The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-01/06/2022 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 January 6, 2022 9:20 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member (Via Zoom) ERIC DANTES—Member ROBERT LEHNERT—Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant JOHN BURKE -Acting Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Nicholas and Aspasia Constantine#7567 3 - 8 Frank and Christine Mangano #7574 9 - 11 Linda and Daniel Lynch #7577 12 - 14 WS2 Investments, LLC#7575 15 - 17 Rama B. Rao and Eleanor L. Thomas #7578 17 - 19 Peter and Maria Ganley#7581 20- 23 Jay P. Mandelbaum and Lauren Gordon #7579 23 - 33 Keith and Lynette Kane#7576 34-40 Joseph and Deborah Polidora #7583 40-43 Thomas and Laura Johnson #7584 43 -45 The Alexander Fox Stern 1997 Trust#7586 46 -49 Pants View, LLC#7587 49 - 53 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING# 7567— NICHOLAS and ASPASIA CONTANSTINE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first public hearing this morning is for Nicholas and Aspasia Constantine #7567. This is a request for variances from 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 an existing dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet on each side, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 25 feet located at 275 Miriam Rd. in Mattituck. Bruce good morning, Happy New Year. BRUCE ANDERSON : Happy New Year everyone. Bruce Anderson I represent Nicholas and Aspasia Constantine in connection with this application. I'm going to hand out a couple of items so we can hopefully move through this fairly quickly. The first is an as built survey if you want to pass it down it would be great. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Before you do that just to let everybody know that we've been informed by Justice Department that there's an arraignment coming in so we will be interrupted hopefully (inaudible) and we will have to recess out of the meeting hall. I'll let you know as soon as they tell us. BRUCE ANDERSON : The three exhibits the first is an as built survey (inaudible) an aerial the third is (inaudible) down the block. This is an application generally what we're seeking to do is we have a very old house it was built in the fifties that will be demolishing and seeking to build a new house in its place. The existing survey that I submitted to you depicts a one story 1,142 sq. ft. single family dwelling, there is a first level walk out garage storage area, the second level is living quarters (inaudible). So that totals 1,142 sq. ft. with an attached at grade deck (inaudible). Please take note that the existing side yard setback is 7.3 feet and that the setback of the westerly lot line is 7.2 feet which leaves with an existing condition of 14.5 feet. The house is setback 41.6 feet from the rear lot line. What we propose is to construct a 1,651 sq. ft. two story dwelling that would occupy 15.7% of the lot area. There would be a pool, there would be the house would be setback 9 feet from the both property lines where 10 feet is the minimum required and that would constitute 23% increase setback of what exists today. The total side yard then would be 18 feet as opposed to the 14.5 feet that exists today which represents an increase in total side yards setback over what exists today and in the amount of 24%. The dwelling height has got the 35 feet to the midpoint of the gable as measured from the street which complies with the code and has an overall ridge height of 41.6 feet. The pool is a plunge pool consisting of a 10 x 18 foot pool setback appropriately from the side lot line and no variance is required for the pool. We're here because the existing house I'm sorry the proposed house requires relief from individual side yard setbacks and total side yard setbacks. The January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting project requires all of the respects to the town's zoning code. You should also take notice that we also moved the house back from the rear lot line to 48.5 feet, the existing house is presently at 41.6 feet. This is a lot that contains 10,500 sq. ft. is located in a R40 zone and therefore it's a pre-existing non-conforming lot. So the variances again are, individual side yard setback what's required is 10 feet, total side yard requirement is 25 feet and that's the relief we are seeking. The second exhibit I handed up was an aerial photograph that would give you some idea of what the neighborhood looks like. You will see that the lot in question is highlighted in yellow and we generally describe the lot consistent with prior variances there's nine or ten lots that on Miriam as they connect with the adjacent street there. The other thing too is the aerial overlay from Suffolk County GIS the topo there's this drop off on the rear end of the lot down towards the sound that slope is completely vegetated not only in front of this lot but in front of all the other lots and is stable. Also you will notice that as you go from east to west the height of the hill increases so that hill will go all the way up to a high point of about 114 feet. We are at approximately 60 feet where the house would be built. Your application is accompanied by a survey prepared by Angelo (inaudible) along with plans by (inaudible). In that plan you can see the side section to give you an idea of how the grades go up. This house just like the house that exists today is sort of built into the side of the this hill so that it will have the same garage on that ground level with some storage behind that will reflect in the floor plans before you and then that constitutes a basement cellar and then there will be there is a first floor plan and a second floor plan. So that's what's before you. We define the neighborhood those nine residential lots along then north side of Miriam Rd. as it branches to Summit Drive. Of the nine lots along the stretch of road eight are developed with houses (inaudible) accessory structures. The only adjacent lot located directly to the west of the property the only vacant lot left in this neighborhood. The Board should take notice that the nine lots along the stretch of road there are four that contain a lot width of 50 feet or less. (inaudible) four lots are actually double lots which have a lot width of 100 feet and one of the lots which is tax map parcel 35 is a triple lot having a lot width of 150 feet. Along with the three other lots we are similarly constrained with respect to lot width and those lots are described in tax map as 100-99-28 which is our parcel, 31 which is 32 and 36 which are adjacent properties to the east. The third exhibit we put in was a record of decisions of four when we went through the town's records we came across three variances and the interesting thing to me about the variances was that each of the variances relate to essentially side lot yards as we're requesting that the three variances that were granted along this neighborhood stretch were all for lots that had 50 feet or slightly less lot width. The location of those lots located on the cover page and are highlighted in green you'll see that in your application package. The first lot which is an adjacent lot Miriam Realty received side yard relief of 7 feet and total side yard setback of 16.8 feet. The second lot for which the variances that (inaudible) are for a (inaudible) at 475 Miriam Dr. who received side yard setback of 7.3 feet and both side yards of 19.3 feet. Then the third and final one is actually January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting a corner lot only found a 1962 zoning decision which walked you through the Board and is in essence that lot which is on the corner of Miriam and Inlet like I said it actually a corner lot the Board back then if you read through it you'll understand that they're basically treating the easterly and westerly lot line the side lot line and so they give a setback from Inlet Drive of 7.5 feet and a setback from the westerly lot line of 5 feet and that's what's in that decision so those are the decisions that were granted along this within this particular neighborhood. MEMBER DANTES : Are these variances for new construction or are they for additions and alterations do you know? BRUCE ANDERSON : They were demolition rebuilds pretty much. I think the Inlet one was new construction at the time that I can (inaudible). So that is sort of an overview and the aerial photographs shows you how these lots basically line up and also take notice of that second photo attached because that'll give you some idea of how the grade sort of increases how the hill gets higher and higher as you go to the west. The nice thing about this project is if approved no one's view is going to be impeded because the lots to the west of us are significantly higher. The lot directly to the west the vacant one is about 10 feet higher and as I said those grades go all the way up to a top elevation of about 114 feet above sea level. Where the house is situated is about 60 so (inaudible). You should know that the owners (inaudible) as are the neighbors two of the neighbors,,we also received an email from a George Lomanga who lives directly across the street expressing support for the application so I'd like to place that into the record it came in yesterday. So it's our contention that the variances should be granted because there wouldn't be no impact to the neighborhood, the property is typical for the neighborhood. It will repair the existing conditions to the property in the existing development we find existing dwellings and side yard setback of 7.2 and 7.3 feet. When we redevelop the property we increase the minimum side yard setbacks to 9 feet on both sides and so the total side yard would increase from 14.5 feet to 18 feet. In fact the two story house that's proposed (inaudible) analysis as a two story residence common throughout the entire neighborhood. We submit the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved without some method without a zoning variance to pursue because you're so constrained with respect to lot width, again the lot width is 50 feet for this particular lot. We submit that the variances are not substantial in relationship to the existing setbacks cause those setbacks increase from 7.3 feet and 7.2 feet to 9 feet and total side yard from 14.5 feet to 18 feet and of course the individual side yard setbacks are at 10 feet, we're asking for 1 foot relief off of an individual setback which we think is deminimus. The hardship is not self-created, the lot was (inaudible) and thus it's our contention that the benefit to the applicants that if the variance were granted would not outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. The benefit to the applicant of course would be a new house that's upgraded consistent with other houses that have been upgraded along the same stretch of neighborhood and we submit there is no the 5 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting redevelopment is no way a detriment to the public health and safety of the neighborhood and there is strictly no detriment. That's my initial comments and of course we're here to answer any questions you may have. We have neighbors who want to speak so I defer back to the Chair. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if the Board has any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No it seems like it's a pretty straightforward application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was just going to ask the obvious which you did provide prior decisions, but why can you not conform?This is new construction it's a demolition, the variance relief that you shared as far as the priors just reading the three decisions one was quite old so that one I'm sort of ruling out the world has changed but the one that seems most similar might be the Luga house where they added a second story to an existing structure. Yours is new construction so why would you not be able to meet? BRUCE ANDERSON : Because the house is so narrow, you wind up with a trailer. We took every liberty we could to shrink the width of this house on a lot that is 50 feet wide. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So then the question would be the second question, you're seeking two sort of variances for single side yard and the combined. Would one foot really make that much of a difference? BRUCE ANDERSON : Yes it would yes that's why we made this application but the one foot is deminimus that's the point. We tried to make every effort to shrink the width of this house but we're a 50 foot wide lot and because of that you wind up with rooms that are so oddly shaped you wouldn't want to live in the house. A great deal of planning and architectural effort was applied to this (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for answering, anything from you Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Pat are there any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? Please come forward and state your name. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting UNNAMED SPEAKER : My wife and I are the owners the ones to the left, we got 100 feet I have no objection 1 foot none at all. PHYLLIS MARKOPOULOS : Hi I'm Phyllis Markopoulos and I live on Town Beach Drive below Miriam and first of all I'd like to say that there is a house a small cottage the original cottage below the Constantine property and the lawyer said that there's just vegetation, there is a small cottage there for years summered by the owners. The vegetation is slight it's not a lot. My house is to the east of this property and what I'm concerned about is any kind of building and movement I'm just kind of concerned it there will be any damage to that property which is behind my house and is my property actually and if there is any damage or movement to that that would create damage to my property to my deck to the house who is going to be responsible for payment the town and the Constantine's? I am curious to know if there's been an erosion study done because again there is a retaining wall below and I'd like to know if there's been a you know a study done on that. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : I'm not aware of any studies. I think the code would require we know that this is a what's called a land bluff. It's a very unusual land formation we know the area well having done many applications in Captain Kidd Estates and I don't know of any studies like that. I think the code conforming rear yard setback would probably be 35 feet and the applicant is proposing 48.5 feet is that correct Bruce? BRUCE ANDERSON : That's correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So there is a substantial setback of where the house would be built from the edge of that bluff and short of that MEMBER DANTES : But they are required to keep any storm water runoff on their property. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They have to comply with Chapter 236 of the town's Storm Water Management code and that means that there will be no water running over that bluff because they would have to in order to get a building permit show that all water surface water and runoff of roofs and all of that is retained on site. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Just as a matter of record and if any other members on their inspection noticed it, there is about a six inch drainage pipe exposed at that land bluff just below the decking. Water is being discharged down the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's going to have to be removed. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : So clearly the town will enforce (inaudible) January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting PHYLLIS MARKOPOULOS : I'm just concerned about the integrity of the land behind my house as they choose to expand and how it's going to affect my property and the cost of who is ultimately responsible should there be any injury? MEMBER DANTES : If they cause the injury then it's their responsibility. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a civil matter, it has nothing to do with the Zoning Board we have no jurisdiction over that, that would be between you and your neighbors. MEMBER DANTES : The town is not running equipment on the property. PHYLLIS MARKOPOULOS : Okay I'm just kind of concerned wouldn't the Zoning Board then not only concerned about the building of this but the surrounding properties is that not part of your concern? MEMBER DANTES : We analyze the character of the neighborhood but we don't get into the day to day operations of projects. PHYLLIS MARKOPOULOS : With all due respect that's a very poor response. GEORGE LOMAGA : I'm George Lomaga I live across the street from the Constantine's property. I have no objection but there is one (inaudible) that can't be represented here that has I think some concern and that's the deer population. Nick you have to (inaudible) I'm just kidding. He has grass in front and the deer I watch every morning so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? Anything else from the Board? 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. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7574—FRANK and CHRISTINE MANGANO CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Frank and Christine Mangano #7574. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 13, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 370 Sunset Way in Southold. JENNIFER WICKS :Jennifer Wicks for the applicant. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me just read, this is a proposed lot coverage of 33.7% the code permitting a maximum of 20% and JENNIFER WICKS : It's a second story additions which really doesn't increase the lot coverage. The thing is I mean this house already started over 20% lot coverage, the driveway the house so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Driveways are not included in the lot coverage. JENNIFER WICKS : They're not included in the lot coverage it was already done (inaudible) like I said it's a second story addition so it's not really increasing it that much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What is that much? It's currently 32.3% MEMBER LEHNERT : I think the proposed balcony is pushing it over cause that's the only piece that is outside of the existing footprint. JENNIFER WICKS : The lot is undersized I mean it's only 14,011 sq. ft. which I know neighboring lots which they're considering undersized is I mean it's like MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie on the survey they're calculating driveway, paved areas I don't think those are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :They are not. JENNIFER WICKS What was submitted Mark Schwartz had done a smaller write up of (inaudible) MEMBER DANTES : What was the stone patio is that a raised patio or is that at grade I don't remember from the site visit? JENNIFER WICKS : The stone patio by the pool? MEMBER DANTES : Yes January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting JENNIFER WICKS : That's ground level. MEMBER DANTES : That's ground level so that's (inaudible) cause I'm calculating between the house and the pool 20.7% 1 mean JENNIFER WICKS : It's just the second story deck MEMBER DANTES : No I understand but why are they saying 33 when I'm getting 20.7 on reading your survey? That's what I can't figure out. When you go through the whole lot coverage it says 33 on the plan but when you go house plus pool I get 20.7, 2,914 sq. ft. divided by 14,000 so why CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They're saying that the house and the garage is 21.38 and the pool which would count in lot coverage is 776 sq. ft. The rest of that stuff is not MEMBER DANTES : Right so they got the patio on there, why? JENNIFER WICKS : Are you looking at Mark Schwartz's letter from March 8, 2021? MEMBER DANTES : I'm looking at the whatever this is right here. I don't remember that the patio was raised looking at it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me see I'm looking at my notes. It's a I think like one foot I mean like one riser. MEMBER DANTES : Oh okay that's what's throwing it all off. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's literally like not even what a proper riser would be but it is elevated above a flat surface. MEMBER DANTES : So it's just enough to be raised. MEMBER LEHNERT : In Mark's letter he's got it calculated at 32.3 and a second floor deck takes it to 33.7 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You got it, you see it in the photo? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I didn't see that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean it's not like really elevated high but it is a step up or down and flattish on one end and more elevated on the other. So are we going to go with the lot coverage that's up there? MEMBER DANTES : Yeah I think (inaudible) that's the raised patio. I understand now. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well I did notice that there was a PVC pipe that just spills out onto a concrete slab in the side yard for drainage where there is a boat stored there's kind of a concrete pad that's (inaudible) storage which is fine but,they should not be spilling roof runoff onto a concrete slab. JENNIFER WICKS : Dry wells MEMBER DANTES : They should basically keep the water on their property whether it's a dry well or JENNIFER WICKS : Okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions on this application? MEMBER ACAMPORA : The property has a lot going on with it but I understand this second story addition so I have no other questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You'd be happy to hear I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? 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 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Okay we have to recess for the arraignment. Motion to recess. 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. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING#7577— LINDA and DANIEL LYNCH CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Linda and Daniel Lynch #7577. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 1, 2021 amended September 3, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to legalize an "as built" deck addition at 1) located less than the code minimum required rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 2070 Grathwohl Rd. in New Suffolk. So this is a rear yard setback for the actual question that I had is not so much about the deck but it would January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting appear that there's a full apartment with balcony with second floor above a garage that has a Certificate of Occupancy for a garage period. It's C.O. #Z33255 for a new accessory garage. JENNIFER WICKS : They didn't disclose to me that there was an apartment there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did anybody else see that while doing their site inspection? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I'm familiar with the building I didn't notice that it was there but I know the building. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a full apartment. That is not allowed by code unless an application was submitted for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure with principle residency of the owner occupant and the eligibility either a family member or someone on the affordable housing registry has to be the tenant and neither are guest houses at this time permitted by code. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay so that can be a family member? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's not before the Board cause there is no way that the Building Department would have noted that or cited it. They don't go out and do site inspections but we need to clear that up. Once the Board of Appeals examines a property we have the authority to look at all conditions existing on the property to make sure that everything is in conformance. So perhaps you want to talk to your client about that or Mark will or something. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay. MEMBER DANTES : I have a question, there's a C.O. in 1980 for addition of deck to one family dwelling, is that for the front of the house or was there another deck somewhere do you know? JENNIFER WICKS : I'm sorry can you repeat that? MEMBER DANTES : What's the 1980 C.O. for the deck addition? Basically I'm asking if this deck is a brand new deck or did they tear down an old deck? JENNIFER WICKS : No they extended an old deck that's what it was they extended the old deck. MEMBER DANTES : So this C.O. was for an existing deck that was in this location they extended it? JENNIFER WICKS : Yes. MEMBER DANTES : Do you know how many feet they extended it by? JENNIFER WICKS : I don't have the old survey with me, I think it was about 5 feet if I recall. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it would have been it would have had a conforming setback or we would have seen it previously. MEMBER DANTES : So it's not that they built a brand new deck without permits they just did a small extension to an existing deck. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I thought the old survey was in the package I remember seeing something. JENNIFER WICKS : The old survey, I think it was there were two surveys but one didn't have the setback the rear yard setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let's see does the Board have any questions about the deck itself and the setback? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the application? Anything else from the Board? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date with the caveat that we're going to have to look into what's going on in that apartment. We'll do that separately from this deck variance but please get back to us to find out what's going on let the office know. Otherwise we're going to have to send it back to Code Enforcement Official from the Building Department out to do an inspection and to contact the property owner for that purpose. Is that okay with the Board? MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : That's fine. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there asecond? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING#7575—WS2 INVESTMENTS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for WS2 Investments, LLC #7575. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 5, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a non-habitable accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at East End Rd. on Fishers'Island and Martin is here to represent the applicant.This is a non-habitable accessory garage in the side yard the code requiring a rear yard location. We did get your memorandum of law, we also got the letter from FIDCO approving the proposed location. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Excellent. Good morning Martin Finnegan 12350 Main Rd. Mattituck. I'm here today for the (inaudible) family who are the owners of WS2 Investments who are long term residents of Fishers Island. They'are in the process of renovating their home there, a building permit has already been issued for the residential construction and we're here'today to get variance relief for the accessory garage as Leslie mentioned. This property is fairly unique in its configuration, it's about two and a half acres in the R120 zoning district and it's located just north of (inaudible) and Fishers Island in the FIDCO community. You probably did not get a chance to see this property but CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not this one. MARTIN FINNEGAN : essentially we have a property that comes up and has a plateau area where the building can occur. This is a situation that because of the topography and the slopes of the parcel there's really no alternative location for the placement of the garage. The driveway itself which is the only access off the north side of the property along East Main is again it slopes up around 15 feet to the plateau. There's really no other way to place a garage in the rear yard but requires some significant grading excavation of the property. So the parcel to the south the Stengels family also own to the west is also a vacant parcel that's owned by the Ferguson Museum. So basically this location where the garage is proposed to be located and I know you have a survey is kind of the flattest area on the property that would permit construction. It's noteworthy that this is a substantially wooded parcel on the (inaudible) I would suggest to you that this is a structure that is not even going to be visible to the surrounding community. As Leslie mentioned the construction plans the project were vetted through the Architectural Review Committee of FIDCO and approved there. I've submitted January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting some photographs with our application package which will kind of tell the story there as well. I do note that there are some other surrounding properties that seem to be improved with accessory structures that are not in the rear yard. Having said that let me just briefly touch on the criteria as to the character, as mentioned this is very large parcels in this area of different shapes and sizes but there are other parcels that seem to have accessory structures in other than the rear yard. It's substantially screened, there's no indication that the granting of this variance will result in an undesirable change at all to the character of the surrounding area or create a detriment to the community and obviously FIDCO's approval verifies that. The benefit sought is obviously just to have storage for vehicles and for overflow laundry for the family. This is a waterfront area where the weather is really tough but there really is no way to nowhere else to go with this garage so variance relief is necessary. I would suggest to you that the relief is not substantial, it's the only feasible location to place the garage. It's going to be about 200 feet from the roadway out of sight of neighboring properties. As to adverse impacts there's really no indication whatsoever that there's going to be any adverse environmental impact or impact on the surrounding community. In fact the structure has been designed very carefully to be in keeping with similar architecture within the FIDCO community. As to self-creation the Stengals have been on the island for many years. I suspect that this the existing construction pre-dated zoning and there is no garage there obviously but they didn't create the topography and they have to deal with that reality and that's why we are here. So based on that I respectfully request that you grant the variance relief to allow them to proceed with the construction of their garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's see if there's any question, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually one question, you started to talk about the washer and dryer for overflow laundry are there any other plumbing or amenities proposed for the garage? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No just that, it's just plumbing for a washer and dryer for you know grandkids and stuff like that and MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No bathroom utilities MARTIN FINNEGAN : No bathroom, no it's just a washer and dryer and yeah that's it otherwise just unfinished storage. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No (inaudible) the building will be shut down during the winter. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's not conditioned space. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No other questions. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything? MEMBER LEHNERT: I have no questions. MEMBER DANTES : I don't have any questions at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Nope. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wanting to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENT6: Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING# 7578— RAMA B. RAO and ELEANOR L. THOMAS CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Rama Rao and Eleanor Thomas #7578. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 13, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet located at 1725 King St. in Orient. So this is a front yard setback of 22.1 feet where the code in this case requires a 50 foot minimum setback and we have in here three letters of support from neighbors. The house itself it looks like from the survey sitting at 29.3 feet so this is for a covered front porch and entry and then first floor master bedroom it looks like. We've all been out to see the property. Do you have any priors at all for a front yard setback relief on King St? January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : I did not find any but for this property are you asking or for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No, no for anything on King just in the neighborhood. MARTIN FINNEGAN : No, this is you know in Orient things are all over the place. Anyway just to briefly run through with the project pictures are a thousand words here, you see the house it's basically we're going to put a covered porch here and this little the current entry will be kind of boxed out to create an alternative entryway. There really is no reasonable access into the home, you kind of fall in so that's the plan. Then on it's basically boxing out this little area here to create that it's only another 147 sq. ft. 144 sq. ft. of living space to allow for an expanded master bedroom area and laundry for aging in place. As Leslie corrected noted the current house this entire structure already lies within the front yard setback for the most part and a little bit of what lies behind it. So we sit at 29.3 feet right now and yes the applicant is seeking to increase the non-conformity slightly by 7 feet. However this is essentially open covered but open area and the additional side will be essentially behind what is already the existing structure. Quite honestly as you observed and no offense to Ellie and Rob but the property needs a little curb appeal and you know Meryl is doing her best in addition to just making it more functional for their needs moving forward. Based on the overwhelming support of the surrounding neighbors it seems everybody agrees that this is a good project that will benefit the neighborhood. So as to character you know again as mentioned Orient obviously has no particularly King St. here there's no one design there are several homes that do have are improved with open covered front porches but there's no indication that granting of this relief would have an undesirable impact. In fact the house next door and across the street both have porches and it would seem to fit right in. It will substantially improve the aesthetics of this property and evoke the charm of other historic Orient farmhouses in the hamlet. The side addition I would argue would be almost imperceptible because it is going to be substantially blocked by the existing structure. So no undesirable change to the character. The benefit is significant to the applicant they're really seeking to make this a little home for them as they age. There's a very, very small first floor bedroom space that they're just looking for this expansion to be able to have first floor laundry, living quarters as they grow older. No way to do this without the variance because of the pre-existing non-conformity while yes it could be considered substantial in total the variance relief requested we look at it from the 50 feet line I'm asking you to look at the little addition which is only a 15% addition to the existing non- conformity and really it's to add a very small amount of 43 sq. ft. of enclosed square footage open space and then the back is only about another 144 sq. ft. so not a significant addition. As to adverse impacts clearly no indication of any environmental sensitivities to this property, no adverse impact there and again we have support letters from pretty much all the surrounding neighbors for the project so it doesn't seem to be any indication of any adverse impact on the neighborhood. Self-created as mentioned is most likely this house was constructed I believe it January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting was during the prior the adoption of zoning so that pre-existing non-conformity is there but I don't believe that that should preclude the granting of variance relief here. If there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll start with Pat, do you have any questions for this application? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Eric MEMBER DANTES : No I'm just looking at the aerial view on my phone now and I don't know if there are any variances but there's definitely other houses that are closer than the required 50 feet on neighborhood. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I didn't see any variances but yeah definitely it's not uncommon particularly with porches with the front porches that are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's also the property will be most affected directly across the street is undeveloped. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Right. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I have no questions, Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING #7581— PETER and MARIA GANLEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Peter and Maria Ganley #7581. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 13, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations and to legalize an "as built" rear deck addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 785 Fishermans Beach Rd. in Cutchogue.Jennifer please state your name again. JENNIFER WICKS : Jennifer Wicks. The side yard is actually remaining the same, it's not decreasing from the original house. There are a few houses I believe on the block 645 Haywater Rd. it's ZBA #5597 which it was permitted to have an 11 foot side yard with a 16 foot total side yard. MEMBER DANTES : What year is that? JENNIFER WICKS : 2004 and there was also 7174 which may be zoned a little bit differently but it's a .3 side yard where a 10 foot is required and a .6 where a 20 foot total is required. Like I said they're not it's exactly what the side yard is presently. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And that would be 6 feet and combined at 14.1 JENNIFER WICKS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The LWRP says it's inconsistent cause that's because the deck was built without permits. This is a second floor bedroom? JENNIFER WICKS : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Some roof alterations obviously also. JENNIFER WICKS : Yeah the one side is going to be dormered over the existing house and the other side of the house the southerly side of the house is just reconstructing some walls and roof over. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the shed that's in the side yard along the outdoor shower what about those?The as built shed in the side yard and the outdoor shower. JENNIFER WICKS : I think the shower has been removed already. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It was there when we did the inspection. JENNIFER WICKS : Oh it was, Mark had an X over it so CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think he's saying that it is to be removed no maybe not. JENNIFER WICKS : If they're an issue they can be removed. MEMBER DANTES : All that's on the Notice of Disapproval is asking about the deck the deck addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well the side yards. JENNIFER WICKS : Nothing was mentioned regarding the shower and the shed. MEMBER RLANAMENTO : Yeah I was curious about the sheds just because they're in a non- conforming location. JENNIFER WICKS : Shed singular or is there another shed you're talking about? MEMBER LEHNERT : There's two sheds. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : And then there's a small like garbage receptacle along the house and then there's a pad which looks like they might plan a third shed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The point being that all those sheds and the shower in the side yard they need,to be removed in a matter of period or they need to be it's a big property so there's no way you're going to have a lot coverage problem or they have to put them in a conforming location which would be the rear yard because you have plenty of room to do that here or the front yard on waterfront property. JENNIFER WICKS : Okay that won't be a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I've got here the Notice of Disapproval says a single side yard setback at 6 feet but the survey is showing one side is 8.18 feet and the other side is 5.51 MEMBER LEHNERT : No the 6 feet is for the second floor addition. If you look at the survey it's on the left. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Ah thank you yep. So you're actually increasing that setback by a hair on the second floor addition. Any questions from anybody, Rob do you have anything? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN,: Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO No I wanted to bring up the shed and shower and that was just discussed. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so we can condition that removal. Eric anything from you? MEMBER DANTES : No not at this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, questions were answered about the sheds. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have_a hand up Leslie.- CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay-let that person in. VINCE REVOLT : Thunk you very much, Vince Revoli and my wife Kate (inaudible) is here is actually part of the property owner that's adjacent to Ganley on the east side. KATE REVOLI : We just wanted to share our thoughts on the renovations, I understand why they want to create a full bedroom from a loft and although it's probably going to block our view of the water and inlet from our second floor it's only going up 7 feet so I get it. It's kind of unfortunate that it's so close. There is a variance on both sides of our property now but there's not that much to do about that. I think at this point it's kind of water under the bridge but we were also concerned about a shed that our neighbors were talking about installing right on the property line which is just north of the carport and I don't think I saw it on the drawings but they've created a pad and they're planning to put a 12 x 6 shed there and we were concerned because there's no setback it's right on top of the property line and it's in full view of our back deck and we were just kind of trying to figure out if that's permitted or if there was a more convenient location for that shed. Was that one of the sheds that you were discussing earlier? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Well I brought up-the pad, there's a poured concrete pad that's very visible which implied a future shed I was thinking in light of the two sheds that are already standing there. MEMBER DANTES : The answer is they're not applying for the shed. It has to be what 10 feet off the line? January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No I think it's 3 feet.,It depends on the size of the lot. JENNIFER WICKS : They're not going to put it we're going to have them move it a conforming location so it's a nonissue. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All accessory structures must be in conforming locations with conforming setbacks and any approval that this Board might grant will condition that approval based upon that requirement. KATHERINE REVOLI : Okay thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Anything else from the Board? Anyone in the audience? 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. HEARING#7579-JAY P. MANDELBAUM and LAUREN GORDON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Jay Mandelbaum and Lauren Gordon #7579. This is, a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's August 4, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a single family dwelling and an accessory raised patio with a hot tub where 1) the proposed construction would result in a lot coverage of 31% where the code only permits a maximum lot coverage of 20% and 2) the proposed raised patio and hot tub would be located partially in the side yard where the code requires accessory structures and buildings must be located in the rear yard for property located at 920 Kimberly Lane in Southold, New York. In addition, the property owner seeks to amend Declaration Covenants and Restrictions on the January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting subject property which require the removal of the existing tennis court if a single family dwelling is not constructed within a specific timeframe. That timeframe was November 20th of last year 2021 and so we have two issues to look at here. The request to amend or extend the Covenants and Restrictions let's take a look at that before the hearing if you don't mind. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Sure I was just going to I was intending to. Good morning again, Martin Finnegan Main Rd. Mattituck for the applicants Jay and Lauren Mandelbaum who as Leslie mentioned are the owners of the subject property at 920 Kimberly Lane and'also the property across the street at 825. So yeah this is a one acre lot in the R40 zone that has three front yards. It's currently improved with an accessory tennis court covering 7,200 sq. ft. or 17.7% of the lot area. That tennis court was constructed pursuant to a 2010 variance from this Board that permitted the construction of this accessory structure subject to a Covenant requiring the eventual construction of a principle residential structure. I believe that was to be by November 30th of 2021. So to accommodate aging family members the Mandelbaums have proposed to construct 3,400 sq. ft. single story home with an accessory garage it's going to be a four bedroom four bathroom home with a slightly raised patio and hot tub in the rear of the house within the courtyard area. However due to the configuration of the house and the corner lot issue it's been deemed to be a side yard structure. The footprint of what's proposed is otherwise completely conforming. So Leslie requested I'm going to jump to the Covenant issue first. The Mandelbaum's acknowledged the 11/30/21 deadline they did not ignore that intentionally but as,with most families life got in the way, they are raising children that they're caring for, terminally ill grandfather Mr. Mandelbaum's father who passed in 2019, (inaudible) paying college tuitions and all that and obviously construction of homes are incredibly intensive and expensive endeavor. As they were in the process of course of planning this in the late 2010's a pandemic hits and then the world shuts down and all of their efforts although they continued they were thwarted by delays secondary to the onslaught of construction activity that real estate purchases that occurred in 2020. Design professionals, surveyors you name it were at times not available backlogged even getting a hearing before this Board became a challenge and taking months where it used to take much less and I suspect that this Board has never worked harder than it ever has in the last year so with the amount work that has been presented to you. We did submit a written request for an extension earlier this year in August and I understand that from the response that the Board has reservations about an extension but we respectfully request you reconsider it today upon hearing the facts and having the benefit of comment from the community. The Covenant was required for_the benefit of the residents of the town of Southold as with any zoning matter. The primary beneficiaries of that Covenant were those in the surrounding community the Kimberly Lane neighborhood and community. You have been presented with letters of support from those neighbors not just for the extension of the Covenant deadline but for the requested variance relief and as with any 241 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting agreement the Covenant having modified by agreement of the parties. I submit this Board can by a simple majority vote extend the deadline. There's language in the Covenant that speaks to the need for public hearing in a (inaudible) majority vote if it were to be modified by a subsequent owner but this is the original parties to this Covenant which is an agreement and I believe you can grant that by a simple majority vote. In the absence of public opposition to this request there does not seem to be any compelling justification to not there's really nothing to gained from compelling removal of the tennis court with this juncture is a permitted accessory structure in the R40 zoning district.- Yes this 'variance was granted and it was always contemplated that the house would be here one could approach the town with an application to build a house and a tennis court and its permitted use and perhaps would be right back where we are right now. The Mandelbaums are ready, yes there has been a delay but it's not a significant (inaudible) we're not coming in here two, three years after the expiration. There has been a concerted good faith effort to get to where we are right now and the contractor is lined up and ready to go;they are ready to go with construction. The representative from North Fork Wood Works Scot Edger is,present and able to verify that for you but they are ready to go and so we would respectfully request that you consent to.an extension to just allow this house to be built. I will move on and discuss the variance required which is just a single variance and with respect to the side yard as well but the and address any questions you have as we move forward with this. Do you want to stop and address questions on the Covenant now or just keep going and do it at the end? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Why don't we just hear it all, they're all interrelated anyway so just carry on. MARTIN FINNEGAN : So as mentioned was proposed the contemplated single family residence, I would suggest to you that when the original variance was granted 'for the tennis court variance relief to build a house was essentially the forgoing conclusion. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : How do you come to that? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well because of the fact that a tennis court I don't ,know why which is ground cover is counted at lot coverage. If this was a patio it wouldn't be or if it were a driveway it wouldn't be but it's considered a structure even though it's ground coverage. But it takes up a bit and if you're talking about building something in character with this community this is Kimberly Lane okay your left with about 2% lot coverage to make that happen and that does not allow you to build a house that's anywhere near the character of this neighborhood. I think yeah I think there was alternative. I mean the degree of the relief may (inaudible) but I think we were going to be here but be that as it may if you look at this property okay it is substantially screened. We're talking about construction right now the tennis court is January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting essentially invisible. The entire perimeter of the lot is screened and will remain so moving, forward. The applicants are proposing to construct a home that is a four bedroom four bathroom home which is relatively standard by today's standards of the accessory garage. Other than ,the lot coverage issue it is entirely conforming to setback requirements. The hot tub, the patio variance is slightly elevated patio which because of the corner lot and under the new code is the question whether or not his would be considered as side yard or not but again it will not even be visible those improvements will not be visible to any nearby properties. So as far as character, the goal here is to construct a home that is entirely in character with this neighborhood, that's why we're here. I would submit to you that what is proposed is entirely in keeping with the homes in the surrounding community. The benefit sought obviously there's been an agreement to construct a house a four bedroom four bathroom house a conforming house an approximately 900 sq. ft. would not be in character of the other homes on Kimberly Lane. I would submit to you that there is no way to do this and construct this home without variance relief. Substantiality, if you look at what's proposed its 13% lot coverage which is the home and the garage accessory structures. Yes the tennis court is eating into that but it's not a (inaudible) it's not the garage it's not it's a fence and ground cover is what we're talking about here. I think that should be considered, I think the nature of this structure if we even can call it a structure should be considered when your analyzing the lot coverage. Again we're asking for 31% it's not an extreme variance to make this happen and to again achieve construction of a 'home in keeping with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood. As to adverse impacts we're putting this in a completely conforming location this house, the property is substantially screened, I mean almost entirely screened as I'm sure, you have seen when you were there. There is really no perceivable adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In fact you have letters of support from the surrounding neighbors for this project for the construction of this home.'They're familiar with what's going there and the immediate neighbors have supported this project in addition to relief from the code. As to self-creation the applicants promise to construct a residence it's our position that in wanting to construct a residence that's consistent with the neighborhood if the relief is granted. Having said that I'd be happy to address any questions but we are respectfully requesting the lot coverage variance and relief from the Covenant deadline so that we can get building and get this done. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Condition number five on both the Covenants and Restrictions that were filed and the original condition on the approval was-to build a conforming house within an eleven year time frame that was granted. There was no I signed that decision you should know, there was never ever a.contemplated variance when we wrote down conforming house in that C&R and in that condition. Having said that it isn't that we couldn't do it but I wonder why they didn't if they knew they were having problems why didn't they go to you or come to us prior to the expiration of that date? I mean lots of people January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : They did they submitted a request in August for an extension. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah but the bottom line the date to build the house was very imminent, very imminent. This Board cannot we did answer your request, you were already beyond the time limit. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand that but the I explained to you the circumstances that led to the delay. I think that extensions (inaudible) for variances and other things all the time by this Board okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They are but they're not granted with Covenants and Restrictions usually within a time frame of six years. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I understand but I'do believe that we have all dealt with extraordinary circumstances in the last couple of years and I don't know what is 'to be gained particularly when you have a Covenant that is for the benefit of the town people and those people who are most affected have said we don't have any problem with this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This was a very difficult decision for the Board to make to begin with because it was clearly in direct violation of the town code which says you can't located an accessory structure on subject property without principle dwelling which is why the whole requirement to in a quite decent length of time build ,a house there or remove, it. They've had the benefit of that tennis court for eleven years. So I wouldn't say that I know that legally from a legal point of view your right that a Covenant generally is to, make-sure that the town is protected, there's a lien on the,property as a consequence of it but the bottom line is this was really a big gift to the Mandelbaums. This was go ahead and have your tennis court for up to eleven years without a house on it. I don't know of another single application the Board has had that granted anything like that, recreational use without a principle structure. So I think it was really a benefit for the Mandelbaums for a long time. ' MARTIN FINNEGAN : Of which they are grateful and they understand and I don't think that they are cavalierly coming in here and saying oh whatever we're going I mean it was not an intentional ignorance of this obligation but there were circumstances that delayed and then if they waited till you know the end of during 2019 as they're planning this and then nobody foresaw what happened. Yes it caused delay and it pushed things back to the point where you couldn't even get things ready to submit for a building permit until well into last year and got it in as quick as we could and we didn't make the request for the extension because I figured the immediate response was going to be waiting a minute'you didn't even' apply for a building permit yet okay. So how would we grant an extension when you haven't even done that. So my advice to them even though they were (inaudible) let's get this thing teed up for a building January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting permit so that we can in good faith say to the Zoning Board we're ready to go okay we're here we've done it but just give us the time to build a house. That's exactly how it played out. Again I go back to this is a permitted accessory use, we're not seeking extraordinary relief here by way of variance relief to construct this house. There's no opposition to this project or to the extension of time. I understand Covenants are Covenants but this is an agreement between the Mandelbaums and this Board that can be amended and changed and I do believe that there are compelling circumstances here. We're all still living through this pandemic here we are okay it's affecting everything, it's affecting builders, contractors everything is happening right now in this world it's still a problem okay I deal with it every day. You deal with it every day, you're inundated with it's a reality and so I think that it's fair for you to take that into consideration and allow an extension again they are ready to go. They will pull a building permit and pull the trigger on this thing if the relief is granted and get it done and there will be no harm no (inaudible) to any neighbors. I mean if you had a row of people sitting here saying this is crazy we don't want this then I can understand you would be in a position but you're not faced with that and when you're faced with support from the people that benefit from that Covenant I feel like it's fair to make the request and it should be granted. MEMBER DANTES : Question for you Martin, if the tennis court didn't exist would they be able to build this house as of right without any variance relief? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yeah I mean well I guess maybe cause of the corner lot we would have to deal with this little hot tub and patio variance but I mean obviously that's but yeah I mean we're complying with look it's 13.3% lot coverage we're well under lot coverage everything else is completely conforming all the setbacks with the bulk schedule. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know of any you talked about character of the neighborhood on Kimberly, this house also fronts on Roxanne and on North Bayview and the houses on North Bayview are very different than the houses on Kimberly. They're mostly one story ranch small much smaller houses. So you're choosing to define which road characterizes the neighborhood. The neighborhood is mixed I mean waterfront properties have great big houses on them. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Well as you may recall there's I believe when I say three front yards there technically are but there is by the subdivision approval for the North Bayview is not considered cannot be used they can never build a house on North Bayview they can only build a house on Kimberly Lane. The way I view that is this is obviously an address of Kimberly Lane it's on Kimberly Lane and Roxanne is essentially a pass through street that really there's a corner lot across the street and there's a house on Kimberly so his really only option is to build on Kimberly main house and that's by which we were judging the character of that neighborhood. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So are you saying that you really can't build a conforming house on this property?You're arguing that it would be much smaller than what the other houses MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes (inaudible) smaller than the other homes on the'lot on the street and yeah I mean in terms of constructing something that is first of all functional and usable as a family home you know for the needs of the family and then in keeping with the character you know I think that 900 sq. ft. is just it can't be done. It can't be feasibly done and it would kind of be ridiculous to have that kind of a house in this area. MEMBER DANTES :That's if they keep the tennis court. If the tennis court wasn't there they can build a massive house. MARTIN FINNEGAN : That•'s true. Obviously the goal is to keep the tennis court, it's been there for a decade now and it's you know (inaudible) something that they already enjoy and want to maintain. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Martin do you know of any prior lot coverage variances on Kimberly since that's how you're defining the neighborhood? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I-do not I am not aware of any on Kimberly Lane. MEMBER DANTES :,Do you know of any one acre residential properties that have tennis courts? I can't name any off the top of my head. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I do not off the top of my head. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I was going to ask, are there any other tennis courts on Kimberly Lane? No to the best of my knowledge. So from a character standpoint also this is a unique parcel. MARTIN FINNEGAN : It is and again it's been as required and it's been substantially screened and there's no lighting, it is you know CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No they built it according to what (inaudible) . MARTIN FINNEGAN : according to what the relief was. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Based on the square footage that you said for a conforming house is somewhere shy of 900 sq. ft., you're allowed two stories so it would be an 1,800 sq. ft. house. If somebody had a finished, basement that would add additional square footage, cannot that be considered character house of that neighborhood? While it's smaller there are lesser homes on the non-waterfront side of Kimberly Lane. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Didn't you say this was a one story? MARTIN FINNEGAN : The proposal is for a they're looking for a one story living for you know aging in place and for having other family members accommodate and so it's been designed as a one story structure. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But if it were designed as a two story structure which is characteristic of the larger homes on Kimberly MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I don't think there's a single story CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't know a single story house on Kimberly in that subdivision. If it was designed with two stories the footprint would be substantially reduced, you'd still have a great big house and you know you wouldn't have a lot area variance. There would be no lot coverage problem. They just want it the way they want'it. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Look they would have designed yes but it was designed to meet the needs of the family and there is a vaulted from the exterior it almost appears as a two story home because it has a vaulted ceiling so you know in terms of it you know being of the height and size it's similar in that regard but yeah I mean that's what they're hoping for as they get older to have a one story single story home. Again when we go back to you know 31% lot coverage I would argue is not substantial here particularly when you know you consider the tennis court. I mean yeah yes the tennis court is ground coverage, again it's not a barn or a structure it's not something you're going to drive down the road and see these two massive structures on the, property. As a matter of act you won't see anything cause of the screening. So all in all I do believe that you-know it's a good design for the neighborhood, I think that it's you know a four bedroom house. It's not something that's you,know overdone or some massive project here. it's a reasonably sized house for the neighborhood. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Martin are there Covenants and Restrictions to the Kimberly Lane subdivision? MARTIN FINNEGAN : Not that would affect anything here. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's no regulation saying like a house minimum must be x, y, z? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat do you have any questions on this? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I think you're covering anything that I might have had. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie do you want to talk a little bit about the subject property rather the other property the deer fencing? January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well it's not before us but we did notice that imbedded in the hedges is deer fencing which is 8 foot high. They were only allowed to have you know a fence around the tennis court which obviously you have to have and they've conformed with that there is a black chain link but it was meant to be screened with screening and we all know there are problems with deer but nevertheless this basically completely encases the property. Again there would be'no way for the Building Department to even know about it because they don't go out and do site inspections but we do and as I said in the'previous application when we look at properties we look at everything on the property. I mean are you aware of the deer fencing or is your client aware of it? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I was,not but I can certainly address that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I mean you couldn't even really remove it without destroying the hedgerow it's so deeply buried in there at this point and you don't really see it unless you go and look specifically but I have to bring it up. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Understood, I will address it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything, Eric anything more? There is nobody in the audience except us. Liz is there anybody on Zoom? OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have Mr. Mandelbaum in with us if he wants to speak. MR. MANDELBAUM : I'm here with my wife Lauren if I can speak? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes go right ahead. MR. MANDELBAUM : First of all I want to thank the Zoning Board for their consideration and for the work that you all do and we do appreciate it, I. know it's not an easy job. I also want to apologize, I understand the comment about the eleven years and I guess there's a little bit of a misunderstanding. When we and we used another attorney at the time, when we had applied for the variance and we do really appreciate the fact that we had this eleven year variance and use of the tennis court and thank you we do appreciate it. At the time the reason we didn't ask for a three year variance•or a five year variance and it was a (inaudible) variance is out intent always was given other things going on to do it down the road in ten years or so. Then as Martin pointed out my father was very ill and passed away four of the five of us actually had cases of COVID and were ill and we also I guess misunderstood before we approached Martin and hired Martin that NYS and this is what a previous attorney said, NYS'because of COVID and, the crisis extended building permits I don't know and I subsequently made aware that Southold didn't do that automatically. So again we didn't mean to be disrespectful and my wife and I apologize, it was always our intent to build at the end of the period and then COVID hit, my January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting father passed away, kids in college other expenses that's what the delay was. We were going to come to the town but our advice was to get our plans all together then obviously there was a six month delay on getting on the agenda and so forth. So again I apologize, we did not mean to be disrespectful or appreciative of what the Zoning Board did so thank you and hopefully that gives a little bit of an explanation cause we do have tremendous respect for the town, the process and our neighbors. Again the-only other thing, there was a comment there is another tennis court on the lot next door to us on the street excuse me so it's not that they're out of character with the street and we extensively reviewed the plans for this house with all three neighbors who are affected and we are the fourth neighbor affected across the street and as you saw from the letters they all thought the house was tasteful, they were supportive of it they understood what our delay was. So again we view it as a conforming house and when we did get this and again (inaudible) was there at the time and maybe this was not clearly communicated or it was a misunderstanding but it,always was our intent to build a house commensurate with Kimberly Lane which is the subdivision that it's part of and actually this house would be the average or even on the small side as you know from the block. So again we were trying to be respectful, we were careful with our neighbors, we didn't proceed without them being fully on board, they wrote letters of support and agairy I apologize for getting under the eleventh hour with the eleven year variance and we do thank you for the use of the tennis court and'we'd like to have to continue to have the tennis court with the house in a way that it's so screened in and (inaudible) that no one,can see it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Mandlebaum could you address the C&R's that you signed and register at the county level specifically Article VI that discusses a conforming house? - MR. MANDELBAUM : I'm not a, lawyer and I'm not an expert on the zoning, our understanding was that this was again and I can't speak for what the Zoning Board believed at the time but based on a prior attorney our understanding was this is exactly the kind of house that we were going to build to be perfectly honest. I'm not an expert in the zoning laws but our understanding was that this house-which without the tennis court would be 13% coverage. It is a two story house, one side is one story one side is two story but again our understanding was this was a conforming house and it was-always the type of house we envisioned consistent with Kimberly Lane that we would bu,ild understanding that the lot is a little unusual because of the three street fronts the way itis. Again we thought this house was a house that would have been approved there was no issue it was conforming, it just was the technicality of the court's counting towards lot coverage and making it a higher number and there already is a tennis court on the street. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Perhaps there's confusion between a house that conforms to what the visual quality of Kimberly Lane looks"like and a house that conforms to the zoning code of the town of Southold. The only non-conformity you're proposing to the zoning code is lot coverage. You meet the other bulk schedule requirements for height and setbacks from property lines. The code allows for a maximum of 20% lot coverage and you're proposing 31% which is substantially over. So it's not conforming to the code of Southold that's why you're here. MR. MANDELBAUM : I understand, I meant the elements of the house other than the lot coverage issue which is at 20% versus a 30% but again going back to the question, the variance was not you can have a tennis court for eleven years and you must rip it out. It was you can have it for eleven years as long as you then build a house. My wife's a my understanding was (inaudible) understand this 20 versus 10% we thought that was addressed by the fact that you have to build a house, the town was saying you have to build a house. By the way an 800 or 900 sq. ft. house which is all that would be allowed we didn't think was the kind of house that Kimberly Lane what would be appropriatefor the character of the neighborhood. But again we understand it's not conforming because we're asking for this exception this variance of 30% versus 20% respectfully. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Anything else from anybody, Martin do you have anything else? MARTIN FINNEGAN : No that's all but thank you I just renew our request for an extension of the deadline and for the requested variance relief and I thank you for your consideration and time today. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing reserve decision for a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries, the hearing is closed. I think we have some time for some lunch. I'm going to make a motion to recess for a lunch break and be back here at one o'clock. Is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to reconvene, is there a second? MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING#7576 KEITH and LYNETTE KANE CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Keith and Lynette Kane #7576. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 23, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to legalize the "as built" conversion of the approved screened porch to conditioned habitable space attached to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting required side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 335 Village Lane in Orient. Mike welcome, Happy New Year. MIKE KIMACK : Happy.New Year to you Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just wanted to let you know we did get a letter from the neighbor just like yesterday or something stating that the previous owner built that habitable addition long before these new owners bought the property. They did so' without you know the plans were for a screened porch not for a conditioned space. I MIKE KIMACK : I understand that yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And she said she feels badly that the new owners are burdened with cleaning up the legalities on the property. While we're looking at it it's just a single side yard setback of 7.2 feet where the code requires 15 feet for the minimum and a combined side yard setback at 22.2 feet the code requiring 35 foot minimum. MIKE KIMACK : Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant who I believe is on Zoom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Speaking of Zoom let me interrupt you and just ask Liz to come in and tell people who are on Zoom how they can participate. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good afternoon everyone. If anyone wishes to comment on a particular application we ask you that you send us a quick note via the Q& A tool at the bottom of your screen or you can click raise hand button and we will quickly allow you to unmute and you can let us know which application you are here for. For those people who are using a phone, in order to let us know you would like to speak please press *9 to raise your hand. I will see it and I will give you further instructions on how to speak at the time. Thank you. MIKE KIMACK : The original zoning application I believe is 2016 and that one was the original house also was historic that was approved for a unheated screened porch. The perimeter of that porch is exactly the ,same that was built. At the time that is was constructed in 2016 1 believe it had been at,that time converted to a habitable space with windows and a French door. The openings basically that were the screened porch were the same openings except that they were filled with sliding glass windows at the particular time. There is an overlap between yours and also Historic Preservation which we've had two meetings with so far. Their concern is that I don't like to speak for them but I will at least paraphrase what some of their concerns were is that the screened porch doesn't represent the aesthetics of the house as a whole primarily because the house as a whole has nine (inaudible) windows in it and the screen porch January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting or the I'm,sorry the habitable windows right now are sliding windows. So what's happening and you don't have it before you but it's going to be going before the hopefully get back on the 27th back to Historic is that the owner has agreed to basically replace the existing windows sliding windows I think they're the 400 series Anderson 400 series with nine light double hungs that are going to be exactly the same as the existing house so that the look would become hopefully more in line with what Historic is looking for. I should have that plan PDF over soon. I had dropped off a PDF over to Kim either today or by tomorrow. That was primarily their concern. Essentially it's the building the same location the difference being is rather than having an unheated unconditioned screened porch it's a heated habitable space with windows. In terms of its configuration the siding on it exactly as the house is and it was constructed the same way as it was originally approved. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No what's interesting here is that the original this wasn't that long ago 2016 doesn't seem that long ago to me. It was for a variance for the screened porch with a 7.2 side yard setback but it never mentioned a combined side yard setback. MEMBER LEHNERT :That was the question I was going to ask cause it's the same exact number. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It just wasn't addressed in the Notice of Disapproval. MIKE KIMACK : They missed it I guess but it was picked up this time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :.Yeah. Let me ask you another question, the neighbor says that this was a previous owner and not the people who own it now and yet MEMBER LEHNERT : The variance was granted to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Keith and Lynette Kane. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I didn't understand that either. MEMBER DANTES : Cause according to the property card the Kane's bought it in 2015. MIKE KIMACK : They have recently sold that. MEMBER DANTES : So the Kane's don't own it anymore? MIKE KIMACK : Correct, so they're the applicants up to the time of closing basically. This has been going on for some time. When I put it in they were still the applicant and the owner. Keith are you on? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mike is there a C. of 0. on this improvement, I'm confused. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : It's not in the packet. MIKE KIMACK : There wouldn't be a C. of 0. only because it was constructed not in accordance to the original layout which was supposed to be a screened porch. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : There's an open 'building permit right now, how did they sell the house with an open building permit? MIKE KIMACK : They sold it with a an escrow. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So the assumption is it will be legalized. MIKE KIMACK : That's always the assumption Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well at least this is getting a little murkier here cause we denied Mark Schwartz's request for a deminimus because historically the Building Department has never felt and we've upheld their ruling that conversion of a screened porch to habitable conditioned space is not a deminimus situation. So that's why you're back here instead of MIKE KIMACK : And it was interesting another anecdote on that one and I haven't done it but originally Historic was involved in the main house but not MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I wanted to ask about that too. MIKE KIMACK : Not the back one it was only the main house. MEMBER LEHNERT : Don't they have to give us their blessing before we do our thing? MIKE KIMACK : Yes I would assume. You would obviously I mean my hope and expectation is that we can but with the addition upon approval of Historic and then basically CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah we can do that. ACTING T. A. BURKE : I can give you a Kittle insight, I'm counsel to the HPC I know this application personally and HPC's-concern with respect to this application is primarily the design and the windows. - MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not the roof, I mean the pitch doesn't match the house at all. MEMBER DANTES : Yeah but the (inaudible) already approved. MIKE KIMACK : Nick that was already approved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but I'm surprised that HPC didn't have an opinion on that, that's all I'm saying. 3 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MIKE KIMACK : They didn't I wasn't involved with that, as I understand they only had the main house they had this addition. MEMBER DANTES : I mean it's in the back you can't see it from Village Lane. ACTING T. A. BURKE : You probably can't see the roof pitch from Village Lane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No you can't. ACTING T. A. BURKE : That's why they're not concerned if they can't see it it's not their MEMBER PLANAMENTO : But you'd still think it would have gone before (inaudible) ACTING T. A. BURKE : The reason that's it's not is because they can't see it from the public right of way. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yeah but I thought and this is a diversion but I thought that if you have a house that is in a historic district where it's landmarked you need to have approval as far as color, siding, any addition etc. ACTING T. A. BURKE : You do need approval but only for the stuff that can be seen from a public right of way. So if there's theoretically the back of the house you don't necessarily MIKE KIMACK : To be fair, to be fair to this (inaudible) I disagree with their approach but Historic looked at it they said well if we didn't have that 6 foot fence and we didn't have the line of trees we might be able to catch a part of it as you walk by. That's what they based it on. They're taking the position that if that back 6 foot fence wasn't down and somebody built on the vacant land behind they'd be looking at this from the backside. The windows (inaudible) that's is that fair John? ACTING T. A. BURKE : That's my understanding you also their only concern is the design of the windows themselves. MIKE KIMACK : And the owner is obviously and I discussed it with him I said look you got sliding windows right now they're open and if you look at them they're glass basically they don't match the rest of the house let's put in Mark Schwartz drew it up (inaudible) and they'll be nine light double hung. Obviously we still have to present to the Historic and hopefully on the 27th Kim is (inaudible) and hopefully that will be accepted. They had designated ones that (inaudible) to contact Mark and (inaudible) but I believe their main concern. Their original concern was did the siding, match the house and the siding does match the house. It's a five inch (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what's in there now (inaudible) window. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : They're here just to add heat and AC to this place. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's already in there. MIKE KIMACK : It's as built and exchanged the (inaudible) screen openings now with the double hung. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well that's what the elevation shows that you submitted. MEMBER DANTES : I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh no they don't they're as built that's why. MIKE KIMACK : The elevation shows the as builts. If you look at this one here Leslie this is probably the most the one that probably is the most and that's I think the Historic probably took most (inaudible) with was this. So this will all be nine light which hopefully will ameliorate their concerns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did Mark draw that up already you said? MIKE KIMACK : I can get that to you in the next day or two. I've got to get off to CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because should the Board decide to approve I much rather stamp drawings that match what HPC's going to MIKE KIMACK : How many sets do you need for Zoning? BOARD ASSISTANT : For Zoning I guess we would need I could always scan and send it you folks but we need two. MIKE KIMACK : I'll do it anyway, I'll do a PDF to you for CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We'll need a hard copy because the office two hard copies. BOARD ASSISTANT : Two hard copies for ZBA and three for Historic. ACTING T. A. BURKE : Mike do you know if you're on for a work session or a public hearing on the next date? MIKE KIMACK : I think it's an extension of public hearing. BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes it is. MIKE KIMACK : That's pretty much it everyone. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What we can do then let me see if there's anyone in the audience or on Zoom that wants to address the application. Any further comments or questions from the Board? So we can close this subject to receipt of plans reflecting changes to the elevation proposed change to the elevation. MEMBER DANTES : And HPC approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's a condition I'm just closing it subject to receipt and I don't know when you can get that approval but if you got the approval before we wrote the decision and deliberated it would be great to have it in hand. MIKE KIMACK : Unfortunately the meeting is the 27th CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It will not alright. MEMBER DANTES : And the name of the property owner so we can put it on. MIKE KI MACK : I'll get that for you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'm going to make a motion to close this hearing subject to receipt of amended elevations. 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 # 7583—JOSEPH and DEBORAH POLIDORA CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Joseph and Deborah Polidora #7583. This is a request for variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 13, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting permit to construct a one story addition connecting an existing single family dwelling to an existing detached garage at 1) located less than the code minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet on two sides, 2) located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 1055 Point Pleasant Rd. in Mattituck. Hi how are you, Happy New Year Nigel. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Happy New Year Madam Chairwoman and members of the Board, Kim, Donna and Elizabeth. Nigel Williamson P. 0. Box 1758 Southold, New York 11971 for the applicant Mr. and Mrs. Polidora. The dwelling was a Pre-0O3 Pre '57 and the shape of the lot as you can see that goes on Howard Creek it's pie shaped, wider back shallower front. The garage is existing 1.6 feet, the house is existing 11.2 feet and the reason obviously is because now we're requesting to connect the dwelling to the accessory dwelling the structure now becomes a principle dwelling (inaudible). Unless we cut back the garage or cut back the house to give us the required 35 feet at both side yards and I mean there's nothing we can do about this. It just would cause a financial hardship to my clients and it will cause a hardship for them also because they're going to be moving out here and as we all know you get older as winters come along we don't want to be outside so hence the request for the connection for the garage and house. MEMBER DANTES : What are you adding like two 6 foot walls that's what the variance is for? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : When you say two 6 foot walls MEMBER DANTES : The garage exists the house exists these two walls between the garage NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct I think they are 4.5 feet I think it was and MEMBER DANTES : So the variance is for two 4.5 foot walls basically. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct I mean it's just for that central point connection. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well because it's now attached it's not an accessory so that it needed a bigger side yard. MEMBER DANTES : What is the existing non-conforming? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct, I mean well can we say pre-existing non-conforming that was a pre-existing pre '57 predates zoning? MEMBER LEHNERT : Well the C.O. on the garage legally exists. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Which was dated 5/28/99 #Z 26485 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER DANTES : I think it's pretty benign. I don't have any questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have no questions. MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No I'm good. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Actually I do have one comment. Did the green cards all come. I'm sure Kim got them all back but I think it's Henry Rena the house next door was there any discussion he's fine I mean obviously it pre-exists so there's not much to discuss but NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct there's nothing to discuss and they I mean this is minor compared to my next hurdle which is the Board of Trustees because and again nothing to do with Zoning, we're making the application for the extension of the back and with the pier lines between the two properties we're going to be past that. Mr. Polidora has spoken to the neighbors we have letters that says they're okay with the encroachment for that for MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You have a letter from the Rena's? NIGEL WILLIAMSON : From the Renas and from the other couple on the other side I can't remember their name. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can you just scan it and put it in the folder and send it to Kim. It's nice to have just I'm thinking about the space it's very tight and at least he's aware. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : But this is only in reference to the addition the 38 x 18 addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :That's not before us. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : (inaudible) you can't walk around a garage but you can't really walk around the garage anyway from a maintenance standpoint. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The 11.2 feet actually there's a big tree right up there as well. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But in that neighborhood frankly you can't tell what property lines exist where anyway. You can't even find it, even your GPS puts you on the wrong side of the creek. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : The Rena's next door I mean that looks like one massive property and there's an actual property next to it at the end. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only other comment you did in your applicatiori is that you're applying for an IA system in order to install a new IA system. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : Correct I mentioned that correct or not? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I might have drifted but I apologize if I didn't catch it. NIGEL WILLIAMSON : It is on the survey. It's says proposed IA system with leaching galleys and that's another I mean I can talk to you about that it's nothing here nor there. K need galleys cause I can't put an 8 or 10 foot ring in because of the grade and it would just it causes all sorts of issues. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay well if there's nothing 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 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#7584—THOMAS and LAURA JOHNSON CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Thomas and Laura Johnson #7584: This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's September 8, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required front yard setback of 35 feet located at Off Fox Ave. on Fishers Island. This is a front yard setback for additions and alterations at 7 feet where the code requires 35 foot minimum and the property has two front yards and three letters of support from neighbors. 4 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting SAM FITZGERALD : My name is Sam Fitzgerald 41 France St. Norwalk CT appearing here on behalf of the owners Tom Johnson. I'd like to share my screen if that's possible. Can you guys on the panel can you see it? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah they can make you a co-host. SAM FITZGERALD : Let me just do that. So Tom and Laura's house is on Shingle Hill and it's a pretty distinct fairly dense cluster of cottages that were built starting around 1890 and they were part of the hotel complex. The hotel is gone but the cottages thankfully are still with us and intact. A lot of them have not been altered since they were originally built. They've been you know building systems have been upgraded' but some are intact like the Johnsons and the house"is right here. Just a quick site plan, this is Shingle Hill right here this is the Hay, Harbor Club and then there's Hay Harbor waters over here. I just like to go just a quick background on Shingle Hill just because I think it's relevant to this to what we're,asking for. So the gray blocks are the original cottages from a hundred and twenty years ago, the yellow is the Johnson's house here. All the original cottages have the same configuration, they all have on the south side shown in red they all have the public or the formal rooms, the living rooms the dining rooms, parlors and they all face the water and they get the sea breezes the views and the breezes. So that's on the south side of the house. On the north side are the service areas, the kitchens, the pantries, the rear entries and things and all these houses are the same in that regard. Running through Shingle Hill are two really glorified alleys, they're now legal right of ways but back in the day they were just alleys and they were there to service or access for the service for the houses. Most of these houses on Shingle Hill are tucked really, really hard up against these roads. We have setbacks of 4 feet, this one over here is 18 inches, over here is 3 feet, the house next to Johnsons I think has a setback less than 6 feet. So that's pretty typical for the neighborhood and all of the houses on Shingle Hill are non-conforming in their front yard setbacks. So the situation with Johnsons is not unique at all. So what we would like to do is to carve out a mud room, a 6 x 6 mud room and to do that we'd like to add at 3 feet bump out on the service end of the house and then add at a 3 foot deep porch. Again that 7 foot setback we are still well within the character of the neighborhood, we're actually going to be a foot back from the immediate neighbor and I think it certainly would be in keeping with what's happening in the surrounding properties. As you said I believe that several of the neighbors have signed on a letter of support for the project. So that's the existing and that's ,the proposed: CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Three letters of support, yep. Alright let's see if anybody has any questions, Eric? MEMBER DANTES : I do not have any questions. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob. MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I do remember over many years I've been on Fishers Island a number of times and everywhere you look everything is non-conforming I mean it just is the way it is, it's historically developed that way. This is a very kind of intact neighborhood that is consistent in its non-conformity. MEMBER DANTES : We've seen these cottages before this isn't the first one coming. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That's true this is not the first one that we gave variances to. MEMBER DANTES : I think Sam has done three or four of them. SAM FITZGERALD : I think that's right yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well hearing no further questions or comments no one else is on Zoom there Liz? No, okay 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 MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. SAM FITZGERALD : Thank you very much. 45T January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING#7586—THE ALEXANDER FOX STERN 1997 TRUST#7586 CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for The Alexander Fox Stern 1997 Trust#7586. This is a request for a variance from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1) and the Building Inspector's August 16, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing single family dwelling and to construct a new single family dwelling on the existing foundation at 1) dwelling is located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff located at 63165 CR 48 in Greenport. So we're looking at a 71 foot bluff setback where the code requires 100 and that's it. It's two floors LWRP consistent and basically Mark said that was based on the reasons in your appeal decreasing a lot of non-conformity and proposed mitigation and no construction further seaward than the existing dwelling. You want to start with there were prior ZBA relief in 2005. ROB HERRMANN : Yeah I can walk you through the site should look familiar. I'll walk you through as quick as I can through this little bit of history and a little bit of comparison of what was previously approved versus what was is in front of you and why. The Board has looked at this site several times in the past, the existing pool and deck were constructed pursuant to variances issued in '2005 and then in 2015 and just a few years ago in 2018 1 was here before you at which time you granted approval for additions and alterations that are substantially similar to what's before you today but they were approved for the prior owner who sold the property to the applicants without undertaking any of that approved,construction from your last decision. So the relief requested today is for the 71 foot bluff setback. Essentially to what would be to reconstruct the first and second floors over the existing foundation which is to remain and this setback actually exceeds the 65 % foot setback to the additions and alterations that were proposed in 2018 which at that time included the addition of a second floor deck addition to the waterside of the house, that is no longer proposed. So there is no waterside encroachment here at all in the existing footprint. As of the prior application the previously approved pool and deck are to remain and as with the prior application in 2018 the main purpose of the renovation is to expand and improve the functionality of the second floor space. While the applicants here did not want to extend any waterside additions they did want to extend the second floor landward toward the road to create a larger front porch on the roadside of the house to create living space on that side above it in place of the existing porches that are on the roadside of the house. So given this landward expansion and the likelihood that the previously proposed work might at this point end up leaning to what would be a town defined demolition anyway a design decision was made to reconstruct the first and second floors within their existing footprint over the existing foundation. In order to ensure the viability of that proposal the foundation was evaluated the integrity of the foundation was evaluated by Jeff Butler professional engineer who has also created the site plan and it's in front of you to make sure that the foundation is in good shape. It is important to note that January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting these proposed landward additions that I'm talking about are in fact situated on the landward road side of the house entirely in the case of the deck addition or nearly entirely in the case of the porch outside the 100 foot bluff setback and this would not themselves probably require variance relief if that's all that was being proposed. With respect to the first and second floor reconstruction additions and alterations that do require variance relief we've offered an application basically the same arguments that we offer that support the 2018 request. With respect to character the Board acknowledged in its decision in 2018 North Rd. is heavily characterized by dwellings that are setback less than 100 feet from the bluff and we are proposing no further encroachment or changes to those setbacks. Again the current relief is less than that which was approved by all of the prior bluff setback relief granted for this property. So we're consistent and behind what the Board's approved here before. Due to the pre-existing non-conforming location of the house with respect to the top of the bluff the Board recognized in 2018 that the benefit sought by the applicant can't be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance. We also find that the mathematical substantiality of the relief is mitigated by the fact that if there is no change to the bluff setback either existing or previously approved and the proposed setback now is greater than what was approved in 2018 which at the time was greater than what was approved in 2015 so we're getting better over the years. Whereas the Board had found that there would be no adverse.impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the site with a prior proposal we've now offered now we're actually offering a benefit in that regard because with the prior proposal the existing conventional septic system would have remained. Now with this application the conventional septic system is being removed and replaced with a low nitrogen IA sanitary system and all of that is included on the site plan. So overall we think this is we're basically asking the Board to grant it's approval for substantially similar application to what is approved in the past but we think with some improvements (inaudible) really going to happen if the Board grants it's approval and of course we need to get the Trustees approval as well who has also approved prior renovation a few years ago. Actually we proposed IA system has already been granted approval from Suffolk County Health Department and of course the project continues to remain outside the jurisdiction of State D.E.C. So that's the proposal in a nut shell. If you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them and I believe that the applicant and the architect and Jeff Butler are all on Zoom so if you have any technical questions that I would be less equipped to answer than them I could ask for their assistance. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : When we were out at the property it looks like the bluffs (inaudible) are in pretty bad shape. Are you going before the Trustees? ROB HERRMANN : Not unless that's at this time but I suspect that would probably be something they may consider as a future endeavor. It would be separate from this obviously unlike this it would not require Building Department approval. 47 January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is just a curiosity on my part, when you go to the back yard you know on the waterside as you're facing the water off to the left there's like a few little steps with a little bitty gate that goes to the next property next door, I just wondered if there was any reason why it was kind of odd. I don't think it's even on the survey. ROB HERRMANN : No I don't see it on the survey and leading to the bluff or leading to the neighbor's property? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No leading to the neighbor's property. ROB HERRMANN : Oh well I'm going to take a guess at that yes because a relative of the applicant owns the adjacent property and I don't remember at the top of my head whether it was to the west or to the east so I'm going to guess it's the one associated with the gate you're talking about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah, yeah I'm sure it looked like that was the case but I was just curious it's not before us and it's benign but unusual. ROB HERRMANN : That would be my guess because there is family that owns adjacent land. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The property sort of has a swale right in the middle of it, it rises up towards the bluff so there's not going to be much bluff runoff that's going to come back onto the property. Did you notice that when you were out there? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Yes. ROB HERRMANN : There is a storm water drainage system that's proposed in connection with the renovation. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah cause Soil and Water did you see that Rob, they said there was some issues with erosion. ROB HERRMANN : I did, they gave a pretty extensive report and often in their report they don't always relate their findings to what's proposed but they just kind of give a broad overview of anything that might be worth noting. So I did see that yeah I got that from Kim or Donna. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright anything from you Eric? Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions very thoroughly covered. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. 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#7587— PANTS VIEW, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Pants View, LLC #7587. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 124 and the Building Inspector's August 3, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required 100 feet from the top of the bluff, 2) located less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20% located at 2022 Hyatt Rd. in Southold. ROB HERRMANN : This one is a little more complicated and I can walk you through it. It's actually a pretty good project. ' CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah I know the house pretty well have been in it many, many times. The prior owners were good friends of mine. It's minimum single side yard setback of 10.1 feet where the code requires 15, lot coverage of 21.1% wh-ere the code permits a maximum of 20%, bluff setback at 10.9 feet the code requiring 100 foot minimum. We have LWRP and Soil and Water comments. I'll let you go ahead now and address those. ROB HERRMANN : So there's quite a bit of work proposed here but the finished condition and the dwelling structure at least as the crow flies will not appear a whole lot different from the existing so that sometimes makes the applications harder for you to follow. So to help the January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting Board visualize we submitted with the application the survey that shows the existing conditions only and then the site plan has two views. The top is sort of typical combined view of the existing and proposed and then you can see the proposed only at the bottom of the page so even if we want to skip over the combined view and look at the survey of existing conditions and then see how it looks compared to the finished. As a quick,overview of the work so we're- all e'reall on the same page, the project basically has five primary components. The most significant one which is really what's got us before you is on the seaward side of the dwelling there's an existing 492 sq. ft. attached deck that extends right into the top of the bluff, extends seaward of the coastal erosion hazard area boundary and that deck is going to be removed and replaced by an attached roofed over deck that will be located 11 feet farther landward away from the top of the bluff and outside the coastal erosion hazard area and that's basically like a wraparound porch which you can see following that cursor there on the screen that goes around the south and east sides of the house also. All the other existing structures that are located on the seaward side of the house within the coastal erosion hazard area are to be removed. So in addition to the deck there is a spa, there's an accessory deck with the spa and there's some brick patio surface. So all those areas that extend into the bluff and into the coastal erosion hazard area will be removed and that space where the spa and deck are will just be replaced like with a sand patio. So basically just with sand in that existing timber retaining wall and those structures do actually have some permit history with the Town Trustees which we reference in our application. Third element is on the south side of the house, there's a 226 sq. ft. portion of the existing second floor roof and balcony which will be reconstructed in place to sync up with the proposed wraparound deck. The most landward one story portion of the house is what is actually being demo'd and reconstructed in place and along with that the existing entry porch will be,replaced with the same wraparound roof over deck and then in the front of the property not really before you but what helps us 'create some mitigation here with respect to lot coverage the existing pergola and accessory garage in the front yard are to be removed. So Leslie as you mentioned this is not truly a demolition of the existing house as only the one story portion of the house which is on the landward side is being completely demo'd. It'll be reconstructed over the existing foundation and there is some other reconstruction as I mentioned with the second floor roof, so basically the Building Department interpreted this as a town defined demolition so it's before you as a demolition. But just to be clear it's not you know the seaward side of the house is not being demolished. So all of this work requires three variances but we're not introducing any new non-conformance. Rather the need for each of the three variances triggered by the fact that we're substantially renovating a legally pre-existing non-conforming structure which pre-dates 1957 it has Pre-C.O.'s etc. that is located entirely within 100 foot setback. It's located less than 15 feet from the northerly side property line and the property currently has 26.1% lot coverage of the buildable land area that's less than 15,000 sq. ft. We are also not proposing to increase any of these pre-existing non-conformities, rather January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting we're maintaining one and reducing two. So the existing 10.1 foot side yard setback is going to be maintained because as I mentioned the seaward side of the dwelling remains in place and the landward side of the house that's being demo'd and rebuilt is going to maintain the same locations the same footprint the same setback so there's no change with respect to the side neighbor. We're actually reducing the non-conforming lot coverage from 26.1 to 21.2% by reducing the building area from 3,871 sq. ft. to 3,134 sq. ft. which is a 19% reduction and lot coverage, still non-conforming but less than what's pre-existing and we're increasing the non- conforming bluff setback basically from zero it's going to be a negative setback cause it extends seaward of the top of the bluff but the Building Department treats it just at zero to 11 feet which 11 feet doesn't sound like that much but it's a thousand percent improvement literally you know relative to what is there. Additional improvements around the top of the bluff I already mentioned, the fact that the existing attached deck the spa, the accessory deck, the accessory patios all the structures are being permanently removed so of the 340 sq. ft. of structural surface area that's within the coastal erosion hazard area now that all drops to zero as a result'of the project. I also want to mention and as a correction in my application I brought out the fact that if you consider where that spa is located now as the nearest structure or most seaward structure compared to where the seaward edge of the wraparound porch will be. There's actually a 19 foot improvement to the properties overall bluff setback to structures because that spa extends 8 feet into the bluff now. I incorrectly note that as 23 feet it's a 4 foot error in the application so I don't know if that might be something that you would reference but if it is that 23 feet should be 19 feet. So overall the proposed finished design we think creates substantial improvements not only to the existing zoning non-conformities but to the physical and environmental conditions of the site. These improvements are enhanced by the proposed replacement of the existing conventional septic system with a low nitrogen IA sanitary system on the landward side of the house and the installation of storm water drainage system. Finally the Board's granting of the requested relief we argue on our application that it would not produce and undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or cause adverse impacts to the neighboring properties. Nearly all of the properties along the developed shoreline on Hyatt Rd. are characterized by principle and accessory dwelling structures located substantially less than 100 feet from the top of the bluff and this character is a result both of pre-existing development prior to '57 and subsequent variances that the Board has granted for renovations and new construction along the road which we've referenced in our application. As there is no change in conditions relative to the two adjacent properties in terms of side yard setbacks structures in the side yard there should be no adverse impact to the adjoining neighbors either. A lot of time went into this design with the architectural team and the owners and we really do think it's a good project and we hope the Board will agree. If you have any questions I can answer them and the architectural team is on Zoom in case you have any questions they can answer. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay let's start with Rob any questions that you have? MEMBER LEHNERT : No he explained it pretty well, I'm good. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No questions,just a statement a bit what Leslie shared it's a beautiful home and I was very concerned when I heard demolition so I'm happy that (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Eric? MEMBER DANTES : No I do not have any questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Is the garage going to be removed? ROB HERRMANN : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And a pergola that's kind of rotting out. The swimming pool is in great shape that's fine. ROB HERRMANN : That's what helps us reduce the lot coverage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There is nobody else in the audience here unless anybody on Zoom wants to make a comment. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I do not have anyone with a raised hand. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, the plans are very thorough. This is really not related but I'm just curious just like with the gate thing, does the LLC own the property in front that's adjacent to the fronting on Hyatt do you know? ROB HERRMANN : The single and separate is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know the lots are single and separate. ROB HERRMANN : Pants View I and Pants View II CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that's what I thought cause I remember back in the day when the prior owner sold it she said you won't believe this but the same people bought the other lot so they own both of those. I just wanted clarification that's all. I don't have any questions either I'm kind of sorry to see the historic windows go but that's the way it is. Okay I think there's nothing else then I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. January 6, 2022 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. Resolution for the next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 8:30 AM so moved. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? 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 Special Meeting held December 16, 2021. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to Grant a one year extension to Henry Hintze Appeal#7234 located at 590 Brooks Rd. in Greenport so moved, is there a second? January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to amend the language in condition No. 3 of ZBA #7566 Michael Kelly to read as follows 3. Installation of a sanitary system approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services located at 1450 Marlene Lane in Mattituck, so moved. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the Building Department for Christopher Ariens ZBA #6875 dated August 20, 2015 subject property located at 443 MacDonald Crossing in Laurel so moved. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one year extension for First Universalist Church Special Exception #7123SE granted February 21, 2019 located at 51970 NYS Rt. 25 in Southold so moved. MEMBER DANTES : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye . MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. That ends the Resolutions. I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting. MEMBER DANTES : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor. MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye MEMBER DANTES : Aye MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. This meeting is now closed, stop the recording please and lock. January 6, 2022 Regular Meeting CERTIFICATION I Elizabeth Sakarellos, certify that the foregoing transcript of tape recorded Public Hearings was prepared using required electronic transcription equipment and is a true and accurate record of Hearings. Signature : Elizabeth Sakarellos DATE : January 17,'2022