Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/07/2021 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 October 7, 2021 9:30 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA – Member ERIC DANTES – Member ROBERT LEHNERT – Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO – Member KIM FUENTES – Board Assistant WILLIAM DUFFY – Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS – Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN – Office Assistant ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Enclaves #7046SE 3 – 5 John Spiro # 7560 8 – 9 George Ntavoultzis # 7537 10 - 12 John and Joyce Hozapfel # 7542 12 - 15 Marc and Shari Weissbach # 7540SE 15 - 20 Douglas Bradford # 7544 20 - 24 Anthony and Angela Geraci # 7545 25 - 33 Mark Alberici # 7547 33 - 38 Manning Family Irrevocable Trust # 7549 40 - 42 Mary Hoeltzel # 7550 42 - 45 Vincent Bertault # 7467 45 - 62 Vincent Bertault # 7468SE 45 - 62 ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everybody and welcome to the Zoning Board of th Appeals Regular Public Hearings for October 7. 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 located at 53095 Main Road in Southold. People in attendance in this room in this building must wear a facial mask. The meeting is also available via the Zoom Webinar and you can participate by listening either by clicking on the link or by phoning in. The first item on our agenda is the Executive Session which we have now exited. We now have a work session in front of us. Does anybody or any Board Member have any item that (inaudible) at this time that they want to discuss? Appeal No. 7428 Mini Cedars has been formerly withdrawn. I’m going to make we have some new applications well we have two resolutions, I’m going to do a resolution on the SEQR Finding Statement for the proposed Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant Special Exception application first and then I’ll go onto those that are related to the public hearings. This resolution basically summarizes the description of the project. It summarizes the fact that SEQR was Type I, it received a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and then finally a Final that was th noticed on November 18, 2019 then the public hearing was held on November 7, these are just procedural. The applicant prepared a Final EIS which went through several comments and th changes and revisions and on August 19 which we accepted the revised FEIS as complete and allowed the twenty two day public and agency consideration we actually ended that September th 10. A notice of the final completion was published as required so whereas the SEQR findings statement was (inaudible) for the proposed action and it has been found to accurately reflect the findings and conclusions of the Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals and complies with the decision making and findings requirement set forth by 617.11 (6 NYCRR) Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review therefore be is resolved that the ZBA accepts the October 2021 SEQR Findings Statement for the proposed Special Exception Use Permit for the Enclaves 44 unit hotel and 74 seat restaurant. Be it further resolved that a copy of this Statement of Findings shall be filed at Southold Town Hall and made available to the public, posted on the town’s official website and distributed to the applicant and involved agencies. Before I make a motion to vote on that our consultant Carrie O’Farrell who is here with us. Carrie would you very briefly summarize anything in the Findings Statement that the Board needs to reflect upon. CARRIE O’FARRELL : Sure. Good morning Carrie O’Farrell with Nelson, Pope & Voorhies. As the Chairwoman mentioned, the Board has undertaken an extensive environmental review of this proposed project involving a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement which was ultimately accepted back in August. The Board is obligated to prepare what’s called a Findings Statement which is before the Board today. That document is a summary of the environmental ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting review process and identifies all the various mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the plan through that environmental review process. The document goes through as I mentioned by different topic area and identifies each of those mitigation measures which are extensive at this point. Some key items that I just want to mention as we’ve gone through the environmental review process the Board has limited outdoor events in a number of ways. They were proposed originally as outdoor large events such as weddings of a hundred (100) to two hundred and fifty (250) people, those have been brought indoors to address concerns with respects to noise and have been limited to no more than ten (10) events total per year and no more than one (1) event per week. Those events would require a traffic control on the street a traffic control officer rather on the streets to direct traffic during those special events. Further based on some of the comments that we’ve received during the consideration period following the Final EIS there were concerns with respect to events less than one hundred (100) people and the frequency of those events and the Board will have an opportunity to address limitations of those special events as part of the conditions of special permit. In addition, accessory uses as part of the hotel use such as the pools, there’s an indoor and an outdoor pool and spa and a lounge space which the Board has limited to overnight hotel guests only and the hours of operation have been specifically limited as well and again the conditions of the special permit will need to address the specifics of all those and would incorporate those limitations as well. Again there’s a pretty lengthy list of mitigation measures that are outlined therein that at this point the Findings Statement is a conclusion of the environmental review process that the Board has undertaken for the last several years. Is there anything any specific questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’ve all read it, do you have any questions or comments for our consultant at this time (inaudible) vote? I’m not seeing anything. Thank you Carrie. If there’s no further you know we will file this Final Findings Statement on LaserFiche in the folder for this particular application so that the public will have access to it. Hearing nothing else I’m going to make a motion to adopt the resolution on the Findings Statement as described, is there a second to that motion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick seconded that. All in favor raise your hand? I don’t have to ask for a roll call cause we’re all here in person. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Let the record reflect that the motion carries unanimously, ayes all. Thank you Carrie. Before I do the resolutions on the new applications which (inaudible) let’s just quickly go through the three draft decisions before us. We have one that’s put on to the end that was a resolution to amend a decision so let’s take all of those (inaudible). So we have a draft for the Town of Southold Planning Board which is a code interpretation. We tabled that at our last meeting because it was not a quorum to vote on cause there was a recusal and there was not full attendance. (inaudible) to interpret the code with regard to the bulk schedule on split zoned property. Has everybody read it? Are there any comments or questions oh I’m sorry forgot to say Member Dantes is recused from this vote. Anything from anybody, Bill do you want to add anything here on this particular draft? T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) split zone properties under certain circumstances is silent as (inaudible). In this particular situation where a less intense use the majority of the property is (inaudible) by a less intense district and only a small portion of the property is covered by a more (inaudible). This decision is based since the code is silent (inaudible) bound by the bulk schedule (inaudible) portion of the property (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we’ve discussed (inaudible) are there any comments from anybody otherwise I’m (inaudible). Nope okay, I’m going to make a motion to consider the following factors involved and this is when a parcel is divided by the boundaries of two zoning districts the portion of the parcel (inaudible) zoning district in which it is located (inaudible) is located on the less restricted zoning district then the provision of 280-7D would apply. Where a second building is proposed in the LB zoning district (inaudible) a second use unless the building is clearly accessory and incidental to the already existing use or structure on the property and (inaudible) a separate use. There were two questions, one was the bulk schedule and the one was on uses. So that is what we are hoping to agree on as a code interpretation which shall go back to the Planning Board and the Building Department and stand as precedent. I make a motion to vote on this particular code interpretation is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob. All in favor of this draft as written raise your hands as aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously, Member Dantes is recused. The next one is Hard Corners Partners LLC # 7541 tabled from a previous date because of a lack of a quorum. This is a very simple variance request for a front yard setback which clearly (inaudible) because the street wraps around that way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pardon me Chairperson I’m going to recuse myself. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s why we couldn’t vote beforehand. Nick is now recused from this one. So this is a (inaudible) as applied for to construct a building with a rear yard setback of 15 feet where the town code requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. This is exactly the same application that we already approved and this particular variance was not noticed at the time when the Building Department when they wrote the Notice of Disapproval we previously granted a very, very small lot area variance for the proposed uses. This is for affordable housing in Southold and some commercial. Any questions or comments that anybody or revisions to this? No, okay I’m going to make a motion to grant the variance as applied for. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes. All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously with Member Planamento recused. Finally we have an amended decision. This is for we granted a Special Exception Permit for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure and denied approval for this proposed second floor loft indicating that storage could be achieved on the ground level as conditioned space by adding an addition on. Well that’s what he did (inaudible) was to come back with amended plans. He came back with amended plans and we reviewed them and just to remind everybody here we determined that the plans the actual conditioned storage was larger than the proposed bedroom because it was accessed from the inside and had windows and a French door you can clearly easily use it as a second bedroom which the code doesn’t allow so we gave him a letter with some choices as to how to handle it. He came back and he followed one of the options (inaudible) wall and access to storage only from the outside. However since it is to be conditioned it’s allowed to be insulated and so on and the Building Department has requested that when something is labeled storage with the circumstances it be open stud walls and rafters and not be habitable at all but will be used as conditioned storage and access in this case only ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting from the (inaudible). We’ve all had copies of this, anything you want to add on that or discussion? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Sort of just one question and I know (inaudible) details but regarding condition one, the new one the amended. I was just wondering should we include provided that the livable floor area does not exceed 750 square feet should he chose to remove the wall. MEMBER DANTES : He would need a building permit for that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The wall is not built yet. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Wait a minute I’m not understanding. MEMBER DANTES : He’s saying that if he doesn’t want to do the wall it’s not storage it’s part of the living room. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But he chose to not to do that. MEMBER LEHNERT : If it’s bigger than that (inaudible) by the Building Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Even if he opened it, it wouldn’t be exceeding the livable floor area requirement, that’s in this plan. However the application was for storage conditioned storage unusual but (inaudible). I think we’re okay on this and if he was just making (inaudible) changes we’ll see it again for a deminimus you know the Building Department will send us right back to us. It says the space has to be accessed only from the exterior. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So if you remove the wall I was suggesting that (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We made a determination as to which option to choose and sent us back plans dated the same date by the way however I put in here very clearly that it was rdth stamped received September 23 cause we discussed this on the 16 or something so we had to make it clear that this was a revision of a revision. So that’s the choice he’s made and (inaudible) Building Department has whatever it needs at this point and so does Stephen and Julia Kiely. Alright I’m going to make a motion to amend the decision as written, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Now we’ll do the resolutions. 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 (SEQR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following : John Spiro #7560, George Ntavoultzis #7537, John and Joyce Hozapfel #7542, Marc and Shari Weissbach #7540SE, Douglas Bradford #7544, Anthony and Angela Geraci #7545, Mark Alberici #7547, Manning Family Irrevocable Trust #7549 and Mary Hoeltzel #7550 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Acampora. All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING # 7560 – JOHN SPIRO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for John Spiro #7560. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector’s July 28, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory carport at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 340 Glenwood Rd. Cutchogue. Is someone here to represent the application? FRED AZAR : Good morning Madam Chairperson my name if Fred Azar and I represent my client John Spiro I’m with Element Energy Solar. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is for an open carport in a front yard with solar panels on the top. The code requires accessory structures to be in the rear yard. I know previously we approved a shed in the side yard because there is almost no rear yard available. The applicant ? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting also owns the property adjacent to the rear yard so that’s prior. We’ve all been out to the site and inspected the property as we do with all our applications prior to the hearing. The carport location was not clearly staked however it’s pretty clear from the survey that we have and it’s near the parking area turn off. There’s kind of a few trees I wondered about, there’s a pine tree (inaudible). Then there is a Crepe Myrtle that’s nearby. FRED AZAR : The Crepe Myrtle would be where the existing power pole is now. The power pole is going to be removed and the adjacent properties is going to go underground from the street eliminating the hazard that exists there now with the overhead (inaudible) trees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, good. You’re pretty limited by a number of trees that are there in terms of (inaudible) solar energy. It’s a very small structure it’s (inaudible). FRED AZAR : That is correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let’s see if the Board has any questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No, no questions it’s pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Dantes, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. We’ll have a decision in two weeks. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Liz would you go over the instructions on how people who are on Zoom can participate if they wish to make comments. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good morning. 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 you can click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for. If you’re using a phone, I don’t see anyone with a phone so I won’t go into that. Thank you. HEARING # 7537 – GEORGE NTAVOULTZIS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for George Ntavoultzis #7537. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article IV Section 280-19, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s May 7, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit for an “as built” amendment to permit #42455Z to make additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) “as built” accessory structure is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) single family dwelling located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet located at 870 Bayshore Rd. in Greenport. Is there someone here to represent the application? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Hi, how are you? It’s a nice morning thanks for having me. For this application I just want to let the Board know how AMP Architecture got involved in this. We weren’t the original applicants, there was a permit open for renovation work on the home and the owner during construction was advised by the person who is working with that he could do these things and that they would amend the drawings and submit. So the owner sort of took the professional advice from the first applicant that these things wouldn’t be a problem whether the misguidance was just a mistake on that applicant’s part not seeing the setback issues or seeing that the legalization of what was a covered porch area which the owner closed in, insulated and heated finished it created the accessory structure to now be in the side yard. So I don’t know exactly how the advice was given but I just wanted to note that because we sort of stepped in this and I went over I said these things are going to be a problem which once we advised him of that he said well we obviously have to do what we need to do. So we filed with the town obviously and then requested the variances. So one of the reliefs requested is that it’s an open trellis on a platform in the front yard. According to the owner again I was there after construction but according to the owner the platform was always there and they put the ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting trellis on. It was hard for me to tell you if it was or not because it was cladded so I’m not a hundred percent sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The house is setback at 35.5 feet so that trellis brought that setback to 31.5 feet and it’s an open structure and (inaudible) chairs in it I suppose so people can sit and watch traffic go by. Then the room on the back ANTHONY PORTILLO : So the room on the back it doesn’t have any zoning it didn’t create any zoning issues but it did bring up that the garage ended up being in the side yard the existing garage partially. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s what we call a technical variance, the front yard is the front yard. I do have a question, when I went to the site there’s an awfully large built in brick barbeque that looks to me like it might even be over the property line. Do you know anything about that? It’s not on the site plan, not on the survey nor the site plan. I’m not going to let that interfere with what we have to do with in regard to your application but the applicant is going to have to make sure that everything that he owns is on his property and not straddling the property line (inaudible). If they determine that to be a structure which they very well might, it’s kind of an outdoor kitchen. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah once you build it raised they determine it as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s elevated so I think we have to ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m running through my photos real quick I’m just looking you know when I did the site visit CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s on the side as your facing the house it’s on the right hand side. Based on where it looked like the property line was it looks like it’s almost overlapping. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m not seeing it on my photos. I’m wondering I honestly haven’t been there in a while because we’ve been waiting to move forward with this so we did the site visit probably in the summer no I would say actually even further back than that I’m looking at my folder now. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It doesn’t look like it’s brand new. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’ll verify that. I think that the owner needs to get a final survey anyway and I don’t think that’s happened yet. So I think he should we’ll have to it sounds like that would be a separate application so it’s either that he’s going to have to remove it or going to be back here to deal with it cause I would have to file it as an accessory. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think we can just condition it as such and you know make note of it that way. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sounds good. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Anything further from the Board? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Just to put it on record, we did submit a few other approved reliefs that were similar to what we’re recommending or asking for so I just that’s been submitted for your review. BOARD ASSISTANT : I received it very early today and I believe I gave the lead person a copy of it and the next two that Anthony is presenting I gave them to the lead member. I’m going to scan it later on and email it out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Eric, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING # 7542 – JOHN and JOYCE HOZAPFEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John and Joyce Hozapfel #7542. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s May 5, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 2) located less than the code required ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 1490 Village Lane in Orient. This is a minimum single side yard setback of 7.8 where the code requires 10 feet minimum, a combined side yard setback of 20.7 feet where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet. This is (inaudible) enclosing pretty much (inaudible). Did you get HPC approval on this Anthony yet? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Can you repeat the question I’m sorry. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think there was a question that originally the notice said that this required approval by the Historic Preservation Commission because the property is in a historic district. Is there some discussion you might have had with (inaudible)? ANTHONY PORTILLO : We did submit it to Historic Preservation, Tracey said that it would not require their CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So HPC said it wasn’t required? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Can we get that in writing from you? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure. We actually went there first and then in just a scenario here, I actually missed that this would be a variance because I was looking at the 10 foot minimum side yard setback and you know because of the non-conformance of the other side of the home it created a further non-conformance of the combined side yards which is what is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) enclosed basically. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah they’re an older couple retirement they’ve been out there in Orient for a long time, they sold their other house they bought this and basically they were renovating their kitchen and they were modifying the back living room and this is the door they use to go into the home and it just gets wet, slippery, snowy in the winter and they’re looking to close it in and essentially as you mentioned there is a structure there already that’s roofed open sort of porch or portico and we’re looking to close it in and just allow a finished closed CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you know that it’s encroaching in further in on the side yard beyond what already exists right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : No we’re staying well maybe 4 inches cause we’re building a wall next to you know like where the landing is so we’re building a 4 inch wall at the exterior. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’m not going to worry about 4 inches I think we have bigger issues. ANTHONY PORTILLO : But that’s it. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) this is typical Village Lane a 70 foot wide lot a lot of them have non-conformities. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We found some really close ones actually that were approved and as you mentioned it seems to be the character of the neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to get a memorandum from HPC indicating that you applied and they deemed it be not necessary cause we have to address what’s in the Notice of Disapproval as you know. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yeah sure we did do it so that’s not a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody on the Board have any questions? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just one comment, Anthony did you read the prior ZBA decision it’s from 1980? There had been a conditioned that expressed that the property the side cannot further be reduced. I know it’s a small requests but I do want to (inaudible) in the decision. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I’m sorry I don’t think I saw that but yeah I mean I can look into that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No further protrusion on either side yard will be permitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Was that to the one (inaudible) approval on that? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah the ZBA decision 5768 dated January 13, 1981. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s a side yard setback? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It allowed the house to be built. It seems like it’s a rather benign application since like 8 or 9 inches I guess but it is something that I just wanted to put down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well (inaudible) really maintaining in that their increasing the degree on non-conformity by a few inches (inaudible) deminimus. MEMBER LEHNERT : 7.8 is existing it’s not even part of the application. MEMBER DANTES : We have the right to overturn our old decisions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Agreed I just wanted to bring it forward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s good just put it in the draft as additional information (inaudible) virtually the same side yard is being maintained with this proposal. Okay anything from the audience anyone here wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on Zoom who ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting wants to address the application? Okay if there are 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 : I take that back it’s subject to receipt of a letter from HPC indicating that they do not feel an approval is necessary. So me withdraw that first motion, so it’s now moved to close subject to receipt of additional information is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING # 7540SE – MARC and SHARI WEISSBACH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Marc and Shari Weissbach #7540SE. Applicants request a Special Exception under Article III Section 280- 13B(13). The applicants are owners of subject property requesting authorization to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure at 350 Paddock Way in Mattituck. Is someone here to represent the application? EILEEN WINGATE : Good morning all Eileen Wingate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So not everyone was able to get out to the property, I certainly did inspect it and we do have plans. I think we have in the record you know I know that the applicant is the architect on this particular project. There are a couple of issues that came up as a result of looking at the plans and being out on the property. EILEEN WINGATE : We have Shari here with us and I believe we have Marc on Zoom as well. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. The second floor plan shows bedroom number two, the code only permits one bedroom in an accessory apartment and it is for one person so certainly. EILEEN WINGATE : We’re (inaudible) on living space and her house was meant to (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We’re going to need someone there to let us in. I think when we were out there it’s only one person (inaudible) open kitchen area so that wall has to come down and it has to be open sitting area and not a second bedroom. The other thing is that I noticed on the construction on the proposed on the first floor there is a half bath which is fine in an accessory garage and also a recreation room with a wet bar. That is not a permitted use in an accessory garage. So unfortunately that’s gotta go it’s going to have to be a garage and storage and that’s it. The code has probably need to be updated in terms of uses permitted in an accessory structure for a long time but we can’t do this here with this Board. EILEEN WINGATE : I agree. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A lot of times people do this because it’s a nice amenity and we can understand why they would want these things but they don’t necessarily know what the code doesn’t allow. So that will have to be removed, we will need amended plans for this. Let’s see what else the Board might have, Nick any questions from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A couple relative to illustrating residency. The documents that I have in my folder and just looking at them again first of all I don’t know who they’re for and who the resident of the house is and in addition just to substantiate that somebody actually lives there. EILEEN WINGATE : I would like to bring up Shari, actually the paperwork I submitted showed a lease for her daughter. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes I understand that but the voter registration the STAR exemption all these other documents either didn’t have names or didn’t illustrate residency. EILEEN WINGATE : We (inaudible) Shari was in the process of having her driver’s license and you do have a copy of that but I’ll let Shari explain where she lives and when. SHARI WEISSBACH : I’m Shari Weissbach I live at the house (inaudible) of the week. My driver’s license, my voters registration I don’t even know if you have it (inaudible) I decided to do that prior to COVID (inaudible) my address and unfortunately (inaudible) and I believe you have (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well we have an affidavit stating that you live on the site I suggest maybe you can give us a copy of a driver’s license to illustrate (inaudible). Do you have a STAR exemption? ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting SHARI WEISSBACH : We don’t have a STAR exemption is that something that we (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you work in the town? SHARI WEISSBACH : I don’t work. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You don’t work. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is principle residency. So are you clear of the limits of what the code allows? SHARI WEISSBACH : I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The apartment needs to be one floor which this is and one bedroom, maximum 750 sq. ft. which you’re not exceeding but it’s just the second bedroom area that’s not appropriate. I understand these architects who work in the city and draw plans and not necessarily know the code but the code needs to be checked with very strict limitations on using accessory buildings for accessory apartments. Nick anything else from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No just to establish residency. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No. SHARI WEISSBACH : Other than my license submitted I don’t know what else you’re looking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The STAR exemption you need to apply for that to show principle residency and you can go to the Assessor’s Office and do that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think it’s pretty much instant isn’t it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don’t know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe go online. MEMBER DANTES : No go online you can’t do it in person and there’s an income limitation a cap. SHARI WEISSBACH : Income limitation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well cause it’s an exemption we get money back from the government that’s (inaudible) income cap how much income you can have beyond what you don’t qualify ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting SHARI WEISSBACH : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well perhaps you can inquire what is (inaudible). Does your husband (inaudible)? SHARI WEISSBACH : He’s from (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie just as a reminder we’re asking the applicant to submit new plans illustrating one bedroom with an open living room or however you (inaudible) the space and the rec room downstairs is a storage room that just needs to be unfinished. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn’t have the interior inspection did you go into that space at all? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Was it finished at all? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no, no it’s all under construction it’s open rafters open stud walls. Clearly that was used in some way because it has beautiful French doors on it already. SHARI WEISSBACH : (inaudible) COVID we (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know before you mentioned that’s one of the fanciest garages I ever saw. SHARI WEISSBACH : Then with (inaudible) the granite (inaudible) as far as making it we tried to do it but (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think (inaudible) with the residency brought in what relationships or who is living in one space and another in the second but I think the spirit here is that we have to trust in that you’re stating that you live here full time in the house. SHARI WEISSBACH : (inaudible) more and more CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know the law was written under slightly different (inaudible) circumstances and the Town Board looking at intergenerational opportunities for younger people, an elderly mother or father to be able to age in place or to have a place that’s affordable to live by not building more buildings but by leveraging some more units out of existing structures. That’s how all this came about and it made sense which is why there’s (inaudible). The idea is not to rent this out. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting SHARI WEISSBACH : No (inaudible) from college and she doesn’t want to come home so (inaudible) right now an accessory apartment and we have another daughter so she can have the two bedrooms that’s why it was done that way so they can both live there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Gottcha. Well I understand but it’s meant to be it doesn’t say it can’t be more than one person there are people that are married and there’s a couple in there but it only has a condition for one bedroom. It’s meant to be small. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I guess we can add to that also should your daughter move out or something that it’s not a market rate going forward. (inaudible) but if you want to continue for whatever reason there is a need for affordable housing and in the Supervisor’s Office there is an affordable housing registry if and when you ever want to open it up which is a really nice (inaudible) for the community. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I did get a phone call from the Park District and had concerns about this application because of the Wolf Pit situation but I don’t see that this being (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No this is not a setback issue or MEMBER ACAMPORA : That’s what I told them. EILEEN WINGATE : We have Jason Leonard here who is the contractor, he’s been working with the Weissbachs for many, many years he says that the first floor is finished with sheetrock so it’s not rough space. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Jason come up to the mic and state your name for the record. JASON LEONARD : Jason Lennard I’m the builder for the homeowners. So the first floor as it was when they acquired it is sheet rocked, spackled. There’s no finished flooring down you know it’s kind of a crude finish but it is currently finished so I just want to clarify that space is storage does that mean un-sheet rocked and unfinished or remain basically as it’s standing? MEMBER DANTES : You can sheet rock a garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can I mean typically garages can be sheet rocked so we’re going to say you can sheet rock it but it cannot be conditioned space, no air conditioning, no heat just electric and some plumbing for the half bath if you still want to put that in that’s okay but basically mentions to be storage and (inaudible) lawn equipment or whatever. JASON LEONARD : Okay (inaudible) finished storage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from anybody else? I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt from applicant, the agent we need amended plans and we’re ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting going to need you know we talked about that some additional information from Ms. Wiessbach her driver’s license and an effort to apply for STAR. As soon as we get the information we’ll start writing the decision. We’re not able to write one until we get the amended plans. So that’s a motion to close subject to receipt, is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING # 7544 – DOUGLAS BRADFORD CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Douglas Bradford #7544. 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 construct a new porch and second floor additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on two side yards, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 3705 Bayshore Rd. (adj. to Shelter Island Sound/Peconic Bay) in Greenport. Who is here for that application, Anthony? So this is a new front porch, second floor additions and alteration, we have a single side yard setback of 6.5 feet the code requiring a minimum of 10, a second single side yard setback on the south side at 7.3 the code requiring a minimum of 10 feet and a combined side yard setback of 13.8 where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet and lot coverage proposed at 21.6% where the code permits a maximum of 20% lot coverage. This is deemed to be LWRP inconsistent for portions of the proposed porch which is in a FEMA VE flood zone and the side yard setbacks are exempt from LWRP review. That kind of summarizes it. Anthony what would you like us to know about the application? ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : So with regards thank you for having me back Board I appreciate that. In regards to the LWRP findings, I provided the (inaudible) map back to who made the determination from the town, I spoke to him over the phone and I provided the map and he took another look at it and this is a phone call but he mentioned that he would let the Board know that the porch is not in a VE zone it’s actually in an X zone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony I have an email from Mark Terry the LWRP Coordinator and he inquired about that. Apparently his flood zone map and yours are different, they’re different. They show an X zone much farther seaward than the county (inaudible) and the (inaudible) and the site plan they just don’t match. It (inaudible) that it’s a VE zone. However if there’s no ground disturbance between the seaward and the existing dwelling he will withdraw the inconsistency recommendation. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Oh I see okay understood. So then that brings me to really my spiel on this so basically the existing footprint is not changing. We’re increasing the second floor square footage and a portion of the first floor square footage by utilizing in the front what was an open porch area and in the rear we’re dormering over what was basically a walkout balcony on the second floor. So we’re basically closing that balcony, we’re not changing the first floor open porch area that’s remaining and then in the front as indicated we are enclosing the existing front porch and then were dormering out the second floor to create larger bedrooms more headroom you know the second floor is a little tight. So when I into the design though process on this and knowing that he doesn’t have much of a building envelope that we knew we were going to be requesting an area variance for this it was to basically not change the footprint of the home. Due to us utilizing the existing covered porch which is basically his entry I proposed a portico or what we’re calling a porch in the front but really is a portico it does not we kept it inside of the setbacks. Obviously it did increase the existing non-conformancy of the lot coverage but again trying to keep it somewhat minimal just something that he can enter. I think it also was partially scaled to fit the design of the aesthetic of the design of the front of the home so we did take into consideration these things during our design process. So that’s really how this came about and why we’re here today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It looks like you’re adding 525 sq. ft.? ANTHONY PORTILLO : On the second floor we’re requesting 360 and then on the first floor we’re requesting 120 so yes close to 500 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have a prior variance on that property from July 19, 2001 ZBA 4971 granted side yard setbacks of 6.5 feet and 7.5 feet and also the lot coverage that we granted was 24.2% you are now proposing 24.6% which is certainly deminimus. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : The 62 feet from a covered porch is the only increase of lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That’s correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Anthony unrelated but related is the (inaudible) ANTHONY PORTILLO : No Nick that is what’s built without a permit and I informed the owner that it needs to be demolished. I can actually show this this should have been on our site plans being demo’d. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That’s why I was asking I was surprised when I saw it and I know in the past I think you actually brought it an application for something quite similar to that hot tub. The other question I wanted to ask it was clearly visible when I was doing my inspection, the garage doesn’t appear to be a garage. There was visible bathroom when the door was open you clearly see a bathroom (inaudible) roof penetration that it seemed to me that (inaudible) so what’s going on in the garage? ANTHONY PORTILLO : So there is the boiler is actually the boiler for the house is in the garage and I have explained to my client that the bathroom is not allowed in the garage. According to him it was there when he bought it and he fixed he fixed it up. So I made it pretty clear to him that it would have to be removed as well. The boiler though is in the garage up on a platform. Again he explained to me that’s how it’s always been that he doesn’t have a mechanical room in the home so everything is basically being piped in the garage. MEMBER DANTES : How does that work? Do they winterize it in the wintertime? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well the boiler can be in an unheated space. MEMBER DANTES : No I know that but how do they get the pipes to the house? ANTHONY PORTILLO : They run in underground, they probably insulate. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) this has a shower this is a toilet sink and shower MEMBER ACAMPORA : Kitchen there as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That in there as well. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : I don’t think there’s a sink but I have to look back but I’m pretty sure it was there’s like a counter top and then there’s a bathroom. As I’m saying he’s aware that he’s going to have to remove that along with the hot tub and the surround on the hot tub. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) stating that the applicant will remove a full bathroom and any other plumbing etc. in the garage other than the heat source for the house along with the Jacuzzi. MEMBER DANTES : But why does he have to? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He doesn’t have to remove a half bath. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Remove the shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He has to remove the shower and the other sink. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right we’ll leave the half bath remove the shower. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The whole thing is (inaudible) half bath. ANTHONY PORTILLO : We are filed at the Health Department for a new IA system in the front yard and in that design we show the garage being wet with a half bathroom connecting to our new system. So we are we’re actually having to get a variance cause it’s kind of tight in the front yard so we’re going through that process right now but we are Mr. Bradford plans on putting in a new IA system and is willing to comply. Like I said he tells me that that garage always had a bathroom had a full bathroom. I explained to him we could remove the shower and he’s fine with he wants to comply with what needs to comply. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay the other thing is that it’s not the survey either, there’s large waterside as built deck on the waterside. MEMBER DANTES : Right he’s removing that to put a Jacuzzi that’s the Jacuzzi area. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think it looks like it has a non-conforming rear yard setback to the bulkhead. MEMBER DANTES : It was built illegally too. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s coming down as well as the hot tub. ANTHONY PORTILLO : That’s correct. What you see proposed is what the plan is for the house. It’s not going to have the hot tub and the deck. I can make that clearer on my plans that it will be demolished. I did speak to the Building Department they just said he can just remove it so I ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting didn’t add it to the drawings he’s just going to remove it. They said since it was done illegally he can remove the deck and the hot tub. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we can condition approval based on those things being removed. They’re not before us they’re just things we observed (inaudible). We are obligated by law when we go out and inspect that you know we inspect the entire premises and correct any potential problems that might exist. We don’t need any amended plans we just (inaudible). Okay anyone in the audience wanting to speak about this application? Is there anybody on Zoom Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : We have a Mr. Bradford but I don’t know if he wants to say anything. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Mr. Bradford if you do want to say something now is the time or we’re just going to close this hearing. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have a hand raised, I am going to move him in. Oh that was a Tom Bradford. Who is that Anthony? ANTHONY PORTILLO : I believe it’s his sister-in-law which I think they’re just going to put a statement in that they’re okay with the request. MR. BRADFORD : We’re just listening in that’s all. I’m just the next door neighbor his brother. ANTHONY PORTILLO : You have no concerns about the MR. BRADFORD : No, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do we have anybody else. I 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, all in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We’ll have a decision in two weeks. I make a motion to recess for five minutes. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING # 7545 – ANTHONY and ANGELA GERACI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Anthony and Angela Geraci #7545. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s May 5, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool with a raised patio at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 600 Snug Harbor Rd. (adj. to Gull Pond Inlet) in Greenport. The swimming pool proposed is a 24.95 lot coverage where the code permits a ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting maximum of 20%. It is LWRP inconsistent with the raised patio (inaudible) pool will be part of it. We did get the priors that you submitted Rob for lot coverage that was excessive. ROB HERRMANN : Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants who are both here along with John Paetzel of Paetzel Landscape Architecture who is the design professional for that project. So as Leslie mentioned this is an application for lot coverage relief of 24.9% where 20% is required. I’m going to present this application in terms of impressing the variance standards in a slightly different order. (inaudible) as I write out reasons for appeal because I just want to go through a little bit the context for the application. Admittedly the difficulty here is self-created. This is not just a situation where your Board typically points out that the property was purchased after the code was in effect. This property was purchased and recently redeveloped a couple of years ago with the dwelling that’s on the property now which nearly maxed out lot coverage and putting us in the position we’re in now to ask for this variance but this was neither a (inaudible) by the applicants or the result of an oversight. When the property was purchased and the lot was redeveloped the applicants had no intentions to build a swimming pool and no desire for a swimming pool. What ended up happening in 2020 it’s happened to most of Long Island from what I can figure out from my business is after the pandemic hit in 2020 a lot of people began to reevaluate how much time they were spending at their homes here at these properties as opposed to going to beaches and other public places from which the idea for the swimming pool was born. So understanding that the applicants didn’t intend or hope to get here before the Board this is where they are and so the questions we really have to answer for the Board is whether you are granting relief for this pool and this lot coverage variance would cause a detriment to any of the nearby properties or adversely impact or otherwise change the character of the surrounding neighborhood. In our application we hope to convince you that the answers to both these questions is a demonstrable no. First of all with respect to the surrounding properties, the swimming pool is proposed in a conforming rear yard location. It is positioned between the house and the waterway where the code requires it so it will not be visible from the road or from the adjacent neighbor’s properties across the street. Relative to both of the adjacent neighbors the ones to the north and south on the sides the pool exceeds the minimum distances to those side lot lines that the code requires. So based on the location and setbacks of the pool there’s nothing about the variance requests that’s before you that would create any specific potential impacts to the neighbors. We understand that anytime a variance application for a pool comes up there’s a good chance that one of the neighbors will object to it because a lot of neighbors don’t like pools. They imagine they’re going to be loud, noisy, create (inaudible) etc., etc. A swimming pool here we’re not asking for a pool in a side yard, we’re not asking for side yard setback. Our argument is there’s no specific potential impact on neighbors on either side related to the relief that’s actually before the Board. With respect to the rear yard and the wetlands, the pool also ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting meets the required rear yard setback and also meets the wetland setbacks except for pursuant to Chapter 275 of the Town Code and as you know we would have to go to Trustees for wetlands permit if this Board (inaudible) favorably on our variance. The main question that we have to address at that point as we typically do with lot coverage relief is whether the granting of the lot coverage relief specifically for a pool would adversely change the character of the neighborhood. To that end I evaluated the surrounding waterfront properties located adjacent to Dawns Lagoon as (inaudible) developed shoreline neighborhoods that the applicant’s property sits and it’s basically at the south end of east side of Dawn Lagoon. What I found is that there are four nearby properties around the lagoon that are improved with a swimming pool, one constructed pursuant to variance relief so pools are not uncommon at the surrounding properties. One property was approved for a pool pursuant to variance relief actually 25% lot coverage (inaudible) percent than what we’re asking for but the pool was never constructed and there is one property where a pool was constructed without variance relief where relief should have been required by the town but wasn’t. In total three of the surrounding properties have been developed or expanded with the benefit of lot coverage relief, two at the same or higher percent requested by the applicant. I tried to give the Board some visual context for these other properties and cases that have been before you. I handed up this tax map it’s nothing fancy it’s just a meant to be a guide to help you follow the surrounding cases. If you have that map in front of you I’ll just quickly summarize the information that we provided, item number one and our reason for appeal addendum. So the property located diagonally across the lagoon at 715 Dawn Drive is improved with a waterside swimming pool that was constructed less than 75 feet from the bulkhead and thus required variance relief at the time in 1986 it was case #3531. Also in 1986 the property located six parcels to the north of the applicants which is 55 Snug Harbor Rd. was granted relief for 25% lot coverage to develop the property with a house and swimming pool but the pool has not been constructed and that was case 3457. In 1995 the property located four parcels to the north of the applicants at 330 Snug Harbor Rd. was granted relief for 27% lot coverage to allow for a dwelling addition that was case 4294 proposed deck addition. The dwelling on the adjacent lot to the north so immediately to the north of the neighbors is at 520 Snug Harbor Rd. was originally developed (inaudible) 1978 a variance that allowed for 22.8% lot coverage which is case 2397. Then after that variance was granted an additional building permit was issued for construction of an 18 x 36 swimming pool which would increase lot coverage to 27.3% for which there is no record of a variance being required to grant it. Nevertheless in the context of this application that pool was constructed received a CO in 1981 and remains on the property today in configuration very similar to that requested by the applicants. However they got there the character of the neighborhood remains consistent with our application. Finally with respect to potential physical impacts or impacts on the surrounding environment compliant with Town Code Section 275-3D1(A5) the proposed pool and patio would be situated at least 50 feet from ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting the wetland boundary. The swimming pool would be elevated at least 2 feet above the ground water table to avoid the need to de-water the pool during the construction or impacting the ground water table. The proposed swimming pool will be equipped with a salt water filtration system thus avoiding the use of additional high coronation treatment system. The pool back wash would be directed to a dedicated pool dry well. While there is already an existing 10 foot wide non-turf buffer covenanted on the property which was covenanted in connection with the bulkhead replacement a number of years ago. The applicant is proposing to eliminate an additional 5 foot width of lawn to establish a permanent 15 foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the bulkhead. You can see that buffer which is kind of vegetated in the photos that we submitted with the application. So with that we ask for the Board’s consideration for this variance. To help you visualize we have submitted a couple of renderings from the landscape architect which should be in your file. John also asked me to mention that as it would typically be the case for any variance application before the Board associated with a pool, sound deadening equipment would be installed around the pool equipment which is proposed to the north of the house which is adjacent to the same property which also has a waterside swimming pool. If you have any questions regarding the application and the design any of us are here happy to try to respond. I should have mentioned Leslie that on the lovely sketch I gave you the applicant’s property is highlighted in green, properties which have received variances are highlighted in yellow. The lot coverage variances are completely covered in yellow and I have noted the case number and the percentage is next to those and the tax lot numbers that are highlighted in blue just show where there are existing pools. I should have told you that about five minutes ago so I apologize. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are no questions that I actually had in mind. Why does that pool have to be elevated on such a large raised patio? It contributes substantially to the lot coverage. JOHN PAETZEL : There’s a pretty substantial grade change when you walk out of the house. As soon as you step off of the raised porch and you land on the pool elevation you just carried that level consistently to the back of the pool so that pool just drops down. So the only way to eliminate that grade change would be to add fill to the backside of the pool which I didn’t feel was a good solution. MEMBER DANTES : Can you even do that? Would it be a Trustees and a wetland ROB HERRMANN : I was just I’m sorry John I was just going to add that would also be the less preferred solution I know from prior experience from the Trustees because when you grade up you can’t just create an in place grade change like a raised patio. You would have to not just fill up around then you would have to continue to fill and taper towards the bulkhead which would ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting then start to create a steep slope toward the bulkhead which is the opposite of what the Trustees normally wants to see. I mean the D.E.C. as well for that purpose in this case this project is not within the D.E.C.’s jurisdiction cause it’s (inaudible) bulkhead. The idea is in order to create that and mesh those two grades you can either create a raised patio like this or you can fill up but then you create that slope down to the water which may increase the potential for runoff into the pool. So this is (inaudible) I mean this is the issue we always deal with right with the way the code is written and if we were as the crow flies presenting the identical project but everything was at grade the exact same patio, the exact same dimensions with the exact same square footage would suddenly be discounted from lot coverage because it’s grade level. As a practical matter that doesn’t really there’s no difference in impact on the property the only potential justification for that that I’ve ever been able to surmise is just that raised structures are you know more easily seen by neighbors so if we were asking for a pool in a side yard for example with a raised patio that would be a more raised mass that the adjacent neighbor would have to look at. Again here we’re not asking for side yard specific relief the pool is in a conforming location with respect to both neighbors. So really there should be no visual impact from its different whether it’s raised or whether it’s grade level it just affects our lot coverage. That was one reason why when John and I were working with the applicants to design this we were careful to make sure that we were not asking for more relief than had been previously granted around the neighborhood. That’s not a coincidence it’s the truth. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well of course the (inaudible) shows lots of vegetation on both side yards most of which is not currently there. We do have a letter of objection from a neighbor that wrote will have visual impact as a consequence of that pool (inaudible) rear yard and what about providing some sort of you know evergreen vegetative screening along that side yard? JOHN PAETZEL : Yeah there’s definitely some existing evergreen trees that we would be happy to continue to avoid that visual impact to neighbors. ROB HERRMANN : We can submit a plantings plan from MPLA if the Board required it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright any questions? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I couldn’t get in the back yard I couldn’t get access. I could not open those gates so I really didn’t get to see the back yard unless I went on the neighbor’s property. I have the same type of a gate and I couldn’t open either one of them on either side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They did stick. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : I also have a question in regard to you have the gates on the side and a fence going around, you’re not going to have a fence around the pool or it is just going to be out on the property with no fence? JOHN PAETZEL : The fencing connects to the raised patio the terrace and the back wall of the pool will act the enclosure barrier. We will not need to extend the fence further down than to the back of the pool. There will be fencing connecting the side yard property lines to the elevated terrace (inaudible). To minimize impact you (inaudible) ROB HERRMANN : You won’t have a fence on top of the patio right? MEMBER ACAMPORA : (inaudible) is going to be in the front? ROB HERRMANN : Yes on the north side. JOHN PAETZEL : They only need to be 36 inch high barrier on top of the patio. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The character of the neighborhood (inaudible) lot coverage is very hard to describe (inaudible) or perhaps the residence but when you look at the volume of this house versus the neighbor’s house (inaudible) I think (inaudible) 27% that house everything is kind of shoehorned in I’m not personally familiar with the house but it’s on (inaudible) volume that when you look at this home it’s you know substantial. ROB HERRMANN : I don’t know what more I can speak to that. To clarify your initial comment what we figured out was the lot to the north was originally developed with lot coverage relief approximately 23% cause that was when the lot was vacant. The pool was subsequently added and we just know from town records that it was a 19 x 36 pool which based on the same data presented in the original variance application which showed a 27% relief. Again the lot four to the north and the applicants was actually approved with variance relief for 27% lot coverage in case 4294 that was for an addition. Then the lot two to the north of that (inaudible) interesting and I guess it’s because of the age of it but at that time that lot was also being developed, they requested lot coverage relief I think of 29% and the Board granted alternative relief for 25% at that time for construction of a dwelling etc. and a potential future pool. So the Board technically approved the lot coverage that would have (inaudible) the excessive lot coverage that would have been needed for a pool but the pool wasn’t built. So those were the other cases that I referenced. In terms of the visual the house is recently constructed and I can tell you from my own experience, when I was first there the house had just been built. There was no vegetation, there was no lawn there was nothing but dirt in the back which is pretty much the way it looks in the aerial photos that are still online and then when I was there more recently with the lawn addition, vegetation etc. it started getting a little bit of a different feel and I just I know this from personal experience with my own office in Southampton when it was ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting built I was like wow you know you see the (inaudible) on the road past the building but since then once all the trees and the vegetation everything that had been planted it sits much more nicely into the landscaping. The house itself of course was built without variance relief so MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) side yard they’re rather big I think 13.5, 13.8 I mean the house is there so there’s (inaudible) but I think that you need 10 and 15 combined 25. Again just the scale of the neighborhood, it’s a Bayfront community most of the homes seem small, pools aren’t all that common (inaudible). ROB HERRMANN : As noted the number of undeveloped lots there are several of those lots around and in which are pretty much still vacant but of the ones that are developed four of them have pools and as noted two of them have been constructed pursuant to variance relief and one was constructed without relief even though (inaudible). So it’s our argument that we’re not proposing something that’s inconsistent either with the general with respect to the pool again you’re asking about the house but the house is not subject to the application. With respect to the pool it’s not an uncommon feature in the neighborhood and I suspect it will be a more common feature of all neighborhoods out here given the current state of affairs in the world and there is history several cases of variance relief associated with swimming pool and more commonly with lot coverage again for more relief than what we’re requesting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any more members have questions? PAT ACAMPORA : Are the Trustees (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I doubt it. You know Rob I want to tell you I think I might have told you last time, I’m having conversations now with Glenn Goldsmith and Nick Krupski President and Vice President of the Trustees, the environmental impacts are now because of severe weather events increasing all the time far more than (inaudible) and it was time to revisit who goes first. ROB HERRMANN : It’s welcomed news to me. As you know I’ve been arguing for this for years. It didn’t used to be the way it is now but in terms of Pat’s question, because of a decision that was made at some point and I don’t know if Bill this is during your administration or prior CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it was before it was when I talked with Jim King who was then President. ROB HERRMANN : So a decision was made that the Trustees would not I mean they’ll let you drop one off but they won’t actively process a wetland application until a variance determination has been made. In Southampton for example you can’t even get before the Zoning Board of Appeals until you have a wetlands permit in hand if a wetlands permits is ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting required. So it has created situations where your Board doesn’t have the benefit of a Trustees decision and also really lengthens the process because your backlog is now so long that you wait four even five months to be heard sometimes depending on your volume and then you have to still go to the Trustees after that. It seems to me that both applications should be allowed to be submitted concurrently and at least preliminarily reviewed by both of you to have perhaps some interagency communication to decide how it’s going to go something like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s basically what I’ve been talking to them about. Again this is not in the code this made sense at the time cause the property owners and their representatives really didn’t know what to do. It made sense because at the time our impact was generally more larger in scope that we were permitted to do and permitted to look at (inaudible) Trustees but now (inaudible). So they should at least part of the problem is when you go to the Building Department they don’t give you the Notice of Disapproval that says everything you need. I’ve been trying to get that changed for years. It’s a disservice for all of us who live here because (inaudible) people understand all the hoops they have to jump through in order to do what they want to do. They should know that upfront so they can manage their time and resources. ROB HERRMANN : I agree and in the town of Shelter Island for example when they issue a letter of denial for a building permit application they tell you if it needs zoning relief, they tell you if it needs wetlands approval CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : the agencies ROB HERRMANN : Exactly. I agree with all your thoughts but for this application this is very (inaudible) to our own choice. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) I presume the Trustees (inaudible). ROB HERRMANN : Not to extend the conversation but I believe that a prior Town Attorney had made a determination that the Trustees could perhaps not legally grant approval for something that didn’t comply with the town zoning code. (inaudible) whether it’s true or not but I think that was the determination when it was made at the time. The Trustees issue a wetlands permit for something that didn’t comply with code it might not be a sustained decision, I’m not sure. MEMBER DANTES : Well they wouldn’t be able to grant you a building permit. T. A. DUFFY : The Trustees permits (inaudible). ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : I’m not championing this point of view I’m just telling you what I remember. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) ROB HERRMANN : I think it was Lori. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh Lori Hulse, well that was her opinion then she was the Assistant Town Attorney. ROB HERRMANN : Counsel for the Trustees. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anybody in the audience wanting to address the application? Is there anybody on the Zoom call Liz? Anything else from the Board? Okay I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING # 7547 – MARK ALBERICI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Mark Alberici #7547. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 24, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool with masonry coping and raised patios at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 115 East Side Ave. (adj. to Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck. Is someone here to address the application? So this is a pool with masonry coping and raised patio with lot coverage of 23% where the code permits a maximum of 20% and it’s LWRP consistent (inaudible) Trustees for location of a FEMA AE zone. The LWRP inconsistent for lot coverage, (inaudible) setback from the bulkhead on a dredged canal. It looks like the existing lot ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting coverage for the house, raised patio and deck is 19.5% and (inaudible) bring it up to 23%, is that all correct? JEN DELVAGLIO : That is correct. Let me just add a little bit of information. Obviously with the existing property layout and structures that were on the pool when the homeowner purchased the house I think it was just last year they didn’t have a lot to work with as far as being within the compliant lot coverage of only a .5%. We tried to make the pool as small as possible and keep it as close to the house as possible. I did talk to the town about what the proper setbacks were for the side yards and we tried to stay within those setbacks and again tried to be as far away from the bulkhead as possible. You can see that the grade elevation is quite steep so we are out of D.E.C. jurisdiction and the patio that we are proposing now is really just for some safe usable space. They do have a small daughter so we wanted to make sure that there was room on either ends for entry and exit of the pool. You can see that on the waterside we did no patio whatsoever and right now they have a rather large existing bluestone patio and we’re trying to stay as close to that as possible. In the pictures that I submitted you can see that there are some hedges that are existing, we are considering keeping those and just having that as kind of like a buffer between the pool or getting rid of them so that you can just walk from the existing patio right to the pool. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Have you submitted priors for lot coverage in that area? JEN DELVAGLIO : Where the hedges are Leslie? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I’m saying are there prior variances in the neighborhood for excessive lot coverage particularly for swimming pools? JEN DELVAGLIO : Oh I don’t know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s always a useful thing to submit because it does show character of the neighborhood and precedent. So if you can maybe look into that it would be helpful. I’m looking at the it’s pretty good slopes on here. I’m looking at the survey right now. JEN DELVAGLIO : The slope is very gradual and gentle all the way down to that bulkhead. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How about you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, he’s smiling he has to do it. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have to it’s just my nature I’m sorry. (inaudible) applications like this where we see (inaudible) which is a private road was that sited as a road cause it clearly then wouldn’t meet primary setbacks (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : The answer to that is it’s a private road if it has access to that road then it would be a front yard if it doesn’t have access or doesn’t use that road then it’s not their front yard. T. A. DUFFY : That’s changes. MEMBER DANTES : That’s changed? T. A. DUFFY : The definition of a street (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : This is clearly unimproved. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I get confused because (inaudible) Nassau Point where it’s really a right of way or just a little foot path which could be the same thing as here. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : (inaudible) Building Department is calling it a rear yard. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything on this? MEMBER DANTES : Not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where is the pool equipment going? JEN DELVAGLIO : Up by the house Leslie if you take a look at where the balcony over wood deck do you see that listed off of the house? You can see a little square that’s a 3 x 8 it says proposed pool equipment so it’s going to go right up by the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And the drywell is where? JEN DELVAGLIO : It should be on there. I have it proposed on the drawing the pictures that I sent over to you. If you see the very large rock that’s indicated it’s not on that plan. Do you have the survey that I’ve submitted? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see that I see it there but I don’t ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting JEN DELVAGLIO : The proposed dry well is off of the 5 x 8 patio and it should have been drawn on here. I can resubmit that. It’s indicated on a picture that I drew but I know you might need it on the survey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What about evergreen screening? JEN DELVAGLIO : Where? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Looking to (inaudible) JEN DELVAGLIO : Along right existing right now on the north side of the property where the proposed 10 x 18 pool patio is there are all evergreens there that are shown in pictures that I submitted and then on the south side there are a few very sparse little trees but happy to put more up if that’s something that would be beneficial for everyone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) to the left it’s really quite open. JEN DELVAGLIO : Hold on one moment, if you see here’s this picture the pool is proposed to go right here and you can see there’s a house over here the neighbor and there’s the evergreens here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Not on the other side. JEN DELVAGLIO : Right on the other side over here you’re right it is pretty open. We can do some screening if you’d like along the sort of the irregular curve line by the South Lagoon Lane right of way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yep. (inaudible) So you need to add the drywell on the survey a row of evergreen screening right. JEN DELVAGLIO : Yep MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie I know you were just speaking of the evergreen screening on Lagoon but sort of like (inaudible) it’s like an open lawn area are you suggesting the screening (inaudible) but what benefit the other neighbors going down the hilltop separated by that lawn CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I think it’s going to be highly visible to the other property owner the pool. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Maybe have them take away that openness that’s there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but most people who own properties adjacent to where swimming pools are being proposed frequently ask for some privacy. It’s a visual buffer and it’s ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting a buffer for additional noise. So that’s very common and standard practice. I don’t think we have any comments from any neighbors did we? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I didn’t see any that’s why I was thinking it’s an open road (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It’s a long way to the road but there had to be some degree of buffering between the two properties. MEMBER ACAMPORA : I mean there’s that buffering as you go into the driveway but then there’s nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Does that all make sense to you? JEN DELVAGLIO : Yeah it does. I think we’re always super conscientious of blocking of anybody’s water view so that’s you know something that we were trying to I guess be respectful of for neighbors but I understand your point of doing the sound buffering. I can also submit more pictures that would show that section and if it’s acceptable we can do the buffer of the evergreens to the edge of the pool that way it would be less of a visual block for the neighbors for the water. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay and as long as you’re at it can you have a look for some prior applications that the Zoning Board has approved for variance relief for lot coverage in that area particularly any of them with a swimming pool? JEN DELVAGLIO : Yes I have that noted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you want to say something about this application? UNNAMED SPEAKER : I actually came in from the city I’m here for Spiro I’m the other neighbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That one is finished. UNNAMED SPEAKER : I know but I was stuck in traffic. I’m the other neighbor and I say no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well that other hearing has been closed. We’re sorry you missed it. UNNAMED SPEAKER : Well add this to the record, I say no because it’s going to block my whole view and that’s his front yard it’s not his back. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We know. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting UNNAMED SPEAKER : Okay as long as you know, it will block my entire view I mean he redid the house and he had a chance to build a garage. I don’t want it. I’ve known his grandparents and they (inaudible) for eighty years. They’ve made it the back and I have a driveway next to me that they (inaudible) to prove that’s not their real driveway but their cars go back and forth back and forth all their trucks. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) obligation to send anything to the neighbor UNNAMED SPEAKER : No, no somebody got something in the mail but I wasn’t here I had somebody CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That’s just a public notice for the hearing. UNNAMED SPEAKER : Yeah I tried to get the Zoom number and all that. It can be on the books, I don’t want it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I understand. Thank you. Is there anybody on Zoom that wants to address the Alberici application? Okay I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an updated survey showing the drywell and proposed screening on the South Lagoon side property and potentially some prior variance relief. Is there a second on that motion. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Let’s skip to the end of the Agenda and I’ll just do the resolutions. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday November 4, 2021 at 9:00 am so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held September 16, 2021 so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to break for lunch. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. See you all back in an hour. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Liz is there anybody on Zoom? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Yes we have quite a few. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay why don’t you begin by explaining how they can participate if they want to testify. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Good afternoon everyone. If anyone that is on Zoom with us wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send a note via the Q&A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can also click the raise hand button and we will allow you to unmute you and you can let us know which application you are here for. If you are using a phone please press *9 to raise your hand and then we’ll tell you how to unmute when we’re ready. Thank you. HEARING # 7549 – MANNING FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Manning Family Irrevocable Trust #7549. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s May 14, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an “as built” conversion of a screened in porch to a heated sunroom attached to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 1330 Donna Drive in Mattituck. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please just state your name. PHILLIP MANNING : My name is Phillip Manning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So this is a rear yard setback of 24 feet that what was existing on the screened porch right and the code requires a minimum of 50 but you did receive a rear yard setback variance in 1989 #3830 for an addition which is I presume the screened porch. PHILLIP MANNING : Correct the previous owner. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get a building permit prior to the renovation of the screened in porch? ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting PHILLIP MANNING : I did. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You did, okay. So you’re here because they also told you that what you did was not to code you made it to conditioned space? PHILLIP MANNING : Correct when the Building Inspector came for the final inspection for the Certificate of Occupancy he noted that the space had been conditioned and that would require a variance I was told. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So when you screened that in you didn’t realize that was going to be a problem to have it conditioned? PHILLIP MANNING : No, I put the what had been a (inaudible) I put it on a foundation because when it was a screened in porch the rain was getting in and the deck was deteriorating to the point where it was (inaudible) so I put it under the same roofline I put it on a foundation and put windows in and conditioned it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have all just so you’re aware inspected the property we’ve been at the house and we do that with every application before a hearing so that we know what to look for. Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : It looks like the closest house to the rear yard line is 21 feet and your variance request is 24 feet so it’s less non-conforming than the existing house already is so I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a fairly small rear yard, it’s well screened no one is really able to see this porch or sunroom. PHILLIP MANNING : Yeah there are very large Leyland Cypress trees along the rear edge of my property (inaudible). ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone on Zoom who wants to address this particular application Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I don’t have any hands raised. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone here in the audience who wants to address the application? 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 : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. We’ll have a decision in two weeks at our next meeting. HEARING # 7550 – MARY HOELTZEL CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Mary Hoeltzel # 7550. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector’s June 16, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and construct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet located at 6190 Great Peconic Bay Blvd. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Laurel. CHARLES CUDDY : Good afternoon, Charles Cuddy 445 Griffin Ave. Riverhead, New York for the applicant Mary Hoeltzel. I have here Chuck Thomas who is the architect for the project. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we’re looking at a side yard setback of 5.5 feet. CHARLES CUDDY : This is in an R40 district, small lot 27,000 sq. ft. (inaudible) built this house (inaudible). The variances requested are to one is to (inaudible) rear yard. The other is ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting (inaudible) 5 feet (inaudible). I think this is very similar to the application that was made by (inaudible) April of 2019 and I’d like to hand that up cause it’s the next door neighbor on the west. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. CHARLES CUDDY : (inaudible) application (inaudible) as the neighborhood as was previously noted (inaudible) houses in it. This is simply a houses being built somewhat similar not the same size maybe to the west (inaudible). It certainly has no adverse impact environmentally (inaudible). The alternative is very little because of the size of the lot. (inaudible) and yes it’s self-created find that (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Lately what’s been happening is the (inaudible) whether you noticed the same, demolish and reconstruct to distinguish between demolish and construct a brand new dwelling. I presume in this instance that parts of the dwelling and the existing accessory garage will remain? CHARLES CUDDY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you saying on the same foundation then? CHARLES CUDDY : I believe that they are. I’ll let Chuck Thomas answer that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let the applicant come up and just describe the project. CHUCK THOMAS : Good afternoon Chuck Thomas I am the architect for the project. You are correct we were in discussions with the Building Department. We’re taking the existing house down to the first floor deck, we’re leaving the first floor deck in place and the foundation. We are doing additions to the existing foundation but zero of those additions are any closer to any property line. (inaudible) due to the amount of new construction consider it as a new home. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You’re putting in an IA system? CHUCK THOMAS : That is correct. We were thinking of going that prior to (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the (inaudible) accessory garage will become two story (inaudible). CHUCK THOMAS : We were actually (inaudible) it’s detached there were CO questions with that full disclosure so it really engulfed to add on to we’re removing that structure and we’re starting over. Presently that structure if we were going to build off of it is only 4.4 feet off of the west line so we’re going to remove that and proposed garage is going to be 6.4 feet so we’re basically moving it over 2 feet into a more conforming location. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I have a question Leslie. I understand it looks like on the west side (inaudible) setback why can’t you meet the side yard setback on the east side? CHUCK THOMAS : 15 feet on the east side? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. CHUCK THOMAS : We can’t conform on the east side. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) CHUCK THOMAS : That’s a grade level patio. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay, where the survey says proposed porch is (inaudible) CHUCK THOMAS : It’s a grade level patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that’s why. The Notice of Disapproval has it cited as the 5.5 is on the side yard variance and the other side (inaudible) but it’s not a porch it’s an on-grade patio. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay. MEMBER LEHNERT : The elevations (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : My other question would be why not for the extension that goes towards the water why not meet the 50 foot setback there? CHUCK THOMAS : The existing the 15.8 that’s to an existing room which we’re converting to an open structure and we’re proposing to extend that to the east corner that will not be living space that will be a roofed over porch. (inaudible) the house architecturally more better (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address this application? Is there anyone on Zoom Liz? I’m going to suggest the survey be corrected and read accurately that that is an at grade patio not a proposed porch so we’re not confused about the setback. Well we do our best that when we stamp the plans for approval that it’s good cause we don’t want to see it again. Anything else from anybody? Okay hearing no further questions or comments I’ll make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended survey showing an at grade patio (inaudible). MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We’ll have a decision as soon as we have a survey. HEARING # 7467 & 7468SE – VINCENT BERTAULT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for the same applicant there are two applications, one for a Special Exception Permit for an accessory structure an accessory apartment in an accessory structure the other for variance relief a rear yard setback. There’s a swimming pool in the front yard, additions located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet and the accessory swimming pool is proposed in other than a code permitted rear yard. Is there someone here to represent this application? Both of th these hearings were adjourned from June 17 and we have received quite a good deal of commentary from the public in general. (inaudible) several times since the time of the last hearing a Stop Work Order has been placed on the property for construction that was ongoing and that’s there until a determination is made. How many hearings did we have on this? Three I think at least. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did receive a letter yesterday from the applicant’s attorney Eric Bressler addressing public comments so we will have that in our file scanned in. Can you bring in is it Eric or is it Gail. Eric did you hear us, did you hear the opening? ERIC BRESSLER : I can hear you on and off behind your mask Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just was saying that we’re reopening both of these applications at th the same time, they were adjourned from June 17 #7468SE is for the accessory apartment in an accessory structure that’s the Special Exception application and then 7467 are for variances (inaudible). This is for a permit to construct additions and alterations to existing single family dwelling I believe that’s for a front porch at 7 foot front yard setback. To construct an in-ground swimming pool in other than the code required rear yard. That would then be considered to be in a front yard and let’s see that’s it. So Eric why don’t you go ahead and start and then we’ll see what the Board has to say and from the public. Can you hear me? T. A. DUFFY : Eric do you have any comments you want to make? ERIC BRESSLER : I can hear the last speaker. Yes Madam Chairwoman members of the Board, we are back here again on these two applications. The last time we met the Board will recall that it was adjourned (inaudible) and subsequently given this date in the interim many submissions were received by the Board from the interested neighbors and we have attempted to briefly respond to those comments. We didn’t find any of them to be particularly relevant to the issues before the Board. We have now been through several public hearings. I think that the Board has been very patient in listening to comments of the neighbors as I said much of which almost all of which is irrelevant to the issues before the Board but the Board has patiently listened to all of these comments. The issues before the Board are really very simple and they are set forth in the notices which were publicly read. We see no reason why the application for the modest porch extension away from the street or the swimming pool on this through lot should not be granted. We further don’t see any reason why the now first floor accessory apartment should not be approved subject of course to the plans which need to be submitted to the Building Department for whatever changes need to be made to that particular area. In short we think the Board has heard everything that there is to hear and more and we ask the Board to close the hearing and move toward deliberation and a decision. Mr. Bertault’s project has been in the works for fifteen months now before the HPC and this Board and it is now time for a determination to be made. So I respectfully request that the hearing be closed and that the Board render its determination in a timely manner. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, I do have a question about the letter you submitted yesterday. Under c. parking you have indicated that the ZBA has received an amended parking plan which meets the concerns of the ZBA. The ramp to the barn was previously approved in 2014 by all relevant agencies. Where in the record do you see a ramp previously approved either by variance relief or the HPC in 2014? ERIC BRESSLER : In the drawings that were submitted well first of all let me state whether or not if something was permitted by the HPC is irrelevant to what’s before you but we have reviewed the HPC file and we see that that was shown there and I believe all of the HPC files are now before the Board but in terms of the ramp and in terms of this Board it has been shown to the Board after the objections from the members of the neighborhood the parking has been amended but we need a ramp to get up into the barn otherwise there’s no way to access it. It is consistent with the barn being at flood safe elevation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just want to make it clear that the variance relief is (inaudible) granted for that barn is to move it from one front yard to another front yard for the purposes of preserving it as a barn. I just want to put that in the record and use that as what the relief says in the ZBA 2014 decision. We never saw a ramp. ERIC BRESSLER : The 2014 decision relates to the relocation of the barn that’s what it relates to and that is all that it relates to. In terms of the ramp we have changed the plan with respect to parking and we think that that meets the requirements in fact there’s no other way to get into the barn so I don’t think that is an issue at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are quite a few I don’t know Eric if you can see the audience you can see a little bit of it on screen, there are quite a few people in the audience who may or may not want to speak so I’m going if you feel you concluded what you’d like to say I’m going to turn it over to people in the audience to make their comments and anyone else on Zoom and then we will conclude and of course you’ll have the last word if you have a comment that you’d like to make. Now who in the audience wants to speak? Okay why don’t you go first and then you go and then you. Please start my stating your name. TIM FROST : My name is Tim Frost a thirty five year owner of a property two properties, 1995 rd and 2190 Village Lane. (inaudible) the property I remotely attended the June 3 meeting and as we know there were three hours of discussions, there were 15 pages of transcribed material and subsequently there were over a hundred pages of letters submitted in opposition to the project. I ask the Board frankly to reread those letters because many claims have been made repeatedly as relevant. I submitted three letters some of which were after the new plans having been submitted and I go through and mind numbing and significant detail what frankly I believe to be errors, omissions and let me say what I believe maybe be misrepresentations. As I said ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting plans have been repeatedly made as relevance. I actually went in last Thursday, read the ZBA files on both of these applications, went and looked at the Building Department application in file and have spent significant amount of time looking at the twenty four Laser Fiche items that are listed on the ZBA website. It’s a daunting task, this whole thing has been incredibly confusing and I think it can serve as an example of how we have to change certain things. Let me say that I want to begin and really just focus on one thing in particular and I’d ask the person who is sort of the odds or controlling these proceedings or what is on the camera here to draw up what is the grading and drainage plan which is one of the items in the existing file. I would start by noting one of the things that was (inaudible) at the Special Meeting by the Chairman was that this plan actually still does not have a stamp on it. I don’t know why that it, I know I’ve gone before the ZBA and gone before the Building Department and it’s always been a very strict requirement there be the actual stamp of the issuant body in terms of (inaudible) and engineering and it be signed. I still don’t see that and that troubles me. What I’d like to do and I (inaudible) want to as brief as I can if you can pull up that drainage plan and if it’s possible to focus on the upper left hand quadrant which is the site plan because you’ll see that this actually is quite similar to what the applicant or the applicant’s agent had submitted as Exhibit C so those on the Board I ask you to look at that. What the applicant is proposing is that there be parking in three spots, one of which will be right here, one of which will be in the barn and one of which will be in this lower corner. This is as I said the grading and drainage plan that has been submitted by Condon. Remarkably what is being proposed is that there will be a parking area right here. Those contour lines which you can see and it requires a certain amount of studying are one foot drops but the grade on that side is almost one hundred percent almost a one foot drop for every one foot of distance. There’s a proposal that there will be a car be parked there that will be one of the three spots. I find that rather incredulous and I suggest that one of the omissions might be in trying to tie this site plan which is Exhibit C the actual drainage and grading plan. The other thing I would note is that there’s still a proposal for this ramp and parking one of the cars in the relocated barn. I don’t want to go at great lengths but I do want to let you know that one of the items in the town code which for some reason has been omitted or ignored or perhaps not known by the attorney and the architect for the client states quite frankly and let me read it. It’s 280-78D relating to off-street parking and D relates to access and it states and I quote, “no entrance or exist for any off-street parking area shall be located within 50 feet of any street intersection nor exceed of a grade of 6% within 25 feet of any street line or 10% at any other point”. On two areas suggestion does not meet the town code. It is within 50 feet of the intersection of Willow and Vincent and the grade actually is not as stated in the material that has been previously been submitted by the applicant and as I th detail in my letter of June 13 which I encourage you to look at the grade is actually 16.32%, 16.32% you go over the street elevation of 4.7 feet to the ground floor where the car is going to be parked which is 8.6. Now reference has been made previously to driving in San Francisco but ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting I would suggest that the town code and those who drafted it were aware of the problem of parking on a grade. This frankly just doesn’t meet the (inaudible). So what I would suggest there’s a way out of this and I know the applicant has spent a lot of money and a lot of time and the neighbors have endured this project which has not been going on for fifteen months but it’s been going on for seven years that there really be a comprehensive approach to looking at this at its entirety not just in terms of two separate applications but that the applicants have an opportunity to fully submit plans that meet the requirements that tie together that meet the requirements of not only the ZBA but also with the town code. I think there’s much that can be learned here from this example and I know the Board the ZBA the Building Department have all been stressed and taxed on this but this is a problem in terms of climate change and people raising the grade of their properties near the water that the town needs to address and needs to come up with some regulations and procedures for how to really look at it. Thank you. CHARLES DEAN : I’m Charles Dean I live full time in Orient in the Historic District at 295 Village Lane. Mr. Bertault’s property at 95 Navy St. is a few blocks from my house I’m here to request that the ZBA recognize that his property is in Orient’s historic district and that if (inaudible). Had this property been outside of the district there would unlikely be such an uproar in Orient about Mr. Bertault’s plan. The Historic Preservation Commission has identified in all letters and Ms. Weisman as Chair and to the Members of the ZBA that the applicant is not in compliance with the HPC’s Certificate of Appropriateness for the barn. The roof is several feet over the approved height, the proposed doors are not a single barn door and the concrete wall has no Certificate of Appropriateness. The HPC is charged with approving changes to the structures in the historic district but the applicant has ignored the agreements to allow the barn to be moved. I firmly believe that variances of any kind should be issued for 95 Navy St. until the proposed plan is in compliance with its 2014 agreement. I see no other way to ensure that the HPC’s decisions concerning this property are followed. As far as I know the HPC has no enforcement mechanism of their own. HPC did not mention the issue of a use of the second floor of the barn and its internal construction is not in their purview. So one might assume that the roof was raised to allow for sufficient ceiling height for living room. The stairs to the second floor the ground floor accessory apartment becomes a large two story rather grand house. The ZBA should not issue a variance for this construction until the roofline is lowered to the appropriate height and the plans change so that a dropped ladder is the access to the attic storage area otherwise the storage area will be storing a sofa chair a T.V. or whatever else they need to make the salon floor a comfortable living space. The most egregious flaunting of the town’s rules is a construction of an entirely inappropriate four foot concrete wall enclosing a significant portion of the property. In HPC does have to approve fences and walls in the historic district and they have not issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for the wall and it is unlikely that they would issue such a certificate. Unfortunately the wall has been practically completed ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting in a rush before a Stop Work Order was issued. That wall has to be removed. If allowed to stand it would transform what was a quaint section of historic district into something so modern, a raised oasis with a cabana, a pool and an extra guest house that the district will be forever changed. Raising the ground level several feet and the roofline of the barn several feet has created a monster building out of scale to the neighborhood over which it will lord. The ground should be returned to the proper levels and the barn’s roofline lowered. Allowing this applicant to flaunt the rules of our town and then be offered forgiveness is a sure way to guarantee that the Historic District is doomed. Thank you for your time and your service. FREDRICA WACHSBERGER : Hi Fredi Wachsberger of Orient. This is the second recent attempt at an inappropriate incursion into Orient’s historic district. In the first instance a house on Skipper’s Lane no destruction had taken place and the issue was satisfactorily resolved with great effort I may say by the community. An appropriate renovation of the property is now taking place. Here we face a different problem which is the implementation of a plan that is entirely alien to the historic landscape and which is being implemented without proper approvals by the Town departments and without the community input that is expressly required by town legislation. The resolution of this particular issue will create a precedent for future inevitable attempts to disregard the essence and the details of the Town’s Historic District legislation. I believe we are at a watershed moment with extremely high stakes for the future not only of Orient’s Historic District but of historic districts throughout the town. Permitting the implementation of this plan would mean the end in my opinion of any reliable protection of the historic districts. Issues like the relative importance of preserving the historic character of the district versus the potential impact of rising water levels an issue introduced in this application should be a subject of town and community discussion and agreement rather than left to ad hoc individual board decisions. This particular application represents a gross transformation of an emotionally moving relic of Old Orient into something unrecognizable in any historic district in town and the swiftness of the execution of this design before the acquisition of the necessary approvals by the town and expressly against the wishes of the community now will call into question the willingness of the town to enforce its own legislation. The town must insist on the reversal of work that has been done without proper permission from the relative agencies including and especially demanding the removal of the wall which has been built without proper approvals and represents the most egregious incursion into the historic landscape. I have been at meetings of the HPC where the exact nature of wooded pickets was discussed let alone a wall. The integrity of historic districts and the balance between historical realities and contemporary living requirements clearly needs to be the subject of serious community discussion and collective agreement and there must be clear guidelines given to realtors to share with potential buyers as to what will be considered permissible. The resolution of this particular incursion into the Orient Historic District should ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting become an example of the town’s commitment to preserve the historic relics of our Southold communities and not an invitation to future buyers to destroy them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? UNNAMED SPEAKER : Can I ask a question? Since we have not had a chance to review Mr. Bressler’s letter that the record be kept open so that we can respond to it. (inaudible) suggest that the Board thoroughly review the (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I’ll discuss it with the Board. I think the Board has ample information about the (inaudible) and we also have an (inaudible) attorney to make his comments and they’re all part of the record already and there is complete transparency nothing has been hidden from anyone. As soon as we get anything it’s scanned in by staff and made available to anybody and if you have trouble accessing it on Laser Fiche you have the right to come into the office and request looking at the original file but we can also help you with that. Many time people have a hard time how to find the information but thank you for your comment. Is there anybody else in the audience at this time who wants to make a comment. Please come forward and state your name. RICHARD GILOOLY : Richard Gilooly 75 Willow St. My questions (inaudible) I’ve been made aware of a letter that was sent forth in response to their request from HPC. There were issues brought up in that letter, do those be addressed by the Board to make a ruling? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board has the option that letter went to Mr. Bressler so if he chooses to address them which I think he has attempted to do in his particular way then that’s his choice. You (inaudible) compel somebody to address somebody’s letter but certainly that is part of the information that this Board considers carefully as we do with all comments. The reason we have public hearings cause the public has a right to be heard and those comments are relevant. Whether they specifically address a standard our Board has to meet or look at we look at what the law obligates us to look at. We all have our opinions but our job is to filter through everything and to provide what’s known as a balancing test in the case of variances. Is the benefit to the applicant greater than any potential detriment to the community or is it the other way around that’s what variances are. Special Exception Permit the requirement is a different set of standards. There you have to look at character of the neighborhood, you have to look at harmony with adjacent use districts there’s a whole range of things. With the accessory apartment in accessory structures those are very specific special exception standards. They require an affidavit of full time residence in principle dwelling, they require plenty of documentation to show it, STAR exemption, tax returns and so on driver’s license, voter’s registration and so on. They have to document who will be in the accessory apartment and it’s either a relative which we do have on record or it’s going to be someone who is on the ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting affordable housing registry or is eligible to be on that registry. It has be a minimum of 450 to a maximum of 750 sq. ft. of livable floor area. It has to be on one floor, it has to have no more than one bedroom, no more than one full bathroom and that’s it and you have to have a C.O. on the building on the accessory building. If everyone can show those standards are met fully they generally get it cause it’s not a balancing test it’s you meet the standards or you don’t. That’s the legal distinction. Is there anything else you want to add? T. A. DUFFY : Well I would say that you also have to consider the Special Exception criteria also. (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He’s just saying that the variance standards are in the code and the special exception standards are in the code and we are looking at this as one proposal in two parts and they really are two different things, they’re two different kinds of applications. The Board will apply the standards that are relevant to those. RICHARD GILOOLY : Second question, the house is listed as a unheated I guess seasonal residence, does that effect this application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If it was deemed to be a demolition which it’s not then it would affect the Certificate of Occupancy that would be extinguished. In this case it’s a partial demo and reconstruction of an existing dwelling. It is legally allowed to be enlarged and it can become a full time principal year round dwelling. The only difference (inaudible) and different Certificate of Occupancy. Is that right Bill? T. A. DUFFY : Yeah that’s up to the Building Department determination to make. RICHARD GILOOLY : Thank you very much, I appreciate your time and effort. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody in the audience? VINCENT BERTAULT : Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman my name is Vincent Bertault and I am the owner of the property at 95 Navy St. I just want to address two points with regard to (inaudible). The first one being the plan which was submitted first to HPC and approved in 2014 as well as the variance for granting us (inaudible). On these drawings it’s very clear that the accessory barn which was (inaudible). So I don’t know why (inaudible) debating something that was approved. Now as far as the redrawing and the additional (inaudible) that’s total misunderstanding on the parking. The difference between the two buildings which actually where does it imply the HPC was approved (inaudible). Now in regards to the storm management plan and grading plan which (inaudible). These plans were approved by the Building Department and we were told that the Building Department doesn’t address (inaudible). We have email, we have communication from the Building Department. I would ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting agree with the lady who spoke about the changes which are happening a little bit over in this country (inaudible). I guess we’re arguing this project to make the house and the barn (inaudible) and these rules and code are made by FEMA and we are following them. The question (inaudible). Things are being raised and there is (inaudible) walls and steps around the houses almost (inaudible). So what should we do then when we are subject to (inaudible) in order to proceed with our construction with the renovation of the house which (inaudible). Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else here? Eric it looks like nobody else wants to testify here in the audience. I don’t think there’s anybody on Zoom that wants to testify. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie there’s quite a few hands up. I’m going to start with Barbara Cohen. BARBARA COHEN : Hi my name is Barbara Cohen. I’m here assisting Ellen McNeilly. You should have her recent and all the past submissions regarding both applications. So she’s been the eyewitness of the development at the site over the years and she along with the community have done their due diligence and remain engaged consistently in the past, the current and into the future. At this time it is absolutely clear that that applicant is in non-compliance to the 2014 decisions with certainly with the HPC decision to nobody’s fault but his own. The Building Department and Code Enforcement’s oversight and in action puts it back in the lap of the Zoning Board and HPC. It is the obligation of the ZBA and the HPC to judge current applications with an eye towards the history of the subject type and its approvals and, and the applicant’s track record particularly if the same applicant is coming back for more. The ZBA and the HPC should both use all of its power and authority to ensure compliance in the future knowing that enforcement may not always be on their toes. The applicant’s knowing that the burden continues to fall on the public to be vigilant and unfortunately Ellen herself has been the subject of the applicant’s attorney in letters accusing her of harassment and so if in the future there is request to verify the use of the barn and anything else I would hate to see her or anyone else be the subject of threatening letters. As regards the specific applications, so the variance, the variance as was discussed in the prior hearing had not real outstanding issues specific to that one. The important pieces though are the standard of obviously the evergreen screening around the pool which I know is a standard condition but if you actually look back and I did just a moment ago looking at the 2014 decisions and the plans you’ll see the current survey then that shows many, many mature trees and we know that in the work that has been done with or without permits regarding sanitary plans which can’t be approved until the ZBA provides an approval but no one’s verified whether in fact that advance work has been done but we’re assuming that hit has since so much digging has occurred and the drainage plan if those walls are linked to that which again we don’t have an approved plan all caused mature ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting trees to be cut down left and right throughout the property in particularly along those property lines where those walls took place. So as far as conditions go for the variance I think it is essential to add a very specific one that requires an enhanced and a detailed planting plan that in fact increases the amount of trees and landscaping. Why do I point to that, because if you go back to the 2014 decision from HPC it specifically and I have to say this issue of trees and preserving the willow and replacing holly trees have consistently overlooked undiscussed not even recognized by either the HPC in their prior C of A and in discussion at the Zoning Board as well and since Zoning Board can dictate plantings I think that it would be a very good condition so that there is compliance with the directors of 2014 that says that the applicant has agreed to make good faith effort to preserve the properties existing trees and shrubs particularly the holly trees during the relocation process. Clearly that has not happened so it stands in violation of that. Again the Building Departments in action is unfortunate in that and so that I think is probably appropriate to that variance application. Now the Special Exception yeah you can pick to the specific criteria and make the checklist and say aha, aha, aha, he’s in compliance, he’s provided and so and so but that would be a very narrow approach and again I think the applicant’s track record has to come into play here and the idea that you just simply trust that second floor space is it can be labeled storage on the drawing but we all know otherwise and the real and I know from the prior hearing the Board specifically directed the applicant to put it all on the first floor so that the creeping up to the second floor wouldn’t occur and to be used as living space. So again strong condition with the Building Department doesn’t require any particular staircase or access so I think it falls on the Zoning Board that if it want to ensure that the intent that is storage space the pull down ladder approach would certainly help in that regard. As regarding parking, the need for the ramp which then triggers issues of runoff backing out into a very narrow and curved street many issues that were discussed back in 2014 creates really it triggers more problems and what’s the mitigating suggestion there? Not necessary to have the interior parking space. You don’t have that and you don’t have the ramp and all the negative effects that come after that. There is plenty of space on the Navy St. side what is west southwest corner. He has one on the other corner and the one on Willow St. is perfectly fine for the parking situation. Yes they’ll be fill and there’ll be a slope than perfectly fine place to do some landscaping and that is that. I’ll say that all the plans must, must, must be consistent. The drainage plans, the sanitary plan they all assume the willow tree is going to disappear and replacement is not possible. That mature tree you know replacement I mean that’s unachievable and if there’s no specifics about that you can put a sapling not to mention it’s being suggested it should be put where in fact the drainage components are and so on. Not only that it’s always referred to as a dead tree, the applicant was stopped from actually it was John Burke who came and stopped a worker from having his chain saw take down limbs. So despite the neglect the tree is in good shape and again assuming it’s going to be taken down and replaced is a violation of the 2014 HPC that specifically says protect, preserve the tree. It ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting also acts as a visual buffer to the oversized lifted up barn. So keep that in mind in terms of the parking and the slope and this assumption eh the tree will go. Again I think it’s important that the ZBA before any plans are stamped for anything there’s got to be consistency. We know from the applicants past submissions that one plan says this and another plan says that and if it weren’t for the community reading this stuff and putting things together and FOIL’ing and really doing all of the hard work the truth is there would be oversight left and right. In the record itself the Building Department, Code Enforcement they’re not responding, they’re not taking action and the whole roof situation would have been prevented if they have had either really had the right plans, I don’t know what plans they were really looking at but that could have been the Stop Order could have been done much earlier. So in this case I think the Zoning Board really you know you are the last stop Building Department kicks it back to you and HPC and so we all look to you to really take that hard look and in considering any if there are approvals considering conditions that really have teeth and are specific so that the public isn’t left again playing enforcement and hoping for action when again the track record on that side has been doesn’t encourage confidence. So we ask that you keep that in mind particularly for this case and this applicant’s track record. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone else on Zoom? BARBARA FRIEDMAN : Hi my name is Barbara Friedman I’m an Orient resident. There are a couple of things I want to say. One is regarding the Historic Preservation Commission approvals, it seems that Mr. Bressler is totally ignoring the HPC and saying that as long as the ZBA approves the accessory apartment then he can go to the Building Department. I believe that this should revert to the HPC with all the changes that have been made subsequent to the Certificate of Appropriateness. Not only is the building substantially higher than what was shown to the HPC but also the roofline the west elevation has changed. It used to be a gable that broke into a lower sloped shed is now a gabled roof on that side it’s more of a saltbox with a continuous slope. So it’s completely different from the original barn and then there’s the elevation on the north side that doesn’t seem to agree with what’s been shown in the latest plans so that also seems to have changed. I think this really needs to go back to HPC and the ZBA shouldn’t make any approvals until it does. Then going back to looking at the swimming pool not much is being said about the swimming pool. At the June meeting Mr. Bressler insisted that there would be screening, of course they want privacy but what is shown on the last site plan that I’ve seen the swimming pool is raised up four feet off the ground with a retaining wall and then there’s a four foot hedge so there’s zero screening of the swimming pool. Then there’s the location of the swimming pool which is so clearly associated with the barn it’s strange credulity to believe this would ever become an affordable apartment. The other thing about the swimming pool is they’re showing a pool fence of four feet high on top of a four foot ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting wall that although it’s on grade on Mr. Bertault’s property on the neighboring it’s four foot above grade so that’s a total of over eight feet of wall. MR. BRESSLER : That’s not true. BARBARA FRIEDMAN : That’s not true okay what is it? ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman I will save my comments until the everybody has spoken. BARBARA FRIEDMAN : As far as the porch addition, the addition to the porch has no actual function. If you look at the adjacent properties on that side of the street this does houses already much closer to the property line than other properties on the street. There is one on the corner that is as close but if you average it out I don’t think it would be three feet from the property line. I haven’t seen any statistical analysis of what that setback is or what the average should be but I don’t think it’s three feet. So they’re increasing a non-conformity and it’s not within the average. Then they say they’re raising the barn to a flood safe elevation and yet the barn is higher than the proposed height of the house so it must be above the flood safe elevation if the house is at a flood safe elevation one would assume. So that makes one wonder why the barn is up quite so high. The last thing is, if it’s an unheated seasonal residence how can someone be how can it be a full time resident which is a requirement for having an affordable apartment if the house doesn’t have a C.O. for full time residence? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there someone else to testify? LAWRENCE BERNSTEIN : My Zoom is not working great so I hope you can hear my comments. Much of what has been said I do not want to repeat so I’ll try and be brief and relevant. I live next to the applicant, we live full time with my partner and we share two significant property lines with the applicant. We look at on the project ever day the very large barn and all the work that’s being done on the property is extremely unsettling. Let me say at first that I agree that the applicant has the right to improve anyone has the right to improve their property as long as that development is within the boundaries of HPC and ZBA and if they are not then it seems like a relatively simple matter. There are many people that stop in front of our house dozens and dozens of people actually stop and they look at this project. They are all very upset. They ask how a project of this magnitude can be done, they do not understand it. My partner and I try to explain the facts as best as we can but I can tell you that there is a high degree of incredulity on the part of many people walking by this project. When it all started I was under the impression that this was all approved and for month I went along and I really thought that that was the rdth case but during the ZBA meetings of June 3 and June 17 I learned that there were many open matters. So then I looked at the project very differently and I started to look into this much more closely and I was concerned, concerned about the loss of our mature trees along the ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting property line, I was concerned about privacy screening, I was concerned about (inaudible) and these are just the issues that I have with the applicant that directly affect me so I want to stay I understand that those are personal matters and not necessarily relevant to the ZBA applications but I do want to reference them and I also want to reference that the applicant was good enough to say that he would reimburse me for the trees but at the same time you know there are many, many aspects of the project that are concerning the height of the barn looking down on our property, the (inaudible) effects of the grade are all in the historic district. rd So at the June 3 meeting I voiced my concern about water flow and the sloping grading. My partner talked about her concerns mainly about the ramp and the corner of Willow and Vincent where cars can in fact come whipping around the corner. We are concerned about this kind of development in a historic district and any reasonable person would be concerned about the scope of this project. We tried to make that point made clear in our letter to the ZBA that a comprehensive view of the project was needed. So here’s really my point, at the last ZBA meeting the Chair asked if (inaudible) from HPC that’s where it was left and now we have a st letter from HPC on September 1 stating that there are five violations. The barn height is two feet over, the preservation of the structure being preserved as is, is not in compliance, the altering of the façade and the fence has been constructed without a C of A. I don’t understand that at all. Finally the fifth point is, the applicant is not in compliance with the 2014 HPC Certificate of Appropriateness. So I just want to say that we are all concerned. There is a very, very vibrant community here. In my short time of living full time in Orient I’ve learned that folks really care about Orient as do I. So thank you for your service and thank you for listening I appreciate it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there someone else on Zoom? EVAN LEWIS : Good afternoon my name is Evan Lewis and my family and I own the house at 2395 Village Lane. We’re one of three contiguous neighbors along eastern border shared with Vincent and Claudia. This ongoing project and its ultimate outcome has had and will continue to have a very significant impact on how we use and enjoy our property. For instance only time will tell if the seventy plus year old very mature Cooper Beech on our western property line will survive having some of it’s significant roots being cut during construction of the wall. My wife and I are fortunate enough to own three houses in Orient Village so the process of dealing with the ZBA, the HPC and the Southold Building Department not necessarily in that order but work to be performed in a compliant manner is very familiar to us. To start echoing Lawrence’s sentiment I’d like to say as I have in the past and I said to Vincent and Claudia in person, I hope they’re able to figure out an appropriate way forward so they end up with an updated property that better suits the needs. They’re members of the tight knit Orient community and their management of Opties and Dinghies restaurant in town adds a great deal to the village. As I’m sure that they would agree they should be held to the same standard as all of us who build or ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting alter properties in the village if not then it’s a free for all and we can all build what we want when we want. There are places in the United States where there’s greater freedom of zoning design and construction as possible and embraced but it’s not Orient. The issues in front of this Board seem uniformly binary in nature. The plans are approved or they’re not, the variances are granted or they’re not, the construction is compliant or it’s not. In each instance if Vincent and Claudia had followed the appropriate processes and their contractors had built according to approved plans and granted variances they should be permitted to continue if not construction must be halted, reverted and made compliant for Vincent and Claudia or anyone in Orient. Stern finger wagging long after non-compliant construction is completed is worthless. The significant mechanics of these approvals and oversight should not be left to the full time or part time village residents of Orient by most be the responsibility of Southold in its various forms. I’m confident and hopeful that Vincent and Claudia can achieve nearly all of what they desire while balancing the critical requirements of the Southold Building Department, the HPC and the ZBA and at some point in the near future I hope to see them enjoying their renovated property. I appreciate your time and I thank you for your time and service to the community. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many more are in the cue Liz how many more? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have the next one is Marcia Sheldon and Mariella had her hand up but I don’t see her anymore. MARCIA SHELDON : Hello this is Marcia thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk. I don’t want to be redundant but I do echo and reinforce the concerns of Lawrence my partner and also Evan. Again this is not the time talk about our individual story but as an adjacent neighbor we have sustained and (inaudible) and profoundly unpleasant impact on our property and land use besides the destruction of six mature trees, broken cesspool cover, broken sprinkler line none of which have been repaired. We personally have gone through the approval for an HPC permit for our property fence. We were compliant we were patient we took our time to make sure that everything was appropriate. The huge question for me every day is how does the applicant’s cement wall get installed without any HPC intervention? It feels unjust and it feel unprotected as a resident of the village and we do need an improved enforcement and consistency for the rest of the projects going forward. That’s all I have thank you. MARIELLA OSTROSKI : I just want to state that Chapter 170-6 says, Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration, demolition or new construction no person shall carry out any of the following activities without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness specifically permitting such activity from the Town of Southold Historic Preservation Commission. Number one the demolition or removal of landmarks designated as historic pursuant to 170-5 of this Chapter or the alteration of the façade of landmarks designated as historic pursuant to 170-5 of ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting this Chapter; B-no demolition or building permit shall be issued for such activities without Certificate of Appropriateness. The Certificate of Appropriateness required by this Chapter shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any building permit that may be required by any other Chapter of the Town Code of the Town of Southold. Therefore there is relevance to coming before the Historic Preservation Commission, it’s our job to follow this law given the opportunity to do so that is our intent. That’s all I have to say, thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that’s it for Zoom. Is there anyone else in the audience who wants to say anything before Mr. Bressler speaks? ERIC BRESSLER : Yes I’d like to sum up please madam Chairwoman. There have been a number of issues raised by the members of the audience both personally and on-line and again most of them are without relevance to what’s before the Board. I am constrained to note particularly the comments of Ms. Cohen and many, many of her comments we actually agree with. She said she has no problems with a variance that’s honest and forthright. She shouldn’t have any problems with the variances, they are minor or routine by nature. She correctly points out that a Special Exception is a matter or checklist but then invites the Board to go beyond that checklist, that invitation should be refused. In terms of the one comment that was made about the porch serving no function, I think I addressed that in my later serves quite a bit of function. It provides shade on the west side in the afternoon on the east side from the westerly sun it is further away from the roadway and it provides direct access to the garden. As such it is a functional and important part of a plan. It is no closer to the road in fact at every point it is further away. Let me comment briefly on the heights the commentator who made the comment about the height is simply incorrect. If you look at the foundation plans to the house and the barn you will see that they are within inches of each other and they represent the 8 foot height that everyone in Orient ought to be thinking about whenever they perform improvements that is what FEMA is looking for. The failure to do so I think would be negligent and damaging to a homeowner. In terms of the drainage, that’s not before the Board it’s been approved by the Building Department and it’s got nothing to do with the HPC. Now in terms of the of the parking, the parking that’s provided is at grade except for the parking inside the barn and that is perfectly permissible. Lastly, with respect to this alleged roof situation I just want to point out one thing to the Board again this is not before the Board but I would point out that the applicant has received multiple building permits, he has received approvals from the Building Department multiple with respect to the foundation and the framing of the barn including the saving of the roof which was collapsed or in danger of collapsing. All of these things were approved, these things were not done willy nilly. The Board has merely to go to the Building Department file as I did and look at the favorable inspection reports and in fact as late as April of this year an updated building permit was issued indicating to me that everything was fine. So getting back to where we are on this there are no problems with the variances, the ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting swimming pool can be screened. The Zoning Board routinely asks for swimming pools to be screened and they can be screened. Everything is going to be done according to the drainage plan and lastly I would like to say that this is taking an inordinately amount of time and the property has been torn up there’s no doubt about it. If approvals were to be granted and the project were to go forward the drainage and the septic area is going to be backfilled, landscaped and brought back into a condition that at least Mr. Bertault and hopefully the neighborhood would be proud of. The swimming pool is going to be screened, the drainage is going to take care of any issues with respect to the barn. The house will be renovated and will look nice. There is no reason why the porch variance and the pool variance should not go forward and if all the boxes are ticked on the Special Exception sheet then indeed it ought to go forward. Obviously the Building Department will have to sign off on all of the individual aspects of the plan. So that having been said we urge the Board to close the hearing and render a prompt determination on the issues that are before it and those issues only. Thank you for your attention. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Alright are we ready to close both of these? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m comfortable closing. UNNAMED SPEAKER : I just want to clarify (inaudible) various neighbors. I think the first one (inaudible) after a point (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : This is kind of irrelevant to us. If it’s something that helps your case for a variance you can say it but if (inaudible) this is an inappropriate place. TIM FROST : Tim Frost. I know the Board is aware of this and I think it’s important for the public effort to be entered in. There’s a thing about I think the attorney has made a point about checking boxes, I would just like to read Section 280-13A; 280-13 relates to Special Exceptions and permitted uses. There are several items in here but you get down to the end and I want to read Section K, no special exception shall be granted unless the Zoning Board of Appeals (inaudible) consideration determination findings required in 280-42, 280-43 specifically finds and determines the following: 1. The granting of the Special Exception will not adversely impact the privacy and use and enjoyment of any adjoining parcels. 2. That the granting of the Special Exception will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood in which it is located. 3. That the cumulative effect of the improving the present application along with previously approved application will not have a cumulative adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. That sufficient off-street parking exists on the subject property to accommodate the proposed accessory apartment. 6. Whether adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties from possible detrimental ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting impacts of the proposed use. That’s from the Town Code. So I don’t know that we can say that it checks all those boxes. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) Nick are you ready to close? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I’m fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. Rob said he would. If there are no further questions or comments I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing we’ll do it one at a time. Close th hearing #7467 this was adjourned from June 17 and this is a request for variances and I’ve already read what they were. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. That application is closed. Vincent Bertault #7468SE adjourned th from June 17 this is a Special Exception Permit application for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. I make a motion to close that hearing, is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Both motions carry unanimously. Both are now closed, the Board will now continue to review all the findings that are in the public record submitted by everyone. We will reread all the transcripts and this is normally we would have decisions within two weeks. I don’t think in this instance that’s a very likely scenario. We have many, many applications this one will require a great deal of review and probably a lengthy determination. ?? October 7, 2021 Regular Meeting So I’m just going to (inaudible) that we will more likely have this on the Regular Meeting. We have sixty two days by the way legally from the time of when the hearing is closed in which to render a decision. We rarely if ever take that long that’s what the law allows but we (inaudible) evaluating and processing these applications because (inaudible) so we don’t want to get behind. We can say with some certainty we’ll likely to have both of those at the next hearing which will be in November. Again we’ll deliberate on those drafts before the public, they will be available once I sign them they will become legal they will be sent to the applicant and the attorney of the applicant and they will be available on Laser Fiche to read in detail. We will review with each other the gist of not all the details what’s in each of those drafts and discuss it before the public as open meetings law requires and then we will vote on them. As soon as I go in the next day I will sign it and it gets filed with the Town Clerk and (inaudible) a legal document. Any further questions from anybody before I adjourn this meeting? Thank you all very much. Board Members is there anything else we’ve gone over the Resolutions. Okay so I’m going to make a motion to close the hearing. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries, the meeting is adjourned. October 7, 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 : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : October 25, 2021