Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/01/2021 Hearing Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall & Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York July 1, 2021 10:13 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY—Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant 1 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Philip Loria #7498 4- 23 Richard Kalich #7505 23 -41 Mark Hoffman and John Pierce #7507SE 41-43 Linda Dambassis#7509 43 -46 Jacob Wylie#7512 47 - 50 Michael A. Boyd and Lisa T. Boyd #7511 50- 52 Neil P. Stronski #7513 52 - 54 Andreas Pfanner# 7501 54- 73 Andreas Pfanner#7502 54- 73 Julia Kiely# 7508SE 75 - 81 2 Regular Meeting July 1,2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning. Welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing of July 1, 2021 we're all delighted to be back here for our community and with our community. I do want to just read this once and for all that this is an executive order. Due to the expiration of the New York State Governor's executive order regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in person access to the public is now permitted and this meeting and other future meetings will be held here in the meeting hall and all future meetings of the Board of Appeals will be held here or in the Annex Conference Room on the second floor for the Special Meetings two weeks later. We are however going to continue the Zoom application so that the public has the option of either coming in person or linking in,the instructions are in our Legal Notices and on our website and you can also phone in. So we have many more opportunities to get even more participation from the public at their convenience. So welcome and I'm going to begin the meeting, we have finished Executive Session and Work Session. I'm going to do the SEQR, these are new applications review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review SEQR6 NYCRR Part 617.5© including the following : Philip Loria, Richard Kalich, Mark Hoffman and John Pierce, Linda Dambassis, Jacob Wylie, Michael A. Boyd and Lisa T. Boyd, Neil Stronski, Andreas Pfanner two applications and Julie Kiely. So that's a resolution to accept the following as SEQR determination. Is there a second to that motion? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Pat. All in favor. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER ACARMPORA :Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. Liz just out of curiosity, do you want to inform anybody are there any people in attendance? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes there are seventeen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz would you review for those who are on Zoom how to participate please. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Sure. Good morning everyone, 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 click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for and we'll give you further instructions. Thank you. 3 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 HEARING#7498—PHILIP LORIA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. I'm going to begin by opening up the first application. This is Philip Loria #7498. I'm going to read the Legal Notice with the caveat that we will be addressing that the Legal Notice which is based upon the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department has raised a series of questions that we're researching and looking in to but I'll read what it is that was actually noticed. Request for variances from Article XII Section 280-18, Article XIII Section 28-56 and the Building Inspector's February 5, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a three story single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 3) located less than the minimum side yard setback of 25 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum two stories, located at 1090 First St. New Suffolk. I just explained that the Notice of Disapproval is being researched to make sure that we're in compliance with all the requirements. Bill would you say a few comments about that. T.A. DUFFY :There's some discrepancy in the Notice of Disapproval and I spoke with the Building Department and the Building Inspector and they placed their Notice of Disapproval in part what they said is a prior ZBA Interpretation regarding the code. (inaudible)-with that interpretation yet so there are discrepancies between the Notice of Disapproval and the ZBA Notice. We're researching that so we decided that we were going to go ahead and take testimony but we may require a re-noticing of other meetings for future date so that the correct notice (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is everybody clear on that?There was a prior the Building Department has said the Zoning Board and I don't recall this and I've been on this Board twenty years but he said that around 2015 that the ZBA was asked to do an code interpretation about I guess the bulk schedule in an MII zone and how it related to other zones. If he can provide that for us then we can take a look at it because when we do a code interpretation it has a big impact on the bulk schedule. So we have to look at what the bulk schedule in an MII zone now says and we have to look at if the Building Department is basing this notice on a prior ZBA decision we have to know what that decision was, make it available to the public and see how it impacts this application. T.A. DUFFY : Especially if the Building Department has made a determination for residential uses, in an MII you do not go by the MII bulk schedule (inaudible)then go to the HD bulk schedule and use those setbacks. So that's the discrepancy and why if you as people in the public just read MII it wouldn't match up with the Notice of Disapproval but not (inaudible) MII. We are researching to clarify that we believe the interpretation by the Building Department is correct. Once we determine whether that is correct or not we'll determine whether we notice this hearing. 4 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will take testimony today however. We're going to proceed and then we will work the details up make that known as soon as we have it clarified. Please state your name. PHILIP LORIA : My name is Phil Loria. I have something I'm going to read so I'd like to give you a copy of this two pages. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll make some more copies. PHILIP LORIA : My name is Philip Loria (inaudible) most people in New Suffolk (inaudible). For twenty five years I (inaudible) a few businesses in New Suffolk. My parents live across the street and in 1974 my mother bought the property in question (inaudible) of me with the intention that I would build there. I maintained the property for forty seven years with new bulk heading making the grade and (inaudible) with the existing hurricanes, paid the taxes. Using further needs (inaudible) in accordance with Mil zoning. (inaudible) compliance with the town and the D.E.C. regulations. I'm retired now but New Suffolk is my home that's where I want to build. Whatever the zoning requires whatever the town, county the D.E.C. I will comply as I always have and will continue to be a good neighbor as I have always been. I submitted a letter of support from some of my neighbors in New Suffolk and I'd like to thank you for considering my application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. This is a little difficult because addressing each one of the variances until we're absolutely certain exactly what those variances are it becomes a little awkward but in general what we were looking at was variances for a front yard, for side yard, combined side yard, height and rear yard which would then be bulkhead. So until we absolutely clarify precisely what the circumstances are with regard to those variances. We won't know exactly what the percentage if variance is, we won't know how substantial it is, we won't know whether it's characteristic of the neighborhood or not. There's some conversation that two and a half stories is the maximum allowed,there was something in the bulk schedule on an MII zone if that is applied that only allows two stories so we're kind of going like this with this application at this point but anything you will like to tell us additionally or anyone who is here in attendance would like to say or anyone who wants to speak via Zoom. If you want to talk by Zoom please raise your hand and Liz will allow you to speak. Meanwhile I'm going to start with people that are here present in the audience. Did you want to say something? PHIL LORIA : I just wanted to mention that the second page is a letter from the neighbors you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have that. Did you want me to read it into the record? PHIL LORIA : Yes. 5 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I will do that.You've read your letter into the record,we have physical copies all the Board Members but I'll read it into the record. It's dated June 281h to the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, we are residents of New Suffolk writing to support Phil Loria's application for a variance. For forty five years Phil a.k.a. Captain Marty owned and operated Captain Marty's fishing station here in New Suffolk where people could rent boats for fishing, buy bait and tackle and have their own boats repaired and maintained. Every kid in town was in and out of Captain Marty's buying candy soda and stuff to go fishing, getting their bicycle tires (inaudible) and refilled. It was an institution that contributed so much to the character and pleasure of life here and hiring countless kids and adults over the years. Phil parents bought a home right across the street and had been a wonderful neighbor always ready to lend a hand especially after hurricanes and Nor'easters with (inaudible) small. We think it would be great for him to be able to build his retirement home here in New Suffolk where he's always made such positive contributions to our community. It's signed by one, two, three, four, five, six, seven it looks like eight possibly nine people. It's hard to read some of the signatures. Is there anyone else who wait, wait, wait you have to come to we're recording this so you're going to have to speak into a microphone so just come and state your name. STEVE KATSOLAS : Hi I'm Steve Katsolas. I live in 1175 First St. This people who signed the letter I mean they have addresses, names? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. STEVE KATSOLAS: And they're all from New Suffolk? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Fourth St.,Jackson St., Old Harbor Rd. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's all New Suffolk. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's all New Suffolk, yes. STEVE KATSOLAS : Okay. This people live far away from there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they're all in the neighborhood. STEVE KATSOLAS : I know I own the house five years now I know. I have a letter I want to say something. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. By the way I should also say that part of our record which we are now again doing more than what we previously did, before we used to only scan into Laserfiche applications once a decision was made and then that went to the Town Clerk. Now during COVID we decided to scan everything in because it was hard you couldn't come in and FOIL in person an application so we were clear on the details so in fairness to the public we put 6 Regular Meeting July 1,2021 into a place a practice we're going to continue which is that we as soon as we get a complete application we scan everything into Laserfiche and if you have questions as to how to access it our office will help you so you can see what's in there. As we receive letters and various other bits of information those become part of that file. Having said that we have at least eight letters of objection from neighbors and that is part of our record also so those letters are all available on Laserfiche they were scanned in yesterday. Please go ahead sir. STEVE KATSOLAS : My name is Steve Katsolas and I have signs 75 First signs New Suffolk. I'm writing in regards to lot number 1090 First St. in New Suffolk.The owner Mr. Loria has submitted plans to build a three story framed building. I am strongly opposed to this plan, this applicant does not meet building requirements. The zoning code says the building to be 35 feet set back from the street. The plans for 1090 First St. show that the plans and the building is 9%feet from the street. Exceptions should not be made for any new construction in this town.The zoning rules are set in place for a reason. The town of New Suffolk it's a beautiful special town,the people of the community that I have talked to would like to keep it this way. There's a lot right next to the one that Mr. Loria has purchased (inaudible). One of the exceptions are made to whatever new construction might develop in this area if it's going to be the normal for New Suffolk Mr. Loria states in his letter that resident is building(inaudible)for New Suffolk. I'm really confused to why this would be better for our (inaudible) let's keep the charm of New Suffolk not break zoning rules that we put in place for a reason. The zoning codes need to be enforced it's not simply too small to build them. Also in the plan over here it shows flood zone the lines. I'm here thirty five years every time there's a hurricane the whole First St. floods like a lake. Sandy storm the water was close to four feet because it came up to five steps to my house so I was there. That's if you figure eight inches garage so that's forty inches okay so what he's talking about is only over here that's only like half of the property is flooded it's not the whole thing is flooded. Then it's a problem when it floods everything is from the bulkhead should be 75 feet setback isn't that the code 75 feet from the water from the bulkhead? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It often is it depends on the zone that it's in. STEVE KATSOLAS : Okay so this zone applies a marine or residential? I think residential the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes but what the Town Attorney was trying to explain was the Building Department wrote a Notice of Disapproval that was based upon what they thought was a 2015 Zoning Board previous code interpretation that said and we have to verify this so I'm saying this with a caveat that if someone is going to put in a residential use on an MII zone which is what this is here then we have to apply a bulk schedule that is in HD building hamlet density. STEVE KATSOLAS : What does that mean? 7 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know how confusing the code could be trust me and we have to be very careful with it because sometimes the one schedule it refers to another schedule with a little footnote on it and I think it's a work in progress frankly but the bottom line is we're here to listen to why it's legally justifiable to grant some relief from what the required variances are. We don't write out what they are what the code is, the Town Board does the coding they write the legislation. So we're here permit applicants to do what the code doesn't allow them to do as of right if it's legally justifiable and we have standards that we have to address legally in our decisions. STEVE KATSOLAS : And all the sides and backs the front I saw illegal you know it's not zone code. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :At the moment that's correct it's noticed as being non-conforming to what the code requires okay. If the code allowed it they wouldn't be here they would just be building his house. STEVE KATSOLAS :The house next to him (inaudible) Phil owns is about 9 feet from the street the house was built when horse and wagons were in the town you know. It's going to be a traffic problem there, parking I mean there's no room there's no room the property is too small. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we've hear your concerns they're in our public record and you letter by the way. STEVE KATSOLAS : Yes I wasn't sure because the Trustees said we're not allowed to come here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You are allowed sure you are. STEVE KATSOLAS : I received a certified letter yesterday okay I forgot to bring it with me actually I have it in my house stating we're not allowed in. MEMBER DANTES : I can explain that sir, originally we were doing this meeting by Zoom and then Governor Cuomo for whatever reason had a midnight executive order requiring us to come back and we couldn't do it by Zoom because it is an executive order. So the confusion is because of the Governor's executive order. STEVE KATSOLAS : Last week MEMBER DANTES : No I know that's when the order came through so we're reacting as much as everyone else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yeah we actually had to do a really quick turnaround, we did not want to burden the applicants or neighbors with yet another delay or anything like that cause we have other applications of course coming up next month. So what we did is was we were basing this on one legal requirement from the state. That's what got sent out, that's what we've received 8 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 that's what were ready to do but then almost last minute we found out that we are now able to come in person. So what we did was we called staff called asked them to do this all the applicants STEVE KATSOLAS : Nobody called me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They didn't call the neighbors but they did make every effort to inform neighbors if they had email addresses, contact information they reached out to let them know. We did the very best we could so that nobody was behind schedule because it's only going to backfire on everybody if we do that. We changed it on our website, so you know we so that's the explanation and I started this meeting with that explanation which is why we're here now and not as we expected to be a bunch of little Hollywood squares. STEVE KATSOLAS :The other thing I wanted to add is in 2019 Mr. Loria built the bulkhead without permit and then without the Trustees, D.E.C. permits and was given us a (inaudible) permit (inaudible) after construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sir we have that information in our record. STEVE KATSOLAS : I just wanted the public to hear. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright fair enough. I do want to see if anybody just in fairness I want to see if there's anybody else in the audience here that wants to speak and then we'll look at that and if you have any other questions after that you can come back. Would you please state your name sir. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Hi I'm Nicholas Mazzaferro I'm a professional engineer the designer of this project and I'm Phil's agent on this job. One thing just to correct you mentioned before that we're looking for a height variance, according to the legal description there's no variance in height required it's not in the legal description. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do not the legal notice is based upon the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval. Staff writes that because that's the only thing we can do, we don't make decisions the Building Department does. T. A. DUFFY : The Legal Notice does provide that they're exceeding the permitted two stories. That may or may not be correct that's one of the things we're looking at. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Okay cause I went through and I actually printed the bulk schedule today. T. A. DUFFY : The Building Department's Notice of Disapproval does not contain the height difference the two story (inaudible) requirement only our notice does so we (inaudible) Notice of Disapproval. 9 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 NICK MAZZAFERRO : Cause I saw the Legal Notice I didn't see the Building Department but the Legal Notice does contain the variance for a two and half story and contain all the appropriate setbacks. Based on the bulk schedule I used to design the project and based on what I printed today, based on the Legal Notice everything to me seem to line up so I'm confused. T.A. DUFFY :The Building Department knows that the HD bulk schedule should be applied in this circumstance. MEMBER LEHNERT : I think his question is to the 35 foot max. height,there's nothing in the denial about that cause he meets that if you look at his plan. NICK MAZZAFERRO : It meets 35. MEMBER LEHNERT : Correct so I think the confusion is the 35 feet and the two and half stories which are two different issues. There's no problem with the 35 feet. NICK MAllAFERRO : The entire bulk schedule for every single category of the town code has a 35 foot height every single one of them. MEMBER LEHNERT : We're not even talking about that. NICK MAZZAFERRO : That's where I'm confused. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We do have in our records your letter to us addressing NICK MAZZAFERRO : The Planning Department's comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but again the problem is and this is very unorthodox and it's not often but occasionally at a public hearing we might find some discrepancy between what's cited on the Legal Notice and the Notice of Disapproval and what's on a survey let's say and we deal with it at the public hearing. However in this instance what we're looking at is a prior ZBA code interpretation that we have yet to see and we have to find because we've been informed by the Building Department that they are applying the HD bulk schedule to this project. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Right and it does line up with what's in the code I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's why we're just confused and we're going to get unconfused. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Just for the record in a Marine II for a residential with community water type construction it's refers you to roman numeral seven in the bulk (inaudible) schedule and the roman numeral schedule in bulk three is two and half stories 35 foot height, lot coverage 25% and then specific setbacks and they all lined up with the Legal Notice that you guys put out so I'm confused. 10 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 T. A. DUFFY : It does not line up with the Legal Notice? NICK MAZZAFERRO : It does not line up where does it line up? T. A. DUFFY : There's two stories the Legal Notice says you can't have more than two stories it says two and half stories. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Oh okay. T. A. DUFFY : In addition the Legal Notice says minimum side yard setback of 25 feet and the side yard under HD is 15 feet. So we have two discrepancies in our Notice compared to what the Notice of Disapproval from the Building Department says. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Alright now I understand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will make absolutely certain that we have an accurate Notice of Disapproval and we will rewrite the Legal Notice based upon the accurate Notice of Disapproval to make certain is complete. That will be 'made available to the public. It's going to have to reposted so everybody knows and we're all on the same page. That way we can accurately address what Mr. Loria is requesting to do and where it varies from what the code allows and doesn't allow. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Let me ask you a question, suppose the new Legal Notice based on the (inaudible) become a moot point meaning the number of stories is the number of stories it's not the according to the Building Department if the design is for a three story structure so (inaudible) two, two and half it doesn't matter. Then the second one is the setback distances the side yard limit is 25 feet or 15 feet, right now we have a 10 foot side yard variance that we requested. So the variance that we're requesting fall into either category they would not change it would be the same variances. So I don't know if that would you know make the whole (inaudible) process not necessary. T.A. DUFFY: It's necessary fora couple of reasons,one legally we are required to hear the appeals from the Building Department Notice of Disapproval so what we're hearing should match what the Building Department decided even though this is (inaudible) a much greater variance requesting you're required to have 25 and you only have 10 but if you're only required to have 15 you have 10 it's a much greater variance depending on what's correct. So your burden is much greater if you have to explain why you need such a (inaudible) setback 25 feet or 15 feet so it's not just an exercise for the sake of you know getting (inaudible) there's legal reasons why we need to do this. NICK MAZZAFERRO : So now I have some other stuff to address talking about that actual issues here. First the front yard setback I'll discuss that quickly because the neighborhood based on the 11 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 code section 280 that allows you to take the average of the street will allow this structure to be actually much more closer to the street.The adjoining property based on the survey is only 3 foot setback, the property to the north of that is again only a 3 foot setback and if I go to the south I have vacant lot and then the next property again that only has a 3 foot setback so based on the actual (inaudible) it looks like it's wider because the streets are not that wide but the actual (inaudible) distances that were provided to me from Southold town shows the actual setback at 3 feet. We designed this house 9 %to 10 foot setback to allow somebody to be able to put a car off the street in order to relieve some of the congestion that exists in New Suffolk for the parking and also to get away from the street to stop you know the heavy traffic.As far as rear yard setback goes the entire lot is 51 foot deep with the same easement that was approved by the D.E.C. and the town as shown on the survey the entire lot is 61 foot deep on one end, 71 on the other so you can say it's an average of 65 foot deep.The zoning requires a 35 foot front yard and a 35 foot back yard so if you have a 70 foot yard requirement and you're lot depth is only 65 feet it's really difficult to make the zoning requirements.Therefore variances can be and that's the purposes of variances you know to allow the structure to be built. The single and separate search found that this lot existed in the 1920's, it was turned over a few times in the forties and fifties and eventually it got into Phil's hands his family. When that lot was created and prior to 1957 there was absolutely no requirements or any dimensions on the lot whatsoever. It was considered to be a legal lot in the Town of Southold, a buildable lot in the Town of Southold and there was no requirements for any width or depth on the lot. So if you go forward and put zoning laws in that require setback distances it's obvious that yes you have to do that for the town it's good for everybody but when you have an existing lot that now has setback requirements placed on top of it again that's the purpose of having variances because you can't necessarily meet those setbacks on a legal lot because of the regulations. The reason for the variances not being self- created the reason for the variances is the fact that there were new codes put in place after the lot existed so we don't feel that we're asking for anything extraordinary here. The front and rear yards were optimized in the front to help control traffic, the rear yard was set to keep the house in the AE structure and still get as far away from the bulkhead as possible. The side yards were done a little differently, we put 10 feet on one side to allow for any kind of emergency vehicle that had to get through there or any kind of access on one side.The opposite side of the property we set at 30 feet from the house for a couple of reasons. The house is designed with a new IA system. IA systems I've researched them and I've spoken to five different manufacturers. Of the five different manufacturers only one of them is (inaudible) and capable guaranteed a hundred percent. A second one told me that I put this system inside a concrete box I can drive over and the other three were designed to be in a yard area that had man holes that come up the top cause then you can access. The filters have to be changed, the electric has to be serviced and there's a process you go through every year to keep these things operating correctly. So based on that information we placed the IA system towards the back of the house on the open 30 foot 12 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 lot area for two reasons. One, it's a sealed unit and we wanted to get it in the back because the leaching field we wanted to keep as far away from the bulkheads as possible. So our leaching field which needs to be accessed to be cleaned is under the driveway that's traffic (inaudible) designed that way for fifty years,the IA system that has a processing situation involved is behind the leaching system towards the bulkhead but it's a sealed unit nothing is supposed to come out of it so we think that we made the best fit situation for that application also which is why the house is situated where it is. Better parking in front, better septic system, protecting the bulkhead and the environment and also have emergency access on the side. So that was why we designed the way we did. As far as the 35 foot height goes that's what was in the code that was printed that's what we used, we have to get that straightened out but we did make sure that we kept that structure less than 35 foot tall to be totally code compliant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do want to say this, if you have the information on adjacent properties with their front yard setbacks you need to take that into the Building Department so that when they rewrite this Notice of Disapproval they can apply the average setback. NICK MAZZAFERRO : They gave that information to me, I got it from the Building Department. MEMBER DANTES :The average in a marine two district? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well in a residential use you can. This is very confusing because we just know Kim just brought it out, on your site plan you indicated HD district so you knew that the bulk schedule to apply which is what the Building Department is saying that they are using based on a code interpretation. NICK MAZZAFERRO : The Legal Notice I didn't generate that you didn't generate that it is what it is we can't that has to be straightened out. What I did is use exactly what the code said, I took out the code I saw marine two I saw residential went to the proper bulk schedules (inaudible)we modified the house we've done a design and shifted it back and forth we optimized the IA system we did everything that we could possible do to make this thing compliant and fit on the land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to do this, is there anyone else in the audience? NICK MAZZAFERRO : I just have a couple more quick things about something that was said, so again to reiterate there is a thing in the code that allows you to have the (inaudible) so it's not necessarily the exception to the code if you have a setback at like 9 Mor 10 feet where we have it. The issue that came up before by the prior speaker about Sandy and the flooding issue, I'm very familiar with that, I was working in Manhattan on a very large project actually it was Hudson Yards that got filled up with water during Sandy and we were I interacted with FEMA after that happened and we spoke at length because that was currently in design and FEMA recommendation currently for design professions if you can do it you take the FEMA setup which 13 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 is the elevation that they give you for an AE or VE zone and at minimum you add two feet to it to give you a baseline (inaudible)to give you some room in case you know things happen with global warmings going forward. So we took that into consideration which we (inaudible) VE zone that this lot at 10 and the AE zone at 8. So the elevation of the lot right now is 6 and it goes up to 8 so we create the structure that we felt had some durability(inaudible) long term application, it's set up for the FEMA requirements to allow tide in and tide out that's the whole story and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the minimum height for FEMA required elevation on that lot in an AE zone? NICK MAZZAFERRO : In the AE zone they had 6 we just put it about a foot above ground it doesn't make any sense because as the person said before there's a chance that the water is going to come in. It's not wave action and it's not really subject to heavy you know forces of energy, it's mostly about the flood level. We had the floor set at 13 or 14 and we did that so that when you take away the structure which is another foot we had about 5 or 6 foot clearance in the storage area and maybe an extra foot where we show as the garage area on the plans. The other thing was to put in the concrete floor to allow us to control the water if it does get flooded. We had the ventilation system designed all away around the (inaudible) so if the lot does flood the water is allowed to run in and these vent screens with a concrete (inaudible) beneath them would allow it to run out without creating an environmental hazard under the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're familiar with this. I guess what I'm saying is the elevation from grade to the first finished floor is high enough to be in walking in and out of and putting a car in correct? NICK MAZZAFERRO : Yes you can get in it has 7 foot clearance in the garage area CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It does not accordingto FEMA standards need to be that high and still be flood tolerant. NICK MAZZAFERRO : No I agree with you we're adding extra in for durability and potential you know the future CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you're adding in extra to put a garage in. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Well the structure is there to occupy the space to be able to get to create more use of the land,we're trying to be efficient here. We're still maintaining the proper building height based on the bulk schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but there's a difference between building height and habitable stories. 14 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 NICK MAZZAFERRO : None of this is habitable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know, I understand. I'm trying to say you have two habitable floors on top of what is at least the height of another habitable floor even though it's not habitable. NICK MAZZAFERRO : It's not habitable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it meets the height requirement maximum permitted okay but what we're also looking at is character of the neighborhood and this is not the first application. The problem is there's more and more flooding out here and we're getting more and more elevated structures that are being elevated higher than what is required for them to be flood tolerant so that people can put storage, garages and all that kind of stuff underneath and what is happening as a result is that it looks as though we have three floors. If you just look at it that's what it looks like mass wise not what it legally is described as and this is something this Board is going to have to deal with throughout the entire town of Southold, it's not just this property and we're going to get more and more and more of it. NICK MAZZAFERRO : This design of this house it's smaller than the one next door and across the street the house is up on top of the (inaudible) house visually appear to be 10 to 12 feet higher cause there's a large hill that's on the opposite side of First St. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's also set way back from the road. I mean you know when you have a structure that appears to have that kind of mass that close to the road it has a different visual impact than if it's setback 25 or 35 feet it just does and I'm being honest with everybody. Again not just this project we're looking at this throughout the whole town and we're understandably hearing a lot of people confused as to why is this being built like this and you know we have to follow what the law allows and when there's justifiable variance but we only are permitted to grant the minimum variance, the minimum variance not the maximum. NICK MAZZAFERRO : If we remove the concrete floor and let the grade level stay natural would that result in a two story house? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Two habitable floors yeah. MEMBER DANTES : It's a state code definition you have to look at it as a story. If you meet the state code definition of a story that's what they go by. NICK MAZZAFERRO : I have it right here. It says it's all it's all keyed upon finished floor. So if the grade of the land stays in a natural condition, sand and beach and pebbles that would mean it wouldn't be a finished floor. So the first finished floor would be the first floor. 15 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : You have to go to I mean the Building Department's definition based on the state code is what they're going to go by. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why they call it three stories. NICK MAZZAFERRO :Yeah exactly finished floor so that's a question forthe Building Department? Okay I'll ask the Building Department to interpret that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't really want to give anybody short shrift here but in the interest of other applications that are before the Board we've been at this an hour now and I want to see if there's anybody in attendees NICK MAZZAFERRO : The gentleman before said that the setback that we show on the drawing are illegal and they're not illegal they're non-conforming but I just want to set that record straight that they're not it's not illegal they're non-conforming. Thank you oh just one more thing, when do we anticipate getting this determination from the Building Department about the legal description? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we're certainly hopeful that we get it by our next meeting which is in two weeks it's a Special Meeting. NICK MAZZAFERRO : Should we contact you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No the Special Meeting is for deliberations on draft decisions. We won't have a decision on this application because we have to make sure we have to write a Legal Notice and the public is aware of it and we're all on the same page. The next hearing is August 5th and I think what we should probably wind up doing is just adjourn this to August 5th. We're going to squeeze it in because we're very busy but we'll continue to hear it to not delay it any further but I have to make a motion at the end when we close this today to adjourn so that we can make sure that we're accurate on everything. Liz can you see if there's anybody in the attendees list that wants to address this. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie I do have a few hands up. I also had a chat from a Robert Puric stating that he submitted a letter on June 23,d if I don't know if you're going to read it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let the record reflect that we have that letter in our file. I don't believe it's necessary to enter it into this hearing. I mean it's in the file and every Board Member has a copy and we've read it. All of those letters will be considered carefully as part of the record.They don't have to read into the hearing in order to part of the record, they are since we've received it. So that's the answer to that but if somebody wants to speak. 16 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I do have four hands up, would you like me to move them in or just allow them to speak? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just allow them to speak, they'll have to state their name. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I am allowing a Lynn Krug, you can speak Lynn. GEORGE KRUG : Hi this is George Krug. My wife and I are here attending remotely.We just wanted to insure that our letter of June 29th to Kim Fuentes was read into the record and I understand from what was just said that that will be included and we thank you for that. We want to acknowledge too that Mr. Loria is a long standing and very popular member of the community, this is not at all about Mr. Loria. We have an indirect interest in this and we have a direct interest in this. Our direct interest is and if you like I can turn my computer to show you the view that we now enjoy of the harbor that would be totally blocked by the structures that's being proposed. Now that's something we understood when we purchased this property that a risk of something like this would happen. What strikes us and this goes to the indirect interest is that some fairly significant as we understand the code to be and I understand we're not the only ones confused about this after hearing what was just said, some very significant variances are being requested here and the point was made earlier that these codes do exist for good reasons. If exceptions to this degree are made there's no stopping further building and further development but particularly along the shoreline and I just want to second the motion about this going to the character of the neighborhood. We love to walk around New Suffolk, we love the visual access that we now have of the water. Taking projects like this to their logical'extreme and we end up with a wall of buildings along the water that few has blocked the character of the hamlet is forever changed. So I think that was the only thing I wanted to express, in the interest of time is there anything you wanted to add to that? LYNN KRUG : Well let's face it, this is a flood zone that property is in flood zone and I agree with Steve who lives in the yellow house across from the lot, I think his point is well taken. Sandy was a super storm it was not a hurricane and look at the, damage that was done and with climate change I'm concerned that you know that's just a small storm and I think you know the area is subject to flooding. I know the boathouse which is adjacent to the lot in question had major damage during hurricane Sandy and they applied for FEMA funds to rebuild and they were arrested because of misuse of the FEMAfunds. GEORGE KRUG : The bottom line is that storms are coming, catastrophic damage is a risk. We all know how we use our homes, the kinds of things that get stored and surely there will be an environmental impact so I think that sums up what our feelings are on the project.Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else want to talk? 17 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Linda Auriema. LINDA AURIEMA : Yes hi, I've lived in New Suffolk since 1986, I'm a full timer now but I'm also concerned about the height and the character of our neighborhood. Right now you know you have Mr. Loria's lot and then there's an adjacent unimproved lot right next to him and if Mr. Loria gets to build a house then I'm sure some day the next person next door will be looking to build the same structure and it will be like a wall of houses there. There'll be no bay views that we've been looking at forever they'll be gone. It'll just be a corridor of boxed houses which is what we're getting not just in New Suffolk obviously. My other questions was, how many square feet is this house? It looks-quite large and if two and half stories is the max then how can a three story house ever be granted approval?Why do we have regulations is we're not going to uphold them?Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you want to let somebody else in Liz. LINDA AURIEMA :The square footage please. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can you answer that Mr. Mazzaferro? NICK MAZZAFERRO : The footprint of the house is 1,372 sq. ft. So that will be two stories so that would be a 2,600 sq. ft. house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, does that answer your question? LINDA AURIEMA : Yes, I believe there's a deck as well, does that count? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not in the square footage,it's lot coverage but it's not in the square footage. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I am going to let William Grella, please unmute and if you are on a phone press *6 to unmute. WILLIAM GRELLA : Hi. So I'm William Grella I live in the house north of this property. We are in one of the worst flood zones where my house is. We ended up raising our house, we had considerable storm damage from Sandy. We also had considerable storm damage prior to raising the house just from Nor'easters. I don't know what the gentleman was referring to before but there is enormous wave action into the property even just from Nor'easters. I was in the house during Sandy and the waves were going over our house. So there is considerable wave action there. My major concern with this is the cesspool system that they have is directly abuts my property. We have when Phil had his bulkhead go out it dragged half of my property down into the water because he didn't fix it for a considerable period of time. Then when it was fixed now his property runs into my property because the height of his property is higher than ours. So 18 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 we're just like where we sit is like a drain, both properties on either side of us are higher than ours and water comes in from both sides during floods which is why we ended up raising the house.So I'm concerned about the leaching system that directly abuts my property. I understand that there is going to be a driveway on top of that which is I don't know what that's able to handle. When we had our driveway on top of our septic area it collapsed during Sandy and we had to replace it at considerable cost to us and considerable cost for us to take care of the water system and the house next door to us cause we were so close to it. So that's basically my concern so I don't really think that Phil is going to be living in this house so I wouldn't mind to having him as my neighbor. I like Phil a lot but I know that they're selling this property and this is just you know a process in order to make the property more valuable for sale. So that's about all I have to say thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Let someone else in Liz. If you would like to say something please come to the microphone and state your name. CHERYL BUNDERCHUCK : My name is Cheryl Bunderchuck 1160 Second St. My neighbor Lynn and George Krug wanted to continue listening and they've been kicked out of the meeting so can they rejoin she tried and they weren't allowed. Can something be done about that? OFFICE ASSISTANT : I had to move her back and I removed her so I think there's no way to return to them as attendee so I removed them and I guess that kicked them out. I will try to fix that but meantime I am moving in Arlene Castellano. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Here we go with another technical problem. The problem is that technically once you move someone in they to testify if you move them out which we have to do when we have like twenty people in there then apparently they get kicked out and they're locked out. We don't want that, we want to be able to have people speak and then remain there. Did you want to say something in the meantime Mr. Loria? PHIL LORIA : Yes just we're trying to build (inaudible) we're putting a septic system alongside the house because it abuts his septic system. His septic system is very (inaudible) property line and we're putting our septic system right there so you know he's got one I got one and I have some pictures of his garage is under the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know. PHIL LORIA : And his house is for sale he's moving out. MEMBER DANTES : In all honesty whether you sell the house or not it doesn't make a difference for variance standards. Everyone under the law has to be considered to the same standards. PHIL LORIA : I try to be a good neighbor to him and (inaudible). 19 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I didn't hear any acrimony I mean you know and frankly those are civil matters. We're here really to address legal standards. We're all human we all have feelings and sometimes they're relevant sometimes it's just stuff between neighbors that really hasn't much to do PHIL LORIA : Just one more thing he said about the drainage, when we were aware that we had problems with the bulkhead that's when we went ahead and you know we had to replace it as soon as we possibly could and that's solved the drainage problems. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Liz let the next person in. ARLENE CASTELLANO : Good morning, Arlene Castellano New Suffolk. I submitted a letter regarding this application but I'm not going to read the whole thing. I know perhaps other people would like to speak so I'll be brief. According to the file this lot was acquired by Mr. Loria's family in 1983 put into a trust in 1989 and then put into Mr. Loria's name in 2010. So as far as this application is concerned zoning laws and codes apply regardless of when the lot first existed. He acquired the lot when the codes were in place. The lot is vacant in the sense that there's no structure on the property but it's not an unused piece of land. Mr. Loria has made profitable use of it for many years servicing and storing boats.The entirety of Mr. Loria's lot is located in a FEMA special flood hazard area as well as flood zones A and VE,AE and VE which both pose a high flood risk. The entire deck of Mr. Loria's property from First St. to the bay is about 60 feet. Therefore Mr. Loria will need substantial relief from Chapter 275 of the town code which dictates a septic system setback of 75 feet and a sanitary leeching pool setback of 100 feet.The variances that Mr. Loria is seeking from the ZBA are not minor ones. A 15.7 foot bulkhead setback where 75 feet is required is 79% relief from the code. The front yard setback is 73% relief from the code and the side yard is 59%. Unlike the non-conforming adjacent properties on First St. this is new construction and therefore should adhere to the current codes. Our setback laws were put in place for a reason, they are there to protect the environment and the character of the community. If granted I believe these variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and more importantly will have a severely negative effect on the environment. Mr. Loria and his agent Mr. Mazzaferro argue that a single family house would be the least intrusive on the neighborhood and environment considering the allowable uses in the MII district. This is a false choice. Mr'. Loria's lot is nowhere near large enough to accommodate the majority of the uses permitted in the MII zone. As it is he needs considerable relief just to build a house.The idea that he could ever build a beach club or a full scale marina as he suggested in his letter to his neighbors on this property is absurd. So based on the environmental factors and the complete lack of compliance with the town code I would ask that you please deny this application. I'd also like to point out that in 2015 the property next door to Phil's MII setback rules were applied and the bulkhead setback was applied and if the Building Department is 20 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 referencing a different code be used why can't they produce it? Why isn't it able if that's what they base their Notice of Disapproval on I would think that they would have that in hand. The other thing I'm just going to mention quickly is that in 2019 Mr. Loria neglected to get any of the necessary permits for his bulkhead replacement and Mr. Mazzaferro states in the Trustee application that there was a D.E.C. permit from 2015, not true. That D.E.C. permit was issued in 1975 and it expired in 1976. So I just want that on the record. I appreciate the time and I'll just say thank you for listening. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, is there anybody else? I'd like to ask if you have something new to say please do so but if you're going to repeat what's already been said I'd ask you to either submit something in writing. I'm must getting concerned about the length of time, don't forget we are going to be adjourning to August 5th to make sure that we have all the correct information so we can continue to discuss this so I just want to ask for people to cooperate and be very brief if they really want to say something today. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have Robert Puric. ROBERT PURIC : Yes good morning.Just want to comment, first of all I've known Phil since I was a teenager so this has nothing to do with his character or record. Similar to the other folks I live right behind Arlene and Frank Castellano and Steve. I've been there since 1980, my parents have been living there ever since. My concern and I'm not going to go through all the details that everybody else has gone through but similar to what Arlene said, I'm just concerned for this structure here being in the MII district and designated FEMA flood zone VE and AE if the structure is less than 10 feet from the road how does the county and town have a leeway for any utilities to go into that property?That's number one,two Mr. Loria is going to need Suffolk'County Health Department approval for a septic system that the other gentleman whose name I don't recognize I believe is the contractor to do the work adding that septic system he's going to have a separate hearing for wetland permit from the Trustees if the ZBA grants him this variance anyway. So my concern is similar to what everybody else has here and that is by building this property and making it the three story residence it's going to diminish not only the value and the character of the town but what's to stop Mr. Woods who is right next door to Mr. Loria who is probably on the phone now listening to see if you guys are going to grant him the variance to coming in very shortly thereafter to ask for the same variance? By the time you grant all these variances this town can lose its character and that whole First St. is going look like Noyack on the other side of Southampton. So I strictly oppose this ruling and I am not I vote to oppose it as well and just for the record my letter came in on June 23, 2021 for this case as well so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome and we have your letter in the record. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have a Barbara Best again. 21 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 BARBARA BEST : Hi just a quick question, can people still submit comments till August 6th? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Absolutely. This hearing will be left open so if anyone wasn't in attendance who you know speak to and want to submit something this record is open and you're allowed to submit anything in writing,that you wish. We will also take additional testimony next month so some of these comments might get saved for then once we have a proper Legal Notice that we are assured is correct. Is there any other urgent thing you want to say? STEVE KATSOLAS : On August 6th there will be another meeting are we going to get another or what time? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will all be notified, it will be posted in front of the property, it will be in the Suffolk Times and it will be probably re-mailed with the correct Legal Notice. Anything else from anybody? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : That's it on my end too Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright Liz is checking the comments. Is there anything in Q&A? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS': We're good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : By the way just so you know that for any application,when we're using this technology any comments that you type in on Zoom is going to be transcribed as part of the public record. So you don't have speak those words if you type them in on Zoom they will be transcribe as part of the hearing. I'm assuming there's nothing from the Board at this point. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay hearing no further-questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the August 5th Regular Meeting of the Board of Appeals right back at this meeting hall. What time do we want to do this? BOARD ASSISTANT : Probably going to be in the afternoon after one o'clock. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can't figure the time, it will be in the afternoon cause we already have all those other hearing scheduled so we'll put it on at the end of whatever the last hearing is that we have scheduled and that will be in the Legal Notice but we're going to have to back to the office and check. So there's a motion before the Board, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. All in favor raise your hand. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. 22 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you all for attending. HEARING#7505—RICHARD KALICH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board and thank you all for your patience is Richard Kalich #7505. A request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV, Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's March 8, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling and an accessory spa at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required minimum combined side yard of 35 feet, 2) accessory spa is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 4660 Blue Horizon Bluffs (adj. to Long Island Sound) in Peconic. Welcome Pat. PAT MOORE : Good to see everybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So we're looking at a new dwelling with a combined side yard setback of 30.5 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet in an R-40 zone and a proposed accessory spa in the side yard where the code requires a rear yard location.Just so you know Pat we have received the slightly amended plan and that does not change the variances that are before us.The LWRP says the side yard setbacks are exempt.The spa in the side yard is consistent and what else I think that's it. PAT MOORE : Thank you. So as you know this is a parcel that is in Horizon Bluffs. This property has a very unique background in that back in the seventies the properties were developed with cottages summer cottages and then in the eighties it was subdivided there were further applications itjust has a very unique history lineage.This is one of the lots that's been in existence now for fifty some years.The parcel had been owned if I followed the record correctly it had been own by Principi and it had applied for the reconstruction of the cottage that was very close to the top of the bluff. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It cantilevered in fact. PAT MOORE : Questionable where the top of the bluff was yes I saw pictures. There had been a cottage on that cottage had prior applications to reconstruct the cottage where it was, that was ultimately denied well it was denied with a five year window to come back and had Mr. Principi come back and the side where he wanted to put the relocated cottage that ultimately apparently 23 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 never followed through and so that the cottage was ultimately demolished. So my client owns the vacant lot now. The proposal is I want to say it has a split zone so under RR it's conforming but under R-40 its non-conforming and because the parcels have a wider frontage on the Long Island Sound and narrow down to the back of the property. As you push the structure back on the property and make it conforming to the 100 feet the setbacks become much more narrow and so my client has designed a house which we provided in red the area of a variance which is a very what we would consider a very minor deminimus.variance which is the square footage of the variance is only (inaudible) square feet it's applicable the variances needed for the combined setback the RR zoning allows for a side yard of 15 and a combined yard of 30. The R-40 allows a side yard of 15 with the combined yard of 35. So that is the discrepancy that causes it really caused the need to come in for a variance because that dimension is a significant one when the lot narrows down to 40 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat can you say that again side yard setback in RR is 15 PAT MOORE : 15 and combined yards 30 and the R-40 side yard is 15 and combined are 35. Our combined yard is 30.5 so ultimately that is why the application was submitted the design of the house has the room that you need here but it was worth their waiting and coming in for a variance to make it the design of the house aesthetically pleasing and not narrowing it down because the lot is so long and narrow the design of the house is more long and narrow.Again it's a very minor variance application however the application is here before you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat I'd like you to address two things if you would please. The first is character of the neighborhood cause we do have letters indicating not surprisingly the history was that this was these lots were created basically for seasonal cottages and most of the properties that are still there are in fact seasonal cottages and a very large two story dwelling with a footprint is certainly different than what that are is supported over many, many years so I want to give you that and the second thing is the bluff stability. It is clear that the neighbor's property has toe armor right and bulkhead and that bluff erosion on that property has been enormous and even though the setback is conforming to the top of the bluff who knows what the top of the bluff is going to be without bluff stabilization. It's not before the Trustees because it is 100 foot setback however this Board also has jurisdiction over adverse environmental impacts. So I'd like you to address the plans that the applicant may or may not have to do something about bluff remediation stabilization. PAT MOORE : Okay let me address the first issue because my client is coming in on Zoom and they might be able to expand on their ultimate plan for the bluff. With the regard to the neighborhood, obviously the cottages are seasonal cottages they go back to the twenties they were all as I said or you pointed out almost cantilevered over the top of the bluff. All the applications I saw when I researched this particular area are applications that were asking to 24 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 relocate minimally the location of the homes and for the most part the Board was reluctant to grant the variances. I went through lot 34.56 was a Schoenfeld application in 2016 that was denied. The person wanted to take the cottage, make alterations to the cottage and the Board said no we're not going to encourage you to expand or renovate or even reconstruct these cottages as close as they are. So as each of these properties either they redevelop or they want to renovate the cottages I think they're going to find themselves in the position where the Board now the zoning takes over and this Board is going to encourage everybody as they have so far from everything that I can see to make them conforming to 100 feet from the top of the bluff. So that's one application in Schoenfeld in 2016. MEMBER DANTES :That was for a demolition wasn't it? PAT MOORE : It says alterations to existing cottage so they were calling it alteration. I think ultimately it was going to be a demo yeah but these cottages if you look at the value of the existing structure their determination of demo versus renovation I think you're going when you start calculating for the value of the existing structure from the 1920's I usually have a heart to heart to clients and say you know the value of the existing structure something built in the twenties is probably twenty to thirty dollars a square foot. So you put any square footage even windows and sheathing and so on almost immediately jump over the fifty percent threshold. So realistically I think you're not going to you're going to have a very hard time to (inaudible) any of these existing cottages and renovating them to whether they're year round I think some of them are year round I actually had an eviction up there that the person lived year round, it was a foreclosure and I had to remove the individual but they were living there year round and so some of them are marginally year round homes.The next application I saw was a Dickerson application, that was granted on the relief that they were taking the cottage as is I think moving it back and they got approval for a setback of 36 feet from the top of the bluff. The mason made a mistake and it ended up being 34 feet from the top of the bluff and the Board ultimately granted that approval but it was taking the existing cottage, lifting it and moving it back. That was in 2003 no I'm sorry (inaudible) cause it got it's variance for 36 and then had to come back and change it to 34. This property is the Principi property and as I said previously the Board was not inclined to save the seasonal cottage that was there and ultimately Mr. Principi removed it and sold the property to my clients. So the character of the neighborhood will not stay as it is it can't. The cottages can't be fixed in such a way that they can be preserved. I think ultimately this Board is going to see every single one of those properties and to the extent that people want nice homes now the cottages are going to be very limited and most likely you're going to I predict you're going to encourage everybody to move back 100 feet and that's what this application requests. Those are the most relevant applications since they're all on the Horizon Bluffs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have copies of those for us? 25 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 PAT MOORE : I can get them for you no problem I have them I just didn't print them out. You guys always have the information before I do so I assumed you had it but that's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that you Liz. BOARD ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : No it's not me I think it's Mary who would like to speak. PAT MOORE : Oh Mary can address the plans on the bluff. MARY KALICH : Hi this is Mary. ] thank you very much for listening to me. I have grown up out here on the Northfork and lived here and I'm very, very involved in the community so we are as Pat described just trying to build a lovely home out there. In terms of the bluff, we quite bluntly have been trying to talk to different people in the business to see what we can do best to save the bluff appropriately according to all you know D.E.C. standards and everyone's standards and we haven't landed on a solution yet that we don't have a direction yet but we want personally as well as for the water to do everything we can to maintain and keep that bluff and we've been working with Patty (inaudible) and the Dickersons to the left of us to look at that and say hey obviously there is we'd like to keep the bluff as much as we can. I hope that answers your question that we have every intention to do whatever is appropriately allowed to keep that there and keep it as stable as it can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because the Board is most likely inclined to condition any approval based upon some sort of bluff relief there are a number of ways to go but you're going to need at least some two armor, some rock revetment something like that and we know (inaudible) might need to do revegetation just to stop (inaudible) MARY KALICH : Quite bluntly that as we looked at it that was one of the first things that we said, hey we want to do this right and make it look good and make it not continue to fall into the ground so we want to do that ourselves. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yes why would you want to build an expensive dwelling on a piece of property that is being eaten away by weather events constantly. MARY KALICH : I run the sailing program in Mattituck on the bay and like I'm very involved in water and all that type of stuff so this is important to us. PAT MOORE : I see no issue with language it says that the bluff will be maintained. I would just caution that we can't dictate what the D.E.C. or Trustees might allow or not allow in CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The Trustees (inaudible) PAT MOORE : No the Trustees no for bulkhead the Trustees would require a permit so if we were to 26 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's 100 feet from the top of the bluff? PAT MOORE : No if a bulkhead application was submitted it's not the house that's within their jurisdiction it's the bulkhead so you need a wetland permit for the bulkhead both Trustees and D.E.C., Army Corp., Department of State everybody and their mother to review any bulkhead or rock revetment or (inaudible) or whatever anybody touching the natural protective features or down at the toe of the bluff is (inaudible) jurisdiction so clearly my client preservation of the property is very important to any property owner and so we will do whatever needs to be done. I have clients that for example this property the Dickerson property doesn't have bulkheading but the property to the west of Dickerson shows a steel bulkhead. In the old days you could put up a steel bulkhead or a bulkhead in general and no problem. Then there was a time when the D.E.C. would not give you any kind of bulkheading maybe they'd allow some (inaudible). After Sandy I think what they did aerials of the Long Island Sound they started realizing that the better solution is some steel armor equipment. The policies changed and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So language reflected approvals of bluff preservation and remediation per Trustees and D.E.C. PAT MOORE : As long as it's not a condition of our approval because those would be those we can build a house today, it's out of jurisdiction of everyone but a bulkhead and other structures can take three to five years to go through a permitting process if you're trying to put in a bulkhead. You can't hold up your approval five years for whatever bulkhead or whatever structures might be allowed that's my only caution that you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but until that bluff is stable constructing a dwelling I mean you know if you were to get comments from Soil and Water which we didn't because it's 100 foot setback but they would immediately indicate, no heavy construction equipment within 50 feet of the top of the bluff I mean there would be a whole series of things put into place so that the construction didn't have adverse impacts on what's already a problem. PAT MOORE : But that's not I don't think that that's a problem because generally I mean Mary you can confirm this for me but activity in construction is going to be 100 feet back. I don't see any structures being there's no structures proposed closer than 100 feet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but they would have to bring in back hoes and things like that on the seaward side in order to dig the foundation. PAT MOORE : I don't know construction I don't know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Otherwise you're going to have to have a really huge arm to reach way back I mean it's 27 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 PAT MOORE : Are we talking about from the bulkhead? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : For building the house. The house itself the construction the house itself can have an effect on the bluff. MARY KALICH : I'm sorry can I just interrupt, have you looked at our bluff because our bluff is actually CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes we have. MARY KALICH : Okay good. Our bluff actually has a good bit of vegetation on it which is lovely. Our plan is to try and keep and build that up even more.This is not a bluff that is you know falling into the ground, this is not a bluff that is off (inaudible) there's actually a good bit of vegetation there so I don't want this to be mischaracterized. Also the past point that we cannot really depend building this house on any approvals by other Boards. We'd love to do whatever we can but I do know that a couple of the empty lots next door one of them just applied to try and do something to preserve the bluff and they weren't allowed to so they're going to have to try and go back to it so this I think many people are trying to do the best they can on there and they are blocked by other organizations that are there. The last point I would like to make is that almost all of those cottages up there are already gone. To my left is one cottage the Dickersons, to the right is already a house and there's two empty lots, then there's another house that is not a cottage and then the only cottage left is one that is literally overhanging the bluff and it has a tree through it. So there really are no cottages left except the one to my left at this point. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Mary. Go ahead Eric. MEMBER DANTES : When I first looked at the application the first thing I thought was I don't understand why you guys were applying for a variance. You take a couple feet off the side and you don't need a zoning variance and then the other neighbor to the right I guess the east is pretty close to the property line it gives them more feet of space. So (inaudible) zoning variance I just don't understand why bring the application in front of the ZBA at all. MARY KALICH : It's just it's a very small slice on the one side so that we can make the buildings straight. The house is not very wide at all. You can see the property is very small. We would just hope that you would approve the two hundred and I don't know how many square feet it is but I understand your point. We basically didn't want a narrowing house that is a weird shape. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mary, playing off of your commentary just now where Eric asked the question, is your architect or designer able to design a house that conforms? MARY KALICH : Probably not with the house that we have now. I mean it's a pretty narrow house because it's not that big of a lot so in order to take it in in the back you'd have a very weird shape 28 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 and it would be very weird. Obviously you can build anything, you can build a one room building but anyway PAT MOORE : For whatever reason wherever you are there's a lot of background noise I just want to point that out. MARY KALICH : I'm sorry there's really nothing I can do about that, I'm volunteering at a kids youth sailing program event that was this week I'm just here. PAT MOORE :Just to emphasize, you have the floor plan in front of you and you can see that just from the living room is 20 X 28 so that portion there's a 20 foot wide portion of the house and then the it looks like an extra with the variance 10 foot so you can see that the porch is incorporated into the side. You've got a 30 foot wide house. If you were to reduce the width to a conforming you'd be down to a 25 foot wide house. It starts looking like a mobile home and that's why it was so important to them to come in for a variance because it does have to be a long house because of the width of the property but the requested variance is very minor. I know the Board always tries to encourage people to be conforming but again we have a two zoning districts on this property. So you do have an unusual unique situation here where you have R-R for half the house and R-40 on the other half of the house. So I think it supports our application that with 30 foot wide house that's a very narrow house to begin with with the variance and to reduce it down to 25 it's just going to look like a long (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you just speak briefly about the split zone? PAT MOORE : Sure the split zone is the Town Board zoned because it was the cottages I think there had been a thought under RR that these properties would end up being like a motel uses and I think my memory is during my lifetime my husband may have been involved with Allen Smith when they were they came in thirty five years ago that they were looking to create a hotel type of use. They didn't it wasn't received very well and ultimately the owner chose not to proceed but that's the zoning is RR that's not them that'the Town Board that (inaudible) and the other portion of the property is R-40. Again that the RR is the waterfront portion of the property and well it's actually it's probably another 200 feet from the top of the bluff 100 top of bluff and then another 100. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The proposed house is split in the two zones? PAT MOORE : The proposed house is split between two zones yes that's why we have two setbacks. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My understanding is that the R-40 zone prevails because the majority of the improvements are in R-40 not RR. 29 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 PAT MOORE : No that's not the way the Building Department looked at it. I mean in fact there's a provision in the zoning ordinance that allows you to in the commercial zoning districts when you're doing commercial development you're allowed to use the within a certain distance the zoning that is more beneficial. So recognizing that sometimes you do have a property that has a combined zoning so it's in the back of my mind, I know that I've applied it. For example for parking and other things if you have a split zoned property you're allowed to use the commercial zoning up to a certain amount into the non-commercial zone. T. A. DUFFY : If more than fifty percent of the lot is in the less restricted district then the regulations for the less restrictive district apply (inaudible). PAT MOORE : I remember applying it at one point with the commercial zoning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So RR would be less restrictive. PAT MOORE : Right so you'd be allowed to go 30 feet beyond the RR the Building Department didn't apply it. T. A. DUFFY : 287 subsection 280-7 MEMBER DANTES : I have one more question for you. If the hot tub was part of a deck or a raised structure would it then be part of the house and be conforming or they still site you for a side yard? PAT MOORE : That's a good question. I think they might because it's still an accessory structure even though it's cause a hot tub you don't usually build into a deck. MEMBER DANTES : I don't know the answer, I have seen where people put pools as part of raised patios PAT MOORE : Right but then they close around it but the way that the pool is the way I'm following you and it's a great question you actually have to take the pool and physically build a decking around it and the Building Department says you need at least about a 3 foot area around the pool to make it connected to the principle structure. So it's not an accessory anymore it's part of the principle. MEMBER DANTES : I mean I don't see it on the elevation, is it connected or is it that's what I'm not clear on? MARY KALICH : What's the question? I'm sorry when you say connected what does that mean? PAT MOORE : Is the hot tub going to be sitting on a deck of some kind or because it's not (inaudible)to the house. 30 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MARY KALICH : The plan was to put it into the ground so that it is at ground level. So it was not on top of anything. So it would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's sitting on the ground we get it. That's the least egregious the least of the problems. I'm going to actually just wrap this up, I think we covered all this and we're really falling behind now. Did you want to speak?Alright please come to the mic and state your name. PATTY HOMAN : Hi Patty Homan maiden name Dickerson. Thank you Pat for researching all the information about that area and Leslie for giving us this wonderful Zoom meeting and learning experience we appreciate it. We received a certified letter I've known Mary for a long time but this was the first that we heard through a certified letter that this house I think almost 6,872 sq. ft. is going up next to us so it would be quite the mobile home. I do have pictures for the sake of this property because I both represent my mother who is on the west side of the Kalich property. We live on the 48 acre parcel that has the right of way for almost a mile to get to the home. Roots run deep, my father is Alan Dickerson and his family goes back to this property. So when you say in the 1920's it's even longer. It's the old Vale homestead which would be my great, great grandparents. I do have pictures that are kind of interesting for all of us to look at because they do show not only in the 2002 range when my father did move the cabin back but also the present one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please come forward and submit them. PATTY HOMAN : (inaudible) and the integrity of the bluff is our major, major concern. These are older photos and I think this one if you could look at this one particularly once you get this one. This shows to the east and you'll see on the bottom left hand corner there's actually a rail road tie that comes out'at the bottom it looks like an orange coloration to it. As you can see on the back it was dated 2002. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Ms. Homan, whose property are we looking at? Is this your property? PATTY HOMAN :That's the Kalich property actually. My father just past in January unfortunately. He's the one that was responsible for doing everything by the book. As we know that's the type of person he was, the D.E.C., the Army Corp. of Engineers everything he did was by the book by the town. He did represent in making sure that the bulkhead ahead was stable and then it would be up to his tiny footprint of a cabin. So he wanted to keep of the integrity of the cabin which was 25 feet by 50 feet, it's 912 sq. ft. So it's very small. There's also Mary's mistaken there is one more cabin to the west as well. So we have a cabin to the west of us, we have the Dickerson cabin, then the,Kalich property then Brennan and Carly Albano has put a lovely home which is probably more than only maybe 3,000 sq.ft. so it's substantially smaller. It is a seasonal residence and then next to that is empty and then there's a much smaller cottage to the right. With that I just wanted to show you a picture of the railroad tie that now has that one that you looked at in 31 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 that beautiful photo down at the bottom. Over the course of almost twenty years the old saying is (inaudible) and everyone that worked here would say you'd lose a foot a year. So that railroad tie is now the bottom of the bluff in that photo. So obviously it's substantial. These photos now are of 2005, 2006 that are being passed out.You can see in that photo my father has bulk headed the front of that property all the way to the right which is to the west. There is one more cabin west of us, that little shed next to my father's cabin had then also gotten a permit from here to be able to be demolished and moved back. So you can see it's a flagged type piece of property. Our property has the right of way to the cabin to the west as well so we don't have the full expanse of that entire piece because the cabin to our left needs our driveway to access their cabin. So you will see that the cabin to the left of us which would be the east was the cabin that was foreclosed on and was torn down by Principi just recently. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Are you talking about the structure that is to the left of the little shed? PATTY HOMAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That was what was demolished. PATTY HOMAN :There's a dividing line of cedar trees that are darker and to the left is the Kalich property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is the subject property now that was prior to (inaudible) PATTY HOMAN : It was a year round residence, it was foreclosed on and once it was foreclosed and they decided to sell the property and they decided to demolish that cabin and sell it so more palatable to the buyer. I did take these pictures just from our property alone because we were informed about this very large house (inaudible) certified letters, I didn't want to go on their property without their permission to take photos but I was able to take them from Albanos and from our own my mother's own property as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So these pictures are of the subject property? PATTY HOMAN : So what happens now is all of these photos are showing how the bluff is eating away at the northeast corner of my mother's property. It is also eating away towards the stairs. So we're having a major problem with the integrity of this lot and so for us to build such a large home on land that is basically sand and clay with boulder in it is very concerning because of the heavy equipment and the damage that can be done seasonally because you also have your four seasons. Not only rain and wind but you also have the (inaudible) and the mooring and so every little portion just continues to eat away at this bluff. So what is 100 feet today may not be 100 feet in the future as Leslie you very nicely put it. There seems to be a disconnect also, it's great for the Trustees to allow for the bulk heading or for the rock revetments that are put in place 32 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 with all the re-vegetation, all of the things that need to be done just as my father has done. Obviously there isn't vegetation on their side, when you look to the west there's incredible vegetation because not only the steel bulkhead that was allowed way before my father put in his bulkhead to the west is lush and full and protected with rocks in front of the bulkhead as well. We have two different neighbors, they were both granted by the Trustees. One right now has been granted twice by the Trustees of Southold Town to be able to build a rock revetment.Twice it has been denied by the D.E.C. so we have a real disconnect of who has jurisdiction over the ability to build this safety for all involved in the neighborhood. We have not objections to neighbors, we have no objections to a house being built that is very substantial in size. There's also a 15 foot by 72 foot garage behind that as well. So it's the character of the neighborhood but the biggest portion of it is the instability of the bluff in the area in which it's going to be built which,is very concerning. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. I think everybody has made the circumstances very clear. Pat has you certainly have and I think we have a better understanding of the history of the character of the neighborhood in general and of the tenuousness with which a lot of these cottages currently exist. Certainly the bluff is a major concern for all of us for all properties in this town because we're seeing bluff blowout all over the place and we're only going to be faced with climate change more severe weather conditions. It would appear that that is the logical to conclude so applicants I would think if you're going to invest substantial amounts of money are going to want to do everything that they possibly can to protect their investment and that would be to stabilize the land they're building on. So you know let's assume that's the case with everybody including the applicant, the question is process and the attorneys are (inaudible) holding up the construction in order to get approvals for bluff and you indicated there is some confusion over who really would out trump the other one relative to what kind of a (inaudible) so where does that leave us? It kind of leaves you at a dead end. I'm going to assume that everyone here is here in good faith to say time moves on and things can change and people have the right to build on lots but responsibly and I assume the applicant wants to build responsibly cause why in the world would you invest in property that was so tenuous. So the question then is how do we go ahead and look at this? It is a very large house, it's a very narrow house but when you put that length on there and the accessory structures too. The pool is a lap pool obviously and it's in the right location for a pool there. It's not easy to build in those conditions. I live on a clay deposit myself so I know what those boulders look like I've got two of them in my foundation we couldn't even move them.So you know we're learning more and more about the environment which is why I'm very happy to say variance relief does no longer run with the land because there 33 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 were things granted fifty, sixty, seventy years ago some of which were not enacted and you wonder would you possibly knowing the science we now know grant such a thing. So now we have time to adjust as we go along. You've got six years to codify something. PATTY HOMAN : I thank Pat for bringing up the 1994 Principi that's attached with this as well because they were granted they were denied and they were only getting five years so I'm glad you brought that up as well because it's very important to keep that in mind with this particular area. Our question if it does invade (inaudible) effect our stairs, affect my parent's foundation who pays for that, who takes care 'of that? Who is going to make sure that my mother is compensated somehow or how would they go about doing that?So I appreciate your time and I appreciate all of your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you for your testimony. We're trying to do the right thing here. We're trying to respect the reasonable rights of property owners, we're also looking at impacts to the neighbors and that's extremely important. PATTY HOMAN :And I appreciate cause it's very small on paper you know the variance requested is extremely small on paper but when you look at it in three d it takes on a whole different I don't know if anybody has been down but I welcome you to come down and look at the area and you're welcomed to come to my mother's property as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh we have, I went close to the top of the bluff and let me tell you I wasn't going to look that far down that's a sheer drop. PATTY HOMAN : It's scary and we have a little granddaughter and she's only sixteen, seventeen months old and you worry. MEMBER ACAMPORA : You made a wonderful presentation may I say. I think that with regard to this problem that we see on the bluffs and this isn't the only bluff we've seen that has problems in Mattituck and I live in Mattituck and we've had similar problems with the area along our bluffs. We need to ask the Town Board to write a letter to State Senator Palumbo and Assemblywoman Giglio to ask to put together a meeting of the D.E.C., the Trustees and the Town Board to get some clarification as to who has the authority with regard to remediation of these bluffs and why they can't seem to come together on this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a great idea. Doesn't she sound like a legislator? We gotta do something you know for your sake and also for the town's sake really. We can't have this kind of situation where one person's action has unintended adverse impacts on others. I don't know exactly how this gets resolved and what (inaudible) but we obviously need to work together to allow somebody to build something to be able to do it the way that it doesn't cause havoc with their own property and the adjacent properties. We can see it escalating I mean we've seen it all 34 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 along the bluff before not just here. After Sandy oh what a mess. There's one other person who is in the audience in attendees rather that wants to say something. We're so hopelessly behind at this point. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie while they're trying to get him, Pat can you perhaps talk about any variance relief that's somewhere that's been granted? PAT MOORE : Well there were huge ones from the top of the bluff. I mean I went over all of the setbacks that have been granted on Blue Horizon Bluff here. Most of them were related to the setback from the top of the bluff but they also incorporated I think the Dickerson actually application also incorporated area variance for side yards as part of the relief but not too much was really discussed on that it was mostly because the concern was the setback from the top of the bluff was the overriding request is the largest request. So remember the code has changed over the years and most of these applications were pre-existing cottages so only those properties that come in have either been denied outright or granted-relief but very limited relief and I listed them all for you. I'll give you the copies of the decisions but you'll see that I didn't really look very carefully at the denials because they were denied. Dickerson is the only one I think the Notice of Disapproval and your description when you guys list the variances it also said dimensional variances but that was an existing house so it was really pushing it all back. I also note that the yes the Dickerson property certainly smaller but if you look at the dimensions of the house it's ,actually 49 by like 30 but kind of a rounding I'm looking at a very small number so they're small print so widthwise there's a house there comparable because you can't go much wider than that and if the Dickerson house was ever if ever had to be God forbid it's even closer to the bluff and you can't protect the bluff because the D.E.C. they are the ones the problem. Quite frankly and I think you should all get together and fight the D.E.C. together because really that (inaudible). At some point when the D.E.C. becomes obstinate and I've done these applications where their answer is, well we want you to vegetate and vegetate first because that's the least aggressive means and once that fails and how many times it fails sometimes twice you then have to go back in and ask for a third time and say listen we tried it your way enough, give us the revetment or whatever it is that you need. So it's a really frustrating process but MEMBER ACAMPORA : That's why we need a clarification. PAT MOORE : I don't disagree. I think the town really should get the jurisdiction away from the D.E.C. and MEMBER ACAMPORA : Get the senator to bring in the D.E.C. with the Trustees and the Town Board so that everybody hears the same thing. PAT MOORE : And there was a time after Sandy where they finally were listening but I think they've gotten deaf ears again. 35 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is, we are local this is why we have LWRP because Albany decided a longtime ago that local people understand their community a whole lot better than some strangers up island someplace. So we have some authority based on the LWRP but that was a very big long you know episode in the history of Southold trying to get that approved and that was all Valerie Scopaz's doing. The bottom line is this is very frustrating for all of us because all of us want to protect, that bluff and you know I can talk to the Trustees but the problem is their hands are kind of ties because the setback doesn't if you put in a bulkhead yeah are you going to put in a-bulkhead first and then is the D.E.C. say no you can't. I mean this makes absolutely no sense. PAT MOORE : If I can just interject, there are typical reasonable requests and I'm looking at the photograph which you presented that shows the state I guess where your property is,this is your property here that's the most erosion and okay I just want to make sure I understand. Which is ours and which is yours I just don't know. Okay there's erosion here everywhere but the point I'm going to make is that as far as reasonable requests and reasonable conditions, one is you always want to have drainage maintained on the property and that will be done on this application because that's the drainage code now (inaudible) for your property but that's up to you. The other thing that is generally done is you have a vegetated buffer and that also protects what is essentially water runoff that oftentimes erodes the top of the bluff. So capturing the water is one of the most logical and practical ways of protecting the top of the bluff. So this the Kalich property still has vegetation, if we were to have to go to the Trustees for anything and the only reason we would go to the Trustees is if there is disturbance within 100 feet so that would require the Trustees permit and the Trustees permits typically have as a condition a 10 foot or 15 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 25 foot buffer PAT MOORE : Whatever is a vegetated buffer. So that's the logical answer to protect the tops of bluffs, in our case we're staying 100 feet but if you wanted to impose a vegetated buffer that's a reasonable request. We can't control D.E.C'. certainly there's no objection to vegetating a buffer and vegetating the top of the bluff. We may have to go to the Trustees and ask to plant because that's their policy. Mary I don't want to give up anything on your behalf but that 'is a typical common sense approach and as long as she is in agreement with it that's a reasonable condition. D.E.C. rock revetments are not because you cannot control and as you know from their testimony the D.E.C. is the obstacle. I think that all of them would like it but you can't unless you get the state to cooperate we can't hold up applications waiting for somebody another agency to act. There has been case law on that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He can speak if you hold that phone to the microphone and we'll be able to hear him. 36 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 PATTY HOMAN : Leslie I will say Brennan will agree to this cause his bluff washed out two times right after he moved in, stairs everything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where what property is he on? PATTY HOMAN : He is directly east to the Kalich property. Revetments when they're done they're done right and when they're done right they work. So I guess a lot of people have a hard time dishing out two hundred thousand dollars for a good revetment but it will work. As you know, nature intends a bluff to be on a forty five to sixty,this one is (inaudible) at the top and that's the problem with the Kalich bluff. There is on vegetation that will work on a vertical stand. It's going to have to be either filled with a ton of dirt and a ton of soil and whatever(inaudible)or it's going to have to be brought back from the bluff and then it's going to be less than 100 feet. So Brennan is here, Brennan you're on speaker I'll hold the phone right up to the microphone. BRENNAN ALBANO : Thanks very much. I'll try to keep this very brief. So my name is Brennan Albano I own a house 4690 Blue Horizon Bluffs it's the house to the east of the Kalich property. I bought in 2017. First of all thank you all for this opportunity. I want to express support for Patty and Ken (inaudible)today. There's certainly an issue with these bluffs and I don't need to restate what has already been said. I just want to make it clear that I'm also aware that this is an issue. I am in support of solving this issue and the most important thing that I heard on this call today is recognition that we need to get the various agencies on the same page and talk and communicate because the problems that I have experienced and others are currently experiencing is the story is different from each agency to story is different from you know the architects, the engineers, the D.E.C., the Trustees it's very frustrating. So having (inaudible) at this point I just want to say that (inaudible) wonderful (inaudible) to solve this problem. (inaudible) leave that to you guys for now. I want to speak about a smaller point here which is probably just relevant to me but this is an important property to me a property that I love. When I bought this property it was you know heart and soul basically everything I ever worked for you know. We have a roughly 2,500 sq. ft. house it is brand new, it's on a very similar sized property as the Kalich's have it's very long and narrow. The house was built in size for the property and the size of the house that's on the proposal is roughly three times the size of mine. I (inaudible) superiority complex (inaudible) it does you know it's not ideal I do have a couple of questions, I don't know if anybody knows them to speak to them particularly to the height of this proposed house and any details on sort of shape of the roof and I'll tell you why, because you know there is a proposal for some outside decking on this house which I believe is on the east side and will be overlooking my house so I can't tell if this is a modern home with a flat roof in which case you will be under a much higher level sort of looking over and down on my property. I'm just hoping to get a little clarity around that and the reason that I'm asking this is because (inaudible) variance being requested is that roughly 4%feet if I understand the map correctly it's on my side where I believe it's supposed to 37 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 be a 15 and 20 feet to come up with that 35 foot side yard (inaudible) 15 and 15 % feet so that 4 feet I believe is on my side. I'm just concerned about you know a very tall house with a flat roof where there's proposed decking which is constantly hovering over my property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can he see our screen? I don't know if he's on a computer or what. PATTY HOMAN : Brennan can you see our screen? BRENNAN ALBANO : I'm going to hang this up because I can hear you well on Zoom but for some reason you couldn't hear me. I'm going to hang this up and go back to Zoom cause I can hear better. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just going to do screen sharing and put up some of the drawings so he can see what they look like. PATTY HOMAN : He has the drawings. MEMBER DANTES : I can answer his question,the honest answer is modern house (inaudible) can build their house as of right (inaudible) for 3 %feet so I don't really understand why. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we need the elevations. PAT MOORE : You have elevations. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know we do. I was asking if to share so that the neighbor can have a look not me I know what I'm looking at. MARY KALICH : This is Mary. The answer is that it is not a flat roof it is a normal roof and so that is not a concern it is not a flat roof. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what, this is getting too complicated and what I'm going to do is this. I'm going to open up these plans and I'm going to show you how's that, old fashioned. Come on up here and you can tell Brennan. Just so everybody knows, these drawings are on Laserfiche okay you can go look at them there in our file and you can see what they look like and PATTY HOMAN : Thank you Leslie, I'm going to take photographs for Brennan so he can see and I thank you because the Laserfiche is so good but we never got the structure only the floor plans. So we really didn't see what the visual would look like. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay where are we going with this? Nick do you want to make a comment? 38 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, there's something that I started to think about while the conversation was going (inaudible)that and I don't suggest during the application process I don't know what (inaudible) in the future but the property the house is proposed outside the 100 foot setback. It would appear Rob and I were just measuring at its closest 108 feet but if the bluff (inaudible) the level of proposed which anyone that's physically been at the site (inaudible) and I don't know what the specific degree would be but if they use any land how does that impact (inaudible) location or setbacks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The problem is we make a determination on the basis of setbacks and (inaudible).The problem is we also know there's a history of bluffs loss on this property. I believe everybody is trying to (inaudible) in due faith here but the problem is we need to sort out how this can be done to meet everybody's concerns and goals. I don't have that answer at the top of my head. I think we've got a proposal but that's not going to happen in five minutes. I thank Pat for her suggestion because certainly I'm in touch with the Trustees all the time and I will certainly appraise them of the situation on this application. In the event that somehow in the future they're going to have to become involved just so they know and perhaps they will have some ideas. I don't know but I will certainly consult with them. PAT MOORE : I mean obviously if they're able to build a bulkhead then the issue is mitigated and hopefully there won't be any loss of the top of the bluff. That's the goal because everybody's home here those that are much closer have more to lose than my client who still has time before they get close to the top of the bluff. My only concern is that the lot narrows so the variance request is based on where the house is presently, as you go back our variance gets larger and we can't we can only (inaudible) and time is I think you're describing I think that's all we can deal with right now. We will deal with circumstances as they develop and hopefully the property is protected in the near future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You know what, I have a thought let's see what the Board thinks about this. I don't know that we need more testimony because I don't think that there's going to be more that we're going to learn from this but if I adjourn this to the Special Meeting in two weeks that means it stays open.That gives me the chance to call the Trustees, have a conversation with them maybe have them meet with us I don't know see if we can come up with something. Maybe we will maybe we won't but I won't know until I ask. As I said I don't think we need another hearing particularly but that way it stays open until two weeks. We're not going to have a decision anyway till we sort this out probably will have a decision you know at the next meeting after'that which will be a month from now. That way we can close it if we have any on site and if we don't we close (inaudible) but at least we can investigate. Does that make any sense to the Board? 39 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only thing I would add though is what's before us is really for a side yard or a combined side yard setback it has nothing to do with the bluff and I didn't (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know but that variances you have to look at the total picture and the total site. When we grant a variance state law number five, town law number five looks at are there any adverse environmental impacts and the answer here is maybe yes maybe no. We're trying to avoid them so it's well within our jurisdiction to condition a vegetated buffer at the very minimum which buys a little bit of time in terms of future bluff stabilization but I want to hear what the Trustees have to say about it. I mean I don't know that's their area of expertise,they've dealt with D.E.C. and maybe they can come up with a win, win situation I don't know but we won't know unless we ask. PATTY HOMAN : Thank you Leslie and that's where I think to be a proactive Board that's why unfortunately we're denying this variances but to be a proactive Board to say yes we need to take of these things ahead of time before having to deal with it afterwards so that's a big portion of being able to get that bulkhead in and to be able to figure out the RR values because you lose more land with an RR variance as opposed to the one behind it. So it's quite a quandary I mean CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is but the bottom line is we're not denying anything at this point, we're not denying a variance. We are looking at a variance application but we're looking at ways of mediating within the best or our ability adverse impacts as a consequence.This is a large home there's no question and is much larger than any other home in any one of those lots. Therefore the visual and potential environmental impacts are greater. We will consider all of those things that's what the law obligates us to do. The variance itself is quite small but the impacts can be large. So we really want to be as careful as we can that's all I can tell you at this point. We can't tell you at this point we can't come to a conclusion now so unless there is something absolutely compelling PAT MOORE : I would just ask that whatever ultimately discuss with the Trustees you can share it with us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course. If there's anything that we can conclude or any action that we can come to we will make this known. I'll just let you know what happens as a result of the conversation. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting on July 15th. We will be in the we won't be deliberating on it and if there's anything to report I'll make sure you know about it before then.So it's not going to be an ongoing anything,we'll either close it or for some reason we'll leave it open but we will let you know that in advance as we know it because I don't see any purpose in additional testimony. PAT MOORE : You just want me to give you the decisions that have been 40 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That would be helpful so that we can have a look at the history of those properties up there. PATTY HOMAN : Brennan just asked is there do you see any heights on there. PAT MOORE : It would be conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not called out so it's MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a motion, all in favor of adjourning. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. MEMBER DANTES :Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. HEARING#7507 SE— MARK HOFFMAN and JOHN PIERCE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Mark Hoffman and John Pierce #7507SE. This is Special Exception request under Article III Section 280-13B(14). The applicants are the owners requesting authorization to establish an accessory bed and breakfast accessory and incidental to the residential occupancy in this single family dwelling with four (4) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual transient roomers located at 47100 NYS Route 25 &South Harbor Lane in Southold. Who would like to represent this application Pat? PAT MOORE : Yes thank you Patricia Moore on behalf of Mark Hoffman and John Pierce, they're both here.This is a continuation of what is a previous B&B under Appeal#5122 which was issued to Scott and Constance Ellis back in 2002 May 16, 2002. My clients just purchased the property, they're happy homeowners welcome to our neighborhood and they want to carry on the B&B use. Really it's just a repeat of the 2002, all the same rooms everything is the same as it was approved in 2002. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the things I just wanted to let you know is that we do inspect I know you know because you every Board Member inspects every property before a public hearing. We go individually because we abide by all the meetings law which means we can't be 41 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 a quorum unless we're before the public. So that's what we do as a process standard process. So we've observed there's plenty of on-site parking and all of that. Pat I don't know if you got this or you guys got this, I think maybe yesterday we got a letter from a neighbor Laurie Clary who is a bee keeper right down on South Harbor what was the date,June 30th so it just came in basically no objection to the B&B but I understand you guys are from California and you probably do not have a clue about sky compliance. JOHN PIERCE : We're New Yorkers. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No wonder you came back. JOHN PIERCE : I know about this dark sky thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait, wait please come to the mic and state your name. JOHN PIERCE : Hi I'm John Pierce. I'm aware of the dark sky rule I just read about it a couple of days ago and all that's going. We were up lighting trees and we're going to make sure that it's not cause you know there's no straight line she's absolutely correct and we're going to have lots of flowers for her bees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The bottom line is that was it. It's a four bedroom B&B it's been a four bedroom B&B and we've got your floor plans, what we don't have and we would condition as not hold you up the approval is to submit residency you know I don't think we have anything in the record that shows other than you have a deed you own it but we need something like voter registration or a do we have that? JOHN PIERCE : Yes we did provide that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright my bad I'm sorry we're good. Anybody else in the audience or in the attendees list wanting to address this application? No raised hands. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I ask one question,which are the guest rooms they're not marked. PAT MOORE : Yes they are. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) confusing about upstairs what you're planning it's like they're labeled. I don't have the highlighted one. We're good. JOHN PIERCE : We have three bedrooms upstairs and the one downstairs. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything else? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. We will have a decision in two weeks. 42 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES :Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. We'll have a decision in two weeks. If you want to attend you can you don't have to. We also will have Zoom if you want to just listen in. There's no testimony we're done with that, it's just we will have a draft decision that the Board will review with each other before the public and then vote on it and it will be mailed to you I have to go in the next day to sign it to legalize it and then it goes to the Town Clerk and we're good. HEARING#7509—LINDA DAMBASSIS MEMBER PLANAMENTO Leslie before you open the hearing I'm recusing myself from Dambassis. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN The next application if for Linda Dambassis #7509. Request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's October 22, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize as built additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling and to legalize two (2) as built accessory decks at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) accessory decks are located seaward of the top of the bluff located at 2430 Dignans Rd. (adj.to Long Island Sound) in Cutchogue. We got two as built accessory decks seaward of the bluff itself cause they're large enough to be larger than landings and then you have to legalize an as built addition and alteration to a single family dwelling at 10 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires a minimum of 100 feet. By the way this is LWRP inconsistent but you did get Trustees approval for these we have that in our file. Is that correct? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct. Good afternoon madam Chairwoman and Members of the Board, Nigel Williamson P 0 Box 1758 Southold, New York 11971. I'm representing Mrs. Dambassis. I just want to bring one thing up because I wrote it incorrectly because I copied it from the Trustees that they had the second story dwelling was part of the Trustees approval it was the second story deck with the wood steps and I took the second story dwelling out of my application project 43 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 description and resubmitted back in April 13, 2021 but I never wrote back in the second story deck with wood steps.So if I just make there's the two decks that are seaward of the bluff,there's an as built 3 foot by 21 foot deck that's on the north side of the deck that wraps around the existing house. There is the second story wood deck with steps that's attached to the house. There's the wood shed,there's the outdoor shower,there's a hot tub that's on the existing deck and there's a framed gazebo that's attached to the existing deck. Do you want me to give you a little bit of background on this? MEMBER DANTES : Is this all replacing pre-existing decks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's as built. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No it's as built. The two decks that are going down the landings that are going to the beach I don't know how they came about. There are surveys that show just steps turning not in this configuration. On some surveys that the Building Department had and I don't know how these two landings got how they came about. MEMBER DANTES : Did the Trustees approve them? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Yes the Trustees approved everything that I just mentioned. There is a 3 foot by 21 foot piece of deck that's connected to the warp around deck that shown (inaudible) survey.There is a survey from 1999 that shows the deck without that that cutout but there's also another survey that's exactly the same date that shows that deck that's (inaudible) and if when you go well you've been to the property, if you look underneath the deck all the numbers are exactly the same it's not like it was added on so I don't know how there's two surveys same date showing two different things. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now is this a new owner? Who did these things without benefits of permits? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well I will tell you that the second story deck was done by Mrs. Dambassis I guess or her husband but the second story deck was actually a balcony there was a 3 foot 6 or 4 foot balcony on the existing house and then they just added on to it. That was sometime between 2001 and 2008 because the dates on the it is on the photographs from the property card. MEMBER DANTES :The second story deck is landward of the house right? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct, everything but those two decks that are on the steps of the beach they're all landward. MEMBER DANTES : And the steps down the beach you have Trustees on. 44 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct plus everything else we have Trustees permit (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES :The as built decks are more conforming than the house itself? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I'm sorry. MEMBER DANTES : The house itself is non-conforming to the code so then the as built deck are less non-conforming than the house. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct and I guess then the existing deck that's wrapped around the pool and that preceded the jurisdiction of the Trustees or was outside the jurisdiction of the Trustees way back when it was built. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Questions Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : May I just make one more statement, I don't want to make this (inaudible) throw it in your face, at the time there was the building inspection on the second story family dwelling and it did come up that the framed gazebo in the inspection was noted that it should be attached to the existing deck which will make it conforming and that slept through the cracks as well. I don't know (inaudible) of everything but it wasn't like something was just added there it was there, it was notified by Mr. Fish yeah Gary Fish at the time during his inspection notices and he said attach to the deck will be (inaudible) and go ahead and get a permit for it. None of that happened at the time so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only thing I would add is in reading the application when I looked at your reasons, nowhere is there anything that says because everything is all connected to everything else it's not substantial. It's like every illegal thing is connected to every other legal thing and therefore it's not substantial. No that's not correct. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Please say again I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : Basically what you're saying is that because these steps and these decks are all connected to the house it's like the hip bone is connected to the thigh bone so it's all fine. That is not how it works in zoning. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No I understand that but it's 45 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You couldn't come up with an answer that's why. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It's (inaudible) nicer picture. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand but you know we have to address the standards so we were going to have to come up with the arguments okay. That's why we ask the applicant to address the standards so that you make your own case. Well it is what it is, I don't really have any questions or comments. We've all been there we've seen it. NIGLE WILLIAMSON : Part of the argument I guess is that the sliver of deck the 3 foot by 21 foot it was built at the same time as that wrap around deck. The survey that was somehow changed maybe (inaudible) and never updated. The actual hot tub had an electrical permit for it that was approved and again no building permit for it that could be found. I don't know a series of misfortunate events I guess. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the important thing is you're trying to legalize them now see what you can do. Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Nigel? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : No,that's it, it just was like a series of unfortunate events. No one was just trying to (inaudible) and we're here trying to make it better or do whatever you need to tell us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? If there are no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries, we'll have a decision in two weeks. I need to have one minute recess. Is there a second? 46 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING#7512—JACOB WYLIE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jacob Wylie#7512. 1 just want to let everyone know that Member Planamento is also recused from this application. Let me read the legal notice. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's March 5, 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, 2) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 140 Mechanic St. in Southold. So this is for additions and alterations to a single family dwelling. Let me just review what the variances are. It's a front yard setback at 31 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35, side yard setback at 5 feet the code requiring a 10 foot minimum. A rear yard setback of 25 feet the code requiring a 35 foot minimum, lot coverage of 26.8% the code permits a maximum of 20%. We have two letters of support from neighbors just so you know in our record. ANNE SURCHIN : You should have three. 47 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Maybe we got another one, I'm sure I have them all. It's possible as things come in I take notes and it's possible that I just put it in my file and didn't make it through. ANN SURCHIN :There was one that was written on my cover letter they sent it back no, no it was the Hunters. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh there it is yep we have it. Please just state your name for the record. ANN SURCHIN : My name is Ann Surchin, I am both the architect and the agent for Jacob Wylie and his wife Allison Israel Wylie. Jake probably left, he came on at 10:40 he had a 1 o'clock meeting, Allison is with us till 2 o'clock and I'm sure we'll be done before that. I'm also the neighbor I live right next door so I took this job on you can say there was a little personal interest on my end and I'm also vouching I didn't write a letter I'm vouching for myself. Anyway this is a neighborhood of basically pre-existing houses and when you go down Mechanic St. east which is a location at this house you turn the corner and you're on Mechanic St. so then you loop around back to Youngs Ave. and you're on I guess what is Mechanic St. extension. I did find and I want to give this to you, there was one precedent for side yard variance on Mechanic St. south from 1983 that too is similar from not too dissimilar from what we're doing except we are a little more severe than that one. Anyway the house is pre-existing non-conforming (inaudible) stuff is it all pre-dates zoning. If you do the whole roof they're about twenty houses three of which are ranch houses everything else was built prior to 1957. This house in particular I'm guessing was built in the late 20's or early 30's given the clues from the construction itself. Now I will start off with the explanation about this couple.They bought this house it had two bedrooms. They have one child and Mrs. Wylie is expecting their second August 19th so they really do need a three bedroom which is one of the things that we've applied for. In addition the lot coverage on this house we're adding 1.6%to the lot coverage which is a 7 foot 4 inch by 9 foot 5 inch one story addition coming off what was an existing half bath and little foyer as you entered the back. It has one bathroom upstairs and it really needs two and it would be very nice when they have company to have a little bathroom downstairs you know off of the dining area it's kind of away from everything else. We're adding 69 sq. ft. to the footprint overall. When you look at the lot itself on the site plan that we submitted I call out all the setback lines and I (inaudible) almost a square in the middle of the property on the house, if you were to build on this house today with those setbacks you could have a footprint of 418 sq.ft. on the lot. I mean it's really undersized I think it's about 4,600 sq. ft. all together 4,200 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 256.14 ANN SURCHIN : Yeah okay so it's a really undersized lot which is part of our problem. So basically what we added on this one story addition we were in alignment with the little one story addition 48 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 that was already there so we maintained the width of it we just took it out 7 feet 4 inches further into the back yard. With regard to the front yard setback when you at where it falls it actually falls past the ridge of the roof so the front yard setback is behind where the original roof is. You can't even see what's going on there from the street. The rear yard setback has bearing on our one story addition but it was a logical place for this bathroom/mud room addition to the house. Basically I don't think we have any impact on the neighbors or the neighborhood. The lot is so narrow that really on all sides that's the cause of the difficulties in terms of dealing with this and we don't think that what we're doing will be detrimental to.the neighborhood or have an impact on it. Upstairs what we're doing with that shed dormer is it's built over the existing footprint obviously it's 10 feet wide it spans the width of the house and that is carved out of the existing attic so we just put the shed dormer on this so they would get a lot of headroom and that is how that third bedroom is going to be constituted on the property. If you look at the east elevation photo, that was actually taken from my house and if you look behind the Wylie's house in the back yard you will see the house of Paul and Jean Hunter and on the back of their house they have a shed dormer that had been added to it at a later date. It wasn't built with that.To reiterate all these houses are pre-existing non-conforming, many of them throughout the neighborhood have little shed and gable dormers on the back and sides of the houses. So I think we're pretty much in keeping with what's already there and that's basically my argument here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all visited the property, the back yard is totally screened in it's not going to be seen by anybody which is the larger impact the addition which is very, very small. ANN SURCHIN : There's a lot of foliage there too and even the back yard that faces the property of(inaudible) Abraham and her husband Kenny so that is behind their garage. That is so far back she said to me it has no impact on us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn't in fact it doesn't have on any of his property. ANN SURCHIN : That's how we feel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see any questions Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Is that a small what used to be a garage that's on the property? ANN SURCHIN : Yes it is a former garage and it's there and it's pre-existing. MEMBER ACAMPORA : What are they going to do with it? ANN SURCHIN : When you walk down there as you can see it's all (inaudible)they're going to use it for storage they don't intend to you know put down gravel to drive a car in there they need the 49 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 storage space you know I guess it would be for outdoor furniture and they need to change the screen windows or anything like that cause it's even (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No-questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Is there anybody in attendance? Liz you want to bring Allison in. ALLISON WYLIE : Hi. I just wanted to thank everyone for the time and obviously Ann for stating all of the details (inaudible) so clearly. If there's any specific questions for myself or for my husband Jake. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think it's all straightforward and it's been explained thoroughly. I have no questions. Okay hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Apologies for running so late. HEARING #7511—MICHAEL A. BOYD and LISA T. BOYD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Michael A. Boyd and Lisa T. Boyd #7511. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's February 19, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an in- ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 12950 Oregon Rd. in Cutchogue. This is presumably a swimming pool located in a side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. It is a corner lot and the pool is actually behind the house. 50 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 PAT MOORE : I have my client here Lisa who is patiently waiting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You can't see it all from Oregon Rd. the attached garage is blocking it. PAT MOORE : It is the functional rear yard and there is actually an above ground pool there now so it's going to be gone and we saw (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well honestly I think this is one of those straightforward ones. I just don't see any issues with it. Let me see if Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : No. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's up there on the screen so you can see exactly what they're proposing to do in the logical place I mean why would you put it anywhere else? It has the least impact there than anywhere else on the property and certainly it is where you would want to have recreation, it's private and it's their functional rear yard. State your name for the record please. LISA BOYD : Lisa Boyd. We did measure any other possible place with all the setbacks and all the code and it just didn't make any (inaudible) tape measure staking marking it just really we tried to look at where it could go and it didn't make any sense with the layout of the yard and that functions as our back yard even though technically the front door faces Oregon Rd. then it's our side yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh we just went through this with corner lots. PAT MOORE : I actually I picked up the Town Board and I read through it and unfortunately it doesn't resolve the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A lot of issues won't be resolved but it does it will help it will mitigate some of this, it's about the best we can do we don't write the code we did propose it and thanks to Bill we've managed to get it through. So it will help somewhat but we have to do a site by site basis cause yours isn't going to impact somebody else's might. Is there anyone in the audience 51 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 who wants to address this application? I don't see anybody in attendance. 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 : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We will have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7513—NEIL P. STRONSKI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Neil P. Stronski #7513. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's April 12, 2020 Notice of Disapproval based on an,application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 7025 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon, Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant Neil Stronski. It's an existing dwelling, they are requesting to add a second addition, a porch off to one side, a foyer on the backside and they wanted to come and extend about one foot forward towards the bluff in order to accommodate a little bit more space for the living room and their second floor bedroom.The existing setback is approximately 34 feet from one corner of the structure although you see it says 28 feet to the stairs that are there. They're taking out the front deck putting in (inaudible) up to a set a stairs and putting in an on grade patio. The slope is in pretty good condition they've got a bulkhead in its place. The style of the house is not more (inaudible) in conformance with the types of the houses that are around there, they're all a little bit different but they're all fairly large they're all fairly somewhat similar in terms of the distance to the top. I did give you a breakdown of the cases and one of them I think is the one that's probably the most relevant to this if you go back. It's number two the case that was decided by you on #7434 and that particular one was 33, 34 feet from the top of the bluff which is somewhat similar to the request in this one. Within that decision basically the additional information basically the existing dwelling was built in 1957 located 30 feet from the bluff at that particular time and a pre-existing property located four properties to the north was located approximately 23 feet from the bluff 52 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 and then they cited case#703 where the dwelling was situated 34 feet from the top of the bluff so that's the case law that indicates there are similar situations.A lot of the houses are somewhat situated that distance away. This was determined to be a demo simply because it's 50% calculation,the foundation is in good shape and the location is because when you drive up to the property you can basically see as it rises up there it sits on it's the best part of the property moving it would probably cause more damage picking it up and moving it back in. Are there any other questions of me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like you're increasing the bluff setback by removing that wood deck. MIKE KIMACK : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Proposed stairs the steps are at 28 feet right? MIKE KIMACK : Yeah I never looked at that it's (inaudible) the Building Department looks at that I always look at the foundation setback because it's a more substantial structure than the deck. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It certainly is. MIKE KIMACK : That's why I use the 34 feet if you look at the one side the closest point to the foundation and because it's kind of angles that one foot protrusion really isn't any closer to the bluff than the 34 foot setback would be. If you looked at the drawings you could see there they really wanted to get a little bit more space for a more decent living room and also for the upstairs master. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're really looking at stuff that's parallel to the existing dwelling or landward. It's LWRP consistent. MIKE KIMACK : Yeah and the porch is on that one side and it's basically it's getting an IA system to let you know. It's already been decided and approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good. Let's see if we have any questions here, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No as Mike said just looking at the neighboring houses are much closer to the bluff. MIKE KIMACK : Everyone pretty much has a bulkhead through that area and MEMER ACAMPORA : It looks pretty good there. MIKE KIMACK : It's pretty good there for the most part. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. 53 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Okay 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 : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES :Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. We should have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7501 &#7502—ANDREAS PFANNER CHAIRPERSSON WEISMAN :The next application before the Board is for Andreas Pfanner#7501. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's January 21, 2021 amended February 9, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize two (2) "as built" existing sheds 1) both sheds are located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 2725 Harbor Lane in Cutchogue. Mike with your permission I think what I'm going to do is open up both of these applications at the same time. It makes sense because they're all interrelated that way the public can address whatever they want. The next application for Andreas Pfanner is #7502. This is a request for a Use variance from Article III Section 280-13(C) and the Building Inspector's January 21, 2021 amended February 9, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct alterations to an existing accessory garage to convert to an office/workshop at 1) proposed conversion does not constitute 54 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 a permitted accessory use located at 2725 Harbor Lane in Cutchogue. So there's been a tremendous amount of correspondence received from neighbors on this that are in our record. Mike I'm assuming you got those got copies of MIKE KIMACK : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Probably because they came in so quickly, we'll make sure you get copies for your records. We want to take a look at the shed first. There's so many sheds on this property it's even confusing about which shed you're talking about. I presume we're talking about the one MIKE KIMACK : One shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Yes I understand. I'm assuming you're talking about the gray one that was there when we granted the previous one, it was put in there that was not on the survey but now you're trying to legalize in a front yard the gray one? MIKE KIMACK : Correct. As you come off Oak St. if you've been to the property then you got the two wood sheds in front of you that was part of a prior variance primarily that was approved. It's the shed that's off to the right up against the rhododendrons. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right the 12 foot by MIKE KIMACK : The gray one primarily that's the one. It's in one spot it's completely (inaudible) by rhododendrons, it's not visible to any of the neighbors. However it is in the front yard because of the setback but it's location allows it to it's completely stoned up to it you can drive up to it and get access to it it's in one spot it's convenient for storage of material that he needs there but at the same time it's pretty much out of the way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike if I can ask a question just to understand the history of what happened. During last hearing relative to the prior application the shed came up and I recall I didn't go back to the transcript but I was remembering that a permit was not required, what prompted this application? MIKE KIMACK : That's a different shed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No we brought forward we discussed the small shed I remember not going back to the testimony but we brought that up in sort of a conversation but regardless what prompted MIKE KIMACK : When I got involved with the property the original variance that we were dealing with going back and it's part of this was that Mr. Pfanner was putting in an accessory building and it had exceeded the 750 sq. ft. and was close to the side yard setback and it was also other 55 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 than the rear yard. He basically he stopped construction and I advised him to cut it back to 750 sq.ft.so he eliminated two of the variances but it was still having other than the rear yard setback variance. In that particular one Nick, there are two wood sheds that are also within the 35 foot setback and those sheds were approved to stay but if they were going to be replaced then they had to be removed and pushed back to the legal setback side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I remember that but what had happened is when we went out there for those variances and also for this when he wanted the garage for his car collection MIKE KIMACK : That was for the next one. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That shed was on the property and we did discuss it at the time. Nothing was done about it it's just still sitting there and MIKE KIMACK : It's still sitting there now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It is a prefab correct? MIKE KIMACK : It's a prefab, it's slightly over 100 sq. ft. 83 x 12.3 and its fairly good size I mean (inaudible) construction yes prefab. MEMBER DANTES : Has this shed been used since the last area variance? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was there but it wasn't before us and we discovered it when we went to inspect the property. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it was because it was discussed that is was just under or at 100 sq. ft. therefore it didn't need a permit and now it's 103 sq. ft. therefore it does. MIKE KIMACK : Well look I was accurate with the metric. I could have said 12 x 8 but I didn't 96 sq. ft. actually if you put a ruler on its 12.3 x 8.3 so it came up to 103 sq. ft. to be fair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know there's nothing in the code that says how many accessory structures can be on a property other than limitations by lot coverage but it's pretty clear that an accretion of storage buildings has been located on this property and certainly they are not part of residential use. You've told us in your application that it's related to the storage of materials related to the applicant's business wood products and the like correct? MIKE KIMACK : Well that's the second one that we're dealing with the use of the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The shed is a storage. 56 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MIKE KIMACK : The shed is a storage set for whatever he's storing on the property whether it's mowing equipment or something like this. It isn't necessarily related to what's going on within the workshop it's related to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me point out there has been so much controversy over how that historic barn called a garage sometimes has been used and is being used and it being proposed to be used. I for one don't want to make any decision until I do an interior inspection. Looking through the window is not sufficient. MIKE KIMACK : I wish I knew you were coming because the door is open I would say look inside. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No didn't do it. MIKE KIMACK : We know you were on the property because we saw on the camera. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh sure. MIKE KIMACK : No I was just saying if you were going out there I would say just walk in and walk around that's all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we'll do that but I need to know what's happening in there. MIKE KIMACK : Let's talk about the two that you brought both of them up. In essence the barn which now has been converted into what people say that was a workshop on the first floor now all of a sudden second floor is pretty much (inaudible). The workshop is going to be I sent you a picture of it primarily for his operation. He's ordering an electric kiln to put in the workshop to do pottery on the first floor. He's no longer interested in doing the wood, bringing wood in and storing it which is related to his business which he's tried to downsize his activities and spend more time out here in his place and that's why the office is required because he'd like to be able to do it on a (inaudible) basis to be able to have a remote office to be able to communicate with his business on the second floor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know that offices in accessory buildings are not permitted uses and you've applied for a use variance as a result. He can have an office but he has to have it in the house. If he's living in the house and he could run his business out of the house if he wants to have an office in his home but you can't use an accessory building for a home office in a residential zone. In order to get a Use variance you have to show incredible substantial financial harm, almost impossible to do. I don't know I've been on the Board almost twenty years and I think once maybe we granted a Use variance because the standards are so high, cause it's a change of zone essentially. 57 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MIKE KIMACK : It's change of zone essentially this would have been an area at one time or another (inaudible) we're asking for an office for him to be able to work out of in a building that he has on his property with no bathroom and no kitchen. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I understand I mean you're not the first one who has asked that. Until such time as the Town Board takes up the issue of what uses are to be permitted in accessory structures is a time to revisit that. Maybe it should be clarified but right now we have denied more than one office in an accessory garage, we did two in Orient last year. People thought well I can work from home now you know it's COVID and everybody, no you can work from your houses if you want but you can't work out of an accessory structure. MIKE KIMACK : Well then let me ask the other question, for the lower section of the workshop that's not a Use variance correct in an accessory building? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It depends on what kind of workshop. We just actually did a code interpretation. Mostly workshops are if you're talking now about pottery cause that was certainly not clear on your prior original application. This is a change in direction that suddenly it's not related to wood manufacturing. MIKE KIMACK : No there was never going to be wood manufacturing,the original one was he was going to store some exotic woods there. There was nothing about manufacturing wood or working wood on the property it was going to be for wood storage because that's what his business is. He basically designs exotic furniture. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is he a full time resident in that house? MIKE KIMACK : No he's back and forth. MEMBER DANTES : Storage is a code conforming storage in a garage is a code conforming use so I mean why, that's not an issue. MIKE KIMACK : Well if he's doing a workshop CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't run a business it's not a contractors yard. MIKE KIMACK : But he's using it as a workshop for a forget about the storage because he would like to be able to have is as a pottery MEMBER DANTES : This is an industrial workshop, it's not like a guy who is painting a picture. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If you would like to speak you have to come to a mic and state your name. 58 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MIKE KIMACK : Leslie the workshop use has a kiln and has pottery (inaudible) it's not to manufacture not to sell on the street it's for residential personal use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did a code interpretation. Workshop typically the intent of that code was when people tinker around with their cars in the garage.That was originally back in the day when that definition was established that's what they meant. We did interpret artists workshop basically or artist studio, probably pottery would fall into that but there were a number of conditions that would have to be evaluated to determine if in fact this conforms to that code interpretation and that indicated that the person had to be in residence in the dwelling that it was purely for a hobby, a personal use. They can be a professional painter but their paintings would have to be sold elsewhere in a gallery or however, no public would come from that there would be no business associated and so on. I mean there were thirteen conditions that had to be evaluated in order to determine whether or not this was an allowed accessory use. We can send you that decision if you'd like because now you're saying it's not a workshop it's an artist studio. What do you do about the second floor because that's a second use and that's not a permitted use? You're going to have a two story pottery studio or remove the second floor or have a pull down staircase. JADE LANE : Hi I'm Jade Lane. I'm Andreas Pfanner's girlfriend and the reason why we switched recently is because I wanted a pottery studio. So it's not anything like it's really just very simply that I wanted to I'm from Montana I went home to Montana my dad teaches ceramics and I got really into ceramics and I came back and I was like I want to do pottery it's as simple as that. I convinced Andy to order a kiln and so and then of course there was like where are we going to put it I don't know if you guys have ever done ceramics but you have a lot of stuff. So for it to be even a second floor that's you know that'll be actually to my convenience because then he can move his office to the house instead and I can have the second floor for the pottery. So that is where I'm coming from. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you living in the dwelling on the property? JADE LANE : No, no this is literally I mean I just being addicted to pottery because MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Where do you live? JADE LANE : I live well God I hop around a little bit and in between Montana and here I'm helping my father in Montana for the next year or so and then I'll be back here full time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And when you're here where do you live on that property? JADE LANE : No, no I live in Greenport with Andy. MIKE KIMACK : Send me the conditions. 59 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions on either of these applications and I want to see if there's anybody in the audience in attendance that wants to address this. Let's start with Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Yes I guess what is a kiln, is it noisy does it make odors? JADE LANE : No, so it's basically it's like a hot oven and you place your pieces in there whether you make a bowl or a cup or whatever then you cook it until it's yes so it doesn't make any noise. MIKE KIMACK : It's electric. MEMBER DANTES : So it wouldn't have impacts on the neighbors? MIKE KIMACK : No, no noise no smoke. MEMBER DANTES :That's my only question. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to hear what the audience has to say about this? Who would like to address this application? Please come forward and state your name. STEVE STAROFF : My name is Steven Staroff I live at 260 Oak St. which is directly across from the items that we're talking about and this is a view from my front porch just in case so you have a reference. First of all you have an uncanny way of seeing through issues put forth and as you pointed out Mr. Pfanner does not reside on the property. He has a residence in Brooklyn and a residence in Greenport and he is rarely on the property and as you can see by my view of that property very little goes in and out of there without myself, my wife or my dog knows. Also the shed that we're talking about is really a barn as you know so it's not that 10 x 12 it is a full sized barn that can accommodate horses back in the day or whatever. You received information from him on April 2"d and June 9th which indicated at that time that he wanted to store wood from his business in the shed it's on the documents and create an off-site extension to his business in the barn. It's only very recently out of thin air that kiln is now going to be added to the barn. Over the last four or five years I have seen people spend the night in the barn, I've seen his employees go in at nine o'clock at night, park their truck there, leave at six o'clock in the morning. He rents the property next to me full time and that whoever is renting son has stayed in the barn overnight. I have no idea where they relieve themselves since there doesn't seem to be from what I hear plumbing in there but people are staying overnight and leaving in the morning and going back and forth. Obviously none of this is permanent but the activity has been there it's documented and it's been going on for years. Now I really want to address what this really I believe was about before the kiln came up out of left field which is moving parts to his business there. We know his business from the pictures and everything else is architectural wood beautiful things but it's a wood manufacturing business and metal manufacturing business and for him to 60 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 move that to that barn even parts of it and store wood which needs to be cured and there's probably chemicals in there brings an immediate danger to a residential area. So a couple of things, one is traffic safety. If he's going to be doing some of his business out of there there's goingto be more traffic in that neighborhood and as we all know with COVID more people moved out here,families moved out here there are people jogging I mean this is a residential quiet piece of property, bicycles, kids, grandkids all of that with increased traffic could be a danger to them. There's also a blind curve around the entrance to Oak St.where his barn is so people come around that curve and potentially hit a kid. I mean that's the reality of what the neighborhood is and I know you guys have been on site. Wood burning, air pollution, I mean think about that and specifically in the documentation he provided you he says that they won't protect the air quality. So whatever he wants and it says that they're going to burn any residual wood that they have which means that carcinogens are going in the air and burning the wood emits carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides into the air. I mean that's directly across the street okay. Water pollution is 250 feet from East Creek, I don't know about what's going to be draining there from the curing of materials or any offset but that sounds a little polluting to me in that area and I do know I've seen one of those concrete cylinders that have you know holes in it I saw one buried between the barn and the structure that houses his cars that was years ago. Anyway the last thing on here besides the water, air and safety pollution is noise pollution. We're talking about a wood manufacturing. I mean you guys all live next to somebody who did construction on their house and for that week that they were banging and sawing it's a little noisy. Now think of that going on five, seven days a week forever in that and we all know that the town definition of noise pollution item C is serves a reasonable person of normal sensitivities exceeds standards and restrictions established levels and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. Now the law as you know allows up to 65 decibels during the day seven to seven. A medium sized air conditioning puts out 65 decibels cause I've measured it and this has got to exceed it just by the nature of the business that he wants to conduct in there. Really that's what I wanted to bring to the table so I'm taking a look at woodworking, metal business, pollution, noise and you know once that door is open to allow them to do this who knows what (inaudible) he can do on the property because if you see from the sheds and everything else he's pushed the limits on this and I'm afraid opening that door is going to push it further. Thank you very much for listening I appreciate it, anybody have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nope. Anybody else? You go first, I want to do new people first then we can have second rounds if we need it. LLOYD WEATHERS : I'm Lloyd Weathers, my wife and I own the property lot 25 which is adjacent to 24.2. We are the people that are 11 feet from the small shed and 21 feet from the larger the barn. We would like to support the Building Department's denial for a permit request and we ask the Zoning Board to deny the area variances 7501 and 7502. I'd like to address 7501 first, because 61 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 it's a (inaudible). As you pointed out I think it's a portable shed it can be moved into compliance on 24.2 cause the disadvantage is totally under I don't believe this, is a disadvantage to Mr. Pfanner because if you place there leave it for three years you still have room to move it. I don't think that it would be inconsiderate to simply remove it from its place and remove the need for the variance. He is constructing a patio on the one single family residence that's 2725 Harbor Lane and he could move it into conformance and use with the patio. My primary concern the barn addressed in 7502. 1 initiated a complaint to the Building Department in March of 2015 which I discovered they were building a second floor on the barn and one of the contractors were discussing where to up the electrical outlets so they could have two (inaudible) and I thought this was very strange in an R40 single family area with a so I came to the Building Department they said they had no knowledge of any permit request and they directed me to and I filled out a compliant and they sent out a Building Inspector that afternoon and that's when they discovered the construction in the barn and also if you have that survey sheet that you can put up of the property please. In back of the (inaudible) barn the second one which was that was under construction at the same time and so the permit was denied for when they came back and began the action to require a permit for construction that shed the 26 by 24 was not addressed at all. The permit was for the as built on the new three car garage in back and the ZBA decision of 6859 had to cut off 144 sq. ft. of construction and concrete make it conforming and (inaudible) and that was the time where the two 3 by 9 wood shed in front. The Board approved functionally to be removed to move them change them whatever they moved into conformance. The barn was not addressed. 7502 in effect if you go back to all the list back into the seventies for that barn it's a one story structure evolved from a barn to a shed to a one story framed garage. This was addressed primarily in 2018 with the 7192 in the ZBA decision of 7192 and I think the Chair went out to and actually went into the barn and I think you found a baby cradle and that was Andy's child. So the discussion of that facility without water or facilities or kitchen facilities is a little bit absurd.The permit request that was made in January of this yearJanuary 7th indicated an existing use as an office and workshop. In 7192 the ZBA decision a number of the residents came forward and said that it had been occupied overnight with stays up to three days by his SFA Interiors employees and also by people who had taken residence of more than a week in that facility. I would like to also point out the existing use of an office in 7192 Mr. Kimack (inaudible)that Andy was not a resident of this property on this property. He does not reside in the single family residence there or in the single family residence he owns across the street which is not shown on the survey. He does reside in Greenport I think. This would be an off-site office which to me is even the application is made in terms of SFA Interiors. I think it's important to also note and he's the C.E.O. he has a general manager and also a chief architect designer for the furniture that he makes so this is not when you discuss an office I think it's you know is this an office for a general manager? Then the workshop the initial discussion of a workshop was that this is a (inaudible) wood fabrication company. They use contemporary wood processing tools which are 62 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 computerized, they are three dimensional and they can make some fantastic furniture but if you're working by computer and there's basically you have to design the product that you want to make, address the software, direct the software make it and then make it. So I think the initial application for 7502 indicated a workshop or furniture (inaudible) company or SFA Interiors and that is a sophisticated operation and the byproducts of that operation would be substantial. The movement to a kiln I guess was recent and certainly could be applied but I think what I would recommend is that in disapproving the area variance for 7502 1 think it would be a correct thing to do.This has been modified over a six year period, it already exists.The variances that they talk about in the 7502 if you look at the photographs these are already made. I think the second floor needs to be removed or Mr. Pfanner needs to make arrangements to (inaudible) property to establish it as a single family residence but an office and a workshop (inaudible) consideration. I have applied a note to the Board expressing the disapproval and I'll be glad to answer any questions associated with this but I think the both of these 7501 and 7502 1 think need to be rejected. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you and we have of course copies of your submission, all the Board members have a copy of that. LLOYD WEATHERS :Also I would like to thank the Board for addressing the multiple impacts that this creates. We consider this a (inaudible) to be a very prime point of it's a very unique place in the world quite frankly and we have a recovering environment and recovering shell fish we still can't take advantage of(inaudible). Thank you very much, are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll make sure that you get copies of all the correspondence we've gotten. MIKE KIMACK : Can I respond to that last two quickly? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can. MIKE KIMACK: First of all there's no intent by Mr. Pfanner to have SFA work any type of operation on the first floor. Yes it was submitted as a wood storage which is all it was, it was never intended to put any CNC machines and work the wood storage it was simply to store the wood there under conditions to allow it to dry out and to be used.That is no longer the consideration, he would like to be able to use it as if it fits under the artist which I think you said it may has a kiln has(inaudible) situation. There's no metal work there, there's no clients coming there, there's no extra cars showing up. The next door neighbor Mr. Weathers cannot see the shed basically it's completely covered by rhododendrons. There's no visible impact to him from the shed itself. There would be no impacts certainly by the use of the lower floor for a kiln operation as a personal use.There's no intent to have any of his business from SFA follow him here. One of the reason he's doing this is because he's stepping away from actively participating in the business which he's done for 63 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 thirty years. He's built all over the world and he just likes to be able to have a place where he can intermittently make contact with his business and that was the intent with the second floor for him not for customers, not for clients not for anyone showing up. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But he's not in residence. MIKE KIMACK : One step at a time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He owns the property but he can't use it in a way that's not accessory to his residential use. MIKE KIMACK : Let me ask you this then, if in fact he's not going to be able to meet all of the conditions for that for the second level office would the kiln operation fit into the artists use on the first floor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No because again you have to be in residency on the property and this then becomes an accessory use to your residency on the property. It is not only he's not in residence neither is I'm sorry I forgot your name. JADE LANE :Jade. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So you know here we are. Is there anyone else who would like to make a statement? MIMI COLOMBO : My name is Amy Colombo and I live on 350 Oak St. which is across almost directly from the barn and next door on the Creekside to the cottage the house that Andy owns. From what I've been told there's someone renting that house so if that's true and that gives (inaudible)to what you're saying I can't say that that is true. There is a very nice lady that comes and goes supposedly she's renting it so he can. I have for years and I never complained his white vans with his logo stay there, they're polite they work but everything now just comes to mind. If he's going to store this wood will trucks be picking it up and stuff? I mean it's a residential area. I know people stay in the barn. It looks to me I don't dare go near cause there's cameras that you can slide (inaudible) it's glass and when I run my dog out he knows me I look and they slide it closed. I see the cars there and I just feel everything is getting pushed to the limit and now and nothing against Jade. She can't even give a residence and she goes to Montana and here, why does she need this pottery thing there?This came out of the blue that all of a sudden we're going to do pottery there. Who is going to be living there and what's going to be going on there it's just much too confusing and it's just too much like changing. I'm not comfortable with it, no I do not support it and I hate to use the word I don't trust it I'm very dubious about it. So I'm asking the Board to really, really, really look into it because yes I question how do people stay there at night and go to work the next day and it's been going on for not a couple of months, a long time. 64 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, anyone else? MARY MARTIN : My name is Mary Martin, I live at 2600 Harbor Lane so I'm on the other side. I have direct view of what goes on on Harbor Lane and what they're all saying they see people coming and going. I see them coming from the back yard on the Oak St. side coming over to Harbor Lane. I guess so that they don't see it at all times, not only that the truck also. I've sat there in my kitchen with the headlights shining into my kitchen on high beam his truck for over two hours in the driveway that is directly across next to the residence that's on Harbor which is not occupied full time it's only on the weekend. Someone who works for him occupies it only on the weekend the same person but I've seen other people come out of that also. The truck used to be parked on that driveway side when I first moved in. I'm here about four and a half years full time. When I first moved in that truck was parked there every single night and his workers were staying either in the main residence or behind but we did see them every night and it was gone in the morning. Then obviously they changed it where they (inaudible). Now as far as everybody keeps talking about these rhododendrons, I walk every day and I walk around Oak on my return to my house, the rhododendrons go out to the street. It's not even that they're just on his property, the rhododendrons are there to hide everything that,is going on on his property because if you take them down there will be no secrets. Everybody will know everything there won't be any second guessing. The most important thing here is, it's not a commercial property and it will be a commercial property. Directly across from me is a three car garage that right now he parks his cars in. If you approve this, this so called which is not going to be a pottery barn that's not happening there. He's very sneaky with everything that he does and if you approve this then what's going to happen with the other car the three car garage that's directly across from me?So that will be his next step is to convert that into something. He just wants to take and take and take and I'm the newest resident here.They've all been dealing with this for years and years and years so I'm the newest resident and I have seen it going on week by week by week and the transient people that are coming in and out is unacceptable and supposedly he doesn't have a bathroom or kitchen facilities what are they doing? I mean Steven mentioned he has seen one of those CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Septic ring. MIMI COLOMBO : Yeah dropped in there so I mean is anybody even aware that that's there on the property? JADE LANE : A what? MIMI COLOMBO : Septic ring a cement CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's buried, no, no hold on we'll answer the questions. 65 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MIMI COLOMBO : So who's to say what's going on and what was legally done and what wasn't legally done and what will continue to not be legal? I mean has anybody ever walked inside any of these residences on his property?The property across the street from me, has anybody been in the basement there? I mean we've seen tubs going into that house all through the back all very sneaky. Nothing is done from the residence side it's all done on the three car garage side all the way in the back with the trucks backed in so you don't really see unless you catch it at that moment you don't see what's going in and out. Like I said they're just building a patio, I guess that's in anticipation because I believe I'm not sure but the gentleman who resides in the house is like his right hand man in the business. STEVE STARROFF : My understanding is yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You can't be talking to each other. MIMI COLOMBO : Okay I don't want to say something that I'm not a hundred percent sure so if someone was aware of that. He's building a patio, I don't have a problem with a patio being built but is he doing this stuff because he thinks that the business is going to be run out of there now? So he's not going to have to go to Brooklyn so he's going to live here and he's going to make the house you know more because he's going to be living there full time to run the business. All the things to do with the environment should be number one. I mean the noise, the pollution everything there between the commercial and the pollution it's just unacceptable for this to be done unacceptable and he will push the limits for more. He will not stop at this. He hasn't stopped in the past before I got here I've heard things that he's tried to get and he has not stopped at that and he just keeps coming back with a change of plans. Already before we even got here today he's changed the plans to a pottery because he knows that the neighborhood is up in arms about this because he is friends with some of the people that have gotten wind of our you know of us not accepting what he wants to do. So last minute he's changing his plans? He doesn't live here, if he wants an office go put it in your Greenport house he doesn't need to put it here there's no reason for it and commercial traffic and children, grandchildren it does not belong here at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you, is there somebody else over there who wanted to go ahead go to the mic and state your name. ROBERT BENNETTO : My name is Robert Bennetto and I live at 2500 Harbor Lane. I just want to take three minutes I know you guys went through lunch which is a nice thing to do for us. (inaudible) a safety for my grandchildren (inaudible) to Cutchogue to be with you that my grandchildren are very small they ride around that cul de sac on their little two wheelers and hot wheels grandpa has to chase them and I'm worried about the safety of these children getting run over by one of these vans that's just not paying attention. I'm sorry I get emotional with that, 66 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 that's my biggest concern. I want to reiterate everything that was said here which it's only beating a dead horse. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Somebody else? SCOTT LOPEZ : Hi my name is Scot Lopez and I live at 435 Oak St. right behind where the three car garage is. My biggest concern is it's a residential area and it's just like (inaudible)there are so many families that live there with little kids and I see them walking through that neighborhood all the time, I've seen the three little wheel bikes all in the area and changing from a residential into a business area would totally I think destroy any safety for the children we have there and we do have that blind curve coming around there and the more and more traffic that we get coming in there the greater the possibility of something happening. I think it would change the whole dynamic of that neighborhood which is a quiet nice little neighborhood on a dead end street and I mean unless you're really down there for a reason we don't get a lot of traffic there and we kind of like it that way. I'm in support of not supporting giving those variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, now is there somebody else who hasn't spoken yet? Let's let you go and then you go and then you go. JADE LANE : All of those things that you voice are also my concern but I also feel like I want to speak to you guys as well because the noise and the first of all Andy and I have a three and half year old so we're just as concerned as anybody on that block. Gosh I don't know we've been here for twelve years now and we're very, very close friends of Blair and who's next to the left of us as well as Loubash and Donia who are behind us and so what I want to say is I can understand all of their concerns I understand all of your concerns cause those would be my concerns too if I didn't know what was going on. What I want to do is clarify and reassure you that all of those things that you are thinking of are not happening or not going to happen. I don't want noise, I don't want do you CNC machine, it's huge that's so not going to happen there and also the second floor that's why and I can understand because you just you know how your mind goes crazy and you're like what's on over there and this and that and you start and it's really I can tell you it's just really simple. There's a garage with a couple of cars and with the last minute pottery thing you're absolutely right it has that's totally something that I can take first (inaudible) cause I just came back and I don't want to get into any of my personal life but that has been something that I you know it is a last minute thing and however you want to look at it I don't how to say it without getting into my personal life but I can understand all those things. Oh and as far as people spending the night, nobody is spending the night over there I let the girls CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait address the Board. JADE LANE :The gal across the street has a son, he has I think he's in high school God I forget his name already but he has Zoom meetings and he wanted some privacy for some Zoom meetings 67 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 and she said would you mind if he were to (inaudible) and I said of course go ahead. So he would go over there and do Zoom meetings as well as you know he's a high schooler he probably wants to like have some privacy away from his mom and I said sure why not. As far as you know going to the bathroom and all that stuff I go since we're good friends with Loubash and Donia and Blair I just I mean I've been over there especially with all this (inaudible) for a long time and will be its whatever playing around with the little thing you know for her to also have naps thank God because that saves me but yes there is a little bed for her. I don't think any normal sized human being would fit into that but that is for her to take naps in. Oh and for the bathroom we just go across the street to our friends place. But here's the thing I don't want to undermine is I don't want to undermine people having suspicions and havingthinkingthat there's things going around about and hiding vans and this and that because there's not any of that and I can see how that would look as well. Especially if you start talking, talking to each other and it's like all this I'm like how did everybody get to be out for I didn't even realize it. I mean and I think the problem is we don't just talk to each other if there's a problem you should come over and talk to each other. I'm trying to think what else I didn't address, the noise, there's not going to be any noise. It's literally going to be a studio my studio and you know it's like it is like art, you're painting you're carving not me you're ceramic carving you're trimming and stuff like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : First of all, you need to understand something all of you, you can't come in here and apply in written form with one use and then come back in without a reapplication for a different use and just last minute say we changed our minds we want to use it now for something else. It doesn't give the public time or the Board time to really look into things. So that's one thing I want on the record alright. JADE LANE : Yeah. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :With regard to people's comings and goings I would think that people who are in residence there year round twenty four seven have a little bit better idea of what takes place on that property than someone who doesn't live there. You might visit you might go there sometime but you're not living in that house. JADE LANE : No I've been out here full time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But are you staying in that house overnight?You just said no. JADE LANE : No but I go over there quite frequently I see Steve and those guys all the time you guys I say hi to you all the time. STEVE STAROFF : We don't see you. 68 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :AI right this is getting way beyond the scope of a variance. I think we've heard enough it's not relevant to what's before this Board and if you had another comment you wanted to make let's hear that and then Mike I want you to be able to make whatever comments you want to say or not. LLOYD WEATHERS : Lloyd Weathers I think that's something very important that came through in that conversation with Ms. Lane is that the occupant of the single family residence 2725 Harbor Lane she described as (inaudible) and his wife. That is the single family residence on this entire piece of property and if the applicant wants to make the shed that is described in 7502 as a (inaudible) structure the last time it had a Certificate of Occupancy was as a one story non- habitable barn. If they want to make that a residential structure I think there's plenty of property there to do it and I don't think the residents would disagree but the one thing that she brought forth that should be in consideration for the Board is that the single family structures 2725 Harbor Lane occupy and I think that's an important point. I don't disagree with the rhododendrons,they bought Doroski planted over a thousand of the rhododendrons. He likes rhododendrons but he didn't like swans. Thank you very much. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I ask a question sir? I believe you said your name was Weathers. LLOYD WEATHERS : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The applicant and you both mentioned a name that I didn't I'm not going to attempt the house that is the subject residence, is that where these people live that Jade indicated she uses the bathroom of? LLOYD WEATHERS : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's not a house across the street, it's the subject property? LLOYD WEATHERS : I think depending on whose occupying she can use any one of the three. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The three what? LLOYD WEATHERS : Andy has a residence across the street 250 Oak St. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Next to the gentleman with the blue shirt. LLOYD WEATHERS : Yes. Has a single family residence 2725 Harbor Lane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Subject which is on Harbor Lane the backside of 69 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 LLOYD WEATHERS : Yes and Blair McBride has the old house at the corner of Harbor Lane where Harbor Lane and Oak St. intersect the McBride home and that was the you know you had to deal with that in terms of(inaudible) estate and that's the third structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does anybody know I'm just curious, there's a shed close to where the patio is being built that been painted green what's that one about? It's not the subject before us but LLOYD WEATHERS : I think I can address it. The construction of the patio adjacent to the house at 2725 Harbor Lane started this week and is a construction that was Andy has directed and the contractor has started production there. The shed is very close to the property line with Blair McBride and I think it is on Andy's property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it is too. I just wondered because I looked inside, it's quite it's wide but it's shallow and I looked inside and I saw a bike in there but I don't know I don't recall that is what I'm saying. It might have been there the last time we looked at these variances I don't remember because it's freshly painted but that doesn't mean anything paint is paint. I just didn't know if it had been there a long time or it was a new one. STEVE STAROFF : It's a new shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a new one. MARY MARTIN : They delivered it in the fall. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So it was a prefab, it was delivered to the property and put there cause it's not on the survey. I'm trying to figure out everything that's on and everything that's not on cause the last time we looked at this you know request we found the shed the prefab gray shed near the rhododendrons that wasn't on the survey that wasn't before us, now I go out there and now I'm looking around again and as you can see from surveillance I'm there and I'm saying where did that one come from it's not on the survey and I don't remember it. How is it being used,well it looks like there's a bike there so maybe it's in relationship to the residence their kids or something I don't know. All I know is there's yet another shed and you know it just simply appears like every time you turn around there's something else being built on this property. Having said that I want to see now if you would like to say anything in response to any of the things you've heard Mike. MIKE KIMACK : I think look we've got a long time on this particular one and I've already stated the fact that yes we have made a change from the wood storage which (inaudible) and there was no office on the second floor and that would be a permit table use you could put wood storage there. What triggered the variance was the fact that we were going into an office on the second 70 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 floor. If we basically now what you're saying is that the last minute we changed it to pottery on the first floor so that may not necessarily change anything because it still has to have a full residency as you explained to me CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's correct. MIKE KIMACK : so it wouldn't matter in that situation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :You're right. MIKE KIMACK : So his use basically would be he can store wood there and not do anything with the second floor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Butto clarify not trade goods like his personal stuff yes but not business goods. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The thing you have to understand about this is that accessory structures are meant to serve as additional supplemental uses for an in residence occupant. It's a residential use if you have hobbies, if you got stuff and you don't have a basement you need to have a storage building that's what it's for. Somehow or another what we have here is a property owner who is not in residence,who is using it to store his things and that's not what the purpose of accessory structures in residential zones is for. He's using it to store things related to his business the wood. So alright I mean look I think we're clear on what's going on. I want to see if the Board has any questions at this point anything you heard or anything anybody said. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other question, Mike is there a rental permit on this property? MIKE KIMACK : No there isn't because it's not being rented. MEMBER PLANAMENTO :The house is not rented. MIKE KIMACK : No. T. A. DUFFY : Somebody is living in it that's not the owner though right? MIKE KIMACK : But they're not renting it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The subject house on Harbor the house that's we can't look at any other properties it's only what's before us which is the lot you're all familiar with, with the barn on it the house the garage. In fact there's a three car garage and then there's another garage that the Board allowed some changes for the personal storage of cars.We did so without fully realizing that Mr. Pfanner was not in occupancy. We sort of did but this has become a storage place for 71 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 him for his own personal cars. I looked in that building, I saw one car and a lot of equipment.Yes it's a nice car it's an exotic car. I think we all understand. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike just going back to my question though, is this Loubash person living in the house then? MIKE KIMACK : Is he there Loubash is in full time or is he JADE LANE : Loubash yeah which house I don't know MIKE KIMACK : I don't know the answer to that. STEVE STARROFF : We do. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just a moment, hold it hold it hold it I can't have this disintegrating here into this kind of conversation. Why don't you get up and answer that question and then we're done here okay. It's enough, we have one more applicant who has been patiently waiting. MARY MARTIN : Loubash does not live there full time, he's there on the weekends only and not every single weekend. There are other people that I have seen come out of the house besides Loubash and his wife. JADE LANE : Do you have visitors that come visit you? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you can't do that,this is a court room you can't MARY MARTIN : I do have visitors yes I do have visitors when I'm home that may spend the evening but not when I'm away. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from should we just close this? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make,a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBE LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie you have to close both hearings? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually meant to close both so 72 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 MIKE KIMACK : May I make a brief comment? When you're talking about bulkheading and restoring the shoreline and the D.E.C., I've had seven or eight applications they're all (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on one second I want to just finish this up and then we'll so I just closed 7502 and I'm also closing 7501. The motion was for both of those applications. Seconded by Member Lehnert. All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. MEMBER DANTES :Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay go ahead Mike. MIKE KIMACK : I have several applications before the D.E.C. the same (inaudible) expressed before, the Trustees approves it the D.E.C. does not. They're both for (inaudible) for living shoreline, they're for restoration of bulkheads using (inaudible) using double walls and I keep getting different types of responses. I've asked for a meeting of the big honchos and I'm going to bring my designs in specific to those projects. I want to ask them exactly what is going to be allowable given the circumstances what CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With the D.E.C. or Trustees? MIKE KIMACK : D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought Pat's idea was a really good one. This has happened all the time. We did the best we knew how years ago with working with concurrent jurisdiction with Trustees and ZBA because we were finding one Board was saying one thing and the other Board was saying something else it just made sense for the Board that had the bigger slice in the pie as it were to go first and then subject to the approval of the other Board so that's occasionally I've asked the Trustees to go first because the impacts are really more environmental than anything else. We need to sort this out. MIKE KIMACK : The difficulty with D.E.C. is that what they're going to approve is not necessarily something that would work cause they're looking at the natural approach something that mother nature is not able to hold in the first place and the rock revetment and other things and quite frankly I've gotten to the point where they said Mike your designs are very good except we'd like to replenish the beach every once and a while. I said I'm not going to recommend to a client to spend a hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand dollars for something that they (inaudible) 73 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 with the next storm. I'm working off of the VE line the (inaudible) in order to be above that makes sense to me but I'm approaching D.E.C. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have a date yet though? MIKE KIMACK : I will have a date pretty shortly and I may ask if I a Trustee to come along. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh good definitely. MIKE KIMACK : Because one of the projects that I'm doing is Goldsmiths we got a complete I've done a (inaudible) waters and everything but they're all different. The designs are all different designs and the circumstances that they're dealing with. It's difficult to deal with them because they're naturalists if we can do it biologically I would do it biologically. I've been hybrid (inaudible) hybrid shoreline which they seem to be okay with not (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not fair to property owners not to have this resolved and to collaborate. MEMBER ACAMPORA : This not only a Southold problem this is a Long Island problem and that's why I'm suggesting that the state legislatures and I might add that Assemblyman Steve Engelbright who has been dealing on the EnCon Committee for as long as I can remember over thirty years and has great influence on the D.E.C. that he also be included in this group with Senator you know our Senator Columbo who represents us and our Assemblywoman Giglio. Steve would be very helpful in a matter like that because of his years. MIKE KIMACK : We need to present to the D.E.C. those types of projects specifically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Case specific that's what's good about it cause you have the cases but also consider talking to Al Krupski a former Trustees from like forever and if anybody understands local impacts he certainly does. MIKE KIMACK : I'll reach out to Anthony I'll reach out to Al. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Al would be critical. MIKE KIMACK : And I'll bring the types of designs that we would like to be cause they're all different. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen this is an important conversation but we really do have another application. MIKE KIMACK : I apologize but I just wanted to let you know that that was what I was working on and will continue to do so. Thank you. 74 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 HEARING#7508—JULIA KIELY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The next and last application before the Board is for Julia Kiely#7508. Applicant requests a Special Exception under Article III Section 280-13B(13). The applicant is owner of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing structure at 16045 NYS Route 25 in Mattituck. So this is for a 660 sq. ft. in a detached garage and you want your parents to be able to live there. So let's see the Building Department has indicated that the amended plans of the livable floor area are for 586 sq. ft. JULIA KIELY :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is on the first floor but we have a 88 sq. ft. open loft area. JULIA KIELY :Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a 151 sq. ft. unfinished storage area correct? JULIA KIELY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You've submitted everything that's necessary to indicated full time residency, relationship between right and I don't have any problem with that. The difficulty however is this particular design proposal is that the full staircase then creates a second floor because it's habitable and the Building Department is very adamant about that and Steven very well knows having dealt with this before. So we have two options, one is to put in a pull down which is a pain we know it's hard to get stuff in and out. JULIA KIELY : It's also well in terms of safety for my parents that's going to be their storage and right now they're able bodied but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh I understand, there is one other option that's a possibility which we have proposed to other people in the same situation, you can put in an exterior stair that's a full sized staircase going up to that storage area but if it's inside it's considered livable floor area which will increase the square footage and will also create a problem with habitable space. They don't consider it storage. Storage is only accessible on the inside by a pull down ladder. JULIA KIELY : But what about basements? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :A basement is not considered a floor it's below grade.They just handle it they just call it a cellar or basement they don't even use the term cellar anymore I think it's just basement but that's below grade. Once it's above grade if it has a full staircase to access it this is where we had all these conversations as you probably are familiar about is a three story house. Is this a third floor,the Building Department will decide and so will state code if it's a full staircase and sheet rocked, yes it's habitable space not storage. 75 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 JULIA KIELY : What if it wasn't sheet rocked?What if we left it CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Open rafters. JULIA KIELY : Yea open rafters unfinished but with the staircase. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you propose to enclose it so that it is not a loft looking down below? JULIA KIELY : Can I let this is going to be their home so. REBECCA NORTHBEY : I think we could we don't want to enclose it completely because part of the purpose of this is to have light and ventilation from those dormer windows that can come especially ventilation in the summer so you can open those windows and have warm air go out of there. We don't particularly like to use air conditioning and we try not to as much as possible. So that is one of the primary reasons we would like it to be somewhat we could sort of screen it so that the air could go through it wouldn't be visible and therefore I think unfinished walls and rafters wouldn't necessarily be a problem if we had to do that we could do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know Bill do you have any feeling about this from the Building Department's point of view? T. A. DUFFY : I'm not sure, we'd have to double check with them cause I know they (inaudible) stairs are there REBECCA NORTHBEY : I do have a question though, old houses have attics usually considered a two and a half story house almost all of them have dedicated staircases for those attics are considered habitable space and mostly are not. They're not heated not conditioned not finished but they do have dedicated staircases. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Then it's pre code. I mean every existing non-conforming it was before the law took effect and it's sort of grandfathered but anything that is a new proposal we have to go by what the code requires. I don't think anybody on this Board has any problems with your using it as an accessory apartment but it's just a matter of making sure that it conforms to the standards that are in the code because it's different from a variance, it's straightforward you do this you do this you're fine you don't do this you're not fine. REBECCA NORTHBEY: I thought for some reason I got the impression that with the special permits you have some discretion to deviate from the code it seems to further the purpose of code provisions and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With some yes if it's a funeral parlor, if it's a fire house, if it's a school those are Special Exceptions but technically with regard to we just turned one down exactly the 76 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 same thing. Parents that were wanting to move in they had been in the house and their kids were living there now it was too crowded they didn't want to be living there so they decided they were going to build this accessory apartment and they had the same thing for the same reason. They wanted to go up to a storage area but you don't have any storage area basically below it and everybody has stuff we all know that. So that's the same thing and we said okay you have to put a pull down staircase or put it outside. You can chose what you want it's fine but you're allowed to do an outside one but you see the second it's connected to the inside then it's a second floor it's habitable. REBECCA NORTHBEY : I don't see the logic to it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not telling you the code is always logical. REBECCA NORTHBEY : I understand that if we connect it if it were part of the house we can put an addition on the house for our accessory apartment we could have two stories but we're not proposing to do that and don't want to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it's attached to the house? REBECCA NORTHBEY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As of right now, we used to do those in principle dwellings as long as it was not greater than a certain percentage of the principle dwelling like forty percent in size but once we decided to try and leverage more housing units for either affordable or any you know extended family living then we took these over and it became an as of right situation unless you were oversized or something like that. REBECCA NORTHBEY : I would think the goal in part to provide more senior housing would want to take advantage of the space that exists. I mean there's a loft there already it's just not accessible to anybody. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's fine to use it but you need to use it for storage and it has to be defined as such and by opening it up and by putting in a full staircase it will not be defined as storage no matter what you do with it. Even if you use it to put your stuff in it won't I'm sure that's what your intent is but the way you designed it, it doesn't fall within that definition. REBECCA NORTHBEY : So I guess our thought is that our purpose is STEVEN KIELY: Hi everybody. I couldn't hear a lot of what was being said and I know like generally there's a policy against dedicated staircases. The one issue is and I don't know if they brought it up as you're aware your copy has a plan that's been updated and objective 3.1 with Chapter 8 of the housing code it does speak to the situation and it's entitled, provide resources to help 77 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 residents to stay in their homes and 3.113 says, promote universal design elements in the building code to accommodate seniors aging in place and persons with physical disabilities.Such elements promote safety features to remove physical barriers that older people or disabled cannot handle. So what we're asking for is just to have a dedicated staircase and it could be unfinished it's just going to be next to impossible for them if they're aging in place cause again since there's no other storage there's no basement there's no other alternative they're going to have to use this pretty regularly as storage space. My father in law is a musician, has guitars and has things like that and you know again they're going to be going up and down quite frequently so I think for safety purposes and our piece of mind it would be nice to have a dedicated staircase in that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Steven you're now dealing in an area of my expertise because I was one of the founders in this country of the universal design movement of the international movement. I work with the ADA and I help regulate the compliance program in Washington. So staircases are never ADA compliant. A staircase is not an accessible thing. Is it safer, certainly it's safer for me it's safer for anybody okay but that is not the intent of the comprehensive plan. They're talking about one floor ramps going up to a zero threshold entry. Those are the kinds of elements of ADA compliance comprehensive plans (inaudible), it is not about a staircase. STEVEN KIELY : I apologize, I'm not talking about ADA compliance I'm talking about the objective is to make houses saferfor seniors to live in regardless universal design elements and other things like that and remove physical barriers and make it safe. I'm just looking at the intent of that and saying here we're trying to make it safe and you just admitted that it would be safer for anybody and it'll even be safer for senior citizens to access that area and that's why we're looking for the dedicated staircase. Like I said if you think that it being conditioned it would be considered part of the livable floor area which again arguably by the definition you'd be right but I think it's very important to have the dedicated staircase to that area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That is why we offered putting it in on the outside forthat very reason. JULIA KIELY : But then there's inclement weather. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course, it has its limits there's no question. It's not as convenient but it is safe. JULIA KIELY : It's not safe if you have ice and that sort of stuff on the stairs. REBECCA NORTHBEY : Can an external staircase have walls, it has a roof maybe but it doesn't have walls for ice and snow and other things that make it difficult to use. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It might be able to be designed that way I don't know. I mean you could. You have plenty of side yard, you have plenty of room you know to put one in and I don't 78 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 see why you couldn't have an outside door going up to an outside staircase that is not connected to the inside apartment and that would avoid the problem of inclement weather and but we can only do what we can do. STEVEN KIELY : But if the harm is somewhat potentially using that conditioned storage space for like sleeping or other livable area what's the difference like if we put an exterior staircase to that space and finish it that's still the same use that can be made and even arguable worse if someone was going to stretch the limits of the use put somebody else in there.This we're just asking for a teeny tiny area and'I think do you have copies Julia of what it would look like? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. STEVEN KIELY : Leslie do you know what the purpose was for this particular condition the one story living in an accessory structure? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we went through this argument on a previous application Steve. STEVEN KIELY : I want to know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The intent of the code was to have a one floor habitable apartment and you know very well this argument, as soon as there is a full staircase in there and you're ascending up and down within the interior of that first floor the Building Department will call that another habitable space that makes it two story. STEVEN KIELY: No,what was the purpose of the one level living is my question? Like why did they put that restriction in the code? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I can't speak for the Town Board they wanted it to be an accessory they didn't want duplexes,they didn't want to complicate it they said fine you want to put in one bedroom, one bathroom for a family member or someone who can who qualifies from the affordable registry keep it simple. It could be on the second floor above the garage, it can be on the ground floor, it can be part of the garage but that was the idea and it was the Town Board as you know they write the code they decide not me. STEVEN KIELY : No but I didn't know if you were part of the Code Committee if you just knew. I was just asking. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was and that was basically the discussion. That's why it was written that way. 79 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 STEVEN KIELY : Okay and just for the record purposes, we're requesting that it be a small conditioned storage area again for the instruments that my father in law plays and also for antiques that my mother in law has and it's important to have that conditioned space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many square feet do you have of habitable? REBECCA NORTHBEY : It's still within the 750 if you added that in. JULIA KIELY : It's under 750 even if there was a room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That was denied. REBECCA NORTHBEY : It's 660 on the first floor and then if you include that little area which is maybe 8 by 10. STEVEN KIELY : If you look at A101 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 88 sq. ft. STEVEN KIELY: If you look at A101 in the plans it has the ground level,the second level loft square footage the total livable is 720. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we got a second conformation of conforming livable floor area from the Building Department. STEVEN KIELY : Yeah Mike confirmed it at 720. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :So 750 is the max, exactly so that totals 720.Alright so it's not a matter of non-conforming floor area but it's a matter you know how this loft is being defined. REBECCA NORTHBEY :That's why I said we're certainly willing to leave it unfinished as long as we can still have it open enough for the ventilation and have a dedicated staircase. If we can't have a dedicated staircase we'll figure something out I guess but it really makes sense in terms of senior living to be able to have a real staircase. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. JULIA KIELY : And my dad has had multiple surgeries and I'm sure he will have many more. REBECCA NORTHBEY : He's waiting for knees but he's had his ankle replaced his hip replaced, knees next. So he may not be going up and down the stairs all the time anyway but I will be. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright well what do we want to do with this? I don't know what else we can learn from any more testimony it is what it is. Nobody has a problem with the apartment 80 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 it's just a matter of what we do about this. I think we've heard all the arguments so I guess with nobody else here because everyone is gone by now. JULIA KIELY :Thank you so much because we know you've had a long day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what you do, that's what the job is. You just never know how long anything is going to take and sometimes it's a piece of cake and sometimes it's forever and ever and that's what this participatory process is all about so thank you for your patience. JULIA NORTHBEY : We've talked to the neighbors and they all know and they all support. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the few instances where nobody cares who lives next door to you. Okay 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 : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. STEVEN KIELY :Thank you guys. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a couple of things on the Agenda, a resolution for the next Regular Meeting with public hearings to be held Thursday, August 5, 2021 as 9 a.m. so moved is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 81 Regular Meeting July 1, 2021 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held June 17, 2021 so moved is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I think we can just close this and stop recording. Motion to close the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA :Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The meeting is closed. Donna please stop the recording. 82 Question Report Report Generated: 7/2/20219:37 Topic Webinar ID Actual Start Time Actual Duration (minutes) #Question July 1, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting 837 7817 7574 7/1/20218:23 395 26 Question Details # Question Asker Name Asker Email Answer(s) 1 chirperson is not on the screen- ElizABETH ON Patricia Moore i 2 CHAIRPERSON IS NOT ON VIDEO- I SEE ELIZABETH IN OFFICE Patricia Moore Mr. Puric if you would like to speak please raise your 3 Rob Puric is in attendance for the Philip Loria variance robertpuric hand.thank you 4 1 AM COMING OVER NOW Patricia Moore Audio on zoom is terrible. Could you please ask people to We are trying to fix the 5 speak slowly and clearly? Clayton Gates problem.Thank you. 6 1 sumbitted a letter on June 23 that outlines my reason for robertpuric I will let the Chair know You will need to raise your hand to ask. I am not 7 How many square feet would this house be including deck? Linda Auriemma answering questions in We would like the opportunity to speak when time allows. Please raise your hand. 8 George & Lynn Krug- (Not sure if my hand is raised) Lynn Krug Thank you Hello I have a question for the ZBA as to whether being a good neighbor and a nice guy holds weight on the board's Hi,you will need to raise decisions. Will the board weigh please weigh this against the your hand. I am not goals of the comprehensive plan such as maintaining open answering the chats.Thank 9 spaces and home size in relation to the size of the plot. Barbara Best - you Yes and I will let the Chairperson know that 10 OK Sorry I thought someone said to"Go to Q and A" Barbara Bestthere are comments on the 11 Thank you robertpuric - _ I see you.The Chair is taking the people in the audience first. We will be 12 Our hand is raised- please confirm that you see it. Thanks. Lynn Krug with you shortly.Thank 13 much appreciated,thank you Lynn Krug 14 Thank you. Barbara Best I see that your hand is 15 Ok,thank you-as long as my record is in the notice robertpuric raised. Would you still like 16 1 would like to speak and ask a question if I may? robertpuric Be right with you Elizabeth for some reason after Linda Auriemma spoke she 17 was taken out of the zoom meeting room Barbara Best 18 Can you see if you can readmit her Barbara Best Ask her to send me her email address or you give it 19 The message says they cant even rejoin Barbara Best to me here in chat ask her to call in 646-558- 8656 web id 837 7817 20 Laurie6656@aol.com Barbara Best 7574 passcode 171760 21 thanks Barbara Best what is her phone number? 22 she is on now Barbara Best 23 thank you Barbara Best Hi. Only on our second. We 24 Good afternoon! Which application are we up to? Stephen Kiely are very far behind. 25 Hey! Ouch! Thanks! Stephen Kiely I have to tell her that you have your hand raised. 26 Let me in please Stephen Kiely 3 give me a minute Regular Meeting July 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 :July 16, 2021 83