Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/02/2021 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: STATE OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Southold Town Hall &Zoom Webinar Video Conferencing Southold, New York December 2, 2021 10:12 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 OFFICE ASSISTANT— Elizabeth Sakarellos OFFICE ASSISTANT— Donna Westermann T December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page The Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant#7046SE (Decision) 3— 7 Vincent Bertault#7467 (Decision) 7- 10 Vincent Bertault#7468SE (Decision) 7 - 3.0 Patrick and Diane Severson #7558 (Decision) 10- 11 New Suffolk Waterfront Fund #7595 11 - 12 Fishers Island Community Center#7563SE 13 - 20 Russell Roberts#7564 20- 28 John and Margaret Krepp #7565 28 - 35 Michael A. and Maureen Kelly#7566 35 -41 Nicholas and Aspasia Constantine#7567 42 -43 Tamar Holdings, LLC#7568 44-48 Peter J. Maltese and Madeline Joyce Covello #7569 48 - 52 Kimberly Palermo #7570 52 - 55 North Fork Project, LLC/Old Mill Inn #7573 56 - 64 Steven Cordoves and Michael Gulizio#7562 64- 72 Juan Acevedo#7571 72 - 73 David and Lisa Cifarelli #7551 73 - 75 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Welcome'to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for Thursday, December 2, 2021. Due to the expiration of the New York State Governor's Executive Orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, in person access to the public is permitted. The meeting is also available to anyone who wishes to participate on the Zoom Webinar platform and Liz why don't you review for the public and those who are calling in how they can participate if they are on Zoom. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie, good morning everyone. If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a note via the Q & A tool at the bottom of the screen, I will be checking those. You can also click raise the hand button and I will allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for so then I can move you in appropriately. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Let me read the SEAR resolutions, declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type If Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 c including the following,, New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Fishers'Island Community Center, Russell Roberts, John and Margaret Krepp, Michael and Maureen Kelly, Jonathan Divello, Tamar Holdings, Peter J. Maltese'and Madeline Joyce Covello, Kimberly Palermo, Steven 'Cordoves and Michael Gulizio, Juan Acevedo and North Fork Project LLC/Old Mill Inn so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER L'EHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We have a couple of draft decisions in front of us before we get into our first hearing this morning. Everybody please go to the Enclaves Hotel and Restaurant #7046SE. It's a very long decision ten pages. I will walk you all through this, you've all had a chance to read it right? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. a December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is essentially for a Special Exception Permit application for a two story forty four unit hotel, forty units in the hotel and four detached cottages. The restaurant which is part of the project is an as of right use and is not before the Board. Just to remind us all, we accepted the FEIS Statement and we issued a Findings Statement in which we determined that the applicant has mitigated moderate to large potential impacts for the proposed hotel use. Nevertheless the public's concern was important to us and primarily those concerns (inaudible) about to probably three major things which is noise, traffic generation and community character. They were also concerned about the use of the Founders Landing Beach. Those are all addressed in here so I think the best thing for me to do is let's look at the sections that talk about that in here. Let's go to page three, I just think it's easier if we read directly from here some short things. This is under additional information right at the bottom, numerous letters and petitions were received by the ZBA from members of the public particularly those living in the neighborhood objecting to the proposed project citing concerns over the traffic and noise impacts the hotel and proposed large events would generate and'the adverse impacts to the local nearby beach within the Southold Park District should hotel guests be permitted to use it. Also of great concern by residents was the perceived increase in traffic that has occurred since the applicant's traffic engineer conducted the most recent traffic study. Particularly cited was the dangerous traffic conditions caused' by cars pulling into and out of the small parking lot at the 7-Eleven convenient store across from the subject property and the impacts to the two residential side streets. While the FEIS limited the annual numbers of large events to ten (10) indoor events per year and required a Southold Town Police Department Traffic Control Officer for those events as mitigation of large to moderate impacts, smaller impacts remain a concern. Although the residents' letters and oral testimony at hearings expressing concerns for safety and quality of life were grounded in personal experiences and not empirical data as the attorney pointed out the Board believes that they still have some merit. A Board may rely and this is where we found case law in support of this argument, a Board may rely on the detailed personal knowledge of residents. See Witkovich vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Yorktown with a bunch of number after it, this is a 2011 decision an appellate jurisdiction. In addition the Board members based on their personal knowledge of the area and the current traffic conditions on Main Rd. also believes that large events will have a negative impacts on the area. The Board members are aware of the increase in traffic accidents and congestion at the 7-Eleven convenience store in part caused by no unloading area available in the small parking lot for very large delivery trucks that regularly park on the road shoulder and block sight lines for oncoming vehicles. The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals may rely on their own personal knowledge of an area in rendering a determination. See Thirty West Park Corp vs. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach this was in the second department division in 2007. We go on just to say that with regard to large events and some concerns from the public on the potential financial viability of the proposed hotel, October 9, 2021 the Board received a 4 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting letter from Andrew Giambertone in which he addressed the Business Environmental/Financial Viability of the proposed project in reply to concerns by residents that questioned the financial viability of the project as proposed. He states "Even with a 50% occupancy we can sustain the viability of this development project. We would not embark on an investment of this magnitude without conducting the requisite due diligence to assure ourselves of the success of the project in,the context of a very conservative analysis. Further, the purpose of large events is to help offset the anticipated off-season reduction in business." So I want to,take a look at go to our standards now for Special Exception Permit, go to number A on page five. I want to read what we have written in this draft. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts. So what we have in here is as set forth in the FEIS and Findings Statement provide conditions to mitigate possible impacts from noise and traffic resulting from the proposed action. For example, FEIS and Findings Statement provide that there should be no outside amplified music or outside events to mitigate against noise and that the number and size of large events be limited. Although the FEIS did examine and provide mitigation for traffic caused by what was previously defined as "large events". The Board finds that based upon its own personal knowledge and the specific testimony or residents who live near the subject property that traffic studies relied on in the FEIS do not adequately account for the drastic change in traffic patterns in the area 'since the last traffic study by the applicant's traffic engineer was completed. Consequently, the Board now also finds based on the increase in traffic and co'nge'stion that large events of more than 100 people that would require a traffic control officer will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties. Therefore the Board has also determined that the proposed hotel and the destination traffic such use will generate will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties provided there is an additional condition that no large events of more than 100 people are allowed on the property. With regard to community character there was testimony during the hearing that the proposed hotel will not be characteristic of the neighborhood in size scale or architectural design. There's only one other hotel/restaurant on Main Rd. in the hamlet of Southold operating as a boutique inn with only four guest rooms on the second floor above the restaurant in an old residential looking building. However, the proposed screening and the distance the hotel is setback from the street will mitigate any potential impacts from the size, scale or architectural design. I think finally one other thing and then we can talk about this. Again we've indicated in here that the hotel will not have any exterior amplified music or amplified sound. All exterior lighting has to be dark sky,compliant as determined by the Planning Board. The hotel use of Southold Town Park District properties,was referred to the Park District and the Park District expressed no concerns about the proposed use and stated that any issues would be addressed through the bylaws and the applicant has agreed to abide by their decision in a letter'dated October 29, 2021 from Andrew Giambertone architect and partner. I think I might just get right down to the bottom line here. Is there December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting anything else anybody wants to enter into this at this point, talk about this? What we have before us is a conditional approval of the hotel and we have a whole series of conditions on the approval of the Special Exception Permit for the 44 unit hotel use and I'm going to read them. No outdoor events are going to be required to be filed as ,Covenants and Restrictions acceptable to the Southold Town Attorney that will remain in force and effect so long as the approved Special Exception use as a hotel is operational. 1. No outdoor events of any size shall be permitted on the subject property. 2. No special events as defined in Chapter 205 (Public Entertainment and Special Events) of the Town Code shall be permitted on the subject property. 3. No large events defined in the FEIS as events over 100 guests are permitted on the subject property. Small events that are accessory and incidental to the principal hotel use shall be permitted. Small-events.are defined as events ,under 100 guests. 4. No expansion of the number,of approved hotel units shall be permitted. 5. Proposed hotel amenities including but not limited to the indoor pool, spa and fitness facility, the outdoor pool, hot tubs and cabanas and the roof top bar/lounge are limited to use by overnight hotel guests only as accessories to the principal hotel use and shall not be available for use by the general public. 6. No outdoor music is permitted anywhere on the subject property. Does anyone have any corrections, changes (inaudible) on this? No, okay I'm going to make a motion then to grant a Special Exception Permit as shown on the Site Plan prepared by PWGC/P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer last revised February 18, 2021 (sheets 1-16 unstamped and unsigned) subject to the conditions and C&R',s that I read into the record. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Member Planamento. All in favor? MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Madam Chair I'd like to explain my vote. This was a long and arduous problem for me..As many of you know I have been in government for many years. For quite some time I have served as the Assembly Woman for the Town of Southold. I served as a Chair and a Commissioner of the State Public Service Commission. I've also served at the County level and now I serve on this town's Zoning Board of Appeals. Throughout my long career in public service I've always prided myself on the fact that I listen to people that I represented and my decisions were always based on what I felt the people wanted through the feedback that they gave me and that lead me to draw my conclusions and vote or move on what was necessary. December 2; 2021 Regular Meeting Investors are coming to our town we all know that to propose and do business. This is something that we've seen sweep across Long Island. I grew up in the western part of Long Island and I've been proud to live here for almost forty years. During our public hearings as the Chair` mentioned residents of our town expressed their concerns about the change in the community character that this would bring along with the increased traffic. I cannot forget that we have investors in our town and these investors are also experts who, have an invested interest in our town and they are the people of Southold Town. I listened to the people who are the town and for that reason I will be voting no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Based upon that vote the motion carries. Thank you Pat. The next decision that is before the Board is for Vincent BePtault. We have two of those, one is for a Special Exception Permit for an accessory apartment in an accessory barn and we have one for variances. Let's look at the variance one first, that's #7467. This is for a variance for a front yard setback for an existing dwelling to be renovated and the existing seasonal dwelling which will become a year round home. It includes the expansion of a covered front porch attached to a single family residence having a front yard setback of 2.72 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet for front yard setbacks. Also the applicant is proposing to raise the existing seasonal dwelling two feet above the flood plain in order to make it FEMA compliant as a year round residence and further requests relief to locate an accessory in- ground swimming pool measuring 10 by 21 feet in the front yard where accessory swimming pool are only permitted by code in the rear yard. Everybody have a chance to read through this one? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : One of the things that has happened here is that through a series of processes I remember the Town Board and the Historic Preservation Commission have reached an agreement whereby the current and proposed (inaudible) have been acceptable and that's important because it's sitting in a historic district. They will be actually increasing by a little bit the setback. We did look at averaging, remember what was it was 17 feet MEMBER PLANAMENTO : 17.1 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : average on either side and discussed with the applicant whether they couldn't lift cause they had to lift it for FEMA foundation anyway and move it back and they did submit documentation about enormous financial cost of doing that and also of the 7 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting possibility or destruction, winding up demolished because it is quite old. With regard to the swimming pool, the pool is being proposed to be located on a very high elevated flint we call it platform which is attached to the (inaudible) elevated foundation of the accessory structure and in addition to it being attached to that structure because as we see the structure the barn and the house being elevated to FEMA compliance the swimming pool is also proposed to be substantially elevated on that platform with retaining wall and LWRP policies highly recommend avoiding putting any kind of a swimming pool in a flood zone and this is by their own admission an (inaudible) flood zone and I want to read this part. The LWRP requires agencies reviewing actions to review them for consistency with the LWRP policies pursuant to Section 268-5 of the Town Code. The Board hereby determines that the installation of an elevated in-ground pool in a front yard is inconsistent with policy.one which requires an action to foster a pattern of development within the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location and minimizes adverse effects of development pursuant to town code Section 268-5 1a. policy for which requires the action to be consistent with the policy to minimize the loss of life, structures and natural resources from flooding and erosion pursuant to town code 268-5 1d. So what we have here is an approval for the variance for,the front yard setback subject to a series of conditions and a denial for the variance relative to the swimming pool as applied for. Let me read the conditions. The entire covered front porch facing Navy St. and the wrap around portion should remain open and unenclosed. No installation of plastic sheathing, window screening or shuttering and the like if permitted and the porch must remain unheated and unconditioned. Second, the applicant shall submit an amended survey or site plan stamped by a licensed professional depicting the approved front yard variance eliminating the in-ground swimming pool in the front yard and showing the location of two off-street parking spaces for the principal dwelling access directly from Navy St. Three, the applicant shall install a new IA waste water sanitary system that complies with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services regulations. Then four is the standard of the fact that if for any reason the construction during construction exceeds the scope of anticipated additions and alterations and becomes if determined by the Building Department to be a demolition then there are procedures that the applicant has to follow through the Building Department. Any comments or questions on this, any discussion? Then I'm going,to make a motion to we'll do them one at a time, grant the variance for a front yard setback as applied for and shown on the survey prepared by John Metzger dated December 3, 2020 and the site plan prepared by Gary O'Connor December 15, 2020 (inaudible). Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA-: Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries unanimously. We also have a motion to deny the variance relative to the swimming pool as applied for. 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. Now let's move on to the next one, this is the apartment VINCENT BERTAULT #7468SE. Again there are a,series of standards that must be met in order to grant an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure. This is an existing accessory structure however the second and there is evidence submitted adequate evidence that the applicarit does reside on the premises however the applicant has to be a resident in the at dwelling according to the second standard. First they submitted plans that were not in conformance with the code it was on two floors. Then they came in and gave amended plans•on one floor and they're proposing to use partly as a garage and partly as an apartment with storage above. So that certainly brought into more conformity however the owner of the principle dwelling is proposing to occupy do the apartment first, occupy it during the time when the principle dwelling is being renovated and live there until such time there is a C. 0. on that dwelling then move back in. At that point he's proposing to either have a family member in there. There is supposed to be either a family member that is rented to year round by a lease and he only indicated that the family member would use the apartment when they were in Southold. So it's kind of you know on the border here and you know he's jumping the gun. If he wants an apartment he's going to have to renovate his house, come back and be living in it and then either prove that someone will be in there on a°year round lease a family member or they will be on the affordable housing registry. That is the primary rea"son, the other reason though is that Town taw three indicates that evidence has or has not been submitted to December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting show that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, order of the town would be adversely affected in that the proposed parking spot on the ramp of the garage represents a dangerous situation for passing motorists, pedestrians as well as anyone attempting to use the proposed ramp to enter onto Willow St. The Board you know kind of sees that because of the structure was so highly elevated we now have a concrete ramp to access vehicles to the garage that's at a seventeen degree slope and not setback that far from Willow'St. so that's another condition that we find detrimental. So any other comments or questions or discussion on this one? MEMBER DANTES : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright then I'm going to make a motion do deny a Special Exception Permit as applied for under zoning code Section 280-13B(13) to establish an accessory apartment in an existing accessory structure so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT-: Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Seconded by Rob. All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBERYLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries-unanimously. There's one other draft before us Patrick and Diane Severson #7558. This is for a guest house an accessory structure proposed to be where the sheds are located now that (inaudible) waterfront property. They did get setback variance relief for sheds and now they're proposing to put in a guest house and of course it's not a permitted use, that would constitute a second dwelling basically on,the property. Is there anything else that Pat or Nick or anybody that you want to point out about this application? MEMBER PLANAMENTO-: Not at this time we had (inaudible) that we had to reopen the hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true. We did explain to them that about the only permitted accessory structure clearly would be since they had a swimming pool they had the right the propose a code conforming cabana/pool house, and if they needed setback variances December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting (inaudible) and so they did propose to reopen the hearing but they're completely different applications. We did discuss it. MEMBER ACAMPORA : And they did propose to remove the shed that we gave them the variance for in order to build this structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So if they want to come back for a pool house they can come back for a pool house that's up to them. They have options, if you want to put on guest quarters added onto your house it'll cost less than building a whole guest house. This is a motion then to deny as applied for, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING#7595— NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board is for the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund #7595.This is a request for a variance from Article XIX Section 280-85D(5) and the Building Inspector's June 23, 2021 amended October 12, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to install a freestanding sign at 1) located less than the code minimum required 15 feet from the edge of pavement located at 650 First St. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in New Suffolk. Is there someone here to represent the application? PATTY LAWREY : Good morning. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we're looking at a welcome sign that's 7 foot 10 inches from the edge of the pavement on pilings that are already installed. PATTY LAWREY : Yes. Patty Lawrey Chair of the New Suffolk Waterfront Fund. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Everybody went out and inspected the site just for everybody's knowledge in case you don't already know, any hearing the Board has every Board Member on their own so we're not in violation of the meetings law goes out and inspects each property. So we know what it looks like and what the surrounding is and so on. As far as I'm concerned and I'm just speaking for myself it's the perfect location for a welcome sign. It's required to be on pilings which happen to already be installed. PATTY LAWREY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has no impact whatsoever it's very low profile, you can see right over it you're not going to block any views. It's not going to be any impact to pedestrian vehicular traffic and I have no further questions. Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No not at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : What's the other part of the Notice of Disapproval where it says maximum two signs on a lot (inaudible)? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think that was amended. MEMBER DANTES : Oh that was amended, okay so I should just cross that out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's only one sign. They put some informational signs up over by the old Galley Ho so that's not before us it's just this one welcome sign which is going to be a very good directional indication for people who don't generally know where they are. So anything from anybody else? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. We'll have a decision in two weeks. HEARING#7563 SE—FISHERS ISLAND COMMUNITY CENTER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Fishers Island Community Center #7563SE. This is a request for a Special Exception pursuant to Town Code Article III Section 280-13C(15). The applicant is requesting permission for recreational use upon premises accessory to a community center and to construct two paddle/pickle ball courts located at Fox Lane on Fishers Island. Is there someone here? JOHN BENNETT : Good morning I'm a lawyer with Bennett and Reed in Southampton, New York. The affidavit of mailing and posting already been filed we represent the Fisher Island Community Center. We're seeking Special Exception approval which is again a Special Exception use that is permitted upon Special Exception as you all know pursuant to town code 281-3C(15) with the establishment two pickle ball courts. We were retained subsequent to the initial filing so what we did do was supplement the application in my view is what's necessary which is an actual special exception petition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We did get that we have that in our file. JOHN BENNETT : If I may approach what I wanted to do is hand out what I thought was helpful an aerial photograph with the site (inaudible) marker on it Suffolk County aerial. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. JOHN BENNETT : Sometimes that just (inaudible) surveys and site plans sometimes it's easier to look at. So we believe that we submitted compliance with the Special Exception Permit and I also wanted to let you know that one of the things we did do we did receive a copy of the referral from Terry noting that those actions are consistent in the LWRP. This took a little while to get before you because the property was originally zoned affordable housing and it had to go back to its original zoning and that took some time but the Town Board was helpful enough to do that for us and we're very appreciative of that. So I'll try (inaudible) with your permission to scoot through the standards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure. Well we're aware the zone change was to permit accessory uses and not on the principle lot within two hundred feet and that is the case here. JOHN BENNETT : Yes indeed Madam Chair. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think in fact was specifically intended to address this situation but sure if you want to run through the standards. JOHN BENNETT : Well as you noted, it's going to be accessory to the existing Fishers Island Community Center 200 feet from the principle site the Community Center. The Community Center was formed in 2006 to provide cultural education athletic and social activities to benefit the residents. I want to stress this is not and I think it's important this is not a membership what you would find in the various codes on the east end or the (inaudible). This is not a membership club, it's not one of those clubs where you submit and you wait four years to see if someone decides (inaudible) and can actually come into the club, this is open to the public. I think that's very important cause I think my guess was not to make this something that (inaudible) private membership club that's not what it's about. The intent is to purchase the property from the current owner so that an effective handshake deal so that with this Board's approval (inaudible) I guess that's the way things are done on Fishers Island the handshake which is an approval. Private events, leagues, private clubs would exclude the participation of the general public would not be allowed and I just wanted to be very clear there would be no charge separate for the use of these courts. I wanted to be absolutely transparent about this because membership in the community association is incredibly nominal fees as a whole but there's no specific (inaudible) separate charge for these pickle ball courts which I think meets the intent of the special exception standard; no outdoor lighting, no food associated with it, no benches viewing (inaudible) and again more of a general standard no impact on the health, safety and comfort hopefully will have a beneficial effect on the health of the members. It's ideally suited location, it backs up to some of the refuge (inaudible) mostly commercial and or private and or educational uses. The school courts are right across the street so it's a wonderful (inaudible). I think that's me hitting the high points of the qualifications for the (inaudible) for the special exception standards. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's just one point I want to make, on page two of your memorandum of law number C the second to last sentence where you're saying that the proposed accessory recreational use located adjacent to the Fishers Island Community Center I think there's a road in between its within 200 feet (inaudible) JOHN BENNETT : I'm sorry that was we were maybe stretching the use of the word adjacent my apologies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean it conforms to the code it's just it's not adjacent. JOHN BENNETT : I apologize for that. Also at the risk of being I don't know if this accounts for anything, my firm's office is in Southampton I just don't want you to think I'm too much of a carpet bagger. I usually come into Southold (inaudible) and go past my grandparent's house. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting My mom died God rest her soul she would have been 104 if she was alive today and lived in Southold moved over to Southampton with my dad in 1946. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Long history on the main land. f also should point out that the memorandum from the Planning Board support the application it's consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Let's see if there's any questions here, does this need site plan approval? We're trying to figure out whether we need to go to JOHN BENNETT : For site plan approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's that and then of course the'small strange anomaly I know you're removing the sheds that are in the way JOHN BENNETT :The shed's coming out. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But there is a mobile home some place. JOHN BENNETT : That's staying, that's a very valued residential use there so we're going to keep that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see that you're proposing to keep it I just don't know what that means relative to a second use for what is,principle on there and what is accessory, do you see what I'm saying? JOHN BENNETT Yeah I know but there's a principle use and there's accessory use I think both of that with the Town Attorney and the Building Department obviously I don't want to create any (inaudible) with that we'll make it fit somehow and if we have to come back to ask for relief because that's the determination of the Board on that the Building Department and with the Town Attorney we'll do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It'll be handled in site plan review if a site plan were required but I don't know that it is, it's just pickle ball courts. JOHN BENNETT : I had this conversation I read the code and the code has as all the codes out here unless it's a single family residence you have to go for site plan approval. My understanding was that's a determination when it's before this Board for Special Exception use that sometimes they use the word waive but I'm agnostic about that. If you want me to go for site plan to the Planning Board then we'll do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The bottom line is to be perfectly candid based upon the proposed use I don't see where site plan approval is so requisite that,usually has to do with you know on- site parking, ingress and egress that's not going to be there's not going to be an impact here. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting It's LWRP consistent because unlike tennis courts cause this could be a (inaudible) area they're elevated. Pickle ball courts are not like tennis-courts they're not on the ground so I think the idea here will (inaudible) helpful as possible T. A. DUFFY : I think,what the discussion was whether there should be a site plan or not (inaudible) specifically required as counsel pointed out you have the option of requiring a site plan approval if you think it's necessary. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the only thing that concerns me is if the residence remains, then does that become an accessory? The pickle ball courts are accessory to the community center do they become accessory to the residence? JOHN BENNETT : (inaudible) for the fact that you have a code section that's somewhat unique which,allows an accessory use on a parcel that's not on that CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now we do yes we've changed the code to allow JOHN BENNETT : I think you have a problem otherwise because you know typically the code is saying you can't have an accessory use without a principle use. These are really two divorced uses all be it one of them accessory so my argument would be you don't have that issue. We're stuck with a typical situation where your accessory use has to be in this case on the same use as the residential use, then I don't see it as problematic if I may. But here where you have a somewhat unique (inaudible) that allows you (inaudible) accessory use on another parcel you don't see it as problematic but again ultimately that's up to the Building Department in consultation with the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean because then the question would become is there sufficient lot area for two uses but they're not two principle uses? JOHN BENNETT : They're not two principle uses. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This kind of falls between all the cracks. JOHN BENNETT : The other thing, if you I don't have 'a problem with if this is another principle use MEMBER LEHNERT : Wouldn't they both be accessory to the community center? MEMBER DANTES : That's the way I see it. JOHN BENNETT : Well it's hard because I think you don't want to I think we want to have that have a full blown existing single family residential use which is on the C 0 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And it's occupied. JOHN BENNETT : And it's occupied. T. A. DUFFY : Unfortunately one of the anomalies in our code is that Special Exceptions go directly to ZBA and the Building Department doesn't look at it first which would have been nice to have their input as to this issue. I think maybe I would suggest to the Board to maybe just to keep the hearing open only to get an opinion from the Building Department and get their input as to whether (inaudible) accessory use or if it's seen as a permitted use and whether it conforms to the bulk schedule so me may have to notice it for maybe a variance is necessary. MEMBER DANTES : Is it someone that works for the community center that lives there or is it rented out as a (inaudible) JOHN BENNETT : At the time but I would like to retain the flexibility to remain just what it is a single family residence. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm curious one a little bit more about the trailer to understand it but also the former upholstery shop. How is that property being used? JOHN BENNETT : I'm not aware that that's in any continuous use but I'll get back to you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) wondering and I was kind of dismayed that affordable housing is such an issue not only town wide but I recall a few years ago we had a hearing to allow the creation of T. A. DUFFY : They actually had an AHD zoning on (inaudible) but the water quality was such that they couldn't move forward so the town removed the AHD zoning. JOHN BENNETT : I was very transparent with that because when the Board was when I was appearing before the Town Board I wanted to make sure that that wasn't an issue because to your point affordable housing availability MEMBER PLANAMENTO : a huge issue on Fishers Island. JOHN BENNETT : I understand that but the problem is and we see this all over the place in all the communities out here, unless you're marrying an affordable housing site to on-site sewage treatment which would be cost prohibited on such a small site or an existing community sewage system it's very difficult to do on these smaller parcels. So there was a very good faith attempt to have it happen on this parcel and after about a year and a half cause you're right it is an issue. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But this trailer has an existing sanitary system. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So it's a residence so couldn't that be included in the use of the site as affordable housing along with the former upholstery shop? MEMBER DANTES : Or you can give them a variance for second use but first Mike Verity's gotta write a (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not even really a second use that's the problem. The other problem is, the proposal is that should this be approved the community center is going to purchase the property. It will then become the owner of that dwelling. JOHN BENNETT : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Presumably they will be continuing renting to whoever is living there now. JOHN BENNETT : Correct. T. A. DUFFY : (inaudible) even though it is an accessory use, an accessory use to (inaudible) on a different lot but it's listed under permitted uses, permitted by Special Exception (inaudible) principle use/accessory use so we have to that's why I think we need Mike Verity to MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It still seems accessory to the community center especially if they're the owner. MEMBER DANTES : They want to use it as a rental and support the community center. They don't know what they want to use this MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right but couldn't we condition it as an affordable rental? JOHN BENNETT : I would respectfully suggest that would be an inappropriate condition. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : To have the residential trailer unit used as an affordable housing? JOHN BENNETT : Conditioning that as part of(inaudible) yes MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You want to keep it as a market rate. JOHN BENNETT : I want the flexibility. MEMBER DANTES : Also Nick if they have seasonal workers coming in affordable housing has to be year round. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Listen we're getting over the top on this. I think we've covered all the issues. JOHN BENNETT : Again it's not common from a policy point of view (inaudible) by your restrictions as unconditioned. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But a house is not before use. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But this is puzzling because you have a CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can't condition something that's not before you MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But the site is before us. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The site is but not the house, not that use so that's why Bill is suggesting that we talk to the Building Department. The only reason is not to'delay this but to make sure we get it right. We don't want to have any backlash later that we didn't foresee. I really don't see that site plan approval is that important provided there is parking on site for the existing dwelling per code as a separate kind of thing which appears that is the case. So why don't we do this, is there anyone in the audience who would like to address this application? Anyone on Zoom Liz who wants to, okay let's just make a motion to adjourn to our next meeting in two weeks and it will be either Kim or someone from the office of Bill will be in touch with you, Building Department will be in touch with you to bring you up to date on any potential insight we might have on this. Otherwise we will have to grapple with it ourselves. JOHN BENNETT : If I can respectfully request if you talk to the Building Inspector if 1 can have the opportunity to have my two cents (inaudible) T. A. DUFFY : Let me see if I can set up with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can go and talk to him directly and find out JOHN BEN'NETT : I prefer (inaudible) the conversation it think it would be CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I can't, I don't want to do it because (inaudible) but Bill and you can do it. JOHN BENNETT : So the next meeting is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : December 16th two weeks from today. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Bennett just a question to clarify I just wanted to ask again but there's no exterior lighting proposed? December 2, 2021-Regular Meeting JOHN BENNETT : No. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So this is really just a day use? JOHN BENNETT : You can condition it that's fine, condition on exterior lighting that would just be MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well actually the law states that lighting is not permitted so I had to ask that question. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hearing no other questions or comments I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting to December 16t', 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. Thank you all for being patient. HEARING#7564—RUSSELL ROBERTS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Russell Roberts #7564. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and a request to Overturn the Building Inspector's July 14, 2021 amended July 30, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to construct roof line alterations to an existing accessory structure and to alter use of the existing accessory structure to an artist studio at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 5 feet, 2) the proposed use in the accessory building is not a permitted accessory use located at 1295 Old Harbor Rd. (adj. to Cutchogue Harbor) in New Suffolk. PAT MOORE : I always try to get a design professional here in case there is questions that are more appropriate for him to answer. I also have my client here Russell Roberts in the audience with me again so that I can refer to him if there are questions. The proposed project as you December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting know from the documents submitted this started out with the renovation of the existing building got a building permit for the space cause as you can see I don't know if all of you have been there for the inspection but it's been there a very long time and it has a 1970's C. 0. but it's a connection of accessory buildings that are open between them but it's unique construction. I don't think it's ever been constructed as one piece, it's been pieced together. Mr. Roberts ultimately this is his home and initially it was to renovate it and then he realized it would be wonderful space for him to use as an art studio. I provided his background, he's a long recognized artist. I also have in my possession the brochure of his work which I'll submit to the Board. There's also another lovely write up which is part of this submission it's his artwork. This space as an art studio we meet he very purposely he talked with his neighbors or his one neighbor that's directly adjacent to this property and you can see also from the site inspection that the elevations of the property the property to the north directly adjacent to this structure is certainly higher it's a higher grade than this property. So the design that Tom Samuels had been instructed to consider is keep the structure as low profile as possible. To start'with when the building is renovated the foundation actually the base of the foundation is going to be excavated to give the additional depth or height inside the building and what Mr. Roberts was realizing that the light and the size of his canvases still needed one portion of the space to be higher to place the canvas on and I sent you photographs of how his work is generated and it's large panels on (inaudible) and he works on that method. Mr. RobertsI is here and he can explain that if you need further elaboration. So ultimately the application when the structure was staying without that extra roof height was eligible for a building permit but then when the roof line changed slightly even though it's staying within the height of accessory structure legal accessory structure necessitated the variance and that's the application before the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So in a nut shell it's 2.9 foot side yard setback but it's the roof overhang we're looking at basically. PAT MOORE : It's not even CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a soffit. PAT MOORE : Yeah and'because it's an increase in the degree of non-conformity that it triggers the variance so that was the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The wall is staying as the wall is. MEMBER LEHNERT : But you're raising a portion of(inaudible) PAT MOORE : But we're raising a portion of the roof exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine so that's the variance. PUF December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now with regard to the use, from my point of view I think you know- based upon our prior determination what you have submitted suggests that the applicant would qualify as an artist who is not proposing to do any sales out of that spot, strictly for personal use and not to open a gallery or anything of those PAT MOORE : Not at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I think that that's perfectly legit from my point of view but I did have one question because you know I took out-my scale ruler not easy to calculate because of the non-parallel wall but I came up with pretty much what I think stamped on the plans which is about 1,121 is what I think Tom put on there and mine is as close to that as could be but if you look at 280-15 in the code a lot that is the size of the applicants in R80 zoning district between and 10 and 19,999 sq. ft. cause this lot is a non-conforming garage so, 19,457 sq. ft. okay the height is fine you need a 5 foot rear and side yard setback but we're going to deal with that but it says no more than 1,000 sq. ft. in size. Now this is over that, not by much so the question then becomes, do we either get an amended Notice of Disapproval to grant a variance for an oversized structure or do we say you can use 1,000 sq. ft. as an artist studio and the 120 sq. ft. remaining needs to be storage. l PAT MOORE : Well let me address those options but let me add some facts to this scenario which is a little unique. Mr. Roberts owns the piece adjacent which is identified as 117-3- (inaudible). That lot it's a unique scenario here, Sanford Friedman they were separate lots here and Friedman relocated the right of way to move it from the center of the property CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that showing up on that PAT MOORE : Yes exactly. MEMBER LEHNERT : They show a line. PAT MOORE : Exactly we show the line, so technically he owns two contiguous properties and technically they merged. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't understand so I'm glad you're talking about it now. PAT MOORE : Yes, yes and here's the dilemma, the road was relocated but there's underground utilities that run bisecting the property and those utilities give the electric, gas and so on to the east to the homes-to the north. So that was one practical issue why the (inaudible) put one survey together cause while zoning has merged them. The other issue is that the Health Department recognizes this parcel that's been in place since the eighties as an independent as �27_ December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting two separate parcels. I'm sure you've dealt with this but the moment you merge two properties intentionally or unintentionally and most times its intentionally, you want to make the property bigger, lot line change whether it's officially or unofficially the Health Department looks at their old 1981 map and says oh you did a subdivision so we're not going to allow you to do anything with the sanitary or future sanitary until you actually submit a subdivision application to the Health Department. So that opens up an entire mess of procedures so while we have two separate properties, they're treated contiguous properties and they've technically merged I can't show them without the property line without the two tax map numbers or it opens up another a completely independent unrelated to the town can of worms. So in this case we actually have a larger parcel than is actually showing on the plans, it's two parcels so if the Board so we'd like to keep the structure as proposed because it is existing they're going to renovate, they're going to maintain the same structure and the whole character he loves this building, he loves how it looks and how it's integrated into the property. So the alternative of cutting it back is a little bit of a dilemma I mean we can talk about it, the other alternative is just ask the Building Department to amend their Notice and we'll add an extra variance for that 120 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We can do that that's why I bring it up I wanted to provide some options cause I don't want to PAT MOORE : Yeah surprise us with that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah our Board doesn't want to come back and say whoops we missed something that's a waste of everybody's time. MEMBER DANTES : How did the parcels merge? PAT MOORE : Well Russell bought both properties okay, I think they're both in the same name right? I represented him on the real estate and I'm going by my memory, the prior owner had acquired it from I think Friedman originally, he owned that piece and the other piece but again I didn't want to create an issue for him in the future so we own both properties and I think they still have separate tax map numbers. MEMBER LEHNERT : Friedman owned the second piece sold it to the previous owners I worked for the family, built the garage and worked on this house so I know when this whole thing went down. This used to be a driveway and I think there's some sort of easement in there PAT MOORE : There is a utility easement exactly you're verifying from your own knowledge yes. So that's good I'm glad. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : So the prior owner merged them for the (inaudible) then he sold them as one parcel to your client. PAT MOORE : He sold them as it's one parcel or two parcel I forget? I don't remember at this point I mean I can check my deed. RUSSELL ROBERTS : We bought them as a unit it wasn't an option one lot. PAT MOORE : Yes it was sold together. MEMBER DANTES : So he doesn't qualify for a waiver of merger? PAT MOORE : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, we can amend the Notice or we can just simply ask Tom to put in a storage closet. RUSSELL ROBERTS : Russell Roberts, 120 feet is 10 by 12 which is basically what the portable storage units that you're allowed to have roughly. I'm fine with that. We were trying to deal with this because the floor lines drop and even though it may not look like it from the outside they're really three separately built when Pat said they're open actually between the front one facing east and the middle one there's actually an interior building in it a little cottage with a wall that separates that and it's a drop a three foot. We're just trying to make it one contiguous usable structure whether it has to be exactly be (inaudible) for artwork and is in violation of certain zoning limitations I'm not worried about that. What we're really trying to do is make it something that we can fix, it's been left in disrepair since it was built. The roofline on the north side we're talking about is only 3 feet inside so it's really unusable on the right hand half of the building once you enter. So that's really it and because the grade is higher the addition we're putting on the roofline on the top is really just attaching the existing garage. It's not a new peak and it's going to be flat not extend. MEMBER DANTES : What I'm trying to say is we have a merger law, if the merger law merges the properties why are we giving the benefit of both properties if that's what the law says? mean we tell people they can't build on merged properties why can't they build to the regulations of merged properties (inaudible)? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no problem with that because they can't unmerge this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would agree with this but I'm still not understanding how or why the County or the Suffolk County tax map doesn't illustrate one lot. MEMBER DANTES : Because the County has nothing in its records. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : Right because this property the house was bought with one deed and then the other property was conveyed by Friedman by a separate deed. Our zoning puts them together because they're contiguous and they're undersized for the small its undersized so it merges under. the County it has them as two separate 'properties. The Health Department looks (inaudible) very official they pull out the old 1981 map and they look at the map so that's it. MEMBER DANTES : Then if you look at the names on one of the maps that we have most of them haven't been updated in years. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And it's not as simple as going to Planning and requesting PAT MOORE : No MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I would think that they it's favorable you're rendering PAT MOORE : You would think logically that the Health Department would say what a wonderful thing, you're combining properties. It happened about twenty years ago that the Health Department somebody was at the Legal Department you know lawyers take the blame the Legal Department said no under our regulations any development and they described development as the combining of lots as well as the subdivision request. So that definition triggered a lot of the old subdivisions, old lot line changes everything to hop up as subdivisions and I had at least four in the last two years that I have to go to the Health Department and it's very complicated because in this case he owns both properties but imagine if the Health Department doesn't have a record and it was,a lot line change or a subdivision that involves a third party. I've actually had to beg third party owners to join.us cause they're the applicants to put in a subdivision application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat what was the tax map number on the second parcel? PAT MOORE : 117-3-8.8 let me make sure. Yes 8.8 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's 117-3-8.8 and 117-3-10? PAT MOORE : 117-3-8.8 is the piece the west. 117-3-10 is the house parcel. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright I think we can handle this internally. PAT MOORE : Oh good that's wonderful. Do you need this brochure? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie would it make sense if some sort of an affidavit from the applicant stating that the lots are in fact merged? PAT MOORE : We'll put it on the record but my client he'll swear to it. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's on the record. PAT MOORE : It's on the record it is what itis. RUSSELL ROBERTS : The deal went down not long they can't be unmerged. PAT MOORE : We haven't actually come in with an area variance to split it from the property J you'd remember this hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well look, the most important part of the hearing is getting all the issues out so we can (inaudible). Are there any other questions or comments? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No my question was about that extra lot. MEMBER LEHNERT : The lot was sold to the previous owner in order to have the driveway (inaudible) PAT MOORE : Yeah and then there was (inaudible) not involving my client at all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? Please come forward. DAWN HEARD : My name is Dawn Heard I take care of the property for Mrs. Harkin`right next to it 1155 Old Harbor Lane and she has me come she's in her nineties and she's with family in Pennsylvania and her son is on a plane at the moment couldn't do the Zoom to speak for her. She's just really concerned she didn't get the first notice about the meeting in June (inaudible) in the mail so she was kind of distressed she didn't know about the original I think CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We never had a meeting in June. DAWN HEARD : Oh I thought it got denied once already. This is the first one? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah. DAWN HEARD : Ok great she's be happy to know she didn't miss that. She just sounds like when you look at the plans is adding to I guess when you (inaudible) right at her property line the building is literally at her driveway so she was concerned because it does sound like it's expanding. It sounds to me like you're just raising the roof. Of course all of that work is going to impact her because there's no way to regulate that without I mean the plantings will have to come out so I imagine that will be addressed when they put it back it's going to and the other thing is just as far as future I think another neighbor is here too by the way, as far as future is there a way in my experience I've lived here forty years artist studios sound like a great idea and when in a year somebody is renting is as an apartment. Is there a way to put that in that December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting this is definitely I understand you are an artist and that's wonderful for the moment but it seems like if it gets sold or if the person ages out of that profession now all of a sudden it's being used for other things and a whole family is living there and it's right at the property line. MEMBER DANTES : You can't legally have a shower in it. DAWN HEARD : Okay good to know. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a half bath and a slop sink. PAT MOORE : And generally you call it non-habitable. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a non-habitable structure which means there's no sleeping in it, no cooking in it you can condition the space so it can be used year round so that he's not freezing in the winter when he's trying to paint. MEMBER DANTES : Lately you're supposed to get a rental permit for rentals and it wouldn't meet the criteria. DAWN HEARD : Okay I'll share that info. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay anyone else. Please come to the mic. You want to respond? RUSSELL ROBERTS : Only in the sense of this is Russell Roberts only in the sense of being (inaudible) illustrating (inaudible) I met on two occasions Ms. Harkin and the person who was. actually with her at the time sort of friend companion.l don't know the exact definition, we talked for quite a while. There was a planting she's-very clear she wanted her Rose of Sharon's replanted whatever we did and I said that was.fin'e. Our lot lines actually over the years have become sort of interchangeable they're three feet over and the length of it on one part we are right on it but it's true (inaudible) it is her driveway it's sort of a reality but I also spoke to her son (inaudible).who I went through this he actually spent a lot of time there when, he was younger playing against that wall. We sort of joked about it playing handball he knew what I was thinking so it isn't like I've just approached Pat and Tom and said let's do this. I also said in terms of the (inaudible) and I promised last year when COVID hit that we wouldn't do any construction or renovation during renting or summer season when they would want use of the property which makes it harder for us but I completely 'understood that either as an income source for the family. He even said that he actually planned now to get re-involved in the building, there was a question that he wouldn't be and he said no he's very interested now so being there in the summer. There's some level of connection and reciprocity in terms of (inaudible). December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, it's always nice when neighbors try to collaborate and cooperate with each other it's a much more agreeable outcome for everybody. Anything else from the Board, anyone on Zoom Liz? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. 'MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING#7565—JOHN and MARGARET KREPP CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John and Margaret Krepp #7565. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15; Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 27, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling and to legalize an accessory shed at 1) dwelling located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) dwelling located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet, 3) "as built" shed located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet located at 1235 Island View Lane (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. This is a side yard setback at 6.7 feet where the code requires 15 feet a minimum, 2. Is a combined side yard setback of 24 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet, 3. The shed is in the side yard with a 2.3 foot side yard setback from the property line the code requiring a minimum of 10 feet and the shed in the side yard where the code requires a rear yard or a-front yard on waterfront properties. The principle front yard setback that would be from his right of way of 5.2 feet. The shed has no prior approval which is why it is LWRP inconsistent. You're proposing a second floor over the first floor right that is as a lesser side yard setback. It's going to be greater than the (inaudible) PAT MOORE : Lesser variance. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Lesser variance exactly. I think your application said the setbacks were affected`by the merger of the subject property with part of the adjacent lot the Latson lot and it just can't be developed because of C and R's. PAT MOORE : Let me explain, so the house was originally built before what's called parcel A on your survey before it was acquired. So the original lot is where the house is. The original house was demolished, a new house was put in and it had all the proper permits it's legal and a C. 0. Thereafter the piece that comes from the Latson 'subdivision across the right of way that property several years ago was a series of lot line changes that got done from a larger piece and this particular out piece or extra was sold to the family and in this case the two lots were formally merged by the Planning Board. So what.happened is when my client put in he put in the whole building permit application everything was fine with the Building Department, the Building Department said well wait a second because of the merger the additional acreage in this instance it throws all your setbacks of the existing structure on the second floor on an existing structure completely out of whack it changes all the setbacks. So it's almost the opposite of the hearing we just had, in this case the extra acreage affected the existing setbacks of the existing house. MEMBER DANTES : The house is merged through subdivision? PAT MOORE Well in that case the Latson that was a series of Planning Board ,setoffs not setoffs, lot line changes. This property went through a formal lot line change and got added to the piece. Another piece to the west piece of the Latson property was merged officially to another property on the block. So what they were trying to do is rather than keep the Latson land in no one's ownership or the Latson ownership the neighbors said well you know hey I'll take it that way I can maintain it and cut the grass and so on so that's the way it was treated by the neighborhood with the properties across from the right of way. It was all kind of a farmland and open space so that was done many years ago. What happened in this instance my clients were somewhat surprised because here they have this C.O. on the house, they purposely tried to do a very non-invasive, non-complicated addition a second floor on an existing house and again it all became a major headache. In this instance the sanitary system is legal because the house was built I would say in the nineties you have the C.O. in your file, the existing sanitary is conforming, there are no additional bedrooms it's just a relocation of the exiting bedrooms on the first and second floor. So we've verified this with the Building Department we're good. Once we have this variance I have to go to the Trustees because it would have been non- jurisdiction cause the second floor over an existing structure does not need a wetland permit but the architect put the dry wells within their jurisdiction pretty much ninety nine percent of this property is within their jurisdiction (inaudible) well within a hundred feet of the retaining wall another surprise the dry wells created the permitting requirement but that's alright we December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting have that in the process. Again as soon as the variance is issued I hope it's issued we can move forward with the Trustees and then hopefully they can build the house that they thought they were going to live there two years ago. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As you know we've all been out to the property. Normally I would say that the shed is an easy thing to move but.given the fact that it's butted right up against another shed in exactly the same place and also on the other lot it seems to me that that's very characteristic of that whole area, we know that road well PAT MOORE : Oh there's been a lot of applications. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and nothing is conforming there,and it's pretty benign I mean its PAT MOORE : And there wouldn't be any other place to put it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : except put it on waterside. I just think it's just a benign thing and we should just leave it in my opinion but I'm one vote. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat how does it not require a new sanitary system, you're going from a two bedroom home PAT MOORE : Because the original sanitary system was actually approved and designed for a three bedroom home so it was oversized when it was built. Now it's going to be it's the same number of bedrooms and the sanitary system the Health Department has certain criteria, they say if the house is built prior to seventy automatically you need to get their approval. If a house was built after the seventies then depending on the at that point you start triggering how many bedrooms you have, does it conform, not conform and in this instance we have an approved MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A system for a (inaudible) house PAT MOORE : yeah it was approved when the house was reconstructed a new house was built (inaudible). So nineties is not that long ago, I guess it's when my daughter was born so she thinks it's a long time ago but in the scheme of things nineties is not that long ago. In this instance we don't have to go through the whole process of a new sanitary system which is one positive here because I don't know what they would do with the merging of the two properties because they can have the property the design of this property as it is today when the Health Department approved in the nineteen nineties sanitary system so it would have really been a headache so that's one positive. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from the Board, any other comments? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, when I was there -actually there was someone out marking the property. PAT MOORE : A surveyor maybe. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Not a surveyor, she said she was there marking the property. PAT MOORE : Marking the property, with what? MEMBER DANTES : Maybe it's the utility company. PAT MOORE : Oh, okay that could be, oh Verizon? Yeah cause if you're doing construction you have to disconnect. It could be anybody. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Pat just one other question, (inaudible) but relative to the bedroom count and septic, but does the proposed improvements exceed fifty percent of the value of the existing structure? PAT MOORE : No because the house was built in the 1990's so it's a pretty high value. We also conform to FEMA that issue generally is a FEMA issue we were conforming with FEMA and the Building Department wouldn't consider this second floor as a demo cause the whole first floor the foundation everything is staying in place. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well the foundation is staying but the entire first floor is being reworked I think. PAT MOORE : No, not at all. Look at the floor plans, so you see these are actually the construction drawings so existing concrete foundation wall it only shows you the removal and the only removal is the first floor is the entrance the rest so if you see page'A 104 that's the new construction, that's all going inside within the so the exterior first floor remains and then it shows what the new portion is it's really a whole new second floor. That's the plan that the architect and the Building Department didn't consider this to be a demo, based on these plans it's not a demo. I mean no matter what we end up having the same setbacks MEMBER DANTES : We will condition write into the variance that if the Building Department determines it a demo you have to come back. PAT MOORE : Well the only thing the variances will not change cause we can't move the house anywhere else it's really it got a variance before. Maybe if it's a demo then we have to upgrade the sanitary but that would be the only difference between a demo and not a demo in this case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MARGARET KREPP : My name is Margaret Krepp from 1235, the only thing that I just feel that I do have to say is that we never asked for these properties to be merged (inaudible) to pay the taxes and I would suggest to him that it would be easier if they were merged and this is turned into such a big headache for us financially and even a place to live. I'm a nurse practitioner we sold our home and this is just I just have to (inaudible) it's just turned into such a headache. Thank you. PAT MOORE : So please don't put that condition of demolition because it would just we can't control what builders do we all try to make sure that they follow rules properly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMA'N : Well let me put it this way, when there is some major construction going on it's almost like a standard it's not specific to your application it's a standard warning basically to the applicant that if that happens because you're right you never know when you tear into an old wall what you're going to get, here's the procedure you have to follow because what happens otherwise is that if you go if suddenly you exceed the scope of what you expected and the Building Department calls it a demo they're going to ask you to come before this Board to ask for a deminimus change. A demo is never a deminimus change because even if it's one extra wall even though it's not being taken down to the ground, it cannot be determined to be an insignificant change and that has been consistent with what the Board has done. So we felt that it was basically there for the benefit to assist the property owner with here's what you have to do if that happens so you don't run a foul with the variances we've granted cause one way or the other if it turns into a demo they're going to throw it back at us. You know what I'm saying, I don't think it's of a material consequence, this does not look like it's going to be a demolition but anytime we see like some major new stuff going on it becomes kind of almost oh you're going to put in a swimming pool then the pump equipment has to go into something containing the noise so you're not offending your neighbors. It's that kind of condition that is a generic thing but we'll talk to each other on the Board and we'll see what seems to make sense. I don't want you to think that we're putting it in as a punishment or an onerous thing, it was intended to really be informative so that you didn't get a Stop Work Order basically. PAT MOORE Believe me I've had sit downs where I've had the builder the owner everybody in my office, I don't think I could have made it any more clear and they think that when they go to talk to the Building Department they say you know there's termite damage to a sill or to the framing whatever I mean they're being the contractors the builders and they're coming to the Building Department saying hey we don't want to cover this up this really should be corrected and if to be corrected they have to remove more of the building to access it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It happens all the time. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting PAT MOORE : It happened like that when all of a sudden the Building Department generally from a neighbor a phone call hey you know come and look at this and it becomes a demo and my heart goes out to these people because even the builders they're trying to do the right thing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I agree nobody wants to put sheetrock over rotten wood I mean that would not be ethical for a builder to do that. PAT MOORE : Exactly. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code is what it is, it's not perfect and the Town Board determined what constitutes a demo and for our point of view we've had things come back where we had to revisit it cause it was a demo we've granted the same variances. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's nothing different than what we do,with everyone else. PAT MOORE : I know and we're hearing it from them so MEMBER LEHNERT : can't be treated differently from everyone else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I would just say to them look, if you see something you didn't expect JOHN KREPP : Hi my name is John Krepp I'm one of the owners with my wife and I had a lot of discussion with Amanda in the Building Department and it's not a demo and I know this house inside and out (inaudible) I was there when it was built in 1991 and I'm well aware of the construction. There is no rot whatsoever on the house, there is no termites. The foundation is rock solid, it meets FEMA requirements for flood zone requirements. It's 10 foot 4 inches above the mean high tide. I am not concerned one iota about the house having a demolition issue. The only demolition for the existing structure is going to be (inaudible) where we're going to have a foyer built out and so that will have to be opened up so that we can get the stairs to go upstairs but that is the only demo of the existing house other than cutting a roof and raise it (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay good to know. PAT MOORE : So you're going to keep the roof and lift it? JOHN KREPP : Part of the roof is being cut because it's going in a little bit the upstairs it's not going to be the same width as the existing house.:lt's going in and then up so part of the roof will (inaudible) but that's the demo, the roof is the demo but the Building Department said that's not an issue. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not but it has to exceed fifty percent of the appraised value that is being removed and that's certainly not the case here. Is there anyone on Zoom? MEMBER LEHNERT : There's someone in the audience. CAROL BRADLEY : My name is Carol Bradley, I am the Krepp's neighbors and friends. I'm at 1265 Island View Lane and I'm not here to object to their construction I just want it to be known that my house is in a flood zone and I will need to in the, process of designing and talking with construction workers to raise the house out of the flood zone. So my intention is to raise the existing house and put on a second floor and the only reason why I'm here to tell you is that I don't want to like it kind of looks like I might obstruct their view I don't know if their second floor space is arranged to see a view because the way my house is on the angle I really can't move it other than lift it and possibly turn it to make that construction. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll evaluate that if it has to come before us. MEMBER DANTES : Talk to your architect and see if he has to come before us cause he might (inaudible) without looking at any plans CAROL BRADLEY : I'm an AE6 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah you're going to have to elevate. CAROL BRADLEY': Yes CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Look that's what's happening all over the place you know the coastal resiliency is like a big huge issue and we expect more and more flooding. It's-much worse even on the Sound on bluffs it's even worse with erosion. CAROL BRADLEY : (inaudible) the level rose almost every day. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you're sitting on wetlands basically, cause long ago everybody built cute little places that were lovely and also seasonal and then change happened and now you know we're looking at and dealing with the impacts. MEMBER DANTES : So places got flooded (inaudible) CAROL BRADLEY : Just cottages, seasonal cottages. So I just wanted to put that on the record. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries thank you. HEARING#7566— MICHAEL A. and MAUREEN KELLY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Michael and Maureen Kelly #7566. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 10, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 1450 Marlene Lane in Mattituck. So you're looking at a new 16 x 30 foot 480 sq. ft. swimming pool which is going to give you a lot coverage of 26%, the code permits a maximum of 20 but you have an existing 22% lot coverage correct? MIKE KELLY : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have a variance for that lot coverage, a prior variance? MIKE KELLY : I have the C.O's from the last extension the extension on the house. Actually I thought it was it was just below the existing with the pool it brings it above the 20% but I believe right now it's less than 20%. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : My understanding (inaudible) 90 sq. ft. to play with. MEMBER LEHNERT : Your survey shows the existing at 22%. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's right. See on the bottom do you have your survey there. Actually Donna can bring it up. Right in that corner there it says 2,366 sq. ft., 22% lot coverage that's existing and above it the proposed is above it. It's saying the pool is 480 sq. ft. and that's going to create 26% so MIKE KELLY : I think the original one it did not include the shed, that was 80 sq. ft. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : What's (inaudible) what's a plat? 399 sq. ft. for decks and plats, understand decks but what's a plat? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Platform MEMBER DANTES : Yeah what are they, what exactly is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess a stoop but a stoop shouldn't count. MEMBER LEHNERT : Steps don't count a stoop does. MIKE KELLY : They're building the steps leading to the deck so the surveyor he included that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Where does it say plat? OFFICE ASSISTANT WESTERMANN : Right in the front. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Usually that's not counted in lot coverage. Well you know we have to go by what the licensed surveyor says and architect whoever or engineer whoever stamps the plan. Do you have any we know the area well along Sigsbee Rd. and some of the lots are pretty good size yours is one of them others are lot smaller still with lots of side yard setback issues and so on. Do you know of other variances in that neighborhood on Marlene where there's excessive lot coverage? MIKE KELLY : I do not however there's a house behind me that is still under construction that has it seems to me that it's taking up a lot of lot coverage it's still under reconstruction, 144-2- 9. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's the tax map number? MIKE KELLY: Yes and he has CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that on Marlene or is that MIKE KELLY : It's on Sigsbee I'm sorry right behind me on Sigsbee. There's a lot of reconstruction going on, on Sigsbee but the yard itself my yard is I mean it's pretty clear there's plenty of room for the size. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get any permit for that 10 x 8 x 10 shed or did you just put it up? MIKE KELLY : It was there when I bought the property. MEMBER DANTES : And that was in 2002? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MIKE KELLY : 2004 MEMBER DANTES': I think we pulled the old permits when you did the addition in 2005. MIKE KELLY : I believe that was I had to get a (inaudible) at the time MEMBER DANTES : Sir that survey might calculate,lot coverage differently than this guy. MIKE KELLY : That survey the addition that I put on the house in 2005 the old survey was used by the architect and of course the architect at the time he provided the town with the complete drawings of the dining room as well as the relocation of the deck for where it is right now. MEMBER DANTES : So .he might have been I'm'worried about maybe this surveyor didn't calculate lot coverage as per our code and that one did so it might be a more favorable MEMBER LEHNERT : At the end of the day he still has 26% MEMBER DANTES : But maybe it's not the correct calculation. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Here's a different conversation I think might be more important to the applicant, Mr. Kelly do you propose to put in a sanitary system in? MIKE KELLY : I'm going to have to. ; MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And where would you place it? MIKE KELLY : It's going to go up on the north end by the I talked with a design engineer MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When you say north end are you speaking in your front yard or rear yard? MIKE KELLY : Rear yard'(inaudible) the driveway. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So the sanitary system can't be closer than 20 feet to a swimming pool. MIKE KELLY : That's correct and I have 33 feet between my neighbors north property and the proposed swimming pool cause 5 feet any sanitary 'system would be 5 feet off the neighbor's property, S feet from the sanitary system and then 20 feet to the pool. So I have 33 feet according to the code that I'm aware of anyhow and the new sanitary system would go along the property line of the north end of my property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But you're only proposing the swimming pool right now right? So that IA system was a consequence of what? 37 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : He has to remove the existing cesspool. MIKE KELLY : I have to remove the existing cesspool. I don't know if I have to include a new IA system (inaudible) system when you say that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah the Health Department is going to require it. As of July that became the standard sanitary system that everybody has to use right now. MIKE KELLY : I know a couple of years ago I applied for a grant to replace the existing like I said the cesspool was not collapsing so they denied the granting of course they ran out of money but I understand there might be more funding. MEMBER DANTES : Supposedly it got refunded a couple of months ago so MIKE KELLY : I'm going to have to once the design engineer gets into it if I have to do the IA system I have to do the IA system. I (inaudible) do that but I'd like to get some funding. MEMBER DANTES : A lot of the suppliers do the paperwork for you for the grants so I would talk to them and see what they can do for you. MIKE KELLY : Okay I mean I don't need a lawyer for me to do that do I? MEMBER DANTES :Talk to the suppliers they're the ones that do it. MIKE KELLY : I put a call into Jimmy Trents for the Suffolk County (inaudible) guy I want to have a discussion with him to see exactly what I need to do. _CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What year did you buy this house? MIKE KELLY : In 2004 j MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) didn't calculate this lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah that makes sense. BOARD ASSISTANT : I'll do some research on Laser. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pull the old permits. MIKE KELLY : As far as I know all the files that I have in my possession are up to date. MEMBER DANTES : No it looks like it I just want to see if this surveyor included things that the old survey that's all. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah because we probably have some conflicting information about lot coverage. The first thing that this Board is obligated to ask because when we grant variances they have to be the smallest variance feasible. Is that about the smallest size pool that you're prepared to MIKE KELLY : Well if I have to go smaller I have to go smaller. I would not want to go too much smaller. I grew up in Queens and we had a postage stamp for lawns that's what I would call going smaller postage stamp size pool. If I had it down to 28 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you need the I mean to get up to your house you have to have those steps and that wood deck is not that big. MIKE KELLY : The wood deck is 24 x 14 and I have the back doors to the house and so on. The steps are where they are leading up to it I mean it's not a long walk. I have to use a cane now so it's not a long walk for me it's a long to go down to the beach. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We start looking at these things and say well can you remove to reduce the lot coverage so that you can have your pool and you know MEMBER ACAMPORA : But even if they remove the shed it wouldn't make CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The shed is not going to make a big difference it's less than 1% roughly. MIKE KELLY : And even to reduce it from 30 to 28 you're only talking about 32 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's not going to give you much either. Alright we're going to do a little research and see what we come up with. Is there anything else you want us to know? MIKE KELLY : Not really, when would I would I get back to you or you guys get back to me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I doubt we're going to need to. You want to just adjourn it or do you want to just close it and see what else comes up? I mean I guess we'd better just adjourn it because if we can find something favorable to you, then we can incorporate it. If we close this hearing now which we can't really take in any new information into the record so if we want to really do that then, a better way to go is to adjourn it for two weeks which is when we have our next meeting. Then if we find out stuff we can still even have a decision ready in two weeks. Then we close it and vote on a decision if we can get it done by then. If not the latest would be a month from today well not today but two weeks after that. MIKE KELLY : If I had to lose size somewhat if I can 9 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would help if we knew cause usually when we have most of these things done by expeditors or agents for applicants we always ask for prior variances in the neighborhood to see if there are other variances for excessive lot coverage for swimming pools then that speaks to the character of the neighborhood which we have to address in our standards in writing our decision. The office can be we try to be very helpful so maybe you can give them a call and they can help you figure out how to go ahead and on our Laser Fiche files and just enter some tax map numbers that are around you and it'll pop right up. If they had swimming pools and lot coverage because then we can use that as evidence that this is characteristic of the neighborhood. MIKE KELLY : It's my understanding my recollection (inaudible) the neighborhood my property is a quarter acre the other properties have been sold pools over the past couple of three years their properties are at least a third of an acre or even half acre. I don't believe that they had to get variances. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well even if you just simply indicate which their tax map numbers are for swimming pools you can even Google Earth it and say look there's four swimming pools around there. So there's a lot of them here, maybe they didn't all require lot coverage but you know (inaudible) conforming location the fact that you've got to upgrade the sanitary is a benefit. MEMBER ACAMPORA : There also may be without the pools houses that have put additions on to it that are quite large on Marlene that exceeded lot coverage so I would look at both of them. MIKE KELLY : And the one I do know about is the one that's behind me, 144 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well Kim's got a note on that she can look it up and see. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Would it be helpful to have an updated survey illustrating where the waste water system would fit? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You know what, they're so slow right now with surveys it's going to delay his application for ages. He's going to have to do it anyway. MIKE KELLY : Before I get the complete the application for the Board of Health Wastewater Management I need to have an approved variance and a building permit. That's what they require (inaudible) so my next step after I get a variance would be to then get my design engineer to actually do what they need to do (inaudible). I'll probably have ground water drilling to confirm what the groundwater is and so on so that's like five hundred a couple of December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting thousand for a design engineer and what started with a fifty thousand dollar pool and it's approaching eighty five. So my next step would be to come back in two weeks? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have to come back. You can Zoom in or you can attend the meeting it's going to over at the meeting hall in the Annex that's where we deliberate in the late afternoon on decisions and then there's no testimony, you can listen we don't talk to applicants we just talk to each other and you can call in and listen in if you don't want to appear in person and just hear us discuss the application but that's going to depend on how fast you get the research. If we can get the research done so that we can incorporate into it cause we have to write all this stuff up so if we can do it we'll do it if not you'll see that there's just a motion to close but not decision. If we get both you'll see there's two places one is to close and one is to deliberate. You can always call the office. MIKE KELLY : When you say call the office you say the Zoning Board? Is there anything I need to do? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I don't think so. Just you're going to see call in and get some help and see where there's other swimming pools, see where there's excessive lot coverage in your neighborhood. I think it's fair to look at Sigsbee and Marlene they're really about the same. Sigsbee has tons of lot coverage variances. So it just gives us an opportunity to apply that prior information in support of the argument cause we have to have the support or refute the justification for this decision. MIKE KELLY : Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Alright I make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the Special Meeting for the purpose of conducting research to December 16th. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. 1, December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7572—JONATHAN DIVELLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Jonathan Divello #7572. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 6, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required front yard setback of 35 feet located at 255 Corwin St. in Greenport. I just wanted to say one thing, in the application package page two of the prior decision is missing from mine. I don't know why but it's not in there. Would you make a note to make sure that I just get a complete copy of that. Is there anybody have it? I got the first page and the last page. MEMBER DANTES : What's the difference between that application and this application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : A demo. I believe this is what's happened, we cannot determine a demo to be (inaudible) corner lot, they wanted to put the trees in MEMBER DANTES : So that was additions and alterations and this is now a demo. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is now a demo. I'm assuming that is why they are back before us. David are you there to represent this application? DAVID DIGIOVANNI : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that what happened? DAVID DIGIOVANNI : Yes, basically the Board granted the requested variances for a front yard back in April 151h of this year at which point we filed for a building permits and it was determined that it was more than fifty percent value of the construction for the value of the home by the Building Inspector at which time we provided cost estimates and appraisals of the house that they did not the Building Department did not agree with so basically that's why we're back here. The project is exactly the same ,as what was approved back in April, nothing has changed except the definition of demolition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's what I thought was the case. MEMBER DANTES : What are you planning on saving of the house? DAVID DIGIOVANNI : Basically the foundation, the first floor framing, most of the first floor walls, definitely the exterior walls we're moving some of the interior partitioning and the floor of the second floor that will remain. We're basically building up from the second floor because it is a one and a half story low ceiling height house and we're making it into a two story house and there will be an addition a one story addition off the northwest corner but besides that 4 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting northwest corner addition everything remains within the footprint of the existing structure. The plans that were originally submitted have not changed. MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Me either. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : David I'm sorry to ask this but could you state your name. DAVID DIGIOVANNI : David DiGiovanni, DiGiovanni and Associates Architects 26 Preston Ave. Sea Cliff, New York. I'd also like to make mention that we have filed with the Department of Health and we have a new sanitary system approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so now you have the IA system? DAVID DIGIOVANNI : No we were grandfathered we filed before July 1St so we have a conventional system but we have approval from Department of Health. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you submit that to the Board? DAVID DIGIOVANNI : Sure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anybody else on Zoom that wants to address this? So hearing no further questions I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of the Health Department approval. 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. The motion carries. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie from the next application I am recusing myself. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting HEARING# 7568—TAMAR HOLDINGS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application is for Tamar Holdings, LLC #7568. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in- ground swimming pool at 1) located in other than the code required rear yard located at 21955 Route 25 in Orient. This is a pool in a front yard the code requires a rear yard. The pool has a 30 foot side yard setback and a 45.6 foot front yard setback from the adjacent property. Did you get a copy of the letter from the neighbor? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Yes I did I received a copy from (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Would you like to address that at all? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : If I may just as procedure Madam Chairwoman. Good morning or good afternoon everyone. Nigel Williamson for the applicant Tamar Holdings. I did receive a letter as I said and I mean the letter was very blunt and everything else and the bottom paragraph says, this change may significantly reduce the negative visual impact that the pool will reduce the noise (inaudible) but I think that's a moot point because when you're at the property you will see a lot of that corner the southwesterly corner had some screening and a lot of that screening is (inaudible) property which was taken out and like everything else in life people don't want to see their neighbors and they're going to be putting in vegetation. I'm sure when the other people get to build their house behind them where this pool is being proposed they will screen it just as much from their neighbors. When you're at the property you will see the difficulty in it. This house was Pre C.O'd in 1957, the house it's situated at an angle and also the rear yard is the front of the house the entrance of the house and all the activities along the front yard of the house are really (inaudible) incorporated into the rear of the house, living room, recreation room, kitchen and everything else. The rear yard there is a big dip there it's like 7 feet the dip and there's also an existing septic system in the rear yard, to move all of that to a place and swimming pool in a code compliant area would retain a mass retaining wall around the area with back filling. It's going to have no visual impact on the physical environment as the gentleman had called out on his last paragraph and again he said may that the pool was going to be at grade and there's going to be vegetation (inaudible) and like everything else the pool equipment will be enclosed or buffered (inaudible) and vegetation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Are you proposing additional buffering a vegetated buffer on that side there? 44 F December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Well yes there's a whole vegetation plan for because if you look the trees are high and all that scruff vegetation is low so again people don't want they want to be friendly with their neighbors but they don't want to see their neighbors. They are putting in vegetation and as I said CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you say there was a plan? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : I believe there was a plan for that I do not have it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause we don't have it either. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : But I do know because of the (inaudible) that's underneath those trees (inaudible) to block off their neighbors well potential neighbors who build a house cause there's a subdivision CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They don't want to put in a pool and they have the same problem the neighbor has. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Right and there's a subdivision application I think I mean (inaudible) they have submitted that and you will see there's a house there their rear yard will face onto where the pool will be in the front yard and if they put in a pool if they don't they're going to (inaudible)from anyone else. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you think you can get us a copy of the landscape plan? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Yes I could. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's really quite the only really reasonable place to put that to put a swimming pool there. It's basically what it's adjacent to in the front is just undeveloped land. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct and two other points, I mean you cannot move it further away to the east because there are those trees which are mature trees and on the property itself they are boulders they (inaudible) and there are quite a lot of boulders on the other part of the property and the way the house is situated the visual and line from the back of the house to the pool and in case there's children playing so all of that I know comes into play. There's no physical or environmental impact on any of this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is nobody in this audience here, anybody on Zoom Liz? OFFICE ASSITANT SAKARELLOS : Leslie I have a Lyle Tuthill, he said he submitted a letter and he was supposed to be leaving us at eleven but I see that he's still here. Lyle if you're still with us press *6 to speak. If he's not here Leslie, you got the letter right? I told him you weren't going to read it but oh here he is. Alright we have someone. Julia Tuthill, I am going to move her in. 45T December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting JULIA TUTHILL MULLIGAN : This is Julia Tuthill Mulligan can you hear me? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I can, are you here for Lyle? JULIA TUTHILL MULLIGAN : Yes I am a member of the Tuthill Holding Company and Lyle is the managing member so if he's not here I just wanted to speak on behalf of our family. I think what you have addressed is we own the property to the west and I don't know that the variance was aware that we were working on the conservation subdivision that has the lot and our request was for the consideration of either moving the pool further to the east or reducing the size of the pool because of the concern of privacy and noise. We want to have a neighborly relationship but that was the key consideration. The pool is a very large pool and we just wanted to you know make that distance to have that be a consideration so thank you for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome and we do have the letter in our file and we have read it. JULIA TUTHILL MULLIGAN : Yes and you can also see in the letter that there's an aerial view of the property I mean it's a very large parcel so there is opportunity for the exact placement to maximize the boundary with our common boundary either by movement or by size. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well, they certainly don't have a lot coverage issue so we really are not within our legal rights to tell them to reduce the size. If they have a lot coverage problem then we could do that. They are proposing a more than conforming 30 foot side yard setback from your adjacent property. The concern really was noise and visual privacy and what the applicant just told us was that they have in fact a professional landscaping plan to be vegetated where there are now scrub is removed and the trees are tall so there will be plenty of acoustical and visual buffering between your adjacent property and their property. The property is very burdened with a lot of slope you know and it's just outrageous land disturbance, they have to put in a retaining wall and so on. That's why they're not proposing in a conforming rear yard one of the reasons anyway. So okay as long as you understand we're going to require that landscape plan. JULIA TUTHILL MULLIGAN : Very good, thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN You're welcome. Anything from anybody else? Anybody else on Zoom Liz? I think we're okay. OFFICE ASISSTANT WESTERMANN : We have a hand. DIANE BRATCHER : Members of the Zoning Board my name is Diane Bratcher I am the spouse and co-resident with along with the property owner Maryann Weil. We are one of the existing December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting property owners adjacent to this property and I just want to say for the record, the pool is being proposed for the western boundary not on the eastern boundary and we're on the eastern boundary. I do want to say that they have planted a hedge and things like that to mitigate the noise but I wanted the Zoning Board to know that mitigation of noise is appropriate and helpful and everything as part of their landscaping to mitigate noise though. They removed existing woods and existing trees that were between us and them and then they planted the hedge. I think that if the landscapers didn't do a raise the earth kind of initiative to start it and then plant a hedge to replace the woods that they cut down that would be more helpful I'm sure to the neighbors on either side. So we have no and the property owner Maryanne Weil has no objection to the pool because it is placed on the other side of the house on the western side of the house, I just wanted to remark that some of the noise mitigation on the eastern side of the house was a planting of a hedge that replaced an existing woods but they sort of they thinned out and tore down a good part of it. So I would hope that the landscapers and the family that owns the property would take that into consideration and try to leave some of the woods intact next to the neighbors and supplement that in some way because tearing down the existing woods a long standing woods to replace it with a giant hedge is really not appropriate to the community. As to the location and all that we have no objection. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Madam Chairperson, I think I addressed that. There's a lot and those who were out there will see that there's a lot of scrub growth within those trees. I mean that's going to be cut out and there was a lot of scrub on the rest of the property that they took up. It's not a case of(inaudible) so it's just (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything else from anybody? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of the landscape plan. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. I'm going to make a motion to recess, is there a second? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay we'll be back here at one o'clock. Motion to reconvene. 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 #7569— PETER J. MALTESE and MADELINE JOYCE COVELLO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter J. Maltese and Madeline Joyce Covello#7569. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 6, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing accessory garage and construct a new accessory garage at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 825 Bailey Ave. in Greenport. Are you here for that application? So this is a 25% lot coverage where the code permits 20%. You have a small garage there now but you want to tear it down cause it's really very little. The existing lot coverage I think is 22.5% and we're now looking at a proposed 25%. The lot is only 6,699 sq. ft. it's small. Rob what else would you like us to know about this? December 2, 2021 Regular.Meeting ROB HERRMANN : I'll quickly just go through a summary of the variance standards as they're outlined as you just mentioned. This proposes the demolition replacement of a pre-existing accessory garage. It's recognized by a Pre C.O. that was issued in 2006 but it's function unfortunately fails to live up to its title. It's a 10 x 18 structure that's barely large enough to house even a small car. Proposed in its place is a larger 14 x 25 foot garage which could accommodate a car with enough room left for limited storage. The variance is necessary and would be unavoidable even for an in kind replacementW the existing garage because as Leslie mentioned is an extremely small lot size of 6,699 sq. ft. allows for only 1,339 sq. ft. of coverage and the pre-existing coverage already exceeds that limitation that 1,509 sq. ft. or 22.5%. The new garage would increase this non-conforming coverage by 2.5 percentage points but it will actually eliminate the pre-existing side yard setback non-conformity relative to the southerly lot line as the existing non-conforming side setback of 2 feet would be adjusted to a conforming setback of 3 feet and I believe the adjacent neighbor to the south who is most directly impacted by that setback has submitted a letter of support for the project and you should have that in your records. The overall character of the surrounding neighborhood also not be changed or adversely impacted by your granting the variance. Accessory garages are very common in the neighborhood and due to the non-conforming undersized nature,of many of the surrounding properties lot coverage in excess of 20% is also common. As we detailed on our application aerial imagery indicates that at least seven of twelve properties on the east side of Bailey Ave. are improved with accessory garages and at least two accessory garages in the neighborhood were constructed pursuant to variance relief. One at 780 Champlain Place in 2018 pursuant to case 7127 and one at 620 Knapp Place in 2002 in the case 5142 and at least two other properties in the neighborhood have been granted variance relief for lot coverage including 25% relief granted to 614 Bailey Ave. in 1989 and 25.9% relief granted for the property at the corner of Knapp Place and Stirling Place in 2000. The applicants propose 25% coverage is consistent with these decisions and represents an increase of only 2.5 percentage points above the existing coverage making the variance request insubstantial. Finally the proposed garage replacement would not adversely impact the physical and environmental conditions as to mitigate potential storm water runoff. The garage will be equipped with gutters and leaders directed to a dry well and of course a temporary project limiting fence would be erected during construction. The project will need a Trustees permit due to an offsite wetland what's called a formerly connected tidal wetland and the D.E.C.'s regulations that's located within 100 feet to the east but on the adjacent property to the east and on the opposite side of the existing dwelling on that property to the east. The property has already been determined to be outside the permitting jurisdiction of the state D.E.C. due to the properties elevation. Finally I would argue that this would be one of the I guess you would call few cases that you hear where really this relief-is not self-created. This is pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage recognized by a Pre C.O. and as I mentioned earlier you couldn't replace even the existing garage of the same December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting size without variance relief so this is an unavoidable situation. That's all I have, I believe Peter Maltese one of the owners may be there in the room with you if you have any other questions of us I'd be happy to try and answer them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes, it's a substantially larger garage, is there any way to lessen the lot coverage issue? I mean 14 x 25 is pretty big. ROB HERRMANN : So basically the proposed garage is 170 sq. ft. larger than the existing and it's really only 4 feet wider which is has to be and it's 7 feet deeper. This really I'm not sure I would really describe this fairly as a pretty big structure. It's common dimensions for a garage, it's a single car garage that allows some space for storage inside the building which is at a premium you know on the property obviously again the total lot area is smaller than many of the house footprints that the Board reviews these days. If the Board were of the position that you would be looking to deny the request if it were not in some way reduced obviously the owner would consider that but I don't know that that would be a reasonable and necessary request given the lot size, given the commonness of these accessory garages in the neighborhood. I mean one of the variances that I mentioned had a dwelling and accessory garage and was granted 25% relief to add a swimming pool to the property so we think relative to the surrounding neighborhood this is a pretty reasonable request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick.\ MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Rob any proposed plumbing water or electricity to service the garage? ROB HERRMANN : Peter can confirm that but my understanding is absolutely no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Just electricity I mean you're going to have a light bulb in there. ROB HERRMANN : I'm sorry I heard the question to be plumbing, I assume that Nick was asking that question in connection with the need for septic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : He did actually ask about electric also but obviously that's a standard thing in garages I mean you have to be able to see in there. ROB HERRMANN : Yeah the electric I would assume yes, I'm sorry I didn't I think I was anticipating the question as opposed to hearing correctly. No plumbing yes electric. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yeah I have a strange question I think. When I went looking for the house at 825 it turned out to be 506 so why did that happen and why don't we have it on (inaudible). ROB HERRMANN : That's a good question. So we've seen in various locations in the town and county records both addresses, 506 and 825 which is why our application actually references both of those addresses. We show it as house number 506 also known as 825. 1 don't know why that is, I don't know if Peter might have an answer to that question but we wrestled with that when we were filing the application because we couldn't find a consistent house number for the site. Peter do you have any insight on why the property is known by two different addresses? PETER MALTESE : I believe the local fire department uses the 825 address and that's how all the houses in the neighborhood have two addresses even though just one is posted on the house. So mine is posted 506 and I just left it 506. The deed and everything says 825. MEMBER ACAMPORA : So where does the mail go then? PETER MALTESE : The mail goes I have all my mail sent to 506 but if it was a fire emergency or police emergency they go to 825. ,If they require to put both numbers on the house I can do that. MEMBER DANTES : The C.O. says 825 and 506. ROB HERRMANN Leslie to Pat's question, just as a nuance that is how we prepared the application in the name of the primary number 506 and then noted that it was a.k.a. 825 MEMBER ACAMPORA : I've never heard of such a think a.k.a. ROB HERRMANN : Also known as CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Never mind we found it with some difficulty,but we found it. Alright anything from anybody else about this garage? Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application, anyone on Zoom? Okay then 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 LEHNERT : Second. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting 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 in two weeks at our next meeting. HEARING #7570— KIMBERLY PALERMO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Kimberly Palermo #7570. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's July 23, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 25 feet, 2) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 3) existing hot tub located in other than the code required rear yard located at 155 Pinewood Rd. in Cutchogue. So we're looking at-a combined side yard setback of 24.2 which is pretty deminimus (inaudible) requirement. Then we have lot coverage of 22.6%, the code allowing a maximum of 20% and a new dwelling is actually going the hot tub is not supposed to be moved but it will be located partially in the side yard where the code requires a rear yard location. This is for adding a small one story addition and a large new second floor addition. Steve your turn. STEPHEN KIELY : Can you hear me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We hear you just fine. I went through all the variances that are required indicating the combined is almost deminimus in nature (inaudible), lot coverage of 22.6% and the dwelling additions locate the hot tub which is not proposed to be (inaudible) partially are in a side yard instead of a rear yard. So what would you like us to know about the application? STEPHEN KIELY : Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman and the rest of the Board, as you're aware,my name is Stephen Kiely and I represent the applicant Kimberly Palermo. The subject property is located at 155 Pinewood Rd. in Cutchogue and is a pre-existing non-conforming December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting 14,500 sq. ft. parcel located in an R-40 zoning district. We are here in connection with a proposed second story addition on to an existing pre-existing non-conforming ranch and we're seeking three deminimus area variances. Notwithstanding the fact that the footprint of the first floor will largely remain untouched other than a minor first floor addition which is within the existing setbacks on a minor front and rear porch additions. The first of the requested variances is a combined side yard setback variance of 9.6 inches yes 9.6 inches. We're required to have at least 25 feet in total side yard setbacks and we will be holding 24.2 feet which is the exact total side yard setbacks that are currently being held we're not seeking to enlarge it. The second is for lot coverage, the maximum lot coverage is 20% and here we're asking for 22.6% just only 2.6% more. However the pre-existing non-conforming lot coverage is 21.8% thus we are really only asking for .8%. Lastly, there is an existing hot tub that is located on the patio in the side yard and due to the configuration of the house and the footprint of the house that's making it seem in the side yard but technically speaking it is in the side yard and as an accessory structure must be located in the rear yard and we would like to legalize same. The subject variances should be granted because one, they will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. As a substandard total side yard setbacks and the hot tub being located in the side yard have been in existence for decades and to date they have not been the subject of any complaints nor have they caused any change in the character of the neighborhood but in fact have become part of such character. The lot coverage variance requests a 2.6% or in reality .8% due to the pre-existing overage is due to a proposed small 38 sq. ft. first floor addition for a bathroom/laundry to the rear of the dwelling and an additional 42 sq. ft. and 33 sq. ft. respectively for rear and front porch additions all of which is in keeping with the residential character of the community. These variance request in the main are imperceptible not only to the microscopic deviation from the code but also due to the dense landscaping and fencing to the east and west of the property. Two, there is no other feasible method of achieving the benefit sought here other than the subject variances because we're simply looking to put a second story on top of the existing dwelling and a significant financial cost in demolishing the entire first floor and resetting the footprint for a mere 9.6 inches, .8% of lot coverage and for a historically cited hot tub there's a definition of infeasibility or intractability. Further, the property is shaped like a parallelogram making it difficult to cite. All of the requested variances here clearly mathematically insubstantial. Again, we're talking about variance requests of nearly 9.6 inches anywhere from 2.6% to .8% on a pre-existing non- conforming small hot tub in the side yard. There would be no adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions because the hot tub and the 9.6 inch deficit in total side yard that have been in existence for decades (inaudible) had been none and also there is no logical way any adverse effect could occur and likewise for the lot coverage variance. Lastly, the hardship of the total side yard deficiency and hot tub location was not self-created but rather unbeknownst to my client in existence when she purchased the property which is should be noted we're December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting arguably blessed by the subject's Certificate of Occupancy. In accordance with the aforementioned in my previous submissions I respectfully request that the subject variances should be granted. Are there any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat we'll start with you. MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric. MEMBER DANTES : Which is the addition on the house, I'm having trouble seeing it on the STEPHEN KIELY : Behind the garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's why the hot tub is now in a side yard. MEMBER DANTES : Ah okay, it's a little (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The little tiny thing on the back there. The hot tub is on a raised you know what I was wondering because both the pool and the hot tub are on a stone you know structures, do you know if that was counted on lot coverage? STEPHEN KIELY : We do have the pool and the hot tub called out not the patio. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't really have any questions. Do you know if there are other lot coverages granted in the area, any priors? STEPHEN KIELY : I didn't even look into that because again it's so small. We're really looking at .8% here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick anything? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes, Steve I saw that there was a lot of ground disturbance in the back, what was going on there in the area not where the pool obviously is but the north east corner? Everything seemed to be pulled up, is that where the septic is and can you elaborate a bit on the septic? STEPHEN KIELY : We did get Department of Health approval for four bedrooms for a septic system and we did get an approval from the Town to install the septic system that's my information that it has been put in as far as what you're specifically talking about I'm not sure. I have to assume that that's in connection with the septic system. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Do you know where the septic is? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting STEPHEN KIELY : It's in the exact location you were speaking of. MEMBER DANTES : Can you email a copy of the Health Department plan? STEPHEN KIELY : Yeah that's fine, I did file it with the Town Clerk and that's how we got our permit. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board? Is there anyone in the audience that wants to address the application? Is there anyone on Zoom Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have two people, I'm going to move them over. BRIAN CAMERON : Hi it's Brian Cameron here good morning. I'm here today on behalf of Jean Cameron who is the property owner of 275 Pinewood Rd. which is the adjacent parcel to 155 Pinewood Rd. Mrs. Cameron's principle concern is simply that the new house that's going to be constructed not be any closer to the property line on her side which is the easterly side. We've listened to Mr. Kiely's presentation to the Board and based on his representations that in fact the house will be built in the existing foundation and will not be located any closer to her house she will not have any objection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. Is there somebody else out there Liz? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I moved in a Jean but no other than that I don't have anyone. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, you want that Health Department Certificate? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes we've requested that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of a copy of the Department of Health approval sanitary system, is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7573— NORTH FORK PROJECT, LLC/OLD MILL INN #7573 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for North Fork Project, LLC/Old Mill Inn #7573. This is a request for variances from Article XIII Section 280-56 and the Building Inspector's June 30, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing restaurant at 1) located less than the code minimum required front yard setback of 35 feet, 2) located less than the code minimum required rear yard setback of 25 feet, 3) located less than the code minimum required side yard setback of 25 feet and 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 30% in the MII zone district located at 5775 Mill Rd. (adj. to Mattituck Creek) in Mattituck. Let's look at what you're proposing I'll just mention the setback variances that are for an existing restaurant in an MII zone with a front yard setback at 10 inches where the code requires 35 feet, a rear yard setback at 8 inches where the code requires a minimum of 25 feet, single side yard setback at 0 (zero) and the code requires 25 and for lot coverage of 69.1% the code permitting a maximum of 30%. This is a very unusual property so there are lots of circumstances as to why the dramatically pre-existing non-conforming setbacks exist. We did look into the whole SEAR determination earlier today and declared it as a Type II for variance relief. So I'll turn this over to you now Martin. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Thank you, good afternoon Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicant North Forth Project LLC. I am joined here today by Anthony (inaudible) who is the owner of the Old Mill and Meryl Kramer who is our architect. As a Mattituck resident I'm really proud to present this application to you today for the relief to restore the Old Mill Restaurant which has been as we all know a treasured institution in our town for nearly two hundred years. As Leslie mentioned, the Old Mill lies on a rather non-conforming 4,829 sq. ft. parcel a portion of which lies under water. Sadly the building was not consistently or properly maintained for many years so there's no way to really put a band aid on this place in order to resume operations and restore it. It requires a substantial renovation that includes elevating the structure which partially as I said lies in the water to achieve FEMA compliance. In our materials that we submitted there was a recitation of the Old Mill history much of which you may be familiar with. I also included some historic photos with our submission. You're probably familiar with what the Old Mill looks like now which is the existing red building and as you can see in the photographs this one story portion here on the north end of the building is almost drooping and almost sagging into the creek. As you note in the history, the Old Mill was converted from a grist mill that was originally built in 1821 to a public restaurant in the early 1900's. I have some photographs here which are also I just wanted to point these two out. These are the kind of what the place looked like in the early 1900's at the time it became the Inn and Restaurant and it has continued to be over the last century. So it's the applicant's hope to restore the Old Mill in a manner that is respectful of this time period. As you can see from 6 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting the (inaudible) elevations that we blew up here just for a little show, the fagade here that we're seeking to achieve is really reminiscent of what we see in the early 1900's when the restaurant and inn (inaudible). We would submit that the proposed design really achieves the goal of restoring the Old Mill to its historic appearance. In order to achieve that obviously we're here with the request for relief to address the significant pre-existing non-conforming use that are there. The existing improvements on the property essentially envelope the majority of the parcel. The proposed improvements will lie substantially within the existing footprints but there's clearly no way to satisfy the bulk schedule restrictions in the MII zoning district. So as mentioned that the sagging one story portion is going to be removed to be replaced with open decking and a covered porch will be installed historic pictures will be replicated here and then the main two story structure that is the historic or the original mill will be elevated about 4 feet and renovated to current standards. I just wanted to point out one aspect of the property which may or may not be apparent to you and that is that there is directly to the south here there is an easement area and that area used to be the very beginning of the bridge that went over the creek from West Mill Rd. to East Mill Rd.; when that bridge that is demised many decades ago that area essentially became a no man's land serving no public benefit. Over time prior owners of the Old Mill sort of began using it became more or less part of the operating area of the Old Mill. In 2018 the Town Board granted a perpetual easement to the Old Mill recognizing that there is really no public use of benefit to that small area for the Old Mill to use in perpetuity for anything related to its operations. You will note on the plans that there's a small portion of the proposed structure that does lie within that easement area on as well as access to (inaudible). In order to accomplish the project the applicant (inaudible) rear and side yard setback relief as well as lot coverage. I just want to briefly run through the 267 criteria. As to character we submit that the Old Mill essentially defines the character of this section of Mattituck. It has been beloved and enjoyed by the residents of Mattituck in that area and the residents of Southold town quite honestly for decades. We have submitted a numerous letters in support that attests to the fact that the granting of variance relief will not have any detrimental impact in fact will be a positive benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Doug Cooper has joined us here today as well and wants to share his sentiments about that point. So nobody wants this building to fall into the creek and cease to exist. It's the effort here and we have an owner who has taken on this enormous responsibility to renovate and restore this (inaudible) structure. There's no way to do it without variance relief and the benefit sought I would suggest to you is not something that is personal to Anthony it is something that is a benefit to the community and to our town and shared by all of us to preserve and restore this structure the Old Mill for generations to come. As to substantiality, yes if you do the math the relief sought is substantial and has a 0 (zero) setback and really (inaudible) however we're simply asking you to bless what is there, the existing footprint. The good news as to lot coverage the lot coverage as is proposed will be reduced from what is there about 73% down to 69% but I would submit to 7 December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting you that if you factor in the easement area which is available there not obviously part of the metes and bounds of the immediate parcel but part of the Old Mill operation that overall lot coverage for this operation is 24.6% which in fact conforming in the MII zone. Adverse impacts the LWRP recommendation was consistency recognizing that this is a structure that has pre- dated zoning and has significant cultural value to our town. The elevation of the structure for FEMA compliance and restoration of a cherished local establishment so that it could be preserved for generations to come can only be a win, win for the neighborhood and for the town as a whole. I should note that there is ample on street parking to accommodate the proposed seating capacity and the applicant also has available by way of agreement with the neighbor for overflow parking on the parcel within two hundred feet of the property should it ever be needed. Based on the town code calculations for the seating capacity 17 parking spots are required and there is ample room. We've had the surveyor mark that out and ample room on the street to accommodate that. I also note that this is a Type II Action as the Board has acknowledged and the project includes the upgrade of the existing sanitary system to an IA system and approval for that is pending actually expected rather imminently from the Suffolk County Department of Health. So on that we would suggest that there are no perceivable adverse impacts to the environment or to the surrounding community. As to self-created hardship the Old Mill's been there since 1821 before the (inaudible) of zoning so I would submit to you that the difficulty presented here is not self-created however even if it could be considered to be as we know that factor should not be determinative. So that's essentially our presentation, I would like to ask Mr. Cooper to make his comments and then we would be available to address any questions that the Board might have. DOUG COOPER : Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen Doug Cooper, Mattituck farmer. We farm just around the corner from the Old Mill. I love the old place and I'd love to see it open again. I think the historic nature of it is very important. I can trace some of my family background to 1850 involved in rebuilding it back then probably after a storm damage. I just give my very strong support to this project and I hope you approve everything. Thank you. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Do you have any questions? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What other approvals are required for this project to go through? Do you need site plan approval from the Planning Board or Trustees approval? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Trustees of course and D.E.C. Those application are ready to go. We've wanted to after you guys before we (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Any HPC approval? I suspect no, it's not a landmark. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No. sal December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know why it's not considered a designated landmark but it's not even on the SPLIA list MARTIN FINNEGAN : That was my first question (inaudible) part of the town's registry so we had the Building Department we would not be given obviously if we had to get through HPC so MEMBER DANTES : It's got to be one of the older buildings in town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh my God it was a speak easy. Unless I missed it maybe (inaudible) can answer this, it's a very (inaudible) done renovation restoration, it's certainly is architectural in keeping a historic nature of the property. I didn't see any food prep or kitchen labeled anywhere on any floor plan which I know has to be there somewhere. Did I miss it? I mean I don't see it anywhere. ANTHONY MORETTI : Thanks for having us, I'm Anthony Moretti. You are correct I have actually taken out the old vent which was falling into the water and (inaudible) through the old kitchen floor. I'm going to return this to a much simpler style neighborhood kind of pub but we're keeping it the Old Mill serving small plates, oyster, very affordable cocktails and keeping it as seasonal restaurant rather than a what some places have become having main courses roasted salmon, scallops and lobster dinners. I have five restaurants in Manhattan and I know the struggle to kind of (inaudible) with three hundred and sixty five days open and with the space constraints having a full kitchen I felt that I could do much better with a small electric kitchen, an oyster station and a (inaudible) Sang Lee croute tier and humus and some things (inaudible) with a much more casual atmosphere. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That certainly makes sense. MEMBER DANTES : Where would your location be? ANTHONY MORETTI : I haven't finished the interior plans because we weren't even working on the interior plans until we finish here, decided not to spend that much time or money but if we look inside the main structure you can see a floor plan but I don't have it printed out CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have them. ANTHONY MORETTI : On the ground floor we kind of see this area, this would be an oyster shucking and electric kitchen station. I didn't want to have one the 750 gallon propane tank that was sitting in the easement before and a vent that was going out the back of the building and the side which was installed I think in the 1950's. I would prefer not to have a propane running kitchen Ansel system but keep it to things that I can cook in a two man station that's open up to the dining room itself. With losing this dining room here which is what the current December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting dining room space is, adding about fifteen seats in here and a two man kitchen I think this will all be a confluence area showing it will be matching in style to the original (inaudible). The bar will be staying, renovated it will be staying exactly as is. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I believe it was originally 170 seats or something like that. ANTHONY MORETTI : The Health Department I think had it as 75 but legally it's 150. When I purchased it in 2015 it was explained to me that it could be 150 person occupancy, I don't think it can hold that and we are going to be Suffolk County Health Department 50 people interior that's the biggest of the IA systems that (inaudible). I was a Mattituck resident and a somewhat involved with oyster restoration and (inaudible) project, I really don't want to see a lot of nitrogen leaching in the old sanitary system. I could increase our occupancy by leaving the existing sanitary but I know the shape it's in and would prefer to replace it and reduce interior occupancy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for the explanation. Martin one question, in your memorandum of law you mention about a lease agreement with a neighbor for some overflow parking. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's available, the neighbor to the north Mr. Cook has a large four acre parcel that only has a house on it and it's (inaudible) a large area there and he has made an agreement we haven't signed it yet we have an agreement for up to 15 more cars on there should we need that type of off street parking so that is available. There's also the potential for that little triangle piece that's directly north which the current tenant there the town used to own that we actually sold it to the Millers and it's again sort of another no man's land on the other side that it could potentially also be a parking area as well. As of now there is available historically parking at the Old Mill was always lined up right in front of the Old Mill that's the way everybody remembers it right and so it would be actually proposes rather than have the vertical parking to actually having just parallel parking on either side so that there's a clear you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause that was one of the Planning Board's concerns was that if people are parked in the Old Mill right of way there could potentially be a problem for MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well that's why we went with parallel rather than vertical because they think it needs ample room for (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is that legally okay to park there or is that, who owns that right of way it's the towns? It's a town right of way so then there should be No Parking Signs up (inaudible). So what I'm getting here is that there'll probably less impact the number of cars because the number of seats is proposed to be reduced, that you do have I presume you may December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting from time to time want to have a special event of some sort of another we might have overflow parking. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Which would come in handy. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN Which is another part of the code I'm just trying to get the big picture. MEMBER PLANAMENTO (inaudible) reduction of seats does that include the outdoor (inaudible) 50 seats that's what would be approved under the sanitary system for total site or since you're (inaudible)? ANTHONY MORETTI : The interior seats would be 50 and we're in talks with Suffolk County for special events and outdoor seating to have an ancillary unit that wouldn't you know like when you go to a wedding something up two stairs and a nice I guess kind of a rolling port a potti right behind the shed that's on the property closest to the marina. If we have special events for the extra occupancy. There's only two bathrooms for the restaurant inside and the flow rate would be maximized at 50 people. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So I guess what Nick is saying is you got 50 people on capacity indoors but you have this beautiful deck you're going to put on ANTHONY MORETTI : I would love to have another 30 or 40 people out there on summer nights if that's possible. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess that would be sanitary flow that would be you're talking about? ANTHONY MORETTI : That wasn't governed by the Suffolk County from what I can tell with Brian Grover who is handling it as the engineer he's at P.W. Grosser, he said that we would do something I guess for special events and when there's outdoor seating on weekends and larger capacity if we needed a system that wouldn't actually go into the ground. MEMBER DANTES : (inaudible) Fire Marshall (inaudible) ANTHONY MORETTI : The building code I think we from our primary the first discussions with I think it was Mike Verity but not Mat the size of the building and the walkways (inaudible) and staircases in and out would give us a much larger occupancy than we do with the sanitary system from the Suffolk County. But we're going to limit the seating inside because I personally don't see how there's more than 50 people inside that especially including four or five employees that would be working. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, on the FEMA you used to I think it's still there, there used to be an opt out for historical buildings? MERYL KRAMER : Hi my name is Meryl Kramer, there is an opt out as far as I understand our client does not want to opt out because the entire dining room is submerged during high tides and storms. However if we find for some reason if the ramp does not work or the stairs does not work once we get into the nitty gritty of the construction drawings although at this point it think we do we could we are technically not legally obliged to meet the exact elevation but right now we propose to do that because the owner would like to. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well for safety precaution I mean you don't want to invest large sums of money in restoration renovations and find yourself flooded. MERYL KRAMER : Exactly so you're correct there is relief but we're choosing not to pursue at this time unless for some reason why later down the line where we can't. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Historically there was like an apartment on the second floor or some sort of a residence. I see in the plans it's just illustrated as like room one room two, do you want to speak a little bit about any living accommodations or proposed? ANTHONY MORETTI : I can speak about that. We haven't progressed too far into it, right now there is a couple of staircases that are in the heart of the building that we are taking off and we relocated the staircases into the building. As you can see slightly in the zone was part of the town property (inaudible). So the staircase that goes upstairs now if approved then we will go in and start actually working on the floor plans of the building. It was traditionally staff housing and I would guess that's what it will probably continue to be. It's the place that people who work there hopefully then if not an apartment for myself to keep and enjoy living (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So how would the residential use work with the IA system for a commercial use? ANTHONY MORETTI : That I'm not sure, I know that the plans are on file and I know the amount of bathrooms and I think that was considered in the flow rate that there was an apartment upstairs. Do you guys have the plans that we have on file with CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No we don't, we just have the ones that Meryl's drawings. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting ANTHONY MORETTI : That was part of what limited us with to the number of 50 downstairs with our flow rates because we have an apartment upstairs limiting the calculations. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : One other thing it may or may not relative to the application, it's my understanding that the lot across the street from the Old Mill is actually part of the property. ANTHONY MORETTI : I bought the properties yes the one with the little windmill tower MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah there's a little tower that's also used like an apartment or something. ANTHONY MORETTI : Yes that was that's the that one has a lot of the mechanicals. As far as I'm using it'll be storage and basically because we don't have a basement and we need a place to have ice machines, refrigeration that's what I'm planning on using it for. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So on the survey it shows that the septic tank is there, is that the septic system and the location for the restaurant? ANTHONY MORETTI : Yes and it always has been. The water that goes to the Old Mill and the well is also on that side and the water goes pump across the street to the Old Mill and the (inaudible) pumps back to the septic which you'll see run in a series of seven tanks heading up on (inaudible)those will all be replaced with a new IA system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else in the audience wishing to address the application? Liz is there anybody on Zoom? Okay I'm ready to close, do you need any additional thing submitted prior to closing? I think we just basically condition it based on the other approvals Trustees approval and the Health Department. Well that's our way of trying to work with all the government agencies and giving them their fair shot. MARTIN FINNEGAN : That's fine and thank you all for your time we appreciate your consideration. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So 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. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Thank you and good luck with your project. HEARING #7562—STEVEN CORDOVES and MICHAEL GULIZIO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Steven Cordoves and Michael Gulizio #7562. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's May 17, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling with attached deck and to install an accessory in-ground swimming pool at 1) located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 15 feet on two sides, 2) located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 35 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%, 4) the proposed swimming pool located in other than the code required rear yard located at 525 Island View Lane (adj. to Shelter Island Sound) in Greenport. EILEEN ROWAN : Good afternoon Eileen Rowan from Rowan Permit Expediting located in Coram New York. There's a one story single family dwelling and sun room. The dwelling was issued a Pre-existing Certificate of Occupancy in 2014 (inaudible). The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling utilizing the existing footprint and raising the dwelling to be FEMA compliant and expand the footprint along with the addition of decking and an in-ground pool. It is a non-conforming lot with a little over 25,000 sq. ft. however the upland portion of the property is 14 and change sq. ft. which is approximately half of the property. The rest being wetlands and therefore undevelopable. The dwelling and sun room footprint approximately 1,172 sq. ft., the proposed dwelling footprint approximately 2,398 sq. ft. The existing side yard setbacks are 7.7 feet and 10.7 feet making a total side yard setback existing of 18.4. The requested relief from the required side yard setbacks for the proposed construction of 8.75 feet and 10 feet making a total side yard setback of 18.75 feet which is slightly larger and slightly more conforming than the present total side yard setbacks. Additionally (inaudible) which was previously side yard setbacks. The total lot coverage allowed is 20% whereas this application is seeking relief for 26% coverage. Please note that the coverage if the wetlands was included for lot coverage calculation would be approximately 14% coverage. This application is seeking a variance for the location of the in-ground pool. The proposed location of the pool is in a side yard but I believe not in the required side yard. According to the section of the code 280-15 this is a waterfront lot the pool is allowed in a non-required front yard and non-required side yard. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting According to the chart in the section of the code a required setback from the side yard line is 10 feet and we are conforming for side yard as the pool is proposed at 11 feet and well behind the required front yard with the proposed expansion of the dwelling. The pool will be in a side yard behind the proposed front foundation line of the dwelling. If there was no extension of the dwelling we would not require a variance for the location of the pool. With regard to the requested minimum and total side yard setback variance the relief is very similar to the established side yard setbacks a few inch difference. The Board has granted similar setback variances in this area. On June 16, 2008 the Zoning Board for the property located at 1495 Bayshore Rd. in Greenport the Board approved the minimum side yard setback of 5.7 feet and a total of 11.5 for an existing dwelling with proposed additions. Further this particular application was granted for a 26.4% lot coverage. This property is on the corner of Island View Lane and Bayshore Rd. On March 12th variances were granted for a 6.5 minimum side yard setback and a total of 11 feet. This application was for additions to an existing dwelling. November 2, 1994 ZBA#4280 granted variance for an 8 foot side yard setback. Another variance side yard variance of 3 feet was granted by the Board. There are many dwellings in that area that have side yard setbacks of 3 feet, 5 feet etc. With regard to the LWRP comments, there are many homes in the area that have been expanded and are of a substantial size. The proposed construction is landward of an existing primary structure. The IA sanitary system with the approved by the Health Department Suffolk County and submitted as part of a building permit application if this Board approves the variances requested here. It is my opinion that the granting of the requested variances would not be precedent setting nor cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood. The lot is long and narrow and almost half of it is wetlands causing difficulty in complying with the town code to the zoning. Does the Board have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Can you furnish us with those comps? EILEEN ROWAN : Yes I could. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yea please and also EILEEN ROWAN : Excuse me is that something I can email to you cause I've written on my copies? MEMBER ACAMPORA : You can email it to the office they'll make sure that we get that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Actually if you just make a copy of what you just read into the record you cited the variance numbers right of priors. EILEEN ROWAN : Sure do I hand this to Donna or Kim? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sure we can do that. She summarized what the variances are you know. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Also do you need Trustees or D.E.C. approval? EILEEN ROWAN : Yes we do. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Have you started that yet? EILEEN ROWAN : Well we can't go to the Trustees until you've been before this Board here. We have submitted an application to the D.E.C. they haven't come back with comments and we are addressing that. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Okay can we get some of that information? EILEEN ROWAN : Certainly I'll email that to Kim perhaps. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's fine. Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : It's a demolition so why not just comply? EILEEN ROWAN : I would like to defer that question to the architect who is in attendance. KEITH GREENWALD : Good afternoon, Keith Greenwald also representing the owners. So a couple of reasons, one the owners love the existing house and want to in rebuilding it maintain (inaudible) of the original house since (inaudible) in this location. But also with that knowing (inaudible) any remaining area that complies with all of the zoning and Trustees requirements is too small to actually allow the reasonably sized house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How many square feet is the total on this dwelling. KEITH GREENWALD : The total 2,398 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a footprint, is there a second floor? KEITH GREENWALD : Second floor is 1,298 additional sq. ft. for a total of 3,696 MEMBER ACAMPORA : Big house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a big house, big pool on a small lot mostly burdened with wetlands. MEMBER LEHNERT : Well how can he my question is you're using the wetlands argument, that law changed back what in the early 90's we can't use wetlands how is that even relevant? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not, people do refer to it but basically the code requires that a lot coverage determined based upon the buildable lot area as we all know for good reason. It was changed because so many properties out here had land under water you know on their deed and they would build what looked like you know 18% lot coverage but when it came right down to it, it was cheek to jowl on what appeared to be the property. People didn't know that it went way out under the water but it also made no sense because the impacts were dramatic so that got changed. KEITH GREENWALD : We are applying for relief for the upland and I just want to mention that the house itself would be 16% of lot coverage so the additional overage is the pool and deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Are there any other Certificates of Occupancy on this property? You submitted and for the record you called it a Pre CO #37282, were there any other C.O's? EILEEN ROWAN : No there are not. Also my research shows that's the only C.O. that covers the existing house, sunroom and shed I believe. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Right so that presents a bit of an issue cause you're using the future plan, there's a waterside deck, there's a hot tub, there's the wrap around front deck and I find it a little difficult that if the Pre C.O. was issued in 2014 where it clearly states that it's seasonal then the town's property card shows that the property clearly had a traditional front door, windows, no French door so there's been substantial work to the existing house, so was that work done with or without permits and when? EILEEN ROWAN : That is on the waterside was built without a permit. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : What about the addition of the French doors in the front of the house, the back deck that runs the width of the house? EILEEN ROWAN : I'll leave that for Keith. KEITH GREENWALD : I would believe those were (inaudible) previously. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then also the property card illustrates that the structure is unheated yet there's clearly I saw there's like a gas heating system propane along with the air conditioning. KEITH GREENWALD : Yes the house had been previously upgraded and done without permits. MEMBER DANTES : It looks like you could by code have a 40 foot wide house on the property is that correct? KEITH GREENWALD : That is correct. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : In the course of the demolition are you guys keeping the existing foundation in tact? KEITH GREENWALD : No (inaudible) to install (inaudible) MEMBER LEHNERT : So there's nothing left of the original house at all. KEITH GREENWALD : The original intent was to keep the original house and only do additions but I think the original house condition is not in great condition, I think that's a lot of money to upgrade the property (inaudible) didn't make sense. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess what the Board is saying is that when you have a demolition like that you know all prior approvals are extinguished so you kind of start with a clean slate and when you come before this Board the reasons that you're presenting arguments saying we really need a variance we're obligated by law to grant the most minimal variance we possibly can (inaudible). So to come in with a brand new house that's pretty big and needs a lot of variances even though there's plenty of variances in the area we know that, most of those variances with some exception were additions and alterations to what was already there they didn't get knocked down and start from scratch. So the Board has to see this in context all of those other issues. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us or Liz is there anybody on Zoom do you know? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have a hand up. Someone is coming in. KATHERINE TURPEY : Hi this is Katherine Turpey my husband Mark Turpey and I own property at 615 Island View Lane next door to the applicant 525 Island View Lane seeking the variances. We personally support the letter (inaudible) by the Island View Homeowners Association to postpone this application in order to resolve a property line discrepancy between the applicant's survey and a recent survey completed by Young and Young on behalf of the HOA. Until this property line discrepancy is resolved the proposed projects conformance with the 50 foot rear yard setback cannot be fully determined. The proposed rear deck appears to be situated approximately 22 feet from the mean high water mark at its closest point. Additionally the project overwhelms the lot, is inconsistent with the predominant character of the neighborhood and the location of the swimming pool in the side yard will have a detrimental on our neighboring property. Thank you for the opportunity to share this comment. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess I should have mentioned that we did receive that letter from the Homeowners Association, did you get a copy? EILEEN ROWAN : No. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have to provide you with a copy. Apparently there's a discrepancy between the survey that the applicant has showing a setback from is it the wetland boundary or high water? MEMBER LEHNERT : Property line. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's some confusion, I guess the homeowner has one survey and your applicant has submitted a different one and there's a discrepancy they're trying to,resolve as to what exactly is the setback. MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at their survey and ,the new survey shows 22 feet from the concrete wall to the deck so if(inaudible)there's no way that this application (inaudible). EILEEN ROWAN : I did not receive the letter but I did speak with the clients. The applicants they spoke directly with the HOA and from what I can see we have a survey that's guaranteed it shows the whole as you have it in front of you which matches the Suffolk County Tax Map. I did look at the HOA survey and that one seems to end at the high water mark. It doesn't take into consideration any portion that's in the wetlands area so I'm surmising that perhaps that's where the HOA jurisdiction ends or that's where the boundary for how they establish HOA fees but I'm confident that with a guaranteed survey that was accepted by a title company when they purchased this property a year or so ago and it matches the Suffolk County Tax Maps 1 believe that what you have in front of you is our entire property. MEMBER DANTES :Title companies don't look at wetlands. EILEEN ROWAN : They do look at boundaries. T. A. DUFFY : Do you know if the deed says that you own to the mean high water mark or that you own the (inaudible) bounds description? EILEEN ROWAN : Okay so I did ask for a copy of the deed and I did not receive it however they did provide me with a copy of the contract of sale and the last page of the contract of sale indicates from I think it's the Mull Holland Trust it's lot 37.1 which is just at the south of there. They indicate that the dock is on their property and they accept that. MEMBER DANTES : It's not like a there's a Schedule A at the end of the contract? EILEEN ROWAN : You know what, I'm not sure let me take a look. MEMBER DANTES : Do you have a copy of the (inaudible) survey? EILLEN ROWAN : I was given an email copy of it, I didn't print it out. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : Email it to us? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You can send it to Kim. EILEEN ROWAN : Sure. MEMBER DANTES : It sounded like what she was saying it looks like it's (inaudible) T. A. DUFFY : Sometimes the discrepancies arise that if (inaudible) own to the mean high water mark that changes over time depending on when different surveys are done it could be a different setback. EILEEN ROWAN : I understand that but I also think that when the surveyor was out surveyed the property and guarantees it I believe they pull all the deeds associated with the property and they base the high line or what not on the information they get from the county. MEMBER DANTES : We're talking about 100 feet then yeah there's an issue 6 inches (inaudible) EILEEN ROWAN : I'll get a copy of the HOA survey, I think it's only a portion of it that I received. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think basically the question is that was asked and I don't think it was answered to my satisfaction, why can't you conform and why does the house have to be so large? Is the applicant willing to scale the project down? KEITH GREENWALD : Yes I believe we're going to have conversations with the applicant and what he agrees to (inaudible) to the more conforming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay cause we have two choices or maybe we have one but two of the choices is to adjourn subject to receipt of amended plans and that would then require another hearing because we would want to be able to ask you questions or we can simply close and make a determination on what's before us. I think that the issue we can play around with the issue of the homeowner's concern for where exactly that property line is but I think we have adequate information from our point of view to be able to make a determination. Do you agree Board? MEMBER DANTES : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we can just close and make a decision but if you're definite about the fact that they're willing to really have another hard look at this and you know look at the size of other dwellings, there's some larger homes that have been built over time there. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think the big issue is they're basing their application on (inaudible) C of 0. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's a major problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well you know what it is, they want to be able to stay close to the water and have a big house that's what everybody wants out here I mean we know that we see it all the time. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The scale of that neighborhood is not about big houses it's more like Sage Blvd. those little brick layers cottages. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No it's not that was then this is now, people are investing huge amounts of money especially on waterfront property. MEMBER LEHNERT : So when you have a blank slate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But when it's a total demo and when you're not saving the foundation, you're not saving you know you're building as though it was an empty lot basically and when you come in with that many non-conformities the Board has to take a hard look and say is that really a reasonable approach to putting in a new dwelling on what is essentially a small lot that the buildable area is very compromised cause of the wetlands. We know that there's flooding going on we know we have to start doing (inaudible) more resilient. All of that being said what does the Board want to do? Do you want to allow them to discuss amendments or do you just want to close it? KEITH GREENWALD : If we can request an adjournment and to come back with amended plans think that would be our preference I can speak to the owners. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, well what do you want to do is that alright with you guys? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think we should just close. MEMBER LEHNERT : Close. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a quorum that says to close it. I believe that's what the vote is going to be when I ask. Alright well then if there's no other comments or questions I'm just going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All In favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. EILEEN ROWAN : Just to confirm you're just looking for that survey from the HOA? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah and you already gave her the priors that you cited? EILEEN ROWAN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. HEARING #7571—JUAN ACEVEDO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Juan Acevedo #7571. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 9, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize an "as built" wood deck attached to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required rear yard setback of 10 feet located at 2775 CR 48 in Mattituck. Please state your name please. JUAN ACEVEDO : My name is Juan Acevedo (inaudible) I bought in Mattituck last year and it had (inaudible) deck and it's non-compliant and I wanted to get a permit for it and in order to get a permit I need to get a variance relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me just enter into the record that you're looking at a side yard setback for that deck which is a pretty small deck that certainly needs to be renovated and repaired, it's 8.6 feet from the side yard the code requires 10. JUAN ACEVEDO : It's only a small section of the deck cause the way the property it's just like one foot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes it's only a corner of the deck that's involved so it's quite a small December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I have no questions. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright there is no one else in the audience who wants to address the application. Let me see if there's anybody on Zoom, Liz do we have anybody? Okay, 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. We'll have a decision in two weeks thank you for your patience. HEARING#7551—DAVID and LISA CIFARELLI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David and Lisa Cifarelli #7551 it was from adjourned from November 41h and this is a side yard setback for a single family dwelling and Anthony we talked about your amending the plans to increase that side yard setback. I think you did submit plans showing 5 foot is that right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes ma'am we carved basically a piece out of the corner there and we were able to get a 5.1 proposed would be our closest distance. We also on the west side of the property we also made that straight there's no longer a bump out there so that we just sort of we decreased the encroachment or there is no I guess further encroachment on that side using the 10 yard side yard setback. Previously we were showing sort of a bump out on that side and the Board asked is there a way that we could eliminate that and sort of just make it a straight line so we worked that out on the plans so we took that into consideration and revised as necessary. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So we have a 5 foot and a 10.2? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct and then you also have the 8.2 which I did go back to the Building Department and they said that this is how they're looking at this property that it has three side yards so they're saying that the 8.2 proposed is also being considered a side yard so we do need the variance for that as well that's the request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unusual that it has three side yards. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Because the front yard is actually all the way on Peconic Bay Blvd. it's a flagged lot so they don't have any front yard issues they're far back there from Peconic Bay. Just to reiterate, I said this last time the two properties in front of them they own as well they own the two lots that's correct so they use that driveway the shared driveway to those lots there's a right of way for that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There's technically not really a front yard, I mean the front yard they're calling the side yard. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Even if they decided to sell the property that's adjacent to there that would still be a shared a driveway is written into the deed for both those properties as being a right of way as the only access. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As an easement right? ANTHONY PORTILLO : As an easement correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric do you have any questions? MEMBER DANTES : No it's kind of a unique lot. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll say the whole property is a family compound. I remember well having to deal with the recreational uses that were on one of their lots that everybody wanted to use and was using but it was accessory to nothing because there was no principle dwelling. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes we're having a challenge with the utilities as well because we're having to write in the utility right of way for the water since it's basically going through the two lots as well and then as you can see the proposed septic has to go into that driveway there's really no area of room to propose. We have filed and are basically approved they're just waiting we need Trustees approval your approval then we can go back to the Health Department to receive their approval but this is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You filed with the Health Department but haven't gotten anywhere with anyone? December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Well they came back with objections, the main things are getting approval from the town Boards that we have to submit back to them and we need to write the utility right of way in other two property deeds and provide that to them that was their comments. In regards to the design, they're fine with layout of the system. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from anybody, Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat, Nick, is there anyone else on Zoom Liz?Alright I think we have it covered. I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 in two weeks. We have to do some resolutions let's get to them. Resolution for next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held on Thursday,January 6, 2022 at 9:00 am so moved. 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. Oh you know what, I'm looking at this 9:00 am start time we have the Organizational Meeting I think we better do it at 8:00 am. That way we can do our Organizational mtg. I'd rather do that than start later. So I'm going to amend it to 8:00 am Organizational and then 9:00 am Exec and you want to do hearings at 10:00 cause we might December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting have I don't know we might have some drafts to go over and deliberate on. So that's the motion can I get a second on that. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on November 18, 2021 so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER DANTES : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I think that concludes the agenda. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn the meeting, 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. Liz you can stop the recording. December 2, 2021 Regular Meeting CERTIFICAT1ON 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 : S�d&Llq-llk Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : December 16, 2021