HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-09/02/2021 Hearing 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
September 2, 2021
10:05 A.M.
Board Members Present:
LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson/Member
PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Absent)
ERIC DANTES—Member
ROBERT LEHNERT— Member
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO—Member
KIM FUENTES—Board Assistant
JOHN BURKE—Assistant Town Attorney
ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant
DONNA WESTERRIVIANN —Office Assistant
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
INDEX OF HEARINGS
Hearing Pagge
Town of Southold Planning Board #7543 6 -8
Tracy and Alex Sutton #7527SE 8 - 11
Valerie A. Chandler and Dimitri Meskouris#7529 11- 19
Daniel Marra/9450 Main Bayview, LLC# 7530 19 - 28
Stephanie A. Keller Rev. Trust#7531 29 - 33
Ronald and Mary Sanchez#7534 33 -40
David Hazard #7532 40-45
Jane T. Kaminski Living Trust#7536 46- 55
Alan S. Braverman # 7533 56- 58
Arthur J. Connolly and Lorraine Acarelli Connolly#7535SE 58 - 61
Tracey Joseph #7538 61 - 63
Strong's Marine, Inc. 3 7546SE 64- 68
Deborah Colitti #7539 68- 75
Hard Corner Partners, LLC# 7541 75 - 79
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the Southold Town Zoning
Board of Appeals Public Hearing for September 2, 2021. Due to the expiration of the New York
State Governor's Executive Orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, in person access to the
public will now be permitted and the meeting will be held in the Southold Town Meeting Hall
on Main Rd. in Southold. If you appear in person you must wear a facial mask to be in the
building. This meeting is also available via Zoom webinar and the directions are on the agenda
on our website and you can also phone in. So some of us are in person, some of us are on Zoom
and that's how we're going to proceed with this meeting at this point. We have finished
Executive Session so I want to welcome all of you. I will begin by asking Liz to explain to
anybody that's on the Zoom call or in the meeting hall how to proceed.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. For those as Leslie said on Zoom if anyone
wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a note via the Q&A
tool at the bottom of your screen. You can also 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 then we can
move you over and we'll give you further instructions for that. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. We finished with Executive Session, I'm just going to
ask if there's anyone on the Board who wants to add anything to a future agenda, any
particular item on your mind? Hearing none I'm going to move onto the next which is a request
from Jessica Magee of AMP Architecture on behalf of client Anthony Tartaglia Appeal #7396.
This is for a second three month extension. The property is located at 55255 North Rd. in
Greenport and this is because there's a hold up on an inspection from D.E.C. on the IA system
that has been installed on the subject property. So moved, is there a second on that motion?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob. All in favor? Kim I guess you have to because it's
partially Zoom I think you have to call the roll.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. Now I'm going to go through the
SEQR applications. Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot
waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to
environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCCRR Part
617.5 c including the following : Town of Southold Planning Board, Tracy and Alex Sutton,
Valerie A. Chandler and Dimitri Meskouris, Daniel Marra/9450 Main Bayview LLC, Stephanie A.
Keller Rev. Trust, Ronald and Mary Sanchez, David Hazard, Jane T. Kaminski Living Trust, Alan S.
Braverman, Arthur J. Connolly and Lorraine Acarelli Connolly, Tracey Joseph, Strong's Marine
Inc. and Deborah Colitti so moved. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Nick. Call the roll please Kim.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. The last resolution before the first
public hearing is for Hard Corner Partners LLC#7541. The Town of Southold Planning Board will
declare lead agency for the purpose of SEQRA once this variance determination is rendered. As
of the date of this determination the Planning Board has not asserted Lead Agency and
therefore no determination under SEAR has been made. Therefore as set forth below any grant
of relief will necessarily be subject to the Planning Board issuing a Negative Declaration under
SEQRA. So moved is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Lehnert. Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. Okay we're going to begin the first
public hearing now.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7543—TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PLANNING BOARD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for the Town of Southold
Planning Board #7543.The Southold Town Planning Board in a memorandum dated June 24,
2021 has requested that the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals make a determination
relating to Article II Section 280-7 District boundaries, 280 Attachment 2 Density and Minimum
Lot Size Schedule for Nonresidential Districts and 280 Attachment 4 Bulk Schedule for Business,
Office and Industrial Districts of the Southold Town Zoning Code as to 1) whether or not a
property that is within two or more zoning districts is subject to the bulk schedule for minimum
lot size for each zoning district and each proposed use and 2) whether or not a second building
proposed in the LB Zoning District constitutes a second use located at 420 Paul's Lane in
Peconic. This is not an application for a specific property at this point but that this code
interpretation was precipitated by an application submitted to the Planning Board and the
Zoning Board. That application will be heard at a later date but the issues that were raised is
something that we were asked by the Planning Department to address so I'm going to ask Liz
would you please bring Heather Lanza in from the Planning Board.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm going to recuse myself this hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
HEATHER LANZA : Here I am in person. I started to go to Zoom and then I decided to come in
person. So I think the (inaudible) should be the site plan for the Notice of Disapproval that
precipitated this as you so aptly put Leslie and the reason I want to show that is because
actually I probably copied the wrong thing here. I'll just describe it cause it think you all saw it in
your packets. This is an application that came in for a Notice of Disapproval that's what
prompted us to ask this question because if you go you have this parcel and it has the two
zones and you could see the zoning line across the sort of where the L is where the little stub is,
the zoning line goes straight across there all the way to the left and that's where it shows the B
zone in the front and then the LB zone on the rest of the property. Right now the property has
an existing building down at the south and up on the north they're proposing a B zone use that
as you can see spills over into the LB zone parking lot. I think that's one of the main points that
prompted us to ask the question because you have a split zone property our code is pretty
much silent on what to do about it. You have 16,000 sq. ft. of B zone on this property, 90,000
sq. ft. of LB, LB requires 80,000 per use, B requires 30,000 per use. So you have less than half of
what you need from the B zone and I don't have to tell you guys this but B zone has a lot of
pretty intense uses like convenient store and those uses there's a reason that you have a
minimum lot size of 30,000 sq. ft. it's because those uses are not going to fit on a quarter of an
acre and this is just a great example of that. Here's a convenient store and it doesn't even come
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
close to fitting into the B zone area and I think that just outlines the point that and the main
question which is you know if you're going to have a split zone should you be required to have
the bulk schedule apply to both of the zones to have a use. So you already have a use on the LB
that's using up basically all the LB use that they're allowed cause 99,000 sq. ft. (inaudible). So
just think about it this way, if it was all limited business zoning could you have a second use
here? Not by right, right because you wouldn't have enough square footage you have to get a
variance and that's really what we're asking is the (inaudible). Anybody have any questions
about this? I did a lot of research on how the zoning got to be the way it is and that was in your
packet, you want to show the zoning map Donna. So that just shows you the B zone versus the
LB zone and you can see there's LB next door and there's also some (inaudible). This zoning
came about as a result of the 1999 (inaudible) land use study. Originally they were going re-
zone a portion of it from B to LB and also a portion from B to RO. They never succeeded with
the B to RO so they left that little bit and they did the rest LB. There was a law suit about this
but they weren't successful in reversing that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Heather thank you, we do have quite a bit of information including
some information on the original public hearing before the Town Board that created this
situation. We have a lot of information to go through and again what I think is important to
state in the record, while there was an application that brought to the Planning Board and the
Zoning Board's attention this need to clarify a code that is not clear enough. This is not just
about this piece of property. The code interpretation that we're going to do is going to have
town wide impacts, it will apply to all split zoned properties. That's the difference between a
code interpretation and an application specific determination. Does the Board at this point
have any questions? We have quite a lot of information to pour through and I don't know that
we can deliberate much on it at the hearing. I think we just have to read it all and discuss it and
come to some sort of thorough understanding of what the current code says and what the best
way to answer the questions posed by the Planning Department are but I'm going to ask the
Board is there's anything that they want to contribute to this at this point or want clarified? I'm
hearing nothing, alright.
HEATHER LANZA : I just wanted to mention that I'm actually here on behalf of the Planning
Board and that is the Planning Board that is asking the clarification for this and all future.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, yes the memorandum that we received was from Don
Wilcenski the Chairman of the Planning Board. Heather is here to actually put into the record
what questions the Planning Board is asking of us and I think the way forward is clear. So if
there's nothing else from the Board, I think the only person that has standing before the Board
to address this at all would be the Planning Board and there's nothing more to really be said
about other than that we have to do some homework here. So hearing no further questions or
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is
there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion carries.
HEARING#7527SE—TRACY and ALEX SUTTON
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracy and Alex Sutton
#7527SE. The applicants request a Special Exception 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 five (5)
bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to the B&B casual, transient roomers located at
25500 Main Rd. in Orient. I think we have let me just ask a related question because we've all
done a site inspection and I think most of us not all of us are familiar with the prior B&B that
Joe Turturro owned at the time so I think this is pretty straightforward. The documentation has
been submitted to show primary residency but there is an issue that I just want to ask you how
do you want it handled, I think they're totally independent the attached fence and pergola on
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
the east side is going to require a variance. Is there a Notice of Disapproval that was issued for
that?
PAT MOORE : No actually I got clarification of that yesterday from Nancy Dwyer. Round table
discussion by the Building Department to figure out what to call this. Just as background, I did
submit a request a building permit application well let me back up. My clients bought the
property, the sellers had put that beautiful structure up but they had not done it with a permit
and we asked them to get a permit because of their circumstances they were elderly and they
were moving and so on we agreed that we would undertake to get whatever permits would be
necessary knowing that we would go through this process anyway and not to be overly
burdensome to the seller. So I put in the building permit application to the Building Department
back in May got no answer, got no answer and finally thank goodness Kim because she kind of
prompted well can we please get an answer because we didn't know whether I needed to
incorporate a variance application here or not. As it turned out the recommendation was that if
we detach it and (inaudible) connection it's as simple as not having it connected to the wall and
it pretty much is a self-contained structure so it's not complicated to do at all. I spoke to my
clients yesterday when I got the answer how to solve this. We are going to detach it. I don't
know if they even had a chance to talk to the contractor or somebody I think John Condon
sealed the drawings originally so my suggestion to Tracy was let's coordinate with John so
whatever you do it's done properly. The end result of that is we will most likely I want to say
the solution we're definitely going to solve this but the solution is going to be detach the
structure from the wall the exterior wall of the building and once that's done then we will get a
building permit and C.O. as a fence. So that was the solution the Building Department
suggested. We are certainly that's a great solution and we're in the process of doing that. So I
think that solves the issue. We didn't get a Notice of Disapproval on it so we really didn't have it
before the Board anyway so it solves the problem.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I just wanted to clarify that, sound like a good outcome. The
thing that I also want to tell you is this morning I received a memorandum from the Fire
Marshall indicating that none of the upgrades to the current property the existing property
require a building permit they're mostly cosmetic on the interior and there's only one sort of
minor I think it's a smoke alarm or something which is nothing that's going to hold up anything
so that's good to go we just checked this morning.
PAT MOORE : Good news.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie would you share that with all the Board also and the Building
Department's notes?
9
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure actually Liz would you make a note to forward that to the
Board. He sent it to her this morning and she sent it to me, just make a note to forward that
memorandum to everyone.
PAT MOORE : Could you also include me? I'll put it in my file.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. I have no questions, we've all seen the property we know it.
Let me see if anybody on the Board has any questions, Eric anything from you?
MEMBER DANTES : No it seems straightforward.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay how about Pat?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from Rob or Nick?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No straightforward application.
MEMER PLANAMENTO : Just wanted to add one comment and I agree it's a straightforward
application. I just wanted to remind the applicant that the third floor is non-habitable space and
it's not to be used for any guests or any other residential purposes it's an attic.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application or
on Zoom? Okay so I'm going to make a motion hearing no other questions or comments to
close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries.
HEARING#7529—VALERIE A. CHANDLER and DIMITRI MESKOURIS
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Valerie A. Chandler and
Dimitri Meskouris #7529. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and
the Building Inspector's May 7, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit
to construct deck additions to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 3745 Mill Lane in Peconic. There is a
Town Board mandate that anyone of us who are in either of the two Town Board buildings you
know the Town Hall or the Annex to Town Hall must at all times be wearing a mask. That is a
requirement so anyone who is in attendance who is not wearing a mask must either put one on
or leave and join us by Zoom. There's not much we can do about it, it's now the law and we
must all abide by it. Those of us who are at home are not in masks because we don't have to be
that's why some of us are at home and not in the Meeting Hall. Let's see who is here to
represent oh Anthony is here.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board, good morning Chairwoman thank you for your time
this morning. The request is to extend an existing deck towards the front of the home basically
wrapping the deck around. We are not requesting to encroach the deck any more than the
existing encroachment of the existing house. One thing I want to mention here is you can see
the house is angled so as you go towards the corner of this proposed wood deck you're actually
getting further away from the property line. So we are proposing basically to come up to the
existing building line and then like I said due to the angle of the building and the angle of the
property line you actually get further away as you're approaching the corner. The reason for
this request is the owner has a kitchen on the inside of this and that's the facing side of the
water and he wants sliding glass doors out to the deck. I just before I stop talking I just wanted
to mention that we did a little research on the same lane there, there's a few properties that
the homes are closer to the front yard property line than 30 feet and we based this on looking
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
on Google and using their measuring tool and I averaged up a little bit just to be clear but 3546
Mill Lane it's about they're about 25 feet from their property line and 3575 Mill Lane they're
about 22 feet from the property line. Basically I'm mentioning this just to show that it's
common on that road that there's a lot of homes that are close by. One other thing that I want
to make sure I mention is, this home is on a corner lot so he does have two front facing
property lines.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony you should correct your site plan, it's not Soundview it's
Sound Ave. it's different from Soundview, Soundview is up farther away from Goldsmiths and it
does have an intersection with Mill so it was kind of confusing. Sound Ave and that it's not an
avenue it's an unpaved small private road with a lot of seasonal cottages. See where it says
Soundview on the bottom there, it should be Sound. Soundview is way up at the top.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay I apologize for that we'll make sure we revise that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's mostly seasonal cottages along there anyway, it has been for a
very long time and you know what's next to it is basically the parking lot for Goldsmith's Inlet. A
number of these cottages have been renovated over time for year round use and have been
approved. I don't have any questions, oh it's LWRP exempt just want to get that in. It's
considered a minor action. Let's see if the Board has anything, Eric do you have any comments
or questions anything for Anthony?
MEMBER DANTES : Yes, why couldn't you take the average on the block to use that to qualify
for the conforming front yard setback?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's not a bad question, I don't know if we'd actually be able to
conform at 11.8 feet. Like I said I did look at the homes on the block and we notice some that
were between 20 and 25 feet to their property line so I don't know if it would conform to that
as well.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you wouldn't qualify. It was a good question but the answer is
they're way more non-conforming than other setbacks. It's a corner lot.
MEMBER DANTES : Which one is similar to this one?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The addresses were 3645 Mill Lane and 3575 Mill Lane. Also 565 Sound
Ave. they were about 26 feet again I was rounding up cause I was using Google measuring tool.
So those three were the ones that really stood out to me as being pretty close to the property
line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : None of them are corner lots.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So none of them are as non-conforming but the other setback from
Mill is much more conforming.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think these are all Pre C.O.'s anyway most of them. Okay let's see
who else, anybody else have a question or comment?
MEMBER DANTES : I have one more question. How many feet is it from the property line to the
pavement on Soundview Ave. do you know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : On Sound you mean.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Let me just grab the survey real quick and I can maybe answer that. I'm
not a hundred percent sure. Based on my plot plan I'm showing 3.8 but let me just check the
survey I'm going off my plot.
MEMBER DANTES : No cause there's a good distance between the property line and the
pavement according to the John Ehlers survey.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sound Ave at 50 feet, I wouldn't be able to give you an accurate measure
on that. I mean oh I see what you're asking yeah, yeah I see it on the survey. I was looking at
um I don't know I mean just scaling it by eye it looks probably a good 25 feet if I was to assume.
Just looking at the 11 feet from that corner of the house sort of taking that looks almost double
from the edge of pavement. I don't have a CAD file of the survey I only have the PDF.
MEMBER DANTES : Okay that's fine. I don't have anything else Leslie.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob nothing.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then, anybody in the audience wanting to address the
application or on Zoom.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ROBERT DUNN : Robert Dunn 3645 Mill Rd. This application is just kind of (inaudible). First of all
the information he just gave about my house 3645 Mill Rd. is not 25 feet to the road. The right
of way there is much wider than the paved road itself and this property is now in litigation with
the town regarding encroachment on to town property. They seem to feel they have a right to
do whatever they want, they fenced it in. They were given six months to remove it, they did not
remove it and it's now going through litigation. I know this Board is not a punitive Board it's
decision making. I think this should be some summarily dismissed. They did not put the signs up
as required. In one place they put a sign it couldn't be seen from ninety percent of the
(inaudible). When the gate is open it hides the sign. Again one sign, two streets. It was removed
some time on Tuesday so it wasn't even the seven days as required. This whole (inaudible)
thinks they can do whatever they want and everybody else be damned. As to the merits of it,
others on that same street have been denied for obvious reasons to do the same sort of thing.
To continue allowing everybody to move closer to their property only further urbanized what is
originally a very quiet comfortable bungalow community. Then of course I have to go into
(inaudible) that I got which is I'm sure what you got it's incomplete. It does not show it shows if
you look in the upper left hand corner existing hedge, that existing hedge that is another 35
feet to the street. It's missing two retaining walls and a rather large twelve foot wide gate six
foot high and two concrete columns that hold it up that the current homeowners installed. So
it's just like this thing is it's been bogus from day one and then just on the merits of it you
already have front patio. Why do we need to go ahead and encroach into everything else? If the
homeowner wasn't happy with the property they shouldn't have purchased it not changed
everything to their liking. As it is now they've grabbed about twenty percent more property
inside this illegal fence that's being debated by the town and I don't know where it goes. Now
in response to some of the complaints they further upset the neighborhood by putting non-
conforming lights completely around the house lit up like Coney Island. I hear from people that
live four rows behind complaining about it. I don't know what more to say unless anybody has
any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't have any questions. I do want to just put on the record
that every Board Member here has visited the site personally and has driven up and down
Sound Ave. and are very familiar with the cottages that are there the homes that are there and
a lot of variances that were granted over time. So I just want you to know that we have looked
at the property so we've seen all the things you've described.
ROBERT DUNN : But to understand that the fence that's if you look at that property the fence
that's up on the property is not on the property.
3.41
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : Wait, basically we're a variance relief Board. We give people who qualify
the right to depart from town code to meet the character of the neighborhood (inaudible). We
don't Code Enforcement or Town Attorney's Office is the one who deals with fences that are
ROBERT DUNN : I fully understand that but the Chairwoman said that you all visited.
MEMBER DANTES : Oh yeah.
ROBERT DUNN : If you visited the fence is misleading,the fence is not on.
MEMBER DANTES : Right I understand. We can't if the retaining wall violates town code it does
not
ROBERT DUNN : I don't know that the retaining walls violate town code I just know that they're
not shown on this drawing that was submitted with the application nor was the gate that's
been installed nor were the concrete columns that have been installed. So this document was
bogus.
MEMBER DANTES : But the people that review that would be like the Code Enforcement or the
Town Attorney's Office. I mean as far as hedges encroaching on the street that would be more
ROBERT DUNN : They're not encroaching on the street. If I mislead you that way I'm sorry.
Another (inaudible) come out much further than it's shown on this (inaudible). So what I'm
saying is that this is part of the documentation of this it's incorrect everything this homeowner
has done to date.
MEMBER DANTES : Have you talked to the Town Attorney's Office?
ROBERT DUNN : Yes absolutely that's why the homeowner put up his lights and (inaudible) to
annoy the rest of the world because he doesn't like to be pushed into doing anything he wants
to do. He seems to think he can do anything as a matter of fact the application that required
this hearing was to get a permit to do work in the kitchen that's already done he had a Stop
Work Order on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I want to stop you for the moment please. I think we've
heard what your issues are, I see a hand raised I think that person wants to speak it's Dimitri
Meskouris.
DIMITRI MESKOURIS : Hello Board hello everyone. Obviously what Mr. Dunn has made this very
personal since day one. Authorities have been involved, he's vandalized my property numerous
amount of times. There's an open case on him for vandalizing my property with the District
Attorney's Office. He's harassed me saying racist comments, he's harassed workers that have
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
worked for me saying racist comments. I know I'm sorry I know this has nothing to do with your
Board but being that he's bringing up things that have nothing to do with the Board. I just want
to let everyone know exactly what he's talking about. In regards to finishing there was a Stop
Order with the kitchen. There wasn't did I get a couple of violations for the kitchen, yes I did,
did I address yes the Building Department has come in and checked the work that I've done and
gave me the okay to finish and continue which I still have not. I love the house, I love the
community I have four children. I'm trying to be part of it and this man has made it hell since
day one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : With all due respect to both of you I know you both understand that
this is a civil matter that has recourse in another venue besides here so rather than address that
I just want to see if Mr. Meskouris if you have anything you want to say about the proposed
front yard setback or did Mr. Portillo do an adequate job. If there's anything you want to add
with regard to the variance request we'd like to hear it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Could I just for the record state that our drawings are based on the land
survey drawing which provided by a licensed land surveyor that's what our site plan is drafted
from. On top of that just to be clear we do have an active permit that I've received from the
Building Department for this property and that is for the interior work that is going on.The deck
was never constructed without a permit and I explained that to Mr. Meskouris that we would
have to go through this process which he said not a problem let's get the interior permit which
we did and then we filed a separate permit for this. So that has been the process since I've
been brought on to work with Dimitri.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience or on Zoom
that wants to address this application?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I just want to ask a question if I may. So Anthony if you would
mind, I didn't have the benefit of looking at the property at night so I didn't even think about
the compliancy of any new lighting but is there new lighting there and if there is, is it all dark
sky compliant?
MR. DUNN : No, that's Mr. Dunn answering that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're not the one that's being addressed sir but I want to wait and
have the architect answer that, that is who is being questioned at the moment.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So to answer your question, I did not do an analysis on the lighting.
didn't think that was part of what I was being hired for but I can look at the lighting and speak
with Dimitri and what the town codes are and if the lighting doesn't meet that I can discuss that
with him as well. I'll be honest, like I said Dimitri has been nothing but forthcoming with
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
information to me and I told him that we would work through everything and do what we need
to do so I can look at that and give you an answer but I haven't done that analysis so I'm not a
hundred percent sure.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well again that is not before this Board and I would assume that
what has to be on the site whether it's the height of the fence, whether it's lighting all of that
must be conforming to the code. However this Board does not issue violations and all we can
do is tell them to go ahead and fix up whatever issues there are there that are in violation.
Anything else?
MR. DUNN : Can I make a comment?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I want to see if the Board has any questions sir. Pat do you have any
questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nope.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay Mr. Dunn you can say what you want to say briefly please.
MR. DUNN : There was a question regarding (inaudible) in fact the lighting on this project is
non-compliant. If you go to a dark skies code they give you a picture of what lights are good and
what lights aren't. This light is not because it's a bare bulb on Sound Ave.There are a number of
lights that were put up some of which point to my pillow in my bedroom. That is not dark skies
compliant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Dunn you have recourse to take that issue up if you chose with
the proper authority. It's not relevant to our proceedings here.
MR. DUNN : I understand that but the gentleman asked the question.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understand, Mr. Meskouris would you like to add anything
otherwise I'm going to close this?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MR. MESKOURIS : Yes the flood lights that he's referring to are dark sky compliant. They all
have covers on them and as well to the Board I'm never there. The lights are rarely on unless
my kids are playing in the yard late at night.
MR. DUNN : They're on twenty four hours, they're on right now. I (inaudible) people lie and call
me a liar. The lights are on.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hold on, hold on hey sir, sir please don't yell and don't
MR. DUNN : But to be called a liar and all
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He's not calling you a liar. This matter is something the two of you
can take up with each other not in the meeting hall in Town Hall.
MR. DUNN : I'm sorry.
MEMBER DANTES : Leslie can we just close the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I was just trying to conclude with some comments to give everybody
who is interested an opportunity to speak. I believe we have now concluded. Anthony said
what he said, Mr. Meskouris said what he said, Mr. Dunn said what he said and now I'm ready
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? Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :The motion carries.
HEARING#7530—DANIEL MARRA/9450 MAIN BAYVIEW, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Daniel Marra/9450 Main
Bayview, LLC #7530. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the
Building Inspector's May 11, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front
yard setback of 50 feet located at 9450 Main Bayview Rd. in Southold. This is for a new two
story single family dwelling with a front yard setback at 19 feet where the code requires 50 feet
in an AC zone and what else that's it. It would appear that there are fresh water wetlands in the
center of the property, again it's undeveloped. We did go out and look at the property I didn't
get too far back on that path I kind of walked over the chain linked fence but that was about it.
So Anthony why don't you tell us what the issues are from your point of view.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So thank you again Board for having me. We are proposing a small three
bedroom home on this property. As you mentioned Ms. Chairwoman we do have a wetlands
basically center of the property and we are obviously applying to D.E.C. and Trustees for their
approval. When we started this design one thing that came to mind to me was well let's see
what we can you know not encroach and try to stay far away from the wetlands that are as far
as possible from the wetlands that are there and that's what created the front yard setback.
One thing I want to mention is that the closest portion of this front yard encroachment is the
covered parking area it isn't the actual home or living quarters. The building itself is 35 feet
from the front yard. So the 19 feet is the starting point of the covered parking structure. It is
open it is not closed. The design approach here was sort of a Frank Lloyd Wright prairie homes
style that's where this parking structure came up. That's the reason for it and we didn't close it
because we felt keeping it open cause it's so close to the road to be somewhat of a visual less
of a visual obstruction you can sort of see through the structure. We are designing a new IA
system which you can see in the side yard. We aren't encroaching on the side yards or the rear
yard. We are currently proposing 48 feet from the wetlands the freshwater wetland boundary
that's the sort of a march basically that's on the property. We are outside of the flood zone and
tucking it sort of like in this corner we thought was the best use of the property and trying to
compact the structures as much as possible. I will also state that there was an approval by the
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
Board this was in December of 1999 ZBA #4771 on the same side of Main Bayview 9720 Main
Bayview Rd. an approved 30 foot setback for the 50 foot yard required setback. Like I said our
building is 35 feet, I know that it's obviously an attached parking structure so it's part of the
primary structure but I just wanted to make sure that was clear that the building is further back.
If there's any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's start with Rob anything from you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : The carport I mean is there anywhere else you can go on the property
other than the front yard?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I guess the answer to the question would be possibly to the east side of
the property that can be
MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean you're quoting a past variance of 30 feet from the front yard but
proposing 19. 1 mean a structure is a structure.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I agree.
MEMBER LEHNERT : whether it's open or not.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : One issue is fitting you know you can see how many galleys we need
there for the IA treatment system.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. You have a tough site with the wetlands I get it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We did only like one stall there too just to be clear but I agree with you. I
mean part of the design approach is also sort of creating this. I know that's not something you
guys would care much about but dealing with you know the two level structure of the house
and then sort of bringing it down to scale with the one story carport is you know gives it that
design but I think the only other location for this carport would possibly be to the east side of
the property which I think I'd have to see how my treatment center would lay out. You guys
visited the site you can sort of see that you know it slops down as you go into the property
which is good for our IA system because you know we're not our ground water scenario isn't as
bad. Can I ask you a question, I think that would be the only location if we were to move the
parking structure.
MEMER LEHNERT : That's all for me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I'm fine thank you.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric.
MEMBER DANTES : I guess if they move the parking structure that would be a front yard
setback of 31 feet it's still it would be a 31 foot variance.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : 31 to the covered entry patio yes.
MEMBER DANTES : So it would lessen the degree of variance relief. You'd still need a variance
right?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes sir.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the front yard setback is 50 so absolutely. Have you applied to
the Trustees yet?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We have yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you calendared?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Normally after this meeting once it closes then we request the calendar
date from Trustees.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : You said you needed D.E.C. approval?Are you done with the D.E.C. yet?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We filed with the D.E.C. we're waiting. Unfortunately they're pretty
understaffed these days so all my applications have been taking a lot longer than usual. I
haven't had any feedback but we have filed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience or no Zoom that wants to address
the application?Two hands are up.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie the first hand up was for the prior hearing Meskouris
but Wickham's office just raised their hand, I will move them in.
GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning. I am appearing this morning and I believe in the audience is
Camille Pissaro and owner of the property I'm appearing on behalf of the owner of the property
to the south which is on the other side of all of the wetlands on this property and many of the
wetlands continue south towards Corey Creek. I have a lot of questions and a lot of skepticism
about the application. I'd like to start by saying that there are no similarly situated front yards
in this area where you can apply the code averaging computation. I also if the variance for the
1,
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
setback relief that the applicant's agent sited, 9720 is that the variance obtained by Mrs. Kirsh
she owns the property to the south?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony can you answer that?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's 9720 Main Bayview Rd. I don't know the last name of the owner.
GAIL WICKHAM : (inaudible) Kirch.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay it was approved in 12 of 1999.
GAIL WICKHAM : I thought that was it I just didn't connect the name to the number. I'd like to
comment on that statement of the applicant. The Kirsch property and if Mr. Kirsh is here she
can certainly speak for herself is 50 feet back from Main Bayview. That variance was granted
because there is a right of way to access my client's property along the south. It is a right of way
that is only available to my client's property so it's not a public highway where the setback is
going to be much more pronounced and much more evident. I'd like to just go through the
applicant's reasoning and address that. As far as changing the character of the neighborhood as
I mentioned there are no other structures that are anywhere near this close. The south side of
my client's property went through extensive approval processes and has complied with all
requirements of the town. Mrs. Kirsh's property I believe the same, this is extensive variances
and I think we'll see issues with the environmental agencies either which we don't even have
any information on. I don't think the benefit the reason the benefit sought by the applicant
can't be achieved by some other feasible method is because there are just so many wetlands on
this property. I'd like to mention that when you walk down the north side of this property along
that (inaudible) path, that is a right of way that is owned by the association across the street
and that right of way is not along the north side of this property it's quite a ways over. So
there's much less upland than it appears when you view this property going to the south. You
can see well into the treed area there's a pink flag which I believe would be their northeast
corner. The amount of relief requested is substantial not only is it a significant encroachment
on what should be a front yard area along Main Bayview but it is because there's such extensive
substantial wetlands on the property. I don't know what the upland area is, that wasn't
computed and I'm going to get back to that in a second. We can't say the variance won't have
an adverse environmental impact because of the extent of the wetlands, because of the fact
that the D.E.C. and the Trustees have not weighed in on it and we also have consulted with Ron
Abrams who's an environmental expert and he has advised us that in his review of the
property, more than three quarters of the lot is wetland. There is a very high water table, it's
really buffer area. The basement will be most likely saturated because of the water in the area.
Drywells will not work for storm water drainage. They will have to pump the water to the south
towards my client's property because you're not allowed to pump into the main road under the
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
town's storm water management regulations. They're proposing 2,300 sq. ft. of fill which will
act as a large sponge and while it may raise the grade it will make the saturation impacts worse.
MEMBER DANTES : Do you have like a stamped did they put this on a drawing or do you have a
stamped letter from him or a document or just
GAIL WICKHAM : From Mr. Abrams I have an email from him and that is his opinion.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Since we're talking about this before we go too deep, we do have a test
hole on the property. We took the test hole at 8.8 grade height which is closer to the wetlands.
GAIL WICKHAM : May I finish my presentation? The area is a significant fish and wildlife area by
NYS Department of State. The last question that I'd like to raise is, when you mention when
you're talking about a new test hole what I saw on the application and it is hard to read on the
screen but they seem to be relying on a 2005 survey where a wetlands line was plotted by what
I believe it says 19 something maybe 1998 and it shows what I believe says I'm having legibility
problems the test hole depth is around 4 feet and I'm wondering whether the Zone X on this
map is this 2005 map is based on an old or a new flood map reference point. So I think there
are just a lot of questions here that need to be updated.The other thing I want to continue with
the reasoning of the applicant it's so far outdated it seems that you can make a rational
decision based on those maps and has the difficulty been self-created? That's an interesting
one because as I understand the applicant purchased the property recently and he had full
knowledge that the property was saturated with wetlands. The same survey I believe was
available to purchasers and so I question the answer on that. Basically we think that it's an
application that is really farfetched and even if you took out of the carport or relocated it you'd
still have a 35 foot setback you'd have what seems to be an insufficient rear yard setback too
although that wasn't raised by the Building Department it's 48 feet to the wetlands line as it
was plotted years ago and you know we've had a lot of changes in our climate since then. I
would ask that the Board before they do any further consideration ask for more updated data.
If you have any other questions or comments I'd be glad to try and answer them. Thank you.
MEMBER DANTES : Leslie, would it worth it for us to adjourn until they go to the D.E.C. cause
most of these issues aren't really our purview? That way if the D.E.C. wants to move it closer to
the road then we can ask rather than have them come back.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's a thought certainly. Just so Anthony and Gail cause you're
before this Board fairly often, I do want to let you know that I've been in conversation with the
Trustees and D.E.C. recently because we are having so many more severe weather instances
and the erosion on bluffs and so on is substantial now and just a whole bunch of issues that
preservation of naturally regulated features. I've been talking to them and I think we're going
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
to make this change in future. This is not in the code, this was just kind of a sensible way to
proceed back in the day when Jim King was President of Trustees and we've decided it made
more sense for ZBA to go first submit concurrently if you would and then if we approved we
would approve subject to Trustees approval and that worked fairly well. We're thinking now
that the environmental impacts are much more significant than they used to be and so we may
make the change that we're going to ask people to go to the Trustees first and see what they
say and D.E.C. if they need to and then come to our Board armed with that information and
those approvals. What we don't want is to have a situation like back and forth and back and
forth you know what I mean it's not any good for property owners, it's not good for the
efficiency for government so I think we're probably going to wind up implementing that
informal arrangement in future because of the severity of these impacts now. So I don't know
having said that let me see there's someone else who is at the podium who would probably
want to testify let's do that and then we can talk about this further with everybody. Go ahead
please.
MARY KIRSH : Hi my name is Mary Kirsh and I am the property adjacent to Marra and I have a
lot of concerns actually. I guess my biggest concern is there is a freshwater wetland which is
only like 48 feet from the structure and I can tell you from living there that the (inaudible) or
kettle hole whatever you want to call it is loaded I mean it's full of life. There's (inaudible)
salamanders there's turtles, there's bats, there's owls it's just really a perfect sensitive echo
system so that's a big concern of mine that that will be really impacted. It is true that that kettle
hole over the past twenty years I don't know if it's tidal water but it comes up really high much
higher than twenty years ago. The other concern between you were all discussing was the front
yard. The front yard you know we have codes to try to come down Main Bayview and have it
look appealing with symmetry and harmony it's like right in the front it's too close to Main
Bayview. The other concern I have is the driveway, it's not a side yard 20 feet or 10 feet it's
probably 3 feet there. Of course the septic system it just seems like it's really large and it's
again a really sensitive area. So I know a little bit about this property because twenty years ago
over twenty years ago I investigated it and when I investigated it you know you have it didn't
really comply with the Trustees setbacks, it didn't comply with the building setback it just
doesn't comply with the D.E.C. so that is a big indicator that it's an unbuildable lot and that's
why I let it go twenty five years ago and it's the same story now. That's really what I have to
say.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Well certainly what I think we can consider doing is
adjourning this for at least a couple of months for two purposes. One is to see if Anthony can
submit more current information about flood maps and various other things that would relate
to this environmental impact. I'd like to see what Gail has also submitted this email and
perhaps we can at the very least request comments and a site inspection from the Town
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
Trustees and they can provide us with their,written opinion. We might also actually have LWRP
look at this although it's not a bluff or a bulkhead or anything like that. Certainly Mark Terry has
a great deal of knowledge about freshwater wetlands. I want to also ask another thing, there
are certain species that are protected by the D.E.C. I know the spotted salamander is among
them I don't know whether this kettle hole or fertile pond has such of being on it but that might
be something to investigate to see if there are "any protected species that are currently
habituating on this property. So I don't know what does the Board want to do with this? I don't
think we're finished let's put it that way. I don't want to close it down just yet because I think
there are many other things that can be considered here to see whether it is an appropriate
building site or what and what you can actually build on there. So what do you think Board
members, Nick what do you want to do?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Honestly I was disappointed about the age of the survey so it's
interesting that Gail brought this forward. I don't know if the contours have changed all that
much. I don't want to say that we haven't experienced unusual weather I'm not an
environmentalist so I can't say which way things are going. We talk about global warming and it
seems like it's actually cold, it's a bit of a paradox. I think in fairness to the applicant you may be
right to adjourn it. I was fine with closing it but if the Board wants to adjourn I'm fine with that
too.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob what about you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean I know this is going to change as it goes through the D.E.C. and the
Trustees. I mean I'd love to see them go first.That's just my thoughts.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric and Pat what about you guys?
MEMBER DANTES : I think let the D.E.C. or Trustees go first cause they might need more
variance relief towards the front road depending on what happens. I just don't know.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat what do you think?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Based upon their comments Leslie and our meetings with the D.E.C. and
the Trustees this is a perfect example of why the Trustees and the D.E.C. in certain cases need
to go before we make any decisions and rightfully so also being pointed out that the survey is
old, I think we need more updating so I think we need (inaudible) and get more information.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I think we have a kind of consensus. First let me see if
there's anybody else either on Zoom or in the audience who wants to make a comment about
this application.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just wanted on the record and I'm okay with the adjournment that
makes sense. Unfortunately we are following the pathway as set forth coming to the Zoning
Board and then going to Trustees. I'd like to go to Trustees and then go to D.E.C. and get
feedback and adjust our plan accordingly but I just wanted to sort of discuss some of the things
that Ms. Wickham brought forward. So one of those things and also on the survey the age of
the survey we have been back to the surveyor for an updated survey, updated wetlands, a new
test hole unfortunately due to what's been going it's a very time lengthy thing so Nat is in the
process of this and I hope to see that soon. Based on the data that I have which you know this
was mentioned that someone looked at the site about drainage etc., we do have a test hole at
the 8.8 grade mark or 8.6 and where we're proposing the house is much higher based on the
survey and topo that we have. I just want to make that clear.The requirements for drainage is 2
feet above ground water and where the ground water hits same thing on our septic. So we are
meeting those requirements and that is also the reason that we're doing leeching galleys as a
proposed design so that we aren't close to groundwater. We do plan on fully draining the
runoff into dry wells as we're required to. The other thing I wanted to mention is, not having an
approval from the Zoning Board that we had on record but one of the things that we are too
close to Main Bayview and no other homes are that close I don't think that's correct. I actually
found a few properties that are about 20 feet from Main Bayview, one recently has been listed
on Zillow and they are right up to Main Bayview 5875 Main Bayview, 4235 Main Bayview are
approximately 20 feet from Main Bayview. So I don't think the ask these are the actual homes
not necessarily a parking structure that's open. So I don't believe the ask is egregious to Main
Bayview. Some of these older homes do sit pretty close to the road. I don't think that's
apparent when you drive down Main Bayview. So I just want to make sure that's on the record
that I don't think that I'm in agreement with that statement. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome. Alright I think probably the best thing to do is Anthony
you can submit whatever you wish and Gail do the same thing. We'll put it our file and based
upon all the comments and everything we've discussed I'm going to make a motion to adjourn
this hearing without a date. We'll come back when there are updated approvals from the
environmental boards and Anthony just keep us informed about how that unfolds and we will
put this back on for calendaring should you gain those approvals and we will see where we go
from there what changes have been made if any.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : One question, are you going to discuss with Trustees or am I going to be
asked to go to the Trustees Board before I come back? Are you guys going to make that a
request?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can ask them for comments on it but I think what we're asking
is that for you to go there and get this hearing scheduled.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can tell Liz Cantrell that and I will call Glen Goldsmith and Nick
Krupski the President and Vice President and just let them know that this is maybe the first
example since we met which was on Monday that we want to maybe do a reversal where they
go first. It's very clear when you look at a survey at site plans if there's really serious fragile
wetlands or setbacks from bluffs or other naturally regulated features. The Trustees really
should chime in first, make whatever changes they require then come to the ZBA. It's always
site specific so it's a little difficult you know to make a carte blanche determination and there
may I suppose in future be an occasion where it makes more sense for the ZBA to go forward
but if we continue to get a lot of these I'm going to start holding even more regular
interdepartmental meetings. I've been scheduling meetings with Trustees and with Planning
and with the Building Department when there is concurrent jurisdiction over an application just
simply to see procedurally what makes sense what all the all the issues might be. If need be
then ZBA and Trustees will have to meet more regularly on these and make some decisions
about moving forward.
BOARD SECRETARY : Leslie we also have a process in the office that we can send a memo to the
Trustees and a letter to Anthony that's something that we do.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'll talk to you about that after, just make a note I'll have a
look at it. Anything else from anybody? Nick did you want to comment?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it's something more general. I meant to share this earlier in the
previous application where the neighbor spoke about a sign not being properly noticed, this
property I didn't see a sign when I was there perhaps I missed it but I don't think there was a
sign and oddly maybe it was because of you know the storm Henri you know people were
preparing for or not signs were removed. I found several instances in this month's applications
where signs weren't there so I really just want to remind everyone and perhaps staff can
remind people that signs must be posted.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do think we did make a decision a couple of months back cause we
were finding not often but occasionally that that was the case that we were going to let the
office know if when we visited a site we didn't see anything then staff can remind them and try
to be polite and collaborative what we try to do always but it is a legal requirement and we can
postpone a hearing because the legal requirement was not met. If somebody is calendared and
they have not legally posted properly then this Board is well within its right to either change the
hearing date, adjourn it and not hear it until it's properly posted. I mean that is what the law
requires for good reason and let the neighbors know. Not everybody reads the Suffolk Times
Legal Notices.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : We do take photos when we post our signs. We have record of us putting
the sign up so we can provide that at any time.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But I think also maintaining it.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay unfortunately we're not driving by every day, we hope that it's
there but I mean we're around town so I'll put that on the agenda to take a look and make sure
it's still there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony I don't think it was specifically addressed to you.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No just from the last person that was saying that he didn't see a sign.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So anything else from anybody? Alright I'm going to make a motion
to adjourn the hearing without a date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Call the roll please Kim.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING # 7531—STEPHANIE A. KELLER REV.TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz maybe you should remind people on Zoom how they can
participate, it's been a little while.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we
ask you that you send us a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or click the raise
hand button and we will allow you to unmute and then you can let us know which application
you are here for. We are taking the Q&A's and try to do it before the hearing because once it's
closed I cannot answer.Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Stephanie A. Keller Rev. Trust #7531. This
is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May
18, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and
reconstruct a single family dwelling and to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at
1) single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35
feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 580 Old
Shipyard Lane in Cutchogue. The legal notice says Cutchogue that is an error it is in Southold. I
think Mike Kimack is the representative but I don't see him. Oh there he is.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant Ms. Keller who is present here today
at the meeting. Two variances, we are dealing with a rather small piece of property about 1,250
sq. ft. Existing dwelling to be rebuilt primarily in its existing foundation. The closest point of the
foundation about 36 feet away. We're removing the existing garage, porch and outdoor shower
if you can look at the plan by Mark Schwartz. By removing the addition off the garage we
remove one of the prior non-conforming aspects of it which we were within the side yard
setbacks that no longer becomes an issue. The existing porch in the front has a stoop on it
which is 33.1 feet from the front yard, we're proposing to expand it but not come any closer to
33.1 feet. The neighborhood comprises of very small lots and to give you for the cases that you
previously had decided for variances I can refer you to the cases that I put forth, I've given you
like five cases and probably the most relevant one the one next door which is number four
where you approved additions and alterations to a single family dwelling with a front yard
setback of 30 feet where the code requires 35. Basically they range anywhere from allowing 34
feet to a 20 foot setback primarily on the basis that this particular neighborhood is comprised
of rather small lots. The applicant basically is pretty much building within the same footprint
adding a little bit more. The existing footprint is 1,562 sq. ft. and the proposed footprint is a
little bit less 1,433 overall. One of the reasons was to try to preserve as much to have a
reasonable sized pool as possible. That is the second variance being requested which is we are
just slightly over the 20% by 20.85% and basically that pool is 450 sq. ft., 15 x 30 which is not at
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
all a (inaudible) at all. It's basically is something that the applicant would like to be able to put
in and (inaudible) design basically to preserve as much square footage of the pool as possible to
come as close to the 20% and unfortunately we came over. There is precedence in other cases
in the area primarily probably number seven is the one most relevant to it basically the closest
one to the property your file #3092 where the Board found the total lot coverage of 2,650 sq.
ft. of 23.1% (inaudible) the character of the neighborhood. The other two cases that I gave you,
one increased the lot coverage 28.66% the other increased the lot coverage at 23.6%. Based
upon the precedence this particular request a little bit under 1%, .85 in order to get at least a
minimally sized reasonable pool I don't think is unreasonable.
MEMBER DANTES : Those variances you cited were those for demolitions, new construction?
MIKE KIMACK : Well the demolition code has changed Eric basically, in essence if you're doing
more than fifty percent now they put the demolition. The house is staying primarily, we're
taking certain portions of if off remodeling the first floor, adding to the first floor and then
adding to the and expanding the second floor primarily. So if you're over the fifty percent
you're over the fifty percent primarily and the foundation basically stays intact as it is.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know I think the Building Department is now writing it up at
least Amanda does, instead of saying demo and construct new single family dwelling they're
saying demo and reconstruct the single family dwellings. Reconstruct basically tells us that
they're not demolishing the whole house, they're going to keep a substantial amount but
they're going to you know remove enough of it that it's considered over the fifty percent
threshold.
MIKE KIMACK : That's correct, that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Rob anything from you?
MEMBER LEHNERT : No my usual question when this stuff comes up, I mean why the 20.85 1
mean why can't we make that go away with you know proposed construction?
MIKE KIMACK : I knew that question was coming. It's like you're close to the line how come
you're going over it. The house basically is not an oversized house it's small (inaudible) taking
away and what we're adding to it and the overall permitted footprint is a little bit less basically
in order to preserve as much as possible and have at least a minimally sized pool. You got about
in order to do something Rob you'd have to do a 12 x 30 or 15 x 26 or 13 x 28 in order to get
that. A 15 x 30 pool is a reasonably sized pool it's not something that it's certainly not oversized
for the area. We thought about that, we recognized that this is a question that you were going
to raise, that's why the house was designed in order to maintain as much square footage for a
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
reasonably sized pool as possible. The footprint now is a little bit less than (inaudible) in order
to have 450 sq. ft. (inaudible).
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But Mike to Rob's point you're talking about the pool but what about
the screened in porch? You can just reduce the length of the porch a nominal amount and
you'd be at 20% or below.
MEMBER LEHNERT :There's a lot of different ways you can shave off a couple of square feet.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think I tend to agree with
MIKE KIMACK : I'm not authorized to make determination obviously.
STEPHANIE KELLER : Hi I'm Stephanie Keller the owner of the house and I think what we're
obviously trying to do with that screened in porch was a big basically a table (inaudible) right
now right? I have three kids, I have a lot of nice neighbors that come over even six people is
kind of tight it would be difficult.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Obviously we're talking about with one full percent it's only 112 sq.
ft. so we're talking about something in the eighty to ninety square feet. However you might find
it whether it comes out of the kitchen or the screened in porch etc. I do think there are options
to maintain I understand the front yard setback is kind of hard to alter because-the house exists
but from a square footage standpoint it seems you have options.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah there's an easy way to design around this.
MIKE KIMACK : Actually there isn't because you're they're asking for 10 x 10 (inaudible). This
isn't a large house 10 x 10 square feet would take a lot away from what the Ms. Keller would
like to be able to have a reasonably sized modest home and to accommodate her family. So it's
easy to say 10 x 10 but it's not easy to redesign and still have living habitable space that she
would like to have to be able to accommodate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I certainly think it's an advantage to have gotten rid of that side
yard non-conforming side yard. They're narrow lots, these lots are narrow they're not big
properties they're deep.
MIKE KIMACK : No and you have given relief in other (inaudible) even to a greater extent in the
percentage of relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you did submit all those priors anyway didn't you.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : I gave you copies of them, five for the front yard setback, three for the
coverage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. Is there anybody else in attendance in the meeting hall or on
Zoom who wants to address this application?
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question Leslie. When you're finished what's the square footage of
the living area in the house, first and second floor?
MIKE KIMACK : You're talking about first and second floor.
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah combined.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm looking for the proposed.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eric on the survey it shows the proposed footprint is 1,433.7 sq. ft.
not including the pool and the pool is an additional 450.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm looking at Mark's A-6 which is the first floor plan, I don't see where he has
an overall square footage. I can get that for you.
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah could you.
MIKE KIMACK : I can get you the square footage plan for the second floor which it looks to be
the same or pretty close. I'll get you the square footage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No nothing from me.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is the Board ready to close, close subject to receipt? I'm going to
make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of additional information. Is there a
second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
HEARING#7534— RONALD and MARY SANCHEZ
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Ronald and Mary
Sanchez #7534. Request for variances from Article III Section 15, Article III Section 122A, Article
XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's June 1, 2021 amended July 20, 2021 Notice of
Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct second floor additions to the
single family dwelling, additions to an existing accessory garage and installation of a hot tub at
1) single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50
feet, 2) not permitted alteration or enlargement of a non-conforming accessory garage
containing a conforming use resulting in increasing a new non-conformance or increasing the
degree of non-conformance, 3) accessory hot tub located in other than the code permitted rear
yard located at 515 South Oakwood Rd. in Laurel.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board it's Anthony Portillo. So a little bit of a mouthful
here. Can we start with the main residence and then I guess we're going to deal with the
accessory after that. So the main residence I want to also just mention, we requested this from
the Building Department but I just want to make sure that and Nancy Dwyer mentioned that it
wouldn't be an issue but to the corner of the building it's actually 16.9 that's on the main
structure and she wrote the setback to 17 foot 1. 1 think she used the wrong setback. There's
still obviously an existing non-compliance here.
MEMBER LEHNERT : You're not going outside of the existing envelope?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No we're not but I just didn't want to have to go back cause it wasn't
written properly so I just wanted to make that clear. So for the main structure exactly as
mentioned by Mr. Lehnert that we're not exceeding the existing footprint, we're strictly just
doing we're actually removing the existing second floor and proposing a new second floor. We
are doing a minor renovation on the first floor just to reorganize how you access the second
floor. So that's what we're doing for the main building and the reason for the variance is
because of the side yard setback. The portion of work that we're doing above the deck is not
that's inside of the setback requirements so that's not included in this but we are proposing a
roof cover above the existing deck.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me get this straight, it's not the 17.1 foot rear yard setback it's
the 16.9 side yard setback is that right or is it the rear yard setback of 16.9?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I think they made what we think is the side the rear yard.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's what I was going to say, it's pretty confusing what is a front,
side or rear. It's an unusual property.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The rear yard is that is the rear yard I apologize. So the rear yard on the
denial letter was 17.1 but it's 16.9 which we have this on our site plan. I just don't know why it
was written 17 foot 1 but again we aren't increasing the footprint and we're not adding to the
non-conformancy it's an existing non-conforming structure. The road goes down if you look
there to the west the road goes all the way down so that's the front yard that's South Oakwood
Rd. So that's the non-conforming side essentially. Like I said we're only doing a second floor
addition well I wouldn't say addition we're removing what's there we're putting back a
different second floor essentially. There is a home that's nearby on the water that's actually on
the inlet that was approved in 2018 by the Board for similar second floor addition onto actually
a one story home so there wasn't an existing second floor. That's ZBA #7189, 350 MacDonalds
Rd. so it's kind of the same scenario. That was their front yard because that was the side that
was facing the water and that's where the road came in that was a front yard relief this is a rear
yard relief.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay can we move on to the hot tub?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes we can. So we placed the hot tub there, you can see there's a walking
path from that little bump out that's existing that would eventually be the bedroom or would
be an access basically from there to the hot tub that's the idea. It's somewhat behind the
building but since this I guess is not the primary rear of the building line they're calling this the
side yard so the relief is to allow the hot tub at the side yard. It really was the best place cause
you have the deck there that's existing that goes down to the water and then on the other side
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
let's say the west side you really have like the deck and everything so that's where the view is,
the kitchen is over there. They want to be able to access the hot tub from the bedroom on the
first floor that's where it was proposed.
MEMBER LEHNERT : So this is a self-contained hot tub not a permanent?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know it's LWRP inconsistent cause it's awful close to the water.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's the top of bank there you know there's obviously a pretty high
elevation in that location.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. I mean what's the problem with just moving it closer to the
house and away from that top of bank.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : That's something I can discuss with my clients. I don't know if that's a
problem. The relief though was the side yard I don't know if
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's not a setback relief it's just a side yard.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know that but I'm still saying that I think the part of the
problem is the proximity of that kind of a feature to you know
ANTHONY PORTILLO : The property is fully bulkheaded just to be clear. I don't think there's any
like erosion being that close anything along those lines if that's the concern. I think that setback
is allowed based on the side yard for an accessory.
MEMBER DANTES : Does it meet the accessory the rear yard setback for an accessory structure?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : It's 10 and 10. So again the rear yard is the top of line at the top just not
to get confused that the rear yard isn't waterside the bayside.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie can we go back just for a moment to the actual house. I know
we're just now talking about the hot tub, I did my site inspection but for whatever reason I
don't remember this bump out on the north side of the house that's measuring it's the area
that I guess Liz is pointing the arrow at, 10 x 6.4. So if that exists on the house and it's sort of in
line with the hot tub isn't the setback the existing setback 10 feet not 16.9?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : To answer that question, we're not proposing any work to that bump
out.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I know but it's still the existing house so you'd be cited where you
pointed out that the Notice of Disapproval was erroneous it's not 17.1 it's 16.9 for the existing
house but technically it would be the existing bump out that doesn't show a distance.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : But because there's no work there it's an existing non-conforming. I think
because the work is happening at the 16.9 main structure that's why that's the relief. So no
work is happening to that existing bump out. That's just renaming what it is, we're not touching
that. That's one story it's staying that way.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay you want to go on to the garage?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure. So the garage again existing structure, existing height of the garage
is 19 feet from grade so it's existing non-compliant in height. The reason for the request on the
increase to 1 foot for the height is to get headroom up there. Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez do plan to
applying back to the Zoning Board for an approval for an accessory apartment but now we're
obviously trying to get the structure to where we need it so that we can apply for the accessory.
The rear yard and the side yard relief again the structure is not being moved, it's existing non-
compliant perimeter walls so that's that. In regards to requesting a larger dormers it's not a big
structure. We're trying to get the headroom up there and also keep the ridge down so we plan
just to get a little more dormer space so that we can make it an actual accessory apartment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there somebody in it now because it certainly looked like it when I
did an inspection.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : No we went there I mean it's kind of like they're using it it's sort of a
studio I guess but they're not there's no living in there. There's no running water or anything
like that. I can have Mr. and Mrs. Sanchez they're actually in Town Hall today they can speak to
that if you'd like.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay.
RON SANCHEZ : Hi this is Ron Sanchez. Nobody lives above the garage, my son who just
graduated in May we made a little desk and he's working from there for a couple of months
before he moves. Not living there he's working there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well I'm glad to hear that honesty but however I should just let
you know that that is not legal. An office in an accessory structure is not permitted by code. I
know it sounds crazy but that's the law. The law maybe needs to be re-visited but at the
moment that is not a permitted use. Those are the kind of things that the Board you know is
required to reveal at a public hearing because that's why we do site inspections. Why are you
F
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
applying why aren't you just waiting on the garage and applying for the accessory apartment? Is
your son going to be living in it what are you planning to do Mr. Sanchez?
RON SANCHEZ : Our long term plans is actually that I would work there as an office but I'm not
actually considering to make it a long term.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought that Anthony said that you were going to be applying for
an accessory apartment and that's why he wanted to create greater headroom.
RON SANCHEZ : Well we may, I certainly would like to have that option but the immediate plan
is that I would be able to work for (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I understand, that would require
MEMBER DANTES : What I would advise you is to consult Anthony, go over the permitted uses
and in town code and just look at that and figure out what you want to do based on that. You
guys have options and you guys have to figure out your long term plans.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So as I said maybe I'll reiterate this, I guess the word work probably
shouldn't be used. Mr. Sanchez basically is his occupation is day trading so I think what he
meant is that he might be utilizing it you know to have a computer there but the plan is to
make an accessory apartment. The plan is for one of his children to eventually be using it
whether it's year round or seasonal or part time whatever the case may be and that's the
reason for it. It isn't to become an office but I will speak to Mr. Sanchez on that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it would be much cleaner to try and in order to justify those
big dormers clearly creating habitable space, that's what all of those proposed design changes
are about its natural air and light. I would rather entertain that as a proposed accessory
apartment when they're ready to do that and come in with the plans and let the Building
Department confirm the livable floor area and submit the appropriate documentation and we
can go from there. I think this is kind of doing the renovations before you have an application in
as to why the renovations are justified.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : So just as a query, when you don't have an existing building the request
is to build the existing building then apply after the C.O. for the accessory apartment on an
accessory structure? So my thought was that that would be the same approach here if we're
having to do the construction first, get the C.O. then apply for the accessory apartment after
the C.O.?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You won't get a C.O. because you don't have a legal habitable space.
mean you will not be able to put in a full staircase. The better thing to do is to design the
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
accessory apartment, come in to the Zoning Board who has original jurisdiction over Special
Exception permits, apply for a Special Exception Permit for the apartment, document principal
residency and who is going to be using the apartment it either has to be a family member or it
would have to be they have to living there year round, someone on the affordable housing
registry and we will send it over to the Building Department who would then calculate whether
the proposed apartment is on one floor and whether the livable floor area is no less than 350
and no greater than 750. Then we can hear the application once assuming it gets approved you
then go in and get a building permit and you can have a legally habitable building.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Understood, Ms. Chairperson maybe I'm not let me just reiterate my
thought process in this cause I understand that process but if you don't have an existing
accessory building the way I read the code is you apply for that building, build the building not
showing the accessory apartment and then you receive a C.O. and then you can file for the
accessory apartment.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That is if you're building a new building but you're not. You have an
existing garage that you're going to renovate. You have an as built so you don't have to do that.
In this case no you come right to the ZBA and say I have an existing garage that I want to put an
apartment in.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Understood okay not a problem.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony I think one of the differences between what Leslie was
discussing and what you're asking about was the stairwell. If you're building a new accessory
structure you would have a pull down stair not an internal stairwell or an exterior stair.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Understood.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And again yours is interior.
ANTHONY PORTILLO : Okay not a problem I get it. So that's fine we can approach it that I'll do it
that way I apologize. I was figuring do the renovation on the building first, I might have looked
at it wrong.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay we're clear now though?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred percent I'll take care of that.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on Zoom or in the audience who wants to address the
application? Alright hearing no further questions or comments I'll make a motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Are we closing this with what we're looking at or are we closing it pending
new documents?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they're separate applications. He's going to have to apply
separately so what we'll have to do is really just consider the house setback and the hot tub.
We will not be considering the accessory apartment because that's not the application we have
before us. We'll just leave that alone for now, we'll just have to deny the renovations for the
moment or we can just simply indicate the applicant is withdrawing that portion of the variance
request in consideration of future action for an accessory apartment or something like that.
Just put that in additional information. Does that make sense Anthony?
ANTHONY PORTILLO : A hundred percent and thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't want to delay the house and the hot tub.
ANTHONY,PORTILLO : No one wants to delay the hot tub. We'll take care of the accessory.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah really. I make the motion to close the hearing reserve decision
to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob. Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
HEARING #7532— DAVID HAZARD
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Hazard #7532.
This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-14 and the Building Inspector's May
19, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and construct
a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard
setback of 75 feet located at 1465 Harbor Lane (adj. to East Creek/Eugene's Creek) in
Cutchogue.
MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack for the applicant.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is again to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling
with a rear yard setback of 40 foot 4 inches the code requiring 75 feet in an R-80 zone.
MIKE KIMACK : The Disapproval did say reconstruct I want to point that out to make sure that
we're on the same page. This is basically the existing house is going to stay in its basic location,
the additions are on the landward side where the water primary and then there is a second
floor being added to that. I will basically go back to the memo that was written by Mark Terry it
summarizes it in many respects that we're exempt from LWRP second story addition and that
the proposed structures are located landward of the existing structure not located (inaudible).
There was a prior covenants and restrictions and this proposed build (inaudible) which was set
by the Planning Board on this property when it was subdivided.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie can we just clarify what the proposed rear yard setback is? The
Notice of Disapproval indicated 40 feet 4 inches correct?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So on the survey though I only saw 43.9 so am I looking at the wrong
spot? I see what's highlighted, I see Kim highlighted this on the site plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very faint.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's tough to read.
MEMBER DANTES : I see what you're looking at Nick.
0
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : There's a on the survey is 43.9 I'm not quite sure where 40 came from.
MEMBER DANTES : 36.5 1 think that's from the wetlands.
MIKE KIMACK : That's from the wetlands to the deck and the 43.9 is to the building on the
closest corner.
MEMBER DANTES : What is it to the deck though?
MIKE KIMACK : 36.5
MEMBER DANTES :That's the deck to the wetlands it doesn't go to the property line.
MIKE KIMACK : To the property line I think (inaudible) the high water mark as it's laid out
basically.
MEMBER DANTES : The tie line, high water mark?
MIKE KIMACK : They do vary primarily year to year but this particular case this survey was done
by Nathan he identified it by metes and bounds and then he basically gave it distance from
there to the existing dwelling.
MEMBER DANTES : I think the answer to your questions Nick is they took the 36.5 and then
scaled out the difference between the edge of the wetlands and the high water mark and that's
where they go the number from.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then just that we're all on the same page, the visual that Kim or
Donna I don't know who's managing it I didn't watch what they're doing but they've got the
wrong spot highlighted. It should be the location furthest on the wood deck in the northern
corner like right where the cursor is right now.
MIKE KIMACK : Well we're not Nick we're not asking for a reconstruction of the wood deck,
we're asking for reconstruction for the house.
MEMBER DANTES :The wood deck is attached to the house therefore
MIKE KIMACK : But it's not going to change.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm telling you how they (inaudible) cause the wetlands
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we don't want to do is put the wrong number in the decision
and then wind up having a deminimus.
MIKE KIMACK : Good point.
4:1
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So let's decide on what the number is.
MIKE KIMACK : Is this one from column A and one from column B?
BOARD SECRETARY : Is it possible to get a clearer site plan on this?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's very hard to read this.
DAVID HAZARD : Hi David Hazard the owner of the property.
MEMBER DANTES : In all honesty sir, if you can give us a new survey, take out some of the
information and just put a mark from the edge of the property to the closest corner of the
house (inaudible) or both. We can use that to base our decision on that way there's no gray
areas.
MIKE KIMACK : I'll take a look at it. They want something a little cleaner a little bit more
descriptive to make sure that you've got it both from the property line to the house and the
property line to the deck.
MEMBER DANTES : You have a 43.9 number and a 36.5 number.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It would seem that 43.9 from the southern corner of the house at the
closest point does in fact go to the property line. It's the 36.5 that stops at the edge of the
wetlands.
MEMBER LEHNERT : This is just isn't shown clear.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah it's confusing.
MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) weird indentation from the 43.9 number with some steps on it I
don't understand why the steps bring the property line closer to the house.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's so small I can't even read it with a magnifying glass.
MEMBER LEHNERT : We need to get a clearer version of this.
MIKE KIMACK : Let me see if can come up a little bit let me see.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No whatever is shown on the screen it only makes it worse.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It only makes it blurring, it's not legible. Well I think what's most
important about this is an IA system going in?
DAVID HAZARD : An IA system is already installed.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there is an IA system in there, okay.
DAVID HAZARD : Yes already in there.
MIKE KIMACK : Alright we understand, we'll get you a revised copy showing the distance from
the deck to the property line.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and I do want to point out just to make sure that everybody is
fully aware that the second floor of the proposed garage is going to have to remain unfinished,
open rafters, open stud walls, unconditioned storage only. Otherwise the Building Department
will have you right back here.
MIKE KIMACK : You mean on the garage?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes that's been revised.
MEMBER PALAMENTO : Leslie to that point do we need the pull down stairs or stairs relocated
to the exterior?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you can't have a full set of stairs, they either have to be a pull
down or going to have to be on the exterior then you can have a full set. I mean twice a week
John Jarski is calling me up on something like this so I just want to make sure the property
owners are correctly informed so there's no issues down the road when they wind up getting
inspected.
MIKE KIMACK : Leslie as far as the garage is concerned, it wasn't written up as a violation it's
within the building envelope it's in the front yard and it doesn't exceed the overall size so it
really doesn't require a zoning variance as long as we're going to do something with the second
floor but we're not going to basically we're not here for a variance for the garage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I know that, I'm just simply saying it's on the plans and
MIKE KIMACK : I understand that and the plan has changed. We're not going to get into any
trouble but the new plan will be storage it'll have to conform to whatever is required by the
town relative to doing a garage and storage above.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm just letting you know in advance so you don't run into trouble
down the road. Anything else from the Board on this?
MIKE KIMACK : Any questions of me?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we should just close it subject to receipt of additional
information and you can get us you know a clearer survey.
MIKE KIMACK : Yes I understand what we need to get you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with the Board Members?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other thing I just wanted to ask, during my site inspection there
were two like 10 x 12 sheds kind of parked by a back hoe in the front yard but they're not
shown anywhere on the survey, where are the sheds proposed to be located?They're sort of by
your turn around area.
DAVID HAZARD : After the garage is completed then the sheds will no longer be needed they
will just be removed. They are yeah they're not on the survey they're 10 x 12 they're going to
be removed after the garage is built.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Shouldn't we have those shown on the survey if we're getting a new one?
MEMBER DANTES : Do they require building permits those sheds?
DAVID HAZARD : I'm sorry it's 100 feet in total each shed so 10 x 12 is not correct. That would
be 8 x 12 would be correct.
MEMBER LEHNERT : We should still get those documented on the survey.
MEMBER DANTES : It's going to take months before Nat can get out there.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : If they're going to be removed I actually have no problem with the
sheds just write that as part of the condition that the sheds be removed before a C.O. is issued.
DAVID HAZARD : That would be fine.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That makes more sense. Everybody is go backed up and it costs a lot
of money and it's just not necessary.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Question, Leslie you're proposing that we close the hearing subject to
an updated survey?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No a site plan.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a site plan.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMER PLANAMENTO : Oh sorry site plan, we have the survey.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not a survey it's a site plan. I want to get the correct
MEMBER LEHNERT : A site plan we can actually read.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everybody ready on this? I'm going to make a motion Mike you had
something to say?
MIKE KIMACK : No not at all we understand fully what you're looking for in terms of site plan
the one dimension and clean it all up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a more legible
site plan showing setbacks. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Call the roll please Kim.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT :Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. I guess if there's nothing else immediately on
the agenda we can just break for lunch and get back here at one o'clock. Motion to recess for
lunch is there a second?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob. In this case just raise your hands I want to see
everybody's hand up. Okay Pat, Eric, Nick, Rob and me all vote lunch time. Okay motion carries,
see you all back here at one or two minutes to one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to open reconvene.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor of reconvening raise your hand I'm not going it's not a
resolution. Okay the Board unanimously votes to reconvene the meeting.
HEARING# 7536—JANE T. KAMINSKI LIVING TRUST
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jane T. Kaminski Living
Trust #7536. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's May 18, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to
demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum
lot coverage of 20% located at 805 Bay Haven Lane in Southold. This is to demolish and
reconstruct the single family dwelling with a lot coverage of 25.6% where the maximum
permitted by code is 20%.
MIKE KIMACK : Good afternoon everyone. The applicants are present in the audience also. They
have been long time owner of this particular piece of property and they are looking forward to
be able to relocate and retire and utilize this property at this particular point of their lives. So in
essence it becomes something that you basically want to reconstruct to meet their specific
needs both in the habitable space and also which will probably be the center of conversation
the garage which is on that one side. Basically we are requesting a variance which is greater
than 20% and the primary probably the primary (inaudible) on that is creating by the garage
itself. Let's get right to it as to why the garage is designed for four cars and (inaudible) to be
able to do so repairs and like that. To that I'm going to ask Mr. Kaminski to come up and give
you the information as to why he requested the architect to design that garage to that size and
why we're asking for the variance.
JIM KAMINSKI : Hi Jim Kaminski as Mike had mentioned my wife and I plan to retire next year in
March and we had these plans to expand the house it's never been expanded in the past.
Currently we have two business cars as well as two daily commuting cars and we plan on
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
storing an electric vehicle in there as well so it's a total of four cars. We also have had some
issues with moisture in the house so there's storage space as well that's also included in that
garage. It's very, very damp down in the basement so that's been (inaudible) with mold issues
in the past things like this. So we need the extra space for storage there's really no physical
storage in the house the existing 1,550 sq. ft. existing footprint.
MIKE KIMACK : Thank you Jim. Essentially the garage and the necessity for the space both for
the cars and for the storage, it's really the background as to why we were requesting to exceed
the variance. I did give you in the application two other decisions that were made that's 5627
that you approved and it's strange 26.8% when measured from the lot size from the bulkhead
and then 7521 where you approved 22.2% in this case. We are asking for 25% and the reason is
simply because the house in not necessarily being added onto to a great extent but it's the
requirement for both the additional cars (inaudible) given the humidity and given the fact that
they have to basically be (inaudible) interior and also the extent of the storage cause I believe
the basement floods on occasion more than once and it has been a problem for storage that's
something that can be allocated to another aspect of the structures. Any questions of me?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's start with Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Lots of questions. I'll start with the obvious one because you brought
forward the need for storage and I told my fellow Board Members earlier my basement flooded
as a result of the rain last night so I'm sympathetic to storage needs and basements but you do
have an attic with it's a fully proposed you know storage area. So you know why can't you scale
the garage the footprint including that attic which provides plenty of storage back to make it
conform to the you know the limitations of 20%?
MIKE KIMACK : I'm looking at it, I'm not quite sure if the attic provides both the access and the
area you're talking about it. I'm not seeing the framing aspect of it Nick in terms of how it's
framed up. Essentially it's got some the proposed elevation on one back side.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So in other words you're proposing four garage bays with a workshop
where you can scale it back to make it conform you'd still have your stairwell. I mean I'm not
going to design the plans but I don't four car garage is not common to that neighborhood and
excessive lot coverage while you cited two different variance reliefs granted one was for a
swimming pool which is you know as we've all discussed in the past not as dimensional not as
great as the solid elevation of a large building and a garage like this.
MIKE KIMACK : We don't have basically when you're doing workshop or you're doing an area
for the cars you do have storage basically yes but you also have an area to do work on the cars
themselves within that garage area. I'm looking at the designed plans and I know that there's a
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
dormered second floor basically up there and that's going to existing first floor proposed
(inaudible) storage and it's all for the second floor is all storage attic.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Exactly and you'd still have a lot of storage if you made the property
conform.
JIM KAMINSKI : It's not (inaudible) condition to put any storage down in the basement. It hasn't
really been successful in the past Jane's parents tried it downstairs with a closet and it was
completely (inaudible) we had to rip it apart.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So again all I'm suggesting is from the standpoint of the expanded
garage it's excessive, it's not really character of the neighborhood. You could have a smaller
garage that would conform and still have all the storage space that you need and it's more of a
statement.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mike I want to ask you a question, did you receive a copy of the
letter
MIKE KIMACK : I did, I just got it today.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright because the adjacent neighbor has some significant
objections to this proposal and they have been outlined relative to the variance standards that
the Board is required to apply in making a determination and those factors are very clearly
articulated including case law so I wanted to give you an opportunity
MIKE KIMACK : I just got it today Leslie.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well you know what is involved here is (inaudible) the deck and
as a consequence you have a 47 foot long solid wall that's going to be very close to the property
and that's going to have an enormous impact to the neighbors. I do want to give you an
opportunity
MIKE KIMACK : From a visual impact point of view it was a little bit longer. We (inaudible) the
house would be 37 feet anyway, you're only looking at an extra 10 feet from what the house
(inaudible). None of the other variance the only variance basically not on the side yard it's
before you it's just the well in terms of what you're looking at the visual impact it wouldn't be
except for an extra 10 feet on the back added the house alone is 37 foot on the back. I took a
quick look at the attorney's letter basically and I saw him quoted the 47 feet as a visual
impediment to the neighbor's house.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's also going up in height for the storage. Also there's the issue in
the garage with a full stair, here we go again. I mean the Building Department will determine
that if it's got a full stair there it may be considered habitable.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's attached though.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It's attached it shouldn't make a difference.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will. However you're going to have to make sure that I still think
that because it's storage you're going to have to make sure that it's unconditioned and then it
is open stud and rafters.
MIKE KIMACK : That whole area basically it creates the storage that we do not have in the
basement because the basement is flooded so it's a recreation of the same space and at the
same time it gives my client the opportunity to have his four cars sheltered obviously two
vintage and two operational.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have had plenty of people before us that have had vintage
cars and usually they are either stored in an accessory structure or in some other place off
premises when there is a lot coverage issue. So I'm just saying that this is a very big ask.
MEMBER DANTES : I have a question for you Mike. Looking at drawing Sheet A-6 versus the
survey it looks like drawing sheet A-6 shows a porch on the rear that's 26 feet long, the survey
seems to describe that porch as 15 feet 7 inches long then you go to the three season room
they both say 20 feet so that looks like it's the same. Then you go towards the survey shows the
distance between the proposed deck porch on one sheet proposed deck on the other so and it
says 27 feet proposed deck to the edge of the house but the sheet A-6 also shows 27 feet so
(inaudible) maybe that 26 should really be 13.
MIKE KIMACK : I'm wondering I see the 13.7 on the front there I'm wondering if they put that in
as a representation as to what the distance is now and then you add the proposed to it. It may
be an error. I can see the 13.7 on the A-6 and then it stops at the they might have made a
demarcation probably with the three season room because it looks like the three season room
is shaded over at one time and they close it back in. That can be corrected. I can't give you a
definitive answer looking at it right now.
MEMBER DANTES : Right I know but you want to go back to your lot coverage calculation cause
I mean number here a number there it adds up.
MIKE KIMACK : We can take a look at the lot coverage calculation to see whether it's still
accurate. I appreciate that but primarily I guess it comes down to the fact that yes it is a four car
491
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
garage but if you look at it the area above for storage is really just recreating or relocating I
should say storage that cannot happen in the basement due to the area above the garage
simply because of the wetness characteristics of the basement. It's not an unusually large
storage area primarily in terms of being able to put stuff as opposed a normal basement would
be able to provide in terms of adequate storage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would you consider giving up the screened in room or the deck? I
mean if you have to have four cars which is awfully close to the neighbor who had taken the
time to have an attorney respond that's a massive structure on that end of the property, can
you reduce the sunroom or the porch to make it more conforming?
MIKE KIMACK : We can look at that as a consideration and yes Nick I think that would be
something that we can take back and speak with my clients and also with Mark to see if we can
perhaps reduce the 25%.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The other thing, in your application under question number three the
amount of relief requested is not substantial you talk about substantiality you suggested a 22%
variance my calculation as applied for it's actually 28%.
MIKE KIMACK : Well we're at 25% on that one which calculations are you looking at?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : On your application it's handwritten where we talk about
substantiality or Town Law III you say it's 22% my calculation is 28%. Either way it's substantial.
MIKE KIMACK : By the way its substantial. Well the things that I talk it's a little confusing when
you're writing because it always starts off by saying it's substantial but so you have to cross that
off and put something else in its place.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would just be very helpful that prior to a public hearing all of these
inconsistencies between surveys and applications and Notice of Disapproval were sorted out so
that we didn't have to catch things at a public hearing and make corrections. That's just
delaying the application.
MIKE KIMACK : Well in terms of requesting a redesign that's something that we would not have
expected to do (inaudible)
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No of course that's understood, I'm just talking about the point
about lot coverage as applied for you know what exactly are the dimensions those things really
need to be really carefully and clearly and consistently you know determined prior to a hearing
so that we move through it more swiftly and carefully we don't want to miss anything. It delays
things when there is inconsistencies.
Septen5ber 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : I can give you correction on that if you look at the next page Nick on applicant's
project description you will see that on B or just above that on 4 in the calculations I have 25.6.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well it's 25.6%that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're not talking about that, we're talking about the degree of
substantiality, in one place you say 22%variance relief and it's actually 28%variance relief.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and our calculations are mirrored by the neighbor's attorney also. So
I believe it's 28%.
MIKE KIMACK : I'll take a look at that, I ran the calculation and came up with 22% and I call it
substantial and you're saying it's 28% 1 said 22% I'll take a look at it.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Either way Mike it's a big ask.
MIKE KIMACK : Either way Robert it's substantial I'm not arguing that point it's a question of
whether it's one or the other. I'll take a look at it and run it again.
MEMBER DANTES : The other question I have, on the lot coverage calculations it says existing
house (inaudible) shaded blue area but then the shaded blue area goes into what's (inaudible)
and the proposed garage so make sure they didn't double count that.
MIKE KIMACK : It's a possibility Eric. In essence basically I'm not quite I mean when the
architect put it together I just utilize the numbers off of the sheet.
MEMBER DANTES : It says the existing house is 9.9 if you take that section that blue shaded
section out where they did the 9.9 or leave it in there and then add the new on top. I can't
answer I mean can't answer looking at the drawings.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just is there anybody in the attendees Liz for this? I'm
just wondering if anybody is here for this.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Someone by Matthew has a hand up. Should I move them in?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If they want to address this application.
BOARD SECRETARY : Leslie we also have someone here in the audience who would like to
speak.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Matthew would you unmute. Are you here for this application?
MATTHEW CARR : Yes I am I own a property on Bay Haven Lane.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What would you like to say?
MATTHEW CARR : I would like to echo your concerns and the concerns of Mr. Planamento and
I'd like to say that the zoning regulations of 20% lot coverage are very reasonable and should be
upheld for this and all future applications. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome and thank you for your testimony. Who wants
to speak in the audience?
JOAN MCGIVEN : Joan McGiven from Twomey, Latham. I appreciate that you read our letter. I
represent Clair Brown who lives next door to the applicant for thirty five years. I don't want to
repeat the letter but I do want to emphasize the decks, the size, the height and the
substantiality of the proximity. In any other jurisdiction the height alone would create a
pyram,id problem, it's 23.5 feet which is 10 feet from the property line so it does seem that
there were other ways they could have laid this house out including putting the storage over
the central part of the house. Right now it's going to take up a third of her view and they've
offered no litigation I went through the six factors I won't repeat those but I do want to
emphasize that the two cases that the applicant presented. One Board Member already
pointed out in the pool installation it was only 11.1% variance as opposed to the 28% sought
here and they've also as the Board Member pointed out was non-dimensional in a sense it only
involved the pool and a condition that this Board laid down that evergreen vegetation be put in
to screen the rear yard which was a condition that was written into the Certificate of
Occupancy. The second case they relied on also only involved 11.155 variance not the 28% here
and it involved a proposed covered porch which again is not a solid structure and the Board
made as a condition that any future use setback or other feature of the subject property would
be prohibited. I also pointed out in the letter that under the new sanitary system guidelines
possibly the applicant needs to consider putting in a new IAOWTS system because what they're
proposing involves major construction if not new construction. They intermittently describe it
as demolishing a single family home and adding additions so we weren't quite clear. Finally they
offered no mitigation to (inaudible). If you have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't at the moment. I think your letter was very thorough and you
know I think the thing to do is perhaps to let since Mike just got it and we've been raising a
series of issues here perhaps the prudent thing to do is adjourn this to the Special Meeting to
give Mike a chance to talk to his client and see what they can come up with and to also have
him have a chance to read your letter from Twomey Latham and reply if he wishes to do so. I
don't know how the rest of the Board feels. I may be the only one that wants to otherwise you
know we'll just have to close it unless there's somebody else in the audience who wants to
address it. Board Members what do you think?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no problem with closing it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick how about you?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO Closing it, I think we've heard all the information this is their
application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so what about Pat, Eric you want to close it or you want to
adjourn it?
MEMBER DANTES : If I were them I would check their numbers. I'm just going off of the survey
now.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : I agree with Eric, I think he made some good points with regard to the
adjourn it to get the proper numbers.
MIKE KIMACK : Look I'd ask for an adjournment but only because you want us to take a look at
the (inaudible) to see if we could cut it back but we're not going to be able to do that in two
weeks. We may have to we may consider amending it and sending in a new set of drawings. I
can take a look at it. I mean if you close it then you're going to be deciding it on what you got in
front of you as opposed to what you get after.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Honestly Mike if you're suggesting the adjournment and you're going
to review the design whether the calculations are right or wrong you might just review the
design and perhaps discover that you don't even need a variance and you can still have your
garage, it's a personal choice.
MIKE KIMACK : Possibly. I would request an adjournment and two quick comments. As far as
the IA system there's no additional bedrooms we're not increasing bedrooms so it's not a
Health Department consideration. As far as the height of the building is concerned 23 feet
something like that we (inaudible). It's not something that is before you in terms of (inaudible).
I would request an adjournment in order to take a look at the plans and see if we can make
recalculations and perhaps Nick may be right hopefully that would be great and then come back
to you with a revised set of plans at the next meeting.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unfortunately the big problem with that and I did suggest it is that
we are so booked we're actually calendaring applications to January, January because we
cannot hear more than twelve to fourteen that's a cruel amount of information to take in in
one sitting. That's about seven hours' worth usually and so we can't
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MIKE KIMACK : If we leave it as it is and wait for the Special Meeting and we get a denial on it
because that's the only thing you can do perhaps that's the worst case scenario but we get a
denial then I have to do a whole new application anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't mind adjourning it to the Special Meeting that doesn't give
you a lot of time that's all I'm trying to say but we can make a decision at the Special Meeting
based on what we've got as to what to do next.
MIKE KIMACK : If you can adjourn it to the Special Meeting we'll give it a shot, we'll do the best
we can.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Then we'll see what we get and we can either close it or we can
adjourn it again or we can just you know I mean that would be about it.
MIKE KIMACK : Okay fair enough.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that alright with the majority of the Board, just give him two
weeks?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes see what they come up with.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : All I would add is really look at the community character the scale of
other houses. A four car garage is not common and if you really want it maybe reconsider other
amenities.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we've given them some guidance.
BOARD SECRETARY : I think Ms. McGiven would like to speak again.
MIKE KIMACK : We have enough to work with, thank you very much.
JOAN MCGIVEN : I just wanted to point out the new Suffolk County Health Department
guidelines amendment article six (inaudible) is necessarily tied to bedrooms it's tied to major or
new construction. Thank you.
MIKE KIMACK : Leslie can I make a brief comment on that?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can.
MIKE KIMACK : If you have a vacant lot under Health Department regulations as of July 1s1 yes
you need to do an IA system. If you have an existing home and you're not adding bedrooms
then you can continue with what you have. In this particular case we're not adding additional
bedrooms. Health Department we would not be submitting (inaudible) required to submit a
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
permit application to Health Department because we're not adding to what's already there. For
your information if you had an existing structure and you wanted to add an addition let's say
you have three bedrooms and you wanted to add (inaudible) that addition alone would trigger
an IA system. If you added to the two bedrooms within the perimeter of the existing house
then you can stick with the standard system. That's the way it was told to me by Health
Department.
MEMBER DANTES : Once you add a bedroom regardless of whether it's in the house or not the
house they're going to (inaudible).
MIKE KIMACK : Up to five you can go up to five on a standard, if you go over five then it's a
different that's what I got but anyway we're not adding bedrooms, we don't have a
requirement to submit to Health Department.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the
Special Meeting on September 16th. Is there a second?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Call the roll please Kim.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING #7533—ALAN S. BRAVERMAN
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Alan S. Braverman
#7533. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's May 6, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct
additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code
required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code required
minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 2700 Vanston Rd. in Cutchogue. Hi Frank.
FRANK UELLENDAHL : Good to see all of you. So I actually was here in 2004 asking for a two
story addition to the dwelling and one story extension of the garage but the owner decided not
to go ahead with this so now (inaudible) later we have a new concept. We are actually
connecting the garage to the dwelling. The dwelling is relatively small it's only 1,500 sq. ft. and
they need a little bit more space to include a home office. Mr. Braverman is a CPA and he's
basically working from his home the entire year. Also the vestibule connecting offers an
appropriate new entrance to the home. So by attaching the garage to the dwelling the garage is
not an accessory structure anymore and as you can see on the site plan two small corners
actually encroach onto the front yard and onto the side yard and that's the reason why I'm here
today. Any questions?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a challenging property, I mean we've all as you know been out
there it's kind of a triangular lot that is on a curve so it's not even quite a corner. It's just
surrounded by road and one side yard. Donna would you put that back up again for a minute.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I mean this application is more technical than anything else.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think so. So the 32 foot is there
MEMBER LEHNERT : And the 5 % is there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and the 5 % is there. The one thing that is something that we should
talk about which I don't think is going to be a problem is the possibility of just because you're so
close to that property line just putting in a row of evergreens or something like that to just
soften that garage part from the side yard somewhere along the side property line.
FRANK UELLENDAHL : That's fine, I think Mr. Braverman has that in mind anyway cause he also
likes to have a little bit more privacy anyway.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I don't have any other questions, how about you Nick anything
from you?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the only thing that I noticed that I think and it has nothing to do
with the application but it appears that there is deer fence and in the packet I didn't see a C.O.
for the deer fence. So Frank maybe just suggest that they apply for it and get that.
FRANK UELLENDAHL : Nick are you talking about the pool fence?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No there was a pool fence and then attached to it was a deer fence.
FRANK UELLENDAHL : Okay I can look into this.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay any questions Eric?
MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone on Zoom or in the audience who wants to address
the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I make a motion to close the
hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTS : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Call the roll please Kim.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
HEARING#75355E—ARTHUR J. CONNOLLY and LORRAINE ACARELLI CONNOLLY
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Arthur J. Connolly and
Lorraine Acarelli Connolly #7535SE . Applicants request 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 accessory structure at 3505 Wickham Ave. (adj.
to Long Creek) in Mattituck. I see they're here, welcome. This accessory structure is about fifty
years old is that right?
MR. CONNOLLY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all the documentation you provided indicating you are full
time residents and this is going to be I don't know whose mother it is but somebody's mother
one of your mothers is the person who is occupying this as built apartment?
MRS. CONNOLLY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So Mr. Connolly it looks as though you did these plans yourself,
you're a P.E?
MR. CONNOLLY : Yes ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I have a comment from the Chief Building Inspector regarding
the accessory apartment floor plan. He says here the total square footage without the outside
storage is 503 on the single floor, 81 square feet of area is outside storage and that looks to be
miscalculated and he also wants to know where the stairs lead if there's living space above. So
why don't you address that last one first.
MRS. CONNOLLY : No there's no living space above.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What exactly is upstairs on that sort of mezzanine area?
MR. CONNOLLY : Storage area.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is it sheet rocked, finished, conditioned, what?
MRS. CONNOLLY : It's not conditioned, it's sheet rocked it's only (inaudible) so it's only about
comes up like that. You can't stand in it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We need I guess we have 9 foot 5 and width on that outside storage
and we don't have a dimension of the depth of it. Is that accessible from the outside?
MRS. CONNOLLY : The outside only.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : attached type shed. Well if it's only accessible from the outside it
doesn't contribute to the livable floor area. So it would look like the because in other words we
have to have and we didn't have it till just recently we have to have a confirmation from the
Building Department confirming that it is a conforming livable floor area per code and it looks
as though that that is the case. We don't have the usual form. Kim did we get that form or just
this email?
BOARD SECRETARY : Email.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know if he plans to submit the form?
BOARD SECRETARY : We did issue him the form but we did not get it back from him.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think he was probably waiting to see whether or not there was any
kind of habitable space on the second floor. That's probably why he didn't confirm it.
MR. CONNOLLY : Two of the Members that had come out to visit they looked up and said oh
yeah storage up there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I remember I went out and I didn't go up there I just you know
just looked around at the ground level.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Leslie I was there and there's like a curtain pulled across there hiding
storage.
MEMBER LEHNERT : I saw storage.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would add that and I didn't climb the stairs but the roof pitch is so
low at the start of that storage area and I don't want to say the area is the size of a twin
mattress but I don't think you can really do very much there. It's clearly being used as storage.
9
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to accept this calculation of 503 sq. ft. on the single
floor, does that make sense? 27.1 x 19.7 less the 81 sq. ft. of whatever that outside stuff is. It's
going to be conforming. You can go up to 750 sq. ft. so either way it's conforming. Any other
questions, Pat do you have any questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything else from you?
MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Nothing.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone on Zoom or in the audience who wants to address
the application?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have no one.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No one there. Alright then, 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 : Call the roll please Kim.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
0
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
HEARING#7538—TRACEY JOSEPH
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Tracey Joseph #7538.
This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's
May 4, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions
and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted
maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1330 Sigsbee Rd. in Mattituck. Is there someone here
for this application?
TRACEY JOSEPH : I am, I'm representing myself Tracey Joseph.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. So let's see you're proposing a front porch
addition?
TRACEY JOSEPH : No it's the back porch and it's really not an addition. The back porch is
deteriorating so I was asking to redo it and extend it by a couple of feet and then I wanted to
enclose it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right you want to make a seasonal room is that'right?
TRACEY JOSEPH : Yes just screened not windows.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The existing lot coverage is 26.79% and you're proposing about a
TRACEY JOSEPH : It's 26.79 and I'm going to 27.64
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you submit #6935 McGrath 2016 ZBA granting 27.3% lot
coverage?
TRACEY JOSEPH : No I bought the house in 2017 so everything prior I never had to do a
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright so that was what the that's interesting
MEMBER DANTES : Wait was McGrath the same house?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it's the same house.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
TRACEY JOSEPH : Yes the same house I bought it from them.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's the same house but what's interesting the lot coverage was
granted at 27.3 but the existing is 26.79. So if that variance runs with the land because it
certainly did back then well wait a minute 2016 1 don't know was it still running with the land?
MEMBER DANTES :They probably changed something that's my guess.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it must have. Alright well this is pretty straightforward it's just
a tiny little bit over what the 2016 approved. So this is unheated seasonal use only right?
TRACEY JOSEPH :,Correct.
MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just would like to make one comment that typically if and when
excessive lot coverage like this is granted for a porch we normally don't allow a roof over it or
to be enclosed. So it's a bit of a big ask. There is the prior history of the McGrath decision so I
don't quite know how to address it but that was really for the front porch which is quite large.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's not going to be it's in the rear yard, there's no impact
on anybody, it's screened back there, you can't see it. I always look at things that are seasonal
with screens and sometimes the screens are even removed in the winter you know just the
frame is left.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but it's not going to be glassed in or any type of Eisen glass?
TRACEY JOSEPH : No glass.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No conditioning whatsoever, no plastic etc.
MEMBER LEHNERT : We can condition any approval if we do grant it to just make a screened
porch.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah exactly.
TRACEY JOSEPH : That's all I can afford so that's all it is.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER DANTES : In this neighborhood when we look around there'll be other houses with
this kind of lot coverage I think.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Oh absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Definitely, I mean there's almost nothing on Sigsbee Rd. that doesn't
have some sort of non-conformity and plenty of them are lot coverage cause they're small lots.
I have no further questions, is there anybody on Zoom or in the audience? Hearing no further
questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a
later date. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
HEARING# 7546SE—STRONG'S MARINE, INC.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Strong's Marine, Inc.
#7546SE. Applicant requests a Special Exception to maintain a business use pursuant to Article
XI Section 280-48B(12) consisting of the display, storage, sale and service of boats with
accessory repair facilities located at 9605 Main Rd. in Mattituck. Who is representing that
application?
CHARLES CUDDY : Good afternoon, Charles Cuddy 445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead, New York for the
applicant. This is a little bit unusual in that you had previously given to the present owner a
Special Exception and we're exactly asking for now to continue. I had made the application in
the name of Strong's Marine but since that time they have changed and made a new LLC so
they can purchase this from Michael Hughes who is known as Captain Red. I have with me
today Jeffery Strong and Brian Strong who are the principles of this company which is now
known as Strong's 9605 Main Rd. LLC. You may have on Zoom and I'm not sure if they're here
but Mr. Lark who is the attorney for Mr. Hughes and Mr. Hughes. What we're trying to do is to
abide by your decision which was made on April 21, 2017 which allowed a special exception to
Mr. Hughes and to permit him to sell, store to repair boats at this site on the Main Rd. in
Mattituck. Approximately two acres in size, it's a split zone as you know which incorporates
both general business B and residence. In your variance it allowed Mr. Hughes to use the rear
portion for the storage and parking and we're also asking that to be continued. We believe that
we meet all the requirements of the special exception which is set forth in the code and all the
general conditions. We're simply asking that the Board approve the same use that is presently
there. I have prepared several items that are put in the record. I can't send it through the ether
unfortunately. I will offer it up to the Members that are here and what I have is your decision of
April 4, 2017, 1 have a copy of the survey, I have a copy also of the C.O. that was issued to Mr.
Hughes for the building that's now there and just a picture to show you that the fence which
became an issue has been erected completely throughout the site. I'd just like to hand that up
and make it part of the record. As you may know the Strongs family operates several marinas
where they do exactly the same type of thing that is proposed here, the sale, the storage, the
repair they do that and have done it for more than forty years. So they're the (inaudible) to
take over this particular site. Again I ask that you incorporate the prior hearing and decision
from Michael Hughes as Captain Red cause that's what we're doing we're essentially mirroring
the information that he gave you so that he could have a Special Exception and go ahead to do
the very things that he's doing right now and has been doing for the past several years. I'm here
and the Strongs are here and we can answer any questions that you have.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have a quick question, are there any proposed additional
construction projects on this site and are being anticipated?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MR. CUDDY : No.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN We all did re-inspect the property and we certainly see that the
issues of non-compliance with conditions imposed have been remedied now. The fence is in
place, there's no boats on the residential property adjacent and so on and so forth so I think
this mostly just a transfer of ownership with the same use.
MR. CUDDY : That's exactly what we're doing. There is one critical point for us. This is the time
of year that there is a transfer boat wise, boats are taken out and so we were hoping that this
Board could give us a decision so that we can go ahead, we have a contract of sale where the
closing is imminent. So we're hoping that the Board could looking at the site knowing the
people who are involved are people certainly (inaudible) as you want them to that you can then
approve this application.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is the contract of sale between who and who?
MR. CUDDY : Contract of sale between Captain Red's Marine Inc. and Strong's 9605 Main Rd.
LLC. for this site.
MEMBER DANTES : Basically what you're saying is a lot of people are starting to take their boats
out of the water and if you don't do the closing your clients are losing money?
MR. CUDDY : Yes that's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I presume then the contract of sale is subject to the receipt of the
Special Exception Permit?
MR. CUDDY : Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's most unusual to do this. There is one time I recall that I did
do this with the Board many, many years ago when we basically polled the Board for a vote
without having a written draft in our possession. The draft is going to be very straightforward
because it is essentially we already know that it meets all the standards of the Special Exception
Permit so it's just a matter of getting that piece of paper in hand and voting formally. We don't
even have to vote, if we vote today I will just ensure that all of the paperwork is accurate and
go ahead and sign it. We can do a voice vote under the circumstances if the Board is agreeable
to doing that. What do you think?
MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no problem.
MEMBER DANTES : I'm fine with it Leslie.
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Let's do it.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright cause this is quite unusual, it's really a change in ownership
and I'm glad to see all of the issues that were on the property have been taken care of. Just out
of curiosity, do you need anything from the Planning Board? It looks like he is in compliance
with the Planning Board.
MR. CUDDY : Yes he is completely compliant and I've been told that and they had a resolution.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought so too. I mean it certainly looked like it.
MEMBER DANTES : Can I ask you a question Leslie? The three residential houses are they part
of the sale of the business that were originally used for boat storage.
MR. CUDDY : Separate contracts for those.
MEMBER DANTES : It's not part of the business then.
MR. CUDDY : It's not part of it.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody on Zoom or in the audience who wants to address
the application? Well I think we're ready to actually do a voice vote on the proposed approval
of the Special Exception Permit application. This is now I just want to have it correctly in the
transcript, the proper name is Strong's 9605 LLC?
MR. CUDDY : Main Rd. LLC 9605 Main Rd. LLC
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie sorry quick question, it sounds like you're offering a vote but
we have to close it first don't we? So we have to vote on the closing and then a vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we can do it that way. This is not strictly the standard
procedure in any case so let's do it that way it's probably a good point. So I'm going to make a
motion to close the hearing followed by a vote. Is there a second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries. I'm now going to propose a resolution to
approve the Special Exception Permit application of Strong's 9605 Main Rd. LLC, is there a
second?
MEMBER DANTES : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. I'm sure I'll have a draft very, very
shortly which I will then review and sign and we'll make sure you get a copy of it. Do you need
to have that in hand for the closing or not?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MR. CUDDY : I would like to but I'm satisfied with what you just did and I thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As long as you and your clients are happy with that. I'll get it done
swiftly in any case.
HEARING#7539— DEBORAH COLITTI
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Deborah Colitti #7539.
This is a request for variances from Section 280-121A and the Building Inspector's June 24, 2021
Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize "as built" alterations to
three (3) existing accessory seasonal cottage, converted to year round use at 1) "as built"
alteration of non-conforming use of buildings is not a permitted use located at 720 Second St.
in New Suffolk. Who is here to represent that application?
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Hello. Hi I'm Terrence Connelly from Permit Man on behalf of Deborah
Collitti, 720 Second St. New Suffolk, NY.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So essentially what the proposal is to convert these three accessory
seasonal cottages to year round use by adding heat and air conditioning so that they may be
occupied year round.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Yes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : These cottages are grandfathered in in terms of permitted use. So
to do that I must tell you that in order to convert these to year round you would then by adding
HVAC some sort of split zone or whatever. The bottom line is you would then be proposing
four dwellings on this small lot. The code only permits one principal dwelling. These are
accessory cottages to a principal use. And by adding that heat and making them habitable year
round with air conditioning they're now turning into four dwellings, and the whole septic
system is in a totally different situation. Can you say something about that?
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Yes, so Mrs. Colitti purchased this property and thinking that she can get
the seasonal rentals with not much of an issue being that's the way the property been used for
the last 20 years. What she encountered was that early on in the season and later in the
seasonal rental is that the heat pump for the AC would be beneficial for people to be more
comfortable. He is not she would not be opposed to being granted an approval on this
application with restrictions that she would allowed to have this heat pump but wouldn't be
able to rent past a certain time. But basically this all transpired when she bought the property
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
she changed windows she replaced windows never thinking that that required a permit
because as you know without it being a non-conforming lot she wouldn't need a permit if she
didn't make the windows bigger than what they were and they AC units were already in place
so she did not realize that changing out an AC unit would require her to get a permit as well. So
when she went to the town and she applied for the rental permit the inspector came out and
notice that she had these AC units which were originally there and she changed her windows
they she needed to apply for permit then said it was a non-conforming lot she would .approach
the (inaudible) then which turned into an area variance saying she has AC now it's no longer a
seasonal rental that would be have to be a year round rental. But when she purchased the
property the AC units were there and unbeknownst to her she didn't realize they were not
legal.
ERIC DANTES :That's a Frigidaire window unit that's what they want her to get a permit for?
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Yeah so they're not window units because they're in the wall, they're
claiming that they're not window units they're actually fixed into the wall they're not mini
splits, it's not a central air system, these are regular units but she said I'm being forced to go
here and I gotta spend all this money I would really like to have the heat pumps but on here so
that way I can make people more comfortable in the later months. We would not be opposed
to the restrictions that of any grant from this board at all. It certainly doesn't hurt the character
of the neighborhood these cottages have been there for over 20 years it's on the corner of 2nd
street and main street as you guys know it's a beautiful little spot and it's a great little place for
people to come visit or get a weekend or up islanders or city people to come and get to
experience such a nice little area there and bring business to the local shops so there has never
been anything that's been complained about and even just my conversations with people over
there when we were there taking our pictures and doing whatever they were very happy to
know that it would be possible that there would be even longer renters for later in the months.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric you have any questions?
ERIC DANTES : Yeah is there a Pre-CO in here I'm looking through my packet and I can't seem to
find it.
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO : There is a Pre-CO.
ROBERT LEHNERT : Yeah here it is. In '99 one family dwelling with three accessory seasonal
cottages and storage shed.
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO : And there is a detail sheet that's missing. It says please see attached
inspection report.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ERIC DANTES : We need a copy of that.
NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO : The other thing Eric I would add in the packet the applicant
submitted variance relief for the site application 2345 in 1977 where condition actually
discusses that the seasonal cottages cannot be enlarged for the purpose of winterization. So it
seems they're meant to be seasonal and unconditioned.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : There is no application or nor any desire to enlarge the cottages just for
the board's on personal affirmation. And I understand back then that was agreed upon but as
you know times change and things become much more expensive and there's new owners.
Mrs. Colitti kind of got thrusted into this not approaching the board to ask for anything more
than what was already granted but because she just changes windows in her own property and
the AC she got thrusted into this so she said listen I would really love to have a later rental that
would be great. And I explained to her that the board might not look favorable upon that I
know this board is very protective of surroundings of its area and certainly I commend that. But
she said she had send this money and go through this process that she would love to have any
kind of granted approval for a longer rental and she would be open to any kind of restrictions
this Board felt would be appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat questions?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Same thing not at this time.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I just wanted to ask one other question, with the heat pump
and any other improvements does the structure then I mean to be we talked about it or you
brought up septic what happens to the minimum square footage requirements? Like an
accessory can only be so many square feet but at some point it becomes a house if these are
conditioned are these houses? What are they?
TERRENCE CONNELLY : No this would still be a cottage at least that's my opinion. I had
approvals up island not in Southold for similar properties and they didn't become dwellings
they just became year round rentals like accessory rental. Granted there wasn't three of them
in one shot it was two but on a piece of property in Oyster Bay that was only about a year ago
that got approved.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many square feet are these cottages?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
TERRENCE CONNELLY : The cottages are roughly 24 x 29, 20 x 28 and 12 x 25. So you figure
they're under 600 sq. ft. they're under 500 sq. ft.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie the application illustrates that cottage one is 593 sq. ft.,
cottage two is 574 and then cottage three is smaller it's two and change.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Yeah that's the 12 x 20
MEMBER DANTES : This really isn't an area variance application it's more a determination
whether or not having a legal HVAC system changes the use or not.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Yeah which surprised me because having you know the AC I was
surprised because she wasn't proposing heat. All she did was exchange the original AC units
that were there and changed windows that were there and they said well no you have AC now
you need a year round rental which made no sense to me cause it didn't have heat. Then she
said that's great cause I would love to have heat in there to make the people more comfortable
inside the early months and the later months of the seasonal rental but if I gotta go for a year
round rental that would be wonderful causes then I could rent them a little bit later cause she
has a lot of requests for that. That's a beautiful little spot you can see the water from pretty
much each cottage.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can certainly see where air conditioning whether it's in a wall
or whether it's in a window is an appropriate kind of amenity human comfort wise to any sort
of seasonal cottage. Once you start adding in heat you definitely going into another dimension
entirely and everybody kind of knows that. So I think we just have to because actually in a sense
it's a Use variance, it's really not an area variance. We're not looking at lot coverage, we're not
looking at setbacks, we're not really looking at dimensional things. It's either a Use variance or a
Code Interpretation.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you Ms. Weisman, this was a
conversation that went back and forth with my office, we were all unclear land or use so
believe my office manager went back a couple of times and I think spoke to someone who was
also speaking with you guys to find out exactly how we should file this cause it was a little
confusing. It was nothing you know crystal clear. I was confused originally and said how can AC
you know create a take them away from a seasonal rental? It didn't make sense to me but a lot
of things don't make sense sometimes.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's complicated because it falls between the cracks more or
less really and I believe that was probably some advice that came out of our Town Attorney's
Office as to what to apply for. If you were applying area variance standards and then you said
okay you now have four habitable year round structures you're going to need X amount of lot
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
area for each one of those structures. That's never going to be able to be realized, it's a small
lot you know so where do you go? If you apply Use variance standards you'd never qualify for
meeting those standards either because it's a residential use in a residential zone so it really is a
hybrid of some sort. We're just going to have to grapple with how to handle it.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Well that's why we have these Boards for situations like this so you guys
can figure it out and make appropriate exceptions and the denials that are also appropriate.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody in the audience here that wants to address the
application? Anyone on Zoom?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don't have anyone.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything anyone wants to add?
MEMBER DANTES : I would just like to get that (inaudible) from the Building Department where
it's referencing the Pre CO to see what's there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well we can get Kim, Kim just make
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I think we know that they're seasonal cottages. I mean I'd like to
see that too but you know they're clearly seasonal.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the Pre CO is very clear but if there's a page missing we want to
know what it says fine.
MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I want to see what's there.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we just scan the Building Department records and see if they
can come up with it. Sometimes they lose stuff it may not be available.
BOARD SECRETARY : It should be in the Laserfiche file and I can just get that and send it to you.
MEMBER DANTES : Perfect.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : See if you can find it Kim and if you do send and you might as well
send it to Mr. Connelly also. Anything else from the Board?
MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any further questions.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Can I just say one last thing? I apologize, I would just like to say that Mr.
Colliti and I think I've said it before she would love to have the year round rental. So if any way
that that was possible with heat pump you know she would love to do that. It would not be for
anything long term, she wouldn't be looking to rent these to turn these into residences and she
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
would be open to any kind of restriction on that I know Southold just adopted a new mandate I
think it's no more than fourteen days on those
MEMBER LEHNERT : No less than fourteen days.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Oh no less than fourteen days oh okay.
MEMBER DANTES : I don't know does she count as part of that? It's a pre-existing use I don't
know how that works.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : It's not an Air B&B.
MEMBER LEHNERT : It doesn't matter it's any rental, it doesn't matter what the use is, it
doesn't matter what the C.O. says.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Oh really. But so again any restriction that you would put on it that
would grant her further you know use of the cottages would be greatly appreciated and it
would come at no resistance to us for anything that you imposed on it.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Terrence a question relative to what started all of this, the
replacement of the windows did the applicant get a permit to replace the windows?
TERRENCE CONNELLY : No she didn't you know cause even as a contractor myself her
contractor advised her she wasn't exceeding the header that was there she was doing direct
replacement of the same size of the windows so he didn't think that she needed a permit for
that but being that it was a non-conforming lot it automatically made her have to get a permit.
So if you just take a window out normally and you put a window back in you don't need a
building permit for it. The moment that you mess with the structure of it and you remove the
header and make a bigger header or what not then you need
MEMBER PLA'NAMENTO : Well then there's two different things cause I mean my
understanding maybe I'm mistaken from talking to the Building Department you do need a
permit for any window replacement. Clearly you need plans if you're replacing a different size
but if I was just putting in a replacement window in I don't know so maybe that's something we
need to find out get some clarification on also.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Normally it's considered maintenance if you're not changing (inaudible).
MEMBER DANTES : It's a town by town interpretation of state code so a lot of towns say no, no
permit required to replace a window. (inaudible) interpret window replacement as a substantial
renovation and require a permit. Different towns do different interpretations.
TERRENCE CONNELLY : Absolutely we see that every day in different Building Departments.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
MEMBER LEHNERT : The only thing that in this town that doesn't require a permit is siding and
roofing.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But windows it's needed.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're lucky you get a hose bib. Did you want to say something?
DEBORAH COLITTI : Yes I would. I just want to clarify the windows and the HVAC were installed
by the previous owner not me about twenty years before. The windows were done more
recently but the HVAC was installed twenty years ago so I didn't get a permit for that. I'm
paying for the sins of the father quite frankly and I just want to make legal what's there.
MEMBER DANTES : In all honesty twenty years ago they didn't require a permit to put AC in
houses.
DEBORAH COLITTI : Right and the previous owners felt they were doing everything right but my
title company should have picked this up quite frankly and they didn't.
MEMBER DANTES : No twenty years ago no one required permits for (inaudible).
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anything from anybody else? No 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 : Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries.
HEARING#7541—HARD CORNER PARTNERS, LLC
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next and last application on our agenda is for Hard Corner
Partners, LLC#7541. This is adjourned from August 5, 2021. Request for variance from Article X
Section 280-46 and the Building Inspector's June ,25, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an
application for a permit to construct a mixed use commercial building with accessory
apartments and four single family dwellings at 1) located less than the code required minimum
rear yard setback of 25 feet located at 53530 Main Rd. in Southold.
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I'm going to recuse myself from this application so I'm going to
turn off if one of you can telephone me or send me a text or something I'll log back on when
the hearing is done.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This was originally approved and the Building Department
somehow or another did not properly site the fact that what we thought was a conforming side
yard is in fact a non-conforming rear yard. That yard is 15 feet where the code requires 25 feet
and the original approval was in ZBA #7387, 8/6/2020. So the problem is to me it looks like a
front yard or a side yard I mean what yard is that anyway you know what I mean?
ROB BROWN : Going back to our pre-submission conferences that involved the Planning Board
and the Building Department it was clearly discussed on the survey it clearly shows the roadway
in question as the right of way which we all including various Boards interpreted as establishing
a front yard. It was only recently and I don't know if it was a re-interpretation or rediscovery
but it came as a surprise to us that it was not an additional front yard. It's clearly an unusual
property being surrounded by road (inaudible). If I had my (inaudible) that would make where
Wells Ave. wraps around as potentially a rear yard if we need to find one because it is least and
gentle if that's the word to the property.
MEMBER DANTES : Just to clarify for people listening, it's the exact same application we heard
the first time. It's the exact same site plan, the exact same square footage of buildings, exact
same number of buildings. Nothing has changed just some semantics from the Building
Department's language.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ROB BROWN : That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's exactly right. So I don't know perhaps they just assumed it
might be a rear yard because the principle frontage is on Main Rd. but all of the affordable
dwellings are fronting architecturally on Wells. So it's just their way of formulating I guess every
property is supposed to have side, front and rear yards. I just think that this is just a technical
matter to clear up so the Building Department can proceed and site plan can be finalized. I think
you're pretty close to that Rob aren't you?
ROB BROWN : Yes we're waiting for final approval from the Planning Board.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And by the way the Planning Board supports the requested variance.
They submitted comments on July 14, 2021 in a memorandum so I really don't have any
questions about this. It should have been picked up the first time around.
MEMBER LEHNERT : Yeah this is just a clerical error.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from Pat or Eric?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : No it's pretty straightforward there was a mistake made and we just
need to fix it up.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay is there anybody else on Zoom or in the audience who wants
to address this?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have a hand up I will move her in.
EVETTE LANG : My name is Evette Lang and I lived on my grandparents built on Wells Ave. in
the fifties and I talked to every neighbor and nobody wants this development. They think it's
going to cause a huge traffic issue. Also another problem we thing that because it's not a flat
pad it's going to need to be graded that there's going to be runoff problems into the creek into
town creek. We also feel that there's already so many shops and buildings in our town that
empty shelves that we don't need any more buildings or workshops. We also don't want the
(inaudible) our historical town to be destroyed with this development. Now we understand that
the same person developed Feather Hill which according to everyone in Southold is just an
eyesore and nobody wants it. I think you received a lot of letters from all of the neighbors and
also letters from environmental agencies that have a lot of concerns. There's a lot of deer and
animals that live in that area and ripping down all those forests would drive more of the deer
into the neighborhoods. It's just a bad idea and nobody, nobody in town along with all the shop
owners we do not want this. We're more than prepared to bring lawyers in to stop it. At least
we ask for you to do an environmental study as well as a traffic study before any approvals go
76F
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
through because we really think that this is going to destroy our town and our neighborhood.
So we implore you please, please do not let this got through. It's really, really important that we
keep the historical aspect of our town and (inaudible) four houses all these car spaces, shops,
apartments I mean it's just really not needed. We understand the man who bought it put some
money towards it we're asking for the town and even we can do a Go Fund Me to buy it back
from him but we really, really do not want this here. A lot of people on Wells my neighbor
included have been here for years and it's just not needed and we beg of you please do not
pass this. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there someone else wishing to address the Board?
RUTH METCALF : The only question I have is, the public has never been able to see the State
Environmental Quality Report is that something that will be made public to us before this would
ever be approved and a year ago you said that you as a Board don't normally approve things
without that State Environmental Quality Report and yet here we are one year later without
the same report.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe that SEAR is being handled by the Planning Board not the
Zoning Board and it was with the Planning Board's recommendation they're going to have to
come up with the final SEQR report. I don't know Rob do you have any insight into where that
process is?
ROB BROWN : I don't know where the Planning Board is with that now. I do know that they
have been reviewing the application and working on it. Respectfully just to add a couple of
things. The complaints that we've heard are really I think more appropriate for the Planning
Board than this Board and just a point of clarification Mr. Salice did not build Feather Hill. He
owned it for a period of time and fixed it up but he was not the builder.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I should also say that the ZBA's prior approval was for lot area
variance which was virtually negligible. I mean it was a tiny little fraction over the lot coverage
and that's all that was before the Zoning Board. This is a permitted use subject to site plan and
then the granting of a variance because of the lot coverage. Now they're back here simply
because at the time of that approval the setback from Wells as it wraps around was not
determined properly as a rear yard. It was front yard I guess or a side yard but now the Building
Department just at the eleventh hour has decided it's a rear yard. So that's why they're back
here or they wouldn't be back here. The SEAR is handled by the Planning Board and you can
certainly call their office and find out where they are with that. SEAR is a requirement, it looks
at I,don't think they Pos. Decd it did they Rob?
MEMBER DANTES : SEQR I or SEQR II?
77'
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ROB BROWN : At some point it was discussed and I think their decision was held up because
they were exploring the variance issues involved.
MEMBER DANTES : So the answer to your questions, they haven't done their Quality Review
with the Planning Board yet. That's why no one has seen the document.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have the authority to conduct an environmental impact or
traffic study, this is not a Special Exception Permit.
MEMBER DANTES : That was the ladies question Leslie, can we see the document and the
answer is it sounds like it hasn't been produced yet.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No but the former speaker asked us to take a look at the
environmental impacts and we can't do that. Anyway I suspect that everything that is being
brought up now was already brought up at the prior hearing which was a while ago. So I don't
really have any questions but I certainly will entertain any more comments by anyone who
wishes to do so. I don't see anybody else in the attendees list and okay if Ruth what's your last
name Ruth we only have Ruth M. up on the screen. We have to have it for the transcript.
RUTH METCALF : It's Ruth Metcalf.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you very much and do the neighbor who is on Wells who
spoke earlier did you have anything to add, are you okay with what you said?
EVETTE LANG : I guess, I just was curious about he said the town can't ask for a SEAR?
MEMBER DANTES : No ma'am we're a Zoning Board so we just do area variances and Special
Exceptions. In this application the SEAR (inaudible) is being done by the Planning Board. From
what I'm understanding based on the applicant's testimony is that they haven't gotten their
review or at least just not yet. So your question is one for the Planning Department.
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie Gail Wickham has her hand up.
GAIL WICKHAM : Hello. Very, very briefly I just want to reiterate what Mr. Brown said that the
applicant whom (inaudible) now did not (inaudible) the shopping center. It was built years
before I know that of personal knowledge because I handled the loan financing end of it and it
is not a strip mall, it was carefully designed to reflect the character of the community. I also
want to mention that the character of the community will not be adversely affected by all by
this application. It is not a substantial variance request, it was created as a result of the re-
interpretation of the Building Department's code provision and I would like to ask that we
submit and we can send this to you today the comment that Mr. Brown and I recently wrote to
78T
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
the Planning Board on subjects that had been raised at the hearing by the neighbors. Thank
you.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's fine. Anything else Board Members? So Gail can you
email that stuff over?
GAIL WICKHAM : I can send that this afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so I guess what we'll do is I'll make a motion to close subject to
receipt of additional emailed information.
GAIL WICKHAM : I would like it as part of the record please.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that's fine that's the way it will be. Alright so hearing no other
comments from anyone I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of
additional information from Gail Wickham. Is there a second?
MEMBER DANTES : second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Kim call the roll please.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora how do you vote?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Acampora votes aye. Member Dantes how do you vote?
MEMBER DANTES : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Dantes votes aye. Member Lehnert how do you vote?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Lehnert votes aye. Member Planamento how do you vote?
MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Member Planamento votes aye. Chairperson Weisman how do you vote?
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye.
BOARD SECRETARY : Chairperson Weisman votes aye.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The motion carries unanimously. Liz text Nick and tell him to come
back in.
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
ROB BROWN : Thank you all very much.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me finish up with a couple of resolutions here. Resolution for the
next Regular Meeting with public hearings to be held Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. is
here a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor raise your hands please. The motion carries unanimously.
Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held August 19, 2021 so moved. Is
there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor raise your hands please. The motion carries unanimously.
Resolution to open public hearing for Special Exception of The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant
subject property is located at 56655 Main St. (NYS Route 25) in Southold to be held on
Thursday, October 14, 2021 at 5:00 p.m., is there second?
MEMBER LEHNERT : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor raise your hands. The motion carries unanimously. I'm
going to make a motion to close the meeting and we can lock out is everybody locked out Liz or
no?
OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We are locked.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting. Is there a second?
MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second.
CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor raise your hands. Let the record show it was unanimous.
The meeting is now closed, stop the recording please.
U LC' 4tV- Z,5'4
Question Report
Report Generated: 9/7/202110:49
Topic Webinar ID Actual Start Time Actual Duration (minutes) #Question
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 2, 2021 Regular 8514758 0305 9/2/20218:44 406 10
Question Details
# Question Asker Name Asker Email Answer(s)
Mr Dunn is absolutley great neighbor and citizen who has been
1 a huge help to all neighbors erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
Mr Dunn has very good points and new homeowners should
2 conform to the code laws erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
3 We had to comply to code. erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
4 Erol Baskurt 3575 Mil Lane erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
5 Then why was the hearing for dimitri not postponed? erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
6 His sign did not meet the legal requirment. erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
Sir,the hearing has been
closed. No submissions
will be added to the file.
I believe the Board said
that certain issues were
7 Can I send an email to the Board? erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com civil matters.Thank you.
Mr Meskouris comments about Bob Dunn were outrageous,
slanderous and mistruths.A resident's prior history and non-
compliance with the code of the town should be considered in
deciding whether to approve further non-conforming
construction at a home.A residents character are important to
8 consider before approving and variance requests. erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
The whole chat will be
My earlier comments were added prior to the closing of the added to the transcript
9 matter's hearing. Please add them to the record. erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com sir.
10 thank you erol baskurt ebaskurt@rfbcpa.com
September 2, 2021 Regular Meeting
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 941(v W,
Elizabeth Sakarellos
DATE : September 15, 2021