on the flooring in Bedroom#1 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957 rip �4 Elevated moisture detected in the flooring in Bedroom#1 Staining observed at the ceiling in Bedroom#1 t �77 1 ti I` s i �Z 3 .' 10 Elevated moisture detected in the wall finish in Bedroom#1 675 skippers Lane,Orient NY 11957 t Fungal colonization noted in the sink and beneath the base cabinet in the Kitchen t a r 21 Heavy water damage and fungal colonization noted at the ceiling in the dining room 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957 Elevated moisture detected in the ceiling finish in the dining room Staining and fungal colonization noted on the ceiling in the living room 12 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY 11957 , Fungal growth noted on joists and subfloor in the crawl Overview of the basement elevation 13 675 Skippers Lane, Orient NY 11957 A 1� IPA Staining and fungal colonization noted on the exposed joists and subflooring throughout Pooling water found in the basement elevation 14 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957 ATTACHMENT C Mold Remediation Plan 15 675 Skippers Lane,Orient, NY 11957 ATTACHMENT D Methods&Procedures Measurements of available moisture were made in impacted and reference finish,framework and structural materials(as accessible)using a Flir MR77 moisture meter. General Air Quality parameters temperature and relative humidity were obtained at affected areas, un-impacted adjacent areas and outdoors using a Flir MR77 Moisture meter. Air sampling to characterize and enumerate total aerosolized(airborne)fungal structures was conducted in areas of concern,indoor reference areas and outdoors for comparative(negative control) purposes. Buck BioAire impaction cassette pumps were employed in conjunction with Allergenco-D oval slit impaction cassettes.All pumps were pre and post calibrated to a mean flow rate of 15 liters per minute using a Buck rotameter.Samples were run a duration of five minutes achieving a total volume of 75 liters per sample location. All samples were sealed immediately upon collection and remanded to Hayes Microbial Consulting for analysis via optical microscopy.Hayes Microbial Consulting is an American Industrial Hygiene Association(AIHA)accredited and proficient environmental and clinical microbiology laboratory. Please refer to Attachment A for further detail on these analyses. 16 Y 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 ATTACHMENT E Disclaimer The report and remediation protocol attached herewith relates only to those areas required to be tested or areas specifically requested to be tested by the client/customer,and actually tested. The professional opinions expressed in this document are based solely on the scope of work conducted and sources referred to therein.The presented data was collected and analyzed using accepted industry methods,procedures and practices in effect at the time this report was generated. Primary evaluative techniques are derived from the American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists(ACGIH) text Bioaerosols,Assessment and Control. This report represents the levels of airborne/surface contaminants at the time of sampling.No inferences regarding other conditions, locations or materials at a later or earlier time may be based on the contents of this report.No other warranty,express or limited is made. Insight Environmental, Inc.'s, liability and that of its contractors and subcontractors,arising from any services rendered hereunder,shall not exceed the total fee paid by the client to Insight Environmental, Inc.for this project. This report was prepared for the sole use of our client.The use of this report by anyone other than our client or Insight Environmental, Inc. is strictly prohibited without the expressed written consent of Insight Environmental, Inc. Portions of this report may not be used independently of the entire report. Should there be any change in the conditions of the areas tested,Insight Environmental,Inc.should be contacted as early as is practical. At the time of this writing there are no mandated standards concerning acceptable or unacceptable levels of fungal growth.All analytical data,statements and findings provided reflect conditions of the site at the time of our visit(s).Microbiological contamination may exist in areas that were not accessible or related to the incident or project. Insight Environmental, Inc.,does not guarantee or imply that fungal/bacterial contamination will not re-occur. 17 E'r:1i•R�, 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY 11957 V ATTACHMENT F NYS Mold Assessor License 18 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY 11957 at wro � s , ' G i' j- Leon Williapm Trege°rman `M , �,<<;; - l q„t4+ r"rk;•,{,,�', pq`w^;p "i"c gj;'.- f �r' , �y„r7 r�.}'r.� �k.i-t�a"�•�:x> N' 5�i .R f % , °,._ ., :•_t; has fulfilled the requirements,of the Toxic Substances Control Act(TSCA)Section 402;and has (f,y^,a:Vn s '•'_ received certifid on to conduct IeadEbase,,pt,,aivdiiesWpursuant,to' 40 CFR Part 745.226 as' s .'Risk A"ssessor . , ; '`fit•�,_� ���'���-� � � . . All'&A Administered Lead-based Paint Activities Program States;Thbes and,Terr`itories This certification is valid from the date of issuance and expires May 11 2019 LBP-R-1500=1 " 'Certification#' s John Gorman,Chief May 05,2016 �; -� w pesticides!&Toxic Sutistances'',Brancti`' Issued On `- INSIGHT Environmental Inc. Microbial Remediation Plan 675 Skippers Lane,Orient,NY ® =Isolation Barrier(2 Layers fire retardant polyethylene) Fs —Remove wall finish to full height ® =Curtain Doorway(3 layers fire 4 retardant polyethylene) =Remove bottom 4'wall finish,decon.underlying AFD =1,000—1,500 CFM Air Filtration Device(or as specified) =Remove bottom 2'wall finish,decon underlying ® =Remove base trim,inspect underlying wall finish and =Abrasively decon.All surfaces throughout remove 2'if growth is present =Remove ceiling finish,decon above General Requirements: 1. All remediation procedures shall be performed in accordance with all Federal,State,and Local regulations,and general industry guidelines including but not limited to Article 32 of the New York State Labor Law,(ICRC 5520,EPA"Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings",etc. 2. A work plan must be submitted by the mold remediation contractor,indicating a detailed and specific standard operating procedure to remediate the mold issue at the property. 3. All cleaning and encapsulation chemicals shall be EPA registered,and used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions/label but only after expressed consent of the owner/occupant. Mold remediation workers using chemical cleaning agents must use the Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA's)"Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings"as a reference and follow minimum work standards of the New York State(NYS)Mold Law. 4. Any chemical cleaning and encapsulation agents that are to be used must be USEPA registered and indicated in the remediation contractor's work plan and must be approved by the property owner for use. The mold remediation contractor must take into consideration the potential for any allergenic response or adverse health effects of the building occupants that will be exposed to these chemicals.It is required by the NYS Mold Law that all workers conducting remediation are licensed by the NYS Department of Labor as mold abatement workers. INSIGHT Environmental Inc. 5. Building notification for the project must be posted on all entries to the building so that the building occupants are aware of the location and duration of the remediation project. The mold remediation contractor is responsible for these postings and may also make the building occupants aware of the status of the project through postings/email/phone calls at the start of and throughout the duration of the mold removal project. Building notifications shall remain on the entries to the building until the mold removal task is over and cleared by the mold assessor in writing. 6. Contractor shall comply with all applicable Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint Regulations prior to implementing any material removal or decontamination activities recommended herein.In the event that additional materials are encountered during the course of the remediation,stop work and contact our office immediately. Cost Estimate: It is estimated that the mold remediation project at the dwelling will consume approximately 5 working days with a crew of 4; approximately 160 man hours,using manual abatement methods.I find that mold remediation projects of similar size and scope range in cost from$15,200.00-$24,000.00,equipment and materials inclusive. Please note that this estimate does not account for post microbial remediation inspection/testing or any repair/reconstruction efforts. Remediation Procedures: 1. The work areas shall consist of the entire home and shall be evacuated of all occupants for the duration of the remediation project.Each floor shall be fully isolated from the remainder of the house. 2. The Contractor shall provide all workers entering the work area with proper protective clothing(disposable gloves,boots,head gear,goggles,and suits)and respiratory protection for possible airborne spores and dusts. 3. Minimum respiratory protection for this project shall be a full face negative respirator with P100 HEPA filtration and Organic Vapor cartridges. 4. All workers must don proper PPE prior to beginning construction of the containment. 5. Caution signs and tape must be posted outside of the work area to restrict access and to make the building occupants aware of the hazard present. INSIGHT Environmental Inc. 6. Negative pressure containment shall be constructed so as to include each elevation of the home separately. Construct an air lock(3'x3'x6')at the entrance to each separate work area.Completely isolate the basement from the first floor of the home. 7. All critical barriers and isolation barriers shall consist of a double layer of 6 mil fire retardant poly. Use of support poles(such as zip poles)is recommended to maintain containment integrity. 8. Install High Efficiency Particulate Arresting(NEPA)filtration equipped Air Filtration Devices(AFD's)as indicated on the attached proposed remediation diagram.Those units bearing the term bearing the term"neg"shall be used to establish and maintain a minimum of four air changes per hour and achieve a minimum negative pressure differential min.-0.02"w.c.as measured by Dwyer ball manometer or equivalent)relative to neighboring uncontained spaces and outdoors.Units bearing the term"scrub" or"static"shall be used to continuously filter indoor ambient air.All units shall be in operation for the entirety of all mold remediation activities and post microbial remediation verification and inspection.A backup AFD capable of maintaining negative pressure differential must be on site for duration of the work. 9. Within the basement elevation:install one 2000cfm HEPA negative air filtration device. 10.AFD's shall be utilized in the containment and positioned furthest from the entry to create proper flow of air throughout the containment.These units shall be operated on a 24-hour basis.The unit shall be exhausted outside the building and away from any receptors(doors/windows/intake vents,etc.). 11.Exhausting outside the building shall be accomplished with flexible exhaust ducting positioned in a wooden manifold which has been installed in the window frame and may withstand theft,vandalism and prevailing weather conditions. 12.Install curtained doorways as indicated on the attached proposed remediation diagram using 6 mil.f.r.poly sheeting.A curtain door comprises three individual overlapped/staggered pieces of 6 mil.f.r.poly sheeting. 13.Install critical barriers at all communicative openings;e.g,light switches,fans,outlets,diffusers,returns,chases,etc.Additional critical barriers are likely to be encountered during the course of material removal activities;seal immediately as encountered. 14.Create a staging area for salvageable content decontamination.Content decontamination shall be conducted in a manner so as not to create cross contamination to previously un-impacted areas.A HEPA filtered vacuum shall be utilized in the work area to facilitate cleaning of the area and the personnel that leave the containment. 15.With regard to the content stored within the impacted areas,all porous materials observed to exhibit some degree of visible contamination should be discarded. Semi to non-porous content,(wooden,metal,or plastic furniture,)may be cleaned utilizing wet wiping and HEPA vacuuming techniques under contained and negatively pressurized conditions and stored elsewhere until remediation activities are completed. INSIGHT Environmental Inc. 16.All remediation activities shall be performed in a manner so as to reduce particulate emissions. 17.BASEMENT:At the completion of all asbestos abatement: -In the basement all surfaces;exposed concrete,block,joists and subfioonng,etc. shall be abrasively decontaminated utilizing wet wiping,scrubbing,and HEPA vacuuming techniques.Due to the presence of rough-cut timbers throughout the home,the contractor may choose to use a clear anti-fungal encapsulant at the completion of remediation activities. 18.11t Floor:At the completion of all asbestos abatement:Remove ceiling finish materials as depicted in the proposed remediation diagram.These materials shall be adequately wet,removed in a sequential manner,and containerized immediately. Decontaminate the exposed subflooring and joists utilizing wet wiping,scrubbing,and HEPA vacuuming techniques.Due to the presence of rough-cut timbers throughout the home,the contractor may choose to use a clear anti-fungal encapsulant at the completion of remediation activities. 19.Should additional mold be identified beyond this scope of work,consult our office immediately for further direction. 20.Remove,containerize and dispose any underlying fiberglass insulation encountered. 21.Manually decontaminate all exposed underlying framing and surfaces throughout the basement and first floor containment areas using HEPA vacuuming,wet cleaning/fresh water rinse,air drying and HEPA vacuuming once more. 22.2nd Floor:Due to the elevated airborne concentrations of mold found in Bedroom#4 on the second floor,we recommend manual decontamination of all surfaces throughout the bedroom using HEPA vacuuming,wet cleaning/fresh water rinse,air drying and HEPA vacuuming once more. 23.All waste from the work area must be containerized and decontaminated prior to transportation through un-contaminated areas of the home.All plastic bags shall be sealed airtight and goose-necked.All waste shall be disposed of in accordance with all Federal,State,and City regulations. 24.No person shall remove or dismantle any containment structures or equipment from the project site prior to receipt of notice from our office that the project has achieved clearance as described in Section 947 of Article 32. 25.Upon completion of mold remediation and restoration of remaining building materials to reference moisture content,it is required that our office return to conduct a post microbial remediation inspection,coupled with environmental sampling,as deemed necessary by the assigned hygienist,to confirm efficacy and completion of the work. 10 INSIGHT Environmental Inc. Clearance Inspection/Breakdown: 1. It is required that at the conclusion of all remedial activities,that a follow-up assessment be conducted to ensure that the remediation work plan has been properly implemented. Additionally,surface sampling may be conducted to determine if microbial colonization associated with the loss has been remediated.Criteria for completion of visual inspection include; a) All moisture sources must be remedied. b) No visible mold colonization may remain. C) No demolition debris may remain. d) No waste may be stored in the work area. e) No gravimetrically or electrostatically accumulated particulate(dust)may remain. f) No malodor associated with mold colonization. g) Temperature and relative humidity are within acceptable limits as prescribed by ASHRAE seasonal thermal comfort standards. 2. Air sampling will be used as a post remediation evaluative tool to characterize and enumerate total airborne fungal matter in areas subject to remediation,uncontaminated areas,and outdoors for comparative purposes.Air sample clearance criteria shall be satisfied when containment areas and cross contaminated areas contain similar types and total numbers of molds when compared to outdoor air.Evaluative procedures shall be consistent with those established by the ACGIH Bioaerosols Assessment and Control and moderated by site specific factors. 3. Upon completion of the visual inspection and receipt of satisfactory air sampling and/or surface sample results,the mold assessor will inform the mold remediation contractor in writing,that the project is complete and direct them to remove any remaining equipment,critical barriers,containment,etc. November 20, 2018 Re: Potter 675 Skippers Lane, Orient 11957 My experience as a builder and old house renovator goes back fifty years. I have owned landmarks and restored many houses. I have worked with New York State grants to refinish 18th center structures. The "Limited Initial Fugal Assessment - 675 Skippers Lane Orient NY 11957" is typical for an old house that has been neglected for the past few years in a sea side village. The foundation is in excellent condition. Since the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services standards advises us to "Retain the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space." I can not except the proposed plan to demolish the exiting house and build a much larger house with no redeeming features relating to the original historic structure. If, as the owner is saying, the existing structure is damaged beyond what he feels is acceptable to him then he could replace what exists with new to match the existing with the original exterior finishes replaced in kind. If the owner wants the living space to be three times the sizes of what exists, he might start looking for another property since his proposal will NOT "retain the historic relationship between buildings, landscape features and open space." as our National Standards November 5,2018 Dear Landmark Preservation Commission, I am a former owner of the Van Nostrand House,located at 675 Skipper's Lane,Orient,N.Y. I am writing to you to correct and clarify some of the Information that has been circulating in regard to this home. My grandfather,Hobart S.Van Nostrand,M.D.and his wife Florence purchased the home from Edward S.Vail in 1938,prior to the hurricane of 1938. The original house,known as Hagen House,burned to the ground 20 years prior to the purchase of the property by Edward S.Vail in 1915. in 1918 Vail erected the present house on the premises. The addition to the side of the house was in 1957,not the 1970's. This 100 year old home is reflective of the modest homes,lived in by working families. While not grand, it represents the evolution of the town visually and socioeconomically. This cottage is significant and typical in style and scale of the bay side cottages. It is located In a prominent location in the village and is known by many. It has a spectacular view of the waterfront from its front porch. It has been the subject of paintings for at least 2 artist's: lames Napoleon of CT and Bob Kuhne of Cutchogue. Our beloved family summer home for 79 years was at 675 Skipper's Lane. Six generations of my family lived and vacationed In the home every summer,including the summer of 2017 when the home went up for sale(we never lived in a trailer,as reported). My grandmother Elizabeth Van Nostrand lived year round in the home for several years during the early 1970s. Yes,a lot of furniture and personal keepsakes were accumulated,but it was far from being a hoarder's house as some have stated. Yes,there is asbestos and some mold,but the house is strong,having withstood every hurricane beginning with the one in 1938,with the only damage being the loss of a couple of shingles. A restoration may be possible,with some changes,but the cost would be higher than a"new build". Orient is unique. it is a preserved bucolic hamlet,remaining true to the surrounding community and it's culture. Allowing,massive,out of scale new homes to be built,could set a precedent,opening the "floodgates"for the development of the"South Fork's"new location to the north. During sale negotiation,Louis Potters was informed of the home being listed on the Southold Town Register of Historic Landmarks. He replied that it was not a problem. "The landmarks law insures that alterations to the building's exterior maintain its architectural integrity as well as being compatible with the general neighborhood." It seems quite clear the action the Preservation Commission could take in regard to the newly proposed home,that is TWICE the size of the current home. The very word"preservation"says it all. Sincerely, Barbara Van Nostrand 1555 Village Lane Orient,NY 11957 November 11,2018 Jaynes Garretson,Chairperson Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission Southold NY 11957 To the members of the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission: We are writing as the Board of Directors of the Oysterponds Historical Society as regarding 675 Skippers Lane. As stated on the Southold Town website,the vision of the Historic Preservation commission is "to ensure that the town's essential character and historical significance are maintained through the preservation of its 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th century architectural,historic and cultural treasures."The Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission is currently considering an application to demolish a house in the Orient Historic District at 675 Skipper's Lane.We believe that allowing the demolition of this house would set a dangerous precedent for the community and the Town of Southold and would endanger the integrity of the entire Historic District- The Oysterponds Historical Society has a serious stake in this tnattet because it was instrumental in the creation of the Orient Historic District,by spearheading the research and v,Titing of the application to New York State,which in turn submitted a successful application to the U.S. Department of the Interior.The District was placed on the National Register on May 21, 1976. The Orient Historic District is a natural outgrowth of the Society's mission of preserving and interpreting the history of Orient and East Marion,as the buildings included in the district tell the story of the community in a way that no written account ever could. 675 Skipper's Lane was built by Edward S.Vail,a member of a prominent early Orient family, in 1918.The condition of 675 Skipper's Lane is not significantly different from many houses in Orient that have been successfully renovated and preserved and are now ornaments of the Historic District.In addition to this property being within the,boundades of the Orient Historic District,675 Skippers Lane was designated as a laandnaark$y the town of Southold in 2007. In 2010 when the Southold Town Historic preservation Commission denied the demolition of 130 Village Lane,Orient,NY(SCT1v1#1000-18-5-6),the commission stated: Retention of the landmark in its current or similar forma and location is important to the village's history and character. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historical district which together reflect the history and growth of the early village from a farming and fishing community to a prominent year-round and summer residential district.There are few*examples of this type and size home left in Orient.Its demolition would significantly change the character of Village Lane. ® The landmark is ofsuch old and unusual or""common design,texture and material that it could not he reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty.Although not historically significant because of its design,its type—a small,rather plain and unadorned workman's or fisherman's home of the mid-14`x'century—makes it an important contributor to the overall streetscape ..... 675 Skipper's Lane makes a similar contribution to the streetscape of Skipper's Lane as 130 Village Lane does to the streetscape of Village Lane.And it is an example of a modest,early 20`" century summer residence,one of the categories of buildings the Commission is charged to preserve in its Vision Statement,quoted above. We have formally voted to send this letter to request that the Southold'Town Historic Preservation Commission deny the application to demolish 675 Skipper's Lane,Orient,NY. Respectfully submitted, The Board of Trustees of the Oysterponds Historical Society Douglas&Karin Constant PO Box 225 Orient,NY 11957 November 8,2018 James Garretson,Chairperson Southold Town I Iistoric Preservation Commission PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Dear Historic Preservation Commission, We bought our landmarked,historic house at 555 Village Lane in Orient forty years ago.Our children were 3 '/z year old and 3 months old.The living conditions were deplorable—the four of us lived in one room,walked a plank to use the bathroom,washed the dishes in the bathtub, installed a coal heater to keep warm,and put sheets of plastic on the windows and doors to help us get through the winter. Orient was where we wanted to live and raise our family.The sense of community and the high- rated school system was extremely important to us.We were ready to take on"the challenge''of our home's existing condition to be able to live in the village.bike the majority of home buyers of"old homes"in Orient our home was no exception.The interior was painted with layers of lead paint,the exterior was covered in asbestos shingles,the heating pipes in the cellar were covered with asbestos insulation,and we had mold as well.Mold was such a common occurrence throughout Orient that Freddie Wachsberger and Sylvia Newman actually organrred a"mold"party.We were instructed to search our homes to find the moldiest obiect we could. You have to have a sense of humor to live in an old house in Orient. Our children adjusted to growing up in a construction zone.We personally removed all the asbestos shingles from the exterior of our house,put them in brown paper garbage bags and took it all to the landfill. We then painted the exposed clapboard.The asbestos and mold in the cellar were professionally removed by"men in white space suits"—an unfoiettable experience for aur son.We also stripped,sanded and vacuumed the chips and dust of all the layers of lead-based paint on the interior woodwork. We have experienced and issues as well.Reinforcement solved those problems.To this day we wonder how we ever did what we did and managed to survive.We continue to make improvements to our home with the support and guidance of the Historic Preservation Commission.Our married children,their spouses and our grandchildren have a very strong attachment to this house and to Orient. Asbestos, lead paint,mold and a weak foundation are not grounds for a demolition We feel that the property in question on Skippers Lane should not be allowed to be torn down. We believe that Dr_Louis Potters and Dr.Lenore Brancato together with their architect,Peter Cook and lawyer,Patricia Moore should work with the existing structure and make this historic house their "home."Allowing this house to be demolished will only set a precedent and contribute to changing our historic community. Do not let this happen. Sincerely, Doug and Karin Constant Cc: Scott Russell,Southold T'owm Supervisor Leslie K.anes Weisman,Chairperson,Zoning Board of Appeals I November 2018 Mr. Ted Web, Member of the Board of Southold Historic Preservation Commission, PO Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 Dear Mr. Web, I understand the Zoning Board of Appeals will shortly consider the request to demolish the cottage at 675 Skipper's Lane, Orient,New York. This concerns me as a resident of the Orient Village who takes pride and interest in Orient Village as a whole.Visually,Orient Village shows unique evidence of unbroken historic continuity,and not as nostalgic pretense but as part and parcel of living reality. Enough of the early buildings remain so the scale of the village can be understood and felt. The cottage at 675 Skipper's Lane may not be considered as an architectural treasure. It is,however,a representation of a way of life and contribution to meaning of the village. Given respect,it provides the village with a face that is valid and living. The proposed structure does not respect the existing buildings and`does not conform with the historic area in scale and texture. Yours sincerely, Anne Taylor EtWil 3.940 Orchard Street, Orient,New York 11957 November 26,2018 TO: James Garretson,AIA,Chairman Southold Historic Preservation Commission PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 FR:James Haag RE:Hearing on Skippers lane Residence on November 27 Dear Mr.Garretson and Commission Members: I have lived in Orient for 21 years and have enjoyed the quality of life and the character of the historic district,which defines what this town is.In fact,I was attracted to the town because of the passion of the residents to maintain that character and preserve the past,which we learn from daily as we move forward together. I am against issuing a variance to the home in question as it would compromise the integrity of ttte structure which falls within the Orient Historic District.Indeed,the original home should be saved if of all possible.The scale of that district is important in the context of its surroundings and any home should not exceed lot coverage limits. That's why the limits are there—to protect the essential character of the surroundings.if extensive work needs to be done due to structural deficiencies,it should be done in the style and scale of the original,ideally preserving the original structure/footprint. People bought homes within this district because of i's character,and it is not fair to alter this.Once we begin to compromise the district,It loses its character—and we all lose. Thank you for your consideration.I have learned the people's opinions mean something in Southold, and I love our town for that.Thanks for considering mine. yrds, gard Street52 f Dear Ted and Jamie: I regret that I will be traveling again for business next Tuesday afternoon and unable to attend The Southold Historic Preservation Commission's follow-up hearing regarding the Potter residence. I understand that at this meeting the public may comment, so I'm writing you both to express our most current point of view. As we've learned more over the last couple of months about the proposed project and the Commission's charter, we have come to view preserving the house as important to preserving the intent, character and promise of Orient's historic district and homes. As the owners of an old house in a designated historic area, I can say with certainty that what the Potters face is no more or less than what most of in our village have contended with: We purchase old homes, remediate the issues that come with old structures and renovate our houses to make them more suitable for contemporary living, including architecturally appropriate additions. In the fifteen years we have lived on Skippers Lane, Andrea and I have witnessed six significant renovations on our street alone. Two more projects are underway presently, No owner demolished their home to make way for a new dwelling, nor to the best of my knowledge, did any of our neighbors contemplate doing so. Moreover, I'm sure that all of these projects, like many others in our historic district met the Commission's bar for preservation. Other than personal taste, which isn't reason enough to break precedent and break faith with the Commissions mission, I can't see a single reason why the Commission should allow the Potters to demolish their present house and replace it with an entirely new residence. We urge the Commission to reject the Potter's application to demolish the house and wish you will instead encourage them to pursue a restoration and reasonable expansion of their home that's in keeping with the Lane and other parts of our historic district. With sincere thanks for the work you do. Scott Stein Andrea Schulz 145 Skippers Lane Orient, NY Dear Jamie and Ted: Like many in our community, we learned about the Potters' plans for the home at the corner of Skippers and State Streets only last week from the Orient Association mailing. Unfortunately, the time of year and short notice won't allow us to be in attendance for the Historic Preservation Commission hearing this Tuesday afternoon. We write you both as neighbors, leaders in our community and members of the Commission so that you might take our thoughts into consideration as you do the Commission's business. When we renovated our home on Skippers Lane approximately ten years ago, we were glad to work with the Commission to make sure that our renovation was in keeping with the scale and character of the original home, the streetscape and Orient Village - because we, like you and so many of our neighbors, live in Orient precisely because we value the character and scale that is at the heart of the place we love. Both our walks past the Potter property, where surveyor's stakes are now visible, and the one elevation that was shared by the Orient Association, show a proposed home that is radically out of scale and character for Orient Village and this highly visible corner lot at the edge of Poquatuck Park and public street end. There are other places in Orient where a home like this would site comfortably among its neighbors. This is not that place and this is the precisely the intrusion of size and scale that the Historic Commission is designed to protect our community from. The balance in Orient is delicate. To allow a home like this on this proposed site throws open the doors to future development that could forever change Orient Village. We ask that the Commission work with the Potter family to develop a plan that is in keeping with the spirit and principles of the historic district - and we hope the current plan will not go forward. Thanks very much for your attention and for your work in protecting the community. Sincerely Scott Stein Andrea Schulz 145 Skippers Lane PO Box 122 Orient, NY To: The Historic Preservation Commission, September 17,2018 Town of Southold Ladies and Gentlemen, We are writing this letter to express our views with respect to your consideration of the application to tear down the existing home located at the corner of Skippers Lane and Harbor River Road(formerly known as State Street)and to replace it with the proposed design of a 3,400 square foot home which sits within the Orient Historic District. We are the owners of the residence directly across the street. Our address is 20 Harbor River Road and we have owned this property for twelve years. Like virtually all of our neighbors,we love the historic characteristic of the village of Orient. We were drawn here because of it. Cyndi Murray, in her article featured in the July 4th edition of the Northforker magazine, described the Orient Historic District as a place'which was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1976"and that its buildings"still proudly carry a celebrated aesthetic of centuries past". Although the article largely focuses on Village Lane, it is representative of the entire Historic District and notes several examples of families who are new additions to the village and their commitment to continuing the legacy of stewardship to the historic character of the community. We believe this article paints an accurate picture of what Orient Village is and how its residence feel about what life is like here. We are very familiar with the property In question and sympathize with the Potters'desire to replace it. Weare concerned,however,with the scale of the proposed replacement and believe It is much too large for the existing lot and substantially larger than the existing structure. In addition,we are concerned that the design is more appropriate to a location outside the Historic District as it does not appear to have any historic reference to other structures within the district. To our knowledge there is no existing precedent for new construction of this scale or design within the Historic District,and therefore the risk of altering the historic nature of the district exists. For these reasons,we believe that the proposed design and project should be rejected as presented. We wish to thank the Historic Preservation Commission for its efforts to sustain the nature and characteristic of our precious historic village. Respectfully, Charlotte and Stephen Wagner swae�neri947@amail com 617-921-0755 AW Frame 640 Skippers Lane Orient 11957 September 18th,2018 Ladies and Gentlemen, We are writing regarding the proposed new-build on the lot opposite at 675 Skippers Lane,on the corner of Harbor River Road. We chose to live in this part of this village because of its beautifully-preserved history.To bulldoze an historic building within the Orient Historic District — in order to construct a new home with nearly twice the square footage on such a small lot— is not in keeping with the character of this village. The corner lot of 675 Skippers Lane is charming because of the proper relationship of the existing structure to the size of the lot,and the fact that it borders Poquatuck Park means that the entire village will be affected by any significant changes to this let. Views of the water would be greatly obstructed,beautiful 100-plus-year old trees torn down,and the charm and personality of Skippers Lane transformed irrevocably. Furthermore,allowing a variance such as this proposal would require would set a precedent that stands to permit anyone with the funds available to rip apart the historic architecture this community is built upon,and sends Orient the way of The Hamptons. As Orient residents, we are all committed to keeping the distinctive personality of this tiny historic hamlet thriving. We would hope that our new neighbors would lovingly restore and renovate their Orient home in keeping with the aesthetic and the spirit of the existing 2000 sq ft historic structure they purchased. We object to an outright demolition of this historic building and sincerely hope that the owners can work with the commission to find a harmonious solution more aligned with the character of this beautiful place that we love. Kind regards, AW Frame September 18, 2018 Dear Orient Historic Preservation Commissioners, We are writing to object to the proposal to rebuild the house at the corner of Skippers Lane and State Street (backing on Poquatuck Park). Orient Village historic district is uniquely beautiful. Should someone want to build a new home or renovate to such a degree that the past is no longer visible, they should look outside of this specific area. We so appreciate all that Orient is and hope it can stay that way if we all work together... Most Sincerely, Yvonne & Leo Villareal 2220 Village Lane Orient Village, New York Dear Mr. Garretson, Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the public hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, the 18th, regarding the proposed demolition of the house at the corner of Skippers Lane and State Street and its replacement with a much larger dwelling. As a homeowner in Orient, and more specifically, a homeowner on Skippers Lane, I wanted to make my feelings known to the committee. I chose to buy a home in Orient because it was a community that respected history and the buildings and environment that were emblematic of that history_ It was a town that sought to reasonably and responsibly oversee development so as not to replicate the plethora of McMansions that have cropped up on the South Fork. As I understand it, the house at the corner of Skippers and State is within the historic district. Furthermore, it abuts Poquatuck Park, a public space, used by the entire town, and it's position on a corner lot makes it visible from all four sides. The first question is whether it's possible to expand the existing house so as not to set a precedent of demolishing historic buildings. If not, I think it's important that whatever building is erected on this lot reflect the scale of the historic district in which it lies. The proposed building is both disproportionate to the lot and to the historic homes that surround it. Allowing a large two story home of 3,400 square feet to replace one of 2,000 square feet on that location would certainly send a very public message about the town's position regarding "reasonable" development. 1 oppose the granting of any variance, and would hope the owners can find a way to adapt their plans so as to create a home they like without upsetting the balance of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Lucy Stille 220 Skippers Lane Orient, New York September 18,2018 Historic Preservation Commission Ladies and Gentlemen: Let us briefly state that we feel that the building proposed by the Porter's should conform to the established rules concerning the relative size of the building compared to the size of the lot. We feel that large over whelming houses detract from the historic nature of the Orient community. Ale will appreciate your careful consideration of this principle in making your decision. Thank you Donald and Mina Merle Van Cleef 530 Skippers Lane Orient, NY 11957 Rachel Feinstein and John Currin 745 King Street Orient Village, NY 11957 September 18, 2018 Dear Orient Historic Preservation Commissioners, We are writing to strongly object to the proposal to demolish the house at the comer of Skippers Lane and State Street (backing on Poquatuck Park), and to replace it with a new much larger structure. The charm and scale of Orient is in your capable hands, we hope you will vote .the proposal as it is contrary to what you have maintained so wonderfully thus far within the Orient Historic District. Regards, Rachel Feinstein and John Currin To. Historic Preservation Commission Southold Town Rom: Janet Markarian 1100 Village Lane Orient, NY 11957 Re: 675 Skippers Lane , Orient, NY 11957 Transcript from hearing November 27, 2018 My name is Janet Markarian. I live year round at 1100 Village Lane , Orient , the corner of Skippers Lane and Village Lane .I sit on the board of Poquatuck Hall , The Board of Oysterponds Historical Society as well as the OHS museum collections committee, My own home was built in the mid 19th C , held up beautifully to this day by the original black locust posts which you will find in many early American homes , valued for it's particular density , natural ( chemical free ) resistance to moisture and insects. Attached to the main house is a storefront , added around 1920 which was for many years the Village Barber shop. I've lived in that house for over 15 years. What drew me to Orient then and what I still hold dear, is that it is uniquely in-tact as a village , architecturally and socially. I feel fortunate to live in this antique home and intend to care for it as long as I can, until it is passed to the next , hopefully responsible steward. I believe the Van Nostrand cottage, which is 100 years old this year ,should not be demolished. Aside from contributing to the historical streetscape and scale , it is a well preserved and important example of early 20th C architecture in Orient Village. Cottages like this , as well as other cottages still standing along the Bay on Lower Village Lane and Bay Lane , represent a time when the Village To: Historic Preservation Commission Southold Town Rom: Janet Markarian 1100 Village Lane Orient, NY 11957 Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957 Transcript from hearing November 27, 2018 saw the first influx of summer 1 seasonal residents. So , in that respect, modest as it may be in comparison to other earlier homes, or contemporary reproductions , wonderfully , beautifully plain and simple , adds significantly to the diversity of our historic district and the documentation of our history . There are many opportunities in Orient to build new , larger, contemporary homes, outside of the historic district . Many talented architects have done so , with wonderful results which add to the continual evolution and diverse charm of the village . In my opinion this decision is crucial to future potential demolitions of other historic Landmarked homes. If any historic Landmarked home can now now be considered a potential "building site" I do not have much hope for the future of the Village as we now know it . To the Southold Landmarks Preservation Commission Re:proposed demolition in Orient's Historic District Why buy a home in an historic district?Because a district has integrity-it hangs together, united by its scale and character and history. It tells its unique story through its buildings and how they are sited,and how they evolved at a certain point in history.A district will stay that way because it is protected by the local landmarks ordinance-you will not wake up one morning to find a wrecking ball above your neighbors house.Or will you? The property owners who want to demolish and re-build within the Orient Historic District could build a bigger house just about anywhere in Southold(their proposed 3,341 square foot house is over 25 % larger than the average new American house).Yet they have chosen to build on one of the few properties in the whole town where doing so would destroy the character and scale of the street and the adjacent park. No wonder their neighbors have spoken out against it--the same neighbors who have had every expectation that their district will remain substantially as it has been-a cluster of modest. old houses on small parcels of land by the sea-because it is protected by the Landmarks law,and by the commissioners who are responsible for making sure the law is enforced. The local landmarks JaN-v was never intended to preserve houses as museums,rather it includes a mechanism for allowing modifications for the way people live today.I have extensively renovated my 1743 home twice,both times with permission of the Landmarks Commission.Not everyone would appreciate its sloped floors and low ceilings,but my family does,and that is why we bought it. So I end with the same question I started with—why buy a home in an historic district? And to that I would add-ti;fhy buy a 100 year old home in a protected district if you intend to demolish it and build a bland new,considerably larger one? The commission trust follow the law and deny this application. Sincerely, Barbara Schnitzler November 26,2018 James Garretson,AIA,Chairman Southold Historic Preservation Commission P.O.Box t 179 Southold,NY 11971 Re:675 Skipper's Lane,Orient Dear Jamie and members of the Historic Preservation Commission, I'm Senting to urge the Historic Preservation Commission to reject the new owners'application to demolish the historic house at 675 Skipper's Lane and erect a new building with a much larger footprint. I live at 640'Village Lace,and it's a short walk to 675 Skipper's Lane,one I take often,as 1 enjoy going to the creek and the beach at the end of the road. Twenty years ago.and more,my son Daniel used to catch fish at the creek,and I loved to watch him. I loved walking down Skipper's Lane past the house that George Latham lived in,the one that has interior hardware,doors,and other touches similar to my own house,which George Latham renovated in the 1950s Like so many houses in Orient,those on Skipper's Lane once bolonged to a member of one of the earliest families,a Latham,a Tuthill,it Raekett, or a King, Until recently,I didn't know who originally owned 675 Skipper's Lane,but I'm not surprised that it belonged to the Van Nostrands,another family,still here and important to Orient for many gencrntions. We are so lucky to feel history all around us,and to know the descendants of the original families. I never forget this aspect of my life here—1 cherish it and I'm aware of it every day,every time I look out the windows of my 1843 house on Village Lane.It gives meaning to my life,connecting me to American history and to my roots in New Lngland(because Orient was settled partly by New Englanders and is so close,just across the Sound),to farming,fishing,nature all around.We pass through Orient, becoine part of history.—the buildings and farmland and beaches remain. For centuries,Orient Village has been able to withstand change that would interfere with this connectedness. But now newcomers are more distant from and perhaps not even aware of tire conduuurn of history around thein,perhaps not interested,and so it is imperative to have a strong Preservation Commission with inviolable standards. According to the Preservation Commission's own mission statement, are entrusted with maintaining the character of Orient,and this means protecting its mixture of grand and modest houses. The Van Nostrand house is an excellent example of an aspect of Orient,a 100-year old summer cottage with a view of the creel-,and bay. There's no reason to demolish it—it can be repaired. The asbestos shingles can be replaced by cedar shingles.Mold can be eradicated.Locust posts are a proud sign of its age,and can be replaced by a modern foundation.If it needs a bit of remodeling,that can be done within the scale of the current house. Scale is everything. The footprint should remain the same. I urge the Historic Preservation Cornmission to follow their earlier example of not allowing the demolition of the house at the northwest end of Village Lane,now belonging to Claudia Ding,Because it is an essential,part of the character of Orion[Village---a character that will he lost forever if we are not vigilant. Sincerely yours, ' Cay,t (L Karen Braziller vilel%a. 640 Village Lane,P.O.Box 203 Orient,NY I 1957 TWOMAeYyrV& Latham Martin D.Finnegan SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO, LLP Partner 631-727-2180,x-265 mfinnegan@suffolklaw.com Thomas A.Twomey,Jr. (1945-2014) Stephen B Latham John F Shea,III Christopher D Kelley David M.Dubin -.- Jay P.Quartararo t Peter M.Mott Janice L.Snead February 25, 2019 Anne Marie Goodale Bryan C.Van Cott Kathryn Dalli Laura I. an Lisa Clarea KomKombrini< Via Electronic and First Class Mail Patrick B Fife Martin D.Finnegan o RezaEbrahiml Mr. Edward Webb, Chairman R Jeffrey W.Pagano o Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission Bryan J Drago c/o Bill Duffy, Town Attorney Bernadette E.Tuthill Town of Southold Craig H.Handler P.O. Box 1179 Alexandra Halsey-Storch Melissa S Dons Southold,NY 11971-0959 Katerina Grinko Lorraine Paceleo Terrence Russell Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY Daniel R.Bemard tQ Christina M.Noon Dear Mr. Webb: OF COUNSEL Kevin M.Fox Kelly E Kinirons I am writingto request that the remainder of the public hearing on Karen A.Hoeg the pending Application of our clients,Louis Potters and Louise Brancato, Patricia J.Russell Jennifer P.Nigro o be scheduled as soon as possible. As I have advised the Town Attorney's office, our clients are presently available to proceed on March 4 or March • NY&LA BARS 5 in the late afternoon. We respectfully request that you contact our office t LL M IN TAXATION C NY&NJ BARS at your earliest convenience to confirm a date and time for the hearing. O NY,NJ&PA BARS O NY,NJ&DO BARS 4 NY,NJ&FL BARS Thank you for your consideration. Main Office 33 West Second St. P.O. Box 9398 Vtruly yours, Riverhead,NY 11901 631.727.2180 suffolklaw.com Martin . innegan MDF/lk cc: Bill Duffy, Town Attorney Q%tlFFAZ/(��G CZ w � Edward W.Webb,Chairperson Anne Surchin,Vice Chair Town Hall Annex Jamie Garretson 54375 Route 25 Donald Feiler PO Box 1179 James Grathwohl Southold,NY 11971 Robert Harper Fax(631)765-9502 Gary Parker (631)765-1802 www.soutlioldiowtinv.gov Valerie DeFio,Administrative Assistant March 18,2019 Martin D.Finnegan,Esq. Twomey, Latham, Shea,Kelley, Dubin&Quartararo,LLP 33 W. Second Street P.O. Box 9398 Riverhead,NY 11901-9398 Re: Potter Application to HPC 675 Skippers Lane, Orient NY Dear Mr. Finnegan, Please allow this to memorialize our recent conversations and emails with regard to the above referenced application. Your request for a public hearing on the aforementioned application was presented to the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission("the Commission") at its meeting on February 19`h,2019. The Commission prefers to have another pre-submission meeting prior to setting another public hearing to review recent amendments to the application with the applicant's consultants. To that the matter has put on the work session agenda for the Commission's March 19`h meeting and we are currently working towards picking a date to continue the public hearing on a day and time convenient to both the Commission and the applicant. The Commission has also decided to retain its own structural engineer to inspect the property and review the reports prepared by the applicant's engineers. You informed Town Attorney Bill Duffy that the applicant would like his engineer present when the inspection is done. Once the Commission selects an engineer, you will be contacted to arrange a time for the inspection. Martin Finnegan,Esq. March 18,2019 Page-2- If you have any questions regarding the foregoing,or would like to discuss the matter further, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Bill Duffy. Very truly yours, OAJ a P yam" Edward W. Webb P lift ROBERT O'BRIEN P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES J 2074 MAIN ROAD. P O. BOX 456, LAUREL, NY 1 1948 631-298-5252 January 15, 2019 Dr. & Mrs. Louis Potters 2 Sousa Drive Sands Point, New York 11050 675 Skippers Lane Orient, NY Dear Dr. & Mrs. Potters: Per your request, I performed visual inspections of the above-captioned house on January 9, 11 and 14, 2019. This to determine its overall condition and extent of re- medial work needed. Also to note the original components and details that still remain. Please be advised of the following findings and recommendations: The original house was a small one-and-one-half story wood frame structure that appears to date to the 1920s. It originally had a wood shingle roof and wood shingle siding. Basic construction consists of poured concrete perimeter foundation walls. The first-floor wood joists are supported on or embedded directly in the foundation walls. A number of small solid wood beams with locust post columns also provide support. The original house was dormered at the second-floor at the east side at some time in the past. This apparently to create the rear bedroom and bath. A new asphalt shingle roof was also constructed at the west side several feet above the original wood shingle roof, extending out over the front open porch. The old wood shingle roof is still in place in the new attic space that was created. There is a large one-story wood-framed dining room/living room addition at the south side of the original house. It appears to date to the 1950s. Basic construction consists of concrete block perimeter foundation walls. The floor joists are supported by built-up wood girders with hollow concrete block piers with wood shims at the tops in the low-height crawl space under it. Page 2 Both the original portion of the house and south addition and front porch now have asphalt shingle roofs and asbestos cement shingle siding. The southwest corner of the front lawn at the west side of the house is in an AE-6 flood zone, which means that it is projected by F. E. M. A. to flood to an elevation of six- feet above mean high tide in a 100-year storm. The southwest corner of the living room appears from the flood map to be approximately within 25-feet of the east edge of the flood zone. It is likely that the full-height basement under the original house partially floods in major and lesser storms. This due to its close proximity to the flood zone and the floor slab being below the flood elevation. The level of the groundwater table under the basement floor slab, which appears to be normally less than 15", will be elevated due to the wind-driven storm surge and wave action. Past flooding is evidenced by wa- ter stains on the bottoms of the vertical wood members, stair side stringers and work bench legs. Many of the vertical wood members that once were in direct contact with the concrete floor slab now have extensive wet rot. White fungi and black mold growth are also evident. Readings of the groundwater table were taken on January 11 and 14 at the well casing and an observation well pipe sleeve installed in a hole made in the basement slab. They showed the groundwater to be 15" at the well and 16" at the pipe sleeve below the top of the basement slab. The Orient Harbor mean high tide elevation was less than the average daily high tide normally observed and several feet below that even in moderate storms. This due to strong northwest winds. The readings are con- sistent with the water table elevation on the proposed septic system's vertical profile test pit boring data taken on 11/21/17 by McDonald Geoscience and shown on the Peconic Surveyors, P. C. survey, dated October 31,2018. 1 have lived in a waterfront house on Orient Harbor in East Marion for 28 years. The beach is also in an AE-6 flood zone at the base of my bulkhead. I have observed the water in excess of five-feet above the current high tide level. On my January 9, 2019 inspection, the foundation wall and floor slab at the northeast corner of the basement was saturated with water at the time of inspection. This apparently due to water penetration through the concrete foundation wall caused by the rain gutter leader depositing a large volume of rainwater directly next to it. The original gas-fired unit heater hung from the first-floor joists has extensive rust and corrosion due to the moist and wet conditions. The constant high humidity is the Page 3 likely cause of the extensive mold growth conditions found throughout the house. An environmental preliminary mold assessment report prepared by Insight Environmental Inc. on August 22, 2018 describes the concentrations and type of mold spores. It is likely that similar mold growth conditions also exist in all of the exterior wall cavities at the first and second-floors. This due to wet conditions in the basement and the lack of insulation in the walls. This allows the warm moist water-laden air in the house in the winter to condensate on the back sides of the cold exterior wall vertical wood sheathing boards, resulting in mold growth and wet rot. To remediate the existing mold conditions, all of the interior floor, wall and ceiling finishes will need to be removed. This for access to wall and ceiling cavities. The paint on the wood fiber beave rboa rd-type wall and ceiling panes contains lead paint. The New York State Code requires that any removals be made by a licensed O. S. H. A.- certified lead abatement contractor. The floor tiles in the kitchen, living room and some of the baths also contain asbestos fibers. They must also be removed by a licensed as- bestos abatement contractor, along with the asbestos cloth wrapped around a locust post column in the basement. Also asbestos fiber mastic flashing cement at the roof shingles and brick chimney flue openings. For health safety, all of the old deteriorated double-hung windows, which have a large amount of peeling lead paint, should also be removed at the same time by the lead abatement contractor. The asbestos cement siding shingles at the exterior also need to be removed by the asbestos contractor. Prior to performing mold remediation, the wet conditions and high humidity sources must be fully eliminated to prevent a reoccurrence of the problem in a short pe- riod of time. The following work is needed: (1) Installation of four sump pits with high-volume ejector pumps in the full- height basement. A perforated pipe French drain system also needs to be installed in the floor slab at the bottom of the perimeter foundation walls. The pipes will terminate in the sump pits. This in an attempt to keep the groundwater table below the bottom of the basement slab during storm periods. Filter fabric will need to be installed around the French drain pipes and sides and bottoms of the sump pits. This to prevent possible pumping of sand fines out from under the foundation walls that lack footings. The loss Page 4 of any sand could result in settlement of the foundation walls and house itself. The foundation walls at the exterior need to be excavated and waterproofed with rubber membranes. Note: These measures are still likely to fail to prevent flooding in a major storm. It would be preferable to partially fill in the basement with sand to create a low- height crawl space, similar to that which presently exists under the addition. Both areas would need concrete slabs constructed or heavy-mil plastic vapor barriers installed on the bare ground areas to prevent moisture evaporation. A new utility room would also need to be constructed at ground level for the installation of the new heating system and hot-water heater. (2) The active leaks in the asphalt roofs and at the flashings must be re- paired. (3) The rain gutter leaders need to be run to drywells located a distance away from the house. The original wood-framing members in the full-height basement are undersized and over-spaced by today's standards. Some of the floor joists have powder post bee- tle and termite damage. A number have been spliced, cut and notched for the installa- tion of floor-hung unit heaters and plumbing pipes. This has resulted in deflection and sloping of the floors above at the first and second-floors. The door jambs are also out- of-square due to the movement. A few small undersized wood beams with vertical di- mensional wood lumber members and locust post columns have been loosely wedged under the beams and joists for added support. A few of the insect-damaged joists have also been sistered with newer members. Extensive reinforcing is needed to prevent fur- ther movement. This would require the installation of new built-up girders with steel pipe columns and concrete footings. Many of the floor joists would also need to be rein- forced. The slopes in the floors will still remain. A number of the original dining room addition's floor joists have extensive termite damage. They have been sistered with new treated lumber members installed next to each of them for added support. The south half of the living room floor has a pronounced downward slope to the southwest corner from a high spot located near the original basement's poured concrete Page 5 foundation wall. This appears to be due to the rigidity of the basement foundation wall and deflection of the floor joists, caused by settlement of a portion of the addition's southwest concrete block foundation wall. The bottom of the wall footing is less than 36" below the ground, as required by Code. This makes it subject to frost heaves in winter. There are vertical cracks in the blocks due to past movement. The entire floor framing system will need to be removed and reframed to correct the problem. The foun- dation wall footing should be underpinned or the wall and footing removed and re-built to Code. The hollow concrete block piers in the crawl space need to be filled solid with a high-strength grout. The soft wood shims at the top of the piers also need to be re- placed with concrete bricks. The poured concrete foundation walls in the full-height basement lack footings. This makes them subject to settlement. This, in particular, when the groundwater table is elevated, greatly reducing the bearing capacity of the sand directly under the walls. No additional loads should be imposed on the walls. Well water for domestic use is provided by a shallow well pump and steel pipe casing located in the basement, in close proximity to the cesspools. The bottom of the well casing appears to only extend down 28" below the top of the basement floor slab, with the groundwater table only 16" below. Current Suffolk County Health Department codes do not allow shallow wells due to their susceptibility to contamination nor can any wells be located in basements. A new electric well pump will need to be located in a pipe casing at the exterior of the house, spaced 150-feet from the new septic system and those on the adjacent properties. This to prevent possible cross-contamination of the well water from a-coli infiltration. It is likely, due to the age of the house, that the existing septic system consists of a number of old, brick-type cesspools. This type of pool deteriorates over time and could be subject to sudden collapse. They appear to be located in close proximity to the house foundation and well in the basement. The cesspools will need to be replaced with a new modern septic system with a concrete septic tank and leaching pools. They must be located 150-feet away from the new well and any adjacent property wells. Due to the high groundwater table, it is likely that a number of shallow leaching pools will Page 6 need to be installed instead of one 12-foot-deep pool normally installed for a four-bed- room house. This as the bottom of the pools need to be at least three-feet above the highest anticipated seasonal groundwater table. A new waste main and trap, along with new fixture and vent lines, will need to be installed for the new kitchen and bath fixtures. They will replace the existing old cast- iron main and undersized galvanized steel fixture waste lines in place. All of the new fixtures will also have proper Code-compliant fresh air vents installed where none pres- ently exist. New copper or plastic Pex hot and cold-water supply lines will need to be run throughout the house for the kitchen and bath fixtures. The existing old glass-fused-type 60-ampere main electrical panel box is located in the basement. It has a large amount of rust and corrosion due to the constant high humidity. It is undersized and the service also does not meet the current State mini- mum standard of 100-amperes required by Code. It needs to be replaced with a new modern 200-ampere circuit breaker-type panel box with arc-fault-type breakers. All of the existing deteriorated rusted steel casing B. X. circuit wires running through the house will need to be replaced with new Romex wires. New outlets and lighting fixtures also need to be installed throughout the house. Some rooms presently have only one wall outlet. An automatic natural gas-fired electrical generator system also needs to be installed. This to keep the sump pumps operational during storm periods when there are power outages and they will be needed the most. New Energy Code-compliant high-efficiency natural gas-fired direct-wall vent heating system and hot-water heater will need to be installed. This replacing the two old summer cottage-type floor-hung gas-fired gravity-hot-air units located in the front sit- ting room and living room. Also the direct-wall vent unit heater in the dining room and small wall-mounted electric element fan units in the other rooms. All of the existing heating units no longer appear operational. The second-floor front bedrooms and hall in the past were only heated by hot-air convection from the first-floor front sitting room unit heater. This through small open steel grates located in the floors above it. Except for a few fiberglass insulation batts in the attics, the house presently lacks any insulation. The attics, exterior walls, basement and crawl space floor joists need to Page 7 be insulated to the current New York State Energy Code. To achieve the required R- value needed, all of the exterior walls will need to be furred out at the interior to increase the wall stud widths. Rigid insulation boards are also required by Code to be installed on the wood wall sheathing at the exterior. This will require that the existing asbestos shingles be removed. All new interior wall and ceiling finishes will be needed after the house is abated. This should include removal of the lead paint on the wood plank floor boards, trim, inte- rior and exterior doors by the lead abatement contractor when the other work needed is performed. New kitchen and plumbing fixtures are needed. The smoke damper in the living room brick fireplace has rusted out. A new chain-operated spring-loaded flat damper needs to be installed at the top to prevent heat loss from the house. Note: The asbestos fiber mortar noted in the basement also may exist in the flue liner joints. If this is found to be true, the chimney should not be used. Windows are mostly old wood-framed, single-pane, double-hung units with sash weights and cotton cords. They have aluminum storm sashes. There are also a num- ber of newer solid-vinyl tilting sash thermopane units. The wood windows are in poor condition, with a large amount of peeling paint and cracked and loose glazing putty. The sashweight cords are also broken or missing. Some of the newer solid vinyl win- dows have also fogged glass sashes due to edge seal failures. The aluminum storm windows also are generally in poor condition. All should be replaced with new hurri- cane-rated and Energy-Code-compliant thermopane windows. The front entrance porch roof canopy appears to have been constructed when the second-floor roof was raised. It has new floor joists, columns and a vinyl beadboard ceiling. Only a small original cross beam with locust posts remains. The newly-installed 4" x 4" deck post supports lack proper footings and only rest loosely on shallow solid concrete blocks. New concrete piers with concrete footings extending down three-feet below the ground need to be installed to conform to Code. Page 8 The rear entrance roof canopy, which also has a vinyl beadboard ceiling, slopes down to one side due to settlement of the concrete stair and landing platform. It needs to be re-built. As previously mentioned, it is recommended that the asbestos cement shingle siding be removed by the asbestos abatement contractor at the same time as the floor and ceiling tiles to save on future costs. This to allow for the installation of the exterior rigid foam board insulation required by Code to prevent thermo-bridging heat loss at the wall studs prior to installation of the new siding. It is likely that the extensive work needed will exceed fifty-per-cent of the fair mar- ket value of the existing house. The 2016 New York State Residential Building Code therefor requires that all electrical, heating and other mechanical systems be brought up to current codes. This needs to include the new insulation, windows and exterior doors. The house must also meet the entire current New York State Energy Code. It would otherwise only be exempt from some of the new provisions if the house is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or State Register of Historic Places. All of the original house's roofing, siding, fascia, soffits and window trim at the ex- terior has been replaced with newer materials. The only original house components and details noted still remaining are as follows: (1) A portion of the original wood shingle roof that still remains in the attic at the west side of the house above the two front bedrooms. (2) Original structural framing members. (3) The wood floor boards. (4) The wood beadboards on the kitchen walls. (5) Some of the interior and exterior doors. (6) A number of wood double-hung windows. (7) A few of the window, door and base moldings in the first-floor sitting room. Page 9 (8) The beam and locust posts under the front porch. As a Professional Engineer and contractor over the last 53 years, I have in- spected and written reports on hundreds of historical era houses. This includes a large number in Orient, Greenport Village, Southold, Sag Harbor and all of the hamlets and villages in the Hamptons. Most of the houses date to the mid to late-1800s; some to the 1700s and 1600s. I also have performed many pre-purchase and restoration inspec- tions over the years of historic houses and farms for the Peconic Land Trust. Also The Sag Harbor Community Housing Trust. Recently I inspected The United Methodist Church of Orient on Village Lane for the Oysterponds Historical Society. have designed and am presently supervising restoration of a 1920s house and two 1850s houses in the Greenport Village Historic District for the North Fork Housing Alliance. The two older houses are listed on the State Historic Register and still have many of the original historic design details that will be restored. This after the lead paint and asbestos is abated at great expense. Taking into account the current general poor condition of the existing house, it is readily apparent that the house has not been maintained in good condition for many years. It also has major environmental and flooding issues. Only a few original details and components still remain. The extent of repairs far exceeds those normally found for a house of this age. It is therefore my professional opinion that consideration should be given to demolition of the house for safety and health reasons. If a new house is con- structed, it should be in a style in keeping with other houses in Orient of a similar or an earlier era. Even though not required by State Code, as the house is in a Flood Zone "X". a crawl space, if constructed under the first-floor, should still be above the adjacent AE-6 flood zone elevation. This to prevent any future possible flooding and mold is- sues. Very truly yours, Robert O'Brien P. E. Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Sent: Sunday,April 21, 2019 7:04 PM To: Don Feiler;Jim Garretson;James Grathwohl; Robert Harper, McCarthy,Joseph;Anne Surchin;Webb, Sr, Ted Cc: Dwyer, Tracey, Duffy, Bill; Silleck, Mary Subject: Fwd: Regarding 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957 ---------- Original Message ---------- From: orientlinenco@aol.com To: tedwebbI@optonline.net Date: April 20, 2019 at 12:28 AM Subject: Regarding 675 Skippers Lane, Orient ,NY 11957 Dear Commissioners: I am a full-time resident of Orient, residing at 1100 Village Lane , located at the corner of Skippers Lane and Village Lane .I sit on the board of Poquatuck Hall , The Board of Oysterponds Historical Society as well as the OHS museum collections committee. My own home was built in the mid 19th C , held up beautifully to this day by the original black locust posts which you will find in many early American homes , valued for it's particular density , natural ( chemical free ) resistance to moisture and insects. Attached to the main house is a storefront , added around 1920 which was for many years the Village Barber shop. I've lived in this house for over 15 years. What drew me to Orient then and what I still hold dear, is that it is uniquely in-tact as a village , architecturally and socially. I feel fortunate to live in this antique home and intend to care for it as long as I can, until it is passed to the next, hopefully responsible steward. The Van Nostrand cottage, located at 675 Skippers Lane , Orient is 100 years old this year. It should not be demolished. Aside from contributing to the historical streetscape and scale , it is a well preserved and important example of early 20th C architecture in Orient Village Cottages like this , as well as other cottages still standing along the Bay on Lower Village Lane and Bay Lane , represent a time when the Village saw it's first influx of summer/seasonal residents. So , in that respect, modest as it may be in comparison to'other earlier homes, or contemporary reproductions , it's authentic simplicity , contributes to the diversity of our historic district and evidence of our history . There are many opportunities in Orient to build new, larger, contemporary homes, outside of the historic district. Many talented architects have done so , with wonderful results adding to the continual evolution and diverse charm of the village This decision is absolutely crucial to future potential demolitions of other historic Landmarked homes If any historic Landmarked home in Orient can now be considered a potential "building site" , I do not have much hope for the future of the Village as we know it . In regard to any proposed addition to the original cottage , I recommend that the commission refer to The United States Secretary of the Interior's standards for the Preservation of Historic Properties, which are common sense historic principles in non-technical language. These principles promote historic preservation practices meant to protect our nation's irreplaceable cultural resources. 1 Below is a summary taken from Preservation Brief 14 of the National Park Service , U.S. Department of the Interior. New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks : Designing a New Exterior Addition to a Historic Building . This=guidance should`bef;applied to fielp..'in„desfgniIng,a;;c191mpatible`new addition that that will•s'== rneet`tfie Secretaty-of'the Interior',, tandards for Rehabilitation:.', addition should,be^simple and”unobtrusi`ve;in design`,",and•should�be`distinguished;,from. e liistorie.building—a_recessed,`con6ett8-r,cari"help,to"differentiate the.nevv from the`old,: �A`new=add iton,`sliould not be:`hgbly.visil?le frorri'the public:="rigtt':of way;;;a"=.rear or"other secondal iv'elevation.is.,usuaily the 6est.,;locatiori for"a new'add'ition'.. e;tonstruetion'materials`wind,the.col6nof�the,new addition`should=:pe,l armoniou's.with tha r =buildin -rnaterialsr y' lThe•new addition should be:smaI,,erthaw.the hist oric:building—it'should'be;subordinate in both^ - ,'sized"esign.to„the.historlcbuilding. mThe new addition is too large.'It dwarfs the original cottage and is in no way subordinate", insizeor style and is therefore inappropriate to the site and street scape. I urge the commission to prohibit the demolition of this 100 year old cottage and require that any potential addition to the original structure be of an appropriate size and design. Sincerely, Janet Markarian 1100 Village Lane Orient,NY 11957 631.521.3711 orientlinenco@aol.com Edward W. Webb ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Sent: Monday,April 22, 2019 5:58 PM To: Don Feiler;Jim Garretson;James Grathwohl; Robert Harper; McCarthy,Joseph;Anne Surchin;Webb, Sr, Ted Cc: Dwyer,Tracey, Duffy, Bill; Silleck, Mary Subject: Fwd: another a mail regarding 675 Skippers Lane ---------- Original Message ---------- From: SCOTT STEIN<getscots@aol.com> To: tedwebbI@optonline.net Date: April 21, 2019 at 12:57 PM Subject: 675 Skippers Lane Dear Ted. We are aware of the most recent hearing on the Potters proposed plans for 675 Skippers Lane earlier this week- regrettably work commitments prevented our attendance - and although, regrettably, little has changed from the time we wrote my two earlier letters, we thought it important to make known our continued opposition to both their proposal to demolish the existing dwelling and the structure they intend to replace it with. We are glad to know that the town has engaged a structural engineer to make an independent assessment of the existing, historic structure. After all, the Potters purchased a historic home in a historic district, not a parcel of developable, open land. We are sure#675 needs work, perhaps substantial: most of our old homes have. Should the Potters choose to rehabilitate and expand their home; we would expect an addition to be subordinate to the existing structure in both design and size. Thank you for the work you do as Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission and for sharing this letter, with your fellow members and the Town Building Department. W ask that you all enforce both the spirit and law that established our Orient Landmark District. Sincerely Scott Stein and Andrea Schulz 145 Skippers Lane Orient, NY ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Sent: Thursday,April 18, 2019 1:05 PM To: Anne Surchin; Don Feiler;James Grathwohl;Jim Garretson; Robert Harper;Webb, Sr, Ted Cc: Dwyer,Tracey; Duffy, Bill; Silleck, Mary Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane/Hoblock E mail >----------Original Message---------- > From: Courtney Hoblock<ecmny@optonline.net> >To:tedwebbl@optonline.net, crdorient@gmail.com,janetmarkarian@danielgale.com, Barbara Close <barbara@naturopathica.com>, lesliecohen207@gmail.com, c.weinraub@gmail.com,jm.markel@gmail.com, Lucy <lucy.muellner@gmail.com>, affolliott@me.com > Date:April 18, 2019 at 11:35 AM >Subject: 675 Skippers Lane > Dear Comissioners, >As a full time resident of Orient, residing at 530 Orchard Street, I would like to go on record as agreeing with all what Charles Dean pointed out in his eloquent and well thought out letter to the commission dated 16:April 2019. > I believe allowing Mr Potter to destroy an existing structure in the village and replace it with one well over its present size will set a terrible precedent that will then be next to impossible to avoid going forward. > For thirty years before moving to Orient some seven years ago I lived in the village of Sag Harbor. And though we had a very strict architectural review board that has kept the village's character essentially in tact,the fight is ongoing and the results of development just outside the village is grossly apparent for what can best be described as excessive overbuilding at all levels, as is much of the Hamptons by now. > I still maintain an office in Sag Harbor but friends there tell me that I left just at the right time,that things have only gotten worse,that the overbuilding is so often beyond excessive. >Though the South Fork overbuilding is still a good distance from our shores on the North Fork I believe it has already begun, and it will be inevitable. The seeds have been planted and Orient is now on the radar as'Sag' once was twenty or so years ago as 'still untouched', 'still a place to find solace and respite', 'still a great Deal.' >We need to protect the simplicity of our little hamlet now, and that begins by nipping in the bud any efforts by newcomers to outsize existing houses or impose new designs that clash with existing norms, both of which are apparent with Mr Potter's submissions...... >At one of the last meetings I attended about this application I believe Cliff Cohen described his experience of arriving as a new Orient homeowner best. He approached the podium and stated that when he and his wife, Leslie, bought their house on Orchard Street the first thing they did was approach the historic review board to seek guidance in learning how to best preserve the character of the home they considered themselves now the caretakers of. I also own a historic home on a Orchard Street with creaking floors, a drafty kitchen and rattling windows. I consider myself the present caretaker of this village home and I am happy to maintain it exactly as it is for as long as I can to preserve the town character. >Though Mr Potter's home is not necessarily historic, it is still a modest little home in a modest little village by the sea that has stood there for close to a century. Feel free to gut it and add every modern convenience there is, but to tear it . 1 down and build something much larger and straight out of a Hamptons playbook is not what the age old character of this town deserves, or should ever allow. > Kind regards, >Courtney Hoblock >530 Orchard Street >Orient, NY > Courtney Hoblock, Principal > ECMNY Architectural Hardware, Ltd. >32 Water Street >Sag Harbor, NY 11963 >Tel 631725 8090 >fax 631725 8337 >Sent from my iPad Edward W.Webb ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. z Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Sent: Thursday,April 18, 2019 12:13 PM To: Anne Surchin; Don Feiler;James Grathwohl;Jim Garretson; Robert Harper;Webb, Sr,Ted Cc: Dwyer, Tracey, Silleck, Mary; Duffy, Bill Subject: Fwd: 675 Skippers Lane from Gertner ---------- Original Message ---------- Froin: Paul Gertner<paulgeltner@gmail.com> To: tedwebbl@optonline.net Date: April 18, 2019 at 9:15 AM Subject: 675 Skippers Lane April 16, 2019 To the members of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission: Although we do not live within the historic district of Orient, it was this history and character which drew us to the area. While we understand there should be some leeway for homeowners, it should be limited to upgrades that do not change the building envelope or character, such as window upgrades. A drastic change as is being proposed here should be simply be rejected.' Our request is that you do not go down the path of negotiating design adjustments or mitigations with the property owners as a kind of compromise, that will still allow them to tear down and replace with a much larger structure. While compromise negotiations may seem on face to be a reasonable, it is a slippery approach that muddies the waters for future change applications, and in our view is unfair to other property owners who maintain compliance voluntarily. As others have pointed out, the houses of Orient, simple as they are, together hold the spirit of the area and provide a deep sense of place and history. We hope you will use your position to ensure that the spirit and history of the village is not slowly eroded. Sincerely, Paul Gertner 1 2095 Youngs Road Orient,NY 11957 Edward W. Webb ATTENTION: This email carne from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebb1@optonline.net> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 11:54 AM To: Dwyer, Tracey Subject: Fwd: Skippers Lane Tracey, I am forwarding this communication, and several others I have received, regarding the Potters application. Please make copies and add them to the Potters file. I will forward to commissioners. Also, pis check with Mr. Duffy to find out if we should be copying these communications to Mr. Finnegan. Thanks, Ted ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Thomas Foster<tefosteriii@hotmail.com> To: "Edward W. Webb" <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Date: April 18, 2019 at 10:37 AM Subject: Skippers Lane April 18, 2019 To the members of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission: If you walk around the Orient Historic District, you will see many modest homes. Their size and style reflect the origins of our village. Although few are "historic", especially compared to what happened on this date in 1775, individually and collectively they tell an American story of the last two hundred years on the North Fork. One salient feature which is immediately apparent is that few of the buildings have water views and even fewer might be described as "waterfront." Although firinly attached to the sea, Orient was mainly a home for farmers and artisans. The house at the end of Skippers Lane is a beautiful exception. While not right on the water, it looks and feels like waterfront property. The westward view out over the Wagner's field is gorgeous at any time of day or night. This is not its only distinction. With its adjacent park, the location provides a sweeping panorama of both village and harbor. The harbor road leads to a small public beach. The current house does not diminish this attractiveness--it enhances it. Perhaps that is why it appealed to its recent purchasers. i I have no wish to see Orient preserved in amber, nor do I think that such preservation is the mandate of this commission. Nevertheless, my current wish is to have the house restored to its original condition. As I wrote to Mr. Garretson last year, it is one anchor of the district. If the commission allows the proposed encroachment of modernity (really Disneyfication) and gigantism at the periphery of the district, how will it then be able to preserve the core? Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Thomas E. Foster 21165 Main Road Orient, NY 11957 Edward W. Webb ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 Begin forwarded message: From: lucy stille <lucvstille@gmail.com> Date: September 17, 2018 at 5:46:29 PM EDT To: rfasst@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: here you go. ---------- Forwarded message--------- From: lucy stille<lucystille@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:55 PM Subject: Fwd: To: <igaoti@aol.com> Dear Mr. Garretson, Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the public hearing tomorrow,Tuesday,the 18th, regarding the proposed demolition of the house at the corner of Skippers Lane and State Street and its replacement with a much larger dwelling. As a homeowner in Orient, and more specifically, a homeowner on Skippers Lane, I wanted to make my feelings known to the committee. I chose to buy a home in Orient because it was a community that respected history and the buildings and environment that were emblematic of that history. It was a town that sought to reasonably and responsibly oversee development so as not to replicate the plethora of McMansions that have cropped up on the South Fork. As I understand it,the house at the corner of Skippers and State is within the historic district. Furthermore, it abuts Poquatuck Park, a public space, used by the entire town, and it's position on a corner lot makes it visible from all four sides. The first question is whether it's possible to expand the existing house so as not to set a precedent of demolishing historic buildings. If not, I think it's important that whatever building is erected on this lot reflect the scale of the historic district in which it lies.The proposed building is both disproportionate to the lot and to the historic homes that surround it. Allowing a large two story home of 3,400 square feet to replace one of 2,000 square feet on that location would certainly send a very public message about the town's position regarding "reasonable" development. I oppose the granting of any variance, and would hope the owners can find a way to adapt their plans so as to create a home they like without upsetting the balance of the neighborhood. 2 Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 1:30 PM To: Don Feiler;Jim Garretson;James Grathwohl; Robert Harper; McCarthy,Joseph;Anne Surchin;Webb, Sr,Ted Cc: Dwyer,Tracey, Duffy, Bill; Silleck, Mary Subject: Fwd: Proposed Tear Down of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient/Turturro E mail ---------- Original Message---------- From:Joan turturro <orientinn@earthlinlc.net> To: Tedwebbl@optonline.net Date: April 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM Subject: Proposed Tear Down of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient April 17, 2019 Dear Chairman Ted Webb and Members, I have been attending all of the public hearings concerning the proposed tear down of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient.And I am appalled at the time wasted on issues that do not concern this commission. Case in point: It was established that this house would be a tear down from the beginning. The Potters bought this property with that in mind. That has been established. During all of the hearings, their architect and now an engineer keep on bringing up what is wrong with the interior. This is a smoke screen designed to add up all the reasons why 675 Skippers Lane should be demolished. Permit me to count the ways; 1. Mold 2. Rot 3. Window replacements 4. Shingle replacements 5 Aluminum window frames and the list goes on........ These items are all fixable. I am the owner of 1000 Village Lane which houses Orient's post office, a retail shop and an apt. There is also a barn in the back. All of these spaces have had mold, structural rot, dissolving shingles and window problems. And they have all been addressed and fixed. YVhat was filled with mold was removed and cleaned. and replaced with new walls. What footings were rotted were removed, replaced and the buildings were then pact on a poured cement foundation including the barn. The Potters and their architect are proposing a tear down which will enable them to build an unseemly structure by using exiting houses that did what they wanted before this commission was established is absurd. This commission was established in 1976 to preserve and save the uniqueness of our village and once you allow one tear down we will lose the village of Orient. 1 Ifyou need building permits, drawings and pictures ofmy restorations please let me Inzotiv Thank you for your consideration, Joan Turturro 25500 Main Road Orient, NY 11957 Edward W. Webb ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attaclunents or click on links fiom unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 April 16, 2019 To the members of the Southold Historic Preservation Commission: Your proceedings concerning 675 Skippers Lane have been interminable and exhausting, so I will not take time to restate all of my objections to Dr. Potters' application. You are well aware of the Orient community's opposition to this , demolition and our objections to the proposed new construction{that the two issues have been intertwined has been confusing).,,Many wish-that you would decide one way or the other on the demolition and then, if a demolition,is approved, move to a discussion of the appropriateness of the replacement. Much of what Mr. Finnegan and Mr. Cook said in their presentation at the hearing on April 10 is not,true. I first object to Mr. Cook's;statement that•the one hundred year . old house has no architectural or historic interest. It is one of•the simple;houses that define Orient's Historic District. None of the houses of Orient„except possibly one or two, are intrinsically important in and of themselves. I doubt that any are chroni cledl in�books of American Historic Homes. Orient did not,have•parti cularly grand homes such as the ones in Newport, RI, or in the many wealthy enclaves that dotted the North Shore of Long Island. What is special, and worth saving, is the ' ` modest village of Orient. It was home to farmers, fishermen, and workers, and itis their modest homes that our Historic District is saving. If all of the houses in the Historic District were to have an additional 57% of floor space (as Dr..,Potters wants), the village would have a radically different and more modern character. Secondly, I object to Mr. Cook's statement that the houses along Skippers Lane have been so altered that the street now has little historic character. In fact,the street is very charming and looks very historical. The houses at 420 and 355 Skippers Lane were unfortunately unwisely altered years ago (before the HPC existed), allowing Mr. Cook to use them as examples of homes on the street that lack architectural style. But most of the homes on the street are lovely and have been cared for lovingly. The desecration of the homes at 420 and 355 should not become the standard for future renovations and is not an appropriate argument for desecrating 675 also. I realize if the engineer employed by the commission determines that the house is beyond repair that it probably will be razed. But that does not give Dr. Potters the right to construct his current proposal. While his desired home might be in accord with the general Southold building codes, it is not in accord with the scale of the streetscape of the Orient Historic District. In regard to the two story monolith that Dr. Potters wants to attach to the side of the reconstructed landmarked house, Mr. Cook noted in his PowerPoint presentation: "Subordinated wings are a common architectural feature of historic homes throughout Orient.” But in each photo that he referenced, the subordinated wing seems subordinated to the main house,whereas in Mr. Cook's plan, the subordinated wing is the main house. Were he to propose adding a modest subordinated wing to the current house, there might well be less opposition to his plan. His current proposal will result in the landmarked house being "subordinated" to a large two-story monolith looming over its south side. I am under the impression that alterations to homes in the Historic District are allowed only if they are not visible from the public roads. Dr. Potters' proposed two- story addition to the original hous&is clearly visible from both Skippers Lane and from Harbor River Road. If the house is determined to be unsound and then demolished, Dr. Potters should rebuild it"in kind", with the option of returning it to its original design. The looming monolith-should not be allowed. I appreciate your difficulty in making this decision. But if people can purchase our historic homes and then replace�th'em,by new, larger, false, historic-looking pastiches,`we will'gr-adually Pose the village. And when Orient is no longer the charming,-quaint, historic village it is today,-then you will-really see the property values plummet, an,issue that concerns Mr. Cook. At this point, only you can prevent this unwanted overreaching construction. Sincerely, Charles Dean 295 Village Lane , Orient, NY 11957 Sincerely, Lucy Stille 220 Skippers Lane Orient, New York 3 Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Sent: Thursday,April 18, 2019 1:10 PM To: Anne Surchin; Don Feiler;James Grathwohl;Jim Garretson; Robert Harper,Webb, Sr, Ted Cc: Dwyer, Tracey; Duffy, Bill; Silleck, Mary Subject: Fwd: Changing the character of the Community/Van Cleef E mail ---------- Original Message ---------- From: mdvancleef<mdvancleef@sssnet.com> To: tedwebbI@optonline.net Date: April 17, 2019 at 8:56 PM Subject: Changing the character of the Community To the Southold Historic Commission; Our Primary concern with the proposed fundamental changes to the property on the corner of Skippers Lane and Harbor River Rd is that it will make a major change in the character of the Village. A building of the size proposed will stand out as one constructed without regard to size and architecture of houses in the immediate vicinity. If we want to maintain the reputation of Orient as a quaint seaside community the line needs to be drawn. Mina and Don Van Cleef mdvancleef@sssnet.com 0 = This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com Edward W. Webb ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i Dwyer, Tracey From: webb <tedwebbl@optonline.net> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 7:02 PM To: Don Feiler;Jim Garretson;James Grathwohl; Robert Harper; McCarthy,Joseph;Anne Surchin;Webb, Sr,Ted Cc: Silleck, Mary, Duffy, Bill; Dwyer,Tracey Subject: Fwd: DESTROY or RESTORE landmark House @ 675 Skippers Lane ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Marianne Weil <marianneweil@optonline.net> To: TedwebbI@optonline.net Cc: 'Marianne Weil' <marianneweil@optonline.net> Date: April 21, 2019 at 12:16 AM Subject: DESTROY or RESTORE landmark House @ 675 Skippers Lane Dear Ted and Members of the Southold Town Preservation Commission, I am concerned that the Commission continues to consider the proposal to tear down the home at 675 Skipper's Lane. We, in Southold Town clearly established a landmark district for Orient Village years ago, for very good reason--to protect our buildings and homes from erroneous demolition. Nearly 40 years ago, I purchased my 150 year old falling down barn on Young's Road in Orient. When real estate agent, Marilyn Norklun, showed me the property on a rainy afternoon, she remained in her car for fear she might get wet inside the barn and fall through rotten floor boards. Everyone believed then, the barn was a tear down—but with persistence, thoughtful planning, conversations with farmers who were builders and builders who were farmers, and steadfast determination, I restored rather than destroyed an historic barn. The shell of a building,needed shoring up, a roof, plumbing, wiring, everything had to be redone---but it's integrity, like 675 Skipper's Lane today endured. Though, I had little money then to complete restoration all,at one time—the barn became a labor of love, a project that has successfully withstood the test of time. Although, I do not live in the "landmark" district of Orient, I am only a stone's throw away from 675 Skipper's Lane. I decided to live in Orient for much the same reason most of us plant ourselves here-- drawn to its historic beauty, legacy, and vital character. Granted, I am not a"native", but I have lived a generous portion of my life here, and embrace our beautiful New England style community. I ask you and your colleagues to consider this query: why on earth would one purchase an old home in Orient, in our historic district, at 675 Skippers Lane if only to destroy it ? It snakes little sense to purchase a home within the Landmark District of Orient, then tear it down, but for"the view". If the owners have sufficient money to tear down and build a"new" 675 Skipper's Lane, why then not restore it ? Are the owners so shortsighted, they cannot appreciate the value of its landmark legacy to our Community? If not, then why not purchase a lot with a"view" outside the historic district to construct a home? i Members of our Southold Town Preservation Committee, I ask you to please reinforce our established Orient Landmark District and deny the application to demolish this historic home. This as our opportunity to reaffirm the landmark status of this and all others buildings within our district. If we do not embrace and respect the historic district of Orient in this particular situation, we then risk setting the precedent that any and all homes in Landmark Districts need not be restored. Thank you for your time and serious consideration. I urge you to deny the demolition of the property at 675 Skipper's Lane. Best regards, Marianne Weil www.marianneweil.com r Edward W. Webb ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.bo not open attachments'or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 2 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING TOWN OF SOUTHOLD HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK --------------------------------- ----------------------- In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING DR. LOUIS POTTERS and LENORE BRANCATO Regarding Posting of Sign Upon Applicants' Land Identified as SCTM#1000-24-2-1 and also known as 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York ---------------------------------------------------------- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ) ss.. STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Martin D. Finnegan, residing at Mattituck, New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: On the 2nd day of April, 2019,I personally placed the Town's Official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of the Application noted thereon, securely upon the property, located in the front yard facing the street as the area most visible to a passerby; and I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven(7) days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date was shown to beAp - 10, 2019. Marti . Finnegan Sworn to before me this l Od' day of April, 2019. Notary Public KATERINA GRINKO QUE?ADA Nolmy Pdit Stats of NmYak No.01GRO207178 OudlNsd In Suffolk County GO on E AL 05,20M S peter h. cook architect 728 montauk highway I box 1102 1 water mill, ny 11976 675 SKIPPERS LANE BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION; The 13,817 SF.site at the corner of Skippers Lane currently includes an existing 1,880 SF. 1-1/2 story wood frame residence and a 374 SF detached garage. The existing residence has 2 pre-existing non-conforming front yard setbacks of 21.2'on the north property line and 30.4'on the western property line where 35'is required under current zoning. Additionally the 373 SF pre-existing nonconforming two-car garage is set 5.3'to 5.7' From the easternmost property line where 35' rear yard setback is required under current zoning. The applicant intends to maintain this garage in its current location and re-finish it with a new roof,new siding,new windows,and new garage doors. The existing structure is defined by two distinct wings;the main house,an original 1-1/2 story gabled structure purported to have been constructed in 1918,and a later single-story low pitched gable addition thought to have been built in the 1950s. The project as proposed would involve the reconstruction and expansion of the existing 1,880 SF 1-1/2 story residence, resulting in a new 3,328 SF two-story residence built in a style compatible with detailing referenced throughout the Orient historic district.The footprint of the existing house would increase by 980 S.F.from 1,540 S.F.to 2,520 S.F. The original 1-1/2 story"cottage" roof line is proposed to be lengthened (enhancing the front porch feature)and is proposed to attach to a 2-story gabled farm house wing which will house the updated living areas. Due to the positioning of the original house and our desire to maintain its footprint,we will require a dimensional variance to maintain the existing 30.4'front yard dimension along Harbor River Road where 35'is required.The proposed front yard along Skippers Lane is conforming at 20.5'where the 20' average along that street is required. The project as proposed respects both the required rear yard set-back where we have a set-back of 47.9'where 35'is required,and the Oyster Pond Society Park side yard set-back where we have 17.8' where 10' is required. The proposed lot coverage for this new residence is 2,893 SF or 20.93%where 2,763.4 SF or 20%is permitted.As the project as proposed exceeds current lot coverage maximums by.093%or 129.6 SF applicant is actively seeking an area variance as well. petercookarchitect.com p: 631 .283.0077 1 f: 631 .283.5960 9 TIDE EXISTING HOUSE; The current house,which has remained largely unattended for the past several years has deteriorated to it current state of disrepair. The house is rife with mold and encased in asbestos. The siding is asbestos,the roofing is asphalt,the windows are single pane/single lite with circa 1980's aluminum combination storms and screens.The trim,soffits and window frames have all been encased in aluminum,The columns whether original or replaced have deteriorated to the point where they had to be replaced with 2 x 4 supports, and the foundation is neither stone nor brick but poured concrete similar to contemporary foundations. The original 1918 body of the house was expanded with a one story 50s vintage addition, ill- proportioned shed dormers,and possibly a rear addition that contribute to the asymmetrical and multi pitched roof lines.The house is also said to have suffered form a fire in the 1960's. If anything other than the existence of this house,on this site, led to it being considered "contributing" in the 1970s,it is my opinion that anything that was of"significance"or"contributing"has since been either renovated, removed or has disintegrated.The house as it stands today has no architectural or craftsman like feature that one could consider historically significant or contributing, or worthy of restoration or in-kind reproduction. DESIGN: The design intent is to replicate the circa 1918 wing of the house and honor it's distinct and familiar roofline and front porch details, retaining the exact sitting as the existing structure. This would maintain visual familiarity in the most recognizable portions of the house,the north west corner of Skippers Lane where it turns along Harbor River Road towards the Bay. The design of the of the house as evidence by the plans,elevations,renderings and scale model include elements commonly found in the Orient historic district,and referenced in the Oyster Pond Historical Society 20t6 Anniversary issue of the "Historic Orient Village" publication(a 1995 edition of the 1976 original) featuring a "pictorial guide to the old buildings in the Orient historic District with historic and architectural notes on over 100 such structures" Note,675 Skippers Lane was NOT featured in either publication. Elements featured on the design of 675 Skippers Lane include; Gabled and shed roofs. Covered porches with roof decks above. Reclaimed brick foundation and chimney. Pale gray cedar shingles. Integrated gutters in the roof edge. White trim, barge boards along the foundation line,and corner boards. Screened in porches And 2 over 2 double-hung windows. The house as proposed conforms entirely to The Town of Southold building codes.We are not asking for a house that is too large,or too tall, by any code. WHY 675? At our November Zoning Board of Appeals hearing the question was posed... (and I am paraphrasing) "why would the Potters buy this house knowing it's condition and that it was in the historic district if they didn't like the house as it was?" While the Potters recognized they were purchasing in the historic district,there was never any intention to retain the house as it was. It was recognized by the sellers themselves as well as others who they consulted with pre-purchase that major work was necessary to make the house habitable. With that understanding the Potters expected that they would be entitled to refurbish and expand this property within the parameters of zoning law and in the same way their neighbors have. 675 is not the first nor the only property on the street,or in this neighborhood,to come before this board seeking approval for an expansion/reconstruction nor for a variance to accomplish their goals. In fact every home along the south side of Skippers Lane has a non-conforming front yard.As does 100 Harbor River Road,the one and only neighbor south of 675 Skippers Lane.A property which,by the way, also enjoys a 6-inch side yard fronting on the Oyster Pond Society Park. Permits have been granted to neighbors for demolition,reconstructions and additions,and variances have been granted for yard relief, lot coverage, height,and use. Nothing requested in the application before you is any different or greater, and in most instances much less,than that which has been granted to prior applicants. Perhaps the Potters were naive of the process at first. I am the second architect on this project and my agreement with the Potters stipulates two things; 1-That I would work closely with the historic board from the get go,which I have done and 2-That at the end of the day,anyone with a black and white camera taking a picture of the new house would be not be able to distinguish it from any other original Orient home. WORK SESSION HISTORY/SUMMARY: I first introduced this project to the Board during the May 15 2018 work session and have I appeared and refined our design in tandem with the Boards input and recommendations at work sessions monthly over the ensuing 6 months. This is YOUR house.This will be our 711 meeting working with you.You have had 100%input on the house at every step of the way.You have advised us BEFORE a pencil was put on paper.And we have shared every draft with you.The process works We are building in-kind and on the exact footprint of the original house(and accepting the variance process that goes with it)with a complementary and appropriately scaled addition that is stylistically similar to other homes in the village. We have made compromises based on your comments.We took over 200 square feet off the foot print, we revised our proposal for the reconstruction of the circa 1918"cottage"such that our current proposal seeks to replicate it almost identically in scale,we have lessened the over-all mass of the new addition by lowering the foundation and roof,we have softened the impact along the Oyster Pond Association park in terms of windows, porches and look. The only contributing element of 675 Skippers Lane that remains today are romanticized reminiscences of a simpler time and of a summer cottage in pristine condition.The cottage is no longer, but the sentimental perspective over the property remains,and that is what we have endeavored to preserve. The application before you is a well thought out,sensitive,modest,fair and reasonable request for the expansion and rehabilitation of 675 Skippers Lane. YOU as a Board should be proud of your efforts to make this work for BOTH the home owner and the neighborhood. Potters Residence 675 Skippers Lane Orient , New York peter h. cook aia architect April 2019 Owners directive; "Cottage or farm styled house that fits with the community such that a black and white photo could pass for being >50 years old :" Investigate existing structure, codes and zoning We identified a neglected structure that has been modified over time with no architectural integrity. A structure that has had any, possibly contributing, architectural feature removed long ago. 332 M r�.r• f t r Y i ,i ! !) : • I.. +w .�. _mss._. v, F Nil l _ We identify a neglected structure that has been modified over time with no architectural integrity. �� A structure that has had any, possibly, contributing architectural feature removed long ago. 2 LE fir 'j 4�i ����� Y .. -. , � � I � _ yy�,,�� r.+!'�' ,; � 4 .. »�a� a r w .-- Ah A structure that has been carelessly added to over time resulting in a clumsy asbestos, asphalt and aluminum clad shadow of its former self. i ; Y n ' 40. h } �Y k '1tt y Rotting and �� _, . , _ t � �- � �♦. .,� • _ disintegrating ta# f r4 1k1 • �� Tf j ' i 1'� I 4 �t 'W. r. v- `• w 40 lei t . S .r No architectural ' details worthy of restoration or repair. '�-' r� ,r architectural details restorationworthy of or repair. - nam„jt � �.:.k�.. � ,,;,, rN•••►—�'.�I/ *two MMEPOW a Y avi e ., .' :w- t Any and all character and detail lost ` Aluminum clad trim and soffits t a 'r 4" 117 - x'. i, `. . N6. i i Y Al vk0'T r .It Rife with rot and disrepair r Asbestos xt siding All existing windows need to be replaced. All exterior trim was covered in aluminum sometime in the past. _r Interiors lack any architectural significance IN- or or merit. x rv. 1 t Ot f s Interiors architecturalx significance or merit. i5 F _ Interiors lacking any architectural significance or merit. All interior finishes are of no historic significance or material value. e ;. •�"fit�:�I_ ..'�� w r srINF. Per the engineering report, all existing framing is substandard and . piecemeal . The existing Barge, whi b remains in sound structural condition, will be kept and re- r sided and re-roofed with new trim, windows and doors. 1 . L .: , P r 00 . is iy .-•✓. ,`_^"y 1 R 4 `_ t S6 Aft hoe i K a. i -tip The Neighborhood . . . . . . has no obvious or consistent ._ architectural styIe. rk ; Y _ r w•9�: .y. f f i - f The architectural styles of the neighborhood are�1 g -- -- - - _ - � best defined as I F ifw ... 4 �. . 3 a mixed or "eclectic". r _ �..,- �- ' +� - - _ t ,;,,�!�,��, lei►; � A :,a live s� What are we entitled to do under the Building Code of the Town of Southold? Throughout multiple of work sessions with the HPC we were lead to believe we were working in an acceptable and approvable direction. At NO TIME were we lead to believe demolition would never be an option open to us Particularly given the existence of Chapter 170-9 Criteria for approval of demolition or removal of historic landmarks. in the Southold Town code. Therefore it was assumed this Board (the HPC) would take direction from the criteria established in the Town Code to consider an application for demolition. The building code of the Town of Southold contains guidelines for approval of the demolition of a "historic" or "significant structure" Chapter 170 Landmark Preservation By the enactment of this chapter, it is the Town's intention to meet these objectives and those set forth by the Town in its comprehensive planning documents and Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, by: Emphasizing as a statement of local policy that the conservation, protection, enhancement and preservation of such historic landmarks is necessary to promote the cultural, economic, educational and general welfare of the Town's residents; Encouraging the identification and recognition of historic resources which represent distinctive elements of historic, architectural and cultural heritage; and Providing for the careful, thoughtful and informed evaluation of any proposed demolition or removal or alteration of the facade - -- ---- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - of any historic landmark affected by this chapter; Promoting heritage tourism; and Maintaining visual compatibility with the historic character of neighboring properties in public view. Whereas, nowhere in the Town of Southold code does it, expressly prohibit the demolition of a 'historic" or "contributing" structure § 170-6 Certificate of appropriateness for alteration, ,demolition or new construction. A. No person shall carry out any of the following activities without first obtaining a certificate of appropriateness specifically permitting such activity from the Town of Southold Historic Preservation Commission: The demolition or removal of landmarks designated as historicpursuant to § 170-5 of this chapter; or', The alteration of the facade of landmarks designated as "historic" pursuant to § 170-5 of this chapter. B. Nosdemolition 'or building permit shall be issued for such activities without such certificate of appropriateness. The certificate of appropriateness required by this chapter shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any building permit that may be required by any other chapter of the Town Code of the Town of Southold The Town of Southold code has provisions under section Sect.170-9 for the demolition of "historic" and or "contributing" structures. § 170-9 Criteria for approval of demolition or removal of historic landmarks. A. In passing upon an application for certificate of appropriateness of demolition or removal,,the Historic Preservation Commission decision shall consider whether: Li I The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal;would be to the detriment of ---- --- ---- -- - -- -- - --- the public interest; Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character; The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty; Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town; and Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture. Tests for approval of demolition The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the public interest; OTHER THAN THE MERE FACT OF ITS EXISTENCE, THE PUBLIC HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE OF ANY ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORICAL VALUE TO THE HOME. Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character; WE WILL BE RETAINING THE CURRENT FORM AND LOCATION WITH A SIMILAR STREETSCAPE THAT IS REFLECTIVE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESPECTFUL OF THE SCALE OF THE ORIGINAL PORTION OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty; THERE IS NO CONTEXTUAL MATERIAL TO RETAIN AND THE HOUSE CAN BE EASILY REBUILT IN KIND. Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town; THERE HAS BEEN NO HISTORIC INTEREST OR IMPORTANCE ATRIBUTED TO THIS SITE OR STRUCTURE. Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture. THERE IS NO HISTORICAL VALUE TO THE HOME, WHEREBY ITS PRESERVATION WOULD BE WORTHY OF RESTORATION. IN ITS CURRENT STATE, THE HOUSE DIMINISHES PROPERTY VALUE IN THE AREA. APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION SHOULD BE GRANTED BASED ON THE PHYSICAL AND STRUCTURAL CONDITION OF THE HOUSE,AS WELL AS THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING LIMITATIONS THAT PROHIBITS ITS BEING RENNOVATED TO CURRENT CONSTRUCTION CODE STANDARDS. We further researched the condition of the existing structure and performed environmental and engineering testing to confirm our findings t5^. n 1 y 1 _ or Painted (lead)brick in kitchen . • y � �. Lead based paint on exterior window The existing foundation was found to have no footings. WWI- F •K' } r h NO FOOTING Footings are in important part of foundation construction . The purpose of footings is to support the ' foundation and prevent settling. Footings are especially important in areas with troublesome soil co itions. " These are footings, the existing ' - foundation at ' - 675 Skipper's Lane DOES NOT have < aw footings. At the onset of the design process we researched the Orient community for architectural references to incorporate in our proposed new structure, those that would be compatible with the historic vernacular of the area . Upon initiation of design and throughout the HISTORICp rocess we relied on the - ORIENT influences of and Subordinated �' VILLAGE I referenced the detailing wings of the Historic Orient 41 - 201h AnVillage homes. Anniversary ReissuE• �j r tt r e.tom' '� i CUMldelnOlYll%lig(hE: a , S�1t�1� i��� Designation ofthe !° I■ Orient Hishoric District Subordinated wings Farmhouselata@l "" ' OYSTERPONOSHISTORICAISOCIETv gabels & - porchesLit - , i 7"4, � {e r VILLAGE LANE - Sd•% West Side j Ila Chace flap of 1858 shows a house on this site occupied SKIPPERS LANE by a")Its.Beebe".Sometune after 1873 the house may have North Side been removed or extensively repaired by Captain Joseph One of the three first houses on this street,all bulli by sea r,whose fatheralsoa seafaring mao--owned the house mi tams.Capt.M.Daniela had this house built and his name no to the south There is a degree of similarity be- fins appears on rhe 1873 Boom map.Hand-tirwn beams and � tt twcen rhe aures,they may have been built over wide lour boards wain still standard materials m those days. 173 ,j.tt� ti , older hotrsea at same n round-ardwd window i ronr Gabled roofs with The[root porch was added around 1900;without it,the louse was a demonstration of the lingering influence of the onflisiga are characteristic of owed Federal style.In this example,the flat roof was embellished 'Ila o photograph shows this house with aceful(sided aipole which could have viewed rhe _ with an entrance portico only,not sand goings of Capt.6amels" ea'SDame" The linden _ ntegrated gutter area the property was full grown when the house was yate irponds Lane tater made this a caret house • ile simdar in age to the h -common design element d gurshed by some tout of the it,of the inti r front e ® / in th oonvay on the than wtIlvs house and its next-don,n bot,pictured beiow,show Y gb ly into structure, to is no coo n h i sto r i e homes i n dings constructed fro same plan can grow of any e r house ay have beer haw ton buJ or m the h s°rte door to the n on, c look quite different over they one was built ' dirt loo,,a h -hewn beams s� an . by Capt.Warren R.Boebe on land bo during the Civil dance of war nship earlier than 'i90 War.Warren Beebe also built the hoose no or to 17b t s _� ground. other strip captain,his brother Leander V, be.'The FlaaFFL O r i e n t'vt houses have had many owners and for=c, time, seam became popular,that lure front porch of t ouse _ was used as m ice cream parlor.The W.was este ly -y repaired in 1915 - - - - �1 anse was dt m¢rcllmtH, b,that,Capt k S u b o rd i n a t e d wings a re a J� the street at what late,came to be - - _ Pare(7a).In the early 19503 The ----- __ _- _ had always been kept that color,vcommon a rc h ito ct i ra I q.ta o mumne ch reode been do 1----- .._. 8c Latham,who reacted it meticulou till has the canned rubble fo it..,which apparen - - rials inside and out(the dormers Is n after some 50 .Traces of a summer i - The grey picket fence meets a wv� evidence and the in 'r hardware is in •• _ j lotto gale 8.King and his hen"si f e a t u re o n historic homes 8e of the house.With i m above, hu j7O — �,�:_ �!S■ L hoop up and support a good fence kind of space and comfort 's masters ars :,,, �G:•A.- the fomrer owners)and"no fowl - provided for themselves and their familiesashore- herebucket b remises".An old well is sit h ro u g h o u t orient and — Hid, V If a Ila ren ti t arz�1 t Oral tradition states that there was a small hoax on This . site in the early 1890s,that the property was bought try Charles Havens(1850-1919),a noted carpenter who had - done sure of the renovation work on the Little Red and This picture is repeated from 6d because,while it faces on f.� the Haddon Farm houses.Mr Havens built this house as it Village Larne,as the coveter house on Skipper's lane it oon- ad stands today,possibly incorporating an earlier structure.At tributes to the character of this short,tree-lined street.viduc i ' the tum of the century it was known as"C.B Havens' including a newer house at the far..at end-affords the only - -- place".From the outside,it nos is appealing as m eclectic genuine vista to the Historic District. 17d rrraaa��� - combination of various dealm elements,such as the panels _ I ' of decorative shingles and the then-fashionable tower over I the muthawn corner. V ell '.-d imp �a vow "•` v•'t'rry was lull grown when the house was bunt-Oystetpotds Lane later made this a corner house. '� �► This house and Its next-dour neighbor,pictured below,show how,two buildings constructed from the same plan can grow ❑,look quite different over the years.This one was built ` Warren R.Beebe on land bought durinv r6,r ren Beebe alsr,h,••i• •' x next door for Rooflines and trim h; 17b -,_- p captain.his brother Leander V.Beebe.The 1'', 't. -- ' . manv owners and for a time,after ice consistent with historic ,opular,the largefront porch ofthis house ip ice cream parlor.The cellar was extensively i� ■ % homes in Orient.eu in 11415. Not quite so much remodelling has been done to this house. It still has the coursed rubble foundation,which apparently wo gave way next dour after some 50 years.Traces of a summer 1-1—.1 kitchen are still to evidence and the interior hardware is in �_• keeping with the age of the house.With its twin above,this 17c ... -,` 1:4 : 1:4 prose reflects the kind of space and comfort ship's masters provided for themselves and their families ashore. ■ ■ 2 over 2 r - double-hung windows This picture is repeated from 6d because,while it faces oo �.. Village Lane.as the corner house on Skipper's Lane it con tributes to the character of this spurt,tree•lined street.winch including a newer prose at the far west end affords the only genoure vista in the Historic District RJ illllll lllllllllllllllil �� . y l� "smanse tiilftt6.Eer Haat creek near the f for me reed River Rte leer°0 tt mi6111 have been tailed"Windmill Line" butNttc as RaveT'may haft �qu,tuck Park,through which a paved walk leads east t'Webb douil�aagone :RS LANE SKIPPERS LANE 05 by Joseph L.Glover for Elisha M.Rackett, South Side a captain who was also Justice of the Peace for f' years.Since this house has been lucky Ro o f l i n e s and trim the ptsssesaon of one family,much of t Jk A late 19th century house n .11 1 s,'I works after 100 years—the origi- 19, t David Fdwards,to keeping wtu •ne se, for examp._ An embossed metal ceiling the neighborhood.Except for asbestus e o n s i s t a n t with a in the dining r,.•m,and the clapboards i ginal,clapboards and other surface rent a similarity of oame..-A treatment at the ` appears much as it did m a 1906 ph of one of thrne houses or, 'tie previous historic homes in 'read had begun to be mass-pt,.'aced. Orient. N, try's house'%as it was known for its first resident. =been built after 1873,because it does not show -T " / �•` _ One of f tent's roost treasured archneou", :ers map.Among other things.Gibb Terry was a 3 a nide, than the street.It was built around pher,and his 11)01 picture of this house shows that s Henn )(,lung and dist C here about tilt.r _ - F - nn,h of the Methodist Church(Sal.The ma: rained virtually without change sante then.Ongr 1'3h � 1 ' - 1 I8 .aasic example of the 3-bay stmy.and.a.hait ,as not on a corner:Ovsterponds line was not put "eyebrow"windows.These is a gpieal bnse inti)the 1930s This makes the long pantry in back t� y / Dormers ort the wing weir added in 19I_' !>, tchen visible from the side.The design of tine -+••a --_ the irnn hitching poste in front of thi,hones, 2 over 2 unique.note the"steeple widows"hw)• _v in the ` at the village.Huchin ad the ba window off the oar'' g R posts were uau;dly nn,. Y ■ have disappeared. double-hung windows s road did not go through but about a hundred years later,after the 1938 hurricanr had destroyed his filling .' A fauh ',,e amrer to Skippers lane,than hs u on on Village Lane.Alfred Ltux dccidd to rebuild on the Main Road and to gel rite property he wanted on that up eaords ui keds in 18149 7tia u a light g y p Skipper"Lane He conceived the plan of opening up ou Marc,he had to iw a strip of land all the way down to ,nkh has not been altered except for the add w street OyAcrpout%Lane-whkh now joins Skippers Lane at this I peel[in 1435,and therefore has rust needed kc Its place on the new street was the classic 18111 century stniciurepjoust nint o th of Skir Luce ppers lois and the first house modernuanon which most early houses have ppers Lane on the west Side, 9iPr�� i8c comfort arid efficiency The small hudding m ,d[herr[tom a location on the Main Road shout a mile away The house is pictured at page 36c [] Another _ + aitelesting moved here before 1900 from the ment to this neighborhood is a handsome house of quite recent construction which stands and»t hotaa(cl on page 10,it was formerly the blat een the two pictured above It is one of the numerous house omitted from than book as Nein compatibly Frantas R,Ynun.The heavy frame with net 'tire B g"not yet are in contrast to the Loter framing of the m AM attest to a much nldtr%true€ure. - sasseas �9! - LOWER VILL AG' LANE tJWER VILLAGE LANE West Side tact SWe Thu huaae�.wmph--for old faY•waed pkmn.s r Orglnally a host house Befo,<1900.Cl le,M,.,,.the looks.It was holt m ih,u parts.tuft.m a d,ffir— ,,hthwu keeper who ended what was popularly.9W uon The hent,palsied vection was bull,oa hoaaaata 1 — -h,-Light" at the et,,of Lnng Beach Pry t kept hu pgWd fgare uxnt^'cabn;the Ifout—wa built oo a 29. boss. rho iocatnm. bout 1410 the I-Wulf;war unpr ed fuundrtion paw the time when w.wden pegs ware w by Phil f.br.p—un My en make if livable,soul fun'_r back'a®sse,ntchen was built n the 1894 un leen trop,.—.is have 1—tv made sin«then Thn dew, w, "hich base lsta,e thee.replaced.C.-I.were used hate die f.muiar,ha.,rtrnutra n(":,r. �....nusi'.but rmybe thin in the unlade walls u(the gabkd:let—Thr c it will saes war bought as 1863 by da(rwnde,of the Rkhad f wow lull e,mpated tram Getsfvany in he 18514 A, P o re h e s whish he f and m rhe house ra r at the Dyarra Hntond Socxry 'Essiaiit �.. and trim "oe 4 the wvnal buddmgs that)ov th.r wpol.. ' Otte ul reveal hiwsea m urn area uolt., ,caned oy lam.A. m the 1038 hurncase of td-it done since ohm Douglass m he late 1884.As a butldrr Douglass war e.t- reeled mato appealed al of oil and 58 Cha a Map _ deotly partial to the Manifold style 4 orddsecture hecause Ora house lost appeared on the 1858 Chace Map i r t: umr a belonged to J<rem.h Vad,•Hshertrcn and hr a reputed IU have the "Buse Light•which war quare Ioe;R wish has fisher-at Vdlage House 13,1.Jame. sod m dtancter he the house pictured here.Metal Mrhs Duadaaa a pormrtes,builder.bought the house m _Mb std rods remfosce the(out comers of ihn bmlding a an 51500 and hegsn sddulf;to it,The top beano of lb L eat.precaution against hurricane wends.The h,..war m the preamt stroetum an carred out of solid it" 1.01 in 184>6o the grandfather of the present er fru w,h,salmi w.e i ithiorcd for drips.The gags a r 5.000.Befoo,that ii had been operated by two etude clown to flit,Z.yet it appears Oat.Such const. 1 w biller as•boarding house(m wuhen at the so-called fish srras as a rcmioder flu[arroe of Orient's rrositt h aw cot r j fwtury on L itg Beady(we History.page 39.40). were also ship carpemen. Porch.act Iwrust,s dormeo utile.this house u a chive c • Nan e kd abuilt to('sent around,he f 8-i( linmvn tram the nuse t."the,pita house',this is uwther of James Ikwelass'urrde,tslu gs.George&istuw,uwrcr xnstu stows it, the homestead of the d 20 T. --__ of which Abram.aged 4U,and h4 will,aged'_0,w os the house across the street(?9t,)refused to poli back u wrrsest In 1653 Abram Ring houghl so W.- the skL—.Ik m fluor ul hos house to lila up wttt.that of vorrr ether pawls to,S4150.and the 1869 anal - - - his neatd by buying th W.Dwy be m?els lhiat.,n tastily u far—In the 1884.George Bristow. ataliated try buying the property here.m she hutwt cede .d the New Yoh Philharmonic,pad a suutmer rt '-- , 01 the street ud deliberately vting this Ituwe to spnl ,arid was w enraptured that he bought the If-- c c.-. y Bost on's view of the waler The huuae nowt out has to have ttimpowd the tint Ameri,ao hglst 11-11aurr :1 blest bull,until site,I88:hecausc that was when Gauge Watkle' The Muse Mr Brutov trought still cont _ N - Baauw cartta w Orient and bought he htnnul us anginal nginal large firca,.plstd p�baisly the n late doorway its Onent N t § 170-8a Criteria for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks, A. The Historic Preservation Commission, in reviewing an application for the alteration of the facades of landmarks designated as "historic" pursuant to § 170-5 of this chapter, shall not consider changes to interior spaces. In addition to the factors enumerated in § 170-9A, the Commission shall consider the following criteria; JILWhether the proposed alteration is consistent with principles of adaptive reuse, whereby the principal historic features of the landmark are maintained while permitting the use of the landmark for new uses other than its original use; We have established that there are no remaining historic features of the original structure. The "use" of the proposed reconstruction and addition is consistent with its current "use"; Single Family Residence. J.ZLThe similarity in design, architecture and appearance of the proposed alteration with the historic design, architecture and appearance; The current proposal honors the scale and spirit of the original "Cottage" portion of the existing structure, and the additions are direct references to other homes in the Historic District of Orient. LLThe necessity for complying with the applicable building codes or other federal or state regulations; We are required to bring the reconstructed portions and the additions up to current construction code standards, including Energy efficiency, hurricane resistance, structural, etc.. L4LThe necessity of such alteration to allow for a use of the property permitted by the Town Code in the HPC Work Sessions & Public Comment We listened and revised ,Free hand (n.t.s.) concept drawing that was discussed during the first HPC work session, 15 May 2018. 9 V .'��F�e`.�` ,f'¢ �-Rt€.,�Y '�-i._ ` .`MIME. ,s, �'s�.��__ +.+w..�•y,�r - 1i Free hand ( n .t.s.) concept drawing that was discussed / during the first HPC work session, 15 May 2018. i J1��� r 110 `,TI'A7'''STR�3°(S£fLl°P.�.4' At the 19 June 2018 HPC work session the �-_�'! r �r�°� F.ARd.� 4, d Schematic Design presentation, consisting of a scaled site plan and plans at all levels and all la -k �jn C` y yY r : =- 1011 elevations, was shared and discussed. iew „_ - �"��� s✓`! � .,s`i 7_ anmr rcvcs xnrcc�c .�5 4YJP7P-1=5 W epIE�IT',Nr' .--- -- -- — -- --- -- - -' - - �p.N�gN,rG _.. Ira Z't_0 IAu -f'{='IP,t:aVP—AIA-,AVaj reTrMM AAUNAK'! N.CC�M EATS01 f'a1`r�s �SIpE>`lG>X-- -fsi'G'�5�SKi(L � y � I lI q-� � ( � k.alp•AP!FLIr�°r ML the 19 June 2018 HPC work session the Schematic Design presentation,, consisting of a scaled site plan and plans at all levels an,d all elevations, was shared and discussed. _7F 11-61�-Pl- K's t5ms1z",4271r-ASIA AZ<IA rrrC,r I/all- AIA•AR69r,,,r Starting in May 2018, each of the 6 times we met with the HPC the design proposal was revised to accommodate their input. The most recent 2 changes incorporate comments from the 11/27/18 Public Hearing, and the 12/11/18 HPC work session. 0.-"..re..1 Aapak Rv Fk- S-d Mer t. T.1x 1, C-M Perd- la C 4' Tn'M-CMm , e FY.:>ling Nngn: 941.m.a1 C.�rra Mn Re...an. In?M Q. esflt0.f7 1977 tq 13 20I s0.R.;Fra.tl l90D.3 k.-M9t[ 211',SrwP.q) 22*-Y Y4' r0• T1' 52 A h(1416-1 29 a'15txe it'"O TentelW r<R 4010""PW49 56 T(W51 dMrian.d br 675 L-?W1 b male trafld I#r 1tl rea nor dxuaPa4 '-- - --- ae 0..r aM ei.aara r...e /arrpbr.M dYorakw _ +/11Y1100 WC"mom A n *R-,?(Iio]tl 1796x1 ft-L.2% 1L2•(51}0.+.i 11'-1-1(4-1400N0e) 10'd'{Ad010oe1 0'Aedd nEs.W:J-.fI IDRkr,Delyn Pr.e.�A ;0 2L9r CU-%.Q R'9 t/4'(1..-`1 94'C.st-j so art:•,.-.r marl 15.4'joy"Par." '-,.94S'q f1. n 9'(5051 IaK a6�0ue 1176■R 1500 b.0. 3476 W.ft Yet M,ft[Ft-0 1196 A,It-M" 21.r WAPP fa) 31'1 1/4'(Addban) 117 W(Ad/01..1 ♦Y WOO-E,Wi0 MR) 9'd A p.h.tMe -) 21!C51b W-0 2S-f 11C(E~W V-G*(E.r.e1 507.w R SG,-ae.rn) 11.4-PWM ftftw TONA-M W h. 47.4 730!1 lar2 A we e.e.l.at - �1:w�;:.,n, 70x3 vq 7t.10.1 z3.Y Vt'i4den ar.. /R 9'(AdiWw1 5-=`;xuo�:.n•a rv'r,V, fC' MON d aYOew 00P fl.1+N,r,kaoM X14'(Srn.;veep w*ura mkwe; a.iti..r aaw+r 3;r VY";1oj s■rM Mefia�i T.a.era a ti aspaq ..r btarafit lr1VM aaYwlrr aaaaia . Ml�ewolulay�cdaUNkanar.*=W alaMs4MU.rr4arrt aa.r014aaNG41WaeaM.n 3�aa YN 4 e rEa a wYY s M IaAE t.e111e1 .0.f Mai.1 aY11Mr iM0.1 Moi r w�MMI .+eM /1f aK•a611t le.afwl6 117<A-R Ise;w.R 3561 w.R. 312 s0 kn 314-R.lafol6 zLr sus-3/�Y'(Aerlronl la P tAdrnowl -6'twaaanei was IyMI 4410.ft.;/4Wraa.rJ 39.4'i5101Ni.a0 , a'4"(EWMb* 790 w.ft.lGrex 6.0m) 1+1'(V§W PWW4 fe.W-6 01-R 47.9'(505) 12rEa/ia WC Me.tala WMA R 312"ft,r,aj7E93 M.R=z0.11tc 212'!SwbP.r9J s < ,.... - .. r.. 5'iAddiliWs,c,,,Wad rrp i /19 M W.R.(M.W-1 30.4'(Rab SU-0 �0baf,441-Ia. P 17. 19010.R 16-ffaornl 6'lam arMl) rya c hNs a N a10/00r. Taaf.i.i w.h. 5ay79-Ml v Lt4-aaftahaw almowli ab0malbr 0e1a 411-rN IM�i�alRaaOrM/0a�t a141�10�a f _ i Oftsbomw 110aY/Oa wy/00f41e r iaiar aae1..1 a wif This is a chart documenting the HPC work sessions, the public hearing and the revisions made to the design proposal following each meeting. RED = Original proposal BLACK= Reduced (post public hearing) proposal --- GREEN= Volume reduction \ fpK~ Wgua"a"� ' . (MR tAV*a-Zr MR irro ILL T FF wo now FZ/em llf� - -- ma.vna swxMa r SKIPPERS LANE (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VS, CURRENT PROPOSAL) Illustration representing the reduction of original proposal vs. reduced proposal nFlrly.,i. ocean°..:L BL�CK- CURRENT PROPOSAL following the 11/27/2018 public hearing. Skippers Lane Elevation RED = Original proposal BLACK= Reduced (post public 7 fMl NIPbEMi4 d9U.E�VRAI! MMAMAX.W-8. hearing) proposal GREEN= Volume reduction / Mal a Me U GS IDI WX W 9MMM M am A"aeons MW a esMrq s rue ucr.»-y'YEL I i 3 9ilOM 1 USIBt MDICCI tiMff IAIG)!!'-11�YIQ f i � I li i+ I -- — e s nmfew MXV om OW Lam W-S MW — 14, fiM Q 1017�:N'X MLL HARBOR RIVER ROAD (ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VS CURRENT PROPOSAL) LEGEND, Illustration representing the reduction of RfDN.A oPi�NtiTPM*srL original proposal vs. reduced proposal 9UtlC- d1RRENT PROG°S�L Harbor River Road Elevation following the 11/27/2018 public hearing. RED = Original proposal _7MUM"_ _ /AM AIM= _ _M �p BLACK= Reduced (post 7 public hearing) -- proposal proposal GREEN= Volume - - - - reduction T - - a i �i i L. _ �RA*.RM�IUA 10 iPrT WMI:X11'-5l 4% - WpIT Ci Ff.R11-i1=4.7151 5 OYSTER PONDS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL Illustration representing t h e � 3/T6 a °reduction of original proposal vs. CEO- ORIGINAL PROPOSAL MACK- MARENT PROPS reduced proposal following the Oyster Pond Preserve elevation 11/27/2018 public hearing. BLACK= Current reduced (post public hearing) proposed elevation 6RELN= Existing structure elevation 13 _j /'2 SKIPPERS LANE (E)QSTING VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL) Comparative illustration; 1 : Skippers Lane elevation amnr ewsrwc COWMOns aucx- cum+eNr reoPosµ. proposed vs. existing structure. BLACK= Current reduced (post public hearing) proposed elevation _-_ GREEN= Existing structure elevation =---- IRiE lYC+PE 16YE W7WL frE = _ - :: 7 -1 71117-F- F Lj; 4 FT as"NEM i a Axa - -- _--=-. HARBOR RIVER ROAD EXISTING VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL Comparative illustration; L Harbor River Road elevation oRm- D ISMO C-CraMoa5 BLACK— CMMTPROPOSAL proposed vs. existing structure. Steeper roof r pitch CN J J J J lip IIIi 6 x •;, +itf'►dill K't ---------------------- 19'-6" WIDE 20' WIDE The gabled addition proposed for 675 Skipper's Lane is narrower and shorter in height than the primary gable on 20 Harbor River Road, the home directly across the street. F �1 IL f¢ -.d 3.. 61,. •�,. -its .. M f k- Vs '"��` ���� i� yr � 'i� ro4� �� « � - r ,�> •we vq � �.�� '^! 1. •aw,MF•s„ a .•s .w,. ti k. r.. 'S6 d fi r ' �i Maintaining visual compatibility with the historic character of neighboring properties in public view. k Existing - tis t-4 Preserving the memory }• r rte: � ���.= N'�`������5 r., �� fi` r1► ~ �,�''�� �_ � .. �r .•i� ..f.—NI►'�i3 'l � .alit � V f .. / - �. � _ " *'•ire v i � Existing perspective from Skippers Lane. r r L: r _���.�`,�r"il�r „ �,. Ali. �_ _• - 1 � r Maintaining visual compatibility with the , historic character of neigh ging properties in "� l rlr Proposed • from Skippers • Existing perspective from Harbor River Road. r. a� At of�' �fj�!•:.�"' 4 F�„'d' 'rA1ir�� Proposed perspective from Harbor River Road. M.•N IL I a a _ . - . R '� Maintaining visual compatibility with the historic character of neighboring - properties in public view. Existing perspective from Oyster Pond Preserve ** , S r jo 40 f K r - IF r �w 14 r/W F K+wr ©2009 James Napoleon w/ liberties taken and for demonstration The Vis purposes only itor - "Nessuno" Scaled rendering of proposed house 2009173/4" x 93/4 superimposed with view from Skippers Acrylic on panel Lane Proposed residence viewed from the same angle as the artists idyllic vision. The romance, the memory... is intact. Owners design directive; "Cottage or farm styled house that fits with the community such that a black and white photo could pass for being >50 years old." Thank you for your careful consideration . Potters Design Development Comparison Worksheet 12/13/2018 Text Color Legend: Black-No change Put plr- Incl e't,:- Design Development Proposals First Floor Living Second Floor Living Total Living Covered Porches Lot Coverage Setbacks Ridge Height First Floor Ceiling Height Second Floor Ceiling Height Basement Ceiling Height Design Revisions Existin 1287 sq ft 640 sq.ft. 1927 sq.ft. 202 sq.ft.(Front) 1980 sq ft=14.3% 212'(Skippers) 22'-2" 7'-4" 7-0" 62 sq.ft.(Kitchen) 29.8'(State Street) Total=264 sq.ft. 40'(Oyster Ponds) 569'(505) 7/24/2018 HPC Meeting 79?6 sq.ft. 1':00 sq ft il6 sc a 368 sq ft (Front) 3298 sq.f'.=23.8% 21.2'(Skippers) 31'-1-1/4"(Addition) 10'-0"(Addition) 9'0"(Addition Ex.Wall Hgt.) 9'-0" (Original Design Proposal) 70 sq.R.(Mudroom) 28 9'(State Street) 25'-9 114"(Existing) 8'-6"(Existing) 507 sq.ft.(Great Room) 15.4'(Oyster Ponds) Total=945 sq.ft. 47.9'(505) 9/18/2018 HPC Meeting 1926 sq.ft. 1500 sq.ft. 3426 sq.ft. 368 sq.ft.(Front) 3298 sq.ft.=23.8% 21.2'(Skippers) 31'-1-1/4"(Addition) 10'-0"(Addition) 9'-0"(Addition Ex.Wall Hgt.) 9'4" 70 sq.ft.(Mudroom) 28.9'(State Street) 25'-9-1/4"(Existing) 8'-6"(Existing) 507 sq.ft.(Great Room) 15.4'(Oyster Ponds) Total=945 sq.ft. 47.9'(505) 10/16/2018 HPC Meeting 3341 sq.ft. 312 sq ft (Front) 21.2'(Skippers) 29'-5-3/4"(Addition) 10'-0"(Addition) VVA if'i 9'4" Reduced width of addition by 6". 44 sq ft (Mudroom) 25'-8-1/2"(Existing) r ing; Reduced width of entry foyer by 12". 290 sq ft (Great Room) Reduced covered porch areas. Total=646 sq.ft. 47.9'(505) Reduced overall lot coverage. Increased State Strret and Oyster Ponds setbacks. Reduced ridge overall height of addition and existing. Reduced existing first floor ceiling height. Reduced second floor ceiling height at addition. Changed master bath flat roof to a gable per the HPC request. Reduced roof pitch of addition from a 9 pitch to an 8 pitch. Reduced overall chimney height. 11/27/18 HPC Public Hearing 1874 sq.ft. 1467 sq.ft. 3341 sq.ft. 312 sq.ft.(Front) 2893 sq.ft=20.93% 21.2'(Skippers) 29'-5-3/4"(Addition) 10'-0"(Addition) 8'-6"(Addition Ex.Wall Hgt.) 9'-0" Reduced existing ridge height. 44 sq.ft.(Mudroom) 30.4'(State Street) 25'3"(Existing) 8'-3"(Existing) 290 sq ft.(Great Room) 17.8'(Oyster Ponds) Total=646 sq.ft. 47.9'(505) 12/11/2018 HPC Meeting 1874 sq ft. 312 sq.ft.(Front) 2893 sq.ft.=20.93% 21.2'(Skippers) 28'-4-1/4"(Addition) 9'-4"(Addition) 8'-6"(Addition Ex Wall Hgt.) Reduced second floor,floor area. 44 sq.ft.(Mudroom) 30.4'(State Street) 23'-1-1/4"(Existing) 7'-10"(Existing) Reduced first floor ceiling height of addition. 290 sq.ft.(Great Room) 17.8'(Oyster Ponds) Reduced first floor ceiling height of existing. Total=646 sq.ft. 47.9'(505) Reducd plate height at second floor entry foyer link. Reduced entry foyer covered porch ceiling height. Reduced ridge heights of both existing and addition. Reduced basement ceiling height. Kept existing roof line at boards request. Reduced overall chimney height 1 i CV 00 -, PROPOSED RDGE HGT. ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE: 23'-1-1/4' SF SUBFLOOR 0 MASTER BEDROOM (FRST IAYERk 20'-2r AMA _ N rri FF SUB FLOOR 0 ENTRY FOYER/DEN (FIRST LAYERk +11'-5r AMSL AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE FRONT OF HOUSE. +9'-B'AMSL 4 SKIPPERS LANE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL 3/16" = 1'-0" LEGEND: RED- ORIGINAL PROPOSAL BLACK- CURRENT PROPOSAL -1 MAX ALLOWABLE HGT. ABOVE AVERAGE — — — — NATURAL GRADE 35'-0' — i N PROPOSED RIDGE HGT.: 29-4-1/4' HEIGHT OG BUILDING(AS PER T011N OF SOUTHOLD CODE, SECTION 280-4, DEFINITIONS, HEIGHT OF 00 BUILDING) N - SF PLATE HGT.: 30'-5r AMSL i SF SUBFLOOR 0 MASTER BEDROOM o� (FIRST LAYERk 21'-11f AMSL � `" — — i rr N I 1 i 1 I FF SUB FLOOR 0 ENTRY FOYER/DEN r (FIRST LAYER} +11'-5} AMSL AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE FRONT OF HOUSE): +9'-8' AMSL 17 3 HARBOR RIVER ROAD ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL 3/16" = V-0" LEGEND: RFD- ORIGINAL PROPOSAL BLACK- CURRENT PROPOSAL MAX ALLOWABLE HGT. ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE. 35'-O' �v PROPOSED RIDGE HGT.: 28'-4-1/4' HEIGHT OG BUILDING(AS PER TOWN OF SOURM CODE, SECTION 280-4.DEFINITIONS,HEIGHT OF BUILDING) -- SF PLATE HGL: 30'-5�' AMSL I i SF SUBFIAOR 0 MASTER BEDROOM LILL (FIRST LAYER): 21'-11r AMSL 00 i - I N I I i I i I Ell 11 L_ FF SUB FLOOR 0 ENTRY FOYER/DEN 11 1 1 llr�ll 0 1 177 11 1 rml _--- _ (FIRST LAYER): +11'-5r AMSL _ AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE --- --_-_- FRONT OF HOUSE: +9'-8'AMSL 5 OYSTER PONDS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL 3/16" LEGEND: ORIGINAL_ PROPOSAi- BLACK- CURRENT PROPOSAL ^ice CD RIDGE HGT. ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE i SF SUBFLOGR 0 MASTER BEDROOM (FIRST LAYER): 20'-2r AMSL - N t L. LCIT( . FF SUB FLOOR 0 ENTRY FOYER/DEN (FIRST LAYER} +11'-5r AMSL AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE FRONT OF HOUSE: +9'-8' AMSL 2 SKIPPERS LANE EXISTING VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL 3/16" = 1'-0" LEGEND: GREEN- EXISTING CONDITIONS BLACK- CURRENT PROPOSAL y RIDGE NOT. ABOVE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE i - ILI . i - ! Jill iF TV I 1 i {r F 1 z i 1 ► SF SUBFLOOR 0 MASTER BEDROOM N (FRSE LAYERk 20'-2r AMSL � 1 LL I I ; FF SUB FLOOR 0 ENTRY FOYER/DEN (FIRST LAYER} +11'-5f AMSL L J � f"- -- AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE FRONT OF HOU +9'-8'AMSL HARBOR RIVER ROAD EXISTING VS. CURRENT PROPOSAL 3/16" LEGEND: GREEN- EXISTING CONDITIONS BLACK- CURRENT PROPOSAL rw...�... p . y•9 w `Y ].tet t+ y}-- t�. ••.'�a�r.r• -�`Ff — � µlm- 2 � •• .." � _- , � ��� 4 _� T f y iF. i — 4-k. i a -..�r�' awl+ .. ._• - .:�'.• y ..rr.r �a'.�-.: :.�...... � ' �` �f. .. ,: . .--,. is `_. ;. .- ,� -�--:.. _;:. �.... -,_,�<• - -a r R 1 L - .-�•w, p a � �� '�• '"� -� j�4�` - •� a -Y s 139 Skippers: From the street side, matches, to some degree the original house. But from the park side,there a third story rise above the balcony. 4- a y � £� 4` �• E ate 1. .!� ',�T :4!I�`'• •v-f,f lar� T h, r Y 4yt ,e4> %s} - Y i .�..w '[y,_ �. �•. � "<Y��r 7�ir, �i' Fii 1 .,$3 - '*-r.✓ j� RR y •. � i. 505 Skippers lane: From the second photo one can delineate the original roof with the addition by the park side with a 5 foot rise and high roof mum NNE u X x� Page 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFO=LK STATE OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------x HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING � ----------------------------------------------x Village Hall Southold, New York April 10th, 2019 5 : 00 p.m. Before: t EDWARD W. WEBB - Chairman ANNE SURCHIN - Vice Chairperson ROBERT HARPER - Commissioner JAMIE GARRETSON - Commissioner JOSEPH MCCARTHY - Commissioner DATION HAGAN - Assistant Town Attorney TRACEY DWYER - Coordinator 3 Page 2 February 8th, 2019 2 2 INDEX 3 4 ITEM DESCRIPTION PAGE 5 1 Kathy Caffrey 6 6 7 2 Potters Residence 14 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 3 2 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Ladies and 3 gentlemen, good afternoon. My name is Ted 4 Webb. I 'm the Chairman of the Southold 5 Town Historic Preservation Commission. Before we begin, I 'd like to ask 7 our newest commission member, Mr . Joe 8 McCarthy, all the way on the end to the 9 right, to stand up, and let ' s say the 10 Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 11 Joe, If you ' d lead us . 12 (Pledge of Allegiance recited) . 13 I ' d like to introduce our 14 commission members to you. All the way on 15 my extreme right is our newest commission 16 member, his name is Mr. Joe McCarthy, I 17 believe a lot of you know him. To his left. 18 is Commissioner Robert Harper; and to his 19 left is the assistant town attorney who is 20 with us this afternoon, Mr . Damon Hagan; to 21 my left is our administrative assistant, a 22 lot of you know her, Tracey Dwyer; and to 23 her left is Commissioner Anne Surchin; and 24 then all the way at the end of the table is 25 past-chairman of the commission, member of Page 4 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 4 2 the commission, Jamie 3 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: GarreLson . 4 CHAIRMAN WEBB: -- Garretson. Not 5 sure why I got hung up on that. So thank you all for being with us this afternoon. I ' d like to -- before we begin, I 'd 8 like to share a couple of thoughts with you 9 and tell you how we will conduct our 10 proceedings this afternoon . 11 Public hearings give the public the 12 full opportunity to observe and participate 13 in its own governance . And they help 14 confirm the Town' s accountability to its 15 constituents . In addition, fairness in 16 applying hearing procedures results in 17 proper accord for the rights of all 18 parties, a better airing of public opinion 19 on community issues, and ultimately, 20 greater public confidence in the decisional 21 process . 22 Those are not my words . Those are 23 the words of New York State Open Meetings 24 Law. 25 I ' d like to just share with you Page 5 1 Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 5 2 some basic rules of conduct for our 3 proceedings this afternoon. The applicant 4 will be invited to present documentation 5 for approval of a certificate of 6 appropriateness . Thep ublic and the 7 commissioners will be given the opportunity 8 to ask questions of the applicant . Then 9 the public hearing, and we have two of them 10 this afternoon, will either be closed or 11 adjourn at the discretion of the 12 Commission. The Commission shall apply to 13 approve, deny, or approve with conditions 14 the application for a certificate of 15 appropriateness within 60 calendar days 16 after the conclusion of the hearing, except V I 17 where such time shall be extended by mutual 18 agreement of the commission and the 19 applicant . 20 These public hearings are being 21 recorded by a transcriptionist over here to 22 my left . We ask you, when you come up to 23 the microphone -- it ' s an entirely new 24 microphone system here at Town Hall, by the 25 way, much better than the old one -- we ask Page 6 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 6 2 you to stand within three or four inches j I 3 of the microphone, speaking clearly, and 4 stating your full name before you begin 5 your testimony. 6 We also ask you to, members of the 7 public, to limit your presentation to no 8 more than five minutes, and address your 9 comments to the Commission, not to the 10 audience . The Commission will treat all 11 attendees with dignity and respect . 12 So with that introduction, we ' ll 13 begin our first public hearing, which is a 14 continuation of a public hearing regarding 15 the application of Kathy Caffrey, which is 16 a request for a certificate of 17 appropriateness, under Section 170-7 of the 18 Southold Town Code concerning 19 reconstruction of a now demolished barn in 20 the Orient Historic District at 1270 21 Village Lane, Orient, New York, Suffolk 22 County Tax Number: 1000-25 . 1-27 . 5 . 23 So who is here? Robert? Are you 24 planning to represent the applicant? 25 MR. HAGAN: Just to note for the Page 7 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 7 2 sake of the record, Mr. GarreLson has 3 recused himself on the application and will 4 be waiting outside during the duration of 5 this hearing. 6 MR. SORENSON: Can I start? 7 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Bob you have the 8 floor. 9 MR. SORENSON : My name is Robert 10 Sorensen. I 'm the contractor for the 11 Caffrey' s Barn. 12 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Just the pull the 13 mic up so you don' t have to bend over. 14 MR. SORENSON : We have been here a 15 few times, and I think you ' ve all Laken a 16 good look at the final set of drawings that, 17 we presented. So I don' t know, I 'm 18 basically here to answer any questions you 19 might have . I think we discussed ,)o everything at length. And -- so that' s 21 about it . I have a set of plans, but I 22 believe you have 23 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Let, me check and 24 make sure . Has everybody had an 25 opportunity to look at the plans? Page 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 8 2 (Whereupon, all members affirm) . 3 Okay. Good. You have a copy if we 4 need to refer to it-? 5 MR. SORENSON: Right here . CHAIRMAN WEBB: Do you have any 7 additional comments? 8 MR. SORENSON: Not really. Other 9 than I ' d like to start . 10 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. 11 MR. SORENSON : So that ' s why I 'm 12 here. Questions for mc? 13 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. What I 'd 14 like to do is first ask for public comment 15 and then for questions or comments from the 16 Commission members, okay? So is there any 17 member of the public who would like to 18 address the Commission regarding the 19 proposed reconstruction of a barn on 20 Village Lane in orient? 21 (Negative response) . 22 Okay. I see no one. 23 So let ' s turn it over to the 24 members of the commission. Do any of the 25 members of the commission wish to either Page 9 Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 9 2 ask questions or make comments regarding 3 this project? 4 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: I do . I 5 have one question for you. When the 6 project was presented earlier, I recall 7 that the building was 20 feet high. And 8 when I looked at the new submission, it' s 9 21-feet, 8-inches high. Did you get new 10 information that caused you to amend it 11 this way? I just found it, you know, I was 12 just a little surprised because we were 13 told before that that was -- that 20 feet 14 was the height of that building before it 15 collapsed. 16 MR. SORENSON: As far as I know, it 17 was . So again, we' re just trying to comply 18 with the same exact size, pitch, 19 everything, so. 20 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Well, I 21 throw that out to you because 22 MR. SORENSEN : Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: -- with the 24 roof being a little higher, it made that 25 wall, you know, the barn door heights look Page 10 1 Southold 11PC April 10th, 2019 10 2 a little lower. 3 MR. SORENSON: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: So 1 don' t 5 know whether he raised a knee-wall in the 6 attic, or -7 MR. SORENSON: Yes, he may have . 8 He may have . 9 COD,1MISSIONER SURCHIN: It was a 10 concern. I don' t know if anybody else 11 feels this way, I just wanted to make sure 12 it wasn' t some sort of a mistake, you know, 13 or a remeasurement Lhat, you know, 14 concluded that this actually was the 15 original height . 16 MR. SORENSON: : I think it was 17 about 20 feet . I 'm not exactly sure, but 18 somewhere in that close vicinity. 19 CO1v1MISS1ONER SURCHIN: Yeah. 20 Because I went out and measured and did 21 some calculations, and it. was about 20, if 22 that, from what I was able to discern . 23 MR. SORENSON: It may be a mistake 24 on the drawing. Because if you' re out 25 there, you see that we left that north Page 11 I Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 11 2 gable wall, so 3 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: I saw that. 4 That ' s what I looked at . 5 MR. SORENSON: That ' s what we 're going to go with . That ' s how we know it ' s 7 exactly -- pret-ty much the same height and 8 pitch and everything. Okay? 9 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Okay. 10 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Are there any other 11 questions or comments from the commission? 12 (Negative response) . 13 Anne, you' re comfortable with that 14 discussion regarding the height of the 15 roof? 16 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Well, if he 17 says it ' s 20, you know, then there must 18 have been some discrepancy where maybe the 19 engineer added on to the drawings for some 20 reason unbeknownst to us, I mean 21 CHAIRMAN WEBB: So how do we fix 22 it? Is it okay if it ' s 21 feet as the 23 elevations are saying? or can you build it 24 to 20 feet? 25 MR. SORENSON : We' ll build it Page 12 I Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 12 2 exactly to the gable end that ' s still 3 standing there . 4 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Is that okay with 5 you? COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: That ' s okay 7 with me . 8 MR. SORENSON: : Okay. 9 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. Any other 10 comments, Robert? 11 MR. SORENSON: Not really. 12 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. I will 13 entertain a motion from the Commission to 14 close this hearing . Will somebody make 15 that motion? 16 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I so move . 17 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Is there a second? 18 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Second. 19 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Any discussion on 20 the motion? 21 (Negative response) . 22 All in favor of the motion say, 23 Aye 24 (All Ayes) . 25 Okay. That has to be unanimous, Page 13 1 Southold HPC April 10Lh, 2019 13 and I believe it is . So the motion passed. 3 Bob, we will issue a certificate 4 of -- I 'm sorry . Thank God the attorney is 5 here, right? 0 So now we need a motion to approve 7 the application. 8 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I so move . 9 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Is there a second? 10 COMMISSIONER MCCARTHY: Second. 11 CHAIRMAN WEBB: All in favor say 12 Aye 13 (All Ayes) . 14 opposed? 15 (Negative response) . 16 Abstentions? 17 (Negative response) . 18 MR. HAGAN: It ' s unanimous . 19 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. The motion 20 is carried. So now we' re at a point where 21 we will issue to you a certificate of 22 appropriateness . How quickly does that get, 23 done? Do you know? 24 MS . DWYER: It will be done this 25 week. Page 14 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 14 2 CHAIRMAN WEBB: It will be done 3 this week, and it will be available in the 4 Building Department-, and you can get your 5 hammer and nails out and go to work. MR. SORENSON: Great_ 7 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Robert, thank you 8 very much. 9 MR. SORENSON: Thank you for your 10 time . Thank you. 11 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. We move on 12 to the next public hearing this afternoon. 13 This is the continuation of ap ublic 14 hearing regarding the application of 15 Dr. Potters ' request for a certificate of 16 appropriateness under Section 170-7 of the 17 Southold Town Code concerning additions and 18 alterations to an existing dwelling of a 19 iandmarked property in the Orient Historic 20 District at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, New 21 York. Suffolk County Tax Number: 22 1000-24 . -2-1 . 23 So at this time will the applicant 24 or his representatives come forward? 25 We ' re going to just take a Page 15 I Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 15 2 30-second break. 3 MR. FINNEGAN: Ed, I just want to 4 hand a couple 5 CHAIRMAN WEBB: We ' re just waiting for Mr. Garretson to return. 7 MR. FINNEGAN : Would you mind if I 8 just -- I have a couple of exhibits I want. 9 to submit for the record. Can I do that 10 while we ' re waiting, or do you want me to 11 wait until 12 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Let ' s wait until he 13 comes back. 14 Each one of you has documents in 15 front of you provided by the applicant . 1 0 think t-he heavy one is probably a Visual of 17 the slide show. 18 MR. COOK: The documents that you 19 have with you, there ' s a hard copy of the 20 PowerPoint presentation I 'm going to make 21 later. There ' s a comparative cross-section 22 of the proposed reconstruction versus the 23 existing cottage that was requested by 24 Vice-chair Surchin . 25 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Peter, just, one Page 16 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 16 2 second. We ' re waiting for Mr. Garretson to 3 return. He should be back any minute now. 4 Okay. Proceed. 5 MR. COOK: Good afternoon, Chairman 0 Webb and Members of the Board. I 'm Peter 7 Cook. I 'm the architect for the applicant . 8 1 just wanted to quickly introduce you to 9 the documents that you have in front of 10 you. You have a hard copy of the 11 PowerPoint presentation that we' re going to 12 make. We have a copy of a cross-sectional 13 comparison of the existing sting 1918 cottage 14 versus the proposed reconstruction, as 15 requested by Vice-Chairman Surchin. 16 There ' s a set of plans and elevations of 1'/ the current proposal . And there ' s also a 18 narrative which has been slightly amended. 19 Some of the numbers have been reduced based 20 on our project reduction following the last 21 public hearing. I 'm not going to read 22 through it again, it was already read into 23 the record once, but you have a copy for 2/1 your records . 25 MR. FINNEGAN : Good evening. For Page 17 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 17 2 those of you who don ' t know me, my name is 3 Martin Finnegan. I 'm an attorney with I Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin, and 5 Quartararo, 56340 Main Road, Southold. 6 And I am here this evening on 7 behalf of Louis Potters and Lenore 8 Brancato, who are the owners of the 9 property at 675 Skippers Lane that is the 10 subject of this hearing, and they are both 11 here this evening joining us . 12 1 have an affidavit of posting that 13 1 just wanted to submit for the record, if 1/1 1 may, before we proceed? 15 As you know, I 'm also joined here 16 by Peter Cook, who is the architect for the project and Robert O' Brien who is a 18 professional engineer here on the 19 Northfork. 20 This application was adjourned from 21 the initial public hearing last November, 22 and it ' s taken us* some time to get back 23 here . And we appreciate the opportunity to 24 address the Board and to continue that 25 presentation, and also to speak to Page, 18 I Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 18 2 Mr. McCarthy, as the new member of the 3 Board. 4 1 think it should be noted for the 5 record that the applicants have made a 6 concerted effort to cooperate with this 7 commission for nearly a year now. They 8 have listened to your concerns and those of 9 the public, and made numerous 10 modifications, as you will see, and you 11 have seen, to the proposed design and the 12 respect of those meetings and comments . 13 But I want to offer some context for this 14 application . 15 Obviously, this is an application 16 for a certificate of appropriateness for 17 the demolition of the existing structure at 18 675 Skippers, and the reconstruction of a 19 home that is substantially conforming to 20 all dimensional requirements in the Town 21 Code . 22 The existing house lies at the 23 corner of Skippers Lane and Harbor River 24 Road within the boundaries of the orient 25 Historic District . It is a one-and-a-half Page 19 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 19 2 story cape-style house that was partially 3 constructed in and around 1918 . There was 4 a one-story addition to the house that was 5 apparently constructed in the late 1950s . 6 You will hear testimony that the 7 existing structure is in extreme disrepair . 8 There ' s termite damage, there are numerous 9 structural deficiencies, and extensive 10 toxic mold and lead contamination . These 11 conditions have been verified by scientific 12 analysis and testing, and those reports 13 have already been submitted for the record 11.11 at the last public hearing . 15 The pending application is brought 16 pursuant to Chapter 170 of the Town Code 17 which vests this Commission with the 18 authority to analyze properties with 19 historic significance and determine whether 20 a request to demolish or alter them is 21 appropriate . 22 The Town Board' s stated legislative 23 intent is to afford proper recognition to 24 historic landmarks and to protect them from 25 incompatible alterations or demolition Page 20 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 20 2 without affecting, abridging, limiting, or 3 changing the uses permitted by applicable 4 zoning regulations . 5 So you don ' t lose the right to have under our zoning code by virtue of the fact 7 that a property is deemed to be historic or 8 lies within a historic district . The Town 9 Board has provided that- procedure in the 10 Town Code that allows this Board to permit 11 the demolition or reconstruction of a 12 historic structure if the applicant 13 satisfies the standards set forth in 1/1 Chapter 170 . 15 Your review of the appropriateness of the demolition and reconstruction of 17 such a structure is guided by a few key 18 terms . If you go through Chapter 170, 1 19 know you' re all well familiar with it, but 20 1 just -- there are buzz words, if you 21 will, or key words that I think guide you . 22 You' re mandated to consider the 23 principal historic features of the 24 structure . You ' re to look at the historic 25 design, architecture, and appearance of the Page 21 1 Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 21 2 structure . And you' re also to look at its 3 architectural and historic interest and 4 whether it is so old, uncommon, or unusual . 5 Many of the letters in opposition to this application have acknowledged that 7 there ' s nothing historically significant 8 about the design of the existing house . 9 They nevertheless have called on you to 10 preserve the house because it once was 11 inhabited by a native son of Orient . 12 The analysis in the Town Code, 13 however, as directed by the Town Board, 14 applies to the exterior of the structure 15 only, not to its interior or to its prior 16 inhabitants . The evidence presented to you 17 this evening will establish that not one of 18 these terms that I just mentioned can be 19 used to describe the house that currently 20 sits at 675 Skippers Lane . The portion of 21 the existing house that was constructed 100 22 years ago has been modified and altered 23 many times, and You will hear that few, if 24 any, discernable historic elements remain. 25 We submit that if none of these key Page 22 1 Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 22 2 terms apply to this house, there is nothing 3 for you to protect; and therefore, 4 demolition and reconstruction are 5 completely appropriate . The applicants 6 should not be burdened with maintaining an 7 unsafe structure in its current form when 8 it has been previously expanded and altered 9 over time stripping it of most, if not all 10 of its historic components . 11 So the Town Code does not state 12 that the mere presence of this house within 13 the boundaries of the Historic District 14 requires that it remain as-is in 15 perpetuity. Demolition is not prohibited. 16 The Town Board has recognized the 17 demolition of a home within the district 18 may be entirely appropriate under 19 circumstances such as this where the 20 exterior of the house is devoid of historic 21 significance and the home is beyond repair 22 and essentially uninhabitable . 23 So at this point, I want to turn 24 the floor over to Peter Cook who is going 25 to review his analysis of the historic and Page 23 1 Southold HPC - April 1OLh, 2019 23 2 architectural significance, if any, of the 3 house, and his findings with respect to the 4 current condition of the house . Peter is 5 going to be joined by Bob O'Brien during 6 the course of his PowerPoint who is going 7 to present his findings, having inspected 8 the house from an engineering standpoint 9 from head to toe, and he ' ll speak to you 10 regarding the structural integrity of the 11 house at present and how it ' s contaminated 12 condition precludes any adaptive reviews of 13 the structure . Peter will then review the 14 proposed design of the new house, the 15 efforts the applicants have made to respect 1.6 the design of the current home and others 17 in Orient, and the changes that have been 1.8 made over theP ast year to the proposed 19 design based on input from this Commission 20 and the public. After that, obviously, we 21 will be happy to address any questions that 22 the Commissioners have. 23 So at this point, I know that you 24 have hard copies of the presentation before 25 you, we ' re going to have it up on the Page 24 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 24 2 screen. E t 3 I do -- if I may, I would like to 4 4 submit, at this time, two letters of 5 support for the application that we have, 6 if that ' s okay. F 7 CHAIRMAN WEBB: I think we probably t 8 have copies . Were they circulated very 4 9 recently? { 10 MR. FINNEGAN: I believe so . 11 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Yeah, okay. k 12 MR. FINNEGAN: I just want to put i s 13 it into the record. Sorry if you already 14 have them. F 15 In addition, I have -- I don' t know 1.6 if all the Members of the Board have 17 received a copy of Bob O'Brien' s report, i f 18 but I ' d like to submit that for the record 19 as well . E 20 So at this point I 'm going to turn 21 it over to Peter Cook. , 22 MR. COOK: Thank you . This 1 23 PowerPoint thing is new to me . Thank 1 24 Member Garretson for bringing me to the a 25 21st century. TL ' s not an American E f Page 25 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 25 2 lectern, there ' s no cup holder. 3 My reason for wanting to share our 4 process in this PowerPoint is to 5 demonstrate that we did not bulldoze our 6 way here. This is the result of a 7 cooperative, year-long process of 8 compromises between our client and the HPC . 9 At the very beginning of the 10 project, my clients ' directive to me was 11 twofold: One, that I work closely with the 12 Historic Board from the get-go, which I 13 have done; and the second thing was that 14 the cottage or farm-styled house -- we were 15 to design a cottage or farm-style house 1.6 that would fit the community such that a 17 black-and-white photo could pass for being 1.8 over 50 years old. 19 Our first duty is to investigate 20 the structure of the codes and the zoning. 21 We initially identified a neglected 22 structure that has been modified over time 23 with no architectural integrity. The 24 structure that has had any possibly 25 contributing architectural feature was Page 26 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 26 2 removed long ago. 3 The existing structure lacks any { 4 significant or contributing architectural 4 5 features or materials . Again, we E 6 identified a neglected structure that has 7 been modified over lime with no { 8 architectural integrity. A structure that I 9 has had any possibly contributing 10 architectural feature has been removed long 11 ago. 1.2 A structure that has been 13 carelessly added to over time, resulting in 14 clumsy asbestos asphalt and aluminum-clad i 15 shadow of its former self. Rotting, i 16 disintegrating, no architectural details s 17 worthy of restoration or repair. Again, I 18 repeat, no details worthy of repair . 19 Any and all character and detail S f 20 lost, aluminum-clad trim and soffits . 21 Should have had music to this . 22 House is in complete disrepair, 23 rife with rot and disrepair . Asbestos i 24 siding, all existing windows need to be _ 25 replaced, all exterior trim is covered in F Page 27 F 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 27 i 2 aluminum some time in the past . Interiors 3 lack any architectural significance or 4 merit . All interior finishes are of no i 5 historic significance or materiality. Per 6 the engineering report that you' ll hear 7 about later, all existing framing is 8 substandard and piecemealed. 'The existing 9 garage, which remains in sound structural 10 condition will be kept, but resided with 11 new trim, windows, and doors . 12 We then looked at the neighborhood, { 1.3 recognized that the immediate neighborhood 1.4 has no obvious or consistent: architectural t 15 styling. These are all houses on Skippers 7 16 Lane or Harbor River Road. The z 17 architectural styles of the neighborhood 18 are best defined as mixed or eclectic. So 19 then we looked at what we ' re entitled to do f 20 within the Building Code of the Town of S 21 Southold. Throughout multiple work i 22 sessions with the HPC, we were lead to 23 believe we were working in an acceptable 24 and approvable direction. At no time were 25 we lead to believe that demolition would Page 28 1 Southold HPC - April 10t.h, 2019 28 2 never be an opt-ion to us, particularly due 3 to the existence of Chapter 170 . 9 of the 4 Southold Town Code . Therefore, it was 5 assumed this Board, the HPC, would take 6 direction from the criteria established in 7 the Town Code to consider an application 8 for demolition. 9 The Building Code of the Town of 10 Southold contains guidelines for approval 11 of the demolition of a "historic or 12 significant structure" . 13 Evaluation of the proposed 14 demolition maintaining visual compatibility 15 with the historic character of neighboring 16 properties in public view. Whereas nowhere 17 in the Southold Town Code does it expressly 18 prohibit the demolition of a historic or 1-9 exhibiting structure . Town of Southold 20 Code has provisions under Section 170-9 for 21 the demolition of historic or contributing 22 structures . 23 Tests for approval of demolition : 244 The landmark is of such architectural or 25 historic interest that its demolition or Page 29 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 29 2 removal would be to the detriment of the 3 public interest . Other than the mere fact 4 of its existence, the public has not 5 demonstrated evidence of any architectural 6 or historic value to the home . Retention of the landmark in its 8 current form or location is important, to 9 the Town' s history or character. We will 10 be retaining the current form and location 1-1 of this similar streetscape that is 1.2 reflective of the existing structure, 13 compatible with the neighborhood, and 14 respectful of the scale of the original 15 portion of the current structure . The landmark is of such old and 17 unusual or uncommon design, texture, and 18 material, that it could not be reproduced, 19 or reproduced only with great difficulty. 20 There is no contextual material to retain, 21 and the house can be easily rebuilt in 22 kind. 23 Number four: Retention of the 24 landmark would help preserve and protect an 25 historic place or historic interest in the Page 30 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 30 2 town. There has been no historic interest, 3 or importance attributed to this site or 4 structure . Reply: Retention of the 5 landmark will promote general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encouraging interest in American and local history and architecture. 9 Again, there is no historical value 10 to the home whereby its preservation Ll whereby its preservation would be worthy of 12 restoration. In its current, state, the 13 house diminishes property values in the 14 area. 15 Application for demolition should be granted based on the principal physical 17 and structural condition of this house, as 18 well as the existing environmental and 19 engineering limitations that prohibit it 20 being renovated to current construction 21 code standards . 22 I ' ll let the engineer, Bob O'Brien, 23 step in at this point and I ' ll pick on the 24 PowerPoint after he ' s finished. 25 MR. O'BRIEN: Bob O'Brien, East Page 31 1 Southold HPC April 10th, 2019 31 2 Marion, Laurel . 3 1 went out in January of this year 4 and I did a physical inspection of the 5 house to determine its present condition. 6 And what we found was that the house 7 doesn' t look like it ' s been maintained for 8 50 to 60 years . The bathrooms appear to 9 date to the late 40s or early 50s, terrible 10 condition. Plumbing is in similar Ll condition. The waste line is in similar 12 condition. It needs all new mechanical, L3 electrical . The electric service right now 14 is 60 amp, glass-fused, over-fused. Very 15 few circuit wires . There ' s, like, one 16 outlet in each room. The heating system 17 originally was probably was a coal-fire 18 furnace, back when it was lived in 19 year-round, back probably in the 20s and 20 30 . 1 can see that there ' s on opening in 21 the flue in the basement where the original 22 flue might have been. It looks like there 23 may have been coal in that basement, . 24 But right now, I ' d say, , for the 25 last, I would say 40 to 50 years, they were Page 32 1 Southold HPC - April 1OLh, 2019 32 2 using unit heaters that were placed under 3 the floors . It ' s the type of unit heater 4 that you see in a cottage, in a summer 5 cottage . And it ' s used in the spring and fail only, you really can ' t, go through the 7 winter with that because it ' s not a forced 9 This house, the way they were 10 heating bedrooms on the second floor, there 11 were single grills in the floor so the heat 12 from the first floor would go up into the 13 bedrooms . So I doubt if the house was used 141 year-round for the last, I don ' t know, 30, 15 40 years . There ' s no insulation in the -H walls, absolutely no insulation in the 17 walls . No insulation in the crawl space or 18 the basement . Somebody added a little 19 insulation over the addition, which appears 20 to date back -- I think it dates back to 21 the 50s, the single-story addition . 22 The original house, the core, at 23 some point in the past it was dormered, 24 that second floor, to create additional 25 _ - -_ - _'_ in the __-- To -'_' the = -- -_ ` | | L / � Page 33 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 33 2 roof looks like it was bastardized also F 3 because the original roof was raised about E 4 five feet, and you could see still see a S 3 5 portion of the original wood shingle roof i 6 in the attic, it ' s still there. You could i F 7 see where it was chopped off, where they 8 did the dormers . { F 9 So the only thing original I see in i 10 the house from maybe 1918, is possibly some { 11 of the framing, which is really 12 sub-standard, the basement is all spliced i F 13 little pieces of wood that was salvaged, I 14 think .from other properties . The toenail, 15 there ' s no real support down there . Some } E 16 people bared the beams on the flap which 17 have no strength and they wedged locust 18 posts underneath them, and that ' s why the i 19 floor is sloped on the first floor and 20 second floor of the original house. i i 21 The addition has settled over four E "E i 22 inches in the southeast corner. That could E 23 be -- there ' s a flood zone, there ' s an A6 24 flood zone that comes up within 20 feet of p 1 25 that corner of that house. I think Page 34 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 34 2 everybody' s familiar with A6 flood zone, so 3 it would flood to elevation 6. Well, the 4 basement is at elevation 1, okay, and it 5 does flood occasionally in major storms . And everything is rotted out where it was 7 in contact- with the floor there, all the 8 wood members . The locust posts, the old 9 coal bin, you can see fungi growing out of 10 it, black molds, and tremendous rot . 11 The addition is all substandard 12 too, and that ' s settled. The main beams 13 are really undersized. There' s extensive 14 termite damage, powderpost beetle damage . 15 Termite damage more so in the addition 0 where they sistered most of the floor 17 joists, but they never took care of the 18 main beams . In the original house there ' s 19 powderpost beetle damage in some of the 20 members, too. Somebody sisLered them in 21 the past with new members, but it really 22 didn ' t add any additional strength. 23 The foundation on the main house is poured concrete . And it appears to me that 25 not only does it lack footings, but it' s , | i � | [ Page 36 1 Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 36 9 mold problem because a mold problem, 3 even -- I did a house, an arbitration on 4 mold remediation four years ago. The house 5 was only four years old. They had a crack 6 in the foundation, the water came in . it -7 wasn' t in a flood zone or anything, the 8 water came in the basement and everybody 9 wound up the hospital . And I supervised 10 the remediation. The remediation took one 11 year. We totally gutted the interior of 12 the house, including floors, ceilings, 13 kitchen cabinets, bath fixtures, all the 14 insulation, all the interior sheetrock. We 15 dug around the house, the rubber membrane, 16 waterproofing on the foundation, french 17 drain system. We ice blasted all the wood 18 because the mold gets into the wood. And 19 this is rotten structure . It had 20 microlaminated beams, it had tresses, and 21 the mold got into that . We were afraid. 22 The only thing we could really do was ice 23 blast it because we didn' t really want to 211 ruin the structural integrity of the 25 building by wearing down the members . So Page 37 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 37 this house has been sitting basically not 3 maintained for 50 to 60 years . There ' s no 4 insulation in the walls . There ' s mold 5 throughout . The flooding problem will continue no matter what you do. 7 1 just recommend demolition . I 8 just don ' t see any value . I do houses of 9 that age all the time and they have value. 10 This house has no value. And that' s my 11 opinion. Everybody has a copy of the 12 report . It ' s more detailed, it, addresses 13 the wells and everything else, but that' s 14 basically a summary of the highlights . 15 Does the Board have any questions? 16 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Peter had 17 additional comments . 18 MR. COOK: Thank you. I ' ll wrap 19 up. 20 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: The 21 Chairman has a question. 22 CHAIRMAN WEBB: I was going to ask 23 if they have additional comments . 24 MR. COOK: As Mr. O'Brien pointed 25 out, part of our process then was to / | k . x ' Page 39 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 39 2 historic Orient Village look, and relied on 3 the influences of and the references of the 4 detail of the Orient Village homes 5 subordinated wings, farm house gables and porches . Gabled roofs with integrated gutters are a common design element on 8 historic homes in Orient, subordinated 9 wings are a common architectural feature on 10 historic homes throughout Orient . Roof 11 lines and trim are consistent with historic 12 homes in Orient on our project, and 13 two-over-two double hung windows are found 14 frequently throughout Orient in Southold. 15 Again, roof lines and trim consistent, and 16 two-over-two double-hung windows . These 17 are images taken right from the Historic 18 Homes in Orient book. Porches and trims . 19 Then we looked at the criteria for 20 approval of alterations of facades and 21 historic landmarks . First part of this 22 slide is cut off, but whether the proposed 23 alteration is consistent with principals of 24 adaptable reused, whereby the principal 25 features of the landmark are maintained Page 40 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 40 2 while permitting the landmark for new uses, 3 other than its original use . 4 We established that there are no 5 remaining historic features of the original 6 structure, the, quote, use of the proposed I 7 reconstruction and addition is consistent 8 with its current use, single-family 9 residence . 10 Similarity and design of 3 11 architecture and appearance of the proposed 12 alteration to historic design, architecture 13 and appearance . And the current proposal 14 honors the scale and spirit of the original 15 cottage portion of the existing structure. 16 And the additions are direct references to 17 other homes in the Historic District of 18 Orient . 19 And then the necessity for 20 complying with the applicable building F 21 codes or federal or state regulations, we 3 22 are required to bring the reconstructed t 23 portions and the additions up to current 24 construction code standards, including 25 energy efficiency, hurricane resistant Page 41 1 1 Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 41 2 structure, et cetera. 3 The necessity of such alterations 4 allow for a use of the property permitted 5 by the Town Code . The proposed use is 6 consistent with the current use, -7 single-family residence . 8 So as directed by our client, we 9 started this process with the HPC. We 10 listened, we revised. At our first -- my 11 first meeting with the HPC was in May 15th, 12 2018 . 1 came in with a photograph of the 13 existing house with not-to-scale freehand, 14 sort of, conceptual sketch of what I 15 thought could be done with the existing 16 cottage portion of the house, and brought 17 that in, and we had conversations about is this . It was a side view. Again, this was 19 a very early sketch. There was no floor 20 plan, there was nothing except me free 21 handing on some photographs to see what I 22 thought could logically be done with the 23 existing structure, this is May 2018 . 24 After feedback from the HPC, we 25 went back and felt confident enough to draw particularly the most - --_-- p_____ � Page 43 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 43 i 2 hearing, we went back and rescaled the 3 existing cottage to mimic identically the f 4 cottage that ' s there today. What you see 5 in this slide is an illustration representing the reductions of the original 7 proposal versus the current proposal 8 following a public hearing. The red line 9 was our proposal in November of 2018, the 10 black line is our current proposal, and the 11 green indicates volume that has been 12 reduced. So if you can read through all 13 that and see the black, that ' s what we 're 14 proposing versus what you saw in November. 15 This is the Harbor River Road side . Same 16 thing, the red represents the November 17 iteration, the black is the current 18 iteration, the green represents volume 19 changes in the two proposals . And this is 20 the Orient Association Preserve. 21 Respective, again, red represents the 22 November presentation, black is the final 23 iteration, and the green represents volume 24 changes . 25 So you can see, in response to the Page 44 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 44 2 public comments and our work sessions with 3 the Board, the house has been modified and 4 reduced. What you see here is a 5 comparative illustration of the Skippers 6 Lane elevation, proposed versus existing. 7 The green is the existing structure, the 8 black is our proposal, the lighter black 9 you can see where, I think, about 11 inches 10 taller, but everything else, essentially, 11 follows an identical lines . Window pattern 12 has been adjusted to be more symmetrical 13 and to conform to the plan . 14 This is the massing of the house J 15 that exists there today versus the 16 proposal, which is the lighter in the 17 background. The cottage form is almost 18 identical to what was there . It ' s been 19 lengthened. It ' s, again, about eleven 20 inches taller now just to accommodate for 21 structural depth and beams and things . And 22 then the new gable addition off to the 23 right . 24 In regard to Lhe gable addition to 25 the right-, we Look reference from 20 Harbor x 3 Page 45 E 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 45 s 2 River Road, directly across the street . 3 Our gable is actual six inches narrower i 4 than the gable across the street, and it is j r 5 about four or five feet shorter in height I a than the gable that exists directly across 7 the street . Again, we ' re looking at 8 neighbors, we ' re looking at the 9 neighborhood, we ' re trying to keep 10 proportions consistent with the 11 neighborhood, architecture consistent with 3 12 the area. 13 This is the existing perspective of 14 the corner of Skippers Lane and Harbor 15 River Road. This is what we are proposing. 16 I think the house is very appropriate to 17 the neighborhood, scale-wise, architectural S 18 detailing to the Oriental area. The 19 existing cottage is represented in spirit 20 there, so anyone who knew the cottage 21 before, it will look like it was just added 22 on to . 23 We ' re maintaining visual t 24 compatibility with the historic character 25 of the neighboring properties and public 4{f .5 a Page 46 i 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 46 i 2 view. We are preserving the memory. This 3 is the existing perspective from Skippers ; 3 4 4 Lane, this is the proposed perspective -- a 5 there ' s a tree that ' s twice the height of 6 the house, but again, maintaining visual _ 7 compatibility with the historic character = t 8 of the neighboring properties and the 9 public view. Existing perspective from s 10 Harbor River Road from the 1950s addition. 11 This is the proposed perspective from 4 a 12 Harbor River Road. The gable that ' s 13 represented is similar to the one across 14 the street and many in the village . g 15 Existing perspective from Oysterponds 16 River, not a very attractive elevation. 17 And the proposed perspective from 18 Oysterponds Preserve . Water color is James 1 4 19 Napolean in a the corner of the house in 3 20 one point of time, 2009, called Nessuno. j i 21 With his permission, we took liberties and 22 superimposed our proposal into the 23 painting. And we show that the proposed 24 residence viewed from the same angle as the r 25 artist ' s idyllic vision remains the memory ,i i Page 47 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 47 E 2 in the back. In fact, most people would be F 3 hard pressed to note one from the other. i 4 Obviously Mr. Napolean took liberties with 3 5 perspective on the porch, whereas ours is a i 6 computer rendering that actually is the • F 4 r 7 true perspective from that angle. a 8 So again, I ' ll end it where I j 9 began, where the design directive was for 10 us to do a cottage or farm-style house that 3 11 fits with the community, such that a 12 black-and-white photo could pass for being F i 13 over 50 years old. I think we have done F i 14 that job. And I think this is evidence of =E 15 the fact that once it ' s there it will i 16 always be there . And hopefully 100 years 17 from now, people will be fighting to save r i 18 it . Thank you. } 19 I ' ll release the floor to 20 Mr. Finnegan. S 21 CHAIRMAN W BB: Do you have any 22 additional comments or are you finished at 23 this point? k i 24 MR. FINNEGAN: That ' s all we have 25 right now. We just figured we'd respond to a F Page 48 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 48 2 any questions that the Board may have . 3 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. We're going 4 to ask for public comment first and then 5 comments from the Commission. 6 MR. FINNEGAN: Okay. Very well . 7 CHAIRMAN WEBB: So is there any 8 member of the public who would like to 9 speak to us? Please come up to the podium, 10 state your name, and speak to the 11 commission. 12 PUBLIC RESIDENT: My name is Anne 13 Foliate, I live in Orient. I just want to 14 make one small correction. As far as I 15 know, when you say the "Orient Preserve", 16 that doesn' t exist . 17 MR. COOK: Oysterpond river. 18 PUBLIC RESIDENT: Yes, Oysterponds 19 Preserve doesn' t exist . It ' s Poquatuck I 4 20 Park, which is part of the OysLerponds 21 Historical Society. 22 MR. COOK: Thank you. 23 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Thank you. 24 Anybody else from the public who 25 would like to address the commission? once Page 49 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 49 I E3 t 2 again, just a reminder to address the g R 3 Commission. 4 MR. DEAN: Chairman Webb, a 5 Commission, I 'm not going to go into a long 6 thing, because everyone knows . I don ' t 7 think this is very much -- a 9 8 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Could you J 9 state your name? _ 10 MR. DEAN: Charles Dean. I live in n 11 Orient . I live on Village Lane in a house 12 that was built in 1700, which, like 13 Mr. Potters ' house, has no insulation, it ' i 14 has no heat upstairs, the framing is i ;E 15 substandard, my floor is sloped terribly. Y 16 So a lot of the problems that 17 Mr. Potters is having to deal with, many of a 18 us in Orient do deal with these same a 19 problems . I mean, this is part of owning a 20 historic house that is 100, 200, 300 years f 21 old. There not modern houses . We 're 22 owning antiques . And you don' t expect an 23 antique to function -- you know, an antique 24 Model-`.C' Ford doesn' t function like a new r 25 Mercedes . I mean, you have to nurture s s Y Page 50 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 50 2 these antiques and take care of them. 3 But I have a question for the 4 Board, the Commission. Mr . O'Brien says 5 that it ' s definitely a tear down, but at ; E 6 your meeting in February -- at your meeting t 7 you passed a motion to have an independent 8 person, engineer, do an analysis of the ' f Y 9 structure . Has that been done? I mean, do f 10 you have that? 1 i 11 CHAIRMAN WEBB: That ' s in the i, 12 process . } Y 7 iE 13 MR. DEAN: Okay. So will you be d 14 making a decision before you have that E 15 report? n 16 CHAIRMAN WEBB: (Negative 17 response) . r 18 MR. DEAN: So after you get the 19 report, will the public have a chance to 20 read that report and respond to it? j 21 CHAIRMAN WEBB: (Affirmative nod) . 22 MR. DEAN: So the -- I was looking i 23 aL the changes Lhat Mr. Potters is making. i 1 24 From the last public hearing inhere there I 25 were, I don' t know, 12 or 13 people I F J Page 51 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 51 i 2 speaking against this demolition of the 3 house, he has reduced -- that -- that plan 4 was for 3, 341 square feet. And now they 5 listened to the public, they say, and they 6 have reduced it 3, 328 square feet . So we 7 have a reduction of 13 square feet on this 8 house . It is still a very large, massive 9 house, compared to the house that it ' s 10 replacing. 11 The concern of many people in the 12 Village, is -- of us, is that the house is 13 going to be out of scale with what the 14 house is to be replacing . That' s if it ' s 15 even to be torn down at all . I don' t think 16 the -- I think the jury is out on, is this 17 house salvageable or not . Thank you. 18 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Thank you. 19 Is there. any other member of ' the 20 public who would like to address the 21 Commission at this time? 22 MS . HANS : Hi, I 'm Venecia Hans 23 (phonetic) . I 'm not as tall as you, 24 Charles . 25 1 have a few comments I 'd like to 4 Page 52 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 52 2 make . One of them, at least, goes back a 3 long way; which is when somebody buys a 4 property, I want to use that phrase, "buyer 4 5 beware" . I don' t understand how anybody 6 could buy a property in an historical 7 district and not know that, and not have a 8 lawyer who will bring that to their E 9 attention and explain, these are the rules . 10 So that ' s my first concern is why anybody 11 bought it if this is what they wanted to 12 do. 13 The second point I want to make is, 14 and I 'm totally with Charles, that really, ` 15 until you get your own engineering report, 16 we don ' t know what the situation is from 1 17 your point of view. But I do want to make f 18 a few comments on what I just heard because 3 15 if it ' s -- if I 'm understanding it right, a 20 what you' re concerned with are the facades 21 that face the streets that people see . Any 22 old house, in fact, quite new houses, the 23 bathroom is inside, the fireplace is 24 inside, the electrical system, the plumbing 25 system, all of these things are inside . Page 53 ` 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 53 i 2 They' re allowed to do whatever they like 3 inside, I believe, according to your rules . 4 So I find none of that disturbing, there 5 are locust posts in the basement, I think, 6 that ' s an historical way of building houses 7 from way back when. That ' s something to 8 preserve, locust posts, which never rot, of 9 t_he framing. 10 The footings I 'm hearing about, my 11 guess is in 1918 they didn ' t do that, so i 12 it ' s not there now. There are some 13 historical things apparently in tact 14 inside, the beadboards, the doors some 15 framing. Very nice if they're a 10, but 16 you don' t_ have any jurisdiction over that . F 17 They can be pulled out because they' re i 18 inside . 19 So I 'm not hearing anything very 20 much, myself, in that report that doesn' t 21 allow a good set of restoration architects 22 and builders to come in and make this 23 little house good again. Maybe go back and 24 find out what it looked like when it was z, 25 built, maybe restore it . I forget when the Page 54 3 i 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 54 2 Historical Preservation Committee was 3 created, but it was some time after 1918, .i F 4 and presumably after several revisions were 5 made -- would be made . How different would 6 it be if we were standing here listening to 7 people who wanted to- make changes to bring 8 it back to what it was, a restoration . i 9 So I make all of those comments . e 10 And then, the one other thing I make, I do 11 appreciate very much that the architects 12 have tried to retain the shape and style of 13 the Skippers Lane facade and the shape and 3 14 style of the Harbor View facade, even when 15 they' re proposing new things as opposed to 16 restoring things . But behind that is this g 17 great big bunking, massive, looming 18 addition, which is a house of over 3, 000 19 square feet. As Charles says, it ' s 13 20 square feet smaller than it was when it was 21 originally brought here . It ' s hardly much 22 of a many adjustments that I 'm hearing 23 about . And it ' s just too big. I mean, 24 there are slightly bigger houses around it, 25 but almost all of the houses in Orient are s 0 Page 55 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 55 2 plus or minus 2, 000 square feet, 2, 500 at 3 the most, I think. And we were talking 4 recently about the houses on Oysterponds 5 Lane, little tiny ones . Many of which probably have absolutely zero architectural 7 value or so on. They have community 8 historical value because that ' s where the 9 laborers worked in those days . So those 10 houses will be kept in the in their 11 integrity, and the same is true here. I 12 don' t know who lived in it . j 13 1 have a time limit, I never got 14 told that . I 'm done. 15 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Thank you . 1 Any other members of the public 17 wish to address the commission at this 18 time? 19 (Negative response) . 20 Okay. At this point 21 MR. GOLLULI : Actually, I 'd like to 22 say something. Richard Golluli from 23 Orient. 24 1 was here on another matter, the 25 first matter. And this is what I do for a Page 56 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 56 2 living. I restore old homes and I 've seen 3 a lot of Orient homes . Just some of the 4 stuff said in the public comment I couldn ' t 5 disagree with more . I 've seen locust posts 6 rot out, I 've seen conditions similar to 7 that, but not quite that bad, and to tell 8 someone they can' t restore their home to a 9 safe standard is just outrageous . And I 10 find it even more outrageous that this 11 Board would spend money on an engineer to 12 go inside someone ' s house when you' re to 13 deal with the facades . That ' s all . 14 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Thank you . 15 MS . MCNEAL: Veronica McNeal, 16 Orient . I don ' t -- I was quite impressed 17 with the way that they re-jiggered their 18 presentation . And I think the main problem 19 that I have with all of this, is the aspect 20 or whatever was referred to as the facade, 21 on Poquatuck Park. That looks like a 22 completely different, not historical -- it 23 it is a non-historical view impacting a 24 historical presentation or historical place 25 that has much more modest surrounds to it Page 57 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 57 2 and very considerate responses to the park 3 and to the public that uses the park and to 3 E 4 the area of that . t t 5 And I find that that is the only 6 thing, essentially, really, of how this 7 project really disturbs me . 8 CHAIRMAN EBB: Any other members E { 9 of the public wish to address us? 10 (Negative response) . s 11 Okay. At this time we' ll turn it 12 over to -- 13 MR. FINNEGAN: Can we just respond x 14 to some of those points? 15 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Sure . Go ahead. 16 MR. COOK: I think my first thought i 17 is this is not a house from the 1700s, so 18 I 'm at a loss or not properly equipped ' 19 because I don' t know what Mr. Dean' s house 20 looks like or what it looked like prior to i 21 this restoration, but I assure you, if this 3 22 house was from the 1700s and had any i 3 23 materials worthy of salvage or restoration, 24 the Potters would be salvaging or restoring 25 this house . t Page 58 4 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 58 E 2 Living with mold, sloping floors, t 3 or rot is a choice that Mr . Dean makes and accepts, that ' s not something you can ` 5 impose on other people . 6 With regards to the square foot 7 reduction, we never claimed to reduce the 8 square footage tremendously. We ' re 9 entitled to our square footage, that is not 10 a conversation here. If they think there 11 should be a floor area ratio on properties, 12 that ' s a different board, that ' s a 13 different argument, and that' s something 14 the Town would have to deal with 15 themselves . We ' re conforming. We're 16 allowed this square footage . ' 17 In terms of halting additions, a 18 again, one of the issues is that the N E 19 cottage is so diminutive that anything next 20 to it is going to be look really big . But 21 as I pointed out in our slide, we' re f 5 22 actually smaller than the identical gable 23 directly across the street . We are ,f ,l 24 narrower and we ' re shorter . We are i i 25 entitled by code to a 35-foot ridge, we are Page 59 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 59 2 at just over 28 feet . 3 And with regards to Poquatuck Park, 4 I disagree . I think this is an elevation f 5 that we have worked on directly with the 6 Board, very specifically in terms of the 7 size of the porch, the gable on the f 8 projected portion of the second floor. 9 This has been back and forth. This E 10 elevation is actually the result of those ' i 11 conversations . 12 With regards to Poquatuck Park 13 which I 'm sorry I got the name wrong, it ' s 14 a beautiful parcel of land, but I ' ll remind t 15 you what is on Poquatuck Park. These are 16 our neighbors on Poquatuck Park. The house 17 at the bottom is six inches from the ` i 18 property line . Our house is actually much 3 i 19 further away from the property line than we i 20 are required to be by Code . The house on 21 the top that ' s on Poquatuck Park, I 'm not 3 22 what sure what architectural style that is . 23 I see a double-gable house, I see wedding 24 cake homes, I see what looks like 25 plantation-style, which I know is the Page 60 1 Southold HPC - April 10Lh, 2019 60 2 Orient Historical building. This is our 3 neighbor directly next to us . Again, I I can ' t respond to all houses in the area 5 being under 2, 000 square feet without any data in front of me, I don ' t have that, but 7 1 assure you that our neighbor' s house is 8 close to 3, 000 square feet . Our closest 9 neighbor -- actually, our only adjourning 10 neighbor, is close to 3, 000 square feet . 11 So as you see, the architectural 12 styling there is varied. The house at the 13 bottom has got a large gable on the part . 14 So I think it ' s a matter of taste . I 'm 15 sorry she doesn' t like our elevation, but 16 similar to -- one more step back to our 17 referenced gable across the street, but we 18 are somewhat crippled or challenged in 19 comparison to most because we have three 20 sides exposed, whereas most people have the 21 front of the house that they have to worry 22 about and that ' s it with this Board. We 23 have three elevations -- 1 'm just trying 24 to find our neighboring house, Just bear 25 with me . I want to point out that our Page 61 1 Southold HPC; - April 10th, 2019 61 2 there it -- no, that ' s not it . There it 3 is . If you look at the side of this house, 4 which is about the same scale as ours, 3 5 although the one on the right which exists J t b is taller and wider than ours, as I pointed ' 7 out , I think that ' s a facade you probably 8 wouldn ' t like to see on Poquatuck Park. E 9 But in this case, it ' s on a side yard and 10 nobody cares . 11 So again, I think, as to the side 12 of the house, we have done a good job of 13 making it have architectural character, 14 interest, depth, and again, reflective of 15 the architectural styling of the historic 16 area, the porches, roof lines, trims, f 17 resulting in what I think is a very 18 pleasant streetscape for the neighborhood. i 19 Thankyou. , 20 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. Thank you. 21 Martin, you' re going to provide 22 separate information from what Mr. Cook a 23 provided, correct? 24 MR. FINNEGAN: I am. Just a couple 25 of things . ' Page 62 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 62 1 2 To be clear, the size of this house i 3 is, as Peter suggested, is completely r 4 compliant with the Town Code . The 5 footprint is being respected of the € 6 existing house . Keep in mind that the 1 7 historic portion of this structure, which 8 is the main subject of your review and your i 9 jurisdiction, is being maintained and 10 respected in this design. The Poquatuck i 11 Park side is not really part of -- that 12 addition that ' s being renovated and a 3 13 expanded on that side is not subject to the 14 same review . I would take you back to the i 15 terms that I pointed out at the outset 16 here . The historic significance, the 17 historic architectural elements, they a 18 simply are not there with this structure. ! 19 They may be in many, many other houses in 20 Orient, and those houses are deserving of 21 your protection and your review. This is 22 not that house, and the evidence you heard 23 here this evening establishes that . Not 24 just the deplorable condition of this house { 25 as it stands right now, but there is really b a ' Page 63 t Y 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 63 i 2 no significant historic attribute of this 3 house that would fall into the analysis , 4 that you do under the Town Code that would ; 5 require protection. 6 So in our estimation, you have l 7 ample evidence that supports the granting 8 of a certificate of appropriateness for x 9 both the demolition and the the proposed r t 10 alteration. , 11 I want to address the issue of the 12 engineer. At this point, the applicants 13 have now twice appeared before this Board. J 14 This has been a process that has been going 15 on nearly a year. There was a discussion 16 at some point in time, months ago, about an f I 17 independent analysis . There is no 18 authority in the Town Code, that I `m aware 19 of, for this Commission to retain an . 20 engineer independent, to create your own 21 record, is not available to you in the a 22 Code . We are here presenting evidence. We 23 have brought evidence before this Board, 24 expert_ opinions before this Board. j 2.5 So at this point, the record of 1 l z Page 64 f 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 64 { 2 this proceeding should be closed for a 4 3 decision. I don' t believe that it is fair, 3 F 4 at this point, after nearly a year, for the 5 applicants to have to wait for some 6 undisclosed period of time for an engineer 7 to come look at the outside of this house . 8 And I don ' t believe it ' s authorized in the j 9 Town Code. So I will just state my 10 objection to that for the record. a i 11 Other than that, just to address 12 the other comment regarding knowledge . 13 There really is no relevance as to what the t f 14 applicants knew or didn ' t know when they 15 bought the house . We ' re not taking the 16 position that we were duped into the 17 historic district, that ' s not what we 're 4 18 saying. There is a provision under the 3 19 Town Code that allows this application, 20 we ' re here under that, recognizing that the 21 property is in a historic district, and 22 seeking the relief that is available to 23 Dr. Potters and Ms . Brancato under the Town :t 3 24 Code . i E 25 So based on the evidence that has Page 65 1 Southold IiPC - April 10th, 2019 65 2 been submitted to date, as I said, I 3 believe that the issuance of a certificate 4 of appropriateness is warranted, and I 5 would ask you to issue that finding. Thank E 6 you. 8 7 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Mr. Finnegan, your ' a 8 comments and objections are so noted. 9 MR. FINNEGAN : Thank you . ' t 10 MR. HAMLIN: I 'm Bob Hamlin from 11 Orient . 3 12 I have no position for or against i 13 this particular proposal, but just 14 addressing the work of the Commission and 15 the comments that Mr. Finnegan just made. 16 In the powers of the Commission 17 under 170, the powers of the Commission a 18 shall include, employment of staff or 19 professional consultants as necessary to 20 carry out the duties of the Commission when 21 it limits the appropriateness of the Town 22 Board. 23 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Thank you, 24 Mr. Hamlin. i 25 Last time . Anybody else from the k b S Page 66 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 66 2 public wish to address us? Yes, sir? 3 MR. FINNEGAN: Just to that point, { 4 in fairness, okay, we ' re at the public 5 hearing. We have submitted all of our 6 evidence. If the Board was going to avail 7 itself of an opportunity that: you agreed to 8 do in February, that should have been done 9 by now, okay? The Code says -- there ' s Y 10 time limits in the Code for this analysis . 11 And I 'm sorry, but we are now several 12 months into this process by no fault of the i 13 Potters . They have diligently responded to 14 every request, every meeting, everything, i 15 and have submitted everything that was 16 required of them. So I think at this 3 17 point, it ' s time to move forward to a 18 decision. That ' s all . i 19 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Once again, your 20 comments are so noted. 21 Okay. At this time we ' ll ask for 22 comments, questions from the Members of the s 23 Commission. So one at a time. Would 24 anybody like to speak? 25 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I ' ll go . ? r Page 67 1 h 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 6'7 2 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Robert? J 3 COMMISSIONER HARPER: Mr. Finnegan, 4 in the Town Code there are five criteria 5 for demolition and -- that we had taken a 6 look at . The last one has something to do 7 with devaluing the properties surrounding 8 it . Can you tell me how it was ascertained 9 that this property diminishes the property i 10 of those surrounding it? F 11 MR. FINNEGAN: It ' s not about 12 devaluing it . The standard is that the 13 retention of the landmark will increase ' 14 real estate values . 15 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I believe you R i 16 said the opposite, that it would diminish 17 the value of the properties . It was on one z 18 of the slides, I believe . 19 MR. FINNEGAN: Yeah, I -- I 20 COMMISSIONER HARPER: How did you 21 ascertain that? 22 MR. COOK: I think I said that this J 23 will increaseproperty values . The removal 24 of the existing deteriorating structure and 25 replacing it with this house will increase f Page 68 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 68 2 property values . 3 3 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Anyone else on the i �1 commission have any questions, comments? I 5 have a quick question. Oh, I 'm sorry. Go 6 ahead, Jamie . 4 7 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: I 'm just 8 on the end. 9 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Push your little 10 button. 11 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: Push the .f E 12 button? Okay. My button has been pushed. 13 Okay. First, I would like to 14 compliment the architect for coming up with 15 a complete presentation of the facts today 16 on a PowerPoint, which is something I .4 17 requested. And I think you've learned very E 18 well and you 've done a good job. 1.9 I think that I followed this 20 through. I think if you take it one step f 21 at a time, the existing house, I look at it i i 22 as three parts : The existing house, the ' 23 link, and the addition, for the sake of 24 argument . And I think you also have to 25 understand that the existing house and the ' i Page 69 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 69 2 condition it was in, there was nothing on j 3 the outside of the existing house that was F 4 original to the house that was built in, 5 1881 -- 6 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: 1918 . 7 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: 1981 -- 8 no, 1881 . 9 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: 1918 . F 10 COMMISSIONER GARRETSON: 1918 . 11 Thankyou for the correction. 12 It was in our purview, which is 13 important to understand, is only what we 4 14 can see from the public right of way, from i 15 each of the public right of ways . One t i 16 being from Skippers and the other being 17 from Harbor Lane . And I think that -- so k 18 it doesn' t even cover Poquatuck Park. And 19 I think the applicant has done a very good 20 job within 12 inches of making -- bringing f i 21 the house, the existing cottage we call it, i 22 back to what is a better compliment to the 23 historic district into Orient . I think 24 using the link to join that house with the 25 addition also, 1 think, was well done . Page 70 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 '70 2 The thing that I 'm still concerned 3 about and, you know, I 'm trying to wrestle 4 with it, is basically the size of the 5 addition, let ' s call it that . I 'm t 9 6 concerned that -- and I know that Skippers 7 Lane is not typical Orient . In other i 8 words, all the houses on Skippers Lane have 9 had major changes, they've all expanded. 10 Skippers Lane is not what it was 50 or 100 11 years ago. And I think that one of the 12 things that the questions would be is the 13 square footage of the houses on Skippers 3 14 Lane versus the square footage of this 15 house . I think you mentioned at some point 16 that it ' s very close, but., you know, that 17 would be an important thing. 18 And then finally, I guess if F 19 there ' s is something that ' s a craw in the 20 visual thing, I 'm concerned, you know, I 21 understand the architecture, the dormers, F 22 the wings, the roofs, and all that, because 23 it ' s typical of Skippers Lane, but the 24 chimney concerns me a lot . But I think 25 you've gotten -- you've made a lot of j3 S , Page 71 I Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 71 2 progress . 3 This starts with the fact that the 4 first thing that upset a lot of us was the 5 whole question of "teardown" . This was the 6 first application that actually said the 7 word "teardown" . And understand, all of 8 us, when you' re a preservationist and you 9 work really hard to preserve whatever you 10 can, anybody mentions Leardown, it ' s a 11 shock. It ' s like a shock right up your 12 back. And I think that we have to 13 understand that sometimes what ' s there has 14 to be restored, and sometimes there' s a way 15 of doing that, replace and restore as 16 required. And I think with the cottage, I 17 compliment you on what you've done . 18 1 think the next would be looking 19 at it in concern of the law. The law says 20 that we are only to look at the exterior of 21 the building from the public right of way, 22 from the two public right of ways . And I 23 think that we must keep our comments and 24 our relationship and our comments about the 25 project to that and make sure that it ' s not } Page 72 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 '72 2 getting into an area that is not related to E E 3 that . ,1 4 And then finally, you come up -- 5 somebody has to live in this house. And I n think that you -- to live in a tiny S 7 cottage, I,.guess you could say, well, a 8 tiny cottage isn' t necessarily appropriate t 9 for Skippers, just -- we have allowed, even ` 10 before we were there -- people to expand on 3 11 Skippers so they are comfortable living in 12 the property. So therefore, I think an 13 addition is correct . I 'm concerned about F t 14 maybe the size of the addition and the size i 15 of the chimney. That ' s my comment . 16 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: I 'd like to 4 17 say one thing too, 18 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Commissioner 3 19 Surchin, would you please push your button. 20 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Okay. I 'm i 21 sort of with you. I think you did a great 22 job on the reconstruction of the cottage. v 23 I don' t- have a problem with that . 24 I ' ll be very frank, I would advise F 2.5 my clients not to go near the mold issue. l , Page 73 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 73 2 Having had mold allergies myself, you can 3 never get it out when it ' s in the joints of 4 the wood. That' s not our purview. Our 5 purview is what is going on on the outside, 6 however. [ f 7 Going to what Jim said, I 'm not 8 even so concerned about the square footage 9 of the new wing, but the fact that the ,j 10 cottage has this sort of cascading sloping i 11 roof. And when you look at the work of t s 12 somebody like Grosvenor Atterbury, he would 13 make a two-story house look like a 14 one-and-a-half story house by sweeping the 15 roof way down from the ridge . So I 16 think -- it ' s the way it ' s articulated is 17 what has been bothering people . I don ' t 18 find the actual footprint itself to be 19 offensive, and the size of it to be g 20 offensive, lord knows it ' s not, square E 21 footage-wise, a huge house . But there' s f f 22 something of a disconnect there, you know, f i 23 and still, you know, it ' s -- the massing 4 24 has been reduced and the actual size of it 25 is not the issue . But: I think that the two Page 74 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 '74 2 together are somewhat jarring, to me . Does 3 it discredit it? No. But it ' s just -- I I sort of feel the same way Jamie does about 5 it, to a degree . 6 MR. COOK: I 'm happy to respond to .7 that . 8 First of all, I concede to 9 Grosvenor Atterbury. But I think if I had 10 done something along that spirit-, it would 11 look like the shingle-style house that was 12 just built up, up the street, which I think 13 borders on offensive . - That if I ' came in 14 with a long sweeping gable that I connected 15 this low sweeping subordinated addition to 16 a larger addition, you ' d look at me and go, 1v where did that come from? That, has nothing 18 to do with what you ' re building here . 19 Everything that ' s referenced on 20 this house comes from 21 COMMISSIONER SURCHlN: Well, may I 22 just interject- something? Not a long 23 sweeping addition connecting it, but a roof 24 that echos more of the roof of the existing 25 building that you have so skillfully Page 7 5 Southold 11PC April 10th, 2019 75 2 recreated. That ' s 3 MR. COOK: Well, we have vertical 4 challenges 5 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Right.' 6 MR. COOK: -- we ' re going from a 7 very low scale cottage 8 MS . SURCHIN: And you have to go 9 right in the center 10 MR. COOK: -- and have to somehow 11 get into 12 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: of where 13 the ridge is, yeah. 14 MR. COOK: -- a second a 15 two-story addition to get the square 16 footage that the family needs without 17 changing radically the massing of the 18 cottage . So I 've got to -- I have to work 19 out a staircase that will come right down 20 the ridge of the cottage in order to give 21 you the head room, the clearance by New 22 York State Code, to get into the new wing, 23 which then created the heights of the 24 second story walls on the new wing. 25 Again, we ' re 28 feet tall, across Y 1 Page 76 f f 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 76 2 the street is 32 feet tall, we 're allowed 3 35 feet by Code . E 4 I just want to swing back to some 5 of the images that I pulled from the Orient 6 Historical Society, but I think you see i 7 here, it ' s our house . We ' re not doing 8 anything different than anyone else does . 9 Subordinated wings, porches, two-over-two E 10 windows, gable roofs . This is in the E 11 neighborhood, this is in Orient . This is 12 what I 'm told is good. I mean, look at the a t 13 bottom right hand side, those three houses 14 all have subordinated wings that are 1 15 arguably disproportionate to the main. 16 Now, we are working constricted 17 because of the existing cottage. And in j F 18 terms of square footage, and again, I just 19 want to point out the length that Jim i 20 mentioned, which I appreciate his comments, 21 I think accounts for 700 square feet of E 22 this house . Just getting you from the f 23 cottage to the main house . This is not 24 living square footage these people are 25 getting. These aren' t big rooms, these 3 j Page 77 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 77 2 aren' t grand hallways . This is just t 3 necessitated floor area to get from the 4 cottage to a properly scaled addition . 5 The living room -- the wing on our 6 house, the right-hand wing, is in virtually 7 the entire living area of the first: floor i 8 of this house. It is the kitchen, the 9 dining room, and the living room. It ' s ? 10 18-and-a-half feet wide by 40 feet, and it s' E 11 consists of three rooms . In order to get 12 an island that would seat their immediate 13 family, themselves and their two sons with s 14 four seats, 1 couldn ' t make the kitchen any 3 2 15 smaller. I 'm already at aisle ways between 1 16 the island and the counter less than I 17 would normally do, still acceptable . Our 18 living room is 18 feet square, that ' s not a 19 monsterous room. The bedrooms are not big. 20 There ' s nothing in this house or about this i 21 house that is grand in scale . The square i 22 footage, however, is deceiving, greatly in 23 part because of that length, because I have i t 24 to get you from one side of the house to l 25 the other, and there ' s nowhere else to put 3 9 t t Page 78 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 78 i 2 a staircase that will get you up to two d 3 stories . 4 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: On the 5 second floor of the addition. n MR. COOK: Yes . 7 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: What ' s the 8 second floor plate height? E F F e 9 MR. COOK: It ' s eight-foot -- 4 10 actually, I 'm sorry. It ' s probably 8 ' 4" . w 11 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: That, to me, 12 is the problem. It ' s not the square ' 13 footage, and I understand -- 14 MR. COOK: Again, if I go lower 15 than that, I can' t get you from -- :16 head-wise without_ -- 17 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: The other 18 side . i 19 MR. COOK: -- that charming "knock 20 your head" feature in Orient . I can' t get { 21 you from one to the other. d 22 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. Thank you, 23 Peter. 24 I want to make sure everyone has an E t 25 opportunity to ask questions or make i Page 79 I Southold HPC April 10th, 2019 '79 2 comments . 3 Any other members of Lhe 4 commission, Robert? 5 COMMISSIONER HARPER: Again, Mr. Finnegan, I know you' re doing what lawyers do, and I do want to go back Lo the 8 law because I 'm taking this very seriously 9 about demolition. 10 The fifth one about real estate 11 values does say in your handout here that 12 retention of the landmark, in its current 13 state the house diminishes the property 14 values in the area. And again, I 'd just 15 like to know how that was ascertained. 16 But also, number one, two, and 17 four. Number one talks about that the 18 landmark -- that- demolition and removal 19 would be a detriment- to the public 20 interest . And I would think that the 21 public really is the ones who should decide 22 public interest . 23 Number two, it talks about the 24 Town ' s history or character. Again, I 25 --__- that ' s ______ -__j __~_' ~, `^^^`- we can | | � � | � / ' Page 80 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 80 i 2 talk about whether or not this does 3 contribute to it . But I don' t think that ' s 4 a slam dunk either. 3 5 The fourth one, retention of a 6 landmark would help to preserve and protect j 7 an historic place or an area of interest in s 8 the Town. 9 And again, I think interest is in 10 the eye of the beholder, and I just want to 11 make sure that each of your responses to t 12 these five things reaches a standard that 5 13 we can say, you've met every single £ 9 V 14 criteria here . 15 So ifyou would like to answer 1 16 that, I ' d like to hear it . t 17 MR. FINNEGAN : I believe that: we I 18 have established that . I understand that ' 19 you disagree, Mr. Harper, and that ' s fine. 20 I respect your position. But I think if t 21 you read the entire criteria for each of 22 the five here; first of all, these are 3 23 elements for you to consider, okay? You 24 have to consider these. We don' t have to 25 establish all five of them to get a 5 Page 81 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 81 2 certificate of appropriateness . They are 3 for you to consider. I believe that we � 4 have amply established the lack of historic 5 significance of this house . It happens to i 6 lie in the district . Yes, it is around an 7 area that has many other historic i 8 buildings, but this particular structure in 9 its current condition has no historic a 10 significance . And I believe that we have s i 11 established that there is no architectural f 12 historic interest . The importance of this 13 house to Town history or character of the 14 outside -- the part of this house that is 15 within your purview, I don ' t believe that fi 1.6 there ' s anything in the record that 17 establishes that it has any significance. d 18 I think what we have established is 19 that there is no one design . There are t 20 several different designs . The effort has 21 been made to the extent that there is 22 sentimental attachment to the house because i 23 of the time that it ' s been there. That has 24 been honored. The cottage side of the 25 house has been honored by the design as x Page 82 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 82 j 2 people of the Board have acknowledged. 3 So I think that we have clearly 1 4 established each one of these elements . ? 5 There ' s evidence in Lhe record that: speaks i 6 to each of them, although I remind you that 7 they are criteria for you to consider. So, t 8 you know, I think that that is our -- 9 Dr. Potters was just pointing out that we 10 have an entire publication that has called 11 out every historic structure and there -- 12 and this one doesn' t make the cut. So to i 13 the extent that, you know, there is some 14 historic significance to that streetscape, 15 to the part of this house that is within 16 your purview, that has been inspected, that 17 has been preserved in the proposed design. 18 And I think based on that, we have 19 established the right to a certificate of 20 appropriateness . 21 CHAIRMAN WBBB: Thank you 22 Mr. Finnegan. 23 MR. FINNEGAN : Yeah. Sure . 24 MR, COOK: I just wanted to add to 25 that . I ' ve been been doing this for so f Page 83 1, 1 Southold HPC April 10th, 2019 83 2 long. 3 CHAIRMAN WEBB : Peter, 30 seconds, 4 go. 5 MR. COOK: 30 seconds, okay. 6 1 just want to point out that from 7 every iteration from May 15th, last year, 8 to present, we have always considered the 9 existing cottage . At no point did the 10 Potters come in or I come in and propose a 11 new house, we ' re tearing it down, it' s 12 rotting, it ' s old, it' s horrible, we' re 13 just going to tear it down . You've never 14 seen that from us . What you have seen from 15 us is a very thoughtful proposal for an 16 addition that would satisfy this family, a 17 growing family with two boys that are soon 18 to have mates, and it ' s always included 19 referencing the existing cottage . We have 20 not ignored it at all . 21 It ' s very important that everybody 22 here understand that if we were to try and 23 restore this house or the Potters took on 24 the burden of rebuilding and investing 25 money on a foundation with no footings, Page 84 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 84 2 there would still be nothing of that house i t 3 that you see standing today that will 4 remain. There ' s nothing there that will 5 remain, It ' s semantics . i 6 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. Thank you . -7 I 'm probably the last_ one standing . a { 8 I just have two kind of technical 9 questions for the engineer. You had spoken 10 about the fact that it ' s in a flood zone 11 and there have been salt water incursions 12 in the past . i 13 MR. O'BRIEN: Well, the house i J 14 itself is in the A6 flood zone. 15 CHAIRMAN WEBB: My question is : If ' 16 the home is demolished, I 'm assuming you'd 17 put a new solid basement in there . Would 1.8 that new basement still be subject to E 19 possible water incursion because of it ' s 20 location? 21 MR. O'BRIEN : Believe it or not, by 22 Code, being that it ' s an X-zone, an X-zone 23 doesn ' t really require that the house be 24 elevated above the floor elevation. The 25 flood elevation, A6 flood elevation, like I ' s 1 Page 85 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 85 2 said before, is about 20 feet away from the 3 addition on the south side . That doesn't 4 put you into that restriction under the 5 Code, the State Code, Lo actually address 6 any flood issues . The only thing it really 7 does is decrease your floor insurance 8 policy. 9 1 have clients -- I have many 10 clients that have houses outside the flood 11 zone that are an X-zone and so forth. And 12 1 recommend that they get flood insurance 13 for the mechanicals of their basements 14 because their basements can flood. 15 MR. COOK: I think I can answer 1-6 what he ' s asking. 17 CHAIRMAN WEBB: I have one other 1-8 question. 19 MR. COOK: I just want to -- I 20 think you I can answer what you ' re asking. 21 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Go ahead. 22 MR. COOK: Which is : The new house 23 will have a basement . The house is not in 24 a flood zone, it ' s an X-zone. But 25 foundations built new what they have is Page 86 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 86 2 what ' s added for protection. They can 3 literally be built into the ,rater and s 4 experience no leaks . s 5 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Quick, did you want { 6 to -- 7 MR. O'BRIEN: Yeah . I have done 8 about five structures, some of them are R 9 15-foot below sea level in the city, I 'm t 10 talking about commercial structures with i 11 pressure slabs . It be can be done . It ' s 12 very expensive, they got to have double 13 reinforcement:, they have to have bentonite 14 panels . But in the city, there ' s certain q 15 areas that they have no choice. The only 16 place left to is to build in swamps . Very 17 expensive. You ' re talking millions of 18 dollars to dopressure slabs . So it can be 19 done. £ 20 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. One other s 21 quick question while you' re up there. You F 22 had mentioned -- you stated the biggest: 23 concern was the black mold. And I 've been 24 told by some folks that black mold can be 25 removed. I 've had black mold in my house ' Page 87 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 87 2 that has been remediated. I listened to 3 Commissioner Surchin ' s comments about you 4 probably have to live with it forever. But 5 are you essentially saying that black mold 6 can' t be remediated and that would 7 contribute to the fact that it has to be 8 demolished? 9 MR. O'BRIEN: It ' s possible that it 10 cannot be remediated because it gets into 11 the wood fibers in the house . So if you 12 have to remove all the structural members 13 on the interior and exterior, what ' s going 1/4 to be left of the house? 1555 COMMISSIONER SURCHIN: Well, also, 16 one other thing. There ' s aspergillus which 17 is not the same as black mold, and that can 18 get huge -- hugely affected in that house 19 as well . 20 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Okay. Thank you. 21 Thank you. 22 And I just want to make one final 23 comment, and that is in reference to some 24 of the photographs that- you presented. I 25 just want thep ublic to be aware, the Page 89 1 Southold HPC April 10th, 2019 89 2 the commissioners-e 3 (Negative response) . 4 If not, I get the final word. 5 Number one, I want to say to the Potters, I -- we acknowledge that this has 7 been a very long process . As Mr. Cook 8 stated, I think it began last May, and 9 we' re coming LIP on almost a year of 10 discussions and deliberations . So we feel 11 that we ' re pretty close to the end of this 12 process now. And I want to assure you 13 folks that we will be diligent in trying to 14 bring this to a conclusion by making a 15 decision as soon as we can . However, with that said, the Commission, as you know, is 17 in the process of engaging an engineering 18 consultant to conduct an independent 19 inspection of the Potters ' premises . So 20 therefore, I would like a motion from a 21 member of the Commission to close this 22 hearing, subject to the submission of the 23 engineering consultant ' s written report . 24 Will somebody make that motion? 25 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I so move. Page 90 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 90 2 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Is there a second 3 to the motion? 4 MS . SURCHIN: Seconded. 5 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Seconded by 6 Commissioner Surchin. 7 All in favor of the motion, signify 8 by saying Aye. 9 (All Ayes) . 10 Opposed? 11 (Negative response) . 12 The motion is carried. 13 Now I ' ll entertain a motion to 14 close this hearing. We will allow 10 days is for the public to provide additional 16 written comment if they Wish to . They 17 should be submitted to Tracey Dwyer at the 1-8 Building Department . 19 MR. FINNEGAN: Can I ask when 20 you ' re engineer will be going? Because 21 obviously, we reiterate 22 CHAIRMAN WEBB: I wish I could give 23 you an answer to that . I know it ' s in the 24 process . We had to work with the Town to 25 get approval for it . Do you know where it Page 91 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 91 2 is at this point? 3 MR. HAGAN : I couldn ' t comment . As 4 diligently as possible . 5 MR. FINNEGAN: We assume we' ll be 0 notified of the day of the inspection? 7 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Absolutely. 8 MR. FINNEGAN : And I would also 9 request that we have the opportunity to 10 review and respond in writing to anything 11 that ' s submitted. 12 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Absolutely. 13 MR. FINNEGAN: As well as have our 14 engineer present as we had agreed during 15 the inspection. 16 CHAIRMAN WEBB: The document will 17 be made available for the public' s review, 18 yes . 19 MR. FINNEGAN: So the record is 20 closed of thep ublic hearing? 21 CHAIRMAN WEBB: Public hearing is 22 closed, yes . 23 Thank you all for being here this 211 evening. Get home safe . 25 I 'm sorry. We need a motion to 3 Page 92 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 92 2 adjourn. 3 COMMISSIONER HARPER: I make that 4 motion. 5 MS . SURCHIN: Second. 6 CHAIRMAN WEBB: All in favor of the 7 motion signify by saying "Aye" . z 8 (All Ayes) . E 9 Thank you. 10 (This proceeding was concluded at 6: 37 p.m. ) 11 i 12 3 i 13 t t 14 15 16 17 t 18 19 i 20 21 E 22 23 24 25 3 k Page 93 1 Southold HPC - April 10th, 2019 93 , i 2 R 3 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 4 s 5 STATE OF NEW YORK ) 6 ) SS : 7 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) 8 F 9 I, SARA GALANTE, a Notary Public in and for the 10 State of New York, do hereby certify: ' 11 THAT the within transcript is a true record of 12 the proceedings taken on April 10th, 2019 . 13 I further certify that I am not related either by 14 blood or marriage, to any of the parties in this action; and x 15 THAT I am in no way interested in the outcome of 16 this matter. t 17 18 f i 19 20 j 21 22 SARA GALANTE 23 F 24 t 25 Page 94 A _ adjourn 5:1192:2 analysis 19:12 63:8 65:4,21 81:2 45:17 55:6 59:22 A633:23 34:2 adjourned 17:20 21:12 22:25 50:8 82:20 60:11 61:13,15 84:14,25 adjourning 60:9 63:3,17 66:10 approvable 27:24 62:17 81:11 able 10:22 adjusted 44:12 analyze 19:18 approval 5:5 28:10 arcliitecture 20:25 abridging20:2 adjustments 54:22 ancestral 88:11 28:23 39:20 90:25 30:8 40:11,12 absolutely 32:16 administrative angle 46:24 47:7 approve 5:13,13 45:1170:21 55:6 91:7,12 3:21 Anne 1:13 3:23 13:6 area 30:14 38:25 Abstentions 13:16 advise 72:24 11:13 48:12 approved 88:7 45:12,18 57:4 acceptable 27:23 affidavit 17:12 answer 7:18 80:15 April 1:9 3:14:1 58:11 60:4 61:16 77:17 affirm 8:2 85:15,20 90:23 5:1 6:17:1 8:1 72:2 77:3,7 79:14 accepts 58:4 Affirmative 50:21 antique 49:23,23 9:1 10:1 11:1 80:7 81:7 accommodate afford 19:23 antiques 49:22 50:2 12:1 13:1 14:1 areas 86:15 42:14 44:20 afraid 36:21 anybody 10:10 15:1 16:1 17:1 arguably 76:15 accord 4:17 afternoon 3:3,20 48:24 52:5,10 18:1 19:120:1 argue 88:6 accountability 4:14 4:6,10 5:3,10 65:25 66:24 71:10 21:1 22:1 23:1 argument 58:13 accounts 76:21 14:12 16:5 apparently 19:5 24:1 25:1 26:1 68:24 acknowledge 89:6 age 37:9 53:13 27:128:1 29:1 articulated 73:16 acknowledged 21:6 ago 21:22 26:2,11 appear 31:8 30:131:1 32:1 artist's 46:25 82:2 36:4 63:16 70:11 appearance 20:25 33:1 34:135:1 as-is 22:14 action 93:14 agreed 66:7 91:14 40:11,13 36:1 37:138:1 asbestos 26:14,23 actua145:3' 73:18 agreement 5:18 appeared 42:3 39:1 40:1 41:1 ascertain 67:21 73:24 ahead 57:15 68:6 63:13 42:143:144:1 ascertained 67:8 adaptable 39:24 85:21 appears 32:19 45:1 46:1 47:1 79:15 adaptive 23:12 air 32:8 34:24 48:149:1 50:1 asking 85:16,20 add 34:22 82:24 airing 4:18 applicable 20:3 51:152:1 53:1 aspect 56:19 4 added 11:19 26:13 aisle 77:15 40:20 54:1 55:1 56:1 aspergillus 87:16 j 32:18 45:2186:2 Allegiance 3:10,12 applicant 5:3,8,19 57:1 58:159:1 asphalt 26:14 addition 4:15 19:4 allergies 73:2 6:24 14:23 15:15 60:1 61:162:1 assistant 1:19 3:19 24:15 32:19,21 allow 41:4 53:21 16:7 20:12 69:19 63:164:1 65:1 3:21 33:2134:11,15 90:14 applicants 18:5 66:1 67:1 68:1 Association 43:20 1 35:9 40:7 44:22 allowed 53:2 58:16 22:5 23:15 63:12 69:1 70:171:1 assume 91:5 44:24 46:10 54:18 72:9 76:2 88:22 64:5,14 72:1 73:1 74:1 assumed 28:5 j 62:12 68:23 69:25 allows 20:10 64:19 application 5:14 75:176:1 77:1 assuming 84:16 70:5 72:13,14 alter 19:20 6:15 7:3 13:7 78:1 79:1 80:1 assure 57:21 60:7 74:15,16,23 75:15 alteration 39:23 14:14 17:20 18:14 81:1 82:1 83:1 89:12 77:4 78:5 83:16 40:12 63:10 18:15 19:15 21:6 84:1 85:186:1 attached 88:21 $5:3 alterations 14:18 24:5 28:7 30:15 87:1 88:1 89:1 attachment 81:22 i additional 8:7 19:25 39:20 41:3 64:19 71:6 90:191:1 92:1 attendees 6:11 32:24 34:22 37:17 altered 21:22 22:8 applies 21:14 93:1,12 attention 52:9 37:23 47:22 90:15 aluminum 27:2 apply 5:12 22:2 arbitration 36:3 Atterbury 73:12 additions 14:17 aluminum-clad applying 4:16 architect 16:7 74:9 40:16,23 58:17 26:14,20 appreciate 17:23 17:16 68:14 attic 10:6 33:6 address 6:8 8:18 amend 9:10 54:11 76:20 architects 53:21 attorney 1:19 3:19 17:24 233:2148:25 amended 16:18 appropriate 19:21 54:11 13:4 17:3 3 49:2 51:20 5.5:17 Americas'24:25 22:5,18 45:16 architectural 21:3 attractive 46:16 ' 57:9 63:11 64:11 30:7 72:8 23:2 25:23,25 attribute 63:2 66:2 8.5:5 amp 31:14 appropriateness 26:4,8,10,16 27:3 attributed 30:3 addresses 37:12 ample 63:7 5:6,15 6:17 13:22 27:14,17 28:24 audience 6:10 addressing 65:14 amply 81:4 14:16 18:16 20:15 29:5 38:22 39:9 authority 19:18 Page 95 63:18 beetle 34:14,19 60:13 76:13 carelessly 26:13 character 26:19 authorized 64:8 began 47:9 89:8 bought 52:11 64:15 cares 6 1:10 28:15 29:9 38:25 avail 66:6 beginning 25:9 boundaries 18:24 carried 13:20 90:12 45:24 46:7 61:13 available 14:3 behalf 17:7 22:13 carry 65:20 79:24 81:13 63:21 64:22 91:17 beholder 80:10 boys 83:17 cascading 73:10 characterized aware 63):18 87:25 believe 3:17 7:22 Brancato 17:8 case 61:9 38:10 Aye 12:23 13:12 13:2 24:10 27:23 64:23 caused 9:10 Charles 49:10 90:8 92:7 27-25 53:3 64:3,8 break 15:2 ceilings 36:12 51:24 52:14 54:19 Ayes 12:24 13:13 65:3 67:15,18 bring 40:22 52:8 center 75:9 charming 78:19 90:9 92:8 80:17 81:3,10,15 54:7 89:14 century 24:25 check 7:23 84:21 bringing 24:24 certain 86:14 chimney 70:24 bend 7:13 69:20 certainly 88:15 72:15 back 15:13 16:3 bentonite 86:13 brought 19:15 certificate 5:5,14 choice 58:3 86:15 17:22 31:18,19 best 27:18 41:16 54:21 63:23 6:16 13:3,21 chopped 33:7 32:20,20,25 41:25 better 4:18 5:25 build 11:23,25 14:15 18:16 63:8 circuit 31:15 43:2 47:2 52:2 69:22 86:16 65:3 81:2 82:19 circulated 24:8 53:7,23 54:8 59:9 beware 52:5 builders 53:22 certify 93:10,13 circumstances 60:16 62:14 69:22 beyond 22:21 building 9:7,14 cetera 41:2 22:19 71:12 76:4 79:7 big 54:17,23 58:20 14:4 27:20 28:9 Chairman 1:12 3:2 city 86:9,14 88:21 76:25 77:19 6:25 40:20 53:6 3:4 4:4 7:7,12,23 claimed 58:7 back ground 44:17 bigger 54:24 60:2 71:2174:18 8:6,10,13 11:10 clear 62:2 bad 56:7 biggest 35:25 86:22 74:25 90:18 11:21 12:4,9,12 clearance 75:21 bared 33:16 bin 34:9 buildings 81:8 12:17,19 13:9,11 clearly 6:3 82:3 barn 6:19 7:11 8:19 black 34:10 43:10 built 49:12 53:25 13:19 14:2,7,11 client 25:8 41:8 9:25 43:13,17,22 44:8 69:4 74:12 85:25 15:5,12,25 16:5 clients 42:2 72:25 based 16.19 23:19 44:8 86:23,24,25 86:3 24:7,11 ':)7:16,21 85:9,10 30:16 64:25 82:18 87:5,17 bulldoze 25:5 37:22 47:2148-3 clients'25:10 basement 31:21,23 black-and-white burden 83:24 48:7,23 49:4 close 10:18 12:14 32:18 33:12 34:4 25:17 47:12 burdened 22:6 50:11,16,2151:18 60:8,10 70:16 36:8 53:5 84:17 blast 36:23 button 68:10,12,12 55:15 56:14 57:8 89:11,21 90:14 84:18 85:23 blasted 36:17 72:19 57:15 61:20 65:7 closed 5:10 64:2 basements 85:13 blood 93:14 buy 52:6 65:23 66:19 67:2 91:20,22 85:14 board 16:6 17:24 buyer 52:4 68:3,9 72:18 closely 25:11 basic 5:2 18:3 20:9,10 buys 52:3 78:22 82:21 83:3 closest 60:8 basically 7:18 37:2 21-13 22:16 24:16 buzz 20:20 84:6,15 85:17,21 clumsy 26:14 37:14 70-4 25:12 28:5 37:15 ------ 86:5,20 87:20 coal 31:23 34:9 bastoirdized 33:2 44:3 48:2 50:4 C 90:2,5,22 91.7,12 35:2 bath 36:13 56:11 58:12 59:6 C 93:3,3 91:16,21 92:6 coal-fare 31:17 bathroom 52:23 60:22 63:13,23,24 cabinets 36:13 Chairperson 1:13 code 6:18 14:17 bathrooms 31:8 65:22 66:6 82:2 Caffrey 2:5 6:15 challenged 60:18 18:21 19:16 20:6 bead 35:16 Board's 19:22 Caffrey's 7:11 challenges 75:4 20:10 21-12 22:11 11 headboards 53:14 boards 35:16 cake 59:24 chance 50:19 27:20 28:4,7,9,17 beams 33:16 34:12 Bob 7:7 13:3 23:5 calculations 10:21 changes 23:17 28:20 30:21 35:11 34:18 36:20 44:21 24:17 30:22,25 calendar 5:15 42:15,2143:19,24 40:24 41:5 58:25 bear 60:24 38:9 65:10 call 69:21 70:5 50:23 54:7 70:9 59:20 62:4 63:4 beating 38:12 book 39:18 called 21:9 46:20 changing 20:3 63:18,22 64:9,19 beautiful_59:14 borders 74:13 82:10 75:17 64:24 66:9,10 bedrooms 32:10,13 bothering 73:17 cape-style 19:2 Chapter 19:16 67:4 75:22 76:' 32:25 77:19 bottom 38:17 59:17 care 34:17 50:2 20:14,18 28:3 84:22 85:5,5 Page 96 codes 25:20 40:21 87:3,15 89:25 27:10 30:17 31:5 87:7 crack 36:5 collapsed 9:15 90:6 92:3 31:10,11,12 38:2 contributed 35:12 craw 70:19 color 46:18 commissioners 5:7 62:24 69:2 81:9 contributing 25:25 crawl 32:17 coarse 5:22 14:24 23:22 89:2 conditions 5:13 26:4,9 28:21 create 32:24 63:20 35:6 48:9 53:22 Committee 54:2 19:1156:6 convection 32:8 created 54:3 75:23 64:7 72:4 74:17 common 39:7,9 conduct 4:9 5:2 conversation 58:10 crippled 60:18 75:1.9 83:10,10 community 4:19 89:18 conversations criteria 28:6 39:19 coarses 15:13 33:24 25:16 38:21 47:11 confidence 4:20 41:17 59:11 67:4 80:14,21 35:3 74:20 55:7 confident 41:25 Cook 15:18 16:5,7 82:7 comfortable 11:13 comparative 15:21 confirm 4:14 38:5 17:16 22:24 24:21 cross-section 15:21 72:11 44:5 conform 44:13 24:22 37:18,24 cross-sectional coining 68:14 89:9 compared 51:9 conforming 18:19 48:17,22 57:16 16:12 comment 8:14 48:4 comparison 16:13 58:15 61:22 67:22 74:6 cup 25:2 56:4 64:12 72:15 60:19 connected 74:14 75:3,6,10,14 78:6 current 16:17 22:7 87:2.3 90:16 91:3 compatibility 28:14 connecting 74:23 78:9,14,19 82:24 23:4,16 29:8,10 comments 6:9 8:7 45:24 46:7 consider 20:22 28:7 83:5 85:15,19,22 29:15 30:12,20 , 8:15 9:2 11:11 compatible 29:13 80:23,24 81:3 89:7 38:9,17 40:8,13 4 12:10 18:12 37:17 38:24 82:7 cooperate 18:6 40:23 41:6 43:7 37:23 42:16,22 complete 26:22 considerate 57:2 cooperative 25:7 43:10,17 79:12 44:2 47:22 48:5 68:15 considered 83:8 Coordinator 1:20 81:9 51:25 52:18 54:9 completely 22:5 consistent 27:14 copies 23:24 24:8 currently 21:19 s` 65:8,15 66:20,22 56:22 62:3 39:11,15,23 40:7 copy 8:3 15:19 cut'9:22 82:12 68:4 71:23,24 compliant 62:4 41:6 42:9 45:10 16:10,12,23 24:17 76:20 79:2 87:3 compliment 68:14 45:1,1 37:11 ___ __D_________ 88:25 69:22 71:17 consisting 42:6 core 32:22 damage 19:8 34:14 commercial 86:10 comply 9:17 consists 77:11 corner 18:23 33:22 34:14,15,19 commission 1:4 3:5 complying 40:20 constituents 4:15 33:25 45:14 46:19 Damon 1:19 3:20 a 3:7,14,15,25 4:2 components 22:10 constricted 76:16 88:19 data 60:6 5:12,12,18 6:9,10 compromises 25:8 constructed 19:3,5 correct 61:23 72:13 date 31:9 32:20 8:16,18,24,25 computer 47:6 21:21 correction 48:14 42:21 65:2 t 11: 11 12:13 18:7 concede 74:8 construction 30:20 69:11 dates 32:20 19:17 23:19 48:5 conceptual 41:14 38:14 40:24 cottage 15:23 16:13 day 91:6 48:11,25 49:3,5 concern 10:10 consultant 89:18 25:14,15 32:4,5 days 5:1.5 55:9 ; 50:4 51:21 55:17 35:25 51:11 52:10 consultant's 39:23 40:15 41:16 43:3 90:14 c deal 56:13 4 63:19 65:14,16,17 71:1 86:2 consultants 65:19 43:4 44:17 45:19 1 65:20 66:23 68:4 concerned 52:20 contact 34:7 45:20 47:10 58:19 58:14 79:4 88:4,8,24 70:2,6,20 72:13 contains 2 8:10 69:21 71:16 72:7 Dean 49:4,10,10 89:16,21 73:8 contaminated 72:8,22 73:10 50:13,18,22 58:3 Commissioner 1:14 concerning 6:18 23:11 75:7,18,20 76:17 Dean's 57:19 1:1.5,16 3:18,23 14:17 contanaillation 76:23 77:4 81:24 deceiving 77:22 4:3 9:4,20,23 10:4 concerns 18:8 19:10 83:9,19 December42:18 10:9,19 11:3,9,16 70:24 context 18:13 counter 77:16 decide 79:21 f 12:6,16,18 13:8 concerted 18:6 contextual 29:20 County 1:2 6:22 decision 50:14 64:3 13:10 37:20 49:8 concluded 10:14 continuation 6:14 14:21 93:7 66:18 89:15 ? 66:25 67:3,15,20 92:10 14:13 couple 4:8 15:4,8 decisional 4:20 68:7,1169:6,7,9 conclusion 5:16 continue 17:24 61:24 decrease 85:7 69:10 72:16,18,20 89:14 37:6 course 23:6 deemed 20:7 ? 4 74:21 75:5,12 concrete 34:24 35:4 contractor 7:10 cover 69:18 deficiencies 19:9 78:4,7,11,17 79:5 condition 23:4,12 contribute 80:3 covered 26:25 defined 27:18 Page 97 definitely 50:5 diligently 66:13 dollars 86:18 element 39:7 91:24 degree 74:5 91:4 door 9:25 elements 21:24 everybody 7:24 # deliberations 89:10 dimensional 18:20 doors 27:11 35:17 62:17 80:23 82:4 36:8 37:11 83:21 ` demolish 19:20 42:21 53:14 elevated 84:24 everybody's 34:2 demolished 6:19 diminish 67:16 dormered 32:23 elevation 34:3,4 evidence 21:16 84:16 87:8 diminishes 30:1) dormers 33:8 70:21 44:6 46:16 59:4 29:5 47:14 62:22 1 demolition 18:17 67:9 79:13 double 35:19 39:13 59:10 60:15 84:24 63:7,22,23 64:25 19:25 20:11,16 diminutive 58:19 86:12 84:25,25 66:6 82:5 22:4,15,17 27:25 dining 77:9 double-gable 59:23 elevations 11:23 exact 9:18 28:8,11,14,18,21 direct40:16 double-hung 39:16 16:16 42:7 60:23 exactly 10:17 11:7 28:23,25 30:15 directed 21:13 41:8 doubt 32:13 eleven 44:19 12:2 F 37:7 51:2 63:9 direction 27:24 Dr 14:15 64:23 employment 65:18 exhibiting 28:19 67:5 79:9,18 28:6 82:9 encouraging 30:7 exhibits 15:8 ; demonstrate 25:5 directive 25:10 drain 36:17 energy 40:25 exist 48:16,19 4 demonstrated 29:5 47:9 draw 41:25 engaging 89:17 existence 28:3 29:4 deny 5:13 directly 45:2,6 draivinng 10:24 engineer 11:19 existing 14.18 Department 14:4 58:23 59:5 60:3 drawings 7:16 17:18 30:22 50:8 15:23 16:13 18:17 90:18 disagree 56:.5 59:4 11:19 5 6:11 63:12,20 18:22 19:7 21:8 deplorable 62:24 80:19 Dubin 17:4 64:6 84:9 90:20 21:2126:3,24 depth 44:21 61:14 discern 10:22 due 28:2 91:14 27:7,8 29:12 ; describe 21:19 discernable 21:24 dug 36:15 38:7 engineering 23:8 30:18 38:3,7,18 DESCRIPTION disconnect 73:22 dunk 80:4 27:6 30:19 38:4 40:15 41:13,15,23 2:4 discovered 38:8 duped 64:16 52:15 89:17,23 43:3 44:6,7 45:13 deserving 62:20 discredit 74:3 duration 7:4 entertain 12:13 45:19 46:3,9,15 ' design 18:1120:25 discrepancy 11:18 duties 65:20 90:13 62:6 67:24 68:21 21:8 23:14,16,19 discretion 5:11 duty 25:19 entire 77:7 80:21 68:22,25 69:3,21 25:15 29:17 38:20 discussed 7:19 42:8 dwelling 14:18 82:10 74:24 76:17 83:9 39:7 40:10,12 discussion 11:14 Dwyer 1:20 3:22 entirely 5:23 22:18 83:19 42:2,5,13 47:9 12:19 63:15 13:24 90:17 entitled 27:19 58:9 exists 44:15 45:6 } 62:10 81:19,25 discussions 89:10 - -- ---- ----- 58:25 61:5 82:17 disintegrating environmental expand 72:10 designs 81:20 26:16 E 93:3 30:18 38:4 expanded 22:8 detail 26:19 39:4 disproportionate earlier 9:6 equipped 57:18 62:13 70:9 detailed 37:12 76:15 early 31:9 41:19 essentially 22:22 expect 49:22 detailing 45:18 disrepair 19:7 easily 29:21 44:10 57:6 87:5 expensive 86:12,17 details 26:16,18 26:22,23 East 30:25 establish 21:17 experience 86:4 deteriorating 67:24 district 6:20 14:20 echos 74:24 80:25 expert 63:24 determine 19:19 18:25 20:8 22:13 eclectic 27:18 established 28:6 explain 52:9 31:5 22:17 40:17 52:7 Ed 15:3 40:4 80:18 81:4 exposed 60:20 detriment 29:2 64:17,21 69:23 EDWARD 1:12 81:11,18 82:4,19 expressly 28:17 j, 79:19 81:6 88:15 efficiency 40:25 establishes 62:23 extended 5:17 devaluing 67:7,12 disturbing 53:4 effort 18:6 81:20 81:17 extensive 19:9 devoid 22:20 disturbs 57:7 efforts 23:15 estate 30:6 67:14 34:13 different 54:5 document 91:16 eight-foot 78:9 79:10 extent 81:21'82:13 56:.22 58:12,13 documentation 5:4 either 5:10 8:25 estimation 63:6 exterior 21:14 76:8 81:20 documents 15:14 80:4 93:13 et 41:2 22:20 26:25 71:20 E difficulty 29:19 15:18 16:9 electric 3 1:13 Evaluation 28:13 87:13 dignity 6:11 doing 71:15 76:7 electrical 3 1:13 evening 16:25 17:6 extreme 3:15 19:7 diligent 89:13 79:6 82:25 52:24 17:1121:17 62:23 eye 80:10 Page 98 F finally 70:18 72:4 84:24 85:7 free 41:20 15:20 16:11,21 F 93:3 88:25 floors 32:3 35:13 freehand 41:13 22:24 23:5,6,25 facade 54:13,14 find 53:4,24 56:10 36:12 58:2 french 36:16 24:20 37:22 48:3 56:220 61:7 57:5 60:24 73:18 flue 31:21,22 frequently 39:14 49:5 51:13 58:20 facades 39:20 finding 65:5 fog 35:21 front 15:15 16:9 61:21 63:14 66:6 52:20 56:13 findings 23:3,7 Foliate48:13 60:6,21 73:5,7 75:6 83:13 face 52:21 38:5 folks 86:24 89:13 frost 35:11 87:13 90:20 fact 20:6 29:3 47:2 fine 80:19 followed 68:19 full 4:12 6:4 Golluli 55:21,22 47:15 52:22 71:3 finished 30:24 following 16:20 function 49:23,24 good 3:3 7:16 8:3 73:9 84:10 87:7 47:22 43:8 fungi 34:9 16:5,25 53:21,23 facts 68:15 finishes 27:4 follows 44:11 furnace 31:18 61:12 68:18 69:19 fair 64:3 Finnegan 15:3,7 foot 58:6 further 38:2 59:19 76:12 fairness 4:15 66:4 16:25 17:3 24:10 footage 58:8,9,16 93:13 gotten 70:25 fall 32:6 63:3 24:12 47:20,24 70:13,14 7'):8 G governance 4:13 familiar 20:19 34:2 48:6 57:13 61:24 75:16 76:18,24 grand 77:2,21 family,75:16 77:13 65:7,9,15 66:3 77:22 78:13 -able 11:2 12:2 6 grandparents' 83:16 17 67:3,11,19 79:6 footage-wise 73:21 44:22,24 45:3,4,6 4,6 88:17 far 9:t 6 48:14 80:17 82:22,23 fooling 38:8 46.12 58:22 59:7 granted')0:16 farm 39:5 90:19 91:5,8,133 footings 34:25 60:13,17 74:14 granting 63:7 farm-style 25:15 91:19 35:10 38:11,12,13 76:10 great 14:6 29:19 47:10 fireplace 52:23 38:15,17 53:10 Gabled 39:6 54:17 72:21 farm-styled gables 39:5 yled 25:14 first 8:14 83:25 greater 4:20 fault 66:12 25:19 32:12 33:19 footprint 62:5 GALANTE 93:9 greatly 77:22 favor 12:22 1':):11 35:18 39:2141:10 7'):18 93:22 green 43:11,18,23) 90:7 92:6 41:1148:4 52:10 forced 32:7 garage 27:9 44:7 feature 25:25 26:10 55:25 57:16 68:13 Ford 49:24 Garretson 1:15 4:3 Greenport 88:11 39:9 78:20 71-4,6 74:8 77:7 forever 87:4 4:3,4 7:2 15:6 grew 88:16 features 20:23 26:5 80:22 forget 53:25 16:2 24:24 37:20 grills 32:11 39:25 40:5 fit 25:16 form 22:7 29:8,10 68:7,11 69:7,10 Grosvenor 73:12 February 2:1 50:6 fits 47:11 44:17 general 30:5 74:9 66:8 rive 6:8 33:4 45:5 former 26:15 gentlemen 3:3 growing 34:9 83:17 federal 40:21 67:4 80:12,22,25 forth 20:13 59:9 George 88:12 guess 53:11 70:18 feedback 41:24 86:8 85:11 get-go 25:12 72:7 feel 74:4 89:10 fix 11:21 forward 14:24 getting 72:2 76:22 guide 20:21 feels 10:1 1 fixtures 36:13 66:17 76:25 guided 20:17 feet 9:7,13 10:17 flag 3:10 found 9:11 31:6 give 4:11 75:20 guidelines 28:10 11:22,24 33:4,24 flap 33:16 39:13 90:22 gutted 36:11 45:5 51:4,6,7 floated 88:12 foundation 34:23 given 5:7 gutters 39:7 54:19,20 55:2 flood 33:23,24 34:2 35:4,9 36:6,16 glass-fused 31:14 59:2 60:5,8,10 34:3,5 36:7 84:10 38:7,9,13,14,16 go 11:6 14:5 20:18 H 75:25 76:2,3,21 84:14,25,25 85:6 83:25 32:6,12 35:10 Hagan 1:19 3:20 77:10,10,18 85:2 85:10,12,14,24 foundations 85:25 49:5 53:23 56.12 6-25 13:18 91:3 felt 41:25 flooding 37:5 four 6:2 29:23 57:15 66:25 68:5 flail 1:7 5:24 -fibers 87:11 floor 7:8 22:24 33:21 36:4,5 45:5 72:25 74:16 75:8 hallways 77:2 fifth 79:10 32:10,11,12,24 77:14 79:17 78:14 79:7 83:4 halting 58:17 fighting 47:17 33:19,19,20 34:7 fourth 80:5 85:21 Hamlin 65:10,10 figured 47:25 34:16 35:6 41:19 framing 27:7 33:11 Gott 13:4 65:24 final 7:16 43:22 47:19 49:15 58:11 49:14 53:9,15 goes 52:2 hanimer 14:5 87:22 89:4 59:8 77:3,7 78:5,8 frank 72:24 going 11:6 14:25 hand 15:4 76:13 Page 99 handing 41:21 historic 1:4 3:5 38:19 39:5 41:13 57:158:1 59:1 incompatible 19:25 .f handout 79:11 6:20 14:19 18:25 41:16 44:3,14 60:1 61:1 62:1 incorporate 38:22 handouts 42:20 19:19,24 20:7,8 45:16 46:6,19 63:1 64:165:1 42:15 Hans 51:22,22 20:12,23,24 21:3 47:10 49:11,13,20 66:1 67:1 68:1 'increase 67:13,23 happens 81:5 88:10 21:24 22:10,13,20 51:3,8,9,9,12,14 69:170:1 71:1 67:25 happy 23:21 74:6 22:25 25:12 27:5 51:17 52:22 _53:23 72:173:1 74:1 increasing 30:6 Harbor 18:23 28:11,15,18,21,25 54:18 56:12 57:17 75:1 76:177:1 incursion 84:19 27:16 43:15 44:25 29:6,25,2.5 30:2 57:19,22,25 59:16 78:1 79:1 80:1 incursions 84:11 { 45:14 46:10,12 38:24 39:2,8,10 59:18,20,23 60:7 81:1 82:1 83:1 independent 50:7 t 54:14 69:17 39:11,17,21 40:5 60:12,21,24 61:3 84:1 85:1 86:1 63:17,20 89:18 hard 15:19 16:10 40:12,17 45:24 61:12 62:2,6,22 87:1 88:189:1 INDEX 2:2 23:24 47:3 71:9 46:7 49:20 61:15 62:24 63:3 64:7 90:1 91:192:1 indicates 43:11 Harper 1:14 3:18 62:7,16,17 63:2 64:15 67:25 68:21 93:1 influences 39:3 12:16 13:8 66:25 64:17,21 69:23 68:22,25 69:3,4 huge 73:2187:18 information 9:10 67:3,15,20 79:5 80:7 81:4,7,9,12 69:21,24 70:15 hugely 87:18 61:22 80:19 89:25 92:3 82:11,14 88:3,7 72:5 73:13,14,21 hung 4:5 35:19 inhabitants 21:16 z he'll 23:9 88:14,23 74:11,20 76:7,22 39:13 inhabited21:11 ' head 23:9 75:21 historical 30:9 76:23 77:6,8,20 hunldng 54:17 initial 17:21 78:20 35:16,24 48:21 77:21,24 79:13 hurricane 40:25 initially 25:21 head-wise 78:16 52:6 53:6,13 54:2 81:5,13,14,22,25 -- ------ - input 23:19 42:15 hear 19:6 21:23 55:8 56:22,24,24 82:15 83:11,23 I inside 52:23,24,25 27:6 80:16 60:2 76:6 84:2,13,23 85:22 ice 36:17,22 53:3,14,18 56:12 heard 52:18 62:22 historically 21:7 85:23 86:25 87:11 identical 44:11,18 inspected 23:7 hearing4:16 5:9,16 history 29:9 30:8 87:14,18 88:10 58:22 82:16 6:13,14 7:5 12:14 79:24 81:13 houses 27:15 37:8 identically 43:3 inspection 31:4 14:12,14 16:21 holder 25:2 49:2152:22 53:6 identified 25:21 89:19 91:6,15 17:10,21 19:14 home 18:19 22:17 54:24,25 55:4,10 26:6 insulation 32:15,16 42:17 43:2,8 22:2123:16 29:6 60:4 62:19,20 idyllic 46:25 32:17,19 36:14 50:24 53:10,19 30:10 56:8 84:16 70:8,13 76:13 ignored 83:20 37:4 49:13 £ 54:22 66:5 89:22 88:11,16,17 91:24 85:10 illustration 43:5 insurance 85:7,12 90:14 91:20,21 homes 39:4,8,10,12 HPC 3:14:1 5:1 44:5 integrated 39:6 hearings 4:1 l 5:20 39:18 40:17 56:2 6:1 7:1 8:1 9:1 images 39:17 76:5 integrity 23:10 heat 32:1149:14 56:3 59:24 88:2 10:1 11:1 12:1 immediate 27:13 25:23 26:8 36:24 heater 32:3 honeycomb 35:2 13:1 14:1 15:1 77:12 55:11 heaters 32:2 honored 81:24,25 16:1 17:1 18:1 impacting 56:23 intent 19:23 heating 31:16 honors 40:14 19:1 20:1 21:1 importance 30:3 interest 21:3 28:25 32:10 hopefully 47:16 22:1 23:1 24:1 81:12 29:3,25 30:2,7 heaves 3 5:11 horrible 83:12 25:1,8 26:127:1 important 29:8 61:14 79:20,22 heavy 15:16 hospital36:9 27:22 28:1,5 29:1 38:14 69:13 70:17 80:7,9 81:12 height 9:14 10:15 house 18:22 19:2,4 30:1 31:1 32:1 83:21 interested 93:15 11:7,14 45:5 46:5 21:8,10,19,21 33:1 34:135:1 impose 58:5 interior 2 l:15 27.4 78:8 22:2,12,20 23:3,4 36:137:1 38:1 impressed 56:16 35:17 36:11,14 3 heights 9:25 75:23 23:8,11,14 25:14 39:1 40:1 41:1,9 inches 6:2 33:22 87:13 help 4:13 29:24 25:15 26:22 29:21 41:11,24 42:1,13 35:10 44:9,20 Interiors 27:2 80:6 30:13,17 31:5,6 42:18 43:144:1 45:3 59:17 69:20 in terj ect 74:22 Hi 51:22 32:9,13,22 33:10 45:146:1 47:1 include 65:18 introduce 3:13 16:8 high 9:7,9 33:20,25 34:18,23 48:1 49:1 50:1 included 83:18 introduction 6.12 higher 9:24 35:15,24 36:3,4 5 1:1 52:1 53:1 including 36:12 investigate 25:19 highlights 37:14 36:12,15 37:2,10 54:1 55:156:1 40:24 investing 83:24 I Page 100 invited 5:4 17:15 20:19 23:23 left 3:17,19,21,23 look 7:16,25 9:25 mates 83:18 island 77:12,16 24:15 32:14 35:15 5:22 10:25 35:23 20:24 21:2 31:7 matrix 42:19 issuance 65:3 .38:1148:15 49:23 86:16 87:14 39:2 45:21 58:20 matter 37:6 55:24 issue 13:3,21 63:11 50:25 52:7,16 legislative 19:22 61:3 64:7 67:6 55:25 60:14 93:16 65:5 72:25 73:25 55:12 57:19 59:25 length 7:20 76:19 68:21 71:20 73:11 McCarthy 1:16 3:8 issues 4:19 58:18 64:14 70:3,6,16 77:23 7':13 74:11,16 3:16 13:10 18:2 85:6 70:20 73:22,23 lengthened 44:19 76:12 Ili eNeal56:15,15 1'l'EM 2:4 79:6,15 82:8,13 Lenore 17:7 looked 9:8 11:4 mean 11:20 49:19 iteration 43:17,18 89:16 90:23,25 let's 3:9 8:23 15:12 27:12,19 38:25 49:25 50:9 54:23 43:23 83:7 knowledge 64:12 70:5 39:19 53:24 57:20 76:12 - - knows 49:6 73:20 letters 21:5 24:4 looking 45:7,8 measured 10:20 level 86:9 50:22 71:18 mechanical 31:12 James 46:18 -- l�- - levels 42:7 looks 31:22 33:2 mechanicals 85:13 Jamie 1:15 4:2 68:6 laborers 55:9 liberties 46:2147:4 56:21 57:20 59:24 meeting 1:5 41:11 74:4 lack 27:3 34:2.5 lie 81:6 looming 54:17 50:6,6 66:14 January 31:3 81:4 lies 18:22 20:8 lord 73:20 meetings 4:23 jarring 74:2 lacking 38:18 lighter 44:8,16 lose 20:5 18:12 42:11 Jinn 73:7 76:19 lacks 26:3 limit 6:7 55:13 loss 57:18 member 3:7,16,25 job 47:14 61:12 Ladies 3:2 limitations 30:19 lost 26:20 8:17 18:2 24:24 68:18 69:20 72:22 land 59:14 limiting 20:2 lot 3:17,22 49:16 48:8 51:19 89:21 Joe 3:7,11,16 landmark 28:24 limits 65:21 66:10 56:3 70:24,25 members 3:14 6:6 join 69:24 29:7,16,24 30-5 line 31:11 38:8 43:8 71:4 8:2,16,24,25 16:6 joined 17:15 23:5 39:25 40:2 67:13 43:10 59:18,19 Louis 17:7 24:16 34:8,20,21 joining 17:11 79:12,18 80:6 lines39:11,15 low 74:15 75:7 36:25 55:16 57:8 { joint 35:6 landmarked 14:19 44:11 61:16 lower 10:2 78:14 66:22 79:3 87:12 joints 73:3 landmarks 19:24 link 68:23 69:24 - membrane 36:15 joists 34:17 35:2 39:21 listened 18:8 41:10 --- M --------- memory 46:2,25 JOSEPH 1:16 Lane 6:21 8:20 51:5 87:2 main 17:5 34:12.18 mentioned 21:18 .lune 42:4 14:20 17:9 18:23 listening 54:6 34:23 38:12 56:18 70-15 76.20 86:22 jurisdiction 53:16 21:20 27:16 44:6 lists 42:21 62:8 76:15,23 mentions 7 1:10 62:9 45:14 46:4 49:11 literally 86:3 maintained 31:7 Mercedes 49:25 jury 51:16 54:13 55:5 69:17 little 9:12,24 10:2 37:3 39:25 62:9 mere 22:12 29:3 70:7,8,10,14,23 32:18 33:13 53:23 ma intaining22:6 merit 27:4 88:17,19,20 28:14 30:6 45:23 55:_5 68:9 met 42:13 80:13 Kathy 2:5 6:15 large 51:8 60:13 live 48:13 49:10,11 46:6 mic 7:13 keep 45:9 62:6 88:20 72:5,6 87:4 major 34:5 70:9 anicrolaminated 71:23 larger 74:16 lived 31:18 55:12 making 50:14,23 36:20 Kellev 17:4 late 19:5 31:9 living 56:2 58:2 61:13 69:20 89:l4 microphone 5:23 kept 27:10 55:10 Latham 17:4 88:13 72:1176:24 77:5 mandated 20:22 5:24 6:3 key 20:17,21 21:25 Laurel 31:2 77:7,9,18 Marion 31:2 millions 86:17 kind 29:22 84:8 law 4:24 71:19,19 local 30:8 marriage 93:14 mimic 43-3 kitchen 35:17 79:8 location 29:8 10 Martin 17:3 61:21 mind 15:7 62:6 36:13 77:8,14 lawyer 52:8 84:20 massing 44:14 minus 55:2 knee-%,-all 10:5 lawyers 79:7 locust 33:17 34:8 73:23 75:17 minute 16:3 knew 45:20 64:14 lead 3:11 19:10 53:5,8 56:5 massive 51:8 54:17 minutes 6:8 knock 78:19 27:22,25 38:6 22 material 29:18,20 mistake 10:12 23 ,, logically 41:�.� ,� ' know.x:17,22 7:17 leaks 86:4 long 26:2,10 49:5 materiality 27:5 mixed 27:18 9:11,16,25 10:5 learned 68:17 52:3 74:14,22 materials 26:5 Model-'1'49:24 10:10,12,13 11:6 lectern 25:2 83:2 89:7 57:23 modern 49:21 11:17 13:23 17:2 Page -101. modest 56:25 needs 31:12 75:16 42:16 43:9,14,16 onset 38:20 P modifications Negative 8:21 43:22 Open 4:23) p.m 1:9 92:10 18:10 42:10 11:12 12:21 13:15 number 6:22 14:21 opening 31:20 PAGE 2:4 modified 21:22 13:17 50:16 55:19 29:23 79:16,17,23 opinion 4:18 37:11 paint 38:6 25:22 26:7 44:3 57:10 89-3 90-11 89:5 opinions 63:24 painting 46:23 mold 19:10 36:2,2 neglected 25:21 numbers 16:19 opportunity 4:12 pane 35:21 36:4,18,21 37:4 26:6 numerous 18:9 5:7 7:25 17:23 panels 86:14 58:2 72:25 73:2 neighbor 60:3,9,10 19:8 66:7 78:25 91:9 parcel 59:14 86:23,24,25 87:5 neighbor's 60:7 nurture 49:25 opposed 13:14 park.48:20 56:211 87:17 neighborhood - 54:15 90:10 57:2,') 59:3,12,15 moldings 35:18,22 27:12,13,17 29:13 --0 opposite 67:16 59:16,2161:8 molds 34:10 45:9,11,17 61:18 0 93:3 opposition 21:5 62:1169:18 money 56:11 83:25 76:11 O'Brien 17:17 23:5 option 28:2 part 37:25 38:14 monsiterous 77:19 neighboring28:15 30:22,25,25 37:24 order 75:20 77:11 39:2148:20 49:19 months 63:16 4525 46:8 60:24 50:4 84:13,21 Orient 6:20,21 8:20 60:13 62:11 77:23 66:12 neighbors 45:8 86:7 87:9 14:19,20 18:24 81:14 82:15 88:14 motion 12:13,15,20 59:16 O'Brien's 24:17 21:1123:1738:21 partially 19:2 12:2 2 13:2,6,19 Nessuno 46:20 objection 64:10 39:2,4,8,10,12,14 participate 4:12 50:7 89:20,24 never 28:2 34:17 objections 65:8 39:18 40:18 43:20 particular 65:13 90:3,7,12,13 35:7 5 3:8 55:13 observe 4:12 48:13,15 49:11,18 81:8 91:25 92:4,7 58:7 73:3 83:13 obvious 27:14 54:25 55:23 56:3 particularly 2 8:2 move 12:16 13:8 88:22 obviously 18:15 56:16 60:2 62:20 42:25 14:1166:17 89:25 nevertheless 21:9 23:20 47:4 90:21 65:11 69:23 70:7 parties 4:18 93:14 multiple 27:21 new 1:2,7 4:23 5:23 occasionally 34:5 76:5,11 78:20 parts 68:22 music 26:21 6:219:8,9 14:20 offensive 73:19,20 88:14 pass 25:17 47:12 mutual 5:17 18:2 23:14 24:23 74:13 Oriental45:18 passed 13:2 50:7 27:11 31:12 34:21 offer 18:13 original 10:15 past-chairman N Oh 68:5 - 38:23 40:2 44:22 29:14 31:21 32:22 3:25 N 93:3 49:214 52:22 54:15 okay 8:3,10,13,16 33:3,5,9,20 34:18 pattern 44:11 nails 14:5 73:9 75:21,22,24 8:22 9:22 10:3 35:15 40:3,5,44 pending 19:15 name 3:3,16 6:4 7:9 83:11 84:17,18 11:8,9,22 12:4,6,8 43:6 69:4 people le 33:16 47:2 p 17:2 48:10,12 85:22,25 93:5,10 12:9,12,25 13:19 originally 31:17 47:17 50:25 51:11 49:9 59:13 never 35:20 14:11 16:4 24:6 54:21 52:2154:7 58:5 Napollean 46:19 newest 3:7,15 24:11 34:4 48:3,6 outcome 93:15 60:20 72:10 73:17 47:4 nice 53:15 88:9 50A3 55:20 57:11 outlet 31:16 76:24 82:2 narrative 16:18 nod 50:21 61:20 66:4,9,21 ou trageous 5 6:9,10 perform 38:3 narrovver45:3 non-historical 68:1*21,13 72:20 outset 62:15 period 64:6 58:24 56:23 78:22 80:23 83:5 outside 7:4 64:7 permission 46:2 1 native 21:11 normally 35:5,6 84:6 86:20 87:20 69:3 73:5 81:14 permit 20:10 near 72:25 77:17 old 5.25 21:4 25:18 85:10 permitted 20:3 nearly 18:7 63:15 north 10:25 29:16 34:8 35:22 over-fused 31:14 41:4 64:4 Northfork 17:19 36:5 47:13 49:21 owners 17:8 permitting 40:2 necessarily 72:8 not-to-scale 41:13 52:22 56:2 83:12 owning 49:19,22 perpetuity 22:15 necessary-65:19 Notary 93:9 once 16:23 21:10 Oysterpond 48:17 person 50':8 necessitated 77:3 note 6:25 47:3 47:15 48:25 66:19 88:20 perspective 45:13 necessity 40:19 noted 18:4 65:8 one-and-a-half Oysterponds 46:15 46:3,4,9,11,15,17 41:3 66:20 18:25 73:14 46:18 48:18,20 47:5.7 need 8:4 13:6 26:24 notified 91:6 one-story 19:4 55:4 Teter 15:25 16:6 91:25 November 17:21 ones 55:5 79:21 17:16 22:24 23:4 Page 102 23:1324:21-37:16 porch 32:25 47:5 preserve 2 1:10 77:4 69:14,15 71:21,22 62:3 78:23 83:3 59:7 29:24 43:20 46:18 properties 19:18 79:19,21,22 87:25 phonetic 51:23 porches 39:6,18 48:15,19 53:8 28:16 33:14 45:25 90:15 91:20,21 photo 25:17 47:12 61:16 76:9 71:9 80:6 46:8 58:11 67:7 93:9 photograph 41:12 portion 21:20 preserved 82:17 67:17 public's 91:17 photographs 41:21 29:15 33:5 40:15 preserving 46:2 property 14:19 publication 82:10 87:24 88:2 41:16 59:8 62:7 pressed 47:3 17:9 20:7 30:13 pull 7:12 phrase 52:4 portions 40:23 pressure 86:11,18 41:4 52:4,6 59:18 pulled 53:17 76: physical 30:10 31:4 porus 35:2 presumably 54:4 59:19 64:2167:9 purpose 38:15 pick 30:23 position 64:16 pretty 11:7 89:11 67:9,23 68:2 pursuant 19:16 picture 88:9,18 65:12 80:20 prevent 38:16 72:12 79:13 88:13 purview 69:12 73:4 piecernealed 27:8 possible 84:19 87:9 previously 22:8 proportions 45:10 73:.5 5 81:15 82:16 pieces 33:13 91:4 principal 20:23 proposal 16:17 push 68:9,11 72:19 pitch 9:18 11:8 possibly 25:24 26:9 30:16 39:24 40:13 42:14 43:7 pushed 68:12 place 29:25 56:24 33:10 principals 39:23 43:7,9,10 44:8,16 put 24:12 77:25 80:7 86:16 posting 1 ,7:12 prior21:15 57:20 46:22 65:13 83:15 84:17 85:4 88:13 placed 32:2 posts 33:18 34:8 88:23 proposals 43:19 plan 41:20 42:6 53:5,8 56:5 probably 15:16 propose 83:10 Q 44:13 51:3 Potters 2:7 17:7 24:7 31:17,19 proposed 8:19 Quartararo 17:5 planning 6:24 49:17 50:23 57:24 55:6 61:7 78:10 15:22 16:14 18:11 question 9:5 37:21 plans 7:21,25 16:16 64:23 66:13 82:9 84:7 87:4 23:14,18 28:13 50:3 68:5 71:5 42:6 83:10,23 10,23 89:6 problem36:2,2 38:23 39:22 40:6 84:15 85:18 86:21 plantation-style Potters' 14:15 37:5 56:18 72:23 40:11 41:5 44:6 questions 5:8 7:18 59:25 49:13 89:19 78:12 46:4,11,17,23 8:12,15 9:2 11:11 plate 78:8 pour 38:18 problems 49:16,19 63:9 82:17 23:21 37:15 48:2 pleasant 61:18 poured 34:24 procedure 20:9 proposing 42:9 66:212 68:4 70:12 please 48:9 72:19 powderpost 34:14 procedures 4:16 43:14 45:15 54:15 78:25 84:9 Pledge3:10,12 34:19 proceed 16:4 17:14 protect 19:24 22.3 quick 68:5 86:5,21 plumbing 3 1:10 PowerPoint 15:20 proceeding 64:2 29:24 80:6 quickly 13:22 16:8 52:24 16:11 23:6 24:23 92:10 protection 62:21 quite 52:22 56:7,16 plus 55:2 25:4 30:24 68:16 proceedings 4:10 63:5 86:2 quote 40:6 podiinn 48:9 powers 65:16,17 5:3 93:12 provide 61:21 R-- point 13:20 22:23 precludes 23:12 process 4:21 25:4,7 90:15 23:23 24:20 30:23 premises 89:19 37:25 '18:20 41:9 provided 15:15 R 93:3 32:23 38:13 46:20 presence 22:12 50:12 63:14 66:12 20:9 61:213 radically 75:17 47:23) 52:1 x,17 present 5:4 23:7,11 89:7,12,17 90:24 provision 64:18 rains 353 10:5 33-3 55:20 60:25 63:12 31:5 83:8 91:14 professional 17:18 provisions 28:20 raised ratio 58:11 63.16,25 64:4 presentation 6:7 65:19 public 1:5 4:11,11 66:3,17 70:15 15:20 16:11 17:25 progress 71:2 4:18,210 5:6,9,20 re-jiggered 56:17 76:19 83:6,9 91:2 23:24 42:5 43:22 prohibit 28:18 6:7,13,14 8:14,17 reaches 80:12 pointed 37:24 56:18,24 68:15 30:19 14:12,13 16:21 read 16:21,22 43:12 33:10 80:21 58:2161:6 62:15 presented 7:17 9:6 prohibited 22:15 17:21 18:9 19-14 real 30: 5 pointing 82:9 21:16 42:5 87:24 project 9:3,6 16-20 23:20 28:16 29:3 67:14 79:10 points 57:14 presenting 63:22 17:17 25:10 39:12 29:4 42:16,25 policy 85:8really 8:8 12:11 presenation 1:4 57:7 71:25 43:8 44:2 45:25 Poquatuck48:19 3:5 30:10,11 54:2 projected 59:8 46:9 48:4,8,12,18 -32:6 33:1134:13 56:2159:3,12,15 88:4,8,23 promote 30:5 48:24 50:19,24 .34:21 36:22,23 59:16,21 64:8 preservationist proper4:17 19:23 51:5,20 55:16 52:14 57:6,7 62:10 69:18 71:8 properly 57:18 56:4 57:3,9 66:2,4 58:20 62:11,25 64:13 71:9 79:21 Page 103 84:23 85:6 88:14 61:14 report 24:17 27:6 restoration 26:17 6:23 7:9 12:10 reason 11:20 25:3 regard 44:24 37:12 50:15,19,20 30:12 53:21 54:8 14:7 17:17 67:2 reasonably 42:8 regarding 6:14 52:15 53:20 89:23 57:21,23 79:4 rebuilding 83:24 8:18 9:2 11:14 reports 19:12 restore 53:25 56:2 roof 9:24 11:15 rebuilt 29:21 14:14 23:10 64:12 represent 6:24 56:8 71:15 83:23 33:2,3,5 39:10,15 recall 9:6 regards 58:6 59:3 representatives restored 71:14 61:16 73:11,15 received 24:17 59:12 14:24 restoring 54:16 74:23,24 recited 3:12 regulations 20:4 represented 45:19 57:24 roofs 39:6 70:22 recognition 19:23 40:21 46:13 restriction 85:4 76:10 recognized 22:16 reinforcement representing 43:6 result 25:6 42:24 room 31:16 35:18 27:13 86:13 represents 43:16,18 59:10 75:2177:5,9,9,18 recognizing 64:20 reiterate 90:21 43:21,23 resulting 26:13 77:19 recommend 37:7 related 72:2 93:13 reproduced 29:18 61:17 rooms 76:25 77:11 85:12 relationship 71:24 29:19 results 4:16 rot 26:23 34:10 reconstructed release 47:19 request 6:16 14:15 retain 29:20 54:12 53:8 56:6 58:3 40:22 relevance 64:13 19:20 66:14 91:9 63:19 rotted 34:6 reconstruction relied 39:2 requested 15:23 retaining 29:10 rotten 36:19 6:19 8:19 15:22 relief 64:22 16:15 68:17 retention 29:7,23 rotting 26:15 83:12 { 16:14 18:18 20:11 remain 2124 22:14 require 63:5 84:23 30:4 67:13 79:12 rubber 36:15 20:16 22:4 40:7 84:4,5 required 3 5:11 80:5 ruin 36:24 72:22 remaining 35:14 40:22 59:20 66:16 return 15:6 16:3 rules 5:2 52:9 53:3 ` record 7:2 15:9 40:5 71:16 reused 39:24 i 16:23 17:13 18:5 remains 27:9 46:25 requirements 18.20 review 20:15 22:25 S — 19:13 24:13,18 remeasurement requires 22:14 23:13 62:8,14,21 safe 56:9 91:24 63:2.1,25 64:10 10:13 resealed 43:2 91:10,17 sake 7:2 68:23 81:16 82:5 91:19 remediated 87:2,6 research 38:2 reviews 23:12 salt 84:11 93:11 87:10 researched 38:21 revised 41:10 42:14 salvage 57:23 recorded 5:21 remediation 36:4 resided 27:10 revisions 54:4 salvageable 51:17 records 16:24 36:10,10 residence 2:7 40:9 Richard 55:22 salvaged 33:13 recreated 75:2 remind 59:14 82:6 41:7 46:24 ridge 58:25 73:15 salvaging 57:24 recus-ed 7:3 reminder 49:2 RESIDENT 48:12 75:13,20 SARA 93:9,22 red 43:8,16,21 removal 29:2 67:23 48:18 rife 26:23 satisfies 20:13 reduce 58:7 79:18 resistant 40:25 right 3:9,15 8:5 satisfy 83:16 reduced 16:19 remove 87:12 respect 6:1 1 18:12 13:5 20:5 31:13 save 47:17 43:12 44:4 51:3,6 removed 26:2,10 23:3,15 80:20 31:24 39:17 42:22 saw 11:3 43:14 73:24 86:25 respected 62:5,10 44:23,25 47:25 saying 11:23 64:18 reduction 16:20 rendering 47:6 respectful 29:14 52:19 61:5 62:25 87:5 90:8 92:7 51:7 58:7 renovated 30:20 Respective 43:21 69:14,15 71:11,21 says 11:17 50:4 reductions 43:6 62:12 respond 47:25 71:22 75:5,9,19 54:19 66:9 71:19 refer 8:4 renovations 88:5 50:20 57:13 60:4 76:13 82:19 scale 29:14 40:14 reference 44:25 repair 22:2126:17 74:6 91:10 right-hand 77:6 51:13 61:4 7.5:7 87:23 26:18 responded 66:13 rights 4:17 77.21 referenced 60:17 repeat 26:18 response 8:21 river 18:23 27:16 scale-wise 45:17 f 74:19 88:3 replace 71:15 11:12 12:21 13:15 43:15 45:2,15 scaled 42:6 77:4 references 38:22 replaced 26:25 13:17 43:25 50:17 46:10,12,16 48:17 schematic 42:2,5 39:3 40:16 35:20 55:19 57:10 89:3 road 17:5 18:24 scientific 19:11 referencing 83:19 replacing 51:10,14 90:11 27:16 43:15 45:2 screen 24:2 referred 56:20 67:25 responses 57:2 45:15 46:10,12 sea 86:9 reflective 29:12 Reply 30:4 80:11 Robert 1:14 3:18 seat 77:12 E ,f Page 104 seats 77:14 side 41:18 43:15 slightly 16:18 54:24 50:151:1 52:1 Starting 42:12 second 12:17,18 61:3,9,1162:11 sloped 33:19 49:15 53:1 54:1 55:1 starts 71:3 13:9,10 16:2 62:13 76:13 77:24 sloping 58:2 73:10 56:1 57:1 58:1 state 1:2 4:23 22:11 25:13 32:10,24 78:18 81:24 85:3 small 48:14 59:1 60:1 61:1 30:12 40:2148:10 33:20 52:13 59:8 sides 60:20 smaller 54:20 58:22 62:163:1 64:1 49:9 64:9 75:22 j 75:14,24 78:5,8 siding 26:24 77:15 65:1 66:1 67:1 79:13 85:5 93:5 90:2 92:5 significance 19:19 Society 48:21 76:6 68:1 69:170:1 93:10 i Seconded 90:4,5 22:21 23:2 27:3,5 soffits 26:20 71:172:1 73:1 stated 19:22 86:22 seconds 83:3,5 62:16 81:5,10,17 solid 84:17 74:175:1 76:1 89:8 Section 6:17 14:16 82:14 somebody 12:14 77:1 78:1 79:1 stating 6:4 28:20 significant 21:7 32:18 34:20 52:3 80:1 81:1 82:1 step 30:23 60:16 see 8:22 10:25 26:4 28:12 63:2 72:5 73:12 89:24 83:1 84:1 85:1 68:20 18:10 31:20 32:4 signify 90:7 92:7 someone's 56:12 86:1 87:1 88:1 stories 78:3 33:4,4,7,9 34:9 sill 35:12 somewhat 60:18 89:1 90:1 91:1 storms 34:5 � 3.5:13,14,23 37:8 similar 29:11 3 1:10 74:2 92:1 93:1 story 19:2 73:14 41:2143:4,13,25 31:11 46:13 56:6 son 21:11 space 32:17 75:24 44:4,9 52:21 60:16 sons 77:13 speak{ 17:25 23:9 street 45:2,4,7 59:23,23,24 60:11 Similarity 40:10 soon 83:17 89:15 48:9,10 66:24 46:14 58:23 60:17 61:8 69:14 76:6 simply 62:18 Sorensen 7:10 9:22 speaking 6:3 51:2 74:12 76:2 84:3 single 32:1180:13 S®RENSON 7:6,9 speaks 82:5 streets 52:21 i seeking 64:22 single-family 40:8 7:14 8:5,8,119:16 specifically 59:6 streetscape 29:11 seen 1S:11 42:20 41:7 10:3,7,16,23 11:5 spend 56:11 61:18 82:14 ! 56:2,5,6 83:14,14 single-story 32:21 11:25 12:8,11 spirit 40:14 45:19 strength 33:17 self 26:15 sir 66:2 14:6,9 74:10 34:22 semantics 84:5 sistered 34:16,20 sorry 13:4 24:13 spliced 33:12 strictly 32:8 sentimental 81:22 site 30:3 42:6 59:13 60:15 66:11 spoken 84:9 stripping 22:9 f separate 61:22 sits 21:20 68:5 78:10 91:25 spring 32:5 structural 19:9 seriously 79:8 sitting 35:18 37:2 sort 10:12 41:14 square 51:4,6,7 23:10 27:9 30:17 service 31:13 situation 52:16 72:2173:10 74:4 54:19,20 55:2 36:24 44:21 87:12 session 42:3,4,18 six 42:13 45:3 sound 27:9 58:6,8,9,16 60:5,8 structure 18:17 sessions 27:22 44:2 59:17 south 85:3 60:10 70:13,14 19:7 20:12,17,24 set 7:16,21 16:16 size 9:18 59:7 62:2 southeast 33:22 73:8,20 75:15 21:2,14 22:7 20:13 53:21 70:4 72:14,14 Southold 1:1,7 3:1 76:18,21,24 77:18 23:13 25:20,22,24 settled 33:21 34:12 73:19,24 3:4 4:1 5:1 6:1,18 77:21 78:12 26:3,6,8,12 28:12 ' settling 38:16 sketch 41:14,19 7:18:1 9:1 10:1 SS 93:6 28:19 29:12,15 shadow 26:15 skillfully 74:25 11:1 12:1 13:1 staff 65:18 30:4 36:19 38:3 ; shape 54:12,13 Skippers 14:20 14:1,17 15:1 16:1 staircase 75:19 38:23 40:6,15 share 4:8,25 25:3 17:9 18:18,23 17:1,5 18:1 19:1 78:2 41:2,23 44:7 50:9 4 shared.42:7 21:20 27:15 44:5 20:121:1 22:1 stand 3:9 6:2 62:7,18 67:24 ! Shea 17:4 4.5:14 46:3 54:13 23:1 24:1 25:1 standard 56:9 81:8 82:11 k sheetrock 36:14 69:16 70:6,8,10 26:127:1,21 28:1 67:12 80:12 structures 28:22 shingle 33:5 70:13,23 72:9,11 28:4,10,17,19 standards 20:13 86:8,10 t shingle-style 74:11 88:17,19 29:1 30:1 31:l 30:2140:24 stuff 56:4 shock 71:11,11 slab 35:7 32:1 33:1 34:1 standing 12:3 54:6 style 54:12,14 shorter45:5 58:24 slabs 86:11,18 35:1 36:1 37:1 84:3,7 59:22 show 15:17 38:5 slam.80:4 38:1 39:1,14 40:1 standpoint 23:8 styles 27:17 46:23 slide 15:17 38:5,17 41:142:143:1 stands 62:25 styling 27:15 60:12 showed 88:9,18 39:22 43:5 58:21 44:145:146:1 start 7:6 8:9 61:15 shows 38:17 slides 67:18 47:1 48:1 49:1 started 41:9 sub-standard 33:12 Paqe 105 subject 17:10 62:8 swing 76:4 thing 24:23 25:13 toe 23:9 39:16 76:9 62:13 84:18 89:22 symmetrical 44:12 33:9 35:14 36:22 toenail 33:14 two-story 73:13 subjective 79:25 system 5:24 31:16 43:16 49:6 54:10 told 9:13 55:14 75:15 submission 9:8 36:17 52:24,25 57:6 70:2,17,20 76:12 86:24 twofold 25:11 89:22 71:4 72:17 85:6 top 59:21 Twomey 17:4 F submit 15:9 17:13 - T 87:16 torn 51:15 type 32:3 21:25 24:4,18 T 93:3,3 things 44:2152:25 totally 36:11 52:14 typical 70:7,23 submitted 19:13 table 3:24 53:13 54:1.5,16 tower 88:21 - - - -- - 65:2 66:5,15 tact 53:13 61:25 70:12 80:12 town 1:1,19 -3:5,19 90:17 91:11 take 14:25 28:5 think 7:15,19 10:16 5:24 6:18 14:17 ultimately 4:19 subordinated 39:5 50:2 62:14 68:20 15:16 18:4 20:21 18:20 19:16,22 unanimous 12:25 39:8 74:15 76:9 taken 7:15 17:22 24:7 32:20 33:14 20:8,10 21:12,13 13:18 76:14 39:17 67:5 93:12 33:25 44:9 45:16 22:11,16 27:20 unbeknownst 3 substandard 27:8 talk 80:2 47:13,14 49:7 28:4,7,9,17,19 11:20 34:11 35:8 38:10 talking 55:3 86:10 51:15,16 53:5 30:2 41:5 58:14 uncommon 21:4 49:15 86:17 55:3 56:18 57:16 62:4 63:4,18 64:9 29:17 substantially 18:19 talks 79:17,23 58:10 59:4 60:14 64:19,23 65:21 underneath 33:18 Suffolk 1:2 6:21 tall 51:23 75:25 61:7,11,17 66:16 67:4 80:8 81:13 undersized 34:13 14:2193.7 76:2 67:22 68:17,19,20 90:24 understand 52:5 suggested 62:3 taller 44:10,20 61:6 68:24 69:17,19,23 'T'own's 4:14 29:9 68:25 69:13 70:21 summary 37:14 taste 60:14 69:25 70:11,15,24 79:24 71:7,13 78:13 summer 32:4 Tax 6:22 14:21 71:12,16,18,23 toxic 19:10 80:18 83:22 superimposed tear 50:5 83:13 72:6,12,21 73:16 Tracey 1:20 3:22 understanding 46:22 teardown 71:5,7,10 73:25 74:9,12 90:17 52:19 supervised 36:9 tearing 83:11 76:6,2179:20,25 transcript 93:11 undertaken 88:5 support 24:5 33:15 technical 84:8 80:3,9,20 81:18 transcriptionist undisclosed 64:6 38:15 Ted 3:3 82:3,8,18 85:15 5:21 uninhabitable supports 63:7 tell 4:9 56:7 67:8 85:20 89:8 treat 6:10 22:22 Surchin 1:13 3:23 termite 19:8 34:14 thought 41:15,22 tree 46:5 unit 32:2,3,8 9:4,20,23 10:4,9 34:15 57:16 tremendous 34:10 units 35:21 10:19 11:3,9,16 terms 20:18 21:18 thoughtful 83:15 tremendously 58:8 unsafe 22:7 12:6,18 15:24 22:2 58:17 59:6 thoughts 4:8 tresses 36:20 unusual 21:4 29:17 16:15 49:8 69:6,9 62:15 76:18 three 6:2 60:19,23 tried 54:12 upset 71:4 72:16,19,20 74:21 terrible 31:9 68:22 76:13 77:11 trim 26:20,25 27:11 upstairs 49:14 75:5,8,12 78:417 terribly 49:15 throw 9:21 39:11,15 use 40:3,6,8 41:4,5 78:11,17 87:1.5 testimony 6:5 19:6 time 5:17 14:10,23 trims 39:18 61:16 41:6 52:4 90:4,6 92:5 testing 19:12 38:4 17:22 22:9 24:4 true 47:7 55:11 uses 20:3 40:2 57:3 Surchin's 87:3 Tests 28:23 25:22 26:7,13 93:11 1 sure 4:5 7:24 10:11 texture 29:17 27:2,24 37:9 try 83:22 ---- - -- --- 10:17 57:15 59:22 thank 4:5 13:4 14:7 46:20 51:21 54:3 trying 9:17 45:9 value 29:6 30:9 14:9 10 24:22 23 35:24 37:8,9,10 i 71:25 78:24 80:11 55:13,18 57:11 60:23 70:3 89:13 82:23 37:18 47:18 48:22 63:16 64:6 65:25 turn 8:23 22:23 55:7,8 67:17 surprised 9:12 48:23 51:17,18 66:10,17,21,23 24:20 57:11 values 30:7,13 t surroundin-67:7 55:15 56:14 61:19 68:21 81:23 twice 46:5 63:13 67:14,23 68:2 67:10 m 61:20 65:5,9,23 times 7:15 21:23 two 5:9 24:4 43:19 79:11,14 surrounds 56:25 69:11 78:22 82:21 42:13 71:22 73:25 77:13 varied 60:12 swamps 86:16 84:6 87:20,21 tiny 55:5 72:6,8 78:2 79:16,23 Venetia 51:22 sweeping 73:14 91:23 92:9 today 42:9 43:4 83:17 84:8 verified 19:11 74:14,15,23 thermal 35:21 44:15 68:15 84:3 two-over-two 39:13 Veronica 56:15 versus 15:22 16:14 F Page 1.06 43:7,14 44:6,15 46:18 84:11,19 wells 37:13 67:19 75:13 82:23 55:1 56:157:1 s 70:14 86:3 went 10:20 31:3 86:7 58:1 59:1 60:1 1 vertical 75:3 waterproofing 41:25 43:2 year 18:7 23:18 61:162:1 63:1 vests 19:17 36:16 wide 77:10 31:3 36:11 63:15 64:1 65:1 66:1 Vice 1:13 way 3:8,14,24 5:25 wider 61:6 64:4 83:7 89:9 67:1 68:169:1 ; Vice-chair 15:24 9:11 10:11 25:6 Window44:11 year-long 25:7 70:171:1 72:1 Vice-Chairman 32:9 52:3 53:6,7 windows 26:24 year-round 31:19 73:174:1 75:1 16:15 56:17 69:14 71:14 27:11 35:19 39:13 32:14 76:1 77:1 78:1 vicinity 10:18 71:21 73:15,16 39:16 76:10 years 21:22 25:18 79:1 80:1 81:1 view 28:16 41:18 74:4 93:15 ruing 73:9 75:22,24 31:8,25 32:15 82:1 83:1 84:1 46:2,9 52:17 ways 69:15 71:22 77:5,6 36:4,5 37:3 47:13 85:186:1 87:1 54:14 56:23 77:15 wings 39:5,9 70:22 47:16 49:20 70:11 88:1 89:1 90:1 viewed 46:24 we'll 6:12 11:25 76:9,14 fork 1:2,7 4:23 91:1 92:1 93:1,12 village 1:7 6:21 57:1166:21 91:5 winter 32:7 6:21 14:2175:22 11 11:1 44:9 1 8:20 39:2,4 46:14 we're 9:17 11:5 wires 31:15 93:5,10 11th 42:18 49:11 51:12 13:20 14:25 15:5 wish 8:25 55:17 - - - - - - -- -- 12 12:1 50:25 69:20 1 vinyl 35:20 15:10 16:2,11 57:9 66:2 90:16 - -- 1.270 6:20 ` virtually 77:6 23:25 27:19 42:9 90:22 zero 55:6 1.313:1 50:25 51:7 i virtue 20:6 43:13 45:7,8,9,23 wood 33:5,13 34:8 zone 33:23,24 34:2 54:19 vision 46.25 48:3 49:21 58:8 36:17,18 73:4 36:7 84:10,14 14 2:7 14:1 visual 15:16 28:14 58:15,15,21,24 87:11 85:11,24 1515:1 45:23 46:6 70:20 64:15,17,20 66:4 word 71:7 89:4 zoning 20:4,6 25:20 15-foot 86:9 volume 43:11,18,23 75:6,25 76:2,7 words 4:22,23 -- ------ ---- 15th 41:11 83:7 - - 83:11,12 89:9,11 20:20,2170:8 0 � - 16 16:1 Wwearing 36:25 work 14:5 25:11 1 _ 1717:1 W 1:12 Webb 1:12 3:2,4 27:21 42:3,4,18 - - 170 19:16 20:14 18 wait 15:11,12 64:5 12:5-34-:4 ' 4:4 7:7,12,23 8:6 44:2 65:14 71:9 65:17 waitin 7:4 15:5 10 1010:1 53:15 90:14 g 8;10,13 11:10,21 73:11 75:18 90:24 10021:2147:16 170-7 6:17 14:16 ; 16:2 12:4,9,12,17,19 worked 55:9 59:5 170-9 28:20 49:20 70:10 wall 9:25 11:2 35:4 B: 14:2,7 working 27:23 170.9 28:3 3 1000-25,11-27,5 5:7 14:11 15:5,12,25 76:16 1000-24. - 14:22 170049:12 2 walls 32:16,17 37:4 16:6 24:7,11 worry 60:21 6:22 1700s 57:17,22 75:24 37:16,22 47:21 worthy 26:17,18 18 18:1 77:18 want 15:3,8,1 U 10th 1:9 3:14:15:1 48:3,7,23 49:4 30:11 57:23 1 6:1 7:1 8:1 9:1 8-and-a-half 18:13 22:23 24:12 50:11,16,21 51:18 wouldn't 61:8 88:6 77:10 36:23 48:13 52:410:1 11:1 12:1 55:15 56:14 57:8 wound 36:9 13:1 14:1 15:l 188169:5,8 52:13,17 60:25 57:15 61:20 65:7 wrap 37:18 19 19:1 16:1 17:1 18:1 63:11 76:4,19 05:23 66:19 67:2 wrestle 70:3 1918 16:13 19:� 19:1 20:121:1 78:24 79:7 80:10 68:3,9 72:18 writing 91:10 22:1 23:1 24:1 33:10 53:11 54:3 83:6 85:19 86:5 78:22 82:21 83:3 written 89:23 90:16 69:6,9,10 87:22,25 89:.5,1225:1 26:1 27:1 84:6,15 85:17,21 wrong 59:1 3 1950s 19:5 46:10 � wanted 10:11 16:828:1 29:1 30:1 86:5,20 87:20 31:132:1 33:1 198169:7 17:13 52:11 54:7 88:10 90:2,5,22 19th 42:4 82:24 91:7,12,16,21 a 1:3,6 34:1 35:136.1 E 1 38:139:1 ----- --------- - � wanting 25:3 92:6 X-zone 84:22,22 37: 2- warranted 65:4 85:11 24 40:1 41:1 42:1 2 2:1,7 wedding 59:23 ' 43:1 44:l 45:1 ' wasn't 10:12 36:7 wedged 33:17 ------- ----- - 2,000 55:2 60:5 ° waste 31:11 week 13:25 14:3 Y 46:147:148:1 2, welfare 30:5 500 55:2 mater 35:3 36:6,8 yard 61:9 49:1 50:1 51:1 20 9:7,13 10:17,21 52:1 53:1 54:1 i ; yeah 10:19 24:11 i Page 107 11:17,24 20:1 29 29:1 56 56:1 89 89:1 33:24 44:25 85:2 - -- ---- - --- - 5634017:5 8th 2:1 20049:20 -- ---3--- --- 57 57:1 - 2009 46:20 3 3:1 58 58:1 —- --9 -- 2018 41:12,23 42:4 3,000 54:18 60:8,10 59 59:1 9 9:1 42:12,18 43:9 3,328 51:6 90 90:1 2019 1:9 2:1 3:1 4:1 3,34151:4 6 9191:1 5:1 6:17:1 8:1 30 30:1 31:20 32:14 6 2:5 6:134:3 92 92:1 9:1 10:1 11:1 83:3,5 6:37 92:10 93 93:1 12:1 13:1 14:1 30-second 15:2 60 5:15 31:8,14 15:1 16:1 17:1 300 49:20 37:3 60:1 18:1 19:120:1 3131:1 6161:1 21:1 22:123:1 32 32:1 76:2 62 62:1 24:1 25:1 26:1 33 33:1 63 63:1 27:128:1 29:1 34 34:1 64 64:1 30:1 31:1 32:1 35 35:1 76:3 65 65:1 3 3:1 34:135:1 35-foot 58:25 66 66:1 36:1 37:1 38:1 36 35:10 36:1 67 67:1 39:140:1 41:1 37 37:1 67514:20 17:9 42:1 43:1 44:1 38 38:1 18:18 21:20 45:1 46:1 47:1 39 39:1 68 68:1 48:1 49:150:1 ----- 69 69:1 51:1 52:1 53:1 _ -- 4—----- - ------ — - - - k `54:1 55:1 56:1 44:1 7 57:1 58:159:1 40 31:25 32:15 40:1 7 7:1 60:1 61:162:1 77:10 70 70:1 f 63:164:1 65:1 40s 31:9 700 76:21 66:167:1 68:1 4141:1 7171:1 69:1 70:171:1 42 42:1 72 72:1 72:1 73:1 74:1 43 43:1 73 73:1 75:176:1 77:1 4444:1 74 74:1 78:179:1 80:1 45 45:1 75 75:1 81:1 $2:1 83:1 4646:1 76 76:1 ' 84:1 85:l 86:1 4747:1 77 77:1 87:1 88:1 89:1 48 48:1 78 78:1 90:191:1 92:1 49 49:1 79 79:1 f 93:1,12 - 5 8 20s 31:19 ---- --- ------- ---- -- -8 8:-- ------- - ---- - 5 S:1 l 2111:22 21:1 5:00 1:9 8'4 78:10 21-feet 9:9 50 25:18 31:8,25 8-inches 9:9 21st 24:25 37,3 47:13 50:1 80 80:1 22 22:1 70:10 8181:1 23 23:1 50s 31:9 32:21 82 82:1 24 24:1 88:12 83 83:1 25 25.1 5151:1 84 84:1 26 26:1 52 52:1 85 85:1 27 27:1 53 53:1 86 86:1 27th 42:16 54 54:1 87 87:1 28 28:159:2 75:25 55 55:1 88 88:1 :l o��pF SO(/T�,ol Telephone (631)765-1802 O Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631) 765-9502s P.O.Box 1179 _ N �e Southold,New York 11971-0959 G • �Q SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato May 241h, 2019 675 Skippers Lane Orient, NY 11957 Dear Applicant, The members of the Historic Preservation Commission have unanimously declined the conditions of your application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the current structure and construct a new dwelling at 675 Skippers Lane,Orient, NY, 11957, SCTM#1000-24.-2-1. Enclosed is the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for the denial. Sincerely, Historic Preservation Commission Administrative Assistant Tracey Dwyer t y � Edward Webb, Chairperson y • Town Hall Annex Anne Surchin,Vice Chair �IQl �.�0�' 54375 Route 25 Donald Feiler PO Box 1179 James Grathwohl Southold,NY 11971 Robert Harper Fax(631)765-9502 James Garretson Telephone: (631)765-1802 Joseph McCarthy www.southoldtownny.gov Tracey Dwyer,Administrative Assistant Town of Southold Historic Preservation Commission Tuesday, May 21,2019 RESOLUTION #5.21.19.1 Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness RE: 675 Sldppers Lane, Orient, SCTM# 1000-24.-2-1 Owner: Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY is on the Town of Southold Registry of Historic Landmarks, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 56-7 (b)of the Town Law(Landmarks Preservation Code) of the Town of Southold, all proposals for material change/alteration must be reviewed and granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission, and, WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting permission to demolish the existing structure and construct a new home on the site, and, WHEREAS, a final public hearing was held on April 10, 2019. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission determined that the proposed work detailed in the above referenced application does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-8 (A) of the Southold Town Code and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Commission determined that the proposal as presented will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance of the Orient National Historic District and denied the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. MOVER: Commissioner Garretson SECONDER: Commissioner Don Feiler AYES: Chairperson Edward Webb,Vice Chair Surchin, Commissioner Harper, Commissioner Garretson, Commissioner Joseph McCarthy, Commissioner Feiler and Commissioner Grathwohl. RESULT: Opposed Unanimously Please note that any deviation from the approved plans referenced above may require further review from the commission. Signed jmg�L d Tracey L Dwyer, Application Coo r inator for the Historic Preservation Commission Date: May 22, 2019 f OF SOUry® Telephone (631)765-1802 Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631) 765-9502 3g P.O.Box 1179 cn Southold,New York 11971-0959 ®�yCOUNT`1,� SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION Determination Regarding Application for Certificate of Appropriateness for 675 Skippers Lane, Orient NY Date: May 21, 2019 Re: 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY 11957: SCTM# 1000-24-02-01 Owners: Louis Potters and Lenore Brancato RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,New York is listed on the Town of Southold and National Register of Historic places, and WHEREAS, as set forth in Section 170 of the Southold Town Code (Landmarks Preservation Code), all proposals for material changes/alteration or demolition must be reviewed and granted a certificate for appropriateness by the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and WHEREAS, an application was submitted on June 28, 2018, to demolish the historic landmark at 675 Skippers Lane, Orient, NY, replace the original portion of the structure in kind with the addition of a newly designed two-story wing on the side adjacent to the park and WHEREAS, Commissioners made a visit to the site to inspect the proposed project, and later met with the owners and their architect. On multiple occasions the Commission reviewed and commented on plans and later amended plans for a proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of the new home on the site, and WHEREAS, a duly advertised public hearing for the purpose of considering approval of the proposed demolition was held on November 20, 2018, that hearing exceeded its allotted time, was adjourned for completion, and ®f S0Utz, Telephone (631)765-1802 Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631)765-9502 l P.O.Box 1179 cr+ Southold,New York 11971-0959 cOUl�f`(,�� SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION WHEREAS, on April 10, 2019,the Commission held a further public hearing on the application proposing the demolition of the home at which time written and oral evidence were presented prior to the close of the hearing, and WHEREAS, At that time the owners application for demolition of 675 Skippers Lane was offered, and the Commission accepted, a home inspection report by Robert O' Brien dated January 8, 2019, which does not indicate the structure must be demolished, as well as his oral testimony regarding the current condition of the structure, and the possibility of its complete demolition, that the commissioners deem inadequate, and WHEREAS, based upon the testimony, documentation and other evidence, the Commission has made the following findings of fact concerning the property and the proposal: 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property and a contributing element of the Orient Village National Register Historic District. Although the applicant termed the proposed new structure as an "in kind" replacement, as set forth below, the proposed new structure is vastly different fiom the existing structure and therefore constitutes a proposed alteration to the existing facades subject to the criteria of Sections 170-8 and 170-9. The buildings on the property consist of the existing 1-1/2 story, 1880- square foot residence and a 373 square-foot, two-car garage. A one story gable roofed addition was added to the original cottage in the 1957. The 13,817 square-foot property fionts both Skippers Lane to the north and Harbor Road (formerly State Street) to the west. The back of the property faces Poquatuck Park to the south. Three facades are visible to the public fi-om the streets and are also visible in two directions from Poquatuck Park. Additionally, the house can be also seen from the causeway on Route 25 before entering the Village fiom the west. o��OF SOl Telephone (631)765-1802 ® Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631)765-9502 l P.O.Box 1179 �a Southold,New York 11971-0959 coUf�,�� SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK 1PRESERVATION COMMISSION The subject property, originally belonged to Edward S. Vail and his wife Agnes Vail. Edward Vail, who carne from one of the oldest families in Orient, was a 4"'generation fisherman who sailed the family's fleet of boats along with his father, George Sumner Vail. A December 27, 1918 news item in the County Review newspaper noted, "Edward S. Vail has been discharged fiom the army and has returned to Orient where he and his wife are domiciled in their cottage recently built on State Street" (now Skippers Lane). The cottage, sold in 1938 to Hobart Van Nostrand and his wife Florence, remained in the Van Nostrand family for four generations until recently purchased by the applicants. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District, which together reflect the history and growth of the early village fiom a farming and fishing connrnunity to a prominent year round and summer residential district. The subject property, although altered over the years, represents a worthy example of the rural regional vernacular style typical of bay cottages in the early part of the 20`x' Century. At one time, these cottages, which belonged to tradesmen and baymen, dotted the waterfiont in Orient. In its evaluation, the Commission has considered how, and if, the proposal to demolish 675 Skippers Lane and replace it with a completely new structure meets the criteria outlined in Section 170- 8 Criteria for the Historic Preservation Commission for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks, as well as Section 170-9 of the Southold Town Code, Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks. WHEREAS, pursuant to § 170-8 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the enumerated criteria for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks and made the following findings: Telephone (631) 765-1802 Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 ua Southold,New York 11971-0959 ® ao COUNT`�,� SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION (1) Whether the proposed alteration is consistent with principles of adaptive reuse,whereby the principal historic features of the landmark are maintained while permitting the use of the landmark for new uses other than its original use. Both the current structure and the structure with proposed alterations are to be occupied as single family homes. There has been no use proposed other than as a single family residence. Therefore, the principle of adaptive reuse would not be applicable to this determination. (2) The similarity in design, architecture and appearance of the proposed alteration with the historic design, architecture and appearance. The property owner has proposed demolition of the existing residence and the new construction of an enlarged structure. The proposed new structure pays homage to the 1918 cottage and is melded to a proposed addition modeled after vernacular, 19"'- Centuiyresidences in Orient Village. This addition combines details only found un the 19`x'-Century such as 2 over 2 windows (Italianate style), low-pitched rooflines, Yankee gutters (c. 1870-1900) in flat soffit overhangs, etc. The proposed alterations are not similar in design, architecture and appearance to the historic design, architecture and appearance of the original structure. The two wings taken together, form a completely new house and bear only some superficial resemblance to what exists now. This is, essentially, a completely new structure from the roof to foundation, larger in almost all respects. Additionally, the new building does not maintain visual compatibility with the historic character of neighboring properties in public view. For example, the design of the addition facing Poquatuck Park was conceived to relate to the rear fagades and rear fagade additions of neighboring houses. Those earlier approved additions were not required to conform to the current, correct town code standard at the time of construction, which only considered the street facade instead Telephone (631)765-1802 Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631) 765-9502 t P.O.Box 1179 vs Southold,New York 11971-0959 SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION of what lies within public view. Consequently, claiming relevance to non-conforming backside additions is simply not an acceptable or relevant design approach. While the average house in Orient Village is approximately 2,000 square feet, the proposed reconstruction and expansion of the 1,880 square-foot existing house will result in a two story 3,328 square- foot structure. This is a 77%increase to the existing home on a third of an acre. There is more building-added designed space than is compatible with the property's size in relationship to the existing coirununity. In terms of scale, massing and size, the project is incompatible with the existing fabric of the historic district. While not written specifically into our code, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards apply to all National Register Historic Districts and are referenced as a resource in Southold's Historic Preservation Commission Handbook. The Standards provide recommendations, which are used as guidelines in National Register Districts throughout the United States. The Standards discourage mimicry and even encourage additions that differentiate themselves from the existing while still being compatible. This goes to the significance of the layers of history on a landmarked house. The Secretary's Standards recommend that additions be subordinate to the existing building. In the case of 675 Skippers Lane the historic house will read as the subordinate wing to the larger addition. The inappropriate scale, massing issues, and inchoate forms of the proposed project are not compatible with the historic district. (3) The necessity for complying with the applicable building codes or other federal or state regulations. The original portion of the existing structure was constructed prior to the Town's adoption of a Building Code. The subsequent alterations are in compliance with the building codes applicable at the time of the alterations. The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed alterations are � OF SOUTH®l Telephone (631)765-1802 ® Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631)765-9502 r7 P.O.Box 1179 cry a� Southold,New York 11971-0959 c4UNTy,�� SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION necessary for compliance with the applicable building codes or other federal or state regulations as they relate to a structure of this age. (4) The necessity of such alteration to allow fon- a use of the property permitted by the Town Code in the applicable zoning district. The original portion of the existing structure was constructed prior to the Town's adoption of a zoning code and therefore has a prior non-conforming use. The property is currently zoned for a single family home and the use of the as built structure is in compliance with the applicable zoning district. The applicant has not submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed alterations are necessary to allow for a use of the property permitted by the Southold Town Code ii the applicable zoning district. (5) The public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District which together reflect the history and growth of the early village from a farming and fishing community to a prominent year round and summer residential district. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers Lane and the Historic District as a whole. WHEREAS, pursuant to § 170-9 the Historic Preservation Commission considered the enumerated criteria for approval of demolition or removal of historic landmarks and made the following fmdings: (1) The landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the public interest. SO!/p�® Telephone (631)765-1802 Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631) 765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 v, Southold,New York 11971-0959 SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION The subject property, although altered over the years to be relevant for its time,represents a fine example of the rural regional vernacular style typical of bay cottages in the early part of the 20"'- Century. At one time these cottages, which belonged to tradesmen and baymen, dotted the waterfront in Orient. Today, the significance of 675 Skippers Lane rests in the fact that it is one of the few representative bay cottages remaining fi-om that era in Orient's history. Therefore, the proposed alterations do not promote the public interest in preserving the historic features of the landmark and its relation to the historic character of the community and Town. (2) Retention of the landmark in its current form or location is important to the Town's history or character. The property is significant within the context of other properties in the Orient Historic District which together reflect the history and growth of the early village fiom a farming and fishing community to a prominent year round and summer residential district. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers Lane and the Historic District. (3) The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty. Although not of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty, it nonetheless has historical significance that would be lost following the proposed demolition. While the home at 675 Skippers Lane is not historically significant because of its design, its type, a small, rather plain and unadorned workman's or fisherman's home of the early 20`x' century, makes it and important contributor to the overall streetscape and history of the Historic District. There are few examples of this type and size home left in Orient. Its demolition would significantly change the character of Skippers lane and the Historic District. i ®��pF SD � Telephone (631)765-1802 ® Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 N ae Southold,New York 11971-0959 olyCOU ,� SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION (4) Retention of the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic place or area of historic interest in the Town. 675 Skippers Lane is a registered landmark property and a contributing element of the Orient National Register Historic District. As such, it significantly contributes to the general historic ambience and attractiveness of not only Orient Village, but also the entire Town of Southold. (5) Retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage interest in American and local history and architecture. Properties in Orient, especially in the historic district, continue to be sought after as both year round and suminer homes. Even in a turbulent real estate market, the value of historic homes have generally not decreased and some have even increased over non- historic properties. As a registered landmark, 675 Skippers Lane contributes to the historic nature and overall attractiveness of the hamlet that draws new homeowners and visitors to the area. The official policy of the Landmark Preservation Commission is adverse to demolition of a landmark structure unless there is no prudent alternative. The Commission cannot allow a registered landmark to be demolished under circumstances where the structure can be renovated and altered to accommodate the need of an applicant. The Commission notes that there is a design alternative (see Town of Southold Historic Preservation Conunission (HPC handbook, Part II: Design guidelines for Appropriate Design in the Historic Context) and that the owners can accomplish their goals without demolishing this historic structure. The Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) adheres to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (see HPC Handbook, Appendix, II.) The Standards are ten basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive o�*OF SOU�y�I Telephone (631)765-1802 ti O Town Hall,53095 Route 25 Fax (631) 765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 cistheSouthold,New York 11971-0959 coUNTV,� SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION character of a historic building and its site, while allowing for a reasonable chance to meet new needs. We reiterate, the owners can accomplish their goals without demolishing this historic structure. NOW THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED, that Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposal as presented at the public hearing on April 10, 2019, Will have a substantial adverse effect on the aesthetic, historical and architectural significance of the Orient National Historic District, and (1) Does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-8 Criteria for the Historic Preservation Commission for approval of alteration of facades of historic landmarks (2) Does not meet the criteria for approval under Section 170-9 (A) of the Southold Town Code, Criteria for Approval of Demolition or Removal of Historic Landmarks and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Historic Preservation Commission denies the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition and facade alteration of 675 Skippers Lane, Orient,NY. with the following conditions: the applicant may apply for relief on the ground that the determination results in a hardship in accordance with the procedures in Section 170-10. theira : purchased on Seu- l n, recently paid a visit to 0 rtes FlIftkens anti tAU t a•, Miss Etta . aggoa.=r, who is kca hing ' Mni,,, OliverCorwin, O n, htive been apendinlr some i at ithtc wn, is spending the oil- : ova% a recent guest of her rs. ferb Whitnk= 'fii vtkrz ut.ion at tete home of her moth- -H. 11. Young. 'rN-Ir . Emyna Jagger. l tMS IVieta Conklin is ab$e i Iia n NX, Thorne hay 0'Wto dward 8, Vail h af; been discharged' again after beingon thecsic Gita, Whe she 'Witt ft-kIVI from the army a-n hip ret' rive � ! few � � pas tR " her si,-A �r, Mrs. Rcn- f Oj,r¢egqw1je e nd iR Wife R � � a of ` ciled I'll their Cottage recently. qui t l Itan, the week-end r � � ,L- on Tuesday last from , Fred Mavi on a private at `am", � �' as g, Wi ��1 h��� ��� iron) � errit, N � whose o�^c�e i i lid-i ° eta � � � ��� return N. {¢ ( arylaild Where, he, his aye tnoist, rc�e zffl �P spent it hurt fur ou h € . for Uncle Sam. T. ��oaang i haeme on a ton li tit 010lne O his ga•e��tt uncle an tea f � � ,�` ;4r1.o�. stmt, Mr. and- Mrii,, . . � om-l r. an � �, r . rr Fra! is lind Parents "Int 4 int vislOn their daughter, fir . a�t� �i�� i a= �a r. sere held rot ��� �, �f re�.y in , ',, 2 , to p, m, Friday at the Uni tt 1m, Reteha� and -wn, Na: I. ° m a�4a r Fuller, �� pypp tja � f. the CUR 13 �por Nvetr over-Sunday I ,fi E.{°y 3°k. @ ti Oaf' 6 i `, � tnt a� few � n ., i th t with the cape la of the ri�e anti Mrs. Frank Ufa Well t*s parents, Mr. ,.ind Mr.;i. : have returned to their several ho c, i � ti Disse innie pid loiaenl 4 r for the holm. av vacation. � haws been entertaining �l' ►ece s of the ore'-.t'.q S"c' y ; The ann= i titin - of the Coy irc- p Eva of Nalarylai i a L rjlylostlay afternotl icy A aa�ttonO Rh�re.h was held after Chic taita� large iuher of I. was nearly, $30, 'apt; the apt- � - � �zlh-jrz day 'night o I church supper r� �� �a.r,�,� � , gf g� g WAS small. � . r '� ; * � t h t��:a��.� ��tsx ?4���5`���s� ,�'4' ����t.r�� a Nv ek. � o t at thy. ` et rq I • Warren %AnCiderj O ; rt.-ti C epi "Vith t.hL foii()W' �` ,a-: system installt-d in their hOT ` r g F- Hain. the Week I-IS� t.ioils. A. N. sauce was elected Still- Several ti er of the i t the Aferiantic Grow, Hou-se,e da v sehool sta erintenrient in place of hir, and 1, !�- NValter S. Di d•_-.$......�._w .n,.ba_ a�.e. Ail<n � ',��.a�.,.s.i= r.r.ft..�e aaAt6ra.c^� cssr�e+ a��.d9.tg�'2Ra� ,�'�°.. c,ib, ra®+imarme '64��.�s'a L'�1�9'S�' i'f'`�''�-f9t°ti,42