Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/04/2021 Hearing Regular Meeting March 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 March 4, 2021 10:09 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Jim Brodsky#7466 5- 12 Vincent Bertault#7467 12- 26 Vincent Bertault#7468SE 12- 26 Samuel J. Dimeglio Jr. #7469 27- 31 Michael Kreger#7470 31-40 Robert and Donna Drummond #7471 40-44 Cottage on Third, LLC#7472 45- 59 David Zappulla #7473 59- 62 James and Laurie Carney#7474 62- 66 Christopher and Marian Briggs#7477 66- 68 Konstantinos Diakovasilis#7465SE 69- 69 Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC#7463SE 70- 89 2 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for March 4th. 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 March 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. Let me ask Liz, can you please review with those in attendance how they can participate in the hearing. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS :Thank you Leslie. Good morning everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send 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 you can let us know which application you are here for. We'll give you further instructions if you're using a phone once we know which application you are here for. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Before we get to the first hearing I have some SEAR determinations/resolutions to review. Resolution pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review(SEAR)6 NYCRR Part 617 the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals as lead agency performed a coordinated review of this Unlisted Action and hereby issues a Negative Declaration for the proposed action described below : Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC#7463SE. The applicant is requesting 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, i.e. battery energy storage system facility located at 69430 Main Rd. in Greenport so moved. Is there a second for that resolution? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Planamento seconded the motion. Liz would you please call the roll. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. 3 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. Now I have another resolution of SEAR, resolution 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 C including the following : Jim Brodsky, Vincent Bertault, Vincent Bertault SE application, Samuel DiMeglio, Michael Kreger, Robert and Donna Drummond, Cottage on Third, David Zappulla, James and Laurie Carney and Christopher and Marian Briggs so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 4 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries. HEARING#7466—JIM BRODSKY J CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The first application before the Board is for Jim Brodsky#7466. Let me read into the record the Legal Notice. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280- 15 and the Building Inspector's December 2, 2020 amended December 8, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage in conjunction with a new single family dwelling at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 1895 Pequash Ave. in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application. I see he's already admitted. It looks like you're unmuted. This is an accessory garage in a side yard on an undeveloped piece of property.This is all new construction and it's deemed to be an accessory because it is attached by an open breezeway and not conditioned space. What else would you like to tell us about this application? JIM BRODSKY : I'm not sure, do you have any specific questions? I think you got it. The original design of the project was that the accessory structure is connected to the main house with a continuous roof and the breezeway space between them we were not aware of the limit of 80 sq. ft. to allow the exception that makes the accessory structure okay in the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well an accessory structure in a side yard is never permitted. It has to be in a rear yard or it has to be on waterfront properties it can be in a front yard provided it meets the principle setback. JIM BRODSKY : The exception I was referring to it was explained to us that if the breezeway that connects the accessory structure to the main the primary structure is 80 sq. ft. or less then the breezeway creates an exception for the accessory structure in the side yard. That was our understanding that may not be correct but that's what was explained to us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're saying the Building Department told you if I'm getting this right that if that breezeway was smaller it would be considered attached? JIM BRODSKY :Yes in effect yes but no not that it would be attached it would still be an accessory structure but there's something in the code that creates an exception for the accessory structure in the side yard if there's a breezeway that's 80 sq. ft. or less. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well if that was the case why are we here? 5 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. JIM BRODSKY : Because our breezeway is more than 80 sq. ft. It was explained to us that we excluded ourselves from that exception by having a breezeway that was actually too big. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How big is it? JIM BRODSKY : It's about 180 sq. ft. but it's size really is a function of its depth from the street view which we thought was you know the most important aspect of its dimensionality. The breezeway is only 6 feet wide which is pretty standard if not smaller than many breezeways that are part of what has created exception. It's just that the breezeway runs the full depth of the house connecting the front yard to the back yard as open space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well it seems so unnecessary to get a variance when you're designing something from scratch that's brand new. I mean can you attach it or can you at least put you know make that a conditioned you can still have a visually transparent see through by simply putting glass you know around it and then it's conditioned space. Or you can attach it to the house and make the variance go away. JIM BRODSKY:Yeah it would be ourfirst choice to be able to build this design particularly because the driving force of the exterior design and the breezeway was the idea that reminiscent of stables in the area that you'd be able to move from the front yard to the back yard through the space outside but you know moving through the house but outside the house. That opened channel was you know a driving part of the initial design so while there may be some ways we can change the design and avoid the variance, we opted to try to go through with this because our hope is to build that initial design given that the breezeway itself is not really obstructive or large from the street view. You know the whole view of the house is not really it wouldn't be different if we changed that's the irony here, if we made those concessions or changed the design in a way that made the variance go away the look of the house from the street would be the same.The width would be the same,the height would be the same,the opening of the breezeway perhaps in the front if we put glass in the middle to make it square footage shorter it would be the same so we wouldn't really be changing any impact on the neighbors or the environment or the view of the house we would just be compromising the design to work around the rule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :-Well the Board of Appeals is here to grant relief when there is no alternative so we'll have to see what other Board members have to say let me see Pat let me start with you, do you have any questions or comments? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Again I think you just went through this with regard to why not conform and change the design so that you wouldn't have to come before us for a variance. 6 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 JIM BRODSKY : Right and the answer to that was because the only way we could do that would be to close up the breezeway and the hope was to have it open. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Or not have a breezeway. JIM BRODSKY : Right and yes we could change I mean we could change the design in a number of ways but it wouldn't be the design you know so the breezeway was like I said the centerpiece of the exterior design of the house given its length to separate that and open that up with space and light, that was sort of the driving force behind the design and the length of the breezeway exceeding the amount of square footage that creates the exception was the part that we were not aware of in the beginning until it was explained to us that that breezeway exception has a cutoff at 80 sq. ft. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's not really an argument for variance relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Basically you're just telling us you want what you want. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well here's the thing, you're going to get you're going to get a visual penetration through that breezeway but you're not going to get light you have a roof over it. So very little light is going to penetrate it. Another option would be to cut down the roof and use just a patio continue your patio through and make that breezeway shorter. It still accomplishes the same thing. JIM BRODSKY : I'm not sure I appreciate it, I'm not sure I understand the suggestion that you just made. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The breezeway is too long. You can make it code compliant by cutting down the overhead roof to 80 sq.ft. and continuing the at grade corridor with a patio that wraps around from the one you're proposing if it's that important to you but you have to show it to the Building Department to make sure that it's right. You can probably do it by hand sketch to show it to them. JIM BRODSKY : Unfortunately I'm trying unfortunately I'm not following your there is existing patio already CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know, what I'm saying is put some of that in to the breezeway area and don't roof over that part only roof over the part from the front yard as far back as 80 sq. ft. will allow you to go and it will still be considered attached. It would then be code conforming. Is there a way to well look I don't want to belabor this I mean we're not here to really redesign this 7 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 thing. It's your option to consider making it conforming but the point is I think the Board is basically saying you have a number of options available to you. MEMBER LEHNERT : You have a blank slate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean most of the time if a variance is required on brand new construction it's because there's some really anomalous condition on the lot shape or size that you know they're just stuck but you have an undeveloped piece of property and you're not stuck at all but I'm proposing to you a way to retain the essence of what it is you're feeling is significant as part of your design concept but make it conforming. JIM BRODSKY : If I'm understanding your suggestion we have to take off a significant amount of the breezeway roof in order to turn that through space into non-breezeway space? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes. JIM BRODSKY : and only keep the portion of it breezeway space that is 80 sq. ft.? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. JIM BRODSKY : So then the design problem I see with that is we have a weird break in the roof on the front slope of the front face of the house because the roof would break before it gets to the ridge CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Possibly, yes. MEMBER LEHNERT : Our purview is not aesthetics. JIM BRODSKY : I understand that I mean you started introducing suggestions so I was just trying to understand them and we appreciate that. I do understand that's not the point of this but part of the reason we continued to pursue this is that our hope was to be able to build the house the way it was designed you know. That's the reason I'm trying to understand your suggestions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Brodsky to that point, do you have evidence of prior relief granted for similar issues as what you're seeking? JIM BRODSKY : No we were not aware that we should look for any precedence or examples but we could.We were told you know honestly by the Building Department when it was explained to us that the breezeway was larger than allowed for the exception it was explained to us that because everything about the house is still sort of the same. If we connected a wall and made it attached or if we closed up the breezeway and made it not a breezeway as you guys suggested, it was explained to us that because all of that is not going to change the impact of the house on the street or the neighborhood or the height or the width or anything that it was likely honestly 8 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 that this wouldn't be an issue so we may have failed to prepare for this in that we may have been misled to believe that this would not go the way it is now going which we certainly respect but you know this is our first time dealing with something like this and we were not given the sense that being prepared in the way you're describing would be necessary or you know to our advantage. We just thought we had to show up and sort of,represen,t the truth CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we understand. MEMBER DANTES : What was the name of the individual who told you about the exception? JIM BRODSKY : It was Amanda who explained to us that breezeways create an exception when there is either a roof you know a continuous roof that creates the breezeway then creates an exception for the side yard garage if that breezeway is 80 sq. ft. or less. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Brodsky in spirit of cooperation I'd like to offer you the possibility of a little bit of time to think through what you want to do before we render a decision. Our next meeting is in two weeks. If you want to take a few days or a little while to explore what we've talked about before we make a decision which would be in two weeks from today. We can just leave this hearing open and give you an opportunity to explore this further or if you prefer we can simply close this and have a decision in two weeks. I'm going to leave it up to you. I'm sure the Board is fine with that, yes nod your heads one way or the other. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine okay everybody is saying that's fine. It sounds to me like you may feel a little bit blindsided by this process and we don't want that to be the case with our neighbors so if there's something you'd like to think through maybe do a little bit of sketching to see what the change in that roof line would look like,think through other options,think about attaching it whatever you want to do and if you want to just leave it the way it is we'll deal with it and if you want to make some changes let us know let the office know call them and we'll look at a possible amended slightly amended application. Possibly you can go back to the Building Department and make the variance go away. JIM BRODSKY : Right, based on what we've talked about it seems to us that if we made the kinds of changes or re-sketched or you know the way you're describing but it would make the whole point of doing that would be to make the variance go away and so we wouldn't necessarily need to come back to you guys with to continue this process if we were going to go down the road of making those changes cause it would only make sense to make those changes in a way that didn't require this process anymore. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's correct. 9 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 JIM BRODSKY : Not a middle ground where we're going to change half of it but still need a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right. JIM BRODSKY : My question would be, if we delay the decision or come back in two weeks as you're offering and we can find some precedent of rulings that were similar situations or you know would that help us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it could possibly but they would need to be somewhere in the neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think immediately on Pequash. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yea MEMBER DANTES : I'm pretty sure you're not going to find a precedent not for new construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think so and there's the vast majority of garages on Pequash are attached.So I don't know that that's going to be helpful.Why don't we do this, I can see that you really want to pursue this option. If it's approved it's approved, if it's denied you'll have to make those changes anyway and go back to the Building Department and make it conform one way or the other. So let's just proceed that way, doesn't that make much more sense? JIM BRODSKY :That certainly makes sense to us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then I'm going to make a motion, is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address this application? If so please raise your hand. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes there's a raised hand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please state your name please. AMANDA AYZENBERG : Hi my name is Amanda Sena Ayzenberg sometimes my son's school name comes up. I live in 1.675 Pequash so I'll be neighbors which is exciting. I support my new neighbor with whatever they want to do. One thing that I noticed on the plan and it looks very similar to what we have except we have an attached garage is that the garage is going to be on the side and right now we have some nice screening of the trees for some privacy purposes on both sides of our property so this might be totally random and not part of what you guys needs to hear right now but I didn't know if I would have any other opportunity just to understand if there will still be some maintenance of privacy screening on this side yard? 10 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That depends on the amount of clearing that the applicant needs to do on the site or proposes to do.Jim can you address that? JIM BRODSKY : Our intention when finished with the project is to have a fairly private yard for ourselves and as well to create the same sense of privacy for our immediate neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're going to try and leave undisturbed whatever natural vegetation you can on the site? JIM BRODSKY : No I didn't understand the question in that way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think am I correct, you're concerned about tree clearance along or about planting (inaudible) AMANDA AYZENBERG : Not necessarily just that there would be some sort of vegetative screening along the side yard to maintain some of that privacy really and it's only because our sunroom is full of windows over here so we just want to make sure that it's you know that there's some privacy towards the back end and the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's basically something you need to talk to your neighbor about because it doesn't really have an impact on what's before us. That would be a landscape plan that you know he would have to put up to provide some privacy maybe evergreen screening along the property line. It's an undeveloped site so I didn't particularly go and look at your property or if you know I was just basically looking what was along Pequash in general so that's really not something that this Board can entertain requiring at this point but that's something that's neighborly and I would imagine you both want a bit of privacy. You always have the option of putting up your own evergreen screening too on your own property. Is there anyone else who wants to address the application because I don't okay hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I'm sorry, were you closing it or adjourning it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to close it because we realized that the applicant isn't going to find precedent and that we can make our determination and if in fact it is not an approval they'll go back to the Building Department and redesign whatever he has to make it conform. So there's no point of doing that in advance. He wants us to proceed to see whether or not we will approve as applied for. That's why I'm proposing to close it, everybody in agreement with that? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yea let's close it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay there's a motion is there a second? 11 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7467 &#74685E—VINCENT BERTAULT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board actually I'm going to open both of these up at the same time. The applicant has two applications and we're going to be going back and forth anyway so let's open both of them. Vincent Bertault#7467 request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, 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 and construct an in ground swimming pool at 1) proposed additions located less than then code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) the accessory swimming pool is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 12 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 95 Navy Street in Orient. At the same time we have a Special Exception application #7468 for Vincent Bertault.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 95 Navy St. in Orient. We have Eric Bressler here and we have Vincent Bertault. It would appear the first application for a front yard setback and an in-ground pool, house and fence additions and alterations are going to create a front yard setback of 3 feet where the code requires 35. The pool in the front yard is supposed to be in a required rear yard and this property of course has two front yards and there is a need for a Certificate of Appropriateness from Landmarks Preservation for the house on Navy St. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Before everyone speaks, did we ever receive the Certificate of Appropriateness? I didn't see anything in my file from the Building Department regarding floor area verification. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have that either, let's ask the applicant. ERIC BRESSLER : This is Eric Bressler. The answer to that question is no. The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is currently pending before the Town Board on an appeal from a denial from the HPC.The matter is scheduled again to be heard hopefully for resolution purposes on the 10th before the HPC by arrangement with HPC and Mr. Burke. So the answer to your question is no you haven't but let me make one further comment about that Certificate of Appropriateness just so the Board has a full understanding of what the inner play of that particular application is with this application. Three points, first the accessory apartment is not before the HPC,second the two front yards the swimming pool is obviously is not before the HPC and third the points of disagreement with the HPC do not include the porch the proposed porch which the subject of one of the variance applications. That plan was presented to HPC with a porch and their initial determination has no objection to that particular aspect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was their objection? ERIC BRESSLER : Well madam Chairperson that is the right question and that is the reason we are in front of the Town Board. Our primary contention is that it is impossible to tell exactly what their objections are because they failed to tell us in their determination as required by code exactly what was needed in order to bring us into compliance. We have only generalized statements about the scope of the project so in order to obviate potentially the appeal to the Town Board and what we view is either a remand or reversal, we're meeting again with them to try to quantify what their objections actually are so that we can address them but one of the things that is certain is it's not the porch and the pool and the accessory apartment were never part of the application. 13 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you please bring up the screen share can you just scroll down, yeah cause that's what we're looking at the yellow okay that's the setback from Navy St. and the existing house is pretty close to the street. ERIC BRESSLER : Yes it is and as part of this project not only is the house close to the street but as I'm sure the Board is aware at the time it wasn't really constructed with a view towards flood plains.So what we're doing is raising up that house at the same time in order to give us our FEMA conformance and what we plan to do was add this wrap around porch which as you can see at no point is as close as the closest approach to the street and it tapers off as the porch moves to the east. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric if I can before we go on to the application, there is a discussion that there was a determination by the HPC, can that be shared with the Board for our review as part of our application packet? ERIC BRESSLER : I don't know that that's going to provide any additional information for two reasons. Well first of all let me say that's a matter of public record and if you want to see it I am happy to provide it to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I'd appreciate that. ERIC BRESSLER : With two caveats, number one it's not final because it's on appeal and number two I dare say the Board is not going to find it very revealing with respect to what the HPC thinks and thirdly you are welcomed to see that it doesn't impact any of the issues that are before the Board but that having been said I'm happy to provide it to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you talk a little bit about since this is what flood zone is this in? ERIC BRESSLER : I believe it's X. So we need the elevation, we need the 8 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's X you don't need that. It's AE that you need that. MEMBER LEHNERT :You're AE ERIC BRESSLER : I'm sorry you are correct. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah your plan shows AE elevation 6 feet. ERIC BRESSLER : So we need to raise it some. There doesn't seem to be any objection from HPC on that and that's not before the Board but by way of information that's just out there. 14 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well while we're talking about elevations and so on talk to us a little bit about what's going on with the fill and with soil disturbance within that barn and the back that is proposed to be converted. Are they digging in there cause it looks like piles of soil are (inaudible) removed from the foundation. ERIC BRESSLER : What's going on there madam Chairperson was that there was an application made and granted to move that barn and what you're seeing is the results of the movement of the barn and the placing onto the foundation. We have not yet received the necessary approvals from either HPC or the Building Department to do anything further and of course we haven't received your approval to obtain the accessory apartment.So that's what you're looking at when you see that and whichever member went out there and looked at it I'm sure CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all did. ERIC BRESSLER :Yea you saw that,that's the result of the approved movement and all of that will be dealt with in the fullness of time with the regrading depending of what we get approved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So to the point when you mention the word regrading I'm a little puzzled because I'm sorry we're talking over one another. MEMBER DANTES : I just thought if they're moving the barn it's in a non-conforming front yard location so why wouldn't that require a variance? ERIC BRESSLER : We did not need a variance, we got the necessary approvals. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From whom? ERIC BRESSLER : I'm not aware that that required a variance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where was it but wasn't originally in there in that front yard? MEMBER DANTES : Is it a new foundation or is it the location actually changed? I think a new foundation wouldn't need a variance but the location would. MEMBER LEHNERT: Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I believe the barn was moved. ERIC BRESSLER :That is correct a new foundation would not need a variance. MEMBER LEHNERT : Not if it was just lifted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The location is where it was it's just being put on a foundation is that what you're saying? 15 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 ERIC BRESSLER : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then why is the foundation raised so high? I mean it's not common for an accessory structure to meet FEMA compliancy. ERIC BRESSLER : I think out of an abundance of caution that's what was done. I don't see that as a problem. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) grading but the problem is your elevation is so high. It's not matter of grading it's a matter of bringing fill in with a substantial amount of retaining walls. ERIC BRESSLER : Well that has yet to be designed. We haven't gotten that far in the project yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you do know the whole thing is going to have to be compliant with Chapter 236 of the Town's Stormwater Management? ERIC BRESSLER : Of course. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the applicant wants to say is that someone trying to speak? VINCENT BERTAULT : Yes. Hi my name is Vincent Bertault and I'd like to address your question if I may. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please. VINCENT BERTAULT : You're asking about the grade, we submit the grading plan because there was a request from the Building Department and we addressed these documents to them and they've been approved. MEMBER DANTES : Can we have a copy of the grading plan? VINCENT BERTAULT : Sure absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you'll submit to us the grading plan and the approval. VINCENT BERTAULT :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you okay. VINCENT BERTAULT : And all of this excavation around the barn that is for all the drain and the French drain which needs to be applied within the foundation as well as the insulation, that's what is going on as well. I was requested to do a storm and management plan which is part of that process as well as the grade and all of this has been submitted to the town and approved. 16 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That helps. You're not putting any kind of a basement in that foundation? VINCENT BERTAULT : No nothing of that nature. MEMBER LEHNERT : No crawl space. VINCENT BERTAULT : Nope. MEMBER DANTES : Is the whole house being lifted on a new foundation? VINCENT BERTAULT : Well that's the plan of the project we submit to the HPC that's part of it yes. The house has to be raised up as all the foundation are falling apart as of now. MEMBER DANTES : So why not move it back a little bit and make it more code compliant? VINCENT BERTAULT : I don't think that would be an issue but we thought of it at some point and I think the (inaudible) and address that issue. I think even though if we move back the property I'm not I don't think we will meet the requirement. MEMBER DANTES : No you'll never get all the way there. MEMBER LEHNERT : No it's impossible. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would argue you can push the house back cause you still have the double road frontage. The barn is where the barn is, the other variances would go away if you just push the house back. It would be basically where the pool is starting. MEMBER DANTES : What's the average front yard setback on that block? Are you able to push the house back to meet the average to make that variance go away? VINCENT BERTAULT : The average there is 35 feet. You have that on the drawing you have a dotted line. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's the required. MEMBER DANTES :That's required but can you take the average on that block to meet code? VINCENT BERTAULT : I believe the average is about 8 feet if I recall because we sent that as part of the MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The site plan illustrates 17.3 feet. Rob are you saying the same thing as me? 17 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah the house next door on the site plan you know it's not scaled out and he doesn't show it but it's less than the required 35. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but Rob on Gary O'Connor's site plan it clearly states on page A- 1, average setback on Navy St. is 17.3 feet based on Peconic Surveyor's PC April 25, 2013. VINCENT BERTAULT : Yes it does. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The average setback if they could meet would be 17.3 ERIC BRESSLER :You know there's a further issue that we haven't discussed here and that is that the movement of a house of this age and construction is an entirely different animal from simply raising it up. MEMBER DANTES : No, no, no, no, no. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yeah, I've moved plenty of houses. MEMBER DANTES : I've moved them too. ERIC BRESSLER : This house is over a hundred and fifty years old and that presents I mean you knowyou're in the industry Member Lehnert,you knowthat movement involves additional costs, additional risks as opposed to simply raising it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct. ERIC BRESSLER : Okay so you know those issues MEMBER LEHNERT : It can be done. ERIC BRESSLER : Maybe it can be done but here are additional risks, there are substantial additional costs and if there were a problem with it I'm sure that you would agree that the problem would be or could be extremely substantial in nature here. So I don't think in the first instance and I will defer to my client but I don't think in the first instance that was considered as a viable alternative for those reasons. VINCENT BERTAULT : Yeah and the cost is not the same. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I would argue when you look at the cost of this project overall you know the barn relocation and the raising, rebuilding additions of an accessory apartment, swimming pools you know all kinds of raised wall to support the fill that will be brought in to meet a modest setback average is not that much when you look at the scope of the addition to the house. I mean while this could be construed even a demolition when you think about the amount of work that's going on to this particular residence let alone the site. 18 Regular Meeting March 4,2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here's the problem, I mean when you talk about raising it to FEMA compliance you are talking about a substantial elevation above what it typical in the hamlet of Orient. Those are old houses, they hug the ground okay we understand if they have to be you know updated and made safe and so on but'it's not going to be a little house and it's going to be three feet from a street and it's going to be much higher. There will be visual impacts and you know that may be one of the concerns for all we know you've obviously stated that the HPC is not giving you adequate information as to what their objections are but I would be quite surprised if that wasn't part of their consideration. VINCENT BERTAULT : No it was not. ERIC BRESSLER : I think'when you review their (inaudible) determination you will see.that that was not one of their issues.Their issues relate largely to the extent we can determine they relate to the proposed addition.They seem to have no problem with raising this up and it's a matter of several feet according to the survey but they don't seem to have a problem with that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it would be instrumental if CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The character of the neighborhood is one of the first criteria in variance relief is the character of the neighborhood and its impacts. That's why I raised the issue then what about the historic nature of the building. It's about what's going to happen to the streetscape? ERIC BRESSLER : Well that is the view from the street is going to be essentially the same VINCENT BERTAULT :The same. ERIC BRESSLER : and none of the comments we received from HPC or indeed any of the public comments related to the small change that was going to occur by making this FEMA compliant. We note that in the area subject to the jurisdiction of HPC that there are similar projects that are undergoing the same type of raising to protect themselves from the flood waters and they generally proceed without objection. As to the overall height the height is not inconsistent or would not be inconsistent with the other structures in the area and HPC is not taking that position but you can look at their determination. I also want to add that you know after all my prior comments about other houses in the area, I think madam Chairperson you correctly pointed out that as these houses get worked on and improved, salvaged however whatever kind of work is put on them the one by one I would presume that they will be brought into compliance with FEMA as I'm sure the Board is aware the entire area is subject to that type of requirement so I think what we're seeing is kind of a creeping compliance with the flood zone requirements and we're just in the middle of that. 19 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 ERIC BRESSLER : So Eric again to that point of character of the neighborhood and FEMA compliance the site plan illustrates that the house is ultimately to the same right now when you're standing on Navy St. and if you want to enter the front of the house on Navy St. you step up to a front porch on over one step so it's less than a foot above current grade. The application as submitted shows that the house to that very same front porch level is going to be 8 feet over the existing grade yet on the site plan you only show two steps because of the front yard setback. How do you propose access? You say that there will be no change to the character of the neighborhood and that it virtually will be visually the same where a passerby on a bicycle or a driving car or whoever is going to be looking at for lack of a better purpose I don't know how it will be finished the supporting structure under the porch whether it's lattice or some sort of stone work 8 feet which is almost a full room height with only two stairs to access that VINCENT BERTAULT : I'm not 8 feet. Hello can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes we can hear you. VINCENT BERTAULT : The house as of now is at 6.5. We need to raise the house about two feet above the existing grade. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's correct. He's showing elevation 6 in the corner. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the house is 6 so it's only going up 2 feet. But why is the barn raised 6 feet above grade? VINCENT BERTAULT : No it's not, it's raised 3 feet because the ground going towards Willow is lower than the one in the front. Everything has been done the corner on Willow and the property next to us on the west side is at 4.2 and we had to raise it to 8.2 so it's 4 feet above. ERIC BRESSLER : I would also note that if you look at that plan if you look at the stairs that are shown there it doesn't show two steps it shows more than two steps. So we're looking at a difference of 2 feet and if you look at that plan carefully you will note that because of the raising of the 2 feet it may not show from in fact it doesn't but I will tell you that the location of the steps have been moved to provide for the additional steps to get to the height. They've been moved over to the east side where there is sufficient room between the street line and the porch whereas before they were further to the west and there were fewer steps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you know what let's for a moment take a look at the 8 feet proposed unless somebody has something else they want to ask about this for the moment. I'd like to take a look at the application for the accessory apartment. ERIC BRESSLER : Certainly. 20 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The code does not permit an accessory apartment to be on two floors. You're proposing three uses in this barn.You're proposing a garage,you're proposing a workshop and you're proposing a two floor a two story apartment. Do you want to address that? ERIC BRESSLER : Well I think that the uses of the garage/workshop can be thought of as one use. They often go together. I will tell you that I am familiar from personal experience as well as visits to many properties that garages often contain work benches and workshops so respectfully I think that we are talking about the addition of the apartment use to the existing garage. Now the fact that we are before you does of course relate to the fact that we are looking for a variance form the one floor requirement and we think that that's justified under the circumstances because if we don't get that relief then the garage workshop use will essentially be lost. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes. ERIC BRESSLER : So that is the basis for that and we really have no good alternative to that particular situation. VINCENT BERTAULT : We also been required to have three parking spaces there. So two are on the lot and one would be inside the what would be the garage. That's a requirement we had for three parking spaces. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Is the garage space considered a parking space? I don't understand that. VINCENT BERTAULT : We have a request of three parking spaces. So two would be in the front and one inside. MEMBER LEHNERT : Does that even work? I thought all parking spaces had to be accessible from the street. ERIC BRESSLER :Well let me make two comments about that. First, obviously whether it's interior parking or exterior parking it would be accessible from the street but what we're going to do in that regard of course if we get relief is to deal with the Building Department and they will tell us where they think the spaces ought to be and whether they think this qualifies or not. In the application we have indicated that we will provide the necessary number of parking spaces and we will do that in accordance with whatever directions that we receive in that regard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to ask another question, it's clear that your intent is to should this be approved build this first so you can occupy it while your home is under renovation. VINCENT BERTAULT :That is correct Ms. Chairwoman. ERIC BRESSLER : Absolutely so otherwise it doesn't work. 21 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know you're living in that house, we know you have a business in Orient, we also know you have a place in the city. We do not have tax returns, we do not know that this is your principal residence. VINCENT BERTAULT : It's been my primary residence since then years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so you still have a place in the city but this is where you occupy VINCENT BERTAULT :This is my mother in law place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The one in the city? VINCENT BERTAULT : Yes I don't have a place in the city. Your archives show an address on 320 East which hasn't been the case since I don't know ten years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you also indicate that your intent is when you move into your home to have your mother in law live in the apartment. VINCENT BERTAULT :That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have no information verifying that relationship in our file and we always ask for an affidavit, for some marriage certificate, marriage certificate something to demonstrate that indeed the potential resident in the accessory apartment is a relative. VINCENT BERTAULT :That can be provided. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, please do that,that will help. Let's see do the Board members have anything else to say? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I got one thing to say. Looking through the packet I guess we did give a variance to move the barn at some point because it does say that on the building permit. VINCENT BERTAULT :Yes you did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah we did. MEMBER DANTES : I forgot all about it that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we did. Let me see if there's anyone in the audience who wants to address the application. If so would you please raise your hand and Liz will let you in. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I'm moving in a Gary O'Connor. GARY O'CONNOR : I'm sorry I am the architect. I had raised my hand earlier when I heard something about that you've covered it. 22 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay. Is there anything else you want to tell us at this point? GARY O'CONNOR : No I think you've covered it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anybody else in the audience who wants to say anything? Are we seeing any raised hands Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No Leslie, no raised hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, alright Board what do you want to do here? You want to close both of these subject to receipt of (inaudible) plan, Storm Water Management Plan with the approvals, a copy of the HPC denial and appeal. We're going to get information as to verifying the relationship MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Livable floor area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep, well we don't know what the livable floor area is as proposed. I mean it says in here on the plans what the livable floor area is but we don't have confirmation from the Building Department and I believe that's probably because it's proposed on two floors which is not permitted. ERIC BRESSLER : We were told we had to come see this Board first. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you know what happens is sometimes the Building Department because it's a Special Exception simply refuses to entertain any of it ERIC BRESSLER : Yes we know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know and it galls me because it's not a benefit to the property owner, it's not a benefit to us. I believe that everything should go through the Building Department so an applicant understands any and all approval they need before they even begin to start so it can be better coordinated. We do have an internal interdepartmental form that typically we would send with a Special Exception to the Building Department, Liz do you know if that was done? Did we sent this over to Building for Mike to calculate OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I will look and let you know. I believe it's because it is two floors maybe there was no comment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I'm thinking because typically it would be on one floor and all they do is calculate that it's conforming to the maximum 750 or it's a little above and then if it's a little above I use that as a de facto Notice of Disapproval and we can deal with it right in that application but we don't have anything. 23 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 VINCENT BERTAULT : (inaudible) it's also an existing the structure is existing with two floors, that's the way it is. ERIC BRESSLER : No the point is we couldn't get that far with them and we agree with you and we were told that this is the way you know you have to proceed even though I thought as you do there was probably a better way to come about it. We're before you on their instruction. Before we move on I just want to make sure that the Board didn't have any questions about the through lot issue. I think that's fairly you know two front yards CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you talking about the swimming pool? ERIC BRESSLER : Yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wanted to bring that up,we should talk about the pool, is that subject to the application? ERIC BRESSLER : It is. I think that's a fairly straightforward application and we you know we rest on the paperwork but if the Board has any questions you know we're happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't I mean it's in the back of the house, it's buffered from the other street by that very large barn and its impact will be minimal and only on side yards. So it is what it is, it's a through lot. Nick any question, or Pat, Rob, Eric? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no more. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions covered it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to make a motion we'll do this one at a time, to close application#7467 for variance relief subject to receipt of the documents we've already discussed in the record. Is there a second? ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairperson before you take that vote, may I inquire as to whether if you receive that you know not if but when you receive that information if you have further inquiries or questions what will be the procedure to allow us to address whatever concerns may be raised by the Board in response to those documents if the Board is otherwise closing the hearing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There wouldn't be. So if you would prefer I'd be happy to have you submit those and we can adjourn to the Special Meeting. If we get them in time and have no further questions I'll put a resolution on to close at the time and hopefully we'll have a decision that same night also. 24 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 ERIC BRESSLER : Thank you, I just have the feeling that given the nature of the HPC paperwork that the Board may very probably have questions for us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, that's fair enough. So I'm going to change that motion. I'm going to make a motion on that application #7467 to adjourn to the Special Meeting on March 18th and you know what documents we need to receive. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries and this will be adjourned to the Special Meeting on the 18th and we look forward to receiving the related documents. Then with Vincent Bertault #7468SE Special Exception permit I'll make the same motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Liz call the roll please. 25 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE,ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries we look forward to receiving the documents and we'll see how fast we can move on this. If there are other questions of course we'll just put it back for another hearing where we can ask and get those questions answered. ERIC BRESSLER : Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz do you want to review quickly how people can participate in this meeting if somebody is new and just joining us? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Sure. Just a reminder, if you are here to comment on an application go ahead and click the raise hand button or send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen. You can click raise your hand and we will allow you to unmute and you can let us know who you are hear for and Glenn I see you have your hand raised, I'm about to move you in as panelist. 26 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 HEARING#7469—SAMUEL J. DIMEGLIO,JR. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : While you're doing that let me read this into the record. Samuel J. Dimeglio, Jr. #7469 request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's November 17, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a front porch addition attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 2280 Deep Hole Drive (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. Would you please enter your name into the record Glenn. It doesn't look like he's muted. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Glenn is there he in not muted. There's also Mr. Dimeglio is here. I will move him in. MR. DIMEGLIO : I'm here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay what about Glenn? We see his name up but we can't hear him. MR. DIMEGLIO : I know he sometimes has problems with his internet service. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a front porch addition to a single family dwelling at 29.7 feet where the code requires 35 feet and a combined side yard setback at 24.1 feet where the code requires 25 feet. This is an attached one car garage with storage loft above. We have Trustees and DEC approvals with a 50 foot non-disturbance buffer from the wetlands. The house is under construction it looks like. MR. DIMEGLIO :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The foundation is way up in the air with a door above it. We do have an LWRP consistency recommendation which we just received and what else would you like to tell us? MR. DIMEGLIO : Well there was I know this was proposed before but the prior owner Mrs. Dickerson Peters if it's significant for the Board to consider, under ZBA#6053 back in August 16, 2007 there was a granted front yard variance setback of 4.3 so mine is only a foot more and then the front porch obviously the house was raised to get us out of the flood zone but there will be I can assure you the front yard will be raised to grade once the septic is put in and then I'll be putting in landscaping. I may even continue with the front privet hedges that my neighbor has to conform. I believe this setback conforms to the area. I live across the street so I can tell you that it is a conforming it will be conforming to the other homes in the area. 27 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So you're going to have to raise the grade in order to put in the septic system in the front yard. MR. DIMEGLIO : Yes that is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that foundation a lot of that foundation is going to be covered and your front door is not going to be not so high up in the air. MR. DIMEGLIO : Correct madam Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many steps would you think you're going you do that grading, have you submitted a plan to the town's Storm Water Management Plan? MR. DIMEGLIO : I think we did but that's something I'd have to talk to Mr. Just about. He's been working with me from the outset. Oh yes actually that was an issue that was raised if I recall that was an issue that was raised at the Trustees hearing last year I attended that that was in person and if you noticed I have two dry wells that will be installed on both the westerly and easterly side of the property so I believe those were addressed. The grade will there may also be a retaining wall necessary if I remember according to the masonry the contractor and the engineer. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where will the retaining walls be? MR. DIMEGLIO : If necessary it would be along the easterly portion of the property and the westerly portion of the property and the front I think will be a natural slope if I remember correctly. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : How many feet again will those leeching pool for the sanitary system be buried, how tall are they or MR. DIMEGLIO : If I remember correctly, on the plans they are I think they're only half the usual depth so they will I know from the geological survey I had done they find water like 4.6 feet so the way the engineer designed it the pools will be set I think probably 3 feet not that close to the water line and then additional fill will be brought in and then the property will be graded so that there's a natural water flow into those dry wells. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you said something about the prior ZBA determination of 2007 granted a 4.3 foot front yard setback?That must have been relief, relief of MR. DIMEGLIO : Yes correct. - CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean nobody is granting a front yard setback of 4 foot. MR. DIMEGLIO : Sorry I misspoke. 28 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So your house is set it looks like in a conforming 35 feet. MR. DIMEGLIO : It is, it is I just had the architect design a front porch you know for functional use if I may and also aesthetics. It breaks up the monotony of the 46 foot wide house and the 16 foot wide garage. I have a local landscape company I'm going to once I get the final grade I'm going to have a local landscape company come in, prepare a landscape design that also conforms to the area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have a copy of that prior in here? I don't recall seeing it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes 6053 is a part of the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was the setback granted? MR. DIMEGLIO : Madam Chairperson I have that, it was 4.3 reduction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : From 35 feet? MR. DIMEGLIO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know I wonder if that doesn't run with the land because we changed the code to have time limits on variances around 2012 I'm going to guess. If that was the case let's see so you would still need an additional foot is what you're saying. MR. DIMEGLIO : Basically on the side that's just the way the house laid out on the plot because it's a pie shaped lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see what the Board has Eric you want to start, questions? MEMBER DANTES : You're asking for a one foot variance is basically what we're talking about now? MR. DIMEGLIO : Basically yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's beyond what was previously granted but the bottom line is he's asking for 29.7 feet, the code requires 35. MEMBER DANTES : He has a 50 foot where is the 50 foot non-disturbance buffer? MR. DEMIGLIO : If I may it's in the rear of the property on the south side bordering the creek. MEMBER DANTES : I guess I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything? 29 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO :So just a point of clarification, I pulled out the prior variance from 2007 it's actually a 40 foot required minimum front yard setback and the relief granted was at 35.7 and the applicant is seeking 29.7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that would not apply MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It wouldn't hold merit exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you so that goes away. Alright anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Please raise your hand and we will admit you. Anything else Board or should we close this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Let's close it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Let's close this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 30 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7470—MICHAEL KREGER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael Kreger #7470. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-13 and the Building Inspector's January 6, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum two and one-half(2-1/2) stories located at 985 Bay Shore Rd. (adj.to Pipe's Creek) in Greenport. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie quick question before we get into the hearing.Am I mistaken but isn't there pending litigation on this application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right there is but this is no res judicata. That was for code interpretation, this is for variance relief from the code which the attorney will address and so that's why we're hearing it. We were informed that that particular code interpretation is related to one or two other similar cases and so they're bundling together to be heard by one judge which is what the delay is all about cause they're similar situations so it makes sense. Steve why don't you go ahead and say hello. STEPHEN KIELY : Hello everyone. Good morning madam Chairwoman and the rest of the Board. My name is Stephen Kiely, P. 0. Box 567 Mattituck, New York 11952. 1 am the attorney for the applicant Michael Kreger. The subject property is a Pipes Creek waterfront parcel located in an R-40 zoning district. As such according to the bulk schedule for residential districts the maximum number of floors is two and a half. Section 280-18 states a pertinent part that no building shall be erected unless same conforms to the requirements of the bulk schedule. The property is currently developed is in full conformity with the bulk schedule.The applicant originally secured a building permit on October 21, 2019 to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling with pull down stair access to non-habitable unfinished attic space. Subsequently the applicant sought to make use of the attic as both storage and habitable space. Thus the Building Department application was amended and the subject Notice 31 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 of Disapproval was issued on November 4, 2019. The reason for disapproval was that the proposed amendment constitutes a third story and that is why we are here today. It should be noted that nothing is being changed from the original approved plans other than a dedicated staircase to a 492 sq. ft. office space within the attic. There will be absolutely no change whatsoever to the exterior subject home which is almost complete. As such there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or any detriment to any nearby properties. The benefit sought of having a small additional finished space within the existing dwelling cannot be achieved by some other feasible method other than the variance request. The applicant and his family have two young children ages two and four, he's an investment management. COVID has caused the applicant along with other members of the local community to reevaluate the utility of their homes. A home went from predominantly being a respite from work and school to now by a necessity a multi-functional space. Homes have traditionally if space allowed had a home office but it was a mere luxury. Now it is critical. Telecommuting now has become normalized and who knows how (inaudible) the pendulum will swing back. Technology has allowed for it to be more cost effective. According to the (inaudible) Institution up to half of American workers are currently working from home more than double the fraction who worked from home at least occasionally in 2017/18 and telecommuting will likely continue long after the pandemic. Therefore as anyone with kids knows a space that is both quiet and not easily accessible in order to work is very rare and very desirable as member Dantes can probably attest and certainly has already his child visit him on the Zoom meeting. Here in this situation such a place exists and that place is the attic which would not require any new construction and is readily available. It also is desperately needed for the applicant who handles extremely sophisticated financial transactions at different (inaudible). The applicant is merely seeking to finish what dimensionally amounts to a half story into a home office. The location meets both the quiet and not accessible at least for toddler's requirements. The applicant has already outfitted the space with a fire suppression system in full compliance with the state requirements. The subject property due to the water table has no basement.Thus a basement which would otherwise meet those requirements of quiet and lack of accessibility is not an option here. Further in addition to the dwelling would not be a viable option as well because since it is a waterfront parcel within the jurisdictional limits of the D.E.C. and the Trustees approval would be required from those entities and the D.E.C. prefers that non-permeable structures be limited and any addition if approved would require two to one revegetation give back which we would not be able to meet. Further the combination of the (inaudible) for the parcel along with the location of the Trustee imposed non-disturbance buffer along with the location of the pre-existing detached garage and the location of the propane tanks with applicable setbacks and the septic system which requires its own setbacks makes an addition virtually impossible. Additionally, the applicant and his wife want to limit the mass of the dwelling and I'm sure the neighbors would appreciate the currently sized home versus more construction. Also there obviously would be a fiscal harm suffered by 32 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 the applicants if they had to build an addition versus retrofitting an existing space. Further, the designated as the first floor study in reality is going to serve as a playroom and home schooling area for the kids. As to the substantiality of relief requested it should not be evaluated in the (inaudible) but rather in context with harm and here there is no harm to the community nor the neighbors. Additionally the variance will not have any adverse impact whatsoever on the environment cause again there's no change to the exterior nor the bedroom count which could create septic consequences.As far as this being self-created I would argue not because as alluded to earlier COVID has necessitated the home office use. Admittedly prior to COVID the applicant sought to use the area as a sitting room but now the need for a home office trumps such a passive recreational use. The grant of this variance would be the minimum action necessary and adequate to allow the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a usable home office because no construction would be required. Additionally the applicant will limit the use of the attic exclusively to home office and it will never be used as a bedroom. Lastly there's been precedent by this Board granting at least twenty four third story variances including applications 4968,4984, 5007,5330,5815,6112,6245, 6391,6512,6519,6591, 6620,6664,6680,6744,6800,6823,6848, 6904, 6920, 6984, 6993, 7200, 7214 and as these variances are spread throughout the town not localized here I just think in this particular matter since the variances for this type of request generally don't have any impacts to the community again their existing structures and a two and a half story dwelling is generally as of right it's irrelevant as to the exact location in the town. MEMBER DANTES : How many of those variances involve a sloping piece of property? STEPHEN KIELY : I can't tell you how many I'm just telling you generally speaking there's twenty four grants of a third story variance. In accordance with the aforementioned reasons I respectfully request that the subject area variance be granted as the benefit to the applicant greatly outweighs any harm to the community. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Stephen I cannot find a floor plan of that proposed attic space that you're describing. What I've got is a floor plan that's showing attic floor framing plan. The attic plan those are bedrooms and bathrooms. Now I'm trying to find an attic plan. STEPHEN KIELY : You said you looked at A-1.04? MEMBER LEHNERT : I've got that one. MEMBER DANTES : Mine says sitting area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mine says sitting area too. That's the one that has a stairwell in the middle of the area. STEPHEN KIELY :Yes. 33 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm looking for it. Do we have it, can we put that up on the screen?A- 1.04 MEMBER LEHNERT : Before we get to this Steve, can you send us the lists of all those variance numbers you just read off? STEPHEN KIELY : Absolutely. MEMBER DANTES :Also (inaudible) siting the Brookings Institute,what is exactly is the Brookings Institute? STEPHEN KIELY : It's some Washing D.C. based think tank so I was looking for statistics and the Google machine led me to the Brookings Institute, it's well respected. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a highly respected national organization of research. Here we go, A-1.04 I'm getting old I need a magnifying glass they're small plans. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only comment here on this what Liz is showing us right now which I don't understand you have the stairwell on the center of what would be considered the office where it's labeled sitting area but then you have the finished storage and of course the code does not allow finished storage. MEMBER LEHNERT : Mine shows unfinished storage. STEPEHN KIELY : Yeah that was changed. MEMBER LEHNERT : My question there would be there's no wall between unfinished and the finished. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly. STEPHEN KIELY : Well what we're doing like we came here today and we take all your comments into account, we just didn't want to expend any more money on this and we're showing you the area that would be utilized for the office and if you require that there be a wall with a door or whatever you want to do that's up to the Board. We tried to utilize the half story definition and limit the space there. If you have the authority to expand it if you think we're entitled and use the extra space that's great but right now that's where we are planning on having the office space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that because of the sloping roof, because of the ceiling heights or what because that is a very, very odd shaped for an office and it's in an open area and it looks as though the entire footprint the entire area is going to be finished and attic space is unfinished space, storage space. An office yes that can be finished and it usually is contained in an area that 34 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 doesn't necessarily have a stair in it because it it's not utilizing the space efficiently if you really want to have an office. STEPHEN KIELY: No, no, no we again we were looking towards the half story definition and that's where we came up with the proposed footprint for the office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that have to do with ceiling height and square footage or what? STEPHEN KIELY : Yes that's the area 7 foot 6 or greater. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's what I'm thinking but you'd have to move the stair out of you're going to turn it into a room and you gotta block it off from all of the other attic storage space. I've been involved with a number of variances for third story spaces most of them being sitting spaces or viewing balcony or you know very benign no bathroom, no plumbing up there you know just one room strictly for non-sleeping purposes and so on. STEPHEN KIELY : Yes and that's what we are looking for, there's no plumbing proposed for up there. It's purely as I said going to be used for home office space. Now again we're willing to redesign it and like maybe the office where it says finished storage and then make the other like it's fine with us. We're asking for a variance cause now we're in third story world and I'm asking for a variance for a home office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understand. STEPHEN KIELY : Like I said, we would welcome any comments from the Zoning Board that the thing is the staircase is already there, it is what it is as far as the location of the staircase. I went up there and you're welcome to come and take a look at it yourself and it's not ideal but can you make an office space in that area, yes you can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean how big is the office space, how many square feet? STEPHEN KIELY : It's about 492 square feet in that shaded area. MEMBER DANTES : How many square feet of livable living space is the entire house? STEPHEN KIELY : I don't have that readily accessible but I can get it for you. The set of plans that I have in front of me don't have that calculation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Steve the way that you have the illustrated ceiling height running parallel to the stairwell on the plan that I hope you can see that Liz has up, do you have a similar ceiling height going perpendicular? In other words the area that's marked finished storage or is that a lower roof height? 35 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 STEPHEN KIELY :That's lower. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I thought. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not all I can tell you is that the way this is laid out the shaded area is just simply a dimensional area without any boundaries, it's part of the attic it's just the third floor okay and what you need is to show us a room okay and it has to be blocked off from the attic unfinished storage space. STEPHEN KIELY : Just so I'm clear, again we're asking for a variance to use the third story so arguably we could ask for the entire space but we're not so you want me to come in and show you a redesign element where there would be unfinished storage segregated from the office space? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : She wants you to give us a design showing what you're asking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right now there's no definitive anything you know. You got doors going out to an I don't know a porch a roof porch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think that's a knee wall those are storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yea,yea,yea okay. So you know come back with a plan that shows us a room that's going to be an office. STEPHEN KIELY : Alright, in the alternative I would ask you know for that entire space to be legal. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well then just show us that segregated from the space that's not the office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well wait a minute, he's asking for the entirety of the third floor to be an office. MEMBER LEHNERT : Oh okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When in fact what you're calling it is an attic storage you're saying there's no basement,they need storage.There's attic storage it's back and forth, one minute it's finished then it's unfinished. If it's finished STEPHEN KIELY : No, no, no I think I made it very clear that the need is the office space. We have a detached garage for storage and because I know this Board is adverse to you know granting third story variances and I came in here asking for an office in that area and the previous application that was referenced by Mr. Planamento asking for an interpretation we were saying 36 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 that that area in the shaded is a half story. So I'm open to suggestions but we could utilize the whole space if you grant us the variance for that. Again it would be solely used as an office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is the square footage of that whole area? STEPHEN KIELY : I can get you that. MEMBER LEHNERT :Also in the plan anything over 5 feet of headroom is 1,074 sq. ft. STEPHEN KIELY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, you've read all the variances Stephen and you know we never granted an area unhabitable usable area on the third floor that's that big. STEPHEN KIELY : Okay that's fine and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They've been for small functional rooms usually with storage, unfinished storage and sprinkled by State code. STEPHEN KIELY : We're sprinkled already. So I would definitely go back to my client and ask them to design an office storage hybrid space and I can definitely present that to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One of the other things I'm wondering about from the standpoint of use let alone the fire suppression or emergency access but when you get to the top of the stairs there is that are I don't know it's 10 feet by 10 feet square,there's one window. Is there sufficient fenestration? STEPHEN KIELY : Sufficient what? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Fenestration,the size of the window. I don't remember during my site inspection (inaudible)the scale of that window. MEMBER LEHNERT : Nick I think the sprinkler trumps the egress window. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm not talking just for egress I'm talking for natural light and ventilation. STEPHEN KIELY : Oh yeah there's plenty. I have unfortunately pictures on my phone here. MEBMER DANTES : You don't need ventilation anymore with the new HERZ rated houses. STEPHEN KIELY : No but we have plenty of ventilation and light from the windows. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Because that would only in my mind's eye if there was any relief granted that's the only logical spot. 37 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 STEPHEN KIELY : Which is where it's designated finished storage? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No at the top of the stairs that square area. STEPHEN KIELY : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's windows on the front and the rear elevation. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah where it says sitting area. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but then you'd be granting relief for the whole area which you know is larger than most other I mean I'd argue substantial. MEMBER ACAMPORA :You need to give us the numbers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look, look at the other variances, look at the size of the spaces that have been granted previously. We will too because you're going to submit those applications to us and I completely agree with you Stephen that this is not character of the neighborhood related, it's use related and so anything from anywhere in this town that has received relief for a third story space is relevant and it doesn't matter where it is in town. So if we can have a look at that and you have a look at that and come back with a plan that shows a comparably sized office and you know segregate it finished,segregate it from unfinished storage.Why don't we just then adjourn this to the next hearing date and you can submit it, we'll take a look at it and if we have any questions we can answer them, discuss them and all that and then we can make a determination. Does that make sense? STEPHEN KIELY :Yes perfect. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes absolutely. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? Any hands Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No, we have some Q&A from anonymous but I don't know if we entertain that. MEMBER DANTES : I don't think we should. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. MEMBER LEHNERT : No not from anonymous. 38 Regular Meeting March 4,2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Other than that no, no hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, then I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this application to wait you want to adjourn this in case we don't need another hearing is that what you're saying? STEPHEN KIELY: If the Board is fine like can we almost think of this as like a written comment and if I submit it and you guys look at it and you talk about in the work session and then we don't need it the necessity of another public hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No here's what we'll do, I will adjourn it to the Special Meeting. You will submit what you're going to submit. If we have any questions we will adjourn it to another hearing, if we don't we will close it and (in audible),determination. STEPHEN KIELY : Alright. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, everybody good with that? Okay motion to adjourn to the Special Meeting which is March 18th subject to receipt of revised attic floor plan and also for the priors that were mentioned by you Steve. STEPHEN KIELY : Okay. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? 39 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7471—ROBERT and DONNA DRUMMOND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Robert and Donna Drummond #7471. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 16, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" deck addition with hot tub attached to a single family dwelling and to legalize an "as built" accessory shed at 1) "as built" deck is located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, and 2) "as built" shed is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 675 Private Rd. #12 (adj. to Corey Creek) in Southold. This "as built" deck addition with hot tub has a side yard setback at 8.1 feet where the code requires 10 and secondly the shed has a front yard setback of 13.7 where the code requires 35 for the principle setback in the front yard and side yard setback of the shed is 1.7 feet where the code requires 5 feet. I think that kind of covers what the variance relief is. Just so you know we've all visited the property and inspected it so we've seen the neighborhood,we've seen what it looks like,seen the shed and all of that. So what would you like to tell us about the application? JENNIFER WICKS : Robert I don't know if you want to speak first or ROBERT DRUMMOND : I'll let you take the lead there. JENNIFER WICKS : I just wanted to say that the side yard variance for the deck is rather small it's I guess 1.11 feet. I know there are similar variances in the neighborhood. As for the shed being in the front yard, I know there's issues with flooding in the rear, to keep equipment safe and other issues is why the shed is placed in the front yard. MEMBER DANTES :You're allowed to have the shed in the front yard aren't you? JENNIFER WICKS : I believe it's 35 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would have to moved way back, way back because yes if it's 35 feet from the street which is a private right of way actually you know then it would be allowed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Jennifer also could you just clarify you said that the hot tub deck was 1.5 feet off the lot line (inaudible) shed. 40 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 JENNIFER WICKS : No, no, no that's what we're asking for, it's a 10 foot side yard it's only MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The reduction, exactly. JENNIFER WICKS : Yes. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's 8.1 off-the side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and 10 foot the code requires. MEMBER LEHNERT : 1.9 foot of relief through a portion of that. MEMBER DANTES : How far is the house from Windy Point Lane? JENNIFER WICKS : I believe oh I'm sorry from Windy Point Lane, it's approximately MEMBER LEHNERT : 46% it says, MEMBER DANTES : So why not just move the shed? I mean that seems pretty simple. JENNIFER WICKS : I will ask Robert to answer that. ROBERT DRUMMOND : (could not hear him) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm sorry Robert we're really not able to understand you. MEMBER DANTES : I mean it seems the side yard setback are 5 feet too so it would need to be moved either way for both. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Excuse me I just moved in a Donna Drummond is that relation to you? JENNIFER WICKS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe you can answer this question, did you get Trustees approval for the bulkhead setback? DONNA DRUMMOND : Hi can you hear me, this is Donna Drummond. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi Donna. DONNA DRUMMOND :So yes thank you all for having us today. So yes we have Trustees approval for the bulkhead and at that time the Trustees approval was received for the deck extension. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's important cause it's pretty darn close to the bulkhead I have to say. Although there's another house right nearby that's even closer. Well I want to point 41 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 something out, not to make or break an application and that's not up to the Board it's up to the applicant but you know there is the shed is very old. The decks are very new and that shed is sitting with the same side yard setback and the same road frontage as this great big accessory garage right next door the shared property line and it's screened from view with evergreen screening. I don't think it has any visual impact whatsoever on anything there and yeah it can be picked up and moved or it can be removed. It depends on exactly how much need you have for that shed. DONNA DRUMMOND : So we utilize that shed for storage of our kayaks and our bikes and things like that and we don't have adequate space for that in the house. I just want to point out we didn't build that shed it was there when we purchased the property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that happens all the time but you know that doesn't mean that it was done legally and unfortunately the new homeowner gets stuck with the consequences of what somebody else did before you. Let's see if people have any Pat do you have any questions about this one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I don't have any questions just the matter of the shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about you Rob, anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : No this is pretty benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yipee,we might be able to eat sometime today who knows. Okay let's see actually I also noted that the house right next to you also has first and second story decks on the waterside of the property and it's a setback from their bulkhead farther but if you have Trustees approval that's that. I don't actually have any other questions, let's see if there's anybody is there anybody in the attendees who wants to address the application, any raised hands? So there's nothing there then. Alright, well then I'm ready to close how about you Board members, yes? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm fine with that. 42 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? DONNA DRUMMOND : I'm sorry can I ask why? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we're doing is saying we've heard everything we need to hear. The Board doesn't make decisions at public hearings. What we do is gather all the information, get questions answered put all the issues out and see what the neighbors might have to say. We meet again in two weeks.That is called the Special Meeting and at that time we will have a draft decision prepared and that's open to the public to listen, it's not a hearing there's no testimony from anybody. If you want to attend it it's another Zoom we're happy to have you listen in. We will debate and deliberate on the draft that's before us. Then we'll vote on it and then we will send it to you I will go in the next day and sign it then it becomes legal. We send it to the Town Clerk for filing then we mail it out to homeowners. DONNA DRUMMOND : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that's the procedure. So what I'm saying is I think we've heard everything we need to hear so I'm going to close the hearing section which means we will have a decision two weeks from today. We meet at around four or five o'clock in the evening. DONNA DRUMMOND : Okay thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We need a second. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat seconds, Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. 43 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously we will have a decision in two weeks. The agenda will be posted with the time, with the link and all that stuff so you can join in if you wish to. It's not necessary but if you would like to this is a public meeting so the public is invited to attend. Okay Board we caught up. MEMBER DANTES : There's a Bill (inaudible) on the chat that says shame on you for permitting this mcmansion. Should we explain that we didn't actually approve this through area variance it was done through Building Department and not us. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah exactly. MEMBER LEHNERT : Is it the anonymous guy? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No he sent that after we closed it up. The anonymous I don't know who it was. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well out of respect for the public I think Eric is right, we should let it be known that the house was built as of right approved by the Building Department with a building permit. The only reason it's before this Board is because they want to use a third floor for habitable space namely an office and that's why they're here because the code only allows it's conforming in height, it's conforming in setbacks so the code only allows two and a half stories which this qualifies as but we have granted variances when something is finished it becomes a third story. If it's not just storage, attic storage if they have a full staircase going up to it and it's finished then it's considered habitable. That's why they are before us. So the Zoning Board did not permit this, the town code permitted it. Alright I don't know if that person is even here to hear the answer to that but anyway that's what it is. So we have a lunch break coming up I guess. We will resume with the next applicant Cottage on Third at one o'clock. I'm going to make a motion to recess to return to say five minutes to one just so we're all ready. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. 44 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. All in favor raise your hands. Motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7472—COTTAGE ON THIRD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd like to make a motion to reconvene the meeting, is there a second. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. All in favor raise your hands. The motion carries unanimously. The next application before the Board is Cottage on Third, LLC #7472. This is a request for a variance under Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 13, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a new accessory pool house/garage at 1)more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 850 Third St. in New Suffolk. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie, should I read the instructions on how to participate? If anyone wishes to comment on an 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. If you are using a phone it's *9 to raise your hand. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a request for a new accessory pool house, one car garage with a multi-purpose room half bath, outdoor shower that will create a lot coverage of 22.9% where the code allows a maximum of 20%. Good afternoon,what else would you like us to know about this application? GARY STEINFELD : Good afternoon. I think everybody is familiar with this project. We have an existing new house on the lot with a swimming pool and as you stated we are requesting an area variance for lot coverage from 18.76%to 22.91%. We made a previous request in the past for a larger garage a 20 by 24 that had a 25.47% lot coverage which was denied so we've reviewed the property and made a significant reduction on this new plan that hopefully would be satisfactory to the Board which brought us down to stated 22.91% coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the current again? GARY STEINFELD : The current coverage right now with the house and pool is 18.76% and we're proposing 22.91%with a 15%foot by 22%foot garage/pool house. It will be a dual use structure. I submitted along with my application package to the Board a number of similar variances throughout the New Suffolk area over the past few years as well as the rest of the town but 45 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 there's five of them in New Suffolk that I listed specifically the most recent one is 16500 Main St. which is on the southeast corner of Main St. and 4th' St. in June of this past summer similar scenario multiple buildings on the lot and a request for a swimming pool. They were granted a variance of to a 28.4% lot coverage. There's a few others on that list that you probably have in front of you. There's Jackson St. that had 26% lot coverage that was ZBA 6462, there's a 27.4% lot coverage ZBA 3873, a 23% lot coverage#6931 and then we also have a lot coverage of 24.8% #6270 so there's a few examples around the New Suffolk area and there's others as well that show a higher than a 20% lot coverage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Gary were any of the numbers that you cited were those for new construction? GARY STEINFELD : I would have to go back and see. The Jackson St. was a fairly new construction and I would have to see if the Main St. one that you guys you had discussed that (inaudible) it's not that's a modification although that's a 28.4%versus 22.91%so we're actually asking for quite a bit less relief compared to something that's existing. Jackson St. was new construction but a pool and some storage sheds and that was at the 26% lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you email those in Gary? GARY STEINFELD : I submitted those as part of the initial package. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) I don't see the decisions themselves. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't either. MEMBER DANTES : But there is a list of the decisions. GARY STEINFELD : Yeah I didn't give you the actual decisions, I gave you a list but I can download the decisions if that's helpful for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it is, download them and just send them to the office and they'll forward them. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's really for the new construction. I don't know if an existing house would be the same thing as this. GARY STEINFELD :Just to give some history on this property, the previous house that was on the property had a house and a 10 by 20 storage garage or storage shed and that was at a 20% lot coverage about 19.6% lot coverage. When we built the new construction we built on the same footprint as the previous house with less front yard exceptions on the variance so you know essentially from what was there previously from a lot coverage point of view you know it's 46 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 essentially it's the addition of the swimming pool that would change from the past history to where we're going to end up currently. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And I have to say while you might have built on top of the existing footprint I mean the structure itself does not have the same character that the original structure had and in my opinion just as a member of the Board I think it's you know perhaps it's something that we have to revisit when applicants look to build on existing footprints. It's truly a unique situation. GARY STEINFELD :Yes I agree also. I think we went out of our way MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it's substantial. GARY STEINFELD :There's a very prominent red barn on the property next door so you know the design and the shape of this house was looked upon to try and fit in with that shape as we move further up the hill. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If that had been a one story house you might have made a convincing argument about the scale of it. GARY STEINFELD : Right and I think that's some of the reasons we did a significant reduction from the previously requested 25.47 down to the 22.91 which is below most of what's been previously given in New Suffolk itself proper including new construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll take a look at new construction for prior precedent but certainly when people build from scratch they sort of have an obligation to attempt because they have an opened slate as to what to do to try and conform to the greatest extent possible. We could have required a greater front yard setback and you know with the lot coverage was egregious there was no need for that. Apparently you were able to put the pool in anyway and still have a conforming lot coverage and now you're going to have to prove the absolute necessity for a pool house and a garage on top of it. GARY STEINFELD : Both swimming pools and garages used to go on record are accessory uses that are common in the Town of Southold and New Suffolk. That was stated on the record by the Board itself also if we look back at the Minutes from our last meeting. The Board also felt at that time that the size of the garage at 24 by 20 was considered a small garage and the swimming pool was considered a standard sized swimming pool. So again I'm not arguing over the lot coverage discussion but the structures that we're asking for are you know over what is normal to the character of what is acceptable in the town it's the lot coverage. The garage itself is a very small building, it's really the size of you know a large shed versus a full sized garage. It's not even 47 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 considered from architectural standards to be a one single garage being as only 15.5 feet wide. So we did our best to really minimize the size of that structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You are aware that by tucking it way back in the corner which is a code conforming location that structure and the existing pool is practically on top of the property line of the applicant not applicant sorry property owner that shares the rear lot line. GARY STEINFELD : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Their property is very, very close probably (inaudible) and non- conforming very close to that. So there's going to be adverse impacts. GARY STEINFELD : Right and the previous shed that was there for you know as part of the other structure had the 20 foot length you know similar to the 15.5 now but 20 for the length closer to the property line along that rear edge. It was located in the same (inaudible) so there is some history or a structure being there although I'm not sure that factors in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No once a demolition takes place that's all (inaudible). Let's see if the Board has anything and then I'll open it up to questions from the attendees. Anything from let's see who we start with, Eric comments or questions on this application? MEMBER DANTES : When we get the variances the only ones we need are the variances from New Suffolk. We don't need the variances that are in other parts of the town. GARY STEINFELD : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's got to be in that neighborhood. GARY STEINFELD : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would still say for new construction not for an existing residence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I would agree. MEMBER LEHNERT : I would agree with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I see in here that a toilet and a sink, is that a sink there? GARY STEINFELD : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : On the other side of it, is that another sink in the garage part? GARY STEINFELD : Yes it's a utility sink and an under the counter refrigerator. 48 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't appear to well (inaudible) garage and multi-purpose room are not segregated from each other. GARY STEINFELD : The multi-purpose will be seasonal looking to be a pool house in the summer and then a storage for sail boats if you guys visited the site you saw there was a car and sailboats that are on site that are in the weather now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think I said my peace about you knowthe elevation I mean it's not subject to the application but it makes me rethink these applications overall where you know relief is granted and the structure I mean it's just really imposing and I know it's not subject to the hearing but as I said it's something that makes me think twice about future applications. GARY STEINFELD : Imposing in what way though? I understand as an opinion on fagade height but there's a lot of colonials throughout the New Suffolk area that including that one on Jackson St. that has the 28.4% that's a two story right on the road. Is that any less imposing than this particular house that's actually a smaller structure with the same two story? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'd have to go and look at it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah and I think it's you know I was just sharing an opinion it's not anything relative to this hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to look as you know at character to the neighborhood but we previously did that and I don't know whether we were actually paying attention to the drawings that were submitted and recognizing how imposing that structure would be that close to the road. We understood the logic of rebuilding on the same footprint but the impact on that footprint is substantially greater than what the original structure was because it's much taller. GARY STEINFELD : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So we do have actually a letter I don't know if you've gotten a copy of it Gary the letter signed by a number of neighbors, several neighbors objecting to this lot coverage. BOARD ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No I didn't send it to him. 49 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Oh you didn't okay.We just received it I think yesterday possible.We'll make sure you get a copy. GARY STEINFELD : Okay, do keep in mind though when we do look at these structures and we talk about character that's a word that we use all the time but it is character of neighborhood right? We're not comparing character of structure that was there and character of the structure now,we're talking about the lot coverage and how this fits in with the neighborhood itself. Hence the reason why we don't look at the lot coverage variances given outside of New Suffolk. We want to look at lot coverage variances that are given within this neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know you're right but there is a difference in scale that is substantial and scale is part of the character of a neighborhood too. We're finding that's the case when people have to raise homes to make them FEMA compliant, they are not totally out of character GARY STEINFELD : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : it's always been there. Change happens but we want to make sure that the change does not in some way unsettle you know what GARY STEINFELD : I just want to be clear in the record that that fagade is not outside of the character of the neighborhood. If it requires me to go and count the number of two story colonials CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you're talking about the aesthetic of the building itself GARY STEINFELD : Correct and the height of the fagade and its proximity to the street CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will agree that that's you know that's a typical colonial salt box kind of configuration. Let's see what I think I'm BOARD ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie there's a Q&A in there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay please read the letter from Michelle Roussan and neighbors at appropriate time and then comment. I'm being asked to read the letter probably that's a good idea because then Gary you'll have a chance to address it in this hearing if you wish to. It's not that long let me find it. I've got it. Dear Members of the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. I'm writing to you about the variance application submitted for 850 Third St. New Suffolk requesting to extend the permitted lot coverage. I as well as all of the adjacent neighbors and those in close proximity to this property strongly object to the request and ask that you deny this variance. The new owners whose identity is hidden behind a corporation name Cottage LLC have previously requested a variance for the pool house structure and were denied. I should for the 50 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 record state that there is an individual's name associated with that cottage and it's the same individual (inaudible) in 2018. It is Donald Brennan Cottage on Third, LLC. I read on. If the new owners clearly knew that they wanted to build from the start then they should have shopped for a lot of appropriate size with reasonable setbacks. The new house built on the site already dominates the surroundings with a pool in the back yard covering a significant portion of the lot and little room for sound buffering or privacy. The addition of a large second structure 15 feet tall and only 3 feet from the neighbors blocking and air flow onto side is simply unacceptable. While it is not a legal requirement to do so it is hard to understand how someone is trying to shoehorn such a large construction project into such a tiny space in a community like ours and wouldn't even attempt to talk things over with neighbors which raises the concern that this house may not be a residence at all yet another short term rental party house as several other properties in the immediate vicinity have become. New Suffolk as we know it is under assault being pushed by new outside money, COVID transplants and real estate speculators. Given its proximity to the White Cap property on the corner of fourth and Main an Air B&B nightmare regularly filled with loud drunk and obnoxious guests who break our own town noise ordinances. We feel compelled to hedge against this possibility and ask that you curb the footprint of this project.Then it's signed by one,two, three, four,five, six, seven, eight, nine,ten, eleven,twelve, thirteen,fourteen property owners all Fourth St., Kind St. right around there. So it's the first time you've hear it, is there any response you'd like to enter into the record Gary? GARY STEINFELD : First I'll make a correction, the garage is not 3 feet from the property line. From the southerly property line it is 6.8 feet and from the I mean I'm sorry it is 5 feet from the southern property and it is 6.8 from the eastern property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct,that's what's shown on the survey. GARY STEINFELD : Not 3 feet as stated in the letter. I'm not sure it matters on record but the property is owned by a family that also has another local property that they summer in here and this property is earmarked for extended family and parents of those owners. So there's no rental property in the future for this at least for these particular owners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just to confirm, it is to the ridge it is proposed at 15 feet 1 and % inch. GARY STEINFELD : Are you asking or you're reading that off the paper? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I'm reading it into the record. GARY STEINFELD :That's what's shown on the submitted elevations.So I kept it as low as possible at 15 feet. There's a six foot fence around the property on the eastern side now and with the pool there'll be at least a four added on the other property lines.As long as I have the Board here, can I just understand the Board's thinking on the rights of an existing property like the Main St. 51 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 property 16500 Main St.to go to a lot coverage of 28.4%versus a new construction project where they've asked to add a garage and want to be at 22.91% why that's such a difference just so I understand the thinking for now and future of what's the difference between that and the right of a new construction owner and the right of someone who has an existing lot who is a new buyer they're not the existing owners they bought recently? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :With new construction in general the Board looks very carefully at any potential variances because the assumption is unless it's a completely strange lot which we do have some in this town that most people are going to be able to comply and do not need variance relief simply because they're starting from scratch. So the attempt is to uphold the code. With existing construction most of it pre-existing non-conforming a lot of it they have different kinds of circumstances. Some of them are already over lot coverage and couldn't do another thing. So it's kind of slightly different considerations because as you know the Board is only allowed to grant relief when there is no alternative and when you're building from scratch you usually have alternatives. GARY STEINFELD :Alternatives what purchase a separate lot somewhere else? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No build a smaller house. GARY STEINFELD : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're building if you wanted a pool and you wanted a garage then you build a smaller house and you have conforming lot coverage. GARY STEINFELD : Right understood, so a couple of scenarios just to understand here some of the constraints that this property owner has-is they're on an 8,420 sq.ft. lot asking for 22.9%and you know we're looking at character of the neighborhood if we look at the Main St. lot that was granted 28.4% that's an over 15,000 sq. ft. lot. So just in my opinion so if we're looking at the character of the neighborhood and we're comparing what variances have been granted and we want to compare them in fairness this particular lot that we're asking for a smaller variance on for lot coverage is also about half the size that's the challenge that my client has my homeowner has. They're trying to fit in where our normal use structure is on a tiny lot and I do have some responsibility understanding that challenge when I buy the lot but at an 8,400 sq.ft. lot they built a pretty modest sized house it's an 1,800 sq. ft. house and a normal sized swimming pool and now looking to do a very reduced sized storage and pool house building. So I'd like to be on the record that we understand that when we do look at these comparisons in the neighborhood of what's been granted recently which to me bears a lot more than maybe what was granted you know fifteen years ago you know when we look back at the record cause it's more of the more recent character the more recent mood of what direction the town may be headed. But in this 52 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 particular case I believe we're asking for a very fair variance based on what has been provided for even larger lots that means more structure on the larger square foot coverage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, I think something important to discuss also is the prior variance relief that was given while there was a declination for the proposed garage/pool, you were granted relief to have the house closer to the lot line. I don't want to suggest that there's a tradeoff here but the owner had full design choice as far as what it is that they would like to achieve for this particular property. It's a blank slate and I think by installing the pool you're now putting the Board in an awkward position to revisit a previous decision as I see it. GARY STEINFELD :Well understand also on an 8420 lot and this is a discussion I live in New Suffolk too so I find these discussions interesting and I'm also in the business of trying to make things work and to work with the town and do things that we really want to do but on a lot this small and we have these constraints it's not it's a different set of parameters because even if we were to have no swimming pool and build a house and a garage at 20%lot coverage the lot depth really doesn't allow for the house to push back any further. Then we're looking at garage in side yard or front yard or we're not looking for much room to even park more than two cars in the driveway on a lot this size. So that structure if we were just to plan a garage and a house here we want that house to be situated (inaudible) so that we can fit two cars in a driveway in front of the garage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But then Gary you're saying exactly what Leslie just mentioned as far as when a blank slate cause you demolish an existing house you could have place with an architect a design of a house that would perhaps have an attached garage that would meet your objective. Now you're trying to pigeon hole something in. GARY STEINFELD : No I'm not,that's not true. Listen I'm not going to argue architecture with you but I'm just trying to explain it cause (inaudible) of a tiny lot versus 8,000 sq.ft. lot you don't have the lot depth, you don't have the same flexibility. MEMBER LEHERT : Gary you're trying to explain the constraints away with maximizing the coverage. No one says you have to maximize the coverage. GARY STEINFELD : Nobody says so but when a client put a modest sized house we often talk about not the word entitlement we also talk about you know we like people to be able to enjoy their house and have a swimming pool and a garage. That's really my only point. I'm not saying they absolutely deserve to get it but we're not asking for uses that are unusual in either size MEMBER LEHNERT : No not unusual but I mean I live in New Suffolk also and that neighborhood outside of the White Cap on Jackson St. there's no pools in that neighborhood. 53 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 GARY STEINFELD : There's one around the corner on Main St. right there (inaudible) there's a number of pools right there. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm saying in that little neighborhood around the school. GARY STEINFELD : Okay. MEMBER LEHNERT :There is no pool back there so I mean you had the option of the pool or the garage at the time, you had the coverage for it and you chose the pool. GARY STEINFELD : Okay I didn't know we were looking at micro neighborhoods within neighborhoods. It that a micro neighborhood. MEMBER LEHNERT : No, I'm just you know when you go back to the character of the neighborhood,you have to figure the neighborhood. I mean you can't take Jackson St. and put it against the rest of New Suffolk. It's a different animal we know that. GARY STEINFELD : Right okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the attendees who would like to make comments? T. A. DUFFY : Leslie it's Bill and I'd like to make a comment if I could. Just the applicant's representative was talking about the property rights of owners with you know building new against property rights of owners with existing structures and it's the Board is not looking at it is different property rights between individuals it's the balancing test and one of the five factors that you have to that a Board considers is self-created hardship so that's where a little bit of a difference comes in. It's not that the Board sees different property rights between different types of ownerships. It's how they balance the factors in those situations. I'm not trying to address the variance of this application I'm just want to kind of correct terminology maybe a little bit. GARY STEINFELD : Along those lines Bill then what is that saying. Say these clients had never in a previously proposed to have a garage and they got the variances for the front yard setback which was less than what the previous house was by the way you know less exception to what was there and they put a house and swimming pool on there and then let's look at two other scenarios. If they had never proposed a garage at that point and then came back five years later or ten years later and then put a variance in because they decided at that point they needed the garage would they then be treated similar to the White Cap because they now were having an existing structure on there and in later years they've decided that they wanted to expand and then go larger lot coverage and the other scenarios if it's a new owner if a new owner then buys that property and then they now have different rights than my client to have a garage? 54 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No any applicant any property owner always has the right to apply for a variance. There's no guarantee they'll get it, they may they may not. It depends on a whole range of you know characteristics.The law is very clear and you know it.You know what it is,you know what the area variance standards are. I see that we have three raised hands so I'd like to give them an opportunityto talk,we're kind of getting off to philosophical you know conversation here and I'd like to bring it down with specifics of this application respectfully.So we have George Maul, we have Doris Brautigan and we have Stephen Roussan. Would you bring in Mr. Roussan first and then the others can come in.We just want to one at a time so we don't all talk over each other. STEPHEN ROUSSAN : Good afternoon, Stephan Roussan 415 Third St. I just want to point out a couple of things which I think you know is kind of stating the obvious but for the record,the 20% lot coverage is you know is the regulation of maximum lot coverage so the entire conversation from the start with entirely new construction is revolving around a presumption of exceeding the maximum rather than working within what should be the expected constraints. I understand a situation where you know a homeowner who has been on site for a long time, is a resident there you know and they are trying to add a little bit and it takes them over you know over the threshold you know that's something that we all understand but to map out a project from the very beginning purchasing the new lot to engage in this type of a construction project targeting going over that threshold from the beginning is just something that strikes me as sort of outside the realm of reasonable accommodation. I appreciate Gary's arguments, I know Gary you're a good guy you do good work. I think you're handed a tough assignment here on behalf of the homeowner. I'm just not down with it and I'm not buying the arguments. The other thing that I would also say is that there is no divine right of entitlement to a pool and a garage. The lot is what the lot is,the neighborhood is what the neighborhood is and I don't see how this is like this automatic presumption that we are you know that we all get our pool and our garage no matter what the circumstances are. That is ridiculous. I also wanted to point out you know with regard to the Town of Southold's Comprehensive plan you know one of the stated objectives is the revisiting of the setbacks and maximum building height especially on non-conforming lots (inaudible) on neighboring homes are not adversely affected by new houses. Now I don't know if that's applicable here in this circumstance or whether you know that's just sort of an aspiration with this objectives but clearly this is part of the conversation that people are having everywhere and I think when you look when you stand at the edge of the ballfield and you look at the entire perimeter of all the properties that one can see within line of sight this new house that's been built is I offer you that as exhibit A of what's behind this objective that the town is looking at more broadly. So for all of those reasons you know I just don't think it's an appropriate ask. It's already been granted a variance for the pool.At some point like how much are we going to shove a square peg into a round hole. 55 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just correct you on one thing.They did not need a variance for the pool they're under the 20% lot coverage. They needed a front yard setback to build in the footprint of what they demolished which was granted. The lot coverage that was much larger than what's being proposed now was denied. I just want to make sure that's corrected. They chose to build a pool as or right, they could have built a garage as of right cause the house did not take up 20% lot coverage. Let me see there's two other hands still up, let's bring them in. MEMBER DANTES : Or they could have built a smaller house, a smaller pool and built a garage as of right depending on how they wanted to use it up for lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. Let's see George Maul, unmute yourself please. GEORGE MAUL : Hello, George Maul. I want to talk about the Comprehensive Plan quickly and say you know we have a new Town of Southold Comprehensive Plan, it was approved I think this past August. It's a new normal you know. Besides the objective that Stephan talked about it's another place in the Town Comprehensive Plan in Chapter 5 that says we're supposed to be evaluating and mending the town code sections on lot coverage to prevent structures too large in scale from occurring in neighborhoods and that's throughout the Town of Southold it's not just in New Suffolk. I think we have a new normal and you know if every lot is built out to the maximum that it can be built out that will impact the community character. And so rather than I don't think we can really refer to examples that go back years and say you know this is another example. I think we have a new normal now that we have a new Comprehensive Plan that we're working to implement and I think we should be looking at it that way. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. Now we have another Doris Brautigan, would you please unmute yourself. DORIS BRAUTIGAN : Hello. This is two or three points that I just wanted to make. One is, when you compare the lot coverage as being you know say it's roughly 20% at the White Cap property and 20% at this property,these are such different sized lots. You're completely they're not really comparable because these are 20%of a huge lot is not nearly as dense as 20% of a small lot such as this. Second of all, the purpose of I don't know it seems that the pre-existing shed does not serve as a precedent anymore but I do want to point out the purpose of a shed and the purpose of a pool house is entirely different. As neighbors we're concerned that a pool house is going to be as Michele stated in her letter a party sort of situation creating a lot of noise. Lastly, as far as the character of the neighborhood the house right now has two enormous torches in front of it that spill light all over and they're not within the town code and I would like to address that with the builder. As a builder I thought that dark skies would be something that one would consider. So thank you for listening. 56 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. I think that if a lighting is intrusive then there's neighbors have a remedy to deal with that it's not something the Zoning Board would deal with but there are other remedies which neighbors have options of. I don't know if you want to address that Gary or not. GARY STEINFELD : I think they're just lights on timers for construction security but I'm sure it's not something permanent but if it's disturbing enough people I'm sure I can speak to the client about setting a timer setting so that they're not on through the full night. It was just done as a means of security during construction because the job sites are not always as secure as a primary residence. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good thank you that should be helpful. Anything else from anybody? MEMBER DANTES : Yea I'd like to say, the Comprehensive Plan I know it's adopted and I know what's in it but our legal criteria still goes more to the character of the neighborhood I mean the variance criteria. I mean we don't have Town Board's approval to start considering the Comprehensive Plan yet. Did I say that right? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : More or less. GARY STEINFELD :As the agent for the applicant we do get a bit philosophical and I know we got to move on we do get a bit philosophical with the discussion with certain neighborhoods and New Suffolk is one of them because it's a very dense neighborhood and it tends to be a hot topic right now but I just want us to understand that when the Board reviews this I'm hoping that we're reviewing it based off of precedent of what's been done in the neighborhood the variances that have been granted and we can continue to look at that based on where we are with the zoning code now and not any Comprehensive Plans or discussions of what's going to happen to New Suffolk and the zoning in the future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will apply the standards of the balancing act as required by law and we will consider all information and opinions expressed in writing and in the application and through testimony from neighbors. GARY STEINFELD : Right and I just want to answer one other comment made on record by one of the other Q&A hand raisers. I don't think anybody feels they're entitled to a swimming pool. I think entitled is a very strong word or entitled to a garage but it has been the precedent of the Zoning Board and if you look back at Minutes they always discussed that it's certainly normal for people to have swimming pools and it's normal for people to have garages and those type of statements have been used consistently through Zoning Board approvals of variances as a means to allow people to go over lot coverage in terms of saying you know it's not unusual for people 57 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 to have swimming pools. I think people should ask for you know should be able to enjoy their houses with swimming pools and it's not unusual for people to have garages for storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Gary I would just add one thing to what you were just saying, it's not necessarily about lot coverage it has to do with setbacks and yes a garage is customary for a home anywhere in Southold Town and a pool is also. But where you got a small lot like this and I would argue this was a blank slate, it's new construction it's not an existing early nineteenth or even early twentieth century home and I would draw the line certainly by the nineteen fifties when the zoning went into effect in 1957 it's a different thing and certainly there are all these unique situations in the sixties and seventies but I do think it's the opportunity for this Board to clean these things up.You're not dealing with setbacks, it's all about lot coverage and it is a small lot and it's a lot for that particular property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, I'd like to move on to the next application. I think we've heard quite a bit gotten quite a bit of information. By the way this all these hearings are being recorded and there is a transcript a written transcript of this recording that the Board reviews prior to making decisions. So once again we'll refresh our memories of everything that was said here, we'll reread the transcript as soon as we get it typed up and we'll make a decision likely in two weeks' time. If you wouldn't mind Gary just emailing downloading and emailing those priors for us to look at as we discussed. So hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. I won't make it subject to receipt of those. We do have the list, we could look them up ourselves but if you wouldn't mind if it's handy enough for you to just send them in it just saves staff time of doing that work.So there's a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date which would be two weeks' time at the earliest. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Liz would you call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. 58 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7473—DAVID ZAPPULLA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Zappulla # 7473. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 23, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at it says 810 but we have discovered that that is not the correct street number on Linnet St. in Greenport.What was is 611 so we need to make that correction.The Board did find the property, what was helpful was the fact that there was a photograph in there of the front of the house with a number on it and tax map, that was correct so apologies for that. I see the applicant is here. This is considered a demolition but they're really going to preserve part of the house. This is simply because it's more than fifty percent of the value of the existing structure and it would appear that you have a front yard setback proposed at 15.3 feet, the code requiring 35 and lot coverage of 26.9%, the code permits a maximum of 20%. Would you unmute yourself please. DAVID ZAPPULLA : Hi good afternoon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hi there, are you the new homeowner? DAVID ZAPPULLA : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I understand that the garage in the back with an apartment has a Pre-existing Certificate of Occupancy so it is a legal structure and that is what's contributing mostly to this lot coverage. Are you increasing the lot coverage? 59 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 DAVID ZAPPULLA: No we are not, it's the same footprint as originally designed.We're just looking to build above it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So 22.8% is existing alright I think your application and the Notice of Disapproval are not quite the same but that's okay we'll figure it out. The lot coverage on the Notice is 26.9 and you state it's 22.8, maybe you're referring to just the house. DAVID ZAPPULLA :Actually the survey does also say 26.9 MEMBER DANTES : 26.0 the one I have. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I have 26.0 also. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The survey says .9 oh wait a minute,is that the Notice of Disapproval? MEMBER DANTES :The Notice of Disapproval says .9 MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no, no you're looking at that's total building area he's allowed the 26.0 MEMBER DANTES : What? MEMBER LEHNERT :Total building area is that what's there or is that what he can build out to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that's there. MEMBER LEHNERT :That's what's there okay I'm sorry. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) build out to more than 20% (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah I'm sorry I read it wrong. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No problem, you're going to be upgrading the sanitary I take it. DAVID ZAPPULLA : We are currently attached to the village sewer system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay good. MEMBER DANTES : So basically you're putting in a second story on top of an existing dwelling. DAVID ZAPPULLA : That's correct. There's no change of the footprint whatsoever. We're not encroaching on the space as it was you know purchased it's still the exact same footprint. So there's no change to the footprint whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So that front yard setback is what's always been there? DAVID ZAPPULLA : That's correct. 60 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : No not as this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is very straightforward. It would be a big improvement altogether. It's in need of some care. Anybody else on the Board have any questions or comments? Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This one is really straightforward and by the way John Jarski also from the Building Department clarified for the Board that that is exactly what you're doing. C.O's Pre- C.O's on these structures,they're there legally you're basically putting on a second story. DAVID ZAPPULLA : Yeah John was out about a week ago and he verified you know came out for the Pre-C.O. so yep that's exactly what we're doing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well welcome to the neighborhood. Anybody in the audience wanting to address this application if so please raise your hand. I don't see any. Alright there's nobody else out there who wants to say anything so 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. Liz would you call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? i I 61 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously.We will have a decision in two weeks. I will go in and sign it and you can have it the next day. You can listen in if you wish it's not required it's not a hearing. There's no testimony taken but it's open to the public to listen to us discuss application drafts of decisions and then we vote on them. DAVID ZAPPULLA : What time is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I sign them the next day. It will be on the agenda just like this one was the Zoom link and all that for anybody here or anybody attending who wants to attend that meeting. What is it March 18th we open to the public at 5 o'clock. HEARING#7474—JAMES and LAURIE CARNEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for James and Laurie Carney #7474. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's December 15, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet located at Equestrian Ave. on Fishers Island. SAM FITZGERALD : Hello can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can, hi. SAM FITZGERALD : Hi. 62 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a front yard setback proposed at 20 feet where the code requires 35 feet and a rear yard of 22 where the code requires a minimum of 35. It looks like these are just small additions to this non-conforming house on an undersized lot. SAM FITZGERALD : Yep and I think it's all pretty straightforward. I think that the I'd just like to make a couple of quick points about this. There's one additions one small 96 sq. ft. addition off to the bottom corner of the house that's a mud room and a laundry room and that's yowknow there's no real room in existing footprint of the house to fit a laundry room or mud room and that's the (inaudible) service side of the house. I just would like to also say that you know that addition is close to a pond there but I think that if I could just share my screen just for a-quick minute. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you let him do that to share Liz or Donna? SAM FITZGERALD : I think she already has. Yes so just real quick here. In this corner where;we're going to be building the pond right here I just want to allay any fears about the proximity to the pond. This is the existing (inaudible) we have back there where we have this concrete patio in red and stairs down the steep hill to the pond. That's all concrete that's all impervious area and under this current proposal that's all coming out so we're getting rid of about 150 sq. ft. of impervious area with the and then you can see some pictures. There's a bulkhead there and there's that's all coming out the oil tank and all that stuff is coming out. With the new plan here with this one room addition it's not going to be a full foundation it's just going to be three piers and the roof runoff is going to be to a dry well. So it's really going to be sort of a net benefit when it comes to the wetlands. We're also going to do probably the most important thing we're;going to do is currently the lawn comes all the way down to the edge of the pond and that's the,worst thing that you can have is that you know with all the fertilizing and bad stuff seeping into the pond. So what we're going to do is we're going to back the lawn up to this line right here,!we're going to add a landscape buffer so that we can trap and filter any fertilizers or anything that comes down from the lawn. So I think that given all that it's a net gain actually and that deck addition is not increasing the non-conformity of the setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well thank you very much for your excellent visual submission.'These kinds of documents especially on Fishers Island always help tremendously for us. The Building Department of course did inform us Mike Verity went over there and he says now these he sent us photographs that these proposed additions and alterations are now as built and pardon? SAM FITZGERALD :Yea no you're right absolutely right yeah they are sort of in progress and I just yeah I was told by Mike last Friday the contractor jumped the gun. I have not been ablelto get over there as much now as I do in sort of normal times and yeah the last time I was there these were not built but Mike called me last Friday and said Sam look you gotta thing here.They started 63 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 to frame these up so I called the contractor right away and said secure the area and stop work. I just want you to know that it wasn't any kind of directive from the owner. They didn't know anything about it, or it was any kind of you now cavalier attitude about the process it was just a brutal February you know weather wise and they got a bit of a break from the weather and they just got too over eager. So it wasn't any intent to pull one over on anyone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I asked Mike if we needed an updated an amended Notice of Disapproval and he said that was up to us. If what has been built is already what's before us and nothing more or nothing different I think we can just put that in additional information. I don't know let me ask the rest of the Board. Do you feel that way too, Pat how do you feel? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I have no problem with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick and Eric you guys okay with that? MEMBER DANTES : I don't have an issue. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Well we understand sometimes that stuff happens but I just wanted the record to indicate that we were now he had gone over there to do an inspection he was going anyway but he brought us up to date on the two applications on Fishers Island. It's very helpful. Does anybody on the Board have any questions, I think it's very clear what's being proposed. I'm looking to see if there's anything else in my notes basically. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So Leslie while you're doing that, I'll ask Sam if he has the ability to share that wonderful picture of the Bartletts that popped up for a second the early twentieth century image. This house has a phenomenal history. SAM FITZGERALD :Yeah and this is so that's the house as it was in 1880. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Isn't that amazing? SAM FITZGERALD : It is amazing. So it's been considerable altered, in fact actually so from 1880 to about 1950 or'60 it saw some really significant alterations, like this whole thing is filled in,this whole porch is filled in. Part of our variances we like to make this open porch again but I just love this photo. I mean there are no trees at all it's just sort of what you know almost look CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's prairie. 64 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Look how far that other house is. SAM FITZGERALD : But you know some of this I mean it's great because some of this paneling exists and all these details are still there. It's our a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Carpenter gothic that's MEMBER LEHNERT : I love those supports on the columns. SAM FITZGERALD :So that's what we're planning on using for the back covered porch too to bring that back but it's a real gem and it's a real pleasure to work on the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alrighty, I don't think there's anything from anybody else. I don't think there was anybody in the audience, let me just ask though. If there's anybody here to talk about this application? No okay, anybody have any further questions or comments? i OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : There's a hand up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : George Guimaraes. Would you please unmute yourself. GEORGE GUIMARAES : Marybeth and George Guimaraes. We are the immediate next 'door neighbors of this home in fact another wonderfully old restored Victorian home and built at the same time as the house you're considering. We have no problem with it and I just want to go on record because several people on the island have asked us about our views about this building because it is so close to our house but we have no objection to it. We wish the new owner the best of luck and success with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's wonderful,thank you very much for your testimony. Does that sum it up? I think so. Alright, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? i MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? 65 I Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We'll have a decision in two weeks' time. You're just going to stay here Sam? SAM FITZGERALD :Yeah. HEARING#7477-CHRISTOPHER and MARIAN BRIGGS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Christopher and Marian Briggs. #7477. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 25, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" deck additions to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize an "as built" accessory shed at 1) as built shed is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) as built deck is located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, 3) as built deck is located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 60 feet located at 320 Oceanic Ave. on Fishers Island. So the deck addition is a front yard setback at 33 the code requiring a minimum of 40 feet, a rear yard setback of 39.5 the code requiring a minimum of 60 and the shed is along the side of the house rather than in the rear yard. SAM FITZGERALD : It's in the front, front yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's in the front yard right. Okay let's pull up the survey on that. Can we get the survey on that up Donna please. Oh that's why, it's on the side of the house but it's front yard. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's a weird shaped lot. 66 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 I I SAM FITZGERALD : It is a Weird shaped lot. The decks were built probably thirty years ago, the shed probably appeared on the property about the same time but you know I don't have too much to say about this but I just figured I just want to point out one quick thing if I can share the screen. So just with the shed, the shed is in the front yard you know in theory but this lot is sort of interesting because,it's in of sort of the center of what would be the cultural center or kind of a like the town green area of Fishers. It's still loosely defined as such but you have two churches and a library here and you have this open space that's owned by the Ferguson Museum and so it sort of reads like a town square or like the town green here and they have a lot of exposure.The back,of their house has a lot of exposure this open green space and this red area here that's the only allowable area where that shed could go per the zoning regulations. So if you do that iif you put the shed where it's sort of supposed to go then what happens is that you have here's th!e few from that green space then what you have is you have the shed right in here and it's just basically you know open to the public green space and I think that that's you know not any improvement to the character of the neighborhood. So where it is currently located in the front yard actually makes a ton of sense because it's away from that open green space, it's more private. This right here is really, really thickly vegetated. This is the main driveway in, it's sort of right there it's actually a less visible here than anywhere else on the property and it's also for bikes so it just make it easier for bikes. So all that combined I think it's a sort of a sensible place for it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Look at good old Fishers Island, there is nothing regular on Fishers Island at all. SAM FITZGERALD :There's nothing, I know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :And there it is. I mean there's the library,the Catholic Church, houses you know. SAM FITZGERALD : Yeah and it's you know it's as close as we get as I said to sort of a town green and there's the commercial center up the road a little bit but this is sort of like the you''know where our cultural institutions are and things and they're just and this house is just right there in full view of it all. MEMBER ACAMPORA : The shed would just be sticking out if you put it where it was supposed to go. SAM FITZGERALD : Yeah it would yep. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think I saw anybody in the Sam if you could take that down so we could and I can see I don't think there's anybody else. Is there anybody here for this application that wants to speak that's in the attendees list? I'm not seeing anything. Alright any other comments or questions from Board Members? We have a very well put together visual 67 i Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 presentation in our packets so it's very clear to see what's being added and where it's going and why well what's being approved really legalized not being added. The lot coverage is what 5.1%? SAM FITZGERALD : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess they were built a long time ago without permits I guess and now it's SAM FITZGERALD : That's right, that's right. 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 PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Liz would you call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT: Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. 68 i ,I Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 I HEARING#7465SE—KONSTANTINOS DIAKOVASILIS i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application was adjourned from a prior hearing dated February 41h and we have a request from the applicant for another adjournment. There are matters that they simply need to resolve before they return to our public hearing so I'm going to upon the request of the applicant make a motion to adjourn Konstantinos Diakovasilis #7465SE to the next date which would be April 11t. We'll figure out the time when we see what the agenda looks like. So there's a motion, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. li CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Liz call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? I MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. i OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you dote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? i CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. i 69 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 HEARING # 7463SE—SUFFOLK COUNTY ENERGY STORAGE II, LLC (Adjourned from February 4, 2021) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The final application today before the Board is for Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC #7463SE adjourned from the February 4th Meeting. Let's see who is here that we have to admit. There's Steven Losquadro should we let him in. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, I just noticed that Gary Steinfeld is here from West Creek. I saw earlier a question popped up that he was dropped or something like that so I don't know if Gary needs help or if he's going to attend this hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know. Well he's on and you know so if Gary if you're having a problem or something would you put that in.the chat for us and we'll OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : He can raise his hand if he wants to speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. I'm going to leave that for a moment. I'd like to open this up re-open it, continue it by bringing everybody up to date on what's been happening between the hearing in February and now. First of all we've gotten an enormous amount of documents that we didn't have before and I'd like to just explain what all of those are, it's going to save us some time and get more information out to the public also. First of all we have an LWRP consistency assessment form that we did not have before. This is from the applicant as required by local LWRP. We have a comprehensive LWRP Coastal Consistency Review that we now have that we didn't have before and that's from our Southold Town LWRP Coordinator dated March 15t. A number of these documents by the way came in very, very recently and so although I've been working very hard to read everything they came in very quickly and had a lot of other application to prepare for today so I will be requesting some more time to make sure that we can comprehensively and completely review everything and give the public also an opportunity to review these documents which will be scanned into our LaserFiche online application so that anyone interested can review all of them as well. So I'm going to propose at the very least that we leave that we'll adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks so that the Board has time to look at it, we have time to scan and the attorney has time to respond to anything the public might have submitted although he's done a good job of that to date. Anyway, the Consistency Report declared the application inconsistent but it's primarily based upon the applicant's proposed setback from the freshwater wetlands and it also listed the benefits of the project to the public and possible mitigation measures on that site to bring the proposed project into consistency with the LWRP. We have a full Environmental Assessment Form Part II and III from the LWRP Coordinator. We have a memorandum from the Town Trustees stating no objection to the ZBA assuming Lead Agency however they did not submit any specific comments relative to the conditions on the site which we were expecting to get but we did not receive. We have a 70 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 memo from the Southold Town Planning Board outlining where the proposed project meets and does not meet the Town's Comprehensive Plan and concluded that the Planning Board acknowledges the benefits of the proposed Battery Energy Storage System facility to the public however the location proposed is not supported and we have also submitted by Mr. Losquadro an entire long two long documents that basically addressed those concerns and respectfully rebut some of those comments. We have a SEAR determination of negative declaration, resolution was passed this morning. it's a thirteen page long document. It both analyzes and documents in detail seventeen reasons that are in support of the findings of a NEG DEC. 1'11 give you just for the public's benefit some of the seventeen reasons that were analyzed, include impacts on land, on water, on flooding, on air, plants and animals, noise, odor and light and basically and many others. It concluded that no adverse impacts rise to the level of a moderate to large impact that would require a Positive Declaration. We have two lengthy submissions as I said from the applicant's attorney Mr. Losquadro in response to those documents. They will be available for the public to look at. One was received March 2"d and the other yesterday March 3rd but then also he didn't have benefit of these other documents until very recently either to respond to them.So we will put them on for view.We also have received about twenty six letters in total. So what I want to do for the benefit of all those present is to say we received letters in opposition and we've received letters in support. The letters received in opposition three',from local environmental groups, nine from local residents. I want to make it clear however that not one single letter objected to the green infrastructure project the battery energy storage systems. The concern was all with impacts to the property. We also have letters received in support four form different organizations and eleven from local residents. All think that the project in case of local residents all believe that the project is more important and beneficial to the Town of Southold and it's residents and will have minimal to no environmental impacts if we can find ways to mitigate. I will remind everyone present, the Zoning Board cannot legally approve anything that it cannot find consistent with the LWRP for mitigation measures. The applicants have already proposed a number of mitigation measures and I'm not going to review all that I'm going to leave that to the discretion of the attorney but what I think is instructive is I would like to just briefly because this is an important project. It's a first for our town and I would like to read excerpts from two of the environmental groups that are in opposition and then I would like to follow that with excerpts from a couple of from two organizations that support the project. All of them have expertise in their respective subjects so I think it's useful to do this so that we can discuss this in a comprehensive way. The Northfork Audubon Society writes in opposition requesting a denial because of the 325 acres of critically sensitive lands and habitat once which the Town of Southold and Suffolk County have spent millions of dollars to acquire and preserve the cost of which wasn't (inaudible) by the community. The two acre proposed site is located directly adjacent to a section of A)the beta sound trail system part of a larger surrounding body of both of tidal and freshwater wetlands, Pipes Cove Creek and Moores Drain Habitat and forests 71 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 where many species of birds including (inaudible) ducks, wood thrush and many warbles live seasonally and breed. There are also river otters who are nomadic (inaudible) feeds, spend time and possibly breed in these wetlands. They rely on wetlands to travel to and from nearby ponds, (inaudible)Arshomamoque preserve and nearby Sage Blvd.where they fish and raise their young. The NYS Energy Development Agency (inaudible) developed a battery energy storage model and recommends before municipalities adopt local law a comprehensive plan outlining the goals and policies for the installation, operation, maintenance and decommissioning a battery energy storage systems must be adopted by the local governing board. They are correct in a sense that many other municipalities have code for battery energy storage systems and we can look to that code and we will no doubt we won't the Zoning Board can't but the Town Board will certainly be adopting that in the future. They say that Southold Town needs to perform due diligence and require a full scoping and environmental impact statement,that was prior to understanding that all of those documents have been submitted and that the conclusion by the experts was that no full additional scoping is necessary. NFAS the Audubon supports the development battery storage facilities in conjunction with renewal energy projects all for lessening the use of inefficient peaker plants but only if it's cited properly. So I will then say what Audubon, Northfork Environmental Counsel has to say and I'm going to go on to letters of support. Please bear with me, I know this is taking a bit of time but I think it will move us forward more quickly than repeating information that has already been submitted. The Northfork Environmental Counsel has been advocating for the protection of our local environment since 1972. We support the development of battery storage facilities as they should be integral to renewable energy projects. We do not however believe that the proposed location is the correct location for a lithium battery storage facility. The subject site and other properties in the immediate area are included on numerous lists for potential preservation. Many of the properties have already been protected had LI and LIO designations similar to the proposed site so precedent has been set for the preservation of environmentally sensitive properties within all zoning districts in the area.The two acre proposed site contains approximately one half acre within a NYS Department of State designated significant fish and wildlife habitat. One quarter acre is mapped as freshwater wetlands with the potential for additional wetland area once naturalized. The parcel currently drains to two wetland areas on the adjacent county parkland according to the Town's Land Preservation office. Based on the proposed coverage of the parcel storm water runoff will be significantly increased compared to current conditions. So it is not in support. I did want to say something that I did say at the very beginning. This is a rather unusual situation in that we have a conceptual plan, we do not have a final finished document. Typically the Zoning Board would have a very site specific definitive plan. Because this is a green energy infrastructure project we agreed to hear this with the understanding that many, many more levels of approval were going to be required should the applicant obtain the contract from LIPA. They can't be specific yet because they don't know what the LIPA standards will be, what they're specifications and requirements would be. There 72 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 may not be a lot coverage issue.There may be other things. We just simply don't know yet and I will give you a chance Mr. Losquadro to comment on that but I did want to 'say with regard to their understanding the lot coverage that is what is on a conceptual plan right'now. Should they need other variances they will be back before the Zoning Board should this be approved to obtain t them when that is determined. So I just want everybody to understand we're a long way off from a final product. Now I want to turn to two approvals. One is from New York Battery and Energy Storage Technology Consortium, William Acker Executive Director. This is according to the NY Landmark 2019 Climate Leadership Community Protection Act which is referred to as CLCPA,this man has served on that particular advisory panel and that group has been addressing how to implement those goals including the need for more significant role for energy storage. In October of 2020 the group released an independently prepared study by Strategen which found the following. Long Island is home to twenty six fossil fuel power plants that's seldom operate and impose significant cost on Long Island electric customers including four thousand three hundred and seventy five megawatts of peaker plants that operate only fifteen percent of the time. This includes national grids diesel fuel Southold peaker located within five hundred feet of the applicant's proposed Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC project. To maintain these peakers LIPA customers pay an estimated four hundred and seventy three million dollars annually almost three times the competitive market rate for generation with resources cleared through NYISO's competitive markets.Overthe next decade fossil peaker replacements could save LIPA customers as much as three hundred and ninety three million representing savings of approximately three hundred and sixty per household across LIPA's 1.1 million customers. I'll conclude with replacing Long Island's oldest least efficient and most polluting fossil fuel peaker plants including National Grid Southold diesel fuel peaker plant with lower cost, emission free energy storage will reduce energy cost, create jobs, building more resilient power system and reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases emissions in communities across Long Island including the Northfork and one other thing,the New York League of Conservation voters has this to say. In 2021-2022 Long Island Policy agenda NYLC(inaudible) priorities focus upon sustainable development, renewables, clean air and electric vehicles specifically calling for promoting policies to invest in battery energy storage technologies. Well NYLCD does not generally support or oppose specific projects Suffolk County Energy Storage is the type of project that furthers the goal of cleaner and more renewable, reliable energy as outlined in our 2021-2022 Long Island Policy Agenda. Such project create local jobs reduce air pollution, stabilize the energy grid and help meet peak energy demands implementing utility scale energy storage on Long Island's Northfork (inaudible) LIPA's existing electrical grid displace emissions from old and inefficient diesel fueled peaking plants and deliver more reliable electric service is a top priority forthe NY League of Conservation Voters and we encourage their development installation to meet the state's 2019 Climate Leadership Community Protection Act goals of(inaudible) renewable based electric generation by 2040. Now I will only add one thing and then I'm done. This is a general support of these kinds of projects. 1 73 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 don't believe they were aware of the specific site that this was going to be going on. Nevertheless it (inaudible)to a future direction that is extremely important for all of Long Island and in fact the entire country that would (inaudible). So with that being said I want to turn this over to Mr. Losquadro and have you say whatever you'd like to say. MR. LOSQUADRO : Thank you madam Chairwoman and members of the Board, good afternoon. Could everybody hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MR. LOSQUADRO : Well I hope that you're all well. I wanted to thank you for that introduction and also for noting the different types of support that's come in. I think as you said madam Chairwoman it is varied in nature in that there are local residents who recognize that the site here being industrial in nature can certainly support as of right uses that are much more intense and in fact are uses that are intense are found right in the general area within a thousand feet in any direction in which one might go along the Main Rd. In addition I think it's very important that to note that some of these groups are environmental and very significant environmental associations by their nature and when you look at the League of Conservation Voters as you mentioned but also I believe (inaudible)for the environment which is one of the letters that was set forth and a very significant and active environmental organization and that expressed support. I think that also speaks to how benign the uses, how the use is essentially a zero impact proposition as we discussed during the last hearing and that it accomplishes so many important environmental goals and the promotion of renewable energy as we've discussed over time. I would say this, obviously there's a very complete record that's been made. We had the opportunity to present on February 411, you were very gracious as was the rest of the Board in permitting us to set forth a very complete record with experts and people with a great amount of experience in the industry and also engineers and others who spoke to the nature of the property who compared and contrasted that with the uses that are present and permitted in the area including on the site itself as an industrial site. In addition as you mentioned we were thankful for the opportunity after the last hearing to receive as it was passed onto us by staff comments that we were waiting for at the last hearing that hadn't arrived yet from staff and we were able to respond. We respectfully submit very thoroughly in a very complete manner so that's all part of the record now too and as you mentioned there was a March 1St letter and then a letter dated March 2nd and then one thing madam Chairwoman it might have just been my omission but I did not hear reference to the February 22nd letter that we submitted that was specific to the issue of fire protection and safety and that was follow up but I would just note that for the record as well. I know it's been received and I know that there have been many things that have been sent back and forth but I just wanted to mention that in addition to the other things that was presented by the applicant as well. So with all of that having been said, I think 74 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 what's most appropriate for us is to rest on the record. We presented again very completely, we appreciated that opportunity,we appreciate the opportunity to be here again today to note what has been added to the record in the interim and of course we'll follow the lead of the Board and you and we're here to answer any questions on a follow up basis that you may have whether that's with respect to thought about buffers or distance with respect to buffers or anything else that you may wish to inquire about. At this point certainly we're pleased to rest on the record and thankful that we had that opportunity and that our additional documents have been submitted and again we thank staff because they very promptly passed on those documents to us so that we could turn around responses often within twenty four or forty eight hours. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I appreciate how promptly you did respond and of course because we have so many applications before us today I have managed to read them all with little sleep. However I need to reread them and I think the Board needs ample time to read them.They were very detailed responses in the SEAR Neg. Dec. and very detailed responses from you Mr. Losquadro. You have offered a number of things in the record including the awareness that you will need other approvals from other agencies and so on. This is step one, should it go forward and what we're left with is looking at this sort of balancing although Special Exception Permits are not a balancing test the way variances are. They have straightforward standards and so on but we will be looking at ways to mitigate any possible impacts to the surrounding property.The town has invested millions of dollars in preservation and we do have a wildlife habitat there, we do have other things. We will have to consider lighting and making sure that it's minimal and only to meet whatever security you need on the property. We'll have to increase that buffer and we would like to talk to you about a possible easement. That way you don't need to go through change of deed or property size but that way the hiking trails if we have an easement along the wetland part where the hiking trails are that would guarantee that the town would be able to enter it and clean it if necessary. We will want a bigger buffer than the 10 feet from the woods that you're looking at. Of course you have already offered comprehensive screening all the way around and that's frankly something you would have to work out. We know we don't actually we have an example it's not final and so we can't really comment on what the visualization was other than to say we will expect that you will work with the Planning Board on landscape screening of whatever is appropriately designated on non-invasive species and no herbicides and pesticides and all that sort of stuff. Looking at flood tolerance on the property. You will have to produce a storm water management plan that will you know comply and will guarantee that soils which are difficult soils, the hydrology is a little more complex on that property. You're going to have to make sure that all that is working well and that if they need to be elevated on racks you'll do that. You've already offered acoustical measures that can be done in the final site plan,you don't even know how the layout is going to be at. We know that you can put the HVAC systems on the sides or on the ground. So all those are things yet to be determined but we will be conditioning these kinds of steps in any approval that might be forthcoming. I'm not going to say what the outcome 75 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 is going to be, we have to evaluate all the material in front of us. One other thing I want to ask you about is, we don't have this in our code but when the Zoning Board was doing cell towers we always had at the appropriate time a decommissioning plan submitted in this case it would likely be the Planning Board should you get to that point and then a performance bond signed. That is fairly standard,what it means I know you know I'm just saying in case people listening don't that it just means that in the event that this is no longer functioning or needed and the use is relatively abandoned that the applicant will have sufficient funds to remove all of the structures on the property and restore it to its previous condition.That's basically what that is and we did that with cell towers and I think what we do finally have a full code in our you know zoning code that we will be making that standard as well. Brookhaven does it, Southampton does it I'm sure you're not surprised by that. MR. LOSQUADRO : That is standard, yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN: Yeah it's pretty standard. I'm going to shut up for a minute. Does the Board have anything else they want to ask or say?Then I'm going to let the public speak. MR. LOSQUADRO : After the Board speaks there's just one or two comments I would just like to add to what you've just added right now. I'll wait of course and I'll see whatever else the Board has to offer as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Anything from any Board members?I think what has to happen is they have to really read this stuff thoroughly and see exactly what details are now in the fullness of this application and all of the documents from other agencies that we've received. We have an awful lot of information from Planning,from LWRP, from experts your experts, our experts,from organizations that have expertise and we're just going to have to digest it. We're going to have to do a very thorough read and I think it's I've actually reread the transcript and highlighted it from the first public hearing and I will share that with the rest of the Board I mean they all have it but it might make it easier for them to wain their way through all of the other documents if they have some highlights in that cause that was very long. So anybody Rob or Nick did you or Eric did you want to make a comment? Nick unmute yourself. MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any comments at this time. MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sorry about that I thought I was unmuted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You are now. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I am now. I have a question which I think came up in an earlier dialogue but please clarify, I believe the application states that these batteries store sufficient power for 76 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 approximately eight hours of use for twenty eight thousand households approximately. Are Southold residents prioritized in that or is this for all of eastern Long Island? How does the distribution of the power work? MR. LOSQUADRO : Well let me say this if I may, with respect to the very specific details of how that works on a grid wide basis because it's the LIPA grid to which power is uploaded and downloaded.We have Walter Meisner who is waiting in the wings if you will because Mr. Meisner is here and perhaps you can allow him in because I could of course tell you very generally how that works and that it's for the benefit of all LIPA rate payers because it's one grid but of course I could also tell you that Southold residents will benefit very directly and substantially as all the LIPA residents or rate payers. But I will let Walter speak to that because and I see now that he's been allowed in because he can give you some specifics with respect to how this works within the context of how the grid functions. WALTER MEISNER : This is Walter Meisner with Savion. So I think Nick directly to your question, effectively we cannot specify where those electrons go but what you will find is that as we're connected directly to the grid as proposed in the LIPA substation across the street there effectively what we're going to do is provide robust energy stability to that grid in that system. Typically electrical you know generation services load is close by first and then as it's not being used there it's you know effectively transmitted further. So I can't say that there's a preference to local users but they obviously will benefit first from a project like this. MEMBER DANTES : I think the other comment to add is I mean Southold is not the only town that's getting a battery storage application, I mean they're coming in all over the island aren't they? MR. LOSQUADRO : That is correct. MEMBER DANTES : So ideally every town will have their own facility. MEMBER ACAMPORA : To that point,just a clarification particularly for people that are on here listening and want to participate, when you talk about the point that Eric just made could you elaborate further on the rational of why the battery storage needs to be in a close proximity to the substation and not maybe twenty miles away? WALTER MEISNER : This is Walter. In response to that, I think the close proximity to a substation is key and the reason for that is you know as farther you get away from any type of inter grid interconnection you end up you lose the robustness of the system and so you have losses over any transmission lines and so when you get close to a substation and your communications are closer, your actual integration into the grid is closer and so everything is just a lot more efficient and it also allows you know less loss, less all of these other things including the infrastructure 77 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 installation. So if we're twenty miles away from an interconnection point we have to build transmission for twenty miles. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Right and the cost differential. WALTER MEISNER : Certainly, the cost is definitely lower the closer you would get to an interconnection point. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So in most of Long Island when again the battery storage is going to be proposed in other towns you would definitely be looking then to put a facility near wherever the substation was located, is that correct? WALTER MEISNER : I would generalize that by saying that is likely the first point of anybody's research into to building one of these yeah. MR. LOSQUADRO :And if I may Walter,to follow up to Mrs.Acamp`ora's question just to be more precise with respect to that, LIPA in its RFI/RFP process to place battery storage throughout all of Long Island in all the townships to strengthen the grid and to promote renewable energy identified nineteen what are called PO1's and in fact they're referred to as Preferred POI's, Preferred Points of Interconnection. Interestingly the substation here which as we know is in immediate proximity is the only location identified by LIPA as such in the town of Southold. So that speaks to your point that there are preferred points of interconnection that have been identified already by the utility as part of the is process of integrating renewable energy and providing for this new green technology throughout Long Island with one location in Southold which we've identified. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to make one other comment because a lot of people have said it's a great project on a very challenged difficult site, couldn't you find someplace else?So I went and I read the LIPA RFP and found out that they basically put right in there that they were not contemplating this Q&A part, they were not contemplating co-location on any of their sites at this time. They didn't say why. I went and looked at the site with peakers in Southold, it's very close to wetlands, it's badly sited anyway and I do believe that in order to locate anything on it would require an enormous amount of land disturbance because it's you know that too is a bad site basically. It's already noisy and from what I've been reading and as a professor I go right to the scholarly sources and till my eye cross and I started reading about what lithium ion batteries storage is all about and I now know more about molecules than I ever wanted to know.There are occasionally fires but very rarely and it was mostly the fault and the fact that people who deal with fire suppression didn't know how to do it well, that the local fire departments were not properly trained in how to deal with it and you know those can all be handled. Actually that's 78 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 what a municipal code would do which we unfortunately don't have at this time and we can't really afford to wait until the Town Board acts to put that into place to make a decision on this application. Are there any other comments from the Board at this point otherwise I'm going to turn it over to people who are in attendance and then turn it back over to you Mr. Losquadro so you can have closing comments and we'll see where we're going from there.There were a couple of people I think who wanted to be who had raised their hands Liz. Can you let them in please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I'm only going to do one at a time for now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes please that's fine. Okay it looks like Randy you're admitted unmute yourself please. RANDY WADE : Thank you all very much for your time and thoughtful consideration. One thing I wanted to mention in going through the Master Plan was that it specifically calls out that energy facilities, electric facilities should not be located on scenic byways 25 and 48. So for that reason alone I think it is a significant impact, it's the gateway to Greenport and the you know one of the things that an environmental impact statement would look at is community character and aesthetics. The environmental issues that have already been brought out and are pretty significant as far as wetlands, we know the property is wet itself and that mowing the lawn there you can almost lose a lawn mower in the if you were to let it go it would be (inaudible) ponds and wetlands the whole property. I also wanted to mention that the proximity to the peaker plant which I still don't understand it and if I'm allowed to come back on I would like to ask Walter if he could explain exactly what's there cause I drove in and it was a PG&E on the left and Nassau Grid on the right. What exactly do they have there Walter? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Walter do you want to answer that? WALTER MEISNER : I'm not quite sure what the question is but I wouldn't probably be able to answer that either. RANDY WADE :You've chosen this location because it's next to that facility which has been called a substation, it's been called the peaker plant. I know that there's a national grid facility on the right and PG&E on the left. Could you go into more detail about what is there that you are locating approximate to? MR. LOSQUADRO : I'm sorry Walter if I could just maybe frame it a little bit it. I think Ms. Wade might be confusing two different things and I think as Ms. Weisman pointed out there is the LIPA substation which is critical in that it's located very, very nearby so that becomes a point of interconnection. But then I think as Ms. Weisman said there's also a peaker plant and that's a noisy and polluting peaker plant which is something separate and is something that we don't control that's something that someone else runs. We all know as a general proposition that the 79 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 thought and the hope is that these noisy and polluting peaker plants eventually will be backed down or eliminated by the increased proliferation of renewable energy and battery storage of course is fundamental to making that happen but we're not responsible for the peaker plant or its operation. So I just wanted to key that up for Walter before he answers that further. MEMBER DANTES : Can you guys explain what a peaker plant is? I mean my understanding is that it's a giant diesel power generator but maybe I'm wrong. WALTER MEISNER : I believe it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's diesel powered. WALTER MEISNER :Just to go to Randy to answer your question, so my understanding is that and the infrastructure that we are interested in specifically is that substation and so there's a LIPA owned substation that's back in that area and that's what we're it's about five, six hundred feet from our project site and that's what we're proposing to connect into the grid with. As Steve has already noted the diesel generator peaker plant is separate and that's maybe co-located in generality because of the substation but that's a separate essentially a separate operation. MEMBER DANTES : You're idea it that if you have the battery storage then they won't have to run the diesel plants as much that's the general concept? WALTER MEISNER : I believe that's the general concept yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Well if I can just you know get in on this because I was on the public service commission and I also represented the first assembly district. Those peaker plants work in contract with LIPA so you had National Grid probably ran that. National Grid no longer has a contract with LIPA, PSEG has a contract with LIPA and I would think if LIPA now is moving toward the battery storage they will no longer have,a contract for those peaker plants. This is what they're trying to get rid of, this is step with what the State Energy proposals for green energy what the Governor has proposed and Governors,before him.So I hope that answers the question, I think it does. RANDY WADE : Okay thank you very much.That area that whole thing I would think I mean is this a substation prone to flooding because that is a flood zone right there so I would think and surprised you said that's the only location I thought there were several in the Town of Southold. Also Southold Town has a plan for a solar field at the landfill and it just seems like you would want a location that would be near green energy production. I mean that's what the whole goal is and there's no way you have green energy production in this area cause it's completely surrounded by wetlands and you're not going to have never had permission to have the solar 80 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 field or wind field right there. So it seems like the proximity is too aging infrastructure in a flood zone that is not going to be viable. MR. LOSQUADRO : If I may just to address Ms. Wade, that's not how it works. What happens is that there's going to be a proliferation as we know of renewable energy that's going to be coming into the LIPA grid through solar but that's throughout all of Long Island and there's going to be offshore wind in fact that's going to be the predominant source of renewable energy that's coming in and so what LIPA has done or LIPA/PSE&G through their power markets group,they've identified as part of this request for information which is then flowing into a request for proposals, they've identified nineteen preferred critical sites where energy will be if you will upload it and download it so it's not dependent upon being next to let's say a solar farm but what it's dependent on is being next to those critical substations that will allow the grid as a whole to flourish with renewable energy. So really by choosing this site LIPA has said this is what allows us to best integrate renewable energy into our system which then meets the goals that you and me and many other want which is with respect to those peaker plants as you identified they're noisy, they're polluting, they use fossil fuels right. Eventually the plan is back them down, eliminate them but you can't do that unless you have the battery storage first because the system won't allow it. RANDY WADE : Have you looked at the old Greenport (inaudible) site which is across the road and just east of Chapel Lane so it's the same distance really to the substation?That's a question. WALTER MEISNER : Walter here, I think in general Randy we've looked a lot of different places and we've really settled on this being you know by far one of the best and it's for a number of reasons. We've gone through it in the record but you know there's just an enormous benefit for a project like this in an area it's already cleared. There's a very minimal environmental impact from our perspective and even the connection to the grid to the substation we're so close and we don't have to go through any tree clearing or wetlands to get there, we can essentially go down the driveway for LIPA. There's a lot of benefits to a site like this and where it's positioned. RANDY WADE : Well I could imagine if it had the same buffer as that LIPA facility I don't know do you know how many feet back it is from the road? WALTER MEISNER : I'd have to check. You're asking how far the substation is? I think we ran a distance and it's in the plan set we're about 550 or 600 feet away. RANDY WADE : Cause whatever that distance is that seems appropriate for a gateway location. Scenic byway with a massive (inaudible) don't site an electric facility that it should have a natural buffering of at least that dimension and then that might work. Thank you very much for your time. 81 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Randy thank you. Steven would you like to address that scenic byway because you did do it in your comments. So let the public hear what you had to say about that. MR. LOSQUADRO : Sure. I think what's really fundamental in addressing the scenic byway comments and look obviously we appreciate the comments and respect the context in which they're offered but I think also what we have to do is examine them within the larger real (inaudible) context of everything that exists right there because when we're discussing a scenic byway on the Main Rd. there. What I think is very important is to look at the uses that are up and down the Main Rd. and I think and I will respectfully suggest and submit that we addressed that very effectively by way of photographs and rather a,pretty comprehensive series of photographs that we" presented to the Board. So when one looks if one goes one thousand feet or more in either direction and takes the corridor as a whole going west and east and then also going north going on the other side of the Main Rd. there are very highly intense uses. There are very impactful uses,there are uses that visually may not be deemed by many to be visually appealing and aesthetically appealing. There are scrap yards, and there's an asphalt plant, and there is heavy machinery operations and what appears to be a salvage yard and all of these things have been documented and these are uses that exist as of right and can't be removed and they continue at this very moment and they're not screened and they're not buffered. In contrast the use that we're going to be presenting which in addition to being a zero impact proposition in relation to those uses which are again are as of right is going to be screened and is going to be buffered and we've demonstrated actually how that will happen. I think one can argue and I think it's only reasonable to assert that with respect to the scenic byway argument that this actually promotes that as opposed to adding to what's already there which detracts from that. CHAIRPERSON-WEISMAN : There was somebody else who wanted from the public who wanted to make some comments or ask some questions or something. Can you bring that person in, Chris. Chris would you unmute yourself please. You want to say something? RANDY WADE : Can I just say one other thing while you wait?The Southampton code for battery storage says not in a hotel area and there happens to be another hotel across the street. The zoning code is almost like spot zoning that has captured these locations that are surrounded on either side really by green.There's one that it's unbelievable that it was approved eight years ago and we need to look into the setbacks.There is one storage yard two lots away that is completely yeah in the wrong location you're so right. Anyway just take a look at Southampton and if we got a code that would be super. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the town needs to put a code in place because the code can establish certain requirements that applicants will have to conform with but we don't have one yet and we do have a timely project in front of us. Steven do you have any idea what the time 82 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 frame is for the LIPA contracts what they're looking at in terms of when they're going to start awarding these? MR. LOSQUADRO : Madam Chairwoman, no one can say with certainty what LIPA will or will not do and when the exact dates will be of issuance but what's generally understood is that within the first half of this year.So one would think by the end of June that the actua'I second half of the RFP will then be made public at which point then there will be active submissions and applications will be made, proposals will be put in and then LIPA will set a time frame by which it will act on those submissions. So by every account it will be forthcoming very soon. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted to get an idea.There was someone with their hand up named Hartnagel. They came off the list, they just were back on with a hand raised and now she's gone again. The one thing that I can say is that there's an enormous amount of documentation in place that we didn't have before and I want to make sure everybody has a chance to look at it. I will remind all of you that and the Board for that matter that this is step one and there is no way that we're going to be able to,prove anything on a land that we can't protect the town's investment of millions of dollars in creating wildlife habitats supporting existence of a wildlife habitat,from protecting freshwater wetlands and our aquifer and all of the interconnected underground things. It's a tough one because you gotta look at the benefits of both and we have to be able to protect both. If we could reasonably do that we can proceed. I need to make sure that we can do something that is consistent with the LWRP. So there are some safeguards in place. I'd like everybody to have an opportunity to read whatever is available now if they choose to if they're interested. We need a little bit of time to scan all that all those documents in. We certainly couldn't do it,this quickly, we just got most of them but they will be done in the next several days.So I think it's you know if there's anybody in attendance who wants to say anything this is a good chance to do it. If not I'm going to OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie I move Jenn Hartnagel in . CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh good there she is alright, hello Jenn can you hear us? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We also have a Thomas, move him in too? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep maybe somebody has enough wifi to actually say something. THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS : Can you hear me, I'm on the phone? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can. State your name for the record please. THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS : Yes it's the longest name here today, Thomas Sarakatsannis. With your permission I'd like to ask a question and then point out something so it's really two parts. 83 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 My question is to you, I attended the last hearing I recall you said Ms. Weisman that you were waiting for a report and I thought it was from a Mr. Terry or something like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we've received it. THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS : Are you waiting for other reports as well? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not at this time. THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS : Okay thank you I missed the very beginning of this meeting and I appreciate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I went through all of the documents we received at the very beginning and there are numbers of documents that are now in place and they are very detailed and they're very substantial and they're very helpful. THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS : Great and thank you for that and I apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's available for you to review, don't apologize no need. It's all going to be available for the public to look at. You'll find it interesting I think anybody in the neighborhood would find it interesting I think and it's well written so it's not so technical. Some is but you know when you start looking at decibel levels you know but there are sound studies in there now that show with contour lines the extent of which ambient noise will spill over or not both to the trails and to Drossos. I mean we have I believe just about everything we could possibly think of in our file at this point. So I want to be sure the public has access to all of that and that we have a chance to really thoroughly read it and maybe reread it and come to some full and complete insight as to how we can make this work or not work, we'll see. I think Jenn Hartnagel was connecting to the internet. I don't see a Jenn, says she's connecting to audio. THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS : M's. Weisman if I may, just to point out one thing and thank you for that I will read it and I think many others will as well. If I may follow up with Mr. Losquadro's last comment about the scenic byway in response to the comment about that may I do that now? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. THOMAS SARAKATSANNIS : I think one of the observing this and I'm new to all of this but I find it fascinating and very useful. There's a disconnect here everybody talks about it, there's these competing interests and I think one of the reasons there's a disconnect my observation may be helpful to someone here is that Mr. Losquadro points out that you can look a thousand feet this way or that way and you can see all this stuff, what is being recited in that are old things, things that have been in existence for a long, long time. They're not recognized today as particularly good ideas or particularly contemporary. The most recent invasion if you will is what happened 84 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 on the Costello property eight years ago. I think universally everyone is saying that was a bad idea. I'm sure I wasn't there for that hearing I wish I were and had I been I'm sure the Costello folks would have said hey look we have a right to this, there's worse things we can put on this property than us believe me so we want to go we want to go forward with it cause we can. I think that what's changed and what's part of the disconnect what we found out by the way was Costello I think it's well recognized is it wasn't a good idea, it's not good for the environment and had we been able to do it over again we could have. My guess is that the alternative to that would have been permanent preservation because of the surrounding areas and now we're left with one other parcel and Costello may never go back to permanent preservation. You got this last parcel here, these folks with the batteries want to develop it. They're telling you (inaudible) far worse. I think though that we have a one shot here for this permanent preservation and what's happened and the reason it resonates today and part of this disconnect when someone continually points out to you, look at all these horrible things that are a thousand feet this way or that way worse than what we are it doesn't resonate today does it?That's because since the early two thousands particularly in the Northfork area we've recognized the importance to the community and the importance to the world at large of permanent conservation. We also recognize the harm to the environment and the unpredictability over time you're talking-about bonds because you are taking a long, long view and it's impossible for any of us to understand the significance of a poisonous lithium battery. You talked about fire, seepage there's all sorts of other things no one knows how they're going to dispose of all of this stuff around the world. It's I think the long term and there's something that makes sense to me on this which is a twenty first century view which is if we could get beyond this small two acre property get beyond the batteries put it in its proper context for this century it's compatible with what you've been accomplishing, it's compatible with other competing interests. We have been contributing to funds to do exactly the alternative which is for permanent preservation and I think the long term issue here is to not go back in time and say hey look at all these horrible things that asphalt and things like that we-would never do that today that's not how we think and this is the wrong place for a decent idea a good idea maybe even better than a good idea but they should have come around a long time ago for that. It's the wrong time and the wrong place for that. I wanted to make that clear because I sense that that's part of your disconnect here as a group. We're not talking about that third possibility the third possibility that's been worked on really hard by a lot of(inaudible) as a community and you're going to spoil that. Perhaps irrevocably because it won't go back to permanent preservation ever and you may spoil it irrevocably by harming the vicinity. That's all but I appreciate your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :We appreciate your comments. I thinkJenn is now actually connected. JENN HARTNAGEL : Can you guys here me? 85 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can. JENN HARTNAGEL : I'm so sorry about that. Thank you for allowing us to speak today. We intended to attend this meeting to advocate or actually a positive declaration for this application. I still think we believe that there are many environmental concerns that haven't been addressed. The LWRP was .deemed inconsistent, the Department of Land Management issued that memo detailing again the preservation efforts in the adjacent lands.The Planning Board said this project is not supported by the Comp Plan and I question the adoption of a Neg. Dec. even the numerous documents that were just submitted to the file that may not have been considered by this Board at this time. In terms of what was considered in issuing the Neg. Dec. however we feel that an assessment of need should have been discussed and would have been a great addition to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. There are other projects proposed on the Northfork. How many of these facilities are needed and from a sound planning perspective how does this fit in with the other plans?Are all of them needed?Yes LIPA chose this site but it's not appropriate if this site flies in direct opposition to all of your town's planning documents. Just because LIPA chose this site doesn't necessarily mean it would do no environmental harm which brings me to my next point, the DEIS would have also considered alternative sites and that discussion really hasn't been-had. For these reasons we had hoped that a Positive Declaration could have been made. Again there are numerous permits and approvals that the town is going to require a concise comprehensive document would have helped this process along and we still believe it's necessary. I mean you can still rescind a negative declaration if there's new information in this file that has not been considered and we urge you to do so. In the very least we ask that you consider advising the Planning Board to consider some of these issues in terms of alternative sites, assessment of any other environmental factors when this application gets pushed to that Board. Again I think we're putting the cart before the horse here but it's complicated but again we had hoped for a Positive Declaration to examine these issues and have proper public comment in a comprehensive fashion. So thank you for the opportunity to comment today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Again the Neg. Dec. is very lengthy it's thirteen pages, it's full of detail and it was actually done by the Planning Department as our consultants because ZBA is lead agency. So I would urge you to look at those documents and we will hold this open for additional written commentary so if any of you looking at it have some expertise or opinions to offer we will welcome them and we will consider them. Is there anybody else out there who wants to say anything or ask anything? Steven do you want to say anything more? MR. LOSQUADRO : No I think actually with respect to the last two comments the last two speakers that what we've said prior to that both on February 4th and today as well as what's contained in all the written comments the letter, memos and responses addresses that very thoroughly. But thank you again for that further opportunity. 86 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll just conclude then by saying that this Board cannot approve anything that cannot mitigate adverse impacts just keep that in mind. We're obligated to make sure that we protect the environment but we are also obligated to look at the Special Exception standards and what is permitted legally on that property and what is being proposed. The law is clear it's very clear, it's not about I like it I don't like it. It would be easy if that was the case but that's not the case. As I said this is step one and we'll see where it goes but I'm going to say because we have such a massive amount of stuff to look at that I'm going to recommend adjourning this to the Special Meeting which is on March 18th. That gives anybody who wants to and Liz can you or Donna let me know about when you think we'll be able to have all the documents that we recently received scanned in? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Most of them have been scanned.The documents from Savion, Mark Terry's I think Mark just sent me a newer one a new version today while this hearing is happening he said to use this one. I haven't printed it out I don't want to lose the screen by mistake. I will have that tomorrow on Laser. Most of the things have been put on Laser except for the letters, the neighbor letters those have not been put on Laser. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think we want everything on there all of the letters. MR. LOSQUADRO : Ms. Weisman if I may, I think perhaps if Mr. Terry is adding something, then it may be what I think cause one of the things that we identified and we wrote back again to staff yesterday was that there appeared to be certain conclusions that he was reaching in the LWRP analysis that appeared to be erroneous only because they did not take in to account our revised LWRP form that we had previously submitted and I understand it can very well happen and in the course of a lot of back and forth that something may not have made its way to someone or maybe it did but they were already complete with part of their or all of their analysis. That was just something I brought to everyone's attention yesterday and I think that also might shed some light on mitigation measures other things because there were things that we brought to the Board's attention through that enhanced and revised form that again addressed a lot of concerns for everyone's benefit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think those of you who haven't had a chance to look at everything will find that there's an awful lot of information now available that we didn't have before. I guess we're just going to leave this open to the Special Meeting so people can write in their comments and they'll all be part of the public record, we'll consider everything that we receive and then we'll decide at that meeting we won't have a decision at that meeting I'm sure but we will try to have one shortly thereafter if we don't need to have another public hearing. I'm thinking we probably won't because we have so much information now but I'm going to leave that open. That's the proper way to do it you know keep an open mind and see what you get and have the Board evaluate if we have everything we need, see what the public has to say and we'll move 87 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 forward. So if there are no other comments from anybody then I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on March 18th and that will give everyone an opportunity to submit whatever else they wish to. Is there a second on that motion? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Liz would you call the roll please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Acampora votes aye. Member, Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We will see what we get by then. We'll have a chance to really digest a lot of the stuff that's in there. I'm going to take a look at what Mark's got certainly send them to Mr, Losquadro if he submitted something today. I just looked at the amended stuff that I got yesterday so we'll take a look at that, we'll send it to you to make sure that we're all looking at the same things. All of these require a lot of work from everybody and I want to thank everybody involved in all of this. All of the town agencies that submitted comments, all the public, all the applicants and his experts. This is a learning process for a lot of us and we want to make sure we get this right so we want to really consider everything. I want to thank you all for the time you put in and for the written comments that everyone has submitted. So we will continue this on March 18' and as things come into the office we will post 88 Regular Meeting March 4, 2021 them on Laserfiche so it will be available to everybody and we will automatically forward to you Mr. Losquadro. MR. LOSQUADRO : Thank you again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Okay I guess that's it on here. I have two other items on the agenda ministerial stuff.This is a resolution forthe next Regular Meetingwith public hearings to be held on Thursday, April 1, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. so moved, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Seconded by Member Dantes.All in favor raise your hands please.The motion carries unanimously. A resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held February 18th so moved, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Seconded by Member Planamento.All in favor raise your hand please. The motion carries. I believe that's all. I'm going to make a motion to close this meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor. It passes unanimously. 89 Regular Meeting March 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 Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : March 18, 2021 90