Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/07/2021 Hearing Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York January 7, 2021 9:03 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 WORK SESSION (ENCLAVES #7046SE) Page 3- 14 ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING Page 14- 18 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Sally Hull #7448 19 - 22 A.W. Frame, LLC#7449 22- 25 Elizabeth W. Furse #7450 25 - 29 Adam D'Accordio#7451 29- 35 Louis A. Nardolillo and Erin A. Nardolillo#7457 35 -43 Bill and Joan King/Old Salt Road, LLC#7453 43 -48 Thomas Ryckman and Pamela Wilson #7454 48 -56 D. Cannizzaro APRT/John Miltakis #7455 56- 60 Ira and Susan Akselrad #7456 60- 64 2 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 WORK SESSION (ENCLAVES#7046SE) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the January 7, 2021 Meeting of the Board of Appeals. We are about to enter into a work session but before we do that I need to read the following notice, due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19 the Zoning Board of Appeals will not be meeting in person in accordance with the Governor's Executive Order 202.1.The January 7, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting with public hearings will be held via video conferencing and a transcript will be provided at a later date. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and will be permitted to speak. So we have concluded executive session, we are now in work session and this is an open meeting before the public, the public is invited to listen. During this work session the Board will be listening to the representatives for the application known as The Enclaves. This is not a public hearing, it is being recorded and there will be a written transcription of this work session. So without further ado let me ask Liz to see who would like to come in as panelists from the Enclaves team. There's a whole bunch of attendees that I know are here for that purpose. We can do this whatever way since we received a letter from Mr.Altman perhaps he should be the point person bring him in and then ask him whoever else he would like to have brought in okay. Can you do that please?Good morning Mr. Altman can you hear us? DAVID ALTMAN : Yes good morning everybody, Happy New Year to everyone. I hope ,all are healthy and safe. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You too. Thank you for joining us. Is there anyone else that you would like us to bring in as a panelist at this time or do you want to call on them in a particular order or how would you want to handle it? DAVID ALTMAN : Madam Chair I had a few short comments related to this application I want to keep it brief but to the extent there are perhaps any technical questions I would ask perhaps that Kim Genero and Brian Grogan at least be admitted as panelists now. I believe the applicant's principals John Tibett and Andy Giambertone are with us as well and we also have representatives from Sound Sense who conducted the sound studies for this project as well as Dunn Engineering who designed the traffic and parking studies for the project. We'll keep those folks sort of on the side unless there are any questions. In terms of our presentation today we wanted to sort of keep it pointed towards moving this project along and I know the Board is well aware that this matter has been around now with the town particularly before this Board, we're now approaching my understanding close to four years having started in early 2017 we are now 2021 and we would very much like to move this project alongto a public hearing stage as it relates to the special use permit for the hotel itself. The vetting process and the SEAR disclosure process though scoping has been extensive, there have been rather extensive submissions made by the applicant along the way. We have responded to just about every reasonable request that has 3 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 been made of the applicant in terms of submitting data,conducting studies providing reports and I believe that at this point the applicant has fully and fairly addressed any comments and concerns and it is our profound wish at this point that the Board having received all the applicant's submissions consider the FEIS complete and accept it as such and render it's finding hopefully of a negative declaration in that regard. I will say this and I'm not going to get into substance of discussion again cause it's not a public hearing and I don't think it's the right forum but just as a general summarization of this project, I've been doing zoning and land use work for thirty one years and this is one of the most responsible conscientiously developed projects that I have ever been involved with.You have a site that is almost seven acres in area, it's 14.6 times the minimum lot size for the applicable hamlet business zoning district. You have minimum landscaping of 25% (inaudible) and the applicant is providing almost 60% of landscaped area and the permitted maximum lot coverage of 40%where the applicant is proposing only 16.6%for a forty four room hotel with four cabins. It is by any stretch of the imagination a modest, conscientious project and we hope that this Board recognizes it as such. I must admit that I have been involved one way or another with this property for the better part of twenty years and having first introduced in another life with another client for this property and here we are twenty years later and the property is still sitting(inaudible). It's not doing anyone any good, it's not producing tax revenue, it's not producing sales tax revenue, it's not producing jobs, it's time to put this property to work and we hope that this Board will in its collective wisdom do so and allow the applicant to move forward.That's our comments today folks so if there are any questions of myself or my colleagues we're happy to answer it but we will urge the Board to accept the findings of the FEIS, issue the Negative Dec. and let us move on to the Special Use application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our goal is also to move the project forward which is why we are having this work session to make sure that we're all clear on various issues. However I believe Bill Duffy our Town Attorney informed you that the Board itself is really here to respectfully listen to what you have to say. We are not going to particularly question or answer questions or ask questions cause it isn't a hearing but we do have some comments I think from our consultant with regard to the sole purpose of this meeting which is about the FEIS and SEAR, the SEQR process. Carrie if you'd like to make a few comments about the applicant's submission. CARRIE O'FARRELL : I think we want to listen to what they have to say. The Board collectively directed us in the preparation of the most recent comment letter which you have in hand.There are a number of concerns that were identified in that letter particularly with respect to noise related to the outdoor events that are being proposed and also traffic related to those events. we have asked for and identified information that is necessary, information gaps that were not provided and the case needs to be made by the applicant that noise and traffic impacts have been mitigated and we have identified areas where additional work is needed. We're interested in what you have to say.Your letter seemed to indicate that you felt those areas were addressed. 4 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 The Board in our noise and traffic consultant have again identified gaps that are necessary to be addressed. For instance crowd noise and significant concerns over the mitigation measures that have been offered to address noise during special events and how those can actually be enforced. We're happy to hear how you can address those today. DAVID ALTMAN : With all due respect Carrie I would have to say we have addressed them and we have addressed them in depth and at length over the course of this SEAR review process. I am not quite sure at this point what else you're looking for from the applicant but Sound Sense along with PW Grosser has responded to and addressed each and every one of your concerns. If Kim is there, Kim if you want to sort of chime in on this one and if you have any comments I would appreciate it. KIM GENNERO : I think the issues right now are noise and traffic. I mean we do have Sean Harken with us here,we have Ron Hill and we also have Bonnie Schnitta from Sound Sense. I would agree that at this point I don't know what else we can provide.The applicant has provided a list of active mitigation measures to limit and prevent noise and to comply with the town ordinance and I don't know how much more we can do at this point. Maybe let Sean Harken and Bonnie Schnitta in and Ron Hill as well for traffic. CARRIE O'FARRELL : So I can be a little more clear and specific about where there is concern and this is identified in that letter but specifically there are very pointed questions with respect to crowd noise and how that would be addressed. There is a concern that the mitigation offered require human intervention and human you know such as a limiter on a sound system, bands and other live music was not addressed and how that would be properly mitigated. The use of tents and how that would be done in summer events and how that adequately addresses noise has not been answered. There is significant concern that again while this is a hamlet business district it adjoins a residential use and how to ensure as required on a Special Exception criteria that noise from those special events does not adversely impact the neighbors given that the setting that this proposal is in there's significant concerns from the Board. The measures that are proposed it is not clear how they can be enforced to ensure that you have addressed all sources of noise. KIM GENNERO : Well I think at this point it would be fair to allow the noise consultants into the conversation so they can take you through the mitigation as proposed and outlined in the document. I think every one of your concerns has been addressed in the document. DAVID ALTMAN : I would agree with that and with all due respect this is I think rehashing what is already been (inaudible) asked and answered on more than one occasion the fact that MEMBER DANTES : I think what we might be asking is just more plain language as opposed to the engineering. Like let's say the band goes on at 6 or 9 or whatever and then they crank up the 5 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 volume and everyone is obviously drinking alcohol what's the procedure, what happens maybe that's what we're looking for. CARRIE O'FARRELL : and specifically something that has not been addressed to any kind of adequacy is how are you addressing crowd noise?To that point, if there is music and you know you have two hundred people understandably having a party in an adjoining location that adjoins a residential area how do you control that number of voices and crowd noise or something,that was a significant concern in addition to amplified music. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim would you tell us the names again of the people you want us to bring in as panelists? DAVID ALTMAN : Kim why don't you have the folks from Sound Sense just to chime in for a second. KIM GENNERO : It is Sean Harkin and Bonnie Schnitta. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz can you let them in please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don't see a Sean Harken is he the phone number? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bonnie Schnitta is on here but there's a phone number rather than a name that might be. KIM GENNERO : Maybe if we let Bonnie in and she can maybe Bonnie and Sean are together. MEMBER DANTES : What was the other thing that we were asking for, the underlying data from one of the studies, which one was that, the sound study? CARRIE O'FARRELL : We had separately reached out to I see Ron Hill is on but we had separately reached out on the (inaudible)analysis that was requested in order to understand and help verify the model to calibrate and validate the model we asked for a gap analysis to be done. We're looking for the raw gap data count and the methodology used to collect the data that was an email that we sent recently just to verify what was submitted. DAVID ALTMAN : When did they send that email, it didn't cross my desk. CARRIE O'FARRELL : It went out on Monday so I can forward it to you. It came from, it was between the two traffic engineers. DAVID ALTMAN : If you wouldn't mind I'd appreciate it. CARRIE O'FARRELL : Sure. 6 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 DAVID ALTMAN : Thank you. Bonnie is on,they're both there, they're both in the same room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. SEAN HARKIN : My name is Sean Harkin. With regard to the crowd noise, there were questions brought up in Nelson and Pope's most recent comments regarding the reference data that was used for the crowd noise and while the comments did reflect that the methodology used for the crowd noise and the raised vocal (inaudible) levels from standardized documentation was acceptable the data needed to be provided. That data was provided in the most recent submission and revised comments to the FEIS. CARRIE O'FARRELL : Okay we will need to review it. Our review was somewhat limited at this point based on the response and the comments that we received. Can you elaborate on how that crowd data, how the crowd noise relates to the noise measurements on the property perimeter? SEAN HARKIN : So the analysis performed included-there were different perimeters run as far as the two hundred fifty person wedding,fifty person parties with raised and (inaudible)vocal effort levels based on documentation and I apologize I'm just opening up to the specific table so I can give specific numbers. BONNIE SCHNITTA:While Sean is looking that up I just want to make a comment for those of you that are not familiar with myself and the company Sound Sense. My background is that I have a Bachelors in math, a Masters in Mechanical Engineering and my PhD is in signal processing. I originally did work for Darper where I mathematically modeled signal and noise, that's what signal processing is. In the eighties I started my company then called Southfork Technological Consultants and it was acoustical consulting as most acoustical consulting firms are. What I realized is that on many occasions there might be a failure in the solution set and the reason why and I went out and looked and determined this and the reason why is because either material had been swapped out or it had not been installed properly. Consequently I went I think at this point almost twenty patents now. I patented materials,developed materials as well as the testing methodology for installation. When we give a sound sense solution as you may see in our reports we give it as a sound sense product or equivalent and what it does is it requires whoever is doing the installation if it is not us,to submit to us what their equivalent is. I found one of the problems is it would look just like it or there would be a vendor who is selling them something and they got all excited because it was half the price not realizing it had no acoustic value. Within my background I have extensive experience in terms as well as a data base relative to any type of mathematical modeling of how sound travels whether it's in the air, in the water or through media. We never rely on only that whenever we do something, we do it supportive of any type of well published data so that we can do a comparison of what is published data versus what we have in our data base. With that I'm going to turn it back to Sean. 7 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 SEAN HARKIN : So with that being said the comparison with the two hundred and=fifty person wedding expected at the various locations on the property ambient noise levels range from 45 to 43 dba and expected dba as noted in the acoustic report ranged from 50 to 53 dba where the day time Southold noise ordinance is 65. CARRIE O'FARRELL : Can you speak to the question of how audible that would be at a property line,the difference from you know 45 to 50 you know lower 50's? SEAN HARKIN : The difference of 6 to 8 decibels relative to ambient would be expected to be audible but the degree to which it's audible is greatly dependent from person to person and is dependent on the specifics on any given time period. CARRIE O'FARRELL : Can perhaps I think for the benefit of the Board it would also be helpful for them to understand how your measures proposed for instance around the tent would work in a summer event you know you're proposal is outdoor events, would have tents which would help to address noise issues. I think a lot of the concerns were how would those tents really operate on a not summer night, is there a need to have air flow and how do you ensure that that tent is actually kept shut or properly maintained during the duration of an event. SEAN HARKIN : So as far as the question of air flow that would I think have to be a discussion with the applicant when this is implemented but it is certainly a possibility that some type of perhaps a forced air with a confined opening is created to allow for some type of air conditioning to cool the tent. Noise from any external air conditioning could certainly be mitigated through the use of enclosures and noise mitigation measures. I don't think there's any question about that on our side. We deal with HVAC disturbance all the time and any HVAC noise impact and we know that each HVAC noise can be mitigated. In fact some of Bonnie's patents that she was referring to are for specific low pressure drop (inaudible) CARRIE O'FARRELL : To be clear, are you saying that all the tents will be air conditioned during the event? SEAN HARKIN : I'm not making any commitment to that. I'm saying that you're asking if there would necessarily be air flow into the tent or if there would need to be air flow. I'm saying that it's a possibility that there is and even if some type of forced air conditioning were utilized and if that were found to be necessary then any impacts from that can be appropriately mitigated. CARRIE O'FARRELL : It's the evaluation that you did on crowd noise assumed that all crowd the imparity of the crowd is within the tent, how do you address entering and exiting during you know the events particularly an evening event? 8 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 SEAN HARKIN : The crowd noise that was completed does assume individuals inside the tent. As far as entering and exiting the tent the noise mitigation plan provided also accounted for additional acoustic barriers along the entrance and exit for the tent that would provide noise mitigation along the entrance and exit. CARRIE O'FARRELL : I guess that's something that there wasn't a lot of clarity on as people walk through the parking lot how does that really work particularly because the overflow parking is in proximity to the residential area which is what would you know the parking that would be used for the special events. SEAN HARKIN : Yes, when we're talking about people entering and exiting the tent as well we're also talking about far less noise sources condensed into a small area so we're talking more about individual noise sources, people coming in here and there and we understand that at the beginning and end of an event you would have more people but it's not two hundred and fifty people in a condensed area immediately together.We're talking about a much different situation at that point. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask a question Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. MEMBER DANTES : Let's say the hotel is booked, the restaurant is booked solid what's the difference in the noise when you have the tent going with the pool and everything else? I mean how much of an increase is there? SEAN HARKIN : Noise impact from the pool was found to be at the background sound levels so there's expected no noise impact from the pool area. MEMBER DANTES : No, what I'm saying is how much of an increase does special events increase it over just a general course of doing business like the rest of the business plan? SEAN HARKIN : So we're talking about that difference that I was referring to before of the 6 to 8 decibels. CARRIE O'FARRELL : Again I guess I think the Board needs some clarity on how you ensure that the noise is contained within the tent because the model is assuming that everything is closed up you know the tent is completely encapsulating the noise. SEAN HARKIN : So that's something that we would have to perform inspections as this is implemented for the first time because if mitigation isn't implemented correctly then the client as projected would not meet the noise ordinance. 9 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CARRIE O'FARRELL: Is the applicant offering to have monitoring at every event in order-to ensure that the policies are enforced, that the noise mitigation is properly installed and maintained throughout the duration of the event? How is it enforced is one of the biggest concerns of the Board. DAVID ALTMAN : I think that's if it's a reasonable request with reasonable measures to determine ambient noise with an event going on yeah there's no reason why the applicant wouldn't check during the course of an event to make sure that it's you know consistent with the town's noise ordinance. That's fine. BONNIE SCHNITTA: I'd like to inject this because it feels I get a sense that a concern over whether or not this is actually something that can be done as if it's never been done before and we have done this before where we take an existing condition,we know what the problems are,we know where the boundary line is, we know what the code is. As an example when I was working with Monty at Gurney's when he was there it was a situation where this band was going to be coming in and let me tell you it is nothing like this. It's like ten times louder would come in on a weekend, it was called day and night and the question was is that even possible? What I did is I went and Sean was with me on this and we went and we did the analysis to determine what needed to be done. It was a type of a partial enclosure and it had to do with yes there was airflow and understanding airflow with people going in and out constantly but it was identified as to what the procedure needed to be for that specific thing and I have to tell you it's at the point where you're making that decision and you're saying this is where the speakers are, this is where the band is, this is what the structure is and it really was nothing more than we took some clear acoustic material and put it in certain locations. I went with Monty the first time and I inspected, I told him all the little things that needed to be changed so what would work. That was number one and number two is, at the time prior to the event I met with the DJ and we identified any certain frequency that was above code we adjusted it to what it needed to be so it met code and in some instances that it was inaudible and other instances where it was slightly audible but it met code and that everything was adjusted and then set with a limiter.So it is possible, absolutely and we have done this before and it's a matter of you know until you actually someone says this is the area, this is where it's located, these are the number of people and this is the flow all you can do is say yes we have done this before. I'm hoping that gives you a better level of security in the decision in that we have done it before and yes it's monitoring and really it's one time and then I taught Monty himself how to do that verification prior to an event only because they were only on weekends and it had to be me and I didn't want to spend every Friday night going there and doing the adjustment but in other instances where it was on a different night and I was willing to commit myself or Sean to taking readings then we would do the readings. 10 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CARRIE O'FARRELL : You know I'm not-clear, is the applicant proposing that this set up would be done prior to each event and monitored throughout? Is that a commitment that is being made? It sounds in all due respect it sounds a little wishy washy so what is the commitment is what the Board is interested in? DAVID ALTMAN : The applicant is certainly going to perform a sound check before any event to make sure it's compliant and I think we would monitor randomly throughout to make sure we're complying. CARRIE O'FARRELL : With professionals? MEMBER DANTES : I think what we're asking for is a narrative just saying how the events work and how monitoring it and enforcement is going to work. That's kind of what we're CARRIE O'FARRELL : and a commitment on how it can be enforced. DAVID ALTMAN : What do you mean a commitment on how it can be enforced? CARRIE O'FARRELL : I think the Board needs to understand what the applicant is offering to what commitment the applicant is offering to ensure that the noise mitigation is being installed and monitored by a professional that has the qualifications to do that to ensure that it is addressed. The concern I think was that the owners of the hotel are more concerned with their client being happy that the wedding is going well for instance and not necessarily concerned about you know the details of the noise mitigations being set up every weekend for an event or every time an event is held. So the concern is that again you have residential properties immediately adjacent, how do you ensure that that is done every time? DAVID ALTMAN : I think you're premise is a bit off and it's as equally as important if not more so that this be done and be done correctly because the applicants are going to have a substantial investment in this project. They're also members of this community and it's important that it be done correctly without incident because it assures the future viability of the business itself and it makes sure look listen we're all a happy part of the same community that's the objective so to the extent you want a written narrative I don't have a problem giving that to you and we can certainly discuss the monitoring during an event as well as who will be doing it and what the training measures are. I think Bonnie has sort of made it clear that it can be handled after you know after an event or two by staff following her instructions so that's fine I don't have an issue with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In the interest of our agenda it's 9:36 now, we were going to go till 9:30 so what I'm going to ask is if there are other from either the applicant's experts who are with us today or Carrie if there are any other comments or points that you would like to make 11 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 please do them now so that we can kind of stay close to our time frame on the agenda. I think Carrie you had something you wanted to ask and then I want to turn it back over to David and you know the others. CARRIE O'FARRELL: I think the other part of what the Board was concerned about was the lounge the second story lounge and how the noise would be addressed from that given the elevated and open nature of that proposed area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will say one thing although we're not really here to comment specifically, we do know our neighbors, we know our community and we are you know able to kind of appreciate given the experiences that a lot of people in that neighborhood have had with a property called Founder Landing that's over on the bay side which often involves music and special events that the sound carries so dramatically that we want to make sure that we've covered all the bases that we can move forward with this project with confidence that it will be a good project in our neighborhood that people who live there are not going to be upset about. Nobody wants to set up a situation where there's adversarial you know experiences with the neighbors every time something happens on that property. That's not the way any of us want to proceed including all of you who are here to represent the applicant. So this is why we want information that is intelligible to a lay person because the public is going to be looking in on this carefully and we want them to be assured that you've done everything that your expertise allows you to do that will mitigate any possible problem that they might have with traffic whether it's data that verifies traffic impacts will be minimal.We do understand there's a difference between traffic generated by destination you know like going to stay and check in and check out of a hotel and any other kind of activity that would be generated by special events where more people would be gathered temporarily, different kind of impacts. We want to make sure that the raw data is there and you've just said you've submitted it so we'll take a look at that.This is why we're talking,we're listening we appreciate everything you've said and if you'd like to comment further our goal is the same as yours, move the project forward. DAVID ALTMAN : We appreciate that Madam Chair and I think the efforts that the applicants have made throughout the course and as we're discussing here today in my opinion are candidly in many instances above and beyond and I think that goes to demonstrate the level of commitment and willingness to cooperate and make sure that this project is best for all not just the applicant but the neighboring community and I would hope that this Board would see that. I think with regard to the traffic that data has been provided so in that respect and it's my understanding that the traffic studies and the data show no adverse impact as a result of this operation so essentially as I understand from today's discussion really the only open item that this Board is looking for a little clarification on is sort of procedure relative to noise mitigation measure for events and we can certainly craft a narrative and provide that to you. 12 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CARRIE O'FARRELL : The issue of traffic control during special events is still something that is unresolved I would say at this point so that is something we still need to evaluate. Your traffic study does show a significant impact a significant delay on the road during a special event so what mitigation is offered to address that during a special event is something that was requested. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I so see that Andrew Giambertone has a raised hand. You want to bring him in as a panelist? ANDREW GIAMBERTONE : Good morning, my video hasn't come up. First I'd like to thank the Board for affording us this opportunity to speak before you. For myself and my partner John Tibett what I want to try and make clear is with the same respect that we've shown with the development of the site plan and why we located the building the way we did to basically encompass all the noise and activity with its back towards the neighbors we would take the same approach when it comes to special events. We'd be happy to provide a plan as the permit is required for a special event, we'd be happy to develop a plan that shows what would happen and we recognize that it's critical to the success of that plan for ongoing events. So it's to our benefit to make sure that the town is satisfied with the measures we put in place. We hired the best experts available when it comes to creating mitigation issues in terms of who is readably available. Bonnie Schnitter is an expert in this field. She's not just another consulting engineer or an engineering firm that happens to have an acoustical department. She is the person that we speak to when it comes to this. Same with Dunn Engineering, Dunn Engineering has been doing traffic studies in that area for years and years and years. We've spent an inordinate amount of money securing the best experts we can because we wanted to demonstrate to the town that it's our committed effort to make sure that this project is successful not just for ourselves but for the community as a whole. We've invested a tremendous amount of money not just in this property but in surrounding properties and every one of those projects. It is our intention to better those projects for the benefit of the community as a whole. This is not a one and done for us. This is the beginning of what we hope will be a transformation for the downtown area in Southold.You can look by what we've done in the way of property purchases over the last several years and see what we're doing on those projects and recognize the commitment we've made to this community. So it is not our intention in any way shape or form to become a nuisance for this town. It's our intention to become a pinnacle and a bar by which somebody else would be held to. When it comes to projects like Founders Landing you have to understand that that's a project on the open water bay and sound carries tremendously differently than it does in an enclosed area such as a tent on a landward piece of property. I would be curious to see what the level of road noise is in front of the IGA or even any of the residences along the road where their houses are only twenty five or thirty feet off the road on an average day relative to the noise developed by our special events. I feel that we're happy to accommodate any concerns the town has when it comes to both traffic and with sound but we are committed to making this project successful 13 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 for the benefit of all. So I'd:just like to leave the town with that assurance, whatever is required of us as long as it's reasonable we're happy to accommodate and I think when our project is up and operational you will be able to demonstrate that we're willing to put our money where our mouth is. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome and I think that's a good way to conclude unless anyone has any final other things to say. DAVID ALTMAN : No Madam Chair I think that's it on our end but we certainly appreciate your time and your input and again Happy New Year to everybody and please stay safe and we will endeavor to get you the narrative information on sound that you've asked for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you very much and thank all of you for joining us this morning. DAVID ALTMAN : We appreciate you allowing us to speak. Take care everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You too. If you'll all sign off now we'll get on to our Organizational Meeting agenda. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's move on to item three on the agenda our Organizational Meeting. We have three documents that we review annually at this meeting you all have copies. You've all reread them for a refresher of what's in them I hope. The first is the ZBA procedural guidelines, next is the code of conduct and after that guidelines to open meetings law and ethical issues. Does anyone have any suggested changes, edits like that or are you okay with the way it's written at this point? Okay well then hearing no comments I'm going to make a motion to re- adopt the ZBA procedural guidelines, the code of conduct and the guidelines to open meetings law and ethical issues as currently written. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. All in favor please raise your hands up this is not a resolution per say it's a motion. Okay it carries unanimously. Next thing on this agenda we're going to review the templates that we use in writing draft decisions. Now they were resent out to everybody and you know over time we do add language here or there particularly we add language that has to do with conditions that may be applicable to a granting a variance in particular though not just variances. We did have a discussion as you'll recall with the Building Department with John Jarski regarding the language to use with describing non- habitable space so that it was extremely clear to the property owners what we mean by that and 14 Regular Meeting January Z, 2021 what the Building Department would accept. So I'm going`to propose that we add the language that was provided to us by John Jarski from the Building Department and this would then I would add this to the variance template understanding that we can use it on any kind of decision that's applicable but we have all that boiler plate available for all kinds of different things like demo's and so on. So this non-habitable space would then be described as a condition as unfinished and open stud walls and rafters. So if everybody is okay with that I'm going to propose that we add that language to the variance template and we label it variance template 2021 final because I think Kim sent out the same ones from last year and labeled them 2021 so Liz can you make a note to do that and to add it to the or do you want me to do it, I'll do it if it's easier for you. OFFICE ASSISTANT : I'm listening, it's to add to the variance templates the language of the non- habitable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Subject to the following condition non-habitable space described as what I just said basically something like that. Send it to me as a draft and I'll take a look at it and send it out to the Board.Thank you. I think everything else is in pretty good shape.We've covered all bases. I mean there are a lot of areas of the code that I'm hopeful this year the Town Board will be able to address particularly the two front yards situation which Bill has provided and I believe I forwarded to all of you the proposed code change and I would hope that fairly soon some of us might get back to the Board to remind them that they had started to look into that and that this would be very useful. The other thing they were very close to deciding was fees for as built variances as opposed to proposed. MEMBER DANTES : You know what I was looking at Leslie, CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : that was something that they were anticipating and that they have kind of left what's that? MEMBER DANTES : I was looking at the actual fees for building permits, our fee in Southold is probably about a quarter of what Southampton village's is cause they get one and a quarter percent of construction cost so I mean if I was them I'd get rid of all the as built fees and just have a building permit fee that's in line with the other towns in the area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well actually I did Kim did for me as she does every year cause I wind up doing this every single time a budget is reviewed MEMBER DANTES : No what I'm saying is their actual building permit fees are ridiculously low. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh the building permits, well that's another story. MEMBER DANTES :The other towns have like a flat fee for variances they don't really charge you much. 15 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's something you'd have to talk to our Building Department about to have them propose to the Town Board, it's not within our jurisdiction. Our fees are comparable to other municipalities when it comes to Use variances, waiver well they don't even have waiver of merger in most instances but where we are way off is when something is already built. Both Trustees, Building Department and other municipalities have fees that are pretty much double what the normal fee would be for someone who comes in with something that's already built. I believe the Town Board has more or less looked favorably upon it's their decision but we've proposed it, I proposed it for a couple of years and I think they were all set to do that. Certainly the Supervisor was and it's kind of just left,COVID has left an awful lot of things dangling and while we're on Work Session I'm just saying that it would be incumbent upon us not right this second cause we're still on a very bad spike but there's a lot of things on everybody's plate as a result but certainly within this year this would be a time to pick up some of those loose ends. Anything else on templates or anything related to that? Okay you all have a copy of the meeting dates. Just so you know I believe we have the meeting hall reserved for those dates. Liz do you know it that's true? BOARD ASSISTANT : The answer is yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you Kim. So the meeting hall is reserved and the Annex Board Room is reserved. Who knows when we'll actually be safe enough to go back and resume meeting in person. I certainly look forward to that I miss everybody's companionship and sharing lunch and gossip. In any case we have those dates, they're typical you know the first Thursday and the third Thursday of the month and there's no conflicts that I'm aware of so I don't really think there's any comments to be made about those. Last but not least it is my responsibility to appoint again on an annual basis the Vice Chairperson for this year who serves whenever I'm not able to conduct the meeting or to sign decisions. Basically that's the only thing that the Vice Chair does or would have the authority I think if I were incapacitated or out of town or unavailable to work with office staff on correspondence that might need to be done and so on. So I'm going to appoint Nick again this year. He did a good job last year. I think there's a little learning curve you know, I would like to spread this around eventually but I think two years in a row is certainly a reasonable thing to do and Nick if you're willing to serve in that capacity again I'd like to appoint you. MEMBER PLANANMENTO : Thank you, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright good enough. I think that kind of does our anything you know from the organizational meeting that's on the agenda. Is there anything else from anybody?Okay we have about five minutes before we open this up to the hearing portion and the resolutions. Do you want to take a very quick recess? I'm going to make a motion to recess for let's see three minutes. Is there a second? 16 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Raise your hands if you approve. Okay see you back in three minutes. I'm going to open this public hearing portion of the meeting and I'm going to do so by asking Liz to please review for those who are in attendance the way in which they can participate on Zoom. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good morning everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a quick note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can just click raise the hand button and we will quickly allow you to unmute and let us know which application you are here for and for people who are using their phones in order to let us know you would like to speak please press *9 to raise your hand and we will allow you to speak and then you can let us know which application you are here for. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. I'm going to open up this section with the SEAR resolutions.These are new applications, I'm going to make resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast request as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR, Part 617.5 C including the following: Gregory and Eugene Hull, Sally Hull, A.W. Frame LLC, Elizabeth W. Furse, Adam D'Accorio, Louis Nardolillo and Erin Nardolillo, Bill and Joan King/Old Salt Road LLC, Thomas Ryckman and Pamela Wilson, D. Cannizzaro APRT and John Miltakis, Ira and Susan Akselrad so moved, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSO WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Would you please call the roll Liz. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 17 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We have on the agenda a possible resolution to close the following hearing, Mini Cedars LLC #7428. However we also have a resolution at the very end of the meeting which I'm going to move from the end of the meeting to this point to adjourn this without a date. We also received first of all we received a request from the applicant's agent Michael Kimack requesting an adjournment without a date.There are things that are missing from this file which we received an email yesterday from Anthony Pasca who is representing I think a number of neighbors pointing out exactly what is missing from the application that we already requested.They are having difficulties with getting all of those things together. They're looking at a different type of I guess footprint for a proposed dwelling so there are a number of odds and ends that will be taking some time. I do want to point out that in granting an adjournment without a date, when a new hearing is set it will be set because the missing items are forthcoming and it will require a new public notice, notice on the subject property, notice in the paper and new mailings to ensure that everyone who is an affected or interested party is well informed about that hearing date. Are there any questions or comments because this is not a hearing, this was an open matter and we weren't sure how we were going to handle this. So I know there are people in attendance here for this particular application but again today is not a hearing and we are not going to close the matter we're just going to put it off for another time. Any comments from the Board on this? I will entertain that if there's somebody who is in attendance who wants to ask a question or something that's okay if they're here for this matter. It's just a matter of procedure to determine what we were going to do but as I said there are things that we are aware that are missing. The applicant knows that too and we are not going to do anything until we receive that information which then can be made available to any interested party. I'm going to make a motion on resolution so moved to adjourn application #7428 Mini Cedars LLC without a date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 18 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 'OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7448—SALLY HULL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing this morning is for Gregory and Eugene Hull, Sally Hull # 7448. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 13, 2020 amended October 21, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" alterations to an existing single family dwelling to include an attached front porch not included in the original permit 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 555 Bridge St. in Greenport. Is there someone here? SALLY HULL : Hi good morning I'm Sally Hull. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a front porch just so you're aware the Zoning Board has all visited the property, has seen what it looks like. We're familiar with the neighborhood we do that for every application prior to a hearing. This is a front porch with a front yard setback at 4.8 feet, the average of the various homes within 300 feet is 8.4 feet. You are allowed to take an average setback to see if the degree of non-conformance to determine that. Thirty five feet is what the code requires in this instance so the average is 8.4 and you're front porch is 4.8 feet. What else would you like us to know about this? 19 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 SALLY HULL : So I guess 1 have to go on the average setback because 35 feet we'd be like in a different property at that point. So this house has it's very old, it was floated over from Shelter Island a long time ago and it's basically been in disarray for the last thirty years. If anyone's driven by that house the grass has been growing over the property for a very long time. Our intention was to leave the front porch as it was to keep the charm but when we started construction because it had been left for so long untouched that all that wood was rotted which is why it was not safe to leave it as it was. So our intent is just to rebuild it exactly as it was. The house has been there for many, many years so we just want to put new wood in there basically and rebuild the exact same front porch. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So with regard to the code the Board in determining the degree of substantiality of the variance of request would use 8.4 feet as the average setback that the code permits and the applicant is proposing to rebuild the porch in place and in kind. I understand that the building permit you got didn't include this porch is that correct? SALLY HULL:The building permit that we put through originally we were going to leave the porch untouched but then like I said when we started the construction that's when the engineer said that the porch had too much wood rot and could not stay that way. So we had to take it down and put new wood in. If we're not allowed to rebuild this porch it would just be so incredibly unfortunate cause we lose the entire charm of this house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I don't have any questions, does any other member of the Board have any questions? Eric we'll start with you. MEMBER DANTES : No this is pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I'm good thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to address this application? 20 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 t MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie pardon me, Ms. Hull I just wanted to clarify that the porch as proposed to be rebuilt will remain open aired you know it's not going to be enclosed with windows. SALLY HULL : No it will be the exact same open porch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No screening. SALLY HULL : No screening it will be open completely like the old house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright and bear in mind that we know the area very well and we've been up and down and the non-conformity is basically what is most prevalent in that whole area because it was all built before zoning anyway. Okay if no one in attendance has anything to say about this I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. 21 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 ,- SALLY HULL : So what does this mean? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This means that the Board will write a decision and we will deliberate on that decision at our next meeting which will be two weeks from today, it's open you don't need to be there but you're more than welcomed to listen in. It's not a hearing, we don't take any testimony and this is for the benefit of others who are in attendance also. It's open before the public and you can listen to us deliberate and discuss your application and what decision we're going to make about it. You will receive it in writing, I have to go in the next day or a day or two after to sign it which legalizes it after the Board votes on it and then we will mail it to you or you can call the office the next day and they'll tell you what the decision was and you'll still get a copy one way or the other.The Special Meeting date is the 21St,we'll probably meet at 4 or 5 o'clock via Zoom. SALLY HULL : If this passes during that meeting does that lift the Stop Order then or do I have to wait for the mailing for me to receive? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A copy goes automatically to the Building Department all of our decisions so we'll make it move quickly. SALLY HULL : Thank you so much. HEARING#7449—A.W. FRAME, LLC. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application A. W. Frame, LLC #7449. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's October 13, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory tennis court at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 640 Skippers Lane in Orient. Donna can you put up the survey please? Okay excellent. I see there's someone here to represent the applicant, please identify yourself. DANIEL SCHILLBERG : Hi we're DADO Architecture. My name is Daniel and this is Dominique and we're here to answer any questions and also give a brief summary of what's proposed. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : May I have your last name please. DANIEL SCHILLBERG : Sure my last name is Schillberg and Haggerty. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let me just reiterate, this is for a tennis court, pool and pool house which also requires a Certificate of Appropriateness from Landmarks Preservation because of the neighborhood it's located in which again we're all very familiar with. It's before this Board 22 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 because the tennis court is partially in a side yard. The code require accessory structures to be in a rear yard DANIEL SCHILLBERG : Correct. So we had as you can see there on the survey we have the pool house the pool and the tennis court proposed in October or I guess the beginning part of the year we were going through the process with HPC and town. We received approval of Certificate of Appropriateness from them at the end of October for the pool house and the subsequent pool. During that time we had kind of spoke with the neighbors as you know kind of per HPC to notify them of the work that we were proposing and in that work we also included information about the tennis court just to sort of be open and upfront about that in the beginning. We received encouragement and kind words from the neighbors that are bordering neighbors like at 530 Skippers and 20 Harbor River View for doing the pool house and also the tennis court and everything else. DOMINIQUE HAGGERTY: I think it's also important to note that the tennis court is being proposed even though it's a side yard the property configuration is such that most of the property is a side yard and also it's a corner of a street so that part of the side yard is kind of in line with the back yard of 20 Harbor River View. DANIEL SCHILLBERG : Our goal was to you know the property itself is already shielded from hedges along the street but also you know our goal is to have additional hedges around the tennis court so that essentially it blends into the property and won't be visible from the street at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where exactly would you propose to we did see the large hedgerow that runs along. It's kind of overlooking actual fields basically and Main Rd.way off in the distance. It is an odd configuration, the house is crouching in a corner of the property typical of how things were built at that time. You do have mostly a side yard so it's an odd and it's almost at a dead end virtually really. I don't have any questions particularly, let's see if the Board does. Oh yeah I did, I was just going to ask where do you want to put those additional evergreen screening? DANIEL SCHILLBERG : There's going to be additional screening added the property currently has hedges around the entire perimeter; part of our landscaping plan is to sort of reestablish a lot of the property in the middle as being you know sort of a natural field with trees but the main addition of privacy hedges is going to run the entire perimeter of the tennis court to hide any of the fencing. We have proposed fencing around the tennis court and so the hedging is going to match the height of that so essentially within the tennis court you'll see fence but from outside it will just appear to be all plantings. The goal too is to integrate other plantings around the hedges so that it doesn't read like a very sharp line of plantings it's more integrated into a natural looking landscape. 23 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just make sure that wherever you put fencing that its height conforming DANIEL SCHILLBERG : Yes it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : because having been an avid tennis player back in the day four foot high fencing isn't going to do much good not when you're lobbing.Anyway okay that's fine,that's really your option I just wanted it in the record because I think it's a good idea to put additional screening.This is a large structure, it's flat it's to the ground but you know it's going to have some visual impact primarily on one house or maybe two so additional screening is a quite good idea I think. Anything from any Board members, thank you Donna you can take that down now. Let's see there's a Thomas Brouillette. OFFICE ASSISTANT : He is the representative, he put in the paperwork. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anything anyone else that wants to say, is there anyone in attendance who wants to address the application?Anything from any Board Member? MEMBER LEHNERT : Do we know what the height of fence is? DOMINIQUE HAGGERTY : Six and a half feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :As long as it's not along a front yard at 6%feet you're fine. So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 24 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. ' OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We'll have a decision in two weeks. DANIEL SCHILLBERG : Thank you so much for your time have a great day. HEARING#7450—ELIZABETH W. FURSE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application is for Elizabeth W. Furse#7450. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 28, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 50 feet located at 776 Bell Hill Ave. (adj. to Hay Harbor) on Fishers Island. Good morning how are you? SAM FITZGERALD : Good morning good how are you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a front yard setback at 20 feet where the code requires 50 feet and it's LWRP consistent and it looks like you're removing a portion of the house a two story house and why don't you fill us in on some other details. Donna do you want to put up just the site plan please so we can look at it together. So Sam what would you like us to know about this? SAM FITZGERALD : So the general gist of this is we are removing a wing an existing wing to the house. It's a two story wing that was built in the 1980's and we are removing it and would like to replace it with a one story wing of a similar shape. So the new addition would be smaller than the existing in area and in height and volume and there would be no increase in the non- conforming setbacks. The reason why we're tearing down this wing is that it's been structurally compromised. It was built on concrete piers and the wood floor joist system is bearing on the concrete piers and it's elevated about three feet off the ground. At some point someone put concrete board skirting around the whole wing and making that space underneath the building completely air tight. So what happened was that moisture and condensation built up and over a very short period of time the wood floor joists started to rot and they're basically crumbling and that whole addition is (inaudible) off to the side and you can actually see it coming apart from the existing house. So it's in really bad repair and would like to remove it. The owner does not 25 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 need an addition of the same size. She would be fine with an addition that.was smaller so the existing wing is two stories,what we're proposing is one story and again we're not increasing the non-conformities of the setbacks. I would say too that the addition that was put on in the 1980's was not architecturally consistent with the original cottage. If you look at the photos it's very clearly sort of a stylistic difference there. What we're doing with this one story addition is that we're going to you know keep the architecture from the original cottage and bring it into the new addition. So that's the gist of it. I want to just say one other quick thing about the setbacks if I could. The zoning hardship we have is you know we have the front yard is being defined as running along this private right of way and if you'd look at the sort of a larger portion of an aerial or a larger view of this you'll see that that right of way is actually just a private sort of beach access for another property so it doesn't necessarily make sense that that's the front yard. It would absolutely make more sense that you know well it's sort of tough to see with this one here but it just seems it makes sense that where we have the front yard actually if it makes more sense that's a side yard. So the relief we're seeking for the front yard is not necessarily significant given the way that the site is constructed. I mean we have right now we have zero allowable building area because we have a 50 foot front yard setback and the opposite our property line is 60 feet and if you offset those they you know they make zero buildable area. So you know we're really in a bind and as I said we're not increasing the non-conformity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In fact it looks like you're setback a little bit farther from Hay Harbor. SAM FITZGERALD : That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think Mike Verity was going out to Fishers Island today, you know we're stuck because we don't have a Board member from Fishers Island and we can't do the typical site inspection so we have to rely a lot on aerials and he's going out there but I don't know whether his SAM FITZGERALD : I'm actually supposed to meet him later on this afternoon to go over a few things. I think he's already been here to the property but I can certainly ask him to stop by I'm happy to have him take a look at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I think what we're going to learn is fairly obvious. He's not going to necessarily define the character of the neighborhood for us. SAM FITZGERALD : I have I don't know if it's possible to share my screen but I have some aerials if that's not something that we can do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think if Liz makes you host temporarily is that right Liz. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : If I make him a co-host he can, hang on a minute. 26 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see Sam and SAM FITZGERALD : I don't want to take up too much of your time but I think it will be important if you're not able to get there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to delay this either by you know leaving it open to get feedback from him on this if we can avoid that it doesn't make any sense. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Fitzgerald while you're doing whatever it is your doing to share your information maybe you could just talk a little bit about the right of way. It looks like it belongs to the lot that's facing on Bell Hill (inaudible) your driveway. Oh this is perfect. SAM FITZGERALD : So what it is, is actually this the point that I was trying to make about the setback. So the only way you get to this person's property is to go through someone else's property and she has a deeded right to do that but over here on the right hand side that's Bell Hill Ave. and there's a gravel drive that comes off of Bell Hill Ave. that fans off and feeds three or four different properties. The only way for Liz first to get to her house is to go through this person's property back to her driveway and so this person right here the Henderson's they have this right of way right here is part of their property and it's been there for years and years and it was never intended to be for vehicular access to someone's house. It was always beach access and at some point Ms. Furse's property was separated from this larger property I think in the eighties I think Steve Ham did that work and at that point he worked with the Henderson's to allow this house to have the access through this little private right of way. Really in actuality this right of way is right now mostly heavily wooded, it's really acting as like a sort of so this right of way right here is really heavily wooded. I think I have a picture of it too yeah that's Liz's driveway through this right of way and it's not really sort of the right of way that you would think of is for a front yard it absolutely operates as a side yard and I think that having this as the front yard is really not necessarily consistent with the spirit of the zoning code. I think if I may that it seems more reasonable that this lot should have more traditional setbacks and by that I mean where this should be the front this is Bell Hill and is more parallel to the public right of way and then you have the rear yard here with the water then you have two side yards. I mean I know that the Building Department is saying that this is the front yard because it fronts on to this private right of way but I think that this is the more natural setup for this property. So if you do that(inaudible) 50 foot front yard 20 foot side yards and then the rear yard. If you do it this way then the existing house is completely conforming and the proposed addition does conform to the 20 foot side yard setback. So I just wanted to point that out just as sort of a (inaudible) case that I don't think that the relief that we're looking for with that front yard setback is all that significant. Yes this is sort of the odd case that we have here is that you know this lot is set back from the road, you have to go through the neighbor's property to get there so what is the front yard is sort of what I've been wrestling with. 27 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here we go again. Your excellent preparation and:presentation has certainly provided I think the Board with everything we need to know and see. It's very rare that a right of way is actually just on paper like this that it's just a footpath and wooded and there's a driveway that really is you know part of a whole series of driveways coming off of a main road. Fishers Island is full of anomalies like this and here's another one but now thanks to your screen sharing which is a great advantage actually for all of us we're able to I think see everything we need to see, certainly I have anyway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question if I may ask and I don't know if other members have questions but is there any other family or house that's a beneficiary of this right of way other than the property owner and yourself excuse me your applicant? SAM FITZGERALD : No, no not at all. I imagine that the people who own the other right of way this is the Henderson's here I'm sure that Wendy I mean you can't get to the beach through here because this right here is so thickly wooded but I imagine they could if they wanted to gain access to the beach that way but there's no other property that benefits from that right of way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I would point out your visuals were fantastic but even considering this as the front yard in theory from the lot line because you have the beneficiary of the right of way you have an added 25 feet so that would still you know be (inaudible) difference in theory. SAM FITZGERALD : Exactly right and as I said that is what it's doing is effectively operating as a side yard which is a buffer between two houses so that's what it's doing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looks fine to me. Let's see does any other Board member have any questions? Can we get rid of the screen sharing now Sam, thank you. Is there anyone else in attendance who wants to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments then, I'm going to make motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Call the roll please Liz. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? 28 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. HEARING#7451—ADAM D'ACCORDIO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Adam D'Accordio #7451. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 6, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%located at 1450 Longview Lane in Southold. We have a proposed lot coverage of 22% for a 36 by 18 foot 648 sq. ft. pool. The existing lot coverage is 18.5% 1 believe and the code permits a maximum of 20%. Martin take it away. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you good morning everybody, Happy New Year. As Leslie said this is pretty straightforward lot coverage variance application. This is one of many lots in the Terry Waters subdivision. They're all about the same size 15,000 sq. ft. in the R-40 zoning district and the applicants are seeking to construct a pool for the family in the rear yard which is I provided photographs I'm sure you have seen it but it's substantially screened in that northwest corner of the property there.To minimize the relief required the applicants (inaudible)to remove this little shed that's on the rear of the house as well as the small deck that comes off the screened porch. The pool was also originally planned to be larger about 8 foot longer, 18 by 44 but it was reduced in size. I just wanted to mention Jason Peters from Northfork Pool Care is out there somewhere Liz and he is available should the Board have any questions about the actual construction of the pool. Just to briefly address the criteria, pools are not out of character in this neighborhood. As a matter of fact the ZBA had granted relief to allow a pool to remain a couple of doors down just back in 2015 in the Stankevich application I referenced that in my memo. I just want to confirm 29 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 Liz I sent some stuff in yesterday, memos did you get that? I didn't see them up in LaserFiche but did the Board get the memo of law? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : They got the ones from yesterday, the ones from this morning I did not there was not enough time to forward. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No I understand that's for the next one but anyway so I mean the pool in addition to being barely visible once there is certainly in character with this community. Can we do it without a variance, unfortunately not. The applicant has done its best they've done their best to eliminate existing structures.This is obviously a ground level structure and so we've done our best to have it be the minimum relief required. I would argue it's not substantial,we're talking about an additional 335 sq. ft. of lot coverage total once the other things are removed and only 2.2% over allowable. As far as any adverse impacts clearly not environmental impacts, the pool is entirely in a conforming location and you know as I mentioned there are other swimming pools in the area. I can't imagine any impact on the physical conditions in the neighborhood as a result of this relatively modestly sized pool and really this is you know self-created yes but you know again the applicants have done their best to really make this a reasonable sized pool and to be able to enjoy. The children are grown it's not as if this is going to be it's just for the family in light of everything going on in the world their anticipating spending more time out here and wanted to have this amenity available for the family.That's really it, if there's any questions for me or for Jason I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we can take that survey down now. I don't have any questions. There was a letter that we received I think just yesterday so Martin may not have had a chance to see it, it's from a neighbor who I believe is here in attendance who had some concerns about an underground aquifer and whether or not your client was aware of that and also some issues regarding the rental of the property which really isn't before this Board. Let me see if the Board has any questions and then we'll let this person comment who is in attendance and give you a chance to address it Martin. Anything from the Board on this? MEMBER DANTES : I have a question. You're taking out the shed and the deck, what size swimming pool can you put there and still conform to code? It looks like you have a lot of options to conform as far as it's still a decent sized swimming pool. Can you do a 15 by 30 or 10 by 30 1 mean MARTIN FINNEGAN : Can you bring Jason in? I mean it really is as far as you know pools go 18 by 36 is pretty much the standard size for a reasonable sized pool it's certainly not a big pool and I think they had wanted to actually have 18 by 44 as I mentioned and have already reduced it to what they believe is reasonable. Jason are you there? JASON PETERS : Good morning. 30 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So questions about the size of the pool, potential underground aquifer also it's noted here that the existing well is to be removed. Do you have to replace that well someplace else on the property of do you have public water? JASON PETERS : Public water. It's proposed to be removed as they are not utilizing it for anything so we're just going to remove it and abandon that line that enters the house. The underground aquifer, I built two pools within that same neighborhood. One is directly across the street, I has a full deep end hopper. I didn't encounter any water. Obviously we're proximal to the beach so without a soil sample or a (inaudible) I don't know where I'm unaware of any aquifers. Directly across the street for Scott McDunna it did not need a variance it was a regular permit. When excavating I didn't encounter any water, I'm unaware of any aquifers. As far as to the size of the pool, Martin's earlier discussion yes we had started out 18 by 44; the stairs entering the pool themselves are stadium steps. They take up just about 5 feet of the internal sizing of the pool itself the internal design of the pool which is of no immediate concern the (inaudible) assignment of getting in and out is the width of the pool by about 5 feet it's a stadium step, it's a very typical pool that we build and that's why we normally go up to 44 to acquire a large bathing area an area where you can exercise. The family itself they have three children that will be out joining them. The space of the pool itself as we reduced it earlier reducing it yet again can it be done, yes but we're asking for the relief of the 2% so that we can have a larger area to be able to exercise and otherwise. Once we get down to 30 feet, diving compliancy as they would like a deep end hopper the transition from deep end to shallow becomes unsafe. It becomes too steep too vertical and if someone was to dive in they can hurt themselves. That's where the length and the width itself plays a role in the diving envelopes in keeping swimmers and bathers safe and able to exercise. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from the Board? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes and thank you, you just stated that a smaller pool could fit or a compliant pool without exceeding the lot coverage but I'm curious to know where the mechanical will be? JASON PETERS : I don't know Martin can you share the survey? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can put it back up. JASON PETERS : So the mechanicals are going to go here can you guys see my arrow? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. JASON PETERS : Mechanicals are going to go right on this corner of the property. This property right here is undeveloped it's a vacant lot but with the fencing itself on this side we're going to shield that area with fencing as a noise buffer as well just so if someone does build a home being 31 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 in proximity obviously setbacks will be more than what is necessary but a noise deadening box_ _ will be placed around it regardless of OFFICE ASSISTANT:Jason hold on we don't see your cursor because you are not a host you have to share the screen. So where are you cause we can do it for you?That's Donna's mouse where should she go? JASON PETERS : Down and to the right just past the gate. Yes just in that area there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Alongside the house or along the property line? JASON PETERS : Alongside the house, right in that corner directly there yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And where will the dry well go? JASON PETERS :The dry well is going to go just west of that in the back yard. So if you move your cursor yes in that general area. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Should those be put on the survey Leslie, proposed dry well, proposed mechanicals? JASON PETERS : They were on the application that was denied. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :Yes but our survey to stamp to Building we might need to have showing, correct Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be a very good idea to have so that it's very clear that all of those things have been accounted for particularly if drainage is any kind of concern on that property the dry well location is of importance. How long do you think it will take you to do that? JASON PETERS : To get that done for you? I can get that done right away and get it over to you guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that would be very helpful, just where the dry well the pool mechanicals are going. JASON PETERS :Yes I'm looking at my paperwork here which has everything stipulated which was put in on the original permit but I'm happy to get that dropped on to the survey for you guys and get that to you from Tom Woychuck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excellent okay. Anything else from Board members or Martin? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No I would just you know thank you for your time. I understand the question about perhaps a smaller pool but 1 think Jason explained it well why this is kind of the minimum 32 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 size. I also believe it's consistent with the size of other pools in that community so I appreciate your time and ask that the variance be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to ask if the neighbor who is here in attendance and has submitted a letter wants to say anything to the Board or just is here to listen? You see that Liz there's a hand up, he's coming on. MICHAEL CANNISTRASI : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes we can. MICHAEL CANNISTRASI : Michael Cannistrasi I live at 1435 Bay Haven Lane, thank you. My basic concerns were that when we purchased our house fourteen years ago we were informed by most of our neighbors here that there was an aquifer that ran between both of our properties. I'm also just as concerned just to let Mr. Peters and Mr. Finnegan know about them and Mr. D'Accordio with regard to any impact it may have on their building the pool. I'm not completely clear that we've had two instances of which we've had basement and flooding where we lost our boiler and burner. I'm not sure that the pool would necessarily impact us in that way but I did think it was advised just to make the Board and make the homeowner know about that and just to you know again whatever impact. I'm not familiar with the house and why (inaudible) pool building but whatever impact it might have if there's an aquifer and if there's drainage that has to go to a dry well and what that would the long term impact by that might be. Thank you. JASON PETERS : I'm happy to respond on that. The drainage itself, the pool is going to be a salt water pool, the drainage itself is for only access water. This pool is going to be equipped with a cover star automatic pool cover so the only time we would be needing to drain water would be via backwashing a filter or reverse cleaning itself. The proposed equipment we're looking to install would be a cartridge filter. So that cartridge filter has to be manually disassembled and cleaned via a hose so there is no backwashing. Now that we have the cover on the pool any rainwater that actually impacts that cover itself that water will not interact with the pool water and will be pumped off into that drywell if it's rainwater. So essentially in any situation where we're proximal to salt water or beaches we utilize this filter and the safety cover.The safety cover is meant to be walked on so it's for the safety of neighbor's children or anybody that might be in the back yard that they're unattended they will not be able to get into the pool water itself. So those couple of things we looked to combat the best we can but if we do need to drain water for any reason it will be not potable water but salt water itself non-chlorinated. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I just want to clarify, his property is behind D'Accordio's where you're putting the dry well is very far away from his property. 33 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 JASON PETERS : Correct. It's if we do math just on to the edge of the drywell we should be in excess of its 11 feet to the pool plus the width of the pool at 18 plus 12.3 to the corner of the house, we're in excess of 41 feet from his property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else from anybody? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to comment that during my site inspection and Martin I don't mean to contradict you but pools do not seem to be prevalent in either the Bay Haven or I think this neighborhood is actually Terry Waters communities. When you drive around I can only count two pools specifically in Terry Waters so am I mistaken on something? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well it's a pretty big there's seventy two homes there I mean MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Obviously there's tree lines. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know there's one across the street over here. There's one the next block over JASON PETERS :Those are the two that I built. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not like it's fifty percent of them but there are pools in the community. I don't think it's out of character with this community or with any you know obviously it's a very common accessory use but you know just was looking at the aerial and I could see you know pools scattered throughout the community. I didn't drive around every MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No it's just you know when you're looking at things clearly and it's winter so you can't see it as clearly but it just doesn't seem there's certain neighborhoods that have you know a house with a pool after pool after pool and this MEMBER ACAMPORA : A lot of those neighborhoods Nick have that neighborhood in that area has a lot of older people living there and because they have right of ways to the beach MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a Bayfront community absolutely MEMBER ACAMPORA : Bayfront community they're not putting in pools but newer people moving in everybody wants a pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, good for the pool industry. Everybody is staying home these days right? JASON PETERS : Yes this pandemic has made me a very popular man. 34 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I bet, I bet. Alright then hearidg no further questions or comments from anyone in attendance or from the Board I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. Martin you're here for the next one too aren't you? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I am. HEARING#7457— LOUIS A. NARDOLILLO and ERIN A. NARDOLILLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Louis A. Nardolillo and Erin A. Nardolillo#7457.This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 19, 2020 amended November 12, 2020 35 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an.,application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory garage at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 15 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 3850 Camp Mineola Rd. in Mattituck. So this is going to produce a lot coverage of 24.4%, the code permitting a maximum of 20% and the rear yard setback would be 2 foot 1 inch where the because of the height the code requires 15 feet. The roof eave itself is 1 foot 7 inches but I have before we hear anymore I have a question for you Martin. The Notice of Disapproval doesn't mention a rear yard setback it just says I mean it doesn't say side yard setback. It just says rear yard setback. I think it should be both no? MARTIN FINNEGAN : You know I questioned that myself. I don't know if Amanda was looking at cause we're not the existing garage is going to remain I don't know it's just going to be added onto CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh maybe that was it. MEMBER LEHNERT: No it's not violating the side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Well it is but it's a pre-existing non-conforming and they're not moving it so MEMBER LEHNERT :They're not doing anything with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. Alright that clarifies it cause I thought wait a minute what's going on here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Anyway can I go Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So good morning again everybody, so this is a 12,700 sq. ft. parcel in the R- 40 zone Camp Mineola neighborhood. Back there obviously it's a standard sized lot back in that subdivision. I submitted some photographs which I think are helpful to give you a sense of the existing conditions. The motivation for this application really is to clean up the property, to consolidate the storage facilities that are kind of spread out through the sheds that you see into one structure. I'm sure I'm not a good sharer but the photographs you can see that there's three or four different structures that are housing various belongings of the homeowner and they want to clean it up. So that's really why we're here seeking this relief. The proposed structure would have a little work area in the levels basically be unfinished storage and then would enable the garage to actually become a productive parking space for a vehicle whereas now it's just another storage area. Just to address the criteria, again this is not an unusual application in this community as I referenced in my memo there have been setback and or lot coverage area 36 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 variances granted to four or five homeowners in the neighborhood, the Longs, the Bergamini's, the Beirnes and the Toppers and in even the you can see on the plans in front of you there's a framed garage the next door neighbor got variances relief for that structure that is almost a mirror image of what we have on this property. In terms of character what's proposed here we would argue is entirely consistent with the character of other accessory structures within this community.So arguably there's not detriment and if anything there would be a benefit we would argue by more or less removing all of these structures and consolidating them into one cleaner structure which will be largely screened by the residence on the property. I would mention that we have eight letters in support from neighbors surrounding the property all of who would obviously confirm that this is there's no detriment to the neighborhood and it's within the character of the accessory structures in the community. You have six you have the other two Liz has them but they are all essentially saying the same thing. Can we do without a variance, unfortunately not. We have a pre-existing structure that we're adding on to so you know this will remain consistent with that setback to the rear and although we're going to be removing several structures we will need to have some variance relief for the lot coverage on the property but not substantial. The setback variance obviously yes because of the pre-existing non-conforming setback mathematically is significant but again when we're talking about eliminating numerous structures and really cleaning up the property I think that would go against substantiality here. Again we're 300 sq. ft. of sheds are leaving so we're really only increasing lot coverage by 378 sq. ft. if my math is correct which is not substantial. Physical and environmental impacts clearly not environmental impact and again I think the neighbor's support I think is also it bolsters our position that there will not be any impacts adverse impact physically to the neighborhood. If you look there's another photograph which you can actually see that we provided you can actually see the neighbor's garage next to the existing structures that are there and really I think when this is all said and done you're going to really have something that is completely consistent neighbor to neighbor with the structures. I think really this is a win, win you know for the applicant and for the neighborhood when all is said and done and we remove those other structures which include there's now a little structure shed attached which is shaded by the proposed addition that would obviously be removed as well and you'd have one structure.That's really it, if there's any questions I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do have some but I want to give Rob a chance to ask questions first. MEMBER LEHNERT : My question, can you just go kind of over the need for the size of this addition I mean it's pretty substantial. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Well it's really for storage. I mean the if you look at all the existing structures there really is no other storage on this property and to have be able to actually utilize the garage as protective parking space for a vehicle it's just for and the homeowner is a carpenter cabinet 37 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 maker and he wanted to have some a work space on the main level to be able you to have some area for tools and you know it would be an unfinished kind of space and then just if you look at the property you see the amount of stuff they have a growing family and they just need storage space. MEMBER LEHNERT : What about the dormers on the second floor? I mean if we're just doing storage space you know that could be easily turned into something else. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think they were just trying to the design I believe is to be consistent with the design aesthetically of the house that is there that has been renovated previously and you know as far as the height goes it's consistent with the garage next door that's the design of the other garages so they're just being consistent with what's there. I mean it's storage space so MEMBER ACAMPORA : Why couldn't they put pull down stairs instead of the outdoor stairs? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I guess that's something that we could discuss. I think this was just to have the access to the upstairs and you know a separate access there is a structure there now, there are stairs there now that was the way so MEMBER LEHNERT : Is there any utilities proposed other than electricity in here? I mean are we going to plumbing are we going to put a bathroom in,anything outside of a hose bib and electric? MARTIN FINNEGAN : 1 don't believe the its non-habitable space with a workshop. I believe there would be electric for the MEMBER LEHNERT : Of course. MARTIN FINNEGAN : This is a situation where they have not attic or basement in the house and you know they just need the storage. There's not going to be plumbing, there's only going to be electric.The stairs were really for ease of access to be able to get in and get stuff upstairs. I don't think in terms of the variance we're seeking that it adds a tremendous amount or the eliminating of that would really be a huge change in the lot coverage calculation here. MEMBER LEHNERT : The next question is, is there any way to eliminate to bring more into compliance with the lot coverage? I mean this is a pretty big structure. You're asking for 24%. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Rob if I can interject to that thought before Martin before you respond, on the survey and the site plan where I just placed it or I was looking on the screen my understanding is that non-conforming pre-existing structures really shouldn't be expanded so if and when you're expanding this structure and you are before the Board to Rob's point couldn't the structure be reduced by making it conform to the accessory structure setback as opposed to 38 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 `the proposed 2%feet couldn't you place it back 5 and just reduce the structure a little bit which would bring it more into conformity? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Look could that happen, clearly. I think the request for the relief here is because the structure was designed to accommodate the storage needs of the homeowner. It could be reduced slightly in depth I believe by a couple of feet but I mean there's no attic,there's no basement, there's nowhere to put stuff. They need storage and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To that point let me ask a different question which isn't part of the application but you say there's no basement there is a basement window on the driveway side that has two black hoses I'm speaking about the house Norman (inaudible) former house where you said there was no basement. I don't know if there is or isn't but there's a basement window and there's two black hoses extending from the basement they're like a two inch hose. I think they're for an appliance or something it looks like for a sump pump maybe. It just ejects what would appear to be water into the driveway so my thought here is there seems to be alternatives I guess is what I'm saying. Whether there is or there isn't a basement it would appear that there is a basement. I don't know I think it's just an awful big ask for an addition. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Also Nick I'm noticing on one of the pictures that there is a gas tank next to that garage in between the building. So what is that used for? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Having known the prior owner Norman Wanback and I think others may you know he used to call that his cottage. I don't know if he used if for housing or not. I know his niece used to like to play in it but I think the spirit here is they are cleaning up the property it's just if you add up all those accessory structures this improved addition is substantially larger than all the accessories combined just one floor alone and this is a two floor structure. MARTIN FINNEGAN : We're talking 370 sq. ft. it's not massively bigger. The basement to clarify is being filled in all this was supposed to happen but because of COVID they haven't had people complete that so that's going to be eliminated. The tanks are defunct, they're not used for anything. I mean I think when this is all said and done you're going to have this property is going to look great and it doesn't look so great right now and you know you're talking about a negligible amount of square footage to have a usable functional structure on the property and you know it could be scaled back you know a little bit yea but I mean eventually it defeats the purpose because we're trying to create functional space for storage for this family and to put the car in the garage. I think that you have a neighborhood where most of the properties in this neighborhood have gotten different degrees of variance relief to do the same thing or similar additions and you know when you have four or five neighbors that have gotten area variance relief and you have eight neighbors that aren't opposing the application I don't think that it is a big ask. I think it's a reasonable request to have you know space for 39 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : What was the degree of the area variance relief for the four or five neighbors? MEMBER DANTES :That's what I think we need Martin is the copies of the variances. I remember 405 Fay Court, 305 Fay Court got variances. There's a bunch in that neighborhood. MEMBER LEHNERT :There's all sort of variances in that neighborhood. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I referenced four of them including the immediate neighbor next door and I don't know the exact percentage but I could MEMBER DANTES : Could you email that again cause I was looking for that this morning and I couldn't find the whatever the file I have I couldn't find the prior variances. Email that into the office and they can forward it. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Yea,the next door neighbor has 38%lot coverage. Keep in mind the existing lot coverage on this property is about 21% so we're asking for an increase of 2. less than 3% of lot coverage. I'm just looking at 6486 the variance decision right next door and that's what they had lot coverage of 38%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Martin I have a couple of questions, you said that this is a the term workshop is a permitted use. We all know that workshop doesn't say anything there's no definition. Webster's says it's a place where work is done that helps us a lot doesn't it. So that code is very vague and of course having experience with it we're all careful about making sure that indeed these are home hobbies. You know this is not a business use that's going to running out of here, he's a carpenter cabinet maker doing this thing not primarily as a principal business at home but rather you know more as a hobby or sideline. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Leslie I don't want to mislead you. He's not making cabinets, he's the owner of the Cabinets Plus which is in Aquebogue. He has a business, he does not build cabinets in the garage. Now I think this is absolutely for personal puttering in you know getting away from young children in the house that kind of thing. There's not going to be any plumbing, there's going to be electric you know that's it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know I think I can understand if you've got if this second story which you know has a big impact height wise. The setback is the setback, if you're maintaining that and it's very well screened back there, it's all non-conforming but when you double the height and then you have full dormers on both sides of a pitched roof that's a lot of natural light and we start to think oh and there's an outdoor stair and that can easily become habitable space. So one thing to think about is removal of the dormers that are on the rear side so that the aesthetic if that's what they want is just facing them and the house with the dormers 40 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 and thd-other thing that doesn't affect lot coverage but it does affect view towardt-the neighbor's yard you know the dwelling in the back. The other thing is to take the outdoor stair and instead of doing a pull down which is difficult to carry stuff up and down if you really have big items that you're storing and all that, put the stairs inside. It's a pretty big structure for home puttering. Put a full set of stairs inside you know the workshop and remove one of those dormers and you know just make sure that it remains open rafters and non-conditioned in other words no air- conditioning and no I mean put a fan in or something but you know we don't want to see this turn into a sheet rocked, insulated you know I don't know what he's got in mind right now. The first floor plan shows what I believe looked like built in benches all the way around which would make sense if you're going to do woodwork. MARTIN FINNEGAN :That's why the stairs were outside because then that kind of messes up that interior design of the workshop with the tables around and all that. It removes half that work space which is what was the intention was to have that exterior stairs I think to have access to the storage upstairs and you know maximize the workshop area downstairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm making some suggestions that are reasonable compromises. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think that the I can certainly discuss that in more detail. I think the rear dormer idea is doable but you know I mean again ultimately I don't believe what's proposed here is out of character with this neighborhood and it is consolidated a whole lot of storage into one structure. I mean if you look around there you know I mean a workshop can get messy it can get dirty and they just wanted to have a separate you know access area for that storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody else have any comments or questions or suggestions? MEMBER DANTES : I suggest that Martin resend the area variances, I don't see them in my packet that's all. MARTIN FINNEGAN : The ones for the I'm sorry I thought they were already part of the packet but I'll send them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the property owner is on here with us. I don't know if he wants to say anything, he's been brought in as a panelist. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't believe so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just being aware of the fact that he's present and can give him an opportunity if he wants to say anything,then fine.You want to just talk to him Martin and see where we land with this and we'll just you know rather than being vague about it or whether it's alternative relief or whatever let's give you an opportunity to discuss it with your client. You've heard what the Board's thoughts were and maybe we'll just adjourn it to the Special Meeting and 41 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 if you get us information quickly enough we'll probably have a_decision at that time anyway. We can just close it and deliberate but if you need a little bit more time we'll just adjourn it and we'll close it then and deliberate the following meeting. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No I think we can close it. I'd be happy to discuss it with the client and get back to you, I can do that you know today or as soon as possible. I'll share those decisions that Eric requested but I think we'd rather I don't think there's going to be anything substantial as far as the record goes to keep it open. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only reason would be in case you wanted to do any redesigning, you want to remove the dormer,you want to maybe put the stairs inside things like that that would require a modification to the floor plan. Do you know what I'm saying? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That might take a little bit of time not a lot but you know that's why we just keep it open in case there are changes you would like to generate based upon the Board's comments. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Okay fair enough. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we're going to need a hearing on it that's not what I'm suggesting. I don't think the Board wants to do that either, it's just a matter of MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yea if you can close the hearing and keep the record open that would be probably a good way to go. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the Board alright with that? Then that way we could take in whatever written submission or changes in design without you know suggesting that there'll be an additional hearing on it. Is everybody okay with that? Nodding heads okay. Alright, hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing portion and leave the written record open to the Special Meeting then maybe we just close the whole thing then. We're leaving it open, we know why I don't have to enter all the details. We're just going to leave the written portion open and close the public hearing portion. Is there a second to that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Liz would you call the roll please? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 42 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 OFFICE ASSiST`ANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes' how`do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries. HEARING#7453—BILL and JOAN KING/OLD SALT ROAD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application is for Bill and Joan King/Old Salt Road, LLC#7453. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 13, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" raised patio at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage to 20% located at 770 Old Salt Rd. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Mattituck. I believe we have the who is here for that William King? WINSTON ELY : My name is Winston Ely I'm acting as the King's agent on this property. I was the developer of the redevelopment of the site and I sold it to the Kings earlier this year and the Kings are on this call. I don't know if they can be brought in or what not but I'm acting as their agent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to indicate this is for an as built raised patio that creates lot coverage of 24%where the code permits a maximum of 20%. So are you going to need Trustees approval again? WINSTON ELY : I believe that we will need, yes we'll need a variance well no I think that we have the approved for the on grade condition but the Department of Buildings rejected our application 43 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 initially or you know on the final inspection and so we are coming to you for this variance application before going back to the Department of Buildings. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm a little confused about Town Law I and V that you're saying that an at grade patio would not be in character with the neighborhood and that both Trustees permit and the Building Department permit permitted fill to be brought in to make things at grade but you didn't want to do that, do you think it was in character of the neighborhood? Could you address that a little bit more fully please. WINSTON ELY : Thank you and good morning everyone. So we built this rear patio, stone patio was approved for on grade condition and during the you know as the project was more fully built out and we're doing the stone patio and doing the finished grading earlier this year or I guess last year technically now it just seemed that bringing in that additional fill on the rear side area the waterfront was less of a concern but particularly on the western side as you see on some of those photographs that I included in the application it seems like a relatively a lot of slope particularly on the west side that then goes up against a pre-existing 24 foot planter mound on that side and what I'm concerned with is that it seemed a bit out of character with the surrounding grade of the other properties and it didn't seem like it had any adverse impacts on the community and the waterfront (inaudible) and if anything it was beneficial with the goals of reducing and minimizing the amount of fill brought into these properties. We have multiple neighbors on both sides who have submitted letters of support for the existing condition. To the west they have a very similar patio condition which is even larger than this one. They are in support of the existing condition and the design materials are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you I'm sure are aware we've all been out and inspected the property, looked at the surrounding properties and so on WINSTON ELY :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The house next door actually has a raised you're talking about part of it is two steps up and one is just one step. WINSTON ELY : So we had originally proposed to the Building Department to have part of the rear to get to the 20%have the eastern portion be flush where you come out of the main area of the house straight ahead have that all be flushed and only leave the western portion had to be slightly raised but they put it out that the entire patio has to have either one condition or the other either raised or elevated and can't be partial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see who has questions, Rob we'll start with you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. 44 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric °- MEMBER DANTES : How many inches above the grade is this patio? WINSTON ELY : So the majority of it so the eastern side and the waterfront side is all less than 6 inches above and large portions of that are ameliorated by the on grade planters, it's only of the section directly out (inaudible) big doors, indicated with Section 2 on the survey or plan that you're looking at. The western portion is the area where the grade drops off a little bit more and so we inserted a step there, so that total is 12 inches. MEMBER DANTES :That was my only question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just curious to know if there's some priors that you could offer us as far as for lot coverage within Salt Lake Village specifically. WINSTON ELY : Sorry what was that sir? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If you would be able to provide us with prior decisions offering relief for lot coverage in Salt Lake Village. WINSTON ELY : I don't have that off the top of my head but I can certainly look into it. I do know that the property next door I believe it's 670 Old Salt Rd asked for an extensive variance when the property changed hands this past year I believe it was that the Acero property but I would have to research further in terms of variance application for lot coverage in that neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can take the survey down Donna thank you. Any questions from WINSTON ELY : If I can say one more thing is that possible? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah sure of course. WINSTON ELY : Overall it just seems that you know I have spent a lot of time in Florida and what I was worried about was if anyone's been to waterfront properties in Florida where you get that sort of (inaudible) sort of all the houses built up on a (inaudible) and then you get this sort of trough topography between the houses and the properties down there and that's what I was sort of(inaudible) to have made the decision when we were building the house because I wanted to avoid that because that was the condition that it felt like on that western edge with that planter of the neighbor's that is elevated or mounded I should say and this grading that we were going 45 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 to be required and was approved you know we kind of made (inaudible.) during the construction to try and ameliorate that. So that was the intended goal was not to reduce our construction cost by bringing in less fill or you know do some trickery or anything, it was really to lessen the fill that we brought in in line with the (inaudible) development plans and also just to keep it more character keeping everything on the existing grade of the surrounding neighborhood and properties. As I said the Kings are present on the call you know I don't know if they want to raise their hand and say anything or not but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's up to them,they're more than welcomed if they want to comment. It's not required but MRS. KING : We are here and we would just like to say that good morning all. We have full neighborhood support, in fact they encourage us because they don't want to see any more destruction in the neighborhood.They love the house and the way it's turned out. It's in character with their properties and we don't see any adverse impact from the patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just wonder, are you going to need Trustees approval do you know since this is different than what your original approval was? WINSTON ELY : I think we would have to circle back to them after we obtain a decision from the ZBA decision. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause typically what we will do is when we grant approval and also requires concurrent jurisdiction with Trustees we'll grant the approval subject to a condition that Trustees approval is obtained. So I just wanted to know whether or not you know that's needed here. It sounds like it will be cause WINSTON ELY : I believe it will be because it's within the jurisdiction of the Trustees obviously. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It may be ad ministerial if you've already had a permit issued but WINSTON ELY : Yeah that's my understanding and you know I'm not as experienced as many people who on the previous meetings in the rules and filings but that is my understanding. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from anybody? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Liz would you call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? 46 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. Do your research and get them to us as soon as you possibly can, the staff will send them out the Board Members whatever you find. I'm going to make a motion to recess for lunch. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. All in favor please raise your hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hello everyone, welcome back to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the afternoon session of the public hearings. Liz would you please remind everyone of the procedure to follow in participating in the Zoom meeting. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, if anyone wishes to comment on an application we ask that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and let us know which application you are here for. We also have instructions for those using their phones, in order to let us know you would like to speak please press *9 to raise your hand and we will ask you who you are here for and allow you to speak. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. I realize I should formally make a motion to reconvene the meeting instead of just saying hello everybody, so moved. Is there a second to reconvene? 47 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. {- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay unanimous second, I imagine that means a unanimous ayes all. We are reconvened. HEARING#7454—THOMAS RYCKMAN and PAMELA WILSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas Ryckman and Pamela Wilson#7454.This is a request for a Use variance from Article III Section 280-13C and the Building Inspector's October 27, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to alter an existing accessory garage to an artist studio at 1) proposed improvement does not constitute a permitted accessory use, located at 1405 Village Lane in Orient. I believe the architect is here yep okay good let them in. While they're coming in Hideaki can you unmute yourself just click that unmute button. Let me just indicate here, in addition to an approval for a non-permitted use by this Board you will also need a Certificate of Appropriateness from Landmarks Preservation. I believe HPC held a hearing last night. HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : It passed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It passed, okay so you have that very good. Go ahead and tell us what you'd like us to know about this application. HIDEAKI ARRIZUMI : This is Hideaki Arriizumi from Studio Hideaki Architects and I think this is a very simple straightforward application. One of the owner the couple is an artist and they recently purchased the property and they are right now in California and this main house is a very nice house but it's they need space right so he can't find any space for she's an artist and a painter it's actually a (inaudible) artist and she can't find any space to work in the house. Therefore she needed some place which is in fact perfect is in this if be allowed in existing garage and whatever we are proposing to do is mostly in some sense internal interior renovation. Additionally we are making (inaudible) improved therefore we need to change the siding, window, doors and additionally we are adding three skylights on the top up here which is because we can't have window here it's too close to the neighbor. Also we are adding exterior shower here I forgot to mention, we will make internal separation about 4 feet from here to use for garden shed and therefore we need a one new door here and otherwise completely same as what it is now. (inaudible) will be added inside, garage door will be replaced with a thermally improved garage door in the same place, same windows will be stay here but we will enlarge a little bit to higher windows (inaudible) windows in the same place. As I said the existing door here will be replaced with a thermal improved one, windows will be also and basically that's about it. Any kind of a question or whatever I can explain. Thank you. 48 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hideaki do you plan to have any conditioned space inside, will it be heated? HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will be heated. Sheet rocked? HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : So finished space. Sheet rocked interior yes. MEMBER DANTES : It is a Use variance right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what it is MEMBER DANTES : Why can't it be a workshop and then it conforms to code and then you don't have to be here? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's part of the problem, if people are clever they label things as workshop because the code says it's okay. If people are honest and call it what it's going to be used for which is an artist studio which has happened to this Board many times before.There are several artist's studios in fact in Orient. MEMBER DANTES : I mean workshop is a place where work is done, if you're working on your art it's a workshop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The problem is the code. You're absolutely right Eric and the code is very unclear and limited about what should be permitted in accessory structures. I believe some of you will remember as I do that we had an artist studio I think it was on Skippers St. action that also needed a C of A and we can find that prior, are you familiar with that Hideaki? HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : You mean a project? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah it was right in the village. The woman was an artist who also had an accessory structure, they put in skylights. Liz do you remember that one possibly? MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) for a Use variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's the problem. The office doesn't have much choice if the code says it's not permitted then they apply for a Use variance to say the use should be permitted.The problem is you are never going to be able to fulfill the standards of a Use variance because you need to show financial hardship and that they cannot realize reasonable return for every single use permitted in a residential zone district. It's almost an impossible standard. So that leaves us with the only direction I can think of is to write a determination that in fact overturns the Notice of Disapproval and says it is permitted because work is taking place there cause it's a workshop. 49 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 The whole thing iskind of silly and I'm sorry I'm going on the record saying that but this coda has long needed to be updated and expanded in terms of specific uses that ought to be permitted in accessory structures. MEMBER DANTES : When I first saw it I thought they wanted to turn it into like a gallery where they show art but if there's no commercial use HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : No. MEMBER DANTES :then it's a workshop where she's working on her art. HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We had one of those in Mattituck years and years ago and that's what we said.As long as you are not inviting the public in for commercial you know profit you can have someone come over and have a look at a painting but you know the idea is it's not a gallery that you're selling your art out of per say then it is a home occupation it's a home use. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And is that clear that the applicant is not hosting gallery events or any public (inaudible)? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe the artist has a gallery that she shows in but Hideaki you were saying on the record that is not the intent. It is strictly painting at home in her studio? HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : If they relabel it as an artist's workshop would that withdraw the variance maybe? THOMAS RYCKMAN : Perhaps I could speak, I am the husband of the artist and the owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please do and would you please just state your name for the record. THOMAS RYCKMAN : Yes my name is Thomas Ryckman and Pamela Wilson my wife and her professional name is Pamela Wilson Ryckman. There are tons of Pamela Wilson painters out there so she has to distinguish herself. She does have several galleries including one here in San Francisco where we live at least in the winter and she will not be using it as a commercial space. She is a painter and that's the total use of the building.That was intended only forthe production of not for the sale of art. MEMBER DANTES : You understand the distinction a workshop is permitted by code an artist studio is not. 50 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen Bill (inaudThle) who is an architect who I know Hideaki knows who lives in Orient had a project up in Browns Hills that was the same thing. He put down artist workshop both terms on the plans and the Building Department turned it down and said he needed you know approval from the ZBA. So I think high on our priority list is going to the Town Board to ask for some code modifications here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I think to Eric's point if it was a workshop, A it wouldn't be here and it doesn't set any sort of precedent. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah. MEMBER LEHNERT : I would agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bill Duffy is on this call. In terms of procedure I don't know if you were on when I was saying the issue before our Board is that if it's not a permitted use they apply for a Use variance and the standards are almost impossible to meet. So that leaves us with either you know having to overturn a Notice of Disapproval which then is a de facto way of saying it is a permitted use presumably or writing a code interpretation which then defines what that an artist workshop as long as it's not for commercial profit and for the public entrance for the sale of art but rather the production of art that was a permitted use. Now we haven't been asked for a code interpretation here, we've only been MEMBER LEHNERT : Didn't we run into the same issue that project in New Suffolk with the guy lifting the house about a year ago? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It was in a hamlet business zone. MEMBER LEHNERT : It was the same thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He was in a different zone district but it still wasn't considered permitted. Well no wait a minute MEMBER LEHNERT : No remember we sat down with Bill and a workshop was permitted, the studio needed the variance it just a matter of semantics. MEMBER DANTES : I think he ended up labeling the prints to conform. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well this you know honestly this kind of surreptitious procedure this way of saying we're going to do what we want to do but we're just not going to be honest about it because then we get in trouble is simply not the way we should be proceeding in good 51 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 government.We should be honoring people who are honest about things and attempting to work_ through what some of the issues are in the face of an outmoded code. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have a problem writing a decision that says artist studio falls under the purview of a workshop. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I mean I don't understand the difference if I make bird houses it's a workshop, if I paint a picture it's an artist studio. It's all the same thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well Bill Duffy I asked you to kind of come on because I wanted you to be sure to hear this conversation fully. I think we will have to speak to you about this probably you know in executive session and I don't want to call for that now. I don't know if I want to ask for your advice on the record here unless you suggest that's it okay to do that but I think my purpose here was to lay out the issues basically. T. A. DUFFY : I think procedurally I mean I'll address the procedure aspect of it that I think that even though they haven't asked for an interpretation if you see something you're within your jurisdiction to make a determination of that and interpret the code. If you (inaudible)overturning the Building Department's determination that's fine I think you're within your jurisdiction to do so. Like you said with regard to the actual determination you may make and my legal advice on that, I'd rather wait for exec session later. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay. Alright I think the path forward is clearer. I hate to see people attempting to get Use variances when they have to produce enormous financial records in order to meet the standards. T. A. DUFFY : I think if you look at prior decisions the prior Boards before this one they granted a Use variance for an artist studio did not really do any of the did not consider real factors necessary for a Use variance and if they did they shouldn't have granted it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly. Well in so far as the code is not clear enough yet the Board will have to work within the purviews of our jurisdiction in order to work with property owners that have reasonable requests so that's it. Are there any other comments or questions from any Board member?We've all seen the property as you know we do site inspections before you know it's what's across the street is the church's open field a grassy area. We know Orient village very well and I know the house well and you got your C of A you said that you got that. HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO: One point of clarification,the application states that the lot size is 5,785 sq. ft. but the Notice of Disapproval states it's 5,227. So there seems to be a discrepancy. 52 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where are we on this? `- MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The Notice of Disapproval versus the survey the lot coverage or rather the lot size. HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : We didn't recognize that. MEMBER LEHNERT : Does that have any bearing on this issue? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No well in a sense CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well when we stamp a drawing we want to make sure it's accurate that's all cause that goes over to the Building Department. It's a way of avoiding any hanging little issues that might come back to annoy a property owner. It says 5,227.2 sq. ft. is what's listed in the Notice and what are you looking at the survey by MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Page four of the site plan well it's just a project summary sheet. It's not labeled page four the summary sheet is ZBA 01.2 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay so this is the listing and that's required lot area and actual 5,785 sq. ft. is that what you're looking at for the lot area? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know here's the easy way out of this, we don't stamp that sheet we just look at the site plan, we look at the survey MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and the copy of the survey doesn't have it marked on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's okay. I don't want to send them back to the Building Department for a detail like that. MEMBER LEHNERT : We'll just do it I mean it has no bearing on this. Let's just do it based on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine,that's fine we'll do that. T. A. DUFFY : If you are going to be doing it simply overturning the Notice of Disapproval you're really not going to be stamping a plan you're just going to be saying CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. MEMBER LEHNERT : Right we're not doing setback variances here so it really doesn't make (inaudible) area. 53 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Or lot,area or width MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it really doesn't make a difference. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm okay with that. I think we have a way forward. Anything else from the Board or from the owner, from Hideaki you want to say anything more? HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : Well I don't think so. The only number actually talking about the property area, I think measured on my drawings that is what I have and I don't know what's the number the Building Department got from. If there's any discrepancy between CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know either. Maybe they looked at the survey. HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI : The survey doesn't have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't have it I know that. Sometimes they calculate it themselves based upon lot width and MEMBER DANTES : What about tax map maybe the tax map had a different number. HIDEAKI ARIIZUMI :That could be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It could be. Alright well we will have if there's no other comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 54 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. We will have a draft decision that we will be discussing two weeks from today at our next meeting which will be around 4 or 5 in the afternoon. It's open to the public, you can listen in if you want. It's not a hearing, that's closed it's just listening to us deliberate on the decision that we've written up and voting on it. I will go in the next day, sign it that legalizes it and sent to the Town Clerk. You will get a copy in the mail. If you want to listen you're welcomed to, if you want to call the office the day after and just find out what happened that's fine too it's entirely up to you. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : There is a Matt Ivans who has raised his hand. Is it closed, if he wants to speak what do you want to do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's closed but I can reopen it if he has something he had to say and we just didn't notice. Why don't you bring him in. BRUCE ANDERSON : Hi Bruce Anderson here. I just wanted to you guys got it exactly right we did one of these down in New Suffolk. I'm trying to think of the guy's name his first name was Ted CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we mentioned that earlier. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah it was right on the corner. BRUCE ANDERSON :That's correct and then there was another one called (inaudible)which is up on Main Rd.just past the monument in Orient there as you're going east on the north side. The same thing there so you know I wish these people the best because there's no reason on earth they should have an artist studio there it seems to me if they can have a workshop. That's all I wanted to say. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That was not specifically germane to this application, it was in general about the code and it's definition of what's permitted in accessory structures is that right? BRUCE ANDERSON : Well we were allowed to maintain these uses when they were permitted uses. I hope you can do an interpretation because it should be done. 55 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well my question was whether I need to reopen the hearing in order for you to enter this in relative to this application. It will be part of the transcript so your comment is noted. Alright we're good we're done with this one now. HEARING#7455—D. CANNIZZARO QPRT/JOHN MILTAKIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for D. Cannizzaro APRT/John Miltakis#7455.This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 5, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" deck addition and construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet at 1460 Strohson Rd. (adj. to Baldwin's Creek) in Cutchogue. So this is an "as built" deck, additions and alterations with a side yard setback at 6.7 feet where the code requires a 10 foot minimum setback. Donna you're putting it up, good. It is LWRP exempt and why don't you give us some more information about the application. JENNIFER WICKS : We had the existing deck and a small extension to the front of the garage where we would be maintaining the 6.7 side yard that has been there the whole time. CHRIS ALDINO : That's correct, we're putting a storage room above the garage and legalizing a deck which may already be legal. I mean I'm looking at a Certificate of Occupancy here dated February 21, 1990 for a rear deck. There's no hot tub but it does say deck addition with hot tub to existing dwelling so the deck may already be legal but this is what we're here for to maintain a 6.7 we're not going to get any closer. We're not looking to get any closer to the 6.7, 1 think we've handed in drawings we're doing some little bit of work to make the house look more it's a nice looking house it's a beautiful very well kept property but we're looking to make it a little nicer putting a little front overhang over it and a couple of reverse gables, a little cupola you know we're making the house nicer. I think you have the drawing there, making it a little bit more curb appeal. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, I was surprised that the house sort of didn't have a Pre-CO it was built in 1959 but I was going through all the different C.O.'s and it's just kind of strange that all these things were built and they did have sort of C.O.'s so it's a little confusing as the applicant just stated. 56 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 '- CHRIS ALDINO : Yeah we do have some C.O.'s here for the house and for the deck so I mean we need the relief anyway for what we're doing putting a storage above the garage so it's not really a waste of time but MEMBER PLANAMENTO: Understood,so my only one question was and I didn't quite understand the concept of the storage with the pull down stair but it's nice that you're not creating living space it's just clearly storage but the shed sort of straddles your neighbor's property line and I'm just curious to know a little bit about that if you could relocate it to a conforming location or what your thoughts are. CHRIS ALDINO : If I'm not mistaken that shed has been there a very long time. I don't know what kind of relationship he has with his neighbor, if they have a problem with it there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it your shed? CHRIS ALDINO : I don't know if Dave is with us here, Dave the owner maybe he can talk a little bit about that shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Could you unmute yourself please Dave. MEMBER DANTES : Does this thing have a masonry foundation on it or it's just a shed? CHRIS ALDINO : Let me see if I have some photos of it. MEMBER DANTES : If it can just be moved to what is it 3 feet is the side yard setback? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because it's on the water it can remain in the front yard. DAVID CANNIZZARO : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes now we can hear you. DAVID CANNIZZARO : Hi, I heard everything you said about me and it's hard when you cannot respond I will tell you that. It was a pre-existing shed. The lady next door very nice people, they both passed on and the son I hope he's on call he might be on, I think he's okay with it. He never through me off the site. It's on grade, it's on a couple of sleepers, 4 x 4 sleepers. CHRIS ALDINO : Maybe we can put in a covenant or something that says once the shed is dilapidated or when it's done being used that it's just removed off the property. Is there something we can do with that if it's not bothering anybody is this an issue? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it should be on the property. I don't see why especially if it's on these little 4 x 4's as he said it could just be pulled forward into a conforming location. 57 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 DAVID CANNIZZARO : It's been there for almost twenty years that I know of. CHRIS ALDINO : It would be blocking his if we did move it, it would be kind of it probably would have to be removed because it would be in the way. If we pushed it to the left or to the north it would encroach his driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to yeah the only way that they can do this is by basically moving it over to the opposite side of the front yard. CHIRS ALDINO : Can I get a statement from the owners saying that he doesn't have a problem with it, the current owner would that be acceptable? It's been there for almost twenty years. DAVID CANNIZZARO : Or even longer,twenty years that I almost have the site the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the thing, it's very unorthodox for the Zoning Board to write an approval and stamp a drawing that does not have everything on the subject property. We've actually required people to move fencing that was straddling their property and a neighbors that was partly on the neighbors so that it was all on their property. We don't have jurisdiction over an adjacent property because it's not before this Board. CHRIS ALDINO : There couldn't be any covenant on it saying that when it's life span once it's unusable that it be removed off that property, is there is any CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can condition an approval any way we wish you're right. We can put I wouldn't say it has to be a C&R I mean that requires filing and all that but MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think this lot size has a 35 foot front yard setback. The front yard to the garage is 81 feet so there's more than enough room to pull the shed into a conforming location. CHIRS ALDINO : I agree it can be moved. MEMBER DANTES : Plus the Building Department won't give you a CO straddling if they see a survey where a building is straddling the property line. CHRIS ALDINO : Dave is it a big deal to move this thing to a different location? DAVID CANNIZZARO : I'll tell you this, we have a boating lifestyle and that's part of the reason why we need the storage. If I do get the approval for the storage there's a remote possibility that I could take the stuff that's in the shed now and store it up in the storage space. CHRIS ALDINO : That sounds very good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then remove the shed presumable. 58 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHRIS ALDINO : That could work. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All I would say then if you chose to do that that's your choice but you can keep the shed just by placing it in a conforming location there's many locations on this property where you can still have a shed. You just want to say that the shed if it remains should be in a conforming location. CHRIS ALDINO : Agreed, that sounds reasonable. DAVID CANNIZZARO :That could work thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So then we can condition this based upon either the removal of the shed or it's relocation to a conforming location. CHRIS ALDINO : That's fair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Giving you the choice cause it's not a lot coverage issue. Alright is there anyone else here who wants to address this application? Any other questions from the Board members? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Liz would you call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 59 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7456— IRA and SUSAN AKSELRAD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ira and Susan Akselrad #7456. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's September 24, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 4125 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. So the code requires a 75 foot bluff setback and the I'm sorry the additions and alterations are for a 75 foot bluff setback the code requiring 100 foot setback.Just a note that it's LWRP consistent and there was a 2016 ZBA prior determination on this property. Bruce we weren't able to get Soil and Water's comments as we typical were because we were informed by them that actually a lot of their staff is doing COVID contact tracing so they're very, very short staffed. So I suspect in this instance we're going to have to just simply do without it. If there was a problem with the LWRP that would be one thing but it's consistent so we can proceed even without Soil and Water which is just advisory anyway. So go ahead and tell us what else you'd like us to know. BRUCE ANDERSON : In a nut shell I just want to (inaudible) background as probably most of the Board members know, this parcel originally consisted of two parcels. It was owned by the Cardinale family and the southerly parcel contained a pool, some patios, there was a deck down by off the bulkhead there and the northerly parcel contained a single family dwelling and some patios and decking as such so in 2015 the Cardinale's sold this property to Ira and Susan Akselrad who then turned around and combined the two lots into one. Of course when they did so the right for the single family dwelling all on the southerly lot was eliminated. However the effect in doing so created a zoning non-conformity in that the pool that became partially within a side yard so that triggered a zoning variance. Also they wanted to do various alterations and additions to the house less than 100 feet from the bluff. The application was filed with this Board and the Board granted variances as the Chairperson noted#6896 dated October 24, 2016 authorizing the pool and the various alterations. The existing house which was further located that survey says 72 feet places it in a non-conforming location relative to today's bluff setbacks. However the bluff setbacks as applied in Nassau Point came into effect in 2015 so at the time the house was originally built no 100 foot setback would have applied. So the requested additions and alterations to the dwelling were constructed pursuant to a building permit and received a 60 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 Certificate of Occupancy. Now what the applicant is requesting to do is they want to expand an existing bedroom first floor to the south and sort of square off the adjacent living room area. A deck is proposed off that bedroom and that bluff is that deck is no closer to the bluff than the existing house and the house expansion part of this is actually located 102 feet from the bluff so it's not part of this application. Really here we're only talking about the deck.The deck measures 10 foot by 27.4 feet or 27 foot 4 inches or 274 sq. ft. so that would come off the first floor and then of course when you went upstairs to the second floor the roof of the first floor deck becomes a deck for the second floor so there's two decks, one on top of each other. The project architect Melissa Cicetti is with us today if you have any further questions regarding the design. You have copies of the architectural plans as part of your file here. As you know the provisions of 280- 116A(1) which is the 100 foot setback bluff rule applies and that's why we're here. The neighborhood as you know is residential character and most of the homes along Nassau Point Rd. facing east would be located closer than 100 feet from the bluff simply because they were constructed prior to (inaudible) when the restrictive statute came into effect. So I'm going to quickly run through the variance criteria and the first one of course is, we would submit that there would be no impact to the character of the neighborhood because the planned expansions are minor in nature and there's no encroachment towards the bluff over what presently exists. We submit, the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method other than an area variance because the dwelling already exists at the same distance to the bluff as is the proposed decks. And we also submit that the variances sought are not substantial in relationship to the pre-existing setbacks and also to the 100 foot standard and the variance relief sought constitutes 25%of that requirement. We submit, it would not have an effect on the physical and environmental condition of the neighborhood because the decks are obviously (inaudible) and no closer to the bluff than what exists. Also you should take notice, in the prior 2015 decision which was subsequently caused the filing an application with the Trustees a non-turf buffer was established above the bluff which has been continuously maintained as required. As the Chairperson notes the project is consistent with the town's LWRP because the decks are no closer to the bluff than the existing house. Our hardship we submit is not self-created because the distance to the house and relative to the bluff is fixed. So I submit to the Board obviously for (inaudible) prior expansions to the house and I suspect that had the applicant proposed these decks in connection with the 2015 application the Board probably would have approved them. I don't want to speak for the Board but that would be my guess. I think the Board is well aware of these non-conforming bluff setbacks that exist along Nassau Point Rd. for house expansions and at times new homes given that all or nearly all the waterfront properties were developed prior to 2015 examples of prior variance relief would include obviously this one.Also the Whelan which is rendered last November 23, 2020 #7034, Peter Negri decision which was rendered March 21, 2018 as decision #9775 and of course the Alison Byers decision of November 23, 2020 # 7436. Finally, the Board should be aware that I received an email from Michael Mulcher who resides 61 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 on the adjacent property to the south which is forwarded to your staff this past Monday and in that email he expresses no objection to the application. Conceivably Mr. Mulcher would be the only one affected by the decision because by the construction of the decks because they face his property. So the property owner to the south would not the decks would not even be visible to that property nor would they be visible to the property owner directly across the street. So when you take all this into consideration it's our position that the applicant the requested variances should be granted. Again Melissa Cicetti is with us today and of course I'm here to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No it's pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No same thing pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Ditto. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :You know me I have to ask. I was hoping this would have come up with Soil and Water so I thank you for the explanation but there were sprinkler heads I don't know if anyone noticed that all over the bulkhead, excuse me not the bulkhead the bluff side. No one else caught that? MEMBER DANTES : They're allowed a certain amount of light irrigation just to get the plantings established. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Usually from Soil and Water there's always a recommendation that they should be removed so I don't know if that's something that we want to wait for Soil and Water of just ignore. I mean I can understand that you do need irrigation. I think there were like eight or twelve I counted all down the bluff side. MEMBER ACAMPORA : But are they the ones that just spray that they're not really forceful? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't know. I have no problem with the application whatsoever it's just something that I remarked on. They're on either side of the stair running in the area below I can't read what this says here, where the chain link fence is midway down the bluff in that area running in a straight line parallel to the bulkhead the width of the property. 62 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 MEMBER DANCES : I think I saw brand new stuff isn't (inaudible) "- BRUCE ANDERSON : Melissa might be able to speak to this more to this than me but this property sustained some damage during Hurricane Sandy and a lot of vegetation as I understand was replanted and a lot of time and effort and money frankly was spent on reestablishing and fortifying that and securing that bluff by plantings. I'm pretty certain that the irrigation was used to get those plants established and if you go down there I think they did a heck of a job stabilizing that bluff with the plantings that they put in although obviously the lowest part of the bluff is still you know in a big storm event would be conceivably see some salt spray and the like. I would also point out that if we're (inaudible) to get a variance which looks like we will, we'll also be taking this up with the Trustees so maybe it's best that it be addressed at that point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's something that Soil and Water would have brought up so I have no problem waiting for the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you go to Trustees after us then I take it yeah? BRUCE ANDERSON : We can't get there until and unless we have variance relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I know. Typically we would do this first as we're doing now and then condition it subject to Trustee approval which is kind of just a pro form way of handling it. Alright I think we (inaudible) answer then.Anything else from anybody?Melissa Cicetti is in there as an attendee. Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 63 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks. We have a couple of miscellaneous things. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, February 4, 2021 at 8:30 am so moved, is there a second. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora, everybody raise their hand if they approve. Motion carries unanimously. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held December 22, 2020 so moved, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Nick. All in favor raise your hand. The motion carries unanimously. We already did the resolution to adjourn Mini Cedars without a date. So I think what I'll do now is Bill advice please, should we close this meeting or we can leave it open, enter executive session and simply turn the microphone off. T. A. DUFFY : Technically I don't know, I'm not sure that I mean we can close out the meeting if nobody is there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting of the Board of Appeals, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay all in favor please raise your hand. The motion carries unanimously. Stop the recording please. 64 Regular Meeting January 7, 2021 CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE :January 14, 2021 65