Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA-04/01/2021 Hearing
Regular Meeting April 1, 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 April 1, 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 JOHN BURKE—Assistant Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page ADF Ventures. LLC#7475 12 - 18 Emily Miller#7476 19 - 22 Mary McKay#7478 22 - 24 Kevin and Christine Meyers#7479 24- 26 Jessica and William MaComber#7480 27- 30 Isaac Israel and Jonathan DiVello #7481 31- 33 Mattituck 2012, LLC#7483 33 -38 Thomas and Michelle Hart, Deep Roots Farm, LLC# 7485 39-41 Joshua A. Skrezec and Julie L. Rompel #7482SE 43 -47 Byon Elmendorf#7484SE 48- 54 Konstantinos Diakovasilis#7465SE 54- 55 Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC#7463SE 55 -59 2 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing for April 151 .This is not April fool's day by us we're quite serious but anyway I'm going to open up the meeting reading the following. 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 April 1, 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. Liz would you please go over how the people who are here can participate if they care to speak. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good morning everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a 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. If you are using a phone to raise your hand please press *9. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going on to the Work Session and we'll move that quickly. Anything you want to put on the agenda anybody? No, okay. Fohrkolb just to indicate that we have a Special Exception and a Negative Declaration on the Agenda and we'll get to that in a moment. The Bertault applications, we've received some information cause both applications were adjourned without a date so we received a request from the applicant's attorney to reopen the hearing and at the moment the house is we understand from the Assistant Town Attorney that the variance application is before the HPC at the moment and they're expecting to look at them this month and to make a decision on granting the Certificate of Appropriateness and once that happens we can hear it so I'm going to in anticipation of that I'm going to make a motion to open the hearing to the June 3rd Regular Meeting. Any comments on that, everybody okay with that? Okay so is there a second on that motion? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? 3 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. Now with regard to the Special Exception application for an accessory apartment in an accessory barn this also was back and forth and counsel indicated that the HPC requested that the Zoning Board make a determination on the use first before they revisit the C of 0 and then we received information from Mr. Bressler saying that this application was never before the HPC and that was confirmed by the secretary. However the Assistant Town Attorney informs us that basically what happened was that HPC said we have no application in front of us so we don't really know what we're looking at so let the Zoning Board go ahead. On that basis since they'll have to go back and forth, I'm also going to make a motion to open the hearing and re-calendar it for June 3rd the hearing is still open it was adjourned. I'm going to make a motion to re-calendar it for the June 3rd Regular Meeting at the same time as the variance application. Any discussion? BOARD SECRETARY : We do have a Q&A request from Mr. Bressler. He wants to address this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually yes they can because the hearing was adjourned so the hearing is still open and this is a public hearing day so I believe they are allowed to testify. It's not a calendared hearing but it is a Work Session. Bill can you advise us on that or John. Is that alright for them to comment? T. A. DUFFY : Yes if the Board wants to entertain that you can. MEMBER DANTES : We already have the hearing dates set so why I mean what can we gain? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know until they tell us. Someone is saying that the HPC has no meeting scheduled for this month and then I guess Gail Wickham said may I address this. Our counsel said that the HPC was going to be, John can you come on? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY : Yes I'm here. I'm under the impression that there's a meeting this month. I don't have the schedule in front of me, I will double check. I don't know there's no reason why there wouldn't be a meeting this month but I'll double check that. 4 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have an application for we're putting it on for June, that's going to provide plenty of time. Part of the problem is that we have time frame for advertising, for writing Legal Notices, for doing mailings which the applicants would have to redo because once it's adjourned if it's going to be heard again they have to send out mailings again so June is the earliest possible date. Now I think we can get this resolved by then. I don't mind listening to what Gail wants to say as long as its short and sweet if the Board is okay with that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was about to say the same thing so why don't we just let CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob you're alright with it. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah if it's quick. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. BOARD SECRETARY : I'll bring her in. GAIL WICKHAM : Thank you. I don't talk as quickly as Eric and he is certainly the lead counsel on this case but unfortunately he is on a Court of Appeals Conference this morning Appellate Court Conference that was recently scheduled so he can't be with you. My confusion here Ms.Weisman is that the swimming pool application bears no relationship to the HPC determination. It is my understanding they do not have an issue with the porch and the barn cannot be heard the barn until we know what the use is (inaudible) you know a decision on your part so we know how to design it and therefore have the HPC if necessary address the exterior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fine. That's why we re-opened it because we will make a determination on the barn. We are not going to require all they have really is what we have, the prior variance relief for the front yard setback on the basis of preserving and restoring the barn. So we are re-calendaring that because we are not expecting to get a new C of A alright, we will do that first. With regard to the swimming pool, the swimming pool is part of the variance application and so we can't stamp drawings. The drawings we have are not the final drawings. The drawings that are about to be re-submitted to the HPC for approval are the ones we want to have in front of us in order for us to stamp them. Otherwise the Building Department is going to make us do a deminimus, we're going to be going around in circles and we cannot evaluate the character of the neighborhood with the scale of the building as proposed until the HPC says it's okay and we see what it looks like. That's the reason why we're waiting for that determination. It should be forthcoming, I believe it's all being resolved fairly soon. So we'll put it on for June and if for any reason that's not there we'll adjourn it to July but I believe by June we should be able to hear both applications and you will have time to send out mailings again. GAIL WICKHAM : May I ask another question? 5 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You may. GAIL WICKHAM : If I understand it then the problem is that you don't want to stamp a map where only a portion of the relief has been decided. Is that correct? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. The pool is basically not problematic but we're not going to split the application. It's on one Notice of Disapproval and we will have to determine both the non-conforming pool location and the non-conforming front yard setback in the same decision. GAIL WICKHAM : So if we were to submit a map or a survey showing just the pool changing subject to other changes later on would you be able to approve that sooner? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No that would be a different application. You know what, we're moving as quickly as we can but the answer is no. The pool and the setback are part of one application. As soon as we get some decisions from the HPC we can determine what the final setback is approved by the Board will be and where the pool can be located. GAIL WICKHAM :Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Okay let's move on. CacchiOli deminimus request. The Building Inspector indicated that we made a decision on an application for side yard relief, single and combined and what we stamped was for a proposed screened in porch. We are now informed that that entire thing has been conditioned and fully enclosed and fully finished. There is a deminimus request in front of the Board but we do not generally see habitable space the same way we see a screened in porch. That has historically been the case. I mean how does the rest of the Board Members feel? MEMBER LEHNERT : Same way. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Same way. MEMBER DANTES : It's not deminimus. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. We've just in fact denied a deminimus for exactly the same situation. Alright so what we're going to do is write a letter to the applicant or the applicant's architect and simply indicate that the request is denied you know the conversion from the screened porch to habitable space is not deminimus and request that they appear back before the Board for other variance relief by getting a Notice if Disapproval issued.Are we in agreement? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That doesn't require a resolution so. Let's now move on the SEAR, State Environmental Quality Review resolution pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review 6 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 (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. 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 © including the following: ADF Ventures, Emily Miller, Mary Mckay, Kevin and Christine Meyers, Jessica and William Macomber, Isaac Israel and Jonathan Divello, Mattituck 2012, LLC, Thomas and Michelle Hart, Deep Roots Farm, LLC, Joshua A. Skrezec and Julie L. Rompel, Byron Elmendorf so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. We have another 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 below, 12425 Sound LLC, Andrew Fohrkolb#7459SE request for Special Exception pursuant to Article XV Section 280-62B(11) and Article XXVI Section 280- 146D, the applicant is requesting permission to convert and expand an existing two story residential dwelling to six units of affordable rental housing located at 12425 Old Sound Ave in Mattituck so moved. Is there a second? 7 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The resolution passes unanimously. We're on to deliberating on two decisions. The first is the one we just declared a Neg. Dec. on, this is for Andrew Fohrkolb, 12425 Sound LLC#7459SE. Everybody have that decision in front of them? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This was a very difficult decision to make because the application essentially was for the expansion of an existing single family dwelling in a hamlet halo zone in order to create six units of affordable rental housing. It was supported by the Planning Board because the location is exactly where a greater density an affordable housing should be based on the Comprehensive Plan and smart growth principals. The Board would have liked to supported this. Therefore while we were waiting for the thirty day coordination in order to declare a negative declaration and be lead agency, the Zoning Board prepared and put before the Town Board a proposal to permit expansion of an existing building up to the maximum permitted six units for affordable in a hamlet center or halo zone. That motion was actually that proposal I wrote up the change in the code, that proposal was put on the Town Board Agenda but it was removed because there was an open application and the Supervisor did not want to hear it on that basis. So we had to make this decision to uphold the code as it is currently written 8 Regular Meeting April 1,2021 which is to permit the change in use of an existing building for the purposes of affordable housing. The code as determined by the Building Department and by a reading of the existing code does not permit an existing building to be enlarged for that purpose. We believe, we are hopeful that in future we will be able to in order to support the need for affordable housing, make that change before the Town Board. At the moment the way the town code is written it is clear that an expansion is not permitted. So with regret we have had to write a denial on this application. Are there any other comments any Board members want to make about this or have I sort of summarized it? Actually the application the decision itself includes all of the positive aspects of this application. The only thing that it does say is that there was a request from the attorney basically if this was not permitted to interpret the code. However the applicant because this Special Exception Permit applications come directly to the Zoning Board and not the Building Department the applicant did not receive a Notice of Disapproval so he had no basis of repeal in order to allow us to interpret the code. However upon careful scrutiny of the code, the code although not absolutely clearly written it says existing space where the Board would have preferred existing structure or building is still clear. An expansion is not permitted but we were not able to do an interpretation. So we had to write this up the only thing that the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this Chapter,we indicate that the town code was changed in 2017 to encourage adaptive reuse of existing structures and we state what the conditions are but it's very clear that because the applicant proposes you know it says as a condition property owners must convert said applied for space to residential use. Anyway, they're demolishing part of it and they're adding a substantial addition and on that basis alone we simply had to write this denial with regret. I'm going to therefore make a motion to deny the Special Exception application but without prejudice which means that in the future should the code be changed the applicant can come back to us and revisit this without it being considered Res Judicata meaning that we can rehear it. Any other conversation about this from anybody? Okay let's see any no alright good. So I'm going to make a motion I did make a motion to deny the Special Exception as applied for without prejudice.'Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by member Planamento. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Abstain. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes abstains. Member Lehnert how do you vote? 9 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. The next one is for Michael Kreger #7470. This is a very, very long one. Nick why don't you walk us through this application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Unique situation.The application before us is for new construction well let me clarify. A building permit was issued for the demolition of an existing house that had received all kinds of variance relief in the past but basically starting with a blank slate where a building permit was issued for a two and half story residence including a pull down attic access or a pull down type stair leading to an attic access. The application requests a home office well let me also add, there was a previous application for a code interpretation to define what is a half story and the ZBA in their previous determination determined that the Building Department was correct in determining what a half story was and that this application before us or the request constituted a third story addition. The applicant then came before us with a new application requesting relief to add a home office and sitting area to what was determined to be a third story. The application did not include any determinable square footage area and basically the third floor sitting area and home office mirrored the floor immediately below.The applicant then submitted a revised plan illustrating partitioned wall where they have a storage area for the third floor plus the home office sitting area. During our previous hearing prior to closing the applicant provided twenty four determinations made by this Board relative to a third floor uses. Additionally invited the Building Department Inspectors, both Electrical and a general Building Department Inspector and a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals for which I was the member requested to attend a site tour of the property where we saw exactly what was going on, on the third floor in fact there was a walk up stairwell in place to the third floor. There were no partition walls that would mirror the resubmitted plan to illustrate the sitting area and home office and it was discovered that there are all kinds of other things in place for which the applicant stated that they would certainly remove to make a conforming home office and sitting area. The majority the vast majority of the twenty four code interpretations that were provided by the applicant are deemed in this draft decision or the decision before us to not be relevant to the application at hand because they vary substantially in either size or use or areas such as an observation tower, a cupola. In one case one of the applications included the re-installation of an architectural feature 10 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 which was lost to a historic SPLIA listed Landmark property in Mattituck where the not really cupola but the observation area was destroyed by a lightning strike well over sixty years ago. So these decisions were not instrumental in arguing the applicant's case. In either case the decision as written denies the application for the third floor sitting area and home office as it is not compliant with the character of the neighborhood. It's also supported by the LWRP and I think the existing twenty four arguments of granted relief in the past actually argue in favor of the application for denial versus granting relief. There's a substantial I think it's what a six page decision here that really goes into great detail including what was discovered during the site inspection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just to simply add here that this has been in construction, rarely do we MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Very important. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : in anything new and I think there was one instance where we did. A couple of those prior variances for third floors were for one was for a library, one was for an apartment building and one was for a convention center so those got kicked out. The one that we did do with new construction was on such a sloped terrain that most of the building was buried beneath the ground, all the roof pitches were at various angles extremely contemporary impossible to determine the height of the structure let alone what was a third story and a couple of others were also on slopes where again it was a technical third story because it was like a walk out basement for the first habitable story. Also the lot coverage is fairly insignificant on the buildable area on here and the applicant has every possibility if they need an additional home office to do so in a conforming location. They have other alternatives besides this variance. So this is a very detailed lengthy description because it's an important decision and we took a great deal of time and care in making this determination. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it also upholds other variance requests that were denied specifically in that as you said this is new construction but it is not the character of Southold Town to have third story living space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So any conversation here? Any discussion or comments? Are we ready to vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I make the motion then to deny the application as applied for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll second it. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? 11 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARTY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries. Maybe Liz do you want to come back on and tell people who are in attendance we have a lot more people here now, how they can participate if they want to speak. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for. If you are using a phone you press *9 to raise your hand. If you are a phone number we will need to identify you. I see we have one I don't know who that is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can the person who is on here with a phone number just indicate who they are. They can put it in the Q&A or in the chat. HEARING#7475—ADF VENTURES CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The first application before the Board is for ADF Ventures#7475. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's January 25, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an in- ground swimming pool at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 17877 Soundview Ave (adj.to Long Island Sound) in Southold. Fred Fragola is here to represent the application, is that correct? 12 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 FRED FRAGOLA : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand you had a what we're looking at is an in-ground pool at 74.6 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet. It will however be out of the coastal erosion hazard area.You had a meeting on March 1811 with the Trustees. Can you tell us about that? FRED FRAGOLA :Yes. Good morning. (inaudible)we reviewed the (inaudible)fallen trees that had fallen over the years and removed accordingly. Unfortunately I was not aware of a non- disturbance zone so I received two citations for that. I spoke to the attorney of Southold and told him I'll do whatever I have to do to resolve the issues. I believe this coming Monday if I'm correct I have a meeting with the Trustees to review the property and what I have to do to amend the necessary (inaudible) of the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you're still in process with them. When we did the site inspection which we all do we noticed that there were some trees cut and FRED FRAGOLA : Can I just clarify that so you can understand that. There were X amount of trees that I had photos that were taken down over the years from storms. There were X amount of trees that were diseased and that's we took all the photos to take those down so I do have that documentation but to repeat myself, we encroached into the 25 foot non-disturbance and repeating it was not aware that we could not touch that area so obviously I suffer the consequences with citations and will be resolved accordingly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, in fact that's one of the reasons why you were LWRP inconsistent it says here because the 25 foot wide non-disturbance buffer required by Trustees does not show the buffer on the submitted plan in 2007 and 2009 and top of the bluff is shown in a different location. FRED FRAGOLA :You are correct. My expeditor Jeff Pantagio had done all the paperwork was not even aware of it and in my ignorance (inaudible) wasn't aware of it so obviously when this came back the shock that we weren't doing the paperwork correctly costs us two citations to fall in place. However, repeat I made (inaudible) law enforcement I spoke to Town Attorney I said I'll do what I have to do to solve it. But I just want to add one other comment here, in the scope of things that are being done here we're looking to move forward here with the revetment to take care whatever has to be done at the toe of the bluff to stop the erosion. My neighbor to the west is doing substantial job of preparing and maintaining the bluff so it doesn't deteriorate and vegetate accordingly. I on the other hand have total erosion has taken place for some years.They looked at it the other day and they even seen that it's even eroded more and have actually encroached into my neighbor's property to the west where their not revetment,their (inaudible) planting is starting to collapse and (inaudible)the next neighbor my east I'm encroaching on their 13 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 property so my concerns obviously is to maintain the bluff but I know you have nothing to do with that but I'm just explaining my position here. In the ignorance on my part I just assumed that we put the necessary stair system in that we have to somehow now cross over the non- disturbance. So it's a double edged sword here but it's more of a point that you know I'm stumbling through this is what it really comes down to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are the property owner just to be clear. FRED FRAGOLA : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the Trustees clearly have to make a determination and we do have actually concerns and some jurisdiction over bluff erosion. It's one of the reasons why we also have setbacks but we have requested as we do all the time with waterfront properties comments from Suffolk County Soil and Water and we are supposed to receive them today. We haven't received them yet. So they will have something to say about how to deal with bluff stability and all of that. What's your next move with Trustees? FRED FRAGOLA : So according to Nick he had indicated to me Nick Krupski, he indicated I have to call in not him but I have to touch base and just confirm the time. I will be one of the first people to have a site visit. When we meet at the site I explain to him the environment and what we're going to be up against for example, when we try to stabilize the bluff my biggest concern is the vegetation takes place will die because there's no means of irrigation. I had asked them, can we turn around put in monitoring soak hoses so we can make sure the vegetation adheres to the bluff when we replant everything (inaudible) and he has indicated that makes sense and they'll address how we can make that work. In addition to that, when I explained or requested that we put natural vegetation at the toe I beg your pardon at the top of the bluff in that 25 foot area and stabilize whatever we have maybe large stones, a metal band to make sure nothing in anyway (inaudible) encroaches on to the top of the bluff.That's pretty much what I was looking to discuss come Monday. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any comments from Board members or questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A couple may I? But Leslie first if we can a point of clarification, on the survey submitted and the Notice of Disapproval it indicates that the setback for the proposed pool and other improvements is 74.6 feet but if you look at the survey and I'm looking at the one that was received January 27, 2021 it illustrates from sort of the northwest corner of the property to the proposed pool at 73.7. So there's sort of a one foot discrepancy. I don't understand why the Notice if Disapproval is different (inaudible) lesser relief or the greater? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It should be for the 73. 14 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I'm thinking. See here to the left if you can move your mouse. FRED FRAGOLA : I see what you're saying Nick, (inaudible) 58, 57 the house is on an angle there so 57.23 is what is called the top of the bluff and they came up with a dimension 105. 1 not being surveyor I mean that's what I understand metes and bounds came up what I would be more than happy to address that to clarify the distance on it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So do we need a new Notice of Disapproval for 73.7 feet? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not really. We can just note in the additional information the discrepancy but what I'm thinking basically is because you're in the process with Trustees who really have primary you know kind of naturally regulated feature jurisdiction I'm thinking that we might need to give you some time to work out whatever you're going to work out with them and so you know perhaps a most prudent way to proceed is to adjourn this to next month to give you a chance to meet with them and see what they're saying and for them to maybe make a determination first and then we can go. What do you think? FRED FRAGOLA : Are you talking to me or are you talking to the members? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Both actually, you can all chime in. I mean Fred how would you feel about that? FRED FRAGOLA : Well let me this is not something that's going to be done overnight. First of all we have a right of way for the good doctor so that he can turn around along on the east side of the property so I have to take that into consideration. At the same token I want to provide the necessary vegetation there on each side of the property for my neighbors and plant accordingly. However the scope of work requires a barge to come in from the Long Island Sound for the equipment and then crane coming in from the top to cantilever over and drop the large boulders down in such a way that you know we have an environment there so even if the ZBA said Mr. Fragola you're granted to do a pool I couldn't get to it for at least two to three months because of the amount of work and I'm subject to the heavy equipment coming in and restoring the property. So not to cut my nose off to spite my face I have a long road of a month to two months before I can go any further here. But my deepest concern is that I'm (inaudible) everything up on the same direction without causing a problem and get another citation again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I get you. Based on that I think it's most reasonable to just adjourn this to next month and see how much you can get done with the Trustees so we know what we're really looking at. 15 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 FRED FRAGOLA : I have no problem with that but I do have a question. Should I meet Trustees Monday and they give me the green light theoretically at the site and (inaudible) move forward with this and put all the paperwork in place my concerns are, if the Trustees will release a permit for me to turn around to do the revegetation there and then turn around and stabilize my bluff next month if we have a meet with the ZBA how much time do you need to make a decision if I'm allowed to put this pool in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Two weeks. FRED FRAGOLA : In your professional opinion do you feel that I'm in any way upsetting the character of the whole area by having this pool so close to my house and maintaining 74 feet from the bluff? Is that in favor or not in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we can't really we each have a vote but I can say we do know that there are other pools on the bluff and they're not all 100 foot setback. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What I would ask Leslie, if we may perhaps during this adjournment the applicant can site at least I don't know five to seven pools along Soundview Ave. that have a similar situation. I think that would be helpful in making a determination. FRED FRAGOLA : You have a pictorial showing all the pools there Nick. There's a picture MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm asking for the specific determinations and what the relief granted was. FRED FRAGOLA : Sorry I misunderstood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Prior decisions. We also look for precedent whenever we grant variances and so if we've done other non-conforming setbacks from the bluff in your neighborhood that speaks in favor of granting you your request. So you know this is a fairly standard procedure sometimes property owners or generally usually their agents who are familiar with these kinds of applications will submit prior variances in support of their argument for approval. Here's the other thing, we could adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is in two weeks and see what you can do with the Trustees. If you can submit something specific from them within two weeks then we can close this out and we can have a decision at the next meeting which would be on June 4th instead of adjourning it I'm sorry, May 3rd or something. BOARD SECRETARY : The Special is April 151h and the next Regular Meeting I believe is May 61n CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So either we can close it how fast do you think you can get stuff from the Trustees Fred? 16 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 FRED FRAGOLA :They seem very favorable.They gave me the indication that come Monday I can come back to you (inaudible) the outcome of that so if I could turn around from (inaudible) response if you give me to at least Monday or Tuesday to respond it would be greatly appreciated and I can turn around and tell you the outcome of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to that means it's still open to the Special Meeting on April 15th. That way you can submit to us as soon as you have it anything we might it's even conceivable we might have a decision on that date. It depends on how fast you get us stuff from the Trustees. That way we can expedite this as quickly as possible for you. FRED FRAGOLA : I had one other question, you have a minute? Nick you had mentioned for me to come up with the necessary documentation of prior pools that were approved as (inaudible) do I do that myself, ask for FOILS or what is your protocol on that? BOARD SECRETARY : Call the office and we will assist you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The applications are all on Laserfiche and the office will you can give them a call tomorrow,they'll tell you how to go about finding them. FRED FRAGOLA :Thank you for your time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Just one other question,just to be clear I think at the introduction you stated that you had no knowledge of the 25 foot non-disturbance buffer? FRED FRAGOLA : Unfortunate fact, embarrassing yeah. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You never looked at a survey or anything prior to acquisition? FRED FRAGOLA : I'll mention it to you very clearly and I'm being served citations on it (audible) I was not aware of it. My expeditor as I said from the very beginning Jeff Pantagio put this together and done all the drawings. We went back and forth and we had initially a platform that was first a little over 200 sq.ft.we knocked the size of it down to under 200 sq.ft. and then it was rejected but it was in the non-disturbance I was not aware of that. When I went back and looked at the original survey not the original survey (inaudible) done in 2005 1 clearly see that but I was not aware of that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But prior to buying it you didn't do any research on this particular property. FRED FRAGOLA : I did research but I was not aware of that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You weren't aware of that. 17 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 FRED FRAGOLA : I mean I would let's face it why would I want to come and take (inaudible) of pines it doesn't make sense. I just didn't see it I wasn't aware of it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we better move on now we have a plan we know what we're going to do. Nick I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, no, no it's just an agreement that we're going to adjourn. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, so is there anyone else in the audience who wants to address the application? BOARD SECRETARY : I don't see any raised hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to adjourn this matter to the April 15th Special Meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. 18 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 HEARING#7476—EMILY MILLER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Emily Miller#7476. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-105 and the Building Inspector's November 30, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" 5.2 feet pool fence in the front yard at 1) fence more than the code permitted maximum four (4) feet high when located in the front yard located at 9575 Nassau Point Rd. in Cutchogue. This is to legalize an "as built" pool fence that varies in height in a front yard which is a conforming location on waterfront property but the Notice of Disapproval says it's 5.2 feet high, the code permit a maximum of 4 feet high. Let's let Mr. Lark unmute and tell us what he'd like to tell us. I just indicated what the non-conformity is, 5.2 feet high the code permits a maximum of 4 feet around a swimming pool. I'll turn this over to you now. MR. LARK : Good morning, I'll try to be brief. I believe the Board has read the application and I assume they've also been to the property to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have. MR. LARK : see the pool and its surroundings. The application with exhibits gives you all the necessary information I believe you need to know about the application. When Mr. Emily Miller hired the contractors to design and build the pool in the area indicated on the survey she intended it would be done within the town rules and regulations for pools. I do not know cause I was not there, what took place between the contractors and the Building Department while the pool was being constructed. Confusion as to what a pool fence is and a regular fence is whatever took place is really not relevant because the pool wall and fence as presently constructed is not in conformance with the zoning ordinance which requires Mrs. Miller to come before you seeking a variance which I submit is not due to any fault of her own. Addressing the issue of balancing the benefit to Emily Miller by leaving the pool fence as it presently exists versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood by changing it.That is the issue for the Board to decide. I submit that the pool wall and it's fence creates no visual impact for neighboring properties and barely can be seen from Nassau Point Rd. which by leaving it in an as is position there is no change to the residential character of this fully developed neighborhood in Nassau Point. Since there's no practical place to relocate the fence and there is no evidence there is any adverse effect on the impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood and the large front yards of the two neighboring properties this is especially true even though the pool area in and of itself is large but due to the location and landscaping it really is unobtrusive. I must tell you (inaudible) when I was retained by Mrs. Miller I spoke to Michael Verity the Building Inspector to discuss the problem of why his department was not granting approval for the fence for the pool due to its height. The first question I asked Michael is where would he put the fence if he was asked to do so before construction. Mr. Verity told me after 19 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 looking at the maps and everything he would place it on the top of the pool wall as is presently placed. Then I asked him, what would be the height of the fence? He said four feet as required by the code because it is in the front yard. When I pointed out that the code section which requires that they speak to fences and walls erected in the front yard shall not exceed four feet in height. He looked at me quizzically and said I understand the problem because of the slope of the land and how you have to have the pool built but that's what Zoning Boards of Appeals and variances are for. You should apply to them for the relief you seek necessary. In other words he understood the practical difficulty so here we are today. It's true the difficulty Mrs. Miller finds herself in at the present time is due to the fault of the contractors in not clarifying before the construction the requirements in details of the pool, pool wall,fence height in relationship to the topography the area surrounding the pool.This leaves Mrs. Miller with no choice in order to solve the problem but to seek an area variance before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Considering the fact that the applicant Emily Miller has to seek a variance from the Zoning Board and that the pool and fence are not a detriment to the neighborhood or impact nearby properties I believe leaving the fence with its present 14 inch deviation from the 4 foot requirement considering the totality of the circumstances is not a substantial deviation from the code in context with the surrounding circumstances. I respectfully then submit in applying the statutory balancing test considering the five factors which are set forth in the application, the benefit to Emily Miller by leaving the fence in an as is situation far outweighs any detriment which I submit there's none to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood which would allow the Board then to grant the relief that's from her present hardship. If the Board agrees and decides to grant the variance then I submit that what exists would be the minimum necessary for you when you look at the survey and to take into consideration the topography, the various heights of the fence which surrounds the pool and because of the various heights of the wall itself as it was laid out on the radiated basis to accommodate the slope. To do anything else in my opinion would not solve the problem. In fairness to the applicant if she's here because of no fault of her own and to require anything else in my opinion would tend to be punitive for something she did not create or cause. I then respectfully request the Board to grant the relief to leave everything in place. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has questions or comments, Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No it seems fairly benign to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing. 20 - Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the other alternative is to put the blame where it belongs and it's back on Chris Mohr and Patrick Pools. Let them make it conforming at their own cost since they're the ones that created the problem in the first place. MEMBER DANTES : When you get slopes like that it's tough for them to really figure that all out in the field. BOARD SECRETARY : We have a raised hand just so you know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that someone who wants to BOARD SECRETARY : Stephen Kaplan. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, let that person speak. MEMBER PLANAMENTO:So Leslie while Kim is doingthat,just to point out there were two letters of support from neighbors. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. STEPHEN KAPLAN : Hello, yes I'm attending this because the clients the applicants are at a wedding for their daughter. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh okay I see, so you're there representing the Millers? EMILY MILLER :This is Emily Miller speaking, he doesn't have anything to do with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's it then. I don't think there's any other questions or comments from anyone else here for that application. So hearing no further testimony I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Call the roll please Kim. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. 21 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7478—MARY MCKAY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mary Mckay#7478. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 19, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a front porch addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required front yard setback of 55 feet located at 450 Castle Hill Rd. (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. I think Elizabeth Thompson is here. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : Yes good morning, good to see you all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :This is a front porch addition, steps, deck and roof over with a setback of 50 feet where the code requires 55 feet minimum. ELIZABETH THOMPSON : So very briefly we're asking for a very small relief to put an open front porch on this house.The prior owner who built the house also live next door and designed a very strange house, it had no front door at all and in fact the first outside door you approach if you get to the house it goes directly goes into a bathroom. So part of the project reconfigure the interior somewhat as to also provide a front door and that's the reason for this porch a bit of weather protection. It's only a 6 foot deep porch and with a covered roof over it and the neighbor one, two lots away currently has a 47.1 foot setback so there's some precedent for this amount of relief. Any other questions I can answer for you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We all went to the site and its down at the end of a private undeveloped road and across the street is undeveloped land, there's really no impact on anything. It's also LWRP exempt I should enter into the record because the proposed variance is 22 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 landward of the existing dwelling. I don't have any questions, let's hear from anybody on the Board. Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions it's pretty benign. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Same here thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience? BOARD SECRETARY:We have a raised hand and we're trying to chat with him to figure out which matter he wants to speak for. He hasn't responded. MEMBER DANTES :They can tell you in the chat who they are and who they're here for. BOARD SECRETARY : They're not responding, we've chatted with them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think then we just move on. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Memberbantes. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? 23 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7479—KEVIN and CHRISTINE MEYERS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kevin and Christine Meyers #7479. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's November 18, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize two "as built" accessory buildings at 1) accessory garage located less than the code required 20 feet setback from the property line, 2) accessory shed located less than the code required 20 feet setback from the property line located at 1985 Peconic Lane (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. CHUCK THOMAS : Hello there, Chuck Thomas I'm the architect and the representative for the owner Kevin and Christine Meyers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A 20 foot by 35 foot large accessory garage with a 4.4 foot setback from a property line and we have a shed that is an 11.6 foot setback from the property line it's 8 by 12 feet,the code requires 20 foot for the setbacks. We've been out to the site and we see that it's adjacent to a municipal park Southold Town park and that it's screened in along the side yards and rear yard and it faces open land in the rear. What else would you like to tell us about this application? CHUCK THOMAS : First of all thank you. My clients have just purchased this property in October of'20 and the garage was originally well I have a survey dating back to at least 1971 showing a garage in that location. At some point fifteen or twenty years ago we don't have an exact date from the previous owner, that garage was basically reconstructed to the size and has as it sits today. The shed has been there for according to him approximately ten years so my clients purchased the property and during the purchase found out about these structures not being in conformance and had decided that they want to legalize them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, let's see if there's any questions. This looks pretty straightforward. Eric do you have any questions? 24 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : How old did you say the garage is? CHUCK THOMAS : Well we have it should be in your package as well. We have a survey from 1971, 10/25/1971 that shows a garage in that location and at some point fifteen to twenty years ago is what we were told by the previous owner the garage was basically rebuilt in the same footprint. MEMBER DANTES : Have you looked at the GIS, was there a garage there in the 1962 picture? CHUCK THOMAS : It was not. MEMBER DANTES :That's my only question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I do not. I have a comment, should these accessories be conforming because of the narrowness and length of the lot I think it would be very awkwardly placed.So for obvious reasons the prior owner I'm sure did what they did sadly without a permit but I would argue being next to a park it's a benign application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would agree. Pat any questions or comments? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No not at all. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :Actually one to my point if I may Leslie. Would you mind just the garage obviously sits on a foundation and clearly it was there for a very long time, it would be a unique hardship to require the garage be moved but how does the applicant feel about the small shed? I mean the shed could be place potentially somewhere I don't know what their thoughts are to be less obtrusive or is it something that they really want to keep it where it is? CHUCK THOMAS : They would prefer to keep it where it is. If you look at the survey there is an underground root cellar it's kind of a neat little set up and you also did touch on the it is a large lot but it's only 82 feet wide. So if we start moving that into a more conforming setback it's going to be in the middle of the yard and as well as you also pointed out it is adjacent to a pretty intense which is a very good thing the park to the north. He did screen it so I don't in my opinion is not a large impact to that park and I think it is screened fairly well. So we would prefer to keep it where it is if you find that agreeable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : In my opinion I think that's a reasonable question to ask and I think it was a good answer. In my opinion the benefit to the applicant certainly outweighs any detriment to the community or the adjacent properties. 25 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add also Leslie, I walk in that park every day the owner did put a tall stockade fence up. To Chuck's point they put I don't know if they move them or if they just clean them up but suddenly they're visible some cedar trees you really can't see either of the structures from the public park and if anything when the Ospreys are playing and kids with the ballfield and everything I think that they find a lot of balls in their yard versus the other way. CHUCK THOMAS : That is a fact. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The neighboring property has an impact MEMBER PLANAMENTO : on this property, absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Hearing no further questions I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Call the roll please Kim. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. Thank you for your attendance. 26 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 HEARING #7480—JESSICA and WILLIAM MACOMBER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jessica and William Macomber #7480. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's January 12, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required single side yard setback of 15 feet located at 4040 Deep Hole Drive (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) in Mattituck. BOARD SECRETARY : Do we want to ask Liz to go over the instructions for the attendees? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure we can, go ahead Liz. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you to 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 then you can let us know which application you are here for. If you're on a phone I don't see anybody but we'll give you further instructions for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So this is a demolition and new construction of a single family dwelling with a single side yard setback at 13.1 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet.There was a Stop Work Order issued on 7/16/2020 construction without obtaining a building permit. It's LWRP exempt, they're proposing to maintain the same 13.1 side yard setback on as is the case now. I have a couple of questions Anthony if you would like to tell us, how did it happen that construction started without a building permit? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good day Board thank you for your time today. So really nothing I can explain there. I was outside of (inaudible) the homeowner of the contractor to do. I believe the thought was that they wanted to work on the existing building and were doing things that they thought did not need a permit on the interior of the house and I believe that when Code Enforcement showed up that was explained that they were trying to get a start on the actual house there is a proposed addition on this job which is what is creating the fifty percent cost of construction compared to the value of the home which is why we're here today because it created the (inaudible) construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's not a total demolition you will maintain some of this. MEMBER LEHNERT : It looks like a technical demolition. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct. We're keeping that existing structure, we're just doing a bunch of interior renovations, changing windows, siding. So I think the contractor went forward with working on the existing building not building the addition with his understanding that the things he was doing were not permit required. I think they went a little too far and the things they did 27 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 do require permits. That's basically what happened and during this time I was still in the beginning stages of schematic design not even filed yet. We filed for Trustees,Trustees bounced it to the Building Department,the Building Department requested that we receive a variance due to the existing non-compliance and that the amount of work was a substantial improvement on the home and would be considered a reconstruction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So basically you're staying on the same foundation. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am we're not removing any portion of that building. We're extending to the south. I believe you should have the proposed plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do. MEMBER LEHNERT : I guess is this wasn't considered a demolition you wouldn't even be here. ANTHONY PORTILLO :That's correct, if(inaudible)substantial improvement and the fifty percent it wouldn't have triggered ANTHONY PORTILLO : You wouldn't even be here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the septic? So the septic is existing, it was actually completed a few years ago and that was permitted so we-have no plans of removing or replacing. We're staying with that and the bedroom count that septic allows the size but that was filed with Trustees and installed two or three years ago.That was outside my scope of work. W'e'll be doing drywells and all those things in regards to rainwater capturing and you know we'll be meeting all codes. Our next step is hopefully receiving your approval on this our next step is to obviously go to Trustees. We do have a non-jurisdiction from D.E.C. due to the elevation height, the grade height and you know with a positive reaction from the Trustees I'm hoping you know that we'll be able to get a permit and they can get the house back together. Unfortunately due to their I want to say their mis-knowledge of what's allowed without a permit the Macomber's have been out of their house now for about a year unfortunately but we're trying to do the right thing. We always planned on getting a permit, that was the intent. We obviously I've instructed my clients from the beginning that the permit is required for the work but like I said I think they were just trying to get a head start on the interior stuff and I think they went too far and didn't realize that what'they were doing required they thought that they were staying within the boundaries and not required permits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any questions from the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : Do you have copies of the approved septic, you said it was installed about two years ago? 28 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah I can provide the septic approval and the Trustees approval. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yeah it's usually anything that touches water we ask for that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, I can send that to Kim. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Trustees haven't approved it yet have they? ANTHONLY PORTILLO : No they had to go to Trustees to get approval to put in the septic system three years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yep understood. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you can provide that that would be great. ANTHONY PORTILLO : So I'll give you the Trustees approval and the green stamped survey showing the Health Department? MEMBER LEHNERT : Perfect. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony while it's not a part of the application, is there a proposed general cleanup? There's all kinds of accessory buildings sort of (inaudible) structures, pods I'm just curious. ANTHONY PORTILLO : No problem Nick I can talk to the contractor and have him you know do a cleanup now. There was a complaint actually and I did speak to Code Enforcement about that. I guess one of the neighbors complained. I thought they went over there and they cleaned up a bit but I'll get it done for sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think there was anyone in the audience for this application. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There was Mr. Kaplan I thought. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's just listening. He said he wasn't planning to say anything. He was listening because the homeowners were not able to be here so he has no testimony as far as I understood. MEMBER DANTES : What did they do without a permit, they gut the whole house? ANTHONY PORTILLO :They were gutting the interior and they were basically taking the schematic drawings and like framing the interior walls based on what our plan was..Again I wasn't notified of this so I think like one of the exterior walls in the rear was really the main thing that triggered the Stop Work Order. It was like mostly removed cause I think there was mostly windows there and it ended up being like basically exposed. 29 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : I just wanted to see what they actually did a Stop Work Order for. It wasn't like a okay that's all. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I mean the shell of the building is there they mainly were working on the interior of it and you know if you start removing exterior sheetrock and things like that it triggers a permit and there's certain things you can't do interior structural walls you know removing things like that. I think that's what happened and I don't think there was any intent to do things without a permit, I think it was just more of not having the knowledge probably should have spoken to me to give them the knowledge that you could maybe redo this bathroom if you wanted to but don't change any fixture locations or whatever the case may be whatever what's allowed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well they're here now so we can move forward and get this sorted out.Anything else from anybody?Anyone in the audience, I don't think so but just double check and if so please raise your hand. Hearing no one, I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of the Health Department approval of the septic system. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries unanimously. 30 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 HEARING #7481— ISAAC ISRAEL and JONATHAN DIVELLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next application Isaac Israel and Jonathan DiVello#7481. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124, Article XXII Section. 280-104A and the Building Inspector's January 22, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet located at 255 Corwin St. in Greenport.These are additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 19.4 feet on Eight St. where the average setback there is 24.8 feet. This is a corner lot on the corner of Corwin and Eighth St. the code in general requires a 35 foot front yard setback. Would you like to unmute yourself somebody and tell us what else you'd like us to know about this application. DAVID DIGIOVANNI : My name is David DiGiovanni and I'm the architect for John Divello and Isaac Israel for the property located at 255 Corwin St. SCTM#1000-48-1-44.2. As stated we're requesting a variance for a front yard less than the average of the adjacent properties. There's primarily one property to the north which has a 24.8 setback. This property is located in a residential zone. On the northwest corner of Corwin and Eighth St. it's adjacent to an industrial zone immediately to the south of Corwin. The project is to reconstruct and add additional height of an existing second floor of an existing one and half story cape. This is within the existing footprint. Basically we would be raising the walls on the first floor to accommodate a full sized second floor.The existing house is 1,068 sq. ft. on the first floor including 83 sq.ft. of a one story addition and there's an existing 335 sq. ft. of floor area with a ceiling height of above 6 feet. We're going to increase the second floor 650 sq. ft. in volume. Again the floor nothing will encroach upon the existing footprint. There was also a small one story to the north and to the west at the back of the property of 189 sq.ft.The proposed and existing complies with all aspects of the zoning set for the average front yard on Eighth St. As stated there was the house to the north has a front yard of 24.8 feet and the existing house at the corner of Eighth and Corwin on Eighth has a front yard of 19.4 and the property line skews off to a corner so the front yard at the north corner closest to the adjacent property to the north is actually 22 foot 6 inches. The front yard along Corwin is 30.4 and the house adjacent to that to the west is 11.3 feet. (inaudible) we submitted to the Board the via email indicate an aerial view showing the property is in its proximity to the industrial area across the street running from Ninth to Seven St. but also indicates that there's multi-family along Seventh St. and there's several properties that have substandard or narrower front yards. Also we submitted the house across the street on the corner of Wiggins and Eighth which has a narrow front yard, there's also photos looking north to the adjacent property with a 24.8 front yard which appear closer to the street based on the angled front yard.The photo also to the west shows the relationship of the property the adjacent property again to the west with 11.3 front yard. Lastly, there's another photo showing the industrial properties which is an industrial zoned area across the street to the south on Corwin. 31 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 Based on that the proposed alteration not extending past the existing footprint and the existing front yards on adjacent properties and across the street within the surrounding areas and a close proximity to the industrial and multi-family we feel this variance should be granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you want to start out with any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN.: Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No it looks like it's only here because of the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the septic system?Are you maintaining what's there, are you putting in a new one. DAVID DIGIOVANNI : We're maintaining what's there. There's existing there's two bedrooms upstairs and they'll still there's existing two bedrooms upstairs and we are maintaining two bedrooms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I think the application was complete. It's an existing structure and as Rob said they really wouldn't be here especially in light if we're in the future changing the code for corner properties you know this is something that exists so I have no problem with the application as presented. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? BOARD SECRETARY : There's no raised hands. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then hearing none, I'm going to make a motion to'close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 32 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries we'll have a decision in two weeks at the Special Meeting. Thank you. HEARING #7483—MATTITUCK 2012, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mattituck 2012, LLC #7483.This is a request for variances from Article IX Section 280-42A and the Building Inspector's January 25, 2021 Notice if Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling with a business office and construct a new single family dwelling with a business office (pest control) at 1) located less than the code required front yard setback of 100 feet, 2) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 75 feet, 3) located less than the code required single side yard setback of 20 feet, 4) located less than the code required combined side yard setback of 45 feet located at 36250 NYS Route 25 in Cutchogue. I believe Mike Kimack is on. MIKE KIMACK : Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let mejust review what variances we're looking at here.This is a single side yard setback of 11 feet where the code requires a minimum of 20, a combined side yard setback of 22 feet where the code requires a minimum of 45,a rear yard setback of 53 feet where the code requires 75 feet and a front yard setback at 78.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 100 foot.This also requires site plan approval and the Planning Board has submitted comments indicating no objections to an extension of the area variance granted in 2017. The 33 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 approved site plan has expired and the applicant has to request extension before any building permit can be issued. MIKE KIMACK : Leslie you pretty much put it altogether.The original permit was issued #7098 on November 22, 2017. There had been difficulties trying to get the'rest of the planning completed and to get the approval from the Department of Transportation and unfortunately my client lost track of the permit and it expired I believe November 22, 2020 so we are here simply to pretty much renew what had essentially been approved under 7098. MEMBER DANTES : Wait, 7098 wasn't a demolition it was an alteration wasn't it? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. MEMBER DANTES :That's why you're here cause this is a demolition. MIKE KIMACK : Well no, I'm here because I'm here under the 280-42A. The Building Department did not send me under 280-4 Robert. I'm only appealing what was the four variances we're not appealing he might have used the word demolition but did not send you he used it simply because the same calculation applied and he chose to use the word demolition. I questioned him on that and he said oh let the Board deal with it but nothing has changed from the original one. It's the same building, it's still standing which you basically said to me as long as it's standing it was fine. We dealt with that very same issue back then but the 280-4 is not before you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What was the permit number that expired,this is a building permit? MIKE KIMACK : No, no your permit 7098. MEMBER DANTES :You don't need a hearing from us to extend the three year period. MIKE KIMACK : No we ran out of(inaudible) period. MEMBER DANTES: But you do that administratively, you don't need a hearing for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait,wait,wait, I believe their time frame to request an extension for the existing zoning variance is over. They could have requested it and we would have granted potentially up to three one year extensions. That time frame is over is that correct Mike? MIKE KIMACK :That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is why they're back here with exactly the same application because they did not codify the relief granted within a three year period and they failed to ask for an extension. MIKE KIMACK : That is correct. 34 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : It's not the same application because that application didn't say demolition on it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well whatever it is the variance relief is all the same. MIKE KIMACK : All I can say to that is that when I talked to Damon at that particular time he said all I with the calculation being more than fifty percent it was more than fifty percent when we did it last time. It's the same building. I might have weathered a little bit more it looks like but we did have Mark Schwartz go into the building and it's the basement is structurally sound, it can be reframed as it stands at the present time. It's not going to be taken down but because Damon felt that it did not meet the fifty percent which it basically didn't meet the fifty percent when we did it the first time. It is pretty much the same building so all I can say is that he might have used the word demo but he did not send you 280-4 to be discussed. It's exactly the same application as you approved before. BOARD SECRETARY : Didn't the demo definition change since then? MIKE KIMACK: I don't know I mean to keep track on the timing on that Kim I really can't say. I think there was when we were going through it originally I think there was some discussion as to what to apply, how to apply and whether it did or not I'm not before you on 280-4 I'm simply before you on 280-42A. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's a permit that's run out. Well you know sometimes the Building Department is not a hundred percent consistent and they may have missed it the first time. Frankly the first time I saw it I thought it was a demolition. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We all did cause you can see right through it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's even more so now. I don't know what you're going to sell (inaudible) even the foundation looks awful. MIKE KIMACK : No, no Mark Schwartz went in there and said the foundation was in good shape and the main building was in pretty good shape. There are parts of it obviously that needs to be reconstructed. I think the issue back then was to as I can remember our discussions was make sure the building doesn't fall down because we really have two different uses on it within that particular we have a business and an apartment and the building had to be standing in order to make sure we did not lose that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly, I remember that conversation. MIKE KIMACK :That was pretty much it and we really didn't focus on I think we all recognize that it didn't meet the fifty percent or (inaudible) back then and probably could have been a 35 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 demolition back then except that since it was standing from a technical point of view it still was a building that had two uses attached to it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike can you ask Mark Schwartz for an updated letter stating? MIKE KIMACK : I can send you that letter. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No an updated one. We have the original one. MIKE KIMACK : I have an updated one. I apologize didn't I send it off to you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe I didn't pay attention to the date. I was thinking that was the original one. MIKE KIMACK : No, no we did an updated one that we sent in. If I didn't attach it I apologize but I will send it off. We did one when we sent to Building Department. MEMBER DANTES : We even had a condition on our last decision saying that they cannot CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Demolish. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have a problem with demolishing the building, I just want to square away the paperwork. I remember last time we were wondering how they can do that without it being a demolition. I think if they end up coming back to us later when they get the citation from the Building Department MEMBER LEHNERT : I still think it's going to be a demolition but you know that's not in front of US. MEMBER DANTES : It's in front of us I mean if we can square away the paperwork now I'd like to do it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen we have a condition of approval in our standard form to deal with what happens if it's a demolition. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about the septic system Mike? MIKE KIMACK : The septic system also let me give the background on that. Everything basically the Planning Board I had contacted them to ask for an extension and we had that at the last meeting they did extend it. The Health Department also expired and we went back to Health Department and when we went back to Health Department if you walk past the property you'd see that digging out there? 36 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I saw it (inaudible) MIKE KIMACK : What that was, was the Health Department also said well when they had already approved it that particular system and they said well since we missed it there again (inaudible) commercial we want you to get into it we want you to do a complete analysis of the material within the tank. So we basically had to find the tank that's what the trench was for following the line out, open it up take a sample and submit it to the Health Department. That permit has subsequently been reissued. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you give us a copy of that? MIKE KIMACK : I can give you a copy of that too and also with the architect's letter. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I looked through my folder and I can't even find what I thought I had read previously so it might be easier just to get a new statement from Mark Schwartz. MIKE KIMACK : I do have that new statement from Mark and I also have the approval from the Health Department. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we need those too. You're going to have to get an extension from Planning, how does that work? MIKE KIMACK : They did,they voted at the last meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you give us a copy of their resolution or the minutes? MIKE KIMACK : I'll call Jessica and ask her but I was listening in,they did it at their last workshop. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Again we're going to get Health Department, we're going to get a letter from Mark Schwartz and Planning okay. Alright anything from anybody else? Let me see if there's anybody in the audience who wants to address this. BOARD SECRETARY : No raised hands. MIKE KIMACK : Thank you everybody, stay healthy and hoping we meet in person one of these days. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mike that would be nice. Let me just make the motion to close the hearing reserve decision subject to receipt of a Health Department extension approval, a letter from Mark Schwartz indicating no demolition and a Planning Department extension for site plan approval. Is there a second? 37 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. I think we finally caught up. So we got an hour break and just if anybody is here on the list of attendees just to let you know we're going to now take a break until the next scheduled hearing which is at one o'clock. That would be Thomas and Michele Hart, Deep Roots Farm and then we have one,two,three after that.So I'm going to make a motion to recess this meeting until one o'clock. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay just raise your hands if you're in approval. Let the record show all voted yes. So we will see you all back here at one o'clock. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor raise your hands. Let the record show the motion carries unanimously. 38 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 HEARING#7485—THOMAS and MICHELLE HART, DEEP ROOTS FARM, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas and Michelle Hart, Deep Roots Farm, LLC #7485. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280- 156' and the Building Inspector's December 16, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to convert an existing accessory farm building into an accessory agricultural production building at 1) located less than the code required minimum 25 feet setback from the property line located at 57685 Main Rd. in Southold. Is there someone here to represent the application? If you would unmute yourself Veronica, very good welcome. I'll just say that this is converting an existing farm building to an agricultural production building. The building has a side yard setback of 17.8 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet. It is a pre-existing non-conforming building. So what would you like us to know about this application? THOMAS HART : Yes we're just trying to put in a farm processing building.The building was here before we purchased the property and so we were just hoping to use that existing building instead of having to build something new for it. BOARD SECRETARY : Are you Thomas Hart? THOMAS HART : I am Thomas Hart, I didn't have my own Zoom account so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Alright we just need to know for the record who is speaking. So this is a pre-existing non-conforming building and you're not going to change the footprint in any way. THOMAS HART : No we're leaving it exactly the same, we're just building out the interior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What are you going to be producing in the building? THOMAS HART : Stuff that we're already selling at our farm stand. So we make like some pesto, jams with the fruit we have, tomato sauce with the tomatoes stuff like that and a little bit of baked goods. We're using a we're renting a kitchen from time to time and then we have some other people that we're paying to do this stuff so we'd just like to do it on the farm. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gottcha. Just so you know all of us I know you know that I saw you when you were there but everyone has been out to the site.We looked at the building(inaudible) next door. There are no development rights, there's no easement on that property right? THOMAS HART : No our rights are intact. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't have any questions. I mean this is really straightforward. Pat anything from you? 39 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I agree;straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN, : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No, my concern was just to find out if the development rights were intact and obviously they are entitled to use their property so no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions. This is a pretty simple application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric how about you? MEMBER DANTES : Not about the application but I thought even if the development rights were sold sometimes you can still do processing on the property. BOARD SECRETARY : There's no conservation easement on this I believe. MEMBER DANTES : No I mean even if there was one. MEMBER LEHNERT : No he's right but you can do a lot of these guys do. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It depends on how the easement is written. Most of the newer easements limit it unless it's otherwise negotiated. There's a difference between production and what's the other word? I guess processing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : AG processing. You know it's a little complicated and every one of those when something is PDR almost every one of those contracts are written differently.They've been trying to update them but if you look back at older ones they're all different.So Nick is right but we're fine with this application there are no issues and it's certainly a code permitted use of the property and you have a well-established farm operation so that's about it. Let me see if there's anybody in the attendees list that wants to make a comment about this application. If you do would you go to the little raise hand button and click on that and we'll let you in so you can speak. I don't see any raised hands. So I don't think we have anything else, anything from anybody? Okay then 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. Kim would you call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 40 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES :Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. We'll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. That's open to the public, you can listen in if we don't take testimony it's just open if you want to listen to us discussing it but there's no requirement by any means that you do that. The next day I go in and I sign the decision and when it becomes legalized you will get a copy in the mail or you can always call the office and say what happened. THOMAS HART :Thank you so much we appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Our pleasure, take care. BOARD SECRETARY : Leslie do you want to have Liz announce the instructions again? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good afternoon everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for. Also if you're using a phone press *9 to raise your hand so that we can see that you would like to say something and we'll give you further instructions on how to do that. Thank you. BOARD SECRETARY : I'm going to move over the next applicants to panelists. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need three minutes because the next one is for 1:10 so what I'm going to do while you're doing that is I'm going to go to the end of the Agenda and do these Resolutions. This is a Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday May 6, 2021 at 9:00 am so moved. Is there a second? 41 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. We're just waiting till 1:10 just so you know what's going on. We don't want anybody to think we talked about it before. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held March 18, 2021 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. 42 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. HEARING#7482SE—JOSHUA A. SKREZEC and JULIE L. ROMPEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is an application by Joshua Skrezec and Julie Rompel #7482SE. This is an application for a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner of the subject requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 21905 Main Rd. in Cutchogue.The Building Department you know this is very straightforward. You submitted a lot of things that are required to prove that you're in full time residency. How long have you been living full time in your home? JOSHUA SKREZEC : It's been just over a year. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you submitted you know documentation, you have a STAR exemption and various other things. There's also a rental agreement with I believe it's your mother? JOSHUA SKREZEC : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : She seems to have another address on Main Rd., is she going to be moving out of that home and in the apartment? JOSHUA SKREZEC : She was renting that home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see, so she doesn't own it. We have plans, the one thing you know the maximum size permitted by code is 750 sq. ft.,the Building Department confirmed that your architectural plans shows 757 sq.ft. Now we do have the right to grant a variance cause it's pretty small 7 sq. ft. not very big but I just wanted to ask you if you thought maybe there was some way to reduce the size of maybe your laundry pantry with the washer/dryer to eliminate 7 sq. ft. and be conforming. I don't know whether you know how to do that. 43 Regular Meeting April 1,2021 JOSHUA SKREZEC : I'm sure we can. I was just going based off that was the architect. We told him 750 was the maximum so I assumed everything was 750 that was submitted to the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie, I'm sorry do you know if Mike actually calculated like the laundry or closet space as living space? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No he might not have. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would hope not. I mean it seems dimensional but you know there's large closets etc. that might just throw those numbers off that may be the living space is actually 750 or less. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible. There's nothing on the plan from the architect that I could see that actually said with this professional license stamp 750 but you know what, the easiest thing to do frankly because you know if you took off the laundry room that's probably not considered livable floor area anyway so for 7 sq. ft. I don't know how the Board feels but I mean we've done this before not usually when they're already built and they come in to legalize them. What do you think Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I mean I would just go back and re-measure and get your 7 sq. ft. somewhere. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would say just you know should be approve this, limit it to 750 so it's compliant. It's not yet built they can push the closet if its deemed that the closet was actually calculated then we don't have an issue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's an excellent idea.So what we're talking about here is approving what would be called alternative relief meaning you've presumably sent in for 757, we're going to say you can have 750 and then we'll leave it up to you and your architect to fix it up with the Building Department. JOSHUA SKREZEC : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just kind of curious, why when you bought the house obviously the sky lights were already in the garage it's pretty unusual to have sky lights in a garage. JOSHUA SKREZEC : Yes it is. 44 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They may come in handy with an apartment MEMBER ACAMPORA : It's a beautiful garage. BOARD SECRETARY : So we'll have a condition on there where they submit to us the plans that we'll stamp. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes that'll just confirm that it's 750 that's all. In other words either your architect has to calculate what you've done already and 750 and you go back to the Building Department. I'll take the architect's stamp, the architect calculates it at 750 which was not on the plan. He has a license and we have to agree that a professional has the right to tell us what that livable floor area is.So it should be pretty simple.So just submit those calculations. If he says it's 757 then what we're going to do is we're going to grant you 750 so that you're conforming and he'll adjust the plans accordingly. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's pretty easy to lose 7 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Really so little. The only time we really tend to grant those, if somebody has already built one cause before the law was in place and they want to come in a legalize it and it's a few feet over we're not going to tell them to rip out a wall. JOSHUA SKREZEC : Understood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just from a matter of housekeeping, I don't remember seeing a C.O. on the gazebo. Do you need a C.O. on a gazebo? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think they need a C.O. on a gazebo. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I get confused, sometimes we need it sometimes we don't. MEMBER LEHNERT : Only unless it's sitting on a you know permitted foundation. MEMBER DANTES : I thought if it was under 100 sq. ft. you MEMBER LEHNERT :Yeah like a shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, just making some notes here. Our code has a definition 280 of what livable floor area is and I'm sure it's easy just go to the town website and look up livable floor area under Chapter 280 and he can I'm sure he knows how to do that but nevertheless he can if you want tell him he can confer take a look at that code and make sure that his calculations reflect what our definition is for livable floor area. JULIE ROMPEL : Right so the livable is 750 sq. ft. we just have an extra 7 that was a closet or something we didn't even notice. 45 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Exactly. MEMBER DANTES : He just went up the top there and added up all those numbers so yeah he probably did use the closet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I would imagine. MEMBER DANTES : Cause it's on the list. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yes so then let the architect stamp the plan at 750 and we're good to go. As soon as you can get that to us I mean we can I'm going should we close it subject to or do you want MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah, yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :There's no reason to MEMBER LEHNERT : No reason to leave it open. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Absolutely, I don't see anything that's unusual. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to close the hearing today so we're done with this and if we get the information sorted out quickly we meet again in two weeks and we will have a decision in two weeks. JULIE ROMPEL : So I'll just get from the architect and then drop it off where I've been dropping everything off at, at the ZBA box? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep and staff will let us know what's there and what it says and we'll have hard copies in our mailboxes and we'll be good to go. JULIE ROMPEL : One copy of that? JOSHUA SKREZEC : Do we need to submit eight again? BOARD SECRETARY :Two copies would be fine. MEMBER DANTES : Leslie, I'm adding up the numbers on the area schedule and that equals 751.9 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh isn't that crazy. BOARD SECRETARY : Also ask your architect to send us a PDF email us a PDF. MEMBER LEHNERT : If you take the width of the walls out it would probably work. 46 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's just a technicality but I don't want to have to grant a variance when we don't even really need one. MEMBER LEHNERT :Yeah that's easy for them to figure out on his plan and resend it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What staff will do is when they get the PDF they need to drawings for Laserfiche and all that, when staff gets the PDF they'll email it to all of us and we'll look at it. JOSHUA SKREZEC : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we'll have any delays on this. BOARD SECRETARY :Two originals and PDF's CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay very good. So I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to recalculation of the livable floor area by the architect. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I'd also say to limit it to 750 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah okay I'll put that on the record too then in the resolution. Okay so moved is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. Kim call the roll please. Member Acampora had to leave. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries. We should be good to go in two weeks. 47 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 HEARING#7484SE— BYRON ELMENDORF CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Byron Elmendorf #7484SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is the owner of subject property requesting authorization to maintain an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 1570 Bray Ave. in Mattituck. Now you are a new owner, when did you buy your house? BYRON ELMENDORF : December CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and you are living there now full time year round? BYRON ELMENDORF : Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Who are you going there's no information on who is going to be renting this apartment. BYRON ELMENDORF : We don't have a perspective tenant yet because we wanted to make sure that we were authorized to rent it before we did so. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You do understand that you must be residing in your principal residence. You can't be renting that out. BRYON ELMENDORF : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The apartment must be rented either to a family member which means you must submit affidavits of relationship, birth certificates so on and so forth anything that documents that relationship or you need to go to Town Hall see who is listed on the list of eligible for affordable rentals. You can chose who you want I mean no one is telling you who has to live there but you have to go in and get that squared away to somebody from that eligibility list because these are not market rate apartments. They're meant to be limited to converting existing space for the purpose of affordable and family rentals and it has to be a year round rental a one year full time rental not seasonal. BYRON ELMENDORF : Yes that is understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie to that point, I'm sorry Mr. Elmendorf do you have a family member that you'll be renting to or will you be seeking a tenant from the affordable housing registry? BYRON ELMENDORF : We will be seeking a tenant from the affordable registry. 48 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So should we approve this, that will be a condition of approval which means that's what you're required to do and then you're going to have to let us know who is in there. BYRON ELMENDORF : Understood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This requires an annual inspection from the Building Department to make sure you're in conformance with the code. You also have to show us on your survey three parking spaces,two for the principal residence and one for the accessory apartment. Now we've all inspected the site and there is room on your property back there where your driveway goes in. It's just a sort of piece of asphalt right now and there was a sort of a truck parked there by the garage. I guess it must have been a dirt driveway off of Fourth St. that we went into. BYRON ELMENDORF : Yeah there's a driveway just to the right of where that mouse pointer is indicating a gravel driveway. Right there is where I believe what you're discussing is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're proposing I guess to keep some part of the garage as a garage right? BYRON ELMENDORF : Yeah we are intending to park our cars in the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As I recall the apartment is above. BYRON ELMENDORF : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in there now? BYRON ELMENDORF : No it's unoccupied. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I saw some furniture left there not a lot but. BYRON ELMENDORF :Yeah we are starting to furnish it because my parents are visiting and they are going to be staying in there not rental or anything they're just going to stay there for a month. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I'll tell you that is not legal. BYRON ELMENDORF : It's not legal? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not a cottage, it's not a guest house it's an apartment that must be rented to someone on the registry. It's not meant for visitors you know for family. BYRON ELMENDORF : Then I guess they'll be staying in the guest room. 49 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean you know I know you're new to this and a lot of people are not aware of the limitations on these so it really can't be used as like for guests whether they're related or unrelated. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I would add that which I think that we all saw on the application the prior owner did have a Special Exception this apartment was a legally created rental unit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and you're doing exactly the right thing. It's not transferable to a new person; that's because you have to show us to demonstrate that you qualify that it's your principle residence and that you're going to put somebody in there on a rental basis with a yearly rental you can change BYRON ELEMENDORF : As I stated before that's certainly our intention and I might add that it's an admirable thing to be creating affordable housing in this community. I fully support that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely (inaudible)to waste the resource that's already there. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add also, part of the code does not allow you to seek a rental permit for the house. So in other words you're living in the house full time, the rental benefit would come for the accessory structure if granted. BYRON ELMENDORF : Right that is our intent. We have a two year old son and we are going to be living in our house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, welcome to the neighborhood. BYRON ELMENDORF : Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do have one other question, the prior ZBA permit from August 21, 2014 showed an apartment that was 628.26 sq. ft. Now the livable floor area that we got from the Building Department shows 525 sq. ft. of livable floor area. BYRON ELMENDORF : I think I know what the discrepancy is, I think what was the first number you provided? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 628.26 BYRON ELMENDORF : I just was doing some calculations and it looks if well if you multiply the dimensions just basically off the rectangle you get 616 so I'm not sure how they calculated 628 but I believe the 500 is more accurate in that it measures the interior and it accounts for livable versus not livable space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we'll go with that then. 50 Regular Meeting April 1,2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add Leslie I have firsthand knowledge, I've been in the apartment while I wasn't in it for a site inspection as a ZBA member I've been in it previously, it's a small apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes I do know that. Normally with these we do interior inspections but a. we had already looked at this before and b. because of COVID we stopped doing that temporarily. We'll probably go back to it once it's all safe to do that cause the only way we can tell about something like that is by going in it. Normally everything else is on the outside, we don't make appointments we just show up when we can individually and look at the neighborhood and all the other things we have to look at. Is there somebody else here? BOARD SECRETARY : I don't have any raised hands so if anybody wants to speak on this matter raise your hand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did get a letter from the neighbor concerning the on-site parking. BOARD SECRETARY : I have a Robert that raised his hand. You want me to bring him in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. I think that had to do with the previous neighbor and what was going on there. Robert if you would unmute yourself and tell us your name. ROBERT IRRGANG : Hi can everybody hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we can. ROBERT IRRGANG : Hi, Robert Irrgang I'm the neighbor that's directly next to the garage apartment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anything you'd like the Board to know or did we cover everything? ROBERT IRRGANG : What I'd like to do is just bring up I don't know if I'm allowed to or not but I'd like to just bring up a point here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Tell us what it is and we'll tell you whether it's relevant. ROBERT IRRGANG : The issue is privacy and if you look on the survey I got the packet in the mail I live right next to this thing and if you look on the survey itself you'll see that between the house my house and the garage there's nothing there. If you look further down towards Fourth St. you know you'll see that there's arborvitaes (inaudible) one that I have is drawn in its arborvitaes there but between the two buildings there's nothing there. First of all cause I'd like to say cause I never met my new neighbors that I'd like to say hi new neighbor and welcome to the neighborhood. 51 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 BYRON ELMENDORF : Hello. ROBERT IRRGANG :Thank you and in moving forward I think we're in agreement I'd like to move forward like in a positive way in this and all I'm really saying what I really want to say again I don't know if I'm allowed to is that since a Special Exception is being made for this and I'm the last person to tell somebody what to do with their property cause I don't want anybody telling me what to do with my property is that perhaps there is an old stockade fence there it's falling down, perhaps I don't know between all of us or between me and the new neighbor perhaps we can talk about creating some sort of like a natural barrier there or something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can tell you this sir,that's really a civil matter between the two of you. However there is no room on the applicant's property behind let's say on your shared property line, there's not enough room to plant any kind of evergreen screening. It would have to a fence or you would have to plant something on your side. ROBERT IRRGANG : Well that's what I was going there I don't mean to interrupt you I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, that's alright there's no problem we're here to help and I just wanted to let you know that's probably something the two of you could resolve as neighbors. We don't feel there's any need to this has nothing to do with privacy per say there's no way we can (inaudible) it either gets approved or not and I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be approved but maybe go ahead ROBERT IRRGANG : I just want to ask one question, so perhaps like a higher fence I don't know what the town code is with fence and height and all that, perhaps in the same Special Exception the town would allow us to put in a higher fence even if we share I'd be willing to share the cost. I don't know if they would allow us to do that, a higher fence may CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The town allows six feet that's it. ROBERT IRRGANG : Well there is a neighbor that is right next to us and I'm not trying to get anybody in trouble but when he moved in a bought his house a few years ago and we get along fine there's no problem he has a higher fence there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Either he got a variance for it which would be required and the only thing higher than six feet usually is a variance for deer fencing or they're doing it illegally. ROBERT IRRGANG : So in this variance cause I'm just trying to move into a positive solution and go forward, could that be included in this that you guys would also allow that as long as you're allowing that? 52 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No. You have to apply for a variance for a fence height. It's a totally different application and a totally different process. ROBERT IRRGANG : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I would basically say you know if you want some more screening plants and evergreens you know behind your building, repair the fence if it's falling down but it has to be no higher than six feet and that's a matter between the two of you or in fact it's the property owners if it's his fence it's up to him whether he wants to renew it or not. ROBERT IRRGANG :Thank you for letting me speak. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're very welcome. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So I was going to add one point to the neighbor who actually spoke up and as Leslie our Chairperson said it becomes potentially a civil matter but maybe Mr. Elmendorf as a new homeowner recognizing the benefit of the rent roll that you generate with affordable housing, you might discuss things with your neighbor and amicably solve the problem. Your building is very close to the lot line, obviously it was built with a Certificate of Occupancy so it's legal but for the benefit of the neighbor you might actually solve the problem neighborly and maybe it means buying some evergreen trees that are planted on his property or something just to make sure that everyone's happy as neighbors. BYRON ELMENDORF : I would be happy to discuss the issue with the neighbor and find a solution that complies with the zoning requirements. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's great. Again that's entirely up to the two of you what you do and as your neighbor said it's your property and you are entitled to do whatever you're allowed to do and are not required to do anything else but if you two can find an amicable solution that makes both of you happy so much the better but that's not within our jurisdiction. Hearing no other comments I'm going to make somebody who is this wait a minute. BOARD SECRETARY : Let me see if I have somebody else CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's for a different yeah that's for a different application. Okay 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. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes how do you vote? 53 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries.Thank you Mr. Elmendorf we'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7465SE—KONSTANTINOS DIAKOVASILIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a matter that was schedule at 1:30 which was adjourned form March 4th, this is application #74655E. We have a request for an adjournment from the applicant to the May Regular Meeting. They've changed architects and so on. So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn that application to the May 6th, is there a second on that motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Member Planamento seconds the motion. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. 54 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries.Alright before we get to the last hearing I just want to make an announcement, we want to let you know that Pat was here earlier in the day but she had a medical emergency and she regrets that she had to leave on that basis. We still certainly have a quorum so that's not a problem,we're just going to proceed with the last application and let's go to that now. HEARING#7463SE—SUFFOLK COUNTY ENERGY STORAGE II, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Suffolk County Energy Storage II, LLC#7463SE. This was adjourned so as an adjournment I don't need to read into the record the Legal Notice again. We have received a lot of information the applicant's attorney. We closed actually the time for written submission last Friday, we've contacted the Department of Wildlife Conservation. We have a lot more information. As far as I can see we have more than enough information in order for us to proceed with this but I want to give anybody in the attendees list an opportunity to be heard before we do anything else. So let's see who is here. BOARD SECRETARY : We have a Randy Wade, do you want me to bring her in? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes please because the hearing is still open. Randy if you'll unmute. RANDY WADE :Actually I had raised my hand over the previous one cause I had a question about when accessory units are adjacent to a property line like that if you require that the windows facing the neighbor are you know at least like six feet high or something so that they're not on CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Randy well we closed that but I will answer your question. Everything is site specific, everything is application specific. If they're overlooking somebody's you know other bedroom and they're cheek to jowl we would probably considerthat. If they're overlooking a farm field who cares. So it's very application specific. RANDY WADE : Great good to hear thanks. It was just an idle question thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. I don't see Mr. Losquadro here, Jason Funk is here he's part of the BOARD SECRETARY : I think Eric Wexler is also the applicant's representative. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right, I mean if anybody wants to speak that's fine. As far as I am concerned I feel like I've finally gotten enough information from enough sources. We have Trustees comments, LWRP comments, Soil and Water comments, Land Preservation comments 55 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 lot's comments from the public, from environmental groups lots of comments from those who support green infrastructure technology. We have received answers I think from the applicant and their consultants on everything we asked for.So I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, is there anything else you would like to say or are we ready to simply close this and make MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Losquadro appeared by the way just saw him pop in. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh ok,well then I'll just repeat that again. Basically reiterating the fact that everything you know we had a deadline for last Friday for any additional written commentary. None was received and what we did receive has already been replied to by Mr. Losquadro the applicant's attorney and we had more than sufficient information submitted. So I don't see what else we can learn about this. I think it's time to close it and make a decision. I just want to see if anybody else in the attendees list has any comment they want to make in fairness to everyone. If so just raise your hand and we'll bring you in. BOARD SECRETARY : Steve is a panelist right now I believe. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes we can. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Okay because I can't tell just at the moment if I am on or not but if you can hear me and can see me I just wanted to reiterate what you said. Obviously we thank the Board for all of the time spent,for the opportunity to submit the many documents that we have to reply in a thorough manner in which we have and we do appreciate that courtesy and concur. We believe that at this time it is an appropriate moment to close the hearing and to move on to decision. We believe that every issue has been addressed, been vetted very carefully and the documentation that we even submitted most recently including and up through the 261h has been very complete in nature and again thank you very much for that opportunity and for all the attention that you've paid to date. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we realize that this is a first of its kind and the town has not at this point in time put into the code the code regulations on this particular use. We know it's a permitted use in that zone but there are no specific codes related to it. Many other municipalities have those codes in place and we anticipate that at some point our town will certainly follow suit but we did everything we could possibly do to make sure that all issues were raised and thoroughly vetted as you said. So this is a challenging one and we'll do our due diligence, I think we all have and it's time for us to make a decision. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Well madam Chairwoman and of course Members of the Board thank you very much again we do appreciate it. 56 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Anybody else? BOARD SECRETARY : Randy Wade has her hand up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I don't know if that was from the last time or this time. BOARD SECRETARY : Well I moved her back to attendee so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Randy can you say in the chat if you have something you want to add to this application or OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No Leslie she raised her hand again. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright bring her in. RANDY WADE : Hi, the chat is disabled for I couldn't say anything and honestly I didn't hear you say Suffolk County Battery Storage so I didn't know that was the topic you were talking on. I just wanted to add one point of fact, that one of the justifications for the land (inaudible) is it was stated as fact that the basement is never flooded, the house does not have a basement. I think this is a point of fact that should be corrected and I would hope that if you are going to approve this use that you use the most extreme setbacks to protect all the things that were brought up previously. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're welcome. I just want to reassure everyone that we are a Special Exception use is a different set of standards than the balancing test we apply in area variances. Nevertheless we are very, very well aware of all of the surrounding properties, of the pros and cons of everything and we are going to take all of those things into consideration in making our decision. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'd like to clarify one thing from what Ms. Wade just said, I have no personal knowledge of the house but she said as a statement of fact that the house doesn't have a basement. I don't want to get into a debate of he said she said but I'm confused because the applicant has said that the basement hasn't flooded so while she's offering testimony during a Public Hearing is that something you know I don't want to suggest it should be stricken from the record but I don't know how she knows the condition of the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look the bottom line is, we know what the property is like, we know what the soil conditions are the applicants are going to be required to do all kinds of protective measures to mitigate any possibility of even though it's not in a flood zone you know we're still going to look at potential impacts. They don't rise to moderate to you know to high impacts but there will be impacts and we're going to do whatever we can and they will too when they work with the Planning Board as another step and the Trustees and there are going to be other 57 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 ? approvals required. So this is only step one okay and we'll consider all of those issues including you know the kind of water and where it comes from on the property with or without a basement. First of all you've got to realize they're going to be demolishing the house and are removing the septic. Be assured both the applicant and the public be assured the Zoning Board has heard everything and has gotten lots of information and we are reading through it assiduously very carefully, we're doing due diligence and we will do our very best to do right by the applicant and do right by the people of the Town of Southold. I don't have anything else to say. MEMBER DANTES : I'll just say Leslie, I think it's the Planning Board's purview is they will have to do an engineered drainage plan (inaudible) process. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes they will definitely. They know it, there's a lot of hoops yet they are going to have to jump through but you know that's the process, that's the governmental process. Mr. Losquadro is more than familiar with it, it's not the first time the company he represents has gone through this and you know they'll go step by step. Anything else from anybody?Then I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second on that? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes how do you vote? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote? MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. The earliest we have a decision is in two weeks but this is going to be a complicated thing to write so I can't be confident that we will have it by then. We have sixty two days from today. I can say with some assurance that if we 58 Regular Meeting April 1, 2021 don't have something at our Special Meeting which is April 15th then we will have something at our Regular Meeting on for deliberation which is May 61n STEVE LOSQUADRO : Thank you again madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Have a nice holiday everybody. STEVE LOSQUADRO : Same to all of you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that's it actually,that's a wrap. We've done the resolutions for the Minutes and for the next meeting. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. All in favor please raise your hand. Let the record show that everybody is voting yes to close the meeting. 59 Regular Meeting April 1, 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 :April 8, 2020 60