Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-02/03/2022 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 February 3, 2022 10:25 A.M. Board Members Present: LESLIE KANES WEISMAN - Chairperson PATRICIA ACAMPORA—Member ERIC DANTES—Member (Absent) ROBERT LEHNERT— Member NICHOLAS PLANAMENTO— Member KIM FUENTES— Board Assistant JOHN BURKE—Acting Town Attorney ELIZABETH SAKARELLOS—Office Assistant DONNA WESTERMANN —Office Assistant February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting INDEX OF HEARINGS Hearing Page Marc and Shari Weissbach #7540SE (DECISION) 3 Allan Karen #7582 4 - 8 Gregory Tuck#7585 8 - 12 HSA Holdings, LLC#7589 12 - 18 Amnon and Kathleen Bar-Tur#7593 18 - 22 David Pugh and Tina Silvestri #7590 22 - 25 John and Lynn Scott#7594 25 - 28 11900 Oregon Road, LLC#7591 28 - 33 Catherine Hovey#7592 34- 38 Vincent Bertault#7580 38 - 65 Fishers Island Community Center#7563SE 66 - 72 Fishers Island Community Center#7621 66 -72 February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Good morning everyone and welcome to the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for February 3, 2022. In person access to this hearing is permitted by law now and masks as we can all see are required and it's also available on Zoom Webinar and I'm going to ask Liz to please explain to the public how they might participate. I think you know before I do that why don't I just open the meeting formerly by asking you to stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Liz would you please remind people on Zoom how they can participate. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : Thank you Leslie. Good morning everyone, if anyone wishes to comment on a particular application if you are on Zoom we ask you that you raise your hand. We will give you further instructions on how you will able to make a comment. If you are on a phone using a phone with us on Zoom please press *9 to raise your hand and then we'll let you know what to do next. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Liz. Anything from the Board that you would like to put on another work session? I think we covered the issue of communicating decisions with Trustees so we'll just (inaudible). For the record new applications the SEQR review, Resolution declaring applications that are setback/dimensional/lot waiver/accessory apartment/bed and breakfast requests as Type II Actions and not subject to environmental review pursuant to State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) 6 NYCRR Part 617.5c including the following: Allan Karen, Gregory Tuck, HAS Holdings, LLC, Amnon and Kathleen Bar-Tur, David Pugh and Tina Silvestri, John and Lynn Scott, 11900 Oregon Road, LLC, Catherine Hovey, Vincent Bertault, Fishers Island Community Center a Special Exception #7563 and Fishers Island Community Center, Inc. #7621 for variance relief. So moved is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. We have a draft decision before us we're going to deliberate on, Marc and Shari WeissbaCh #7540SE. This is for an accessory apartment in an accessory structure. We recently received the form that we send to the Building Department for the livable floor area to make sure that it's in conformance with the code required standard and as it turns out this apartment to be located on the second floor February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting even with these plans were amended to take care of some of the problems we discovered at the first hearing, it is still being calculated by the Building Department as 828 sq. ft. and also they have now informed that in addition to not being in conformance with the maximum 750 sq. ft. permitted by code they need a setback variance for the rear dormer. So based on the non-conformity with one of the required standards this has to be a denial. Is there any conversation anyone would (inaudible) on this one?You've all read this I'm sure. MEMBER LEHNERT : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, we've also looked at the (inaudible) standards in 280-142 and 280-143 which are general standards with other matters to be considered and there are no issues with those, it's really strictly the requirements for the standards that describe what is required for the accessory apartment which is Section 280-13B 13. So you want to make the motion Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I make a motion to deny the application as submitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : I'll second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Let's get on to the first hearing. HEARING # 7582—ALLAN KAREN CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The first application before the Board this morning is for Allan Karen #7582. This is a request for a variance from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's August 23, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory garage at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 350 Richmond Road East in Southold. Is someone here to represent the application? February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ANTHONY PORTILLO : Good morning Board how are you? I think it's a pretty straightforward application, we're requesting a 22' 3" by 24' 3" new garage one large 16 foot door. It's just going to have storage above, it's just for parking. The problem here is the existing residence is already very close to the rear yard so it's just not possible. We are within all of our setbacks and height requirements we're under 18 feet and we're showing it at 5 foot off the rear and side setback. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well as you can see from that plan there's absolutely no rear yard. (inaudible) as far on the property as the code will allow you to. Everybody has gone out to see the site Anthony just to remind you we do individual site inspections so we (inaudible) private dead end road. Any questions from the Board on this one? I think Anthony is right it's pretty straightforward. MEMBER LEHNERT : It's very straightforward. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I have the standard questions, any plumbing proposed or electricity? ANTHONY PORTILLO : There will be electric but it's a dry building. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : and then access to the storage above? ANTHONY PORTILLO : It'll just be hatch just a hatch in the ceiling. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : A pull down type of stair. ANTHONY PORTILLO : A pull down staircase yes. There's no intent for an accessory apartment or anything in the future. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Any proposed swimming pool or other future improvements later? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Currently no they're just looking to get a garage. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the application, anyone on Zoom? DAVID OLIVERA : My name is David Olivera. I have a question, Where would the rear yard be within that diagram? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's get the diagram back up on the screen. Anthony do you want to answer that? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, the rear yard is the opposite of Richmond Rd. we show the 35 foot rear yard setback for the main dwelling that's the rear yard. 5 February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting DAVID OLIVERA : Right in that area? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes sir. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You see because it's scooted over slightly and partially in the side yard. DAVID OLIVERA : Right, so the side yard where that's proposed is really open, there's no vegetation much at all that provides any privacy from that area. I mean I understand the town code is only 5 feet for a structure that size which is different in other places, some places have 10 but I just feel there's no plan for any plantings or anything. There's barely any room within 5 feet and that's going to be a pretty large structure that's right on top of my yard. If you move up you go and visit the site if it were to be moved to the left on this drawing it would be completely covered by bamboo which is planted in that area which should give a lot more privacy and kind of shield the building from our view. Even frontage on Richmond Rd. because it is a private road seems to me that that would even actually make more sense for a garage but I don't know if that wasn't considered because it seems like it's the front yard but for a garage it would seem to be adjacent to the house which makes more sense to me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Accessory garage in a front yard is only permitted by the code on waterfront properties. If it's attached to the house it's a different story. If it's detached it's only permitted in a rear yard. This is primarily in the rear yard just slightly in the side yard. Anthony do you have any reaction to what ANTHONY PORTILLO : Sure, our design approach was to try to based on what the Chairwoman pointed out is try to get the building as much in the rear yard as possible. The homeowners wanted the garage to be tucked into the corner there. So that's why we used the 5 foot side yard requirement and we stayed under 18 feet to meet those zoning requirements. DAVID OLIVERA : Right so you're seeking a variance but what I'm saying is well you could have attached it to the house on the other side of the property or tried to put it in the front yard with a variance but now you're seeking a variance and I'm going to have a garage pretty much in my back yard closer to my dwelling and that could mean you know boats, motorcycles what have you that's what I have now with no vegetation with no you know plan for privacy with no plans for noise privacy whatsoever. There's been no discussion about that and it's 5 feet it's right there on top of me and I get that that's what the town has apparently found to be sufficient but you're seeking a variance and that's what I'm saying that I'm not necessarily happy with that. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Again our approach was to try and keep it as much in the rear yard because I mean it's not a waterfront property so we usually wouldn't design it to be in the front February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting yard I mean that's the you know that was our first intent and then which means that we should be 5 feet off you know if we keep it 5 foot then that's as much as possible in the rear yard that we can get it. In regards to it being tucked in the corner I mean that was really just a request by the owner on their property. I'm not sure of their landscaping plans I can't speak to that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anthony what percentage it would appear that because there's a roof covered concrete patio that's what's putting part of this into the side yard is that correct? ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yes and the I mean the building itself as well you know is MEMBER LEHNERT : There's no rear yard on this property that it can be built upon. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Yea I mean if you look at our primary building envelope zoning envelope you'll see that it's just an existing non-conforming structure. MEMBER LEHNERT : And even if you attach it to the house you'd be here for a setback variance. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Right that's correct cause we'd have to bring it all I mean I don't even MEMBER LEHNERT : So if the house was set closer to Richmond Rd. you wouldn't even be here for this. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Correct. Again I'll try and speak to my client about putting landscaping in but I don't think that's the discussion for Zoning at least that's my understanding. DAVID OLIVERA : Well that's a discussion for whether or not I oppose it as an abutter. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I understand I'm just saying that it's just not normal for us to come up with a landscape plan. DAVID OLIVERA : No it's not but it can be normal in order to have a discussion with the neighbor ahead of time and then you don't find yourself at a hearing with the abutter opposing it either. So that's what I'm saying like you wouldn't be (inaudible) to have it attached to the house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : (inaudible) an approval we can do that we have done that many times. MEMBER ACAMPORA : We do it for swimming pools and you know we've done that for other situations. ANTHONY PORTILLO : I just want to state to the Board and again David I understand where you're coming from but in all reality we're not against any setback requirements for the t, February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting accessory building this is in question as a side yard variance this is in question as a side yard variance because we don't have a rear yard and I think that Chairperson Nick brought up a good point that I mean if I had a rear yard I mean I wouldn't have to come to Zoning Board I mean I think it's just a this is a case of the building being existing non-conforming. DAVID OLIVERA : A variance is a variance. ANTHONY PORTILLO : Understood I appreciate that I'm just stating a fact, we're not CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright we've heard your comments and we will certainly take them into consideration. Is there anyone else who wants to address the application? Hearing no further questions or comments I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Thank you Anthony. HEARING #7585—GREGORY TUCK CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Gregory Tuck #7585. This is a request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's July 20, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct an accessory in-ground swimming pool and an accessory pool house at 1) swimming pool is located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) pool house is located in other than the code permitted rear yard located at 8402 Soundview Ave. in Southold. Eileen are you here to represent this? What would you like to tell us about this application? EILEEN WINGATE : I am. I think the problem here is the relationship of the project to the road. We're on a right of way that takes us way back into the woods so I'm not sure that the relationship of the house to the road and the swimming pool carries a whole lot of weight. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting We've tried in designing this project to minimize (inaudible) maximize the amount of sun we're going to get and also minimize our distance to the power lines because they do run on the north side of the property line. So having said all that we have a swimming pool in the side yard. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eileen it's a front yard not side yard. EILLEN WINGATE : Front yard correct. I have the owners here if you'd like to ask them questions about how we got to there. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I actually have a different question, I'm glad to see that you came in with an amended design for the layout. It was very complicated, pool houses are typically one room and by connecting you had a plan which part of the pool house was in one enclosed room, another part was in another enclosed room connected by a single room with an open patio in between. That was problematic in terms of figuring out the conformance, square footage and so on. I see you now changed the plans so that it's just storage and mechanical on one side and pool house however the plans that now for the pool side are just showing an empty room and a half bath. Previously there was a sink included. EILEEN WINGATE : We've abandoned all of that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it is definitely an empty room, nothing else. EILEEN WINGATE : Changing room and a bathroom. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay typically a pool house is sometimes they have under counter refrigerators for cold drinks. If you are now saying there is absolutely nothing else there's nothing missing it's just it is what it is now. GREGORY TUCK : It just it what it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. This lot is so far away from any other roads that no one is ever going to see whatever you do on that property. EILEEN WINGATE : I was perplexed by the fact that it has a Soundview address. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it's really weird even the GPS was scratching it's head. Not an easy thing to find but we made it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Eileen does the property have the right of way on Soundview Ave? EILEEN WINGATE : Yes. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting GREGORY TUCK : No. EILEEN WINGATE : Oh not to Soundview yea we were discussing this this morning, there is a county road labeled Road H but it's unimproved, it's a mud path. I would imagine if someday the county decided to do something with it then we wouldn't need a variance because we'd have our swimming pool in the right place. It would be nice to have access off of Soundview instead of a main highway I'm sure but that's just the way it is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I tried to get in that way and I regretted it let's put it that way. MEMBER LEHNERT : I drove around someone else's driveway. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So anyway I finally got in off 48 fortunately tax map numbers are very, very helpful in situations like this. I think it's a pretty self-contained property and it's an anomaly that it's got a Soundview address to begin with which is very confusing. EILEEN WINGATE : I'm hoping that as we get under construction I can work it out with the Building Department and the Post Office, the Fire Department and the Police Department so that we can get a proper address. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It would be a lot safer if your address was off 48 you know because people go down to Soundview and they go what? EILEEN WINGATE : If there's an emergency yeah it could be a problem. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright, I have no further questions. Pat do you have any questions? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Always, sorry. A couple of things, first I noticed and it really became super apparent in the illustrations provided there's two sheds in the front yard but they're not cited. They are shown on the survey as proposed sheds. (inaudible) require a variance also no? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Please come to the mic and state your name, we record these proceedings and we'll need to have that information. GREGORY TUCK : My name is Gregory Tuck I'm the property owner. So when we did those renderings we did intend to do the sheds. We later abandoned that idea but we didn't update the renderings to show that. It's not in any of the plans that we submitted to the Building February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Department. If in the future we wanted to do that we would then file separate application for that but as of now we've abandoned that. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Okay so on the survey the site plan the sheds will not be GREGORY TUCK : That's correct. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : The only other thing I want to mention and I'm perplexed because you started with a blank canvas as far as a building lot, you can place whatever you'd like where you want and I did hear your agent's opinions and I get design and I don't have a problem with it but honestly why can't you conform to the code to place the pool in a conforming location? GREGORY TUCK : I think that's a great question. So we've been kind of (inaudible) this house for about five years and it's spent a long time on (inaudible) what the right use of it was and how to kind of take advantage of what's existing there. There was a farm you know way back when and so the southern portion of that site is not (inaudible) it's really just brambles that spread over time. On the north side of the site is a fairly (inaudible) and my main thinking was to try and keep the forest intact as much as possible partially for just kind of general environmental reasons but also as a buffer to the other property owners on the north and then the east and the west side. The property owner that is on the south is quite a long distance and they have their own (inaudible) between their houses so it was really it was mostly a question of trying to site the house in a way to be the least invasive I guess in the site if that makes any sense. That was the main reason. The other reason which I think not as significant is because the southern portion was had a larger clearing positioning it there would get more sunlight and would reduce our energy consumption in terms of the pool that was also a consideration and having the house (inaudible) the house also (inaudible) some privacy for the other neighbors. So that was really the main rational. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything else from the Board, anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Anyone on Zoom? BOARD ASSISTANT : I have a question, regarding those two sheds shown on the survey but will not be proposed, can you update that sir? GREGORY TUCK : Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Kim that's a good point. So then I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of an amended updated survey. Is there a second? February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING #7589— HAS HOLDINGS, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for HSA Holdings, LLC #7589. This is a request for variances from Article IV Section 280-18 and the Building Inspector's August 24, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 2) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 2000 Park Ave. (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) in Mattituck. This is Rob while you're getting yourself together let me just enter into the record that this is a technical demolition and a reconstruction of single family dwelling with a side yard setback at 12 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 and a combined side yard setback at 27 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. I have some questions but it needs Trustees approval? ROB HERRMANN : It does. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a 72 foot wide lot. Rob why don't you go ahead and ROB HERRMANN : Good morning Rob Herrmann, En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants Jeff (inaudible). This is a relatively straightforward application for a minimum and total side yard setback on a parcel with pre-existing non-conforming width of approximately 72 feet. The non- conforming dwelling is to be demolished and reconstructed (inaudible). Specifically the proposed minimum side yard setback to the west property line is 12 feet where 15 feet is required and the existing setback is 7.4, the total side yard setback is 27 feet where 35 is required. As the Board considers the application it's important to remember a few critical elements of the design. The new house is going to be shifted to the east farther from the west property line and closer to the east property line. As a result the pre-existing non-conforming setback of only 7.4 feet to the west property line will be increased to the proposed 12 feet. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Although the house will be located closer to the adjacent property to the east it will meet the minimum side yards the required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet from the east property line which conforms to the minimum side yard from any one property line. In comparison the adjacent dwelling to the east is located a non-conforming distance of approximately 11 feet to the same property line. As outlined in our written application the applicant's proposed setbacks are consistent in character with other pre-existing non-conforming narrow lots along this bay front shoreline such as those at 2152, 2200, 2934 and 3340 Park Ave. as well as others in the neighborhood that have benefited from variance relief. For example in 2009 minimum and total side yard setbacks, of 10 and 30 feet were authorized for a reconstructed dwelling at 3605 Camp Mineola Rd. case 6248. In 2012 you had total side yard setback relief of 12 and 24 feet for a reconstructed dwelling 200 Private Rd. 17 case 6029. In 2018 although on a much narrower lot minimum and total side yard setback for reconstructed dwelling at 580 Terry Path you authorized a 5.9 and (inaudible). It's also worth noting although it was not referred to the ZBA by Building Department the adjacent house to the east at 2100 Park Ave. was substantially renovated and expanded roughly 11 feet from the applicant's property line around 2003. 1 don't know why that didn't go to the ZBA that was after the Walz decision but regardless that is the existing character as a result of the building permit. As (inaudible) on our application relative to these other parcels the relief requested here is not substantial particularly given that the new minimum side yard setback to the west property line represents a 62% increase for the existing 7.4 foot minimum side yard setback. Despite the need for total side yard relief and combined easterly side yard setback as I noted the easterly minimum side yard setback is 15 and (inaudible) required by code. The new dwelling will be located almost 4 feet farther from the easterly property line (inaudible) dwelling on the easterly adjacent property. Finally the application includes several design elements and mitigation measures that provide significant environmental improvements to the site and to neighboring properties. The existing dwelling is currently positioned closer to the water than the neighboring house to the east. The new house will be located approximately 25 feet farther from Great Peconic Bay moving (inaudible) adjacent houses and more than 100 feet from the bay representing a nearly 30% increase in wetland setback to the dwelling. A new nitrogen IA sanitary system is proposed more than 225 feet from the bay. A storm water drainage system is proposed to capture (inaudible) runoff. A 10 foot wide non-turf buffer in place of the existing lawn is proposed along the landward edge of the top of the bank. As a final note you probably noticed that there is a proposed swimming pool on the plan you pulled up there and a grade level patio included on the site plan but these items are not before the Board and not part of this application. The pool does not require variance relief and is not before the Board today as it is an accessory structure that's located in a conforming rear yard with conforming side yard setbacks. CHAIRPERSON WIESMAN : That'll be before the Trustees. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : Yes it will. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Also we have a letter of non-jurisdiction from D.E.C. ROB HERRMANN : That's correct. Yes because the pool is part of the overall site plan and requires relief wetlands approval from the Trustees did make sense to (inaudible). I just want to be clear that that construction is not part of the relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're using the same foundation for most of it? ROB HERRMANN : The house is being relocated so if you want more specific information on that Jeff Stands is here and can speak to that but it is a physical it is a relocation of this house. I know that you use the word technical but this is not a situation where you know it's basically a reconstruction of the same you know house, this is a new house. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a demolition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So it's a demolition. ROB HERRMANN : It is. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because they site it as a demo and reconstruction so now I'm getting a little confused because Building sometimes does it one way, does it another way. When they say reconstruction it means you're preserving some of it. ROB HERRMANN : Yea, no I always trip over those terms too of whether you say you know you're demolishing and building a new house versus you're reconstructing a new house (inaudible) that there's a house there now but no to be clear there's no ambiguity here that this is CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a total demo ROB HERRMANN : This is a demo. Again Jeff can if you need you can clarify whether there are parts of the foundation that may be reused but that's not the basis of our appeal in any way that they're maintaining the existing house or anything like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay because obviously that is often the case. ROB HERRMANN : No not in this case. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I wanted to make sure. ROB HERRMANN : (inaudible) new house, the existing house is basically it's a narrow house it's positioned sideways effectively to the bay and the house entire architectural design of the February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting house will be reoriented similar to the rest of the houses along the shoreline basically with the main living space and bedrooms facing the bay. It's really the lot width but this particular lot as I referenced there's a handful of other similarly narrow lots along the strip but it's the lot width that affects us and that's what again although we're moving farther to the east we're not getting any closer to the easterly property line that would be allowed by code. So in other words if the lot was 15 feet wider to the west we can get 8 more feet of separation to the west it wouldn't change the condition relative to the easterly neighbor. It's still a conforming minimum side yard setback to the easterly neighbor. There's no relief specific to the easterly neighbor that's being requested, it's only specific to the westerly neighbor and that setback has increased. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so that's the 12 foot. ROB HERRMANN : Right we're going from 7 1 think it's 7.4 to 12 feet on the west side and the house width I think it's about maybe about 45 feet relative to I think the houses on either side are 54 and 58 feet wide facing the bay, narrow lot narrow house. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No, no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address this application? CHARLES CUDDY : Good morning, my name is Charles Cuddy with an office at 445 Griffing Ave. Riverhead, NY. I appear on behalf of Barbara and Peter Swan who own the property at 2100 Park Ave. which is immediately to the east. I listened to Mr. Herrmann but I'm a little bit concerned because sometimes applications are a necessity. I think this is just an application of convenience. He indicated this house is 45 feet wide. The house is going to be two and a half, three times larger than the house that's there. Instead of using that house as a (inaudible) they decided to move the house over (inaudible) and what they've really done is placed the home essentially on top of the home that's there. Now that home has been there for years and the Swans have lived in that home for more than forty years. I think that what's happened here is that this application not meeting the standards that are set forth (inaudible). I think this is a detriment by having a house that size in that location is a detriment to the owner to the east. I would also say that there is an alternative. The alternative is to build as you suggested to him. You can build it right on the existing foundation of the house that's there. There is no reason r� February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting they can't do that because that's often done. I think the variance that you're asking for is actually substantial when you take a look at it it's more than 20%. There's no question that it's a self-created (inaudible). I don't think that these people are meeting the standards that are set forth in the code and I think this really is a question of why are they doing this?They have been living in this house for eight years the people that are there right now (inaudible) under an LLC. Why they're there and haven't done anything till now I don't know (inaudible). Having a pool and having a house essentially in the yard of the adjoining owner is something that is a detriment. I honestly (inaudible) they can meet the standards set forth. While I understand Mr. Herrmann's application I don't think that even listening to it that he has met those standards. would ask this Board to disapprove the application (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you have a response to that? ROB HERRMANN : Sure, there's not much I just want to speak to a couple of points. I appreciate Mr. Cuddy's testimony he did mention that the Swan's house has been there for fifty years which is partially accurate. As I mentioned there was an addition to the house around 2003, there's a Certificate of Occupancy that was issued for what was described by the Building Department as front and rear covered porches attached (inaudible) garage addition, alterations and additions to existing one family dwelling as applied for. With respect to the characterization of convenience it is actually more convenient to build along the same foundation as that is often done. In this case the applicants are actually going through the investment of moving the house to the east for the betterment of their neighbor to the west whereas the addition that was placed at the Swan's house in 2003 was extended along the same property line that almost doubled the length of the house 11 feet from the applicant's property line. That house could have been have had plenty of room to be picked up and moved 4 feet to the east. We're not saying that should have been done and that we would have wanted that to be done but just with respect to the characterization of convenience again I want the Board to stay focused on the fact that we are improving the minimum side yard setback from the westerly property line and not creating a minimum side yard setback non- conformance with the easterly property line. Whereas Mr. Cuddy's client does have a house that is a non-conforming distance from the applicant's property line and that non-conformity was increased substantially in 2003 again without the opportunity for the then owners of this property to be heard (inaudible) like this I don't know why but it wasn't done. So again with respect to the (inaudible) motive the applicant's motive is they're trying to improve their property, they're trying to improve their house like everybody else that comes before this Board. Again if you want us to speak more to the architectural design, the reasoning behind the width of the house, the positioning of the house Jeff Sands is here and can do that that's up to the Board. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think the Board feels that this (inaudible). MR. CUDDY : Interesting we turned this around, this isn't about the Swan's house, this is about the house the applicant that he's representing. (inaudible) yes did they do some work on it these people were not the owners (inaudible) at that time. They have owned it for eight years and I'm suspicious that in this point and time that all of a sudden this market we now (inaudible) potentially a house that's three times larger than that's what the application it's not about the Swans. Thank you. MEMBER LEHNERT : I would add the application in front of us is for side yard setbacks not a pool or lot coverage. MR. CUDDY : I agree but I'm just pointing out what's going to be there (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I think we've heard enough. Is there anybody on Zoom? Anyone else in the audience? PETER SWAN : My name is Peter Swan and I'm the next door neighbor. I lived at that property that we are right now since 1946. 1 know the Petersons have been there for like five years, six years. I've talked to them and she is adamant about having the swimming pool put in the front and if that's the case it's going to be equal at my dining room and my porch. It will be swimming pool (inaudible) and I'm sure they have two kids, three kids and anybody that has a pool knows that children make a lot of noise and it would be a detriment to my house and my value of my house as Charlie said you know (inaudible) but they have told me they will go if they get this and put a pool in the front and that's really what I'm concerned about. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We understand your concern but that is not however before this Board. It will be before the Trustees so if you have some concerns that will be the appropriate place as a public hearing before the Trustees to address that. It is from a zoning point of view conforming. Anything else from anybody? Okay I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing reserve decision to a later date. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie one second, one of the things I thought about, Rob if you wouldn't mind if you would just submit copies of the prior variances that you sited there were four I believe. ROB HERRMANN : Sure, there were three cases they're cited in the written application and we'll submit copies. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know that they're cited but you want the actual copies? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Yes. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay no problem. Alright then I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing subject to receipt of the written copies of prior variance relief in the neighborhood. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Thank you. HEARING #7593—AMNON and KATHLEEN BAR-TUR CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Amnon and Kathleen Bar-Tur #7593. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 10, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish an existing accessory garage and elevate, relocate and construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required rear yard setback of 35 feet located at 170 Bay Lane (adj. to Orient Harbor) in Orient. So accessory garage we've all been out to inspect the property and the garage it's an unusually shaped lot along a private right of way on the bay. The accessory garage is to be demolished and the home is to elevated per FEMA standards with a rear yard setback at 3.8 feet where the code requires 35 feet and this also needs HPC approval, is that correct? ROB HERRMANN : That has been granted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh that has been granted. ROB HERRMANN : I think we submitted a copy of the Certificate with the application. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay I'll check the file. So this is a total renovation. It's a very triangular kind of lot. ROB HERRMANN : The corner of the lot reaches out and touches the other road. I had to like find the fraction of a square foot corner of the property to put a second sign. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO Leslie just as a quick note I do believe I saw it is here the HPC approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You have a huge side yard technically and a really, really minimum rear yard minimum. It looks very much as though almost everything in that area is non- conforming one way or another. LWRP consistent I'd like to just mention, do you have a copy of that Rob? ROB HERRMANN : I do thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright what would you like us to know about it? ROB HERRMANN : So as you know Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants David Kregel the project architect is also here. This is an application to request relief for a 3.8 foot rear yard setback where 35 feet is required for a one story addition to a small pre-existing non-conforming dwelling. While the application (inaudible) mathematically substantial rear yard setback relief it would also reduce or eliminate several other pre-existing non-conforming zoning and otherwise. The project has actually been designed in part for the specific purpose minimizing the impacts to their rear neighbor from whom they're asking for this pretty small rear yard setback. So let me explain that. This is a pre-1957 720 sq. ft. dwelling with a 141 sq. ft. front porch that is currently located only 3.8 feet (inaudible) the same number on the northerly side lot line where 10 feet is required. It has a 6 foot first floor elevation where FEMA in New York State requires a base foot elevation of 9 feet. The accessory garage is located less than a foot from the easterly rear lot line where 5 foot setback is required and the dwelling is currently serviced by an antiquated conventional septic system. The dwelling is also an aging structure, it's in need of structural repairs, upgrading mechanicals, replacement of siding, roofing, windows, insulation etc. but the applicants invested in this home a couple of years ago with the intention of making it a full time residence and as part of the plan to renovate, update and elevate the structure to a FEMA compliant elevation but they also want to add a ground level master bedroom to the footprint of the house which is the source of the 3.8 foot setback. Now because Leslie you mentioned the effect of the depth of the lot is actually only 73 feet between the rear lot line and the (inaudible) it's deeper (inaudible) runs into the water or adjacent to the water I should say on the other side of Bay Lane. So it wouldn't be possible to position even the existing 720 sq. ft. dwelling on the lot without some kind of setback variance. So a design decision was made to relocate the dwelling and add to its footprint in a way that would both improve existing setbacks and otherwise maintain the existing site condition as much as possible to provide the greatest benefit and least impact on the easterly and northerly neighbors. That and the house is proposed to be picked up and relocated 6 feet farther from the north side lot line that would eliminate the existing non-conforming side yard setback of 3.8 February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting feet and establish a conforming 10 foot minimum side yard setback. The existing accessory garage as Leslie mentioned which is located less than a foot from the rear lot line now would be demolished and removed thus removing that pre-existing non-conforming accessory structure altogether. Then as a result that the dwelling relocation (inaudible) the bedroom condition can be constructed in essentially the same place as the existing garage but a few feet farther from the property line. So amazingly with a 3.8 foot proposal that's actually a several foot increase in terms of the nearest structure to the rear lot line now. Part of the reason the addition will be located in the former garage location rather than on the south side of the house where it could meet a much greater rear setback is to preserve the rear neighbor west facing view of Orient Harbor which having been there it's something I can attest to is pretty spectacular. I have this photo you can put this in the application. This is basically the view from the rear neighbor's yard. It's not a waterfront lot but it is certainly a water view lot by definition. So the existing house is here and that's going to be moved 6 feet this way and elevated and this is where the existing garage is and so the house will be extended back to make the addition here which will be (inaudible) taller and wider but can you see where that well is where I'm pointing? The edge of the addition is still going to be this side of that well. So basically this entire view shed this corridor would be maintained whereas if they took the bedroom addition and just put it to the south side of the house it would sit in front of this entire view of the bay. So I haven't heard from the rear property owner and I don't know if they're here today but it's certainly the position of our application and certainly if I was in that position I would rather see the proposal here maintain that very small rear yard setback (inaudible) to the side and out of my view then the addition that would be located farther from my property but smack in the middle of my view of Orient Harbor. So basically despite the minimum rear yard setback the proposed design actually avoids a more significant impact to the rear neighbor that would result if the addition or construction in a much more conforming location to the south of the dwelling. As we outlined in our application by maintaining the existing structural footprint on the property as much as possible and maintaining our (inaudible) other setbacks the project not only creates the least impact on the surrounding properties it creates the least effect on the character of the neighborhood and Leslie alluded to this at the outset. Along Bay Lane I think there's only six other parcels which you have in the application as zoned R40 most if not all developed prior to 1957 none as small as the applicants. This is a uniquely shallow lot. It's noted in our written application setback for lot coverage relief as allowed for dwelling renovations on three of these other six R40 zoned properties. Those cases I referenced (inaudible) application. It's noted in our application I think it's noted by the LWRP Coordinator despite the parcel's small size and the extremely limited buildable land area of 7,798 sq. ft. the project remains compliant with the maximum 20% lot coverage restriction. All proposed construction remains outside the coastal erosion hazard area. The existing lot line setback of Orient Harbor is maintained I think it's actually increased by a foot. Again storm water drainage system will be installed and as I February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting previously noted the house will be elevated to a FEMA compliant flood elevation and the existing conventional septic system will be replaced with a low nitrogen IA sanitary systern. So we think despite the (inaudible) and I should note as I forgot in my prior application the project is also here outside of the D.E.C.'s wetlands jurisdiction and as Nick noted has obtained a Certificate of Approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. After your Board if you see fit to grant the requested variance we would have to still go to the Trustees even though it's on the other side of Bay Lane that's not a public roadway and so the Trustees maintain jurisdiction here under Chapter 275 so we will need their approval for work within 100 feet of the Harbor. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see if anybody has any questions, Rob? MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No questions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a hand raised. Did you want to testify? LANCE JENSEN : Hello everyone, my name is Lance Jensen I guess I would be the easterly neighbor the one with the view. I'm very familiar with the plans, Kate and Amnon shared them with my wife and I and you know given the structure and size of the lot it you know seems to be you know a nice solution. My only question was with respect to the height of the building that will be sort of sitting where the garage is now. Is that single story or I just didn't hear all of that I'm sorry. ROB HERRMANN : You didn't miss it I don't think I noted it but it's noted in the application. David do you have that off the top of your head? If not I can find it. DAVID KREGEL : Off the top of my head the ridge is certainly elevated over the existing garages it's probably about (inaudible) ROB HERRMANN : In our written application I note that it's a 14 foot high garage that will be replaced with a roughly 20 foot high one story addition. So I think the answer to Lance's question is about 6 feet. DAVID KREGEL : That's largely a function of elevating the floor elevation, it's not cause it's an exceptional (inaudible) structure. The roof pitch will match the (inaudible) of the existing house. LANCE JENSEN : Existing, okay I was just curious thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Now there's another person there? Oh that's the homeowner. Did you want to say anything or are you just listening in? February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : Kate is hoping to have to say nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Sometimes that's the best course of action. Anything else from anybody in the audience? Anything from the Board? 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 LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING #7590— DAVID PUGH and TINA SILVESTRI CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for David Pugh and Tina Silvestri #7590. This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 21, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 40 feet located at 545 Ryder Farm Lane in Orient. This is a front yard setback proposed at 23.4 feet where the code requires a 40 foot minimum front yard setback. We have four letters of support from neighbors in our file. This is I guess for a new front entry and vestibule and the house partly sits at a conforming no I guess it's not conforming to the 40 foot because of the zone district so it's currently at 358 feet. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Can I ask a question Martin before you start? I don't know if my packet or if I'm missing anything but I didn't see any designs schematics. I just have a proposed site plan. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Do you want mine to look at? It's not official (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO No I didn't get any of this. It shows existing vestibule, it shows existing conditions. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I guess we didn't get a copy of these in our packets. e2 February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's fairly straightforward I can explain to you dimensionally. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you have them in the file Kim? BOARD ASSISTANT : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We don't have the small ones. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Good morning, Martin Finnegan 13250 Main Rd. in Mattituck for the applicants David Pugh and Tina Silvestri who I believe are joining us by Zoom. I believe that this application is a little bit straightforward than Rob's and I'll try to be brief because I know that you have a busy agenda. So this property is a 29,757 sq. ft. parcel in the R40 zone district in the Orient by the Sea subdivision. As Leslie pointed out the existing house does sit 35.8 feet from the front yard line and its pre-existing non-conforming location. We submitted some photographs with the application to show the house in which demonstrates that it is you know quite lacking in a workable, functional front entry way which is why we're here. The lack of an entryway has made the house rather inefficient but is also lacking in needed functionality. Essentially as it is you kind of you know fall into the house with no transition space as you can see from the submitted floor plans. So we're seeking a variance from 280-124 from the 40 foot setback requirement to construct you know what we submitted a modestly sized entrylnray to create that needed transition space in storage you know a coat closet and to really your know maximize the efficiency of the home. The entire structure that is proposed is only going to add 122 sq. ft. to the home. It only protrudes the enclosed portion only protrudes 8 feet off of the front of the house. The entire structure with roofline whatever does sit at that 20 foot 4 foot line. So it is not a large structure but it will add desperately needed functionality to their home. As far as character as Leslie alluded to there are letters in support attesting to the fact that the granting of a variance will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to any nearby properties. Quite to the contrary as you know Orient by the Sea the community is an assortment of kind of eclectic there's really no two homes that are the same but many have front porch additions and I think this project will arguably bring this home more in character with the surrounding community and greatly improve the aesthetics of the existing home. As for benefits really is no alternative to variance relief if the applicants are to achieve the benefit of a functional entryway to the home which will provide the transition space and storage space. The proposed addition is modest in size as I said only 8 feet from the front of the property only 122 sq. ft. in mass and I would suggest to you it is the minimum necessary to create functional space and therefore we don't believe that the relief requested is substantial. There's really no evidence of any adverse impacts on the environment. I would say its Type II Action. The granting of the variance creating this space will arguably enable the applicants to have a more efficient home a more energy efficient home since they February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting won't have the heat (inaudible) every time the door gets opened. There's really no way to be efficient for the main part of the house with the current configuration. As to self-creation to the extent that it might be that obviously is not (inaudible) and should preclude the relief here. So all in all this is a fairly straightforward application not like the one I recently presented to you for a property in Orient. We are happy to answer any questions the Board may have but obviously we request the Board CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let's see, Pat any questions from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Absolutely no questions, straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anything from you Nick? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Not really, I haven't seen the plans so it's kind of hard to understand CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : What's the width MARTIN FINNEGAN : 13 feet wide CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : and the whole front? MARTIN FINNEGAN : It's just windows, door and a MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Interior conditioned space. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Yes and this interior isjust going to be closets and a mud room. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's more of a mud room. What I saw from the elevation was it looked like it was (inaudible) piers that support sort of a column for the roof overhang. MARTIN FINNEGAN : More cosmetic more than anything. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I looked at it when Martin gave me the smaller version. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a very typical (inaudible) and it's what's the whole width of the elevation? MARTIN FINNEGAN : I believe the measurement is 13.1 from side to side. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of the addition. MARTIN FINNEGAN : Of the addition. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And what is the whole house? It's not running the whole house. Rob do you have any questions? February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER LEHNERT : I have no questions, this is pretty straightforward. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone in the audience wishing to address the application? Anybody on Zoom. MARTIN FINNEGAN : I know that Richard (inaudible) is listening in and I'm just going to make the request that he sent two additional signed and stamped copies to Kim and the Zoning Board Office. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : 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 LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING#7594—JOHN and LYNN SCOTT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for John and Lynn Scott #7594. Nick I believe you are recused from this. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I am. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : This is a request for a variance from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's August 25, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to demolish (as per Town Code definition) and reconstruct a single family dwelling at 1) located less than the code minimum required combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 495 Parish Drive (adj. to Peconic Bay) in Southold. Now this one is a demo per Town Code. You're keeping a lot of the house. ROB HERRMANN : This is coming down to its foundation. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So you have a combined side yard setback at 34.3 feet where the code requires 35 feet. I guess it is what it is. ROB HERRMANN : I had trouble deciding whether to talk a full testimony or to try and make this a seven second hearing but (inaudible) represent my client you get the longer version. There is a lot of information on the site plan fortunately (inaudible) which should be relevant to you. In short we are requesting approximately eight inches of total side yard setback relief in connection with the reconstruction but the two story portion of the existing (inaudible) dwelling over its foundation. Specifically we are requesting a 34.3 foot total side yard setback where 35 feet is required. The question you're going to ask is can we not find 8 inches of side yard setback and avoid being here altogether? The answer is we tried, Meryll tried and I can promise the Scott's have been less happy about this four month wait to see you than you are about seeing us. Kidding aside, it's a bit more complicated than it sounds because as while we're proposing a 34.3 foot setback the existing total side yard is actually (inaudible) feet which is how the house was originally permitted without variance relief in 1983. It was permitted with setbacks that didn't equal 35 feet so it's a little less common appeal and that we're not really working with a pre-existing non-conforming setback (inaudible) existing setback. So I might argue the applicants are in a stronger position to just maintain what's there but nevertheless in an effort to eliminate the non-conformance and avoid the need for a variance or to grant relief at the very least reduce it to almost nothing there's a proposal to remove the existing 36.9 foot wide waterside porch with a 31.4 foot wide porch which increases the existing 17.7 foot setback to the easterly lot line to 20 feet where 19.7 is required to give us a total side yard of 35 so that would have worked but then we had a 56 sq. ft. portion of the dwelling on the east side that's located only 19 feet so we'll still not that short so Meryl[ is proposing to remove that too but what she couldn't escape from is the existing foundation beneath the 1,081 sq. ft. two story portion of the house that again is being reconstructed over its existing foundation. That corner has a 19 foot setback where we would need a 19.7 to make it conform. It's literally a matter and Meryll can correct me if I'm wrong one square foot of non-compliance. As Meryll can explain further if needed we probably won't need her to but the amount of additional demolition, construction and overall site disturbance that would be required to replace and modify that foundation corner to get another eight inches would just far and unreasonably exceed any imaginable benefit that could be achieved with an extra eight inches on that setback and that's why we're before you today. In our written application we detail by granting the relief will not negatively impact the character of the neighborhood or the surrounding properties citing the facts that at least seven of the twelve neighboring undersized parcels along North Parish Drive are similarly characterized by non-conforming total side yard setbacks and that the adjacent easterly property as an example was granted relief by the Board in 2005 under case #5672 for non-conforming total side yard setback of 29 feet which included the non- February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting conforming minimum side yard setback of 11.8 feet from the Scott's easterly property line. So we're essentially maintaining the conditions with respect to the total side yard setback and relative to the other properties in the neighborhood this is insubstantial variance by definition. My client we did also detail the beneficial environmental impacts that the overall project will have. We have an increase in wetland setback to impervious surfaces as a result of the removal of the brick patio on the left side of the dwelling. The reduction and the size of the waterside porch which I mentioned that the porch on the house located closest to the bay. Again here replacement of an existing conventional septic system with a low nitrogen IA sanitary system that'll be situated more than 160 feet from the bay, installation of a storm water drainage system and really the effective maintenance of the entire area of the property between the house and the bay is a non-turf buffer it's a completely natural area and it will stay like that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob Trustees required? ROB HERRMANN : We will have to go to the Trustees and the application is currently before the New York State D.E.C. because here they do have jurisdiction. We have those two environmental approvals to obtain in addition to what we hope will be an approval from this Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No Rob covered it all. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob anything from you? MEMBER LEHNERT : No once again great presentation he got it all. OFFICE ASSISTANT SAKARELLOS : I have a hand up Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Bring that person in. Those side yards are very well screened by mature evergreens. NIKOS THEODOSOPOULOS : Hi my name is Nikos Theodosopoulos. I'm the neighbor on the right. I only had one question/concern, the plans are all fine with me. There's a nice set of trees separating our two properties and I would just hope that there are no damage to the trees (inaudible) whatever. They create a nice border and shade for both properties and that's my only request. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just said that they are nice mature evergreens. 2,71 February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ROB HERRMANN : He was kind enough to call me also separately and ask the same questions so since Dave Chicanowitz has taken the time to come here I'm just going to pass him the baton and ask him just to speak to the landscaping in connection with (inaudible). DAVE CHICANOWITZ : Dave Chicanowitz, Creative Environmental Design. I've been (inaudible) concerns of the neighbor and overall site plans and all that. We did extensive review of what was submitted as far as proposed site and looking at all of the existing plantings on what would be the easterly side of the property (inaudible) I would say 95% of the trees will stay untouched. The only ones that may be removed would actually be more on the interior side of the property which wouldn't have affected the screening anyway. Other than that I say 95% of the existing will stay intact just as is so there should be no concerns. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Very good thank you Dave. ROB HERRMANN : I think I would just add to that too, any of that the hedgerow the more landward area of the hedgerow were to be removed it would be I've spoken with John Scott and he said you know it's equally an (inaudible) for us to maintain (inaudible) so anything that would have to be removed will be replaced in an appropriate form. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay, anything from anybody else? Anybody in the audience, anybody on Zoom? Okay 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 LEHNERT : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING # 7591- 11900 OREGON ROAD, LLC CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for 11900 Oregon Road, LLC #7591. This is a request for a variance from Article XV Section 280-62C and the Building Inspector's June 30, 2021 amended July 13, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct alterations to an existing single family dwelling to create two February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting accessory apartments at 1) the proposed accessory use is not permitted located at 11900 Oregon Rd. in Cutchogue. So this is for two apartments in a single family dwelling I don't think is occupied now and does this require site plan approval? GAIL WICKHAM : It has site plan approval. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It has the approval. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Because we wouldn't be able to hear (inaudible) GAIL WICKHAM : Good morning, Abigail Wickham, Wickham, Bressler & Geasa, Mattituck:, New York for the applicant. We are here I just want to discuss some of the procedural aspects for us. (inaudible) request a reversal of the Building Department's reading of 280-62C relating to what is an accessory use for this public self-storage facility in an L.I. zone. We have applied for your approval to determine that an additional watchman's quarters within the single family dwelling has been established in Southold town as a necessary and customary accessory use for the self- storage business. To give you a little bit of an overview and addressing the last inquiry, the project has site plan approval and the construction of the storage facility is well under way. Three of the storage buildings have been completed and have C.O.'s, there are a couple more to be continued that are going to be following shortly pursuant to site plan approval. The house is pre-existing it has a C.O. a Certificate of Pre-Existing use as well as some additional C.O.'s improvements made subsequent. The relevant dimensions of the single family dwelling are it's 1,923 sq. ft. the proposed accessory apartment fully within the footprint of that building will be 960 sq. ft. and the remaining area of the house will be 963 sq. ft. In connection with the storage facility approval of the Health Department required that the sanitary system that was existing be replaced, that has been done. It is located in the rear yard of the house somewhat to the southeast and the swimming pool which had a C.O. has been removed. The sanitary system is not an IA system as that was not required by the Health Department. I might mention that it's my understanding that the depth of ground water in that location is extremely deep so the nitrogen load would not be a significant factor in any event and of course then there is the landfill (inaudible) that's headed that way so there is (inaudible) water available to the site. Procedurally I'd like to address what I think a slight discrepancy between the application we've made and the Board's statement of the relief requested. We are applying to add one accessory apartment within the existing single family dwelling. The single family dwelling would remain so we're not applying to convert it to two accessory apartments. The reversal request is based on our contention that the watchman's quarters that would be the accessory apartment are established and allowable accessory use in the L.I. zone, this is proposed storage. Technically we don't think it's a variance request, it's a reversal for you to recognize that use as an February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting accessory use in this zone and I'll get to that a little bit more in a minute. The residence itself will also continue that dwelling unit will continue to be used for the manager of the facility so both of those units in the dwelling will be directly related to and used by employees of the facility and I'll talk about the conditions that you might want to think about or have thought about to impose that restriction later on. The nature of this business is something that's important here and motivates this request. A company in the public storage business these days sells two commodities, one obviously is storage but the second essential component is that they sell security. To have an expected reliable storage security is the cornerstone of that industry these days. The 24/7 coverage is essential for safety, theft, vandalism, protection, (inaudible) response and climate control issues and cameras can only monitor so much from a remote location. They have even had to be more vigilant on these types of facilities people from living in them given how difficult things are these days. So it's a constant and ongoing process which requires an on-site presence at all times. To address the merits of the application first of all the ZBA has on two prior occasions that I have included them in the application recognize that watchman's quarters are an essential part of the business. The prior decisions are what defines this type of use as fitting as an appropriate and acceptable accessory use for this business in this zone. It will not change the character of the neighborhood well that's a variance criteria I do think it's appropriate to discuss it. The use remains residential, the view from the street of the residence particularly if you're driving west along Oregon Rd. it makes it look like it has always been when the Zuhoskis' owned it the virtue from the storage facility view to the south. The house remains completely within its existing footprint. Fortunately it was constructed in a configuration that lends itself to an interior renovation and separation of the two spaces. There are separate entrances front and rear for each side and the only real addition was a small railroad kitchen in the accessory apartment that would enable that to be a separate dwelling unit. The size of the building limits the occupancy as there are only three bedrooms and there's really no room for anything more. So it's not going to change from when it was the Zuhoski's residence when they had four, five children a lot of people lived there. I think I did have a (inaudible) in my application the number of bedrooms is not going to be reduced the total number of bedrooms in the building will be the same, three two in the house and one in the accessory apartment. I'd just like to clarify that. An alternative to this again variance criteria to this proposal is not (inaudible). Given the need to have the on-site constant watchman availability the current housing crunch the object (inaudible) of affordable housing in this town sorry that's my personal editorializing that if you (inaudible) of more affordable housing out of town would severely impair the ability to have employees on-site with ready availability to a watchman function. Given the difficulty of local businesses to find any help in the first place here this plan is essential to the viability of the business and is certainly a benefit to the town. We also note that there has been strong neighborhood support and I believe you have several letters in the file as to that matter. As you know the Planning Board has reviewed February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting it and has some possible conditions that I would like to address. We would expect that if you approve this application you would condition the decision on maintaining these dwelling units for employees of the business. I do want to say that when it comes to their suggestion of a one year lease, there's a bit of a nuance there because the nature of the labor laws with respect to employee housing are quite complicated and precise and are actively enforced. There's just a slight change a difference there a managerial staff can be treated differently than a regular staff. So the house itself the house (inaudible) with the two bedrooms will remain the residence for the manager and the accessory apartment will be a residence for the additional employee who will be a watchman. We don't have a problem with a lease except the one year is a concern if the employee left we would instantly want to be able to terminate that lease. I think they've been handling it in the past is it's a month to month lease. Certainly the condition that the occupant be under some sort of rental arrangement as an employee is no problem for us. So we'd like to stay away from a specific requiring us the type of leasing arrangement but limit the use to an employee and his or her family. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Gail would you kindly restate the square footage of each unit? GAIL WICKHAM : The square footage of the house without the accessory apartment, in other words the house after the accessory apartment is separated is 963 sq. ft., the accessory apartment will be 960 sq. ft. for a total footprint of 1,923 sq. ft. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Let me make a comment on that observation. I'm not speaking for the Board I'm just speaking from my own kind of analysis of the series of strategies you try and look for here, I think the reversal is probably stronger and I say this for the following reason. A single family dwelling is not the principle use on the property number one and number two, according to the code it needs to be owner occupied not rented and also the accessory apartment can be no greater than 40 sq. ft. of the total overall square footage to have a code permitted accessory apartment in a principle residence. So they're really pretty much equal in size and I think the stronger argument is the one that you took put forth about the fact that the entire building is accessory to the principle use of storage. That is what really what's going on, on the property and that is an accessory to that use which you've described very well in terms of security and so on. So this might have town wide consequences depending on how this decision is written. I do remember very well the prior variances for the apartments in a storage building basically not in a separate dwelling but nevertheless the concept is consistent which is that this (inaudible) employees situation is fairly commonplace in storage facilities and is an increasingly security problem that really is going to have an impact on the businesses success, they need to be there. So you're following what I'm saying? That's just my opinion at this point, we'll mull over everything you've submitted and we'll review it but I think you know because Za February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting it's not really an owner occupied principle dwelling and because of the same size both units and the plans even are labeled two caretakers apartments. GAIL WICKHAM : Yes I noticed that I believe the architect did that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Cause I think that is actually the truth, there are two apartments one for the manager and one for an employee who you know will have a different shift. So I just want to state my opinion without you know fully vetting everything that I think your request for a reversal based upon the argument that it is incidental and accessory to the principle storage use in an L.I. zone has a greater merit and greater strength. GAIL WICKHAM : Well I'll leave that to the Board in how you word it. I did feel that the single family residence was a legitimate use; it's pre-existing even though it's not formally it's not in another situation it would not be the principle use but I didn't really want to give that up but however the Board feels is appropriate CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well if one person who was the manager was living there then I'd say yeah it's a single family residence and that's very clear but this is kind of a hybrid GAIL WICKHAM : Yes it is, it's a little unusual. The manager is an employee of the owner so I don't know how you and in the code owner occupied. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yeah it has to be owner occupied and it's not occupied by the owner it's occupied by an employee of the owner. So it kind of doesn't fit that part of the code. I did peer through the window because I am nosey, so I can see that one thing is you know obviously occupied and the other was in the process of being renovated and that's about it. A big back yard, very big, very private very well screened from the warehouse, it looks safe and it's accessible with a ramp, plenty of parking spaces so you know anything from the Board here? Pat anything from you on this one? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No thank you for bringing that up Leslie cause it really doesn't fit into what we're used to doing but yet understood that because it's not attached we're going to have to look at this in a different way. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The code on accessory apartments in principle dwellings became as of right. The Zoning Board used to look at those as a Special Exception permit and we would do interior inspections and calculate square footages and so on but that was now made presuming you follow percentages that was made as of right when the accessory apartments in accessory structures became legal with Special Exception approval. So you still have to be code compliant with the accessory apartment. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Question Leslie, relative to the square footage if I can ask Gail to repeat cause I thought I heard what you had said I just want to make sure, when you look at what 40% of what the actual structure is it limits it to approximately 763 sq. ft., is that something that would still be a workable area? GAIL WICKHAM : I was just going to address that. The one reason that the property the house was configured that way was that it really made the most sense in terms of manageable area. The house is not that big to begin with so 40% would be pretty small and it just seemed to make more sense to do it that way the way the house was configured to begin with it lent itself to this configuration. I just want to ask my client a question. So I will defer to you on that but that was done in order to make the two living spaces reasonably sized. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Understood and even if they were forty and sixty it still wouldn't conform to the code. GAIL WICKHAM : I just think the Board is going to have to well you've been spending a lot of time and probably will spend more time fitting square pegs in round holes and this is one of them. There is a provision in the accessory use of the light industrial that does allow certain amenities for owners of the principles and some extent I didn't get into that because (inaudible). BOARD ASSISTANT : You had mentioned some letters of support. GAIL WICKHAM : I believe Mr. Kosmynka, did you send the letters? MR. KOSMYNKA : They were in the packets. GAIL WICKHAM : I thought he had submitted them, I will email you copies today or tomorrow. MEMBER LEHNERT : They're in the packets here I see them towards the end. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea, yea, yea way at the back. Okay we've got them. Alright 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 LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. Motion to recess for lunch. MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. See you back here at one o'clock. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Motion to resume the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. HEARING # 7592—CATHERINE HOVEY CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Catherine Hovey #7592. This is a request for variances from Article XXII Section 280-116A(1), Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's August 19, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct a deck addition with a partially recessed hot tub to an existing 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 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, 3) located less than the code required minimum combined side yard setback of 35 feet located at 5775 Nassau Point Rd. (adj. to Little Peconic Bay) in Cutchogue. Is there someone here to represent the application? Please come to the podium and state your name for the record please. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting BILL SCHERER : Good afternoon, my name is Bill Scherer. (inaudible) Architects Huntington, New York I'm representing my client Mr. and Mrs. Hovey. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We've all been out just so you know to inspect the property. This is a setback for this deck addition 26 feet from the top of the bluff where the code requires 100 feet and a side yard setback of 13.6 feet where the code requires a minimum of 15 feet and third, a combined side yard setback at 24.4 feet where the code requires a minimum of 35 feet. What would you like to tell us about this application in terms of the variance standards and why this variance is needed and justified? BILL SCHERER : The main level of this house is a level where we want to have a deck built to be constructed the same level as the kitchen, living area etc. You've seen the site so everybody is familiar with it, it's a tough terrain to deal with, its way up on a high incline on a bluff. The house is actually (inaudible) I would say it's the back of the site cause the water is the front but it's close to the water. As such is limited space there, they even have limited yard there. What they're trying to do is create just a little more outdoor area that's easily accessible to the first floor level. This seemed the best way to do it. What we proposed well first let me just point out there are some hardships here that are non-self-created. It's non-conforming in that the existing side yards do not conform we don't have the combined side yard requirement, the lot area is non-conforming. I think we need 40,000 we're at 31,000 and change and the lot width is non-conforming, required to be 150 feet it's only 100 feet wide. So we're dealing with all of those factors. I also want to point out that the area that we're proposing to put the deck is already developed land as part of their yard. We're not claiming any natural area or disturbing any natural area it's area that's already there. We're also making every attempt to make this blend with the house. Architecturally we're kind of mirrored the octagon shape of the breakfast area that you see there. We recessed the hot tub so that it's really not going to be apparent that it's there, it will be screened as well from below so it's not going to be like a deck sitting on a hot tub that you can see. This proposed addition isn't going to change the intensity of the use of the property is just for the present family to enjoy. They live in the house, they don't rent out it's not a rental property. I think what we're proposing is a reasonable request. We do also have the distance to the bluff concern but we're not going as close as an area that's already disturbed. You can see there's a retaining wall around the pool there that exists, we're staying within that. We did get favorable response regarding the LWRP from the Planning Department. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Right it's noted as consistent. BILL SCHERER : So again I think that our request is a reasonable one. I'll answer any questions that the Board may have. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're going to need Trustees approval for this? 7_5T_ February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting BILL SCHERER : Yes. I spoke to someone in the Zoning office and they said we should get through this first and have this at hand before we approach the Trustees. We're aware that we have to do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Rob do you have any questions? MEMBER LEHNERT : I do actually have a question. I see the need you know by the bluff you're not going past the existing but the 13.6 and the existing house conforms to the 15 foot setback. I mean we can't find 1.2 feet and make it go away? I mean you're never going to comply to the combined and I understand that. The house already complies on the one side the 15 the one you're proposing the deck, I mean is there a way to make one of these variances to go away? BILL SCHERER : I suppose we could architecturally I'd rather not honestly because we're working with some dimensions and proportions and I'd like not to change it. Also we used the area where the hot tub is going to go. There really won't be enough room to walk around it. We're concerned that it might not be less safe less walking area. MEMBER LEHNERT : Can you go 1 foot 8 on two sides of it that's really not a lot of space to walk around especially when you lose that with the railings so you're going to have you know preferably about a foot (inaudible) so I'm asking it's very minor to make one of the our mission is that you know give the least amount of relief. I'm just asking if you can think about that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there is a way to redesign it so that the one side yard setback was conforming that would then leave you with two variances instead of three. The bluff setback is unavoidable. MEMBER LEHNERT : So it the combined. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The combined is unavoidable we'll give you that but is it possible to maintain one existing side yard? By the way the stoop for the stairs does not count in the setback. BILL SCHERER : Right I'm aware of that. I suppose we could do that, I'd have to you know make some dimensional changes but we could do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay then why don't we do this, why don't we adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is our next meeting in two weeks to give you and your client time to reconsider to see what you can work out and if you can submit to us an amended plan amended survey, site plan you're an architect so we will accept that. Then we will close this hearing I don't believe we will have any questions about it if you're doing what we're asking you to try and do we'll just close it in two weeks. If you need more time we'll just hold it open. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting BILL SCHERER : No I won't need more time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so why don't we just do that, just adjourn this to the Special Meeting which is February 17tH BILL SCHERER : What day of the week is that? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's a Thursday, we meet twice a month the first and the third Thursday. MEMBER LEHNERT : You can mail us the plans. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You don't have to appear it's not a hearing. If we need a hearing which is not likely but if you did for any reason we would then adjourn it to the next month the next hearing which will be a month from now. BILL SCHERER : Could we now make an application to the Trustees? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes I think you probably could. It's going to be a while before they're going to hear it so I don't have a problem with that. BILL SCHERER : I just don't want to make assumptions that this is all everything is good and then somebody says wait a minute you didn't follow proper protocol and CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well there's nothing in the code that requires someone to come to the Zoning Board before the Trustees that's just a sort of habitable policy that we've adopted over the years to make it a little easier for all the Boards concern. Since we have more jurisdiction over a variety of things than the Trustees do so it makes sense. MEMBER LEHNERT : I'm guessing that you probably won't be on the calendar till April. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. Scherer can you provide perhaps some similar variance relief for a deck and bluff setbacks if you can research a couple of variances for the file. r CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There are prior approvals in that neighborhood for non-conforming side yards, non-conforming bluff setbacks. So if you can staff will help you if you need to it's on Laserfiche and that's all it's a benefit cause then it can speak to character of the neighborhood as having a whole series of prior variances. BILL SCHERER : So that's on micro fiche? February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They'll help you. Anything from anybody in the audience, anybody on Zoom for this application? Okay hearing no further questions I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this to the February 17th meeting subject of receiving amended (inaudible). MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. The motion carries. HEARING #7580—VINCENT BERTAULT CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The next application before the Board is for Vincent Bertault #7580. This is a request to reverse a Stop Work Order issued by the Building Inspector on August 24, 2021 pursuant to Chapter 144 Section 144-8 for construction beyond the scope of Building Department Permit#44198 located at 95 Navy St. in Orient. I think Eric Bressler is on here I see him and we also have asked John Jarski the Building Inspector who wrote the Stop Work Order to explain a little bit to us what his point of view is on that and then certainly I want to have Mr. Bressler proceed with his presentation and then we will hear from any and all interested parties on this matter. Do you want to go first Eric? ERIC BRESSLER : Yes thank you madam Chairwoman and Member of the Board. We are here this afternoon upon Vincent Bertault's appeal from a Stop Work Order issued by the Building Inspector purportedly pursuant to Section 144-8 of the Town Code. We are seeking a reversal of that Order on several grounds. The basis of the appeal and I believe the results of appeal of that appeal are relatively simple and straightforward and are dictated by the actions taken by the Building Inspector in issuing this purported Stop Work Order. The deficiencies in the Stop Work Order which mandate it's reversal are as follows: first as I previously mentioned the Stop Work Order by its terms purports to be issued pursuant to Section 144-8 of the Town Code there is no provision in Section 144-8 of the Town Code for issuance of a Stop Work Order. Thus the statutory basis for the issuance of the Stop Work Order is non-existent and it is ultra-virus. Secondly, the purported Stop Work Order does not contain a statement of the reasons for its February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting issuance. While it does say that there is work beyond the scope of building permit 44198 which we'll get to in a moment, it fails to specify entirely in what manner if any the work is beyond the scope. It is therefore vague and unenforceable and has to be reversed. Third, a Stop Work Order must state the conditions which must be satisfied to permit the work to continue. The purported Stop Work Order fails to meet this requirement since it does not state what needs to be done to lift the purported Stop Work Order. The assertion in the purported Stop Work Order that the Building Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals must approve some unspecified changes or work does not satisfy the specificity requirements applicable to a Stop Work Order. It's improper, unenforceable and should be reversed. An applicant shall not be left to guess what it is that a purported Stop Work Order is addressed at. For example, if you think that the Building Inspector thinks that the footprint is too large then he has to say that and he has to tell you where you have to go in order to fix that. Next, it should be noted that building permit 44198 approved the relocation of a barn and a shed and specifically contemplated the renovation of the barn. The relocation of the barn has been completed in the designated area as has the shed although that's not an issue in this appeal. On April 6, 2021 the Building Inspector issued building permit #46037 to replace building permit 44198 thus the Stop Work Order issued after April 6th purportedly addressed to a building permit that didn't exist at the time is patently invalid. Equally significant is the fact that the building permit issued under number 46037 would not have been issued had there been any question or issue under the prior building permit. It defies logic to believe that the Building Department would have renewed a permit which it thought was exceeded in some unspecified manner. Now the applicant acted completely in good faith upon receiving this purported Stop Work Order which didn't tell him anything about what was wrong allegedly or what he had to do to fix it. The applicant reached out by his architect on August 26, 2021 and told the Building Inspector in essence we don't know what you're talking about, please give us the particulars so that we can address whatever problem you think exists with respect to this project. Now you would think that upon receiving such a letter that the Building Inspector would respond to that letter since it was he that issued the Stop Work Order without specifying what it was that was actually wrong. Incredibly the Building Inspector did nothing, he stood mute and failed and refused to answer Gary O'Connor's letter. Perhaps had there been a response to this good faith inquiry and attempt to resolve the issues we would not be in front of this Board today. However as set forth in the appeal the applicant had no alternative but to appeal the purported Stop Work Order to this Board. Thus we find ourselves unfortunately before this Board as a result of the issuance of an improper purported Stop Work Order and the failure of the Building Inspector to have the courtesy to advised the applicant what it was that his objection was to this particular project. Now all of that is contained in the initial submission delivered to the Board. In addition however we made a supplementary submission against the possibility that the Board did not access the Building Department's file to bring itself up to speed on what occurred in connection February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting with this particular project and that submission dated February 1, 2022 contains the story of this particular project and its progress. It begins if I can just briefly run the Board through this, it begins in 2014 when the applicant came before this Board as well as the Historic Preservation Commission to move the barn and restore it. The reason that the applicant had to go before the HPC was that it was within their jurisdiction that is he wanted to relocate it and he wanted to restore it. The reason that he came before this Board was because of the location and this Board gave its approval in its determination dated for approved for filing 4/21/2014 and the setbacks of 25 feet from Willow St. and the location of the barn which was the only reason for the relief requested from the Board that was approved. Now with these approvals in hand he got his building permit and he began the process. He had first and second foundation inspections, he had his first and second foundation inspections in 2015 when he did the initial foundation work they were approved, he had framing and strapping inspections in 2017 as he worked on the barn. Thus, the Building Department was aware at all stages of what was going on and approved all of the work in 2020, in 2021 it was additional foundation work that was inspected and approved on two occasions. Additional documents were requested from the applicant in connection with the inspections and the architect responded November of 2020 and thereafter. Then as I stated earlier with all these approvals in hand the applicant was asked to renew the building permit, he made his application and in April after all of this work was completed the building permit was reissued. So from the very beginning of this process the applicant obtained all of the approvals that he needed, he obtained all of the inspections that he needed, all of the inspections were favorable only to find that a purported Stop Work Order with absolutely no details whatsoever was served upon him. As I stated earlier upon request of the Building Inspector to have a dialogue and have an understanding of what the problem was he was met with silence. Thus we are brought before you today for a reversal of the ultra-virus and illegal Stop Work Order. I note in closing that even after we commenced this proceeding before this Board the Building Inspector has sat mute, he didn't reissue a Stop Work Order, he didn't write a letter to us, he didn't come down to the property and explain what was going on. He left us to sit before this Board and months later come before you for review of what we consider to be utterly unenforceable and unprofessional. That is the applicant's case. I'll entertain any questions that the Board may have madam Chairwoman. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Mr. Bressler, shall we have the next person the Building Inspector shall John Jarski go next? ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : Sure he can. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : John can you go ahead and bring the Board up to speed on the issuance of the Stop Work Order. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : Yes I am here, good afternoon. Are you going to ask me specific questions or do you want me to just give you an update as to why a Stop Work Order was issued and clarify a few things? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes why don't you do that John. SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : First I'd like to say that an amendment did come in yes all of the inspections prior to an amendment coming in on October 20, 2020 we were on the right track. We had a little we were a little bit off on the framing not exactly as it was supposed to be but all of those things could have been corrected with an amended set of plans and then go through HPC to get an approval but I did look at the work that was being done there and at the time everything was okayy. We just wanted to make sure that the building didn't fall to the ground. So the real problem starts in October of 2020 when an amendment came in it was actually ten days prior to me going out and inspecting it, the problem with it is that the amendment is lacking some information and that information in this situation is pertinent as per town code. It's lacking the original average grade which is not on the amendment submitted to Damon on October 21, 2020 so he approved the amendment as per the document that was given for an amendment which was lacking information. So I was sent out there to check the conditions and when we did we realized that we now have an accessory structure that exceeds the maximum required height would have been 20 feet and just rough numbers we're at 3 and change over from original average grade not noted on the submitted plans for amendment. So I believe that the amendment was approved in error which is why which started it prompted the issuance of a Stop Work Order. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : John let me just say one thing, when you made reference to Damon you are referring to the former Plans Examiner Damon Rallis? SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : Correct, correct no longer with us. It doesn't matter who it was but if the required information was on here then it would have made things a lot easier. So it was approved with a lack of information. I was sent out there to confirm what we had what were the site conditions so we can make corrections if necessary. That was noted, I was there ten days after we received the amendment October 30th and I let them know the remedies to correct. First we needed certifications because I didn't see any of the work getting done, it was all "as built" and we asked for I asked for a Storm Water Management Plan and some drawings and elevations to show what our overall height was. It took about ten months to receive that. So they were noted ten days after receiving this amendment what they needed to do to correct and rectify the situation. It took ten months to receive information so that's a ridiculously long amount of time and all of this stuff we could have trimmed off a lot of time if it February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting was not "as built" and we had the right information on submitted documents basically in a nut shell. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : John are there any other facts before this Board that you observed when you did your inspections relative to the actual appearance of the subject barn of the overall height, the roofline and so on? SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : Well the roofline did change a little bit so we're looking for amended plans on that still which I'm sure we're going to receive. That's one account that would be on an HPC level as well as raising the grade and again we use the average of original grade so when you add 3 if you started out at 17 feet 9 inches and you add over 3 feet you're already exceeding so that's why I stand behind the Stop Work Order on those two grounds. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Bressler do you want to say anything at this point? MR. BRESSLER : Yes I do. The first thing that I'd like to say is while that information is very interesting and some of it may even be true and we can address that a little bit later it doesn't speak to the deficiencies in the Stop Work Order that were mentioned before. While understand the Board's desire to ask those questions or as it did in this case to permit the witness to testify in the narrative none of that has any impact whatsoever on the problems with that Stop Work Order. Now turning to the factual issues I'm going to address a few of them and then I would like Gary O'Connor to respond to some of them and I'd like the applicant to respond to some of them. First I need to disabuse the Board of the notion that this structure was raised three feet, that's just not true the Board can look at the documents the Board has before it. The documents evidencing the height the documents which relate to the foundation amendments which were approved to place this barn at the required flood plain level so as to avoid damage to the barn and to then comply with the floor plain requirements. All of that work was approved so there can be no complaint about any height change that results from foundational work that was approved by everyone. Now that brings us to the question of the barn itself and what I would say to that is this, and the Building Department was well aware of this. The barn was essentially falling down and the roof needed to be reconstructed and everybody knew that. In fact the Building Department knew it I'm sure the Zoning Board knew it at the time in 2014, the HPC knew it when it (inaudible) the restoration. Now as I know that this Board is aware of when you go in and you start restoring an aging structure and I'm certain that Mr. Jarski will agree with this as well, you generally find in buildings of this age that you have structures and structural members that are impermissible under current code and would be improper to leave. In particular I refer to the 2 x 4 construction. Thus, when it came time to restore the roof everybody was on board with 2 x 6 construction so that the roof would not February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting collapse and that it would meet current standards. In addition, due to the way this structure was originally constructed which I'm advised was in two pieces the ridge line of the lower section did not meet the ridge line of a higher structure so the ridge beams of the two structures did not meet. This created a structural infirmity, so at the time the roofs were redone the Building Inspector and the HPC were aware that 2 x 6's were to be put in there so the barn would not collapse and that the ridge lines were going to be joined such that from a structural point those ridge line beams would be joined in the strongest possible manner. The Building Department approved the HPC approved and the project went forward. I'm going to ask Mr. O'Connor and the applicant to speak to that in more detail. As I say the project moved forward, the Building Department asked for drawings showing that, they got those drawings at the end of 2020 the beginning of 2021 they got everything they asked for and it showed exactly what was there. Four months after that the Building permit was reissued. So to the extent that the Board hears a different story about this inspector, that inspector or whatever everything was placed before the Building Department. They were there on site when everything happened, they approved everything, all the framing was approved and the barn was restored in a manner such that it would not fall down. The difference in the two ridge lines that we're talking about is absolutely deminimus and I'm constrained to agree with Mr. Jarski when he characterized that as a minor variation. What he didn't do is tell you why that occurred and it's because of the structural soundness of the barn and everybody was on board with that. So that's what I have to say in response to that and to summarize it, number one, nothing that the Board has heard today cures the deficiencies in the Stop Work Order. The Board while it's interesting can look behind it and try to figure out what was going on but that doesn't save the Stop Work Order. If the Building Inspector truly believes that there's something wrong which I don't believe that he does based upon his comments since he indicated that all of that can be taken care of in the final drawings then they were free to correct the Stop Work Order but they chose not to do that. So with the Board's permission I would ask Gary O'Connor to expand and if necessary and I hope he doesn't have to correct anything that I may have said. GARY O'CONNOR : Good afternoon thank you. Eric you are correct in that in terms of the height of the barn the Board the drawings that were approved by the Zoning Board as well as the HPC had the elevation starting at it was already raised up to the flood elevation plane so it was not you know the product of the average grade. It was approved raised up from the start. SENIOR BUILDING INPSECTOR JARSKI : No, where? GARY O'CONNOR : If you look at the height of the barn that is above the ground floor plane and that's the way it approved sir and we've never received a request for anything different anything from Mr. Jarski. I'd like to read into the record my letter to Mr. Jarski of August 26th after receiving the Stop Work, Dear Mr. Jarski February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MEMBER PLANAMENTO : When was that letter submitted for the record? GARY O'CONNOR : I believe if it hasn't I will submit it. Dear CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I don't think we have a copy of it. GARY O'CONNOR : Do we have a copy? ERIC BRESSLER : I submitted it Gary. GARY O'CONNOR : August 26, 2021. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Do you know what exhibit it is? ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : August 26, 2021 GARY O'CONNOR : Dear Mr. Jarski, My client Mr. Vincent Bertault forwarded to me a copy of the Stop Work Notice issued August 25, 2021 and to be honest this notice is too vague to be actionable. I am writing to request you provide in writing specific issues where work being performed is outside the work scope of this permit so we may address your concerns. As you know the neighbors here have been constantly making false alarm calls to your office in efforts to stop work while at the same time complaining that the job is taking too long. Mr. Bertault deserves to know the specific complaint so he may address this in an effort to lift the Stop Work Order and complete this project. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions. I have not received a response. This was mailed and emailed from Mr. Jarski. I'd like to know what is going on that you know a simple letter I mean Stop Work Orders happen I understand that but to not receive any response back is just I've never done business this way ever and I just don't understand it. Then I'm being told that after request for drawings or receiving amendments that you received nothing back that's incorrect. I mean anything we've received in terms of a request at the inspection level from Mr. Jarski was responded to immediately. ERIC BRESSLER : Gary to do you want to speak to the 2 x 6 situation? GARY O'CONNOR : Yea I believe it was 2 x 8 construction. The existing roof structure is 2 x 4 construction at 24 inches on center which even a lay person would recognize to be grossly inadequate especially in a region that is a coastal region which has you know high wind loads. So the project received you know new structural members at 16 inches on center, strapping across the ridge, hurricane ties strapping down to the walls and further the project was set up to receive initially asphalt shingles to replace the existing asphalt shingles. Mr. Bertault went above and beyond and installed a historically correct cedar wood shingle roof. I guess the neighbors weren't pleased with that either. We would have a shingle siding replacement on this building today had this Stop Work Order not been issued. At every turn there's been a 4-AT February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting numerous complaints that many have in fact were turned away except for this one and this one was so vague and inaction able you know we were just confounded what are we supposed to do wait five months now for a Board hearing in order to get moving again. ERIC BRESSLER : Gary can you speak to the ridge line issue? GARY O'CONNOR : Yes. The ridgeline so basically the front part of the barn was a little higher a few inches higher and the second part of the barn which is a little bit lower was actually an addition to the main structure the original structure and it was basically leaned on top of the existing structure with no structural support for the most part and the 2 x 4's again inadequate so when this thing was put back together put back reconstructed it was done right so this thing can stand up for another hundred whatever years. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : At this point I'm going to ask John I think you were going to make a comment, do you have some response to what you heard? SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : Well first, I'm looking for the plans that have these structural changes on them. I don't have them. What is the date and what is the date that we accepted it and approved those changes? Secondly, I'd like to say that all Stop Work Orders go out pretty similar and that has nothing to do with me. That's how the office handles Stop Work Orders. They are vague and they basically they don't give a whole lot of direction but they do tell you that there are issues there that need to be addressed. More importantly I'm looking for these structural drawings that I don't have. ERIC BRESSLER : May I just highlight that comment to the Board, they don't give you a whole lot of direction. The provision of the town code is directly contradictory to that. It requires that you be given something specific not something vague and the fact that that's the way it's been done in the past surely does not make it correct. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect what he's getting into is that the Building Department has not singled out this application in any particular way but rather this is the procedure the Building Department follows in all situations. Having said that, while you're looking for the plans with the dates Gary, John can you explain to use when you issue a Stop Work Order what generally happens after that? How is it resolved typically? SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : It's resolved when the applicant or the owner goes to the necessary agencies and gets what's required or corrects the deficiencies that have occurred. So in this case we are basically twofold because we're sitting too high from average original grade and you were talking about and I'm sorry I don't have I don't have anything marked on here for an amendment for structural. My original permit was to relocated a barn to a new foundation and showed a little bit of strapping detail and a little bit of framing repair detail. I have no February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting structural drawings showing any of this stuff. So I don't know where that existed and it doesn't exist as an approved amendment here. ERIC BRESSLER : The framing and strapping was approved you must have something. SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : I approved what he did to button it up. You're telling me you changed structural, that should be backed up with an amended set of drawings which I asked for on October 30, 2020. I don't have it. I did that in good faith so the person the builder can make sure that the structure wouldn't collapse. So they should be backed up with "as built" drawings. GARY O'CONNOR : I had not received any requests or notice for a request for amended drawings but we'll be happy to provide them. SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : Let's see the last time I asked for them ERIC BRESSLER : There's nothing in the record that reflects that. There is something in the record that asked for something from Gary O'Connor and there's something further in the record that Gary O'Connor then submitted to the Building Department pursuant to their request. That's what the record reflects. If Mr. Jarski today is making another request then that is something that we can deal with but that's not the and of course we will but that's not the issue before the Board today. SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : And that's not the case. I asked for drawings on October 30, 2020 and I didn't see any of you on the job it was Phillipe Jacquet that was there that I discussed with and gave him pretty much the benefit of the doubt to lock up the structure while we received plans for the "as builts". Then in the interim of documentation came in for an amendment which goes right to the plans reviewer and examiner I don't look at it, it goes right to whoever's job it is here, they look at it and due to the lack of information it was approved to raise it which then set the structure well above what is required for an accessory structure. Well over the 20 foot height. GARY O'CONNOR : Again I would go back to the original plans that were approved by the ZBA, HPC and the original Building Department application all showed the structure at you know above the average grade. The existing structure was being moved to be (inaudible) elevation plane. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Hang on Eric, I think we were trying to get some clarification from Mr. O'Connor. If you want to go first that's fine we'll hold that question till after you've completed your statement then we'll go back to Mr. O'Connor. Go ahead. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ERIC BRESSLER : I would like to refer the Board respectfully to my letter of February 1st and particularly item five, Mr. Jarski said he was requesting in October certain things and in November Gary O'Connor provided the things he was asking by letter dated November 17, 2020; Dear Inspector Jarski I'm writing to confirm and certify about certain pinning reinforcement, an updated foundation survey has been ordered I will forward it as soon as it's completed that's also attached. Enclosed please find four copies of amended barn elevations indicated minor adjustments. Additionally a grading and drainage plan is being prepared by Condon Engineering and be filed shortly etc. As the Board knows from a prior appeal that grading and drainage plan was in fact submitted and was approved by the Building Department. By email the barn elevations were submitted, they showed the minor adjustments that were made with the knowledge and approval of all the agencies. So for the Building Inspector to take the position that he didn't get what he was asking for is just not right, he got what he was asking for Gary O'Connor promptly responded and sent things on over. Am I missing anything Mr. O'Connor? GARY O'CONNOR : When we received documents in writing and when it came to us requesting information we responded. If Mr. Jarski told somebody in the field as a here say that didn't come to me we didn't respond cause we never got it. So if there are amendments required for you know the new roof joists you know again we can provide amended drawings. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Mr. O'Connor if you can clarify, earlier in your testimony you clearly stated that you submitted and received or you submitted amended drawings that were received by the town Building Department and returned to you stamped. We asked you for a clear date and with those plans were Mr. Jarski had said he doesn't have them, he spent time looking for those documents. He's on Zoom so we can see he is going through the folder, you had implied that you were looking for that information, can you give us that specific information now? GARY O'CONNOR : I think he's referring to the drawings that are related to the roof structure which again we weren't requested to provide amended drawings for the roof structure. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : You made a statement and we're looking for a document relative to the statement that you said that was specific to the amended plans for the roof and the elevation changes and you said that it was in fact received by the Building Department, can you please give us evidence to that fact? GARY O'CONNOR : No I think that's incorrect, let me correct the record. I did not submit amended drawings for the roof structure changes. Changes were made MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Isn't that what he said earlier Chairperson? February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We will go and check the transcript of who said what exactly that's why we're recording this. ERIC BRESSLER : May I try to clarify this? In exhibit five the letter that I quoted from Gary O'Connor I would like to supplement the record by submitting the correct drawing. Apparently the drawing that was attached to Gary's November 17th letter inadvertently contained Sheet A- 4 which did not show the matching ridge lines and I'm going to have that faxed over to the Board and hand deliver eight copies. That showed the Building Department exactly what was done and it was redrawn by Gary and I'm going to take care of that right now. So the long and the short of it is, it all points there was transparency. ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : The matching ridgeline was submitted to the Building Department? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I believe he just said no that he was going to correct that. ERIC BRESSLER : This is wrong I want the one that matches the one he re-dated. I'm tending to that now. SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : If you don't need me anymore I'm going to leave I have work to do unless you need me to stay Leslie. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Unless the Board has additional questions as long as you remain available to us John we appreciate the time and the testimony and to be continued so thank you for your unless either Mr. Bressler you have additional questions for John Jarski at this time I'd like to thank him for his testimony and we'll move on. I'm not hearing anything from my end so thank you very much John. SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR JARSKI : Thank you, have a good day. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Leslie can I ask a question of the Town Attorney? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes, do we need to go into executive session? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : No I don't think it's something specific to that but I'm just trying to understand the process here. Whether or not documents were approved or received, there was an HPC a resolution if a minor change occurred wouldn't HPC need to be aware of that and to sign off on it also? ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : You would have to see what the change was for the most part, changes that vary from the HPC approval would need to be approved by the HPC. I don't know that that is or is not the case here because there is some ambiguity with respect to these February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ridgelines but in general a variance from an HPC approval would need to be approved by the HPC yes. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And I might add that the ZBA often gets requests for deminimus changes to things that it has approved if some small changes have taken place or large changes have taken place after the approval and prior to the issuance of a C.O. that is a regular occurrence. Let me see if at this point there's anyone either on Zoom or in the audience who wants to address this application? Please come forward and state name. MARTHA REICHERT : Good afternoon Members of the Board, my name is Martha Reichert I am an attorney at Tourney, Latham, Shea, Dubin and Quartararo 33 West Second St. Riverhead, New York. I represent a group of neighbors adjacent neighbors along (inaudible) in Orient. I represent a group, The Friends of Historic Orient which is comprised of several different neighbors, community members who are all concerned by the construction that has been taking place here. I'd like to bring the Board back to this appeal which is really about whether or not the Stop Work Order meets legal sufficiency. Mr. Bressler has argued that is it either ultra- virus or it is impermissibly vague. I think we made a submission to the Board a letter dated February 1, 2022, the town code clearly supports the authority of the Building Inspector to issue Stop Work Orders regardless of whether or not its Section 144-8 or Section 144-5 the entire building code itself empowers the Building Inspector to make these determinations of whether or not a project is progressing properly. So I'd like to turn to whether or not its impermissibly vague and those standards are set forth in 144-13B right which sets forth a Stop Work Order shall be in writing, it shall be dated and signed by the Building Inspector, state the reasons for the issuance.and if applicable state the conditions which must be satisfied before work will be permitted to resume. We submit that the Building Inspector complied with all of those requirements. It is in writing, it's signed, it's dated, it states that the construction has gone beyond the scope of the building permit and it states that work will be permitted to resume when the Zoning Board and the Building Department have issued approvals for all changes. As we've argued before we believe that many of the issues with the current construction have to deal with the HPC approvals so if there is any deficiency we'd like to see that the HPC also approve any changes that have gone on. I think that the appeal that's before you right now needs to be separated from the merits of the Stop Work Order which is a lot of what we've been discussing for the last couple of minutes and I think that when the ZBA has to deal with that aspect what we're seeing here is that there is an information gap. We don't know which plans were approved, we have different accounts from the Building Department Inspector, different account from the applicant, their attorney, their architect. What we'd really like to see is a base line of what has been dealt so that this Board, the HPC, the Building Department can figure out whether or not an approved or what was previously approved, does it comply. With respect to the actual Stop Work Order itself if there are any deficiencies and February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting this Board has the power to tell the Building Inspector to correct them, to change the citations to the proper part of the code but in terms of the specificity it has enough information for the applicant to figure out what it has to do and when an applicant has built beyond the scope of its permits you can't know what the extend of that construction is until there has been an "as built" survey. So until there is a true "as built" survey, "as built" plans and elevations to determine whether or not there's been you know I don't know if there's been a deminimus deviation from the plans. None of us can until we have that proper information to make those decisions. I also want to draw the Board to another part of the town code because what I hear from the applicant is that they expect their hands to be held as to how to correct what happened on their property. The town code 144-12B clearly states, the Building Inspector may revoke or suspend a building permit until such time as the permit holder demonstrates whether or not the work is compliant. What we have here is no earnest attempt by this applicant to show how it's work complies. We have a lot of confusion frankly and so you know one of the requests our group has is that this Board that the Building Department, the HPC, the Town Engineer are given the opportunity to review and figure out what actually has happened here what has been built, what exceeds the prior approvals. I draw in my letter attention to some of the findings that were made by this very Board in a prior application regarding the Stop Work Order, regarding the retaining walls. Those retaining walls are there are many and forms a labyrinth on the property but some of those retaining walls are right on the street and they are visible to the public and they effect the aesthetics in the historic district guidelines. So we think that the HPC needs to be a partner in figuring out what is going on. Chairperson Ostrosky submitted a letter on January 311t reiterating and pointing the Board back to correspondence that she made on June 8, 2021 and on September 1, 2021 unequivocally stating that the construction that's taken place on the property does not comply with the HPC Certificate of Appropriateness. So in conclusion I know that there's several members in the community who wish to speak. We've outlined our legal argument in our submission that we believe the Stop Work Order as it is written complies with what the town code requires. It does not require in depth by specificity because that can't really be known so the appropriate agencies have had a chance to review "as built" plans and elevations. That's really a summary of my comments. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you Ms. Reichert. Let's open this up to the members of the community, anyone in the audience who would like to speak and I'll see if there's anyone on Zoom who wants to speak as well. Please state your name for us. TIM FROST : My name is Tim Frost, I'm a resident in Orient, I live at 1995 Village Lane right in the historic district. I just want to provide a little framework to this and Martha Reichert as she said she represents the group Friends of Historic Orient and at this point consists of over forty people with not only their concern but some of the resources to retain (inaudible). I don't want to get lost in the (inaudible) of what has been an eight year ongoing construction project but I O February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting think there are several things that need to be pointed out. Mr. Bressler is supplying information going back is very, very selective. The reality is there were approvals that were given in 2014, this project has changed significantly from that date. I find it curious that you know there are in his submissions there are different work (inaudible) that were submitted for the same thing. Some of them are from 2015, some of them are from 2020 in terms of what the Building Inspector found and basically between those two dates there were some significant changes made. We don't know what they are, frankly a number of things that have been claimed to have been approved I think it's in doubt whether they were approved. The ZBA even in its own denial of an application related to the barn pointed out that the engineering plans were not signed and not stamped. I submitted things to the Building Department before I think there are a number of people on Zoom and in the audience have too and it's just never been the case that I found that the Building Department will accept things and act on them unless they are stamped professionally stamped and signed. So we really don't know where we are and as a (inaudible) tremendous confusion in that. I think we all appreciate that an applicant shall be able to do something with their property. It comes before the ZBA to ask for some relief to things that weren't specifically authorized or allowed through the town code and that's the way it should be. I think The Friends of Historic Orient our concern is that yes he should be allowed to do something but we want him to play by the rules, we want to make sure the town and its various agencies, the Building Inspector, the Town Engineer and the HPC all have a common understanding and review what is in place now because we believe it's made significantly exceed not on a deminimus level but significantly exceed what is "purported to have been authorized". Frankly I've been through the Building Department files any number of times. I've submitted requests very, very specifically for stamped and approved plans and they have not been provided to me not because the town hasn't looked for them and the various people who work in the administrative (inaudible). They haven't been provided because they're not there and that is a problem. So I think what we're asking for as a group is we take a deep breathe here. This has been an eight year project, I know the client of Mr. Bressler the owner wants to move forward. Frankly the town and all the residents I think wants this to be resolved too particularly the owners that are right abutting. I think one of the main things that I'd like to do and just having gone first here is have you perhaps listened to people who are immediately adjacent to this and I know you've been out there and looked at it. They live with this every single day so I ask you to pay particular attention to (inaudible). I apologize for going on at length so I thank you for hearing me and I also want to thank you for your service to the town. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're very welcome. Is there someone else who would like to go to testify? Please come to the podium and state your name. MIMI EDELMAN : My name is Mimi Edleman and I'm here with my husband Stew Edelman. I'd like to give (inaudible) on all of the work that's been done on this project. We reside on the February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting corner of Willow and Vincent Streets. We are approximately 52 feet away from the barn and the wall. We brought you a picture from our living room of what we look out at. We have lived here year round for five years, we relocated our agricultural operation from the Hudson Valley with aspirations of setting down our roots permanently in Orient. Our motivation to move both our business and our homestead to Orient was firstly (inaudible) agricultural history of tending both soil and water farming here but it was also that first ride down Village Lane that we realized beneficial values of living at a small proud community. It was very soon after our arrival that we've been completely embraced by our neighbors. We have engaged in this ongoing and very complex dialogue and I believe some of the issues larger issues that we are discussing is not only about what was residential development but we also need to consider environmental pressures on our coastal community and I think all of the work that we have done together and all of the work that will follow will have a prickle impact on our community and it's a teachable moment for us all about the passion you'll feel about our landscape and it requires a dynamic action to the pressures we contend with. I think we need to be reminded and this is a very farmers organic (inaudible) spin on all of the above. To think about the grand responsibility we all have. The decisions that we make will impact generations to come as our forefathers have sustained and (inaudible) the North Fork specifically Orient and Orient Point. I don't mean to seem naive but we're trailblazing here and there is going to be a requirement on all parties to roll up their sleeves, listen to one another. There's going to be as a woman in agriculture a lot of side steps and back strides but that doesn't take away from the task that we have at hand and I hope through a thoughtful mindful considerations that we can make an impacting and unfolding resolution for our community. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Anyone else? We have a person at the podium and then the person on Zoom will go next. RICHARD HOBLOCK : Hello my name is Richard Hoblock and live at 595 Navy St. on the back of our home and property is in full view of 95 Navy St. (inaudible) tree removal, the raised cement barrier walls and for about a year now a blue structure, it's huge. I believe that a homeowner should have the right to (inaudible) property absolutely have the right but I also believe special towns and communities, special districts (inaudible) well established laws and well considered regulations really matter especially that's why we all moved out here and live here and enjoy our neighbors. Most people understand that for a community to work successfully there must be a decency towards each other and respect for each other and their property that's often reflected in specific rules. Without the community working together in such chosen special places without common respect an ugly path ensues both difficult to control, difficult to police and quite frankly horrible to live with. I implore the owners and architects of 95 Navy St. to step back, breathe, consider why they as well as all of our citizens choose to live in our treasured village of Orient. I implore the owners of 95 Navy St. to walk around their land and truly February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting observe what (inaudible). Dishonesty, lack of any community and neighborly respect and (inaudible) is something difficult to face every day (inaudible). I believe this is mandatory consider moving forward as citizens hopefully respectful neighbors (inaudible). Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Will the individual on Zoom please state your name and tell us what you want us to know. EVAN LEWIS : Good afternoon thank you for allowing me the time, my name is Evan Lewis and my family and I own the home located at 239 Village Lane which is directly adjacent to 95 Navy St. I've been coming to Orient for the last four decades or so and my wife and I have been fortunate enough to own a home in Orient for the last fourteen years. We've been thrilled to enjoy the home next to Vincent and Claudia and I'd like to make it clear as did the last speaker that we believe very strongly that they should have the important right and do have the important right to renovate and improve their home. I hope very much that with all of these discussions this issue can be resolved satisfactorily and they'll be able to enjoy their updated home before too long. For the homeowners in Orient for all of us we love Orient for a variety of reasons but part of living in the historic village means that constructing and renovating and improving our homes presents more challenges than living in another area without as much history but we all know this and we signed up for this and while it's not always easy it's critical, it's critical to the heart of the village that we all adhere to the framework that is set by the township and the HPC and the ZBA. It's critical in that it maintains the tenor of Orient village which we all love so much. The work in front of the ZBA is challenging but it's important and maintains an absolutely crucial framework that we all, all homeowners in Orient must abide by. I'm hopeful, I'm confident that you can help the applicant find an appropriate path forward to their satisfaction and the satisfaction of all of us who have lived alongside this construction site for honestly the better part of a decade. It is time to find the solution, make sure the solution is adhered to and bring this to a close. Thank you very much for your service and the time you've permitted me. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, go ahead please the other person who is on Zoom. LIZ WELCH : Hi, my name is Liz Welch and my husband Gideon Darkangelo was here for an hour but had to go back to work so I'm going to speak for both of us. We live at 230 Vincent St. which is just down the road and I actually drafted something and I just want to say taking time out of our work lives to show up for this is because we do care so much about our community. I can say that we first started questioning what was happening at 95 Navy St. when the barn was moved eight years ago. I've lived in Orient at 230 Vincent St. since 2002. We even signed a petition way back when, when we learned that there was a request for the barn to be converted into living space with a driveway onto Vincent St. We live on Vincent St. and thought February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting it would add more traffic to an already packed small street. We were already upset about the barn being moved as it was one of the iconic barns of our beloved historic village. We felt sick as we watched that barn fall into disrepair and it did, it just fell into disrepair for years. Ever since then it has been a steady onslaught of machinery, concrete walls, storage pods and more added to what was a pristine historic property. Now the property is such an eyesore that we actively avoid walking down our street because it's so upsetting to see what the property has become. The four foot concrete wall that surrounds the property sums up our feelings. Installing those walls meant destroying trees on adjoining properties. The choices that the owners make on their property impacts all of us and I'm really speaking as a community member and a neighbor and that's what I want to end on which is another apt metaphor which is what makes it hard for me to walk by this property is that most recently installed on one of the walls is a do not park sign followed by the threat that violators will be towed. Our neighbors have never shown to us to any of us who live near them that they care about historic preservation or that they care about their neighbors. I know this meeting is about specifics and I will state that we urge that the Stop Work Order remains in place. I hope the walls will be removed and that any work resumed on the property is vetted by all the overseeing bodies to ensure that it is in keeping with the historic nature of Orient. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone else in the audience who wants to address the Board?There's someone here and then we'll go back to Zoom. FREDDIE WACHSBERGER : Freddie Wachsberger. I just wanted to reiterate one of the key things about discussing any of these elements of this particular series of structures is that it's in the historic district and that can sometimes be forgotten when we get into the weeds as we did earlier today. The establishment of the historic district took three years and dedicated work by many of Orient residents and I was recognized in 1976 by the New York State Board for historic preservation. The creation of Oyster Ponds Historical Society some three decades earlier it was an effort by the community to preserve (inaudible) small part of the history of Long Island but in this case has a living entity to generations of families both native to Orient and incomers have respected its historic parameters and have lived in it accepting the restrictions to be a historic nature. It should be obvious that any constructions which area alien to this concept and design but have outside negative impact on the experience of the district as it was envisioned by its founders half a century ago and we create a precedent that we make it infinitely more difficult to preserve in the future. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Is there anyone on Zoom who wants to testify? CLIFFORD COHEN : Hi my name is Clifford Cohen and I've lived in Orient with my wife Leslie since 2005. At first I was concerned about following the eloquent Liz and now I have to follow February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting the equally eloquent and truly knowledgeable Freddie so I'll try my best. There's been obviously a lot of discussion here regarding the specifics and scope of this Stop Work Order and whether it's too vague or that is doesn't provide enough direction amongst other things and so as a result it should somehow be reversed. It seems to me that the bottom line in all of this is that there are rules and regulations that we all have to follow regardless of how they're presented or our own individual needs or concerns (inaudible) changes in the scope or size of our projects or renovations. For some perspective my wife and I renovated a hundred and fifty year old house in the district a number of years ago and then subsequently built a new house in town. As you can imagine from both of these circumstances there were a lot of rules and regulations we had to adhere to for all the regulatory agencies and ultimately we believe that it was necessary to follow all those rules and regulations that are in place regardless of whether we like them or not okay we didn't necessarily like them all but that doesn't address the importance of compliance. Now while I may only have a limited understanding of all of the specifics of this particular situation I have seen the site, I'm very aware of that retaining wall and other things that are really problematic for a lot of folks but ultimately it doesn't seem like that's what's going on here. Rather than addressing the factors that led to the Stop Work Order and importantly ways to alleviate those concerns it feels like the response is to attack the process and the individuals involved. So what I think would be really useful in moving forward would be to be able to see appropriate plans in place regarding how to alleviate the inappropriate steps that were taken outside of the regulatory requirements as well as plans for how they plan to move forward in full compliance with all regulations from all approving agencies. It just doesn't seem to be asking too much we've all had to do it. Everybody that's in here testifying has had to do that. Now remember we all have a responsibility to our neighbors and our community in this historic district and it doesn't appear to be the case here. So hopefully a result from all of this is that we can get to that place. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anyone in the audience? ELLEN MCNEILLY : Hello my name is Ellen McNeilly and I resided at 70 Vincent St. for since 1985 and I am particularly concerned in a particular issue for me I came to Orient because it reminded me of places that I grew up in Massachusetts as well as Cape Cod and it's considerably easier to get to from my work in New York City. A particular concern to me is the barn and the issue because it's so huge and so raised etc. it's (inaudible) to me that I find the property facts description is in the ZBA file that the barn is a one and one half story wooden barn and it's referred to as having been relocated it was in the same form as it was in the prior location after being located it was not. The barn was effectively reconstructed with a significantly higher roof line with sufficiently large (inaudible) to allow a partial second story with an accessory apartment cause the roofline now permits that activity. On page four there is a notation in paragraph three concerning elevating the historic barn to FEMA compliance. Does February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting a barn have to be FEMA compliant?That I don't know, a residence does. It should be noted that FEMA has different foundation requirements given a flood plain zone such as this if the foundation as originally set this concrete layer number one and then versus raised to the second layer and it included the foundation vents which FEMA had indicated. If the first foundation had included the vents then the building would not have had to be raised the additional four feet (inaudible). In ZBA the file that is referred to as an existing accessory structure it is not the existing structure. The barn is in fact reconstructed in fifteen foot sections and moved to its new location. It remained roofless for roughly three to five years and completely reframed from the inside out. At the time the roof appeared to have been made higher relative to the walls in the original and additionally the barn roof is in the shape of a (inaudible). The long portion was originally connecting it to the lower short it's a T-shaped and it was originally connecting at a lower elevation. Additionally the barn roof is roof ridge is now even at the greater elevation becoming a two story building in anticipation of second floor occupancy. There is no permit relative to creating this new condition. I'm glad that it's initially denied but there still remains issues and I have drawings if anyone is interested in seeing them the various elevations. There's some of them from 2013 and then the initial ones the most recent ones were a little bit later than that. I'm certain you have all of this on file. That's basically that's all I have to say about this. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, anybody else? LAWRENCE BERNSTEIN : Good afternoon, my name is Lawrence Bernstein. My partner Marcia and I live at 20 Vincent St. and we share significant property lines with the applicant. We've been living in Orient full time for a couple of years and we were drawn to the unique character of Orient given its history. We think the (inaudible) is charming and we think it should be protected. We spend a lot of time outside so we see a number of people passing by. People consistently stop and stare at this project. I'm not talking about a handful, I'm talking about a fairly large number on a regular basis. Sometimes folks even make a special trip to see what's going on. They are all and I mean all upset. In fact we never have encountered a different point of view. They are either bewildered or angry as they wonder how a project of this magnitude can be authorized. When this all started I myself was under the impression that it was all approved but during the summer ZBA meetings I learned that there were many open issues. So then I felt differently and I looked into this matter a little bit more closely especially because I am the adjacent neighbor with Marcia. I was concerned about losing my trees on the property line which the applicant has been good enough to tell me he would reimburse us on, about the height of the barn, about the purpose of the barn, about the ramp to the barn, about the traffic on Willow around a dangerous corner, about the concrete walls, about the raised terrace effect of the project. Think about that a raised terrace effect. Privacy screenings, the placement of an electric meter which I don't understand at all, fascia on the concrete walls etc. I mean these are February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting just some of the issues in play all in a historic district. An important decision was made by ZBA to hear from HPC over the summer and on 9/1 HPC stated in a letter there were many violations such as the barn was over the approved finished grade, the mandate to preserve the character of the structure being restored and preserved "as is" is not in compliance. The fagade of Willow St. with the two garage doors was apparently inappropriate and most importantly the fence wall has been constructed without a'C of A, I repeat the fence wall has been constructed without a C of A. The applicant is not in compliance with the 2014 HPC Certificate of Appropriateness to the existing barn. I am not an attorney, I don't have all the legal issues down but I mean we are concerned. So wrapping up, there is a vibrant community here, of course we're concerned. In our time here we've learned that folks really care about Orient as we do as well. I hope the ZBA will not lift the Stop Work Order until a sensible solution to this problem can be found, one that evaluates what the owner has actually built on the property and what the owner may plan to build in the future. Lastly, I sincerely want to thank HPC and ZBA for the time and effort that goes into your work. I know it's not easy but it's vitally important to the people that live in the community so thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome, and now someone here in the audience come forward please. ROBERT HARPER : Robert Harper, I was on the HPC for eight years. If there are no objections to me speaking if there are any I will sit back down. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I see no reason why, do you John?You are a citizen. ROBERT HARPER : I've had four years of experience in restoration and I came before this Board not too long ago to add a tower to my historic house for a variance for a third floor which I'm very appreciative that you approved. If you pass my house I know Nick you probably have the work was done in a very, very timely way less than a year. It was done exactly to what was requested by both the HPC, by the ZBA and also by NYS because we had a fire code issue also. The people who pass our house and I'm referring also to the gentleman who just spoke before me when people pass our house they thank us. Many people have used the words what you've done is a gift to the street. We returned the house to exactly what it was prior to a 1948 fire. Following the rules and doing what you're supposed to do are important and that's why we have a HPC and a ZBA. I also want to read because I was on the Commission at the time of the initial resolution by the HPC and I'm sure you've heard this before and again I want to state it right from the resolution. It says, whereas the proposed relocation of the historic barn and shed according to the plans submitted will result in the structure being restored and preserved as it. As someone who has done restorations I can tell you restoration means something very specific. What it means is, to restore is to bring back something to what it was. If you pass by February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting and many of you have and you've looked at this property this is nothing like what it was, that is not restoration. That's what the HPC required and as far as I can see I don't think there's been any change in that. This was a barn and the proposal was that it stay a barn and it approved as such. What we do in our neighborhoods matters. When I have come before the ZBA I had to submit letters to all the people around me how my project would affect them. If I had done something completely inappropriate and I'm not in a historic district I have a Landmarked house but still if I had done something that was out of character with the houses around me it would have spoiled the whole thing. Historic districts need to have context. I grew up in Brooklyn in a brown stone. If we took 262 Fifth St. where I lived and moved into Orient it would look ridiculous and by first if we took any of the properties in Orient and moved them to Brooklyn it would look ridiculous. What the HPC does is it looks at what is appropriate, Certificate of Appropriateness and what we felt was appropriate and by the way I wrote a note on this project. This does not fit into the context of this beautiful historic neighborhood and I think the passersby that the last gentleman mentioned they know that. You don't have to be an architectural person to do that you just know it. If you want to know why this is not in compliance and why the Stop Work Order should not be lifted is because this doesn't look like what the HPC approved and it should be done unless the HPC changes its mind to what they had originally said. Again many people I thank you for your services, I do too on behalf of myself and my wife for what you granted us and for the work that you do. Thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome and your house does look lovely. Sometimes we actually go back and look at properties after we grant something. RICHARD HARPER : Just out of curiosity when I came before the ZBA I remember you said that with so many people who ask for forgiveness rather than permission I got very annoyed about that and we have to try and sincerely tell you this is what we want to do and we're going to do it exactly as we're supposed to and we did and I thank you for that. Also I do have a photograph of what this barn looked like. Many people have talked about the ridge structure. I was here at one time with John Jarski because the roof was being framed in a totally different way. You can see the snow on it but you can see here in the back this is I will submit the photo to you, this is the back section here and this is the ridge of the raised structure, that is not deminimus that is the Maximus.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have somebody on Zoom, go ahead. MARCIA SHELDON : Hi my name is Marcia Sheldon. I am with Lawrence Bernstein so I should have actually gone right after him but I echo and support everything he has said but I just wanted to take a moment like a collective consciousness here for everybody who is involved and just sit for a moment and think about the enormous and countless hours everyone has put February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting into this and how greatly it has impacted our lives. Like we're sitting here for hours just on a Zoom and there have been many before this so it is bewildering, bewildering how much time we have devoted to this. Anyway despite our overwhelming appreciation of Orient historical homes and the process of preserving them and honoring the progress we clearly face enormous challenges and our regulating tool box has not evolved and kept up with the pace and while it's necessary to support historical preservation and revitalization the primary goal of HPC, ZBA as see it is to support the people in our community and retaining the village so vitally feel passionate about and until we can update that tool box of preservation and progress I urge the ZBA to not lift the Stop Work Order until a sound plan is created as everybody before me has described because I truly feel our future of our Orient historical village all depend upon it. I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : You're welcome. Anyone else out there? CHARLES DANE : My name is Charles Dane. I live in Orient 295 Village Lane in a very historic house it was built about 1700 it's landmarked and (inaudible). I want to be clear, none of us are objecting to a sensitive and appropriate renovation of the property at 95 Navy St. It clearly needs renovation, it needs some loving care but what we are witnessing for almost a whole decade is really an outrage. It's such inappropriate construction that it's hard for anyone to understand how this could even happen. Fortunately some of the worst parts of the plans were recently disapproved by your Board the ZBA so now where are we? While it seems to me and only reasonable that in light of the HPC's determination that there has been construction and (inaudible) of the Certificate of Appropriateness that there be a survey of the construction "as built" what is there now and in review of the current construction plans, new plans that will not include the pool and an apartment so what are we exactly are we going does the applicant expect to build? (inaudible) submitted plans that have been signed and stamped should be reviewed by the HPC by the ZBA if variances are needed and these plans should be subject to a public hearing. The Orient community never had an opportunity to weigh in on the construction of concrete walls surrounding the property. It's unimaginable that the HPC would approve these walls when they are very specific about just what kind of slant you can put in a wooden fence which is fine that's the decision but they haven't approved these walls and these walls unless they are approved should be removed. They're no longer even justified by raising the ground for a swimming pool or raising the ground because there's going to be an apartment in the barn. Both of those things have been taken off the (inaudible). Soywhat we're asking is that the current Stop Work Order remain in place until there is an approved HPC Certificate of Appropriateness of the new site plans. Of course we have to do something has to be done at 95 Navy St. We've been living with this unsightly and unapproved construction for too long but before the construction resumes let's be sure that what is going to be constructed is appropriate for the historic village. So I respectfully request that you the ZBA not lift the Stop February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting Work Order prematurely. Thank you for your tireless work for the town. The issue at 95 Navy St. has been extremely demanding on you and the community but we are especially thankful and grateful to you for your close and continued attention to it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Charles, anyone on Zoom?Anyone else in the audience? VINCENT BERTAULT : Good afternoon, my name is Vincent Bertault I'm sure everybody knows me in here and I want to specify a little bit the process of the (inaudible) everybody mentioned. When I first originally designed with the architect to handle this project to move the barn I did and I think we did everything which was mandatory by the rules and the rule of the town. We went to HPC we went to see ZBA and everything was approved accordingly with the documents which you have on file today and there is nothing confusing (inaudible). Unfortunately this decision didn't please the majority of the community at the time. Our'next door neighbor was actually the person who thought new (inaudible) to go against that project just because he couldn't park the car his car on my lawn on my property okay. So this isn't something at all which was if the construction is taking so long it's just because neighbors and everybody in this community had their little story of lies every now again to put a Stop Work Order on this property. That's what happened that's the (inaudible) there's nothing wrong with which we are doing. If there is something we need to address we addressed it with the Building Department, we addressed all requests and demands of the Building Department, the HPC and the ZBA. We went through another two years of hell with hearings more than anybody in the community (inaudible) in order to present renovation of this project of 95 Navy St. none of it none receive any approval from the neighbors even though it was clearly explained. (inaudible) at HPC meeting we couldn't even talk. (inaudible) would take a lot of time. What is wrong with you guys, what do you have against me? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Excuse me Mr. Bertault, I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt you but you have to address the Zoning Board and not the members of the community. VINCENT BERTAULT : I'm sorry about that. So this whole debacle actually is a vendetta of several people against the benefit of having to restore this barn. We went in front of the Board, we went in front of you every single aspect of our process you made your decision, you rendered the decision what is it to discuss about it any longer. Now I have to go to (inaudible) another debate in front of HPC for the approved plan which I've been approved for. What is this nonsense? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : There appears to be some confusion between what was approved and what currently has been built on the property. VINCENT BERTAULT : That's got nothing to do with the approval. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Yes if you don't build exactly what was approved then it is no longer valid. VINCENT BERTAULT : That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact just what Mr. Charles Dane said whatever is going on on this property needs to get an approval with HPC or whatever that is things that have been approved so far. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think what we're talking about here is one thing that's just only one thing in my mind right now that's very clear. That is that the neighbors want this over with and our job here is to help all interested parties, you, Mr. Bressler okay Ms. Reichert, Friends of Orient to resolve the problem. There is clearly a long ongoing problem that is causing pain for everybody. Our goal is to help with that to move it past. So I think the Board needs a little bit of time to think through everything we've heard. We've gotten memorandums of law we have to really digest in detail and I think what would be appropriate would be for us to just hold this open until we can discuss it further and see what the best course of action would be. We clearly have to get the Building Department involved here. There's misinformation, there's drawings that some people think people have that then they don't seem to have. We need to clear all that up. We want to work with you and Mr. Bressler to do that and Ms. Reichert and the community so that everybody has a chance to know what's there and what's going on and what's proposed to go on'so we can resolve it. Nobody wins when it just sits there like that. VINCENT BERTAULT : I think it would also resourceful for people to just take a little bit of information about what FEMA means, what flood plain means. All of these things which (inaudible) mention about knowing what it is (inaudible). We followed the law and the rules for construction so we built a wall which is to your attention not supposed to be there I'm sorry this is now the law. We have rising water all over the country everywhere in the world so these are important matter which we addressed so stop (inaudible) everybody me in particular what I'm doing something which are the rules. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to get past this okay. We've heard your concerns and what your goal is. I don't think you and your neighbors have different goals. I think everybody wants to make sure that this project is completed in the proper way following the rules and we have to figure out what's the best way to accomplish that. So I'm going to actually because we do have another hearing that the attorney has been really waiting patiently that was scheduled for ten after one we knew that wasn't going to happen but I think that probably we've heard from everybody who wants to speak. FREDDIE WACHSBERGER : There's no question that that's an issue (inaudible) historic district is quite close to the water. The issue is that there should be a decision made in (inaudible) historic district as a whole that if we have people responding to individual constructions the entire 6 , February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting historic district goes out the window. So if we want to maintain the historic district which I believe that the people of Orient profoundly do and it's very important to us then it is an issue that has to be addressed in terms of the district as a whole and not piece meal it. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay thank you. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I just want to add two thoughts. One I'm still curious of what's going on with HPC so maybe we can discuss that a little bit both their letter or maybe some testimony from them the way we receive testimony from John Jarski. The other thing is, I personally had a conversation at the Board's suggestion of Michael Collins regarding the storm water and the concept of FEMA and how that impacts the historic district perhaps that's a second resource that we (inaudible) here. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I suspect in order to resolve all of this what we're going to need to do is to make sure we all are looking at the same thing that's for starters. No confusion, here's what's on the property, here's what was previously approved, here's what has to be done going forward. The Building Department is going to have to look at them, HPC is going to have to look at them and the Town Engineer is going to have to look at them and that's the only we can really move it forward so we all know what's going on. (inaudible) a little bit dismayed that there seems to be so much confusion about which drawings are what you know that is certainly not typical of a situation. So we need to sort all of that out. Having said that I'm going to just try I'm going to make a motion to just leave this hearing open. At the minimum I would say to leave it open till the Special Meeting so that the Board has had a chance to digest all of this and then we can figure out where we can go. Meanwhile the record is open so Mr. Bressler if you have anything you wish to submit, Mr. Condon if Ms. Reichert or your group has anything else you want to submit that's fine. HPC has already sent us a letter and we'll just have to digest it all and come up with a plan. ERIC BRESSLER : To what date is this being adjourned madam Chairwoman? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We're going to adjourn it to the February 17th Special Meeting which is not as you know a hearing. That is just simply for us to deliberate on decisions we aren't going to have a decision but we hopefully will be able to talk with each other about a strategy so that we can then inform all interested parties and how we can best resolve this. Again I repeat it's in everyone's interest to get something properly built on that property. ERIC BRESSLER : So this is going to be put over to a Special Meeting not a public hearing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Correct. If we feel we need another hearing then we will adjourn it to a hearing date but I think the merits of the Stop Work Order have been presented strongly in both cases and I don't know yet until we've had a chance to really read everything that's been February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting sent in whether or not another hearing on this particular matter is the most urgent. We want to figure out how to move the project forward okay and whether that's lifting the Stop Work Order or we're requiring something he submitted prior to the Stop Work Order being lifted is what we're going to have to figure out. I think we have a comment from MEMBER LEHNERT : My question was, is there a way we can maybe get a set of"as built" so we can see what's there so we're all looking at the same thing? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well yes, I think that's probably the only way we're going to resolve this. MEMBER LEHNERT : Because we're talking about you know a missing document, a height that's you know not documented anywhere. Is it something we can ask for? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well let me ask Mr. Bressler and Mr. O'Connor, you said that you had some drawings the Building Department doesn't seem to have them. What is important we know what we've already looked at and stamped that's in the public record it's in the file we got so many copies of those we don't even know what to look at. It would be very, very'helpful if we had updated surveys stamped by a licensed surveyor. We're going to have to have the Town Engineer look at that. We need plans for everything that's on the property. MEMBER LEHNERT : As it sits. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : As it is built right now, "as builts" ERIC BRESSLER : Madam Chairwoman I would direct your attention and in my supplemental submission I will again direct your attention to a very to a survey of the barn as constructed that was submitted to you but I will make a supplemental submission of that survey which shows the height of the barn. I'm happy to do that, "as built". CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I'll tell you what, we'll do that. We'll just leave the record open subject to receipt of "as built" drawings and survey. Then we'll make that part of our public record, the community can have a look at it, they'll have a look at it. We'll make sure the Building Department looks at it and you know everybody whose got expertise in various things the Town Engineer will have to look at it and then we much better able to figure out how to proceed and what needs to be (inaudible) if anything. ERIC BRESSLER : We're happy to do that madam Chairwoman. We don't believe it's material to your determination which turns on other issues but nonetheless we are happy to do it in the interest of providing all the material that the Board wants to see so we will do that. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you, thank you very much. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting MARTHA REICHERT : Not a comment so much as a question just to make sure I understand how we're moving forward procedurally. So the hearing is it being carried over, is it being closed subject to there's a Special Meeting on the 17th but there won't be a hearing at that meeting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : The Board meets twice a month. Usually the first Thursday of the month we have public hearings in the meeting hall here where applicants present their applications and the public is invited to testify. We then two weeks later usually the third Thursday of the month at five o'clock in the evening over at the Town Hall Annex again available on Zoom we deliberate on draft decisions before the public in an open meeting and the public is invited but it is not a hearing we don't take any testimony particularly if an application has been closed. Usually we close the hearing and then we deliberate so we can't take in anything after a hearing is closed anyway. We're adjourning to that meeting so that we have time to figure out what they're going to submit and I'm going to reiterate once again we're going to have an "as built" survey of the property and we're going to have plans and elevations of "as built" structures. The applicant has agreed to provide that, then that will become part of our record, the Board will examine it. Because it's open comments can come from anywhere. As soon as we get it we will put it on Laserfiche and make it available. If you want to know when we get it just call the office, they'll tell you if we've gotten something or we haven't. I didn't put a deadline on it, we're just holding it open. If they need more time they can have more time but at the earliest we would close the whole hearing if in fact it wasn't necessary to have another hearing. I don't know until we get what we're looking for. In other words in fairness to everybody we have to see what they submit and then we can evaluate again what the next step is. Does that answer? MARTHA REICHERT : Absolutely, I just want to make sure that there is enough time for cause for neighbors and for myself to examine the "as built" plans and elevations once they are submitted. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Of course we will immediately whatever we get and we're looking for plans and elevations and a survey on all "as built" construction on the premises we will put it up on Laserfiche but you won't know that until you call the office to find out when we got it. Or just send an email, you can just email Kim or Donna or Liz and they'll tell you. ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : If we're truly going to leave the hearing open we should put it on to a date and we can have a public hearing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay that makes sense John. I'll tell you why, because it's likely that Mr. Bressler is going to want to present additional information that the neighbors may have additional comments and so on so why don't we just adjourn that for March 3rd and that gives everybody plenty of time to get everything in. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting ACTING TOWN ATTORNEY BURKE : So then we can close the hearing on March 3rd CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : If there's not much to talk about we'll have a very brief hearing and we'll close it and that'll be the end of it and we'll know what to do and if it takes a little longer it's going to take whatever it takes to resolve the problem. We want to have this common goal of getting this property improved to where it should be where the owner wants to put it and where it's all approved by whatever agencies and Boards require approval and the restoration of that property is going to be something that both the owner and the neighbors are all looking forward to. MARTHA REICHERT : That was the guidance I was looking for. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay. So then we'll just do that, we'll just adjourn it to the hearing date in March the V. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn this hearing to the March 3rd and the time will be on our agenda we won't know (inaudible). It'll probably be the last hearing of the day. ROBERT HARPER : If I could just make a quick comment, you can time me to sixty seconds about FEMA and HPC. We are very aware of raising of houses but the HPC says anything that's visible from a public right of way have jurisdiction over of raising of a house and there are several cases where we've worked with the owners to mitigate the effects of raising a house and this was too good to be true but one of your hearing this morning I believe is the house that we did that with. Number four hearing this morning at 170 Bay Lane where we did a terrace effect to mitigate the effects of raising that house which is right on the water. We've also done it with another house on Village Lane .that had to be raised. So that's the function of the HPC, they should have a chance to mitigate whatever effects raising a house has. Did I come in under sixty seconds? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I think you did thank you. Okay I have a motion to adjourn to March 3rd is there second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. This hearing is adjourned. Thank you all. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting HEARING # 7563SE &#7621 FISHERS ISLAND COMMUNITY CENTER CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have two applications for Fishers Island Community Center #7563SE which is a Special Exception permit that was adjourned from December 2nd, this is for the applicant was requesting permission for recreational uses on the premises accessory to a community center. (inaudible) paddle tennis/pickle ball courts. Then we have application #7621, I'm opening both at the same time. Request for variances from Article III Section 280-15 and the Building Inspector's December 8, 2021 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct two accessory paddle tennis courts at 1) located in other than the code permitted rear yard, 2) side guard rails and nets exceed the maximum allowed height of 18 feet, 3) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 10% located at Fox Lane on Fishers Island. We did get the photographs, I have a couple of just clarification questions for you. First of all, it seems to me because the Notice of Disapproval your submissions our Legal Notice the term pickle ball and paddle ball are being used interchangeably. JOHN BENNETT : As far as I know the courts (inaudible). CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : They may be however pickle ball is typically a very small tennis court that's flat and that has about an 18 foot high fence around it and it's much bigger. A pickle ball is like a little miniature tennis court. This is more like paddle ball which is on a platform that's raised based upon like the photographs that you submitted. JOHN BENNETT : Yes whatever is being (inaudible) my answer to that is being ignorant of the distinctions obviously Ms. Chairwoman you know more than I do, I've been asked to obtain relief for what is being constructed what is being proposed I should say. Whatever the game it is that's going to be hit played on that's the game that's going to be played on and I hope that's not insufficient. It has to be satisfactory obviously CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well is the photograph I'm sure they're generic what you sent us. JOHN BENNETT :They're generic. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : But they are raised on platforms. JOHN BENNETT : I have comments about yea it's about 3 Y feet the platform starts about 3 feet above grade. I guess a pickle ball to the extent that it's a small tennis court there's no need to raise a tennis court. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : No not at all. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting JOHN BENNETT : So we'll call it a paddle ball platform (inaudible). On paper on the distinctions between them other than to say that these are the structures which I have been asked to (inaudible) before the Board. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : And of course in this instance and often they are lit at night. JOHN BENNETT : No that's very good that's put out and very clear many times in submissions these are illustrative examples of courts that have been constructed with lighting. Your code prohibits lighting we don't have any requests for lighting. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I thought so. JOHN BENNETT : No, no, no. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Did you get the Planning Board's letter? JOHN BENNETT : We got the Planning Board's letter then the follow up email in which the Planning staff said oh yea that's right. Again these were in a perfect world I would have asked the contactor for illustrative examples. It didn't have lighting so there's no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I assumed as much but I want it in the record that you are not proposing any night lighting. JOHN BENNETT : The standards prohibit I hadn't asked for any relief for that and again these were the only photographs that I was able to obtain from the contractor but there's unequivocally I would you know invite you to put that as a condition in the record and there's no relief being requested for it as part of the standard. I haven't asked for any relief on that standard so there's absolutely no CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright because the Planning Board asked for a photometric plan which showed that would be dark sky compliant but that's not necessary. JOHN BENNETT : The Planning Board asked for a photometric plan but in the email chain we stated contrary to any understandable in question from our photographs there's no intention for lights it prohibits it and the response was a quick oh yea. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Alright that's two things I needed to clear out. The third is yes indeed you need variances as we thought you would and that is let me see where we are on that one, the front yard location for the courts they're supposed to be in the rear yard cause they're accessory, then there's side guard rails that are and fencing at 23.6 foot high. JOHN BENNETT : Only those stabilizing bars they're the highest. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Okay so there's some stabilizing bars and most the other what's the lowest? JOHN BENNETT : It's 3 %feet above grade that's where the platforms are CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Right and then what? JOHN BENNETT : (inaudible) it's pretty helpful and Mr. Terry referred to this in his letter. S-2 we have 3.5 I'm a carpenter's son so I say 3 foot 6 inches that's what the ruler says, the platform starts at 3.6 (inaudible) grade. The grade is at elevation and I say above sea level I know there's a more technical the grade is at 8 feet above sea level. The elevation is shown on the survey so that's why Mr. Terry noted that we meet the FEMA requirement between 11 and 12 so it's a little (inaudible) so 3.6 above grade and then you have 12 foot high fencing (inaudible) and then you just have these 8 foot high aluminum tube tension members, they're just they're very limited as part of the fagade as it were (inaudible). It's only in that very limited area for the aluminum tube tension members which I've been told are the absolutely vital necessary part for stabilization that's where we need the CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So actually the fencing and the platform together is 15 % feet in. JOHN BENNETT : (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So that would otherwise be conforming, it must be just those stabilizing JOHN BENNETT : And being a (inaudible) lawyer I (inaudible) CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Oh yea you have to go with whatever they you know however they build these courts. JOHN BENNETT : I just wanted to this may be helpful aerials. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Thank you. JOHN BENNETT : It's late in the day the hearing went long I'm going to try to run through it very quickly (inaudible). We were here on December 2nd for this Special Permit standards, I think and again I already I don't want to be presumptuous I think we put that case in I think the only question at the end of that was whether or not there any zoning issues. So it's interesting because CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Just one thing I just wanted to confirm relative to the Special Exception standard, the code says that the accessory lot should not be more than 200 feet away and I don't know that we have a survey showing the distance. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting JOHN BENNETT : It's right across the street. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I know it's not 200 feet by logic and Kim actually got some software from the Planning Department and scaled it out and it's conforming but I want that to be in the record otherwise we would require a survey to show that that distance to make sure it's conforming to the code. JOHN BENNETT : Thank you the standard for public right of ways could be obviously it's not all pavement but I think it MEMBER LEHNERT : It definitely conforms. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : So as long as we have this in our transcript that we did examine that part of the code. The special exception standards we reviewed so now maybe take a look at the variances. JOHN BENNETT : Very well, I'll run right into them. So what's required is 280-15E you understandably generally speaking on a typical residential lot such construction is in the rear yard which is not typical for codes out here however in this particular instance given the usage and the character of the neighborhood it's an appropriate request. There is really no other place (inaudible) NYS town law (inaudible). The existing improvements on the lot will allow for these courts to be placed and the interesting thing you see that's there's a fairly significant (inaudible) in the rear of the property. I would say just sort of (inaudible) eyeball as they say there was at the rear of the property you have a topo going from 7 to 20 maybe 20 feet that's a significant (inaudible) topographic what we used to call in the old days practical difficulties and then (inaudible). By the way that's where you'll see if you're looking at the survey there's that 8 foot topographic which is where the courts where the grade is. The grade is 8 but the 9 (inaudible) is 11 that's where the it's problematic in terms of previous courts anywhere else. And then of course what you want to look at in addition is whether or not there's any impact on the character of the neighborhood. So we have the steep slopes as I said on the western portion of the property and the placement of the existing structures (inaudible) amongst other things as a residence there which is obviously we're not doing away with any housing on Fishers but there's no location of the rear yard where the proposed tennis court can be reasonably easily be constructed. So of course that's one of the variance standards. Then we did submit an aerial photograph which you have directly across the street is the character of the neighborhood directly across the street from this property is the Fishers Island Community Center building and the school. The school its maintains existing courts similarly situated in the front yard on Hound St. So again not at all out of the character of the neighborhood. These standards keeping accessory structures in the rear yard are (inaudible) conforming developed residential areas so and that's one of the reasons these Boards were created to see that when February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting you don't have the typical standards when you don't have a situation to (inaudible). Based upon those conditions I submit that the proposed courts in the front yard will not have any impact on the character of the community and indeed I'm just going to go forward a little bit, we did note that the it was the Planning Board referral and recommendation I was happy'to see that quote it's the opinion of the Board the Planning Board that the variance requested would not (inaudible) or conflict with the surrounding zoning or community character in the area again that's on the variance standards. Further the Comprehensive Plan supports the creation of new recreational opportunities for general public use creating new recreational opportunities and ensuring access to recreational opportunities within the communities (inaudible). So all of that stuff is all to benefit not only the town (inaudible) community and the impact on the character (inaudible). We did again we touched on this earlier we need relief from 280-15E for accessory structures 18 feet in height, we're at 23 feet 6 inches for those stabilizing poles. Then of course we need the fencing that stabilizing fencing. We submit the photos we didn't have copies but actually we just (inaudible) talking about before, we talked about the height how we got to the height for the requirement to be fencing and the tube stabilizing we also need relief from the bulk schedule. Coverage is 10% now again that's for a conforming lot in a typical residential lot. I certainly would be it would be rare that I would be asking for 23.7% if this wasn't in the area where it is surrounded by other types of uses that are there. It's a small lot 10%for a standard conforming lot we don't think 23.7% is significant not a significant variance request given the circumstances, given the character of the neighborhood and given the surrounding uses and there's no really other way to achieve that benefit. That's hopeful for us we believe. (inaudible) will be reviewed by the Building Inspector. Just in terms of FEMA analysis it was helpful for the Board to understand that it's very helpful but we're above the (inaudible) elevation with the playing surface and you can see also on S-2 where we give the height information that it's clear underneath the courts there's no concrete wall that would be it has some sort of barrier any sort of wave of destruction during a flood event and the flood waters would simply fall under and fortunately the (inaudible). I think you have the helpful Planning Board report and I think you have a helpful you know waterfront report. I think we met all the standards. I'm sorry about the usual delaying, we only have I haven't asked for relief from that provision of the code (inaudible). It's a good thing for the community and I'm happy to be able to represent the clients and hopefully you will grant the relief. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : I just have one comment, I just want you to be aware of it. Approval is likely to be conditioned upon the submission of either a long term lease of the subject property by the Fishers Island Community Center or a purchase of that property. It's my understanding they're intending to lease it probably not buy. 70T February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting JOHN BENNETT : I'm told by my people at the organization that which is sort of nice to hear there's a handshake deal on it and of course it was subject to them (inaudible). So either a long term lease or an acquisition. Otherwise what's the entity CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Well we have to show some benefit. Let's see if anyone has questions, Pat anything from you? MEMBER ACAMPORA : No you hit the nail on the head, I'm okay. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Nick. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Nothing. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : We have a hand. ELIZABETH REED : Hi, my name is Elizabeth Reed and I worked for the Fishers Island Community Center and have been involved with this project from the beginning and I just wanted to address the question you had regarding paddle versus pickle ball. The court is the exact same size, paddle and pickle are the same sized court and now that pickle has become so popular the contractor that we would use for the paddle court which is played in the fall and the winter there is a surface we can lay down on the metal court for spring and summer for pickle ball which will then allow this to be a full time full use benefit for the community all year round. So I just wanted to clarify pickle versus paddle. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : That helps a lot and now I just don't like to write a decision in which there's some vague reference that is not consistent. Now we can be consistent, it's both. So pickle ball in summer, spring and summer and fall and winter it's paddle ball. One is played with a hard ball and one is actually a whiffle ball a soft with holes in it. Anyone else who would like to testify on Zoom? Well there's no one else in the audience so I'm going to make a motion to close the hearing on both applications reserve decision to a later date. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. 2 February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Okay we'll have decision probably in two weeks. Okay we have a couple of Resolutions to do. Resolution for next Regular Meeting with Public Hearings to be held Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:30 AM so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to approve the Minutes from the Special Meeting held on January 20, 2022. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. CHAIPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one year extension to Hound Lane, LLC Appeal No. 7237 located at 311 Hound Lane Fisher Island New York so moved. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a one year extension to Frank and Paula Doka Appeal No. 7227 located at 755 Lupton Point Rd. in Mattituck, so moved. Is there a second? MEMBER LEHNERT : Second. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Resolution to grant a three month extension to Kevin and Christine Meyers in order to comply with the condition that the applicant obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for "as built" structures located at 1985 Peconic Lane in Peconic, so moved. Is there asecond? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. I think that's it. I'm going to make a motion to close the meeting. Is there a second? MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Second CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : All in favor? MEMBER ACAMPORA : Aye. MEMBER LEHNERT : Aye. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : Aye. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : Aye. Please stop the recording and close up the meeting. February 3, 2022 Regular Meeting CERTIFICAT10N 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 : February 15, 2022 P6r P Attendee Report Report Ger 2/4/2022 8:51 Topic Webinar ID Actual Start Time Actual Duration (mi Unique Viewers Total Users February 3,837 96614401 2/3/2022 8:40 450 66 106 Host Details Attended User Name (Original Name) Email Join Time Leave Time Time in Session (rr Yes Southold Town it@southoldtownny.gov 2/3/2022 8:40 2/3/2022 16:10 450 Panelist Details Attended User Name (Original Name) Email Join Time Leave Time Time in Session (rr Yes Evan Lewis 2/3/2022 14:23 2/3/2022 15:17 54 Yes Kate Bar-Tur 2/3/2022 11:13 2/3/2022 11:27 15 Yes Marcia Sheldon I, 2/3/2022 14:45 2/3/2022 15:17 32 Yes Pat Acampora 2/3/2022 8:54 2/3/2022 16:10 436 Yes iS Dave Pugh ' 2/3/2022 11:32 2/3/2022 11:39 7 Yes Elizabeth Sakarellos (co-host) (elizabeths@southoldtownny.gov 2/3/2022 8:47 2/3/2022 16:10 444 Yes David Oliveira 2/3/2022 10:31 2/3/2022 10:40 9 Yes Linda Mrowka 2/3/2022 15:38 2/3/2022 15:44 7 Yes Liz Welch 2/3/2022 14:19 2/3/2022 15:17 58 Yes Clifford Cohen 2/3/2022 14:26 2/3/2022 15:17 52 Yes Lawrence Bernstein 2/3/2022 14:24 2/3/2022 15:17 54 Yes John Spofford 2/3/2022 15:17 2/3/2022 15:43 27 Yes Wickham# Bressler&Geasai 2/3/2022 13:18 2/3/2022 15:18 120 Yes Nikos Theodosopoulos 2/3/2022 11:47 2/3/2022 11:50 4 Yes Gary O'Connor 2/3/2022 13:47 2/3/2022 15:17 91 Yes Lance Jensen 2/3/2022 11:24 2/3/2022 11:27 3 Yes Anthony Portillo l _ 2/3/2022 10:26 2/3/2022 10:40 14 Attendee Details Attended User Name (Original Name) Email Join Time Leave Time Time in Session (rr Yes doug.corrigan i 2/3/202210:55 2/3/202211:13 19 Yes johns 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 15:44 325 Yes 16313753693 _ _ _-- _ 2/3/2022 10:23 2/3/2022 10:23 1 Yes Louisa Evans 2/3/2022 12:51 2/3/2022 15:42 172 Yes Richard Gillooly - _ 2/3/2022 13:13 2/3/2022 15:16 124 ,- Yes iS Dave Pugh _ .{ 2/3/2022 10:23 2/3/2022 11:32 70 F Yes Ellen Harvey 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 11:30 72 Yes Ellen Harvey = 2/3/2022 13:28 2/3/2022 14:58 90 Yes Ellen Harvey _ ' 2/3/2022 15:29 2/3/2022 15:43 14 Yes vincent 2/3/2022 13:04 2/3/2022 15:18 134 Yes Lucy Barnes _ E 2/3/2022 14:14 2/3/2022 15:17 63 Yes Linda Mrowka 2/3/2022 13:04 2/3/2022 15:38 155 Yes Liz Welch 2/3/2022 13:30 2/3/2022 14:19 50 Yes Clifford Cohen 2/3/2022 12:59 2/3/2022 12:59 1 Yes Clifford Cohen 2/3/2022 13:01 2/3/2022 14:26 85 Yes Leslie Cohen 2/3/2022 13:00 2/3/2022 13:21 21 Yes elizabethreid 2/3/202213:30 2/3/202214:37 67 Yes James Reid 2/3/2022 13:32 2/3/2022 15:44 133 Yes Karen Braziller 2/3/2022 13:03 2/3/2022 15:21 139 Yes 15162972660 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:56 37 Yes 15164574785 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:20 1 Yes Evan Lewis 2/3/2022 12:59 2/3/2022 14:23 85 Yes Mark Volpe 2/3/2022 11:12 2/3/2022 11:15 4 Yes cjh 2/3/2022 13:09 2/3/2022 13:17 8 Yes Marcia Sheldon 2/3/2022 12:58 2/3/2022 14:45 108 Yes Elizabeth Reid 2/3/2022 13:07 2/3/2022 15:44 157 Yes Formworks 2/3/2022 13:15 2/3/2022 14:00 46 Yes Allan Wexler 2/3/2022 12:57 2/3/2022 13:05 8 Yes Allan Wexler 2/3/2022 13:05 2/3/2022 13:21 17 Yes Allan Wexler 2/3/2022 14:02 2/3/2022 15:23 82 Yes Linton _ 2/3/202210:19 2/3/202212:12 114 Yes Linton Duell 2/3/2022 13:00 2/3/2022 15:21 141 Yes Sean Peters 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 11:13 54 Yes 16174137456 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:19 1 Yes Michael Warlan 2/3/2022 10:30 2/3/2022 11:11 42 Yes Wickham#Bressler&Geasat 2/3/2022 12:51 2/3/2022 13:05 15 Yes • Wickham#Bressler&Geasa#, 2/3/2022 13:07 2/3/2022 13:18 12 Yes sandra F- 2/3/202211:02 2/3/202211:07 5 Yes sandra 2/3/202213:34 2/3/202215:16 103 Yes EW Webb 1 t-_ 2/3/2022 13:15 2/3/2022 15:19 124 F Yes Scott 2/3/202210:55 2/3/202211:11 17 Yes William Kanz 2/3/2022 12:52 2/3/2022 15:18 147 Yes mariella 2/3/202213:01 2/3/202215:17 137 Yes Lance Jensen _ 2/3/2022 10:26 2/3/2022 10:35 10 Yes Lance Jensen 2/3/2022 10:36 2/3/2022 10:40 5 Yes Lance Jensen 2/3/2022 10:49 2/3/2022 10:51 3 Yes Lance Jensen 2/3/2022 11:15 2/3/2022 11:24 10 Yes Bill 2/3/202210:36 2/3/202211:57 82 Yes Bill 2/3/202211:19 2/3/202211:41 23 Yes Katharine Frost 2/3/2022 13:08 2/3/2022 13:11 3 Yes Katharine Frost 2/3/2022 13:13 2/3/2022 13:33 21 Yes Katharine Frost 2/3/2022 13:34 2/3/2022 14:54 81 Yes Katharine Frost 2/3/2022 15:41 2/3/2022 15:44 3 Yes Anthony Portillo 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:26 8 Yes Phil Argyropoulos 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:20 2 Yes Philip Argyropoulos ` 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:50 32 Yes Phil Argyropoulos - 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:20 2 Yes Kate Bar-Tur 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 11:13 54 Yes 19083098877 _ 2/3/2022 13:03 2/3/2022 15:28 145 Yes Trustee Liz Gillooly 2/3/2022 13:11 2/3/2022 15:44 154 Yes lucy stille 2/3/2022 13:12 2/3/2022 14:45 94 Yes Diane Bratcher 2/3/2022 12:53 2/3/2022 15:17 145 Yes Lawrence Bernstein 2/3/2022 13:04 2/3/2022 14:24 80 Yes Greg - 2/3/2022 13:00 2/3/2022 15:24 144 Yes Nikos Theodosopoulos 2/3/2022 10:27 2/3/2022 11:47 80 Yes Simon Eisinger 2/3/2022 13:09 2/3/2022 15:21 133 Yes Matthew Sherman - 2/3/2022 10:23 2/3/2022 15:44 321 Yes Gail Wickham 2/3/2022 10:36 2/3/2022 10:44 8 Yes Gail Wickham 2/3/2022 13:35 2/3/2022 15:22 108 Yes Perry 2/3/202213:09 2/3/202215:17 129 Yes Howard leshaw i 2/3/2022 13:31 2/3/2022 14:44 74 Yes M Minichini - 2/3/2022 13:42 2/3/2022 15:24 102 Yes MMM ; 1 2/3/202214:14 2/3/202215:44 91 Yes Joan Turturro �.--- — 2/3/2022 10:43 2/3/2022 15:21 278 Yes Janet Markarian _ _ 2/3/2022 13:21 2/3/2022 13:41 20 Yes janetmarkarian 2/3/202213:40 2/3/202213:51 11 Yes Janet Markarian 2/3/2022 13:51 2/3/2022 14:56 66 Yes janetmarkarian ; 2/3/202214:55 2/3/202215:17 22 Yes Barbara Friedman 2/3/2022 11:51 2/3/2022 12:09 19 Yes Barbara Friedman _ 2/3/2022 13:05 2/3/2022 13:39 34 Yes Barbara Friedman 2/3/2022 13:40 2/3/2022 15:13 94 Yes Natalie Peters - 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 11:13 55 Yes Pamela Wilson 2/3/2022 13:02 2/3/2022 13:04 3 Yes Pamela Wilson 2/3/2022 13:05 2/3/2022 15:06 121 Yes drianne'benner 2/3/202210:44 2/3/202215:06 262 Yes David Oliveira 2/3/2022 10:19 2/3/2022 10:31 13 Yes David Oliveira 2/3/2022 10:41 2/3/2022 10:55 15 Yes Susan Gardner 2/3/2022 14:11 2/3/2022 15:17 66 Yes Michael M 2/3/2022 13:03 2/3/2022 15:30 148 Yes johnspofford 2/3/202213:21 2/3/202215:44 144 Yes John Spofford - 2/3/2022 15:04 2/3/2022 15:17 14 Yes John Spofford — - -- 2/3/2022 15:15 2/3/2022 15:17 3 Yes amory millard 7 2/3/2022 13:21 2/3/2022 14:23 62 Yes amory millard 2/3/2022 14:23 2/3/2022 14:46 24 Yes Gary O'Connor 2/3/2022 12:54 2/3/2022 13:47 53 Yes Tina S ( 2/3/2022 10:28 2/3/2022 10:43 16 Yes ellenwexler 2/3/202213:21 2/3/202213:39 18 Yes ellenwexler 2/3/202213:40 2/3/202214:04 25 Yes ellenwexler 2/3/202214:05 2/3/202215:20 76 Yes Karin Constant - 2/3/2022 12:30 2/3/2022 15:18 168 Yes gideondarcangelo - 2/3/202213:14 2/3/202215:15 121 Yes tefosteriii 2/3/202212:59 2/3/202215:18 139