Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/04/2021 Hearing Regular Meeting February 4, 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 February 4, 2021 10:00 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHN ERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular_Meeting February 4, 2021 _ INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page George Cavagnaro #7452 8 - 10 Pedro Rivas and Yira Tejada #7458 11- 13 Mari Shea # 7460 13 - 15 Peter and Valerie Sakas (Breezy Shores Cottage#16) #7461 15 - 19 Charles and Helen Szarka (Breezy Shores Cottage#17) #7462 19 - 21 Matthew Kaelin and Kathryn Collins# 7464 21- 23 Konstantinos Diakovasilis # 7465SE 24- 35 12425 Sound, LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb # 7459SE 36-47 Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC#7463SE 47- 81 2 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals February 41h Regular Meeting. 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 February 4, 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. At this time I'd like to ask Liz Sakarellos to please review how people who are on this call can participate. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you send us a note via the Q&A tool that's at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and then you can let us know which application you are here for. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to proceed now with the SEAR resolutions declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 © including the following: George Cavagnaro, Pedro Rivas and Yira Tejada, Mari Shea, peter and Valerie Sakas, Charles and Helen Szarka, Matthew Kaelin and Kathryn Collins and Konstantinos Diakovasilis so moved is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 3 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. The next resolution, Whereas the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617, has determined that the Special Exception petition of SUFFOLK COUNTY ENERGY STORAGE II, LLC #7463SE is an Unlisted Action and WHEREAS pursuant 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) the Zoning Board of Appeals coordinated with all involved and interested agencies on December 29, 2020 and WHEREAS the Zoning Board of Appeals as Lead Agency completed the coordinated review of the Unlisted Action pursuant to 6 NYCCRR Part 617 Section 6177 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) be it therefore RESOLVED that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby declares Lead Agency status for the SEQRA review of this Unlisted Action, so moved is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. The last resolution is WHEREAS the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617 Section 617.7 has determined that the Special Exception petition of 12425 SOUND, LLC,ANDREW FOHRKOLB#7459SE is an Unlisted Action and WHEREAS the Zoning Board 4 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 1 of Appeals as Lead Agency performed an uncoordinated review of the Unlisted Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 Section 617.7 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) be it therefore RESOLVED that the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby declares Lead Agency status for the SEQRA review of this Unlisted Action so moved, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We have a resolution to close the following hearing, LOUIS A. NORDOLILLO and ERIN A. NOARDOLILLO #7457 so moved, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 5 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We have two draft decision before us, one is for THOMAS RYCKMAN and PAMELA WILSON # 7454. This was a request to convert an accessory garage you all have copies of both of these right and you've read them okay. This was a fairly complicated draft to write as was the other one and in so far is the fact that we of our own (inaudible) had to really interpret the code and because we had a whole series of prior decisions that acknowledged artist's workshops as allowed we had a series of Notices of Disapproval that basically some of which in the past mentioned them as non-permitted uses and others did not mention them as non-permitted uses. So what we've done in this instance and it applies to the other application as well, was to interpret the code so that in the first case it was an application Ryckman/Wilson for a Use Variance; we are dismissing the Use Variance because we have interpreted the code based upon the section of the code that finds artists workshop, workshops and artist's studios as customary and incidental to a principle residential use based upon a whole series of priors. So we've done a fairly elaborate code interpretation on the use of both of these and so there is no need to overturn the Use Variance because we've now determined it's a permitted use. So this is a draft to approve the conversion based upon the fact that they required a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Land Preservation Commission not sorry Landmarks Preservation Commission which they received in January. The only thing we're going to do is other than make the determination that the artist's studios and workshops are permitted in accessory structures on residential lots as long as they conform to the following and since these are part of both these drafts I'm going to read the seven conditions of approval. Such use is incidental to the residential use of a premises, there is no exterior effect at that property line such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas, fumes or radiation. No display of products, art work, crafts etc. is visible to the street. No sales to the public are permitted on subject property. Plumbing in the accessory structure is limited to a half bath, toilet and sink and a utility sink. Activities in the accessory structure are limited to the production of crafts and works of art such as painting, sculpture, photography, ceramics, weaving textiles, glass art and personal woodworking carpentry and auto mechanics for personal home use. No sleeping or cooking is 6 _ Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 permitted in the accessory structure. So I have a motion here to determine that in the instance of Ryckman/Wilson the use is a permitted use as an artist studio and workshop in the accessory structure as proposed. Any discussion on this? Okay then we're ready to vote. I make a motion to determine the studio/workshop is permitted under the following circumstances that I previously read as an accessory to a principle residential use. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you=Vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. The next draft decision is for LOUIS A. NARDOLILLO and ERIN A. NARDOLILLO and again we this is an application actually for an addition to an accessory garage with a non-conforming rear yard setback and excessive lot coverage. We got an amended application that reduced the originally proposed lot coverage and improved by a little bit the non-conforming rear yard setback. There were several letters from neighbors in support of this application. This is for a home carpentry woodworking workshop. The Notice of Disapproval did not in this instance unlike the other application determine that this was not a permitted use. So we proceeded to look at the area variance standards and also include the information on the code interpretation so that there would be some consistency here. We're going to grant the relief this is the proposal, to grant the relief as amended subject to the following condition. The Proposed exterior staircase to the second floor garage space shall be relocated to the interior workshop and shall only be accessed by the interior of the first floor 7 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 workshop. Second, the applicant shall submit to the Board a revised site plan and architectural drawings showing the revisions required in condition number one. Three, the three accessory sheds on the subject property shall be removed at the completion of construction of the proposed garage addition. Next, no Certificate of Occupancy shall be granted until the accessory sheds are removed as shown on the site plan. Next, the second floor described as storage space shall remain unfinished and non-habitable with open rafters and stud walls. And finally, no plumbing shall be installed on the first or second floor of the proposed additions. Is there any discussion on this application or on these conditions? Okay we're ready to vote, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We are now ready to begin the Public Hearings. HEARING# 7452—GEORGE CAVAGNARO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The first application before the Board is for George Cavagnaro#7452. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's 8 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 _ October 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 front yard setback of 35 feet located at 265 Racketts Court in Orient New York. Is there someone here for this application, ah there we are hi Anthony. So this is a front yard setback of 21.2 feet, the code requires 35. You need Landmarks Preservation approval for this as well. Go ahead Anthony. ANTHONY PORTILLO :Thank you Board,thanks for your time today, good morning. So I just want to start by explaining the project. We are requesting an increase in the existing home towards the side yard 7 foot 6 inches and then a deck that is 10 foot. The existing residence is already at the 21.2 feet from the front property line so we're not increasing that non-compliance we're just following the same line of the existing building. The reason for the addition mainly is to get a master bedroom on the first floor. Mrs. Cavagnaro does have some site issues so it's very difficult for her to use the staircase so that's the main reason for this addition and the deck would be off of the master bedroom that's going to be on the first floor. I just wanted to mention to the Board we were looking at some other reliefs granted. We found a few that were nearby and I can provide those to Kim but there was one on 230 Oyster Pond Lane where there was a 27 foot front yard setback with a 4.3 foot side yard setback.for an addition/alteration in 2014. That ZBA file number was 6756.The Board granted that in 2014.The address 290 Skippers Lane#6738 another addition with-a 14:$foot and 11.8 foot front yard setback with a lot coverage of 20.6 was gr"aVted in 2014 as well. These properties are very close to the subject property so I thought that would be good to mention. I just want to also mention I don't know if you guys know this, this street Racketts Ct. it's somewhat rural, there's a lot of farmland. There's about there's three other homes that are accessed from this road so it's not you know I don't think the request is egregious for that neighborhood and I think us keeping the building in line with the existing building you know we're showing respect to what's there. Last note, we've already received Landmark approval so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When was that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : That was granted I don't know the exact date but it was like a month ago. George do you know the exact date on that? I could look in my files. GEORGE CAVAGNARO : I believe it was'January 9th but ANTHONY PORTILLO : It was last month yeah. BOARD ASSISTANT : It might be in our file just so you know. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll look here just one second. The approval was granted 1/4/21. Kim if you don't have that I can provide that as well with the resolutions. 9 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you know we've all been out to the site so we know exactly what Racketts Ct. was as a matter of fact I was like I've never heard of that street. I pretty much know most of them and then I was back there and I said, wait a minute this is by Oyster Ponds oh there's a little road there I thought I was going into Lathams farm field. You learn something new in this town all the time. I don't have any questions let's see if the Board has any. Anything from anybody? MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a hard copy of the decisions in our packet Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I'll verify that, if I don't I'll be sure to get that to Kim today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you have a copy of the Landmarks just to be complete and their C of A. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Nobody there, no hands raised. If there's not questions or further comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of copies of the priors that Anthony just talked about and the C of A from Landmarks. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. ,BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We'll have a decision in two weeks. 10 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 - HEARING#7458— PEDRO RIVAS and YIRA TEJADA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pedro Rivas and Yira Tejada # 7458. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 11, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an "as built" accessory shed at 1) proposed dwelling is located less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet,2)proposed dwelling is located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) proposed construction more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4)"as built"shed located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 305 Flint Street in Greenport. PAT MOORE : My clients are here in the room with me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a front yard setback at 4.8 feet where the code requires 35, a rear yard setback at 14.1 feet where the code requires a rear yard setback of 35 feet, lot coverage proposed at 21.2% the code permits a maximum of 20% and then shed is in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. So those are the four variances. We've all inspected the property just so your clients know that part of this procedure and understand that it's a rather long triangular odd shaped lot that presents some challenges and the rear yard actually fronts along the railroad line. Let me turn this over to you now Pat. PAT MOORE : Yes thank you. You've pointed out their unique dimensions of this property. It is actually two combined lots from the subdivision that was approved back in the early nineteen hundreds. The family needs to expand the space their living space. Mr. Rivas's father is ninety, his mother is in her seventies. They live in the house with them and they need the extra space. They need to separate to give them some privacy an accessory apartment. We anticipate certainly mom is going to live a nice long life dad as well we hope but he's ninety so we really think that it's probably going to be mom's house for a very long time. My clients live and work in the community. Mrs. Tejada the wife is a first responder works at she volunteers as an EMT in Southold and village of Greenport so she's very active in the community. As far as I know that's very personal to them but they are certainly longtime residents here. It's a moderating community in the village not in the village of Greenport across you walk across the street and then you're in the village of Greenport. So it is a very unique if you sneeze you're in the village of Greenport but if you're sitting on the front stoop you're in the town of Southold.So the land uses here are more comparable to the village of Greenport development. I've given to you within the body of the application the average setback of all the homes and you can see that they're very close,they were developed very close to the street.This one when it was built it was pre-existing and its location and we are continuing the line of the existing home. It's pretty self-explanatory. 11 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 ` I'm happy to differ to any questions you may have for my clients who are here but otherwise I'll address any questions rather than repeat of what I've given to you in writing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Pat I'll start with you. MEMBER ACAMOPRA : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I don't either because we've seen it, we know the property, we know the neighborhood, we understand the enormous constraints on this project. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to say that comment about the location. That's a very difficult site. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And it's way at the end of a block you know it doesn't have (inaudible) on anybody. PAT MOORE : Right no neighbors and in fact it's commercial behind the railroad tracks it's a completely commercial almost like for Greenport an industrial park, it's small but it's definitely commercial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Raise your hand if you're there for this application. Okay so 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 ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 12 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member'Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Thank you Pat, we'll have a decision at the next meeting. HEARING#7460— MARI SHEA r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Mari Shea # 7460. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 1, 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 front yard setback of 40 feet located at 1350 Smith Road in Peconic. Is there someone here for the application? BOARD ASSISTANT : I promoted Mike and I believe it's Mike Kimack and the applicant Mari Shea. MIKE KIMACK : Can you hear me? Good morning everyone, hope all is well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All good here so far. We also have Mari Shea here the property owner. This is an addition and alteration to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 33 feet, the code requiring a minimum of 40 and there was a prior ZBA decision on December 7, 2000 #4883 which granted a 32 foot front yard setback on Smith Rd. what else do we have? The existingfront porch is at 33 feet and you're goingto expand it changing the style to Dutch Colonial and it's conforming two story addition in a side yard at the rear of the house. So Mike anything you'd like us to know about this? 13 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 MIKE-KIMACK : I think you pretty much covered it all and it had been twenty years ago when that original application had been approved for the 32 foot setback. It was at that time just the porch and what the Shea's are trying to do is make it a much more permanent structure for themselves. That's why the side yard and the rear yard addition and the porch is expanded but no further forward than it is exists now at the 33 feet from the road and there was living accommodations above it. It's going to be I believe a part of that area is a therapy exercise room. There is going to be an elevator going in so this house is converting to a much more year round residence and a complete renovation on the inside in order to accommodate that and they should basically the original variance probably is the strongest one. They originally were granted the no more no closer than 32 feet,they're maintaining 33. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I think straightforward enough. We know Smith Rd. pretty well and a number of priors there. So let's see if anyone has any questions, Eric I'll start with you. MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no questions it's very straightforward thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? BOARD ASSISTANT : No raised hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Liz you're answering this Q&A I see. Alright, no one else seems to be present and wanting to comment so I'm goingto make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. QHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Kim please call the roll. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? 14 Regular-Meeting February 4, 2021 - MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously.We'll have a decision at our next meeting in two weeks. BOARD ASSISTANT : Liz do you want to repeat the instructions for everyone. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Sure, just a reminder if anyone would like to comment on an application go ahead and click the raise hand button or send us a quick note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen and we will allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for. We are having a problem with Frank. He says that he doesn't have a microphone. Also I have sent some of you a chat to let us know who you are here for. There's a lot of names on here that we don't know which application you are here for so we can code you, so if you can answer my chat please do so.Thank you. BOARD ASISTANT : Can you call his cell phone you guys? HEARING#7461— PETER and VALERIE SAKAS (BREEZY SHORES COTTAGE#16) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Frank if you can hear us we're going to send you the instructions to phone in so that we can then talk to you and we can hear you. BOARD ASSISTANT : Frank has two hearings at 10:30 and 10:40 and then after that the next hearing CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But we can't take that yet. I'm going to read the Notice of Disapproval the Legal Notice into the record while we're trying to get Frank connected here. The application 15 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 before the Board ds for Peter and Valerie Sakas #7461, Breezy Shores Cottage #16:This-is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's December 8, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non- conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use located at 65490 Route 25 (Breezy Shores Cottage #16 adj.to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Now we have to see if we can get Frank on here. I can't even read the second notice because it's not 10:40. We'll just have to wait. Let me go to the Resolutions and we can at least do that, skip to the end of the agenda. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with public hearings to be held Thursday, March 4, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. so moved is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Would you call the roll Kim. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries and another resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held January 21, 2021 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. 16 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 1 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. MEMBER DANTES :Just put the phone up to the microphone. FRANK UELLENDAHL : I can see you I can hear you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Talk about technology, what a team. We're going to make this work no matter what. Frank I've read the Notice of Disapproval the Legal Notice for Cottage #16 and it looks like you're proposing a 17 square foot addition landward of the existing seasonal cottage and it's less than a 3% enlargement, it 2.95% is that right? FRANK UELLENDAHL : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and this is a fairly standard what is this this is to create it looks like a 9 foot I'm doing this because I know it's hard for you to communicate, 9 foot 5 inches by 7 foot 9 inch second bedroom and moving the bathroom from its current location. FRANK UELLENDAHL : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have established a pretty standard determination about the percentage of expansion that is considered almost deminimus but reasonable on these cottages which is 3% or less and there's a lot of priors that you represented in the past. There's going to be some minimal change to the roof line I think. 17 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 FRANK UELLENDAHL- : Correct. The total height of the existing cottage will remain the same and there will be an added dormer. There's a small (inaudible) up high and the sunroom will get new windows and the foundation stays as is and they're basically just interior adjustments opening up some rooms so they have a nice view of the bay. Right now there is a bedroom blocking it and (inaudible) the bathroom (inaudible) modernizing it. So this is basically what this is all about. It's a non-conforming use and we know the 3% (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on what happened? Liz you have any idea what OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Feedback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Frank is still on it looks like but I don't know, can you still hear us Frank? FRANK UELLENDAHL : I can hear you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright let's see if the Boar has any questions, I have none. Pat have you got any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? Liz did you notice anybody, did anybody answer you in chat? No okay. Alright, 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 DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 18 Regular Meeting-February 4, 2021 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye: Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. Frank don't go away stay where you are we will go on to the next one. HEARING #7462—CHARLES and HELEN SZARKA (BREEZY SHORES COTTAGE#17) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an application for Charles and Helen Szarka Breezy Shores Cottage#17, #7462. A request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-123 and the Building Inspector's December 8, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing seasonal cottage at 1) a non-conforming building containing a non-conforming use shall not be enlarged, reconstructed, structurally altered or moved unless such building is changed to a conforming use at 65490 Route 25 (Breezy Shores Cottage #17, adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. Let the record show that Frank Uellendahl is here to represent that application. Again additions and alterations to the seasonal cottage. This looks like 17 square feet, 2.59% increase in size, enlarging the existing bathroom, adding a shower in a kind of a bump out on the exterior. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's moving a wall less than a foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's going to be negligible. MEMBER LEHNERT : Pretty benign. 19 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. Frank anything now we can see the cottage on the screen. So is there anything Frank that you want us to know about this that I haven't covered? FRANK UELLENDAHL : Well this cottage is identical to #16 and what we're proposing is basically just adding a shower a larger shower to the existing bathroom and raising the roof of the porch the sunroom out to the existing ridge. That's basically the same as cottage #16 but no other interior changes. So this is a much smaller job compared to #16. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Any questions from anybody, Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anyone in the audience raise your hand or go to chat. Alright, 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 LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 20 -- Regular Meeting February 4;.2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. -` BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. FRANK UELLENDAHL :Thank you,thank you,thank you. HEARING#7464- MATTHEW KAELIN and KATHRYN COLLINS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Matthew Kaelin and Kathryn Collins # 7464. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's October 22, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) proposed dwelling is located less than the code required front yard setback of`35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 328 Avenue B on Fishers Island. Steve you're on? STEVE HAM : I'm on, can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yep, I just want to let you know, a:we've received your memorandum of law and b: we have three letters of support from neighbors that we also received. STEVE HAM :That's right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 2.8 feet,the code requiring 35 foot minimum and 22.7%lot coverage where the code allows a maximum of 20%. There are some photographs and this is actually to create a conditioned space connecting these two structures that's all of 50 square feet. STEVE HAM :That's right. About one and a half pieces of plywood if you put them on the ground. Not much impact on the neighborhood on this one and my clients are year round residents and they have a young child hope to increase their family and the purpose of their alterations are to increase the living space for their family. As you know I've addressed the various criteria that you need to address in your decision in my memorandum but Matt Kaelin I guess is on line here if you have any questions either for me or for him. 21 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I take it the story is that because the garage exists at 2.8 feet as an accessory, once you attach it then that becomes a front yard setback for a principal structure. STEVE HAM : I think that's what the Building Department interpreted yes. They're actually 27.7 feet from the street which the street itself is just really a driveway so it's very little impact here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and it looks like the lot is what 11,005 square feet? STEVE HAM : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A pretty small lot so I guess by connecting these you're going to up the lot coverage by 2.7% or what is the existing? STEVE HAM : Well it's already exceeded slightly. You're increasing the lot coverage by less than one half of a percent by forty five hundredths of a percent. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess that would be called deminimus. STEVE HAM : I think so, at least I would say so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anybody has any questions and Mike Verity was out there by the way. We got what you submitted but the pictures I think just put up were photos that Mike took. I think we have a pretty good idea. It's hard as you know on Fishers Island for us because we don't do the same site inspections that we typically do on other projects. STEVE HAM :Actually last year or this year and last year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yep. Okay, let's see if anybody has any questions I'll start with you Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Where did Nick go I don't see Nick. He's not only muted he's vanished. Well Rob any questions from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, Eric anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it's pretty simple. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We gotta see where Nick went. I wonder if he lost connection again and has to call back in. That happens to him sometimes it seems. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'll see if I can contact him. 22 .�.--- - Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just got a text let me see if that's him.'We can go ahead without him but it's silly to do that if we can get him back. BOARD ASSISTANT : Should we just use this as your attendance until you're able to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as we can hear his voice we're fine. So we're ready to vote. 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 DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously.What happened did you just lose contact with the phone? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's no service. I think since they're building a house a couple of doors away maybe something happened there maybe because of equipment moving around. I'm back. BOARD ASSISTANT : Okay Liz I'm going to bring in two people in for the next hearing. I believe these are the applicants. 23 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 HEARING#7465 SE—KONSTANTINOS DIAKOVASILIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is for Konstantinos Diakovasilis#7465SE. The applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13).The applicant is the owner of the subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 2095 Ruth Road in Mattituck. So this request we've all as you may know I certainly met you at the property when I was inspecting it, everybody's been out there to see the structure to see the neighborhood and we have a couple of things to talk to you about. First of all there are some discrepancies between what was actually built you know what's there right now and the drawings that we've got that show dormers on the front and the back and they also show an entry portico over the front door of the accessory structure so the first thing we have to do is straighten out what exactly we should be looking at. I think the original drawings were the ones that had the C.O. for the structure that's what you actually built. There are windows on the back of it okay but not on the front facing your house. In the roof there's no dormer okay so we need to straighten that out. Kim is trying to bring up the plans just so you understand what's going on here so everybody can see them. BOARD ASSISTANT : I don't believe I have the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't you put up what you have. BOARD ASSISTANT :This is what I have just a survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay bring the survey up. Well at least what we can do is see where the driveway is, where the structure is. The proposal here is that the couple who live in the accessory apartment and the daughter and son-in-law are going to live in the primary principle dwelling.This is a.two story structure with natural light and there is a proposed interior staircase. I want to make it clear that an accessory apartment can only be on one floor. Storage is proposed above but storage cannot be sheet rocked, it has to be open rafters and open stud walls.So either a pull down staircase has to stay in the interior and the sheetrock that is there now will have to be removed or if it's hard to use for storage purposes the pull down staircase then you can remove that entirely, remove the sheetrock up there and then propose putting in a staircase to the second floor storage area on the outside of the structure. Those are the two choices. Secondly, we can't verify the Building Department has to verify that there is no more than 750 square feet in the accessory apartment.They said they could not verify it and I think it's probably because they were considering the second floor with a full staircase and sheetrock finished to be a second story which would then make it habitable space. So we have some issues here to straighten out before we can grant an approval. First we need to know exactly what you know we have to have drawings we can stamp that are accurate. I think if we were simply to remove the garage, the garage is at one end it's the driveway end there's a one car garage there and the 24 - _ - - - Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 `rest of the structure which is quite significant in size measure about 777 square feet if you do the length and width. However, we would then have to remove from that calculation a utility room it's not considered habitable space. So we have to straighten out exactly what is habitable space here. I think those are primarily what the issues are. The building is still under construction, there's nothing put in to the interior on the apartment yet other than no sheetrock has been started and there's a pull down staircase. Let me see if there's anybody else that wants to ask any questions. Let me see if you would like to make any statement. Rob do you have any questions or comments you'd like to make? MEMBER LEHNERT : Is there a Health Department approval for the sanitary system? PARASKEVI DIAKOVASILIS : Is that for us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes that's a question for you. PARASKEVI DIAKOVASILIS : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're proposing on the plans it looks like one bedroom on the lower level. PARASKEVI DIAKOVASILIS : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So the Health Department has to approve that additional bedroom on your property. They'll have to look and see if what's already there is enough or if you're going to have to do an additional upgrade to your septic system to accommodate the new bedroom because the Health Department looks at the sanitary codes for the number of bedrooms on the property so your apartment could possible plug into the existing septic, it's going to have to be on some kind of septic system so either it'll have to MEMBER LEHNERT : The survey is showing existing sanitary in the front of the house along the road. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that could be a challenge because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but Rob I would add just on the survey that I'm looking at, it also shows adjacent to the structure it says a proposed three bedroom one thousand gallons septic tank and then leaching fields. Obviously we know that we can't have the three bedrooms. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can only have in an apartment this is the way it's built it could constitute considered a second dwelling a house. 25 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : I think that's the smallest system that Suffolk County will look at. MEMBER LEHNERT : Oh it is, it's your typical system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well what we're trying to review everything that needs to be figured out and solved in order for you to proceed. MEMBER LEHNERT : My other question is are these sheds going to be removed in the back or are they going to stay? PARASKEVI DIAKOVASILIS : It has permit. One shed has a permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're putting a lot of storage on the what happened? BOARD ASSITANT : We have a phone number here that might be OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :Teddy did call but he told Donna that he's on as Teddy. I do not see a Teddy. Phone number if you're Teddy raise your hand please, press *9. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He might be using somebody else's device and coming up a different name. BOARD ASSISTANT : Is this Ted? OFFICE ASSISTANT : Press *6 Ted and you will be able to talk. PHIL DIPIPPO : Yes can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can hear you. Are you here for this application? PHIL DIPIPPO : Yes I'm just attending at this point. My name is Phillip Dipippo I own the property at 2240 Ruth Rd. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine, so you're not here representing the application you're interested you're a neighbor. PHIL DIPIPPO : No I'm just a neighbor attending. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think didn't you say you have a representative someone named Teddy is that right? PARASKEVI DIAKOVASILIS : Yes. 26 ---- Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that person doesn't seem to be here. I don't see anybody else. If there is somebody in attendance who has called in or is on their computer who is here to discuss this application would you please raise your hand and let us know. BOARD ASSISTANT : We have an Ina here so I will bring her in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ina Palianok. Terrence Connelly is that him? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :That's him, I moved him in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Terrence can you hear us? Can you speak up? BOARD ASSISTANT : Does Ina want to speak, can you unmute? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Ina you're there, can you identify who you are? Are you part of the family or a neighbor or what? INA PALIANOK : Yes I am part of family. I present my dad Victor (inaudible). He lives on 1840 Stanley Rd. Mattituck. It's actually this garage or house like stays on my dad's back yard. So for us for our family it seems like to be a two story building and there is second floor windows that people can easily see into my dad's back yard. So for my dad it feels like it's invasion onto or like privacy. We were thinking about like at this point it's too late but would it be possible that trees put up as nature rule to hide the back of the house or garage I don't know what it's called. My dad he would like to request it be on their property and their expenses. So that's what I wanted to say. For now it looks like yea my parents they lost privacy that's all. Everything is open, there is no good look in view from the window, it's like window to window. That's their concern. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So your dad's lot is adjacent to and right looking onto the back of their garage which is windows. INA PALIANOK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, thanks for your comments. We'll see what we can do. Terry are you able to hear us now? BOARD ASSISTANT: I'm going to bring Phillip in again to allow him to talk he's a neighbor I believe also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you been able to hear what we were talking about. PHIL DIPIPPO : Yes I've heard everything, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are there any comments you'd like to make or you just want to listen that's okay too whatever you want to do. 27 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 PHIL DIPIPPO : The only comment is I think that the application is premature based on all the different things that still need to be met for the requirements so I really don't have anything else to add and I'll let the Board do its business. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Terry are you able to we see you now can we hear you is the question. MEMBER LEHNERT : No we cannot. BOARD ASSISTANT : I sent him a chat message asking him if he has a mic. We can't hear you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Terry if you can hear us nod your head yes. Okay What I want you to do is take the telephone, we can still see you that's good. Take a phone and call our office. They will put you on speaker phone and then we will be able to hear what you have to say through our office phone cause we have speakers. Do you know the phone number? BOARD ASSISTANT : 765-1809 call us now. TERRENCE CONNELLY : Hello how are you? Everybody can hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes finally. Were you able to hear everything that we were discussing? TERRENCE CONNELL : No it took me some time to log on for some reason it kept on spinning so I wasn't able to hear everything but what I can do is offer up what I do know about the application. One of my employees the one that was handling this was exposed to COVID so I had to come in at the end of this and kind of takeoverto get it here. I do know that the applicant wants to convert the garage into a living space so that way they can move into it because the daughter is in the main house so everybody is together and it's too much. They need the daughter there to help them as they get olderto help take care of them the mother and the father and that's the purpose of the application. Certainly I know that the applicant would be very willing to comply with anything that the Board might feel would make it for an easier you know acceptance of the relaxation in the code. So if they would like some trees, if they would like some bushes, if they would anything I heard the neighbor say about losing their privacy. I'm very confident that the applicant would be very happy to comply with anything that would help address those issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well let me do a very brief run through so that you can assist your client. One of the things we first pointed out was the fact that even though the plans say 740 square feet, an accessory apartment can only have a maximum of 750 habitable livable floor area okay and the Building Department probably because the second floor had a full proposed full staircase going up there and it's already sheet rocked they're considering that potential habitable space. An apartment can only be on one floor, one bedroom, one kitchen, one bathroom and a maximum of 750. Now it's possible 28 _ - Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 TERRENCE-CONNELLY : I believe that the applicant would be very happy if tliere was 'an acceptance for this application to have this application say that this can never become habitable space and we would take any measures that the Board might befit to approve this application and address that. If you wanted the sheetrock removed, if you wanted the apartment permit to be issued stating that this needs to be inspected each time that this is not going to be habitable space. I know that this application is very important to this aging couple. They will be willing to comply with anything that this Board feels would make this an easier approval for the Board. They really need this,their living conditions as we know we all get older and having the daughter there inside their own spot with their two young children is a necessity. They need to have their privacy and the same thing with the couple and they're definitely going to need their assistance as they you know get even older. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me ask you something, let me point out a few other things. First of all in order for the second floor to be deemed storage the sheetrock that's there is going to have to be removed and you're going to have to have open rafters that's the first floor that we're looking at open rafters and open stud walls. TERRENCE CONNELLY : Would we be allowed a finished storage space with no heating? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. Storage space is considered unfinished. MEMBER LEHNERT :The other issue is the stairs the interior stair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't have a full interior stair either it's going to have to be an interior pull down stair which is what's there now or that will have to be removed entirely and a stair will have to be built on the outside going to the second floor storage area which must be unheated but it must also be open walls, open rafters. TERRENCE CONNELLY : Okay. I will confer with the client with that obviously and obviously we will see what we can do about a new plan to give to the town in respect to that. Was there anything else that besides that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two different sets of plans. One is a reverse gable on both you know dormers on the roof on both the front and the back, that wasn't built. Secondly there is an entry portico to the front door of the accessory apartment that wasn't built. We have windows just on the back facing the neighbor which they feel is an evasion of their privacy. You can imagine something two story that close to the property line in the rear with-windows looking down on somebody's backyard. Generally if you're just using something for storage you don't need windows at all. It's an attic, what you basically need is just electric and the windows have already been installed on the rear. So that's an issue that has to be looked at. 29 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 TERRENCE CONNELLY : Let me offer a solution, what about windows that you can't see through if they were to put something over the window on the inside so therefore it's not something that can be seen through so they won't be encroaching on somebody's privacy? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I suspect that neighbors would appreciate that along with some perhaps Leyland Cypress or something that can grow pretty tall cause it's hard to get something that's going to go two story. MEMBER DANTES : If it's just storage I don't think it's an issue as far as the windows being up there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If in fact it's unfinished and we know it's not going to be habitable and it is the Building Department is not going to consider it storage if it's sheet rocked. It needs to be unheated but nevertheless you know we have to make this very clear because this is a very big purposed built structure. It wasn't there before, it's not being converted. It was built for that reason, it was never a garage. It's way too big for a garage and what's there now the garage is a very small one car garage which is fine you know there's not a problem with that. We also have an issue with the septic we need to figure out that you know the Department of Health has to figure out what the flow is. The existing septic is in the front yard of the house the principal dwelling so we have to see what's going to happen with that septic. MEMBER LEHNERT : Has there been an application made to the Health Department? TERRENCE CONNELLY : I don't know. There wasn't an application made from my office I know that.We were retained filed strictlyfor an accessory apartment permit.We weren't filed we were not hired for anything else but again I wasn't here from the beginning on this file so I'm new to it. What I will do is I know that our architect did not draw the plan so I don't know about being two sets of plans that were issued. I will address all the Board's concerns. I would hope you know obviously you know I would hope for an approval and then with all these conditions to be met (inaudible). I get it I know I'm asking for the world here but we can resubmit with all of your concerns. MEMBER LEHNERT : My other question was with all the storage the need for the sheds in the rear yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask the same thank you. TERRENCE CONNELLY : Again what I can do is I can confirm with the client on that. I wouldn't have an answer for that right this second, maybe he will be willing to give up the sheds. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Terrence in addition to what Rob just asked because that was going to be my question, there is one shed in what would appear to be the southwest corner of the 30 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 property where the roofline of the shed extends over onto the neighbor's property. Now depending on when you look at the survey where the lot line is but I think you know these structures need to be in a conforming location that's something also. TERRENCE CONNELLY : I don't think that that would be an issue as well to move a shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Remove them in light of all the storage space. TERRENCE CONNELLY : I couldn't hear you I'm sorry. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was saying remove them because you have all the storage space on the second floor plus it would allow a location for evergreen screening to make the neighbors happy. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. TERRENCE CONNELLY: I think that's a fair proposal and I'll bring it to the client and speak to them absolutely and hopefully we can have some communication before maybe I can come back to the Board obviously and we can meet all of the Board's concerns at that time and (inaudible) application that would be acceptable by everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :,So look,the drawings that we've got are from a Robert James Higgins a and I'm sure the client can provide them to you if you don't already have them and they are not what is actually there and I believe that they're the ones that said the square footage was still 740 but MEMBER DANTES : Well no what they drew is 740 square feet as far as the apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's what they're saying but that's not what's there. I mean look otherwise the Building Department we have to have a confirmation of the square footage from the Building Department. They're the ones that are qualified to calculate livable floor area. As submitted they said they cannot calculate it and I believe it's in part because it's not really clear you know what's going on upstairs with the full staircase. They're going to consider that a second story habitable space. TERRENCE CONNELLY : So why don't we do this respectfully, why don't I do my due diligence I get whoever drew this structure that we submitted, let me get to the proper square footage let me address whatever other issues that you guys have. Let me give you guys a revegetation plan but a landscape plan and let me talk to the client in regards to the shed removing or moving maybe have some communication with you guys again. Can we hold this over? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to have to there's too many loose ends. Here's what I'm going to do, because we have to talk about it together so I'm going to assume you're going to 31 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 amend these plans and what I'm going to do is make a motion to I'll see if anybody else wants to say anything but my intent here is to adjourn this to next month's hearing so that gives you plenty of time to work with them to get whatever drawings survey whatever you need and make an application the Health Department and come back and submit that to the office. We'll make sure that you know we have copies and we can continue to talk about it when we see how you managed to address the issues we raised today. So does that make sense? TERRENCE CONNELLY: I think that's reasonable and I'm sure that we get to a place where we can give you guys some type of plan that would be more acceptable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sounds good. Is there anybody else on this call that wants to address the application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie just one other thing I wanted to add, I was reminded when I was looking at the plans just now the plans which we agree are not correct to what's built does illustrate a roof deck on the second floor from what should be storage so I just politely request that as part of the resubmission that you remember to not include that. TERRENCE CONNELLY : You know something, I myself will go out there and I will look at this structure as opposed to the new plans that we submit and you have my personal guarantee whatever is on those plans will be what's standing in that back yard. I wasn't privy to the gentleman that drew it and again I'm just in on the ninth inning on that. I promise you we will definitely cross the is and dot the is and I will go over everything with the client and I'll make sure that all the issues that the Board has raised will be addressed and I'll have communication with you guys before we ever get back here next month. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That sounds good. Bear in mind you know we offer two possibilities for a staircase to that second floor, one is the pull down stair which could stay on the inside as is. The other however because it's often very awkward to get large bulky things up a pull down staircase which is not exactly a safe and comfortable as you might want they can put a staircase on the outside particularly if they remove the sheds they'll have plenty of room for that. So just all things to consider. Let's give you time to talk to your client, work those details out and come back to us with some amended plans and we'll talk to you next month. BOARD ASSISTANT : March 4th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : March 4th is the next hearing date. BOARD ASSISTANT : If you can't make it by that date the next one after that is April V so let us know. 32 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 _ CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll put it on for I make a motion to adjourn it to March and you'll let us know if you need more time and then we'll just simply not hear it then, we'll adjourn it to the following hearing but I'll give you the month and see what you can do. Does that make sense? TERRENCE CONNELLY : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so hearing no further comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the March 4th Regular Meeting of the Board of Appeals we should pick a time, want to do it in the afternoon? BOARD ASSISTANT: One o'clock possibly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll put it on for 1 o'clock. BOARD ASSISTANT : We have a 1 o'clock it will be after 1 o'clock we'll let you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Put it on for the last hearing by then we would have probably resolved a lot of things hopefully and it will go smoothly. TERRENCE CONNELLY : It will give me a lot of time to get on the Zoom call. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Start early Terry. I do want to point out just one other thing, the Building Inspector will be making'an inspection several times and with this application there is only one apartment permitted on a property period. So if there now it used to be you could have one in the house you-know legally in the principle dwelling that can no longer take place if in fact there's an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. Only one is permitted. So if you think this is relevant you should talk to your client. TERRENCE CONNELLY : In respect to that, I don't know of another accessory apartment being there but if by chance if there is another accessory apartment there will there be an application or a relaxation in the code that I can file for to have the two? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No only one apartment, an apartment has to be an accessory to a principle dwelling and it can either be attached to the house, the basement of the house that way or it can be in a separate accessory detached structure but not both. TERRENCE CONNELLY : So would the Board as opposed to actually having this inspection well I'm sure they're going to have an inspection anyway but I don't believe the Board is going to make a demand entry into the house, would a registered architect giving a plan of the house the main principle residence and the way it is laid out suffice? 33 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Building Inspector will have to make an interior inspection and unless there isn't an apartment there I don't see any plans necessary. I don't want your client to spend money you don't have to spend. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Well the only thing I would add is that if they have a finished basement they do need to have C.O.'s to support the work in the basement. TERRENCE CONNELLY : So I think with the Board raising this issue they must have some type of and I'm only guessing that they have some type of report or something saying that as an accessory apartment or a finished basement exists. I don't know of one but if they do obviously I'm going to address (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to point it out to you so you can take a look at, everything we can think of and be efficient and save your client money and all of that stuff. We always do interior inspections on as built or proposed apartments. However because of COVID we haven't been scheduling those. We've been relying you know upon photographs already built. Occasionally we've gone in one by one with no one there but it's been difficult to do what we would always do automatically because of this doggone pandemic we're all trying to be careful. So that's the story. I can't think of anything else so I think we've given you a nice long laundry list. TERRENCE CONNELLY : I don't think it was terrible I think it's all reasonable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there's a motion before the Board to adjourn this to March 4th the last hearing sometime after 1 o'clock, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 34 -- Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 -- MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 6 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We'll see you next month thank for your time. I'm going to make a motion to recess until the one o'clock hearing, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. 35 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 HEARING#7459SE-- 12425 SOUND LLC, ANDREW FOHRKOLB -- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Motion to reconvene is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. All in favor just raise your hand on this one it's not a resolution. We are reconvened and we're just waiting I guess for Martin to get on. BOARD ASISTANT : Maybe Liz can give everyone instructions again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good idea. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you 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. For people 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 let us know who you are here for and we will give you further instructions on how to unmute. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. I'm just going to read the legal notice into the record, open the application while we're waiting for Martin. This is an application for 12425 Sound LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb # 7459SE. A request for Special Exception pursuant to Article XV Section 280- 626(11) and Article XXVI Section 280-146D the applicant is requesting permission to convert and expand an existing two story residential dwelling to six units of affordable rental housing located at 12425 Old Sound Avenue in Mattituck. BOARD ASSISTANT : Okay Martin is here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good afternoon everybody, I'm sorry I had a little technical difficulty here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've had them all day long. BOARD ASSISTANT : Martin, is there anybody else here that we should promote? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No not that I'm aware of not from my team. Am I good to go Leslie? t CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I just read the legal notice so you know you know what's in it I don't have to read it again. Go ahead, we did get your memorandum of law just so you know. I think we're all up to date on everything. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Alright so let me just run through it and I won't belabor those points. My clients are obviously the owner of the property an LLC but the members are George (inaudible) 36 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 Fohrkolb they are the owner of Kolb Mechanical Corporation in Mattituck and (inaudible) this application in hopes that they can create some affordable workforce housing opportunities for their employees. They're one of the largest employers in the town certainly in Mattituck and as you know there's a desperate need for housing opportunities for working class people in our town. The Town Board amended the code fortunately a couple of years back to allow for the conversion of existing housing (inaudible) to create affordable housing and it's under that provision of the code in the LI zoning district regulations that we are applying. I would suggest to you that this application is entirely consistent with the intent of that legislation and as well as the Planning Board pointed out with the town's comp plan as well. So just to briefly the property as you know is .44 acre parcel in the LI zoning district, it's right in the Mattituck HALO zone walking distance to everything in Mattituck. To the east and north the property is surrounded by a large four acre industrial it's basically the Marjam that owns it now but they are a lumberyard it's got a mixed use property. There's a residence there and otherwise commercial industrial property. To the west there is also an industrial zoned property that's in a commercial use across the street so it's you know while the street itself Old Sound has some other residential uses along the way it's very mixed and this property is industrial zoned. Currently it's a residential use,there's a two story house there,there's also with a deck a couple sheds and the proposal is to leave the existing house in tact but to add towards the back of the house to create four additional units a total of six units of affordable housing. As proposed and.,designed the structure is completely compliant with the setback regulations and the appropriate amount of parking,eight parking spaces actually more than is required for the six units is proposed for this use. I think I just want to get to this issue which seems to be of concern which is this existing space question. Yes the code section (inaudible)conversion of existing space you know I went back and looked at the legislative history of these code amendments and while you know if you look at the legislative history of any code in our town there's not a whole lot but even the minutes of the public hearing there's nothing to indicate that the Town Board intended to preclude the reasonable expansion of an existing structure to accommodate affordable housing. Obviously the intent of this legislation if you look at the HALO studies, if you look at the COMP plan and the housing chapters and all that work that was done, the intent was to create a vehicle in the town code to allow for the adaptive reuse of existing properties in our town to create affordable housing that's desperately needed. I would suggest it's sort of illogical that the Town Board wanted to limit the creation of affordable housing opportunities where they could properly be sited you know to limit it just to on a property of this size that can accommodate this kind of development why would we only want to create two units of affordable housing? We can expand this, create four additional units all with compliant setbacks and meet the code requirements of 62B(11) which is you know adequate parking and you know within the limit. You're allowed to have up to six. So I think we're submitting and the focus should be really on the adaptive reuse. The use and not so much the four walls of the structure as the existing. We're converting existing properties that can be converted to an 37 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 affordable housing and that's what I believe the intent of the statute is. I understand that as the Zoning Board you're always concerned with opening a door or creating a precedent but the code already has built in limitations that should address any such concern. I mean we can only have six units,they have to be affordable,tenants have to eligible,you have to have room for parking. I mean all those limitations are built in and you know I don't believe there's any danger of you know by granting this all of a sudden you're opening the floodgates of expanding structures and quite honestly if you do great. If this means that people are going to take a house and expand it and create more affordable housing opportunities in our town then I submit that that's a win, win for all of us and it actually is the goal of the housing chapter, the objective of a COMP plan housing chapter and of this code section which you see in almost every zoning district. Leslie acknowledged that you got my memo of law. I've touched on the special exception criteria there in 280-142 and 143, 1 mean look where this property is. We're situated you know right next to the train tracks, industrial and this is only going to be an improvement to the surrounding area. It's so ideal with its walking distance to everything you know transportation, schools, the shopping the theater you know churches, banks you name it it's a great spot. I think that as the Planning Board has pointed out in their review makes it a great location and the project meets all of the goals and objectives of the housing chapter of the COMP plan. So I'm going just yield the floor here and see what questions you'd like me to answer but obviously I want to come back and ask you to grant the special exception to allow this to go forward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay this one's another challenge because I believe in your memorandum of law please correct me if I'm not correct, you made these suggestion that we interpret the code to allow since there is no definition in the code of existing space to interpret it to mean that it's a conversion of the use an expansion of the use on the premises and not the structure on the premises. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Within the bounds of the limitations that already exist in the code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, because unfortunately this is why for years I've argued that Special Exceptions should go to the Building Department just like every other form of relief. You could have then had standing in order to specifically ask for a code interpretation, make the arguments you've sort of made them anyway. You're kind of stuck because there's this difficult position where you didn't get a Notice of Disapproval because Mike isn't going to give you a Notice of Disapproval because he thinks and he's correct that Special Exceptions come directly to the ZBA. So there's bypass here that requires us to almost act as code enforcement officers in that instance. So I'd like to you know basically be on record saying that I'd like to see that process changed and I'm going to approach the Town Board once again about it. In the interim you know we have the tools we have. According to this Section 280-62B(11) it's conversion of existing space. There is nothing mentioned about expansion. Now what I believe and I agree with you 38 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 about the intent you know,the town wants affordable housing but I think they were at that point looking at it the same way we did when we put accessory apartments in accessory structures with a range of eligibility criteria on them. Here's an existing space,we need more rental housing, we need more intergenerational housing let's use what's there and not build new. That was I think the background. Should it be updated, probably because we really dramatically need workforce housing in Southold we know that. I want to just ask a couple of questions. According to this my calculation on your plans,the existing dwelling is 1,950 square feet. Some of it is to be demolished,what remains would be about 1,255 square feet.The proposed addition is 3,815 for a total size of 5,068 square feet. So this is a substantial demo of what's there in addition to building all the rest. So that's something I guess we're just going to have to grapple with and see where we can land on it. It's certainly in a good location, it's in the HALO zone all the things you said. I was a member of the first Affordable Housing Advisory Commission that was founded in this town and was there when we did you know the cottages so certainly we all understand the need for affordable especially rental units.So let's see if the Board has any thoughts or questions or if you want to add anything at this point Martin. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well look, I would suggest to you and obviously I would defer to Bill on this but I think you have the authority under 280-146 to decide that it's okay to expand this structure. We're talking about expanding it within allowable setbacks. We're not exceeding lot coverage and we're otherwise entirely complying with the code.('don't believe that there's any down side to this and I understand that the code needs to be more specific, it needs to be more specific across the board we all know that. I think that this is and correct me if I'm wrong probably one of the first applications you've had for a conversion like this under these code sections and you know I think this is an opportunity to you know set the record straight and say hey this is what this is supposed to be and this is okay. I mean there's nothing we already vetted this with Mike and obviously everybody acknowledges the black and white of conversion of existing I mean I'm not going to argue the semantics of it but I do believe that you have the ability to look at it (inaudible) and look at the property and make a determination that this is okay that this is what the code intended it to be and I don't know that you need it to come from another Board you're a Board and you can do it yourself. Whether you want to call it burying it whether you want to call it interpreting it you know I feel like it can happen and it shouldn't happen cause this is just this is what we need this is what we need in the town and these people really want to do this for their employees and I'm hoping that there's a path for it here and we can make this happen and encourage others to do the same. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'd like to actually see the Town Board as our legislative body to change the code to reflect those current needs along with another long list of code updates that they should be looking at. That would be the ideal situation and then we wouldn't have to go through this rigmarole. 39 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : Question, so basically what the Building Department is telling you is you can come get a building permit to build a structure that's not multi-family unit and that would be fine right? Then you can come to us to get the conversion done, is that the procedure that's being laid out for you? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, we applied for what we applied for. We didn't apply to you mean we would break it down and convert the existing house and then apply for an expansion? MEMBER DANTES : No I mean the way the code is written in your opinion is that you would have to do the expansion renovation first close out the C.O. and then you would have to apply to us for conversion to a multi-family unit, is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No Eric what has typically happened and Bill can chime in MEMBER DANTES : We've never done one of these before. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we came close it got withdrawn. What has been recommended was basically if you want to add on to your existing building add on with no use just add just make it bigger and then come in for a permit to convert it which makes no sense. T.A. DUFFY : I think that's what Eric was trying to say Martin in that something we had discussed. If we do not interpret the code to allow some expansion of an existing building to go along with the conversion of apartments then if you wanted a bigger space you'd have to go through the process of expanding your building and then coming back and requesting to convert to existing space which really doesn't make a whole lot of sense is the big picture. MEMBER DANTES : And it would cost a tremendous amount of money for anybody to get. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Exactly and convert it to what a big space with a bunch of empty I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's how silly it is. MEMBER DANTES : It could be a barn I mean. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Yeah I mean so obviously that doesn't make any sense and you know we're trying to work within the bounds of what the other provisions of what the code says but I do believe that you know look conversion of existing you know look my interpretation is that you know we shouldn't be limiting this to the four walls of an existing structure where it can be done in a conforming compliant way to expand it and to maximize affordable housing opportunities. Really that's the intent this is to create affordable housing and up to six units on a property so you know it's the code is limiting already. I don't see where interpreting it that way does any harm and if the Town Board can later codify that even better but I don't know that we should 40 j=. Regular Meeting February 4;,202,1 hold up a project like this you know over to wait around-for that cause God knows when that happens. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let"s look at the flip side, we've been talking about expansion. Some of this existing is to be demolished, what happens if the whole thing ends up a demo? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well that's not even in well first of all the main part of the house there's only a small portion of the house at the back that's being removed and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Almost half, according to the architectural plans the house is now 1,950 and remaining will be 1,255. MARTIN FINNEGAN :That's 700 square feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's not half that's 700 square feet okay. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not really that much. It's just really so the-whole main structure that you really see from the road will remain the same, obviously it's going to be you know cosmetically corrected but it's going it's just renovating so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about sanitary, how far along are you with Health Department? MARTIN FINNEGAN :We are working on that.We have the application,we've obviously discussed it with them. We understand that we need to upgrade to a 2,500 gallon system but we don't really see any issues with that and you know we wanted to obviously make sure that we you know got past this. We have a site plan application that we've already submitted but I mean I think since we have to get through that process obviously subsequent to this one we feel that the Health Department review can be done during that time period. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin is this for an IA system because I believe this year everything changes for any additions that are substantial to any residential structure or is this for a traditional wastewater system? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Conventional system. There's really nothing environmentally sensitive about this property. I don't see any need or call for an IA system. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well no Suffolk County is requiring any new construction or I think the addition of anything greater than one bedroom will require an IA system as MARTIN FINNEGAN : Has it actually been implemented? I didn't think that would happen. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Yeah I think back in October or November and it goes into effect I think it's July 1st but I don't know how the calendar works if an application is in or the type of building 41 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 MARTIN FINNEGAN : I don't we haven't been hit with that but I will look it's going to be what it's going to be. I mean we need to get Health Department if that's where we have to go then we'll do the IA but the plan is for a conventional system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just so you're aware and you probably already are but just so that could put this into the record,when substantial new construction or(inaudible)sometimes major renovation and additions are proposed, this Board has been requiring IA systems even if they're not on waterfront properties. So just something to keep in mind. It's coming, it's coming for all of us. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand that. I still believe the jury is out on the effectiveness of them but I you know I've had that experience in the past. I know it's not in our code but it is in other towns and I suspect that will catch up one of these days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if anybody else has any comments or questions, Rob do you have anything you want to ask? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat are there any questions you might have? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I also want to point out that the Planning Board fully supports this application. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was just reading that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They gave some substantive comments that reiterated and reflected (inaudible) as you said Martin. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I kind of stole that from them so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Interagency cooperation. Well it's in the HALO zone and it's part of the original I Chaired the Southold Town Hamlet stakeholders and all of us were meeting all of the Chairs were meeting and we all know that we were looking at kind of create affordable housing in the HALO zones within every hamlet. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well as I said I don't think any of us are going to debate that it's a great location and I understand that this is not an easy application because it's you know it's a new it's 42 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 the first one out of the gate but I really again-would strongly urge you if possible to find a way to interpret whatever you need to do to allow this because it's such a good project. The Planning Board agrees everybody whoever I talk to we get a sense it's a great project and you know it would be great if we could make it happen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just out of curiosity are the people that do the Kolb's know that what they who they want to have in there? I know it's their workers they would like MARTIN FINNEGAN : I think they look they probably need for these you know for their employees and so I don't know how they'll make it available but obviouslythey we talked to Dennis at length about this in terms of what the employees would need to do to register and be eligible. So obviously they need to meet all those criteria. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are these meant to be in perpetuity, affordable rentals in perpetuity or for an eight year period? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I honestly don't know but I think you know as long as Kolb is in business which hopefully they'll be for a long, long time they're going to need this workforce housing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the code only requires conversion for a period of eight years. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Eight years yeah but no, no plan to do anything other than provide the housing for the employees. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well as we see the growth continue on the Northfork the possibility of affordable housing becomes more and more important because everything is priced so high nobody can afford anything anymore. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's crazy I mean I want to get it for my kids so they can get out of my house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You have a whole baseball team there. I think we've heard let me find out if there's anybody attending who wants to address the application because we have a lot of people in attendance. BOARD ASSISTANT : I have Nick on the phone so we're going to use him on the phone I guess put him on speaker. He's having a hard time getting back on Zoom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He keeps getting knocked off. Alright anyway, I want to find out if there's anybody in attendance who wants to address the application. If there is anyone please raise your hands. So one last chance, if there's anybody in attendance cause we haven't coded I don't think we've coded these folks that I can see anyway. I see a hand, Randy Wade. BOARD ASSISTANT : He says he wants to talk on this now. 43 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a she. She wants-to say something on this application? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay fine let her in. RANDY WADE : Hi,thanks for hearing me. I just wanted to say that I think it makes a huge amount of sense if the building looks the same from the street, looks like a single family house that should be enough of a justification but if you can negotiate to have it be in perpetuity or fifty years or some longer period of time because we've seen affordable housing in Greenport disappear in what we thought would be a long time but the time passes really fast and then it goes into being houses for weekenders and no longer for workforce and then I don't know how we're ever going to have an emergency fire department emergency services without affordable housing. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comment. Anybody else out there otherwise I'm going to close this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can hear you Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I had a question, I heard-somebody just now say that they were going to close it so I didn't know if they're suggesting closing the hearing but I wanted to ask Martin a question relative to the floor plan. Martin, on page A-1.1 which is the first floor plan of the structure it shows the floor plan for three units labeled Unit A, Unit C and Unit E between Units A and C there's a bedroom that says proposed bedroom which would be a seventh bedroom or excuse me yeah a seventh bedroom. BOARD ASSISTANT : What page was that Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A-1.1 MARTIN FINNEGAN : So way this is configured is the front section the existing house is going to be two one bedroom top and bottom, the middle section is two bedroom top and bottom and the back is one bedroom top and bottom. So I'm not sure where BOARD ASSISTANT : I have it up is it to the what part MEMBER PLANAMENTO : At the start of the new section behind the existing house where the bilco doors originally were. It says proposed bedroom but it doesn't (inaudible) with any of the apartments. BOARD ASSISTANT : Right here I think, yeah. I'm screen sharing right now you don't see it? 44 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No all we see is your index. BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you see it now? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. BOARD ASSISTANT : Let me go to the page that he's referring to. This page right here and I think he's talking about this area here. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes and I can tell you that is a mistake, that's a porch. I had the same question I actually called my client with a panic attack I was like what the hell is a bedroom doing there? It's the porch. If you look at the elevations better on the next page or the page after,you'll see what that western fagade looks like. I don't know why that's marked that way but we'll submit another set of plans. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a typo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is there's no exterior wall on it. It'll be a little hard to make it a bedroom. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's just a mistake, I apologize. We can correct that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do see on the elevations it does illustrate the porch, I have questions cause I would agree with what Leslie just said but it's very confusing and of course not understanding the proposal other than the plans illustrating bedroom count so obviously the porch is mislabeled. So thank you for the clarification. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes I'm sorry about that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay are we good? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, 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 LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? 45 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. BOARD ASSISTANT : I also wanted to let you know Leslie that Mark Terry was reviewing SEQRA on this so I haven't really received his SEQRA record or his recommendation to the Board yet so I'll check on that for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did declare this an unlisted action this morning Martin you know when we opened up so we need some further things. Well should I rescind that and close it subjectto receipt of Mark's SEQRA? Kim do you have any idea when he's going to have this ready? BOARD ASSISTANT : No I have no idea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean we do have to have it. We did make a declaration, we're lead agency and its unlisted but it would be good to have that in the record. Well what do you want to do Board? You want to just rescind the motion and make it subject to receipt? MEMBER DANTES : Sure. MEMBER LEHNERT : That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright I'm goingto make a motion to rescind the prior motion to close reserve decision, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob. Why don't we just raise our hands it's not really a resolution. Everybody voted, Nick how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 46 a Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's unanimous. Now I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a SEQRA determination from Mark Terry and Planning Department. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. . ,5 BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. We'll try and get this quickly Martin. There's no need to hold this up. We can begin to prepare actually a draft so that we can move on voting on it in a timely way as soon as we get this from Mark. MARTIN FINNEGAN :Thank you Leslie, thank you everybody. HEARING#74635E -SUFFOLK COUNTY ENERGY STORAGE II, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The last application before the Board is Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC# 7463SE. A request for a Special Exception pursuant to Article XV Section 280-62B(5), the applicant is requesting permission to construct and allow for public utility structures and uses, 47 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 i.e. a battery energy storage system facility located at 69430 Main Rd. (NYS Route 25) in Greenport. STEVEN LOSQUADRO : Three are several people that we've requested and presumably they should be there if you could let in. There's Walter Meisner,there should be also Mr. Jason Funk and there should be also Cristina Zolezi, and we have otherfolks who are available as well actually they're following along and waiting and depending on perhaps a particular question or topic we're discussing at hand then I'll ask you then if necessary to let them in as well because their particular expertise may be helpful to the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. Well let's see where we start with this. I do want to just say out the outset that we are the Planning Board is completing a SEQRA determination on this as you all know but I want for the benefit of the public I want them to know and they were unable to complete a site inspection because of the recent snow that we had and with that in mind we will be holding this hearing open because we will be needing their comments and we want to make sure you have a chance to address them as the applicant and that it's available to the public and that the Board has a chance to look it over. So this is not going to be a closed hearing today. Why don't I let you proceed with it and I'm sure the Board and I have several questions and perhaps others in the audience may as well. STEVEN LOSQUADRO : Of course and thank you. Good afternoon again to all of the Board Members and to Kim and to Bill Duffy as well following along who have joined us. As you know this is Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC.The applicant Steven Losquadro again for the record, my office is located at 649 Route 25A Rocky Point, New York I'm counsel for the applicant. We have a team here who is with us, I'll introduce them in just a moment. This is an application as has been noted and noticed for a Special Exception for a battery energy storage system which we're going to refer to as BESS and that is to be located at 69430 Main Rd. in Greenport in the unincorporated part of Greenport on industrially zoned land.The land is zoned LI, light industrial. Now just for the purposes of moving forward in the most efficient way possible, if I can ask if Mr. Walter Meisner has been given the ability to then share a power point and other documents that he has available I think will assist the Board and we can proceed in a very orderly way and demonstrate things to you as we're actually talking about them in real time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim can you promote him to BOARD ASSISTANT : I can make him a co-host and then he can share his documents. STEVEN LOSQUADRO : I can see that Walter has his documents up on the screen he has one of them actually, there will be several. WALTER MEISNER : Is my microphone working? 48 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSONWWEISMAN : Yes. STEVEN LOSQUADRO : So what I'd like to do at this point is just to introduce the team that we have here with us obviously I've told you who I am. I just referenced Walter, he is the director of development for Savion LLC and Walter will talk about Savion in a moment. I should let you know and I know it's been referenced in documents that we've submitted to the Board and to staff over the course of several months but Suffolk County Energy Storage II LLC is a subsidiary of Savion. Now we also have with us Jason Funk who is the director of permitting and environmental. William Miller who is an engineer and a consultant and the managing principle of Clearview Consultants. Cristina Zolezi she's been mentioned as well, project engineer who is with Langan a very well know engineering firm. Michael Finnen also an engineer with Langan. Harrison Nets who is a senior project development engineer internally with Savion and also Reid Strain who is the director of engineering, procurement and construction for Savion.So all of those folks are here and some of them have been introduced and I should say admitted already so Walter, Jason and Cristina are already admitted to speak to you and we have others who are available as well should a need arise to hear from them with regard to their particular expertise or also if there are any questions that the Board may have that would permit them to follow up on that. What I'd like to,do at this point before we delve into an analysis of this Special Exception and talk about suitability and compatibility and the compliant nature of the site is to have Walter as the director of development for Savion talk to you a little bit about who Savion is. What is BESS, what is battery energy storage system technology and just give an overview of the project itself as it relates to this site. So Walter if you could do that now and allow the Board to follow along with things that you're referencing and showing on the screen that would be appreciated. WALTER MEISNER : Thank you everyone for the time today. We're happy to be here and at this hearing. I'm just going to breeze through a few background items just to kind of familiarize you with us as Savion. Savion is a relatively new company, a couple of years old. However our history and tradition goes back quite some time starting out of Trade Wind which was a well-known wind and solar developer for years and recently has been merged into Savion which is a solar and storage developer. We're owned solely by McCreary Investment Corporation which is also the green investment group and so therefore founded by that company. I think what we're the message we're trying to share with you is while we're here for maybe three years or so we're still a very developed and expert team. We have as Steve already noted, a number of the people on the call here from the group. We also are back (inaudible) by many other experts in the industry as well and have been doing this across the country over twenty five states. I myself and Jason on the team here have been working in New York State for a number of years as well. I think the biggest thing that we would like to share as well is just a fundamental understanding of battery energy storage and I apologize if this is redundant to presentations you've already seen and please feel free to cut me off if I start being redundant. Essentially I won't read everything but 49 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 battery energy storage is multi-fold. It has many purposes and uses but primarily one of the biggest things that we see in the area of Long Island is grid stability. The ability to be able to call upon power quickly, fast without any problems is definitely a challenge in some instances and battery energy storage resolves that. It certainly helps in you know any type of storm environment for which the grid is maybe a tad unstable if there's a gap in generation energy storage can help there as well and it also is something that will be something I think we all see more of when we start integrating off shore wind and other renewables simply because sometimes they don't produce the energy at the time that they're needed. Battery energy storage allows us to time shift and be able to use the energy that's produced when we need it. So therefore energy storage is kind of one of those things that we see is as really something that's going to be coming up quite frequently coming forward. It's a very simple process. If you think about just the idea of what is happening is essentially power generated it's put onto the grid the energy storage system simply takes it off the grid when needed to charge and then it discharges when it's called upon as well. So it's a very simple come and take. These systems are relatively simple as well. What you see here on the screen is essentially a battery container. There's many different ways these can be assembled and put together but essentially it's a unit for which there's multiple battery stacked together. You can see the inside of one of these examples here on the screen and they're essentially put together in series and then they're connected to something that you would see here which is an inverter. So the batteries themselves are in DC current, direct current and they're converted to an AC current through that inverter and then depending on how they're interconnected to the grid to the LIPA infrastructure they either are stepped up or transferred to a different voltage. At that point they're connected into the LIPA grid and that is essentially the full system. What we see is here is just some of that control equipment. We will also see cooling and HVAC systems, essentially you can see them depicted here on the top of one of these units.Those can be located on top of the unit,they can be on the side, they sometimes are next to it on the ground. What that is for is simply because batteries when they charge and discharge can sometimes generate heat and we need to keep them at a certain temperature within a certain band of environment. Effectively the sub-station can be for any voltage that we would need, it would include a transformer, it would include the controls and equipment and any other you know electrical and the structure that's required to facilitate that inter-connection. We are proposing this project here in your jurisdiction for a number of reasons and we think it's really an ideal location. We're proposing up to an 80 megawatt project just under it has the ability to power up to 28,000 homes for up to 8 hours so it really has some benefit there in stabilizing the grid especially for the North Fork. What we see is that this is going to be connected to the LIPA infrastructure like I already said and one thing that I think I would really like to point out is just its proximity to the LIPA infrastructure. It is essentially next door, it's within 600 feet of an existing LIPA substation and while it's so close in proximity it also allows us the ability to you know simply interconnect with a very close connection line. We're relatively 50 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 adjacent and we're not having to go across any large tracks of land to get back to that substation.' The parcel is approximately two acres a little bit over two acres in size and essentially you know Steve will be able to enumerate a little bit more why we're here but essentially looking-for that certainty that we are as of right use and that you know this qualifies under the existing code. I'll just walk you through the design quickly, you all have had this in your files for a little while but essentially you know what we do when we design one of these sites is we make sure we have traffic flow for first responders, for fire for whatever it might be and that's essentially why we have a ring road here. We have our interconnect system would be located in this general area and we would then come along Route 25 for you know approximately two, three hundred feet and then up the LIPA roadway that would essentially take us to that substation which I noted earlier within 600 feet right here. What we have depicted here is a I believe is a sun grow layout which is a manufacturer and their system here includes these longer containers which would be the batteries. These smaller containers are the inverters which I said come from the batteries. They take it from the direct current to AC current and then we would those all connect into the substation. What you'll see here also is that along Route 25 not shown on this plan but we would be proposing to screen and provide plantings and buffer along that line and we can show you in a minute we have a visual rendering of that. Here's just another quick superimposing of the layout on an aerial and it does show you that you know the neighbor here to the north is already an industrial use property, the substation is within a close proximity. There's some you know . _.. commercial use along 25 here and so we feel that kind of speaks to the use of this parcel. I'll kick it back to you Steve. STEVEN LOSQUADRO :Walter thank you very much and members of the Board if I,may just before delving into a little bit more of the analysis,just to provide a little bit more color and background to why this project is being brought forward and how that relates to energy supply on Long Island and actually on New York State as a whole, we have to remember first and foremost there have been mandates issued in the State of New York that dictate that going forward in both the near future and then even beyond that that there must be a shift within energy generated within the state to renewable energy sources and I know the Chairwoman at one point when we made a preliminary presentation that was a matter that we discussed because that is not something that's speculative, it's something that's actually occurring. The State has issued those mandates and obviously they're issued for important reasons because there is a desire within the state to move away from fossil fuel energy generating sources that will improve our air shed, will be beneficial to our environment. So in order to do that green clean technologies are required, battery energy stored systems or BESS is actually leading such technology. In furtherance of that LIPA has already commenced an RFP process. This is something that we made staff aware of as well. So this is a matter regarding in which LIPA is moving forward. LIPA has already issued the RFI portion of the RFP and announced that within literally a month or two the second half of the RFP will be then issued as well. Why is that important, because LIPA requires on behalf of rate 51 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 payers again in furtherance of bettering and improving the environment and-the air shed and using green energy sources LIPA needs to have an ability to promote the proliferation of renewable energy sources which really primarily are wind and solar and we all know living in the northeast there are days when the sun does not shine, there are days when the wind does not blow.So in orderto allow renewable energy to proliferate for the benefit of residents in Southold and throughout the state, battery energy storage is a necessary technology that's green and clean that will permit that. Why is the location next to a substation so important, because LIPA has recognized throughout Long Island certain important points of interconnection nineteen in particular.The substation here which is actually is located about 500 feet away is one of them so this becomes an ideally situated location which actually then is a good way for us to transition into why is this site so suitable, why is it appropriate and compatible? Well it's on a site that's perfectly suited for the use because this is light industrial it's not another type of use, it's not agricultural use, it's not a residential use. This is light industrial and as of right even without a Special Exception there are very intense uses that anybody can go and seek and put in a site plan in for it tomorrow under the code. Let's just go over a few of what those things could be.You can have a machine and equipment workshop, you can have a food processing plant if you can imagine, auto repair shops, printing plants, a boat building facility, duck farms, facilities to raise fowl, horses and domestic animals. In addition you can have a contractor yard.So all of the things that would come with that with those uses which are all as of right are things that are much more intense'and much more impactful than the rather benign use that Suffolk County Energy Storage II proposes as part of this green clean energy technology. Now it's a very, very low impact proposition essentially if a zero impact proposition because as we've been able to go over with staff and I should note too, there was a rather detailed memorandum that I submitted six pages that takes the Board through an analysis of the factors and considerations in the Special Exception portion of the code and I'd ask of course that it be made part of the record because I think it speaks very clearly to how the use is so well suited, how it's appropriate and how it's fully compliant. If we can talk a little bit about what will not happen here although this is in LI light industrial zone and that's what this land is zoned. There will not be any traffic, no truck traffic, no emissions, no fumes,there will be no solid waste,there will be no ground water discharge and then of course as we're all very cognizant of and also very weary of there won't be nitrogen loading which is something we don't want to see happen to protect our aquifer in this day and age. There'll be no sewage. This is on the Main Rd. There are industrial uses all nearby and as we've said most prominentlythe substation approximately 500 feet away.Across the street there is a motel and a miniature golf course. There are other industrially zoned land that's nearby so what we respectfully submit and again also relying on the memorandum that we submitted that I can go over in further detail but I'm sure the Board maybe just will wish to accept it as submitted and rely upon it as part of the record but given the immediate proximity to the substation, the zoning, the much more intense and impactful uses that are permitted even without special 52 -Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 exception. This is an approp'ri'ate location, it's particularly well suited for this green energy use and again just to give a final point of clarification, this is storage it's not energy generation and that's very important to note. I should also note as well that I have provided Kim and Mr. Duffy to provide to the Board an updated legal memorandum that I prepared and that speaks to the propriety of this proceeding and the town's authority to do so in that Suffolk County Energy Source II pursuant (inaudible) stands in the shoes of the public utilities so this is considered a public utility use for the purposes of a Special Exception permit and the cases and the authority that's delineated are quite clear in that matter. So having said all of that, I think though there are certain further points that require some additional discussion by us because I think the Board would want that and I think the Board needs that because it's only appropriate to have the record as clear as possible and what I'd like to do at this point is invite Jason Funk to go over some of those additional particular matters and I think Jason has already been admitted so he would be able to do that. JASON FUNK : Thank you Steve for the presentation. I wanted to just hit on a few of kind of the environmental considerations for the project. Obviously through our SEQRA FEIF that we submitted with the application and the ZBA's point that they're still looking through the SEQRA determination.That particular document has gone through a lot of environmental considerations for the project but I wanted to just kind of break out three that we know from the town are some of the things that the town Was-irsterested in two of which specifically the town was interested v `' in and one which is the wetlands which is both a town interest and of the state itself.Just quickly going through them as far as the noise assessment goes,we did well number one we did perform a noise assessment for the project. Project sound itself will be generated from HVAC units that are needed to cool the battery systems as well as electrical equipment that it typical with these types of projects, inverters and transformers for instance. Our noise assessment that we have completed and have submitted to the town shows that the project will meet local noise ordinance and that's through the use of various mitigation technologies for it to be (inaudible) on our HVAC units and noise reducers on our inverters but also a strategic sound wall placed on the I believe the northern portion of the project site to help reduce any noise that may emanate from the project. So again the project itself commits to meeting all the required town noise ordinance and certainly as we go through the process and through what the Planning Department as well you know any specific needs to that will be addressed. As far as visual impacts go and I'll show you a couple of shots of the assessment that we had done but as far as visual impacts go we have conducted a (inaudible) visual assessment that we also provided to the ZBA. We've committed and will commit to providing buffering and screening to sensitive receptors. I believe the information that we've presented so far is strictly from Main Rd. where we show you know how the screening will look to screen the project from the road itself but we're also you know we also understand that there could be other concerns whether it be a data sound trail for instance and things like that you know the project itself is committed to working with the town 53 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 and those community members to address any visual impacts from other sensor receptive as well. One thing to point out as well, the project itself is limited and I think Walter and some of the plans previously showed these storage containers themselves are 10 feet in height and depending on where the HVAC systems are placed you know that could go up slightly or come down slightly. Again, we are looking to screen and buffer and we believe that any screening and buffering that we're planning to put in place would be relatively straightforward so I think that addresses or we're hopeful that that addresses that we show the ZBA and the town that we are looking to address those concerns. The third point that I wanted to point for this particular meeting are the wetlands themselves. As we noted in our application, there is a single wetland noted on the northeast corner of the project site. It is a New York State DEC wetland. We've been in communication coordination with the DEC's region one office and have had DEC staff on site with the project to walk and verify the boundary of that particular wetland. So that information is already in hand by the project and has been provided to the town as well. The project will need to obtain an Article XXIV permit.This is strictly due to the fact that the project itself will encroach on the 100 foot adjacent area. However the project through coordination with the DEC has committed to stay ten feet outside of the current forested wetland adjacent area so to speak and not encroach or remove existing foresting buffer within that adjacent area. So it's just another level of commitment that we have agreed to with conversations with the DEC with the understanding that in fact we will need an Article XXIV permit so we continue to work to that. Walter if you want to go to the visual. So here's just a couple of slides real quick. This is the preliminary project, visual rendering that we had completed for the project. As you can see on the left is where we're at today. On the right shows kind of the proposed view. As you can see our access point as we'll go to the I guess that's to the east of the telephone pole there and the existing access will be closed off and plantings would be there. What you see to the left in the right video or right picture sorry, the larger fence that's our seven foot fence that's required for the project from the electrical generator station. You can see a little bit of the battery storage containers and of course the entrance gate there. Overall what you're showing this is that we plant to screen the vast majority with the acceptance of the entranceway itself. Walter go to the next one. Here is the second visual rendering,again this is the eastern most portion of the project. As you can see certainly there are some trees that will be removed but we're going to be planting new screenings. A lot of these trees I don't know the exactly what type of trees these are but several of them are in poor shape to begin with and appear to be in the midst of dyeing off themselves so we're not losing you know very well established I guess trees here. Walter is point to that there but again just another visual here to show we are proposing screening and just showing roughly what that would look like off of Main Rd. 25. With that if I can hand it off for our storm water discussion over to Cristina, Walter if you want to go over to that. CRISTINA ZOLEZI : Hi my name is Cristina Zolezi with Langan Engineering the site civil for the project. So from the existing conditions to the proposed there's going to be an increase of 54 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 impervious area that will occur.As we go through the site design we will incorporate storm water management measures to treat the water quality from the runoff as well as mitigate any potential increases such that the post development peak flows will be less than or equal to pre so there wouldn't be any potential adverse impacts. All of our storm water controls will be sized in accordance with the state DEC's regulations as well as the town and even if the county has something specific which some counties do. Typically we're going to use drywells for the most part but if there's other measures that we can incorporate we will incorporate them just given that drywells are common practice in the area. We can look at other alternatives such as instead of doing a gravel road maybe we can do a permeable driveway which would reduce the amount of impervious area that we would have to treat since it's considered a permeable material but these are all things that we would look for and design as we get into the actual design of the project. STEVEN LOSQUADRO :Thank you Cristina and Jason I appreciate that.Just to indicate a few more things before we might take any questions that you might have and as I mentioned and I'll reiterate again, we have other individuals who are waiting by should they be needed to provide some additional expertise or to offer any additional expertise with respect to any matter that you would like to know about. Here on the screen as you can see it's just listed again so that the record is complete that the application was submitted for a Special Exception preliminary sound modeling analysis was submitted, a° preliminary visual rendering was submitted. There was a response letter just to address comments that was made by the Land Preservation Committee and so that' also in the record as well and if necessary Jason Funk who prepared that letter that has been submitted for the record which could provide with respect to that. There's the memorandum that I referenced earlier which is an analysis of the legal precedent that permits the Special Exception in this instance and of course there's the analysis of six pages of the standards and matters to be considered as they're called in the code relating to an application for a Special Exception. Just to focus on one or two things more just because I think it bears repeating, because this is energy storage it's not energy generation I think it's very critical when we're referencing the fact that there's no ground water discharge,there's no sewage, there's no nitrogen loading, there's no congestion or traffic because remember this site is monitored essentially on a remote basis and maybe every six to eight weeks a person would come by and check on it from a diagnostic perspective but you're eliminating traffic which is very critical on the Main Rd. and any other industrial use which again it's privately owned land; people could engage on all of the uses that we discussed earlier as their absolute right. That's all taken away as well. So all of those matters are removed from the board so to speak,they will not be impacts and the impacts that would come about in most any other circumstance given the zoning of the land. So having said all of that,that concludes this portion of our presentation. We do very much appreciate the opportunity not just to present here today but to interact with staff over the course of months and provide the documents that we've provided previously and submitted 55 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 previously and we_can speak very well to the fact that this is a compliant use, an appropriate=use and we ask that it be approved by you. We're very happy at this point to have the team answer whatever questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much for your presentation. I don't think we need to have screen sharing at the moment, maybe we can all see each other a little bit better if you just remove that, thank you. Let me begin with one or two questions and then we'll see what the Board has to say and I certainly want to I expect that some people who are on this call will also want to ask some questions or make some comments. MEMBER PLANAIVIENTO : Leslie there are questions already on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Q&A yeah. I see there's some questions in there. We're going to hold off on those because I want to give the Board an opportunity to say a few things or ask a few things before we turn it over to other people. We know that the property is surrounded by preserved land everybody knows that and that the piece itself is ecologically very sensitive.All of Arshomomaque Cove preserve and all of the Pipes Cove preserve is connected to Southold Bay and all those systems run together so we're very aware of what that property looks like and what some of the challenges are. First I want to just say to the public in general that what we're looking at now are not absolute finalized cast in concrete site plans. That's because should this be awarded to the applicant by LIPA they will then have to find out specifically what-LIPA- specifications are. So with that understanding it's a little uncertain as to exactly what we're looking at, how many units, exactly where they're going to be laid out and so on. I will also mention that in addition to a wetlands setback, at the moment what's being proposed is about 47% lot coverage in a zone that only permits 30% lot coverage maximum. There will likely be zoning setbacks required also from either the front yard or some other setbacks. There will need to be Trustees approval as we mentioned. There will need to be D.O.T. approval because you're going to have to tunnel under 25 in order to connect to the LIPA substation and there will have to be site plan approval from the Planning Board. So there's a lot of hoops. We're hearing this now because in fairness it is considered a green utility by the State and it's going to be the kind of thing the town is goingto want to support in the future from simply a green energy perspective so I want to ask something cause we understand how difficult that property is to lay out. First of all, the property is often very wet, very wet and so is the surrounding trails and all of that and some of the residences even behind that might end up getting flooded.What impact if any would flooding on this property have on those storage containers,those batteries?Will they need to be elevated in order to protect them against anything? Is there any corrosive problem, would there be any emissions, would there be any damage so can somebody please first address that and if it has to be raised how high because then that certainly increases the visual impact. 56 Regular Meeting-February 4, 2021 STEVE LOSQUADRO : That's a very good question thank you and I think I would pass that off initially to and ask to speak about that, Jason and also Cristina because Cristina is the project engineer (inaudible) he deals so intimately with the environmental issues. JASON FUNK : Not that I'm going to say I would punt to Cristina but since she's the engineer and a speaker on storm water, I know one of the things we talked about and Cristina will hit into it maybe talk a little bit more about how we propose to manage storm water and in fact how our proposed storm water management may actually make the runoff issue on that particular property even less of an occurrence. Cristine maybe you can touch on that. CRISTINA ZOLEZI : So as I mentioned earlier in the presentation, one of the main storm water management practices we're looking at using are drywells. I know on other projects that we've done in Long Island there is a requirement to provide additional capacity within those drywells. Sometimes it's five inches over the contributing areas, sometimes it's eight inches over the contributing area. So these drywells would end up being quite deep and can get up on the order of like an eight foot diameter. So by putting those in we would be able to contain more storm water on site and infiltrate into the grounds which is a green practice encouraged by the DEC which would hopefully help potentially mitigate any flooding concerns that there may be cause we would be actually infiltrating the storm water runoff instead of having it leave the site. WALTER MEISNER : I would just like to add to that the subject parcel is slightly elevated compared to the surrounding areas and I believe it's outside the five hundred year flood plain so that's one of the reason that parcel was of interest. The other thing that I would like to just maybe add to all of that is, these containers are already factored in even in the visuals to be slightly I wouldn't say elevated but they're on either a cement pier or a foundation pad simply for structural capacity. So that already gives us a little elevation as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make sure, there's no potential corrosive damage to these containers, there's no consequent emissions of any kind would result. What about the safety, I mean there has been in past there have been some explosions of lithium ion batteries. We understand those problems have been taken care of but I want for the record I want you to address safety issues so that we can better understand if there are any problems at all with these kind of the safety of these containers. WALTER MEISNER :Those were great questions. Steve were you going to say something? STEVE LOSQUADRO : I was just going to say Walter perhaps there's another team member we could request be added in to speak with a little more expertise to that important question. WALTER MEISNER : Yeah I'd like to if Reid is on the phone, there's a Reid Strain Kim from our team who manages many of these things. 57 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 REID STRAIN : Reid Strain, I'm with Savion director of the EPC side of the business (inaudible).-To - answerthe question on fire explosion protection,so a little bit of my history where these answers are coming from, I've built approximately twelve different energy storage facilities in the U.S. most notably the recent ones that we did some of the engineering on was Moss Landing which is a large 200 megawatt facility out in California which I was (inaudible) very strict regulations there also.Then we were part of a team that actually worked with APS that investigated their fire which I think is probably the one most people have seen in the news. That happened at one of their smaller facilities outside Phoenix.There's definitely in the market itself there has been some learning on one or two items but there's been a vast amount of energy storage deployed over the last few years that hasn't had any issues and really what drove those issues were, there was a control system that they were updating and then on top of that it wasn't so much the explosion that made it a big deal it was actually the response found in the safety plan and that's really what we like to drive home on some of these. On all of the fire protection items we follow the UL certifications and FPA and then the State of New York has some too so we integrate those systems potentially into the containers themselves or adjacent to this site and on top of that work very closely with the first responders to make sure there's a safety response plan to mitigate that and be sure everybody is safe with it. MEMBER DANTES : Basically what percentage of the batteries or battery storage facilities have had the explosion? REID STRAIN : In the U.S. that project so (inaudible) go based on the size or the amount of batteries deployed. That specific facility I think was around 2 megawatts and there's been over I think it's probably going to be close to about 1.5 gigawatts now deployed in various spots in the U.S., in Australia and Europe. So a very small percentage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well should any kind of fire combustion breakout what impact would that have on this very fragile piece of property and to the surrounding preserved open space? REID STRAIN : Right, so the way we have one representation of the system on the site plans. There's two other options that have technology that has been advanced since those have been developed even which they're containerized into about a twenty foot by eight foot box a shipping type container. They're designed now to basically enclose any fire anything that happens within those units so nothing interior would spread beyond that right. For any kind of fire response that may have to happen on any technologies outside of that you know there's different things you can do with containment basins and walls around the foundations which based on the technology you have here and the chemicals involved we won't require any of that. So everything will be contained in the unit itself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What chemicals are involved? 58 Regular Meeting February.4, 2021 REID STRAIN : Lithium ion which is a very small percentage nickel, magnesium that's cobalt I'm trying to think what else is in there. It's not they're all contained within either well these will be packs it will be like the ones on your cell phones so that's one container method and then the UL certifications with the way they're required is there's actually you take a bunch of those packs and put them into kind of like a data center hard drive you know like the long skinny ones, you pack them in real tight and then it's actually contained and sealed, so that's the first UL certification that you have to get is that the fire won't percolate beyond that and then there's a rack they go into. The second UL certification is you can't go beyond that rack. The third one is actually the containerized one. So they test each level of these so there's basically three you know quote unquote containerized units for each of these cell packs that they shouldn't you know that they're designed not to go beyond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We all need to understand that this is a first for the Town of Southold. It probably won't be the last because this kind of thing is coming. I do have another question,we do understand as I was saying the benefits of storing energy to be used during peak you know loads and we are getting more and more houses being built out here all the time and population increase and there will be increasing demands for electricity and this is so for storing this energy from a traditional source, LIPA. Now what I'd like to ask you to tell us knowing what a big concern a big company you are and what kind of work you've done, in the future do you have any plans at all to connect this battery energy storage system to' other transmission lines that might be going out to say solar or wind in this area? The reason I'm asking is because it could have some additional impacts on the property itself and on the surrounding preserved land and we are prohibited by law from segmenting any knowledge we might have of future plans that you might have. So I want to just get this all out into a discussion right now into this record. So can you please address that. WALTER MEISNER :At this time there is no other plans for anything like that. I mean our business plan as well as the project plan here is to connect to LIPA at that substation and so there's really no plan for I think what you're indicating is expansion or (inaudible) of this to an extension of another project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, had to ask. WALTER MEISNER : Can I just double back Leslie, just to jump back to something that Reid said. he noted I know that there's always discussion about safety and such for these projects and as the industry kind of evolves and becomes much more mature which it has and it's accelerated in the last couple of years,the indication of you know we always hear about some of the bad things that happen right but I think his statistic is really, really compelling and the fact that it's less than one tenth of a percent or so that there's been an issue with. So when you look at it from a statistical standpoint 2 megawatts out of fifteen hundred or two thousand megawatts that have 59 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 been deployed in this type of technology you can kind of it just gives you a little sense of magnitude. CHAIRPEROSN WEISMAN : Well it's important to know because we really have made a commitment in this town to protecting our wetlands and our you know surrounding lands and made substantial investments for the public benefit in open space preservation and we want to make sure that anything that takes place on that site is not going you know any impact is going to be contained on that site and not anywhere else. We all know living here that everything here is connected underground. It just all runs into everything else so we have to be very diligent you know in that kind of environmental protection. That's why I'm asking these questions. I'm going to stop for now and see if the Board has anything and then I'm going to turn it over to anything else you want to say but I think maybe we should ask people in the audience who have been waiting patiently who want to speak to give them an opportunity to be heard also. Anything at this point from any Board members? MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, why not put it on PSEG's land right with their substation? Why have it on a separate parcel? WALTER MEISNER : So LIPA doesn't necessarily just give out their land to develop these things. In addition I believe their substation does have some surrounding restrictions for resources and such so we wouldn't have analyzed that at this point. Our intent really is to create a new valued project in a well located place that it can run independently of LIPA. MEMBER DANTES :The other is why not put solar panels on the roof of the batteries and create extra energy for renewable source? WALTER MEISNER : That's a good question, we can take a look at it. The reality is the amount of surface area on the top of the units is pretty small so the generation would be pretty small compared to the infrastructure you would need to provide when loading and structural capacity to offset that. STEVE LOSQUADRO :Justto follow up on that Walter,solar traditionally just requires large swaths of land or large amounts of property or space in order to generate meaningful amounts of electricity. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat you wanted to say something? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I was wondering, do you have any other projects in the state at this time? WALTER MEISNER : Operating or proposed? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Operating or also proposed. 60 Regular Meeting February 4,2021- - WALTER MEISNER : We don't as a company we don't have anything operating in New York State at the moment but we do have a number of other projects proposed. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Do you have anything in the neighboring states, New Jersey, Connecticut any of those? WALTER MEISNER : I'd have to go look at the records. We have I believe Colorado we have an operating storage project or it's in the process of being built. We have solar I can certainly find out some more details. I'm not privy to them off the top of my head at the moment. JASON FUNK : This is Jason. I'll just add to that, for instance and Steve will probably shake his head and nod yes to this but for instance on Long Island there's only one battery storage project on all of Long Island and that's out in East Hampton. STEVE LOSQUADRO : That's exactly what I was planning to add and that is obviously we have matters that are moving forward in various stages in Suffolk county in neighboring townships but essentially here by virtue of the LIPA RFI and then the follow up RFP, it's a new technology that now LIPA is integrating. So the only thing that's ever happened so far just so the Board knows is that there was essentially a trial project that was placed in East Hampton but I think it was 5 megawatts. It really just for trial purposes so that they could see that it would work and that it r would be suitable on Long Island but now you're going to see tfie proliferation and now with the RFP it's going to come and it's going to come in the locations primarily that LIPA has designated as POI's which are preferred point of interconnection. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So with that said is LIPA working with NYSERTA on any of this which for the people who are out there don't know that's the New York State Energy Development Authority? I would think that NYSERTA would be involved with some of this. WALTER MEISNER : This is Walter. You're question specifically is if LIPA is working directly with NYSERTA on this initiative.Yes and no. NYSERTA kind of runs their own program to you know kind of the greater part of New York. This does not necessarily part of their current program and initiative however I know the two groups are definitely coordinated. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I would think that they would be. STEVE LOSQUADRO :Just to speak to the former Assemblywoman's point,we know that she was also a member of the public service commission so she has very great expertise with respect to energy integration and policy throughout the state and in that vein I should point out that this is so advanced in the LIPA perspective that developers those submitting or anticipating the submission of the projects are actually now in the que before the ISO which as you know is the Independent System Operator. So just from the prospective of again with your expertise how 61 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 advanced this is, it is actually now at that stage with the anticipation that these matters are moving forward. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes as mentioned before, maybe you could get more in depth as to the benefit of this particular project to the Town of Southold. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Well that was one of the things that we wanted to conclude with but actually since we're at a question and answer point now I think that would be very helpful to go over it again. Some of the points we've mentioned and those are of course the lack of impacts. No emissions, no fumes, no (inaudible) displaced into the air that would come from the industrial uses that we've all now said many times are permitted as of right on the site. No traffic and so none of the noise and other impacts endangers that are associated with increased traffic which we all know we don't want because we have been kicked by enough of that as it is and it's a constant burden on everyone. Beyond all of that we also know that this is a project that will bring additional benefits beyond the environmental and that is that it's a use that's very highly rated from an assessment perspective so for the town itself and for the special districts within the town, school district, fire district etc. there will be great benefits from a revenue perspective so you're having revenue on a substantial level according to the town for the benefit of all of the residents but yet without any of the (inaudible) impacts that would come from industrial use otherwise which as we've said is permitted as of right and by the way those other uses with all of the nuisances and burdens they bring would not be rated as high from a tax perspective. So I appreciate the opportunity which I was going to mention later but just to highlight that now because it's very important I think that people understand that and in the greater context that there are many benefits beyond the environmental. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick do you have anything at this point? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think that the question was already asked that I had concern over so I'm fine thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you right now? MEMBER LEHNERT:Just a quick question, can you guys address the noise mitigation on the HVAC units on top of all these containers. WALTER MEISNER : Yes, we did run an initial sound assessment which I believe we submitted to the town already which basically indicated that we have a couple of different methodologies of mitigation. Obviously HVAC is one of the larger components of sound generation. In the picture that I showed you I showed you the HVAC on top of the unit itself and that would obviously be 62 z •-_�.- Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 , the location where it would probably generate the most sound. We have the ability to then look at other options which are side mounted units which then bring the sound generation down and that's one mitigation effort. Another mitigation option that we'll consider is something on the ground so they can be actually taken off of the unit itself and,placed next to it or sound around you know protected by those containers that offer some sound mitigation. Then part of it is also as we selected the technology there's certain components that can be mitigated with a muffler or other components that reduce the sound generation as well. So we usually start to see that more of a discussion point when we get a little further into the development and we're selecting actual equipment. What we've generated the sound assessment and sent on along was kind of worst case, it's kind of the most noise generating equipment that we've seen just to show that we can be compliant with even that equipment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just a follow up, if I'm walking by the property what am I going to hear? How far is that noise going to carry? I mean the noise code is complicated. You have to have calculations you have to be standing at a property line. What most people care about is not the decibel level, it's just what am I going to hear? If I'm walking on that you know sound to bay shore hiking trail am I going to hear generators you know humming away you know HVAC systems?What happens actually we have a question here, what happens if HVAC system doesn't work and the batteries overheat? What am I going to hear from all of this activity from these storage containers? WALTER MEISNER :There's a few questions you have there, let me address a couple of them.The first one is,what are you going to hear? It's generally a low hum, something like that. It's typically pretty miniscule it's not generally classified as a nuisance, it's something that you would hear when you walked by a substation or that kind of if you're there. I would question why you're walking down Route 25 without sidewalks but that would kind of classify what you're going to hear. Within the background noise that you generally get it's not that much elevated compared to that and that would be our target. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Walter to that point though,would the road traffic the noise generated by cars passing by sort of silence that out? I mean it's a very busy loud road. WALTER MEISNER :Traffic will definitely be at a higher decibel level than what our project output would be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about from that hiking trail? WALTER MEISNER : We would make sure that you're not at that point. I think our sound assessment currently says that we don't reach much beyond our property line at all and there's obviously we measure by receptors but if we would address you know a hiking trail as being a potential receptor we would obviously be mitigating against that and that would be our target. 63 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What if any impact you may not know I don't know whether there's any studies but certainly there are a number of you know species in that vicinity, birds and various things like that is that going to have any impact that low hum on any of their habits? Are they going to be able to tolerate it,they're not going to have to you know leave because of the noise? I mean we know enough to know that noise from wineries actually stopped chickens from laying out here. It's not anecdotal it's a fact. They were so disturbed by the noise that they stopped laying eggs. I mean I just want I'm trying to get everything out I possibly can. WALTER MEISNER : I'm not aware of any evidence that would indicate that there would be an issue with wildlife and this type of sound generation. I've been in the industry for a very long time, I don't know if Jason you have any specific expertise on that but I've never experienced anything like that. JASON FUNK : Obviously I've worked on projects before where we've had concerns about noise for instance for eagle nests. It's mainly been very loud noise like construction noise, certainly not the hum of an inverter or transformer itself I haven't heard that. One thing I would add to the Board as well is you know we've been doing our due diligence as well from a species and standpoint habitat and we actually have been in communication with DEC because there are at least one or two (inaudible) species noted on the NY&HP results that we got back. We did a habitat assessment and the results showed that none of those particular species you know that there is a habitat available for those specific species and we've submitted that information to the DEC with the hopes of having a conversation with them and getting them to agree to that. Obviously that has to be done anyhow not just for SEQRA but also due to the fact that we'll need an Article XXIV permit. So that process is on the way but more or less to answer your question is as far as noise impacts from the hum of an inverter or stuff along those lines I'm not aware of anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One question for Steve and then I want to turn this over to the audience unless the Board has anything else, you talked about you know where you are in this process a little bit and we talked about all these other approvals that might be necessary right now we're looking at this Special Exception Permit because you currently don't own the land is my understanding that would happen if you are awarded the contract from LIPA and you currently don't have the contract from LIPA but that they are going to be looking to see whether or not an approval is forthcoming otherwise they're likely not going to award a contract (inaudible) somebody who isn't going to be able to build it, is that all correct? STEVE LOSQUADRO : Yes and I think in that context too I think we have to realize and perhaps I think even the Board's counsel would echo this but we're before the Board for a rather narrow purpose and that is to determine the propriety of the use and the compatibility of the use under the code engaging in a very specific Special Exception process and all of the things of course that 64 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 you said madam Chairwoman are absolutely right and'that is that LIPA has to issue an award. LIPA as we've noted is actively pursuing this because this is going to be a major island wide integration into the grid for all the good reasons that we said. It's going to strengthen the grid, it provides customers more liability, it allows residents environmental benefits as wells as financial and economic benefits for themselves and their township as former Assemblywoman Acampora noted earlier. So for all of those reasons that is the larger context but the narrower context here is, does this comply with the requirements and the suitability that's called for in the code and we respectfully submit that it does. Of course again to your point as you might imagine, LIPA is going to look to see where projects are best suited and they're looking for those sorts of determinations to be made by applicants as they're proactively engaging in that process which Suffolk County Energy Storage II is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thanks very much. If there's nothing else immediately from the Board we can have follow up questions, I'd like to there are two people that have been in the chat room the Q&A room for quite a long time that I'd like to have admitted as panelists. BOARD ASSISTANT : I will promote Randy Wade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea and then after that Eric Wechsler please. -BOARD ASSISTANT: I'll bring them both in and Randy can speak first. RANDY WADE : Kim would you be able to share your screen with the PDF I sent? BOARD ASSISTANT :Yes let me bring it up. RANDY WADE : While you're doing that I'd like to say that these comments are supported we're united in opposition both the Group for the East End,The Northfork Environmental Counsel,The Northfork Audobon Society and the Greenport Civic Association.We're very supportive of battery storage rather than expanding fossil fuel generating plants however this is we feel the very wrong location. If you can scroll to the third page thanks. We looked at the location and the wetlands is on the upper right of the square lot there and then go to the next one. You mentioned that the use on the upper right is definitely a construction yard.The DEC has sited them for violations and it's absolutely in a wrong location for (inaudible) the zoning is completely outdated. If you look at the Southold (inaudible) I actually don't know if it's a turbine or if it's substation it's been described as a gas turbine on google map but a substation in the discussion and it is in a flood zone and it really should not be there. From what I can tell it was put there in 1964 before we had any sense of the value of wetlands and or even flooding issues. The hundred year flood as you know now is a much more frequent occurrence and that is in that zone as is the southern part of just to the south adjacent to this property. Could you go to the next one please.These are the images you showed and could you go to the next one please thank you Kim. Go up a little, 65 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 zooming in on those images to see what it actually looks like you could paint it green but it's still there's no question but this is something that is not a natural phenomenon and you could see the chain link fence, I think there's some question about the height that have been given because you said the batteries would be 10 feet off the ground and then the compressors on top of that would make it even higher. You said a chain link fence would only be I think you said 7 feet yeah 7 feet however you can see that the compressors are on the batteries and there's a chain link fence that goes up even higher and there's going to be no way to paint this as anything other than industrial and yes it is currently zoned that but it is a mistake and if you go to the next slide you can see why. This is land that has already been preserved and the county is the blue, the town and county the yellow and Southold Town open space is the green and the little dot there it's completely surrounded except for the flood zone 1964 plant across the street and that construction yard. If you go to the next one you'll see the (inaudible) trail and the red ones are already open the blue ones are on the verge of being opened next month and the little black arrow shows where this property is that's completely surrounded by these items. So you can say on this well 12.7 million has been spent on preserving 325 acres here of environmentally sensitive land, the town the county the DEC, the Peconic Estuary Partnership have all listed these as important for preservation. It will be visible from approximately 550 feet of the trail and 100 feet from the trail. Approximately half acre of the parcel is designated significant fish and wildlife habitat by Department of State New York State's Department of State and at least a quarter of an acre of it is wetlands. There is no question but it would"cause runoff. I heard that you were talking about eight foot drywells and capturing some number of inches,five to eight inches I think you might want to think about that in terms of how many feet of water you'd be able to capture in these drywells.There's quite a big(inaudible)of clay there so nothing is goingto be percolating from a drywell. It'll be just sitting there until it does dry out. So again we completely support battery storage but lithium ion batteries should not be located in residential wetland areas and I find it hard to believe that the batteries will only be ten feet high when you will be wanting to raise them up out of a potential flooding area. The generator is (inaudible) should be relocated and also the Southold Town should rezone these outdated regulations.This is not an appropriate industrial zone. So thank you, I want to thank you for your attention and that was a very thoughtful presentation by the applicant and we encourage the ZBA to reject all variances.Thank you so much. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Would you like us to respond? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's appropriate sure. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie or just go through all the comments then do the response at the end? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you comfortable with that Steven or would you rather do one at a time? 66 ..._ . Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 , STEVE'COSQUADRO : I sort of like in traditionally I think because it's fresh in everyone's-minds and we've taken some notes on it and also Ms. Wade had a lot to say and I think maybe it might be more meaningful to address them speaker by speaker if you don't oppose that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't. STEVE LOSQUADRO : And obviously I'll invite Walter, Jason and Cristina to join in as well. I just have some initial observation obviously I appreciate all of Ms. Wade's comments and I think also from the perspective of caring about the environment a very well intention, I would say a few things. She points out that there are DEC violations with respect to other users and also that there's a peaker plant or a turbine nearby and that's inappropriate. This won't be those things obviously, in fact that's sort of the point. This use which is so benign which is zero impact takes away those other types of uses and in fact also let's also put it into a little bit more of a perspective here which is that by having battery energy storage it allows LIPA, it allows the community to back down peaker plants which are very polluting and very noise generating and use much older you would almost say antiquated fossil fuel technology just terrible for the environment,terrible for the air shed integrating this green new clean technology allows that use which Ms. Wade rightfully has identified to be backed down and probably eliminated because- that's the ultimate goal as far as the plan that exists in NY State which we all know is call the REV the reinventing the energy vision to integrate clean green renewable energy sources and take away the sources in peaker plants in polluting places such as what she just identified. In addition to all of that I would mention as follows, I know there was a thought I think that was expressed, it should just be rezoned but I think we all know as a practical matter the town can't do that and the town in not in the business of taking away people's zoning because there's a cost that's associated with that and there's even a propriety surrounding that that really the town would probably not be permitted to do. This is privately owned land, I think we also have to take into account as well.This is a private land owner who could engage in the type of uses that I delineated according to the code and that's even without delving into the special exception portion of what type of uses the land owner can engage in at this very moment. So I think for all of those reasons and we look at what is there, it's industrially zoned land and remember too there is as well a substation within five hundred feet and there's a motel and there's recreational facilities across the roadway and so it's not just all preserved land at all by any stretch. I mean we have these intense uses five hundred feet. This actually is a very benign use. With respect to the height and other things that were said I think perhaps Walter and Jason you could just add a little bit more color to that because I wouldn't want to leave the impression that this is going to be beyond what we know it will be. WALTER MEISNER : Just kind of responding to that thank you for your comments Ms. Wade. I think what I would respectfully say is that you know we would be addressing many of these 67 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 concerns and we would obviously to the extent that we can'do whatever we can during the planning and ultimate development aspect of this, going to Planning Board and etc. I think that from a height perspective there's probably multiple different variations for which we would be seeing different and maybe that constitutes some of the confusion. I think we've been talking in (inaudible) or ranges to date the visual assumptions and renderings we're using some specific assumptions set and we can certainly provide that. I don't know that off the top of my head but we you know what we were speaking to in regards to the what we would be envisioning will vary and we would obviously be screening associated with that. So a container would be eight to twelve feet with an HVAC unit on top. If the HVAC unit is put to the side for sound mitigation then that doesn't reach that height so there's a number of different variations during the design process that we would be taking into account and therefore I don't know that we're in a position to speak directly to those specifics today but I would assure that we would be looking at taking all those comments into account when we're doing the final design and taking it to the Planning Board. JASON FUNK : I would just touch I think on the wetlands and some of those concerns. Obviously as I mentioned in our presentation, we're going to be working extremely closely with both the town and the DEC for our wetland approvals. As I mentioned we met with the DEC, we've committed to the,DEC to not seek an Article XXIV permit in which we are going to be clearing existing forest and buffer within the adjacent area and simply looking for a permit that has construction related impacts within the buffer that is already cleared. As I mentioned you know as far as species go and other environmental concerns on site we've been from the beginning extremely straightforward in trying to address those concerns before anyone from either the town or the state brought them to our attention. So we're extremely, extremely forward thinking when it comes to environmental concerns and developing a site like this in a prudent matter so again I appreciate Ms.Wade your comments and I look forward to working along with you as well as other members of the town moving forward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you. Do we want to see Eric Wechsler? Did you have comments you want to make? ERIC WECHSLER : I didn't. I sent in a bunch of questions and you pretty much asked them. So I think they've been addressed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We also have by the way a letter I believe from you that you submitted? ERIC WECHSLER : I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. All of those are part of the public record. They'll all be soon put on Laserfiche so that the public can FOIL any of them that they want to read and of course so 68 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 that the applicant can have an opportunity to look at those comments too and reply any way they wish to. Is there anybody else that wants to BOARD ASSISTANT : I have somebody else here that would like to speak,James and Tom. JAMES SARAKATSANNIS : Sarakatsannis, I've never participated in a form like this in my life. I'm not very good with Zoom I couldn't get my audio on. I was confessing that this is such an extraordinary event for me because of the subject matter. I've never done this in my life. I'm driven by this frankly by astonishment. I think the folks here who are presenting from all around the country with their experience are well intentioned. I share the comment earlier by this Randy I don't remember her last name that this is a laudable purpose, green energy. It's not the right location and I also want to add another parameter to it, it's not the right time. The Northfork in the context of hard work of public/private partnerships have accomplished a lot. Unfortunately for you guys they've accomplished a lot all around you, they're adjacent to you at this point, you're a little too late. So I just want to remind everybody that this is 2021, the Northfork is a certain place and you're comparing yourself to LIPA to the Costello sanctioned enterprise next door that is a problem. I sense that there's a little bit of a threat is too strong a word but to say hey look someone else is going to use this land and they're going to put I think you mentioned a printing press and things like that.That's probably not going to happen either in this day and age. So I think the-comparables and the comparisons that you're trying to make about what.Relse horrible can happen to this land is inappropriate for this forum or my take aways. I think there's no evidence I was hoping by dedicating my two and half hours here to hear from you guys on this team that you're sensitive to the particular history here.You had a direct question about a hiking trail, you answered it well who on earth is going to run Route 25. I'm one of them and I jog on that road on Route 25 so I think you had a tin ear a little bit about what's going on and whose involved here. I walk the trails, today you said that that trail is going to be as you've proposed ten feet from the wetland, ten feet from the public land. We talked a little bit about the noise of the HVAC and the effect of that noise on wildlife and you're giving answers the best you can and we're grateful for that but I wanted to impress upon another take away here. This is a new technology, there was one gentleman I think his name was Mr. Strain who essentially said look I built twelve of these things it's been going on for less than two years, there's a little bit of a bait and switch there. We say hey look in the Hamptons we got this little thing going. It was a test run, it's nothing that's permanent,the Hamptons are not going to permit anything larger,they're not going to permit anything permanent you don't have that right no one else does. I think that there's little teasers out there, there's hey look there's a lot of momentum with this. This is inevitable, it's going to be future and all of that may be true but we're in the present tense and think that this is not a situation where the Town of Southold should not be the first. You don't have anybody in New York City, you can't remember whether you have anything in New Jersey or Pennsylvania. I think Pennsylvania is where you're based and it's a little too much too soon in 69 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 my mind for what we're doing. I'm not a super environmentalist, I'm not anybody, I've never done this in my life but on the face of it and what I've read in the Suffolk Times on the face of it reviewing your sixty two page application that you submitted in December and listening to you here today it doesn't make sense to me. I think a lot of the things that were addressed today are on point I don't want to repeat them here today but I think that you've mischaracterized the organization the Costello group next door. I think you've grossly mischaracterized the putt putt and the ice cream shop that's across the street. I think that there is no inevitability here, I think in the context of the Northfork the inevitability is that they're going to complete that land.There is some sort of clean energy or a good energy I don't remember the green energy that is absolutely true but I think that there is a little bit of a short shrift on the negative side of it. It's a little bit of a misnomer to call something clean or green when you have said today in your presentation that there is a roadway or a space dedicated for fire so I suppose fire trucks or something can come. You have at least two years of experience or so as I understand it where a gentleman said hey look we had some fires, explosions but really from a percentage standpoint it's not so bad and the way in summary that I would characterize this is to say that you have a purpose of land, you have a location and you have a period in which we live and the purpose of the land you intend for this is high, high risk. I think the location is a high, high impact and the folks on this call today are far more educated about (inaudible)to talk about both of those things but I think it's intuitively obvious to me and you've roused me by what you,said today and you've roused me by your sixty two page submission in December to feel confident enough to say that even though I may be the dumbest guy on the call today. I think that the purpose of your project and your insensitivity it's a strong word but it just mean you don't have a lot of experience around here to understand what's happening makes this a high, high risk endeavor and the direction of the Northfork can comfortably adapt to a green technology not necessarily being the first but certainly not on that plot of land on Route 25. 1 think it would be a terrible mistake and if you're wrong with your two or five or ten years' worth or experience with no other experience in the State of New York that sort of thing, if you're wrong and there's a mistake here I think we all suffer and the people that can't speak on this are the wildlife. They have unique characteristics on the Northfork, unique and it's easy to see there's a history here that we know about from all of the stake holders about the nature of the fauna and the flora around here. When it's gone it's gone,we can't afford that (inaudible) and I just think it's for all the reasons that we've heard here today the wrong purpose at the wrong place at the wrong time. I admire you guys, you have a globe you are global it was in the paper today if you haven't seen it. It's called the Suffolk Times, you go buy one and it talks about your global footprint and why on earth you're picking a place that's adjacent to three hundred and twenty five acres when there must be around the world many, many other opportunities for you. I urge you to look into those and take advantage of them and I urge this Zoning Board to do the right thing. I think speaking directly to the Zoning Board to do the right thing I think if you let this thing go through there will be generations and 70 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 generations this w'- HFsell your reputation, sully the reputation of the Northfork and create a level'-- of risk that certainly I wouldn't want my grandchildren to be talking about. I don't think you would either.So it's with great respect that I say this. I hope the rest of my life I don't have to go through anything like this again but frankly I'm astonished. I wish you guys well just not particularly on the Northfork at this (inaudible). Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your comments. Steven do you want to address those or STEVE LOSQUADRO : Yea I mean to I guess to echo the term used by the speaker, that certainly did rouse quite a bit of points and they were very far flung shall we say. I think there's some essential points that we have to bring up in response. First of all this wasn't selected randomly nor did the applicant just happen to close its eyes and point a finger and hit a spot on the map and'say well this is where this should be. Quite frankly the area here as we've discussed and we've discussed here today and in submissions previously and in discussions prior to that,this is an area that has been identified pursuant to an RFI and a RFP process that has been established by LIPA. There are preferred POI's points of interconnection all across Long Island. There's a substation here within essentially five hundred feet. So it's not like to quote the speaker that this is being done without reference to location or to sully our reputations by just randomly and indiscriminately picking.a-location. This is within five hundred feet of a substation on industrially zoned land that could be used for many other purposes that no one could stop but yet this is a green use, it's a clean use, it provides for the proliferation of renewable energy sources which betters our environment. Not everybody here is from out of state or out of the jurisdiction for that matter. Mention was made as well of the fact that why Southold first and what in essence are we trying just to force this on Southold. We already know within context and it's been very well discussed that's not the case at all.This is happening across Long Island that LIPA has already announced. It's been established in written documents submitted to the public that there will be hundreds of megawatts of battery energy storage across the entirety of the island as a whole and it's all going to happen simultaneously because that's what happens with the roll out and the integration of energy sources whether it's generation or in this case storage pursuant to an RFP so that is just not accurate. I know then it did devolve a little bit to that well there was some you know at first there were comments but then it said well things were being said disingenuously and there's a bait and switch and this other type of terminology and I just don't prefer and I think we all strive to avoid taking our arguments and or comments to the realm of (inaudible) so I would say that clearly there's on bait and switch. We referenced the East Hampton project for what it is. It was a trial project to demonstrate that form LIPA's perspective that this is a technology that's readily useable here.Then of course what has floated from that is as we've said an RFI an RFP process that's going to establish this across many locations simultaneously on long island.So just to say that Southold has been selected and it will be imposed upon to the exclusion 71 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 of anyone else is actually incorrect. So many things that were said they're just not accurate. We respect the point of view of the speaker. He's clearly passionate about what he would like to see with the parcel but we also know the nature of the parcel and I would say this too with respect to Drossos across the street nobody mischaracterized who they are or what they do. We all know they have the miniature golf and the wonderful snack bar and many of us have been there many times and there's been no misstating who they are it was just a mention of the fact that that is there, it's on a Main Rd.there's a substation within five hundred feet and this is industrially zoned property.Those are actual accurate factual representations and that's all we seek to do is to look at this precisely, passionately and examining the application of the code to what we have before us and I think all of the folks here have done that with a great respect and they've done it also with great precision and thank you very much for that opportunity to address those comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're welcome. Speaking of Drossos across the street,we do have in the Q&A a question from the owner and I will ask it but certainly invite that owner to come in Elaine Fredrickson if she wants to speak. BOARD ASSISTANT I also have two people who have raised their hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's find out if because Steve just mentioned them and I'm going to read this and if she wants to come in next to ask anything more that's fine, if not then I'll just ask you to answer her question. She just wonders about again going back to"the'noise pollution level because she wants to know how impactful it's going to actually be. That's a resort and recreational business and she and her employees and her customers, were they going to have to listen to constant HVAC droning hum all day every day and how will this affect our health and well-being? Is there anything else you can add to address that question that you haven't already done when I asked you about you know noise pollution and so on. STEVE LOSQUADRO : I think I'll just ask Walter and Jason if they want to add anything else. What I would say is this,the Vice Chairman had a follow up earlier regarding that and he touched upon something that we were able to address which I think is a very fundamental point and that is that that ambient noise is going to be less than of course what you have from the Main Rd. itself so when you have people there at Drossos and they're staying in the Motel and that's just of course on the north side of the Main Rd. what they're going to hear is that traffic back and forth all the time from the Main Rd. and as has been pointed out sometimes it's significant. What they're not going to hear is what comes from us because as we've already established that's just much less. I think I could ask Jason and Walter if there's anything else they wanted to add with respect to that. JASON FUNK : I really appreciate that question, I actually was anticipating that a question like that would come from that property so I really do appreciate that. I think as we mentioned before 72 Regular Meeting-February 4, 2021 the noise is like a hum from a transformer'something along those lines and our noise predictive modeling that we've seInt'to the ZBA actually shows that you know the 50 dba which is the night time number that we need to meet to show that we're in compliance doesn't even cross Main Rd. Route 25. Where the motel is and where everything is would receive practically nothing it likely will not be noticeable. We can probably do additional look at this and predict you know how far out 40 dba or 30 but once you get to those levels you're talking about a library. So it's extremely quiet and when you factor that in to background noise it's not just the cars on Main Rd. at night, the wind blowing through -the trees and the leaves. There's no cars coming the sound of that will be louder across the street there than the noise if you want to call it-noise but the sound emanating from the inverters on our project site as they would,be heard from that property. So you know aside from me telling you that and being able to show through the predictive sound 'models that's at this point that's really all we can say but rest assured background noise in and of itself would certainly be at a level'that most likely you would not hear the sound coming from the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Jason. We do have three other we now have four hands up nope five hands up, six hands up okay. Now I do think it's important that everybody be heard. You all know very well that this is a big project for the town and there are people who live here that are most concerned and interested so let's make sure we have MEMBER ACAMPORA : If I could just add I just want to go back to the owner of Drossos, I would be more concerned about a peaker the old peaker that runs with the noise of the peaker and the emissions of the peaker. This is something that probably why LIPA has all these RFP's and RFI's out is because they're trying to get•rid of all these old polluting and noisy peakers that are spread throughout Nassau and Suffolk counties. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Pat, actually she's got a hand up. BOARD ASSISTANT : Do you want Elaine to come in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Elaine Fredrickson,that's who we're talking about now so let's be fair and let her go and then we'll go in,the order of the hands raised. Elaine unmute yourself please. ELAINE FREDRICKSON : Hi. Yes this is,Elaina and I'm very concerned about this. We're all aware of Drossos, it's been in my family for seventy years it's been there and you know I'm concerned about what I said earlier as far as the sound, the impact you know some of the comments that were made about all the traffic will drown out the sound, well we all know this is not a high trafficked area. When it gets very calm and quiet the way we all love it we are going to hear that hum.for you know hours on end and you know what is it going to do to our environment, to our peace of mind and to my business? 73 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for your concern, expressing your concern. I think the applicants have answered as best they can at the moment. Unless you really have anything else you want to add we can go on to maybe another question. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm going to move in a Greg Kaufman. GREG KAUFMAN : Good afternoon everybody. Very similar to an earlier caller I was planning on just sitting and listening in on this call and I'll preface this by saying I do not live in the Northfork in fact I'm across the Sound in Connecticut but I work for a manufacturer who is very, very interested in the proliferation of the energy storage space and we do that on a safety front. So what I've hear today and a lot of the questions and all of them valid, all questions that are being asked across the country and I do support this technology from a safety standpoint across the United States, Canada into Latin America and I think what we're seeing in terms of energy storage as part of the entire renewable structure as we kind of evolve our national grid network is you know energy storage is just one component of the energy storage evolution and I think from an impact standpoint I really support the Savion folks and the team here from saying you know if you look at an application for a very low impact application, energy storage really kind of goes to the forefront where we often see the other renewable sources out there and somebody eluded to it very well is if you're putting a solar farm out there you've got to dedicate an awful lot of acreage to receive the kind of megawatt production that you're looking for. Conversely to that and you know we look at'the plans of the Governor of New York and New England and the rest V of the country and everybody wants to get on the green energy band wagon and rightfully so as we migrate away from fossil fuels but it's that old adage of you know everybody's in favor of it until it lands in their back yard and I think what we're seeing is when we talk about wind generation it's all well and good as long as it's far enough out into the ocean or if it's far enough out into the bay or a solar away that's far enough away from me. So I'll speak from the perspective of again not having not living in the area but I've certainly made the trek between New York City and Orient Point to take the ferry on many, many occasions. One of the other questions that was raised was, who else in New York is doing this? Well I can tell you right now that NYPA is considering a huge battery energy storage to replace a plant over in Queens. So energy storage is here and because we live in the northeast we're in densities right, there's not a lot of free areas where we can throw these type of energy storage containers where nobody is going to see them or be impacted by them and being part of the a large manufacturer that's been in the HVAC space for a very long time. I'll kind of confirm what the panel has been saying from an impact of noise. I think the air handlers on top of these containers is very,very,very minimum. It should be somethingthat's you know beyond standing outside the gates you really won't notice that they're there. Again I just want to add my two cents, I wasn't planning on saying anything but while the counterpoint is very valid I just want to get my experience from being in the industry for a while. So thank you very much for allowing me a few minutes. 74 Regular Meeting Febr_uar-y_4,.2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely, thank you very much for your comments. We have four others. Do we have any order they were raised in or we don't know? BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm going to promote a John Divello. JOHN DIVELLO : How is everybody? So I happen to be the property owner and this kind of just fell in my lap. If I thought that there was any negative environmental impact on this I certainly wouldn't do it. I mean not one tree needs to be cleared,there's nothing on the property,there's nothing there.You mention that the property gets wet but that house that's on that property has never had even an inch of water in the basement. I mean I'm born and raised here and I know during Sandy we didn't have power for thirteen days. So this is needed and completely not evasive to anything as far as you know if I was to build storage units I mean I'm in the garbage and recycling business, rental units whatever it was would be far more evasive and worse than what these guys are trying to do and that's really all I have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well thank you very much Mr. Divello. Louise Harrison, bring her in. LOUISE HARRISON : Hi everybody. Thanks for,,letting me speak at your hearing. It's all very interesting I learned a lot. I have a couple of important things to say I think. One is that I fully support the comments made by Randy Wade and the groups she was representing today in her comments. I'm fully in support of renewable energy sources and the Governor's plan to bring New York State into a low carbon emissions position. I've been an environmentalist my entire career, I understand what's at stake. I understand that we cannot have renewable energy sources be successful without energy storage. So I'm fully in support of energy storage facilities but there is a growth inducing aspect to this project. Once it's situated it becomes a place that new transmission lines are going to be seeking to attach to. I know that's not grammatically correct but the battery coming first lends itself to future transmission from renewable energy sources. We're going to have wind farms off of Montauk, there will be solar farms coming here and there and this battery will be sitting there ready and waiting as peaker plants begin to be decommissioned.So even though it's for a good cause like renewable energy,this battery storage facility in and of itself has growth inducing impacts that need to be considered not just in a SEQRA review but by all of us with eyes wide opened. If for instance energy were to come across the Peconic Bay up into Pipes Cove and with a desire to hook it up to this battery storage facility the public service commission would assert itself I'm sure, and because it is exempt from many regulations would find a way Ito go through the preserved land. It would find a way to hook up to the battery storage'facility. Just because the proponents the project'proponents have no plans at this time to hook up with other sources'of transmission does not mean that that would not happen. I do think it-needs'to be addressed because as-soon as the public service commission is involved'in things the public's concerns can be overridden under many circumstances. That's my 75 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 broadest concern. On a more site specific level I'm concerned about a ten foot freshwater wetland setback which is nearly impossible to protect. I was in freshwater wetlands protection for years and I understand that even a fifteen foot setback is hard to enforce. It offers no buffer whatsoever and no special protection to the wetland but under construction circumstances it's nearly impossible to enforce unless you have a monitor on site pointing to that exact point of the ten foot boundary line and not letting anything in that area but a ten foot buffer offers no protection to a wetland. So I object to that fact that this is interfering with the wetland resource. I also am concerned about some of the questions that were brought earlier about flooding because it was addressed in terms of storm water runoff. Those of you who are not from Long Island may not realize that flooding comes up from below. We have groundwater that rises when there's rainfall, significant rainfall. It rises regionally, it's not just a matter of surface flow. There is surface impact of course with heavy rains but we also have a regional rise in ground water and any installations like drywells just become flooded ground itself and there's no actual benefit in drainage when groundwater and drywells intersect. So your typical storm water runoff abatement scenarios don't work when groundwater is rising. If you have a wet site as you do here that's certainly a consideration. You may find even that pouring cement pads in that area becomes an issue. You may have to elevate them, you may have to have different underlayment and then you've got a higher facilities than we've been discussing today although I know you said the height was variable depending on what the final plans would be. Anyway my overall concern is with the growth inducing impacts of this even though I'm totally in favor of energy storage facilities. It's my strong belief this is a bad site and I'm totally in favor of continued and additional open space preservation in this area and would urge the property owner who is listening today to please consider any offers for open space preservation. Thank you very much for your time today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, and we have comments from two others. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'm going to promote Jenn Hartnagel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go ahead and do that but Steven I think you wanted to respond to that. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Would you like us to address Ms. Harrison briefly? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Because she raised different points that we haven't heard and there was in particular this notion of growth inducing impacts as she called them. I think we have to realize that there's already a LIPA substation that is present and I know Walter is going to speak to the import of that and what that means in the context of what Ms. Harrison was saying but there is a LIPA substation that already exists and essentially what she was saying although I understand 76 Regular Meeting February 4,2021_ the thought process behind it but it was really an exercise in speculati'o'n because it sort of raises the specter that you're going to have some sort of massive amounts of interconnection and lines coming in to this battery energy storage-project which is just not what's going,to happen and that's not how it works. So I think maybe to clarify that and-to debunk a little bit of that type of conjecture maybe Walter you can just put that in context. WALTER MEISNER :'Just to respond to Ms. Harrison's perspective and points. I think it's important to understand that the transmission infrastructure is already established in LIPA territory on Long Island and so our proposed project is not new generation, it's a-storage project and it's essentially if we in some terminology say a (inaudible) alternative. So in fact what our project would do in contrast I think to what-was implied is we would actually be reducing the maybe potential need for increasing additional infrastructure.There would be no intent or there really wouldn't be any (inaudible)or reason for us to be then connected to some other generational infrastructure.We'll be connecting to the grid at this location at this substation. If a wind farm would come in,to another location on that transmission the electrons are free flowing right so they can connect somewhere else. Out project still provides the same functionality there's no need for us to connect from A to B there can be the transmission infrastructure between. So I think that kind of hopefully clarifies that point. By no means does this project invite additional infrastructure into to connect to. Then I just wanted to maybe just make one more point on the flooding issue, I know we've kind of talked about that already a couple of times today but you know we're well aware of it. The project site is as I said above the five hundred foot flood plain. The project location is actually probably some of the higher topography in the area and you know the project would be appropriately designed. I don't for see ,any issues there and we do appreciate the observations and the pointers,and we'll certainly make sure that our engineers are fully aware of you know the potential concerns that have been made today to take into consideration but we don't anticipate any. JASON FUNK :This is Jason, real quick I wanted to clarify one other thing,the ten foot buffer that the DEC has requested in our conversations is not a ten foot buffer from the wetland itself. It's'a ten foot buffer from the existingwood line or forested line within the one hundred foot'adjacent area next to the wetlands. So depending on where that line is it will probably anywhere from twenty to thirty five feet from the buffer from the wetland itself. Also the DEC noted that they would also be requesting a fence like a post-and rail fence that is marked on noting that it is a buffer. All these things have been discussed and certainly will be part of our Article XXIV Permit when the time comes. I just wanted to point that out. CRISTINA ZOLEZI :This is Cristina with Langan. I just wanted to point out we did do soil testing on the site preliminarily, groundwater_range.from six feet to fifteen feet below grade. So when we design our storm water systems it will take all that into consideration. A lot of the soil is like a 77 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 sandy material until you get down much,deeper but you know again we would take all that into consideration when designing our systems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Cristina. Let's see Jenn Hartnagel can you unmute yourself please and tell us what you'd like us to hear. JENN HARTNAGEL: Hi yes good afternoon. My name is Jenn Hartnagel and I'm speaking on behalf of The Group For The East End. For those of you not familiar, the group has been around since 1972 and we're an environmental advocacy and education organization. We serve the environmental and planning interest of the five east end towns and I appreciate the opportunity to comment today. My (inaudible) focus really on the need for what we believe is additional environmental review of this particular application and we'd like a focus to be on a serious consideration of alternative sites to house this battery storage facility. We cannot underestimate the ecological value of the parcel. I know you've heard it many times today. It's highlighted by virtually every level of government's recognition of it. It's in each and every one of their preservation plans and they call for their continued desire to preserve this parcel. We fully support the Town of Southold's memo that was written by Land Conservation from John Sepenoski. It really speaks volumes regarding the additional scrutiny that this application requires. We too had concerns about flooding and how this would impact the facility in case the area was flooded so it that could be addressed it seems like it's going to be that would be great. We also wanted to bring up the fact that it is a special exception obviously as you know and it should only be granted if they can demonstrate no negative effects on the particular property and area and without a coordinated expanded environmental review we do not believe that the ZBA can really grant this permit at this time. Again,there should be an examination of alternative sites for this type of facility. This project is a long term public utility use and there needs to be some assessment of the best possible locations throughout the town and the town should be weighing in on this. It was mentioned earlier that LIPA has chosen sites, they were going to be coming out with the second part of the RFP for that so it seems a bit that we're putting the cart before the horse. Where are these sites and we need to consider them as part of the bigger picture. I think that's it for right now, other speakers have hit on most of the other points I was going to bring up. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and we look forward to continuing to review this project. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a Chris hand raised. Can you bring that person in. CHRIS LARKIN : Hello good afternoon. Thank you very much. I want to thank the Zoning Board Members for all this time on this topic. Unfortunately I wasn't able to hear most of the presentation and I'll be brief. I'm a resident of Greenport and about two and half weeks ago I actually walked that the trails over there, Pipes Cove and I would just want to echo some of the other callers concerns I mean support of this technology but if there's any possibility of finding 78 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 another location because it is absolutely-a spectacular spot area that has been preserved and it seems as if we can preserve that last piece it would really be a wonderful like a crown jewel to that little area. Again, many of the other speakers, callers were concerned about the,impact, again it's a great project but please make every effort to try to find another place for it. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just for everyone's information, this is being recorded and a written transcript verbatim transcript will be available at a future date. It will be typed up and become part of the public record and will be available to the public, so if anybody wants to read it someone who wasn't here, wanted to be or some of you who want to review anything that was said that's all going to be possible. Again, as I said earlier we're going to hold this hearing open, I'm going to adjourn it to riext month and we'll see if we get comments you know from the Planning Board which we require and you know we'll make that available to the applicant of course so they can address them and we will also make sure it's on Laserfiche so anyone interested can have access to that document as well. At this point, is there anything from any Board Member? . , MEMBER DANTES : Do we have any records of any flooding actually being on that property, does anyone know? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know but we can certainly find out. We can ask Land Preservation, we can ask the Planning Board, we can ask the Building Department, we can research that and see. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie if I could just add and I think that this is maybe known by the applicant but it is flood Zone X. It's really only a little bit of the western portion even though the survey would illustrate where the wetlands are in the southeast corner according to the FEMA maps and I was just looking FEMA maps do not illustrate wetlands on the south end it's only on the west so maybe there should be some clarification about the actual zone and it's flood risk. MEMBER DANTES : Do you guys have the elevations on these maps you gave us? MEMBER LEHNERT :They have to be FEMA compliant at the end of the day. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but that's a concern of them raising these out of you know the battery storage units above grade and it would seem based on the FEMA maps it's not even you know well CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's not in a FEMA flood zone they're not going to have to elevate them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's not needed. 79 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : I think maybe just labeling the actual elevation on the survey might be able to clarify that whole issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All good points. Again I'll reiterate that this is not so typical because usually when we look at a Special Exception Permit it is a very specific application with specific site plans and so on and because of the nature of this RFP and this rather unusual process,they're not going to be able to move forward without certain approvals in place and so that's why we agreed to hear it. We wanted to make sure the public was aware of it and you know we know that this technology is coming is forthcoming whether it's on this site or another. So we're just moving forward with as much care and information as we can possibly gather. So no decision is going to be made for the immediate time the record is still open. So if anybody either here or who wasn't able to be here and wishes to make any kind of written comments and submission, that can happen. If we're able to move forward by next month which I think we will because I don't think Planning is going to need longer than that, that will be made available and we'll continue the discussion at that time with another public hearing. MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask Leslie for them to just add the actual elevation data to the survey? I think that should be pretty simple for Langan to do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's alright right you can do that. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from anybody either in attendance or promoted to panelist, last comments. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie John Divello has his hand up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Go ahead John and say JOHN DIVELLO : I just wanted to let you know I mean I've owned that property for three or four years and people live in that house and it's never flooded. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you did say that you did mention that. Alright anything else from anybody? We've had a long day and a long hearing and it's an important one so we'll take whatever time we need to make sure that everybody is informed so we can move forward with whatever judgement we can best render into the situation. Okay, hearing nothing else unless Steve you want to make any closing comments or have you pretty much said what you need to at this point. STEVE LOSQUADRO : I think just before we got to the questions or the question portion of the presentation, I think I did summarize one final time and we'll make sure of course appropriately 80 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 we respond to anything that's new or different that's raised in the record through written submission and having said that of course let me thank you for the time. Everybody took quite a bit of time and it was very thoughtful and very thorough today and we appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're welcome that's our job, good public service. Okay well hearing no further comments or questions I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to March 41h. We'll put it on the afternoon, it'll be after probably about 2 o'clock but we'll make sure it will be in the agenda, it will all be published so check the website for our agenda.You'll see what time it is and the link will be available on the agenda. I have a motion on the floor, is there a second from someone? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat Acampora seconded it. Kim call the roll please. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries unanimously. We'll see you next month. I'm now going to make a motion to close the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim call the roll I guess. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora how do you vote? 81 Regular Meeting February 4, 2021 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how to you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD ASSISTANT : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. 82 Regular Meeting February 4, 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 Uj Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : February 16, 2021 83